Dictionary of Genocide - D Ank Unlimited

Intent on being as comprehensive and as detailed as possible in the selection and writeup
of the definitions, respectively, the authors quickly exceeded the number of pages the
publisher had allocated for this project. Kindly and generously, when approached about
the latter situation, our editor, Debra Adams, and her superiors at Greenwood Publishing,
graciously, and without hesitation, suggested that the dictionary be published as a twovolume
set. The authors greatly appreciate such outstanding support for this scholarly
endeavor.
A genuine effort has been made to provide definitions that are generally most accepted
by the international community. Where germane, any debates or disagreements over a
term are duly noted and commented upon. In certain cases, alternative definitions are
provided, especially when the latter are definitions that are becoming more commonly
accepted among scholars and practitioners.
In order to be as accurate as possible in defining the terms, the authors agreed to consult
only the most authoritative sources for developing the definitions and to use at least
two sources in working up the definition. The rationale for the latter was to prod each of
the authors to cross-check the accuracy of the definitions they developed. In fact, it was
not unusual for an author to consult four or more sources prior to developing a definition.
Furthermore, each of the authors aimed at conceptual and narrative consistency in the
writing of their entries. Still, the authors felt it necessary to constantly circulate entries to
each other for critique and commentary. As a result of this process, over time a stylistic
mean was achieved and maintained.
Despite the Herculean efforts by the authors to be as inclusive, comprehensive, and
accurate as possible, they fully realize and appreciate, as previously mentioned, that certain
oversights may remain. In that regard, the authors welcome—indeed, encourage—
scholars, practitioners, and others to notify them of any oversights or inaccuracies, and
every effort will be made to correct such in any forthcoming editions of the dictionary.
An issue to be confronted by all scholars of genocide studies—or for that matter, of any
subject that has the word studies in its title—is that there is no single and unitary discipline
base embedded within it to which one can turn for guidance. Genocide studies,
being a subject dealing with the most basic of social, political, economic, religious, intellectual,
historical, military, ethical, and cultural issues, is by its very nature broad; almost
anything, conceivably, can be included within its ambit. Consequently, it is important to
draw attention to the fact that the authors of this dictionary, while each in his own way
an internationally recognized authority on specific genocides and/or on general themes
pertaining to genocide, are nonetheless not experts on all facets of humanity’s genocidal
encounter. No one is nor could be. To be so would be akin to being an expert on nothing
less than all elements of the human experience, in all countries, at all times, and in all its
manifestations. We, of course, do not claim such authority, though we have attempted,
using the most conscientious methods possible, to compile a dictionary that will be the
first port of call for students, instructors, and researchers involved in the contemplation
of the phenomenon of genocide. It is not intended that the entries in the dictionary will
be the final word on a subject; indeed, it is strongly counseled that the entries should never
be employed as a substitute for solid scholarly research.
Although there are various dictionaries available on the Holocaust, human rights, and
war, not a single dictionary, until now, has addressed the issue of genocide directly. It is
the hope of the authors that this work complements the two major encyclopedias that
INTRODUCTION
xxv