The Anthropology Of Genocide - WNLibrary

confronting genocide of indigenous peoples 59
genocide by combining the Greek genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing). As
he stated,
Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction
of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation.
It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the
destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups with the aim of
annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration
of the political and social institutions of culture, language, national feelings,
religion, economic existence of national groups and the destruction of the personal
security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging
to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the
actions involved are directed at individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as
members of the national groups....Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the
national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern
of the oppressor. (Lemkin 1944:79)
It is apparent from this definition that Lemkin considered both physical and cultural
genocide—or ethnocide—to be part of the general concept of genocide. Basically,
the term ethnocide refers to the destruction of a culture without the killing of
its bearers. The genocide/ethnocide issue has engendered considerable discussion
and heated debate (Chalk and Jonassohn 1990; Palmer 1992). Succinctly stated,
those who have argued against the inclusion of ethnocide under the rubric of genocide
suggest that there is a qualitative difference between those situations in which
people are slain outright and those in which certain aspects of a peoples’ culture
are destroyed.
Following World War II and the annihilation by the Nazis and their collaborators
of approximately six million Jews and five million other people, such as
Gypsies, the physically and mentally handicapped, Poles and other Slavic peoples,
the United Nations adopted a resolution on December 9, 1946, calling for
international cooperation on the prevention of and punishment for genocide. It
was this terrible slaughter and the methods of destruction used by the Nazi
regime that provoked the United Nations formally to recognize genocide as a
crime in international law.
From the outset, however, the development of the U.N. Genocide Convention
was enmeshed in controversy. As Kuper (1985:10) has noted, nations with vastly
different philosophies, cultures, and “historical experiences and sensitivities to human
suffering” presented varying interpretations as to what constituted genocide,
and as a consequence they argued in favor of a definition and wording in the convention
that fit their own perspectives. The arguments and counterarguments resulted
in what can best be described as a “compromise definition,” one that significantly
played down ethnocide as a component (Kuper 1981:23). At the same time,
it broadened the definition by adding a new category of victim: “political and other
groups” (Chalk and Jonassohn 1990:10).