american-holocaust

318 NOTESber of deaths that occurred prior to the slave ships' departures and during the"seasoning" periods. If these on-land deaths are included in the overall mortalityfigure-as they must be to arrive at a true measure of the horrific impact of theslave trade on African people~ven the lowest estimates of slave imports, PhilipD. Curtin's and Paul E. Lovejoy's 10,000,000 or so, produce an overall mortalityfigure of between 30,000,000 and 40,000,000. On mortality rates during all phasesof the enslavement process, drawing largely on Brazilian slave import data, seeJoseph C. Miller, "Mortality in the Atlantic Slave Trade: Statistical Evidence onCausality," Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 11 (1981), 385-423, esp. 413-14.10. Irving Louis Horowitz, "Genocide and the Reconstruction of Social Theory:Observations on the Exclusivity of Collective Death," in Isidor Wallimannand Michael N. Dobkowski, eds., Genocide and the Modern Age: Etiology andCase Studies of Mass Death (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1987), p. 62.Wiesenthal's letter is quoted in part in Hancock, '"Uniqueness' of the Victims,"55.11. A recent example of pertinence to the present discussion is an article onthe Pequot War by Steven T. Katz, Professor of Near Eastern Studies (Judaica) atCornell University and author of several studies on the history of the Holocaust.Professor Katz apparently became annoyed when he discovered that some historianshad described the almost total extermination of the Pequot people as "genocide"and so he took time out from work in his own field to set them straight.Beginning with a rejection of conventional definitions of genocide-including thatof the United Nations-and offering a substitute of his own, Professor Katz condudeshis essay by observing that some Pequots survived the English colonists'efforts to annihilate them as a people, adding: "As recently as the 1960s, Pequotswere still listed as a separate group residing in Connecticut. . . . [W]hile the Britishcould certainly have been less thorough, less severe, less deadly in prosecutingtheir campaign against the Pequots, the campaign they actually did carry out, forall its vehemence, was not, either in intent or execution, genocidal." In other words,because the British did not kill all the Pequots they did not commit a genocide.This is not the place for a detailed critique of Professor Katz's flimsy thesis, butone can only wonder (actually, one need not wonder) at what his response mightbe to a Professor of Native American Studies taking the trouble to write an essayclaiming that the Holocaust was not an act of genocide ("although the [Nazis]could certainly have been less thorough, less severe, less deadly in prosecuting theircampaign against the [Jews]") because, after all, some Jews survived-a numberof whom even live in Connecticut today. See Steven T. Katz, "The Pequot WarReconsidered," New England Quarterly, 64 (1991), 206-24, quoted words on p.223.12. Michael Berenbaum, "The Uniqueness and Universality of the Holocaust,"in Berenbaum, ed., A Mosaic of Victims, p. 34. Increasingly, scholarship on genocidehas recognized the necessity for comparative analysis, while acknowledgingthe unique particulars of individual cases. For some recent examples, in additionto A Mosaic of Victims, see the following: Israel Charny, ed., Toward the Understandingand Prevention of Genocide (Boulder: Westview Press, 1984); Leo Kuper,The Prevention of Genocide (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985); Ervin Staub,The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence (Cam-