DOWNLOAD Genocide in Our Time - NewFoundations

i) A final form of cultural destruction that might beincluded is ideological colonialism in which any culturalexpressions — using culture in both senses — whichpredate or oppose the particular state ideology arepurged. The most obvious of these have occurred incommunist regimes, such as in Tibet, where theBuddhist religion, its buildings, books, statues, monks,and nuns were systematically victimized and destroyedby the Chinese communists as expressions of anti-Chinese Tibetan nationalism, and where the traditionaleconomic organization was forcibly reorganized andredistributed. Within China itself, in Peking, precommunistbuildings, statues, and other "symbols ofOld China" were destroyed so that a new "symbol ofsocialist China" might be constructed." In Cambodiaalso, the era of the communist Khmer Rouge, 1975-1979, systematically destroyed all elements of modern,pre-communist 1 ifestyles, such as middle classes, healthpersonnel, urban dwellers, techniques and implementsof modern technology, and forms of social organizationbased upon the family group." In some of these casesit might be plausible to apply the term "autoethnocide"(ie. , ethnocide against one's own people in a similarsense to how) "autogenocide" is used by the UnitedNations in reference to Cambodia.The "other side" of these ethnocidal measures isoften the establishment of special reserves or campsfor the displaced people. This is a widely practicedpolicy and may, under certain conditions, act as aprelude to genocide (see below). The transference ofpeople to reserves can be both voluntary, as with thehill tribes of Thailand, where the state administrationencourages Hmong settlement in the lowland campsbut does not force it"; or forcible, such as in Paraguay,where the Ache Indians are hunted and often killed andthe remnant rounded up and forced into camps, whichare usually isolated and guarded. For the Ache thereis no hope of escape. Conditions are unsanitary andthere is very little medical aid or food; violerice, sexualabuse, starvation, and death are common place and theliving are reduced to states of abject despondency withlittle will or strength to survive."The Question of IntentThe crime of ethnocide has not been establishedin international law in the same way that genocide wasestablished by the 1946 United Nations Convention.The question of the intentions of those causing ethnocideremains a crucial issue however, since Article II(e)of the United Nations Convention —"Forcibly transferringchildren of the group to another group" — includesa specific form of ethnocide within its area of jurisdiction.In at least this form, then, establishing theintentions behind the transfer of children can determinewhether or not the action can be punished by internationallaw. This may set a precedent for other formsof ethnocide to become embodied in international lawas criminal activities. The establishment of ethnocideas an international crime is the second reason why"intent" is important: the consolidation of a solid bodyof documentation which clearly demonstrates theintentional destruction of distinct cultural groups willadd weight to this demand. At present ethnocidalactivities are roughly included in a range of internationalcovenants such as the International Covenant onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights (1976) but thesecan lack specificity and are not necessarily legallybinding. ~While many cases of ethnocide have clearly beenintended to destroy the distinct cultural identity of aspecific group of people, others are less clear. Therapid expansion of state development projects might,at times, not intend to bring cultural destruction sinceplanning commonly alludes to vast tracts of emptywilderness. The use of this myth is not satisfactory,however; sufficient data clearly document the necessarysmall population-to-area ratio that is necessary for manyindigenous cultures to survive in a fragile ecosystem.By resorting to the "empty wilderness" myth, policydecisionmakers consciously override the existence ofthose inhabiting the land, and ignore the destructiveeffects of their policies; they also impose a particularset of laws on land ownership that are clearly notrecognized by the indigenous people, whose owntraditional laws are negated.Another example is the intentions of many missionarieswhich in some cases have been not so muchdestructive as salvational, hoping to raise "Satanworshipers"to a higher spiritual and civilized level ofhumanity. The establishment of reserves, supposedlyto protect the physical and cultural survival of a people,is another difficult area in which to gauge intentions.The reality of the reserves can serve to expose theirdestructive consequences, as Richard Arens forcefullydemonstrated in his tour of four reservations at therequest of the Paraguayan state." Despite all of this,policymakers might continue to declare that theirintentions were honorable.A further reason why the intentions behind anypolicy are considered is that change is endemic to allsocieties. It is important to establish where change hasbeen generic, coming from within the society itself;where it has been forcibly imposed from outside of thecommunity; and where people have welcomed changebrought about by contact with outside cultures as ameans to rid themselves of outmoded or unwantedinternal forms of organization — a form of chosenadaptation. Only the second type of change can beconsidered ethnocidal.4 GENOCIDE