Genocide, Variations on a Theme #I
Part One
Genocide, Variations on a Theme #I
Part One
When Erwin Staub compared and contrasted the Holocaust to other examples of genocide (such the ones in Argentina and Cambodia) he used the UN definition of genocide: “a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups…” yet failed to quote it in full.[1]
Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”[2]
Staub’s basic theory is that: “Certain characteristics of a culture and the structure of a society, combined with great difficulties or hardships of life and social disorganization, are the starting point for genocide or mass killing. The resulting material and psychological needs lead the society to turn against a subgroup in it. Gradually increasing mistreatment of this subgroup ends in genocide or mass killing.”
“Under extremely difficult life conditions certain motives dominate: protecting the physical well-being of oneself and one’s family and preserving one’s psychological self, including self-concept and values; making sense of life’s problems and social disorganization and gaining a new comprehension of the world, among others. It is difficult, usually, to fulfill these aims by improving the conditions of life. Instead, people often respond with thoughts, feelings, and actions that do not change real conditions but at least help them cope with their psychological consequences. These include devaluing other groups, scapegoating, joining new groups, and adopting ideologies – all of which may give rise to the motivation for, and diminish inhibition against, harming others.”
“What motives arise and how they are fulfilled depend on the characteristics of the culture and society. For example, a society that has long devalued a group and discriminated against its members, has strong respect for authority, and has an overly superior and/or vulnerable self-concept is more likely to turn against a subgroup.”
“Genocide does not result directly. There is usually a progression of actions. Earlier, less harmful acts cause changes in individual perpetrators, bystanders, and the whole group that make more harmful acts possible. The victims are further devalued. The self-concept of the perpetrators changes and allows them to inflict greater harm – for “justifiable” reasons. Ultimately there is a commitment to genocide or mass killing or to ideological goals that require mass killing or genocide. This motivation and the psychological possibility evolve gradually.”[3]
According to Gregory H. Stanton: “Genocide is a process that develops in ten stages that are predictable but not inexorable.”
The first stage is classification: “All cultures have categories to distinguish people into ‘us and them’, by ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality: German and Jew, Hutu and Tutsi.”
The second is symbolization: “We give names or other symbols to the classifications. We name people ‘Jews’ or ‘Gypsies,’ or distinguish them by colors or dress; and apply the symbols to members of groups.”
The third is discrimination: “A dominant group uses law, custom, and political power to deny the rights of other groups.”
The fourth step is dehumanization: “One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder. At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. The majority group is taught to regard the other group as less than human, and even alien to their society. They are indoctrinated to believe that ‘We are better off without them.’”
Fifthly: Organization: “Genocide is always organized, usually by the state, often using militias to provide deniability of state responsibility.”
The sixth stage is polarization: “Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Motivations for targeting a group are indoctrinated through mass media. Laws may forbid intermarriage or social interaction.”
The seventh stage is preparation: “Plans are made for genocidal killings. National or perpetrator group leaders plan the ‘Final Solution’ to the Jewish, Armenian, Tutsi or other targeted group… They often use euphemisms to cloak their intentions, such as referring to their goals as ‘ethnic cleansing,’ ‘purification,’ or ‘counter-terrorism.’ They build armies, buy weapons and train their troops and militias. They indoctrinate the populace with fear of the victim group. Leaders often claim that ‘if we don’t kill them, they will kill us,’ disguising genocide as self-defense.’”
The eighth stage is persecution: “Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity. Death lists are drawn up. In state sponsored genocide, members of victim groups may be forced to wear identifying symbols. Their property is often expropriated. Sometimes they are even segregated into ghettoes, deported into concentration camps, or confined to a famine-struck region and starved. They are deliberately deprived of resources such as water or food in order to slowly destroy them. Programs are implemented to prevent procreation through forced sterilization or abortions. Children are forcibly taken from their parents. The victim group’s basic human rights become systematically abused through extrajudicial killings, torture and forced displacement. Genocidal massacres begin. They are acts of genocide because they intentionally destroy part of a group. The perpetrators watch for whether such massacres meet any international reaction. If not, they realize that that the international community will again be bystanders and permit another genocide.”
The ninth stage is extermination: “It is ‘extermination’ to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human. When it is sponsored by the state, the armed forces often work with militias to do the killing.”
The last stage is denial. “The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes…”[4]
R. J. Rummel argues that more people were killed by their own governments in the Twentieth Century, in what he terms “democide”, than in wars. Alone the Communists killed c.170m people. He concludes: “The more power a government has to impose the beliefs of an ideological or religious elite or decree the whims of a dictator, the more likely human lives and welfare will be sacrificed.”[5]
Also, of interest is what the UN has to say about the matter. The Office of the UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide (OSAPG) lists contributing factors such as: “Relations between and among groups in terms of tensions, power and economic relations, including perceptions about the targeted group, existing and past conflicts over land, power, security and expressions of group identity, such as language, religion and culture, past and present patterns of discrimination against members of any group which could include: serious discriminatory practices, for instance, the compulsory identification of members of a particular group, imposition of taxes/fines, permission required for social activities such as marriage, compulsory birth-control, the systematic exclusion of groups from positions of power, employment in State institutions and/or key professions…Underlying political, economic, military or other motivation to target a group and to separate it from the rest of the population, the use of exclusionary ideology and the construction of identities in terms of ‘us’ and ‘them’ to accentuate differences, depiction of a targeted group as dangerous, disloyal, a security or economic threat or as unworthy or inferior so as to justify action against the group, propaganda campaigns and fabrications about the targeted group used to justify acts against a targeted group by use of dominant, controlled media or ‘mirror politics’…”[6]
One of the interesting points the UN makes, which definitely applies to Gaza, is that less obvious methods of destruction, “such as the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival and which are available to the rest of the population, such as clean water, food and medical services” are important.[7]
Staub writes much that is insightful: “I reasoned that harming and killing members of a group become possible when a feeling of responsibility for their welfare has been lost as a result of profound devaluation by a society or by an ideology adopted by the society.”[8]
“Hannah Arendt and Raul Hilberg both emphasized the use of euphemistic language that veiled reality not only from outsiders but also from the perpetrators themselves.”[9]
“Milgram suggested that people can enter an ‘agentic’ mode in which they relinquish individual responsibility and act as agents of authority.”[10]
[1] p.7 The roots of evil, Erwin Staub
[2] Office of the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide (OSAPG)
[3] pp.4-5 The roots of evil, Erwin Staub
[4] The Ten Stages of Genocide, Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, 2016
[5] pp. 193-194 Never Again, R.J. Rummel
[6] Office of the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide (OSAPG)
[7] Ibid
[8] p. xi The roots of evil, Erwin Staub
[9] p.29 The roots of evil, Erwin Staub
[10] Ibid
With Covid, we got to no. 8.