Goldhagen Solves Genocide in Twelve Pages
Published October 13, 2009 @ 04:54AM PT
In the world of academic smack-downs, the backlash against the positions of Holocaust scholar Daniel Goldhagen is one for the books. Goldhagen became widely-discredited in many circles for the monocausal thesis of his book on German participation in Nazi crimes.
The King of Over-Simplification is back, with an article in The New Republic written with the same arrogance of tomes-past, as if bringing the shining beacon of enlightenment to the ignorant masses. Which might be nice, if Goldhagen had offered anything other than a regurgitation of basic genocide scholarship.
His premise that genocide is "poorly understood" blatantly disregards an entire economy of academic and policy-oriented research on the subject; modern genocides from Armenia to Darfur have been repeatedly scrutinized by a diverse field that grew out of Holocaust studies after World War II. What Goldhagen offers for our education -- genocide is not an unusual event but political tool of modern states, that it seeks to eliminate groups of people as a means to consolidate power, etc etc -- is nothing that wasn't covered in my Genocide 101 class in junior high school.
His solutions -- "prevention, intervention, and punishment" -- follow in the same suit, and, frankly, seem stolen straight from the Enough Project, though with a few trades in jargon to feign the appearance of originality. Not only are his recommendations for "creating conditions" that make genocidal policies unattractive to potential mass murder nothing new, they fail to dig deeper than the level of broad platitudes to the complicated challenges of implementing an international anti-genocide regime -- challenges which Goldhagen's fellow scholars and policy wonks have been debating for years, but with far greater nuance.
The failure of genocide prevention is not due to any lack of problem identification, but to a combination of weak political will and the fact that any sort international intervention does not occur in isolation. Military intervention in Darfur, for instance, could have ripple effects that would damage any number of sensitive political concerns in Africa and the Arab World, including Israel and Palestine. Lives are at stake there, too. The United States cannot simply lead the Western powers in an international force for good, as Goldhagen suggests, as if there would be no other consequences besides triumph over mass murder.
And, good luck getting the US to "guarantee" to bomb anyone who commits or threatens to commit genocide. It might be a nice thought, but it's not always a realistic one. Assuming that putting bounties on the heads of indicted war criminals and threatening military intervention against violent regimes will solve the world's nastiest problem undercuts Goldhagen's own presumption that he understands the nature of genocide better than anyone else. Nothing is that uncomplicated.
Trade Columbus Day for a Guilt-Free Holiday
Published October 12, 2009 @ 03:45PM PT
We all love days off from work, but is a federal holiday honoring a man responsible for the death and enslavement of thousands of Native Americans worth celebrating?
While the myths around Christopher Columbus and his "discovery" of America have unwound in recent years, appropriate acknowledgment of the egregious crimes committed against Native Americans from 1492 onward has yet to follow. Last week, the Senate had to add an official apology to Natives Americans as an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill, since the apology resolution passed last year was never signed into law.
An apology might be too little, too late so long after the Trail of Tears, but it's better than nothing -- and would be even better if accompanied by reparations or, at least, improvements in the treatment of Native Americans by the government. (Not dumping radioactive waste on reservations would be a nice start.)
Ditching Columbus Day for a national holiday in honor of Native Americans would also be nice -- perhaps just a token gesture, but one that might allow you to enjoy your day off from work guilt-free.
(PS - For other enlightening Columbus Day blogging, check out Change.org's Animal Rights blog.)
[Image from Wikimedia Commons: "Columbus and the Indian Maiden," by Constantino Brumidi.]
Chad, Sudan...Where Have I Heard This Before?
Published October 11, 2009 @ 06:55PM PT
Anyone interesting in placing bets on how long it takes the latest goodwill/peace/bilateral cooperation/whatever you want to call it agreement between Chad and Sudan falls apart?
Last time, it was a matter of days.
"The neighbouring north African states pledged to ‘cooperate fully and honestly for the return of harmony and permanent peace in line with agreements that have been signed,' a joint statement said."
Sounds vaguely familiar to statements made about a peace accord signed in March 2008, which purportedly aimed "to put an end, once and for all, to disputes between the two countries and re-establish peace in the sub-region." And that was the sixth accord signed in two years. Perhaps they're working towards the Guinness Book of World Records?
History tells that the promises of these two less-than-friendly governments ain't worth a plugged nickel. (As my grandfather used to say.) We'll see if this time is any different, but I'm not holding my breath.
The Preemptive Peace Prize
Published October 09, 2009 @ 05:50PM PT
President Obama now has the task of earning his Nobel Peace Prize, ex post facto.
While I take Mark Leon Goldberg's point that the award represents an affirmation of the new direction of American leadership, I still find it premature to bestow top honors when that leadership has yet to take us anywhere. Obama and his foreign policy team have spent nearly a year, since before the inauguration, laying the groundwork for a potentially-revolutionary new global role for the United States. He wasted no time in breaking from the Bush Doctrine that made Americans reviled world-wide, and deserves recognition for his handling of such a daunting task.
We have the foundation, the grounding philosophy of the Obama Doctrine -- we know broadly what he wants to do, but he has yet to show us what he is actually capable of doing. This is not his fault, of course; he hasn't even been in office for a year. I am as frustrated as anyone over the delay in the Sudan policy review, but I also recognize that such foreign policy quagmires require careful consideration.
But bestowing a Nobel Peace Prize on the promise of change seems like an opportunity wasted to elevate the hard-fought progress of other candidates* over the past year. I have little doubt that Obama would have otherwise earned the honor at some point during the course of his presidency -- another opportunity lost, perhaps, to elevate that work, if and when it happens.
To his credit, or at least according to the email sent out tonight, Obama recognizes the Nobel as a "call to action." Perhaps this will be just the kick in the pants the administration needs to show it's serious about something other than health care.
[I share the disappointment that Morgan Tsvangirai was passed over.]
What a Year
Published October 08, 2009 @ 05:41PM PT
I'm taking a cue from Stephanie tonight, and celebrating our blogiversary -- Change.org's content-driven make-over launched one year ago today. The bloggers spent two months prior to the launch preparing content for each of our respective sites, doing our small part to give life to a concept much longer in the making by the site's leadership.
It's certainly been an interesting year, with 630 posts ranging from rumbles to smack-downs, anguish to facetiousness. More than anything, I've enjoyed engaging with readers*, who've come to the site from nearly every country in the world.
Though it is an honor to be blocked by some of the world's most repressive regimes (Eritrea, Uzbekistan, North Korea -- I'm talking to you). People in Western Sahara are probably too busy trying to protect their phosphate from the Moroccans, I suppose. And Greenland? Too happy in your peace-loving country to delve into the dark side?
And to my frequent visitors from the Sudanese government: Yes, I'm watching you too.
I remember listening to each editor introduce themselves on our first conference call and wondering if I was worthy to be included among their ranks. Change.org assembled an impressive team of advocates to write for the site, and I feel honored and humbled to share the same platform. We've all poured a tremendous amount of energy into our causes -- producing daily content, creating actions, featuring videos, engaging in comments, and building our communities.
So many thanks to my readers, to my wonderful guest bloggers, and to my fellow Change-sters. Sentimentality Hour is now over -- back to work.
*With the exception, that is, of the multiple threats from the overzealous Holocaust deniers.
Defining the Unspeakable
Published October 07, 2009 @ 03:41PM PT
Perhaps the most discussed aspect of the Genocide Convention is Article II; the article which sets forth a definition the crime of genocide. In Axis Rule in Occupied Europe Lemkin defined genocide as:
"[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 disintegration of the political and social institutions of culture, language, national feelings, religion and economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individual belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group."
The experts charged with producing the Secretariat Draft agreed that there should be a strict definition of genocide. Matters of international law should have precise definitions it was argued. Additionally, a broad definition would make it difficult to achieve the consensus necessary to ratify the Convention. This, however, is where agreement among the experts ended. De Vabres and Pella both disagreed with adding cultural genocide to the draft, arguing that this improperly extended the definition of genocide. Lemkin believed a destruction of a group's culture was nearly as bad as physical destruction of the group itself. It was Lemkin that eventually won out.
A Bad Deal for Armenia?
Published October 06, 2009 @ 05:29AM PT
The transgenerational sting of an unrecognized genocide is being felt on the world stage once again, as thousands of Armenian-Americans converged on Los Angeles over the weekend to protest a US-backed plan by Armenian President Serge Sarkisian to normalize relations with neighboring Turkey later this month.
Turkey's stubborn denial of the Armenian Genocide, committed by Ottoman Turks during World War I, remains a sticking point for the Armenians and anyone who openly supports their cause -- Turkey has been known to recall its ambassadors from countries who've pushed for official recognition of the genocide, among other threats. The protesters in California, following those in Paris, are outraged that Sarkisian has largely set the genocide question aside, commenting that it will not stand in the way of the path to renewed ties with Turkey.
(One of President Obama's first broken campaign promises came when he failed to recognize the genocide during a visit to Turkey in April -- though to be fair, perhaps it's not a campaign promise broken, but one not yet fulfilled.)
The death of 1.2 million people certainly can leave a bad taste in one's mouth, especially when the suffering is not only never officially recognized, but actively and vehemently denied, and when no restitution is ever offered. But might it also be possible that normalization will offer Armenians a path towards the recognition they've sought for nearly a century?
