When Genocide Is What You Preach Chant

What is Genocide?

Genocide is an internationally recognized crime in which acts are performed with the goal of destroying, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, with the intent of eradicating that group from the face of the earth. These deeds can be divided into five categories:

  1. Members of the group are being murdered
  2. Members of the group are being subjected to significant physical or mental damage
  3. Deliberately imposing on a group of people conditions of living that are designed to cause their bodily demise in whole or in part
  4. Measures are being implemented in order to avoid births inside the group. Taking youngsters from one group and forcing them to join another is illegal.

Another type of major, violent crime that does not fit under the exact criteria of genocide is ethnic cleansing. Crimes against humanity, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and mass murder are examples of what is prohibited. Read on to find out more

Origin of the Term Genocide

Prior to 1944, there was no such thing as a term like “genocide.” A highly particular word, invented by a Polish-Jewish lawyer called Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959), who attempted to characterize Nazi methods of systematic murder during the Holocaust, which included the extermination of European Jews, during which he aimed to describe Nazi policies of systematic murder He came up with the term genocide by combining the prefix geno-, which comes from the Greek word for race or tribe, with the suffix cide, which comes from the Latin word for murdering.

Read on to find out more

Genocide as an International Crime

When the United Nations General Assembly ratified a codified international agreement known as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide on December 9, 1948, it was considered a watershed moment in world history. As a result of this agreement, genocide was recognized as an international crime, with signing countries “undertaking to prevent and punish” it. Preventing genocide, the other key commitment imposed by the treaty, continues to be a difficult issue for governments, organizations, and individuals alike to overcome.

How do you define genocide?

AFP is the source of this image. Caption for the image Some have suggested that the Nazis were the only ones who committed genocide. Holocaust Genocide is often regarded as the most serious crime against humanity by the majority of people. It is described as the systematic annihilation of a certain group of people, as demonstrated by the Nazis’ efforts to exterminate the Jewish population in Europe throughout the 1940s and 1950s. However, there is a dense tangle of legal principles underlying that straightforward definition, including what constitutes genocide and when the word may be applied.

Definition and debate

It was in 1943 that the Jewish-Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin developed the term “genocide,” which was formed by combining the Greek word “genos” (race or tribe) with the Latin word “cide” (to kill). Dr. Lemkin pushed for genocide to be recognized as a crime under international law after experiencing the horrors of the Holocaust, in which every member of his family save his brother was slaughtered. Dr. Lemkin was born into a Jewish family that perished in the Holocaust. Eventually, his efforts led to United Nations General Assembly acceptance in December 1948 of the Genocide Convention.

The Convention became effective the following year in January 1951. The Convention on Genocide defines genocide as “any act done with the goal to completely or partially wipe out a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as a whole” as defined in Article Two of the Convention on Genocide:

  • Members of the group are being murdered
  • Members of the group are being subjected to significant physical or mental damage
  • Deliberately imposing on a group of people conditions of living that are designed to cause their bodily demise in whole or in part
  • Measures are being implemented in order to avoid births inside the group. Taking youngsters from one group and forcing them to join another is illegal.

The agreement also imposes a broad obligation on governments that have signed it to “prevent and punish” genocide in all of its forms. Of the years after its ratification, the United Nations treaty has come under fire from a variety of quarters, primarily from those who are disappointed by the difficulties in applying it to specific situations. Some have contended that the definition is too limited, while others have stated that it has lost its significance as a result of overuse. Getty Images is the source of this image.

According to some commentators, the definition of genocide is so restrictive that none of the mass atrocities that have taken place since the treaty’s passage would be considered genocide under its terms.

  • The convention excludes specific political and social groups that have been singled out. The term is confined to direct acts against individuals, and does not include acts against the environment that sustains them or acts against their cultural distinctiveness or identity. It is exceedingly difficult to prove purpose beyond a reasonable doubt
  • Yet, As was the case in Rwanda, member states of the United Nations are cautious to single out or engage in the affairs of other members. There is no body of international law that clarifies the parameters of the treaty (although this is evolving as the UN war crimes courts issue indictments)
  • There is no body of international law that clarifies the parameters of the convention. Inability to define or measure “in part,” as well as determining how many fatalities constitute genocide

Despite these concerns, however, there are those who believe that genocide is a distinct possibility. Alain Destexhe, the former secretary-general of Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), argued in his book Rwanda and Genocide in the Twentieth Century that “Genocide is distinct from all other crimes by the reason behind it.” It is a crime on an entirely different magnitude from all other crimes against humanity, and it entails the deliberate purpose to fully destroy the targeted people in question.

Caption for the image During a visit to the Tuol Sleng genocide museum in Phnom Penh, a man examines images of Khmer Rouge victims.

The differing views on how genocide should be defined have also resulted in differing estimates of the number of genocides that happened throughout the twentieth century.

How many genocides have there been?

Some believe that the Holocaust was the sole genocide committed in the twentieth century. Others assert that there have been at least three genocides, as defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide:

  • The Ottoman Turks are accused of murdering thousands of Armenians between 1915 and 1920, a claim that the Turks reject. The Holocaust, in which more than six million Jews were slaughtered
  • The Second World War
  • Genocide in Rwanda, in which an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus perished during the 1994 conflict

The Ottoman Turks are accused of massacring Armenians between 1915 and 1920, a charge that they dispute. In the course of the Holocaust, more than six million Jews were slaughtered. An estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

Genocide prosecutions in history

The case of Jean Paul Akayesu, the Hutu mayor of the Rwandan town of Taba at the time of the massacres, was the first to put the Genocide Convention into operation. He was the first person to be tried under the Convention. On September 2, 1998, a special international tribunal found Akayesu guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity, a decision that was widely regarded as a watershed moment in human history. Afterwards, more than 85 persons were found guilty by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, including 29 people on charges of genocide.

See also:  What Is That Chant They Do In Rugby

In 2001, Gen Radislav Krstic, a former Bosnian Serb general, was found guilty of genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, making him the first person to be found guilty of genocide in the world (ICTY).

In 2004, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia denied his appeal.

He was also convicted of crimes against humanity.

More on this story

” Jews will not replace us!” they yelled as they marched through Charlottesville with torches in hand. It was not meant literally by those “very good individuals” that Jews would be expelled and replaced with white Americans (there is some basic common-sense to their madness). Their point was that “the Jews” were encouraging enormous immigration in order to dilute the white population, which was not what they intended. It is referred to be a white genocide in its most severe manifestations: This is the thesis of the far right that white people will be gradually but intentionally eliminated from society, commencing with the subversive immigration of large numbers of brown and black immigrants (which are substantially overstated).

It can also, and frequently does, result in violence.

The Srebrenica Massacre continues to be shrouded in silence and denial.

Anders Breivik went targeted young liberals in Norway because he thought they were responsible for the country’s sovereignty being ceded to foreign interests.

Image courtesy of GO NAKAMURA/REUTERS Often, when confronted with the discourse that fuels these mass killings, people will refer to facts: Yes, some white populations are seeing a drop in terms of size.

  • Genocide denial is practiced by leftist ‘intellectuals’ throughout the Western world, from Srebrenica to Syria. In Jerusalem, Katie ‘white genocide’ Hopkins has significant allies who support her cause. Ben Shapiro extols ‘Judeo-Christian ideals,’ absolves it of anti-Semitism, and preaches Islamophobia on behalf of the Christian Right. White nationalist terror is a worldwide disease, yet Trump refuses to acknowledge it, let alone combat it.

But what about a genocide? After all, the claim appears to be ludicrous. Except that it isn’t totally true. There has been a white genocide in my lifetime, and it is still ongoing. However, it isn’t one that the extreme right finds it comfortable to acknowledge, let alone remember or honor in any way. On July 11, the world will commemorate the 24th anniversary of the genocide at Srebrenica, which served as a synecdoche for the broader struggle in and over Bosnia and Herzegovina. After a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing, rape, and widespread extermination began in the mid-1990s, tens of thousands of white Europeans were killed in an attempt to create a bigger Serbian homeland that was free of bothersome Muslim (and Croat) communities.

  1. It had something to do with their religious connection and ancestry.
  2. Refugees fleeing Srebrenica, a UN’safe haven’ that was overrun by Bosnian Serb forces, spend the night on the streets outside the United Nations facility at Tuzla International Airport.
  3. And it has been NATO forces and the distant, but feasible, prospect of EU membership that have helped to keep the fragile ceasefire in place.
  4. The Serbian aggressors are recast as victims, and they are celebrated as the gallant defenders of Europe against an Ottoman invasion that was unprecedented in history.

(In a grotesque twist, denial of the Bosnian genocide is a substantial movement among the far left as well—for reasons that are distinct but equally morally reprehensible.) In a situation where white nationalists can frame an indigenous Muslim population as a foreign force deserving of mass extermination – Bosnian Muslims are not “Turks,” but rather locals who voluntarily converted to Islam during Ottoman times – deserving of mass extermination, how much more different would their attitude be toward new immigrants, people of color, or Jews who allegedly invite them into the West?

  1. However, the situation is even worse than that.
  2. An anti-Muslim demonstration in Dresden, eastern Germany, during which anti-Muslim demonstrators hold up a poster that reads ‘Islam: The Suicide of Europe,’ takes place.
  3. They are driven by the growing ineffectiveness of liberal Western institutions, despite the fact that they are involved in their debilitating degeneration.
  4. That is a far larger threat to the West than any kind of jihadist terrorism could ever be.
  5. According to them, it is only a matter of time until Bosnia and Herzegovina follows in the footsteps of Muslim (and Jewish) Spain.

The current trends in the Balkans threaten to re-ignite conflict, not least because the EU is mired in its own crises – the prospect of EU expansion appears unthinkable at this point – and because NATO is caught between its traditional opposition to Russian ambitions and Washington’s practical surrender to Russian interference.

July 11th is not simply a warning from the past, but it is also a warning of a harsher future that is becoming increasingly realistic — and not just for Europe.

It is to accept the death of the West, which is one of the most significant political accomplishments in the history of mankind, that we must come to terms.

Tuzla, Finland, June 2005 APA (American Psychological Association) A recurrence of bloodshed in Bosnia and Herzegovina would signal that NATO has lost its deterrence function, and that the EU no longer represents a viable option for healing the once-savage differences that wrecked Europe and were forcefully exported throughout the globe.

There has already been a white genocide, and there may be another one in the future as well.

The only way to get there is to destabilize the liberal Western order, which provides far greater protection for minorities than any alternative.

Affirmative action for people of color Jews and Muslims, to name a few.

Similarly, if Charlottesville’s anti-Jewish hatred was seen as a harbinger of the rise in white supremacist violence against minorities in America, Bosnia was and continues to be seen as an example of how xenophobic, exclusionary hypernationalism can turn genocidal – and both depend on the enfeeblement of liberalism and pluralism – in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In addition to being a pundit and public speaker, Haroon Moghul is also a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America. His most recent work is “How to Be a Muslim: An American Story,” which is set in the United States (Beacon Press, 2017)

How music is helping Genocide survivors recover from trauma

Music has played a significant role in the emotional journey of genocide survivors, and it has been shown to be one of the most effective treatments for the pain induced by the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi population. Genocide survivors have stated that commemorative songs were extremely beneficial on their road of reconciliation, as they helped to alleviate the horrible memories and scars they had suffered after losing their loved ones. “These songs, in my opinion, serve as a first aid or a foundation for the healing of scars created by the Holocaust.

Carine Bagwaneza, a Kicukiro local and genocide survivor, agrees with the sentiments expressed in this article.

The fact that I am repeating the painful memories in a soothing manner helps me to feel calm and the melancholy fades away while I am listening to them.” The emotional journey of genocide survivors, according to Professor Eric Sezibera, a psychiatrist and university lecturer, is aided by music, which he believes plays a significant role.

See also:  Why Do You Chant Neela Suktam

“The message in a song can soothe you and remind you that you are not alone.” At a time when people are grieving and going through terrible moments, and it appears that no one is standing by their side, this does certainly provide a sense of confidence and comfort that they are not alone.” So, in this way, the teachings contained inside these songs may serve as a remedy for all of this pain,” he continues.

The university instructor, on the other hand, believes that this is insufficient, stating that the whole Rwandan community must demonstrate to survivors who are still traumatized by the horrific events of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi that they are with them during this time.

In the words of Dieudonne Munyenshoza, “music has played a part in the reconciliation process since the message is able to reach a broader audience via various creations like as poetry and songs, among other mediums.” Artists who incited hatred and death among Rwandans may have contributed to the Genocide, according to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

[email protected] Follow bertrandbyishim on Twitter.

What is Genocide? – Definition, History & Examples

Melanie Norwood is the instructor. Include a biography Melanie has taught various criminal justice courses and possesses an MS in Sociology with a concentration in Criminal Justice. She is now working on her Ph.D. in Criminology, Law, and Justice at the University of Florida. For the purposes of this lesson, we will examine the definition of genocide, provide some historical examples of genocide from throughout the world, explain the stages of a genocide, and describe tactics that countries and states might employ in order to claim no such event has occurred.

What is Genocide?

Chances are good that you are already familiar with the concept of genocide, even if you are unaware that genocide is the right term to use in this context. If you’ve ever heard of Adolf Hitler, concentration camps, the Nazis, or the Holocaust, you’ve heard of one of the most egregious cases of genocide in history. Let us begin with a definition of genocide developed by the United Nations in 1948 and included in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Convention).

In general, genocide happens as a result of a conflict, in an attempt to exterminate a certain group, generally one that possesses less political power.

During World War II, the conduct of German Nazi soldiers were deemed to be crimes against humanity.

Examples of Genocide

In addition to the Holocaust, there have been countless more instances of genocide throughout history. Minority groups in a nation or state that have distinct physical traits (they look or seem differently) than members of the majority group, as well as adherents of alternative religious views, are frequently targeted by such measures.

  • Christians were persecuted throughout Europe throughout the 1200s. Around 1.5 million Armenians from the Ottoman Empire were massacred by the Turkish government in the early 1900s, according to estimates. In 1983, hundreds of Tamil people in Sri Lanka were slaughtered in a genocide. Approximately 800,000 Tutsi minority were massacred in Rwanda during the genocide in 1994. Since 2003, hundreds of thousands of Darfuris have been slaughtered by Janjaweed militants in Sudan’s Darfur region.

There are a number of other instances that might be used to support the claim that they fit these requirements as well. For example, many people, including the United Nations, have called for the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq, carried out by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS, also known as ISIL), to be classified as genocide in the 2014/2015 period.

Stages of Genocide

Another set of instances that might be cited as meeting these requirements are several additional examples that could be cited as well.

To give an example, many, including the United Nations, have called for the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, also known as ISIL) in 2014/2015 to be classified as genocide.

  1. A group within a society is classified as undesirable and distinct when it is done through ‘classification.’ ‘Symbolization’ is the practice of categorizing members of a group based on distinguishing traits. ‘Discrimination’ is defined as the systematic denial of rights to a less-powerful group in a given community. ‘Dehumanization’ is the practice of treating members of a group as though they are less than human. ‘Organization’ refers to the process of forming organizations, generally militias, that are subsequently trained, armed, and prepared to carry out assassinations. States frequently claim that they have no role in these groups. Polarization is defined as the process of censoring and removing moderate voices, particularly those that are members of the dominant group, allowing radicals to distribute propaganda and frighten members of the less powerful group. Making preparations by employing words such as “final solution,” “ethnic cleansing,” or even “counter-terrorism” to allude to the extermination of a less powerful minority while simultaneously spreading panic amongst the wider public
  2. It is called ‘persecution’ when people are identified and separated from the main population, sometimes by forcibly attaching identification markers to their bodies or forcing them to flee from their homes. Lists are compiled that contain the names of those who will be removed
  3. Execution of the victims, often known as ‘extermination’ by those who carry out the execution since they do not believe the victims to be human beings
  4. Denying the activities of the state before, during, and after the killing is known as “denial.” Evidence is destroyed, witnesses are intimidated, and investigations into the killings are blocked as a result of steps taken by the government.

Denial of Genocide

Additionally, Mr. Stanton points out that there are a number of particular methods in which governments reject that a genocide has place in his book, ‘The 12 Ways to Deny a Genocide.’ Reporters and researchers who have sought to acquire proof have been chased down, tortured, and even killed as a result of their efforts. If a government acknowledges that it permitted or participated in a genocide, it risks losing the support of other countries throughout the world. He asserts that the following are examples of ways in which nations and countries might claim that a genocide did not occur (the examples are mine):

Register to view this lesson

Do you want to be a student or a teacher?

Unlock Your Education

Become a member today. Are you already a member? Log InBack to top

Resources created by teachers for teachers

Over 30,000 video lesson and teaching resources are available in one convenient location. Lessons via video QuizzesWorksheets Integration within the classroomLesson Plans Study.com is a website that I would strongly suggest to my peers. It’s as if my teacher waved a magic wand and took care of everything for me. It feels like a lifeline to me right now. Back Create an account to get started with this course right away. Over 30 million kids throughout the world benefit from this resource. Create a user profile.

Narsinghanand Has Called for Murder and Genocide. So Why Isn’t He Behind Bars Yet?

The Hindustan Times reports that a Muslim adolescent has been detained after posting a video on social media threatening to kill the hardline Hindutva leader Narsinghanand. A charge has been filed against more than 100 persons in Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh, after they held a protest against Narsinghanand for allegedly insulted Muhammad, according to police. Normally, what the police have done in these two incidents would be seen as the proper course of action to take. The threat to kill should be treated seriously, and the perpetrator should be prevented from carrying out his or her threats.

See also:  Luis Gasca For Those Who Chant

This behavior also communicates a message to others who may be inclined to act on the threat, either by repeating it or acting on it, as a result of the threat.

But how should one respond to these punitive measures when the police and order apparatus is completely deafeningly silent in the face of repeated threats of violence issued by individuals such as Narsinghanand?

Narsinghanand traveled to Delhi, where he gave a news conference in which he used derogatory words against Mohammad and the Islamic faith.

He has really made several calls to assassinate Muslim leaders.

They have also threatened Muslims and urged Hindus to rid India of Muslims, according to the Hindu press.

Narsinghanand is the son of a Hindu immigrant who came to the United States as a child.

What is the source of the police’s tolerance for their blatant and constant instigation of violence against an entire community, and why do they do it?

Alternatively, is it the fact that Muslims in India are not considered as human beings?

The crux of the matter is that the Indian police and even the courts appear to assume that Hindus are never serious when they talk about doing violent acts.

They feel relieved when they have exhaled the aggression that has been trapped in their system.

Muslims, according to the police, are readily radicalized, whereas Hindus and radicalization do not go hand in hand.

In reality, what they are accomplishing by making such statements is exposing the true face of Islam to the rest of the world.

Otherwise, why are they advocating for his assassination in reaction to his simple words regarding the death and genocide of Muslims in the Middle East?

If he is correct, why shouldn’t Muslims be exterminated as a result?

Narsinghanand denigrates Muslims and their prophet, and he publicly advocates for the destruction of the Quran as well as the destruction of anyone who adhere to the sacred book.

Many of them express surprise and disbelief.

And Narsinghanand has the opportunity to say, “I told you so.” For the past many years, this has been the approach of the Hindutva organizations.

Muslims are viewed with suspicion by the police and the administration, whereas Hindus are treated with tolerance.

Their anger, according to the argument, has a genuine potential to incite violence since, after all, Muslims are known for their violent tendencies.

As a result, appeals for murder, violence, and even genocide made by individuals such as Narsinghanand are dismissed as irrational by Hindus who are apparently intelligent enough to disregard such unpredictable outbursts.

On the radio, we could hear Prime Minister Modi encouraging his constituents to identify the demonstrators based on the type of clothing they were wearing.

The Prime Minister leaves you in suspense.

This is, of course, a poetic and symbolic usage of the Hindi language.

A Central Minister ordered his men to shoot the anti-CAA demonstrators because they were traitors, according to the minister.

However, it is rationalized away as a linguistic game.

You have to understand that we are using language in a humorous manner.

After then, the looting, burning, and murdering began in earnest.

More than a dozen mosques were severely damaged or destroyed.

Thousands of people were forced to flee their homes.

Is it possible that those who planned and carried out the violence were under the impression that they would be protected from the top?

Narsinghanand advocated for the assassination of Muslims in the run-up to the Delhi riots in 2020, and he continues to advocate for this.

Those who have claimed credit for the violence in JNU are permitted to continue their campaign of intimidation against ‘traitors’ and ‘anti-nationals,’ warning them that they will repeat their actions if necessary.

We are taught that they are just conceited.

We are aware of the pathologies involved.

Ordinary Hindus, on the other hand, who have lives apart from politics, need to think carefully about this process, in which hatred against Muslims and Christians is being systematically propagated.

According to the police, they are being willfully irresponsible by presuming that this propaganda does not incite hatred and violence among a segment of Hindus.

There are dozens of movies with incendiary messages circulating on the internet, and each one of them is seen by hundreds of thousands of people.

The Islamic State has attracted young people from all throughout Europe.

Even if some people participate in as active participants, internet campaigns have the effect of creating a consensus around the concepts of hatred and violence spread by them.

The later decades of the twentieth century saw the appearance of babas and gurus who claimed to be able to provide us with simple spiritual remedies to the problems we encounter in our daily lives.

They govern major and historically significant shrines, while the smaller groups have taken over temples in mofussil cities and villages….

They are not associated with any religious or spiritual beliefs.

They seldom express their dissatisfaction with them.

Secular leaders and political parties are hesitant to condemn the anti-Semitic hate campaign waged by individuals such as Narsinghanand.

They are, however, mistaken.

Its hold on society becomes greater with each passing day.

As if their humiliation is just their business, and the rest of us are blissfully unaware of it.

It is very normal.

It is necessary to create and practice an alternative, more compassionate political vocabulary in opposition to this heinous aim.

It’s the simplest thing in the world to become like him.

The Friday following Juma namaz saw massive rallies in response to the blasphemous words of Narsinghanand and his gang members, which were an expression of outrage.

This strategy should be reconsidered.

Understanding that insults to the Prophet are intended to send a message to Muslims that their faith is not respected in India is critical to understanding the situation.

The alternative, however, would be to dismiss this as only a religious matter and overlook the political purpose that is motivating these insults.

A demonstration against the arrest of a large number of anti-CAA demonstrators is required.

The practice of secularism should not be regarded as a burden.

An unwavering commitment to equality and fairness.

Hindutva organizations are putting up significant effort to disabuse Hindus of this perception.

To Narsinghanand’s joy, the topic of blasphemy has emerged as a topic of public discussion.

By focusing our attention just on Narsinghanand’s nasty comments against Islam and the prophet, we are disregarding the far more horrible and inexcusable acts that he has perpetrated in the past.

He made specific appeals for genocidal violence against Muslims, which were met with opposition.

He defended the use of force against youngsters.

And the result is a response that is considerably more forceful than hatred and disdain can muster.

Any anyone who does not call for the immediate arrest of Narsinghanand and the other members of his gang is an opponent of a free and open society, and there should be no room for question or hesitation in saying so.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *