genocide

[Victor Steinbok]

I have no problem with the older quote except for the words "one or
more". Genocide does indeed apply to murder of singled out (not
necessarily despised or even a minority) racial or ethnic group. The
list of criteria is not particularly long, but it has to be 1) a group,
2) identifiable by specific characteristic--these include but are not
limited to "ethnic or racial", 3) a crime has to be committed and it
need NOT be a crime under local jurisdiction. In other words, there is a
fairly objective (if not always enforceable) definition of genocide that
cannot be legislated away locally. Political groups are specifically NOT
MENTIONED in any treaties that relate to genocide, including the Rome
Statute (of the ICC). There is some overlap between the three categories
of major crimes (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity), but all
that means is that people can be charged under multiple criteria. But
there are also some things that are specific to each category.
Systematic rape, for example, violates all three (if military action is
present--if not, no war crimes). Deportation falls under genocide, even
if no one is deliberately killed. Purging of native languages also falls
under genocide--but all of these have to apply to groups, not
individuals. Genocide need not be perpetrated or controlled by
government officials, but they can be prosecuted if they fail to come to
the defense of the persecuted.

The ICC statute is one of the clearest statements on the subject. I
would certainly use it as a measure in evaluating statements of this
kind. When such statement are made in the course of a natural
conversation or speech, I would be less skeptical. But when they come
from diplomats or politicians, especially from a region that is
notorious for verbal exaggerations (saber-rattling), I am indeed very
skeptical. It's not about the command of the language, but about its
deliberate misuse for propaganda purposes.

     VS-)

On 2/21/2011 9:25 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> Naturally I'm less optimistic than you are, Victor. The example reminded me
> of a different but equally, um, eccentric one I posted almost exactly three
> years ago:
>
> "... Most interesting is 'genocide,' which here seems to mean 'the murder of
> one or more innocent members of a de[s]pised racial or ethnic group.'"
>
> The quote itself is easily findable in the archives. That author was not a
> diplomat; he was Professor of Media and American Studies at the
> University of Ulster. He scored a hat trick of inept usages in a single
> sentence.
>
> JL

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org