I tend to write here a lot, don’t I? Anyway I’m going to try to not post as frequently so I don’t clog up the timeline.

So a bit of context: I am taking a genocide history course and I will have to write a research paper for it. The paper is the biggest part of the grade and we can choose any topic as long as the professor approves of it. We have to book a “consultation” with him where we present our research topic and question, if he thinks it’s good enough we can go ahead and begin research and writing. The topic I want to write about is what was/is happening in the Donbas. I know many of us have referred to it as a genocide and I figured it’d be a good topic to write about since no one really talks about it. I could choose other issues but I’m almost certain other students will write about them, the Donbas situation is just never brought up enough for my liking.

My real question is: how do I present this to my professor?

I know I want to look into the how and why it happened, and how it’s being talked about now. If that’s makes sense. Yes it’s messy and not elegant enough, I’ll work on it, but I feel very passionate about this, especially with an event that is being hosted at my school today, it’s lit a fire in me. One that’s been there for a while but it’s just gotten hotter, it that makes sense.

I don’t want my professor to think my paper is going to be a weird defence of Putin or whatever, he seems quite set in stone on his position of the war so I’m trying to tread lightly without sacrificing my principles. All I’m asking is help in my wording as I don’t know how to say this without potentially screwing myself over. I think I low-key have to convince him that it was/is a genocide.

  • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    You're very welcome. It's always a pleasure.

    Ah, so they're for different classes. That makes sense. I knew you were taking a couple of courses but wasn't sure which work went with which one. Both topics could be covered in either, from different perspectives. You probably said, but I missed the significance.

    One thing that might help… You're probably going to have to define genocide before you can decide whether there has been one (or an attempt). If you do some of that definitional work now (to be returned to in more depth later), it might give you some clues as to what sources you'll need to be looking into.

    What counts as a primary source in history?

    Law reports and legislation would count in some fields but I'm unsure, here. The University of Birmingham tells me 'official reports' count. The University of South Carolina tells me that 'almost any kind of material can be used as a primary source as long as it was created during the time period that you are researching or was created by someone who participated'.

    If law does count, I can think of a few options. The UN OHCHR report, 'Accountability for killings in Ukraine from January 2014 to May 2016 (PDF)' (or site with link/summary) includes several useful references, such as to the Ukrainian Constitution, international criminal law, and Ukrainian criminal law (that's if the UN report isn't a primary source in itself). This document doesn't always make it clear who is doing the killing, so be careful if you rely on it.

    Looks like Ukraine derogated from several international instruments over the past decade or so. There's this, in relation to Russia's taking Crimea (I found a link but it's not necessarily the right one): Resolution of the Parliament of Ukraine ‘On derogation from certain obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (PDF))’ of 21 May 2015 (cited in the UN report, above). This may be the UN's receipt (PDF)? And the Council of Europe (for the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (ECHR), not the European Union) reported that Ukraine may derogate but ECHR standards still apply – there must be an official record somewhere, about what the news item refers to. You might have to go to the relevant websites (for Ukrainian Parliament, UN, European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, related to the Council of Europe (coe) i.e. HUDOC) and browse by year to find things; searching is mysteriously unhelpful (imagine that).

    It's weasel-wordy and maybe too recent for a history paper, but there could be some useful links in this kind of thing: 'Ukraine: UN rights office deplores attack in Russian-occupied Donetsk'.

    Search HUDOC for 'donetsk' brings up some interesting cases. For example, in YS and OS v Russia (http/not secure link), a mother (Russian) left her husband (Ukrainian) and daughter in Donetsk. After the civil war started, the mother went back to Ukraine, 'kidnapped' her daughter, and moved to Russia. A Russian District Court ruled in favour of the husband, saying the daughter had to be returned under the 'Hague Convention'. The ECtHR criticised the Russian court for failing to consider the 'grave risk' of 'physical or psychological harm' and 'an intolerable situation'. The Russian court could, apparently,

    • have easily … ascertained [the facts] by a wide number of sources, which had unanimously attested to serious human rights violations and abuses in eastern Ukraine of which Donetsk was part, including thousands of conflict related civilian casualties and deaths counting both adults and children, the vast majority of which had been caused by shelling, including from artillery and large-caliber mortars. Nor had the District Court assessed whether the circumstances pertaining in Donetsk at that time had been more than isolated incidents in an unsettled political environment to reach the threshold for “grave risk”. It had failed to consider the views of the second applicant expressed in a report by the chief inspector of the local childcare authority, which had mentioned, in particular, that she had been afraid to return because she had feared gunfire and exploding bombs.

    (Quotes are from the summary (http/not secure site).)

    All of this would be true even if Donetsk was 'only' in a horrid civil war (i.e. not suffering a genocide). But it's interesting to see that the ECtHR knew how bad it was in Donetsk, and thought the Russian Court violated the mother's and the daughter's right to a private and family life for insufficiently 'assess[ing] as to [the] existence of [a] “grave risk” in returning [an] abducted child under the Hague Convention to a conflict zone in eastern Ukraine'. (That's the strange world of law: kidnap your own kid to save them from a war zone and you'll still be counted as abducting them but can rely on your right to a private and family life to keep them safe! Baffling, but there you are.)

    Some more cases, here (they won't all be relevant): http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/#{%22fulltext%22:[%22donetsk%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22]}

    And searching 'Luhansk' reveals (again, not all the cases will be relevant): http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/#{%22fulltext%22:[%22luhansk%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22]}

    EDIT: I wasn't finished typing!

    EDIT #35 because I kept on clicking the wrong button after previewing the text!: There is one case that mentions 'Donetsk' and 'genocide' but I can't work out easily if it's connected in the way that you're looking for (I don't think so but it's a long case about Russia banning Jehovah's Witnesses and I'm not motivated enough to read it in depth): https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-217535.

    EDIT #39: The Foreign Policy Research Institute wrote a report, 'Five Years of War in the Donbas' in 2019. The FPRI talks of an 'accidental' civil war 😐 and talks explicitly of neo-nazism as Ukraine's Achilles' Heel. But JFC look at this:

    Hopefully, the absorption of the volunteer units into the formal Ukrainian armed forces will serve to moderate their views, rather than infect the larger body with them. One OSCE monitor believes that this is starting to happen. She believes the Ukrainian military leadership has directed members of the former volunteer units to cut ties with—or at a minimum not publicly proclaim their association with—extreme right- wing groups. She says, “I can see Facebook profiles of soldiers of Azov. Last year [2018] they were posting to mark the birthday of Hitler, but this year it didn’t happen.”147 While neglecting to congratulate Hitler on his birthday is small progress in cutting ties between these units and the far-right, it is progress nevertheless.

    In other words, 'Ukrainian neonazism is a problem because they're open about it and it makes them look bad'.

    • SpaceDogs@lemmygrad.ml
      hexagon
      ·
      10 months ago

      First I want to apologize for my incredibly late response. I have three midterms this week and spent my time studying and dying lol. I finished two and have one more tomorrow, my fourth is next week so not nearly as bad. Okay, with that out of the way I just wanted to thank you so much for all of this, you really did not need to go this hard! This is more than I could ever ask for! I honestly don’t know what to say. The UN documents and such do work well as primary sources, documentaries work as well as long as I’m not quoting an academic, second language sources are good too but only as primary sources. Secondary sources, according to my professor, are made by academic institutions/people. First hand accounts and interviews work (I mean, for our holodomor week we’re required to watch interviews with people who lived through it, so if they can use that I can use interviews with people in the Donbas). I saw recently that the ICJ was going to see a case about Ukraine being pissed about Russia claiming they were committing genocidal acts in the east so I know the results of that will help with my paper. I know I will have to be very careful with my wording when I finally start writing, though I have to admit its hard to reign in my annoyances and other feelings. Anyway, enough with my rambling, again thank you so much for this, I have it saved and it really does help in general and for when I do more searches on my own (so many resources I wasn’t aware of!).

      • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        10 months ago

        No worries about the delay! You're right to focus on your midterms. Glad to be of help. It's an interesting question and once I got it in my head, I had to have a look for myself 😁

        One more thing (not necessarily the 'final' thing as I'm in no rush to draw this to a close), which I wouldn't be surprised if you already know. It's a trick to help with careful wording: don't make too much of each source. By this I mean, present the source as accurately as you can, as evidence only of whatever it can evidence. It's easy to see a source as providing a lot more evidence than it actually does when you're in the flow and seeing all these dots connect. Be critical of the sources that support the argument that you want to make. You can challenge your sources with your own arguments or with arguments that others have made (crediting and being critical of those sources, too). That way, when you make your potentially controversial argument, it's harder to accuse you of e.g. cherry picking or lack of criticism or unfounded bias, etc. I mean, they may try anyway, but you've done what you can.

        • SpaceDogs@lemmygrad.ml
          hexagon
          ·
          9 months ago

          Thank you, again I’m late since I had one last midterm (political science) but I’m back. This is all very helpful, most of your comments I end up saving because they’re always great and I want to make sure I have easy access to them for reference. I guess I’ll have to keep reminding myself to be critical, sometimes I get “too into it” when writing that I can come across as flippant, annoyed/frustrated, or cynical. I think the language I use is… different from the typical academic paper (I don’t use cuss words but I have made “jokes,” like lowkey making fun of Salazar and the mafia in my last paper) and I’ll need to be careful especially with this paper, it being about genocide and all. I like to think I’m good at managing my language when it comes to certain people (those in power vs those not) and situations but I know I’ll need to be careful. Thankfully I have quite a bit of time to actually write it (this paper is due in April) and fix my language.