I just discovered that Radical Reviewer believes the western account of the 1932 Ukranian famine, and I could not be more disappointed.
I just discovered that Radical Reviewer believes the western account of the 1932 Ukranian famine, and I could not be more disappointed.
The mass killing of Indonesian communists is often characterized as genocide, and that was carried out targeting political ideology above all else.
When people use the term "genocide" they generally mean "mass, systematic extermination of an identifiable group." I don't see a good argument for limiting that to racial groups, especially when you start digging into how race is socially constructed in a manner similar to political identity. And I don't think this sort of good-faith disagreement over the definition of genocide can be appropriately called "genocide denial," because that's a term loaded with moral condemnation.
Have you read the research into the Indonesian genocide? I'll need to find it. It does a good job highlighting how the political suppression of communists developed into a genocide. I don't mean to say that political killings cannot be a component of genocide. My comment here is meant to demonstrate thst.
When there's a scientific definition for genocide with observable characteristics, it's important to call out accusations of genocide which are not genocide. False accusations of genocide need to be seriously condemned, since they are often used to justify genocide.
"The Jakarta Method" is on my reading list, so I haven't done anything close to a deep dive. Good sources are always welcome.
I'm 100% with you on the dangers of playing fast and loose with the definition of "genocide." I don't think that can be quite extended to this argument, though:
The way I see it, the most authoritative definition of "genocide" is a legal definition, analogous to the legal definition of "murder." There's at least some level of popular input into this definition, formally applying it requires significant fact finding and extensive debate over whether the facts fit the stated criteria, and there are (in theory) consequences if the definition is applied. Still, this isn't a scientific definition -- I'm not aware of any legal scholars who'd make that argument, just as I'm not aware of any legal scholars who'd argue that "murder" is a scientific definition. And because it's a legal definition instead of a scientific one, it can't be treated as some immutable truth, because legal definitions can and do change.
The next most authoritative definition of "genocide" can be found in academia, and although this would fall under the realm of social sciences, I don't think it's very common for academics to argue that their work is so conclusive and unchangeable that it should carry the weight of scientific certainty. The academic consensus around how events are best classified can and does change, too. Even in "hard" sciences you see definitions change over time.
I don't think it makes sense to imply that what constitutes a genocide is clear and forever-unchangeable, because all of the above schools at some point deal with definitions with some wiggle room, and at some point amend or revise their definitions. This is especially true of legal definitions, where the idea that genocide has fixed criteria is most entrenched. So I don't see how it makes sense to call someone asking "isn't this mass killing deserving of the label 'genocide'"? a genocide denialist, at least as long as they're asking that in good faith (and I see no indication otherwise here). That's analogous to calling someone a "murder denialist" over a question like "isn't walking away from a drowning person when you could have easily thrown them a life jacket deserving of the label 'murder'"?