This post is being made in response to the `*discourse*` that has been going on around China and Xinjiang.

A lot of hedging on either side of this debate has to do with the definition of genocide. The whole "oh, there's no mass killings, but maybe the situation fits the definition of cultural genocide," and that sort of of rhetoric.

TL;DR what I'm going to try to do in this post is define genocide, what the history of that definition is and why it matters to this discussion, and show why it is not in anyway applicable to the situation in Xinjiang outside of its value as atrocity propaganda used to manufacture consent for some kind of intervention/war.

Part 1, Lets get into definitions

I'm going to be pulling a lot from the BadEmpanada video titled " The Problem with Genocide " for this part, and in the video notes he provides a good number of sources that you can follow if you want to do further reading on the history of this term.

The popular and commonly accepted definition of genocide is the mass murder of a specific ethnic, religious, or other marginalized group, in an attempt to eliminate that group. And in the popularly accepted definition, mass murder is considered to be an essential part of ruling something as a genocide or not.

The problem is that this definition of genocide is significantly altered and much more narrow from how it was originally defined. The term genocide was first coined by the polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin. What caused him to become interested in defining a legal term for what we now call genocide was that he "noticed many historical instances of attempts to eradicate entire peoples or cultures, but there was no specific term for such acts. So he spent most of the 1930s trying to conceptualize a crime that would encompass them." What he noticed is that these acts were unique in their motivation and scale, and that the group that carried out these crimes were themselves nation states, or in high offices within nation states, or were being carried out on behalf of an in the interests of the nation state or whoever was in the ruling party at the time. What this called for, Lemkin reasoned, was a law that was international in scope and could be enforced internationally, since any national law would simply be ignored by that ruling party that was carrying out the genocide.

As far as what actions would be included in the legal definition, Lemkin was very broad in defining what should fall under the umbrella of genocide. To quote Lemkin,

"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify 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 the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.

The following illustration will suffice. The confiscation of property of nationals of an occupied area on the ground that they have left the country may be considered simply as a deprivation of their individual property rights. However, if the confiscations are ordered against individuals solely because they are Poles, Jews, or Czechs, then the same confiscations tend to weaken the national entities of which those persons are members.

Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor."

"In the incorporated areas, such as western Poland, Eupen, Malmédy and Moresnet, Luxemburg, and Alsace-Lorraine, local institutions of self-government were destroyed and a German pattern of administration imposed. Every reminder of former national character was obliterated. Even commercial signs and inscriptions on buildings, roads, and streets, as well as names of communities and of localities, were changed to a German form. Nationals of Luxemburg having foreign or non-German first names are required to assume in lieu thereof the corresponding German first names; or, if that is impossible, they must select German first names. As to their family names, if they were of German origin and their names have been changed to a non-German form, they must be changed again to the original German. Persons who have not complied with these requirements within the prescribed period are liable to a penalty, and in addition German names may be imposed on them. Analogous provisions as to changing of names were made for Lorraine."

"The Jews were immediately deprived of the elemental means of existence. As to the Poles in incorporated Poland, the purpose of the occupant was to shift the economic resources from the Polish national group to the German national group. Thus the Polish national group had to be impoverished and the German enrichsed. This was achieved primarily by confiscation of Polish property under the authority of the Reich Commissioner for the Strengthening of Germanism. But the process was likewise furthered by the policy of regimenting trade and handicrafts, since licenses for such activities were issued to Germans, and only exceptionally to Poles. In this way, the Poles were expelled from trade, and the Germans entered that field."

source: Axis Rule in Occupied Europe," Raphael Lemkin 1941

And to sum up Lemkin:

"Thus, Lemkin defined genocide in terms of the violation of a nation's right to its collective existence - genocide in this sense is quite simply the destruction of a nation. Such destruction can be achieved through the 'mass killings of all members of a nation,' or through 'a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups.'"

source: Australia: A Continuing Genocide?," Damien Short 2010

What we can see from these definitions and descriptions is that there is no separation or distinction between genocide carried out via mass killings, and genocide carried out through means of "cultural genocide." Lemkin made no distinction between these two things, and considered all of these as sufficient criteria for prosecuting something as a genocide. Methods of forced assimilation, destruction of local culture, language, national identifiers, as well as economic discrimination. Any of these actions were sufficient to rule something as a genocide on their own, with no need to be accompanied by mass killings.

At least, that is how Lemkin defined the crime, and that is the legal definition that he fought for when bringing the matter up to international bodies like the UN when he was advocating for genocide to be adopted as an international crime that was subject to UN backed intervention. Here is where definitions of genocide start to diverge.

Lemkin obviously prioritized having a criminal code for genocide that had international backing, otherwise it was unenforceable. This became a problem when a large number of UN member nations refused to sign off on any definition of genocide that included political, economic, social, and cultural marginalization of national groups as being categorized as a genocide, as well as techniques like forced assimilation of national groups to the cultural/legal/institutional norms of the dominant national group.

The reason for this push back is that UN member nations were concerned that a definition of genocide that categorized those things as genocidal could be used to prosecute their own governments for genocidal behavior based on how they treated national groups in their own borders as well as through colonial/neo-colonial influences.

Lemkin fought bitterly to keep these criteria in the "official" UN definition of genocide, but ultimately relented and accepted a definition that was much more limited in scope. This was because he needed enough nations to sign onto the declaration in order for it to be enforceable by an international body, and he figured that having a law with a very limited scope was better than nothing.

And this is where the modern definition of genocide comes from, and why "cultural genocide" is commonly considered to be a separate category rather than an essential criteria for classifying something as a genocide. It comes from a process where the criminals were allowed to define the crime, and therefore ensure that they could avoid prosecution.

This definition comes from the UN genocide convention in 1948, which limits the definition of genocide to the following:

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

(continued in the comments)

  • ferristriangle [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    The speech in question:

    "Here is what it (the US beaureaucray) has decided for Afghanistan and that you don’t know this either we’re in Afghanistan as we were in Germany post-world War two that is for at least a half a century. It has nothing to do with Kabul and State Building. Nothing to do with fighting the Taliban or proving that we can reconcile with the Taliban and nothing to do with fighting any terrorist group it is everything to do with three primary strategic objective objectives.

    And as a former military officer as a professional I don’t necessarily object to these objectives. I just think the American people probably ought to be told about them and there ought to be a debate as to whether or not they want to spend their money on these objectives.

    First objective is to be in the place that Donald Rumsfeld discovered was the most difficult country in the world to get military power into in 2001 and take my word for it it is look at it on a map and leave it there because it is the only hard power of the United States has that sits proximate to the central base Road initiative of China that runs across Central Asia if we had to impact that with military power we are in position to do so in Afghanistan.

    Second reason we’re there is because we’re cheek and jowel with the potentially most unstable nuclear stock pile on the face of the earth in Pakistan we want to be able to leap on that stockpile and stabilize it if necessary.

    And the third reason we’re there is because there are 20 million Uyghurs and they don’t like han chinese and Xinjiang province in western china. And if the CIA has to mount an operation using those Uyghurs. As Erdogan has done in turkey against assad there are 20,000 of them ended up in Idlib, syria right now. For example that’s why the Chinese might be deploying military forces to Syria in the very near future to take care of those Uyghurs that Erdogan invited in well the CIA would want to destabilize China and that would be the best way to do it. To ferment unrest and to join with those we use in pushing the Han Chinese in Beijing from internal places rather than external

    Not saying it’s going on right now. You didn’t hear that but it is a possibility. So that’s why we’re there and I’ll wager they’re not a handful of Americans who realize that our military has decided that, for these strategic reasons which are well thought out, we’re going to be in Afghanistan for the next half century."

    video of speech