On 2006-02-28 06:22:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-02-28 05:56:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-02-28 05:47:00, Anonymous wrote:
Nope,they were compensated for the loss of property and being run out of town on a rail.
That wouldn't exactly constitute genocide.
Im just writing this from memory though.
Maybe there are better informations about this at Google.com?"
Maybe. Again, go for it."
Im not sure if it was based on the word "genocide",but I remember that word being tossed about regarding the Rosewood case
They were black people,and the whole town,or village,was burned down because they were black people.Some of them died,I think because they were black people.The people who did it hated them,so it is said,because they were black people
I guess the people who hated them were members of a hate group.
Im not sure who they sued,but I think they sued the government because the cops back then ignored the incident,because they were black people.
So,I think they were paid compensation by the government,the one that refused to help them,because they were black people.
It is difficult for me to do a web search on subjects like genocide,or Taiwan,or Tibet,or Abuse,etc.,because I am in China,so I cant very easily look this kind of thing up on the internet."
"Definitional Distortions
Genocide is not an old word, having "naturally" evolved over time to hold meanings contrary to its own. Nor was it meant to serve as a synonym for mass killing. When Raphaël Lemkin coined the term in 1944, he went to considerable lengths in explaining that it was intended to describe policies and processes designed to bring about the dissolution and disappearance of targeted human groups, as such. He wrote "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."15 If these two conditions have been fulfilled, a genocide has occurred, even if every member of the targeted group has survived the process in a physical sense.
Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aimed at the destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be a disintegration of political and social institutions?of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed at the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed at individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group (emphasis added).16
In 1946, Lemkin was retained by the United Nations Secretariat to draft an international convention codifying the crime. Therein, genocide?that is, "policies aimed at eradicating targeted ethnical, racial, national, religious or political groups"?was defined in a twofold way: "(1) the destruction of a group," and "(2) preventing its preservation and development."17 The offending policies were themselves grouped in three categories, all of equal gravity:
*
Physical Genocide, meaning outright extermination as well as the imposition of "slow death measures (i.e., subjection to conditions of life which, owing to lack of proper housing, clothing, food, hygiene and medical care or excessive work or physical exertion are likely to result in the debilitation and death of individuals; mutilations and biological experiments imposed for other than curative purposes; and deprivation of livelihood by means of looting or confiscation of property).
*
Biological Genocide, meaning the prevention of births among the target group (i.e., involuntary sterilization or abortion, as well as compulsory segregation of the sexes).
*
Cultural Genocide, meaning destruction of the specific characteristics of the group (i.e., forced dispersal of the population; forced transfer of children to another group; suppression of religious practices or the national language; forced exile of writers, artists, religious and political leaders or other individuals representing the culture of the group; destruction of cultural/religious shrines or monuments, or their diversion to alien uses; destruction or dispersion of documents and objects of historical, artistic or religious value, and objects used in religious worship).18
The draft was then turned over to a committee composed of nation-state delegates to be "revised and condensed" before its submission to the U.N. General Assembly. During this process, the United States and Canada, acting in concert, were able to arrange deletion of almost the entire provision on cultural genocide, as well as all explicit references to slow death measures.19 As the matter was finally framed in international law on December 9, 1948, "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 members of the group conditions of life calculated to bring about 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.20
Strikingly, even in this greatly-truncated delineation, only one in five criteria pertain to direct killing. Eighty percent of the legal definition of genocide thus devolves upon nonlethal policies and activities. The responses of the U.S. and Canada to this are instructive. The United States simply refused for forty years to accept the result. Finally, in 1988, embarrassed at being the only country so openly rejecting the rule of law, it attempted a ratification in which it claimed a "right" to exempt itself from compliance whenever convenient.22
Canada also submitted an invalid ratification, but much earlier, in 1952. The subterfuge in this case was to write domestic implementing legislation in such a way as to excise from the country's "legal understanding" those classifications of genocidal policy in which Canada was actually engaged, retaining only those involving "physical destruction... killing, or its substantial equivalents" (that is, Article II(a), (c) and (d) of the 1948 Convention).
For purposes of Canadian law, we believe that the definition of genocide should be drawn somewhat more narrowly than in the [already much narrowed] international Convention so as to include only killing and its substantial equivalents...The other components of the international definition, viz, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of a group and forcibly transferring children of one group to another group with intent to destroy the group we deem inadvisable for Canada.23
In 1985, the parliament went further, removing the prohibition on involuntary sterilization (1948 Convention, Article II(d)) from Canada's genocide statute.24 No country, of course, whether it be Canada or the U.S. or Nazi Germany, holds a legitimate prerogative to pick and choose among elements of international law, electing to abide by some and not others. It possess even less of a right to unilaterally "revise" the Laws of Nations in conformity with its own preferences. As the Nazis were informed at Nuremberg, the requirements of customary law are binding, irrespective of whether individual sovereignties wish to accept them.25
Nonetheless, taking the cue from their governments, a range of "responsible" scholars shortly set themselves to the task of deforming Lemkin's concept even further. In 1959, Dutch law professor Pieter Drost published a massive two-volume study wherein he argued that usage of the term "genocide" should be restricted to its physical and biological dimensions, and that cultural genocide should be redesignated as "ethnocide," a term he erroneously attributed to "post-war French scholars."26 Thereafter, biological genocide was also quietly dropped from discussion as writer after writer defined genocide exclusively in terms of killing.27 Forty years of this continuous "genocide equals mass murder" distortion has yielded an altogether predictable effect, not only on the popular consciousness but on that of many otherwise critical activists and intellectuals. This last is readily evident in the recent release of a book by Native Hawaiian sovereigntist and professor Haunani-Kay Trask, wherein genocide is defined as simply the "systematic killing of a people identified by ethnic/racial characteristics."28 "
ETC. URL:
http://www.othervoices.org/2.1/churchill/denial.htmlkeynote: "When Raphaël Lemkin coined the term in 1944, he went to considerable lengths in explaining that it was intended to describe policies and processes designed to bring about the dissolution and disappearance of targeted human groups, as such. He wrote "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."15 If these two conditions have been fulfilled, a genocide has occurred, even if every member of the targeted group has survived the process in a physical sense."
That definition was botchered by nations that wanted to still commit genocide.
