When discussing genocides, we consistently reference Lemkin’s
original two-part definition: genocide entails both the “destruction of the
national pattern of the oppressed group” and the “imposition of the national
pattern of the oppressor.” We have
studied several case studies of
genocide, but few instances of
non-genocide – that is, when an
area has all the ingredients and potential for genocide, yet genocide does not
occur. Because Lemkin drew close ties between genocide and imperialism, we can
analyze “non-genocide” by looking at different cases of imperialism.
For example, looking at
British imperialism in India, people argue whether the British had a harmful or a beneficial effect on the Indian
people. The British built excellent
infrastructure that remains in use even today. They improved the state of the
economy and showed Indians how to maximize their profit from their available
resources. However, the British also
exploited Indian workers to increase productivity and boost revenue for
themselves. The workers endured terrible conditions and severe oppression. The general attitude that the British
held towards Indians was one of inferiority and disgust. In an effort to assimilate them into British
culture, they imposed many of their cultural norms, such as English
based schools, on the native people.
Most would agree that
although conditions for Indians were deplorable,
British imperialism in India does not classify as genocide. Comparing cases of imperialism in which genocide did and did not occur can help scholars determine patterns of genocide and
define the term. In the example
of British India, we can ask ourselves where deep-seated discrimination
ends and genocide, especially cultural genocide, begins. Perhaps British
India is not classified as genocide because, despite the discrimination
and oppression, the British did make great advancements for India. We must consider whether we can use the
classification of "genocide" if the oppressors impose their “national
pattern” on the oppressed, but simultaneously improve the economic status of
the oppressed region.
Studying historical events where genocide
potentially could have occurred
is just as important as studying the instances where genocide
has actually occurred. Such studies allow scholars to determine what
factors contribute to genocide, and to determine the exact definition that
should be employed when classifying an event as such.
Ava makes a strong argument for the study of ‘non-genocide’. In accordance with her, I believe that studying non-genocides help develop genocide’s definition and when to employ the term. Furthermore, understanding what does not constitute as genocide highlights state-sanctioned destruction’s complexities and intricacies. Genocide is not black and white. As we saw in Nicholas Werth’s article on the Stalin Regime, it is crucial to study all instances of state-organized terror before labeling an event ‘genocidal’. This habit gives way for history’s detailed depth and interrelated complexities.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, however, with Ava’s example choice. Although the British imperialism may not be called genocide, the actions taken were still genocidal. Historically, when a country imperializes another nation, it fundamentally alters the basic organization of that nation and its people. That, in essence, is cultural genocide. As Ava mentioned, the British oppressed and exploited Indian workers. They attempted to assimilate Indians into British life style. It is evident that the British deprived the Indians of their integrity and identity as indigenous peoples. Cultural genocide includes these oppressive tactics that the British used in India.
Furthermore, suggesting that the development of a Westernized India made it successful is not necessarily correct and should not prevent people from defining the British imperialism as genocide. The great advancements that Ava mentions are measured in the eyes of Europe and the United States. Factors such as an improved economy and maximizing profits from natural resources fuel support for neoliberalism and the Western notion that a strong national economy proves success. Even if India achieved better economic status, I argue that advancements must be from the eye of the beholder. Instead of consulting Indian people, the British tore up the entire nation’s functions. Just because these Western advancements occurred, people should not be discouraged from labeling Britain’s actions genocidal.
I think you make a strong argument for looking at cases of non-genocide when trying to determine what constitutes genocide. However, I agree with Ms. Kuhr that applying this argument to British imperialism in India becomes complicated, in the least. In several ways, the colonial relationship differs distinctly from many of the genocides we’ve studied. Lemkin defines genocide as “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.” While the Indian people did suffer actions that threatened the foundations of their national identity, I don’t believe that the ultimate goal of the British included the annihilation of the Indian nation. Rather, they wanted to westernize India for their own advantage as an empire, which of course begs the question of intent. If England’s overall goal was to gain economically rather than to eradicate the Indian culture, then their genocidal actions might fall more easily into the category of a unintentional byproduct of the colonial relationship. Adding to the complexity, most of the genocides we’ve studied involved a ruling government targeting a minority group within that country but with a colonial situation different motives are at play and the genocidal acts are very removed from the homeland. This is particularly important since in this case we are discussing cultural genocide and not mass murder, to which it is harder to turn a blind eye.
ReplyDeleteI am also troubled by the thought that India’s advancement as a westernized nation would have an effect on whether or not it can be labeled cultural genocide. Ms. Kuhr is right to point out that we have a skewed perspective of westernization as a cultural advancement. To take that further, actions carried out in the name of “progress” don’t unmake a genocide. The facts are still the same. When we talk about Stalin’s genocides, we don’t minimize the implications of his actions in light of the fact that he industrialized Russia rapidly, so we shouldn’t make excuses for the British in this case. All of this comes together to show just how fluid lines become when dealing with the label of genocide in these real world situations. When discussing genocides and non-genocides alike, a lot of factors come into play, which obscures the possibility of any clear division between the two.