Abstract:This essay addresses the relationship linking Canada's Indian Residential School saga with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the United Nations' Genocide Convention. It sets the Canadian experience in a broader context, investigating the treatment of marginalized peoples in national and international environments dominated by the unwritten conventions of victors' justice. From the era of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, the full weight of international law falls disproportionately on the losing side of major conflicts. Those who commit crimes against humanity on the side of triumphant power are usually put behind shields of impunity, and this propensity sets the framework for the contained domestic handling of the international crime of genocide in Canada. This justiciable genocide took place historically through the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their biological families with clear intent to terminate First Nations as distinct peoples. The Indian Residential Schools were one part of a larger complex of enforced laws and policies including the effort to enfranchise schooled Indian adults as regular Canadian citizens bereft of Aboriginal and treaty rights.
{"title":"A National or International Crime? Canada's Indian Residential Schools and the Genocide Convention","authors":"A. Hall","doi":"10.3138/GSI.12.1.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/GSI.12.1.05","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This essay addresses the relationship linking Canada's Indian Residential School saga with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the United Nations' Genocide Convention. It sets the Canadian experience in a broader context, investigating the treatment of marginalized peoples in national and international environments dominated by the unwritten conventions of victors' justice. From the era of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, the full weight of international law falls disproportionately on the losing side of major conflicts. Those who commit crimes against humanity on the side of triumphant power are usually put behind shields of impunity, and this propensity sets the framework for the contained domestic handling of the international crime of genocide in Canada. This justiciable genocide took place historically through the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their biological families with clear intent to terminate First Nations as distinct peoples. The Indian Residential Schools were one part of a larger complex of enforced laws and policies including the effort to enfranchise schooled Indian adults as regular Canadian citizens bereft of Aboriginal and treaty rights.","PeriodicalId":40844,"journal":{"name":"Genocide Studies International","volume":"12 1","pages":"72 - 91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43657806","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Context Genocide studies—in short, analyzing one or more cases of organized mass destruction—is by now a somewhat established academic discipline. While it is still young, it is, after ‘‘having remained marginal to academic discourse’’ for decades, no longer a mere toddler in the field of humanities and social sciences thanks to a host of factors, from individual achievements to geopolitical shifts. Genocide, of course, is not young, not even as a concept. For instance, long before Nazi atrocities were famously dubbed ‘‘a crime without a name’’ by Winston Churchill in 1941, neologisms exactly similar to Raphael Lemkin’s 1943/44 invention of the Greek-Latin hybrid word ‘‘genocide,’’ (génos + -cide, i.e., the murder of a people/nation/race/tribe) were used by Scandinavian and German politicians, diplomats, reporters, and intellectuals from 1915, alongside ‘‘crimes against humanity,’’ ‘‘extermination,’’ and ‘‘race murder’’ to define or encapsulate the ongoing destruction of the Ottoman Armenians and Greeks. These neologisms were, for instance, folkemord, folkmord, and Völkermord, all combining the words ‘‘people’’ and ‘‘murder.’’ Both before and after that, the Greek genoktonia, the Armenian tseghaspanutiun, and several similar words synonymous with genocide were used in various languages, while the term ‘‘holocaust’’ was regularly employed as a term for the destruction of Christians in the Ottoman Empire since at least the Abdülhamid-massacres of the 1890s. It was up to devoted Polish-Jewish legal scholar and activist Lemkin, though, to not only precisely name the crime, but also take the most vital initial steps towards developing a legal-historical concept and framework of genocide based on case studies such as the ongoing Holocaust, the Holodomor, as well as the destruction of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks in the Ottoman Empire. As readers of this journal will know, it was a pioneering work that led directly to the 1948 UN definition criminalizing genocide, as well as to numerous scholarly definitions and debates that followed. After the slow start, genocide studies, comparative and otherwise, took off in earnest from the 1980s with a broad variety of historical, sociological, legal, anthropological, political, psychological, interdisciplinary, and so on, perspectives on mass violence, all basically exploring one or more of the questions of how and/or why do we do what we do when we are at our absolute worst? And how should we deal with this, individually, in groups, as a society after the fact, so that even the faintest of hopes of not only historical accuracy, but also of preventing similar crimes as well as preserving human dignity and justice, can be kept? This activist approach of going beyond the search for knowledge or explanations of human behavior has been pronounced in the field, as expressed by Canadian political scientist Maureen S. Hiebert: ‘‘Genocide studies has always been a
种族灭绝研究-简而言之，分析一个或多个有组织的大规模破坏案例-现在已经成为一门已经确立的学术学科。虽然它还很年轻，但由于个人成就和地缘政治变化等一系列因素，在“在学术话语中处于边缘地位”数十年后，它在人文和社会科学领域不再只是一个蹒跚学步的孩子。种族灭绝，当然，不是年轻的，甚至不是一个概念。例如，早在1941年温斯顿·丘吉尔将纳粹暴行称为“没有名字的罪行”之前，从1915年开始，斯堪的纳维亚和德国的政治家、外交官、记者和知识分子就开始使用与拉斐尔·莱姆金(Raphael Lemkin)在1943/44年发明的希腊-拉丁混合词“种族灭绝”(gsamnos + -cide，即对一个民族/国家/种族/部落的谋杀)完全相似的新词。以及“反人类罪”、“灭绝”和“种族谋杀”来定义或概括对奥斯曼亚美尼亚人和希腊人的持续破坏。例如，这些新词是folkmord、folkmord和Völkermord，它们都是由“人”和“谋杀”这两个词组合而成的。在此之前和之后，希腊语的genoktonia，亚美尼亚语的tseghaspanutiun，以及几个类似的与种族灭绝同义的词在各种语言中被使用，而“大屠杀”一词至少从19世纪90年代的abd哈米德大屠杀开始，就经常被用来形容奥斯曼帝国对基督徒的破坏。尽管如此，波兰犹太法律学者和活动家Lemkin不仅准确地命名了罪行，而且还采取了最重要的初步步骤，以发展种族灭绝的法律历史概念和框架，这些案例研究包括正在进行的大屠杀，Holodomor，以及奥斯曼帝国对亚美尼亚人，亚述人和希腊人的毁灭。正如本杂志的读者所知，这是一项开创性的工作，直接导致了1948年联合国将种族灭绝定义为刑事犯罪，以及随后的许多学术定义和辩论。在缓慢起步之后，种族灭绝研究，无论是比较研究还是其他研究，从20世纪80年代开始真正起飞，从历史学、社会学、法学、人类学、政治学、心理学、跨学科等角度对大规模暴力进行了广泛的研究，所有这些研究基本上都在探索一个或多个问题，即当我们处于最糟糕的状态时，我们如何以及/或为什么要做我们所做的事情?我们应该如何处理这个问题，无论是个人的、群体的，还是作为一个事后的社会，这样，即使是最微弱的希望，不仅是历史的准确性，而且是防止类似的犯罪，以及维护人类的尊严和正义，都可以保持下去?这种超越对人类行为的知识或解释的探索的激进方法在这个领域已经很明显，正如加拿大政治学家莫林·s·希伯特(Maureen S. Hiebert)所表达的那样:“种族灭绝研究一直是一个问题
{"title":"Integrated Genocide History","authors":"Matthias Bjørnlund","doi":"10.3138/GSI.12.1.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/GSI.12.1.10","url":null,"abstract":"The Context Genocide studies—in short, analyzing one or more cases of organized mass destruction—is by now a somewhat established academic discipline. While it is still young, it is, after ‘‘having remained marginal to academic discourse’’ for decades, no longer a mere toddler in the field of humanities and social sciences thanks to a host of factors, from individual achievements to geopolitical shifts. Genocide, of course, is not young, not even as a concept. For instance, long before Nazi atrocities were famously dubbed ‘‘a crime without a name’’ by Winston Churchill in 1941, neologisms exactly similar to Raphael Lemkin’s 1943/44 invention of the Greek-Latin hybrid word ‘‘genocide,’’ (génos + -cide, i.e., the murder of a people/nation/race/tribe) were used by Scandinavian and German politicians, diplomats, reporters, and intellectuals from 1915, alongside ‘‘crimes against humanity,’’ ‘‘extermination,’’ and ‘‘race murder’’ to define or encapsulate the ongoing destruction of the Ottoman Armenians and Greeks. These neologisms were, for instance, folkemord, folkmord, and Völkermord, all combining the words ‘‘people’’ and ‘‘murder.’’ Both before and after that, the Greek genoktonia, the Armenian tseghaspanutiun, and several similar words synonymous with genocide were used in various languages, while the term ‘‘holocaust’’ was regularly employed as a term for the destruction of Christians in the Ottoman Empire since at least the Abdülhamid-massacres of the 1890s. It was up to devoted Polish-Jewish legal scholar and activist Lemkin, though, to not only precisely name the crime, but also take the most vital initial steps towards developing a legal-historical concept and framework of genocide based on case studies such as the ongoing Holocaust, the Holodomor, as well as the destruction of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks in the Ottoman Empire. As readers of this journal will know, it was a pioneering work that led directly to the 1948 UN definition criminalizing genocide, as well as to numerous scholarly definitions and debates that followed. After the slow start, genocide studies, comparative and otherwise, took off in earnest from the 1980s with a broad variety of historical, sociological, legal, anthropological, political, psychological, interdisciplinary, and so on, perspectives on mass violence, all basically exploring one or more of the questions of how and/or why do we do what we do when we are at our absolute worst? And how should we deal with this, individually, in groups, as a society after the fact, so that even the faintest of hopes of not only historical accuracy, but also of preventing similar crimes as well as preserving human dignity and justice, can be kept? This activist approach of going beyond the search for knowledge or explanations of human behavior has been pronounced in the field, as expressed by Canadian political scientist Maureen S. Hiebert: ‘‘Genocide studies has always been a","PeriodicalId":40844,"journal":{"name":"Genocide Studies International","volume":"12 1","pages":"129 - 146"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42322649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Evidence For Hope: Making Human Rights Work in the 21st Century by Kathryn SikkinkKathryn Sikkink. Evidence For Hope: Making Human Rights Work in the 21st Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017. Pp. 318, hardcover, $35.00 US.","authors":"H. Hirsch","doi":"10.3138/gsi.12.1.09","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/gsi.12.1.09","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40844,"journal":{"name":"Genocide Studies International","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3138/gsi.12.1.09","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69300476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:Record collection and record preservation have direct consequences for survivors and often determine the efficacy of the production of genocide memory. Currently, there are increased restrictions that limit our access to evidence and threaten long-term preservation of records. This article will focus on the recent decision to permanently destroy Independent Assessment Process files within fifteen years. These records contain personal disclosures of serious abuses and their destruction reflects an uneasy precedent with record conservation. While institutions strive to protect the privacy and safety of survivors and respect the use of their information, there are concerns that the state, churches and organizations obscure memory through the use or misuses of records or use the terms of privacy to protect themselves. This paper will draw on examples of conflicts within access, privacy, respect, and memory that inevitably contribute or detract from efforts in reconciliation or transitional justice.
{"title":"Questions of Privacy and Confidentiality after Atrocity: Collecting and Retaining Records of the Residential School System in Canada","authors":"T. Logan","doi":"10.3138/GSI.12.1.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/GSI.12.1.06","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Record collection and record preservation have direct consequences for survivors and often determine the efficacy of the production of genocide memory. Currently, there are increased restrictions that limit our access to evidence and threaten long-term preservation of records. This article will focus on the recent decision to permanently destroy Independent Assessment Process files within fifteen years. These records contain personal disclosures of serious abuses and their destruction reflects an uneasy precedent with record conservation. While institutions strive to protect the privacy and safety of survivors and respect the use of their information, there are concerns that the state, churches and organizations obscure memory through the use or misuses of records or use the terms of privacy to protect themselves. This paper will draw on examples of conflicts within access, privacy, respect, and memory that inevitably contribute or detract from efforts in reconciliation or transitional justice.","PeriodicalId":40844,"journal":{"name":"Genocide Studies International","volume":"12 1","pages":"102 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42478217","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
James A. Tyner, M. Munro-Stasiuk, Corrine Coakley, Sokvisal Kimsroy, S. Rice
Abstract:Between 1975 and 1979 Cambodia was witness to a period of mass violence in which approximately two million people died from famine, disease, and murder. This violence was the result of policies initiated by the Communist Party of Kampuchea, better known as the Khmer Rouge. To date, little research has systematically or empirically studied the geography of specific practices, notably the construction of irrigation schemes, initiated by the CPK that produced those material conditions that resulted in death and deprivation. Using satellite images, aerial photographs, archival records, and field observation, we systematically document and map Khmer Rouge irrigation schemes. Findings indicate that approximately 7,000 kilometers of canals and dikes and over 350 reservoirs were constructed during the genocide. A six-class typology is forwarded, as we argue that local hydrologic and geomorphic conditions did figure in the construction of dams, dikes, canals, and reservoirs.
{"title":"Khmer Rouge Irrigation Schemes During the Cambodian Genocide","authors":"James A. Tyner, M. Munro-Stasiuk, Corrine Coakley, Sokvisal Kimsroy, S. Rice","doi":"10.3138/GSI.12.1.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/GSI.12.1.07","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Between 1975 and 1979 Cambodia was witness to a period of mass violence in which approximately two million people died from famine, disease, and murder. This violence was the result of policies initiated by the Communist Party of Kampuchea, better known as the Khmer Rouge. To date, little research has systematically or empirically studied the geography of specific practices, notably the construction of irrigation schemes, initiated by the CPK that produced those material conditions that resulted in death and deprivation. Using satellite images, aerial photographs, archival records, and field observation, we systematically document and map Khmer Rouge irrigation schemes. Findings indicate that approximately 7,000 kilometers of canals and dikes and over 350 reservoirs were constructed during the genocide. A six-class typology is forwarded, as we argue that local hydrologic and geomorphic conditions did figure in the construction of dams, dikes, canals, and reservoirs.","PeriodicalId":40844,"journal":{"name":"Genocide Studies International","volume":"12 1","pages":"103 - 119"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44814527","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:All cases of genocide in the modern era feature counterinsurgency in some capacity. Often, genocidal acts are justified as counterinsurgency, and counterinsurgency doctrines and tactics are employed to carry out many genocides. While genocides often have international dimensions, they are mostly carried out within the context of intrastate armed conflicts, almost all of which can be characterized as counterinsurgency. In this article, I expand upon Martin Shaw's model of Genocide as War by exploring the theoretical linkages between counterinsurgency and genocide to demonstrate where counterinsurgency fits into the genocide process. Two specific linkages are drawn to show how counterinsurgency complements the genocide process: total transformation of society through militarization, and exploitation of the asymmetries of power between the opposing groups. The relationship between counterinsurgency and genocide is not constructed as a causal one, but recursive (i.e., mutually reinforcing). By examining the Rwandan and Guatemalan Genocides, I demonstrate how genocide is operationalized through counterinsurgency in both cases. I conclude by providing areas for further investigation toward a unifying theory between the scholarships on genocide and counterinsurgency.
{"title":"Draining the Sea: Counterinsurgency as an Instrument of Genocide","authors":"Cheng Xu","doi":"10.3138/GSI.12.1.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/GSI.12.1.02","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:All cases of genocide in the modern era feature counterinsurgency in some capacity. Often, genocidal acts are justified as counterinsurgency, and counterinsurgency doctrines and tactics are employed to carry out many genocides. While genocides often have international dimensions, they are mostly carried out within the context of intrastate armed conflicts, almost all of which can be characterized as counterinsurgency. In this article, I expand upon Martin Shaw's model of Genocide as War by exploring the theoretical linkages between counterinsurgency and genocide to demonstrate where counterinsurgency fits into the genocide process. Two specific linkages are drawn to show how counterinsurgency complements the genocide process: total transformation of society through militarization, and exploitation of the asymmetries of power between the opposing groups. The relationship between counterinsurgency and genocide is not constructed as a causal one, but recursive (i.e., mutually reinforcing). By examining the Rwandan and Guatemalan Genocides, I demonstrate how genocide is operationalized through counterinsurgency in both cases. I conclude by providing areas for further investigation toward a unifying theory between the scholarships on genocide and counterinsurgency.","PeriodicalId":40844,"journal":{"name":"Genocide Studies International","volume":"12 1","pages":"25 - 6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49063186","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:This article analyzes the role of the United States during Argentina's 1976–1983 military dictatorship and their genocidal counterinsurgency war. We argue that Washington's policy evolved from the initially loose support of the Ford administration to what we call "the Carter exception" in 1977–79, when the violations of human rights were denounced and concrete measures taken to put pressure on the military to end their repressive campaign. However, with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and the end of the détente, human rights lost importance in Washington's foreign policy agenda. The Argentine military briefly recovered US support with Ronald Reagan in 1981, only to soon lose it with the Malvinas War. Argentina's defeat turned the page of the US upport to military dictatorships in Latin America and marked the debut of "democracy promotion."
{"title":"The Argentine Military and the Antisubversivo Genocide: The School of Americas' Contribution to the French Counterinsurgency Model","authors":"Khatchik Derghougassian, Leiza Brumat","doi":"10.3138/GSI.12.1.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/GSI.12.1.04","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article analyzes the role of the United States during Argentina's 1976–1983 military dictatorship and their genocidal counterinsurgency war. We argue that Washington's policy evolved from the initially loose support of the Ford administration to what we call \"the Carter exception\" in 1977–79, when the violations of human rights were denounced and concrete measures taken to put pressure on the military to end their repressive campaign. However, with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and the end of the détente, human rights lost importance in Washington's foreign policy agenda. The Argentine military briefly recovered US support with Ronald Reagan in 1981, only to soon lose it with the Malvinas War. Argentina's defeat turned the page of the US upport to military dictatorships in Latin America and marked the debut of \"democracy promotion.\"","PeriodicalId":40844,"journal":{"name":"Genocide Studies International","volume":"12 1","pages":"48 - 71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3138/GSI.12.1.04","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45722075","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Morning They Came for Us: Dispatches from Syria by Janine di Giovanni, and: A Road Unforeseen: Women Fight the Islamic State by Meredith Tax (review)","authors":"F. Totah","doi":"10.3138/GSI.11.2.09","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/GSI.11.2.09","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40844,"journal":{"name":"Genocide Studies International","volume":"11 1","pages":"254 - 260"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3138/GSI.11.2.09","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47840093","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the academic study of religion, on occasion, one studies what has come to be known as ‘‘apologetics,’’ that is, the defense and proof of religious doctrines through systematic arguments and discourses. Though it has a long history, we in the West most often associate it with various iterations of Christianity, yet apologetic works can also be found substantively in Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and other such expressions of religion. The rationale of such works has a twofold purpose: to ‘‘make sense’’ (i.e., a certain degree of rationalism) to the community of adherents to continue their allegiance, and to defend the faithful from attacks by outsiders who regard a given religion and religious community as a threat to the stability and power structure of a given nation-state. Focusing specifically on the question of genocide in the two texts examined below, one is reminded of the comment by Henry Huttenbach, Professor in the History Department of the City College of the City University of New York:
{"title":"Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence by Karen Armstrong, and: Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Grips with the Justice of God by Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan (review)","authors":"S. Jacobs","doi":"10.3138/GSI.11.2.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/GSI.11.2.10","url":null,"abstract":"In the academic study of religion, on occasion, one studies what has come to be known as ‘‘apologetics,’’ that is, the defense and proof of religious doctrines through systematic arguments and discourses. Though it has a long history, we in the West most often associate it with various iterations of Christianity, yet apologetic works can also be found substantively in Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and other such expressions of religion. The rationale of such works has a twofold purpose: to ‘‘make sense’’ (i.e., a certain degree of rationalism) to the community of adherents to continue their allegiance, and to defend the faithful from attacks by outsiders who regard a given religion and religious community as a threat to the stability and power structure of a given nation-state. Focusing specifically on the question of genocide in the two texts examined below, one is reminded of the comment by Henry Huttenbach, Professor in the History Department of the City College of the City University of New York:","PeriodicalId":40844,"journal":{"name":"Genocide Studies International","volume":"11 1","pages":"261 - 266"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3138/GSI.11.2.10","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42735336","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:Jehovah's Witnesses in countries under Nazi rule refused to participate in war-related activities in any way. Consequently, unless they abjured their religion, they were subject to severe penalties. Between 6,700 and 7,000 were sent to concentration camps. In contrast to Jewish Holocaust survivors, not much research has been conducted on this group. The present study used thematic content analysis to assess patterns of universal values, coping strategies, and resolutions of psychosocial crises as these were manifested in the memoirs and interviews of 62 Jehovah's Witness survivors of the camps, and compared those with the counterpart results of interviews with 58 Jewish survivors recorded in 1946. The results show differences tentatively attributable to the relative status of the Witnesses and Jews in Nazi ideology and in the lifestyles and religious beliefs of the two groups. Further research, with larger sample sizes, is needed for definitive conclusions to be drawn.
{"title":"The Faithful Do Not Yield: Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Camps","authors":"Sabrina C. H. Chang, P. Suedfeld","doi":"10.3138/GSI.11.2.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/GSI.11.2.06","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Jehovah's Witnesses in countries under Nazi rule refused to participate in war-related activities in any way. Consequently, unless they abjured their religion, they were subject to severe penalties. Between 6,700 and 7,000 were sent to concentration camps. In contrast to Jewish Holocaust survivors, not much research has been conducted on this group. The present study used thematic content analysis to assess patterns of universal values, coping strategies, and resolutions of psychosocial crises as these were manifested in the memoirs and interviews of 62 Jehovah's Witness survivors of the camps, and compared those with the counterpart results of interviews with 58 Jewish survivors recorded in 1946. The results show differences tentatively attributable to the relative status of the Witnesses and Jews in Nazi ideology and in the lifestyles and religious beliefs of the two groups. Further research, with larger sample sizes, is needed for definitive conclusions to be drawn.","PeriodicalId":40844,"journal":{"name":"Genocide Studies International","volume":" 17","pages":"228 - 239"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3138/GSI.11.2.06","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41253158","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：