Read: Samantha Power, “A Problem from Hell”: America in the Age of Genocide, pp. 31-78 (chapter 3, 4, and part of 5)

In this reading, you’ve read about the heroic story of Raphael Lemkin who, despite his valiant effort to define genocide and to persuade the UN to pass a Genocide Convention, died both penniless and in such a state that only seven people attended his funeral. A very sad end to a very distinguished career.

Lemkin’s doggedness is inspiring (though I am still uncertain what to make of Samantha Power comparing me to the relentless Lemkin). After considering what Samantha tells us about Lemkin’s struggle, I’d like you to reflect on the following five questions and respond accordingly:

• What do you make of the Allied suppression of the truth about the Final Solution?
• Why was it ultimately so important—not only to Raphael Lemkin, but to the world—that a word like “genocide” be invented and be used?
• Does the UN’s “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” (pp. 62-63) do the trick? Is it sufficient to actually prevent (and punish) genocide?
• Does the discussion of genocide (by the UN, by Lemkin) make clear the difference between “ethnic cleansing” and “mass murder” and genocide?
• Today the United States, under current president George Bush, opposes the International Criminal Court (ICC) and has reversed the US signature on the treaty establishing this Court in The Hague. The principal objection is that the Court could take action against or prosecute Americans, something that the US government argues would infringe on US sovereignty. How does this position parallel the US position on the genocide convention?

I think that the Allies suppressed the truth about the Final Solution because they wanted to keep out of the whole situation and save themselves from having to do anything about it. It is kind of like the saying "what you don't know won't hurt you," but in this case, the Allies chose not to know and actually come out and say that anything was happening in the Nazi regime. It is quite obvious that what they did was wrong and maybe if someone had recognized the Final Solution as legitimate while it was still in the works, then maybe there might not have been a Final Solution at all.

It is important to everyone for a word like "genocide" to be invented and used because it gives a name to the mass murders and slaughters and to the various genocides that have occurred since the 1900s. To just classify them as mass killings and such does not truly make it known to the world what they are or what happened during them. The disussion by the UN and Lemkin about genocide does, however, help to clear up a little bit of the fuzziness that many people may have about the difference between genocide, "ethnic cleansing," and "mass murder."

I honestly think that the UN's "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" is crap. How can someone prevent or punish someone else for something that they themselves are too afraid to say actually happened? This convention is definitely not sufficient in doing the trick because it is not even doing anything. I believe that the UN is using this convention to give the illusion that it is supporting a good cause when in actuality it is doing so only to boost the reputation of the UN and gain more support.

It was too late for the allies to do anything about the past- millions of lives had already been lost on their watch and I beleive that they didn't want to take responsability for what they knew and probably could have prevented. They were bystanders in an international systematic unimaginable mass murder. Though it's tough to be orchestrating an excuse for these people, it's unfortunately the way that politics work.
Though I think that Lemkin was absolutely insane and out of control, his work was immeasurably impecable. We need to have a word to define the tragedies of the world, otherwise people can literally get away with murder. With a definition and a word, everyone can be measured on the same scale, even if it may be imperfect.
I don't think that the UN's "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide"is severe enough because there are so many loopholes- you can only really define something as a genocide until it's almost too late. there are so many nuances that there is no way to stop something before it's too late. It's better than nothing, but this convention and resolution was far from perfect.
I think that there should be no distinction between ethnic cleansing, mass murder, and genocide in my mind. For me, a killing is a killing, and any type of murder should be punished no matter what. I don't care if there was a million dollars, another day of food, or a reputaion on the other side of the table- to me it is never justified to take another life.
Americans are being selfish in this situation as in many others. Just because our actions might be judged doesn't mean that we should avoid persecuting the rest of the world. It's selfish and two faced, and there's a part of me that actually wants the US to be tried because our administration is becoming completely out of control. But that's just my twisted view...

The Allies knew what was happening all along; they could have stopped the Holocaust before and while it was happening. It is not surprising at all that they didn't come out and say the Nazis were wrong and that the "Final Solution" really did happen because if they did they would have admitted that they were wrong in not going in and stopping this from happening. It's sick to think about. Millions of people were taken from their home and killed for no apparent reason other than the fact that Hitler thought they were not worthy of life. The Americans and the rest of the world could have stopped this and should have stopped this but they didn't and it is absolutely horrible.

It's horrible to think that Raphael Lemkin worked so hard to pass a law that banned the mass killings of people. People weren't even willing to listen to him and he was left poor, shabby and sleep deprived. He is a remarkable relentless man who worked extremely hard for what he believed in something that the whole world should have easily believed in; we have to end genocide. It sickens me to think that right now there are troops in Iraq fighting this "war against terror" to supposedly stop bad people but the world can't act against genocide.

The UN's “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” is more or less totally completely useless. There are so many gaps in it and so many excuses not to call something a genocide it's ridiculous. And what is going to happen once something is called a genocide? Nothing, obviously. There's not an abundance of people over in Sudan right now stopping the genocide that's occuring right now, so it's obvious that this is just a bunch of crap.

The word genocide definetly needed to be coined in order to really represent how bad of a crime a genocide truly is. Genocide is the killing of an entire race or group of people. It's different than ethnic cleaning or mass murder because a whole group of people are the target of a complete extermination. The word genocide is a very strong word and can't be used lightly but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used. If the US are going to say genocide is bad and something needs to be done about it I don't see how the US can stay out of joining the ICC. I don't know if the US joining the ICC would really make any more of a difference in terms of how the world acts against genocide but it almost seems as if the US not joining the ICC is against the values that the US holds.

I agree whole heartedly with yummigummi that the United States’ original motive for suppressing the truth about the Final Solution was to be as far removed from the situation as possible. As we discussed in class, when the United States joined the war, rescuing the Jews was not on the list of purposes. The reasons were more economic than anything else. America seemed to have a mentality of "ignorance is bliss"; that maybe if the truth about the Final Solution were never to become front page news, then it would not be our problem. However, ignoring it was probably the worst thing to do because genocide is everybody’s problem.

The word “genocide” is an important one because unfortunately once it is used enough, it begins to carry with it a certain image. Oddly enough, it seems as though a word has to power to make something so much more real for everyone. The word “genocide” puts things into perspective and helps us realize when things are happening on such a large scale.

This might seem like an oversimplified answer but I would have to say that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide does not work because if it did, there should not be a genocide taking place right now. I feel about this the way I feel about the death penalty; you can punish people until you’re blue in the face, if it were that effective, it wouldn’t be necessary.

I think that I had a predetermined idea about the difference between “mass murder” and “ethnic cleansing”. I think the discussion we read about proved some of my thoughts to be true while clarifying other ideas I had; so I would consider it helpful.

I have to agree with livinthecharles in that our government is getting completely out of control. If the government maintains its innocence in crimes that could be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court, then what are we so afraid of. If we have nothing to hide and the ICC is something that could benefit others around the world, why would we oppose it? And livinthecharles, I don’t consider your view twisted at all!

we haven't changed at all
 

The Allied suppression of the truth about the Final Solution shows how indifferent and selfish they were. How morally ignorant and “barbaric” an organized a civilized force it was. They know the truth but choose not to acknowledge, and to ignore of the situation. This is a larger scale of human general attitude of uncaring of the other’ people’s problem. But it is disgusting—the Final Solution is not a merely a problem, it is a human-planned extinction of another group of human- brutal beyond description. How could any group, having all the power and authority to take action, choose to allow it? Sadly, even when they finally decide to do anything, it is just superficial action. The UN’s “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” are merely spoken/written words. Words remain words. No actions. Those words are there, merely to answer to the desperate voices of the compassionates like Lemkin. Those very well crafted words by civilized men are just a beautiful skin to cover the uselessness of the UN. Those words are merely meaningless, fake assurance to humankind that there is justice. But NO, it does no trick. It does nothing but giving the innocents a positive illusion that there are punishment and prevention to crime. It is a sadistic LIE because history and presence has proved it failure to prevent and punish genocides that are happening after the Holocaust. It is happening in Daufur and what has been done to stop it?
On the case of the coining and usage of the word “genocide,” it is essential. Human communicates by mean of language. If there is word for random trivial things in our daily life, then it is important that a term, one that can accurately reveals the true nature of an action imposed on humankind. That action is a crime thus it needs a term that automatically reveal the “criminal nature” of the definition of the word. Anything term that has “cide” such as deicide or suicide automatically suggest that it is a crime thus there is no other word as appropriate as genocide. The discussion of genocide succeed in distinguish the word from “ethnic cleansing” and “mass murder.” Genocide suggests “systematic” and “destruction” ---these are not necessarily incorporated in “ethnic cleansing” or “mass murder.”

The United States really does not get any better in term of its “lawful” morality. Decades ago, it has hesitated and delayed the ratification of the ratification of the treaty concerning the genocide convention. Today it is opposing the ICC. Being an influential international leader, such US actions’ on both cases have major effects on the decision and attitude of the rest of the world. Sadly, on both case, we are not acting the best we can.

Analyzing the impact of the genocide convention and the United States's initiatives, i concluded that we don't really learn much from history (negative history)

I still find it hard to believe that so many countries including the United States knew about Hitler’s plan to exterminate the Jews and didn’t really try to prevent anything. I know it was hard to believe at first, but after so many accounts and testimonies, the horrors were known, and still they chose to do nothing. I think one of the reasons the Allies hid the truth was because they were hesitant to do anything that might make them seem as too sympathetic to the Jews. I also don’t know if they were willing to spend any resources on a situation in which they might’ve thought not much could be done to stop the Nazis from killing the Jews.

I think it was extremely important for Lemkin to invent and lobby so much for the word genocide to be used because it gave the horrors of the Holocaust and other genocides that occured a way to be described so that the word would immediately make an impact whenever used. By inventing the word, it also helped in helping future generations know what signs to look for to try to prevent a genocide from occuring again. Sadly, leaders today are usually hesitant to deem mass killings as genocides because it means that they then have to respond, something that may (unfortunately) conflict with certain political interests of the country/countries.

The UN’s Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide unfortunately doesn’t do enough to stop and prevent genocide because mass killings have to occur before it is considered a genocide, and there is always the problem of how many people have to die before it is more than just mass killings. The Convention also isn’t specific enough in terms of what countries need to do once a genocide is identified. I think that’s the conventions main flaw because calling it a genocide and doing nothing in response defeats the purpose and doesn’t help the problem in any way except that it brings awareness to it. I also don’t think that there are any clear distinctions between ethnic cleansing, mass murder, and genocide, though the first two can certainly indicate a potential genocide. However if numbers were used to gauge how many people have to die before it is labeled as one of the three, like mentioned in Samantha Power’s book, it would give the perpetrators a percentage of people they would be allowed to kill before anyone stepped in on the side of the UN.

I think it is vey hypocritical of Bush to not support the International Court because Americans could get tried in it. If Americans committed any crime that was serious enough and went beyond our borders that it should be tried at the court, then the government shouldn’t try to stop it. Anyone else can be held responsible for their actions except our lovely government it seems. It is not fair that the US likes to force others to follow rules yet we don’t have to abide by them.

I almost cried when I read that only 7 people went to Lemkin’s funeral. That’s like my worst fear in life and I’m distraught that someone who worked so hard for something he believed in didn’t even get enough respect after his death. He even died while talking with someone about his beliefs, still with papers in his pockets.

I find it quite amoral that the Allies basically turned their backs on what was happening with the Final Solution. I understand why nations would want to stay isolated from certain issues like politics or something that should remain a concern of the nation itself and not other nations, but when human lives are at stake and completely innocent people are being killed in large numbers daily, I don’t understand how people could stand by and attempt to down play it. Maybe they thought that their involvement in the war itself was enough and they were doing there part with it, but I still think they knew there could be more that they could have done.

It was important for the word genocide to be created because it identified a specific crime against humanity and now particular punishments and rules can be applied to it. And since it was created after the Holocaust, it gives it more meaning. Like the book says, words like extermination are not powerful enough to describe what was happening to the Jews and past victims of genocide, and a word such as genocide is needed. Although sometimes I think that even though a word is needed to describe what was happening, now I think people sometimes dwell to much on whether an event was indeed a genocide..its like what’s happening is happening and if you’re a moral person you’ll know that its wrong and it may not totally fit under the definition of genocide but if its darn close then I think ti deserves to be treated basically the same.

I don’t think the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” totally prevents genocide, but at least it basically constitutes what genocide, although there is the problem that is discussed in the book of how many people need to be killed or threatened for it to be in deed a genocide.

I’m still un clear about he difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide..I guess ethnic cleansing is a part of genocide but im still not sure, but they do make clear the difference between mass murder and genocide.

I don’t understand why the US opposes the ICC. Maybe the US should be prosecuted. I understand that he’s trying to protect Americans, but he’s covering up their faults that are pretty clear to many people.

eeek sorry i rambled muchos.

The world was "counting sheep" as it remained indifferent...
 

Looking at the history of genocide is like a double-edged sword – on the one hand it’s utterly horrifying and painful to comprehend how malicious human beings can be to each other, and on the other hand, it is almost just as sickening to realize how indifferent people can be toward each other.

The Allied suppression of the truth about the Final Solution resulted in the additional deaths of millions of victims. As determined as certain people threatened by the Nazis were to stand up to Nazi oppression (like in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising), ultimately help would have to come from outside. It is far-fetched to claim that had the Allies interceded, the genocide would have come to a sudden stop. But it is also ridiculous to say that some action by the Allies would have been useless. At the very least, people in concentration camps (and elsewhere) would have known that somebody actually cared. Unfortunately, the Allies did not care. Not only did they not care, they made sure that hardly anyone paid attention to the genocide unfolding in Europe.

Better late than never? After the world failed to act during the Holocaust, the UN held its "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide." The law was passed and ratified by twenty countries, and yet since December 9, 1948, genocide has occurred again in Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, and in other places, too. Holding such a convention was a brilliant idea (in theory), coming just a few years after World War II ended. I disagree with livinthecharles that it was too late for the Allies to do anything about the past – it would be wrong to simply forget about what had happened just because the past can’t be changed. But the results have proved to be all but ineffective (it’s depressing that yummigummi’s comparison of the convention to "crap" is not completely unjustified).

Darkroom points out that "The UN’s ‘Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide’ are merely spoken/written words. Words remain words. No actions." The truth of the matter is that actions could speak louder than words, if only actions were taken.

As "A Problem from Hell" explains, a unique word was needed for genocide so it could not be mistaken for or confused with similar concepts. Sadly, the "birth" of the new world subsequently led to the need to have a precise definition for it. This in turn has led to the seemingly endless debate on how to define genocide so that everyone is satisfied. It seem that while politicians are busy arguing over the minimum percentage of a population that has to die for a situation to be dubbed "genocide," the problem is still lurking in our midst. There is no clear line that can be drawn between what is genocide and what is not. While the word "genocide" is necessary for clarification, the complications of the definition create problems of their own.

And finally…Heaven forbid that the United States should have to be held accountable for its own unjust actions! Some Nazis were tried for their crimes during the war, but no one tried the United States for dropping not one but two atomic bombs during the war or for bombings like in Dresden, or for allowing the Statue of Liberty to remain standing while the doors to the "Land of Opportunity" were all but sealed shut. Is a reputation for sovereignty worth opposing the formation of an International Criminal Court? Perhaps a reputation is more important, seeing as it was worth refusing to agree to outlaw genocide…

It seems that the Allies suppressed the truth for various reasons, not all of which were necessarily "evil." Some were just unfortunate yet understandable parts of human nature. Especially towards the beginning of the reading today, Power cited many instances of people simply being unable to fully believe that the genocide was occurring, despite of, or perhaps because of what they heard. And that's reasonable... I mean, who wants to believe that anything like the wholesale massacre of bunch innocent people is being committed in the civilized world? It's sometimes easier not to believe, to dismiss to avoid the terrible thoughts. Then there were those who just couldn't fathom what was occurring... As Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter said to the testimony of Karski, "I don't believe you. I do not mean that you are lying. I simply said I cannot believe you." (34) And in a time of war especially, no one trusts the media to be entirely truthful,since propoganda is everywhere.

Of course, it is shameful that the Allies never acted to stop these crimes against humanity. They had so many opportunities to intervene, but they did nothing. Anti Semitism may have played a role, but it seems that a large part of it was just the amazing ability leaders had to create excuses. The endless strings of excuses they had for why they didn't make further efforts to stop, or at least publicize, the Final Solution, gave them the personal justification they needed to sleep at night.

It was extremely important that the word "genocide" be coined so that there was an accurate word for the event. If Lemkin had simply settled for "mass murder" or one of the other various words he considered, over time the Holocaust and other genocides to follow would lose their true meaning. The Holocaust was not simply a "mass murder;" that word does not properly illustrate the deliberate intent to exterminate a large portion of a group of people. There existed no word with the proper meanings and connotations, so one had to be created. Had the word not been created, an entire category of events would be lumped together in history with unequal events and remembered incorrectly.

As for the UN's Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, it's a great idea, really. But as darkroom and Hillel mentioned, great ideas are of little use unless they're enacted. They've gone to so much trouble defining the word "genocide," but since then nations have been awfully reluctant to apply the word to current events. Without applying the word to an event, nothing can be done under the convention. As for that definition, I'm not certain where the difference between "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" is shown, but the difference between "genocide" and "mass murder" is clear. "Genocide" requires specific intent to harm a group, whereas "mass murder" could simply be random.

As for good ol' little Bush and his opposition of the ICC, it's proof that Santayana was right when he said that quote that's so overused in our school that i won't bother. I agree with Dar1128... If an American commits a crime bad enough to catch the attention of the ICC, they certainly should be prosecuted. I think i personally would be greatful to get such a bad case off my hands and into the hands of the ICC... i wouldn't want to deal with that. (or make my taxpayers pay for the proceedings, either.)

Lemkin
 

I beleive that the Allies and the United States were too scared of the reality of the Holocuast. Getting involved in Eastern Europe and stopping the Nazis meant that American boys would have to be sent over and risk their lives in a new war. Most likely still somewhat shaken by the effets of World War I, Americans must have been hesitant to enter a new war when the previous war had left devastating effects throughout the world. I am not saying I am not disgusted that our government didn't do anything but I can see what went through thier minds. The U.S. had entered into a state of "splendid isolationism," in which they were only concerned with thier own welfare. We have learned the FDR and much of his cabinet feared being labeled as overly sypathetic to the Jews. Across the country Ant-Semitism had spread, and politicians were too concerned with keeping thier positions rather than the welfare of millions of innocent people.

I think the word "genocide" is crucial to our present society. When we use that word we know that something terrible is happening, that word should mean a call to action, a halt untill something is done and that we must get involved or else we will see further Holocausts and we will break our promises that "never again" will we let innocent people be slaughtered. The word genocide is a call to the world, call which we can not ignore or shut ourselves out to. To be honest - I don't really care about the differences between "mass murder" and "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" becaue that means we are wasting time debating the politics of words that all mean the same thing - the death of innocent people. It bothers me when we have to get technical about what term should be used. For me all three are horrible and unjustified and the idea that governments and organizations waste time debating the technicality of the words instead od doing something to stop the need for the use of them is gross.

It is unfortunate that Bush can not see how important the Inernational Criminal Court is (if only he could take FHAO). If Americans commit an international atrocity they should be pnished accordingly. It does not matter whether the American court punishes them, it matters that they get punished. This court sends the message that you cannnot commit these crimes and get away with it. Perhaps if we took part in this court we could have a greater effect in Darfur because then the murderers would know that the world does care and perhaps would even fear punishment enough to stop the mass atrocities.

I applaud the UN Convention's ideas for Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” but not thier efforts. As one of my classmates said there are too many loopholes, too many exceptions and not enough action. In this case the pen is useless and we need the sword to be picked up and used to frighten and threaten those that oppose World unity. Laws don't mean anything unless they are enforced and in the case of the Sudan we have already wasted too much time. Right now as I'm trying ot argue my point about doing something there are people dying. it's overwhelming and frusterating becasue what do I do? What can I do and what can I get other people to do? It just seems that all these words and tlakabout action get us nowhere because we still haven't done anything.

It's enough to make you wanna go Canadian, isn't it?
 

In response to this first question, it is hard to say what I make of the Allied suppression of the truth except that it is positively sinful, and shameful. Again, it plays into what was talked about in the film - the world just preferred to pretend that nothing was happening. If they buried our heads for long enough, they wouldn’t have to see the terrible things that were happening all around them. As yummigummi and Pumpkinloaf said, the objective of the Allies was to keep their hands clean; they wanted to know as little as possible, so that they could be as little involved as possible. Certainly we could not have stopped the genocide immediately, but our help, even in small amounts, would have saved the lives of thousands. Instead, we chose to do nothing. And it makes me personally ashamed of this country to live with that knowledge.

The word “genocide” is meant to carry a certain weight that terms like “mass murder” don’t. The magnitude and severity of massacres like the Holocaust needed a word to define them separately, so that people - jaded as we are - wouldn’t think of it as just another series of random murders. When one uses the word “genocide”, it tells the world that there is a hidden agenda behind the killings. It communicates that this is an attempt to wipe out an entire people. Everything about it - from its sound to its usage - suggests its severity. It is important that incidences like Rwanda and the Holocaust be distinct, so that one may refer back to them for what they were: the extermination of an entire race.

As for the convention, . . . the proof is in the pudding. Of course these gatherings and seemingly active efforts look good on paper, but how can one say that such a convention was sufficient to the prevention of genocide, given the amount of genocides that took place afterwards? Of course, the genocide that occurred in WWII needed to be discussed, and the issue confronted. But a large part of the convention’s mission was to ensure that such an event could never take place again. In this respect, it failed. As Darkroom said, “words are only words”. Words are worthless when they are not followed by action, and they were not. What more is there to say?


As for the distinction between “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” and “mass murder”, etc., it is unfortunately still difficult to determine between them. As Hillel2000 mentioned, the word’s birth was followed by a necessity to give it an exact definition. Now, what constitutes genocide and what does not is a point of much debate. Due to this, there are still blurry lines between “ethnic cleansings”, “genocides”, and other terms that communicate mass murders of prechosen peoples. it is difficult to determine what would be necessary for these distinctions to become concrete, as this may never be a reality. there will always be dispute about what constitutes a genocide, versus other words that may seem slightly less severe in their implications.

Finally . . . . it is difficult to even comment on Bush’s disgustingly pompous attitude toward this country. “Infringe on US sovereignty”? - are you kidding me? To be honest, the first thing this reminded me of was the argument a long time ago, back when there was more war in Iraq, that one could not assess the validity of the war for risk of lowering American morale and patriotism. Tell me, Bushie . . . what century are you living in? All of a sudden, we are exempt from punishment for fear of challenging the world’s belief in America’s perfection? What is our sovereignty worth if we are merely abusing it to protect our own hides? We do not get to declare ourselves above the convictions of the ICC . . . superpower or no, we are a country like any other (not as good as many others, at the moment, and certainly not back then). We should be tried like any other.
Oh - and a special message to our president, at the risk of sounding disrespectful? Get over yourself.

The suppression of truth about the Final Solution is a bunch of crap. I don't even understand the government's problem with accepting refugees into the country. What's wrong with accepting refugees into the country? Isn't America a big country filled with refugees anyway? Why not have more? Just because the country wanted to stay out of the war, we abandonned millions of people in need. It really is a shame on our country.

The invention of the word genocide was really important because it defines for us the mass-murder "style" which is being used a lot during the twentieth century. Whenever we hear the word now, we think of the Holocaust or of Rwanda or Darfur and of bodies floating down rivers and death marches. Because of this, as huckabees said, the word genocide ends up carry a lot more punch than does mass murder.

I think that conventions are good but they're useless unless governments actually take action to stop genocides as they occur, rather than just wait until after its done to say that they SHOULDve taken action. Honestly, I feel like any initiative for action made by a government is just going to get stuck and caught up in the bureaucracy which has become the UN and the US (both of which have been really annoying me lately)

no excuses
 

I truly don't have an answer as to why the Allies surpressed the Final Solution truth. I guess i can understand why they wouldn't want an involvement in the war, but that has nothing to do with saving people's lives who need help. And it's not an issue about having "sympathy for Jews," it's a matter of having compassion for human beings who need support, and a place to escape to. Like bluecollarjob said, there is enough room in this country for refugees. And it's not like the Nazis were just moving Jews out of thier villages, they were killing them and America knew that. In this case, America has absolutely no excuse for not helping those whose lives needed saving.

The invention of the term "genocide" was extemely important. It lets everyone know that whatever is going on is a serious situation. And it's more effective than just saying mass murdering or shootings, etc. It conveys a feeling, i feel that everyone can agree that genocide is a word that makes you cringe when you hear it. Whenever i hear it, it finally registers in my mind that a serious problem is happening. And it acurrately states what's happening, the killing of a mass amount of people. The word can stop people and make them realize that it's bad, whatever is happening is bad and an extremely serious situation.

The UN’s “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” is obviously a step to try and controlling/preventing genocide. However, it is obvious in present day that the convention isn't successful. Take the genocide in Darfur, the convention has proven itself ineffective. But how do we prevent genocide? How can we? Who ever sees it coming? Who would have ever thought that there would be a time when Jews and other targetted people would be systematically humiliated, disrespected, killed, and burned while the whole world did nothing? The point that i'm trying to make is that each genocide is so unimaginable and horrific that nobody knows how to handle it.

There are small variations to each term but they (ethnic cleansing, mass murder, and genocide) all have to do with a large murder. Each term is pretty self explanatory and to me, they all are used to define the killing of a large group of people. I feel, the most effective of the three terms, in describing situations, is genocide.

In terms of the opposition to the ICC, in America it's always just about America. Which has its negative and positive aspects. In this case, i think it's extremely unfortunate that the leaders of this country can be so scared. The oppostion according to the government is the fear of America being persecuted. Which in itself is scary... what is the American government doing or what are they thinking will be so awful that will land them will a prosecution from the ICC?

It's only a word
 

The Allied supression of the truth was not done for the right reasons. It was done to not shock the delicate nature of world citizens and to keep a level of decency to the daily news. However, how could genocide be considered too shocking for people to handle? The mere idea is probably unfathomable, but hearing "unjustified murder" should make people think 'We HAVE to do something!' other than 'Eww! I don't want to hear it!'. If anything, it was an attempt on the Allies to part to sidestep any responsibility that comes with being a respected government. I'm still having issues with the impression that the United States has soveriegn-like powers; I thought we were a democracy?

I think the word genocide fits the crime perfectly. I always though that mass murder and ethnic cleansing were synonyms, but now I see that genocide is the only way to describe Darfur, Bosnia, Cambodia and the other tragic events that have occured in last century and in this one as well. When I hear genocide, I always think of the Holocaust first, where people were killed for no good reason. And that's how I always see genocide, and I think that's how other people see it too: cold-blooded murder.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide does a fine job of laying out a foundation, but in the end, some people found loopholes through it, and still others decided to battle over the exact definition of genocide. What got me so heated was when a lawyer asked if killing 10,001 out of 20,000 people made it genocide. Really, what do the numbers matter? If a government kills even 10 people without a clear reason, without them being a threat of any sort, then it should be punished even if it isn't genocide, right? Murder is never justified, and should never be justified. We make a big deal about the murder of one person on the news (not that it isn't important) but people can't handle the deaths of 40,000? The simple fact is that they are both wrong.

The U.N just lost itself going through the rounds of defining each and ever single word in the articles. Lemkin said it best: Every day of delay is concession to death. Lemkin knew what genocide was, and he knew that it was better to act early than later, when the damage was done and irreverisble. I think his definition is perfect, and I don't see why a council set up for the sole purpose of preventing genocide needs to be picky about what the definition is. If they see something that they can agree on is genocide, then why can't they call a red flag? At least it'll tell however's trying to start it that they can't hide from their vigilance.

I know that a government tries to do the best for their people at all times, but to run away from a court because of fear of being persecuted is telling the whole world something. We can bring up cases of injustice against others but not against ourselves? If anything, I think that admitting our mistakes and owning up to them is more courageous than running away. It may not be the best thing to do when your 'reputation' is on the line, but at least we don't seem to have double standards. No country is without its dark spots in history, and while I think the United States has some extremely dark ones, it shouldn't be brought up. I'd like to see something like that, but it would only cause anger and conflict over something that has happened so long ago. We can only deal with the present, and I think that's what Lemkin died trying to do: protecting the present and future.

labels
 

It is unnerving to hear that heads of governments knew of Hitler’s final solution. The fact that it was covered up to prevent action makes it even worse. If one pretends they do not see it did not really happen right? It’s been a reoccurring even t in history and it’s shameful.

It was so important to the world that a word like genocide be created because that would mean action would have to be taken. People believed that if it had a name no one could ignore it. That the word would hold so much power that it would stop lives from being destroyed and what happened during the holocaust would never happen again. The UN’s “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” is far from doing a sufficient job. It does not have enough power and it can write all the papers it wants but action is not taken. A popular phrase is "is has no teeth", which is very true. It can not force countries to abide by the rules they set and the plans they make. This leaves gaps where ideas look good on paper and what it takes to make it a reality.

I’m not really sure what the difference is between genocide, mass killings and ethnic cleansing. To me, it is a large amount of innocent people dying at the hands of others who wish them gone for reasons known to them only. Lives should not be considered more important when the death toll rises to a point of being labeled. One life should be enough for action.

The US makes no sense. The values it holds dear seem to change on which will better benefit them selves. The US thinks too highly of them selves and should not be afraid to be tried. For who is above the law? One cannot say that genocide is terrible and must be stopped and then turn around and dig their heels in about taking action and being involved in something that will stop it. Overall this whole problem with the world and genocide is rather upsetting. What will it take for everyone to get off their high horses and face reality?

The Allied suppression of the truth about the Final Solution resulted in many more deaths than if the Allies initially organized military and aid to go and resolve the situation instead of ignoring it or trying to hide it.

The creation of the word genocide was very important for the world because it helps define an atrocity that could have previously been treated the same as a two sided war. It is easy for other countries to dismiss foreign problems by calling them internal turmoil or just blowing off situations by calling them foreign wars. With the invention of this word, countries can (or in theory they should not be able to) not just dismiss such acts because they are genocide and they agreed not to step back from helping victims of genocides.

The UN’s convention doesn’t do anything. There have already been at least five genocides since the law was passed. That is approximately one every ten years (though some have come at very close intervals). So, basically, after around fifty plus years, the UN did not prevent any genocides (though if they had, it would be hard to tell that they actually did so). They do try to punish people for their crimes, but often times it is too late because the culprits are getting old and dieing in custody and the legal process takes forever. Also, many war criminals run away and hide and the UN is unable to bring many of them to justice. The bottom line is that the UN in its current state, under its current leadership-and much of its former leadership, does not get the job done. It just doesn’t have enough support from the international community to really make something happen beyond the ink of the ratified law.

The meaning of all terms such as genocide can be manipulated to fit a certain scenario. Words like these do not have clear cut definitions that everybody agrees upon. This can result in problems because in order to help people suffering in genocide, one first needs to recognize it as such. If there are all kinds of definitions of the word, then it will be hard for people to agree on the severity of a situation and therefore have differing opinions on what kind and how much aid to send. Ethnic Cleansing, Mass Murder, and Genocide are all similar in meaning but also have slight differences. Personally, I feel that all of these things should still be lumped together and treated the same because peoples lives are in danger. This would also make it easier for organizations like the UN to deal with such atrocities. Instead of worrying about what something is defined as, they could see that people need help and just help them.

The U.S just doesn’t want to deal with it’s own wartime atrocities, like the dropping of two nuclear bombs resulting in catastrophic numbers of deaths. It makes sense the U.S. doesn’t want this court to exist. They don’t want to be accountable for their actions. Im so sick of this attitude that Americans are better than everyone else. If an American screws up, he should be prosecuted just like everyone else even if it “infringes upon U.S. sovereignty”.