Genocide denial

Genocide denial is the attempt to deny or minimize the scale and severity of an instance of genocide. Denial is an integral part of genocide[1][2][3] and includes the secret planning of genocide, propaganda while the genocide is going on,[1] and destruction of evidence of mass killings. According to genocide researcher Gregory Stanton, denial "is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres".[4]

Part of a series on
Genocide
Issues
18th and 19th century genocides
Early 20th century genocides
World War II (1939–1945)
Cold War (1940s–1991)
Contemporary genocides
Related topics
Category
Part of a series on
Denial of mass killings
Instances of denial
Scholarly controversy over mass killings
Related topics

Some scholars define denial as the final stage of a genocidal process.[1] Richard G. Hovannisian states, "Complete annihilation of a people requires the banishment of recollection and suffocation of remembrance. Falsification, deception and half-truths reduce what was, to what might have been or perhaps what was not at all."[5]

Examples include denial of atrocities against Indigenous peoples, Holocaust denial, Armenian genocide denial, and Bosnian genocide denial. The distinction between respectable academic historians and illegitimate historical negationists and revisionists, including genocide deniers, rests upon the techniques which are used in the writing of such histories. Illegitimate historical revisionists and negationists rewrite history in order to support an agenda, which is usually political, by using falsification and rhetorical fallacies in order to obtain their desired results.

Analysis

According to Taner Akçam, "the practice of 'denialism' in regard to mass atrocities is usually thought of as a simple denial of the facts, but this is not true. Rather, it is in that nebulous territory between facts and truth where such denialism germinates."[6]

David Tolbert, president of the International Center for Transitional Justice, states:

Denial is the final fortress of those who commit genocide and other mass crimes. Perpetrators hide the truth to avoid accountability and protect the political and economic advantages they sought to gain by mass killings and theft of the victims' property, and to cement the new reality by manufacturing an alternative history. Recent studies have established that such denial not only damages the victims and their destroyed communities, it promises a future based on lies, sowing the seeds of future conflict, repression and suffering.[7]

Motives and strategies

Genocide scholar Adam Jones proposes a framework for genocide denial that consists of the following motives and strategies:[8]

  • "Hardly anybody died." When the genocides lie far in the past, denial is easier.
  • "It wasn't intentional." Disease and famine-causing conditions such as forced labor, concentration camps and slavery (even though they may be manufactured by the perpetrator) may be blamed for casualties.
  • "There weren't that many people to begin with." Minimizing the casualties of the victims, whilst the criminals destroy/hide the evidence.
  • "It was self defense." The killing of civilians, especially able bodied males is rationalized in preemptive attack, as they are accused of plotting against the perpetrators. The perpetrator may exterminate witnesses and relatives of the victims.
  • "There was no central direction." Perpetrators can use militias, paramilitaries, mercenaries, or death squads to avoid being seen as directly participating.
  • "It wasn't/isn't 'genocide,' because ..." They may enter definitional or rhetorical argumentation.
  • "We would never do that." Self-image cannot be questioned: the perpetrator sees itself as benevolent by definition. Evidence doesn't matter.
  • "We are the real victims." They deflect attention to their own casualties/losses, without historical context.

By individuals and non-governmental organizations
  • In his 1984 book The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas argued that only "a few hundred thousand" Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, the Jews brought the Holocaust upon themselves because of their behavior, and Zionists had collaborated with the Nazis in an attempt to send more Jews to Israel. In a 2006 interview, without retracting these specific claims, he stated: "The Holocaust was a terrible, unforgivable crime against the Jewish nation, a crime against humanity that cannot be accepted by humankind."[9]
  • In February 2006 David Irving was imprisoned in Austria for Holocaust denial; he served 13 months in prison before being released on probation.[10][11]
  • David Campbell has written of the now defunct British magazine Living Marxism that "LM's intentions are clear from the way they have sought to publicize accounts of contemporary atrocities which suggest they were certainly not genocidal (as in the case of Rwanda), and perhaps did not even occur (as in the case of the murder of nearly 8,000 at Srebrenica)."[12][13] Chris McGreal writing in The Guardian on 20 March 2000 stated that Fiona Fox writing under a pseudonym had contributed an article to Living Marxism which was part of a campaign by Living Marxism that denied that the event which occurred in Rwanda was a genocide.[14]
  • Scott Jaschik has stated that Justin McCarthy, is one of two scholars "most active on promoting the view that no Armenian genocide took place".[15] He was one of four scholars who participated in a controversial debate hosted by PBS about the genocide.[16]
  • Darko Trifunovic is the author of the Report about Case Srebrenica,[17] which was commissioned by the government of the Republika Srpska.[18] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) reviewed the report and concluded that it "represented one of the worst examples of revisionism, in relation to the mass executions of Bosniaks committed in Srebrenica in July 1995".[19] After the report was published on 3 September 2002, it provoked outrage and condemnation by a wide variety of Balkans and international figures, individuals, and organizations.[18][20]
  • Patrick Karuretwa stated in the Harvard Law Record that in 2007 the Canadian politician Robin Philpot "attracted intense media attention for repeatedly denying the 1994 genocide of the Tutsis"[21]
  • On 21 April 2016 a full-page ad appeared in The Wall Street Journal and Chicago Tribune that directed readers to Fact Check Armenia, a genocide denial website sponsored by the Turkish lobby in the US. When confronted about the ad a Wall Street Journal spokesperson stated, "We accept a wide range of advertisements, including those with provocative viewpoints. While we review ad copy for issues of taste, the varied and divergent views expressed belong to the advertisers."[22]

By governments

Pakistan

The government of Pakistan continues to deny that any Bangladeshi genocide took place during the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971. They typically accuse Pakistani reporters (such as Anthony Mascarenhas), who reported on the genocide, of being "enemy agents".[23] According to Donald W. Beachler, professor of political science at Ithaca College:[24]

The government of Pakistan explicitly denied that there was genocide. By their refusal to characterise the mass-killings as genocide or to condemn and restrain the Pakistani government, the US and Chinese governments implied that they did not consider it so.

Similarly, in the wake of the 2013 Shahbag protests against war criminals who were complicit in the genocide, English journalist Philip Hensher wrote:[25]

The genocide is still too little known about in the West. It is, moreover, the subject of shocking degrees of denial among partisan polemicists and manipulative historians.

Russia
See also: Holodomor denial

Serbia
Further information: Srebrenica massacre and Bosnian genocide denial

According to Sonja Biserko, president of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, and Edina Becirevic, the faculty of criminology and security studies of the University of Sarajevo:

Denial of the Srebrenica genocide takes many forms [in Serbia]. The methods range from the brutal to the deceitful. Denial is present most strongly in political discourse, in the media, in the sphere of law, and in the educational system.[26]

Turkey
Main article: Armenian genocide denial

The government of the Republic of Turkey has long denied that the Armenian genocide was a genocide.[27] According to Akçam, "Turkish denialism [of the genocide] is perhaps the most successful example of how the well-organised, deliberate, and systematic spreading of falsehoods can play an important role in the field of public debate" and that "fact-based truths have been discredited and relegated to the status of mere opinion".[6]Turkey acknowledges that many Armenians residing in the Ottoman Empire were killed in conflicts with Ottoman forces during World War One, but disputes the statistics and claims that the killings were systematic and amounted to genocide.Measures recognising the Armenian genocide have languished in the US Congress for decades, and US presidents have refrained from labelling it such due to worries about relations with Turkey and intensive lobbying by Ankara. [28]

United States
See also: Denial of atrocities against Indigenous peoples

The government of the United States has been accused of denial of the genocide of its Indigenous peoples.[29]

Law

The European Commission proposed a European Union–wide anti-racism law in 2001, which included an offence of genocide denial, but European Union states failed to agree on the balance between prohibiting racism and freedom of expression. After six years of debating, a watered down compromise was reached in 2007 which gave EU states freedom to implement the legislation as they saw fit.[30][31][32]

Effects

Genocide denial has an impact on both victim and perpetrator groups. Denial of a genocide affects relations between the victim and perpetrator groups or their respective countries, prevents personal victims of the genocide from seeking closure, and adversely affects political decisions on both sides. It can cause fear in the victims to express their cultural identity, retaliation from both parties, and hamper the democratic development of societies.

Effects on personal victims of the genocide

While confrontation of the committed atrocities can be a tough process in which the victim feels humiliated again by reliving the traumatic past,[33] it still has a benign therapeutic effect, helping both victim and perpetrator groups to come to terms with the past.[34] From a therapeutic point of view, letting the victim confront the past atrocity and its related painful memories is one way to reach a closure and to understand that the harm has occurred in the past.[35] This also helps the memories to enter the shared narrative of the society, thereby becoming a common ground on which the society can make future decisions on, in political and cultural matters.[36]

Denying recognition, in contrast, has a negative effect, further victimising the victim which will feel not only wronged by the perpetrator but also by being denied recognition of the occurred wrongdoing. Denial also has a pivotal role in shaping the norms of a society since the omission of any committed errors, and thereby the lack of condemnation and punishment of the committed wrongs, risks normalising similar actions, increasing the society's tolerance for future occurrences of similar errors.[36]: 110 

Societal effects of genocide denial

Bhargava notes that "[m]ost calls to forget disguise the attempt to prevent victims from publicly remembering in the fear that 'there is a dragon living on the patio and we better not provoke it.'"[37] In other words, while societally "forgetting" an atrocity can on the surface be beneficial to the harmony of society, it further victimizes the target group for fear of future, similar action, and is directly detrimental to the sociocultural development of the victim group.

On the other hand, there are cases where "forgetting" atrocities is the most politically expedient or stable option. This is found in some states which have recently come out of minority rule, where the perpetrator group still controls most strategic resources and institutions, such as South Africa.[38] This was, among others, one of the main reasons for granting amnesty in exchange for confessing to committed errors during the transitional period in South Africa. However, the society at large and the victims in particular will perceive this kind of trade-offs as "morally suspect,"[39] and may question its sustainability. Thus, a common refrain in regard to the Final Report (1998) by South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission was "We've heard the truth. There is even talk about reconciliation. But where's the justice?"[40]

Effects on democratic development

The denial has thereby a direct negative impact on the development of a society, often by undermining its laws and the issue of justice, but also the level of democracy itself.[36]: 33–38  If democracy is meant to be built on the rule of law and justice, upheld and safeguarded by state institutions, then surely the omission of legal consequences and justice would potentially undermine the democracy.[41] What is more dangerous from a historical point of view is that such a default would imply the subsequent loss of the meaning of these events to future generations, a loss which is resembled to "losing a moral compass."[42] The society becomes susceptible to similar wrongdoings in the absence of proper handling of preceding occasions.[43] Nonetheless, denial, especially immediately after the committed wrongdoings, is rather the rule than the exception and naturally almost exclusively done by the perpetrator to escape responsibility.

Implicit denial of genocide

While some societies or governments openly deny genocide, in some other cases, e.g. in the case of the "Comfort women" and the role of the Japanese State, the denial is more implicit. This was evident in how an overwhelmingly majority of the surviving victims refused to accept a monetary compensation since the Japanese government still refused to admit its own responsibility (the monetary compensation was paid through a private fund rather than by the state, a decision perceived by the victims about state's refusal to assume any direct responsibility).[44] This can have the same effects on societies as outright denial. For example, atrocity denial and self-victimisation in Japanese historical textbooks has caused much diplomatic tension between Japan and neighbouring victim states, such as Korea and China, and bolstered domestic conservative or nationalist forces.[45]

Turkey and Armenian genocide denial

The Turkish state's Armenian genocide denial has had far-reaching effects on the Turkish society throughout its history in regard to both ethnic minorities, especially the Kurds, but political opposition in general.[36]: 48  The denial also affects Turks, in that there is a lack of recognition of Turks and Ottoman officials who attempted to stop the genocide. This lack of recognition of the various actors at play in Turkey could result in a rather homogeneous perception of the nation in question, thus making Armenians (but also third parties) project the perpetrating role onto the entire Turkish society and nation, causing further racial strife and aggravating the prospects of future reconciliation.[36]: 24  For example, Armenian terrorist groups (e.g. ASALA and JCAG) committed terrorist acts during 1970's and 1980's as a direct result of the Turkish state denial of the genocide.[36]: 110 

See also

References
  1. Üngör, Uğur Ümit; Adler, Nanci (2017). "Indonesia in the Global Context of Genocide and Transitional Justice". Journal of Genocide Research. 19 (4): 609–617. doi:10.1080/14623528.2017.1393985.
  2. Huttenbach, Henry R. (1999). "The Psychology and Politics of Genocide Denial: a Comparison of Four Case Studies". Studies in Comparative Genocide. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 216–229. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-27348-5_12. ISBN 978-1-349-27348-5. Archived from the original on 18 June 2018. Retrieved 21 November 2020.
  3. Herf, Jeffrey (2006). The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda during the World War II and the Holocaust. Harvard University Press. p. 127. ISBN 978-0-674038-59-2.
  4. "10 Stages of Genocide". Archived from the original on 21 November 2020. Retrieved 21 November 2020.
  5. Hovannisian, Richard G. (1998). "Denial of the Armenian genocide in Comparison with Holocaust Denial". Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide. Wayne State University Press. p. 202. ISBN 081432777X. Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 2 October 2020.
  6. Akçam, Taner (2018). Killing Orders: Talat Pasha's Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide. Springer. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-3-319-69787-1.
  7. Tolbert, David (24 April 2015). "The Armenian Genocide: 100 Years of Denial". International Center for Transitional Justice. Archived from the original on 1 February 2021. Retrieved 17 December 2020.
  8. Jones, Adam (2010). Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge. pp. 208, 230, 791–793. ISBN 978-1-136-93797-2.
  9. Akiva Eldar (28 May 2003). "U.S. told us to ignore Israeli map reservations". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 20 January 2013. Retrieved 23 March 2014.
  10. Staff Holocaust denier Irving is jailed Archived 5 August 2019 at the Wayback Machine BBC, 20 February 2006
  11. Veronika Oleksyn (Associated Press) Holocaust Denier Freed, Gets Probation Archived 25 November 2018 at the Wayback Machine 20 December 2006.
  12. David Campbell. ITN vs Living Marxism Archived 8 April 2004 at the Wayback Machine, Part 2 Archived 16 April 2008 at the Wayback Machine. Footnote [49] cites Linda Ryan"What's in a 'mass grave'?, Living Marxism, Issue 88, March 1996 Archived 24 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine" (The link he provides in the footnote does not exist any more so the link is a substitute). Accessed 20 April 2008
  13. McGreal, Chris. Genocide? What genocide? Archived 7 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian 20 March 2000
  14. "Genocide? What genocide?". The Guardian. London. 20 March 2000. Archived from the original on 7 February 2017. Retrieved 25 October 2009.
  15. Jaschik, Scott (22 October 2007). "Genocide Deniers". Archived from the original on 22 October 2007. Retrieved 20 April 2008.
  16. Stanley, Alessandra (17 April 2006). "A PBS Documentary Makes Its Case for the Armenian Genocide, With or Without a Debate". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 28 February 2016. Retrieved 2 September 2006.
  17. "Brief Record". US Library of Congress. Archived from the original on 11 May 2021. Retrieved 22 April 2009.
  18. Gordana Katana (a correspondent with Voice of America in Banja Luka). REGIONAL REPORT: Bosnian Serbs Play Down Srebrenica Archived 11 May 2021 at the Wayback Machine, website of the Institute for War & Peace Reporting. Retrieved 25 October 2009
  19. Judgement against Miroslav Deronjic Archived 26 March 2010 at the Wayback Machine ICTY
  20. "Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: Newsline, 02-09-03". 3 September 2005. Archived from the original on 5 June 2011. Retrieved 3 July 2009.
  21. Release of Rwanda's mastermind of death promotes genocide denial Archived 6 February 2010 at the Wayback Machine, Harvard Law Record, 4 December 2009
  22. "FULL-PAGE WSJ AD DENYING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE SPURS ANGER". Newsweek. 21 April 2016. Archived from the original on 21 April 2016. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
  23. "His article was – from Pakistan's point of view – a huge betrayal and he was accused of being an enemy agent. It still denies its forces were behind such atrocities as those described by Mascarenhas, and blames Indian propaganda."Mark Dummett (16 December 2011). "Bangladesh war: The article that changed history". BBC Asia. Archived from the original on 28 December 2020. Retrieved 27 December 2011.
  24. Beachler, Donald W. "Genocide Denial; The Case of Bangladesh". Archived from the original on 26 April 2012. Retrieved 28 December 2011.
  25. Philip Hensher (19 February 2013). "The war Bangladesh can never forget". The Independent. Archived from the original on 28 December 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2013.
  26. Denial of genocide – on the possibility of normalising relations in the region Archived 3 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine by Sonja Biserko (the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia) and Edina Becirevic (faculty of criminology and security studies of the University of Sarajevo).
  27. Evelyn Leopold (9 April 2007). "UN genocide exhibit delayed after Turkey objects". Reuters. Archived from the original on 9 March 2021. Retrieved 1 July 2017.
  28. "Turkey says any U.S. recognition of Armenian 'genocide' would further harm ties". Reuters. 20 April 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2023.
  29. Chavez Cameron, Susan; Phan, Loan T. (13 July 2018). "Ten stages of American Indian genocide". Revista Interamericana de Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology. doi:10.30849/rip/ijp.v52i1.876 (inactive 10 August 2023).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of August 2023 (link)
  30. Ethan McNern. Swastika ban left out of EU's racism law Archived 5 August 2011 at the Wayback Machine, The Scotsman, 30 January 2007
  31. runo Waterfield. EU plans far-reaching 'genocide denial' law Archived 10 March 2020 at the Wayback Machine, The Daily Telegraph 4 February 2007
  32. Ingrid Melander EU to agree watered-down anti-racism law-diplomats Archived 7 July 2007 at the Wayback Machine, Reuters, 18 April 2007.
  33. Margalit, Avishai (2002). The Ethics of Memory. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-00941-X.: 61–64 
  34. Amstutz, Mark R. (2005). The Healing of Nations: The Promise and Limits of Political Forgiveness. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 0-7425-3580-0. Archived from the original on 11 May 2021. Retrieved 2 October 2020.: 24 
  35. Colvin, Christopher J. (2003). "The Healing of Nations: The Promise and Limits of Political Forgiveness". In Hodgkin, Katherine; Radstone, Susannah (eds.). Contested pasts: The politics of memory. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-28647-6. Archived from the original on 11 May 2021. Retrieved 2 October 2020.: 156 
  36. Avedian, Vahagn (2018). Knowledge and Acknowledgement in the Politics of Memory of the Armenian Genocide. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-13-831885-4. Archived from the original on 11 September 2020. Retrieved 2 October 2020.: 45 
  37. Bhargava, Rajeev (2000). "Restoring Decency to Barbaric Societies". In Rotberg, Robert I.; Thompson, Dennis F. (eds.). Truth v. Justice: The Morality of Truth Commissions. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-05071-6. Archived from the original on 11 May 2021. Retrieved 2 October 2020.: 52 
  38. Gutman, Amy; Thompson, Dennis F. (2000). "The Moral Foundations of Truth Commissions". In Rotberg, Robert I.; Thompson, Dennis F. (eds.). Truth v. Justice: The Morality of Truth Commissions. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-05071-6. Archived from the original on 11 May 2021. Retrieved 2 October 2020.: 39 
  39. Rotberg, Robert I. (2000). "Truth Commissions and the Provision of Truth, Justice, and Reconciliations". In Rotberg, Robert I.; Thompson, Dennis F. (eds.). Truth v. Justice: The Morality of Truth Commissions. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-05071-6. Archived from the original on 11 May 2021. Retrieved 2 October 2020.: 8 
  40. Bevernage, Berber (2012). History, Memory, and State-Sponsored Violence: Time and Justice. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-88340-5. Archived from the original on 11 May 2021. Retrieved 2 October 2020.: 47–48 
  41. Jelin, Elizabeth; Kaufman, Susana G. (2000). "Layers of Memories: Twenty Years After in Argentina". In Lorey, David E.; Beezley, William H. (eds.). Genocide, Collective Violence, and Popular Memory: The Politics of Remembrance in the Twentieth Century. SR Books. ISBN 0-8420-2982-6. Archived from the original on 11 May 2021. Retrieved 2 October 2020.: 36 
  42. De Brito, Alexandra Barahona; Enriquez, Carmen Gonzalez; Aguilar, Paloma (2001). "Introduction". In De Brito, Alexandra Barahona; Enriquez, Carmen Gonzalez; Aguilar, Paloma (eds.). Genocide, Collective Violence, and Popular Memory: The Politics of Remembrance in the Twentieth Century. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-924090-6. Archived from the original on 11 May 2021. Retrieved 2 October 2020.: 25 
  43. Adler, Nanci (2001). "Conclusion". In De Brito, Alexandra Barahona; Enriquez, Carmen Gonzalez; Aguilar, Paloma (eds.). Genocide, Collective Violence, and Popular Memory: The Politics of Remembrance in the Twentieth Century. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-924090-6. Archived from the original on 11 May 2021. Retrieved 2 October 2020.: 311 
  44. Mionw, Martha (1998). Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History After Genocide and Mass Violence. Beacon Press, cop. ISBN 0-8070-4506-3. Archived from the original on 11 May 2021. Retrieved 2 October 2020.: 105 
  45. Schneider, Claudia (May 2008). "The Japanese History Textbook Controversy in East Asian Perspective". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 617: 107–122. doi:10.1177/0002716208314359. JSTOR 25098016. S2CID 145570034. Retrieved 20 April 2023.

Further reading
Main article: Bibliography of Genocide studies
Library resources about
Genocide denial

Quotations related to Genocide denial at Wikiquote

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.