天易网

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 897|回复: 0

[国学论道] Politics of Ethnic Cleansing by Thomas GT Guo

[复制链接]
发表于 2/17/2017 23:28:22 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
The History and Politics of Ethnic Cleansing by Thomas GT Guo
By Carrie Booth Walling
1 . Carrie Booth Walling (2000) The history and politics of ethnic cleansing, The International Journal of Human Rights, 4:3-4, 47-66, DOI: 10.1080/13642980008406892


ethnic cleansing, in practice and in discourse, has become a common feature of international politics. The prevalence of ethnic cleansing at the end of the twentieth century is frequently understood to derive from 'ancient hatreds', which had previously been suppressed by Cold War structures. Contrary to this perspective however, ethnic cleansing can be seen as a the result of the exploitation of insecurity and the manipulation of national history by power-seeking political elites. Whatever its immediate causes in the 1990s, the roots of ethnic cleansing extend back to early centuries and are well-documented. The historical record strongly suggests that contemporary ethnic cleansing may be intricately linked to the political ideal of the homogenous sovereign state and the principle of national self-determination. (Carrie Booth Walling (2000)p.47


'Forced population transfer' is a general synonym, but ethnic cleansing is a distinctive type and indeed represents an escalation of the idea of population transfer entirely based on ethnic criteria. Walling p.48


In practice, 'ethnic cleansing' is most closely related to the German word Judenrien (meaning literally, clean of Jews) which was used by the Nazisto describe the areas from which Jews had been deported or expelled during World War Two.'Ethnic cleansing', however, did not enter the popular language of politics until the break-up of the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. 'Cleansing' was used specifically for its positive connotations of cleanliness and purification that masked the 'dirty truth' of its implementation: forced deportation, murder, and rape.Walling p.48


from genocide at one extreme to emigration under pressure at the other.' As defined by the United Nations Commission of Experts in a 1993 report to the Security Council, 'ethnic cleansing is the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous'.7


The term 'ethnic' refers to a group of people that share a distinct racial, national, religious, linguistic or cultural heritage, including shared history and perceptions, group identity and shared memory of past glories and traumas. Walling p.49


'ethnic cleansing' is exclusively based on ethnic criteria, it is distinct from other forms of large-scale population removal, which can include religious cleansing,ideological cleansing (based on class or directed at political adversaries),strategic (applied to politically unreliable populations in sensitive military areas), economic and gender cleansings.8 Walling p.49


measures are taken to aggressively assimilate the targeted population into the culture of the predominant ethnic group through either coerced or biological assimilation.10 Walling p.49


the aim of ethnic cleansing is to expel the despised ethnic group through either indirect coercion or direct force, and to ensure that return is impossible.Terror is the fundamental method used to achieve this end.Walling p.49


Methods of indirect coercion can include: introducing repressive laws and discriminatory measures designed to make minority life difficult; the deliberate failure to prevent mob violence against ethnic minorities; using surrogates to inflict violence; the destruction of the physical infrastructure upon which minority life depends; the imprisonment of male members of the ethnic group; threats to rape female members, and threats to kill.12 If ineffective, these indirect methods are often escalated to coerced emigration, where the removal of the ethnic group from the territory is pressured by physical force. This typically includes physical harassment and the expropriation of property. Deportation is an escalated form of direct coercion in that the forcible removal of 'undesirables' from the state's territory is organised, directed and carried out by state agents. The most serious of the direct methods, excluding genocide, is murderous cleansing, which entails the brutal and often public murder of some few in order to compel flight of the remaining group members.13 Walling p.49


All genocide involves ethnic cleansing,because the physical elimination of a people by definition means physical displacement. However, the reverse is not true: ethnic cleansing does not equate with genocide, although it may be its precursor, and it may involve 'genocidal acts'. Walling p.50


history
In the earliest times it was virtually part of the natural order of state-building. From the 1920s to the 1940s it was viewed positively as a tool of international peace and security. By the end of the twentieth century it was widely, although not universally, seen as evil and destructive. Throughout history, though,population transfer and ethnic cleansing have been closely associated with the process of state building.Walling p.50


In early centuries, population cleansing was used as a political tool to ensure control over alien or recently conquered territories. Often the victims of cleansing were enslaved or vanquished from the conquered territory. Economic and political factors were most salient in population cleansings during these periods 800 to 20 BC, but occasionally these movements were motivated by ethnic factors. Walling p.50


Throughout the Middle Ages, economic cleansing became less prevalent and instead population cleansing took on a largely religious character. With the spread of Christianity and Islam throughout much of the world, population cleansing become organised around the notion of collective religious identity, and hostility was directed at religious minorities rather than conquered populations. Religious cleansing entails the removal of a well-defined population from a specific territory based on the characteristics and traits that made it undesirable - namely an alien religion.16 Some ethnic enmity occurred within the religious blocs;ethnicity played a secondary role in medieval cleansing.Walling p.51


example: at the end of the sixteenth century,Spanish persecution of Protestants in the Low Countries sent more than 175,000 Protestants into flight. Another example seen in the beginning of the seventeenth century was the mass expulsions of Irish Catholics From Ulster.17


After 1730, forms of population cleansing began to proliferate, including ideological, strategic and ethical justifications for cleansing. Population movements of this time lost their partial,incomplete character and acquired one of totality. Walling p.51


Between 1755 and 1900, most population cleansing was intimately related to colonialism and European imperialism. Examples include the cleansing of francophone Acadians in Canada, the Native Indians by Americans,Aborigines in Australia, and the Maori by the British in New Zealand.


After 1900, despised populations were cleansed based on markers such as ethnicity, language, and culture. During this period, ethnic cleansing emerged as a planned and deliberate policy and gained some of the brutality. Walling p.51


Turkey adopted ethnic cleansing during its transition from a multiethnic state to a national state. In the process,what began as ethnic cleansing developed into genocide. During the ensuing wars (1894-96 and 1915-16), over ninety per cent of ethnic Armenian territory was cleansed of its inhabitants through deportation,death marches and murder. Walling p.51  genocides including the Holocaust, Pol Pot's Cambodia and Rwanda.


Arguably, the defining historical moment for contemporary ethniccleansing was the 1919 territorial settlement between the Allied andAssociated Powers and Germany, which officially endorsed populationtransfers in accordance with the doctrine of national self-determination.In practice, states were assigned to dominantethnic groups -'nations' - and although the treaty guaranteed minorityrights, there was little international enforcement or oversight. Walling p.52


The principle of compulsory population transfer gained increasing international acceptance during the interwar period.  between the years of 1919 to 1938,'population movements' affected nearly 21,260,000 individuals of varying European nationalities.The Treaty of Lausanne, which involved the exchange of almost two million Orthodox And Muslim minorities between Greece and Turkey in 1923, was approved and supervised by the League of Nations.Before 1939, the Nazi Party expelled Jews from Germany and occupied territories through fear and the mechanisms of ethnic cleansing.Physical extermination - indeed, genocide - began seriously after 1941. Adolf Hitler took population removal to its deadliest extreme: the Holocaust.  In the quest for a 'pure' national state,Hitler transplanted millions of ethnic Germans in conquered territories and deported millions of Jews and other populations deemed threatening to the German Volk including Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals, and the physically and mentally handicapped. Walling p.52


Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt endorsed and authorized population transfer as a necessary means to ensuring future peace and stability in Europe. Both leaders believed that the temporary discomfort and dislocation of the displaced civilians was a small price to pay for long-term security in central and eastern Europe.  More than 14 million Germans were expelled under conditions of starvation and terror. Over two million Germans died in the process.29 Walling p.53


ethnic Germans, Greeks and Bulgarians of Ukraine and the Crimea were deported en masse because they were viewed as unreliable, and even dangerous. The Kalmyks and Karachi Were entirely ethnically cleansed in 1943. Later deportations included targeted groups from the North Caucasus to the Balkans.30 During his grip on power, Stalin ethnically cleansed millions of Soviet citizens. p. 54


Although not labelled as ethnic cleansing at the time, hundreds of thousands of Arabs were forcibly expelled from Palestine by Israeli Jews In 1948. Nearly 400 Arab villages were depopulated and subsequently razed to the ground to prevent the almost 700,000 Palestinians who were made refugees that year from returning to their homeland. Walling p.54 Palestinian Arabs also directed atrocities at Israeli Jews, yet there were far fewer by comparison. During the war of 1948, Arab forces conquered and depopulated fewer than 12 Jewish settlements.


The 1990s further bear witness to the prevalence and cruelty of ethnic cleansing. Examples include ethnic conflict in Bosnia; mass rape in Bosnia and Rwanda; Iraqi attempts to annihilate Kurds; systematic attacks on Kurds in Turkey; murderous cleansing in East Timor; the occupation and destruction of Palestinian settlements by Israel; and ethnic oppression and terror in Kosovo. These ethnic cleansings were historically unique in that developments in mass media communication brought ethnic cleansing into living rooms around the world.Walling p.54


The massacres and mass rape campaigns of the Rwandan genocide were virtually ignored while they were happening, despite the ostensible universal condemnation of ethnic cleansing and genocide.


ethnic cleansing is not a new phenomenon, even if the term itself is recent, nor unique to a particular group of people or confined to a geographic area.


The historical record suggests that population removal has been an instrument of nation-state creation, and that contemporary ethnic cleansing is fundamentally linked to the homogenous sovereign state as the model form of political organisation.34 Walling P.55


Causes


The causes of ethnic cleansing are highly contested. Arguments range from linking ethnic cleansing to totalitarian regimes at one end of the spectrum to linking it with democracies on the other, and from understanding the phenomenon as unleashed by ethnic hatreds to understanding it as the result of elite power politics.


ethnic cleansing may be intricately linked to the political ideal of the homogenous sovereign state and the principle of self-determination.


the protection of state rights can conflict with the human rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


  R.J. Rummel argues that it is primarily the tool of authoritarian and totalitarian states, and that the more authoritarian a state is the more likely it is to commit crimes such as ethnic cleansing. Echoing the 'democratic peace' thesis, Rummel Argues that in general democracies do not engage in population cleansings, whereas 'totalitarian regimes slaughter their own people by tens of millions'. R.J. Rummel, Death by Government (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers,1994), p.19. quote at Walling p.55-6


democracies are responsible for some forms of democide - government mass murder - but argues that nearly all cases occurred within the context of war, were carried out in an undemocratic fashion, and were directed against enemy civilians.37 Government massmurder may contain ethnic hatred, but has not been part of a policy of ethnic homogeneity.


Far from exempting democracy from the horrors of ethnic cleansing,Michael Mann argues that democracy and ethnic cleansing are intrinsically connected; ethnic cleansing is 'democracy's dark side'. Mann argues that the dominant Western system of democracy generates a sense of alien 'other' through its majoritarian governing principles.p.56


many democratic states are themselves born of conflict - the result of ethnic cleansing.3' He argues that once the nation removes 'others' it requires little further violence to sustain its position.


Democracies are not innocent of population cleansing, but ethnic cleansing and genocide have also been associated with authoritarian and totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Union, Iraq Serbia. Nor can it be denied that Western democracies have intervened to halt ethnic cleansing in many cases at the end of the twentieth century. Wallilng p.56


The failure of the state to inspire confidence, ensure fair representation, and genuinely consider the needs of any minority population, combined with perceived ethnic threats and personal vulnerability, forces people to rely on the informal networks of the ethnic community to which they belong.Walling p.57


Growing insecurity on the part of the majority group may become heightened, and spark ethnic cleansing.These fears include: losing demographic control over state territory due to high minority birth-rates; the crippling of the economy and international sanctions as a result of the poor treatment of minorities;fear of international conspiracy to create an ethnic supra-state with state minorities being a fifth column; and the collapse of law and order due to the terrorist activities of the minority.Walling p.57


Ethnic cleansing, however, may be exacerbated and perpetuated by the political ideal of the homogenous sovereign state and the principle of national self-determination.Walling p.58


The organising ideals of the nation-state system do not cause ethnic cleansing but they may support the desire of the dominant ethnic group within a multi-ethnic/national state to cleanse the state territory in the interest of its own stability and security. As a result, states may attempt to compel assimilation of theminority through repressive policies or coerce flight.At the same time, the organising principles of the nation-state systemmay push ethnicities towards independence. Walling P.59


an ethnic group without a state is viewed as politically incomplete and vulnerable because it lacks the protective power that the state provides.
Threatened collectivities will strive for independence as long as repression against them continues and the ideals of freedom, self determination,representative government, and the homogenous sovereign state are held as sacred in the international system.Walling p.59


the principles of international law cannot simultaneously defend Yugoslavia's sovereignty and the Kosovar Albanians' right to national self-determination. the United Nations Charter bans force that violates state sovereignty. At the sametime, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the rights of individuals against oppressive states.


Ethnic cleansing in Kosovo highlights the tension between the pursuit of homogenous state sovereignty and the struggle for national self-determination,  In response to severe ethnic apartheid, a decade-long non violent struggle for independence began.The KLA launched a guerrilla campaign against Serbian authorities, which locked the two sides into a spiralling cycle of ethnic violence and reprisal.55 Ethnic cleansing directed against the ethnic Albanians ensued.genocide was used by NATO powers to cast collective guilt over the Serbian people,making it easier for the NATO allies to justify the deaths of Serb civilians resulting from 'bombing errors'.59 Walling P.63


Such manipulations of language reveal the hypocrisy of many governments and the ways in which they have been inconsistent in their definition of, and response to, ethnic cleansing.Walling P.63


CONCLUSIONS


The historical record suggests that population transfer and ethnic cleansing have been widely utilised as a 'security-creating' tool by governments. Ethnic cleansing is the result of the exploitation of insecurity and the manipulation of national history by power-seeking political elites. Further, ethnic cleansing is intricately linked to the political ideal of the homogenous sovereign state and the principle of national self-determination, and operates in the gap between these two international principles. ethnic cleansing will persist as long as the nationally homogenous sovereign state is held as the ideal form of political organisation, sovereignty is legitimated on the basis of national self-determination and gaps in international law prevent the development of an unambiguous policy to halt its use.Walling p.64
A Cultural Approach to a Canadian Tragedy The Indian Residential Schools as a Sacred Enterprise
2.  Eric Taylor Woods, A Cultural Approach to a Canadian Tragedy: The Indian Residential Schools as a Sacred Enterprise,
Int J Polit Cult Soc (2013) 26:173–187


Canadian residential schools designed to assimilate Aboriginal children into Euro-Canadian culture. In addition to the problems associated with its ethnocentric philosophy, the school system was also characterised by terrible health conditions and physical and sexual abuse of the students was widespread.


as Turner suggests(1974, p. 35), ‘seems to bring fundamental aspects of society, normally overlaid by the customs and habits of daily intercourse, into frightening prominence’. Woods, p.185


the meaning of the residential schools as an extension of the church’s sacred civilising mission was extremely important in structuring the terms of the social drama.Woods p.18


in the 1880s the Canadian government began to establish a system of industrial and residential schools whose intent was the assimilation of Aboriginal children into the working classes of Euro-Canadian culture.p.173 by removing Aboriginal children from the influence of their parents and communities and placing them under the care of Christian educators, it was thought that the children would more quickly be assimilated (Miller 1996, pp. 61–121; Milloy 1999, pp. 1–23).


In the 1960s, amid the rising visibility of Aboriginal resistance to assimilation and an ideological sea change among non Aboriginal Canadians, the residential schools began to be closed, converted into hostels for Aboriginal children attending nearby day schools or converted into halfway houses for children whose parents were deemed to be unfit for parenting. poorly built and unsanitary. Many students suffered from malnourishment,inadequate clothing, insufficient medical care and death from disease was not uncommon acknowledged that psychological,physical and sexual abuse was widespread throughout the schools.p.174 The last residential school closed in 1996. By some estimates, over 150,000 Aboriginal children spent some time in a residential school.


In 2008, Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper publicly apologised on behalf of the Canadian government for the residential schools. This was followed by apologies from the leaders of all of Canada’s major political parties. Inconjunction with the apology, the Harper government offered financial compensation to former students. As of 12 September 2012, over 1.6 billion (CAD) had been paid(Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, online). Harper also pledged to create a Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).


Canadian Anglicanism was involved in the residential school system from its creation in the 174 Woods 1880s until the Canadian government terminated the church–state partnership in Aboriginal education in 1969. In 1993, former Primate Michael Peers offered an apology for the Anglican church’s role in the residential schools.Woods. p.175


Jeffrey Alexander’s ‘strong program in cultural sociology’ in the study of politics. Although Foucault’s writings on governmentality have made significant inroads in political analysis, other cultural approaches have been less successful. By integrating aspects of Turner’s social drama model into Alexander’s approach it is hoped that it will make the latter more amenable to students of politics.Woods p. 175


Milloy write that first nation long history was due to ‘thoughtless persistence’ and suggesting that the school system had a ‘life of its own’(Milloy 1999, p. 111).Milloy, J. S. (1999). ‘A national crime’: the Canadian government and the residential school system, 1879–1986. Winnipeg, MA: The University of Manitoba Press.
Can Money Undo the Past  A Canadian Example by R Murray Thomas
3.  R. Murray Thomas,Can Money Undo the past? A Canadian Example,  Comparative Education, Vol. 39, No. 3 ( 2003), pp. 331-343
Correspondence to: R. Murray Thomas, 1436 Encinas Drive, Los Ocos, CA 93402-4520, USA.Email: murraythomas@mac.com


ABSTRACT In Canada, more than 9,000 lawsuits have been filed against the government and four Christian denominations on behalf of American Indians and Inuits for the mistreatment indigenous peoples allegedly suffered in residential schools operated for more than a century by these four religious groups and financed by the Canadian government. The ultimate cost of the suits might reach billions of dollars. Offences charged in the suits include sexual/physical abuse and cultural damage, with by far the most claims focusing on cultural damage. The only suits accepted by the courts by 2003 concerned sexual/physical abuse. Whether cultural damage would be admissible for court action had not yet been determined. This article focuses primarily on the question of how much of the money spent on the suits has gone toward attempts to repair the schools' damage to individuals and indigenous cultures.


After 1840, the relatively few residential schools conducted by Christian churches increased to 54 by 1898, to 74 by 1920, and to a high point of 81 by 1946. During the mid-1940s, Roman Catholic orders conducted 46 of the schools, Anglican churches 20, the United Church of Canada 12, and Presbyterians 3 (History of Residential Schools in Canada, 2001). In 1892 the government established regulations for operating the schools and agreed to give between $110 and $145 per student per year in support of residential schools as well as $72 per student in support of day schools. The residential schools programme was widely recognised as 'an integral part of a national policy intended to assimilate First Nations people [Indians and Inuits] into the dominant Euro-Canadian culture' (Coleman & Thorpe, 2001).Murray p.332


In 1993, at the second Anglican National Native Convocation, Archbishop Michael Peers told a congregation of aboriginal Canadians:I have felt shame and humiliation as I have heard of suffering inflicted by my people,and as I think of the part our church played in that suffering ... I accept and I confess before God and you, our failures in the residential schools. We failed you.We failed God. I am sorry, more than I can say, that we were part of a system which took you and your children from home and family ... that we tried to remake you in our image ... that in our schools so many were abused, physically, sexually, culturally and emotionally. (Peers, 1993) Murray p.332
in 1998 by a similar confession of remorse by Bill Phipps, moderator of the United Church.On behalf of The United Church of Canada, I apologize for the pain and suffering that our church's involvement in the Indian Residential School system has caused.We are aware of some of the damage that this cruel and ill-conceived system of assimilation has perpetrated on Canada's First Nations peoples. For this we aretruly and most humbly sorry.To those individuals who were physically, sexually, and mentally abused asstudents of the Indian Residential Schools in which The United Church of Canadawas involved, I offer you our most sincere apology. You did nothing wrong. You were and are the victims of evil acts that cannot under any circumstances be justified or excused. (Phipps, 1998) Murray p.333
Operators of the residential schools were charged with several sorts of offences against students-mainly sexual abuse, physical abuse, and the destruction of students' indigenous cultures. Plaintiffs contended that the treatment students suffered in residential schools caused them extreme emotional anguish that lingered on for years, often resulting in confused personal identities, alcoholism, and the inability to engage in productive activities.Murray p.333


the most controversial of the charges has been the accusation that the schools destroyed the pupils' indigenous cultures, an offence that some of the schools' critics call 'cultural genocide'. Murray p.333


Out of approximately 1,200 suits filed by 2001 against the Anglicans, 50 involved charges of sexual or physical abuse. The remaining 1,150appeared to concern cultural damage (Csillag, 2001). Murray p.334


in the Alberni School case, Arthur Pint, was already in jail at the time the Alberni civil suit came to trial in 1998. Plint, at age 77, had been sentenced to an 1 1-year jail term in 1995 on criminal charges of having sexually abused boys when he was an Alberni School dormitory supervisor between 1948 and 1968. Murray p.334


recognise that we all bear responsibility for this horrific chapter in Canadian history [so that] financial compensation for the legacy of residential schools, is a collective responsibility that all Canadians must share. (B.C. Court Decision, 2001) Murray p.334


In the Alberni case, the judge's apportionment of liability for the Canadian government was 75% and for the United Church 25%.


Most, if not all, of the 12,000 plaintiffs' cases have been handled by lawyers on a contingency basis, so that the lawyers' fees are taken out of whatever money is awarded to plaintiffs. Murray p.336  Of the $5 million spent by the Anglicans by mid-2001, barely 1% had reached plaintiffs in the form of settlements. The remaining 99% went to lawyers, the courts, and public-relations efforts.the amounts awarded to six claimants in the Alberni School sexual abuse case. The first litigant received $145,000, the second$125,000, the third $95,000, the fourth $20,000, the fifth $15,000, and the sixth $10,000(Brenner, 2001). Murray p.336


A Principle of justice is a statement intended to convince others-and perhaps to convince oneself-that a given action is reasonable. Such principles reflect values with which other people may or may not agree. Typical principles are those of retribution (exacting payment from wrongdoers for harm they have caused), prevention (deterring wrongdoers from committing future offences), and compensation (reimbursing people who have been wronged). Murray p.337 Another principle of justice, adopted by the courts in the Canadian case, is one that has crucial financial consequences for plaintiffs, church members, and the taxpaying public. It is the principle of vicarious liability, sometimes referred to as no-fault liability.


Vicarious liability is a tenet of civil law that results in one person or organisation being held legally responsible for a wrongful act committed by someone else. Thus, the doctrine of vicarious liability obligates people who had nothing to do with causing an offence to share in the punishment meted out for the offence. Murray p.338


still not understand why each of us must bear the scar, the blame for this horrendous period in Canadian history. But the truth is, we are the bearers of many blessings from our ancestors, and therefore,we must also bear their burdens (Phipps, 1998). Murray p.339


In Canada, many of the clergy have agreed that teaching English and other European-type school subjects to native peoples has resulted in 'cultural genocide'. But not all church officials agree. The Right Rev.John Clarke, Anglican bishop of Athabasca in northern Alberta, told the church newspaper Anglican Journal that 'There's a whole pile of upper middle-class guilt here that's running the show, and not much common sense' (Hunter, 2001). Murray p. 341


'Can money undo the past?' The answer is, 'Certainly not, if the money continues to go entirely to lawyers, to courts,and to plaintiffs who spend it as they please'. Murray p.342 The Anglicans by the end of 2001 had spent $700,000 on such ventures, the United Church had established a $1 million 'healing fund,' and the government had pledged $350 million toward healing efforts (Csillag, 2001)


The Achilles Heel of Canadian International Citizenship Indigenous Diplomacies and State Responses by P Whitney Lackenbauer and Andrew F Cooper
4.  P. Whitney Lackenbauer & Andrew F. Cooper (2007) The Achilles heel of Canadian international citizenship: Indigenous diplomacies and state responses, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 13:3, 99-119.


P. Whitney Lackenbauer a & Andrew F. Cooper ba Assistant Professor of Canadian history , St. Jerome's University(University of Waterloo)b Distinguished Fellow and Associate Director of The Centre for International Governance Innovation and Professor of Political Science , University of Waterloo


The UN Human Rights Council’s support for a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in June 2006, and the new Conservative government’s decision to reject it on the grounds that provisions in the draft declaration respecting land, resources, and territories were incompatible with Canadian laws, prompted National Chief of the AFN Phil Fontaine to call the decision a “… stain on Canada’s reputation as a leader in human rights.”6 The contradiction between Canada’s image of good international citizenship and its relationship – through its legacy as a settler state – to Indigenous peoples will continue to hit raw nerves to the detriment of Canadian diplomacy. Lackenbauer & Cooper p.113


the gap between Canada’s self-image as a good international citizen and the flaws in its own record is highlighted by Indigenous issues.Lackenbauer & Cooper p.99 as issues of Indigenous rights in the Indigenous arena became wrapped up with core issues of self-determination and national unity in the context of Quebec.p.100. most Indigenous diplomats have sought recognition of their inherent right to self-determination.P.100


Most Canadian Indigenous groups, however, promote this language as an assertion of equal participation, rather than a congruent status. More generally, Aboriginal groups seek redress for the myriad legacies of colonialism, from forced assimilation (cultural genocide) to the dispossession of traditional homelands in violation of Indigenous land and resource rights.Indigenous leaders have articulated a common message “… that they have the right to maintain their distinctiveness and to collectively determine their future development” (Niezen 2000: 130) p.100


scholars have acknowledged that groups like the Six Nations engaged in complex diplomacy before Europeans established their hegemony over North America (Jennings, 1985; Fenton, 1998; see also the various contributions to this special issue). Aboriginal peoples forged intimate economic and cultural networks with the newcomers, served as military allies during the struggles for continental supremacy in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and entered into formal treaties which they believed would solidify relationships on a nation-to-nation  basis. Lackenbauer & Cooper P.101


The Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognized Indian territorial and political rights, and pledged to protect them from fraud and abuse by local settlers. By the mid-nineteenth century, however,Canada’s Indian policy was fixed on the goals of “protection, civilization and assimilation”(Tobias 1976), and colonialism rather than accommodation prevailed.p.101


Treaty relationships with the British monarch led quite naturally to Aboriginal appeals within imperial structures. In the first decade of the twentieth century, British Columbia Indian delegations went to London to secure political assurances from King Edward that existing Royal promises guaranteeing their rights and lands would be honoured. p.101


The Six Nations, for example, “…appeal[ed] to the conscience of the democratic nations” whose delegates met at the San Francisco Conference (which created the United Nations) on 13 April 1945, asking for support to repossess or get compensation for Haldimand Treaty lands that had been alienated over the previous centuries. They asserted that they had “… fought as allies of the British Crown during the American revolutionary war, [and] accepted the grant of lands described in the Haldimand Treaty and came to Canada from the United States to settle on these lands in the spirit and in the understanding that we were doing so as a sovereign people” (quoted in Logan v. Styres 1959). p.101


the federal government was “generous with moneys when helping the Poor Countries of Asia (Colombo Plan) [and] when helping Hungarian Refugees” but provided the band with very little for their plight. “Charity should begin at home,” they pleaded, “and Justice should never be forgotten”.P.102


The UN system first formally addressed Indigenous issues in 1949 when the General Assembly invited the Sub-Commission to study the cultural and material welfare of Indigenous Americans. Eight years later, the International Labour Organization (ILO)adopted Convention No. 107 related to the “protection and integration” of Indigenous peoples so that they would share in “… the progress of the national community of which they form apart” (Barsh 1986: 370). The United Nations first began to really consider Indigenous issues as a special category in the context of its work on racial discrimination. In 1970, the Sub Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities recommended a comprehensive study on discrimination against Indigenous peoples and appointed JoséMartinez Cobo as Special Rapporteur to recommend national and international measures to eliminate this discrimination (Martinez Cobo 1986: 7).P.103


The creation of the World Council of Indigenous People in 1975, funded largely by church groups and the International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), provided a forum both for the collective Indigenous voice and a site for the assertion of Canadian leadership.P.103


When an amendment to recognize and affirm Aboriginal rights was dropped to secure provincial consent to the Charter in November 1981, Native groups launched court cases in Britain asserting that unilateral patriation was illegal without their consent. In January 1982,Lord Denning upheld the Canadian government’s right to patriation but his ruling offered several comments sympathetic to the Aboriginal cause (Woodward and George 1983).P.103
Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees minority cultural rights.1Sandra Lovelace,a status Indian born and raised on the Tobique reserve in New Brunswick who had married (and later divorced) a non-Indian man and, therefore, had lost her status under Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act.


After the Supreme Court of Canada rejected her appeals, she complained to the HRC in December 1977,asserting that Canada had violated Article 27 of the ICCPR by denying her the right to live on are serve. In its decision, the HRC held that “… the continuing effect of the Indian Act” breached her right to enjoy her own culture in her home community (OHCHR 1977; Bayefsky 1982).


The federal government responded in 1983 that it was “… anxious to amend the Indian Act so as to render itself in fuller compliance with its international obligations pursuant to Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” and that Canada was committed to remove discriminatory provisions that offend human rights (Sandra Lovelace v. Canada 1983). In response, the federal government amended the Indian Act to comply with the decision. Bill C-31 (1985) eliminated sexual discrimination in determining Indian status, including the right to live on reserve.


The Supreme Court of Canada deliberated on the international law character of Indian treaties, concluding by 1990 that British authorities had regarded the Indians as “independent nations” and had related to them on a “nation-to-nation”basis (quoted in Sanders 1992: 491). p.104 In 1985, the Coolican report on comprehensive land claims observed that the international community was increasingly recognizing “… the responsibility of nation states to ensure the survival of their indigenous peoples,”


Aboriginal issues could represent the Achilles heel of Canada’s self-designation as an unimpeachable advocate of human rights.P.105


the Canadian government took a leadership role in pushing Britain and the Commonwealth to impose sanctions against South Africa, earning the comment from one South African journalist that Canada’s anti-apartheid action made it “… the conscience of the major Western governments” (Freeman 1997: 5).demonstrate the high potential for embarrassment in a country that often prides itself on serving as the world’s human rights conscience.


“Before criticizing the actions of other countries, Canada should clean up its own back yard,” Stevenson told the press, adding “…Canada’s treatment of its aboriginal people is hypocritical and makes a mockery of the image it portrays to the rest of the world” (Smith 1987; York 1987).


On 20 July 1990, about 150 chiefs from across Canada appealed to the United Nations and to the international community to impose sanctions on Canada similar to those levelled against South Africa (Globe and Mail 1990: A1).Native spokespersons framed their discourse as “sovereign nations”  p.107


The UN Economic and Social Council established the Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP) in 1982 as a pre-session working group of the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Survival International, and the Indigenous Initiative for Peace


Barsh (1995: 107) concluded, Canada had lost its reputation as “…the principal champion of indigenous peoples at the U.N. [and had become] more commonly aligned with countries such as Brazil and India in advising caution and delay.” p.108


Rosemary Kuptana, the President of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, accused Ottawa of “scaremongering tactics” by making the connection (quoted in Platiel 1993). Mary Simon (1994), member of the board of the Inuit Tapirisat, declared,We wish to emphasize again that the Inuit agenda for the exercise of our right to self determinationis not to secede or separate from Canada but rather that we wish to share a common citizenship with other Canadians while maintaining our identity as a people, which means maintaining our identity as Inuit.Cooper P.110


the Canadian government became sensitive to the potential spill-over effect of conceding the legitimacy of the principle of self-determination. P.110


The WGIP’s Chair, Mme Daes, had downplayed the breadth of the practical implications of moving forward on this principle, focusing on the need to work out new formulae for political arrangements and representation within the existing state structure rather than on the potential demand for Indigenous independence.p.110


Canadian officials were not willing to sever the connection between self-determination and the preservation of the territorial integrity of Canada.p.111


The Canadian strategy at the World Conference against Racism (WCAR) held in Durban,South Africa in August and September 2001 was to take a “… leadership role [via] forward looking recommendations to combat racism and discrimination, [to] share the Canadian Experience of diversity, [to] influence world progress on fighting racism and related intolerance,[and to] advance Canada’s domestic agenda to combat racism.” p.111


how far Indigenous groups were prepared to go to shame Ottawa before an international audience. Rather than attempting to embrace a form of constructive engagement with the government on the basis of an anti-racism agenda, the AFN seemed to be trying to undermine Canada’s reputation as a good international citizen.p.112
Indigenous Sovereignty and the Violence of Perspective A White Womans Coming out Story by Fiona Nicoll
5.  Fiona Nicoll (2000) Indigenous Sovereignty and the Violence of Perspective: A White Woman's Coming Out Story, Australian Feminist Studies,15:33, 369-386


It is a common assumption that all the Indigenous people of Australia Constitute one group, the Aborigines. However, we do not think of ourselves as “Aboriginal” but rather identify ourselves within our own communities.(Nicoll 2000:369)


the treaty rights of Indigenous Canadians have been embedded in the nation’s constitution since 1982. In spite of this, Indigenous people in Canada and Australia experience a common predicament.(Nicoll 382)


ideas of Aboriginal inferiority but limits the opportunity of Aboriginal people to develop full and complete lives based on our dreams and visions,systems of knowledge, values and beliefs. Whites can accept that Aboriginal people have politics (albeit perhaps not fully) but do not recognize that we equally have theologies, epistemologies, knowledge systems, pedagogy and history. These are all collapsed into mere “perspectives”, thus making actual the white fallacy of Aboriginal inferiority. (Monture-Angus, Journeying Forward, p. 28.)Nicoll 383


As with reconciliation, it is the terms of engagement between two parties that are at stake with sovereignty. The current terms of engagement between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples are determined by a non-Indigenous system of governance.In order to change the terms of our engagement, a parallel system of Indigenous governance needs to be established, rather than a dependent one such as ATSIC.Indigenous people will be enriched rather than robbed in their interactions with Indigenous Sovereignty and Perspectives on Violence 385non-Indigenous people only when their political and legal sovereignty is acknowledgedand empowered. (Nicoll 384-5)


failure of white Australians to engage with the reality of Indigenous sovereignty.That sentence: ‘I don’t care who's fucking daughter she is’ will always encapsulate my experience of Indigenous sovereignty in Australia.(Nicoll 378)


Judge Howard Olney delivered his crushing verdict on 18 December 1998: The facts in this case lead inevitably to the conclusion that before the end ofthe nineteenth century the ancestors through whom the claimants claim title had ceased to occupy their traditional lands in accordance with their traditional laws and customs. The tide of history has indeed washed away any real acknowledgment of their traditional laws and any real observance of their traditional customs.(Australian, 19–20 December 1998.quote Nicoll 373)The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions
First Nations Residential Schools and the Americanization of the Holocaust Rewriting Indigenous History United States and Canada by David MacDonald
6.  DAVID MACDONALD, First Nations, Residential Schools, and the Americanization of the Holocaust:Rewriting Indigenous History in the United States and Canada, Canadian Journal of Political Science 40:4 (December 2007) 995–1015, David MacDonald, Senior Lecturer, Political Studies Department, University of Otago,PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand, david.macdonald@stonebow.otago.ac.nz


Holocaust Americanization, the process whereby the Holocaust has become recognized as a unique moral atrocity,endowed with universal meaning and significance.European colonization of the Americas was a “holocaust,” and the biggest genocide in history a precedent for the Nazis’ Final Solution. to  demonstrate the moral guilt of western nations.(MacDonald 2007:996)


I conclude that while comparing historical atrocities can be academically fruitful, activists will do better to highlight the traumatic effects of atrocities on individuals and families, noting the intergenerational legacies of colonial crimes and their sometimes attendant ethnic cleansing, cultural and linguistic destruction.(MacDonald 2007: 996)


a neo-Nazimarch in Skokie, Illinois, touched off a storm of public protest,The German admission of guilt, recognition of Jews as a nation and compensation ~through reparations to Israel! was the moment, “at which the modern notion of restitution for historical injustices was born” (Barkan, 2001:xxiv).


Holocaust survivors set the parameters for what other groups felt they could reasonably demand. These demands included “transitional justice” punishment of the perpetrators and reparations from the perpetrators!,“apologies and statements of regret,”(MacDonald 2007:998)


An “age of apologies” heralded by “reparations politics” began in many western countries during the post-Cold War era. Governments, churches, and private firms were increasingly held to account for past actions against indigenous peoples and other disadvantaged groups. Old “heroic, forward looking tales that underpinned the idea of progress for two centuries,”were now replaced by “narratives of injustice and crime” (Torpey, 2001:334).


In 1992, Stannard published American Holocaust, followed by Churchill’s A Little Matter of Genocide in 1997. Both Stannard and Churchill make widespread use of the Holocaust as a means of highlighting indigenous suffering, while openly criticizing the significance of the Holocaust in American life. This seems reasonable to both authors in light of the fact that the decimation of North and South America’s indigenous nations ~at potentially 100 million casualties! was the largest genocide.While the pre conquest population of the United States can never be established with certainty,it probably numbered in the millions before European colonization;by 1920 it was reduced to less than 250,000 persons. (MacDonald 2007:998)


By contrast, America’s founding fathers, from Washington and Jefferson to Jackson, are presented as Nazilikekillers (Stannard, 1992: 119–21, 241), infused as with a “virulent Anglo-Saxon supremacism,” little different from “Nazi Aryanist ideology” (Churchill, 1997: 211, 228–32).


A further goal of Stannard’s work has been to refute the long-held belief that disease was but an “inadvertent” or “unintended consequence”of colonialism. Stannard focuses on forms of killing shared by both the Holocaust and the American genocide: disease, forced labour, forced marches and other conditions calculated to bring about the deaths of target group. If disease and slave labour are part of the Holocaust, Stannard Reasons, they must also be included as part of the “American Holocaust” (1996: 89, 258–60).


The Third Reich was more a “crystallization” of Columbus-era themes such as “racial supremacism,conquest, and genocide.” Thus, “Nazism was never unique: it was instead only one of an endless succession of ‘New World Orders’ set in motion by ‘the Discovery’” (Churchill, 1997: 92).


the Holocaust’s current status is not rooted in its unique horror but is merely “the hegemonic product of many years of strenuous intellectual labour by a handful of Jewish scholars and writers who have dedicated much if not all of their professional lives to the advancement of this exclusivist idea” (Stannard,1996: 167).


There are justifiable concerns about the Stannard-Churchill thesis.First, it suggests that the vast majority of indigenous peoples, even those killed by epidemics, were the victims of intentional killing. While some disease was deliberately spread, most epidemics raged ahead of the explorers and colonizers and were hardly comparable to conditions inNazi ghettoes (Barkan, 2003: 122). Europe too had 41 smallpox epidemics and pandemics from 1520 to 1899, yet no one suggests that genocide was at work (Stiffarm and Lane, 1992: 31). Arguably, intent, or the lack thereof, might not have mattered to victims of disease in North America. However, assuming a wholesale intent to commit genocide using the expedient of disease relies on a very selective reading of the past. It also imputes to perpetrators a high degree of malice that was not necessarily present.


Clearly, acts of genocide ~genocide as defined under the United Nations Genocide Convention, 1948! were committed during the colonization of the United States; the authors furnish ample proof of this. However,to construct the entire history of indigenous-colonist interactions as a continuous process of intentional genocide, comparable to the Holocaust,is misleading(MacDonald 2007:1000).


the “Canadian Holocaust”Canada committed a number of crimes against humanity during the colonial era. By the early nineteenth century, Newfoundland’s Beothuk were entirely decimated when forced to flee the Newfoundland coast as a result of low-intensity conflict and starvation ~Marshall, 1996!. Nova Scotia’s Mi’kmaq seem to have been victims of intentional killing through the spread of poisoned food and massacres in the eighteenth century (V. Miller, 2004: 259–60). While Canadians know more about America’s brutal treatment of its indigenous people, the Canadian experience has also been bleak. In the 1990s, “levels of unemployment, undereducation,violent death, imprisonment, and ill health among First Nations people outstrip those of other Canadians in virtually all age brackets” (Fleras and Elliott, 1992: 8–9, 16–18). MacDonald 1001


Aboriginal children were to be assimilated, trained as workers and servants at the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder.Thus, school days consisted of a half-day of studies, then a half-day of trades-related activities: blacksmithing, carpentry or auto mechanics for boys; sewing, cooking and other domestic activities for girls.(MacDonald 2007: 1001)Beatings, verbal, physical and sexual abuse were common.Indian languages were forbidden, as was the practice of any traditional beliefs. The destruction of indigenous religion, language and culture was a clear goal of the Canadian government.


The Indian Residential School Survivors Society (IRSSS) outlines the scope of the problem:First Nation communities experience higher rates of violence: physical, domestic abuse (3x higher than mainstream society); sexual abuse: rape, incest, etc. (4–6x higher); lack of family and community cohesion; suicide (6x higher);addictions: drugs, alcohol, food; health problems: diabetes (3x higher!, heart disease, obesity; poverty; unemployment; illiteracy; high school dropout (63%do not graduate); despair; hopelessness; and more. (IRSSS, 2006)


The 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples has been a landmark in coming to terms with the past. The 3,500 page report consisted of five volumes, comprising submissions by aboriginal groups and individuals recalling their experiences. Four main types of mistreatment were highlighted: physical and sexual abuse in residential schools ~as well as their goals of assimilation and cultural destruction!;unequal treatment of aboriginal veterans from both world wars; forced relocations of aboriginal communities; and finally the “cultural aggression of the Indian Act,” which banned indigenous customs and laid the basis for forms of “internal colonialism” (Cairns, 2003: 77–78).


In 1998, the Canadian government released a “statement of reconciliation”to First Nations accompanied by a $350 million “Healing Fund”.


Churches Involved in the residential schools had submitted apologies much earlier.The United Church gave its “Apology to First Nations” in 1986, followed by the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate in 1991. In 1993,Anglican Archbishop Michael Peers delivered his church’s apology, followed a year later by the Presbyterian Church’s “Confession” (DeGagné,2001).


“Which is worse—the murdering of millions of human beings over a short period of time, or slowly dissolving their existence through dehumanization and disease and coercion over several generations? ... The end results of the two methods of extermination are similar” (Neu and Therrien, 2003:23)


Australian “liberals and leftists”have had their views of history “transformed by the Holocaust,”


The UN Genocide Convention ~UNGC! includes as an act of genocide,when committed with the intent to destroy a racial, religious, ethnic,or national group, “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group” (1948: II.d) while the following section prohibits “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” (1948: II.e).Somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 Aboriginal children, now known as the “stolen generations” were separated from their parents between 1910 and 1970 (Manne, 2001: 27)


Neu and Therrien’s Accounting for Genocide ~2003!, which draws numerous parallels between the Holocaust and Canadian handling of aboriginal issues. Much of their work falls into comparative assessments of Aboriginal peoples and Jews and follows the Stannard-Churchill Lead.


First, both Nazi Germany and Victorian Canada had idealized visions of what they could achieve if troublesome“others” were either assimilated or removed. In both cases, Jews or Indians were perceived as “weeds” to be removed from the “ideal garden” (Neu and Therrien, 2003: 13). Second, bureaucratic forms of genocide arose out of a rational pursuit of efficiency. Both Jews and Indians were problematized and solutions were sought to these “problems” through“cost benefit analysis, budgeting and the development of incentive and disincentive schemes” (Neu and Therrien, 2003: 14–15).


Canadian experiences also figure as a precedent for the Holocaust: “The Nazi death camps, social engineering experiments in the extreme, may have found their infancy in the social engineering projects of Canada: assimilation and absorption,compulsory enfranchisement” (Neu and Therrien, 2003: 22).


Using a typology created by Charny, they claim Canada is guilty of “genocide in the course of colonization,” “genocide as the result of ecological destruction”and “cultural genocide.” Even if these seem to “envision” provisions of the Convention, neither author makes a clear case for genocide based on existing international law (Neu and Therrien, 2003: 15–16).Unfortunately, the authors misread Charny or purposefully distort his work to achieve a desired effect. (MacDonald 2007: 1005)


an essential aspect of Charny's definition of genocide is “the mass killing of substantial numbers of human beings, when not in the course of military action against the military forces of an avowed enemy” (1994: 75).


In 2001, inspired by Chrisjohn and Young, a controversial report entitled Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust was released. The report was drafted by members of the Truth Commission into Genocide in Canada (TCGC) but was ostensibly written by former United Church minister Kevin Annett, the “investigating and research officer.” Annett and his colleagues argue that 50,000 indigenous peoples either disappeared or were killed in residential schools, and their report goes on to lay out a series of charges using the Genocide Convention as a means of structuring the report (TCGC, 2001: 89).Annett’s thesis is the Canadian state intended ~with co-operation from the four main churches! to exterminate indigenous peoples.Death was not an unhappy consequence of the system but the desired end goal (TCGC 51).Other claims include the deliberate spreading of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis to kill as many children as possible (TCGC 37–38).an “International War Crimes Tribunal into Genocide in Canada” is to be established (TCGC, 2002).


nature of the “Canadian Holocaust,” such terms merely disguise the fact that physical eradication cannot be conclusively proven as a key goal of Canada’s policies towards First Nations. Intent to commit genocide is crucial under the UNGC and in my view has not been proven conclusively to date.(MacDonald 2007: 1008)


the Holocaust, through its Americanization, has achieved a certain iconic status. This has encouraged some activists from indigenous movements to copy the Holocaust’s vocabulary and symbolism in an effort to promote the history and rights of their own group. Unfortunately,this process can work to trivialize Holocaust history as well as that of indigenous peoples. (MacDonald 2007: 1011)
Smallpox and Cowpox under the Southern Cross the Smallpox Epidemic of 1789 and the Advent of Vaccination in Colonial Australia by Michael J Bennett
7.  michael j. bennett, Smallpox and Cowpox under the Southern Cross: The Smallpox Epidemic of 1789 and the Advent of Vaccination in Colonial Australia, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Volume 83, Number 1, Spring 2009,pp. 37-62


The epidemic that raged around Sydney Cove in 1789 is one of the most significant events in Australian history. It killed large numbers of Aborigines, locally and further afield, and had a catastrophic impact on their capacity to resist British expansion. (Bennett 2009:40)


Over the years some historians have argued that the British were responsible, directly or indirectly, for the epidemic.10 Most scholars have resisted this conclusion. They have pointed out the unlikelihood,if not the near impossibility, that any variola virus brought to Australia in 1787–88 was still infective in 1789. (Bennett 2009: 41)


The catastrophic impact of smallpox on the Aboriginal peoples around Sydney Cove is now generally acknowledged. I Suggest that variolation played a larger role in shaping the history of colonial Australia than has been recognized. (Bennett 2009: 60) The smallpox that ravaged the Dutch Cape Colony in 1713 arrived on a vessel from India.9 In the Americas the scourge followed in the wake of Spanish conquest and colonization, probably crossing the equator as early as the 1520s. The importation of African slaves enormously increased the opportunities for the disease. Brazil was exposed to infection from slaves brought by the Portuguese from western Africa. It even infiltrated the Jesuit missionary enclave in Paraguay in the early eighteenth century. In southeast Asia, smallpox was known in the Indonesian archipelago before 1600, but its increasing profile and virulence from the seventeenth century can perhaps be associated with Dutch commercial and colonial activity.


From the sixteenth century onward, the southern progress of smallpox was assisted by European as well as Arab slaving and trading enterprises. There was a severe outbreak around Mombasa in the 1580s.


Smallpox in some form arrived in Australia with the First Fleet in January 1788. Fifteen months later, the British colony at Port Jackson (Sydney)began to receive reports of disease spreading among Aborigines in the area. Governor Phillip and his colleagues went to a nearby cove to inspect some of the victims and decided to bring two survivors, an old man and a boy, into the settlement. A hut near the hospital was prepared for them.27The British officers saw an opportunity to conciliate the Aborigines.( Benette 2009:44)


there was a major smallpox epidemic in the Indonesian archipelago in the mid-1780s, it is conceivable that they brought the disease to ArnhemLand, Australia, and that the infection slowly worked its way east and south, passing from one Aboriginal nation to another, to Sydney Cove in 1789.


In 1778 Captain Cook visited Nootka Sound on the northwest coast of America and left an account of thriving Amerindian communities. Visiting the same coastline in 1792,George Vancouver found a scene of desolation. The pockmarked faces of survivors attested to smallpox in the not-too-distant past, presumably sometime between 1778 and the first recorded observation in 1787. Observing the aftermath of the epidemic in 1788, an American sailor was moved to write: “Infamous Europeans, a scandal to the Christian name; is it you, who bring and leave in a country with people you deem savages the most loathsome diseases?”


The epidemic that raged during the American Revolutionary War reached New Orleans in 1778 and continued to advance westward and northward through networks of exchange and warfare among the indigenous peoples. There is evidence of smallpox in the eastern foothills of the Rockies in 1781 and at a site 250 miles upriver from the Pacific.39 If Cook had established a settlement at Nootka Sound in 1778, he would have found himself in the midst of an epidemic within a few years.( Bennette 2009:45)


There were nonetheless elements in the British colony sufficiently brutalized to take on such a deed. There were veterans of the American Theater of the Seven Years’ War, when on at least one occasion smallpox had been used against the Native Americans.(Bennette 2009:49)


In May 1788 Aborigines attacked and killed two convicts at Rushcutters Bay, and the word was that the attack was in response to the convicts’ murder of two natives.55 There were similar attacks and reprisals in March 1789.56 Many British convicts would have been familiar with the use of scabs in variolation, and one or more of them may have seen in the smallpox matter an opportunity to seek revenge.(Bennette 2009:49)


Governor Phillip believed that half of the local Aborigines Perished, and that on account of the flight of the survivors, the disease“must have spread to a considerable distance, as well in land as along the coast.”
Indian Drum in the House A Critical Discourse analysis of An Apology for Canadian Residential Schools and the Publics Response by Willow J Anderson
8.   Willow J Anderson, ‘Indian drum in the house’: A critical discourse analysis of an apology for Canadian residential schools and the public’s response , the International Communication Gazette74(6)(2012) 571–585.University of New Mexico


Prime Minister Harper’s On 11 June 2008 apology to the survivors of the residential schools was a significant step in the government’s attempts to rectify the country’s ‘cold’ conflict with Aboriginal Canadians. That apology, however, reveals a couple of dialectical tensions and contradictions. On the one hand the PM admits that the Government of Canada played an integral role in a system that has done much damage to Aboriginal families, communities, and cultures. On the other, his apology primarily reproduces the existing order of discourse and uses linguistic strategies such as nominalization and hedges to minimize responsibility and to distance the government from the deliberate and targeted nature of the racist policies that lead to the creation of the schools.(Anderson 2012:582)


Some suggest that Aboriginal Canadians should simply get over the past and they reject the PM’s statement that today’s Canadians should share the weight of past mistakes. Others want to remind the nation that until all Canadians recognize that Aboriginal Canadians have been affected by genocide, assimilation, and colonialism attempts toward real reconciliation will be both stilted and ineffectual.(Anderson 2012: 583)


This Archaic image is problematic as it undermines Aboriginal efforts to ‘come to the table’ as equal partners in matters regarding self-government, land claims, and Aboriginal education(LaFever, 2008).


These schools were grounded in a belief in Aboriginal inferiority and reports that advocated for the system stated that Aboriginal education must include ‘a weaning from the habits and feelings of their ancestors’ and that this must be done when they were young (Claes and Clifton, 1998).


Claes and Clifton (1998) point out ‘brutal and arbitrary punishment was a daily feature of school life; public beatings and humiliations, head-shaving, and being kept in locked closets on bread and water for days are described.’ In addition to these abuses about one-fifth of residential school students suffered sexual abuse (Naumetz, 2009).


PM Harper,announced the approval of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement and a total of CDN$1.9 billion in payments to former students. In addition, the Agreement promised CDN$60 million dollars for a five-year Truth and Reconciliation Commission and CDN$145 million for commemoration and healing events (Residential Schools Settlement,2008) the PM’s suggestion that Canada is a country without racism.
Darwins Shooters On Natural Selection and the Naturalizing of Genocide by Tony Barta
9.  Tony Barta (2005) Mr Darwin's shooters: on natural selection and the naturalizing of genocide, Patterns of Prejudice, 39:2, 116-137.


Tony Barta is an Honorary Associate in the School of Historical and European Studies at La Trobe University, Melbourne.


While he began his search for specimens in South America, the settlers were shooting the Indians.C Darwin observed European colonists doing their best to make the indigenous people extinct.(Barta 2005:117)Darwin’s fateful confusion of natural history and human history would be exploited fatally by others. To understand the connections to the colonial genocides of his time and to the European genocides that followed,we have to read this Darwin again.(118))


It took Darwin more than twenty years of ever-widening research, distracted by poor health, children and worries about the reception of his heresy, to complete an outline of a theory that decisively shifted modern consciousness to the realities of a world in which divine intervention played no part. Life and death belonged to nature; the causing of life and death could be construed as rational, natural and even moral within nature’s harsh, amoral laws(Barta 2005: 119).


As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive, and as consequently there is a frequently occurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself ... will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. ... This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest.( Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species [1859],ed. J. W. Burrow (Harmondsworth: Penguin 1968), 68.)


From the outset, Darwin recognized the spread of European civilization as a historic human intervention, a global process of unnaturals election that he kept trying to integrate into his civilized ethics and the unethical,biological basis of evolution.(Barta 2005:119)


Much opinion emphasized innate inferiority, biology over culture. General Manuel de Rosas, a cattle rancher who served as governor of Buenos Aires, and later dictator of Argentina, was engaged on what Darwin recognized at the time as a mission ‘to exterminate the Indians’.(120)


Some 112 women and children and men were ‘nearly all taken or killed, very few escaped’. (Darwin notes in the margin: ‘Only one Christian was wounded.’) ‘The soldiers pursue and sabre every man. Like wild animal showever they fight to the last instant.’ The reason was to be made plain.‘This is a dark picture; but how much more shocking is the unquestionable fact that that all the women who appear above twenty years old are massacred in cold blood.(120)‘Everyone here is fully convinced that this is the justest war, because it is against Barbarians.’for the reasons of historical progress self-evident to the winners of the war for the land.


if all the Indians are butchered, a grand extent of country will be available for the production of cattle, and the valleys ... will be most productive of corn. The country will be in the hands of white Gaucho Savages instead of copper-coloured Indians. The former being a little superior in civilisation, as they are inferior in every moral virtue.(Darwin, Beagle Diary, 180/1. )


‘Since leaving South America we have heard that this war of extermination completely failed.’ Then, ‘I think there will not, in another half-century, be a wild Indian northward of the RioNegro. The warfare is too bloody to last; the Christians killing every Indian and the Indians doing the same to the Christians(Darwin).’ There follows a reflection on how the destruction of a whole people takes place in a colonial society,not always by massacre.(121)


in 1535, when Buenos Aires was founded, there were villages containing two and three thousand inhabitants. Even in Falconer’s time(1750) the Indians made inroads as far as Luxan, Areco, and Arrecife, but now they are driven beyond the Salado. Not only have whole tribes been exterminated,but the remaining Indians have become more barbarous: instead of living in large villages, and being employed in the arts of fishing, as well as of the chase, they now wander about the open plains, without home or fixed occupation(121).


Darwin accepted and finally promoted the idea that a higher form of humanity could not evolve without the demise of the lower(122)the best thing that could be done would be to shoot all the Blacks and manure the ground with their carcasses, which was all the good they were fit for. It was recommended likewise that the women and children should especially be shot as the most certain method of getting rid of the race.(122)‘A large number were driven into a swamp, and mounted police rode round and round and shot them off indiscriminately until they were all destroyed.’


‘The Aboriginal blacks are all removed and kept (in reality as prisoners) in a Promontory, the neck of which is guarded.I believe it was not possible to avoid this cruel step; although without doubt the misconduct of the Whites first led to the Necessity.’(Darwin, Beagle Diary, 408).
The struggle for existence: natural or historical selection?


Malthus made mathematical play of a rather obvious fact: there could not be enough room on the planet for all the progeny of every organism. The weakest, logically, would go under. That is natural; Malthus was pessimistic about mere mortals countering the reproductive force of nature.said Malthus, suffering, disaster and even extinction could not be prevented by human institutions: they were ‘mere feathers that float on the surface, in comparison with those deep seated causes of impurity that corrupt the springs and render turbid the whole stream of human life’. This could be, from a Christian, an argument for original sin, but it isn’t. It is about necessity, ‘the inevitable laws of nature’.(Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population [1798], ed (Harmondsworth: Penguin 1972), 144.) quote at Barta 2005:126)


‘Extinction’, however, was another matter. Humans could survive in all kinds of climates and conditions; they often could not survive each other. ‘Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race.’ In tribal societies the contest for resources ‘is soon settled by war, slaughter,cannibalism, slavery, and absorption’.(Darwin, Descent of Man (1871), 236/40. quote at Barta 2005: 128)


if Darwin (as Wallace suggested)simply emphasized ‘survival of the fittest’: this was in any case the favourite of those most frank about the consequences of colonization(Barta 2005: 130).


Darwinism, colonialism and Nazi genocide


I don’t see why a German who eats a piece of bread should torment himself with the idea that the soil which produces this bread has been won by the sword. When we eat wheat from Canada, we don’t think about the despoiled Indians. [Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941/1944, trans. from the German by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens, ed. H. R. Trevor-Roper (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1988), 3, 37/8, 69; Quote at Barta 2005:134]


‘I saw men falling around me in thousands. Thus I learned that life is a cruel struggle, and has no other object but the preservation of the species. The individual can disappear, provided there are other men to replace him.’‘Plainly I belong to another species. I would prefer not to see anyone suffer, not to do harm to anyone. But when I realise that the species is in danger, then in my case sentiment gives way to the coldest reason.’[Hitler, Hitler’s Table Talk , 44. On medical and military reasoning about populations conquered by Germany, see Paul Weindling, Epidemics and Genocide in Eastern Europe 1890/1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000). quote at Barta 2005: 134]


Darwin knew by 1838 that colonies were the testing ground for the ‘best fitted organisation’ and the deadly struggle. They were interventions in ecology, biology and human populations on an unprecedented scale. Almost everywhere, they instituted relations of genocide.(Barta 2005: 135)


It was the power to demonstrate total domination, a ruthlessness that pretended to mimic nature while making nature count for nothing. The lessons were presented as natural history but derived from human history.History, not nature, would be the court of appeal. There, the unnatural selection Darwin could not resist bested natural selection at every turn.Hitler had seen how it worked. Those armed by a superior civilization would beat the inferior in war; they could take from them anything they liked, and kill any of them they chose(Barta 2005: 136).
First Nations Second thoughts by Tom Flanagan
10.   Tom Flanagan, First Nations? Second thoughts, 2ed edition, London, McGill-Queen’s University Press.2008
Conservatism. Keythinkers: Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797) , Hegel (1770 – 1831) for his nationalism,and Michael Oakeshott 1901 - 1990), a recent conservative intellectual. Robert Nozick (1938 – 2002) a key figure for the new right.  


Simply put, conservatism is based on a belief in the importance of tradition,which is seen as natural and safe because based on experience. Radical,revolutionary ideas are seen as dangerous, and society needs to progress slowly and naturally, and not be forced into new patterns. Often, conservatism went hand in hand with nationalism. Recently, conservatism has stressed its liberal roots and thus now the  ‘neo-liberals’ and ‘neo-conservatives’ and the ‘new right’.


Canada will be redefined as a multinational state embracing an archipelago of aboriginal nations that own a third of Canada’s land mass, are immune from federal and provincial taxation, are supported by transfer payments from citizens who do pay taxes, are able to opt out of federal and provincial legislation, and engage in “nation to nation” diplomacy with whatever is left of Canada(5).


I believe the actual outcome of implementing the aboriginal orthodoxy would be quite different. Although aboriginal leaders might achieve rewarding political careers, most aboriginal people would remain poor and dependent, marginalized on reserves and other territorial enclaves.This would be a lose-lose situation in which Canada and aboriginal peoples would both become worse off than they should be (5).


Aboriginals differ from other Canadians because they were here first. As “first nation”, they have unique rights, including the inherent right of self-government.


Tom reply: to differentiate the rights of earlier and later immigrants is a form of racism.


Aboriginal cultures were on the same level as those of the European colonists. The distinction between civilized and uncivilized is a racist instrument of oppression.


Tom answer: European civilization was several thousand years more advanced than the aboriginal cultures of North America,both in technology and in social organization. Colonization is inevitable according to John Locke philosophical analysis.


Aboriginal peoples possessed sovereignty. They still do, even if they choose to call it the “inherent right of self-government”.


Tom believe: sovereignty is an attribute of statehood.


Aboriginal peoples were and are nations in both the cultural and political senses of this term. Their nationhood is concomitant with their sovereignty.


Tom note: subordinate communities, provinces,cities, and ethnic or religious groups, cannot be nations.


Aboriginal peoples can successfully exercise their inherent right of self-government on Indian reserves.


Tom Argue: aboriginal government is fraught with difficulties stemming from small size, and overly ambitious agenda, and dependence on transfer payments; it produces wasteful, destructive and familistic factionalism.


Aboriginal property rights should be recognized as full ownership rights in Canadian law and entrenched, not extinguished, through land-claims agreements.


The land-surrender treaties in Ontario and the prairie provinces mean something other than their words indicate. Their wording needs to be “modernized” reinterpreted or renegotiated, to recognize an ongoing relationship between nations.


Aboriginal people, living and working on their own land base, will become prosperous and self-sufficient by combining transfer payments, resource revenues, and local employment.


Tom debate : prosperity and self-sufficiency requires a willingness to move to where jobs and investment opportunities exist. Heavy subsidies for reserve economies are producing large number of welfare dependent Indians.


Society is a spontaneous order that emerges from the choices of individual human beings. When government categories different legal rights based on immutable characteristics such as race and sex, it interferes with social processes based on free association(9).


Representative government under the constitutional rule of law is the only form of government that promotes individual freedom while protecting the spontaneous order of society.


Free market is the only economic system that has brought a high standard of living to a complex society. it is the most effective method for inducing self-interested individuals to serve the needs of others.


Science and technology led a cumulative increase in mastery over nature. Advances in social organization created larger and more complex society, thus making the division of labour more elaborate and effective.


Everyone might conceivably be mistaken about almost everything, the only corrective is constant testing through the confrontation of ideas and evidence(9).


Aboriginal orthodoxy is internally consistent, but the logical consistency of an ideology is not the same as its utility in the real world of politics and economics(9).


First it variance with liberal democracy because it makes race the constitutive factor of the political order; it would establish aboriginal nation as privileged political communities with membership defined by race, turn into an association of racial community rather than a polity whose members are individual human beings.
Conservatism. Keythinkers: Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797) , Hegel (1770 – 1831) for his nationalism,and Michael Oakeshott 1901 - 1990), a recent conservative intellectual. Robert Nozick (1938 – 2002) a key figure for the new right.  


Simply put, conservatism is based on a belief in the importance of tradition,which is seen as natural and safe because based on experience. Radical,revolutionary ideas are seen as dangerous, and society needs to progress slowly and naturally, and not be forced into new patterns. Often, conservatism went hand in hand with nationalism. Recently, conservatism has stressed its liberal roots and thus now the  ‘neo-liberals’ and ‘neo-conservatives’ and the ‘new right’.


Tom Flanagan, First Nations? Second thoughts, 2ed edition, London, McGill-Queen’s University Press.2008


Canada will be redefined as a multinational state embracing an archipelago of aboriginal nations that own a third of Canada’s land mass, are immune from federal and provincial taxation, are supported by transfer payments from citizens who do pay taxes, are able to opt out of federal an provincial legislation, and engage in “nation to nation” diplomacy with whatever is left of Canada(5).


I believe the actual outcome of implementing the aboriginal orthodoxy would be quite different. Although aboriginal leaders might achieve rewarding political careers, most aboriginal people would remain poor and dependent, marginalized on reserves and other territorial enclaves.This would be a lose-lose situation in which Canada and aboriginal peoples would both become worse off than they should be (5).


Aboriginals differ from other Canadians because they were here first. As “first nation”, they have unique rights, including the inherent right of self-government.


Tom reply: to differentiate the rights of earlier and later immigrants is a form of racism.


Aboriginal cultures were on the same level as those of the European colonists. The distinction between civilized and uncivilized is a racist instrument of oppression.


Tom answer: European civilization was several thousand years more advanced than the aboriginal cultures of North America,both in technology and in social organization. Colonization is inevitable according to John Locke philosophical analysis.


Aboriginal peoples possessed sovereignty. They still do, even if they choose to call it the “inherent right of self-government”.


Tom believe: sovereignty is an attribute of statehood.


Aboriginal peoples were and are nations in both the cultural and political senses of this term. Their nationhood is concomitant with their sovereignty.


Tom note: subordinate communities, provinces,cities, and ethnic or religious groups, cannot be nations.


Aboriginal peoples can successfully exercise their inherent right of self-government on Indian reserves.


Tom Argue: aboriginal government is fraught with difficulties stemming from small size, and overly ambitious agenda, and dependence on transfer payments; it produces wasteful, destructive and familistic factionalism.


Aboriginal property rights should be recognized as full ownership rights in Canadian law and entrenched, not extinguished, through land-claims agreements.


The land-surrender treaties in Ontario and the prairie provinces mean something other than their words indicate. Their wording needs to be “modernized” reinterpreted or renegotiated, to recognize an ongoing relationship between nations.


Aboriginal people, living and working on their own land base, will become prosperous and self-sufficient by combining transfer payments, resource revenues, and local employment.


Tom debate : prosperity and self-sufficiency require a willingness to move to where jobs and investment opportunities exist. Heavy subsidies for reserve economies are producing large number of welfare dependent Indians.


Society is a spontaneous order that emerges from the choices of individual human beings. When government categories different legal rights based on immutable characteristics such as race and sex, it interferes with social processes based on free association(9).


Representative government under the constitutional rule of law is the only form of government that promotes individual freedom while protecting the spontaneous order of society.


Free market is the only economic system that has brought a high standard of living to a complex society. it is the most effective method for inducing self-interested individuals to serve the needs of others.


Science and technology led a cumulative increase in mastery over nature. Advances in social organization created larger and more complex society, thus making the division of labour more elaborate and effective.


Everyone might conceivably be mistaken about almost everything, the only corrective is constant testing through the confrontation of ideas and evidence(9).


Aboriginal orthodoxy is internally consistent, but the logical consistency of an ideology is not the same as its utility in the real world of politics and economics(9).


First it variance with liberal democracy because it makes race the constitutive factor of the political order; it would establish aboriginal nation as privileged political communities with membership defined by race, turn into an association of racial community rather than a polity whose members are individual human beings.
The Genocide Question and Indian Residential Schools in Canada By David MacDonald
11.   DAVID B. MACDONALD & GRAHAM HUDSON(2012) The Genocide Question and Indian Residential Schools in Canada,  Canadian Journal of Political Science 45:2;  427–449 (University of Guelph & Ryerson University
Richard Drinnon argues that “societies are known by their victims” (1980:xii). In Canada, we confront ongoing disparities between average national standards of living and the disproportionately low economic,social and political status of Aboriginal peoples: First Nations, Métis and Inuit.


Since 2009, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada~TRC! has been investigating crimes committed against several generations of Aboriginal children in Canada’s IRS network. At the TRC forum in Vancouver in March 2011 some TRC officials, including Commissioner Wilton Littlechild and some invited speakers like Stephen Smith argued that genocide merited close attention as a descriptor for what happened in the IRS system(MacDonald & Hudson 2012: 428).


A number of Canadian academics assert that the UNGC does indeed apply to Aboriginal experiences (for example, Cardinal, 1999; Davis and Zannis,1973: 175–76; Grant, 1996: 69, 270–71; Haig-Brown, 1988: 11; Neu and Therrien, 2003).


MacDonald and Hudson argue that the IRS often produced genocidal outcomes, in terms of intergenerational trauma and cultural disintegration. As MacDonald has argued, the parallels between IRS survivors and genocide survivors in other contexts are often striking (2007: 1009–11). However, there are also differences lying with the scale of atrocities an.


Aboriginal leaders like Chief Shingwauk intended for on reserve schools, known as“teaching wigwams” to educate his people and prepare them for a better life. The early focus on benefits to Aboriginal people and the balance between Western and Aboriginal worldviews and languages soon gave way to a far more coercive system which entailed forced assimilation and cultural destruction(MacDonald and Hudson 2012: 431).


As Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs Duncan Campbell Scott argued in 1920, in a passage which is often characterized as a confession of guilt:“I want to get rid of the Indian problem ... Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politics and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department.”


It then outlined a non-exhaustive list of acts that constitute serious bodily and mental harm, which include “acts of torture, be they bodily or mental, inhumane or degrading treatment, persecution”, as well as acts of sexualviolence, rape, mutilations and interrogations, combined with beatings and or threats of death as acts that amount to serious bodily harm.


We could reasonably hold that this genocidal act is directly applicable to the case of the IRS system. Many acts that constitute serious bodily and mental harm are known to have been performed by school officials and private parties during the operation of these schools. These include sexualassault, threats of death, severe beatings and assault, inhuman and degrading treatment ~including systematic assaults on Aboriginal self identity!and disfigurement and serious injuries to health as a result of the forced cohabitation of healthy children with children infected with communicable diseases. A high percentage of children also died while attending the schools, although casualty rates cannot be determined precisely at this stage. In some schools, during some time periods, the death toll exceeded 50 per cent (AFN, 1994; Grant, 1996; Miller, 1996, 2004;Milloy, 1996; MacDonald and Hudson 2012).


MacDonald and Hudson(2012) argued that “cultural genocide” or “ethnocide” may be appropriate as a ground floor to describe much of Canada’s treatment of Aboriginal peoples, we see active attempts to destroy culture, language and religion, while stealing land and outlawing customs(442). As Charny has argued, ethnocide aims at the, “intentional destruction of another people,” but crucially, does not necessarily include destruction of actual lives” (1994: 85).


Aboriginal activism and the quest for political rather than legal solutions is generally seen as a more realistic pursuit(444).


MacDonald and Hudson(2012)concluded that is clear evidence of intention to commit cultural genocide through the outlawing of traditional customs, like the potlatch and sundance, through the pass system which kept First Nations people on reserves, and through strict policies promoting forcible assimilation, including denigration of traditional languages and religious practices, using the IRS as an expedient. the Indian Act further demonstrate intent to denigrate and destroy Aboriginal culture in Canada, denying Aboriginal people the right to use the Canadian legal system, denying First Nations women the right to keep their status when marrying outside the community,provisions allowing for forcible stripping of First Nations status and citizenization and other similar measures. These and other aspects of colonial policy indicate the intent of the Canadian government to commit cultural genocide(445).


to prove the intention, for example, a very high death rate in the IRS system that could be proven to be intentional, such as the deliberate spread of disease with the intention of killing large numbers of Aboriginal children, would qualify. Proof of an intentional policy of forced sterilization targeting Aboriginal women would also qualify, coupled with evidence of the widespread use of this practice. Forced removal as a means of intentionally destroying the group would also be convincing.


Ethnic cleansing, forced displacement and mass murder do not automatically in and of themselves prove genocide. We feel that the evidence of genocide in Canada is building but is by no means conclusive yet, especially in light of the fairly circumspect interpretations made by international tribunals and the even narrower interpretations of international law favoured by Canadian courts(446).


a finding of “genocide” would have social and political ramifications. It would make a stronger moral and legal case for treaty rights to be upheld, for forms of Aboriginal self determination and for better political representation as suggested by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People. It might promote a secondapology, greater reparations and a stronger sense of national responsibility.It might promote real attempts at conciliation on the part of manyCanadians(446). Whether or not the IRS system will be proven to be genocidal, Canada still has a very long way to go before any form of conciliation can be achieved.
What do Genocides Kill A Relational Conception of Genocide by Christopher Powell
12.   Christopher Powell (2007) What do genocides kill? A relational conception of genocide, Journal of Genocide Research, 9:4, 527-547.


The word “genocide” first appeared in print in 1944, as the title and the subject matter of Chapter IX of Axis Rule in Occupied Europe by Polish jurist and legal activist Raphael Lemkin. Briefly, it meant “the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group,”(Raphael Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Division of International Law,1944), p 79).by combining “the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc”.


“liberals”definition:  for two reasons: first, because of their individualist conception of the social; second, because they take a generally affirmative view of liberal-democratic states and regard genocide as mass murder committed by totalitarian or dictatorial states.“Post-liberals” conceive of genocide as a structural process that does not require any intending agent. They more readily recognize as genocide those events that cause the destruction of a social collectivity but for which evidence of a coherent exterminatory intent is not available. Given the culpability of “white” settler societies for the destruction of indigenous societies and cultures,the post-liberal position denies any strong negative correlation between liberal-democratic regimes and propensity to genocide(Powell 2007:528).


For postliberals,on the other hand, the “genos” of “genocide” designates an emergent social structure, irreducible to the individuals who make it up. Genocide is the murder or destruction of this structure. Thus genocide might or might not involve any actual homicide( Powell 528).
Disrupting Canadians Sovereignty the First Nation and China Strategy by Jean Michel Montsion
13.   Jean Michel Montsion, Disrupting Canadian sovereignty? The ‘First Nations & China’ strategy revisited, Geoforum 58 (2015) 114–121( author work at International Studies, Glendon College, York University, Canada)


abstract
In response to foreign investors’ growing interest in Canadian natural resources, British Columbia (BC)First Nations created the First Nations Energy and Mining Council (FNEMC) in 2006 in order to foster direct, independent and collaborative relations between indigenous peoples and investors. In 2011, the FNEMC launched the First Nations & China: Transforming Relationships strategy to facilitate two-way investment between First Nations and Chinese businesses, and to represent the interests of BC First Nations in cases in which they perceived the Canadian state and Canadian investors are not adequately representing their interests. This strategy is an interesting case of indigenous self-affirmation because it disrupts the narrative of Canadian state sovereignty. It does so to position BC First Nations as legitimate and central interlocutors for Chinese investors who are interested in resource extraction on traditional indigenous lands. To better understand the strategy’s impact on Canada–China relations, I focus on the spatial dimensions of the First Nations & China strategy. Specifically, I situate the strategy in the context of BC First Nations’ history of political organization, and analyze the discursive practices surrounding the strategy’s launch. I draw from the various spatial dimensions associated with contentious politics – scale,place, network, positionality and mobility – to argue that the First Nations & China strategy opens Canada–China diplomatic relations for participation of BC First Nations by producing a ‘third space of sovereignty’ while also opposing Canada’s sovereign claims and control over territory, resources and diplomacy.


Thomas note that since sovereignty is not absolutely rights which can be divide into various level, such as state-sovereignty, tribal sovereignty, people's sovereignty and so on. Under special condition, even human rights are higher than the state-sovereignty, for example government incite genocide and holocaust etc.


in conclusion: The FNEMC’s First Nations & China strategy disrupts Canada’s sovereignty and interrupts the Canadian state’s conventional diplomatic practice by inserting BC First Nations as key and legitimate interlocutors in Canada–China relations, especially with respect to resource extraction and economic development projects on traditional indigenous lands. (Montsion 2015:120)


the First Nations & China strategy produces a thirdspace of sovereignty to resist the hegemonologue of state sovereignty and to prioritize the legitimacy and history of BC First Nations over the automatic assumption of Eurocentric sovereign control over territory. This strategy includes various spatialities that are utilized in contentious politics to build self-affirming and long-lasting networks, to frame indigenous political action against hegemonic norms, and to facilitate independent collaborations between BC First Nations and Chinese investors.


In 2012, Canada and China ratified a foreign investment deal, which resituated the primacy of Canada’s diplomatic voice and constitutional jurisdiction over foreign affairs, setting a potentially detrimental precedent for indigenous peoples’ self-representation and rights. The Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) grants foreign investment from China the same protections given to Canadian investment, and was signed without any consultation with indigenous peoples.The FIPA has been denounced by indigenous leaders who were involved in the First Nations & China strategy,such as Grand Chief Philip, as providing ‘‘far superior protection for Chinese investors’ interests than for our First Nations’ Aboriginal Title, Rights and Treaty Rights’’ (Mentsion 2015: 120)


Prior to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s visit to China in February 2012, the Yinka Dene Alliance, a coalition of six First Nations of Northern British Columbia (BC) who were united in their opposition to a proposed oil pipeline on their lands, sent an open letter to then Chinese President Hu Jintao. The letter suggested that President Hu raise the issue of Canada’s human rights record, especially its stance towards its indigenous peoples(Mentsion 2015: 114)


The letter to President Hu is an expression of indigenous sovereignty and self-affirmation in that it opposes and resists the domestication of indigenous perspectives and the automatic subsuming of indigenous claims within the current colonial legal and political framework(Mentsion 2015:114)
Sovereignty and indigenous peoples


As Bruyneel (2007) described, indigenous peoples’ actions exist in and reproduce a third space of sovereignty to the extent that these actions disrupt and interrupt the hegemonic norm of Westphalian state sovereignty and create space for the inclusion and conduct of autonomous indigenous political life(Mentsion 2015:115).


Shaw (2008: 30) argues that Eurocentric state sovereignty is produced ‘‘by ordering difference spatially to enable identity.’’ Modern Westphalian states are conceived not only by obtaining the legitimate monopoly of violence over a territory (Weber, 1946), but also by differentiating between inside and outside, that is, the familiarity with one’s own political community and the foreignness of others. Westphalian sovereignty encapsulates the sacred trinity of territory, national identity and statist political power (Arendt, 2009: 282), and builds on the inside/outside divide in order to derive legitimacy from the familiar and domestic voices.


Indigenous peoples are caught in a space that is neither domestic nor foreign. Moreover, historically, they have been excluded from the process of shaping of Westphalian state sovereignty because a Euclidean understanding of space and power precludes the existence of other independent and legitimate political communities on the same territory (Moreton-Robinson, 2006: 383)


  Shaw maintains that the political recognition of indigenous peoples on indigenous terms disrupts state sovereignty and related territorial claims. Such recognition destabilizes the ‘‘Empire of Uniformity’’ on which the modern state is built (Tully, 1995: 58) because it interrupts the binary opposition of inside/outside in favor of non-Western notions of connection, heterogeneity and multiplicity (Shaw, 2008: 154–162).


The use of Eurocentric notions such as sovereignty to express and advocate for autonomy has been criticized by scholars as incommensurate with similar concepts from various indigenous perspectives (Day, 2001: 186–187).


For indigenous scholars such as Alfred (2002), the notion of sovereignty should not be applied to indigenous peoples’ claims to autonomy because such an application could limit the political possibilities (Shaw, 2008: 182–183). Alfred’s argument is in line with Walker’s (1993) critical perspectives on sovereignty’s political limitations because of the oppositional inside/outside binary on which it is built. However, Alfred does not completely discard the notion. Rather, he describes its instrumental use by indigenous peoples to ‘‘undergird internal colonization’’ (Alfred, 2002: 460) and examines how the idea of indigenous sovereignty has been used, especially since the 1990s, to assert indigenous peoples’ prior sovereignty over settler states and self-determination under international law (Alfred, 2002: 463).


Alfred underscores the limitations and inappropriateness of the notion of sovereignty to represent the goal of indigenous nations’ autonomy claims, arguing that it does not address the problems facing indigenous nations (Alfred, 2002: 465).


Another limitation of the concept of indigenous sovereignty that Alfred and others have identified is the misrepresentation of indigenous relations to land, notably by reducing land to territory and resources (Alfred, 2002: 466–470).


indigenous peoples’ strategic use of the notion of sovereignty makes some progress towards effective assertion of autonomy.


Bruyneel (2007) highlights how the form of sovereignty being claimed by indigenous peoples is unclear and undefined and does not match the inside/outside binary opposition. In addition, settler states attempt to constrain, both spatially and temporally, such requests for autonomy.


Bruyneel locates indigenous autonomy and sovereignty in the actions of indigenous peoples who refuse to engage settler states on their own terms, and who disrupt the binary oppositions on which their borders and colonial jurisdiction are based. Indigenous sovereignty or autonomy can be understood as inhabiting this third space, as both the agency and opportunity to interrupt the settler states’ main narrative stretch across boundaries, in the cracks and the holes found between the colonial and modern claims of the state (Bruyneel, 2007: 124; quote at Mentsion 2015: 116).


Such expressions of agency on the part of indigenous peoples create hybrid regimes that highlight settler states’ limited power to impose Eurocentric norms on the practices of indigenous peoples (Egan and Place, 2013: 131). Indigenous sovereignty and autonomy challenge the legitimacy of modern Westphalian states and inter-state interactions. Although the state has claims over diplomacy and foreign affairs, indigenous peoples’ position as key interlocutors with foreign audiences, and their assertion of a relationship of equals, dilutes the narrative of state sovereignty and the ontological primacy of state institutions to mediate between the inside and the outside (Beier, 2010: 179)


indigenous expressions of sovereignty celebrate diversity and independence of indigenous political life, and the move towards greater autonomy and self-affirmation (Coulthard, 2007: 453–454).


Indigenous expressions of sovereignty therefore call into question the hegemonologue of state sovereignty by making room for indigenous perspectives in what settler states consider to be their sole jurisdiction over foreign affairs (Beier, 2010: 184).


Understanding indigenous political actions through each spatial dimension and through their combination may shed light on the production of the third space of sovereignty and on the resistance to the hegemonologue of state sovereignty(Mentsion 2015: 117).




Alfred, T., 2002. Sovereignty. In: Deloria, P.J., Salisbury, N. (Eds.), A Comparison to American Indian History. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, pp. 460–474.
Alfred, T., Corntassel, J., 2005. Being indigenous: resurgences against contemporary colonialism. Govern. Opposite. 40 (4), 597–614.
Bruyneel, K., 2007. The Third Space of Sovereignty: The Postcolonial Politics of US Indigenous Relations. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Shaw, K., 2008. Indigeneity and Political Theory: Sovereignty and the Limits of the Political. Routledge, New York.
Weber, M., 1946. Politics as a vocation. In: Gerth, H.H., Wright Mills, C. (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Oxford University Press, New York.
Arendt, H., 2009. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt, Brace, Jonanovich, San Diego.
Moreton-Robinson, A., 2006. Towards a new research agenda? Foucault, Whiteness and Indigenous sovereignty. J. Sociol. 42 (4), 383–395.
Tully, J., 1995. Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in the Age of Diversity.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Day, R., 2001. Who is this we that gives the gift? Native American political theory and the Western tradition. Crit. Horizons 2 (2), 173–201.
Beier, M., 2010. At home on Native land: Canada and the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. In: Beier, M., Wylie, L. (Eds.), Canadian Foreign Policy in Critical Perspective. Oxford University Press, Toronto, pp. 175–186.
Coulthard, G., 2007. Subjects of empire: indigenous peoples and the ‘politics of recognition’ in Canada. Contemp. Polit. Theory 6, 437–460.
Genocide as Social Control by Bradley Campbell
14.   Bradley Campbell(2009) Genocide as Social Control, Sociological Theory 27:2 ; 150-172. * California State University, Los Angeles


Campbell(2009) defined genocide as organized and unilateral mass killing on the basis of ethnicity. Most such killings occur in response to behavior defined as deviant. Genocide can thus be explained as part of a general theory of social control(167).


Previous theories may explain genocide with societal characteristics, individual characteristics,regime characteristics, or historical events, but pure sociology focuses on generic properties of social life.


In 2002 and 2003 rebel groups - consisting mostly of African Muslims from the Darfur region of Sudan - began to attack and loot facilities operated by the Arabdominated government. In response government forces and Arab militia groups have attacked African civilians throughout the Darfur region. These attacks - which have consisted of indiscriminate killing, torture, rape, the burning of villages, and massive population displacement have resulted in the deaths of 400,000 or more Africans. Additionally, 2 million Africans are currently displaced from their homes within Darfur, and more than 200,000 are refugees in neighboring Chad. Many of these people, without access to food and medical care, also face death(Campbell 2009:150).


approximately 1 million Armenians in Turkey between 1915 and 1916; nearly 6 million Jews and more than 200,000 Gypsies in Nazi-controlled Europe between 1939 and 1945; more than 100,000 Hutus in Burundi in 1972; more than 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994; at least 50,000 Kurds in Iraq in 1988; and others(In China, more than 80 millions people were killed during 1949 and 1979!).


? Many have approached genocide as a type of evil.Consider the titles of several prominent books on genocide: Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (Arendt 1977), Becoming Evil (Waller 2002), The Roots of Evil (Staub 1989), and Facing Evil (Woodruff and Wilmer 2001). The implication is that genocide is similar to other evil acts - that it can be explained with a theory of evil. Similarly, genocide may be viewed as "madness" (Aronson 1987) or as a crime that can be explained with a theory of criminality (Alvarez 2001:1-9; Hagan et al. 2005).


Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups,with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. ( Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin 1944:79)


In 1948 the United Nations passed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, making genocide a crime under international law.  genocide is defined as:any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part,a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such (a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group (United Nations 1948).3


Some genocide scholars prefer to use the UN. definition.. Most social scientists studying genocide see the UN.definition as vague, too restrictive, too broad, or some combination of these. Other definitions, then, have been proposed.Many of these definitions broaden the scope of genocide to include groups such as classes or political group. Others are more restrictive.A second issue concerns what actions constitute genocide. Most definitions restrict genocide to direct killing or to acts that result in deaths.4 However, there is less agreement on the degree of destruction necessary. Here, one of the narrowest definitions is that of Steven T. Katz, for whom genocide "applies only when there an actualized intent, however successfully carried out, to physically destroy an entire group" (1994:128). But most definitions are not so restrictive.There are other aspects involved in defining genocide. For instance, some stipulated at genocide is committed by government, The definition may also be limited to exclude certain acts of warfare.  Another issue is the unit of analysis. That is, if genocide does not require the intended killing of all group members worldwide - as it does for Steven Katz (1994) - what is the lowest level at which it applies - a state, a region, or what? Those who restrict genocide to government killing imply that it would involve the targeting of group member switch in a state, or perhaps within the government's sphere of influence. Where the perpetrator is not specified, the issue is not always addressed.


Genocide is organized and unilateral mass killing on the basis of ethnic it. Consider what this definition entails. First, genocide is mass killing. It does not include measures that destroy a group through nonlethal means. Hence, the destruction of a culture - such as the suppression of a language or religion - is not included. Neither is the forcible transfer of children, the infliction of serious bodily or mental harm, or measures to prevent births, each of which is included in the U.N. definition. Similarly,this definition does not include the non genocidal deportation or forced migration of ethnic groups - often called ethnic cleans in(Campbell 2009:153)


Additionally, genocide is organized. Organization refers broadly to the capacity for collective action, and it is present to some degree in any group.Groups are more organized, however, where there are administrative officers, where decision making is centralized and continuous, and where collective action itself is greater (Black 1976:85). Genocide, then, may be committed by groups such as governments,armies, and militias; killings by unorganized individuals are not included.


Genocide is also unilateral. Violence in general may be unilateral - flowing in one direction from one party to another - or bilateral - flowing in both directions at once (Black 1998:5-6). Unilateral collective violence includes, along with genocide,terrorism, vigilantism, lynching, and rioting; bilateral collective violence includes brawling, feuding, and warfare (Black 2004a: 16).Most significantly, then, since genocide is unilateral, it does not include warfare,which in its pure form is bilateral.7


Finally, genocide as defined here is directed against ethnic groups; it does not include killings where targets are selected on the basis of class, for example, or political identity. The term ethnic group is used here in a broad sense to refer to cultural groups characterized by a notion of common descent. Among the groups included as ethnic groups, then, are tribes, castes,nationalities, language groups, and many groups marked by race or religion. These differ from other groups in that identity normally is ascribed at birth and is relatively unchangeable.


Consider also what is not specified by this definition. First, genocide need not be perpetrated by a government. Second, this definition does not require any particular motive, intention, goal, or any other psychological state on the part of the perpetrators or anyone else. Genocide here is an observable sociological phenomenon.Finally, this definition encompasses all levels of analysis, whether macro or micro.This means first of all that genocide is not restricted to the extermination of large ethnic groups.8 Nor must an ethnic group be targeted everywhere its members live.That the Nazis targeted Jews only in Europe, that the Rwandan government and Hutu militia groups targeted Tutsis only in Rwanda, or that the Ottoman government targeted Armenians only in Turkey does not mean there was no genocide.Moreover, since this definition specifies no unit of analysis, neither is it restricted to large units such as a continent or nation-state; genocide might occur only in a single location such as a village or town (cf. Straus 2001 :367).


The perpetrators express moral grievances against the targeted ethnic group. For instance, the following were among the grievancesagainst Jews in Nazi Germany: Jews were said to be "clannish, aloof, and distant", as well as clever, greedy, dishonest, andstriving for power and success.they were considered parasiteswho lived off the labor of other.were accused of disloyalty to the nation and blamed for Germany'sdefeat in World War.It was said that Jewishdoctors harmed their non- Jewish patients and that Jews molested and murderedchildre.They were considered aestheticallyrepulsive genetic misfits, sexual predators, anda threat to racial purity. Jews also were believed to have taken over German culture, and they were considered the embodiment of modernity and the source of all the modern ills - such as capitalism, socialism, liberalism, democracy, and urbanism - that threatened the German way of life. Jews were said to be "wicked creatures" who belonged to an "anti-race" outside of the hierarchy of human races, and it was believed they formed "a conspiratorial body seton ruining and then dominating the rest of mankind"(Campbell 2009: 155). As in the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide, the perpetrators also accused their targets of attempted genocide. Thus, the insurgency in Darfur was said to be an attempt by Africans to rid Darfur of Arabs.


In other genocides - especially those that are more localized - grievances may be more obviously connected to a specific action on the part of members of the victim group. For example, in 1859 Yuki Indians killed some of the stock being supervised by H. L. Hall, a settler in the Round Valley of California, in retaliation for a lack of payment for work. In response, Hall and his accomplices killed all the Indians they could find (Carranco and Beard 1981:62-63)


As seen in these cases, genocide is typically a means of handling grievances against an ethnic group. Such grievances may refer to real actions of members of the targeted group or they may be "fantastical" (Goldhagen 1996:412). Regardless, the logic is the same: grievances are handled through mass killing.


the destruction of the Pequot Indians of New This content downloaded from New England in 1637, the Hereros of South-West Africa between 1904 and 1907, and the Tasmanian Aborigines in the early 19th century (Chalk and Jonassohn 1990:36-37).


Each of these genocides also occurred in the course of conflict. For instance,colonists blamed the Pequots for the murder of Captain John Stone in 1634 and John Oldam in 1636, which led to a retaliatory raid against the Indians of Block Island and the Pequots. When the Pequots countered with a series of raids and ambushes (resulting in the deaths of 30 Europeans), colonists made war against them, ultimately resulting in the deaths of one-quarter to two-thirds of the tribe and the dissolving of the Pequots as a nation (Freeman 1995b:286-89)


in the genocide and expulsion of Tasmanian Aborigines in the 19th century. Here, predatory behavior on the part of the British settlers - such as the expropriation of land, the routine rape of women, and the enslavement of women and abduction of children - led to aboriginal resistance and then to genocide. Aborigines raided settlers' property and engaged in guerilla warfare.Colonists responded with search-and-destroy parties to hunt down Aborigines. After their population was reduced, the remaining Aborigines were removed to Flinders Island (Madley 2004:170-76)


Jonassohn and Chalk (1987:17) note that deportation has decreased and genocide increased along with growth of populations, the spread of nation-states, and the decline of relatively empty territories. For instance, while "it was possible for England, France, Spain,and Portugal to expel the Jews at different times, it was not possible for Hitler to expel the millions of Jews living in Germany and its occupied territory.


In 1939 and 1940, Nazi Jewish policy focused on plans to forcibly resettle the Jews under German Control (Valentino 2004:170-76). in 1941 Nazi policies increasingly focused on mass killings of Jews (Aly 2000:73-75)


Genocide and warfare against Native Americans occurred sporadically from the time of European arrival in North America (Jennings 1975:186-227; Nash 2000:25-138; Stannard 1992:104-46).


As whites advanced to the west coast, there were fewer available areas for relocation or flight. In California, genocides against Indians were more widespread, numerous, and severe than elsewhere. There, in part due to massacres, the Indian population was reduced in a short period of time by almost two-thirds, from 100,000 in 1849 to 35,000 in 1860 (Thornton 1987:107-09).


Relations between European settlers and American Indians reveal a similar pattern.Where functional interdependence was greatest, genocide was absent. For instance,in the 17th century, the French - whose settlements were established to enable fur trading with the Indians - had more peaceful relations with American Indians than the English. In New France, those settlers who were not there to trade furs were there to evangelize among the Indians; both of these tasks required cooperation. In the early 18th century,however, when the French began permanent settlements along the lower Mississippi,trade with the nearby Natchez was minimal, and conflicts became violent. Eventually,the French killed at least 1 ,000 Natchez and sold 400 of them into slavery. Others Fled to find refuge among other tribes, and the Natchez ceased to exist as a sovereign people (Nash 2000:47^8).


Changes in functional interdependence between whites and Indians in California seem to have contributed to genocide. Prior to the 1849 gold rush in California,Indian laborers worked as near-slaves for Mexican and American ranchers.Ranch owner John Marsh noted that "throughout all of California the Indians are the principal laborers; without them the business of the country could hardly be carried on". During this period, "despite the Mexicans' and Americans' debasing treatment of Indians, their cruelties stopped short of outright extermination" (Sousa 2004:196). Even after the discovery of gold, ranchers at first found it profitable to use California Indians as miners, but immigrants during the gold rush sought wealth through their own labors. As relations between whites and Indians became less interdependent,policies toward Indians became increasingly genocidal.


totalitarian regimes, such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, are more violent (especially toward their own citizens) than authoritarian regimes, and authoritarian regimes are more violent than democracies(Rummel 1994:14-21)


Genocide occurred more frequently in Australia than perhaps anywhere else (Moses 2000:93). And here the Aborigines generally had less societal complexity than natives elsewhere. The hunter-gatherer Aborigines of Australia were scattered widely about the continent; population density was low,and there was little political or cultural cohesion. The horticulturalist Maoris of New Zealand, in contrast, were more numerous overall, more settled, lived in larger groups, spoke a common language, and were more politically and militarily organized(Howe 1977:3-6). Accordingly, Maori resistance was met with conventional warfare and attempts at the "amalgamation" of Maoris into the colonial society rather than with extermination (Howe 1977:39-42)


Relations in the Americas, where natives had varying levels of societal complexity,were also less genocidal than in Australia, and genocide was more frequent and extreme where status differences were greater. For instance, in California, where genocide against American Indians became most widespread and severe, genocides were committed mainly by white miners against hunter-gatherers who had fewer resources, a lower capacity for organization, and who had long been subject to legal inequality, violence, and other forms of social control. Still, there was some variation by region. The central and southern mines, for instance, were generally similar in their ethnic relations. Indians outnumbered whites in the southern area, however,but not in the central area. After the onset of the gold rush, miners in the central region often indiscriminately killed Indians, and they prohibited them from working except in the most undesirable jobs (Hurtado 1988:101-11). In the southern mines,however, relations between whites and Indians mostly remained peaceful.
Genocide Reconsidered A Pragmatist Approach by Erik Schneiderhan
15.   Erik Schneiderhan (2013) Genocide Reconsidered: A Pragmatist Approach, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 43:3; 280-300.He is an Assistant Professor Department of Sociology University of Toronto Canada.


genocide has been explained as the product of the social control of deviance (Campbell, 2009); modernity (Bauman, 2000 ); eliminationist ideology (Goldhagen,2009); collective, dehumanizing framing (Hagan & Rymond-Richmond, 2008); democracy’s dark side (Mann, 2005); and contextual history (Mamdani, 2009). Still, we remain far from a robust understanding of how and why genocide occurs.


I attempt to provide a more robust theoretical framework for making sense of the contingent and process dimensions of these mass crimes(Schneiderhan 2013:281).








您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则


站内文章仅为网友提供更多信息,不代表本网站同意其说法或描述,也不构成任何建议。本网站仅为网友提供交流平台,对网友自由上传的文字和图片等,本网站
不为其版权和内容等负责。站内部分内容转载自其它社区、论坛或各种媒体,有些原作者未知。如您认为站内的某些内容属侵权,请及时与我们联络并进行处理。
关于我们|隐私政策|免责条款|版权声明|网站导航|帮助中心
道至大 道天成

小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|联系我们|天易综合网 (Twitter@wolfaxcom)

GMT-5, 9/22/2017 02:53 , Processed in 0.062279 second(s), 9 queries , Gzip On, Apc On.

Copyright 天易网 network. All Rights Reserved.

© 2009-2015 .

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表