Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ziq OP wrote (edited )


Genocide, defined in the genocide convention, modeled after the scholarship of Rafael Lemkin, refers to "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such."


The vulgar politicization of the word “genocide,” now so extreme that I rarely use the word at all. The mass slaughter in Srebrenica, for example, is certainly a horror story and major crime, but to call it “genocide” so cheapens the word as to constitute virtual Holocaust denial, in my opinion. It amazes me that intelligent people cannot see that.

The Serbs intended to rid the land of Bosniak Muslims and finally managed to wipe out an entire town of them after a series of smaller massacres and systematic rapes starting in 1992. It meets the definition of genocide in every way. The only person who insists a genocide has to be exactly as bad as the Holocaust is Chomsky, and in doing so, he's denying all genocides that don't reach the numbers of the Holocaust and the American genocide.

Acknowledging the existence of different genocides than the Holocaust doesn't make someone a Holocaust denier, while insisting other genocides don't count as genocides because they didn't have as high a death count as the Holocaust IS genocide denial.

It's no different than when the far right claim the Holocaust was overblown and wasn't as bad as history records.