Short Answer 2

Cultural genocide has been used to point to the systematic destruction of elements of culture and language. While on the other hand, other people would be outraged at the application of the concept of genocide to such a thing. Because every individual on this earth has different perceptual lenses, unique to their own person experience and character, people will always see things in a different light. Some people would be offended by the way some use the word genocide, because they don’t see how someone could define what they’re referring to as genocide. They don’t see it as something comparable to a genocidal event such as the holocaust. People can get very touchy over this sort of thing, which results in a never ending, extensive debate over what counts as genocide and what doesn’t.

Genocide is a very tricky concept to define, especially when every individual trying to define it is entitled to their own opinion; which in turn effects the way one would go about defining something. Article 2’s definition isn’t wrong, but it’s not necessarily right either. In order for it to be “wrong” or “right” we would need a basis for that accusation, scientific evidence or proof. However, this is not an exact science; there is a lot of grey area which makes it difficult to nail. There are many factors that come into play and make defining such a concept so difficult. For instance, genocide can include a plethora of behaviors, which leads one to question exactly what kind of behaviors do we consider to coincide with genocide. Obviously there are groups out there who consider what they’re doing as “ethnic cleansing.” This refers to the forced removal or extinction of ethnic or religious groups, often times carried out by mass murder. Most people would consider this to be genocidal behavior, but the ones carrying it out would consider it a responsibility to their religion. There’s also the notion, or observation, that genocidal events evolve and change with the times, as everything does; what we might have considered to be a genocidal event a thousand years ago, might differ from what we consider it to be now or a hundred years from now. As society’s morals and ethics change and evolve, how we perceive certain things changes as well. The majority of society, specifically evangelical christians or catholics, used to view homosexuality as wrong. As the times changed, and people’s view on social and cultural controversies changed, so did the view of homosexuality. Now, there are still people out there who disagree and think that it’s wrong, but it’s become widely accepted and normalized throughout our modern day culture.

We also face difficulty defining it because different acts are covered under international law that all relate to genocide. In our culture and society, we see and hear people misusing and overusing the term. Language itself is a tedious thing, and over the course of time words lose their meaning, or take on a whole new meaning. For instance, the term “retarded” used to be used a professional, medical term for an individual who was developmentally delayed and had a lowered IQ. Over the course of time, the word slowly became a slang term that people use in a joking manner, even though its roots hold significant and professional origin. It’s now used as a slang term that some still find very offensive. People become desensitized to concept, words, and meanings; this leads to overusing a term that holds significant, heavy meaning and history and desensitizing people to its true definition. After a while, it looses its meaning. Some would argue that this has happened to the term genocide, and it very well could be true.

Sources: http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp236-us16/lecture-videos/convention-on-genocide/

Leave a Reply