The case of “genocide” is a classic in the annals of deliberate linguistic manipulation for unethical goals.
A detailed essay in the New York Times explains the machinations around the word, which is similar to what we have seen recently in other cases, like that of “women,” “racism,” “lying,” “ad hominem” (in a debate here on Ethics Alarms), “fascism,”and “insurrection,” to name just a few of many. The proliferation of this Orwellian process should set off not just ethics alarms but evil alarms.
As the article correctly explains, international law addressing genocide was aimed at extreme and unequivocal examples where a nation sets out to exterminate an entire race or ethnic group for no other reason than that group’s existence. It is the ultimate hate crime, and thus was labeled a “crime against humanity.” The Holocaust was the prime example: nothing describes genocide more indisputably than a group of experts, military officials and government leaders sitting around a table and deciding on a “Final Solution.”
But as the article relates, mission creep has invaded the anti-genocide brigade, for example with the United States being accused of genocide in its treatment of Native American and because of the actions of the KKK and others during the Jim Crow era, and now, with Israel being vilified by the genocide label for being determined to eliminate a terrorist organization pledged to commit genocide against Israelis.
Naturally, the United Nations is complicit in this process, and, naturally, so is the I.C.J., the U.N.’s top court. The U.S., among other nations, supports the Geneva Convention but doesn’t accept the authority of the I.C.J. The article doesn’t explicitly explain why, but the reason is obvious: the court is subject to political motives and bias. It can’t be trusted.
“Genocide” has been slowly made a synonym for “human rights violations,” and wars are by definition human rights violations. Thus the U.N. can always use a politicized definition of “genocide” to declare any war, even one triggered by a nation’s right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens, as “genocide”—particularly if the nation waging the war is Israel.
By the standards being weaponized by the protesters at the Democratic National Convention, the U.S. ending World War II with two atom bombs would qualify as genocide.
This is the unethical—but effective—process:
1. Identify a nation, group, individual, or leader that you want to demonize.
2. Find a word universally regarded as describing conduct that is heinous and unforgivable.
3. Redefine that word so that the policies, conduct or stated position of that nation, group, individual, or leader can be described by it.
4. Repeat that word in association with the nation, group, individual, or leader’s policies, conduct or stated positions so that the word itself is defined by those policies, conduct or stated positions, rather than the other way around.
The average member of the public—you know, morons—won’t know the difference.
What makes this tactic so effective, diabolical, and impossible to stop is that there are many examples of pejorative words that should be used and understood to apply beyond their most narrow definitions. Child abuse. Indoctrination. Propaganda. Totalitarianism. Conflicts of interest. The distinction, perhaps, is whether the expanded definition is made in good faith, or it it is only aimed at a particular adversary to achieve strategic political gains.
The article, “The Bitter Fight Over the Meaning of ‘Genocide’” is here for you to read, freed from the paywall.
Ethics Alarms 