Actually, this is incorrect and anachronistic. Despite Werfel's "Musa Dagh" or the contemporary report by US Ambassador Morgenthau about massacres, the events in Turkey were never described specifically as "genocide" until after World War II. In fact, the term "genocide" was only coined in 1943 (by Rafael Lemkin) and only gained popular currency during the Nuremberg Trials. Of course, this is no attempt to denigrate the tragedy of the Armenian people, but it was not described as genocide at the time, simply because the term did not exist.
As for being the earliest instance of genocide in the 20th century, that is also incorrect. That title should probably go to the massacre of the Herero and Nama in German Southwest Africa in 1904. Some 50-90 percent of the population was killed. And why is the 20th century a starting point? If we are going to use the term in its broader sense, it could probably be applied to the massacre of the Albigensians in 1209 (“Kill them all. God will recognise His own."), or the 1763 killing of Native Americans by Jeffrey Amherst by giving them gifts of blankets infected with smallpox (see [[Pontiac's Rebellion]] for details).
The point is that "genocide" is a very loaded term. Use it carefully.
Danny
In a message dated 7/14/2007 9:06:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, oscarvandillen@wikimedia.org writes:
On 7/14/07, Ronald Chmara ron@opus1.com wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, at 8:15 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
Actually Bop, I'm not sure if all wiki articles reflect this, but the Armenian Genocide was aboslutely the first event described as a genocide.
[citation needed]
:)
i know the several emmy awards winning BBC documentary WORLD WAR I produced by carl byker claims it in exactly these words. it has been published on dvd in 2006 http://afbeeldingen.apriana.nl/DVD/AfbeeldingenW/World02.JPG
oscar
-- *edito ergo sum*
************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
As for being the earliest instance of genocide in the 20th century, that is also incorrect. That title should probably go to the massacre of the Herero and Nama in German Southwest Africa in 1904. Some 50-90 percent of the population was killed. And why is the 20th century a starting point? If we are going to use the term in its broader sense, it could probably be applied to the massacre of the Albigensians in 1209 (“Kill them all. God will recognise His own."), or the 1763 killing of Native Americans by Jeffrey Amherst by giving them gifts of blankets infected with smallpox (see [[Pontiac's Rebellion]] for details).
The point is that "genocide" is a very loaded term. Use it carefully.
Sure, but there do not need to be physical murders or massacres for a genocide to happen. It can be an attempt to kill a culture as was the case when First Nations children were put into residential schools. Chinese activities in Tibet could also be considered genocidal.
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org