By Cynthia Haven
In his new book, historian Norman Naimark argues that the definition of genocide should include nations killing social classes and political groups.
Mass killing is still the way a lot of governments do business.
The past few decades have seen terrifying examples in Rwanda, Cambodia, Darfur, Bosnia.
Murder on a national scale, yes – but is it genocide? "The word carries a powerful punch," said Stanford history Professor Norman Naimark. "In international courts, it's considered the crime of crimes."
Nations have tugs of war over the official definition of the word "genocide" itself – which mentions only national, ethnic, racial and religious groups. The definition can determine, after all, international relations, foreign aid and national morale. Look at the annual international tussle over whether the 1915 Turkish massacre and deportation of the Armenians "counts" as genocide.
Article from 2010, http://news.stanford.edu/news/...
Stalin killed millions. A Stanford historian answers the question, was it genocide? - Stanford News (2)