What is Genocide?

An explanation of the concept of genocide, including Raphael Lemkin's original definition, the official UN definition, an examination of some of the metaphysical issues and ethical questions raised, and an assessment of twenty-two modern and ancient genocides.

Here are some videos you might enjoy:

Philosophy by Topic:

Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Collier-MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Dictionary of Continental Philosophy, and more! (#genocide #internationallaw)

[jamesrandall]

I really like the longer styles of videos. I stopped watching videos on this channel a while ago because I was frustrated by how a short they were, but I really enjoyed this one and I’d watch more of them. Doesn’t bother me at all if they are infrequent.

[benross]

Using the word genocide in situations where it doesnt apply really devalues the term; especially when people throw it out for emotional reasons or to get a reaction. A situation can be really, really bad and tragic without having to use the most extreme/inflammetary language possible. Genocide is a very specific legal term where the most important thing is about intent. For example the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki legally aren’t a genocide; even though thats a really bad or tragic situation thats arguably worse than some actual genocides. Words ought to actually mean something; otherwise they dont matter.

[zsdCKanVOIJANSO]

Only a few minutes in, but I’d like it if the channel had a mix of the usual style and had a few videos like this. Videos with lots of history like this seem to warrant the deep dive. But with other topics where you are just going over concepts, that is probably unnecessary.

[nsextreme]

I always loved your channel but my respect for you increased a lot after this video. Thank you!

And as for me I prefer longer deep dives into topics but the shorter videos can be nice too.

[carlosvillaseca]

In October I was surprised some groups were calling it a genocide a few days after the war started and I think it is wonderful that someone finally tries to discuss why they might consider it a genocide. It is interesting that somebody may use the word genocide without thinking of killing. Words migrate in meaning and I've always heard it used with mass killings. The word genocide has a significant trace of death. The whole Gaza war has been a surprise to me how it has been reported and discussed. The bombing of a hospital was proved to be a bombing of a parking lot by Hamas. The hospitals never ran out of the fuel and medicine that the news was so concerned by. The pits filled with corpses was filmed that Hamas did it before Israel came. And the amount of food going into Gaza from Israel has been proven to not be causing a famine. It is the movement of the food to the people that cause the problem. You can even watch the videos of Hamas stealing from the supply convoys. I am surprised that no matter how much can be shown, when people want to believe something, their minds can do everything to deny the physical proof. And why would the Israelis want to starve Palestinian children? You could just as easily carpet bomb the refugee camp if you want to kill. Not that I am suggesting it. Sure there are supply chain problems in a war--but maybe some Hamas media manipulation also. I do commend Carneades for taking on this difficult topic and attempting to look at it from both sides.

[sachamm]

The context is so important when applying these ideas to real life. I'm sure there are valid criticisms but I think you did a pretty damn good job here. One of your best IMHO.

[louisalexandre]

Long format are great, thanks for your work Carneades.

[yqafree]

Both short and long content. I know a juggling act, but it is appreciated

[FORTHEPUNCH]

This kind of long format in the videos is quite entertaining, please keep it up!

[xbugati]

Gallant was specifically talking about Hamas in the "human animals" quote not all Gazans

[RENATVS_IV]

Good idea Carneades, we need to have this discussion, without dogmas nor whether there is a genocide or not in Middle East, because that's what we have to assess

[lightandcrispier]

I’m grateful you explained so well. Thanks very much

[seanmuniz]

Link of one of the related videos you've mentioned is missing from the description box. Namely: "What is Liberalism?" Link should be between "What is the Philosophy of Race?" and "What is Ubuntu Philosophy?".

[jaredgreen]

Ooh, animated face, how did you do it?

[jacobderin]

I wanted to note a couple of areas where it looks to me like you’ve confused the definition of genocide.

In some places you seem to be conflating the actus reus and mens rea required for genocide. Committing an act of genocide, especially the imposition of conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the group, is only genocide if accompanied by the specific intent to accomplish the biological annihilation of the group. So it wouldn’t be accurate to say that the UN definition incorporates Lemkin’s original understanding of the term because it explicitly excludes cultural genocide. The appellate division of the ICTY recognized this in its ruling on the Srebrenica case: “[C]ustomary international law limits the definition of genocide to those acts seeking the physical or biological destruction of all or part of the group. [A]n enterprise attacking only the cultural or sociological characteristics of a human group in order to annihilate these elements which give to that group its own identity distinct from the rest of the community would not fall under the definition of genocide.” So the conditions of life calculated to *destroy* must be calculated to biologically destroy a “part” of the group. What is “part” in this context? The court defined it in the Srebrenica case as “the alleged perpetrator intended to destroy at least a substantial part of the protected group. The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4.”

So, to sum up, you’d need to show that the genocidal act (deportation, forcible transfer of children, etc) aimed at the physical destruction of at least enough of the group to endanger its survival as such.

So for instance, the deportation of the Rohingya in Myanmar is an act of genocide only if the perpetrators are attempting thereby to physically annihilate the protected group. Merely scattering or displacing them is not enough.

With regard to the First Arab-Israeli War/ the “Nakba”, this requirement makes clear that the actions of Jewish groups were not genocide. Removing a people from a place, even by violence, is not genocide unless the intent is to physically destroy them. Here you’ve conflated ethnic cleansing and genocide. There’s an additional question about whether this was a state policy or the acts of individual commanders. So it’s not even entirely clear that the requisite mental state existed for criminal responsibility. You also neglected to mention that the Arab armies attacked first — a fairly important point.

We can argue about whether this bar is too high but nevertheless it is the bar.

Viz a viz Israel and Hamas, it seems clear that Hamas intended the physical annihilation of as many Jewish Israelis as possible. Their complete destruction wasn’t possible but, again, from the Srebrenica appeal: “The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators’ activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered. Nazi Germany may have intended only to eliminate Jews within Europe alone; that ambition probably did not extend, even at the height of its power, to an undertaking of that enterprise on a global scale. Similarly, the perpetrators of genocide in Rwanda did not seriously contemplate the elimination of the Tutsi population beyond the country’s borders. The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him. While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can - in combination with other factors - inform the analysis.” So, Hamas’ intent to physically annihilate Jewish Israeli communities on the border with Gaza constitutes genocidal intent once we define the relevant geographic area as their effective zone of control during the killings and establish their purpose to physically annihilate the protected group within it. From public statements, military plans and acts on the day, this seems almost impossible to dispute.

Israel’s actions in Gaza, however, are far more complicated because they happened in the context of an armed conflict where multiple motives may have been at play. I’m aware of no international case law parsing multiple motives in the genocide context. Very few such cases have gone to trial for obvious reasons. But we may doubt that Israeli leaders formed the requisite intent based upon the simple observation that the killings stopped once they established military control. Unlike Hamas, the IDF didn’t round up Palestinian civilians and shoot them in the streets once military resistance ended.

The most plausible case for genocide would be the bombing campaign and the possibility that it intended the annihilation of Gazans “in part.” But it would be a strange genocide indeed where the perpetrator intended the annihilation of substantial numbers of the protected group, risked international condemnation to kill then from the air, but then stopped short of killing them on the ground.

What’s more reasonable to infer is that Israeli leaders intended the destruction of Hamas (a political, unprotected group) and recklessly disregarded the impact on civilians. This may be morally reprehensible in a variety of ways but it isn’t specific intent.

[Pfhorrest]

Before watching the video proper yet, on the question of format preference, I generally like to have smaller, more easily digestible bits of content, at least when it's anything I need to pay actual attention to and not just background noise. But you could take a long video and break it up into a series of shorter videos and have the best of both worlds.

[danielnelson]

I agree it's a very interesting philosophical topic of genocide, and IMO it'll always be dependent on situations that make genocide far worse or lighter. For example I think that history and the passage of time does lessen the severity of genocide the more distant the event is in the past, like the Spanish settlers and the Aztec empire, and ultimately the fall of the Aztecs due to their lack of adapting to measles and chicken pox the Spanish brought, but also due to a lot of cultural differences like live human sacrifices of warriors nearby Aztec empire which the Spanish under their Christian worldview is viewed as untenable, the language barriers, and so on. In this context you could argue that due to a lot of cultural differences, and even Aztec's refusing to change their cultural practice, live human sacrifices, pissing off nearby tribes which made them reach out to the Spanish for a coalition against the Aztec empire.

[treesb]

Interesting video, thank you.
When explaining the nakba you left out that Arabs were so convinced they would destroy Israel they told Palestinians to leave their homes because they would be back in a week and Israel would be gone. The term nakba refers to the humiliation Arabs experienced at losing to Jews, who they considered either second class citizens or animals. You also made no mention of how Hamas has embedded itself among the citizens and has made clear they don’t care if they die. Additionally, there’s no mention of the humanitarian aid provided by Israel and other groups that Hamas has stolen, or that they torture and kill Gazans who try to take the aid, or that aid groups have left Gaza because of Hamas.
You also rely on numbers provided by Hamas, even though those numbers have been corrected and show a much smaller number of civilians have died.
I think in some ways you have provided a balanced assessment but at the same time you’ve left out important details, some of which I’ve included in my comment.

[Pfhorrest]

Regarding knowledge vs intent, the way you explain it is unclear to me: it sounded earlier like what mattered is whether an agent knew that their actions contributed to a program where *someone else* had intent to destroy a culture; but later such as when discussing removing children from sexually abusive cults, it sounds like merely knowing that their actions *will have the effect* of destroying a culture, even if *nobody* intends its destruction, would be enough.

To clarify, the difference here is:
- Alice doesn't intend to destroy the Charlionites, but she knows that doing this thing for Bob will help Bob to intentionally destroy the Charlionites.
and
- Alice doesn't intend to destroy the Charlionites, nor does anyone else, but she knows that doing this thing will have the effect of destroying Charlionites anyway.

[dalefletter]

Let me try to offer a constructive comment. Yes, a difficult topic demands a long form. You cannot provide both the context, data, and analysis of something as complex as genocide any other way. And I would very much enjoy more of that type.

However given the complexity, even a long form video does not always give you enough time. To that end I find the short videos which give background necessary to build up toward the long form and you did a great job providing citations back to prior vids. Yet these seems to be a missing middle. The complexities of international law alone would have been a good topic for a mid-sized video. And the parts of this video could have been broken into three videos rather than all run together. Same amount of work on you but more easily digested for the less committed viewer. The break between vids offers time for reflection and time to go back to cited vids.

Still, on the whole obviously great work on an incredibly difficult topic. Thank you.