 |
|||||||||
     |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
| You are here: 2000 / Workshops, Panels and Seminars / Workshops on Research / Workshop 2 on Research, "Teaching and Researching Genocide from a Comparative Perspective" / Report from Workshop 2 on Research: "Teaching and Researching Genocide From a Comparative Perspective" | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Participants Countries and organizations Conference documentation Conference programme 
|
|
|
|
Report from Workshop 2 on Research: "Teaching and Researching Genocide From a Comparative Perspective" Presentation by Professor Kristian Gerner Presentation by Professor Robert Melson Presentation by Dr. Christian P. Scherrer Report from Workshop 2 on Research: "Teaching and Researching Genocide From a Comparative Perspective" Report from Workshop 2 on Research Moderator: Prof. Henry Huttenbach
Presenters: Prof. Kristian Gerner Prof. Robert F. Melson Prof. Christian Scherrer Mr Ola Larsmo Mr Christopher Wolf Mr. Max Liljefors Initiating the discussion, moderator Prof. Henry R. Huttenbach presented the workshop with a short paper in which he posed certain questions as a framework for the discussion (see appendix). In it he asked the audience if we should compare the Holocaust to other cases of genocide and massive violations of human rights. After Prof. Huttenbach’s introduction, the presentations were started by Professor Kristian Gerner of Uppsala University, who maintained that the Holocaust should be studied in connection with the general trend of the patterns of thought of western secular civilization. He emphasized the belief in science and general laws and rules of evolution, together with the mass slaughter during World War One. It was during this war that the demonization of ”the other”, the total mobilization of the masses and disrespect for the individual’s right to life produced some of the foundations for the genocidal violence of the 20th century. Since two totalitarian systems have committed the bulk of the genocidal crimes of this century, research must focus on both stalinism and nazism, communism and fascism, using the Holocaust as an ”ideal type”. Dr. Robert Melson pointed out that the ”uniqueness” and ”equivalence” theses both contain fundamental fallacies. The ”equivalence” fallacy maintains that if something is similar, it is equal, while the ”uniqueness fallacy” wrongly assumes that if something is unique it cannot be compared with something else. Dr. Melson argued that everything is comparable, including that which has some unique qualities. Conversely, he pointed out that that which is similar to something else need not be equal. Exemplifying his position, he pointed out that the genocide against the Armenians in 1915-23 did not foresee the total and global extermination of the Armenian people. This makes the Armenian genocide different from the Holocaust, which envisaged the total annihilation of all Jews worldwide. Furthermore, the ”fallacies” always contain a hidden agenda, which for instance can be identified in the German Historikerstreit of the 80’s. In his opinion, the comparison between Stalin’s crimes and Hitler’s point to the fact that some German historians have had problems with normalizing their past. On the other hand, he also noted that the idea of the uniqueness of the Holocaust hides a fear that comparisons will relativise the Holocaust. Therefore, he proposed that researchers should recognize the unique traits of the Holocaust without excluding the possibility of comparison with other cases of genocide. Dr. Christian P. Sherrer generally agreed with his colleagues that scholars couldn’t seek understanding about the mechanisms of genocide without comparison and put forward further arguments in support of comparative research. He also added that comparative research is important in order for researchers to make the general public and politicians aware of the problem. That is crucial if we seek to find out ways in which to prevent genocides from recurring. During the debate following the presentations the audience discussed the particularities of the Holocaust as against other genocides. One representative pointed out that for the individual, all one’s own suffering is unique, and that the Holocaust is unique as a point of reference, while another said that each and every instance of gross violations of human rights and genocide has its own unique features. It was also discussed whether or not the term ”genocide” should be replaced by the term ”ethnic cleansing”, which was said to be more accurate and ”strong”. Another opinion, however, was that the term was not useful, since it refers to deportations and essentially is a media construction. Turning to the subject of the definition of genocide, it was generally agreed that although there is a debate on this issue, scholars have to use it as a research tool. Turning to the issue of why genocides have recurred in the world and the role of the such international war crimes tribunals as for Rwanda and Yugoslavia, one participant maintained that the violence has recurred again and again without the politicians being able or willing to stop it. He said that the scholars can say ”never again” as often as they wish, but nothing will be done. Furthermore, he also expressed a fear that the scholars were ”a decoration for the politicians” at the conference. It was pointed out that all the total genocides during the 20th century (Armenia, the Holocaust, Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia and the 1994 genocide in Rwanda) have taken place under the ”smoke screen” of war, while the international community failed to take action. In the case of Rwanda, it was said, there even was a policy of denial on the part of some countries, including the United States and other western countries. In connection to the question of the usefulness of tribunals, it was emphasized that their function and work is important, since they send a message to the perpetrators that they cannot hide from their crimes. In discussing this topic, however, it was asked, ”Why do countries like the U.S. and France, that speak so much about human rights, fail to accept the International Criminal Court”, envisaged to be permanently seated in The Hague? As one participant asked about research on earlier cases of genocide and their particularities, it was said that modern genocides differ from earlier forms of mass murder due to the role of the state as the perpetrator of crimes against its own citizens. This aspect was discussed with great interest, and it was also pointed out that the state no longer stands as the guarantor of the security of its citizens. On the contrary, during the 20th century the State became the principal perpetrator of crimes against its citizens, which was not the case before. The breakdown of social values and the rule of law in ”failed states” were identified as some of the principal reasons for genocides being committed. Consequently, democracy, the open society and the civic rule of law, it was generally agreed, is the antidote for genocide. One participant argued that democracy is not enough, and that it paradoxically was by applying the law that Nazi judges exterminated the Jews during the Holocaust, and that Schindler saved Jews by breaking it. Dr. Melson refuted this argument by saying that we must not forget that Germany was a totalitarian dictatorship from 1933 onwards, and that the Holocaust would have never occurred if it were not for the failure of the Weimar Republic. In summarizing, one can point to some central themes that were discussed and generally agreed upon. Apart from the need for a comparative perspective in researching genocide, it was broadly accepted that the state could be regarded as the principal perpetrator of genocidal crimes. In this context, researching ”failed states”, ideologies and propaganda perpetuating ethnic violence, and the role of dramatic societal changes in the dissolution of norms and rules of behavior are to be considered as important tasks. It was also generally agreed that the role of the international community is another important topic, particularly in connection with prevention issues. If the work initiated at the Stockholm conference could help lead to the broadening in this field of research, it would be very important for our understanding of the mechanisms of genocide and other forms of massive violations of human rights. >> Back to top |
|
|
|
Introduction Opening Session: Messages and speeches Plenary Sessions: Messages and speeches Workshops, Panels and Seminars
Other Activities |
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| For information about this production and the Stockholm International Forum Conference Series please go to www.humanrights.gov.se or contact Information Rosenbad, SE-103 33 Stockholm, Sweden | |||||||||