Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.(Merriam-Webster) The act of genocide throughout history can be viewed as one of the most horrific crimes against a group of people. In the reading, the author Adam Jones acknowledges how genocide and denial walk hand and hand, as he states that denial is the final stage of genocide. Denying crimes against humanity and well-documented genocides is deeply offensive to not only survivors, but their descendants, and all those who care about other humans without judging racial, ethnic, or religious identity. With denial comes many consequences; this includes the lack of respect for the victims and for the suffering of innocent individuals. Moreover,
…show more content…
The first discourse discussed was “hardly anybody died.” Deniers will often take the point to say that reports on mass killings are exaggerated and self-serving. There can be multiple causations to why someone questioning the extermination of a particular group would believe this, but it’s mainly caused by the dismissal of photo and video evidence, and gaps in the physical evidence. Gaps in the physical evidence most damning points are the absence of a corpse. A prime example is the Nazi’s extermination of the Jewish people. For such a massive number of people being killed, deniers point to how the corpses of the victims were conveniently incinerated. Furthermore, when genocides were farther in the past, dismissal of the number killed is easier. Indigenous people are the main subject of this form of denial due to the fact that these groups face nearly total extermination. This causes for few survivors being able to advocate for the truth. …show more content…
Certain European countries have even created legislation in the hopes to diminish denial. Countries like Spain and Slovakia have lifted laws against genocide denial due to the fact that genocide is something that is often hard to define. Although the definition is straight to the point some people have a hard time deciding on what true genocide is when the ill intent is not fully apparent. When the driving force of a mass killing is unclear, it can be hard to label the overall event as a genocide. Through all the reading and research I have done that seems to be my main issue with deciding what should be done with genocide
The first discourse discussed was “hardly anybody died.” Deniers will often take the point to say that reports on mass killings are exaggerated and self-serving. There can be multiple causations to why someone questioning the extermination of a particular group would believe this, but it’s mainly caused by the dismissal of photo and video evidence, and gaps in the physical evidence. Gaps in the physical evidence most damning points are the absence of a corpse. A prime example is the Nazi’s extermination of the Jewish people. For such a massive number of people being killed, deniers point to how the corpses of the victims were conveniently incinerated. Furthermore, when genocides were farther in the past, dismissal of the number killed is easier. Indigenous people are the main subject of this form of denial due to the fact that these groups face nearly total extermination. This causes for few survivors being able to advocate for the truth. …show more content…
Certain European countries have even created legislation in the hopes to diminish denial. Countries like Spain and Slovakia have lifted laws against genocide denial due to the fact that genocide is something that is often hard to define. Although the definition is straight to the point some people have a hard time deciding on what true genocide is when the ill intent is not fully apparent. When the driving force of a mass killing is unclear, it can be hard to label the overall event as a genocide. Through all the reading and research I have done that seems to be my main issue with deciding what should be done with genocide