Synopsis In Eric D. Weitz’s article, “The Modernity of Genocides: War, Race, and Revolution in the 20th century,” the author investigates the connection between modernity and genocide to understand why genocides became more frequent, and more systematic, in the 20th century. Weitz remarks that in the 20th century, there appeared a synthesis between the European revolutionary movements and race thinking, a pseudoscience that had become hegemonic in the period. This synthesis, Weitz argues, is unique to the 20th century in that the political chaos that allowed for the seizure of power by popular revolutions coincided with the dominance of racial thinking that infected the platforms of these political groups. By these racially divisive platforms,
…show more content…
At first when I was approached with this issue I argued that genocide was not unique to the 20th century. I argued that, rather, the means to fully execute a genocide, the eradication of a certain racial group, only became available in the 20th century. However, as Bartov and Weitz have made clear to me, the industrialisation of warfare is only a factor in the genocides of the 20th century. Both authors attack this issue right away in their texts. Of course, they concede that genocide is as an ancient phenomenon as they cite biblical and colonial examples to demonstrate as such. However, they have argued and convinced me that the seizure of power by political movements whose ideologies hinged on a racial pseudoscience is unique to the 20th century. This synthesis is what makes the 20th century remarkable and allowed for genocide to become more systematic and successful. The Bartov text acts to draw attention to evidence that these movements, stooped in an ideology that appears so absurd in the present day, could only have enjoyed popular support in Europe during the period researched. In Buczacz the reader understands that the Jewish-Gentile cordial relationship could only have unraveled after the political instability which led to the the savage combination of a suddenly violent society with a violent
At first when I was approached with this issue I argued that genocide was not unique to the 20th century. I argued that, rather, the means to fully execute a genocide, the eradication of a certain racial group, only became available in the 20th century. However, as Bartov and Weitz have made clear to me, the industrialisation of warfare is only a factor in the genocides of the 20th century. Both authors attack this issue right away in their texts. Of course, they concede that genocide is as an ancient phenomenon as they cite biblical and colonial examples to demonstrate as such. However, they have argued and convinced me that the seizure of power by political movements whose ideologies hinged on a racial pseudoscience is unique to the 20th century. This synthesis is what makes the 20th century remarkable and allowed for genocide to become more systematic and successful. The Bartov text acts to draw attention to evidence that these movements, stooped in an ideology that appears so absurd in the present day, could only have enjoyed popular support in Europe during the period researched. In Buczacz the reader understands that the Jewish-Gentile cordial relationship could only have unraveled after the political instability which led to the the savage combination of a suddenly violent society with a violent