- 1 Cultural Anthropology Chapter 6 Flashcards
- 2 Anthro chapter 15 Flashcards
- 3 Ethnocide – Wikipedia
- 4 Origin of the word
- 5 Usage
- 6 Notions of ethnocide
- 7 See also
- 8 External links
- 9 Ethnocide
- 10 Evolution of meaning of ethnocide
- 11 Debates about ethnocide
- 12 Bibliography
- 13 What is Ethnocide?
- 14 ethnic cleansing
- 15 United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect
- 16 Definition
- 17 Nation, Tribe and Ethnic Group in Africa
Cultural Anthropology Chapter 6 Flashcards
An anthropological understanding of ethnicity and race necessitates an investigation of the ways in which people and institutions define, negotiate, and even question their identities in contemporary society. In order to do so, anthropologists—and social scientists in general—investigate status, which refers to A)one’s biologically determined identity within a hierarchical society and B)one’s position within a hierarchical society. An individual’s activities have nothing to do with their social identity, which is determined by others and mutually exclusive.
Status, which refers toA)one’s biologically determined identity within a hierarchical society, is one manner in which anthropologists—and social scientists in general—go about doing this.
An identity determined by the state through census methods is defined as follows: D)a person’s socially negotiated identity, which is constantly changing during the course of a person’s life.
A person’s identity is always shifting during his or her lifetime.
Anthro chapter 15 Flashcards
First and foremost, ethnicity implies identification withD.and sense of belonging to one’s cultural heritage while being excluded from other cultural traditions. 2. To get an anthropological knowledge of ethnicity and race, it is necessary to investigate how individuals and institutions define, negotiate, and even dispute their identities in society. One method anthropologists—and social scientists in general—use to do this is through the study of status, which refers toB.any position, regardless of its prestige, that someone occupies in society.
- individuals have little or no option except to accept their current state of affairs.
- “I’m the one in charge.” “I identify as African-American.” “I’m your professor,” says the narrator.
- This phenomenon occurs when a person’s claimed or perceived identity fluctuates based on the setting in which they are found.
- Except for the last point, this statement makes all of the following points.
- Seventh, which of the following claims regarding ethnicity is accurate?
These classifications are E.
The arbitrary law that automatically assigns children of unions between members of various socioeconomic classes in the less-privileged group is referred to as what?
Consequently, it appears that B.racial categorization is a political matter, since these organizations are concerned that their political weight would be diminished if their numbers drop.
What is not accurate regarding the notion of race in Brazil, according to the following statements?
The following is a significant distinction between the racial taxonomies of Brazil and the United States: D.In the United States, social race is determined at birth and does not vary, however in Brazil, race can change on a daily basis, depending on the circumstances.
What phrase is used to describe a culture that is united by a common language, religion, history, territory, genealogy, and familial relationships?
What is the phrase used to refer to ethnic communities that have historically enjoyed, or desire to have or restore, political autonomy?
How would you characterize a complicated sociopolitical system that governs a region and a people that are markedly different in terms of occupation, money, social standing, and political power?
Historically independent political status (their own nation) is a term used to describe ethnic groups that formerly had, or desire to have or regain, such status.
In accordance with Fredrik Barth’s views of ethnic identity, when do ethnic borders become the most solid is when When A variety of ethno-ecological niches are occupied by different ethnic groups.
Which phrase best describes policies and practices that are detrimental to a group and its members?
Ethnic expulsion is a program that seeks to remove groups from a nation that are culturally distinct from the majority population.
In 1972, Uganda evicted 74,000 Asians from the country.
What is one of the possible ramifications of such policies?
Basques, on the other hand, are subjected to the same kinds of pressures as all minority languages: It is vital to be fluent in the national language (in this example, Spanish or French), as most schooling, publishing, and broadcasting are conducted in the national language.
Ethnocide – Wikipedia
Ethnocide is defined as the eradication of national cultures as a component of genocide. When examining the legal and intellectual history of the phrases genocide and ethnocide, Bartolomé Clavero distinguishes between the two by claiming that “Genocide kills individuals, but ethnocide kills social cultures via the destruction of individual souls.” Furthermore, because “cultural genocide can only be defined as the cultural dimension of genocide,” the notion that “ethnocide or ‘culture genocide’ is separate from physically violent genocide” is “inaccurate and misleading.” In light of the fact that notions such as cultural genocide and ethnocide have been applied in a variety of situations, the anthropology of genocide investigates their inclusion or exclusion from legal and policy frameworks.
Origin of the word
Raphael Lemkin, the linguist and lawyer who coined the term “genocide” in 1943 as a combination of “the Greek wordgenos (race, tribe) and the Latincide (killing),” also proposed the term “ethnocide” as an alternative term for the same concept, substituting the Greek wordethnos (nation) for the wordgenos in the definition. The term genocide, on the other hand, has gained far greater acceptance than the phrase ethnocide.
The lawyer Raphael Lemkin suggested in 1933 that genocide included a cultural component, which he labeled as “cultural genocide,” and that this component was responsible for the Holocaust. Since then, the term has gained rhetorical significance as a phrase that is used to express outrage over the destruction of cultural heritage sites.
The usage of the phrase was contemplated by the drafters of the 1948Genocide Convention, but it was ultimately dropped from their consideration. It is not specified in the legal definition of genocide what exactly constitutes genocide; it is simply stated that it is devastation with the goal to eliminate a racial, religious, ethnic, or national group as a whole, and that it is done in the name of religious, ethnic, or national groups. According to an early draft of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Article 7 makes use of the terms “ethnocide” and “culture genocide,” but it doesn’t clarify what they represent.
During its 62nd session, held at United Nations Headquarters in New York City on September 13, 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the United NationsDeclaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
However, the declaration only mentions “genocide” and not “cultural genocide,” despite the fact that the article is otherwise unchanged.
Notions of ethnocide
The “Declaration of San Jose” of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) states that the United States and the countries of Central America “commit to engaging in a more in-depth conversation regarding a broad range of topics.” In particular, these concerns include: strengthening democracy and regional security, encouraging trade and investment, combatingcrime and drug trafficking, supporting debate on immigration, and attaining more equitable and sustainable development.
In the Declaration of San José, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) discusses and tries to define ethnocide.
As a result, human rights are being violated in the most severe manner possible, including the right of ethnic communities to be respected for their cultural identities.
Robert Jaulin (1928-1996), a French ethnologist, offered a reinterpretation of the notion of ethnocide in 1970, referring not to the means but to the aims that characterize ethnocide. He died in 1996. As a result, ethnocide would be defined as the systematic eradication of the philosophy and way of life of people who are distinct from those who are engaged in this project of destruction. When compared to genocide, ethnocide is the act of assassinating individuals in their spirit rather than their physical bodies.
In Chapter 4 of Pierre Clastres’s The Archeology of Violence, he discusses the historical development of violence. It is not the elimination of a person’s physical person that constitutes ethnocide, but rather the destruction of a person’s cultural identity that constitutes genocide. Ethnocide is the systematic extermination of methods of thinking, living, and being from other cultures. Through cultural transformation, it seeks to eliminate cultural distinctions, with particular emphasis on the concept of “wrong” characteristics, that exist within a minority group by assimilating the group’s population into the culture norm of a certain location.
The ethnocentric thinking is predicated on the premise that there is a hierarchy of better and inferior cultural traditions.
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology’s Division of Social Science is home to Barry Victor Sautman, a professor at the Division of Social Science. In this case, the “It is important to note that the aim that underpins ethnocide is distinct from the goal that drives cultural genocide, for the same reason that it is not related to the physical or biological elimination of a community.
Consequently, forced integration is often the goal rather than population annihilation when such an attempt is made. So ethnocide is defined as an intentional act that results in the extinction of a cultural tradition or way of life.”
- AbcMartin Shaw’s official website (20 March 2007). What exactly is Genocide? Polity, vol. 66, no. 67. ISBN978-0-7456-3182-0. The original version of this article was archived on May 13, 2020. Retrieved on February 28th, 2013. Consequently, the notion that ethnocide or ‘cultural genocide’ is separate from physically violent genocide is false, because cultural genocide can only be defined as the cultural dimension of genocide, which is a component of every genocide. Pre-genocidal denial of culture is a better term to use for cultural suppression because it is part of a larger genocidal process, as opposed to unintentional group destruction or destruction that occurs when groups are destroyed by diseases and famines that were not intended to happen in the first place
- AbLemkin, Raphael. “Acts Constituting a General (Transnational) Danger Considered to be Offenses Against the Law of Nations.” International Criminal Court. Archived from the original on 2007-05-26 at the Wayback Machine. Published on the 14th of October, 1933. accessed on the 21st of May, 2007
- The following are Gerard Delanty and Krishan Kumar: (29 June 2006). This book is called The SAGE Handbook of Nations and Nationalism. SAGE Publications, p. 326. ISBN 978-1-4129-0101-7. The original version of this article was archived on June 30, 2014. Retrieved on February 28th, 2013. Cultural genocide has been employed as a substitute for ethnic genocide in the past (Palmer 1992
- Smith 1991:30-3), with the apparent danger of conflating ethnicity with culture
- Bartolomé Clavero, “Ethnocide and Cultural Genocide,” in: (2008). Genocide or Ethnocide, 1933-2007: How to Make, Unmake, and Remake Law with Words is a collection of essays on the history of the Holocaust. Giuffrè Editore, p. 101. ISBN 978-88-14-14277-2. Archived from the original on 30 June 2014. Giuffrè Editore, p. 101. ISBN 978-88-14-14277-2. Retrieved on February 28th, 2013. The murdering of individual souls is the hallmark of genocide, but the elimination of societal cultures is the hallmark of ethnocide. A. Dirk Moses, Donald Bloxham, and others (15 April 2010). The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, published by Oxford University Press, contains chapters 2–5. ISBN 978-0-19-161361-6. This page was last modified on 30 June 2014, at 15:01. retrieved on February 28th, 2013
- Raphael Lemkin’s Acts Constituting a General (Transnational) Danger Considered to be Offences Against the Law of Nations (J. Fussell trans., 2000) is a classic work on the subject of acts constituting a general (transnational) danger (1933) Archived from the original on July 16, 2012, at the Wayback Machine. Raphael Lemkin’s Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (Axis Rule in Occupied Europe), p. 91. (1944) Archived from the original on 2012-02-06 at the Wayback Machine
- See, for example, Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Trial Chamber 2001), at paragraph 576. Art. 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, adopted on December 9, 1948, and published in the United Nations Treaty Series (78 United Nations Treaty Series) 277. Archived from the original on April 8, 2000, at the Wayback Machine
- Document titled “Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” was published on August 4, 2007 and can be seen here. the draft resolution was prepared by the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities, in accordance with Resolutions 1985/22 of 29 August 1985, 1991/30 of 29 August 1991, 1992/33 of 27 August 1992, and 1993/46 of 26 August 1993, and it was presented to the Commission on Human Rights and the Economic and Social Council at their 36th meeting on August 26, 1994, and it was adopted without a vote
- William Schabas is an American businessman (2000). Genocide as a Crime of Crimes in International Law: The Crime of Crimes Page numbers 189–199, ISBN 978-0-521-78790-1, published by Cambridge University Press. “THE SAN JOSE DECLARATION”, which was retrieved on March 3, 2013. The original version of this article was archived on October 22, 2015. Retrieved2019-11-29
- s^ The White Peace, the Beginning of the Genocide, and more titles. Editions du Seuil (Combats) published a book in 1970 titled Pierre Clastres is a writer and poet who lives in France (1980). The Archaeology of Violence is a study of the history of violence. Editions du Seuil, Paris, France, pages. Chapter 4.ISBN9781584350934
- ‘Cultural genocide and the peripheries of Asian states,’ writes Barry Sautman. Within a global framework, cultural genocide is taking place. Palgrave Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 2006.
|Look upethnocidein Wiktionary, the free dictionary.|
- Ethnocide by Barbara Lukunka in the Encyclopedia of Mass Violence
- Ethnocide by Stuart D. Stein in the Encyclopedia of Mass Violence
It was a Polish-born lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, who invented the notion of ethnic cleansing at the same time that he invented the concept of genocide in 1944 in the United States. According to Lemkin, ethnocide is a phrase that may be used as an alternative to genocide (Lemkin, 1944). The words were coined specifically in reference to the Nazis’ persecution of Jews during World War II, and they remain in use today. According to Lemkin’s concept of genocide (see entry on ” Genocide”), another synonym for genocide is thnocide, which he wrote about in a footnote to his definition.
‘Ethnic group,’ as well as the French wordethnie, refer to a classified community that has a shared language, occasionally a common culture, and believes that they are descended from the same geographical origin (Mair 1975: 4).
Examples include meetings on indigenous rights held by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), where ethnocide is understood and defined as having the same meaning as cultural genocide, and meetings on the rights of indigenous peoples held by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (Aboriginal Law Bulletin).
- He is rumored to have argued in favor of inclusion of the phrase “cultural genocide” in the Genocide Convention because it “protects communities who would be unable to continue to exist without the sprit and moral solidarity offered by their cultural heritage” (Sautman, 2003: 182).
- This resulted in the Convention confining genocide to physical crimes, since physical genocide was seen to be more terrible than cultural genocide at the time.
- The aspects that have led some to consider cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing to be equivalent are based on the assumption that ethnic cleansing refers to “extermination of a culture that does not include the physical extermination of its inhabitants” (Sautman, 2003: 177).
- Some scholars, on the other hand, argue that the distinction between cultural genocide and ethnocide is founded on the premise that cultural genocide is associated with ethnic murder, but ethnocide is not associated with murder (Sautman, 2003: 189).
Genocide is not stated in the Convention, nor is it referenced in any of the United Nations Human Rights Declarations on the subject of human rights (Sautman, 2003: 190).
Evolution of meaning of ethnocide
From Lemkin’s original conception of ethnic cleansing, the notion of ethnic cleansing has undergone some evolution. As previously stated, for Lemkin, ethnic cleansing is equivalent with genocide. As a result, we might conclude that ethnocide is most commonly interpreted as the eradication of culture, rather than the inevitable extermination of the human race. Furthermore, genocide has been described as a concept that may be used to refer to the physical, biological, and cultural components of genocide in a variety of languages (Holocaust,GenocideandEthnocide).
Since Jaulin’s writing, the word “ethnocide” has been resurrected, and it now refers to the systematic eradication of a group of people’s culture, particularly that of indigenous populations, as a crime.
In turn, this resulted in the spread of a specific definition of ethnic cleansing that was associated with the annihilation of indigenous cultures by other civilizations, particularly the European civilization.
As a result, the term “ethnocide” has been coined to express the idea of ethnocentrism exhibited by one group and the emotions of superiority that might result in the destruction of another group’s culture.
Debates about ethnocide
Some critics of the word ethnocide argue that it is ambiguous and should be avoided. Furthermore, when individuals use the phrase “genocide,” they are confused of what they are denouncing or what they are referring to (Mair, 1975: 4). Furthermore, the notion that the victims of ethnic cleansing are people who are deemed primitive and indigenous, and who are invaded by technologically superior people who are considered civilized, raises certain concerns about the concept of ethnic cleansing. Especially problematic is the usage of the term ethnocide to indicate a group’s rejection of traditional traditions in favor of those of other groups, which is problematic (Mair, 1975: 4).
Authors such as Jaulin viewed civilization as a contagious sickness that might be spread (Mair, 1975: 4).
The Aboriginal Law Bulletin, published by JAULIN R. in 1972, is available online. De l’Ethnocide: A Collection of Texts, ed. The Union Générale d’Editions is based in Paris. JAULIN R., 1970, La Paix Blanche: l’Introduction a l’Ethnocide, New York: Columbia University Press. Seuil Publishing Company, Paris R. LEMKIN was born in 1944. Occupied Europe was under Axis rule. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Washington, DC) is a source of information. L. MAIR’s “Ethnocide” was published in 1975.
rain The Northwest Center for Holocaust, Genocide, and Ethnocide Studies is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating people about the Holocaust, genocide, and ethnic cleansing.
A source of information is B. SAUTMAN’s “Cultural Genocide and Tibet,” published in 2003. 173-248 in the Texas International Law Journal (Volume 38). J. SEMELIN’s Purifier and Detruire was published in 2005. Seuil Publishing Company, Paris
What is Ethnocide?
JAULIN R., 1972, Aboriginal Law Bulletin is available online. Collection of Texts on the Ethnocide Union Générale d’Editions, Paris (France). L’Introduction a l’Ethnocide, La Paix Blanche, JAULIN R., 1970. Seuil (Paris): R. LEMKIN (1944) was an American novelist and poet. Occupied Europe was under Axis control. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC, is a source of information. The term “Ethnocide” was coined by L. MAIR in 1975. 7: 4-5 p.m. rainy day Northwestern University’s Center for Holocaust, Genocide, and Ethnocide Studies is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating people about the Holocaust, Genocide, and Ethnocide.
SAUTMAN, published in 2003.
PURIFIER ET DÉTROUIRE, J.
Ethnic cleansing is the deliberate endeavor to produce ethnically homogenous geographic areas by the deportation or forceful relocation of people who belong to certain ethnic groups, as opposed to ethnic mixing. Ethnic cleansing can include the demolition of monuments, graves, and places of worship, as well as the eradication of any physical remains of the targeted population. This is known as “purification.” It was in the 1990s (though the term had first appeared earlier) that the term “ethnic cleansing,” a literal translation of the Serbo-Croatian phrase “etnicko ciscenje,” became widely used to describe the brutal treatment of various civilian groups during the conflicts that erupted following Yugoslavia’s disintegration.
The term has also been applied to the treatment of the people of East Timor by Indonesian militants, many of whom were killed or forced to flee their homes after the country’s citizens voted in favor of independence in 1999, as well as the plight of Chechens who fledGroznyand other areas ofChechnyafollowing Russian military operations against Chechen separatists in the 1990s.
It is no secret that the notion of ethnic cleansing has sparked substantial debate.
While some critics argue that ethnic cleansing and genocide are synonymous, others argue that the intent of those who perpetrate them is distinguishable: whereas the primary goal of genocide is the annihilation of an ethnic, racial, or religious group, ethnic cleansing’s primary goal is the establishment of ethnically homogeneous lands, which can be accomplished through a variety of means, including genocide.
Another key point of contention is the question of whether ethnic cleansing began in the twentieth century or not.
A number of examples have been given, including the mass execution of Danes by the English in 1002, attempts by the Czechs to rid their territories of Germans during the Middle Ages, the expulsion of Jews from Spain during the 15th century, and the forced displacement of Native Americans by white settlers in North America during the 18th and 19th centuries.
The Armenian massacres by the Turks in 1915–16, the Nazi Holocaust of European Jews in the 1930s and 1940s, the expulsion of Germans from Polish and Czechoslovak territory after World War II, the Soviet Union’s deportation of certain ethnic minorities from the Caucasus and Crimea during World War II, and the forced migrations and mass killings that occurred in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s are all examples of ethnic cleansing in this sense.
Women were targeted for particularly cruel treatment in many of these campaigns, including systematic rape and enslavement, in part because they were perceived by perpetrators as the “carriers” of the future generation of their countries, both physiologically and culturally.
In recent years, the precise legal definition of ethnic cleansing has been the subject of intense debate within a number of international organizations, including the United Nations, the two ad hoc international tribunals established in the 1990s to prosecute violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, respectively), and the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was established in 2002 to prosecute crimes against humanity worldwide.
During the conflict in Yugoslavia, the United Nations General Assembly declared ethnic cleansing to be “a form of genocide,” and the Security Council, citing widespread and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, established a tribunal to investigate allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including ethnic cleansing.
According to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’s investigation into the takeover of Kozarac by Bosnian Serbs, the ethnic cleansing that took place there was the process of collecting up and pushing “the entire non-Serb population out of the territory on foot.” During a subsequent hearing, the tribunal noted that there are certain similarities between crimes of genocide and ethnic cleansing, noting that both include the targeting of persons based on their membership in a particular ethnic group.
The important distinction between the two remains, however: whereas ethnic cleansing seeks to drive a particular population to flee, genocide seeks to physically destroy the group in question.
The Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court made it clear in its finished wording on the components of crimes within the court’s jurisdiction that ethnic cleansing might comprise all three offenses under the court’s jurisdiction.
Despite ongoing debates over its precise meaning, the idea of ethnic cleansing has been firmly established within international law. How procedures for preventing and dealing with ethnic cleansing will be developed and implemented is still to be seen, according to George J. Andreopoulos.
United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect
The Secretary-General pays a visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp in Poland. UN Photo courtesy of Evan Schneider The term “genocide” was originally used in 1944 by a Polish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, which was published during World War II. It is formed by combining the Greek prefixgenos, which means race or tribe, with the Latin suffixcide, which means murdering. While Lemkin invented the word in reaction to Nazi policies of systematic Jewish genocide during the Holocaust, he did so also in response to other times in history in which targeted measures were undertaken with the intent of destroying certain groups of people.
- By resolution A/RES/96-I of the United Nations General Assembly in 1946, genocide was officially recognized as a crime under international law for the first time.
- 149 countries have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (as of January 2018).
- This means that regardless of whether or not a state has accepted the Genocide Convention, all states are bound by the concept that genocide is a crime forbidden under international law as a matter of law, regardless of whether they have signed the Convention.
- As set down in Article II of the Genocide Convention, the definition of the crime of genocide was determined after a lengthy negotiation process and represents a political compromise made among United Nations Member States in 1948, at the time of the Convention’s formation.
- Many countries have also criminalized genocide in their own legislation; however, some countries have not yet done so.
Article IIIGenocide is defined as any of the following actions done with the goal to eliminate, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such in accordance with the present Convention:
- Members of the group are killed
- Members of the group are subjected to substantial physical or mental injury
- And members of the group are kidnapped. Deliberately imposing on a group of people conditions of living that are designed to cause their bodily demise in whole or in part
- Measures used to prevent births inside the group
- Forcible transfer of children from one group to another
Elements of the crime
Genocide is defined in Article I of the Genocide Convention as a crime that can take place in the framework of an armed conflict, whether international or non-international in nature, as well as in the context of a peaceful situation. Even if the latter option is less typical, it is still a possibility. The same article outlines the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and punish genocide, as well as the responsibility of the international community.
The common notion of what constitutes genocide tends to be more expansive than the content of the international legal standard on the subject. According to Article II of the Genocide Convention, genocide is defined as a crime that consists of two major components:
- It also has a mental component, which includes the “desire to destroy a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as a whole or in part,” as well as
- A physical element that consists of the five activities listed below, in no particular order:
- Members of the group are being murdered
- Members of the group are being subjected to significant physical or mental damage
- Deliberately imposing on a group of people conditions of living that are designed to cause their bodily demise in whole or in part
- Measures are being implemented in order to avoid births inside the group. Taking youngsters from one group and forcing them to join another is illegal.
The most difficult factor to ascertain is the intent of the speaker. It must be demonstrated that offenders had the purpose to physically eliminate a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group in order for genocide to be considered a crime against humanity. The aim to merely scatter a group does not sufficient, nor does the purpose of destroying their culture. It is this specific intent, known as ordolus specialis, that distinguishes the crime of genocide from other crimes. In addition, case law has correlated purpose with the existence of a State or organizational plan or strategy, even though that factor is not included in the definition of genocide under international law.
This implies that the group as a whole, rather than its members as individuals, must be the goal of elimination.
Nation, Tribe and Ethnic Group in Africa
Progressive Africans say that tribalism is one of the most disruptive factors affecting newly independent sub-Saharan African governments, and that it should be eliminated. It is their contention that tribalism serves as the foundation for enmity between peoples inside a country, as well as across countries. To be able to claim their proper position in the world, progressive Africans feel that tribalism must be eradicated from the continent’s political landscape. However, even among the most progressive components within the newly constituted states, there is little evidence that tribal identification is on the decline.
- Where does cultural identity’s ability to survive in the face of efforts to eradicate it come from, and what factors contribute to this?
- Nations, nationalities, tribes, and ethnic groups are just a few of the names that are used to identify oneself or others in Africa.
- State vs.
- State is the least politically charged phrase in Africa, and as a result, it is likely the ideal term to use to describe nations, the largest political unit that people are familiar with.
Members of Ethiopia’s various, culturally diverse ethnicities, for example, maintain that they were conquered and were never given the opportunity to choose whether or not to become part of the country (many of these groups do not even officially recognize Ethiopia as a legitimate political entity).
Conquered tribes in Ethiopia want to be referred to as “nations,” which is a phrase that refers to people that are strongly related with one another because of mutual ancestry, language, or history, rather than the term “people.” According to the Oxford English Dictionary, such groups “create a race or people, which is frequently organized as a separate political entity and inhabiting a specific geographical region.
- When it comes to other groups in Ethiopia, the Ethiopian government refers to them as nationalities, a term that they use derogatorily to imply that such communities have narrow, cultural interests that must one day give way to allegiance to the central government.
- The Amhara, like many other different ethnic groups who have come to dominate African countries, have endeavored to forge a “country” in their own image by assimilating other cultures.
- The Oromo, who constitute 60 percent of Ethiopia’s population and have a language, culture, religion, and history distinct from the rest of the country, do not accept their plight inside the empire.
- They maintain that Africans may be colonizers as well as Europeans, and that racism stops Westerners from seeing this.
- Land rights, as well as political and cultural autonomy, are among their primary concerns.
- Ethnic Group is a conflict that has been going on for quite some time.
- Furthermore, for years, Africans were taught that the tribe was a primitive social and political institution that should be abandoned with the advent of civilization, as was the case in the West.
When used in a practical sense, the term “tribe” has evolved to refer to groups that are impacted by the policies and programs of central governments but have had little or no input into their development.
In essence, tribe is now used to refer to those who are helpless.
Bushmen do not refer to themselves as belonging to a tribe or as being Bushmen themselves.
As a matter of fact, researchers who have studied several Bushmen communities maintain that they represent a diverse range of cultural and linguistic groupings, potentially even more diverse than those found in the entirety of Europe.
Nonetheless, those are the ones that have been utilized by colonists all across the world for hundreds of years (for more on this issue, see “Letters to the Editor,” this issue).
It is believed that the usage of the term “tribe” for tiny isolated groups is intended to promote the perception that bigger groupings are “progressive,” and so “civilized.” To distinguish it from the term “tribe,” the term “ethnic group” refers to larger, culturally distinct groups that recognize the legitimacy of the central state and compete with other culturally distinct groups for control of a share of the benefits that accrue from manipulating or dominating central governments, as opposed to “tribe.” A common belief among Africans at the time of independence was that the majority of their peoples were in the process of becoming ethnic groupings and living in multiple society where cultural diversity would be recognized.
This has not been the case.
It was expected that ideologies and class affiliations would mitigate the potentially detrimental impacts of tribalism, but this proved to be incorrect.
As different political parties rose to prominence, they ruled in a way that put the interests of their respective groups first.
Other political parties were either banned or declared unlawful by dominating groupings in an attempt to provide the illusion of unity in the political arena.
Today, just five of the more than forty countries in sub-Saharan Africa allow for the formation of opposition parties; the remainder are evenly divided between one-party republics and military dictatorships.
Generally speaking, most African nations are divided into states or districts based on cultural characteristics.
It is possible to have a good idea of the relative influence possessed by each group by studying the per capita spending and receipts by district.
Administrative entities in Africa are frequently as culturally unique as political parties, if not more so.
It’s far more straightforward than that; they are the outcome of systemic prejudice.
Education, on the other hand, conveys values and beliefs – generally those of the dominant group – so reinforcing emotions of superiority or inferiority, depending on one’s group’s connection to the central authority.
As an example, the country of Kenya is teeming with educated individuals who are unable to find work but who no longer know how to farm or are unwilling to do it.
People from the countryside began to migrate to the metropolis.
The existence of diverse or unique civilizations poses a danger to the centralization of authority and the management of resources, which is perhaps the most fundamental reason why African regimes combat cultural identity.
In contrast, when the power of states develops or is threatened, the rights of unique cultural groups are more constrained and ultimately eliminated.
It is unusual for them to share assets equitably with the dominating groups, even during moments of economic growth.
The continent of Africa has generated half of the world’s refugee population, as a result of persecution and prejudice.
Drought-affected Africans in several nations, who are already hungry in historic numbers, are denied the right to cultivate food crops.
A strong sense of self – a ray of hope for the future In the aftermath of independence, Africans felt that the establishment of strong governments would enhance their living conditions as well as the standing of their countries in the world.
In exchange for loyalty, which frequently entailed the renunciation of long-established social and political structures, the new states received nothing in return from the central government, which was based in Washington.
Africa’s governments, despite their desire to do so, are unable to fulfill such commitments as a result of the global economic downturn and dwindling tax revenues.
Cultural Survival, Inc.
owns the rights to this article. Our website contains material and publications that date back over five decades. Any information that is more than ten years old is considered archival, and Cultural Survival does not necessarily agree with the content or word choice used at the time of publication.