Genocide - Science topic

I am starting my dissertation for an MA in Cultural History, Memory and Identity. I am interested in examining women perpetrators in the Third Reich; from denunciation to frontline killing. I am looking at a range of sources on women and genocide and female SS guards, but I'd really like to explore memoirs of these particular types of women.

Can anybody advise?

Thank you

Louise

I am seeking suggestions / articles about Durkheim, and how he placed violence in his framework. More precisely: articles that question how he would have placed disruptive violence (c.q violence that cannot be placed as a functional within his vision of a cohesive and interdependent societies.) For example: how would he have explained or placed genocide in his school of thoughts?

Where are independent higher education research centres specialising in TRUE Orthodox Christianity, not to be confused with Orthodox Christianity ? True Orthodox Christianity rejects the modernism with its roots in the Russian and earlier Revolutions, including the paracanonical (canonically impermissible) calendar reforms promulgated by incomplete Robber Synods starting with the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the 1920s and the genocide of True (aka Authentic, Genuine or Catacomb) Orthodox Christianity by modernist Orthodox Christianity, resulting ultimately in the response of the True Orthodox Christian 1983 Anathema against Ecumenism by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) aka Russian Orthodox Church in Exile (ROCIE), embraced by all True, Authentic, Genuine and Catacomb Orthodox Christians. The True Orthodox genocide is numerically by far the greatest Christian martyrdom ever, with tens of millions in the former Russian Empire alone (a large majority of the 110 million "The Economist" estimates were murdered by the Soviet regime alone), was triggered by the refusal of the World Council of Churches, meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, to allow a Greek True Orthodox bishop to speak about this matter, though the New York Times published his proposed address. In response the anathema was promulgated, in English, the WCC official language, at the ROCOR Synodical meeting at their monastery in Mansonville, Québec, also in Canada. Despite making up between 1 and 10% of the Orthodox Christian populations, in the broad sense of the term, throughout the world, I have been, even as an interested True Orthodox Christian, been unable to find any state recognised study centres devoted to the study of True Orthodox Christianity, as opposed to Orthodox Christianity. Some institutions, such as Cambridge University's Institute of Orthodox Christian Studies claim to have all locally active Orthodox Synods represented on their governing bodies, but didn't respond to my request for the publicly available details of the True Orthodox Christian Synods represented there. In any event, that Institute is not an Institute of TRUE Orthodox Christian studies.

It is an open secret that the Rohingya's being killed in their home soil. Unlike the genocide that has happened in South Africa, the world leaders has not come to the term "genocide" in the case of the Rohingya. The massacre of the Rohingya is a world problem, which should not have happen in this 4th industrial revolution. Even more a noble peace recipient is the main cause of this ignorance.

The spillover of this problem has led to the chain of refugees to the neighboring countries, nation control, food securities and health related issues.

The world leaders should really take this issue and deal with it in the name of humanity

Dear researcher,

Recently on January 23, 2020, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague ordered Myanmar to take all necessary measures to protect Rohingya Muslims from genocide. Killing has been reported even after that. How do you evaluate this order and the response of the authority of Myanmar to that?

There is an enormous amount of research about conflicts and polarisation, like the Allport contact hypothesis and also the genocide literature of Abram de Swaan. What lacks to my opinion is research about how to end a conflict effectively. Possible parties who might intervene are victims, offenders and bystanders. Much of the work I know about ending conflicts like colonisation, suppressing people by means of racism etc. is based on Martin Luther King, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi.

Currently there is a tremendous debate in social networks around this issue, fueled by AMLO's request that the Vatican and the Spanish Crown apologize for the crimes committed during the Conquest.

The question is: did the colonizers killed millions of inhabitants of this continent or not (I exclude the millions who died from the diseases they brought, including the penultimate Inca, who died of smallpox without having seen a single Spaniard)? Then, if they were killed: was it genocide or not? There are those who use technical arguments to suggest that there were deaths, even many, but it was not genocide. Others say that you can not judge what was done then, with today's criteria; In all this, the centuries of exploitation of the resources of the continent with manpower, largely native, is not much discussed.

So here is the debate ...

Last week expert Austin Ruse President/C-Fam, Editor & Publisher/Friday Fax (https://c-fam.org/) raised the alert that the UN is negotiating a new hard-law treaty that will make Church teachings crimes against humanity.

" UN Member States are now negotiating a new hard-law treaty on “crimes against humanity.” These are generally regarded as those crimes that offend all of humanity, such as the genocide of the Jews by the Germans during World War II.

The new treaty very well may include the following:

“Sexual orientation and gender identity”

And

“Forced pregnancy”

Please knew we oppose all unjust discrimination against those with same-sex attraction. However, we cannot support the idea that opposing “sexual orientation and gender identity” as a new “crime against humanity.” This would criminalize the teachings of the Church.

We faced the notion of “forced pregnancy” when the International Criminal Court was negotiated twenty years ago. In the hands of the left, “forced pregnancy” means that a woman cannot get an abortion.

Working with UN Member States twenty years ago, we got it defined as the repeated rape of a woman for the purposes of changing the demographic profile of a country, literally holding a woman prisoner until she gives birth.

This is how the new treaty will criminalize the teachings of the Church. And this is why we oppose this new language, and why we need your help."

I think that it is a problem for all humanity, it is not only a problem for catholics like myself. It seeks to force pro-abort legislation in all countries that have some protection for the unborn. If this UN treaty is approved, besides multiplying the number of aborts, many more women would be dangeroulsy wounded in their feminity because the post-abort syndrom, and beside the problems of an aging population would increase without limit. This is really irresponsably encouraging an inhumane behavior. For what use is the UN today?

What is genocide? A quick search gives the following definition: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Now, in this scenario, there's no actual killing. However, it has long been understood that race is not a biologically valid trait. We are all one species and there hasn't been time for actual biologically valid separations from groups to evolve. So, what differentiates one group of people from another is culture.

If a group of people are required to give up their cultural heritage, then that ethnicity is gone. Obviously this is a fairly charged question, but I think the RG community is up to answering it honestly and rationally.

Can we handle the subject of "genocide" from English linguistic viewpoint?

As an identified Aboriginal (Gamilaroi) person with mixed heritage, I am fed up of seeing and hearing on National TV and in every day life that First Nations people are at each other, when it comes to money, culture and history. We have struggled enough for 230 years, and quite frankly I'm over it!!

We are not helping ourselves let alone our communities. Yes many have been dislocated from their traditional roots, my family was no different thanks to genocide and ongoing child removals. As a nation how are we going to fix this dilemma? I am over being asked what percentage of Aboriginal, I am also tired of westerners and immigrants saying your not black enough. The monkey see and hear does not work... We come in all shades, we live among your communities, whether it be urban or regional.

It is time to have an open conversation about the myths that: "the real Aboriginal people live in the desert, are black, poor, and paint dots".

The Abrahamic religions were originally formed upon a martial, violent god with a perceptively nasty streak and a tendency towards promoting genocide. There have been developments since and finer impulses have emerged but that nasty god is still there, hovering around like a perplexing bad sore.

Can we not start again and those that require religion to survive life's fraught circumstances or just to have that warm glow that comes from connectiveness with others sit down and devise a better god to worship, one who, at least, celebrates life not death?One who inculcates joy and laughter, not the miseries people often now worship. One genuinely based upon ethics.

As an historian, I particularly deploy their dependence on historical events that never occurred, or are of extremely doubtful provenance, and their added refusal to accept the evidence.

Hi,

I have recently collected 15 case studies from 15 Rohingya who have been able to escape genocide in Rakhine state of Myanmar. I have also got some photos of them and of the refugee camps in Bangladesh.

Can anyone please suggest whom I can approach for publishing this? It can be either online or print version.

Thanks!

My paper, English Genocide in Nova Scotia, is well researched but not enough original research for an academic publication and which I am not able to provide. But, the atrocities need to be exposed.

Is there another level of journals, or even other publications, that will publish such material of 35pp or 85pp?

I am happy to post some or all of the paper as long as it does not interfere with a future publication. 

My research is on Zimbabwe's 1980s genocide and how it is remembered today. Very little has been written on this subject yet it continues to be a strategic point of electioneering. The research tries to document the causes, effects and questions/investigates legal implications of the genocide. I am also contesting public memory as archive.

In certain states freedom and responsibility only to certain groups resulted in Genocides.  What are our obligations to manifest the optimal in a healthful society and who determines what responsibility is if it's something that makes us responsible to one another's freedom, how free are we as individuals to oppose the tyranny of groups if we don't have a way to regulate other's freedoms with our own commitment to unfolding the responsibility of individual and collective identities.  With this in mind is it mutually exclusive to be absolutely free yet have obligations and responsibility's to others, aren't by definitions commitments to others a limitation on absolute freedom. IS freedom absolute or relative to societal expectations.  IF It's relative to societal expectations what creates freedom, and makes it optimal and innate to human expressions?

The concept of genocide is described by Stanton with 10 steps. The fourth one is the dehumanization that's understood as propaganda of hate speech. Concretely, how can we define that hate speech in terms of vocabulary ? How can we recognize it ? 

I'm interested in how R2P, which covers mass atrocity crimes  (genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and war crimes) gained essentially "most favored norm" status while competing normative candidates covering much wider scale human suffering and loss of life such as extreme poverty and HIV/AIDS comparatively failed. I'm interested in how the sociological literature on social problems as well as the IR literatures on norm contestation and argumentation might help me make sense of this puzzle. 

I'm exploring Claude Lanzmann, Alain Resnais, Rithy Panh, Joshua Oppenheimer, Ari Folman, Chantal Akerman, Harun Farocki, Avi Mograbi... any more?

In the treaty of Sevres there is an article referring to an Arbitration by Americans, more precicely the Woodraw Wilson Arbitration. Does this exist and whether it implicates land issues of Armenians?

Of particular interest are Germany and Cambodia.

The Nuremberg Trials set the tone for the evolution of a host of norms that eventually found their reflection in the Rome Statute. With over 122 Ratifications, the Rome Statute has come to be a guiding light on its own merit casting its luminance on those functions of sovereigns that hitherto were protected from 'public scrutiny'. There are serious debates as to whether by subscribing to the ICC nations are forsaking their sovereignty. The number of ratifications however are reflective of the emergence of a consensus amongst nations that no regime must violate individual right to life and dignity in the name of sovereign impregnability. Charles Taylor's conviction seems to suggest that the consensus is not merely a vote for morality. Or, is it?