(Being lazy, I'm just going to go with the Wikipedia definition): Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part.
In another thread on this sub about Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, it was pointed out that the purges, mass- killings and dying (because of famine, disease, etc.) can not be classified as genocide (taking the definition from above), which makes sense to me as they surely wouldn't want to wipe out Khmer people as a whole. However, in public it is usually being labelled as genocide, even by some historians (correct me if I'm wrong).
I am sure there are other controversial examples like that (take the Armenian genocide e.g., but certainly there are many more?).
How clearly is genocide defined and to what extent are historians on the same page about genocide? Which examples continually are a matter of controversy among historians? Is the term in general used too often, even by historians?
Thanks.
So here is the UN Convention on the Punishment and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such : (a) Killing members of the group; (£) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (e) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (rf) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
As I was the person you mention in the Khmer Rouge thread I will quickly say that the crimes committed in Cambodia in the 1975-79 period are more in line with what is simply termed a period of 'mass dying', or crimes against humanity in a legal definition. Comparable to deaths in China under Mao or the USSR and Stalin. What is important to point out is that if the UN definition involved 'political groups', in that first section, then it would mean that the crimes of the Khmer Rouge - since they were trying to eliminate people based on their supposed opposition to the party - as genocide. The distinction between their crimes as aimed at 'counter-revolutionaries' and not just the Khmer does stretch it away from being your standard definition of genocide.
As for historians using the phrase, some do some don't. Most 'senior' historians of Cambodia don't use the phrase to characterise the period in general, but will use it in relation to certain minority groups that were perhaps targeted to a higher degree by the Khmer Rouge than average Khmer. I think in general it is used for the period because it is easy to term this massive loss of life under the umbrella of genocide, saying 'the cambodian genocide' conveys a lot, if not a little inaccurately. But as I may have said in that earlier thread the Cambodians themselves do not have a phrase like 'the holocaust', or 'shoah' that they use to refer to the mass death incurred in the 70s.
So this can be part one, in part two I'll get to the controversy you can sometimes run into with a wider use of the phrase and different definitions. I just wanted to clarify my point about Cambodia before other people may want to chime in about the other parts of your question that I don’t have time to discuss just right now.
PT II
Okie dokie, so as I've given a brief version of my argument that terming the Khmer Rouge revolution in Cambodia as 'the Cambodian genocide' is a little misleading, I will try and get at the wider and more complex part of your question: How controversial is the term 'genocide', how clear definitions are and what periods of history are 'controversially' associated with the phrase.
So first of all I think I should make clear that this whole thing is not exactly set in stone. I'm going to acknowledge that I am far from a professional historian and that the question really is up for debate here. Simply put, there is no right and wrong answer and how 'controversial' someone deems something is probably quite subjective. That being said I will give you some points that might move your intuitions around a bit and present a 'state of play' of what might be representative of the discussion over this term.
Alright. So lets begin with the word genocide.
Raphael Lemkin, a Polish lawyer, coined the term “genocide,”by combining “genos” (race, people) and “cide” (to kill) in 1943/1944. This definition was proposed as the foundation for the treaty against genocide to the United Nations in 1945, he defined it as follows:
“The crime of genocide should be recognized therein as a conspiracy to exterminate national, religious or racial groups. The overt acts of such a conspiracy may consist of attacks against life, liberty or property of members of such groups merely because of their affiliation with such groups. The formulation of the crime may be as follows:
“Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide.”
So lets be clear. Genocide in its original conception is a legal definition of a crime. It is a term which carries with it a legal framework for punishing this crime at the level of the United Nations. If 'genocide' is occurring in the world, all the parties of the United Nations who have signed the 'prevention of genocide' treaty are bound by this law to 'prevent and punish' the crime.
As this answer will probably get a bit messy from this point lets call that definition, and its use within a legal sense. 'Definition One'.
So, is definition one controversial? Yes.
First of all we have the whole problem of the UN and its less than reliable ability to do... anything. That is a different topic though. Secondly we have a definition that is drawn from direct experiences in the second world war - notably the Third Reich's attempt at eliminating the European Jewish population, as well as other so called 'undesirables'. In this sense it is like coming up with a name for an animal that you have only seen one of. Say, you had seen a Lion in the wild - and the Lion became your definition of 'big cats'. However you were unaware that Tigers and Pumas existed, and that while they were pretty similar - they were distinct. But you only have your strict definition to go off of - for example: 'A big cat has a big brown bushy mane'. Well, going off of that definition you are unlikely to call a Puma a big cat... but it is one.
I'm married to this example now so let me abuse it further.
Lets say that not only do you have a definition of that big cat, that looks like a lion, but that you are duty bound every time you see one to capture it. In fact everyone signs a piece of paper saying if they see one they will capture it.
Well what if you didn't want to capture a lion? What if you thought you might get hurt... or what if you thought that the lion you saw might be good to keep around because it will keep your neighbour scared?
(cont...)