Genocide
| TAMUCC | Genocide | Haswell, Hill, and Berkich |
| Philosophy | The First Short Paper: The Definition of Genocide: A History of the Term | Handout |
The purpose of this paper is to provide a working definition of genocide that you will use for the following short papers you will write. It will also serve as the introduction to your collated paper. We suggest you consider the following questions as you design, draft, and polish your first paper.
What was Raphael Lemkin’s definition/view of genocide?
How does the United Nations define genocide? What are the differences between what the U.N. ratified and what Lempkin proposed?
What is Adam Jones’s definition of genocide? What are the differences between his and the U.N.’s definitions?
What are the main issues with any definition of genocide? Illustrate your discussion of these issues with cases/historical examples offered in the chapter.
Finally, from considering all these aspects, what will your working definition of genocide be in your paper and your reasoning behind it?
Your grade will reflect
- a thesis or position that informs the essay and helps shape other features like organization, kinds of support/evidence, etc.
- critical and reflective capabilities in analysis and commentary.
- a logical flow to ideas, unified paragraphs, and effective transitions between paragraphs.
- effective incorporation of research materials.
- demonstrated mastery of revision and editing skills (few if any surface errors).
- correct MLA or APA documentation and adequate citation.
Generally, if you complete all requirements of the paper assignment, the grade range is between C and A, with a C representing average but satisfactory execution of the above criteria, a B representing above average execution, and an A representing superior execution. An "A" paper will incorporate a thesis that goes well beyond description, even beyond argument, and succeeds in articulating an explicit, insightful, and sophisticated interpretation. Such an interpretation requires a deeper than average understanding, integrative skills (bringing various pieces together like structure and theme), and personal engagement with the text.
If you use web sources in any of your presentations, research, or writing, be sure that your source is reliable and that you know the current MLA or APA standards for documenting e-sources.
Please note that discussions have been enabled for this page, should you have questions or suggestions for the class at large.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
2 comments
What do we want from a definition?
Submitted by Berkich on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 21:08.Bear in mind that a definition conceived as a set of (individually) necessary and (jointly) sufficient conditions may give us the extension of a term without also giving us the intension of the term. For example, the philosopher WVO Quine points out that "x is a creature with a heart if, and only if, x is a creature with a kidney" is true, but only because the class of creatures with a heart is co-extensive (has the same members as) the class of creatures with a kidney. So having the property of being a creature with a kidney gives us the right extension but does not tell us what it means to be a creature with a heart.
So, in searching for a definition of genocide, is it enough to get a definition which correctly gives us the extension of the term and no more, or must we also know what it means for an act to be genocidal?
If you're a lawyer interested in prosecuting a case of genocide, you're mostly interested in whether the case in question falls appropriately in the extension of the term--that is, whether it is correctly deemed genocide, regardless of knowing what 'genocide' means.
If, on the other hand, you're a psychologist interested in grasping the socio-psychological context of genocide, you may be far more interested in the intension of the term (or the essence of the act, if you will.)
Note that when Jones is worrying about difficult cases like the Atlantic slave trade, he is asking questions about extension. When he worries about whether genocide presupposes mass killing, he is asking about intension or the fundamental nature of genocide.
The definitions he gives are incautious insofar as they don't clearly explain what the definition is supposed to do, but they provide plenty of fodder for developing your own position on how best to define genocide.
You might start by asking, what will having the correct definition do for us? What, that is, do we want from a definition of 'genocide'?
Definitions
Submitted by Jan Haswell on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 08:57.There is certainly a moral element here as well. If I define genocide to be x, then what implications are there for me as a citizen, an American, a human being? What demands does that make on the U. N. or countries of conscience?