John:
These definitions are very interesting and helpful .. there are a few
things I would like to understand:
The use of the word 'ethnic' implies a subordinate group [athough all
groups have ethnicity] and so does 'ethnic cleansing,' or eradication of
their history, as you put it, imply reaffirmation of the dominant group's
historical narrative?
if so, it would seem to me that 'ethnic cleansing' takes place all the
time, in lots of different ways. therefore, how can one describe the
atrocity that is taking place in kosovo? if the term was coined by serbia,
why has it been adopted by CNN et al?
Thanks,
Jane
On Thu, 6 May 1999 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> I'd also be interested to know Louise's reason for the query. But here
> goes:
>
> My understanding is that the term was coined by Serbia to describe what it
> sought to achieve in Bosnia-Herzogovina. The term was coined specifically
> to differentiate what they were doing from genocide (which is a capital
> crime under international law and outlawed by the Yugoslav constitution).
> It also happily (if you are Serb) incorporates the 'cultural' elements of
> ethnic cleansing: genocide is only about killing people; ethnic cleansing
> is about eradicating their historical presence from a region and does not
> automatically imply murder etc. (although in practice it may involve the
> use of violence).
>
> The term has since beenm used to describe similar (and dissimilar) events
> in other places, most notably Rwanda, but also Iraq.
>
> Hope this helps!
> John Carman
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|