Genocide in the Earth-Minbari war? A new and improved analysis Chapter 1: Genocide: The power of a word, a babylon 5 fanfic

An attempt to examine in-universe and out-of-universe use of the term "genocide" when describing the Earth-Minbari war, with respect to canonicity, and what, if any, are the consequences of this usage.

Dedicated to the memory of Anne R.

Child Holocaust survivor, and my friend.

Or, put another way: Was there a genocide (successful or attempted) in the Earth-Minbari war?

Well, duh, one might say. Obvious and old. This has been obvious for 25 years now, you know?

Well, it certainly is old enough that we have 25 years of repetition to supplant the need for our own assessment, but let's track this thread to the beginning and take a quick look for ourselves. Fannish like, just to be clear, isn't a good enough reason to embark on this examination. What is at stake here, is.

Really? One probably exclaims with understandable incredulity. Why bother writing - or reading - such an examination at all? It is just a word - albeit a specific one - being applied to events that are fictional, after all.

The answer is twofold, pertaining to 1) the relevance of the word in question: "genocide", and 2) the relevance of fiction, over and above its entertainment value.

Let's start with: 1) the relevance of the word in question.

"Words have power". We might expect to hear this meant magically or mystically, but sociologists know it's entirely based in reality.

Individual words have power, and their arrangement every bit as much.

What's the better warning: " smoking may lower life expectancy" or "smoking kills"? What disturbs us more as a result of a military operation: "we killed more civilians than enemy combatants" or "we had significant collateral damage in addition to destroying the target"? What are we more likely to vote to ban: "terminating an embryo" or "murdering a baby"?.

Taking strong emotion out of it, which makes us more likely to buy a piece of clothing: "our garment is quality", or "wearing this makes you beautiful/confident/desirable, etc".

As is likely obvious, even for words not fraught with the emotional tension and political connotations of the "g-word", the influence of word choice and arrangement upon human opinions and decisions is a significant one. So much so, that analyzing the measurable effects has spawned entire subfields of Sociology and Mass-Communication, along the lines of research into what is known as "Cognitive Priming", and "Framing".

Both fascinating fields - not so much, to me for their exploitability in insidiously influencing the individual - but rather, because such uses are already in place (and form the basis of product and campaign advertisement), as a means for individuals to recognize and understand the influence, so as to be thus enabled to be more true to themselves rather than the loudest source of cognitive priming in the room.

An interesting exercise is to rephrase an issue with different levels of emotive terminology and watch the opinions of one's company -and self- shift with the words.

Moving from generalities to the specifics of the "g-word".

Genocide is ... a word with meaning that is more substantial - more terrible - than the sum of its letters. To deny its use in the face of the actions that add up to it is, not only utterly inhumane but also, incomprehensibly disrespectful to its victims, trivializing their trauma by refusing to name the ultimate crime that they have suffered. Such denial is also frequently a precursor to - or justification of - even more destructive and criminal behaviors.

On the other hand, to use the term incorrectly is a problem that is more than simply academic in nature, and with greater consequences, socially, than something that can be relegated solely to the domain of semantic quibblers.

For one thing, perhaps, familiarity breeds contempt. When the world doesn't end for all the half dozen 'genocides' we've heard about in the last year- some of which may apply the term for the ultimate crime to sheer dumb misfortune, the weather, or worse just use it as a critique of social trends - we might loose respect for the horror of the term, and the suffering of its victims.

More certainly, there is a very real demonstrable danger of "Conceptual Drift".

To give an example of conceptual drift, in the application of psychiatry (though it is not a problem endemic to just that one field), by slight generalizations and shifts to the psychological states classified as symptoms of a pathology, and these broadenings-of-scope being repeated across generations of researchers and academics, who in turn base their definitions on already inexact definitions (like round-off error in reverse), before long definitions of pathology emerge which cover normal states and experiences, and when this is extended to a diverse array of pathologies thus expanded, every single one of us would need to be analyzed, at minimum, and possibly medicated, for being essentially normal.

Back on topic, it is necessary to call the ultimate crime by its true name. But does that action of respect and commemoration mean anything if the name has been robbed of all meaning through conceptual drift?

I realize that lengthy quotations are not well liked by some people. I, however, am fully cognizant that I simply do not possess the expertise to address this very issue as it deserves to be addressed, and dramatically shortening the quotations risks distorting, in whole or in part the context and meaning of the original text, so without further ado:

Dr. Samuel Totten, chief co-editor of Genocide Studies and Prevention:

An International Journal warns: "Frivolous use of the term "genocide" is

rampant in today's world. Well-intentioned but ill-informed individuals

and groups use the term to describe a wide array of social ills,

"oppression of one form or another," and/or any situation they cither feel

passionate about or believe merits the use of a "dramatic" term...

Frivolous use of the term is bound to lead many members of the public to

become lazy and indiscriminate in making key distinctions between what

Is and Is not truly genocide or genocidal. When genocide is used in a

loose and irresponsible manner, not only does it distort the true meaning

of the term, but it diminishes the significance of and minimizes those

actions that are truly genocidal in nature.

Misuse and overuse of the term may also contribute to inuring some

people to the horror of the reality of genocide—one of the most egregious

human rights violations known to humanity. "[1]. Additional materials at: [2],

[3]. Emphasis mine.

Dr. A. D'Amato of the Northwestern University School of Law, USA,

warns, in the Naval War College International Law Studies Blue Book:

"The term "genocide" is popular with journalists because it seems to give

an immediate and sensational dimension to their reports. Its overuse

extends to academics who see no need to be careful about the terms they

use... the term "genocide" can be stretched so far as to lose any distinctive

or coherent meaning.

"Genocide," to have standing as a separate crime, must be distinguishable

from group destruction. The framers of the Geneva Convention settled on

a definition that appears to have singled out victims of genocide as

involuntary members of a group. There is something universally felt to be

particularly heinous in murder based on a group affiliation that the victim

could not have avoided... To extend the crime of genocide to killings—

even mass killings—that are not based on membership in the four groups

is to cheapen the concept and eventually render it redundant."[4].

Additional materials therein. Emphasis mine.

A. Destexhe, former Secretary General of Doctors without Borders,

commenting on the tragic irony of the unwillingness of international

authorities to react to or even name the Rwanda genocide: "The term

genocide has progressively lost its initial meaning and is becoming

dangerously commonplace. In order to shock people and gain their

attention to contemporary situations of violence or injustice by making

comparisons with murder on the greatest scale known in this century,

'genocide' has been used as synonymous with massacre, oppression and

repression, overlooking that what lies behind the image it evokes is the

attempted annihilation of the entire Jewish race...

The inevitable consequences of such misuse of language are a loss of

meaning and a distortion of values... we arrive at a situation where no

individuals are to be singled out as guilty or responsible because blame is

laid at the door of historical fate and 'unfortunate circumstances', 'the

climate of the time' and sheer bad luck...

It is certainly true that all victims, without distinction, merit compassion

and assistance. They all have the right to justice and to know that their

suffering will not be forgotten... it nonetheless remains essential to

distinguish between different sorts of tragedy... The greatest danger today

arises from the re-birth of racist ideologies that consider it 'logical' to

classify different races and ethnic groups, excluding and rejecting 'the

other', even when such classification leads to policies that advocate

wholesale slaughter on the basis of birth, religion or culture...

Almost everywhere in the world we see recurring hatred of 'the other',

leading to ethnic cleansing and racism: it is the greatest danger that we

face today. And it is precisely this selective killing of 'the other', who is

identified, targeted and slaughtered as such, that is at the root of a

genocide." [5]. Additional materials therein. Emphasis mine.

Dr. J. E. Waller, Holocaust and Genocide Studies professor at Keene State

College and Director of Academic Programs with the Auschwitz Institute

for Peace and Reconciliation (AIPR) writes, discussing the legacy of

Raphael Lemkin (legal scholar/Holocaust survivor/father of the UN

Genocide convention), and how that legacy has been tragically twisted by

irresponsible use: " Lemkin's legacy reminds us that words matter; names

matter; labels matter... The word Lemkin coined—and the act to which

he devoted his adult life to defining it as an international crime—quickly

acquired considerable weight. It was a weight that international political

leaders were unwilling to pick up for fear of being compelled to act. For

activists and politicians intent on responding to mass murder, it was a

weight frequently swung as a cudgel of moral judgment or political one-

upmanship. As Ignatieff said: "Those who should use the word 'genocide'

never let it slip their mouths, and those who do use the word 'genocide'

banalize it into a validation of every kind of victimhood" (Ignatieff 2001).

"What remains is not a moral universal which binds us all together, but a

loose slogan which drives us apart" (Ignatieff 1998, 2)." [6]. Additional

materials therein. Emphasis mine.

And finally, the internationally esteemed Canadian professor, historian,

journalist and genocide scholar Michael Ignatieff, eduated at Cambrige

and Oxford, and recipient of five honorary degrees, speaking of the legacy

left by Raphael Lemkin, warned, in addition: "Now all of these

achievements of Raphael Lemkin would be enough for us to celebrate

him, but we need to remember the harsher reality that he died alone and

forgotten. The word he coined "genocide," is now so banalized, so

misused, so tossed-around, that it has lost all definition...There's a

serious risk that commemoration of Raphael Lemkin's work will not

become an act of remembering, but an act of forgetting, obliterating what

was so singular about his achievement... Genocide, as a word, turns on a

genocidal intention. "Genocide" has no meaning whatever unless the word

can be connected to a clear intention to exterminate a human group, in

whole or in part...All these rhetorical issues are of some importance

because calling every abuse or crime a genocide makes it steadily more

difficult to rouse people to action when a genuine genocide is taking

place. " [7] Emphasis the speaker's.

In recent years we have all heard the "g-word" used popularly to rail against the 'evils' and 'conspiracies' of inter-race marriages, LGBT rights, abortion rights, as well as discriminations of every stripe, violence of every kind and extent, failures of drug-prevention agencies, and even natural disasters, among many other diametrically opposed concepts, thus robbing the term of much of its meaning. I can provide sources on demand, though such uses are so commonplace, I doubt anyone would need them.

In particular - and I hate to get political but I'm still quaking over this one - when the term has been distorted so much that just a couple days ago, 49 perfectly innocent people were murdered in new Zealand by a bigot who justified his crimes by calling legal non-violent voluntary naturalization, cultural exchange, and people falling in love with people of other races and having kids with them, a "genocide of the White race", and then went on to say that since it's a "genocide", drastic action- aka mass-murder - "has to be taken" ... it might be a sign that we need to stop and take a long hard look at how far a concept that has so much sway can be allowed to drift, before a word that should be a warning of our worst nature turns into a justification for giving into it wholeheartedly.

Now, this is not to say that a situation that does not fit the term genocide used for it, cannot be a crisis, a tragedy, rampant discrimination, an unacceptable breach of duty, an atrocity, even a crime-against-humanity, etc - and it is not to say that it is, as the above list is morally irreconcilable, and when used by bigots to justify crimes, extreme caution is necessary. Nor is it to say that our sense of humanity and capacity for empathy is so deficient that any legitimately horrific or tragic situation is irrelevant if it is not a genocide.

This is, also, not saying that it is productive for those who would advocate for the victims of crimes-against-humanity, or the latter themselves, to sit and argue over whether their particular tragedy classifies as more of a genocide than another group's tragedy. Such practices frequently cause more harm than good as very human hurts and the scars of tragedy, personal or inherited, take over, together with the agony of feeling like one's tragedy is somehow insufficient - and division and bitterness is the result rather than solidarity and healing. Similarly, such considerations are fraught with enough difficulty - and the potential for trivializing the severe trauma of some group's historical experience, or denying reparations for incomprehensible crimes on mere technicalities - that Israel Charny, renowned genocide scholar and founder of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, has proposed putting forth an expanded definition of genocide, with several sub-categories and related crimes that may more adequately cover the enormous variety of human suffering and tragedy that scars the memory of an incredibly diverse range of human beings. (This will be one of the three definitions we will look at in Ch. 5)

On the contrary. My apolitical (and non-expert) take on this is that where the line between genocide and a particular atrocity by a group against the involuntary "other", is so fine (as to necessitate such lengthy arguments, or the trauma of the survivors is so deep as to create such a minefield, or the population viability has been drastically impacted) - we might as well just say it was effectively genocide, and rather than quibble over the legalese, focus on how we can help the survivors heal - to the greatest extent that healing is possible - and on remembering such tragedies and atrocities as lessons, so that hopefully, as the collective of humanity, we do not repeat the same mistakes so readily.

Mostly, my concern, on the particular topic of this discussion, is with the potential application of the term to situations that are not certain to reflect the level of atrocity and depth of trauma of genocide - effective, legal, or even partial (as will be laid down in the coming chapter on definitions).

In particular, in the B5 universe, the human species is, canonically, not only effectively recovered but thriving, and self-confident as ever, a mere ten years after experiencing "genocide" perpetrated against it. We do see some cases of comparatively-mild military PTSD, but as a whole there is a lack of the overarching sense of despair, degradation, trauma, and crippling legacy of victimization, that are just a few issues haunting survivors of genocide, not just decades but generations after the fact.

And there is a potential quibble with levels of violence as measured by the ratio of casualties to available potential casualties, and whether such levels of violence even approximate the incomparable violence of something approaching genocide.

In particular, to quote Dr. MacDonald, Senior Lecturer of the Political

Studies Department, University of Otago, Canada: " Not concerning

oneself with death tolls and degrees of horror removes the significance of

the Holocaust entirely. How can the authors posit that "the same ends"

have been achieved when six million of one people have been mercilessly

slaughtered without a similar end result for the other group? The quote

demonstrates a marked ignorance of Nazi goals. These were... to

exterminate Europe's entire Jewish population." [9]

A/N: please note my use of ratio and available in comparing casualty counts. The would-

be multiple-murderer who ends up killing no-one because he lost access to his roomful of

100 intended victims is worse, ethically, than the single-murderer who has access to all

100 but selectively kills his sole target. And a race consisting of just 100 members is a lot

more viability-impaired by the murder of 85 than a race of a million is by the murder of

850. The intentional perpetrator of the former, whatever their justification, is willing to

cause an effective genocide (in the biological sense, so if they go ahead with it, it's even

more monstrous than mass-killing already is.

Regarding the non-numerical long term effects, granted, the external perception of trauma is, indeed, an unacceptable substitute for the experience of the sufferer (indeed, people who have survived torture, frequently cannot survive the isolation formed by the fact that the gap of experience between survivor and support-group cannot be fully bridged by intellectual understanding), however, the lack of such overt effects being shown in canon necessitates caution, largely because of a phenomenon known as "Cultivation Theory" which we'll get to in chapter 3.

In particular, as matters stand, for the purposes of this discourse, there are two possibilities: Either a: the term genocide (under at least one of: legal, effective, or even partial definitions - to be laid out in Ch 5) does apply to the canonically established events of the B5 E-M war, or b: it does not under any of the three definitions.

If it's a, then we can be said to have a responsibility to use the term, and to have the awareness that a good deal of unavoidable severe trauma has to be considered when we think about what must be going on off-screen among the survivors.

If, on the other hand, it's b, then the sparse canonical use becomes problematic (to see why, we need to consider ch. 3 as well), and propagating the use, especially out of universe - as real world people communicating in the real world - is doubly problematic, specifically because of the dual issues of genocide trivialization, as we have discussed above, intersected with "Cultivation Theory", a field that is, in the wake of certain television developments, anything but a theory.

If, on the other hand, it's b, then the sparse canonical use becomes problematic (to see why, we need to consider chs. 2-4 as well), and propagating the use, especially out of universe - as real world people communicating in the real world - is doubly problematic, specifically because of the dual issues of genocide trivialization, as we have discussed above, intersected with "Cultivation Theory", a field that is, in the wake of certain television developments, anything but a theory.

Finally, there is quite literally no good reason not to clinically and rationally dissect the facts of the E-M war, and compare them to the facts of genocide. There is, after all, nobody to offend (specific to a fictional war that is not even set in historical fiction) that a reader might understandably identify with. There are no real-life survivors or descendants of survivors of the fictional Earth-Minbari war who might be told that their trauma is insufficient, and thus be further isolated and traumatized.

We might feel some personal discomfort, sure. For reasons that will become apparent over the course of this discussion, I am certain that the real-world survivors of genocide will have been more concerned with the use of the term than the analysis I posit. But for those of us (the majority, I expect) falling outside the experience of such trauma, here's the really interesting bit:

It has been argued between myself and a fellow AO3 member, that my insistence on examining the usage of the term "genocide" for this particular fictional event, and my stance that if the term does not fit, it should not be used (though, of course, if it does, it must be), - even in daring to ask the question - strays uncomfortably close to the real-world unethical and incredibly harmful practice of genocide denial (a practice, I might add, of denying the term "genocide" to events that pretty much always dofall under at least one of the three definitions of genocide, as we will explore them in ch. 5).

This argument, however presupposes that there is a linkage of behavior and/or perceptions between fiction and reality (an observation that actually has merits, and indeed forms the basis of Cultivation Theory).

If we are to presuppose a behavioral/perceptual linkage between fiction and reality - and as we will examine in chs. 2-4, evidence holds that we should - then all the previous dangers of genocide trivialization as discussed in the real world become relevant to fiction as well, making precision in examining the appropriateness of the term to the events of the B5 E-M war, even more necessary.

In the next chapter: "Cultivation Theory", and more generally: Does fiction matter?.

References for Ch. 1:

1: Encyclopedia of Genocide. (2000)
Compilation work from over 100 experts. I. Charny (Ed. )
ISBN: 0874369282
Also avail on Google Books here: books dot google dot com slash books?id=8Q30HcvCVuIC

2: Porter, Jack, Nusan (1982). Introduction.
In Porter, Jack, Nusan (Ed.). Genocide and Human Rights: A Global Anthology,
ISBN: 0819122904
Also avail on Google Books here: books dot google dot com slash books?id=50YlAQAAIAA

3: Totten, Samuel (1998): Defining genocide: Words do matter.
In Danks, Carol, and Leatrice Rabinsky (Eds.). Teaching for a Tolerant World: Essays and Resources. Urbana. IL: National Council of Teachers of English. pp. 141-151.
ISBN: 0814142966

4: D'Amato (2010): On Genocide
In International Law Across the Spectrum of Conflict: Essays in Honour of Professor L.C. Green on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, Naval War College International Law Studies "Blue Book", Vol. 75, pp.119-130.

Also: D'Amato, Anthony, "On Genocide" (2010). Faculty Working Papers. Paper 93.

5: Al. Destexhe (1995): Rwanda and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, Pluto Press
ISBN: 0814718736
Also Avail. on Google Books here: books dot google dot com slash books?id=BJpUbx8uzI4C

6: J.E Waller (2016): "A Crime without a Name": Defining Genocide and Mass Atrocity.
In: Economic Aspects of Genocides, Other Mass Atrocities, and Their Prevention, Oxford University Press, ISBN: 0199378290
Also here: books dot google dot com slash books?id=4KdHDAAAQBAJ

7: www dot ushmm dot org slash confront-genocide slash speakers-and-events slash all-speakers-and-events slash the-legacy-of-raphael-lemkin

8: www dot npr dot org slash 2019 slash 03 slash 15 slash 703715807 slash attack-in-new-zealand-appears-to-be-motivated-by-white-supremacy
and:
www dot vox dot com slash identities slash 2019 slash 3 slash 16 slash 18268856 slash new-zealand-shooter-white-nationalism-united-states

9: MacDonald (2007): First Nations, Residential Schools, and the Americanization of the Holocaust. In Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique 40:4 (December/decembre 2007) 995-1015