Genocide is defined by the United Nations in the Convention of the Crime and Punishment of Genocide (1948) as any of a number of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by:

killing members of the group causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its

physical destruction in whole or in part imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

The Theme of PLACE

Exploring the Geography of GenocideAmanda Weber

Skyline High School

Key References

The geographic perspective of place manifests itself through culture and governmental policies. In each case of genocide I studied, the aggressor claimed one “race” of people to be superior to the other, and these ideas were either intentionally or unintentionally spread through indoctrination (Dadrian, 2004). Thus beliefs of “racial superiority” and customs of discrimination are indoctrinated into society. Later these ideas about groups of people that were once opinion become fact – this in turn fuels public policy aimed at the destruction of the genocide’s victims (McDonnell & Moses, 2005).

AZGA. (n.d.). A world outline map. Retrieved from: http://alliance.la.asu.edu/maps/World-at.pdfBerenbaum, M. (2003). A promise to Remember: The Holocaust in the words and voices of its survivors. Boston, MA: Bulfinch Press. Berenbaum, M. (2007). The world must know: The History of the Holocaust as told in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (2nd

edition). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. California Legislature. (1851). Journals of the legislature of the state of California at its Second Session: Held at the City of San Jose, California.

January 6, 1851 through May 1, 1851. Cave, A. (2003). Abuse of power: Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Historian, 65(6), 1330-1353.Colijn, G. J. (2003). Carnage before our time: Nineteenth century colonial genocide. Journal of Genocide Research, 5(4), 617-625 Dadrian, V. (2004). Patterns of twentieth century genocides: The Armenian, Jewish, and Rwandan cases. Journal of Genocide Research, 6(4),

487-522. Finzsch, N. (2008). “[…] Extirpate or remove that vermine”: genocide, biological warfare,and settler imperialism in the eighteenth and early

nineteenth century. Journal of Genocide Research, 10(2), 215-232.Gersmehl, P. (2008). Teaching Geography (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: The Gilford Press. Harper, R. (2008). State intervention and extreme violence in the revolutionary Ohio Valley. Journal of Genocide Research, 10(2), 233-248Hintjens, H.M. (1999). Explaining the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 37(2) 241-286Human Rights Watch. (1999). Leave none to tell the story: Genocide in Rwanda. Retrieved from:

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1999/rwanda/. Jacoby, K. (2008). “The broad platform of extermination”: Nature and violence in the nineteenth century North American borderlands. Journal of

Genocide Research, 10(2), 249-267.Letgers, L.H. (1988). The American Genocide. Policy Studies Journal, 16(4), 768-777.Magnarella, P. (2005). The background and causes of the genocide in Rwanda. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 3(1) 801-822McDonnell, M & Moses, D. (2005). Raphael Lemkin as historian of the genocide in the Americas. Journal of Genocide Research, 7(4), 501-529.Miles, W. (2003). The politics of comparison. Journal of Genocide Research, 5(1), 131-148. Mukimbiri, J. (2005). The seven stages of the Rwandan genocide. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 3, 823-836.National Geographic. (n.d.). Geography standards: How to apply geography tointerpret the past. Retrieved from:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/expeditions/standards/17/index.htmlNational geography standards (1994). A listing and explanation of the National Geography Standards. Retrieved from:

http://www.ncge.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3314Perdue, T. (1989). Cherokee women and the Trail of Tears. Journal of Women’s History, 1(1), 14-30. Scherrer, C.P. (1999). Towards a theory of modern genocide. Comparative genocide research: definitions, criteria typologies, cases, key

elements, patterns and voids. Journal of Genocide Research, 1(1), 13-23.Sousa, R.A. (2004). “They will be hunted down like wild beasts and destroyed!”: A comparative study of genocide in California and Tasmania.

Journal of Genocide Research, 6(2), 193-209.Thornton, R. (1984). Cherokee population losses during the Trail of Tears: A new perspective and new estimate. Ethnohistory, 31(4), 289-300.United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (n.d.). Introduction to the Holocaust. Holocaust Encyclopedia. Retrieved from:

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005143United Nations. (1948). Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. Retrieved from:

http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-1.htmWelch, D. (2004). Nazi propaganda and the Volksgemeinschaft: Constructing a people's community. Journal of Contemporary History, 39(2),

213-238. Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. Journal of Genocide Research, 8(4), 387-409. Wood, W.B. (2001). Geographic aspects of genocide: A comparison of Bosnia and Rwanda. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,

26(1), 57-75.Young, M. (1990). The exercise of sovereignty in Cherokee Georgia. Journal of the Early Republic, 10(1), 43-63.

The geographic perspective of space manifests itself as conflicts resulting from a desire for land and resources, and the migration, displacement and concentration of victimized populations (Wood, 2001). Although land and resources play a small role in the majority of the case studies in this paper, the migration, displacement and concentration of populations are found in all three examples. Time and again the resources revealed that proximity of the victimized population was of the utmost importance to the genocides aggressor: victims were never far enough away, which ultimately lead their physical destruction.

What is Genocide? The Theme of SPACE

Gersmehl (2008) explains that the study of geography focuses on space and place. The professional literature regarding genocide has few examples that specifically discuss the geographic factors within genocide, thus I researched the aspects of space and place within three specific genocides.

Genocide Case Studies

In the ClassroomThe study of Geography is easily woven into historical curriculum through the seventeenth National Geography Standard (1994): “Using geography to interpret the past.” Exploring the topic of genocide with a geographic eye presents common themes that persist throughout many examples of genocide. These themes help a student understand both context and perceptions of perpetrators and victims of genocide, which then aids in student comprehension of the causes, actions, and outcomes of genocide (National Geographic, n.d).

Arizona State High School Geography and History Standards

GEOGRAPHY – Strand 4•Concept 2, PO1: Identify the characteristics that define a region•Concept 4, PO6: Analyze the Factors that affect Human Populations•Concept 6, PO3: Analyze how geography influences historical events and movements

WORLD HISTORY – Stand 2•Concept 8, PO6: Examine Genocide as a manifestation of extreme nationalism

AMERICAN HISTORY – Strand 1•Concept 4, PO6: Examine the experiences and perspectives of the Native Americans in the new nation

•Concept 5, PO4: Describe the Impact of European-American expansion on native peoples.

Examples of genocide can be found on any largely inhabited continent in the world. For this study I used three such examples of genocide:

Native American GenocideThe genocide against Native Americans occurred with political backing from the seventeenth century through the nineteenth century (Finzsch, 2008). The Native Americans are a nation of people with a unique heritage and prior to the age of European colonialism they also had ancestral homelands. Violence against Native Americans by Europeans, and then later Anglo-Americans occurred Under the colonization practices of many European nations, hundreds of thousands of Native Americans lost their lives through intentional extermination (Wolfe, 2008).

The Holocaust in EuropeThe Holocaust officially began in 1933 and ended in 1945: It was the brain child of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler (USHMM, n.d). The conditions that allowed the Holocaust to occur are deeply rooted within the ideas of anti-Semitism, and a superior “Aryan” race, which reached into Nazi occupied European territories through propaganda and indoctrination. The Nazis targeted Jews, Roma, Russians, Slavs, and other groups of people who they deemed unworthy to live within “Aryan” living space (USHMM, n.d.). The Nazi regime began a systematic plan to rid all of their occupied territory of these “undesirable” people first through a loss of rights, followed by dehumanization, then transportation and concentration of these “undesirable” groups, and finally, their extermination (Scherrer, 1999). Approximately 13 million lives were lost as a direct result of the holocaust.

The Rwandan GenocideIn 1994, a massacre erupted throughout the capital city of Kigali in Rwanda as well as all over the countryside as fanatical groups of Hutu extremist took to killing Tutsi neighbors in an attempt to completely wipe out the Tutsi population in Rwanda. At the end of the one-hundred day genocide there were nearly one-million victims, both Tutsi, and those Hutus who protected Tutsi (Wood, 2001).

I chose these three examples as they occurred on different continents and in different historical time periods in an attempt to create a diverse sampling of both information and literature.

Adapted from AZGA map page

In looking at any history with a geographic eye one can use the perspectives of place and space to further understand why and how historical events occur. When applied to the topic of genocide one sees that within the perspectives of space and place several themes persist throughout: the role of culture in the place where the genocide took place thus allowing the genocide to happen, the role of land and resources as a means for expanding populations and exploiting natural resources, and finally the displacement and concentration of victimized populations.

Conclusions

The Holocaust

Native American Genocide

Rwandan Genocide

The Holocaust

Native American Genocide

Rwandan Genocide

The Nazis were not satisfied with the “unworthy” living among them and started government programs of relocation. It had been the hope of the Nazi party that they could “rid” themselves of all the Jewry and other “undesirables” within their borders through forced emigration. However, after the Evian Conference it was clear that no country would allow the immigration of enough refugees into their country for this to happen (Alder-Roudel, 1968). Thus the problem of how to clear the “Aryan” living space of “non-Aryans” became a German problem.

The first step in the Nazi attempt at creating living space for the “Aryan” race was through the concentration of “non-Aryan” populations into the Ghettos through forced immigration (USHMM, n.d.). The Nazis used the ghettos as a transitional holding space for those who would eventually be transported farther away into areas of deeper concentration within camps located in rural settings. The movement of people to the concentration camps was completed by truckload and railcar with the utmost precision (USHMM, n.d). When the rural concentration of the “undesirable” people was no longer an acceptable option, concentration camps transformed into extermination camps as the Nazis solved their “problem” through systematic mass murder (Barenbaum, 2007).

Land and the resources it contained were a major cause of the genocide against Native Americans. Wolfe (2008) states “Land is life – or, at least, land is necessary for life. Thus contests for land can be – indeed, often are – contests for life” (p.387). Land was a valuable resource to new people on the frontier. Commonly Native Americans would lose their land contest to squatters wanting the rich fertile soil for farming, or through the speculation of gold.

The greed of many of the settlers and dehumanization of the Native Americans spurred the idea that natives in the eastern part of the continent should move to lands west of the Mississippi River: most Americans of the time never imagined the United States would expand (Cave, 2003). Those Native Americans who resisted this philosophy were subjected to horrible treatment and forced migration.

Land was a major player in, albeit not the spark that caused, the Rwandan genocide. Rwanda was a land hungry nation striving to feed its drastically increasing population (Wood, 2001). Many of Rwanda’s youth would never be able to properly marry and start a family without owning land, a prospect that for a large percentage of the population was nearly impossible. This led many to be drawn into the promises of land grants upon participation in the genocide (Human Rights Watch, 1999). Many within the government saw the solution to the land crisis, food shortages, and economic woes to be the removal of the Tutsis, who they saw as intruders. Leaders within the government began their plan to rid Rwanda of the Tutsis through policies of forced deportation. The majority of the refugees were left with nowhere to go except government “relief centres”: Tutsi refugees were concentrated in areas that were overcrowded and living conditions were horrible (Mukimbiri, 2005).

Further concentration of the Tutsi population happened upon the outbreak of genocidal violence. Leaders, in an attempt to keep the killing out of the public eye and stop Tutsis from escaping, set up road blocks and told people to stay in their homes, or gather in churches and schools. These would later become sites of mass murder (Mukimbiri, 2005; Human Rights Watch, 1999).

The Nazi regime created a culture within German occupied Europe through the use of propaganda and indoctrination, that allowed genocide to slowly occur with very little outward protests by the non-victimized (Berenbaum, 2003).

The Germans began indoctrination in kindergarten and carried through to adulthood. The purpose of this indoctrination was to promote the ideology of the Nazi state and the idea of the superior “Aryan” race. In turn this also fueled propaganda and indoctrination that other “non-Aryan” races were inferior such as the Jews, Roma, Poles, and others that were not German (USHMM, n.d).

Government policy primarily targeted the Jewish population, and began in 1933 with an incremental series of laws that slowly took away all the rights of citizenship from Jewish people. Then in 1935 the Nuremberg Laws were created which classified Jewish ethnicity based on a person’s ancestry regardless of whether they practiced the Jewish faith (Berenbaum, 2003). These eventually led to laws that would help the Germans identify people as Jewish through the use of identification cards and physical symbols of their Jewry worn on their clothing (Katz, 1982).

http://daphne.palomar.edu/ais100/cherokee.htm

Further dehumanization practices occurred through restrictions in Jews’ societal interactions including jobs, ownership of property, and curfews, eventually leading to government initiated pogroms where businesses and synagogues were destroyed (Berenbaum, 2003). In 1942 the “Final Solution” was implemented within the Nazi government giving way to the annihilation of all “non-Aryans.” Thus genocide became state policy.

Colonialism was at its peak at the dawning of the Native American genocide. The Eurocentric and racist views of colonialism were often seen in popular culture and political cartoons of the nineteenth century. Commonly portrayed were stereotypical views of Native Americans, usually as children needing to be taught how to behave properly, and sometimes as violent killers hunting down settlers (Jacoby, 2008). These cartoons implied or blatantly stated that Native Americans should be exterminated. It was commonplace for settlers to have fundraisers to raise bounties on Native Americans: an idea that mirrored wolf population control on the American prairie (Jacoby, 2008). Such views of extermination were shared by the populous of the citizens of the United States as well as elected officials and military personnel and therefore carried over into public domain and government policy (Wolfe, 2008).

Government policy stemmed from the belief that the “white-man” was inherently superior and therefore entitled to the land, space, and resources of the Native Americans ancestral homeland, as “in every instance of treaties made between 1783 and 1850, these contracts had stipulated the loss of land to white settlers or the explicit acknowledgement of American supremacy” (Finzsch, 2008, p. 220).

In Georgia the Cherokee were guaranteed their sovereignty and protection by a supreme court victory by the federal government. However, “states-rights” took precedence to the federal government and the Native Americans of Georgia were forcefully relocated through what came to be known as the Trail of Tears (Young, 1990).

Within Rwanda a Social Darwinist myth was created. It stated that the Tutsis were not from Rwanda but immigrated from Egypt or Ethiopia, and were therefore of a superior race called the Hammites. This “Hammatic myth” was “proven” by the fact that the Tutsis were characterized as having lighter skin, and successfully ruled over the other “ethnicities” in Rwanda, the Hutu and the Twa (Magnarella, 2005). This gave the ruling Belgians an excuse to favor the Tutsis and gave them high ranking positions in government and special privileges within Rwandan society.

Indoctrination and dehumanization processes immediately went to work when Rwanda was granted Independence on July 1, 1962. At this point nearly every high standing office and military position was now filled with a Hutu official. This turnover in power fueled government policies that discriminated against the Tutsi (Mukimbiri, 2005). The identity cards that were once a symbol of oppressive Belgian rule were now being used to identify and effectively track Tutsis (Human Rights Watch, 1999). There was widespread political discouragement of inter-marriage between the Hutu and the Tutsi as well.