Looking into Genocides

The one word, genocide, can bring up so much emotion and remind us humans of so many years and events in history. But there must be something that divides genocide from other violent occurrences, such as massacres and wars. If one were to carefully examine the definitions of these words, they could possibly find a fine line dividing the words. According to the Webster's New World Dictionary, massacre means the "indiscriminate or merciless killing of many people or animals." This word can possibly get confused with genocide, but genocide's definition is the "systematic killing of a whole people or nation." The big difference between the two comes down to a single word, indiscriminate. It makes the meaning of massacre seem more spontaneous, as if the victims of the "killer" were not specifically targeted. As for genocide. In order to start one, the selected target will be a group that has some sort of characteristics that separate them from the killers. On the other hand, war is a bit like genocide because of the separation of the two armies, but usually war has an ending point. Normally, it would be a compromise of both sides, or a surrender of one side then leading to a treaty of some sort. This is the huge difference. People who plan for war hope for it to be over at some point. People who plan a genocide do not want to stop until the targeted group is exterminated completely.

The people that take part in a genocide can range form the insane to the somewhat "normal" citizens. Hitler used tactics of blaming the Jewish people for many of Germany's problems in order to unite its people and to gain more power. The genocide in Rwanda occurred between the Hutu and the Tutsi. The Hutu were tired of being treated unfairly, so they began the genocide of the Tutsi. There was a large amount of propaganda going around about the Tutsi needing to be killed. Ordinary citizens got together and just started mindlessly killing the Tutsi. People that did not participate were threatened with the same fate as the Tutsi. So, in order to protect one's own life and family, one had to kill another.

By looking at how often genocide occurs, I would have to say that it is only committed my human beings. Animals do not just blame other animals for their suffering and kill them. Humans on the other hand do it quite a bit. This must mean that there is some sort of human quality that causes us to do this. I believe that genocides are fueled by hatred. This hatred is usually triggered by some other sort of emotion. Adolf Hitler was able to use blame, which then in time turned into hatred for the Jewish people. Same goes for the genocide in Rwanda. The Hutu were angry with the Tutsi for treating them harshly. They could have even been envious of the Tutsi and their freedom.

There is also another thing that people can see by looking at the history of genocide. Only humans do it. They do genocide to one another and, even to animals. There is a wide variety of animal species that have been wiped out completely because of humans. But there can be possible ties between animal extinction and genocide. Usually, extinction from human beings is caused almost unintentionally. By hunting and defending livestock, many species have died off. It is a shame. California grizzly bears were killed by hunters in California and certain breeds of animals were killed for just the thrill of it. There are certain bison that are extinct now because during the "Railroad Era" of American history, people would bring their guns along on train rides just to open fire on a herd of these bison. No one would even go back to collect the pelts or the carcass for food. One might even be able to call it a waste. Now, the goal of genocide is to intentionally kill of the selected group without holding back. Only humans can do genocide. Animals kill each other normally for food/hunting or out of self-defense. But, they never try to exterminate another group of animals. There might be some similarities between the two. Certain chimpanzees from one group would band together if there are too many chimpanzees from another group are within their territory. They would even kill the infant chimps of the opposing group. This is a lot similar to the Spanish Inquisition. Non-Catholics were to be killed and or tortured regardless of age or gender. Strangely, I view the Inquisition not as a genocide. This is because once I had taken a tour to an Inquisition torture room. It is then that I learned from the tour guide, that some people that were tried before the Inquisition were falsely accused and sentenced to death only because they were wealthy and the Catholic Church (which at that time was corrupt) wanted their land. Genocides are different because they strictly target the group of choice and kill only them and anyone who gets involved with them. To me the Inquisition was just a bunch of killing in order to obtain nearby land.

Genocide is a form of killing a certain group, yet it differs from a massacre. Genocide has a large variety of participants that kill for sometimes different reasons. Some kill to exterminate the other group, and others kill just to keep themselves and their families out of the danger of being killed for "helping" the opposing group. By looking into how many times genocide has occurred, one might be able to spot the human emotions that fuel it such as hatred or even jealousy. Also, genocide does not only happen from person to person. People have been doing something just like it to animals to. Over-hunting has caused many animals to go extinct. Some people might call the Spanish Inquisition a genocide, but I would have to disagree. I view it more as a killing of partially random people to gain land for the Catholic Church. This goes to show that certain acts of violence must be carefully examined for certain traits before being classified as a genocide.