Genocide denial is the attempt to deny or minimize the scale and severity of an instance of genocide. Denial is an integral part of genocide and includes the secret planning of genocide, propaganda while the genocide is going on, and destruction of evidence of mass killings. Denial is considered a genocidal process, the final stage, and a catalyst or indicator of future atrocities. Prominent examples include: the denial of the Armenian, Bosnian, Cambodian, Gazan and Rwandan genocides, denial of the Holocaust, and denial of genocides against colonized indigenous peoples. The distinction between historical revisionism and historical negationism, including genocide denial, rests upon the techniques and motivations which are used. Historical revisionists and negationists rewrite history in order to support an agenda, which is usually political or ideological, by using falsification and rhetorical fallacies in order to obtain their desired results. Exposure of genocide denial and revisionism surged in the early 21st century, facilitated by the propagation of conspiracy theories and hate speech on social media.
Academic analysis Genocide Watch states that denial "is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres". Historian, Richard Hovannisian states, "Complete annihilation of a people requires the banishment of recollection and suffocation of remembrance. Falsification, deception and half-truths reduce what was, to what might have been or perhaps what was not at all." According to historian Taner Akçam, "the practice of 'denialism' in regard to mass atrocities is usually thought of as a simple denial of the facts, but this is not true. Rather, it is in that nebulous territory between facts and truth where such denialism germinates." David Tolbert, president of the International Center for Transitional Justice, states:
Denial is the final fortress of those who commit genocide and other mass crimes. Perpetrators hide the truth to avoid accountability and protect the political and economic advantages they sought to gain by mass killings and theft of the victims' property, and to cement the new reality by manufacturing an alternative history. Recent studies have established that such denial not only damages the victims and their destroyed communities, it promises a future based on lies, sowing the seeds of future conflict, repression and suffering.
Motives The main reasons for denying genocide are to evade moral or even criminal responsibility and to protect the perpetrators' reputation or justify their actions. For scholars, another may be careerism.
Strategies Denialist strategies include questioning statistics, denial of intent, definitional debates, blaming the victim (sometimes called "mirroring"), claiming self-defense, media disinformation campaigns, and challenging the victims' group identity. Another strategy is to deny the existence of the protected group. Genocide scholar Israel Charny outlines five psychological characteristics of denials of genocide. Certain denialist phrases are elaborated by genocide scholars Adam Jones:
"Hardly anybody died"— When the genocides lie far in the past, denial is easier. "It wasn't intentional" — Disease and famine-causing conditions such as forced labor, concentration camps and slavery (even though they may be manufactured by the perpetrator) may be blamed for casualties. "There weren't that many people to begin with" Minimizing the casualties of the victims, while the criminals destroy or hide the evidence. "It was self defense" — The killing of civilians, especially able bodied males is rationalized in preemptive attack, as they are accused of plotting against the perpetrators. The perpetrator may exterminate witnesses and relatives of the victims. "There was no central direction" — Perpetrators can use militias, paramilitaries, mercenaries, or death squads to avoid being seen as directly participating. "It wasn't or isn't 'genocide,' because ..." —Perpetrators may enter definitional or rhetorical argumentation. "We would never do that" — Self-image cannot be questioned: the perpetrator sees itself as benevolent by definition. Evidence doesn't matter. "We are the real victims" — Perpetrators deflect attention to their own casualties/losses, without historical context. One commonality among genocide deniers is the unwillingness to change their position in response to overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
