Genocide…the most favored word of my favorite commies and loved secularists. These so called ‘voices of the subaltern’ have been spewing the same rhetoric that they have been fighting against; the same as all the other ‘-ists'. Before I get into art of suplexing all believers who have done the rest of us a favor by directing our attention to the ‘Oh! So real’ issues, let me copy paste the official definition of genocide.
Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as, “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 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; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Violence has been the modus operandi for settling power relations among groups and nations for the past three millennia at-least. Though this time violence had only one meaning, more specifically physical violence, i.e. power, to gain control over choice of action over the other. The stronger the military capacity of a state or group, or the coercion power of either, the greater the power to change scenarios in its favor. I mean, look at the US and its power status since the past one hundred years or so; look at the growing strength of the Chinese since the 90s. This thought corresponds at a group, as well as at a person to person contact level too.
Since then, a parallel group of social scientists studied violence, not just as physical power while is very limited in its understanding and explanation at a societal level, but by readjusting their glasses to look at violence as it is, by studying violence at every level of social strata possible. Johan Galtung sliced violence into three parts; physical, cultural and structural. These terms are pretty self-explanatory. Cultural is hereditary, as simple as that. Structural violence is created and recreated every day, they are the overlapping and conditioned dependent bonds within society that bind society through common identities by transmitting information, emotions and ideology back and forth that are multi-polar in nature, i.e., positive, negative, mirrored, and different mixes of all identifications.
And this is where my favorite heroes are screwing up already screwed up situations. The definition that adores the start of this page only touches upon one aspect of violence, as power did for hundreds of years. We all know how that turned out. The commies, and of course liberals and secularists and the lot (…but they would hate it that I put the three into the same sentence…welllll, boo-hoo to you!) are creating situations of structural genocide, leading to conflict at a physical level like in Myanmar against Muslims, or Kashmir against all non-Muslims, or white American against blacks (yes blacks…not African-American), and Shia-Sunni-Ahmadiyya…..and the list goes on, but at a structural yet banal level that precedes physical violence which makes identification virtually impossible. This type of violence according to Galtung is invisible. Hence, the only way of identification, if any, is by the medium of debate.
Looking at situations from a Galtungian (don’t know if there is a term like this but there should be) perspective, there is strong structural genocide that is being committed everyday in the form of ideologies; socialism, liberalism, secularism, communism and all the so called positive ‘isms’ are invariably creating the feared and hated 'other'.
In awe of the blindness of my favorite open-minded and caring people of our society, I call their behavior ‘positive genocide’, because, of course of their dashingly positive, rational, honourable, and empathetic outlook on everything, which as an effect is carrying multiple forced and involuntary ideologies onto the rest. By judging behavior as black and white, good and bad, these liberal commies (yes, yes I said it) have carried on the tradition of making the ‘other’ feel as such. Sometimes the ‘other’ is clearly identified (or created) by physical appearance as done in Rwanda; else it is done by carrying ideas of ‘rationalism’ as done by the media in India. There is very little thought process into ‘how’ the structure of society has shifted the voices in our heads towards hatred or understanding as single point of view do not exist. They look at only the obvious layer and judge, taking the favored from nant approached of western thought — when in doubt, dissect.
For example, just have a look at any news website or channel, social media outlet to pointout situations of positive genocide. For example, one story in Al-Jazeera I came across recently is the ‘Fear, loathing and Australian politics’ article. To quote the PM, “It’s coming after us." Who is this ‘it’? If this term isn’t clearly defined, the majority will look at followers of Islam as ‘it’, branding many voluntary and many more involuntarily (who invariably get shot in the crossfire). At the same time, people on social media (ahem…secularists) and international news channels are supporting the Muslims. By supporting them, there is acknowledgement that the other 'is' the hated ‘other’. There is no effort to understand who they are, just the illusion of being ‘good’ people who support the underdog and the misunderstood (the Rocky Effect?). Another example is at a societal level; there are so many pro ‘same sex’ and pro ‘women’s’ agenda campaigners on social media and such. They paint their profile pictures colorful in support. But when there are marches of solidarity, these people seem to have some work or the other and the number dwindles considerably. The greater mortals preach equality, but never speak for the gutter cleaners and the bus drivers, the slaves who slog in mines, those educated who work in the outsourcing business and such invisibles. All this is positive genocide, when believing that someone who isn’t like you has to be the ‘other’.
The false — positive love for the ‘other’ makes sure that they believe in their segregation from visible society, adding to their treatment from the other half. No identity; male-female, young-old, religion, spiritual, color, height, race, job refrain from this translucent behavior. If I can be a cynical Foucaudian for just a second. There is positive genocide everywhere and at every level of social strata imaginable, and this is done by the ‘good’, ‘nice’ and ‘open-minded’ people, as well as the conservatives, extremists, neo-liberals of our society by convincing themselves and others of their ‘goodness’ and their beliefs and rationality while creating an exclusive society accessible only to a select few.