As I understand it, and we all know I missunderstand a lot, the difference between 'ethnic cleansing' and 'genocide' is that in cases of 'ethnic cleansing' the speaker wants to condemn it, but doesn't want to do anything to stop it. In cases of 'genocide' he or she does want it stopped.
Or, maybe 'ethnic cleansing' is when it's somebody else, but 'genocide' is when its YOUR group.
See, I told you I misunderstand a lot of things. I'm just confused now.
Or maybe 'Genocide' is reserved for a special kinda people...
Oops! sorry Moonlite...I was trying so hard to be PC but I slipped!
Okay. I have the skivie on the very difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide.
With ethnic cleansing, I am, (if I am of the murdering pursuasion) going to choose only those persons of a certain ethnic group. Such is the case made against Hitler and his efforts for the Third Reich. He believed that the people following Judism were so much of a problem to Germany, that in order to bring the needed changes, the Jews needed to be gotten rid of. As certain areas of history tell us, (I wasn't alive and cannot verify this) the Jewish people were fouling up progress in all of Europe. No one wanted them. So, it was decided by the leaders of the Third Reich to create Ghettos, then, commit mass ethnic cleansing.
Genocide is an entirely different kind of murder. With genocide, I do not have one particular ethnic group of persons as my selection. Some would say, that in acts of genocide, there is a mayhem affect being displayed by participants doing the murdering. Others would disagree, saying that genocide is, in fact, systematic, overall.
For example, gentlemen, Mr Hitler, (yes, again) is said to have been heavy into genocide by some circles. He was against the reading of books by his countrymen and women for some reason. Hitler thought they were all polluted. He also was not in kind favor of allowing intellectuals a place in the Third Reich. It is known, that he ordered the burning of books. He also inprisoned and murdered intellectuals. Therefore, this would be an act of genocide.
In my opinion, complete mayhem, the murdering of anyone you find disfavor in for any reason is a narrow view of genocide. To say genocide is the murder of a group of people living over there in some distant realm could be a politically motivated doctrine. As incorrect as this doctrine might be, a marginalized group of victims being murdered for some very real reason can easily be dismissed by calling the murders genocide.
However, it is necessary to also use other pursuasive elements of rhetoric as qualifiers.
One might merely read the works of Howard Garner and learn about the basic workings of the human brain.
His book, Emotional IQ, delves into this area very discriptively. I use his case studies and his knowledge of the brain as my reference to what my gut tells me: people do have motivation. Motivation is based on some very real cognition in a person's brain. Certainly this motivation does have structure and discipline. Only in cases of a body with a severed brain can complete mayhem occur. Thus the fascination with books and movies about the walking dead and human/robot prototypes. This sub-genre of literature and movie-making is popular, because history does not have too many examples of people being able to carry out murders once the head and brain are severed from the body...if any at all.
I could go on and on, as this is a favorite subject. But, if you suffered through this short comment, you have suffered enough.
I hope this helps
I dunno...your explanation would make 'ethnic cleansing' morally worse than genocide, yet the implication in the words of the US diplomat was the opposite. Also, generally the Shoah is viewed as a genocide rather than ethnic cleansing, and everyone knows it was the most barbarious act ever in the history of the world and never will we ever know so barbarious an act ever again. Amen.
hmm. I'm going strictly by phonetics, I guess, JEZ.
Looking at "ethnic" in ethnic cleansing would appear to this English teacher to mean just that, killing a group of people who are related by consistent traditions and customs.
An example would be for me, the historic, progressive and continuing attempts to get rid of Native Americans. But, more important than killing them is the method of getting rid of the Native American collective traditions and customs. Sorry I don't have an article right now to back me up. But, indigenous people the world over are more fearful of this latter loss than of the murder of an entire culture. If I ever find the article, I'll send it off to ya.
Genocide seems to be more generalized in my simple mind. The base word here is, "gene" I would believe. I will use another word to illistrate. The word, "spermicide" has a base word of, "sperm". I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one. Following this assumption, spermicide must have something to do with some kind of interaction with sperm. People without sperm would not be included in any discussion about spermicide, at least not in a personal way. May be one could be involved as observer and good listener, while the sperm is in close proximity of the carrier of the sperm. I might be wrong. I don't know.
So. I'm thinking, that genocide is indeed a term for the use and continuity with any person having genes. Genocide for me means the ciding of a person with genes. It could be anybody.
Ethnic, ethnicity and ethnocentric and other forms of this word are less historic in usage than the term, genocide.
One can argue, using the term, geneology, believing this means following certain genes and, therefore, not worldwide inclusive. But, I stand up to my original idea. As an International Editor for my small college here in the Midwest of the US back in the day, I did do a great deal of reading on this subject. In fact, a few years later, classes in "diversity" or the study of other ethnic groups became required for graduation here in the States.
We differ, it seems, on the importance or the point system assigned to ethnic cleansing and genocide, given we both use my definition of both terms. That's okay. But, I am more appaulled by ethnic cleansing or any ridding of one's ethnically connected heritage.
Why? My heritage does not include the speaking of English, yet that is the only language I have with me to communicate verbally, (unless I'm sleeping or really tired, when I dream in a different language or when I slur into some valid and distinct but unknown to me accent of someone on my geneology chart. It sort of pisses off a lot of Americans.
I'm pretty much b**tchy right now. So, if you would please use my definition in looking at the mass murder you mention, I would appreciate it. You see, Hillary is having a big online party, and I still don't have a sound card that works. The one given to me makes the cursor disappear, so it'
Moonlite,
It's ok to disagree!
Actually, 'genos' means (greek) family, tribe or race. 'Occido' (latin) means to massacre, kill. Genocide therefore must mean the killing of a group of people sharing what we might (vaguely) term the same 'ethnic' background.
Ethnic cleansing seems more vague to me and I believe Illan Pappe's article explains why.
could be....
But, I'm sticking to my own theories. I retook my theory class and got a higher grade. The prof was a feminist and finally my voice was heard, then discussed in the group.
May be it's a Mars/Venus thing. think?
What? our different definitions? I don't subscribe to such sexist theories 
then allow me to expand traditional greek definition to say a family as being all people alive.
It's never been a populor definition. but....
Well folks, I was thinking (for whatever THAT is worth) along Moonlite's lines. Specific word roots aside, language changes and these X-ocide words seemingly didn't exist when Greek and Latin were predominant - else we wouldn't have this discussion.
It would seem to me that when someone is splitting that ethnic cleansing vs. genocide hair for political or 'journalistic' description, that it is done for some specific political purpose regardless of the fact that in both cases the number of persons killed may be equal. It seems to me that genocide is normally used in terms of some racial (genetic) difference, whereas 'ethnic cleansing' is normally used as a description for cultural persecution. E.g., Palestinians and Jews are both "Semitic" peoples, so it would have to be cleansing, not genocide, as Israel is not eliminating all "semites" or else they'd have to eliminate themselves, right?
But this is splitting the hairs too. The fact is that whenever some persecution, pogrom or extinction attempt gets our attention, it is exactly that. Trying to call it one vs. the other is a politically convenient way for saying something - and I suggest it is a way of saying either "we gotta do something" (for genocide), or "it's their business, not ours" (for ethnic cleansing - as if it's just trying to get the criminals out of your neighborhood). How the rest of us use those terms may differ, but in the political context, that is what I think the difference is intended to convey.
Commenting by HaloScan
