Genocide labelling of farm murders legitimizes extreme acts against out-groups

Evidence

When international authorities and activists on issues of genocide and human rights fail to recognize (in both senses of the term) the links between elite discussions of genocide and those that emerge in circumstances of suffering and violence, and when they decree that the deployment of genocide accusations must be contingent on the strict application of legalistic frameworks, they intervene profoundly in the discursive contestations that shape such situations and their effects. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 289 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

First, debates about genocide are themselves political events that bear powerfully on creating, legitimating, and challenging violence shaped by racial, sexual, and gender inequality. As LaCapra (1994) has pointed out, discourse about genocide provides a powerful example of the performativity of language. Actions generally come to be referred to as genocides - and as “events” - post facto. The labeling shapes how they are perceived and remembered and their implications for the future. Constructing an event as genocide places it in relationship to other acts and creates conduits for the circulation of accusations. The architects of genocide are often as concerned with suppressing discourse about the event as with the killing itself. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 281 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

In retaliation, ISIS staged videotaped beheadings of two American journalists. They warned that further American attacks would bring the war to the “far enemy” and “result in the bloodshed” of Americans (Shane & Hubbard, 2014). Seeing staged beheadings of one’s fellow citizens activates a strong sense of moral obligation to put a stop to it. President Obama decided to intervene militarily in a more extensive way. What began as a very limited U.S. mission to halt the advance of ISIS forces instantly escalated into a war to eradicate ISIS. The beheadings and accompanying threats seemed designed to provoke the United States into another war that the militants could exploit as a war of the West against Islam. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2456 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Discursive battles over genocide labels shape violence itself, not just its description — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 289; The boundary defining which violence counts as genocide is itself racialized — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 251; Vivid out-group atrocities trigger escalation driven by moral outrage — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 2456 (+1 more)

Related

• Discursive battles over genocide labels shape violence itself, not just its description (similarity 0.84)
• Vivid out-group atrocities trigger escalation driven by moral outrage (similarity 0.82)
• Labels like ‘genocide’ actively shape perceptions and memory of violent events (similarity 0.82)
• The boundary defining which violence counts as genocide is itself racialized (similarity 0.81)
• Genocide charges mobilize transnational audiences that human-rights rhetoric cannot (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Discursive battles over genocide labels shape violence itself, not just its description #corroborates (0.85) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 289
• Labels like ‘genocide’ actively shape perceptions and memory of violent events #corroborates (0.85) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 281
• Vivid out-group atrocities trigger escalation driven by moral outrage #corroborates (0.75) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2456
• The boundary defining which violence counts as genocide is itself racialized #expands (0.72) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 251