Purity arguments over genocide’s meaning obscure its political function

Evidence

Henry Huttenbach (1988:297) argues that if “genocide” is used “simply for the emotional effect or to make a political point,” the “original” or “explicit” meaning of the term will be “lost” or “eroded.” Such statements seem to construe violence as revolving exclusively around acts of killing, thereby drawing attention away from the political underpinnings and effects of debates regarding genocide. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 280 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Denial-veiled myth makes modern genocide’s metaphysics tolerable; The genocide convention dropped political groups from the original resolution; Naming an event genocide is itself a political act that shapes memory (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Calls to preserve ‘genocide’ meaning can erase its political dimensions #expands (0.95)
• Strict term-protection views erase genocide’s political functions #expands (0.93) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 280