Strict legal definitions of genocide disempower the communities they are meant to protect

Evidence

Since the members of dominated communities suffer from inequalities in access to the educational opportunities that enable individuals to construct these sorts of arguments, as well as to publications and venues (such as international conferences) where these issues are discussed, “narrow” or “strict” definitions of genocide greatly restrict the ability of people suffering from violence to imbue their representations with authority. This weakness, in turn, renders genocide accusations less effective in creating international audiences and advancing calls for intervention and redress. … The failure to challenge representations that may be implicated in occasioning violence and loss of life exacerbates the social inequality that facilitates genocide and its discursive erasure. The creation by international elites of monopolies over the circulation of legitimate discussions of genocide bears an uncanny resemblance to the centralization of the production and transmission of statistics on disease, poverty, and crime by nation-states and international agencies. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 289

Categorization

• XREF: The closing analogy to state centralization of statistics on disease, poverty, and crime parallels Foucault-adjacent and racial-formation critiques of official knowledge already in the vault. — connects to: The Turkish state criminalizes discussion of the Armenian Genocide by statute — Gregory H. Stanton, Ten Stages of Genocide, 22
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 289