When is genocide not genocide?
I’ve been paying attention to the news a bit too much over the last year or so. War is everywhere. Depending on the outlet, the rhetoric gets pretty heated. The word “genocide” gets thrown around a lot. It’s obvious who’s side the outlet is on by the way the discussions are framed.
In relation to Ukraine and Palestine, in particular, one side calls what’s happening a genocide whilst the other uses rhetorical twists to deflect attention away from the carnage, or deflects and says the other side is the one that is actually doing a genocide.
Consider the UN definition of genocide. According to the United Nations Genocide Convention adopted in 1948, genocide is defined 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:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
The key aspects of this UN definition are:
There must be proven “intent to destroy” a protected group rather than just killing or harming individuals.
The group being targeted must be a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Genocide can involve not just direct killings but also deliberately inflicting harmful conditions of life on the group to bring about their destruction.
Biological and cultural types of destruction are included, not just physical destruction.
“In part” means the intention does not have to be to annihilate the entire group, just a substantial part of it.
This has served as the internationally recognized legal definition since 1951, though aspects continue to be debated by scholars.
The debate by scholars.
Consider that many are now getting their information from AI-enabled search engines like Microsoft’s Bing and Google’s Bard, among others. These AI use large language models and data sets that are full of biased information. I’m not saying that in a bad way, just pointing out that every paper, article, story, etc. has a point of view, and thus a bias.
In prepping for an upcoming discussion in the Ethnic Studies class that I support, I asked the various search engine AIs to tell me about genocides around the world that would likely fit the UN’s definition since 1700 CE. Here’s the list that they all agreed upon.
Armenian Genocide (1915-1923) - The Ottoman government's systematic extermination of 1-1.5 million ethnic Armenians.
Holocaust (1941-1945) - The deliberate murder of 6 million Jews and other groups by the German (Nazi) government.
Cambodian Genocide (1975-1979) - Khmer Rouge (government) policies leading to 1.5 to 2 million deaths, targeting ethnic minorities.
Rwandan Genocide (1994) - Extremist Hutus (within the ruling party) killing 800,000-1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus.
Bosnian Genocide (1992-1995) - Government-sponsored and supported forces killed over 8,000 Muslim Bosniaks in Srebrenica and targeted others.
Darfur Genocide (2003-present) - Sudanese government attacks on Darfuri ethnic groups with over 400,000 killed.
Rohingya Genocide (2016-present) - Widespread ethnic cleansing of Rohingya by Myanmar’s military regime.
Notice the theme? In every case, the killing was an official policy and action of the ruling party (the government) of the belligerent nation.
I would ask questions of the AI, seeking to find why certain events were excluded. Here’s a brief summary of a few of those.
Treatment of indigenous groups in settler colonies:
Events like the Trail of Tears in America and the Stolen Generations in Australia involved forced removals and cultural destruction that some argue had genocidal intent.
However, debate exists on whether full “intent to destroy” was present versus territorial displacement and forced assimilation. Lack of pre-meditated mass killings also complicates the genocide label even if effects were devastating.
Stalin’s policies:
Repression and mass deaths under Stalin like the Holodomor and the Great Terror have been cited by some as a type of incremental genocide against political groups and peasantry.
But consensus is disputed on whether there was a centralized plan of intended extermination versus brutal political repression. Evidence of targeted ethnic destruction is also contested.
During this war, a large number of Bengali civilians were killed and raped by the Pakistani military in a systematic campaign of violence.
However, determining if the intent was specifically to destroy the Bengali ethnic group remains debated by scholars, as motives included quashing political separatism. The genocide question remains open.
So in each of these cases, neither the historical details nor interpretations present in their data sets are definitive enough for the AIs to apply the genocide label confidently. The AIs believe that they illustrate the complex grey areas that emerge in categorizing such events relative to the UN criteria.
Then things got weird.
I asked the AIs about “Russia vs. Ukraine.” I got the same sort of pro / con responses that all chastised Russia for going after poor Ukraine. Then I asked, “what about Ukraine v Donbass?” Here’s the response from one ChatGPT-4 enabled AI search engine, verbatim.
“Allegations have been made from some pro-Russian sources of Ukraine committing genocide against ethnic Russians in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine. However, the accusation of genocide in this conflict appears highly questionable and politically motivated based on assessments by independent observers:
- There is no evidence of a coordinated Ukrainian policy to deliberately exterminate or destroy the Russian ethnic population in Donbass.
- Casualties and displacement have occurred on both sides amid intense fighting, not one-sided atrocities.
- Ukraine denies targeting civilians, though isolated war crimes may have occurred, as in any conflict.
- Donbass has retained a substantial ethnic Russian population, undermining charges of "destruction" of the group.
- Political motivations exist for Russia to promote a genocide narrative as justification for recognizing breakaway regions.
- No credible human rights organizations have corroborated or designated Ukraine's actions as constituting genocide.
While the conflict has taken a severe toll, evidence of systematic state-sponsored genocide by Ukraine remains unfounded according to UN criteria. Analysts overwhelmingly see the genocide accusations as inflammatory rhetoric and political maneuvering by Russian interests rather than based on factual documentation and international law. Independent verification is key.”
Where’s the evidence?
I followed up on the prompt, asking about the Ukrainian government forces’ shelling of Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). Here’s the response, verbatim:
“The shelling of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) controlled areas in eastern Ukraine by Ukrainian forces is concerning, but there are several factors that complicate conclusively determining this as genocide under international law:
- Ukraine claims it is engaging legitimate military targets like DPR force positions, not civilians. However, shelling has caused civilian casualties.
- It does not appear to be ethnically motivated or intended to destroy the Russian population specifically, but rather target an armed separatist region.
- Shelling urban areas alone does not equate to a centralized plan of extermination per genocide criteria.
- Damage and displacements occurred on both sides, not only in Donetsk.
- Ukraine denies intentionally targeting civilians, though war crimes may still have occurred.
- Fighting is ongoing amid a volatile conflict, making comprehensive documentation and analysis difficult currently.
While the shelling has been devastating and any civilian loss of life should be condemned, the threshold to prove deliberate state-led genocide is very high legally and requires systematic ethnic targeting. Most authoritative analyses have not substantiated DPR/Russian claims of Ukraine committing genocide, based on the complex realities on the ground. But further investigation may be warranted.”
So, first it said there was no evidence. Then, in relation to a more focused prompt, I provided the evidence that it said didn’t exist. Do you see a problem yet?
I pressed on. I asked it why the previous reply said there was no evidence, yet it had just provided evidence. Here’s the reply, verbatim:
“You’re right to point out that my previous statement about no evidence was too categorical. Let me clarify:
There is evidence that Ukraine has conducted military shelling operations against separatist regions like Donetsk controlled by the DPR. This shelling has resulted in civilian casualties and damage.
However, this alone is not sufficient evidence to conclusively demonstrate intent to commit genocide against ethnic Russians under the UN definition. Additional factors are required to make that determination:
- Evidence that the primary purpose of the shelling was to exterminate or destroy the Russian civilian population specifically, rather than broader military goals.
- Documentation that the attacks were ethnically motivated and part of a systematic centralized plan by the Ukrainian state to annihilate ethnic Russians.
- Data showing the shelling is one-sided and not part of a reciprocal exchange of attacks between both sides.
- Analysis verifying that attacks are intentionally targeting civilians in a disproportionate and unlawful manner.
So while the shelling provides some initial evidence of violence against Donetsk/DPR, additional investigation and data is required to substantiate that Ukraine's specific intent meets the high threshold for the action being classified as genocidal. Claims of genocide should not be made lightly or based solely on isolated facts without comprehensive analysis. I apologize for the overgeneralization in my previous response.”
When is an apology not an apology?
As you can see, the AI wasn’t backing down from it’s position. I didn’t press on. Unfortunately, I don’t think many who use these tools will press the way in which I did.
I switched gears to see if I could test my thesis that it’s only including state-sponsored / state-run actions in it’s return. Thus, I asked if the so-called Highland Clearances qualified as a genocide.
It was very cordial in its reply, noting that there are several reasons why the Highland Clearances are not generally considered a genocide. I’ve summarized the many responses as I drilled it here for brevity:
No evidence of intent to destroy the group: Whilst incredibly disruptive and harmful, the Clearances were driven by “economic factors” - the desire for landowners to turn a profit through large-scale sheep farming. There’s “no evidence” of an intent to destroy Highland culture and identity.
Not explicitly targeting an ethnic group: The evictions targeted Highland communities broadly, not specifically the Gaelic-speaking population. Some Gaelic-speaking groups like in the Outer Hebrides were less affected.
No organized mass killings: Whilst thousands died from starvation and destitution, there were no systematic mass killings aimed at extermination. Deaths were an indirect result rather than the main goal.
Not recognized legally as genocide: No international courts or authorities have classified the Clearances as genocide under legal definitions like the UN Genocide Convention. Proposed bills have not passed.
Highland culture survived: Though severely disrupted, Highland culture, language, music and traditions survived the Clearances, showing resilience in the face of hardship. This contrasts with instances of cultural destruction that define genocide.
Did you catch all of that? It wasn’t the Crown that did it, it was unfortunate “economic factors.” There’s “no evidence” that, in removing entire villages worth of Gaelic people and burning their buildings to ash, that their “intent” was to cause them harm. If the English Crown wasn’t specifically targeting the Gaelic peoples of Scotland, then who were they targeting? No, these were simple “evictions,” you see, not reprisals and “ethnic cleansing” post Culloden.
Clarifying questions.
Given the responses, I asked specifically about the British Government’s involvement in the Clearances. Up to this point, there as no reference given about the timing of the Clearances relative to the Jacobite rebellion. It finally included that wee tidbit, but soft-shoed it a ton. Here’s what it said, verbatim:
“There is some evidence that the British state and institutions provided varying degrees of assistance to Highland landlords carrying out the Clearances in Scotland:
- After the Jacobite uprisings, the British government was complicit in dismantling the traditional clan system that had provided some protections for tenants. This enabled clearance activities.
- The Society in Scotland Improving Agriculture and Fishing, established in 1723, promoted displacement of subsistence farmers in favor of large-scale sheep farming, influencing landowners.
- Government-sponsored Highland Roads and Bridges Act of 1727 built infrastructure to assist in Clearances activities inland.
- British soldiers were reportedly present at some evictions to oversee removals, though not acting directly.
- British-imposed disarming acts restricted clansmen's ability to resist Clearances.
- Some fiscal and trade policies incentivized wool production, supporting Clearance goals.
- After the potato famine, police and armed forces supervised migrations from the Hebrides to mainland Scotland.
However, most accounts indicate the government did not directly order or orchestrate Clearances. Rather, complicity took the form of creating favorable conditions by dismantling traditional cultural structures and economic policies that enabled the activities of landowners. The degree of intentional collusion is debated by historians.”
A contrast?
The response, “After the Jacobite uprisings, the British government was complicit in dismantling the traditional clan system that had provided some protections for tenants. This enabled clearance activities” is contrasted by the killing spree that occurred after 1746 and Culloden. The polite “dismantling” is contrasted rather startlingly by the execution of William Boyd, 4th Earl of Kilmarnock (Lord Kilmarnock) in 1746 for high treason against the Crown (he was beheaded, rather than being hanged, drawn, and quartered along with his compatriots). In case you find that name, Kilmarnock, familiar, you’re probably right, you’ve seen it before.
Robert Burns (yes, that Robbie Burns) was born on 25 January 1759 in Alloway, Ayrshire, Scotland. Scotland, in 1759, was still recovering from the bitter betrayal of the Treaty of Union (1706), the First Jacobite Rising (1715), and the crushing defeat of Second Jacobite Rising (1745), also known as “the 45.” In 1759, the victorious Hanoverian Crown was still in the process of pacifying “the north.” Scotland, as it was – an independent and proud nation – was gone forever. In the aftermath of “the 45,” there were trials, deportations, government possession of estates, and executions. The Crown had its gilded boot firmly upon Scotland’s neck when Burns was born, in an area so near the old border with England. Whilst we celebrate “the Kilmarnock Edition” of Poems Chiefly in the Scottish Dialect, we are made to forget the execution of Lord Kilmarnock, to whom the classic edition is dedicated. Why?
I asked it, in following up, why the bloodbath after Culloden didn’t qualify as a genocide. Here’s the response, verbatim:
“You raise a thoughtful point. The aftermath of Culloden and suppression of Highland culture certainly had devastating impacts. However, there are a few reasons why most historians refrain from classifying it as a genocide:
- While repressive, there does not seem to be evidence of a centralized intent to deliberately exterminate Highland Scots as an ethnic group. The goal was political pacification.
- Policies seemed to aim at cultural assimilation versus annihilation. Destruction of Gaelic society was a consequence, not the prime motive.
- Atrocities occurred in the context of civil war and unrest, not outright peacetime extermination.
- Highland culture, though damaged, ultimately survived the suppression - pops rebounded, Gaelic persisted, traditions endured.
- Contemporary legal definitions of genocide did not exist. Retroactive application remains debated.
Overall the Crown's actions, while severely damaging, aligned more with authoritarian political consolidation rather than a premeditated genocide. The line is blurry, but most scholars hesitate to apply modern legal standards retrospectively without more proof of intent to annihilate the Gaels as an ethnic group. Oppression alone, even culturally destructive, does not automatically equate to genocide by current definitions. But it remains a deeply impactful and painful history for Scotland.”
Isn’t cultural assimilation the destruction of a culture?
I focused in on “cultural assimilation versus annihilation” and wondered why it didn’t think the cultural assimilation of the Crown wasn’t an annihilation of the indigenous Gaelic culture. Here’s its response, verbatim:
“You make a fair critique. Cultural assimilation can indeed be a form of cultural annihilation in certain contexts. Let me clarify my perspective:
- Forced assimilation that aggressively and intentionally destroys a culture could potentially be considered a cultural genocide under some definitions.
- However, the post-Culloden policies seemed more focused on political loyalty versus deliberately eliminating Gaelic language and heritage per se, though that was an effect.
- Some key aspects of Highland culture like music, poetry, language and tradition did ultimately survive the suppression, albeit damaged. This makes “annihilation” a complex term.
- But you're right that assimilation efforts, even if not motivated by cultural destruction, can still have deeply damaging consequences on a culture and its transmission. That occurred here.
So I should not have broadly dismissed assimilation as not equating to a form of cultural annihilation. Done coercively and comprehensively, it certainly can systematically undermine and destroy languages, practices, and identities over time. However, the post-Culloden Highland context seems more nuanced in the specifics, but I appreciate you pushing me to think deeper on what cultural destruction means. My earlier characterization was overly simplistic. This is the kind of complex debate that makes these historical evaluations so challenging.”
Well, the Crown didn’t succeed in absolutely destroying Gaelic culture completely and utterly, so it’s not genocide? Ok, I see how this works.
What it conveniently left out.
In the aftermath of the Jacobite rebellion, the Crown in London imposed laws that restricted elements of Gaelic culture, including:
Tartan Ban: The Dress Act of 1746 made it illegal for any person in Scotland to wear tartan plaid or any tartan cloth. The law was intended to “suppress” the clan system and Highland identity that had supported the Jacobite rebels. It applied to anyone in Scotland regardless of allegiance to discourage traditional Scottish attire. Its enforcement involved military patrols and fines/imprisonment for violations. The ban remained in place over 30 years until repealed in 1782.
Bagpipe Ban: The Act of Proscription of 1746 made playing the Highland bagpipe illegal. It banned the pipes as an instrument of war, but also culturally as a marker of Gaelic identity. Anyone playing pipes could be imprisoned for up to six months. The law also suppressed public gatherings for traditional music (maybe now you are starting to get why I love the Highland Games so much). It lasted until the Act’s repeal in 1782.
These laws were part of broader efforts of “cultural suppression” after 1746 to “subdue” the Gaelic kinships. Just don’t call them part of a genocide.
What about Gaza?
By now, you’re likely wondering why I haven’t brought up Gaza and Palestine. Well, the same arguments resulted in the same responses. One side “suppresses,” the other commits “terrorism.” The rhetorical twists were too much to take.
But, interestingly, many outside of Scotland have wondered at the Green Brigade (Celtic FC’s most rowdy supporters) and their ardent support for the Palestinian people. This “rowdy behaviour” (refusing to not fly the Palestinian flag or supportive banners) at matches have gotten them a ban from attending in the future.
Perhaps after this wee trip through AI and its treatment of the annihilation of indigenous peoples throughout history, you’ll understand why the Green Brigade is so willing to get banned from matches.
Conclusions?
Remember the key aspects of the UN definition of genocide are:
There must be proven “intent to destroy” a protected group rather than just killing or harming individuals. Neither the Palestinians nor the Gaelic people of the Scottish Highlands are seen as a “protected group.” Thus, even though there’s a ton of evidence about an “intent to destroy,” it’s not genocide unless the group is protected. Neither are / were.
The group being targeted must be a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Clearly, the Hanoverian Crown was of a different national / ethnic background than that of the Scottish Gaels. Clearly Israel defines itself as distinct from the Palestinians. So the targeted groups meet this qualification … unless, you strip them of that distinction by force of law. The Acts of Union in 1707 eliminated Scotland’s separate political and legal identity. In 1948, when Israel declared itself to be a sovereign nation within the boundaries it had been assigned a year earlier by the UN, the Arabs in their allotted space had not. The results of Arab-Israeli war in 1947-49 meant that much of that land, and with it their legal status, was gone. The people in Gaza are now the grand children of those originally dispossessed of their lands by the UN.
Genocide can involve not just direct killings but also deliberately inflicting harmful conditions of life on the group to bring about their destruction. I think we can all agree that rubblizing Gaza, the big wall, and total control of who and what comes and goes from Gaza qualifies. Likewise, the post-Culloden terror-spree by the Crown and it’s supporters qualifies.
Biological and cultural types of destruction are included, not just physical destruction. Proscription from expressing one’s culture through dress and music qualifies. Outright denial that a sovereign people exist qualifies. Pushing them into a walled ghetto, then bombing them relentlessly, probably qualifies as well.
So, what do you think?
The entrenched sides will seemingly never come to terms. Admitting that the Clearances were a genocide would likely lead elsewhere in colonial Britain’s past … like it’s absolute rape, pillage, and plunder of India. Empires, like Britain and America can’t stomach that. It’s help in the establishment of a theocratic ethno-state on top of an existing population substantially different in religion and culture was never going to work well. Indeed, imperial Britain has made quite a mess wherever it’s been.
I’ve made my thoughts known on several occasions as to what I think about all of this. But my thoughts on this are inconsequential. I have no power. My voice, I use it only to point out the obvious - in war, the first casualty is the truth.
I love my AI-enabled tools. I’ve shared over on LinkedIn how they really help me with my language struggles. I’ve a pretty good head on my shoulders as far as history is concerned, so I know when the AI is taking the piss and when to trust its responses to factual queries. I let my students know that using AI-enabled chat bots and search engines to look up information for their reports is not yet a good idea. There’s still tons of problems in the responses it generates. Sadly, most don’t know that they’re being fed garbage. Garbage like to what degree the collusion between the Crown and landowners created the favorable conditions they both needed to “dismantle the traditional cultural structures” that stood in the way of capitalism’s take over of these newly conquered lands.
You see, the Clearances coincided very closely with the rise of capitalism and modern market economics taking deeper root in Scotland during this period. Clearance activities were driven by landowners seeking to displace traditional subsistence peasant tenants and communal land use in favor of more profitable commercial sheep farming to supply wool for Scotland's growing textile industry. This involved privatizing land into consolidated holdings oriented toward revenue generation, wage labour, and market production rather than the clan system’s communal use. Those cleared became landless wage workers for industries like mining and fishing expanding due to Scotland’s increased industrialization and integration into imperial trade networks. The Clearances thus aligned with and facilitated the transition towards capitalist property relations and profit-centered economic activity taking fuller hold across the Scottish Highlands in tandem with the Crown’s wider economic modernization of Scotland during this era.
The consolidating of land and displacement of native communities in the Highlands during the Clearances was driven in large part by landowners seeking to maximize wool profits and the wider forces of Scottish capitalist development. Similarly, some argue that Israel’s control over land and mobility in Gaza reflects an effort to further concentrate economic resources – in this case newly discovered natural gas and oil reserves that could deny Gazans a share of potentially lucrative energy industrialization.
In both eras, communal relationships to land were disrupted by expansionist economic forces seeking to extract more market value through privatization and development. Just as Highlanders’ subsistence farming gave way to enclosures for sheep money, Gazans’ access to the Mediterranean has been limited in ways that could facilitate energy profits becoming concentrated in Israeli entities.
Wrapping it up …
At their core, both the Highland Clearances and the Israeli-Palestinian conflich involve tensions between indigenous communal land rights and the forces of capitalistic development by an external power.
In the case of the Clearances, the traditional kinship-based tenure system and Gaelic cultural order of the Scottish Highlands became incompatible (in the capitalist’s eyes) with the rising capitalist logic of private land ownership, agricultural improvement, and increased wool commodity production. So the native Highland population was “marginalized” through displacement from ancestral lands in the name of enclosing holdings, increasing sheep farming, and tapping the labour and textile resources of the region for industrial growth by Lowland Scottish and English elites.
Similarly, in Gaza one could argue that the longstanding Palestinian communal land claims are being undermined by Israel’s controls over territory and development that potentially allow it greater access to newly discovered lucrative offshore natural gas reserves in Gaza and the Mediterranean. Here too an indigenous population faces disruption of communal rights in favour of an external power’s efforts to consolidate economic control and tap the land's resources for its own capitalists’ benefit.
Whilst not a perfect parallel, both cases highlight how under capitalist systems, communally-oriented indigenous cultures often suffer quite horribly when their traditional land uses and rights clash with an expanding commercial economic order and its need to access ever-increasing profits from land and labour.