"Fools' Crusade" Chapter Two [22]

1. THE CHARGE OF "GENOCIDE"

Johnstone never ceases to amaze me; just when I think she's set the bar as low as possible, she manages to stoop just a little bit lower. Previously I detailed her attempts subtly shift the meaning of the term 'genocide,' In this section, she goes further than that: She is not merely trying to change the meaning of the word, she tries to claim it never held it's original meaning in the first place. This section opens with this bombshell:

"The term "genocide" tends to be used increasingly for crimes that fall far short of the literal meaning: the annihilation of a people."

This takes her pseudo-scientific parsing of the literal to new heights--a word which self-consciously coined by known individuals is now to be held hostage to its semantic roots. This is taking the old cliche of "playing semantic games" to a new height--the established, agreed-upon definition is to be held hostage to its Greek and Latin roots.

Don't think she doesn't know exactly what she's doing? Here in the next sentence:

"Already, the definition of the term in the 1948 Convention on Genocide was extremely broad and included "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of [a] group," if committed "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, racial or religious group." "

There you have it--she is literally arguing that the term 'genocide' does not really mean what the originator of the phrase and the body that established the full definiation said it meant. The absurdity of this argument is so staggering, one almost forgets to ponder this: You get the strange sensation that Johnstone is upset that the Convention on Genocide cast such a wide net. Does she want states and armies to have a wider latitude when it comes to killing people? I honestly don't know.

Unbelievably, she manages to ratchet up the level of absurdity yet another notch, in the very next sentences:

"There is a marked tendency in war to harm or kill people along lines of "national," ethnic, or religious identity. This was clearly the case in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Therefore, technically, all sides might be charged with "genocide." "

Is she seriously suggesting that there is no difference between the Bosnian war and, say, the Franco-Prussian War on the other? Does she not understand what the issue is?

Well, apparantly not; it sure seems to come as a surprise to her:

"The key word seems to be "intent." "

Seems to be? Is she playing stupid? Is she really this ignorant? The motivation for writing such drivel would be baffling, if it weren't for the sentence that follows:

"It has simply been assumed from the start that the intention of the Serbs was more "genocidal" than the intentions of the others."

I don't have a measured, thoughtful response to this statement. Frankly, I don't think it deserves one. Ms. Johnstone; all I can say is: "DUH."

-----------------------

That covers the first paragraph of this two-paragraph section. The second paragraph tries to dismiss the "genocidal intentions" of "the Serbs" by quoting the testimony of John Hunter Ralston, who testified as the the political program of the SDS. As Johnstone notes, it's stated goals don't "sound much like "genocide." " Johnstone, apparantly, is asking "Where was the Bosnian Serb Mein Kampf? Any student of the breakup of Bosnia knows the political and social context that statements like the SDS party platform were made in, but Johnstone seems to require a literal statement of intent worthy of a B-movie villan just before the hero breaks the handcuffs and disarms the Doomsday Machine. She not only discounts eyewitness testimony, she discounts any capacity empathetic observers have to interpret, infer, and understand.