What do you think?
Rate this book
سياسات الإبادة الجماعية
في هذا الكتاب المذهل، يتحقق إدوارد هيرمان وديفيد بيترسون من استخدامات مصطلح (الإبادة الجماعية) وإساءة استخدامه أيضًا. يسوق الثنائي حججًا مقنعة تشير إلى تسييس المصطلح إلى حد كبير واستخــــــــدامه في الولايات المتحدة من قبل الحكومة والصحفيين وفي الأوساط الأكاديمية لوصم أفعال الدول والحركات السياسية التي تتعارض بطريقة أو بأخرى مع مصالح الإمبريالية الأمريكية. وفي المقابل، نادرًا ما يُستخدم مصطلح (الإبادة الجماعية) عندما يكون الجناة من حلفاء الولايات المتحدة أو منها نفسها. نجد أن مجموعة خاصة من القواعد الاستثنائية تنطبق على بعض الحالات مثل العدوان الأمريكي في فيتنام، والقمع الإسرائيلي للفلسطينيين، والحرب الأمريكية على العراق، وغيرها الكثير. في حين تنطبق قواعد مختلفة في حالات أخرى مثل العدوان الصربي في كوسوفو والبوسنــــــة، وجرائم القتل التي ارتكبها أعداء الولايات المتحدة في رواندا ودارفور، أو على صدام حُسين، أو أي فعل من أفعال إيران. يُعد هذا الكتاب، بفضل توثيقه الدقيق والضخم، دليل إدانة دامغًا يفضح نظام الدعاية الفعال متعمُق الجذور الذي يهدف إلى خداع الشعب والترويج لتوسع النظـــــــــــام الإمبريالـــــــــــي الوحشي.
Paperback
First published April 1, 2010
24 people are currently reading
1319 people want to read
About the author
Edward S. Herman
43 books265 followersEdward S. Herman was an economist and media analyst with a specialty in corporate and regulatory issues as well as political economy and the media. He was Professor Emeritus of Finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He also taught at Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. He received his Bachelor of Arts from University of Pennsylvania in 1945 and PhD in 1953 from the University of California, Berkeley.
-wikipedia
-wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
September 3, 2013
Even ugliness has levels. And you have to get used to the ugly firstly, to be able to distinguish the ugliest later. Thus, the torn flesh of lying dead bodies on the road that drowned in their blood. Or an image of a naked woman with smashed head and around her raped body a few guys smiling to the camera, might be enough to hasten your heart beats & multiply your nightmares for a couple of weeks. But actually nothing can rob you the sense of security in this world more than checking the comments of people down the previous. It seems like you see them in that documentary film or in those horrific photos treading upon the corpses while they continue to exchange insults and accusations. Before you realize that these massacres and genocides you have been watching, and these comments you have been read are nothing but a narrow angle of the most ugly picture ever; the politics behind!.
You can say that the goal of the writers of this book is revealing, as much as possible, the truth that I found them perfectly summarized in this paragraph, saying: “ when we ourselves (U.S.) commit mass-atrocity crimes, the atrocities are “Constructive”, our victims are unworthy of our attention and indignation, and never suffers “genocide” at our hands like the Iraqi who have died in such grotesque numbers over the past two decades. But when the perpetrator of mass-atrocity crimes is our enemy or a state targeted by us for destabilization and attack, the converse is true. Then the atrocities are “Nefarious” and their victims worthy of our focus, sympathy, public displays of solidarity, and calls for inquiry and punishment.”.
In order to well explain this fact, they compared between many examples of massacres and genocides from the whole world such as the one was happening in Darfur, earlier Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo for the “Nefarious” type versus what was considered as merely “benign bloodbaths” in Central America, Iraq, Congo, Afghanistan, and Palestine. In such comparison they tried to expose the U.S. political establishment’s evaluation and the downplaying of its media and news coverage toward each one of these atrocities that reflect deep political bias and prove the validity of that Thucydides’ quote which Naom Chomsky attached in the foreword of this book, saying: “Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”.
Here are few of these examples:
In Iraq they said: “ one confidential source, who played a central role in the air campaign, even admitted to the Washington Post that so-called “strategic bombing strikes” were aimed against all those things that allow a nation to sustain itself. United States new sanctions had the capacity to devastate the water treatment system of Iraq. It knew what the consequences would be: increased outbreaks of disease and high rates of child mortality”. Then added “ the normalization of this deliberate U.S. mass killing of civilians was starkly revealed in May 1996, when CBS TV’s Leseley Stahl asked UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright, saying: “ we have heard half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And you know, is the price worth it??”. Then Madeliene said: “ I think this is a very hard choice, but the price we think is worth it”
Then they showed the bias in the media's treatment by a table which tabulates the newspapers’s usage of the word “ genocide” for the Iraq sanctions regime (and the later Iraq invasion and occupation), among other cases of mass killing.” There were only 80 references to “genocide” stemming from the sanctions regime, whereas for Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda and Darfur, four Nefarious cases, the usage ran to 481, 323, 3.199 and 1.172 respectively, despite the much greater toll from Iraq sanctions in all but the Rwanda case; and for the Congo, a benign case, usage was a mere 17”. Then added in another part “ Amusingly, we can see that while 13 newspaper references to “genocide” in Iraq in the year 2004-2008 deal with the effects of the invasion-occupation, more than triple that number apply the word to Saddam Hussein’s long since defunct regime. As in the case of Vietnam, the real bloodbath, engineered by the United States, cannot be acknowledged; only enemies and targets of the U.S. Can commit the crime officially labeled “genocide””
On the other hand, we can take the case in Darfur as “a model for how best to propagandize a conflict as “genocide”, and thus to mobilize elite and public opinion for action against its alleged perpetrator”. This channeling of interests and emotions toward Darfur, the writers saw it as a wonderful diversion from more directly Western-controlled violence in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Gaza Strip, and elsewhere.
In Darfur, by March 2004, perhaps ten thousand had died and upwards of one million had fled their homes. And the U.S. media insisted to picture the conflict in a shallow way, as if it was between a group of perpetrators clearly identifiable as “Arabs” confront victims clearly identifiable as “Africans” and the victim is untainted while the perpetrator is simply evil. But the writers said: ” struggles that appear to be tribal, sectarian, or nationalist in nature are often triggered by reduced water supplies or reductions in agricultural productivity. The situation in Darfur had land resources in its root”. Still “ the publicity generated over the course of 2004 by the framing of Darfur as the “unnoticed genocide” without a doubt ranks as the most successful propaganda campaign of its kind this decade. Always alleged to be spiraling out of control, despite the fact that, through the end of 2008, Darfur benefited from the largest humanitarian aid operation in the world, with more than 80 organizations and 15,000 aid workers, and had received this kind of high-priority response for 5 consecutive years”.
Surely, you will notice how much the writers here are interested in the horrific genocide that has been done in Congo & Rowanda, as you can see that they devoted about the third of their book trying to analyze the conspiracy that behind the armed conflict between Hutus (the majority) and Tutsi (the minority). This genocide that began when Uganda forces invaded Rwanda under President and dictator Yoweri Museveni in 1990 with the support of Paul Kagame who was a leader in the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). The writer said “ The Ugandan invasion & resultant combat were not a “civil war”, but rather a clear case of aggression. Yet this led to no reprimand or cessation of support by the U.S. or Britain in contrast to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait just two months before. It is clear that Museveni and Kagame were perceived as serving U.S. interests and that the government of the assassinated president Habyarimana was targeted for ouster. This is naïve but revealing the answer like that to the question of why the U.S. lobbied for the withdrawal of UN forces from Rwanda as the “genocide” was getting underway in 1994, is that the Uganda army were doing what the U.S. wanted done in Rwanda!!”, that eventually, resulted in such unique ethnic cleansing of the majority of the Hutus by the hands of the western-supported minority & RPF and under the silence of the world.
And after he enumerated the benefits that U.S. has gained from supporting such atrocity in Central Africa, he then added with sad irony “ very big lies about Rwanda are now institutionalized and are part of the common misunderstanding in the west. In reality, Rwanda’s Paul Kagame is one of the great mass murderers of our time. Yet, thanks to the remarkable myth structure that surround him, he enjoys immense popularity with his chief patron in Washington, the image of this big time killer transmuted into an honored savior deserving strong western support. Philip Gourevitch, one of Kagame’s prime apologists for many years, portrays him as an emancipator, a “man of action with an acute human & political intelligence” who “ made things happen”, and he also compares Kagame to Abraham Lincoln!!”
Honestly, I don’t know why I became suddenly interested in such topics. But I do know that it indeed has a positive impact on my behavior generally, which I am not the only one who noticed either. I became more quiet, stopped what has been described to me before as a “telegraphic answers”, and even ceased to ask for readjusting the bathroom’s mirror to a level that accommodates my height since several weeks till now. Actually, It is deeper than that but my English is very poor to help me describe it accurately. Anyway, you can say, It is like some sort of deep certainty that nothing can make you extremely happy or extremely sad anymore. As if you are just in the middle, and middle is nice.
Note: This link below, is an intellectual meeting which mainly talked about the psychoanalysis of genocide more than the politics that control it, I found it very useful for whom may interested in such subjects. It took one hour from the minute (5- to- 66) before questions have taken from the audience which were interesting either. I just want to put here one of the stories that has been told by one of the professors, while he was talking bout the importance of the REAL education to wall off the violence in the world. He said that when a journalist had a chance to interview one of the perpetrators of a Khmer Rouge’s massacre in Cambodia, asking him: what it is feel like to kill so many people?? Then he answered immediately : “it hurts here” while he was touching his right shoulder!.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyPEU0...
You can say that the goal of the writers of this book is revealing, as much as possible, the truth that I found them perfectly summarized in this paragraph, saying: “ when we ourselves (U.S.) commit mass-atrocity crimes, the atrocities are “Constructive”, our victims are unworthy of our attention and indignation, and never suffers “genocide” at our hands like the Iraqi who have died in such grotesque numbers over the past two decades. But when the perpetrator of mass-atrocity crimes is our enemy or a state targeted by us for destabilization and attack, the converse is true. Then the atrocities are “Nefarious” and their victims worthy of our focus, sympathy, public displays of solidarity, and calls for inquiry and punishment.”.
In order to well explain this fact, they compared between many examples of massacres and genocides from the whole world such as the one was happening in Darfur, earlier Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo for the “Nefarious” type versus what was considered as merely “benign bloodbaths” in Central America, Iraq, Congo, Afghanistan, and Palestine. In such comparison they tried to expose the U.S. political establishment’s evaluation and the downplaying of its media and news coverage toward each one of these atrocities that reflect deep political bias and prove the validity of that Thucydides’ quote which Naom Chomsky attached in the foreword of this book, saying: “Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”.
Here are few of these examples:
In Iraq they said: “ one confidential source, who played a central role in the air campaign, even admitted to the Washington Post that so-called “strategic bombing strikes” were aimed against all those things that allow a nation to sustain itself. United States new sanctions had the capacity to devastate the water treatment system of Iraq. It knew what the consequences would be: increased outbreaks of disease and high rates of child mortality”. Then added “ the normalization of this deliberate U.S. mass killing of civilians was starkly revealed in May 1996, when CBS TV’s Leseley Stahl asked UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright, saying: “ we have heard half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And you know, is the price worth it??”. Then Madeliene said: “ I think this is a very hard choice, but the price we think is worth it”
Then they showed the bias in the media's treatment by a table which tabulates the newspapers’s usage of the word “ genocide” for the Iraq sanctions regime (and the later Iraq invasion and occupation), among other cases of mass killing.” There were only 80 references to “genocide” stemming from the sanctions regime, whereas for Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda and Darfur, four Nefarious cases, the usage ran to 481, 323, 3.199 and 1.172 respectively, despite the much greater toll from Iraq sanctions in all but the Rwanda case; and for the Congo, a benign case, usage was a mere 17”. Then added in another part “ Amusingly, we can see that while 13 newspaper references to “genocide” in Iraq in the year 2004-2008 deal with the effects of the invasion-occupation, more than triple that number apply the word to Saddam Hussein’s long since defunct regime. As in the case of Vietnam, the real bloodbath, engineered by the United States, cannot be acknowledged; only enemies and targets of the U.S. Can commit the crime officially labeled “genocide””
On the other hand, we can take the case in Darfur as “a model for how best to propagandize a conflict as “genocide”, and thus to mobilize elite and public opinion for action against its alleged perpetrator”. This channeling of interests and emotions toward Darfur, the writers saw it as a wonderful diversion from more directly Western-controlled violence in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Gaza Strip, and elsewhere.
In Darfur, by March 2004, perhaps ten thousand had died and upwards of one million had fled their homes. And the U.S. media insisted to picture the conflict in a shallow way, as if it was between a group of perpetrators clearly identifiable as “Arabs” confront victims clearly identifiable as “Africans” and the victim is untainted while the perpetrator is simply evil. But the writers said: ” struggles that appear to be tribal, sectarian, or nationalist in nature are often triggered by reduced water supplies or reductions in agricultural productivity. The situation in Darfur had land resources in its root”. Still “ the publicity generated over the course of 2004 by the framing of Darfur as the “unnoticed genocide” without a doubt ranks as the most successful propaganda campaign of its kind this decade. Always alleged to be spiraling out of control, despite the fact that, through the end of 2008, Darfur benefited from the largest humanitarian aid operation in the world, with more than 80 organizations and 15,000 aid workers, and had received this kind of high-priority response for 5 consecutive years”.
Surely, you will notice how much the writers here are interested in the horrific genocide that has been done in Congo & Rowanda, as you can see that they devoted about the third of their book trying to analyze the conspiracy that behind the armed conflict between Hutus (the majority) and Tutsi (the minority). This genocide that began when Uganda forces invaded Rwanda under President and dictator Yoweri Museveni in 1990 with the support of Paul Kagame who was a leader in the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). The writer said “ The Ugandan invasion & resultant combat were not a “civil war”, but rather a clear case of aggression. Yet this led to no reprimand or cessation of support by the U.S. or Britain in contrast to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait just two months before. It is clear that Museveni and Kagame were perceived as serving U.S. interests and that the government of the assassinated president Habyarimana was targeted for ouster. This is naïve but revealing the answer like that to the question of why the U.S. lobbied for the withdrawal of UN forces from Rwanda as the “genocide” was getting underway in 1994, is that the Uganda army were doing what the U.S. wanted done in Rwanda!!”, that eventually, resulted in such unique ethnic cleansing of the majority of the Hutus by the hands of the western-supported minority & RPF and under the silence of the world.
And after he enumerated the benefits that U.S. has gained from supporting such atrocity in Central Africa, he then added with sad irony “ very big lies about Rwanda are now institutionalized and are part of the common misunderstanding in the west. In reality, Rwanda’s Paul Kagame is one of the great mass murderers of our time. Yet, thanks to the remarkable myth structure that surround him, he enjoys immense popularity with his chief patron in Washington, the image of this big time killer transmuted into an honored savior deserving strong western support. Philip Gourevitch, one of Kagame’s prime apologists for many years, portrays him as an emancipator, a “man of action with an acute human & political intelligence” who “ made things happen”, and he also compares Kagame to Abraham Lincoln!!”
Honestly, I don’t know why I became suddenly interested in such topics. But I do know that it indeed has a positive impact on my behavior generally, which I am not the only one who noticed either. I became more quiet, stopped what has been described to me before as a “telegraphic answers”, and even ceased to ask for readjusting the bathroom’s mirror to a level that accommodates my height since several weeks till now. Actually, It is deeper than that but my English is very poor to help me describe it accurately. Anyway, you can say, It is like some sort of deep certainty that nothing can make you extremely happy or extremely sad anymore. As if you are just in the middle, and middle is nice.
Note: This link below, is an intellectual meeting which mainly talked about the psychoanalysis of genocide more than the politics that control it, I found it very useful for whom may interested in such subjects. It took one hour from the minute (5- to- 66) before questions have taken from the audience which were interesting either. I just want to put here one of the stories that has been told by one of the professors, while he was talking bout the importance of the REAL education to wall off the violence in the world. He said that when a journalist had a chance to interview one of the perpetrators of a Khmer Rouge’s massacre in Cambodia, asking him: what it is feel like to kill so many people?? Then he answered immediately : “it hurts here” while he was touching his right shoulder!.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyPEU0...
August 16, 2020
This book is somewhat problematic and is to be read with a pinch of salt. It doesn’t define what genocide is, which then flexes the term when dealing with several recent war atrocities.
What’s more, in many cases it takes a radical stance which presents an alternative narrative to events that the world, most of it, agreed upon. For example, the genocide in Rwanda is presented as a result of the actions of RPF and not radical Hutu forces. He also claimed the RPF are the ones who fired the missile on the Rwandan president, an event which to my knowledge is far from being solved. Above all, he doesn’t explain or even refers to the killing of the hundred of thousands Tutsis and the cruelty taking place in April 1994. I was shocked to read that in the events in Rwanda, the author put the word genocide in quotation marks, questioning the basic fact of the mass murder.
He also claims the US (the villain in all of the case studies in this book) supported the RPF. This may be true but in reality, the US did nothing to prevent the Rwandan genocide.
He also claims that the fact that both Tutsi and Hutus sat in the same government is evidence that the genocide was not planned, but in reality, he doesn’t refer to the extremist lady’s clan group, the poisonous radio broadcasts before and while the genocide happened, and the fact that international pressure on dictators to democratize their country sometimes ends up in a tragic backlash.
In other cases, having been living in one of the places he writes about, I can say (which is probably relevant to more cases I’m less familiar with), that this book ignores the processes that lead to a war, counts on local journalists which I never heard of, and present controversial UN reports that even their author later regretted as absolute truths.
The book rightly claims that the politics of genocide is cynical and full of interest rather than truth-seeking and the preventing of genocides. While it’s refreshing to read an alternative narrative, It seems like you’ll have to pick up several
More books to study the genocides of the 20th century because this one is politically very heavily shifted and not balanced.
What’s more, in many cases it takes a radical stance which presents an alternative narrative to events that the world, most of it, agreed upon. For example, the genocide in Rwanda is presented as a result of the actions of RPF and not radical Hutu forces. He also claimed the RPF are the ones who fired the missile on the Rwandan president, an event which to my knowledge is far from being solved. Above all, he doesn’t explain or even refers to the killing of the hundred of thousands Tutsis and the cruelty taking place in April 1994. I was shocked to read that in the events in Rwanda, the author put the word genocide in quotation marks, questioning the basic fact of the mass murder.
He also claims the US (the villain in all of the case studies in this book) supported the RPF. This may be true but in reality, the US did nothing to prevent the Rwandan genocide.
He also claims that the fact that both Tutsi and Hutus sat in the same government is evidence that the genocide was not planned, but in reality, he doesn’t refer to the extremist lady’s clan group, the poisonous radio broadcasts before and while the genocide happened, and the fact that international pressure on dictators to democratize their country sometimes ends up in a tragic backlash.
In other cases, having been living in one of the places he writes about, I can say (which is probably relevant to more cases I’m less familiar with), that this book ignores the processes that lead to a war, counts on local journalists which I never heard of, and present controversial UN reports that even their author later regretted as absolute truths.
The book rightly claims that the politics of genocide is cynical and full of interest rather than truth-seeking and the preventing of genocides. While it’s refreshing to read an alternative narrative, It seems like you’ll have to pick up several
More books to study the genocides of the 20th century because this one is politically very heavily shifted and not balanced.
November 17, 2023
Reč genocid je postala magična reč koja služi da diskredituje cele države i narode, Godvinov zakon* za države. Cancel kultura na najvišem mogućem nivou. Nema veze što nije dokazano ili što postoji samo jedan entitet koji to određuje, jedan parametar, pitanje svih pitanja, da li se tvoja politika slaže sa mojom? Ako je odgovor da, logično da nisi počinio genocid, u najveću ruku je to samo masakr, ali ne moramo to uopšte da spominjemo. Ako je odgovor ne, očigledno je da si počinio genocid, onda svi mediji trube, ti si zločinac. Cilj je, naravno, proizvesti reakciju kod populacije, okupiti ih pod jednom zastavom, na to se i svodi moderna propaganda, sukob dobra i zla, gde dobro uvek pobeđuje. Genocid je jedna od tih reči koja proizvodi jaku emotivnu reakciju kod ljudi. Ostaje samo pitanje dokle će to trajati, ima li granice nebulozama i licemerju međunarodne zajednice i kada ćemo mi kao pojedinci postati indiferentni prema hororu zvanom genocid, što je samo pitanje vremena.
Ova knjiga uzima primere licemerja zapadnih država, od Bosne i Kosova, preko Ugande, Iraka, Sudana pa sve do Kambodže i Vijetnama, upoređujući različite slučajeve i reakcije u skladu sa njima. Uostalom, ništa se nije promenilo, dovoljno je samo uporediti Ukrajinu i Rusiju i Izrael i Palestinu.
*Što je onlajn diskusija duža, nezavisno od teme, u jednom trenutku će neko nekoga nazvati nacistom.
Ova knjiga uzima primere licemerja zapadnih država, od Bosne i Kosova, preko Ugande, Iraka, Sudana pa sve do Kambodže i Vijetnama, upoređujući različite slučajeve i reakcije u skladu sa njima. Uostalom, ništa se nije promenilo, dovoljno je samo uporediti Ukrajinu i Rusiju i Izrael i Palestinu.
*Što je onlajn diskusija duža, nezavisno od teme, u jednom trenutku će neko nekoga nazvati nacistom.
March 19, 2014
A must read for any student of conflict studies, international law, and/or foreign policy. For me personally this book confirmed and illuminated a lot of reservations I had regarding the international system / law. For many others I believe this book will serve as a revelation. It's so very important too look behind the veil, and look beyond many narratives that are drummed into us, that we accept tacitly. Herman presents a succinct account of some glaring biases and hypocrisies that don't garner much attention. A statistical/frequency account of various international scale incidents serves as the framing sequence for this book, tracking how such events have been labelled and addressed in the popular media. This telling set of data provides for a four category breakdown of Genocides; Constructive, Nefarious, Benign and Mythical. The only reason I did not give this book five stars, is that it seems to stop abruptly, not really offering any discussion or posting any suggestions for what should be done regarding this hypocrisy. A small gripe that in no way stops this book from being an eyeopening page turner.
September 1, 2010
The United Nations' Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as "[k:]illing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; [d:]eliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; [i:]mposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [f:]orcibly transferring children of the group to another group" with intent to "destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group." According to Herman and Peterson, a more honest rendition of the Convention would include the qualifier "provided the party responsible for said actions is not acting on behalf or under the direction of the United States, its NATO allies, or a client state." In other words, the label "genocide" is frequently employed by politicians, the media, intellectuals, and human rights NGOs in reference to crimes committed by official enemies of the United States and rarely---if ever---in reference to massacres perpetrated by the US or its clients and allies. The authors maintain that this is as true now as it was when the Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951.
To support their conclusion, Herman and Peterson review fourteen of the most recent slaughters perpetrated by a state or major political body and classify them as "Constructive Genocides," "Nefarious Genocides," "Benign Bloodbaths," or "Mythical Bloodbaths" based on whether the responsible parties' were respectively the US elites themselves, their enemies, their allies or clients, or---again---their enemies. In the category of "Constructive Genocides," the authors list the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq between 1991 and 2003, which killed an estimated 800,000 civilians with a ratio of 10,000 deaths for every one time the word "genocide" appeared in print, and the US-UK invasion and occupation, which killed an estimated 1,000,000 Iraqis with a ratio of 76,923 deaths for every time the word genocide appeared in print. Under "Nefarious Genocides," on the other hand, they list---with 300,000 dead and a death/genocide ratio in the press of 256 to 1--- the Darfur wars and killings, the killings of Bosnian Muslims---33,000 deaths and 69 to 1 deaths per instances of "genocide"---Bosnia and Herzegovina, of Albanians---4,000 reported deaths and a ratio of 12 to 1--- in Kosovo, reports of a Hutu massacre of 800,000 Tutsi in Rwanda---in reality, according to the authors, the Hutu were the victims of a violent coup perpetrated by the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front which orchestrated several massacres throughout the country---while numerous massacres---5,400,000 deaths and a ratio of deaths to "genocide" in the press of 317,647 to 1---by US clients in the Democratic Republic of Congo were largely ignored by politicians and the media. The number of "unworthy victims" killed in so-called "Benign Bloodbaths," which include Israel's invasion of Lebanon and its 2008-2009 assault on Gaza, Croatia's Operation Storm, Dasht-e-Leili in Afghanistan, Turkey's vs. Iraq's treatment of their Kurdish populations, Indonesia's massacre of East Timorese, and widespread state terror and mass killings in Guatemala and El Salvador. Finally, the authors argue that the massacre at Račak is entirely unsubstantiated, and therefore place it in the "Mthical Bloodbaths" category.
One of the most disturbing trend is the frequency with which various alternative media and Non-Governmental Organizations like Amnesty International apply the same official standard of one-way applicability as mainstreams intellectuals, the commercial media, and the United Nations when determining whether violence qualifies as genocide. Apparently even NGOs can sometimes be seduced by economic or other factors into adopting the same stance as the traditional segments of the official establishment, to the detriment of countless victims of genocide and other crimes against humanity who will probably never find justice. Anyone who is concerned about the injustice and violence that seems to dominate much of the world today should take the time to read this short book. It underscores the pressing need for people to hold the political and media institutions accountable for what they say and demand that they stop distorting the truth by hiding their actions behind misleading language and twisted rhetoric.
To support their conclusion, Herman and Peterson review fourteen of the most recent slaughters perpetrated by a state or major political body and classify them as "Constructive Genocides," "Nefarious Genocides," "Benign Bloodbaths," or "Mythical Bloodbaths" based on whether the responsible parties' were respectively the US elites themselves, their enemies, their allies or clients, or---again---their enemies. In the category of "Constructive Genocides," the authors list the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq between 1991 and 2003, which killed an estimated 800,000 civilians with a ratio of 10,000 deaths for every one time the word "genocide" appeared in print, and the US-UK invasion and occupation, which killed an estimated 1,000,000 Iraqis with a ratio of 76,923 deaths for every time the word genocide appeared in print. Under "Nefarious Genocides," on the other hand, they list---with 300,000 dead and a death/genocide ratio in the press of 256 to 1--- the Darfur wars and killings, the killings of Bosnian Muslims---33,000 deaths and 69 to 1 deaths per instances of "genocide"---Bosnia and Herzegovina, of Albanians---4,000 reported deaths and a ratio of 12 to 1--- in Kosovo, reports of a Hutu massacre of 800,000 Tutsi in Rwanda---in reality, according to the authors, the Hutu were the victims of a violent coup perpetrated by the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front which orchestrated several massacres throughout the country---while numerous massacres---5,400,000 deaths and a ratio of deaths to "genocide" in the press of 317,647 to 1---by US clients in the Democratic Republic of Congo were largely ignored by politicians and the media. The number of "unworthy victims" killed in so-called "Benign Bloodbaths," which include Israel's invasion of Lebanon and its 2008-2009 assault on Gaza, Croatia's Operation Storm, Dasht-e-Leili in Afghanistan, Turkey's vs. Iraq's treatment of their Kurdish populations, Indonesia's massacre of East Timorese, and widespread state terror and mass killings in Guatemala and El Salvador. Finally, the authors argue that the massacre at Račak is entirely unsubstantiated, and therefore place it in the "Mthical Bloodbaths" category.
One of the most disturbing trend is the frequency with which various alternative media and Non-Governmental Organizations like Amnesty International apply the same official standard of one-way applicability as mainstreams intellectuals, the commercial media, and the United Nations when determining whether violence qualifies as genocide. Apparently even NGOs can sometimes be seduced by economic or other factors into adopting the same stance as the traditional segments of the official establishment, to the detriment of countless victims of genocide and other crimes against humanity who will probably never find justice. Anyone who is concerned about the injustice and violence that seems to dominate much of the world today should take the time to read this short book. It underscores the pressing need for people to hold the political and media institutions accountable for what they say and demand that they stop distorting the truth by hiding their actions behind misleading language and twisted rhetoric.
October 28, 2021
A brief and informative read highlighting the double standard applied to the USA and their allies and other countries when it comes to genocide and the underlying politics
I thought the book was excellent in examining the dichotomous treatment of world events that is in strict accord with Western power and policy preferences that can be expressed by two general rules:
1) When the West commits mass atrocity crimes, the atrocities are described as constructive, the victims are unworthy of attention and dignity and thus never suffer a genocide
2) When the West's enemies perpetrate mass atrocity crimes or a state targeted by the West for destabilisation and attack, then the converse is true
The book makes good use of examples including cases in Israel, Rwanda, Sudan and Yugoslavia amongst others in studying the politics of genocide, specifically what is defined as genocide and what isn't, and how the distinction often turns of who does what to whom and where the power lies
I thought the book was excellent in examining the dichotomous treatment of world events that is in strict accord with Western power and policy preferences that can be expressed by two general rules:
1) When the West commits mass atrocity crimes, the atrocities are described as constructive, the victims are unworthy of attention and dignity and thus never suffer a genocide
2) When the West's enemies perpetrate mass atrocity crimes or a state targeted by the West for destabilisation and attack, then the converse is true
The book makes good use of examples including cases in Israel, Rwanda, Sudan and Yugoslavia amongst others in studying the politics of genocide, specifically what is defined as genocide and what isn't, and how the distinction often turns of who does what to whom and where the power lies
October 24, 2024
Casts a horrifying shadow over the politics and usage of the word genocide in the West. And also over the "humane intervention" of developed countries in developing countries to overthrow states or actors that have become unacceptable to the Western establishment (often by a fictitious press media campaign to manufacture a "genocide").
It did not make surprising reading and its accounts of silent genocides were consistent with what I had come to think about the manipulation of "good vs evil" in the media and political discourse.
It did feel distinctively written to persuade, and I couldn't help but think that there was the occasional hyperbole (but this could also be a result of my manufactured pre-held beliefs).
It did not make surprising reading and its accounts of silent genocides were consistent with what I had come to think about the manipulation of "good vs evil" in the media and political discourse.
It did feel distinctively written to persuade, and I couldn't help but think that there was the occasional hyperbole (but this could also be a result of my manufactured pre-held beliefs).
November 13, 2024
عندما ترتكب أمريكا جرائم قتل جماعية، سواءًا بشكل مباشر أو بواسطة عميل لها، تكون هذه الجرائم "بناءة"، وضحاياها لا يستحقون الاهتمام، ولا يكونون بحال من الأحوال ضحايا "إبادة جماعية"، أما حينما يكون مرتكب الجرائم عدوًا لأمريكا، تكون حينها جريمة بشعة تستحق التنديد في وسائل الإعلام ويكون ضحاياها، ضحايا "إبادة جماعية"!
يستعرض الكتاب، جرائم الولايات المتحدة في أنحاء متفرقة من العالم إما مباشرة كالعراق وإفغانستان وإما بالوكالة كفلسطين و إفريقيا وغيرها…
١٥٨ صفحة
يستعرض الكتاب، جرائم الولايات المتحدة في أنحاء متفرقة من العالم إما مباشرة كالعراق وإفغانستان وإما بالوكالة كفلسطين و إفريقيا وغيرها…
١٥٨ صفحة
February 11, 2024
i don't know if either of them are still alive but both edward s. herman and david peterson deserve these hands for putting ‘genocide’ in quotations when covering the rwandan genocide not to mention choosing to blame the rpf over hutu power leaders for the massacre of hundreds of thousands of tutsis
May 3, 2025
بنسبة لناس كتير من الشرق الأوسط الكلام ده مش جديد بس التوثيق وعرض معلومة أن الاقوى يرتكب المزابح دون تغطية والأضعف يظهر فى صورة الشرير بطريقة معرفية منظمة ومش مجرد ملاحظات بتقوال يجعل هذا الكتاب ذو قيمة كبيرة جدااااااا
January 1, 2026
"حسب الطريقة التي يسير بها العالم، لا يناقش مفهوم الحق إلا بين قوتين متساويتين. خلاف ذلك، سيفعل الأقوياء ما يحلو لهم وسيعاني الضعفاء ويستسلمون لهم"
يناقش الكتاب كيف تزيف الحقائق عندما يكون مرتكب الجريمة أمريكا أو أحد حلفائها
يناقش الكتاب كيف تزيف الحقائق عندما يكون مرتكب الجريمة أمريكا أو أحد حلفائها
February 18, 2024
edward herman spitting fire as always
May 31, 2024
I think this book largely succeeded at its central task and for that reason deserves a high rating. I now (more strongly) share his skepticism about genocide as a word that no longer serves any effective non-political purpose (and frankly may never have). It’s a quite effective extension of his work on the intersection of media and US foreign policy updated for the late 90s and early aughts. Some more historical context would’ve been appreciated particularly in cases dealing with Yugoslavia where the background and details are quite complex and not easy to tease apart. I think he also has a tendency to overstate his case, for example there is a table in the second half of the book where the disparities in the use of terms like massacre and genocide and if viewed without further explanation one could draw conclusions different from the ones he does (ie the case with was also the case where the term “genocide” was invoked contra his model). The inclusion of Sudan feels out of place and not very insightful. All that said though his arguments are well taken and in some cases quite novel (he was one of the first major revisionists on Rwanda).
May 16, 2014
Edward Herman and his coauthor David Peterson set out in very humane to tell how the victims of this world are denied even the right to be called by the so called western liberal media.The book is unusually short and for its 120 odd pages it packs a lot of punch. It divides the massacres or genocides into 4 categories namely : constructive and benign( for us and our allies) and nefarious and mythical ( committed by our enemies). The most remarkable case in the entire book was of Rwanda and how the entire story has been portrayed to us upside down. I would highly recommend this to anyone who wants to know how the media defines genocide along with those who love chomsky`s work.
November 7, 2015
This book offers some interesting alternative perspective on topics that are often seen as straight-up factual and non-debatable (Rwanda, Kosovo, Darfur, etc.) The scholarship is excellent, although there are cases in which the sources are a little difficult to corroborate. This does not mean that they are wrong, it just means that readers should keep an open mind and not quickly come to any conclusions. Overall, this book is extremely engaging and an excellent addition to any critical thinker's book collection.
March 17, 2016
A short book on the political useage of the term Genocide in the media/ west.
Very well referenced (notes make up a fifth of the text) and clearly written.
Overarching argument is convincing, though I will need to do further reading to come to a conclusion on each case.
Authors argue that the use of terms such as Genocide, terms that provoke the need for a response on our part, fit a clear and consistent pattern that suits the agenda of the powerful.
Vivid and important contribution to debate that is not as closed as the mainstream presents it to be.
Very well referenced (notes make up a fifth of the text) and clearly written.
Overarching argument is convincing, though I will need to do further reading to come to a conclusion on each case.
Authors argue that the use of terms such as Genocide, terms that provoke the need for a response on our part, fit a clear and consistent pattern that suits the agenda of the powerful.
Vivid and important contribution to debate that is not as closed as the mainstream presents it to be.
October 25, 2012
An interesting book. The main challenge is finding corroborating support for the author's description of the Rwanda civil war. They list a few references but the scholarship is very small. That is not to say that it is not correct, rather that it is difficult to reach firm conclusions based upon the current literature.
August 4, 2016
An extremely valuable book, very informative on the uncertainties regarding various issues: many cases are not as clear-cut as some would have you believe. Exemplary scholarship has been conducted by the authors, who cite many credible and reliable sources and draw on their own research at times too.
March 1, 2016
A well written but controversial book that challenges the common knowledge on 20th century genocidal. I'm not sure about the authors conclusions, but the book does a good job at presenting alternate opinions about recent historical events that you might have otherwise just dismissed immediately.
July 3, 2024
straight-up Rwandan genocide denial and disinformation.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews