Tweet
GENOCIDE IS NOT GENOCIDE IN THE CANADIAN MUSEUM FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
http://massispost.com/?p=4007
August 22nd, 2011
An article titled, "Memory becomes a minefield at Canada's Museum
for Human Rights," by Ira Basen in the August 20, 2011 issue of the
Globe and Mail, provides an expose of the controversy surrounding
the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. The appearance of this article
calls for reflection on two critical factors regarding the museum,
which have not been adequately discussed: the important relationship
between human rights and genocide, and the requirement of federal
institutions to adhere to Canada's official policy of multiculturalism.
The CMHR's website displays a letter to the Globe & Mail, dated
March 23, 2011, in which CMHR officials state that "The Canadian
Museum for Human Rights is not a museum of genocide, it never
was. It is a catalyst for change. The Museum is ... not a memorial
to the past." The sentiment is echoed by the museum's CEO during his
interview in the article. This adds a whole new set of issues to the
existing controversy over the absence of an inclusive and comparative
approach to cases of genocide.
The Holocaust, to which the CMHR is devoting an entire gallery,
is most definitely a genocide. Indeed, it is a prime example of
genocide and should be a central part of the museum. Genocide is
not a matter of the past: even those genocides that occurred many
years ago continue to have major effects. Just as one can not teach
about human rights without taking genocide into account, so one can
not teach about genocide without taking the Holocaust into account,
but through a comparative approach with other cases of genocide.
To say the CMHR is not a museum of genocide ignores the inseparable
relationship between human rights and genocide. The importance of
this relationship is signalled by the fact that a) the UN Genocide
Convention was the first human rights treaty adopted by the General
Assembly of the United Nations; b) it is administered by the Office of
the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights; c) it focuses attention on
the protection of national, racial, ethnic and religious minorities
from threats to their very existence and therefore sits directly
within the priorities of both the United Nations and the modern
human rights movement, aimed at eradicating racism and xenophobia;
and d) it stresses the role of criminal justice and accountability
in the protection and promotion of human rights. Genocide is the most
extreme source of human rights violation; it must be in the forefront
at the museum.
The claim that "it never was" about genocide is surprising, given
that the CMHR has issued press releases and promotional material in
which genocide figures prominently. One press release, for example,
titled, "20th Century Genocides," has on its first page the heading,
"Stories of the 20th Century Genocides-The Vision," where one reads:
"Prejudice, racism, grievance, intolerance, aggression, injustice,
oppression-they all start small, and we need to spot and stop them in
our own local orbits before they grow and get out of control. This
means looking at the often long prehistory of genocide, as well as
its symptoms in the present. Understanding these will help avert
future horrors.
"As the visitors to the Museum arrive on the third floor of the
Museum, they enter a transition zone where an unfolding series of
images, questions and quotes takes them onto a global stage and the
dark side of the rights story-the denial of human rights that can
result in genocide. The names of 20th century genocides-Armenia, the
Ukrainian Famine, Nanking-appear with those of other crimes against
humanity. The Armenian Genocide was the first genocide of the 20th
century. This genocide, unpunished and denied, illustrated how crimes
against humanity can escalate into genocide as seen in future genocides
such as the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda and Sudan."
We agree. Only in this comparative way can one find general truths
about the nature and mechanics of genocide as a general problem
of humanity, which can help finding solutions to how genocide can
be prevented.
The museum does not have to be a memorial to the past, but it must
certainly take account of, represent and explain the history, ongoing
development of, and challenges to human rights, if it hopes to inspire
learning and become a place of change.
To do this, the Holocaust should be employed as a prime model of
how to teach genocide. The Holocaust has been recognized by the
world; its perpetrators have been tried and punished; the crime has
been acknowledged by the perpetrator country; an apology has been
extended, and reparations made. But it is critical to realize that
other cases are necessary, as each provides its own particular lessons
to be learned.
In the case of the Armenian Genocide, for example, the perpetrators
mostly escaped punishment; the perpetrator country continues to
deny that genocide took place and aggressively pressures others to
participate in this denial. This is despite the fact that on May 24,
1915, the Allied Powers-France, Great Britain and Russia-declared
that the Ottoman leaders would be called to account for their "crimes
against humanity," for the slaughter they were committing against
their own Armenian citizens, whereby the term entered international
jurisprudence.
The Rwandan Genocide is yet another model. In this case, UN
peacekeepers were in the country, and the head of the mission,
Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, made every effort to warn the UN of
the impending genocide, and the world via the news media, once it had
started. Yet, the world powers made every effort to avoid calling it
genocide, so as to evade the responsibilities of intervention. Each
case has an important contribution to the understanding of genocide.
Taking these and the other cases of genocide into equal account
would make all the various communities in Canada feel they are
treated equitably, and that they are an important and integral part
of the Canadian mosaic. It would help overcome the kind of thinking
in cultural or ethnic "silos" that contradicts the objectives of
Canada's official policy of multiculturalism. In 1971, Canada was the
first country to adopt multiculturalism as an official policy. The
Act's objectives are, in part, 1) to affirm the value, dignity
and equality of all Canadian citizens regardless of ethnic origin,
language, or religious affiliation; 2) to ensure that all citizens
can preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage, take pride
in their ancestry, and still have a sense of being Canadian; 3) to
encourage the accepting of diverse cultures and promote racial and
ethnic harmony and cross-cultural understanding. One of the ways
to foster these noble objectives, in the words of the Act, is to
"encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political
institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada's
multicultural character."
The CMHR is a national cultural institution, whose stated mission is,
in part, to establish "a national and international destination-a
centre of learning where Canadians and people from around the world
can engage in discussion and commit to taking action against hate
and oppression.... inspiring research, learning, contributing to the
collective memory and sense of identity of all Canadians... to explore
the subject of human rights, with special but not exclusive reference
to Canada, in order to enhance the public's understanding of human
rights, to promote respect for others and to encourage reflection
and dialogue."
Taking a comprehensive and comparative approach to genocide as the
ultimate violation of human rights would complement perfectly the
objectives of Canada's official policy of multiculturalism. It would
avoid differentiating and dividing communities. It especially would
make those communities who feel their histories have been neglected or
denied feel more welcome. One can not overestimate the psychological
trauma of those who are part of a nation that has experienced genocide.
Therefore, CMHR officials must recognize that genocide must be
an integral part of the museum, as was envisioned and presented to
Canadian society. This would facilitate the CMHR's adhering to Canada's
policy of Multiculturalism, as well as its own mission statement,
and make the museum a destination for everyone.
Read the article in Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/memory-becomes-a-minefield-at-canadas-museum-for-human-rights/article2135961/
From: A. Papazian
http://massispost.com/?p=4007
August 22nd, 2011
An article titled, "Memory becomes a minefield at Canada's Museum
for Human Rights," by Ira Basen in the August 20, 2011 issue of the
Globe and Mail, provides an expose of the controversy surrounding
the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. The appearance of this article
calls for reflection on two critical factors regarding the museum,
which have not been adequately discussed: the important relationship
between human rights and genocide, and the requirement of federal
institutions to adhere to Canada's official policy of multiculturalism.
The CMHR's website displays a letter to the Globe & Mail, dated
March 23, 2011, in which CMHR officials state that "The Canadian
Museum for Human Rights is not a museum of genocide, it never
was. It is a catalyst for change. The Museum is ... not a memorial
to the past." The sentiment is echoed by the museum's CEO during his
interview in the article. This adds a whole new set of issues to the
existing controversy over the absence of an inclusive and comparative
approach to cases of genocide.
The Holocaust, to which the CMHR is devoting an entire gallery,
is most definitely a genocide. Indeed, it is a prime example of
genocide and should be a central part of the museum. Genocide is
not a matter of the past: even those genocides that occurred many
years ago continue to have major effects. Just as one can not teach
about human rights without taking genocide into account, so one can
not teach about genocide without taking the Holocaust into account,
but through a comparative approach with other cases of genocide.
To say the CMHR is not a museum of genocide ignores the inseparable
relationship between human rights and genocide. The importance of
this relationship is signalled by the fact that a) the UN Genocide
Convention was the first human rights treaty adopted by the General
Assembly of the United Nations; b) it is administered by the Office of
the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights; c) it focuses attention on
the protection of national, racial, ethnic and religious minorities
from threats to their very existence and therefore sits directly
within the priorities of both the United Nations and the modern
human rights movement, aimed at eradicating racism and xenophobia;
and d) it stresses the role of criminal justice and accountability
in the protection and promotion of human rights. Genocide is the most
extreme source of human rights violation; it must be in the forefront
at the museum.
The claim that "it never was" about genocide is surprising, given
that the CMHR has issued press releases and promotional material in
which genocide figures prominently. One press release, for example,
titled, "20th Century Genocides," has on its first page the heading,
"Stories of the 20th Century Genocides-The Vision," where one reads:
"Prejudice, racism, grievance, intolerance, aggression, injustice,
oppression-they all start small, and we need to spot and stop them in
our own local orbits before they grow and get out of control. This
means looking at the often long prehistory of genocide, as well as
its symptoms in the present. Understanding these will help avert
future horrors.
"As the visitors to the Museum arrive on the third floor of the
Museum, they enter a transition zone where an unfolding series of
images, questions and quotes takes them onto a global stage and the
dark side of the rights story-the denial of human rights that can
result in genocide. The names of 20th century genocides-Armenia, the
Ukrainian Famine, Nanking-appear with those of other crimes against
humanity. The Armenian Genocide was the first genocide of the 20th
century. This genocide, unpunished and denied, illustrated how crimes
against humanity can escalate into genocide as seen in future genocides
such as the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda and Sudan."
We agree. Only in this comparative way can one find general truths
about the nature and mechanics of genocide as a general problem
of humanity, which can help finding solutions to how genocide can
be prevented.
The museum does not have to be a memorial to the past, but it must
certainly take account of, represent and explain the history, ongoing
development of, and challenges to human rights, if it hopes to inspire
learning and become a place of change.
To do this, the Holocaust should be employed as a prime model of
how to teach genocide. The Holocaust has been recognized by the
world; its perpetrators have been tried and punished; the crime has
been acknowledged by the perpetrator country; an apology has been
extended, and reparations made. But it is critical to realize that
other cases are necessary, as each provides its own particular lessons
to be learned.
In the case of the Armenian Genocide, for example, the perpetrators
mostly escaped punishment; the perpetrator country continues to
deny that genocide took place and aggressively pressures others to
participate in this denial. This is despite the fact that on May 24,
1915, the Allied Powers-France, Great Britain and Russia-declared
that the Ottoman leaders would be called to account for their "crimes
against humanity," for the slaughter they were committing against
their own Armenian citizens, whereby the term entered international
jurisprudence.
The Rwandan Genocide is yet another model. In this case, UN
peacekeepers were in the country, and the head of the mission,
Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, made every effort to warn the UN of
the impending genocide, and the world via the news media, once it had
started. Yet, the world powers made every effort to avoid calling it
genocide, so as to evade the responsibilities of intervention. Each
case has an important contribution to the understanding of genocide.
Taking these and the other cases of genocide into equal account
would make all the various communities in Canada feel they are
treated equitably, and that they are an important and integral part
of the Canadian mosaic. It would help overcome the kind of thinking
in cultural or ethnic "silos" that contradicts the objectives of
Canada's official policy of multiculturalism. In 1971, Canada was the
first country to adopt multiculturalism as an official policy. The
Act's objectives are, in part, 1) to affirm the value, dignity
and equality of all Canadian citizens regardless of ethnic origin,
language, or religious affiliation; 2) to ensure that all citizens
can preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage, take pride
in their ancestry, and still have a sense of being Canadian; 3) to
encourage the accepting of diverse cultures and promote racial and
ethnic harmony and cross-cultural understanding. One of the ways
to foster these noble objectives, in the words of the Act, is to
"encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political
institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada's
multicultural character."
The CMHR is a national cultural institution, whose stated mission is,
in part, to establish "a national and international destination-a
centre of learning where Canadians and people from around the world
can engage in discussion and commit to taking action against hate
and oppression.... inspiring research, learning, contributing to the
collective memory and sense of identity of all Canadians... to explore
the subject of human rights, with special but not exclusive reference
to Canada, in order to enhance the public's understanding of human
rights, to promote respect for others and to encourage reflection
and dialogue."
Taking a comprehensive and comparative approach to genocide as the
ultimate violation of human rights would complement perfectly the
objectives of Canada's official policy of multiculturalism. It would
avoid differentiating and dividing communities. It especially would
make those communities who feel their histories have been neglected or
denied feel more welcome. One can not overestimate the psychological
trauma of those who are part of a nation that has experienced genocide.
Therefore, CMHR officials must recognize that genocide must be
an integral part of the museum, as was envisioned and presented to
Canadian society. This would facilitate the CMHR's adhering to Canada's
policy of Multiculturalism, as well as its own mission statement,
and make the museum a destination for everyone.
Read the article in Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/memory-becomes-a-minefield-at-canadas-museum-for-human-rights/article2135961/
From: A. Papazian