I know there’s a definition or many definitions, and because of this, some things are and other things are not genocide. But still, it strikes me as weasly, bureaucratic, dismissive. It’s almost always used in the negative. You hardly ever hear anyone say: “Well, how about that? This one *does* rise to the level of genocide. Yep. Sure does. It was just under that level, there’s the level, then it rose above that level.”

No — it’s usually, “that thing is horrible, but does it rise to the level of genocide?” (posed as a question but is really being answered in the negative). Or: “One thing is clear: it doesn’t rise to the level of genocide.” And then the argument hinges on a technicality or selective choosing of an operative definition of genocide. It’s like saying, “I’m indignant, but according to Webster’s dictionary, my indignation does not rise to the level of outrage. I’ll write one letter to my congressman, but I won’t write two, because this atrocity does not meet the two-letter criteria. I’ll send $100 to the relief of the victims, but I won’t send $200, because their suffering just does not quite rise to that level.” One’s suffering must rise to a certain level, after all.

“Ooo, so close! But it just doesn’t rise to the level of genocide. Try again next time!”

NYT Story

UNICEF in Iraq — Think of the children!
http://www.unicefusa.org/site/c.duLRI8O0H/b.45279/k.8221/By_Program__Donate__US_Fund_for_UNICEF.htm

World Wildlife Foundation — Animals!
http://panda.org/how_you_can_help/gifts/index.cfm?decgiftspp

United Nations High Commission for Refugees — Nobody deserves to be a refugee.
http://www.unhcr.org/donate/

Vital Ground — Grizzlies are our friend!
http://www.vitalground.org/

Jane Goodall Institute — 3000 bonobos left in the world!
http://www.janegoodall.org/

Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund — I’m a sucker for baby gorilla photos
http://www.gorillafund.org/