About the Genocide Forum
A Platform for post-Holocaust Commentary
- The Readers Have Spoken! Looking to the Future
- Evil! Where is it? What is it?
- Forgive and Forget? A Post-Genocide Policy Proposal in Cambodia
- On Holocaust Denial, the Jewish Right and New McCathyism
- Is Life Beautiful? Two Views
- Assimilation and the Futility of Escaping Otherness
May-June 1999
Year 5, No. 1
Bonnie Falchuk: Managing Editor
Carol Rittner: Associate Editor
Henry R. Huttenbach: Founder- Editor
Sandrine Dikambi: Assistant Editor
The Readers Have Spoken! Looking to the Future
Two issues ago, the readers of The Genocide Forum were asked to express their views on its continuation. A high percentage responded: over two hundred wished to see The Genocide Forum continue, and only one or two felt it should cease, but without comment. Especially useful were the comments of those who voted for The Genocide Forum's continuation. These ranged from those who used it to promote classroom discussion — by far the majority — to those who chided the editor for a variety of sins — from sarcasm to lack of charity — but nevertheless gave their vote of confidence. None of the latter asked to be taken off the mailing list. That is encouraging. All praises, but especially the creative criticisms, are gratefully acknowledged.
So, backed by the readers' mandate, The Genocide Forum will continue in 1999-2000 at the rate of six issues per academic year (September through May). The goals remain the same: terminological clarity and highlighting cutting edge issues central to genocide. On occasion — perhaps more — articles may seem controversial and even confrontational. If so, The Genocide Forum remains an open forum, welcoming the disparate views of its readers. So let your interpretations be heard; they will enrich the dialogue. Do not let The Genocide Forum remain monologue by default!
The dialogue is critically urgent today even as the genocidal tragedy in Kosovo unfolds. This willful ethnic slaughter and uprooting at the hands of Serbian forces needs more than casual attention from concerned readers. This is no time for couch potato crocodile tears: its counterpart is assuming the passive role of the mute bystander of Holocaust vintage. The editors of The Genocide Forum now challenge their readers to join in the effort not only to think about genocide but also to write about it in the spirit of this publication. You will be surprised how many people read it!
Henry R. Huttenbach
Evil! Where is it? What is it?
When grappling with genocide, the question of evil inevitably arises. Even before Hannah Arendt's controversial phrase — "the banality of evil" — evil and the Shoah were being linked, rapidly becoming virtually synonymous. Since then, scholars from all disciplines have hung the sobriquet "evil" not only on the Final Solution in particular but also on all instances of genocide.
What do we learn from this label attached to genocide? What critical insight do we gain from exposing the dimension of evil contained in the thought and act of genocide? Put in reverse, what do we not learn, what do we fail to understand about genocide if one does not take cognizance of its evil character?
Put more tersely, what do scholars mean by evil? Is it a self-evident concept? Or does the word need to be accurately and carefully defined in the precise manner it is used so it can serve as an illuminating term in a particular context? This may come as an irritating distraction to those who assume evil is evil, period! For them it needs no semantic explanation. The word speaks for itself. Everyone knows what evil is, they say, just as everybody recognizes evil in its genocide form. It calls for no further elucidation. Unfortunately things are not that simple. The search for understanding and truth rests on words, and words can be traps if used glibly without proper substance.
All too often the tag "evil" is attached as an emotive device (and not as a serious label) whose philosophic underpinnings are absent or, at least, obscure. It is all too easy to attach evil before proper names, deeds and events. Thus: Hitler was evil; the killing of Jewish babies was evil; the whole shoa was evil. But wasn't much of World War II "evil"? Wasn't Mussolini and the colonial war he waged with the poision gas against Abyssinia "evil"? Isn't lynching "evil"? Isn't abortion called "evil" by its opponents? If, indeed, so much is "evil", the word loses its impact and import, regardless of its inherent power.
So what are we to do with genocide and the real evils (sic) it embodies? Therein lies the answer: the plurality of evil. There are many evils, and they need to be spelled out, just as one does with crime; one has to be specific. It is not eough to say genocide is a crime. One is obligated to express unambiguously what kind of a crime, avoiding general substitutes such as "a crime against humanity" and/or "a violation of human rights." The key to the problem is to establish categories and a hierarchy of evil. The latter - a list of lesser and greater evils - calls for strict criteria for ranking gradations of evil according to well-difined values, for noone has the same priority scale of evils; everyone has a different constellation of moral principles, which, if violated, point to a distinct evil.
If the use of evil is to have any intellectual utility, it must be made specific. Evil is never vague: it is singular. Originally, the concept of evil has its roots in theology. In its evilness, genocide, it is implied, is a violation of a moral order; it is a transgression, is the implication, well beyond the breach of civil law. Genocide, many scholars seems to infer, is more than a crime. Genocide, they suggest, is a crossing of an invisible line where more than the secular order has been threatened. The impression is that those who resort to the word "evil" have crossed the threshold from the secular to the metaphysical, moving from genocide as a crime to genocide as a sin.
They may, of course, have no such intention, restricting evil to the realm of the strictly secular. But then why use it if it is, at best, a synonym for a criminal deed. Perhaps "evil" serves as an emphatic, an alternate to saying "very bad," a rather weak and lame expression. But, if so, the question still remains: in what way is something "very bad" or "very evil." The latter raises the question whether an absolute can be modified. Can one be a little bit evil? Are some genocides more evil than others? If so, how is that degree of evil established? What criteria are to be applied? In other words, one has come full circle. "Evil," if used, needs to be explained, defined, and justified, if it is to reveal a deeper understanding of genocide.
Henry R Huttenbach
Forgive and Forget?
A Post-Genocide Policy Proposal in Cambodia
An on-going problem in the wake of genocide is the question of how to restore social justice and harmony. The two do not necessarily coincide, except perhaps in theory. In practice, justice implies trials, accountability for the culpable, and appropriate punishment. Harmony, on the other hand, looks to reconciliation as a means of re-attaining coexistence in a previously polarized society in which genocide was practiced. Social justice seeks to uphold the principle of the primacy of the law; social harmony, in contrast, aims at more pragmatic goals requiring consensus and compromise, including, if necessary, the non-prosecution of the genocidists. Social justice means looking back into the past to rectify wrongs; social harmony requires looking primarily forward in order to minimize rancorous involvement with what had once transpired, while maximizing emphasis on a better future.
Where genocide is concerned, there are two schools of thought: the one that insists on bringing the criminals to justice as a sine qua non for a viable future in which the guilty will have paid the price and the victims are vindicated by the rule of law; the other bases itself on the avoidance of further dissent arising from the bitterness and recrimination coming in the wake of drawn-out agonizing trials, preferring to focus on social reconstruction by reconciling former enemies through common aspirations and mutual tolerance. These are the two competing philosophies in the quest for a functioning post-genocide society. By the end of this century, both formulas will have been applied with some measurable of success and failure.
Trials were used in the case of Germany, first via international tribunals set up by the four occupying powers, then by national courts (e.g. Poland) and later even in German courts. While verdicts were rendered against several hundred Nazi criminals and their collaborators, the end-result was unsatisfactory. Far too many of the guilty were never tried, not even in absentia, leaving a gnawing sense of justice rendered for the sake of politics rather than in accordance with the spirit of the law. Far too many got away because no one pursued them. Eichmann was an exception.
In the case of Bosnia, an international court has been set up but only a tiny handful of trials have taken place. The bulk of the indicted and suspected have not been arrested and probably never will be, leading one to conclude that what transpires in the Hague is, at best, symbolic, at worst, a cynical political exercise at the expense of a few minor functionnaries. The "big fish," so to speak, have been left to swim unimpeded, thereby adding to the atmosphere that genocide in the form of ethnic cleansing will not be forcefully condemned and punished. The general impression is that, the few trials notwithsanding, the genocidal fait accompli of the tri-ethnic division of Bosnia was legitimized by the Dayton Agreement. Diplomats prevailed over judges, post-genocide social harmony taking precedent over post-genocide social justice
Cambodia is an example of the other option. The collapse of the genocidal Pol Pot regime led to a long civil war that eventually forced Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to flee into the jungles of northwest Cambodia on the border with Thailand. (It was there, it is said — though never confirmed — that Pol Pot died.) Since then, the remnants of the Khmer Rouge — the instrument of genocide in Cambodia over ten years ago — dissolved, largely from attrition and defections. Among the latter were two prominent political and military associates of Pol Pot, Kieuh Samphan and Nuwon Chea.
They numbered among the half-dozen senior officers who planned and carried out the Cambodian autogenocide which left between one and two million dead. Instead of being arrested to stand trial, the two were recently formally received by the government in early February in an overt display of reconciliation. Individually, the two publicly expressed their "regret" over the past but emphasized, in turn, the need to move away from the past — "which cannot be undone" according to one — towards a socially harmonious future in which the mistakes of the past will not be repeated.
This stance necessarily triggered off a firestorm of protest both inside and outside Cambodia. Initially, Prime Minister Hun Sen tacitly agreed that a trial of the two Khmer Rouge "defectors" would be politically divisive and socially disruptive for Cambodia, but was soon forced to retreat, but not unambiguously. Instead he proposed a vague "investigation" into the killings.
Hun Sen himself had arranged the negotiations for Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea to "defect" and, in return, suggested the two would receive asylum and immunity from prosecution. He had done so with the consent of many Cambodian officials who saw a dual opportunity, one to weaken the remaining Khmer Rouge groups and two to build national reconciliation, a powerful incentive in Cambodian culture. Thus, despite Hun Sen's turnabout, the two men were not arrested and charged. Instead, their official status "defectors" was informally changed to "visitors" on a national "tour," a face-saving device to allow them to return to their Khmer Rouge safe havens in the northwest of the country.
It was, some believe, a wise political compromise by Prime Minister Hun Sen. He was between a rock and a hard surface. As a former defector from the Khmer Rouge his credibility was on the line, they say. Meanwhile US pressure increased, urging him to set up a tribunal to look into the mass killings of 1975-1979, to which he took umbrage. After all, he said, did not the United States at one time support the Khmer Rouge? He correctly enumerated a number of inconsistencies, contradictions and double standards on the part of US foreign policy in Cambodia. Rightly Hun Sen argues that none of the players during those years was innocent. All had mixed responsibility for the genocide in Cambodia. It would, therefore, the Prime Minister still argues, be better to avoid confrontation in court for the sake of domestic and international peace. This, he persists, is a higher value than raw justice, which in this case would implicate everyone.
Henry R. Huttenbach
On Holocaust Denial, the Jewish Right and the New McCarthyism.
During the past nine months a rather pathetic debate has erupted between the Jewish Right, represented by Gabriel Schoenfeld (Senior Editor of Commentary), The Forward, and scholars of the Holocaust.
This all began last June when Schoenfeld, whose credentials are totally unknown, delivered a blistering attack in Commentary about what he called "Holocaustology." Apparently, new scholarship about the Shoah did not conform to Schoenfeld's narrow view on the subject. The article was particularly negative about new developments in women's studies about the Holocaust, despite the fact that the Nazis themselves have testified that "it was worse on the camps for women" (Rudolf Hoess, Commandant of Auschwitz). What Schoenfeld wants I am not certain: but his scenario would probably be something like a quasi-religious attitude sacramentalizing Jewish victimization and, at the same time, insuring that no other genocide or human rights issue is compared to the Shoah.
A recent article in The New York Times continued that tradition. In that op-ed piece, Schoenfeld, adjusting his new priestly robes to a larger audience than the Commentary crowd, complained about some kitsch art items sold in museum stores, the display at the Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance, and academic papers given at the recent Annual Scholars' Conference on the Holocaust. But Mr. Schoenfeld apparently never heard or read the papers, only quoted their titles - partially to get the effect he wanted- and indicated he did not think much of all of this. Never mind that there might be substance in the presentations.
Several things happened. The first and most interesting was that Holocaust Deniers embraced Schoenfeld: one of his articles is reproduced to make it appear Schoenfeld is associated both with the infamous Committee on Denial of the Holocaust (CODOH web site: www.codoh.com/newsdesk/990323.html) of Bradley Smith, in Boulder, Colorado, who has consistently offered $250,000 to anyone who will debate the ADL about the Holocaust, and a French Denial site, Les Temps irreparable (www.abbc.com/aaargh/fran/revu/T19980606a.html). The latter site has the title" "Holocaustology, Careerism and Stupidology or How the Need to Maintain the Myth is Destroying its Own Basis."
While I don't think Schoenfeld's critique is Holocaust Denial, it is sufficiently anti-intellectual and "know-nothing" to deserve this fate. Schoenfeld should have known better. His writing is impolite and his attitude is nastier than it should be. But when his articles imply for the need for truth squads to "expose" Holocaust scholarship, which implies a heavy level of censorship, there seems to me to be a problem.
This dispute erupted on the email two weeks ago* and then found its way into the Forward, a national newspaper that used to be social-democratic but now finds itself on the political right. In an email discourse on a listserv about Schoenfeld, I referred to his writing as "brainless." To the surprise of many, Schoenfeld was lurking on the list in a voyeuristic way, never having contributed a word to prior discourse, emerging to indicate that he was insulted by my description. Unfortunately, his behavior seems to verify my comment.
Immediately thereafter, I received a call from Forward reporter Ira Stoll about this incident. He indicated he had picked it up from the email list. I asked immediately if it was the policy of Forward to monitor e-mail lists? He said "no," so it was obvious that he was given the material by Schoenfeld, and that he was not working as an independent reporter, but as a concealed hack for Commentary. To me this seemed that he was doing two jobs at once.
Stoll asked me some of the most interesting questions: "What foreign languages do you use in your research?" "Do you cite articles in languages you do not read?" "Have you written a pamphlet for the Church of Scientology trivializing the Holocaust?" The answer to the last was that I had written a human rights pamphlet for the scientologists, whom I do not necessarily like and embrace. But they have been having a problem in Germany: denial of jobs, exclusion as artists, children denied schooling because they embrace a new and suspect religion. Among the sources I quoted in this pamphlet was the US State Department Annual report on Human Rights, which for several years has come down hard on Germany for its attitudes toward minority religions. The report is the same one used by Jewish organizations as the basis for policy toward Jews in the Former Soviet Union. The test of human rights should not be whether one likes a group's ideology/theology. Ostracism from society because of religion, even a crazy religion, suggests a problem that demands a response. I responded.
The Forward article was not particularly newsworthy except for two issues raised: will newspapers be eavesdropping on email talk lists in the near future and does not that raise a question that freedom of speech on the web will be impaired? And secondly, how does one react to a quote from Schoenfeld that his task was to stop academics that didn't toe the line "in their tenure tracks"? What exactly is the loyalty test Schoenfeld wants? Is he afraid we might compare the Holocaust to Native American Genocide, Slavery, theArmenian Genocide, the recent situations in Bosnia and Rwanda, and the current situation in Kosovo?
Schoenfeld, however, has not stopped there. He has telephoned my employers asking "if I reported outside activities?" His life must be obsessively focused on this issue.
On a more serious note, I know no scholars who knowingly try to trivialize or diminish the impact of the Shoah. Deniers, revisionists, of course, have that goal. But certainly popular culture and even many Jewish organizations do exactly the same thing in a less offensive way. For example, several mainstream Jewish organizations congratulated the Turkish Republic on its 75th anniversary, but failed to mention anything about how that country has engaged in systematic denial of the Armenian genocide, which in turn helps Holocaust denial. The ADL has been a front line organization in the fight against denial: it has published a booklet on the subject. However, two years ago in San Francisco, that organization compromised its good name and reputation in attempts to spy illegally on Arabs and Muslims in the city. Recently, in San Francisco, both Catholic and Jewish groups protested allowing "The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence," a drag group that mocks the Catholic Church, to close a public street on Easter Sunday as "Nazi-like." Trivializing the Third Reich and the Holocaust? I think so.
But what about the current crisis in Kosovo? Is discourse about the horror there a diminution of the Holocaust? In our outrage at ethnic cleansing, and the death and destruction, can we not point out that this is still only a small nodule compared to the metastasis of horror that was the Holocaust? But with all the differences between the Holocaust and other genocides, there is a most compelling similarity, and conversely, still a great difference in scale and ferocity. Death from any source, for any reason sown by anyone is terminal, and suffering has no set proportions. During the Holocaust, Jews were uniquely alone in suffering, prejudice, hatred, pain and destruction. If saying this is trivialization of the Shoah, then something is drastically wrong with the conceptualization of Jewish suffering.
If there is a danger in comparing Kosovo with the Holocaust, it is because voices have already been heard, particularly from new Israeli scholars, which have indicated that there was a plan when Israel was created to force out the Palestinian Arabs. Edward Said, former member of the Palestine National Council who recently spoke at the University of Minnesota, likened this to ethnic cleansing and indicated that in the near future, Palestinians will have the right to ask for reparations from Israel, just as Jews have the right to reparations from Germany and Switzerland.
But the issue at hand is the Holocaust and how it will be remembered. If a right-wing political correctness descends on scholarship, as Schoenfeld would like, one might as well forget Yom HaShoah and teaching about the Holocaust, for nobody would dare step into this new fire.
Stephen C. Feinstein, Director
University of Wisconsin-RiverFalls
* This article was written April 6, 1999
Is Life Beautiful? Two Views
The following are two responses to the recent film "Life is Beautiful." Readers might want to send their own critical reaction to the movie.
1. Life Was Not Beautiful
In "Life is Beautiful" — a film nominated for all sorts of awards — buffoonery is rewarded over respect for the topic and appropriateness. In a way, the film is a form of Holocaust denial, for the viewer sees the most cold-blooded murderous event in recent history through the eyes of a clown who wishes to protect his four year-old son from the reality of the horror by pretending it is all a game or contest. In the course of doing so the reality of the concentration camp is blunted. Survivors of the camps note the incompatibilities: situations where the clown, Roberto Benigni, would have been shot on the spot. He turns on the camp loudspeaker and broadcasts on it. He prances like a fool while under the gun of an SS guard. The hero's compassion for his innocent son is touching; however, the son's hiding in the men's barracks undetected and then playing with sons of German officers is hard to swallow.
The earlier part of the film is pure Groucho Marx. It uses slapstick, falls from high places into laps of people and the outwitting and ridiculing of authority figures. There is absolutely no indication that the protagonist is Jewish, even in the most assimilated way. The second part of the film dealing mainly with the camp experiences comes as a shock and has very little connection with the first part which is mere slapstick. At best, it can be said that part one introduces the romance between the mother of the four-year old (Nicoletta Braschi) and Roberto.
"Life is Beautiful" has Miramax and Coris of Italy out-Hollywooding Hollywood in straining our credulity.
Philip Rosen, Director,
Goodwin Holocaust Museum
2. Life Was Indeed Beautiful! Death Was Not!
Art is not history and rarely pretends to be. To be slavishly true to external facts is not the function of art. Depending on the medium, the artist occasionally uses fragments of the past as a springboard for an artistic representation. But this loyalty is to what lies beyond/beneath. So it is with Nazi criminality in general and the Holocaust in particular. In the case of this multi-layered film, no attempt is claimed to being a documentary. On the contrary.
Humor in the form of satire, irony, even buffoonery and slapstick, are put into service of what is essentially a fable. It is an opportunity to narrate a fantasy, of a father's love for his son, by the son, in circumstances of horror that are only hinted at. The overall result is a hymn of praise to the triumph of life over death, of civilization over barbarism. The father dies to protect his son. The former perishes; the latter survives to tell the story.
Structurally the film divides into two segments: the years before incarceration and the period of forced labor in a Nazi concentration camp (not extermination center!) The hero – the father – though obliquely identified as Jewish in part one, is deported in part two with non-Jews. There are no Stars of David visible. The transition from boisterous freedom to inhuman incarceration is seamless: at first one is led to the laughter of the Opera Buffa type, and then, halfway through, one is abruptly reduced to the tears of the Harlequin. This is an Italian film through and through.
There are brilliant scenes equaling if not surpassing those of Charlie Chaplin at his best. The greatest is Roberto Benigni's lampooning speech to Italian grade school children on the superiority of the Italian race. A second scene has him "translating" in labor camp a German announcement into Italian of the camp's regulations without his knowing German. The film is a classic, demonstrating the effectiveness of humor as a means of coming to grips with human cruelty. We laugh because crying is insufficient. Recognition of the absurd allows one to confront the perversion of values practiced during the Holocaust years. Benigni has spared us sentimentality and pathos. Instead he gives the cleansing effect of catharsis via the bitter-sweet of reality by eliciting simultaneously spontaneous laughter and weeping.
He ends the film — the fable — through the eyes of a child. Benigni closes on a firm note of hope, unlike his more tragic compatriot and survivor, Primo Levi, who searched for hope upon exiting Auschwitz, but, ten years ago, gave up in suicidal despair. Is this a generational factor? Perhaps. The Holocaust continues to recede from memory to history. Benigni enters it from outside; prying open the door to the Kingdom of Darkness with his own key — humor, humor applied with impeccable taste and with exquisite sensitivity. He succeeds where so many have failed — he touches us.
Henry R. Huttenbach
Assimilation and the Futility of Escaping Otherness
Hannah Arendt, no stranger to controversy, fashioned a little-known and relatively unexplored argument against assimilation. In brief, Arendt argues that in order to fully enter into the mainstream one must, eventually and unavoidably, also embrace the vices of the majority, including their hatreds of minorities. Thus, a Jew converting to Christianity and/or adopting the culture of the dominant society, will, in time, develop an antipathy for Jews and a deep sense of self-hatred. By extension, of course, this process could apply, more or less to other examples of those exiting from one group and associating with another. In brief, the formula suggests that assimilation cannot be piecemeal — acquiring only the good traits and rejecting the more unpalatable such as intolerance. This is true whether the host majority encourages full integration or erects a variety of political, social, and economic barriers.
Hannah Arendt's theoretical starting point was the standard Zionist critique of the futility of seeking refuge in the mainstream by electing out of one's minority status. Basing their claim on a thousand years of Jewish experience in Christendom, Zionists pointed to the ineffectiveness of conversion. Converts and their descendants were always stigmatized from the collective accusation of being Marranos and permanent suspicion of being Nuevas Christianos down to the individual attempts to obtain respectability such as the fathers of Karl Marx, Disraeli and Gustav Mahler. No matter how absorbed into the politically correct culture, the outsider, the argument runs, remains an outsider, an intruder.
Hannah Arendt applied her critique to the life of Rachel Varnhagen whose biography she penned in her early years as a Ph.D. student. As her study of Varnhagen sharpened, Arendt began to use her own life experience as a sounding board of Varnhagen's complex life. Thoroughly at home in the German Kulturaum of Weimar Germany, Arendt had to contend with the shock of "disbarment" following the Nazi seizure of power. Overnight, she was again a full-fledged Jew, forced to assess her Germanness and to reconnect with her Jewishness. Slowly she broadened her critique of assimilation, departing somewhat from the standard Zionist analysis. Just as Varnhagen sought vainly to marry into Deutschtum, Arendt had to grapple with a forced divorce from all she loved and admired about the German brand of Europeanism. Varnhagen ended bitterly disappointed, realizing she had never won over the hearts of those she chose to join, increasingly bitter about her Jewish origins. In contrast, Arendt managed to recontextualize her a either insincere and/or untenable given its mutually exclusive ingredients.
In the end , Arendt's Germanness did not save her from Nazism any more than conversion helped Varnhagen win the unqualified blessing of those in her Christian social circles.
What has this to do with genocide? Very much. Safety lies not in wrenchingly uprooting and regrafting oneself elsewhere in the hopes that in a crisis one will be overlooked or invisible. Instead one must work towards the principles and ideals of pluralistic tolerance, an arduous task, but the only true guarantee for group survival. Prejudices against the other are not expunged by joining the ranks of the prejudiced, not to mention the accruing personal discontent, bitterness and ultimate victimization on the part of the one who crosses over with the false hope of finding permanent asylum.
(The following readings are recommended: Hannah Arendt Rachel Varnhagen: The Life of a Jewess Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998; and Aharon Appelfeld The Conversion, New York: Schocken Books, 1998.)
Henry R Huttenbach
About The Genocide Forum
The Forum is a publication of the Center for the Study of Ethnonationalism located on the campus of the City College of New York. The founder and editor of The Genocide Forum is Professor Henry R. Huttenbach.
The Genocide Forum, which appears bi-monthly, is intended to serve as a convenient vehicle of exchange to discuss critical issues of common interest to students of Holocaust and Genocide Studies. The Forum is designed to accommodate experts in the field to share their concerns via concise (1,500 words) analytic essays.
Contributors are invited to submit their essay on a 3.5" disk (Macintosh/MicroSoft Word) with one double-spaced print-out to Professor Henry R. Huttenbach, History Department, The City College of New York, Convent Avenue at 138th St., New York, NY 10031. Tel: (212) 650-7384; Fax (718) 624-0450.
Back Issues of The Genocide Forum are available on request as long as supplies last. Complete sets of back issues are available on 3.5" diskette (Macintosh/Microsoft) for $25.
Quotations may be made as long as proper credit is given. Duplication of long passages or entire articles require the written permission of the editor.
The Genocide Forum is made possible through the partial support of the Division of Humanities of the City College of New York.
Nota Bene: Views expressed by authors are not necessarily those of the editor.
Henry R. Huttenbach
c/o History Department
City College of New York
Convent Ave. at 138th Street
New York, NY 10031
A Publication of The Center for The Study of Ethnonationalism
The City College of The City University of New York