The Shadow of the Holocaust: Deconstructing Eurocentrism and Unequal Valuation of Genocide

Understanding genocide and mass violence is paramount for preventing future atrocities. Comprehensive research on war and peace necessitates a nuanced understanding of these events, encompassing their complex origins, intricate political dynamics, and devastating societal impacts. However, a persistent Eurocentric bias within Western scholarship skews this analysis, prioritizing the Holocaust while marginalizing other significant genocides. This bias extends even within Europe, obscuring genocides in the case of Bosnia when victims’ identities deviate from the Western archetype. This article critically examines this epistemological imbalance, advocating for a more inclusive and equitable approach to the study and documentation of genocides. By acknowledging all genocides with equal analytical weight, regardless of location or victim identity, we can cultivate a more nuanced approach to these global catastrophes and develop more effective strategies for their prevention and resolution.

The Holocaust as a Paradigm: Uniqueness and its Perils

Eurocentrism, a worldview that centers European experiences and perspectives, pervades academic disciplines, including genocide studies. A key manifestation of this bias is the persistent emphasis on the Holocaust’s “uniqueness.” While the Holocaust’s scale and industrialized nature are undeniable, the claim that it is sui generis—unique in kind—often overshadows other genocides. Scholars like Avishai Margalit and Gabriel Motzkin have explored arguments for this exceptionalism, highlighting the unprecedented scale of industrialized killing and the targeted nature of the Nazi regime’s genocidal project.¹ However, centralizing on the Holocaust’s supposed singularity can lead to a dangerous form of exceptionalism, portraying it as an anomaly—a horrific event removed from broader historical patterns.²

Failed to render LaTeX expression — no expression found

This exceptionalism inadvertently obscures the core elements that define genocide: the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a specific group and the systematic use of violence to achieve that aim.³ These elements are not exclusive to the Holocaust; they are recurrent hallmarks of genocides throughout history. As Yehuda Bauer powerfully argues, the horror of the Holocaust lies not in its deviation from human behavior, but in its chilling conformity to them.⁴ By fixating on the Holocaust’s perceived uniqueness, we risk overlooking these shared characteristics, hindering comparative analysis and impeding a comprehensive understanding of the complex root causes and dynamics of genocide as a global phenomenon.

“Othering” and the Illusion of Western Immunity

The belief that genocide only affects "others" and that "civilized" Western societies are immune to such atrocities reveals a dangerous dehumanization in our understanding of mass violence. This "othering" dismisses perpetrators as merely savage, preventing us from understanding the complex social, political, and ideological factors that give rise to genocidal regimes. Attributing such violence to inherent barbarity strips perpetrators of their agency, overlooking the insidious processes of radicalization and dehumanization that can occur in any society. This illusion of Western immunity, rooted in moral exceptionalism, creates a false sense of security. It fosters the misguided belief that "we" are fundamentally different and incapable of such horrors, while "they" (non-Western societies) are inherently prone to them. By attributing genocidal violence to the inherent traits of non-Western cultures and geopolitical contexts, we normalize such violence and diminish the West's sense of urgency to respond, reinforcing a dangerous expectation of inevitability. This complacency not only marginalizes the suffering of non-Western victims, treating their experiences as less significant, but also blinds Western societies to the warning signs of genocidal potential within their own borders. The exceptional status often given to the Holocaust, particularly its portrayal as a uniquely Western aberration, reinforces this dangerous illusion of immunity. By distancing ourselves from the perpetrators of the Holocaust and viewing them as fundamentally distinct, we undermine the comprehensive understanding of the global phenomenon of genocide needed and hinder our abilities to prevent its recurrence.

Disparities in Recognition and Research

Western responses to genocide are marked by a stark Eurocentric bias. The Holocaust, with its European context and predominately Jewish victims, occupies a position of unparalleled prominence in Western consciousness. This focus, while undeniably vital, often overshadows other genocides, resulting in significant disparities in media coverage, academic research, and international recognition.

Rahman, Rafiqur. "Rohingya refugees gather in Kutupalong camp, marking the 2nd anniversary of Myanmar military’s occupation." Reuters.

News coverage of the Holocaust is demonstrably more frequent, in-depth, and emotionally resonant than other genocides. Studies have revealed a significant disparity in media attention, with genocides such as the case in Rohingya often framed as humanitarian crises rather than explicitly labeled as acts of genocide.⁵ This framing minimizes the severity of the atrocities, hindering public understanding and impeding appropriate international responses. For instance, while the Rohingya genocide, which escalated substantially in 2017, has been extensively documented by human rights organizations, Western media outlets frequently employed terminology like “refugee crisis” and “humanitarian disaster,” often refraining from using the term “genocide.”⁶ This reluctance to explicitly label the atrocity as such diminishes its severity and weakens demands for international intervention.

In contrast, the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia (1975-1979) received significantly less media attention. A study conducted by Sharon Wu revealed that even when the atrocities were reported, major American newspapers often avoided the term “genocide,” instead opting for phrases like “mass killings” or “political purges.” ⁷ This inconsistent and euphemistic terminology contributed to the underreporting and delayed international recognition of the Khmer Rouge genocide, obscuring the systematic nature of the violence and its devastating impact.

The language used in reporting genocide has a profound impact on public perception and policy responses, and ultimately, the pursuit of justice. When media outlets avoid the term “genocide,” opting for less precise or politically charged language, it minimizes the severity of the situation and can result in inadequate international responses. This disparity in language and recognition highlights the urgent need for more accurate, consistent, and ethically informed reporting. Otherwise, this unequal media attention creates a hierarchy of suffering where some genocides are deemed more worthy of attention and remembrance than others. Ensuring that all genocides receive the attention and recognition they deserve is crucial for fostering a global commitment to prevention and accountability.

The Role of Survivor Narratives and Collective Memory

Survivor narratives are essential for understanding the profound personal and collective impacts of genocide, offering poignant reminders of humanity's darkest capacities. These firsthand accounts provide invaluable insights into the lived experiences of those who endured these atrocities, playing a crucial role in shaping public understanding and cultivating collective memory. Yet, even in this realm of deeply personal testimony, a Eurocentric bias persists. While Holocaust survivor narratives have rightfully become a powerful force shaping public understanding of genocide, their prominence can inadvertently overshadow the experiences of survivors from other genocides. Although narratives from the Rohingya, Khmer Rouge, and other genocides are increasingly documented, they often struggle to achieve comparable visibility and influence, perpetuating a hierarchy of victimhood where some forms of suffering are deemed more worthy of attention and remembrance than others.

Holocaust survivor narratives, such as those of Elie Wiesel and Anne Frank, have been instrumental in shaping the collective memory of the Holocaust. These powerful accounts provide invaluable insights into the horrors of the Holocaust and have been widely disseminated through books, films, and educational programs. The widespread recognition of these narratives has ensured that the Holocaust remains a central focus in discussions of genocide. However, this focus can overshadow other genocides, leading to a disproportionate emphasis on the Holocaust in Western collective memory.

In contrast, survivor narratives from the Rohingya genocide have struggled to gain similar recognition. The accounts of Rohingya survivors, who have faced mass killings, sexual violence, and displacement, often remain marginalized in Western media and academic discourse. A report by Human Rights Watch highlighted the harrowing testimonies of Rohingya survivors, yet these narratives have not received the same level of visibility as Holocaust survivor accounts.⁸ This disparity not only hinders public understanding of the Rohingya genocide but also perpetuates a hierarchy of suffering where the experiences of non-Western victims are deemed less worthy of attention.

Similarly, narratives from the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 1.7 million people under Pol Pot's leadership, have been underrepresented in Western discourse. Survivor accounts, such as those documented by Dith Pran, have provided crucial insights into the brutality of the Khmer Rouge regime. However, these narratives have not achieved the same level of prominence as Holocaust survivor stories. The underrepresentation of Khmer Rouge survivor narratives in Western media and academic research reflects a broader Eurocentric bias that prioritizes Western experiences over those from other regions.⁹

Western collective memory, shaped by these biases, tends to prioritize narratives that align with Western experiences and values. The Holocaust narrative, with its clear delineation of Western perpetrators and European victims, fits neatly into this framework. This can create a sense of moral distance, reinforcing the idea that such atrocities are aberrations from Western norms, while obscuring the potential for similar violence within Western societies themselves. By contrast, the marginalization of survivor narratives from the Armenian, Rohingya, and Khmer Rouge genocides perpetuates a skewed understanding of global atrocities, where non-Western experiences of suffering are underrepresented, undervalued, and ultimately, less remembered.

Geopolitics and the Selective Lens of Recognition

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has elucidated the correlation between Western geopolitical interests and selective humanitarian interventions. This correlation posits that Western nations often recognize and intervene in genocides based on strategic interests rather than purely humanitarian concerns.¹⁰

The Rohingya crisis in Myanmar exemplifies how geopolitical considerations shape the recognition and response to genocides. Myanmar's strategic location and burgeoning economic ties with global powers, such as China, have made Western nations reticent to intervene. Acknowledging the crisis as a genocide would necessitate stronger diplomatic and potentially military responses, which could disrupt these geopolitical and economic relationships.¹¹ Additionally, the absence of vital strategic interests in the region for Western powers diminishes the impetus for a robust response. Consequently, the Rohingya crisis has encountered significant obstacles in gaining international recognition and intervention.

Harvey, David Allen. "An exhumed mass grave in Cambodia where many were executed." National Geographic Creative.

Similarly, the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia (1975-1979) was influenced by the geopolitical landscape of the Cold War. The United States, recovering from the Vietnam War, was wary of further involvement in Southeast Asia. Moreover, the complex alliances within the region, including China's support for the Khmer Rouge, meant that strong condemnation or intervention could have strained relations with key allies. As a result, the mass killings and atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge were often downplayed or referred to in less politically charged terms. This selective recognition allowed Western nations to avoid the complications of direct intervention and maintain the delicate balance of Cold War geopolitics.¹²

In contrast, the Holocaust, while a historical tragedy of immense magnitude, served certain geopolitical functions beneficial to Western interests. The extensive documentation and recognition of the Holocaust reinforced a narrative of Western civilization as fundamentally moral, contrasting it with the barbarity of Nazism.¹³ This narrative was used to legitimize Western leadership in the post-World War II era and to bolster alliances, particularly in the context of the Cold War. By emphasizing the Holocaust, Western nations could assert their commitment to human rights and justice, aligning themselves against totalitarian regimes. The moral imperative to remember the Holocaust also strengthened ties with Israel, a key strategic ally in the Middle East.¹⁴

The impact of geopolitical interests on the recognition and response to genocides highlights the selective lens through which the West views global atrocities. Western nations may choose to underreport or avoid intervention in crises that do not align with their strategic interests, using less politically charged terminology to minimize perceived urgency. This selective recognition not only marginalizes the experiences of non-Western victims but also perpetuates a skewed understanding of global atrocities.

AP Photo. "A man prays among gravestones at the memorial centre of Potocari near Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina."

The Bosnian Genocide: A European Counterexample

The Bosnian Genocide, targeting Bosniak Muslims in the 1990s, serves as a crucial counterexample to the notion that Eurocentrism is solely centered on geography. Despite occurring in Europe, this genocide remains comparatively under-acknowledged in Western discourse, demonstrating that Eurocentrism is inextricably linked to victim identity, religious bias, and complex geopolitical calculations. The hesitant acknowledgment of the Bosnian Genocide, coupled with the persistent framing of the conflict as a "civil war," reflects a reluctance to confront the uncomfortable truth of genocide occurring within “civilized” Europe itself and a potential bias against Muslim victims. As scholars like Girma Berhanu have argued, ethnic and religious biases play a significant role in determining which genocides are recognized and which are marginalized.¹⁵

The Bosnian case underscores that even within the geographical and cultural sphere of the “West,” selective attention and marginalization can occur when the victims do not conform to a specific ideal. The international community's slow and inadequate response to the Bosnian Genocide reflects a lack of political will and failure to fully grasp the genocide's nature. Western nations, wary of becoming entangled in the complex and politically charged conflicts of the Balkans, were significantly influenced by geopolitical considerations. As James Ron notes in his analysis, the international community’s response was shaped by a mix of factors, including a lack of understanding, a reluctance to commit resources, and a fear of political fallout.¹⁶ The Bosnian Genocide, therefore, serves as a chilling reminder of this selective recognition and highlights that even geographical proximity to the West does not guarantee international attention and intervention if the victims' identities and experiences do not align with Western interests and narratives.

Moving Towards Inclusive Genocide Recognition

The selective lens through which the West understands and responds to genocide reveals a persistent and deeply troubling Eurocentrism. This article has explored how this bias, evident in scholarship, media coverage, and international responses, prioritizes the Holocaust while marginalizing other genocides, particularly those occurring outside of Europe or targeting non-European populations. From the exceptionalization of the Holocaust as a unique event to the "othering" of perpetrators and the illusion of Western immunity, Eurocentrism distorts our understanding of the complex factors that contribute to genocide.

Moving forward, a comprehensive and ethical approach to genocide studies demands deconstructing these Eurocentric biases. This requires challenging the notion of the Holocaust's absolute uniqueness, amplifying the voices and experiences of survivors from all genocides, and critically examining the role of power and politics in shaping our understanding of these crimes. To address these issues, Western scholars and journalists must leverage their status and influence to foster a more inclusive approach to documenting genocides. By recognizing all genocides with equal fervor, they can honor victims, ensure international recognition, and foster a comprehensive understanding of global atrocities.

Ultimately, this effort is essential for developing more effective strategies for preventing and resolving conflicts, contributing to a more just and accurate historical record. Through this commitment, the academic and journalistic communities can play a crucial role in promoting justice and fostering a deeper appreciation of the complexities of human history. Only then can we hope to create a world where "never again" truly means never again for anyone.

Bibliography

Alexander, Jeffrey C. Remembering the Holocaust: A Debate. Oxford University Press, 2009.

Bauer, Yehuda. The Holocaust in Historical Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1978.

Berhanu, Girma. "Ethnic and Religious Bias in Genocide Recognition." 2009.

Deth, Sok Udom. "The Geopolitics of Cambodia During the Cold War Period." Ohio University, 2009. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/72ff023a-9658-491b-a41a-fba74b08eeb8/content.

Friedländer, Saul. "Reflections on the Historicization of National Socialism." In Probing the Limits of Representation: Nazism and the “Final Solution”, edited by Saul Friedländer, 1-17. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.

Human Rights Watch. "Harrowing Testimonies: The Plight of the Rohingya." 2018.

International Center for Journalists. "Media Coverage of the Rohingya Crisis." 2018.

International Center for Journalists. "Rohingya Crisis Coverage." 2018.

King, Charles. "The Political Science of the Holocaust." World Politics 59, no. 3 (April 2007): 469-498. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2007.0007.

Margalit, Avishai, and Gabriel Motzkin. "The Uniqueness of the Holocaust." Philosophy and Public Affairs 25, no. 1 (1996): 65-83.

Pran, Dith. Surviving the Killing Fields: Cambodian Genocide Narratives. 1997.

Public International Law & Policy Group. "Documenting Atrocity Crimes Committed Against the Rohingya in Myanmar's Rakhine State." Accessed March 2, 2018. https://www.publicinternationallawandpolicygroup.org/rohingya-report.

Ron, James. "Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia: A Case Study of the Srebrenica Massacre." Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2010.

Sen, Amartya. The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press, 2009.

Sharon Wu. "Press Coverage of the Khmer Rouge Genocide: A Study of American Newspapers." 1985.

United Nations. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 1948.

---

^[1] Margalit, Avishai, and Gabriel Motzkin. "The Uniqueness of the Holocaust." Philosophy and Public Affairs 25, no. 1, (1996): 65-83.

^[2] Friedländer, Saul. "Reflections on the Historicization of National Socialism." In Probing the Limits of Representation: Nazism and the “Final Solution”, edited by Saul Friedländer, 1-17. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.

^[3] United Nations. “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” 1948.

^[4] Bauer, Yehuda. The Holocaust in Historical Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1978.

^[5] International Center for Journalists. "Media Coverage of the Rohingya Crisis." 2018.

^[6] International Center for Journalists. "Rohingya Crisis Coverage." 2018.

^[7] Sharon Wu. "Press Coverage of the Khmer Rouge Genocide: A Study of American Newspapers." 1985.

^[8] Human Rights Watch. "Harrowing Testimonies: The Plight of the Rohingya." 2018.

^[9] Dith Pran. "Surviving the Killing Fields: Cambodian Genocide Narratives." 1997.

^[10] Sen, Amartya. The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press, 2009

^[11] Public International Law & Policy Group. "Documenting Atrocity Crimes Committed Against the Rohingya in Myanmar's Rakhine State." Accessed March 2, 2018. https://www.publicinternationallawandpolicygroup.org/rohingya-report.

^[12] Sok Udom Deth. "The Geopolitics of Cambodia During the Cold War Period." Ohio University, 2009. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/72ff023a-9658-491b-a41a-fba74b08eeb8/content.

^[13] Alexander, Jeffrey C. "Remembering the Holocaust: A Debate." Oxford University Press, 2009.

^[14] King, Charles. "The Political Science of the Holocaust." World Politics, Vol. 59, No. 3 (April 2007): 469-498. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2007.0007.

^[15] Girma Berhanu. "Ethnic and Religious Bias in Genocide Recognition." 2009.

^[16] Ron, James. "Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia: A Case Study of the Srebrenica Massacre." Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2010.

1. Margalit, Avishai, and Gabriel Motzkin. "The Uniqueness of the Holocaust." Philosophy and Public Affairs 25, no. 1, (1996): 65-83

2. Friedländer, Saul. "Reflections on the Historicization of National Socialism." In Probing the Limits of Representation: Nazism and the “Final Solution”, edited by Saul Friedländer, 1-17. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.

3. United Nations. “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” 1948.

4. Bauer, Yehuda. The Holocaust in Historical Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1978.

5. International Center for Journalists. "Media Coverage of the Rohingya Crisis." 2018.

6. International Center for Journalists. "Rohingya Crisis Coverage." 2018.

7. Sharon Wu. "Press Coverage of the Khmer Rouge Genocide: A Study of American Newspapers." 1985.

8. Human Rights Watch. "Harrowing Testimonies: The Plight of the Rohingya." 2018.

9. Dith Pran. "Surviving the Killing Fields: Cambodian Genocide Narratives." 1997.

10. Sen, Amartya. The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press, 2009

11. Public International Law & Policy Group. "Documenting Atrocity Crimes Committed Against the Rohingya in Myanmar's Rakhine State." Accessed March 2, 2018. https://www.publicinternationallawandpolicygroup.org/rohingya-report.

12. Sok Udom Deth. "The Geopolitics of Cambodia During the Cold War Period." Ohio University, 2009. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/72ff023a-9658-491b-a41a-fba74b08eeb8/content.

13. Alexander, Jeffrey C. "Remembering the Holocaust: A Debate." Oxford University Press, 2009.

14. King, Charles. "The Political Science of the Holocaust." World Politics, Vol. 59, No. 3 (April 2007): 469-498. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2007.0007.

15. Girma Berhanu. "Ethnic and Religious Bias in Genocide Recognition." 2009.

16. Ron, James. "Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia: A Case Study of the Srebrenica Massacre." Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2010.