Push for Terminology Change: Ethnic Cleansing
Image Source: Pexels
Definition
According to the UN, “ethnic cleansing” can be defined as:
“Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.”
“A purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”
The Problem
There are two main objections to the use of “ethnic cleansing”: (1) it’s a problematic euphemism, and (2) it’s a legally ambiguous term. As people rightly point out, the word “cleansing” implies that the population being driven out is “dirty” or “impure,” so the description of their expulsion in say, the news, doesn’t spark the outrage or disgust it could. Some even say that using the term “cleansing” implies that the act is justified and whitewashes these appalling acts rather than reflecting the violence and suffering the expulsion causes. As one person puts it, “It suggests that a segment of a population should be considered dirty, and consequently swept away. It makes me shudder.”
The other problem with “ethnic cleansing” is that, unlike genocide and “crimes against humanity,” it has no legal meaning under international law, and therefore requires no legal action. In fact, many insist that “genocide” be used instead of “ethnic cleansing.” Sahar Khan stated, “The label of ethnic cleansing, therefore, seems like a call for action but in reality is less politically charged, and is more like a ‘feel good’ option for the international community.” Labeling something as genocide could also take years, decades even, of debate, as we saw with the Armenian genocide. Though, the use of the term “genocide” doesn’t guarantee intervention.
According to Blum, Stanton, and Richter, “the number of times the terms were cited (separately and together) roughly indicated the level of interest, but that the ratio between the terms—‘genocide’ and ‘ethnic cleansing’—measures the will for emergency response.” They noted that the UN and human rights organizations began to use ‘ethnic cleansing’ more frequently, and hypothesized that the UN possibly had the “intent—with the possible acquiescence of human rights groups—to stymie public awareness of genocide.”
Possible Alternatives
In this case, “ethnic cleansing” is a well-established term, and the opposition has only gained some traction: the term is still frequently used in the news and research literature. However, there are alternatives for those who wish to shift to a different term:
Ethnocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic group’s culture. Personally, I would use this term in the more violent cases, as “-cide” is the suffix meaning “killing.” And unfortunately, violence is used in most cases.
Ethnic expulsions: this is a more specific, neutral term that accurately describes the action we’ve been discussing. In most cases, ethnic groups are not “being displaced”: there is one group forcing another to leave, and “expulsion” indicates that agency.
As translators (and interpreters), we are sometimes bound by guidelines or client requirements to use certain terms, that’s just a fact of our profession. Yet we also have the power to change the way we discuss an issue in our target language. We can advise or suggest, or even insist, our clients use terms that better reflect the feelings, representation, or cause involved. This blog series isn’t necessarily meant to disparage the usage of a certain term; it’s meant to present terms that (many) people find problematic and some potential alternatives.
Resources
Ethnic Cleansing vs. Genocide: The Politics Behind Labeling the Rohingya Crisis
Blum R, Stanton GH, Sagi S, Richter ED. 'Ethnic cleansing' bleaches the atrocities of genocide. Eur J Public Health. 2008 Apr;18(2):204-9. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckm011. Epub 2007 May 18. PMID: 17513346.