Which Genocide Matters the Most? An Intersectionality Analysis of the Canadian Museum of Human Rights

Abstract

Abstract. The Canadian Museum of Human Rights, scheduled to open in 2014, is envisioned as a place to learn about the struggle for human rights in Canada and internationally. Yet the museum has faced controversy because of the centrality of the Holocaust in the overall human rights story, prompting other groups whose nations and populations have experienced genocide to make demands that the museum provide equal treatment of other national and international atrocities. Through a feminist intersectionality lens, we examine this “Oppression Olympics,” whereby groups compete for the mantle of the most oppressed, as a case study of the problem with hierarchies of difference. Drawing on intersectionality theory, we ultimately provide an alternative lens and policy direction to the apparent impasse between competing communities.Résumé. Le Musée canadien pour les droits de la personne, dont l'ouverture est prévue en 2014, est envisagé comme un lieu d'apprentissage sur la lutte pour les droits humains au Canada et dans le monde. Cependant, le Musée a suscité la controverse en raison de l'accent qu'il met sur l'Holocauste dans l'histoire générale des droits de la personne, et il a incité d'autres groupes dont les nations et les populations ont connu le génocide à demander un traitement équitable d'autres atrocités nationales et internationales. Sous l'angle de l'intersectionnalité féministe, nous examinons ces « Jeux olympiques de l'oppression », dans lesquels des groupes concourent pour le titre de plus opprimé, comme une étude de cas du problème des hiérarchies de la différence. En s'appuyant sur la théorie intersectionnelle, nous fournissons une optique et une orientation politique alternative pour aborder l'impasse apparente entre des communautés concurrentes.

The Future of Canadian Political Science: Boundary Transgressions, Gender and Anti-Oppression Frameworks

“…In their reflection of these four characteristics of an intersectional anti-oppression framework, this body of scholarship contextualizes oppression. Analysis commences from a point of recognition that systems of power including, but not limited to colonialism, heteropatriarchy, racism and capitalism do not exist in isolation (Dhamoon, 2009; Hankivsky and Dhamoon, 2013; Tungohan, 2016). Rather, these systems overlap, positioning individuals within a more complex system of power that challenge binary approaches to theorizing identity (e.g.…”

“…Additionally, this scholarship challenges the assumed apolitical nature of oppression, questioning the argument that identity-based systems of privilege occur naturally. Highlighting how systems of power and privilege are socially constructed to further a state's agenda, the literature addresses the consequences these systems present for marginalized populations, providing a “critique of the work and vehicles of power” (Hankivsky and Dhamoon, 2013: 901). By expanding our understanding of the “political,” analysis of oppression goes beyond formal legal and political institutions to include “informal” political realms.…”

“…Also in the 2000s, CJPS/RCSP featured articles that recognized overlapping experiences of marginalization, as seen in Green's research (2001, 2006) and Dick's (2006) on Aboriginal women, Abu-Laban and Couture's work on “multiple minorities” in the Alberta public school system (2010), Hankivsky's advocacy of diversity mainstreaming (2005) and Hankivsky and Dhamoon's discussion of intersectionality (2013). In contrast, since its inception, CPSR has featured diversity articles, with articles on the experiences of intersectionally disadvantaged groups such as the LGBTQ population (Everitt, 2015; Everitt and Camp, 2009) and immigrant and visible minority women (O'Neill et al, 2012); however, as with the aforementioned gender articles, most of these diversity articles focus on political behaviour.…”

Re-presenting Genocide: The Canadian Museum of Human Rights and Settler Colonial Power

“…The primacy assigned to the Holocaust has perhaps been the major catalyst of academic debate among genocide studies scholars ( for example, see Bloxham 2008;Hinton 2012;Huttenbach 1988;MacDonald 2003;Moses 2011;Stannard 1998) and, recent public critique against the CMHR (Hankivsky and Dhamoon 2013;Moses 2012). This is in part because the primacy assigned to one atrocity eclipses others and replicates the discourse of hidden genocides (Benvenuto, Woolford, and Hinton 2014;Hinton, La Pointe, and Irvin-Erickson 2013).…”

“…The second settler colonial technique at work in prioritizing the Holocaust was an Oppression Olympics , whereby community stakeholders defaulted to comparing atrocities in a way that reinforced a hierarchy of suffering. As Hankivsky and Dhamoon (2013) demonstrate, an Oppression Olympics emerged among CMHR community stakeholders, where Jewish, Ukrainian, and Armenian groups competed for the mantle of the most oppressed, and where the only possible outcome was a zero-sum game. While some groups (such as Chinese, Sikh, and Armenian organizations) were appeased by having their histories included in various exhibits, a public battle emerged about whether the Nazi genocide of Jews was the unique lens and template through which all other genocides and human rights violations should be understood.…”