Explore the vast range of titles available.

Genocide studies is a relatively new field of comparative inquiry, but recent years have seen an increasing range of themes and subject-matter being addressed that reflect a variety of features of the field and transformations within it. This edited book brings together established scholars with rising stars and seeks to capture the range of new approaches, theories, and case studies in the field. The book is divided into three broad sections: Section I focuses on broad theories of comparative genocide, covering a number of different perspectives. Section II critically reconsiders core themes of genocide studies and unfolds a range of challenging new directions, including cultural genocide, gender and genocide (as it pertains to both women and men), structural violence, and the novel application of remote-sensing technologies to the detection and study of genocide. Section III is case-study focused, seeking to place both canonical and little-known cases of genocide in broader comparative perspective. Cases analyzed include genocide in North America, the Nazi Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and the Sri Lankan genocide. The combination of cutting-edge scholarship and innovative approaches to familiar subjects makes this essential reading for all students and scholars in the field of genocide studies.

American Indians (AIs) have some of the poorest documented health outcomes of any racial/ethnic group. Research plays a vital role in addressing these health disparities. Historical and recent instances of unethical research, specifically the Havasupai diabetes project, have generated mistrust in AI communities. To address the concerns about unethical research held by some AIs in the Heartland (Midwest), the Center for American Indian Community Health (CAICH) has launched a series of efforts to inform AIs about research participants’ rights. CAICH educates health researchers about the importance of learning and respecting a community’s history, culture, values, and wishes when engaging in research with that community. Through community-based participatory research, CAICH is also empowering AIs to assert their rights as research participants.

This article, in commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the Doctors’ Trial at Nuremberg, reflects on the Nazi eugenics and “euthanasia” programs and their relevance for today. The Nazi doctors used eugenic ideals to justify sterilizations, child and adult “euthanasia,” and, ultimately, genocide. Contemporary euthanasia has experienced a progression from voluntary to nonvoluntary and from passive to active killing. Modern eugenics has included both positive and negative selective activities. The 70th anniversary of the Doctors’ Trial at Nuremberg provides an important opportunity to reflect on the implications of the Nazi eugenics and “euthanasia” programs for contemporary health law, bioethics, and human rights. In this article, we will examine the role that health practitioners played in the promotion and implementation of State-sponsored eugenics and “euthanasia” in Nazi Germany, followed by an exploration of contemporary parallels and debates in modern bioethics. 1

Background The community-based social healing (CBSH) model, developed by Ubuntu Centre for Peace, aims to support individuals with traumatic experiences and mental health challenges in achieving better mental health. CBSH combines BREATH-BODY-MIND™ (BBM) practices with collective narrative and rituals, facilitated by Community Healing Assistants in therapeutic groups. A previous pilot study involving 1889 Rwandan CBSH participants showed significant mental health improvements, including reductions in depression, anxiety, and PTSD, along with enhanced work productivity, and decreased intimate partner violence. The trial investigates the CBSH model’s impact on Ubuntu and mental health. Ubuntu, a concept that encompasses humanness, compassion, and interconnectedness, is deeply rooted in the African philosophy. Methods/design This cluster randomized controlled trial will involve 54 villages randomly selected in the Kirehe district, with 1080 participants randomly allocated equally to the CBSH intervention or a wait-list control group. While the trial will be conducted at the village (cluster) level, both primary and secondary outcomes will be measured individually for participants within each cluster. The Primary outcome “Ubuntu” will be measured using a context-adapted Ubuntu measurement scale. Secondary outcomes include psychosocial indicators which will be assessed through standardized tools such as the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing scale (WEMWS), Connor-Davidson Resilience scale (CD-RISK-10), Somatic Symptom Severity Scale (PHQ-15), Revised Conflict Tactics scale (CTS2S), and Adapted Social Capital Assessment Tool (SASCAT). Conclusion This trial aims to evaluate the CBSH model’s impacts on Ubuntu, mental health, and social functioning among trauma-affected Rwandans, including those impacted by the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, mass killings, sexual abuse, and domestic violence. The findings could be of value to the Ubuntu Centre for Peace, policymakers, healthcare practitioners, and other stakeholders, by highlighting the significance of promoting Ubuntu as a foundation for addressing mental health challenges and the consequences of psychosocial trauma. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN17659369. Registered on February 09, 2024.

Background The 1994 genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda resulted in the tragic loss of over one million lives and severely damaged social fabric of the country. The long-term effects of this massacre are most apparent in the persistent psychosocial challenges affecting multiple generations. In response, Prison Fellowship Rwanda introduced the Action-Based Reconciliation Model (ABRM), which has shown a noticeable impact on reconciliation and psychosocial healing. However, this model has not been extensively investigated. Thus, this study explored the prominence of ABRM in fostering psychosocial recovery and practical reconciliation in Rwanda. Methods This research employed qualitative research design to explore the impact of ABRM on psychosocial healing and reconciliation among genocide survivors and perpetrators living in reconciliation villages and neighbouring communities. Data collection involved 12 focus group discussions, with six groups from reconciliation villages and six from surrounding communities. Discussions were structured to capture experiences, perceptions and interactions of participants. All discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analyses. Results Genocide survivors reported experiencing depression, hopelessness, resentment, and trauma before moving to reconciliation villages, while the families of perpetrators dealt with fear, shame, guilt, and self-stigma. Both groups indicated that living in reconciliation villages fostered a sense of re-humanization. This shared journey toward healing involved forgiveness and repentance, leading to practical reconciliation, trust, and improved social cohesion. The environment within the villages facilitated collaboration, the restoration of friendships, and positive coexistence. However, communities outside the reconciliation villages reported ongoing wounds among survivors and former prisoners, which impeded social cohesion and trust, particularly in comparison to those within reconciliation villages. Conclusion While ABRM has noticeably facilitated reconciliation and psychosocial healing, obstacles remain extant such as reluctance of ex-prisoners to openly share their experiences, and persistent psychological distresses linked to limited livelihood resources. Policymakers should continue to support these initiatives and promote international collaboration with organizations and peace-building agencies to exchange knowledge and resources, ensuring the successful implementation of reconciliation actions.

One cannot understand or remember the genocides of the past in any direct manner. Their inaccessibility impedes us from working toward complex understandings of these events and adequate ways of responding to them. In this paper, we bring together various strands of criminological thought by examining genocide films as a form of public criminology that is engaged in the work of memory and commemoration. We identify a specific set of genocide films that, we argue, not only constitute a key (if hitherto unrecognized) branch of visual and public criminology, but also create and transmit collective memories of the 'crime of crimes', provoking public understandings of atrocity and meaningful social and political responses. These films direct us toward representational strategies and interdisciplinary perspectives that advance our theoretical and empirical understanding of genocide. Attention to such efforts not only underscores the work of images in shaping criminological discourse, but also makes for a better—because more deeply informed—criminology of genocide.