re you repulsed at the mention of “genocide?” If so, you are not alone. This powerful word is an immediate reminder of some of the most tragic eras of history. Here at Columbia, many activists on campus have labeled the conflict in Darfur as “genocide,” echoing the claims both of numerous global activists groups and of President Bush.

Although widely accepted here, using the word genocide to describe the Darfur conflict is a dangerous malapropism. While the intentions may be commendable, the word actually has harmful effects on the very people who need our help. In fact, activists’ demands for change in Darfur will become more forceful if they divorce the conflict from the word genocide.

Jewish groups, for whom this word holds considerable significance, constitute a substantial fraction of those protesting the “genocide” in Darfur. My own Jewish upbringing meant that as a child I was constantly reminded of the horror and suffering that genocide caused. Appalled at the very thought that the mass murder of any group could happen again, many Jewish activist groups have joined the Save Darfur Coalition.

Yet many other groups, including the UN, have persistently separated genocide from the Darfur conflict, sparking an ongoing debate over officially labeling Darfur as genocide.

Without undercutting the need to deal with these atrocities, the UN determined that “the crucial element of genocidal intent appears to be missing… The policy of attacking, killing and forcibly displacing members of some tribes does not evince a specific intent to annihilate, in whole or in part, a group distinguished on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds.” Instead, the main purpose of the “organized attacks on villages” was “counter-insurgency warfare.” The report concluded that genocidal intent was present only on an individual scale and would be dealt with “on a case by case basis.”

The key word in the UN definition for genocide is “group.” Claims of genocide imply the presence of one cohesive group being actively destroyed by another, and such claims are employed in the Darfur case because the popular understanding is one that simplifies the situation.

Columbia professor, Mahmood Mamdani reminds us that this conflict is significantly more complicated than one group against another. He emphasizes that “all parties involved in the Darfur conflict—whether they are referred to as ‘Arab’ or as ‘African’—are equally indigenous and equally black. All are Muslims and all are local.” The conflict is closer to rebellion, insurgency, and even civil war. Mamdani argues that differences in political identity, and differing relations to structures of political power are the true causes. It is a conflict between one side of groups forming political ties with the Sudanese government beneath an Arab/Muslim banner, and groups resistant to these political Arabs.

The Darfur conflict does not represent terror brought against civilians of one ethnicity by the Sudanese government and their proxy militia group, the Janjawiid. Rather, it is a tense mingling of multiple pro-government militias and insurgency groups. As a result of these conflicts and an attempt to quell the insurgency, we have witnessed the killings of countless civilians.

“Genocide,” then, is a simplifying term. Our warped picture of Darfur as a vast primitive war zone is perpetuated by the use of the word genocide. The people there are more than faces; they have homes and a historical context. Calling Darfur a site of genocide masks the deeply complex political history and culture history of the people living there, creating the illusion of a pre-modern, isolated, and one-sided group murder happening in a place without history.

Does this conflict have to be labeled as genocide to help people? Realizing the full ramifications this word presents an opportunity for us to become better activists. Instead of blanketing the conflict in such a general term, we can emphasize a comprehensive understanding of the people and conflict in Darfur. Let’s learn their history and their politics; let’s arm ourselves with knowledge so that we can describe to our politicians exactly why the conflict in Darfur is unacceptable. Activist groups may begin to see change when demands and protests are not based upon the oversimplifying genocide label, but instead portray an accurate understanding of the issues. With the appropriate knowledge, we can be much more involved, and our efforts can be applied to the most pertinent areas, so as to ensure the end of these tragic violations upon human rights.