Answers to #1:
Raphael Lemkin's definition of genocide was not accepted until after the Holocaust.
Raphael Lemkin had been studying the problem of mass killings of a people group since the 1920s, in regard to Turkish slaughter of Armenians in 1915. He coined the term "genocide" in 1944, in reference then also to the Holocaust. The term uses Greek language roots and means "killing of a race" of people. Lemkin served as an advisor to Justice Robert Jackson, the lead prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials. "Crimes against humanity" was the charge used at the Nuremberg trials, since no international legal definition of "genocide" had yet been accepted. Ultimately, Lemkin was able to persuade the United Nations to accept the definition of genocide and codify it into international law. In December, 1948, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which made use of a number of Lemkin's ideas on the subject.
#2: For item #2, you didn't ask a question, so I won't attempt to guess at what question you might have in mind. The definition as you quote it comes from Article II of the UN's Genocide Convention. Article III also indicts intention and conspiracy to commit genocide as crimes against international law. Article IV of that same Convention then puts teeth into the UN's action, saying, "Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals."
Yes,
oligarchy fits as a description of South African government under the system of apartheid. In the
political philosophy of Aristotle, "
aristocracy" is "rule by the excellent ones," and in certain eras of history or in some societies, one group or another has been portrayed as more "excellent" and thus more favorable for serving as governors. In Aristotle's political thought, an
"oligarchy" or "rule by a few" is a corruption of the idea of aristocracy. But Aristotle was biased, believing that by nature some persons are more excellent than others, that some are more suited by nature to be followers, not leaders. (Aristotle used such logic in defending the institution of slavery, for instance.) Today,
we might argue that any sort of "aristocracy" or elitism is always an oligarchy, an arbitrary system in which a few dominate over the many because of factors that can't rationally be defended.For another answer on a similar question, read more on Brainly.com -
brainly.com/question/9475348#readmore
This is indeed the answer
The plantation system developed for several reasons. The Southern colonies had been founded by companies or proprietors who wished to make a profit, and they accordingly encouraged cash crops like tobacco (in the Chesapeake) and rice (in the Low Country). These crops were labor intensive, which meant that growers turned first to indentured servants and then to African slaves as a labor supply (so, too, did sugar planters in the Caribbean.) They also required a great deal of land and capital, which meant that due to an economic principle called "economies of scale," cash crops, especially rice, favored very wealthy people with large landholdings and access to large labor forces. So in the Southern colonies/United States, the economic realities of staple crop production favored the formation of large farms, or plantations. Cotton, which emerged as the biggest cash crop in the nineteenth-century South, was less shaped by economies of scale--many small planters and farmers could profitably raise the crop. But even still, the largest cotton planters in places like Alabama and Mississippi dominated the Southern economy and increasingly its politics. Large capital investments in land and enslaved people made the production of large amounts of cotton profitable, so the region's dependence on cash crops continued to foster the plantation system.
