The Introduction provides a theoretical and conceptual framework of the book by defining ecological disequilibrium and slow violence. It also provides a historiographical discussion on collective violence against Armenians in the late Ottoman Empire.

Chapter 3 examines Armenian deportees and locusts in the Jazira between 1908 and 1918. It places the Armenian genocide within the longer history of efforts to control the Jazira, as the district created for the settlement of nomads in 1871 transformed into the final destination for many of the empire’s Armenian citizens. The chapter exposes the complicated ways the violence affected and was affected by the environment. One German locust expert even suggested that the deportations of the genocide coupled with war mobilization to make the locust invasions worse because so much land was left fallow. But the environment also managed to help some escape, whether children who survived by working as shepherds for pastoralists or the Armenian who, while concealing his identity, worked as the locust-control officer of the Jazira. In a mark of the enduring challenge of the Jazira and its provincial division, Ottoman officials discussed how to draw better borders in the region throughout, from the lead-up to deportations in 1915 all the way to the end of the war in 1918.

This chapter offers reflections on how to create a sense of belonging for the stateless that keeps them in our purview as historical agents who can determine their actions and meaning. Whereas the legal definition of statelessness remains a key category, the chapter examines the experiential implications of statelessness, understanding these as a form of unbelonging. The rupture of displacement has cut the ties to community and place requiring that we look at the complex process by which refugee communities acquire cohesion through the repetition of their common story of displacement, as anthropologist Michel Agier has shown. Expanding the temporality of the stateless, this chapter seeks to link a deeper sense of history to a future trajectory where a form of belonging discovered through history can shape momentum for the resolution of statelessness in the future. Taking the works of poet Peter Balakian as its key example, the chapter focuses on the impact of the Armenian Genocide on future generations, and how the specifics of this history of mass violence and displacement can move us toward a recognition of the crisis in our contemporary moment.

Chapter 2’s analysis of fifteen textbooks published since 1993 for Israeli middle and high-school students demonstrates that an exclusive presentation of the Holocaust in the curriculum has relied on the explicit portrayal of the Holocaust as a uniquely Jewish tragedy with universal relevance to the entire Jewish nation and, therefore, pertinent to every Israeli-Jewish youth. Simultaneously, the overt minimization of other groups’ suffering as a result of Nazi genocidal policies is deemphasized through the conveyance of anachronistic historical information and the usage of numerical aggregation practices. The chapter’s identified Zionist metanarrative lays the foundations for further exclusionary manifestations, namely the minimization of Palestinians’ fate in the 1948 War. Textbooks that illustrate a teleological movement from the center(s) of Jewish destruction, “there” in the galut (Hebrew: exile), to revival “here” in Israel, advocate a post-Holocaust justification for the Zionist enterprise and, consequently, necessitate an untainted recovery from the preceding crisis. By differentiating between Zionist, Zionist-critical, and revisionist narratives of the war, the chapter’s secondary analysis illustrates that while new historiographical writings on the 1948 War have emerged, the beneficial and practical effects of the mass Palestinian exodus are stressed in textbooks. In line with this narrative, a systematic policy of expulsion is firmly cast aside and, instead, overt reminders of traditional Zionist historiography formulating a miraculous rebirth remain.

The North American and Israeli scholars who founded Genocide Studies in the 1980s and 1990s also insisted on genocide’s Holocaust archetype. These scholars successfully resisted the “conceptual stretching” of genocide to include political criteria in its definition. Domestically, they advocated an apolitical “toleration” pedagogy as genocide’s antidote. The US victory in the Cold War in the early 1990s sidelined the lively critique of the US national security state and gave rise to a new age of interventions. Vietnam-induced doubts were left behind as “the indispensable nation” became the world’s hyper-power. Although the founders of Comparative Genocide Studies were liberals who opposed the Vietnam War, they eagerly adopted the role of academic handmaiden to US global aspirations: the field anointed the US as the benign force to police the non-West in the form of humanitarian interventions to prevent genocide, other “atrocity crimes,” and to wage “war on terror.”

This chapter explores the genocidal intersection between political history and ethnographic geography in European or near-European regions where the traditional continental empires met the emerging hegemony of Western nation-states. In particular it considers how and why the introduction of nationalism proved toxic in these multicultural ‘rimlands’, with Macedonia and Thrace as illustrative examples. Here the wartime shattering of empires (1912-1948) and their succession by fiercely nationalist competitors resulted in repeated spasms of extreme zero-sum violence whose key outcome was the ‘unmixing of peoples’ by mass deportation, and/or annihilation.