Journalists, educators, public institutions, and civil society organisations should approach the Circassian genocide with careful terminology and historical context. The subject is politically sensitive, but sensitivity should not lead to avoidance or vague language.
Use precise terminology
Avoid using “migration” as the main term for nineteenth-century Circassian displacement. The movement took place under conditions of Russian conquest, coercion, destruction, and mass death. Depending on context, use:
- forced displacement;
- expulsion;
- deportation;
- exile;
- genocide;
- refugee crisis;
- diaspora formation.
Avoid reducing the issue to numbers
Casualty and deportation estimates vary across sources. Numbers matter, but the Circassian genocide should not be reduced to numerical debate. The historical issue also concerns the destruction of political life, removal from homeland, demographic replacement, cultural survival, and memory.
Do not treat Circassian memory as extremism
Circassian commemoration of 21 May, use of historical toponyms, advocacy for recognition, and discussion of genocide are legitimate forms of historical memory and public claim-making. They should not be automatically framed as radicalism, separatism, or destabilisation.
Distinguish between history and current political use
The fact that recognition debates have contemporary political relevance does not make the history artificial. All genocide recognition is political in the sense that it changes public memory. The question is whether recognition rests on serious historical evidence and responsible interpretation.
Include Circassian voices
Public discussion should include Circassian scholars, community representatives, diaspora organisations, cultural institutions, and researchers working on the topic. Writing about Circassians without Circassian voices risks reproducing older patterns in which the region is described mainly through external imperial or security categories.
Situate the issue within Russian imperial history
The Circassian genocide should be placed within the broader history of Russian imperial expansion in the Caucasus. It should not be presented only as a tragic local conflict or a remote ethnic dispute. The key historical context is conquest, forced incorporation, deportation, exile, and the remaking of the North Caucasus under Russian imperial rule.
Recommended short institutional description
Public institutions may use the following neutral description:
The Circassian genocide refers to the mass killing, forced displacement, and expulsion of Circassians during the Russian imperial conquest of Circassia in the nineteenth century. Circassians commemorate 21 May as the Day of Mourning, marking the destruction of their homeland and the beginning of mass exile.
Recommended short media description
Journalists may use the following formulation:
Circassians, an Indigenous Northwest Caucasian people, remember 21 May 1864 as the symbolic end of Russian imperial conquest and the beginning of mass exile. Georgia recognised the Circassian genocide in 2011, and Ukraine followed in 2025.
Common phrases to avoid
Avoid:
- “Circassians migrated to the Ottoman Empire” without explaining coercion;
- “ethnic conflict” as a substitute for imperial conquest;
- “separatist memory” as a label for genocide recognition;
- “ancient hatred” explanations;
- “Russian-Caucasian conflict” without identifying imperial power;
- “population transfer” if it obscures violence and coercion.
Better phrases
Use:
- Russian imperial conquest of Circassia;
- forced displacement and exile;
- destruction of Circassian political and territorial life;
- Circassian genocide recognition;
- North Caucasian Indigenous memory;
- diaspora formed by expulsion;
- historical justice and recognition.