Tweet
Seattle Post Intelligencer , WA
Oct 13 2007
Genocide is a word Bush should use
By D. PARVAZ
P-I COLUMNIST
The modern world has a grim view of those who deny the Jewish
Holocaust. They're vilified, and in Europe, they're even locked-up. I
don't agree with the locking up part (free speech is free speech),
but certainly denying one of the most horrific, well-documented
chapters in history is like clinging to antiquated, nonsensical
beliefs -- the world is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth ...
that sort of thing.
The U.S. is among the nations that have a dim view of those who deny
the Jewish Holocaust. We hold that killing a population based on
ethnicity, race or religion ought to be remembered and mourned. Last
week, Congress was considering a symbolic piece of legislation that
would declare the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians starting in 1915 at
the hands of the Ottoman Empire (today's Turkey) genocide. And
according to The Associated Press, President Bush "strongly urged
Congress ... to veto the legislation," because the Turkish government
has warned us against doing so. There, even mentioning the Armenian
massacres is verboten (it's an "insult to Turkishness"), and to
report on it, as Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink did, could
get a person killed. In Turkey, acknowledging the Armenian genocide
is a crime, but in Europe, denying the Jewish genocide can get you a
three-year prison sentence. But why is President Bush (like those
before him) trying to pussyfoot around what is already a
well-established fact? He's not fond of books, but hell, who needs
dusty books and encyclopedias when we have the Internets?
Here it is, Georgie, the definition of "genocide" from
www.britannica.com: "deliberate and systematic destruction of a group
of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion or race."
It goes on for a bit, but ... oh, here we are, "Twentieth-century
events often cited as genocide include the 1915 Armenian massacre by
the Turkish-led Ottoman Empire, the extermination of Jews, Roma
(Gypsies) and other groups by Nazi Germany during World War II, and
the killing of Tutsi by Hutu in Rwanda in the 1990s." Yet Bush didn't
use the word "genocide" in April, when he issued a presidential
message honoring the murdered Armenians, opting for the softer, "mass
killings" instead.
Last year, I visited the Armenian Vank Cathedral in Esfahan, Iran.
The grounds of the 17th-century church include a museum where
chilling evidence of the Armenian genocide is on display -- photos,
maps, documents -- it's all there. So I wonder why Bush would want to
remain silent on the historical record of the massacres, an injustice
Theodore Roosevelt said was "the greatest crime of the war"? Because
it turns out that doing so is inconvenient, something survivors of
the Armenian genocide are sure to understand.
"Its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in
NATO and in the global war on terror," said Bush of the resolution
while addressing the House Foreign Affairs Committee. See, we need to
send our military cargo through Turkey, so, yeah. Besides, Turkey has
threatened to attack Kurds in Iraq, a weak bullying tactic to repress
an established truth.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that acknowledging that
Armenians suffered their own holocaust "would be very problematic for
everything we are trying to do in the Middle East." Right. Um, what,
aside from privatizing Iraq's oil supply (such a noble cause), are we
trying to do in the Middle East, exactly?
Ultimately, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the
resolution, which seems only right. This isn't about demonizing
Turkey -- most countries and cultures have the blood of another on
their hands. It's about reparations that start with recognition of
what was done. It's also about coming to terms with our actions, not
as individual nations, but as the whole of humanity, as one
consciousness.
More than 1 million Armenians had their property confiscated, were
rounded up and either starved or slaughtered, and we can't pretend it
didn't happen. When making his case for annihilating Jews, Adolf
Hitler reportedly said, "Who, after all, speaks today of the
annihilation of the Armenians?" Us. That's who.
D. Parvaz is an editorial writer and member of the P-I Editorial
Board. E-mail: [email protected].
http://seattlepi.nwsource. com/saturdayspin/335320_parvaz13.html
Oct 13 2007
Genocide is a word Bush should use
By D. PARVAZ
P-I COLUMNIST
The modern world has a grim view of those who deny the Jewish
Holocaust. They're vilified, and in Europe, they're even locked-up. I
don't agree with the locking up part (free speech is free speech),
but certainly denying one of the most horrific, well-documented
chapters in history is like clinging to antiquated, nonsensical
beliefs -- the world is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth ...
that sort of thing.
The U.S. is among the nations that have a dim view of those who deny
the Jewish Holocaust. We hold that killing a population based on
ethnicity, race or religion ought to be remembered and mourned. Last
week, Congress was considering a symbolic piece of legislation that
would declare the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians starting in 1915 at
the hands of the Ottoman Empire (today's Turkey) genocide. And
according to The Associated Press, President Bush "strongly urged
Congress ... to veto the legislation," because the Turkish government
has warned us against doing so. There, even mentioning the Armenian
massacres is verboten (it's an "insult to Turkishness"), and to
report on it, as Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink did, could
get a person killed. In Turkey, acknowledging the Armenian genocide
is a crime, but in Europe, denying the Jewish genocide can get you a
three-year prison sentence. But why is President Bush (like those
before him) trying to pussyfoot around what is already a
well-established fact? He's not fond of books, but hell, who needs
dusty books and encyclopedias when we have the Internets?
Here it is, Georgie, the definition of "genocide" from
www.britannica.com: "deliberate and systematic destruction of a group
of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion or race."
It goes on for a bit, but ... oh, here we are, "Twentieth-century
events often cited as genocide include the 1915 Armenian massacre by
the Turkish-led Ottoman Empire, the extermination of Jews, Roma
(Gypsies) and other groups by Nazi Germany during World War II, and
the killing of Tutsi by Hutu in Rwanda in the 1990s." Yet Bush didn't
use the word "genocide" in April, when he issued a presidential
message honoring the murdered Armenians, opting for the softer, "mass
killings" instead.
Last year, I visited the Armenian Vank Cathedral in Esfahan, Iran.
The grounds of the 17th-century church include a museum where
chilling evidence of the Armenian genocide is on display -- photos,
maps, documents -- it's all there. So I wonder why Bush would want to
remain silent on the historical record of the massacres, an injustice
Theodore Roosevelt said was "the greatest crime of the war"? Because
it turns out that doing so is inconvenient, something survivors of
the Armenian genocide are sure to understand.
"Its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in
NATO and in the global war on terror," said Bush of the resolution
while addressing the House Foreign Affairs Committee. See, we need to
send our military cargo through Turkey, so, yeah. Besides, Turkey has
threatened to attack Kurds in Iraq, a weak bullying tactic to repress
an established truth.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that acknowledging that
Armenians suffered their own holocaust "would be very problematic for
everything we are trying to do in the Middle East." Right. Um, what,
aside from privatizing Iraq's oil supply (such a noble cause), are we
trying to do in the Middle East, exactly?
Ultimately, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the
resolution, which seems only right. This isn't about demonizing
Turkey -- most countries and cultures have the blood of another on
their hands. It's about reparations that start with recognition of
what was done. It's also about coming to terms with our actions, not
as individual nations, but as the whole of humanity, as one
consciousness.
More than 1 million Armenians had their property confiscated, were
rounded up and either starved or slaughtered, and we can't pretend it
didn't happen. When making his case for annihilating Jews, Adolf
Hitler reportedly said, "Who, after all, speaks today of the
annihilation of the Armenians?" Us. That's who.
D. Parvaz is an editorial writer and member of the P-I Editorial
Board. E-mail: [email protected].
http://seattlepi.nwsource. com/saturdayspin/335320_parvaz13.html