Tweet
OpEdNews, PA
Oct 20 2007
Worthy and Unworthy Victims: The Armenian Genocide
by Justin Finney
http://www.opednews.com
The Turkish government's furor over the House Foreign Relations
Committee's recent passage of HR106, a bill which recognizes and
condemns the Armenian genocide by the Turkish Ottoman Empire almost a
century ago, has cast a spotlight on a lesser known genocide to the
public at large.
The earliest references to genocide, defined as the `deliberate and
systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or
cultural group,' date back to the bible: `However, in the cities of
the nations the Lord your God is giving you as inheritance, do not
leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them - the
Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites - as
the Lord your God has commanded you. (Deuteronomy 20:16-17.)'
Much later in history, and coincidentally also biblically inspired,
Christopher Columbus sparked the subjugation of Native Americans that
would lead to eventual genocide under the guise of national progress
in the Manifest Destiny. Though some scholars argue that the largest
portion of Native Americans killed under colonialism died from
disease more than conflict, the numbers are still staggering.
According to David E. Stannard in his book: American Holocaust:
Columbus and the Conquest of the New World: in the first 400 years
after Columbus discovered natives on the Bahaman Islands `the native
population of the Western Hemisphere declined by as many as 100
million people.'
In the last century alone, there have been a handful of state
sponsored mass killings that come close to fitting the description of
genocide if not being universally accepted as such. Genocides that
fall into the former category have occurred in countries like Chile,
Guatemala, Argentina, East Timor, and more recently, the Darfur
region in Sudan. Genocides that fall into the latter category - those
universally accepted - include the Jewish Holocaust, the Armenian
Genocide, the Khmer Rouge sponsored Cambodian Genocide, and the
Rwandan Genocide.
Of the universally accepted instances of genocide, the Jewish
Holocaust stands out as the most documented and presented case to the
public, with the Armenian and Rwandan Genocides probably tied for
garnering the least amount of public awareness. Though ironically,
during the time of the Armenian genocide initially, there was a large
amount of public awareness in the United States and even support for
a mandate to recognize the Republic of Armenia after World War I.
Republicans ultimately voted down the mandate, and the discovery of
oil in Turkey changed the US tune, thus destining the Armenian
Genocide to the memory hole.
Some of the genocide imbalance undoubtedly stems from the uniquely
American perspective of world history that students are indoctrinated
with in US public schools. That is, the perspective where the United
States is portrayed as fighting for the freedom of its inhabitants or
mercifully liberating people denied freedom elsewhere. The liberation
of the Jews in World War II epitomizes the crux of this storyline.
The only problem is that it isn't true.
The United States didn't enter World War II until the Japanese attack
on Pearl Harbor. London had already been bombed to the stone-age by
Germany, and tens of thousands of Jews had been murdered by the time
the US `came to the rescue.' In fact, Jewish refugees had even been
denied entry into the United States, as was the case for 937
passengers aboard the St. Louis. And in an even more shameful act,
the US congress turned away 20,000 Jewish German children by letting
the Wagner-Rogers bill expire in committee. Even when war was
declared it was only against Japan.
But these events don't take up much, if any space in school
textbooks, nor do genocides where the US didn't come to the rescue.
The ideological story-line of the United States' benevolence and
assistance to the Jews in the holocaust serves as partial reason for
the public's myopia on the largest genocides in the past century.
Another likely contribution to this myopia is depictions of genocides
in film and television, overwhelmingly the two greatest sources of
public news dissemination over the last fifty years. According to
Annette Insdorf's Indelible Shadows: Film and the Holocaust,
considered the standard on the subject, 442 holocaust films have been
made as of 2002. By comparison, Yale University's Cambodian Genocide
Program lists 11 films on its subject, the Internet Movie Database
lists 20 on the Rwandan Genocide, and according to Jerry Papazian of
the Armenian Film Foundation, there are two feature films on the
Armenian Genocide.
Inequalities in these numbers point to a bias in Hollywood that leads
some to develop conspiracy theories of the media being controlled by
`Jews.' Though, the most likely cause behind the lopsidedness in
Hollywood is probably due to a culture of taste that's shaped by the
same ideological storyline of the United States as rescuer that
permeates school textbooks. Hollywood is utmost concerned with its
bottom line as opposed to educating the public. Movies about the
Jewish Holocaust have proved a wise marketing decision since they
satiate desires to understand the worst and best of humanity, while
allowing Americans to feel emotionally vindicated as the `rescuers.'
Finally, when considering the imbalance of public awareness
concerning different genocides, one can't overlook the factor of
lobbying power in Washington. Though the Armenian lobby appears to
have persuaded a tenuous majority in congress to support official US
recognition of its holocaust, its influence is dwarfed by that of the
Israel lobby, AIPAC. While Turkey's denial and threats to invade
northern Iraq may ultimately thwart the Armenian Genocide resolution,
the Israel Lobby received recognition of its genocide, and rightly
so, decades ago. It would be unthinkable to imagine a scenario where
congress would equivocate on condemning any aspect of the Jewish
Holocaust because it wasn't politically expedient. Rightly or
wrongly, the close relationship between the US and Israel attributes
to the American perception of the importance of different genocides.
Despite all these reasons listed for unevenness in public awareness
of genocides, there is one which stands out most important amongst
them all. And that is the United States own hand in committing
genocide. It has directly done so in Vietnam, Japan, its own backyard
during colonial times, and now in Iraq. To be sure, there are
differences that critics will highlight. But whether the dead are
lined up and shot or the unfortunate victims of `collateral damage,'
the effect is the same: destruction of human lives on a massive
scale. And until life abroad is valued equally with life at home,
imparity over recognition of different genocides will not only
continue, but genocide itself will.
Justin Finney is a writer and activist living in Austin Texas. When
not mulling over the serious political and ecological conumdrums of
the day, he practices French, jogs, and meditates - but not nearly
often enough.
Oct 20 2007
Worthy and Unworthy Victims: The Armenian Genocide
by Justin Finney
http://www.opednews.com
The Turkish government's furor over the House Foreign Relations
Committee's recent passage of HR106, a bill which recognizes and
condemns the Armenian genocide by the Turkish Ottoman Empire almost a
century ago, has cast a spotlight on a lesser known genocide to the
public at large.
The earliest references to genocide, defined as the `deliberate and
systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or
cultural group,' date back to the bible: `However, in the cities of
the nations the Lord your God is giving you as inheritance, do not
leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them - the
Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites - as
the Lord your God has commanded you. (Deuteronomy 20:16-17.)'
Much later in history, and coincidentally also biblically inspired,
Christopher Columbus sparked the subjugation of Native Americans that
would lead to eventual genocide under the guise of national progress
in the Manifest Destiny. Though some scholars argue that the largest
portion of Native Americans killed under colonialism died from
disease more than conflict, the numbers are still staggering.
According to David E. Stannard in his book: American Holocaust:
Columbus and the Conquest of the New World: in the first 400 years
after Columbus discovered natives on the Bahaman Islands `the native
population of the Western Hemisphere declined by as many as 100
million people.'
In the last century alone, there have been a handful of state
sponsored mass killings that come close to fitting the description of
genocide if not being universally accepted as such. Genocides that
fall into the former category have occurred in countries like Chile,
Guatemala, Argentina, East Timor, and more recently, the Darfur
region in Sudan. Genocides that fall into the latter category - those
universally accepted - include the Jewish Holocaust, the Armenian
Genocide, the Khmer Rouge sponsored Cambodian Genocide, and the
Rwandan Genocide.
Of the universally accepted instances of genocide, the Jewish
Holocaust stands out as the most documented and presented case to the
public, with the Armenian and Rwandan Genocides probably tied for
garnering the least amount of public awareness. Though ironically,
during the time of the Armenian genocide initially, there was a large
amount of public awareness in the United States and even support for
a mandate to recognize the Republic of Armenia after World War I.
Republicans ultimately voted down the mandate, and the discovery of
oil in Turkey changed the US tune, thus destining the Armenian
Genocide to the memory hole.
Some of the genocide imbalance undoubtedly stems from the uniquely
American perspective of world history that students are indoctrinated
with in US public schools. That is, the perspective where the United
States is portrayed as fighting for the freedom of its inhabitants or
mercifully liberating people denied freedom elsewhere. The liberation
of the Jews in World War II epitomizes the crux of this storyline.
The only problem is that it isn't true.
The United States didn't enter World War II until the Japanese attack
on Pearl Harbor. London had already been bombed to the stone-age by
Germany, and tens of thousands of Jews had been murdered by the time
the US `came to the rescue.' In fact, Jewish refugees had even been
denied entry into the United States, as was the case for 937
passengers aboard the St. Louis. And in an even more shameful act,
the US congress turned away 20,000 Jewish German children by letting
the Wagner-Rogers bill expire in committee. Even when war was
declared it was only against Japan.
But these events don't take up much, if any space in school
textbooks, nor do genocides where the US didn't come to the rescue.
The ideological story-line of the United States' benevolence and
assistance to the Jews in the holocaust serves as partial reason for
the public's myopia on the largest genocides in the past century.
Another likely contribution to this myopia is depictions of genocides
in film and television, overwhelmingly the two greatest sources of
public news dissemination over the last fifty years. According to
Annette Insdorf's Indelible Shadows: Film and the Holocaust,
considered the standard on the subject, 442 holocaust films have been
made as of 2002. By comparison, Yale University's Cambodian Genocide
Program lists 11 films on its subject, the Internet Movie Database
lists 20 on the Rwandan Genocide, and according to Jerry Papazian of
the Armenian Film Foundation, there are two feature films on the
Armenian Genocide.
Inequalities in these numbers point to a bias in Hollywood that leads
some to develop conspiracy theories of the media being controlled by
`Jews.' Though, the most likely cause behind the lopsidedness in
Hollywood is probably due to a culture of taste that's shaped by the
same ideological storyline of the United States as rescuer that
permeates school textbooks. Hollywood is utmost concerned with its
bottom line as opposed to educating the public. Movies about the
Jewish Holocaust have proved a wise marketing decision since they
satiate desires to understand the worst and best of humanity, while
allowing Americans to feel emotionally vindicated as the `rescuers.'
Finally, when considering the imbalance of public awareness
concerning different genocides, one can't overlook the factor of
lobbying power in Washington. Though the Armenian lobby appears to
have persuaded a tenuous majority in congress to support official US
recognition of its holocaust, its influence is dwarfed by that of the
Israel lobby, AIPAC. While Turkey's denial and threats to invade
northern Iraq may ultimately thwart the Armenian Genocide resolution,
the Israel Lobby received recognition of its genocide, and rightly
so, decades ago. It would be unthinkable to imagine a scenario where
congress would equivocate on condemning any aspect of the Jewish
Holocaust because it wasn't politically expedient. Rightly or
wrongly, the close relationship between the US and Israel attributes
to the American perception of the importance of different genocides.
Despite all these reasons listed for unevenness in public awareness
of genocides, there is one which stands out most important amongst
them all. And that is the United States own hand in committing
genocide. It has directly done so in Vietnam, Japan, its own backyard
during colonial times, and now in Iraq. To be sure, there are
differences that critics will highlight. But whether the dead are
lined up and shot or the unfortunate victims of `collateral damage,'
the effect is the same: destruction of human lives on a massive
scale. And until life abroad is valued equally with life at home,
imparity over recognition of different genocides will not only
continue, but genocide itself will.
Justin Finney is a writer and activist living in Austin Texas. When
not mulling over the serious political and ecological conumdrums of
the day, he practices French, jogs, and meditates - but not nearly
often enough.