Tweet
Daily Princetonian
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/200 7/10/23/opinion/19091.shtml
Genocide by any other name
By Martha Vega-Gonzalez
Princetonian Contributor
The word "genocide" came into being in 1944. In light of this, it
might be considered a bit anachronistic to call the Armenian
massacres of 1915 genocide. Let us go back in time then, using the
magic of The New York Times' historical archives, and see what
people were calling the Turkish atrocities while they were being
carried out. Here we are: Oct. 8, 1916, the Times published an
article regarding an "exhaustive investigation conducted by the
ex-British Ambassador to [the United States]." According to the
headline, the resulting report "tells of the deportation and murder
by the Turks of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in
an attempt to exterminate entire Armenian nation."
An attempt to exterminate the entire Armenian nation. If that isn't
genocide, then I don't know what is. For those who may be unfamiliar
with the history, allow me to share some figures: Starting in 1915,
the Ottoman Empire carried out a campaign of massive deportation.
Before the end of the atrocities, two million Armenians were
forcibly removed from their historic homeland; of these, 1,500,000
died. According to the BBC, at least 20 countries today, including
France, Belgium and Canada officially recognize the event in
question as genocide. Turkey, on the other hand, does not accept
that any such genocide took place.
Resolution 106, which was introduced in the House of
Representatives, aims to add the United States to the list of world
powers that officially acknowledging that what happened to the
Armenians during World War I constitutes genocide. When I first read
an article about this, the question seemed redundant, but when I
read on Oct. 18 that it was unsure if the motion would reach a vote,
my blood ran cold. For me the question had never been raised because
I took it to be self-evident, but if the question was denied voice,
or even worse, simply denied outright, that would be an entirely
different problem.
Denying even the token justice of admitting what happened to the
thousands of Armenians who lost their lives is an extraordinary
affront not only to the memories of the dead Armenians and to their
descendants, but also to the principles of human rights and human
equality. What is worse, however, is that Resolution 106 is in doubt
not because of a question of historical accuracy, but one of
political inconvenience. Turkey might be offended enough to worsen
the American situation in Iraq and destabilize Israel's security.
Increasingly, it seems that Iraq is a lost cause and has been one
since before the war started, however. As to the question of Israel,
hopefully the tragic irony will not be lost to my readers.
But what is truly infuriating is that it seems that it is always
politically inconvenient. It is politically inconvenient to call the
genocide of the Armenians a genocide. It was politically
inconvenient to do anything about genocide in Rwanda. It is
politically inconvenient to do anything about genocide in Darfur.
Now it seems that the only useful use of the word genocide is in
referring to the Holocaust, and even then the deaths of Roma, gays,
the disabled and others are often forgotten in the discussion.
To acknowledge genocide based primarily on convenience makes a
horrid mockery of justice and of American ideals. Human life and
human dignity is precious, and all human life ought to be equally
precious. By ignoring Resolution 106, the United States will send
the message that the deaths of the Armenians are meaningless to us,
or at least, less meaningful than other deaths. All men are created
equal, but some are more equal than others.
There is, of course, another reason why those in Washington may feel
uncomfortable passing this resolution: "He that is without sin among
you, let him first cast a stone." Apparently, some Congressmen are
concerned about casting stones at Turkey in light of what happened
to the Native Americans. It's a serious concern: condemning war
criminals when we ourselves are guilty of war crimes. But, that
concern didn't stop the Nuremberg Trials, and it hasn't stopped
recognition of the Holocaust. The answer isn't to ignore the
atrocities of others, especially not to pick and choose, but rather
to admit one's own mistakes. The question of how the deaths of the
Armenians and others will be remembered in the annals of history
isn't merely an intellectual question of nomenclature. It's an
important question of justice and human dignity.
Martha Vega-Gonzalez is a history major from New York, N.Y.
She can be reached at [email protected].
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/200 7/10/23/opinion/19091.shtml
Genocide by any other name
By Martha Vega-Gonzalez
Princetonian Contributor
The word "genocide" came into being in 1944. In light of this, it
might be considered a bit anachronistic to call the Armenian
massacres of 1915 genocide. Let us go back in time then, using the
magic of The New York Times' historical archives, and see what
people were calling the Turkish atrocities while they were being
carried out. Here we are: Oct. 8, 1916, the Times published an
article regarding an "exhaustive investigation conducted by the
ex-British Ambassador to [the United States]." According to the
headline, the resulting report "tells of the deportation and murder
by the Turks of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in
an attempt to exterminate entire Armenian nation."
An attempt to exterminate the entire Armenian nation. If that isn't
genocide, then I don't know what is. For those who may be unfamiliar
with the history, allow me to share some figures: Starting in 1915,
the Ottoman Empire carried out a campaign of massive deportation.
Before the end of the atrocities, two million Armenians were
forcibly removed from their historic homeland; of these, 1,500,000
died. According to the BBC, at least 20 countries today, including
France, Belgium and Canada officially recognize the event in
question as genocide. Turkey, on the other hand, does not accept
that any such genocide took place.
Resolution 106, which was introduced in the House of
Representatives, aims to add the United States to the list of world
powers that officially acknowledging that what happened to the
Armenians during World War I constitutes genocide. When I first read
an article about this, the question seemed redundant, but when I
read on Oct. 18 that it was unsure if the motion would reach a vote,
my blood ran cold. For me the question had never been raised because
I took it to be self-evident, but if the question was denied voice,
or even worse, simply denied outright, that would be an entirely
different problem.
Denying even the token justice of admitting what happened to the
thousands of Armenians who lost their lives is an extraordinary
affront not only to the memories of the dead Armenians and to their
descendants, but also to the principles of human rights and human
equality. What is worse, however, is that Resolution 106 is in doubt
not because of a question of historical accuracy, but one of
political inconvenience. Turkey might be offended enough to worsen
the American situation in Iraq and destabilize Israel's security.
Increasingly, it seems that Iraq is a lost cause and has been one
since before the war started, however. As to the question of Israel,
hopefully the tragic irony will not be lost to my readers.
But what is truly infuriating is that it seems that it is always
politically inconvenient. It is politically inconvenient to call the
genocide of the Armenians a genocide. It was politically
inconvenient to do anything about genocide in Rwanda. It is
politically inconvenient to do anything about genocide in Darfur.
Now it seems that the only useful use of the word genocide is in
referring to the Holocaust, and even then the deaths of Roma, gays,
the disabled and others are often forgotten in the discussion.
To acknowledge genocide based primarily on convenience makes a
horrid mockery of justice and of American ideals. Human life and
human dignity is precious, and all human life ought to be equally
precious. By ignoring Resolution 106, the United States will send
the message that the deaths of the Armenians are meaningless to us,
or at least, less meaningful than other deaths. All men are created
equal, but some are more equal than others.
There is, of course, another reason why those in Washington may feel
uncomfortable passing this resolution: "He that is without sin among
you, let him first cast a stone." Apparently, some Congressmen are
concerned about casting stones at Turkey in light of what happened
to the Native Americans. It's a serious concern: condemning war
criminals when we ourselves are guilty of war crimes. But, that
concern didn't stop the Nuremberg Trials, and it hasn't stopped
recognition of the Holocaust. The answer isn't to ignore the
atrocities of others, especially not to pick and choose, but rather
to admit one's own mistakes. The question of how the deaths of the
Armenians and others will be remembered in the annals of history
isn't merely an intellectual question of nomenclature. It's an
important question of justice and human dignity.
Martha Vega-Gonzalez is a history major from New York, N.Y.
She can be reached at [email protected].
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress