Tweet
ARBITERS OF MORALITY
Vinay Lal
Times of India, India
Nov 2 2006
The French have long believed in themselves as one of the supreme
arbiters of the moral history of humanity, as exercising a unique
civilising mission on less fortunate parts of the world, and the
ardour with which they cling to an exalted vision of themselves as
moral legislators has clearly not diminished over the years.
On October 12, the French assembly approved legislation that would make
it a crime in France to deny that the mass killings of Armenians which
took place between 1915-17 in Ottoman Turkey constitute 'genocide'.
The senate vote is still awaited, but following in the wake of
legislation from 2001 under which the mass killings of Armenians
are recognised as genocide, the present legislation seems headed
for approval.
France has nearly 5,00,000 Armenians, more than any other country in
western Europe, and it would be idle to pretend that politicians do
not court minorities.
However, Turks too number over 3,00,000 in France, and one can be
certain that the recent legislation will aggravate their mood of
discontent.
Whatever the appeals to the Armenian-French constituency, this
legislation must clearly be located within the vortex of a more
complex geopolitics.
Among the considerations that weigh most heavily, one must number the
strained relations between Turkey and the European Union, suspected
alienation of Muslim minorities from the dominant European cultures
amidst which they find themselves, growing tensions within the Muslim
ummah, and the wave of Islamophobia which has swept Europe.
The Bill will doubtless convey to Turks the message that they have
not yet attained that state of enlightenment which might warrant
their admission into the EU.
Among the critics of the French legislation is the Turkish writer
Orhan Pamuk, who admitted in an interview that Turkey should be held
responsible for the genocide.
He was put on trial for insulting the nation and denigrating
"Turkishness", but immense pressure, largely from the EU, contributed
to his acquittal by the court.
It is altogether likely that the Bill may have been partly motivated
by the desire to strengthen the hand of Turkish secularists and
'moderate Muslims', such as Pamuk, who are viewed as being locked in
battle with Muslim extremists and nationalist hardliners.
Pamuk nonetheless has criticised the French legislation as an attempt
to stifle freedom of speech and as a betrayal of the ideals championed
by France.
In Pamuk's critique, framed very much by the parameters of western
liberal thought, when two or more interpretations vie for attention
the more sound position always prevails.
In 1972, France passed a law which makes it a crime to deny the
Holocaust. Though the Holocaust is far from being the only genocide
in a violence-filled century, it occupies in the West a singular
status as furnishing the paradigmatic instance of genocide and crimes
against humanity.
The obsession with the Holocaust has, so to speak, obscured the
recognition of other equally horrific atrocities. Socialist legislator
Christophe Masse, in his defence of the Bill, described it as helping
to "ease the unhealthy rivalry that exists among victims of genocides
and that is fuelled by their inequality before the law".
Ironically, this, the only defence of the legislation of any merit
that one might invoke, is also the one that will be categorically
rejected in Europe and the Anglo-American world, and even adduced as
an expression of support for anti-Semitism.
Whatever else might be permitted in the West, any interpretation of the
Holocaust which merely questions its canonical status as the ultimate
form of victimhood opens itself to vicious attack and ridicule.
That a genocide of Armenians took place under Ottoman Turks is beyond
question. Succeeding Turkish governments have not only fudged the
numbers, but claim, astoundingly, that Armenians died mainly on
account of war, disease, and hunger.
In Turkey, the admission of an Armenian genocide can lead to criminal
prosecution. However, not only is there overwhelming evidence to
establish that the death of Armenians was the consequence of a
deliberate policy, but the Turkish government at the conclusion of
WWI itself court-martialled the Young Turks by whose orders a genocide
was perpetrated.
As Peter Balakian has so amply demonstrated, the government-appointed
commission of inquiry gathered insurmountable evidence of the massacres
and it became part of the official record.
If the Turkish government of that day set an example to the world in
creating the model for war crimes trials, the present government has
unfortunately chosen to make a foolish spectacle of itself by its
denial of the genocide. But what of France?
The history of French colonial rule in Algeria, Indo-China, Haiti,
the Ivory Coast, Congo Brazzaville, and elsewhere is littered with
corpses of colonised people.
The assassinations of Algerians settled in France remain unpunished
more than four decades after Algeria's declaration of independence, and
it is no more shocking that the French National Assembly in February
2005 passed a law requiring schoolchildren to be taught "the positive
role of the French presence overseas, notably in North Africa".
As the unrest of recent years suggests, France's treatment of its
own North African minorities leaves much to be desired.
If France wished to be daring, it might consider enacting legislation
that would make it an offence to deny French colonial atrocities.
That is exceedingly unlikely. Colonising nations can be stripped of
their colonial possessions, but they find it exceedingly difficult
to shed their past and their habits of evasion of responsibility.
The passage of the recent legislation on the Armenian question, far
from signifying any enlightened view, is the most decisive indicator
of France's inability to own up to its wretched colonial past.
The writer teaches history at UCLA.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articles how/282560.cms
Vinay Lal
Times of India, India
Nov 2 2006
The French have long believed in themselves as one of the supreme
arbiters of the moral history of humanity, as exercising a unique
civilising mission on less fortunate parts of the world, and the
ardour with which they cling to an exalted vision of themselves as
moral legislators has clearly not diminished over the years.
On October 12, the French assembly approved legislation that would make
it a crime in France to deny that the mass killings of Armenians which
took place between 1915-17 in Ottoman Turkey constitute 'genocide'.
The senate vote is still awaited, but following in the wake of
legislation from 2001 under which the mass killings of Armenians
are recognised as genocide, the present legislation seems headed
for approval.
France has nearly 5,00,000 Armenians, more than any other country in
western Europe, and it would be idle to pretend that politicians do
not court minorities.
However, Turks too number over 3,00,000 in France, and one can be
certain that the recent legislation will aggravate their mood of
discontent.
Whatever the appeals to the Armenian-French constituency, this
legislation must clearly be located within the vortex of a more
complex geopolitics.
Among the considerations that weigh most heavily, one must number the
strained relations between Turkey and the European Union, suspected
alienation of Muslim minorities from the dominant European cultures
amidst which they find themselves, growing tensions within the Muslim
ummah, and the wave of Islamophobia which has swept Europe.
The Bill will doubtless convey to Turks the message that they have
not yet attained that state of enlightenment which might warrant
their admission into the EU.
Among the critics of the French legislation is the Turkish writer
Orhan Pamuk, who admitted in an interview that Turkey should be held
responsible for the genocide.
He was put on trial for insulting the nation and denigrating
"Turkishness", but immense pressure, largely from the EU, contributed
to his acquittal by the court.
It is altogether likely that the Bill may have been partly motivated
by the desire to strengthen the hand of Turkish secularists and
'moderate Muslims', such as Pamuk, who are viewed as being locked in
battle with Muslim extremists and nationalist hardliners.
Pamuk nonetheless has criticised the French legislation as an attempt
to stifle freedom of speech and as a betrayal of the ideals championed
by France.
In Pamuk's critique, framed very much by the parameters of western
liberal thought, when two or more interpretations vie for attention
the more sound position always prevails.
In 1972, France passed a law which makes it a crime to deny the
Holocaust. Though the Holocaust is far from being the only genocide
in a violence-filled century, it occupies in the West a singular
status as furnishing the paradigmatic instance of genocide and crimes
against humanity.
The obsession with the Holocaust has, so to speak, obscured the
recognition of other equally horrific atrocities. Socialist legislator
Christophe Masse, in his defence of the Bill, described it as helping
to "ease the unhealthy rivalry that exists among victims of genocides
and that is fuelled by their inequality before the law".
Ironically, this, the only defence of the legislation of any merit
that one might invoke, is also the one that will be categorically
rejected in Europe and the Anglo-American world, and even adduced as
an expression of support for anti-Semitism.
Whatever else might be permitted in the West, any interpretation of the
Holocaust which merely questions its canonical status as the ultimate
form of victimhood opens itself to vicious attack and ridicule.
That a genocide of Armenians took place under Ottoman Turks is beyond
question. Succeeding Turkish governments have not only fudged the
numbers, but claim, astoundingly, that Armenians died mainly on
account of war, disease, and hunger.
In Turkey, the admission of an Armenian genocide can lead to criminal
prosecution. However, not only is there overwhelming evidence to
establish that the death of Armenians was the consequence of a
deliberate policy, but the Turkish government at the conclusion of
WWI itself court-martialled the Young Turks by whose orders a genocide
was perpetrated.
As Peter Balakian has so amply demonstrated, the government-appointed
commission of inquiry gathered insurmountable evidence of the massacres
and it became part of the official record.
If the Turkish government of that day set an example to the world in
creating the model for war crimes trials, the present government has
unfortunately chosen to make a foolish spectacle of itself by its
denial of the genocide. But what of France?
The history of French colonial rule in Algeria, Indo-China, Haiti,
the Ivory Coast, Congo Brazzaville, and elsewhere is littered with
corpses of colonised people.
The assassinations of Algerians settled in France remain unpunished
more than four decades after Algeria's declaration of independence, and
it is no more shocking that the French National Assembly in February
2005 passed a law requiring schoolchildren to be taught "the positive
role of the French presence overseas, notably in North Africa".
As the unrest of recent years suggests, France's treatment of its
own North African minorities leaves much to be desired.
If France wished to be daring, it might consider enacting legislation
that would make it an offence to deny French colonial atrocities.
That is exceedingly unlikely. Colonising nations can be stripped of
their colonial possessions, but they find it exceedingly difficult
to shed their past and their habits of evasion of responsibility.
The passage of the recent legislation on the Armenian question, far
from signifying any enlightened view, is the most decisive indicator
of France's inability to own up to its wretched colonial past.
The writer teaches history at UCLA.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articles how/282560.cms