Tweet
The Harvard Crimson
April 23 2009
Genocide and Its (Dis)contents
`Genocide' debate is important, but should not distract from
Armenians' historical suffering
Published On Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:27 AM
By MATTHEW H. GHAZARIAN
Tomorrow, April 24th, Armenians around the world will gather on what
they call Martyrs' Day to commemorate the Ottoman Empire's deportation
and mass slaughter of Armenians during World War I. Armenians and many
others deem this the first genocide of the 20th century, citing
scholarly consensus that the atrocities were a well-documented and
premeditated wartime assault on an ethnic and religious minority.
Not everyone aligns with this view, however'others, namely the current
Turkish government, vehemently reject the use of the word `genocide'
to describe these events. This puts President Obama in a difficult
situation. In years past, the president of the United States has
delivered a speech commemorating these events. Obama will almost
certainly keep with this unofficial tradition. But, if he omits the
word `genocide,' Armenians around the world will accuse Obama of
breaking his promise to explicitly label the events as such. Likewise,
if he does utter the `G-word,' a torrent of infuriated accusations
will flood in from the many who reject this label.
Word choice here is certainly very important. To label the acts
`genocide' would put the late Ottoman government in the company of
Nazis in Germany, Hutus in Rwanda, and other perpetrators of
genocide. But no matter how powerful the label of `genocide' may be,
insisting on its use should never come before the priority of
accurately describing what happened. While a debate over the precise
terminology may be useful for international lawyers, for activists and
ordinary citizens, studying the actual historical events and their
lessons is far more relevant and meaningful than sparring over
semantics. For Turkey and Armenia to learn from their experiences in a
productive way, both countries should resist the temptation to
concentrate too much on this single, albeit extremely powerful, word.
So loaded is the term that it can override logic itself. In an
official statement last year, President George W. Bush declared that
`as many as 1.5 million Armenians lost their lives in the final years
of the Ottoman Empire, many of them victims of mass killings and
forced deportations.' Ironically, many Turkish activists celebrated
this description for its omission of the word `genocide,' despite its
overwhelming castigation of the events in all other ways. Never mind
Bush's accusation that their forebears had executed a campaign of
forced deportation and mass murder; as long as the word `genocide' was
not mentioned, they believed that they had won.
Similarly, at times Armenian activists have allowed their fixation
with the word `genocide' to trump their respect for historical
fact. In attempts to convince the world that genocide took place,
activists rely at times on inflated death tolls and disputable sources
to prove their points. Armenian activists must realize that the
accusation of genocide is grave and that using any source or figure
that is even remotely disputable is an irresponsible act that only
undermines their cause. Carelessly spreading inaccurate information
insults both the Turkish and Armenian peoples, slandering the Turkish
nation for crimes it did not commit as well as casting doubt on the
true accounts of Armenian survivors.
Those of us recognizing Martyrs' Day tomorrow, then, should not fall
into the trap of arguing over whether the events of 1915 should be
classified as `genocide.' Instead, we should find people who were
there or were affected and speak with these living primary and
secondary sources. It shouldn't be too difficult to find
someone'cities all over the world, from Boston to L.A., Montreal to
Fresno, Moscow to Sao Paulo, and Paris to Beirut, host thriving
Armenian communities made up of scattered survivors and their
descendants, all of whom have a story to tell. And, when we do talk to
them, instead of asking, `Was it a genocide?', we should simply ask,
`What happened?' That way, instead of feeling the pressure to shape
such devastating experiences to a label, we can let the content of
history speak for itself.
Matthew H. Ghazarian '10, a Crimson editorial writer, is a government
concentrator in Kirkland House.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref =527825
April 23 2009
Genocide and Its (Dis)contents
`Genocide' debate is important, but should not distract from
Armenians' historical suffering
Published On Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:27 AM
By MATTHEW H. GHAZARIAN
Tomorrow, April 24th, Armenians around the world will gather on what
they call Martyrs' Day to commemorate the Ottoman Empire's deportation
and mass slaughter of Armenians during World War I. Armenians and many
others deem this the first genocide of the 20th century, citing
scholarly consensus that the atrocities were a well-documented and
premeditated wartime assault on an ethnic and religious minority.
Not everyone aligns with this view, however'others, namely the current
Turkish government, vehemently reject the use of the word `genocide'
to describe these events. This puts President Obama in a difficult
situation. In years past, the president of the United States has
delivered a speech commemorating these events. Obama will almost
certainly keep with this unofficial tradition. But, if he omits the
word `genocide,' Armenians around the world will accuse Obama of
breaking his promise to explicitly label the events as such. Likewise,
if he does utter the `G-word,' a torrent of infuriated accusations
will flood in from the many who reject this label.
Word choice here is certainly very important. To label the acts
`genocide' would put the late Ottoman government in the company of
Nazis in Germany, Hutus in Rwanda, and other perpetrators of
genocide. But no matter how powerful the label of `genocide' may be,
insisting on its use should never come before the priority of
accurately describing what happened. While a debate over the precise
terminology may be useful for international lawyers, for activists and
ordinary citizens, studying the actual historical events and their
lessons is far more relevant and meaningful than sparring over
semantics. For Turkey and Armenia to learn from their experiences in a
productive way, both countries should resist the temptation to
concentrate too much on this single, albeit extremely powerful, word.
So loaded is the term that it can override logic itself. In an
official statement last year, President George W. Bush declared that
`as many as 1.5 million Armenians lost their lives in the final years
of the Ottoman Empire, many of them victims of mass killings and
forced deportations.' Ironically, many Turkish activists celebrated
this description for its omission of the word `genocide,' despite its
overwhelming castigation of the events in all other ways. Never mind
Bush's accusation that their forebears had executed a campaign of
forced deportation and mass murder; as long as the word `genocide' was
not mentioned, they believed that they had won.
Similarly, at times Armenian activists have allowed their fixation
with the word `genocide' to trump their respect for historical
fact. In attempts to convince the world that genocide took place,
activists rely at times on inflated death tolls and disputable sources
to prove their points. Armenian activists must realize that the
accusation of genocide is grave and that using any source or figure
that is even remotely disputable is an irresponsible act that only
undermines their cause. Carelessly spreading inaccurate information
insults both the Turkish and Armenian peoples, slandering the Turkish
nation for crimes it did not commit as well as casting doubt on the
true accounts of Armenian survivors.
Those of us recognizing Martyrs' Day tomorrow, then, should not fall
into the trap of arguing over whether the events of 1915 should be
classified as `genocide.' Instead, we should find people who were
there or were affected and speak with these living primary and
secondary sources. It shouldn't be too difficult to find
someone'cities all over the world, from Boston to L.A., Montreal to
Fresno, Moscow to Sao Paulo, and Paris to Beirut, host thriving
Armenian communities made up of scattered survivors and their
descendants, all of whom have a story to tell. And, when we do talk to
them, instead of asking, `Was it a genocide?', we should simply ask,
`What happened?' That way, instead of feeling the pressure to shape
such devastating experiences to a label, we can let the content of
history speak for itself.
Matthew H. Ghazarian '10, a Crimson editorial writer, is a government
concentrator in Kirkland House.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref =527825