Tweet
http://www.independent.co.uk/biography/robert-fisk
Robert Fisk
Sunday 30 November 2014
Do you know the difference between a Holocaust and a holocaust?
The Armenians do
Despite what some sub-editors might think, the genocide of 1.5m Armenian
Christians in 1915 was not a holocaust
1 / 1
Soldiers standing over skulls of victims from the Armenian village of
Sheyxalan in 1915, believed to be victims of the Armenian Holocaust
AFP
What's in a name? Let's start with the Persian Gulf. Or the Arabian Gulf.
Or just the Arab Gulf. I'm indebted to reader (and surgeon) Ross Farhadieh
for complaining to me last week about my use of "The Gulf"
-
bland, dull and historically anaemic - in a column on Iran and its possible
return to geopolitical power in the Middle East
.
Historically, legally - and in the UN - Ross told me, it should be called
the Persian Gulf. It was Gamal Abdul Nasser's nationalism which renamed it
the "Arabian Gulf".
And Ross is right. And I think I know the background to this slippage in
nomenclature. When I worked in the Middle East for* The Times* - long
before Murdoch emasculated the paper - we found that whenever we referred
to the Persian Gulf, Arab states would refuse to let the paper go on sale
in Dubai or Cairo. But whenever we called it the Arabian Gulf, the paper
was not allowed into Iran.
So we went for "The Gulf". Maybe this was a bit cowardly - I wasn't
involved in the decision - but many other papers followed suit. The British
press was not going to be censored in the Middle East if a little
historical obfuscation could be built in to our copy. The Independent,
still unborn at the time, referred quite innocently to The Gulf once it
began publication - probably without the slightest idea of why it didn't
carry the Persian or Arabian appellation.
READ MORE
War with Isis: Theresa May tinkers while Iraq and Syria burn
We'd always had a faintly similar problem with Northern Ireland. In the
worst days of the war there, we on The Times often used "Ulster" as
shorthand for the six-county province - only to find that Irish readers in
the Republic took great exception to the name. Ulster, they rightly pointed
out, historically contained nine counties, which included the three
counties of Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan, which the Protestant seigneurs of
the north declined to accept in Northern Ireland because (of course) these
three counties had too many Catholics. Irish republicans - or just plain
Irish citizens - preferred the "Six Counties" or, at a push, Northern
Ireland. They were right. But since The Times still sold in the Republic,
we went on using Ulster when we felt like it. Indeed, my first book on
Irish history included the word Ulster in the title. And it meant six, not
nine, counties.
I tended to take a harsher view of countries whose titles began with the
words "the People's Democratic Republic of" - mainly because they
invariably belonged to their dictators rather than their people, and were
neither popular nor democratic. Yemen - or the PDRY - for example. So we
called it just Yemen - or Algeria, which also likes to call itself popular
and democratic.
Then we had to acknowledge Father Time. My dad, a veteran of what he called
"The Great War" of 1914-18, went on calling it that long after the second
and even more titanic bloodbath had been fought around the world. The Brits
officially decided to call the Great War the First World War - in, I think,
1948 - because they had to yield to history. My dad's war had not proved to
be the war to end all wars after all, and we had to acknowledge that. I
still like the epic ring of The Great War - but by 1945, the Great bit
simply didn't work any more.
Top 10 most powerful Muslims in the world
Other Great War events remain contentious, not least what I always refer to
as the Armenian Holocaust (with a capital "H"), the genocide of 1.5m
Armenian Christians at the hands of the Turkish Ottoman government in 1915.
It was the first industrialised genocide of the last century - the second
being the Jewish Holocaust - and the two mass acts of slaughter had clear
historical connections. The Turks suffocated thousands of Armenians in
caves - by blowing smoke from bonfires into the cavities where they had
imprisoned them in the Syrian desert - and thus created the first primitive
gas chambers.
Armenian men were sometimes taken to their execution in railway goods
wagons. And junior members of the German Kaiser's army who were training
the Turkish army at the time witnessed the genocide; more importantly, some
of the names of these Germans turned up less than a quarter of a century
later as members of Hitler's Wehrmacht in the Ukraine and Belarus, where
they were helping to organise the mass killing of Jews. There's no doubt
where they learned how to do that.
[image: An image from 1915. Turkey deported two thirds of the Armenian
population; many were either killed or died of starvation during the
journey]
An image from 1915. Turkey deported two thirds of the Armenian population;
many were either killed or died of starvation during the journey Many years
ago, therefore, I used the phrase "Armenian Holocaust" in The Independent.
A sub-editor immediately changed the capital H to a lower-case h. My phone
did not stop ringing. Armenians were outraged. Why did they not deserve a
capital H, they demanded to know? Didn't the Turks murder enough Armenians
to qualify them for a capital H? I wrote a long memorandum to my then
editor, Simon Kelner, explaining that it was racist to make a distinction
between two genocides; we could not base our definition on the numerical
difference between 1,500,000 and 6,000,000. Besides, Israelis (as opposed
to the state of Israel, which doesn't even regard the Armenian catastrophe
as a genocide) refer to the Armenian massacres as the Armenian Shoah -
using the Hebrew word for Holocaust. Kelner later published my memo as an
article in The Independent - and it won the DC Watt journalism award.
But we newspaper folk have poor institutional memories. Earlier this month,
I again referred to the Armenian Holocaust - and a sub-editor, unfamiliar
with the expression, innocently downgraded the poor old Armenians again. He
changed the capital H into h! My phone trilled once more. The same
unanswerable arguments. Didn't the Turks kill enough of us, my Armenian
callers asked again? So of course we sheepishly upgraded the Armenians on
the website version of my report and returned to them their capital H...
And of course, I haven't even begun to address today the use of that
generic, racist (in its use), pejorative and repulsive word "terrorist". I
only use it in inverted commas for direct quotations. But what can we do
when the masters of the universe - America and that dreadful chap who's
just won a Save the Children award - long ago embarked on an everlasting
"War on Terror"?
Give me the Persian Gulf any day.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/do-you-know-the-difference-between-a-holocaust-and-a-holocaust-the-armenians-do-9894346.html
Robert Fisk
Sunday 30 November 2014
Do you know the difference between a Holocaust and a holocaust?
The Armenians do
Despite what some sub-editors might think, the genocide of 1.5m Armenian
Christians in 1915 was not a holocaust
1 / 1
Soldiers standing over skulls of victims from the Armenian village of
Sheyxalan in 1915, believed to be victims of the Armenian Holocaust
AFP
What's in a name? Let's start with the Persian Gulf. Or the Arabian Gulf.
Or just the Arab Gulf. I'm indebted to reader (and surgeon) Ross Farhadieh
for complaining to me last week about my use of "The Gulf"
-
bland, dull and historically anaemic - in a column on Iran and its possible
return to geopolitical power in the Middle East
.
Historically, legally - and in the UN - Ross told me, it should be called
the Persian Gulf. It was Gamal Abdul Nasser's nationalism which renamed it
the "Arabian Gulf".
And Ross is right. And I think I know the background to this slippage in
nomenclature. When I worked in the Middle East for* The Times* - long
before Murdoch emasculated the paper - we found that whenever we referred
to the Persian Gulf, Arab states would refuse to let the paper go on sale
in Dubai or Cairo. But whenever we called it the Arabian Gulf, the paper
was not allowed into Iran.
So we went for "The Gulf". Maybe this was a bit cowardly - I wasn't
involved in the decision - but many other papers followed suit. The British
press was not going to be censored in the Middle East if a little
historical obfuscation could be built in to our copy. The Independent,
still unborn at the time, referred quite innocently to The Gulf once it
began publication - probably without the slightest idea of why it didn't
carry the Persian or Arabian appellation.
READ MORE
War with Isis: Theresa May tinkers while Iraq and Syria burn
We'd always had a faintly similar problem with Northern Ireland. In the
worst days of the war there, we on The Times often used "Ulster" as
shorthand for the six-county province - only to find that Irish readers in
the Republic took great exception to the name. Ulster, they rightly pointed
out, historically contained nine counties, which included the three
counties of Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan, which the Protestant seigneurs of
the north declined to accept in Northern Ireland because (of course) these
three counties had too many Catholics. Irish republicans - or just plain
Irish citizens - preferred the "Six Counties" or, at a push, Northern
Ireland. They were right. But since The Times still sold in the Republic,
we went on using Ulster when we felt like it. Indeed, my first book on
Irish history included the word Ulster in the title. And it meant six, not
nine, counties.
I tended to take a harsher view of countries whose titles began with the
words "the People's Democratic Republic of" - mainly because they
invariably belonged to their dictators rather than their people, and were
neither popular nor democratic. Yemen - or the PDRY - for example. So we
called it just Yemen - or Algeria, which also likes to call itself popular
and democratic.
Then we had to acknowledge Father Time. My dad, a veteran of what he called
"The Great War" of 1914-18, went on calling it that long after the second
and even more titanic bloodbath had been fought around the world. The Brits
officially decided to call the Great War the First World War - in, I think,
1948 - because they had to yield to history. My dad's war had not proved to
be the war to end all wars after all, and we had to acknowledge that. I
still like the epic ring of The Great War - but by 1945, the Great bit
simply didn't work any more.
Top 10 most powerful Muslims in the world
Other Great War events remain contentious, not least what I always refer to
as the Armenian Holocaust (with a capital "H"), the genocide of 1.5m
Armenian Christians at the hands of the Turkish Ottoman government in 1915.
It was the first industrialised genocide of the last century - the second
being the Jewish Holocaust - and the two mass acts of slaughter had clear
historical connections. The Turks suffocated thousands of Armenians in
caves - by blowing smoke from bonfires into the cavities where they had
imprisoned them in the Syrian desert - and thus created the first primitive
gas chambers.
Armenian men were sometimes taken to their execution in railway goods
wagons. And junior members of the German Kaiser's army who were training
the Turkish army at the time witnessed the genocide; more importantly, some
of the names of these Germans turned up less than a quarter of a century
later as members of Hitler's Wehrmacht in the Ukraine and Belarus, where
they were helping to organise the mass killing of Jews. There's no doubt
where they learned how to do that.
[image: An image from 1915. Turkey deported two thirds of the Armenian
population; many were either killed or died of starvation during the
journey]
An image from 1915. Turkey deported two thirds of the Armenian population;
many were either killed or died of starvation during the journey Many years
ago, therefore, I used the phrase "Armenian Holocaust" in The Independent.
A sub-editor immediately changed the capital H to a lower-case h. My phone
did not stop ringing. Armenians were outraged. Why did they not deserve a
capital H, they demanded to know? Didn't the Turks murder enough Armenians
to qualify them for a capital H? I wrote a long memorandum to my then
editor, Simon Kelner, explaining that it was racist to make a distinction
between two genocides; we could not base our definition on the numerical
difference between 1,500,000 and 6,000,000. Besides, Israelis (as opposed
to the state of Israel, which doesn't even regard the Armenian catastrophe
as a genocide) refer to the Armenian massacres as the Armenian Shoah -
using the Hebrew word for Holocaust. Kelner later published my memo as an
article in The Independent - and it won the DC Watt journalism award.
But we newspaper folk have poor institutional memories. Earlier this month,
I again referred to the Armenian Holocaust - and a sub-editor, unfamiliar
with the expression, innocently downgraded the poor old Armenians again. He
changed the capital H into h! My phone trilled once more. The same
unanswerable arguments. Didn't the Turks kill enough of us, my Armenian
callers asked again? So of course we sheepishly upgraded the Armenians on
the website version of my report and returned to them their capital H...
And of course, I haven't even begun to address today the use of that
generic, racist (in its use), pejorative and repulsive word "terrorist". I
only use it in inverted commas for direct quotations. But what can we do
when the masters of the universe - America and that dreadful chap who's
just won a Save the Children award - long ago embarked on an everlasting
"War on Terror"?
Give me the Persian Gulf any day.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/do-you-know-the-difference-between-a-holocaust-and-a-holocaust-the-armenians-do-9894346.html