genocide
noun. the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group
see also: mass murder, annihiliation, extermination
As of now, only 20 countries formally acknowledge the Armenian Genocide--the United States is not one of them. Many activists had hoped that Friday's commemoration would finally include a formal recognition, especially since Obama pledged to do so during his 2008 campaign. However, White House officials have decided not to use the word "genocide" in hopes that it will increase the chance of cooperation with Turkey on Middle Eastern issues. The Turkish government still denies that a genocide occurred, claiming that the massacre does not meet the legal definition of the term.
Many Armenian-Americans, who have been waiting for a formal recognition from the American government for decades, are angered and disappointed. The executive director of the Armenian National Committee of America called the decision "a betrayal of the truth, and a betrayal of trust." Another member called it a "national disgrace."
Mr. Stewart always talks about how history is subjective, how there's never merely one side to the story as our textbooks would have us believe. The controversy over the Armenian Genocide is just one example of this. It's also a testament to the power of language; a debate over one word could change our version of history. How something is remembered is just as important as what actually happened.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-armenian-genocide-20150421-story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/21/politics/obama-armenian-genocide-100th-anniversary/index.html
I really appreciate the thoroughness of your post and would like to expand on the idea and link the direct quote made by Obama regarding this issue.
ReplyDeleteThe proof of Obama's statement regarding Armenian genocide on October 2, 2008 can be found in the quote copied below from the ABC news website. It appears that the U.S. denial to acknowledge the atrocities committed against the Armenian as ¨genocide" is being utilized a form of appeasement for Turkey and other Middle East nations as mentioned in your original post. This form of governmental action can be seen in American and British action in WWII with Germany by annexing the Sudetenland in attempt for peaceful relations with the German government. However, this form of attempted compromise resulted in a decrease in willingness for the appeased nation to compromise with the United States. Therefore, I am wondering that, if this is the case, can appeasement ever lead to successful cooperation with Turkey and the Middle East? If we know that appeasement has not worked in the past to increase cooperation between nations, then why is this the approach of the American government today? Is Obama simply deflecting the fact that he is unwilling to follow through on his promises made in his 2008 presidential campaign, or is this action merely an attempt to stall an inevitable confrontation between the United States and Turkey/ the Middle East?
"my firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence."
- Barack Obama (October 2, 2008)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obama-breaks-promise-commemorate-armenian-genocide/story?id=16202151
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow this was a very interesting post! I honestly was not even aware of this so called "American Genocide" before I read your post. The American Genocide occurred during World War 1, so I'm assuming that the Ottoman Turks were trying to gain an advantage in the war. But even so, it is not acceptable to kill innocent civilians Your post really interested me so I decided to research myself and I found that the Ottoman Turks exterminated Americans that were living within the borders of present day Turkey. I am astonished that I have never heard about this before, given that this monstrosity affected my own people.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the interesting post! I found a New York Times article with several stories from descendants of survivors of the genocide:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/world/europe/armenia-readers-stories.html?_r=0
Many of the stories reminded me of the Jewish Holocaust in WWII. I find it really interesting that there is a very negative connotation attached to Holocaust-deniers, but it's considered more acceptable to not want to use the word "genocide" in reference to the Armenian Genocide. I think the American government not recognizing it as a genocide in hopes of better negotiations with Turkey has definitely added to this. I wonder if we would think about the Holocaust differently if our government did not recognize it as such.
Thanks for the post Sierra! You mentioned how using the word "genocide" could impact Turkish relationships with other countries, so I thought I'd provide a couple of examples of this:
ReplyDeleteLast week in Austria, parliament members signed a declaration calling it a genocide. As a result, Turkey made a statement that said this would leave "permanent stains on Turkish-Austrian friendship", and then recalled their ambassador from Vienna.
A couple weeks earlier, Pope Francis called the Armenian genocide the "first genocide of the 20th century". Turkey responded by recalling their ambassador in the Vatican, along with calling the Pope's statements "null and void".
Turkey has been known to make threats to end relationships with countries who use the word "genocide", but so far has not followed through with these threats. Earlier this week, the prime minister of Turkey called it wrong to "lay all blame" on Turkey and to "reduce everything to one word".
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-why-armenia-genocide-recognition-remains-a-tough-sell-20150426-story.html#page=1