New York State senator Hillary Clinton has recently referred to the Armenian genocide as a matter of "historical debate," sparking protest from both the Armenian National Committee of America and the lead authors of the Armenian Genocide Resolution, Adam Schiff and Robert Dold. Having been presented with irrefutable evidence that a genocide did indeed occur, I was shocked and ashamed to discover that such a widely- regarded representative of our government was so ignorant of the facts.
However, it did prompt me to wonder about how the American population views the Armenian genocide (if they do at all). Thinking back to my high school days, I realized that I had never, in any of my history classes, heard mention of an Armenian genocide. What little I had known about it before this class had been gleaned from non-reliable sources such as Wikipedia. As someone who has had access to a good education, it stands to reason that I knew more about the genocide than the average American.
This lack of knowledge is significant because it corresponds to our government's reluctance to officially acknowledge the Armenian genocide, which both dishonors the memory of the survivors and encourages the Turkish government to continue their campaign of denial. It also prevents the American public from learning about and developing interest in the drive for official United States recognition of the genocide, which has been promised by Presidents Clinton and Obama but never delivered.
The motivations for the US government's refusal to acknowledge the Armenian situation as a genocide brings to mind an argument presented by Mark Levene in his article, "Why Is the Twentieth Century the Century of Genocide?" Levene claims that powerful states act within their own interests when it comes to preventing a genocide or recognizing that one has occurred. Turkey is a powerful ally due to its proximity to the unstable Middle East, and the Turkish government has actually threatened the safety of American troops if the Armenian Genocide Resolution is passed.
The United States government's reasoning is not outrageous, but nor is it ethical. There will never be a "good time" to pass the resolution, and the longer it takes, the less information circulates through the American public, and the less likely it is to happen at all.
I agree that it is astounding how little the pubic, at least in the United States, knows or talks about the Armenian genocide. It is not taught in schools nearly as much as the Holocaust of WWII is taught. This is surprising considering that the Armenian genocide was used as a case in the process of creating the term genocide. It is extremely important for the Armenians, for the accuracy of history, and for justice that the Turkish government recognize the Ottoman-Turks actions against the Armenians in WWI and that it was definitively a genocide. It is not clear how much common knowledge in the U.S. about the Armenian genocide would increase if the Turkish government admitted to the facts of the Armenians genocide. Izzy is right in saying that the U.S. government's reluctance to openly acknowldge the genocide does perpetuate the campaign of denial in Turkey. However, perhaps if Turkey were to acknowledge the genocide, the U.S. would not hesitant any longer to do so, because they would have no fear of offending or getting on bad terms with the Turks.
ReplyDeleteTurkey's allegiance is definitely a factor in the American waffling on declaring the actuality of the Armenian genocide. As we've seen in the clips from different news sources, and also in the BBC documentary on the Armenian genocide, the US came very close to passing a bill that defined the events a s genocide. Turkey, however, made insinuations that 1. American citizens in Turkey would no longer be safe (a near-bellicose sentiment amounting to bullying) and 2. America would no longer enjoy the use of Turkey as a route to access oil and send troops through. As Izzy says, powerful states act in their own interests concerning genocide--and in this case, Turkey persuaded America to back down in order to protect its citizens and endeavors.
ReplyDeleteThere is arguably another reason that the US continues to let the issue slide. The American settlers' treatment of the natives living throughout the region when the Europeans arrived can be perceived as a type of genocide, or at the very least ethnic cleansing. Some might argue that it was not a definite genocide because there was not a serious intent to wipe out the American Indians, just a wish to displace them in order to take their land. Much of the destruction of their race was also due to disease, which also was not intentional. However, since the settlers arrival initiated the obliteration of the American Indians' culture and society, not an assimilation but a destruction, Lemkin would most definitely argue that a genocide took place. Maybe once the United States can acknowledge the genocide in its own past, it will not be so hard for them to point the accusatory finger at other countries' histories.