Sir,
I was dismayed by Gwynne Dyer’s article on the Armenian genocide resolution in the United States. He does not have a basic grasp of the definition of genocide. He asserts that there was nothing premeditated about the genocide. In fact, not only was it premeditated, the massacre was systematised. Anyone who has done serious research into the matter knows that official pronouncements were made regarding the extermination of Armenians. In a curious reversal, Dyer cites his own reading of a Turkish soldier’s diary to show that the Turks really were in a panic, and that this was not planned at all. If that diary is indicative of anything, it shows the extreme conclusions one will reach by way of synechdochic reasoning.
Dyer also asserts that the reason there is no genocide resolution for Rwanda (but there is one for the Sudan) is because of Armenian voters.
That may or may not be the case, but it doesn’t detract from the primary moral question of genocide. Not to mention the fact that in the USA hardly anyone denies the Rwanda genocide or that of Nazi Germany.
The US President freely uses the word genocide to describe massacres as he sees fit, but he defers from using it when it comes to one specific case: the Armenian genocide. That tells us everything we need to know.
Genocide by friend and ally is no genocide at all.
If Gwynne Dyer lived in the USA, he would understand that the Armenian genocide denial industry is strong here. It extends to our American media which consistently frames the issue as one of controversy and disagreement between Turkey and Armenia. It extends to congressmen who shout, “Leave it to the historians!” It extends to academia where chairs purchased by the Turkish government deny it, and to the publishing world as well, not to mention encyclopedias like Microsoft Encarta, which whitewash the affair.
If the US Congress cannot simply commemorate a massacre on this scale because of the realities of our geopolitical mistakes in recent years, then it won’t be long before the Armenian genocide falls completely into question in the USA. If Americans must be completely pure before recognising a genocide, then forget about us and our moral compass, because we will never ever stand for anything righteous ever again.
Genocide scholars maintain that the final crime of genocide is denial.
Reading this week’s editorials in the USA, one gets the feeling that the Armenian genocide has not yet ended. This congressional resolution may not have the effect of putting it to an end, but I certainly hope that it provides the impetus for change in perception of this event in the American media. Is that a necessity right now? If not now, when?
Dimitri Anastasopoulos
Buffalo, NY, USA
