What's the sticking point in the ADL/No Place For Hate/Armenian Genocide question?
genocide (Merriam Webster)
Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
This seems pretty clear cut. I think we can all agree this was Hitler's purpose with Jews. This was what happened in Rwanda. This is what is happening in Darfur.
It is also what happened in Armenia during WWI. I have never heard it credibly argued that what happened in Armenia from 1915 to 1917 was not genocide. I have no dog in this fight. I am not Jewish, I am not Armenian. I am an American with an interest in history and I have read enough to know what happened in Armenia was genocide. I attended a very interesting lecture at the Bostonian Society a while ago on this subject. The speaker was Peter Balakian and he wrote "The Burning Tigris". How can anyone question this definition? How can the ADL remain "neutral"?
There is some very interesting commentary in the Boston Globe and at the American Thinker.
I guess I'll have to get off my duff and email Kerry & Kennedy & Delahunt about this & this.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The term "genocide" wasn't coined until after WWII, and it carries the connotation of actively murdering people.
The Turkish position is that there was no *active* program to eliminate the Armenians. No roving sonderkommando, no camps, no mass executions. The official attitude was (and is): "If the Armenians didn't want to die, all they had to do was go where it was warm. Like, say, Portugal..."
Post a Comment