A Systematic Crime Against Humanity

The Armenian Genocide is a topic I can not seem to move away from. I have written about this previously in my blog about The Bastard of Istanbul, and again about the term genocide in relation to what is going on in Palestine,but after watching the documentary "The Armenian Genocide" in class I was provided with a visual aid to the horror of 1915 in which I am still shocked to be learning about now for the first time. What caught my attention the most was the clear effort of the Turks to deny these events even today. With the example of the Holocaust in Nazi Germany there is no denial that those events happened and I see very little difference in what happened to the Armenians as a result of this ruthless Turkish Nationalism. Understanding that the Turkey is under a different government from the one run by the Young Turks in 1915, I can understand their desire to hide such an atrocity, however when there is a group of people who are still in mourning of the deaths of their families and ancestors, the Turks are only pouring Salt in their wounds by not recognizing it.
According to the video, Theodore Roosevelt called this event "the greatest crime of the war"which I would agree with. I think what makes this so shocking is that it was permitted and systematically organized by the government and said to be condoned by the mosques which promoted participation from the local people. This created the notion that the systematic mass murder of a specific ethnic group or religion was a tool of government which easily promotes violence throughout a nation. This understandably could be something the Turks no longer wish to identify themselves with but as shown by this video they will go to any means necessary now to suppress the past even resort to violence. A couple living in Turkey, as shown in the video were attacked and their house was bombed as a reaction to their publication of book of the Armenian genocide. This shows me that Turkey is desperately trying to suppress a memory that is well known to many people, in most cases probably even the ones who are trying to hard to deny it.
In class we debated over if this event can really be called genocide. Without a doubt genocide is the first word I would use to describe it. However, since the Turks continuously deny that it was a genocide and instead refer to it as a "civil war" this issue can be argued. Was it a civil war? I guess if you look at the facts: The Turks were trying to establish a United Empire and therefore attacked Russian and lost. With Russia's faith being Christian and the Armenians faith being Christian many Armenians fought on the side of Russia which resulted in the first stage of the "genocide", the massacre of the Armenian soldiers who fought for the enemy. As a result of this the Turks began to look at the Armenians as a threat and from there pursued the execution of Armenian intellectuals who would have been the ones to organize any type of revolt. From this point it could been seen as the beginning to a civil war or the efforts of the Turks to suppress an ethnic group who was threatening to their leadership. The thing that I believed pushed this into an act of genocide was the mass killing of all Armenians, women and children included, the raping of women and young girls and the torture of innocent people simply because they fit the description of a group who the Turks were threatened by.
To an extent the Turks argument is understandable but I definitely would agree that they pushed the line into genocide. Since this term genocide did not exist 1915 the Turks may not have had a word so commonly known as one of the worse things a nation can be associated with but they still committed the crimes fitting the definition of the term. Had they had this term then, perhaps they would have modified their principles a little bit in effort to avoid their actions being labeled with this word, but regardless history is unavoidable despite their many effort to avoid it. I cant help but think about the current conflict with the Isreali's and Palestinians. Will this eventualy turn into an act of genocide? Can it be viewd as one already? A century from now will the Isreali government try to deny their actions? These are all questions I asked myself while watching this documentary.

Response to The Bastard if Isantbul

The Bastard of Istanbul, a novel by Elif Shafak, demonstrates the way history and the past effects the present. This book circled around the topic of the Armenian Genocide that occurred in 1915. With the novels' present setting, the characters are placed in a situation where they are forced to remember the past which they have chosen to forget and at the same time learn about their culture and their true individual identity as it relates to the past.
I found this book interesting not only because of the culture it represented and they new things I was able to learn about it as a result of this book but because of the history involved. The characters in the book either are oblivious to the fact that there ever was an Armenian Genocide or dwell on this event because of the way it effected their family and even years later are still seeking recognition. I thought one of the most powerful distinctions in the book was between the Armenian community living in Istanbul and the Armenian American community in the United States. These two groups, although from the same heritage, think completely different about the past. In relations to the Turks, Armenians who live in Turkey have come to accept the past and live among the Turks without resentment and hatred. The Armenian Americans however, are they ones who still continue to hate the Turks for what they have done to their families even though it was so many years ago. I found this geographical distinction very interesting.
Other than the characters relations to the events of 1915, I found it interesting to learn about this event through the novel since I had never known of its occurrence. The facts regarding this historical event that effected so many Armenian lives are presented through memories. As per class discussion on Thursday, it is hard to believe that such an event would go so unrecognized. We compared the publicity given to the Holocaust of the Jews in Nazi Germany during World War II and how thoroughly it is covered in grade school curriculum and how astonishing it is that other acts of genocide occurred even less than one hundred years ago yet many people have never heard of it. I find it really hard to believe that such an even can go so unrecognized, but after class discussion is realized the frustration of those who were actually effected by such an event must be astronomical. This explains why they Armenian Americans are still so agitated with the Turks. Since they left to come to America their last memory of their home land is this horrific genocide of their people. They have yet to experience the society under the Turkish Republic and therefore dwell on what used to be for the sole purpose of their hardships being recognized as so many other cultures hardships have been.
This book was most enjoyable. Not only did it provide an interesting and easy to read story but it was able to present history in a way that was not textbook and therefore made it more interesting. I believe this is a true issue concerning many Armenian Americans today and find it shocking that they have yet to be recognized for it. Perhaps more literature like this book could provide that recognition for them.

The Isreali/ Palestine Conflict... could it lead to the genocide of the Palestinians?

This morning in class we elaborated one some of the issues regarding Palestine and Israel. After watching "To Die in Jerusalem", and then discussing it in class, my opinion slightly changed. I found it hard to decide who to sympathize with, but now that I have had a few days to think about the video and now then discuss it in class, I am sure that there is a clash of civilizations. This conflict between Palestine and Israel has been going on for 60 years with no conclusion. It was mentioned in class that some have theorized that Israeli occupation in Palestine is leading in the direction of genocide. Although I don't think it is quite at that point yet, I do think that this situation could lead to that conclusion. These to civilizations can not get along what so ever, even in "To Die in Jerusalem" for example, a conversation between two mothers who have both lost their daughters as a result of this conflict cant even speak to each other with out engaging in a debate about politics and arguing over who is right and what truly matters in the over all picture. Some citizens of Israel such as Abigail in the film might not look at the issue as a political issue because she is blind sided by the fact that she lost her daughter, but in reality, what the Israeli's have been doing to the Palestinians for the past 60 years has seriously taken a tole on the young minds in both civilizations, and since the conflict shows no signs of stopping, or even slowing, I truly believe that the Israeli's will eventually engage in the genocide of the Palestinian people. Their persistence, and insistence that the land is rightfully theirs and could very possibly lead to that conclusion.

To Die in Jeruselum

This video made me really angry. Mainly because I had such a difficult time deciding who i sympathized with more. On one hand, Abigail, the mother of Rachel, the Israeli victim of the the suicide bombing at the supermarket, is suffering severely because she cannot understand why her daughter was a victim of a terrorist attack. She feels she daughter died in vain. Mean while she lives in freedom, in a country that is not pleasant due to its violent oppression of the Palestinian people but she still has her rights. The video's perspective leans its sympathy towards Abigail but also sheds light on the true issues that have arisen as a result of Israeli occupation in Palestine.
On the other hand, the family of Ayat is also suffering from the death of their child, but not the same way as Abigail because they truly believe that their daughter died for a cause. They believe that due to the oppression practices like killing, violence, imprisonment and demolition, that their children are raised in a much different world that Abigail's. Ayats family believes that the actions of their daughter should be honored because she was speaking out against a condition that all her people are extremely unhappy with. This is condition that has been effecting the minds of young people in Palestine who grow up under this oppression, where all they know is that they are not free but believe they should be.
I do not agree with what the Israeli's are doing in Palestine, but I do sympathize with Abigail more than the mother of Ayat because Abigail and her family never asked or caused trouble within the political system yet her daughter was killed. Ayat's family never asked to be victims, yet they are and that is unfortunate but I do believe in Abigail's point, that violence wont solve anything and that Ayat deliberately involved herself and Rachels in a violent act against politics. Although what Ayat did is considered honorable amongst the Palestinians it seems to me like what she did made no progress and only resulted in the loss of two young lives. Her actions did not solve the issue, the simply made a statement which many other before and after have made as well with little progress also. Although i dont agree with what the Isrealis are doing in Palestine I do beleive that these suicided bombings and terrorism are causeing even more conflict and making little progress.