The politics of saying ‘genocide’

More than 90 years after the Armenian genocide, the U.S. is deadlocked in a humiliating linguistic debate.

The L.A. Times has an excellent backgrounder on why D.C. still refuses to call it genocide. The primary reason is they don’t want to upset Turkey where they have an air base, among other things. No matter that this makes a mockery of stated US goals to end genocides elsewhere. and invites charges of massive hypocrisy.

So in February 2005, while speaking in California, [former ambassador to Armenia John Marshall] Evans said: “I will today call it the Armenian genocide. I think we, the U.S. government, owe you, our fellow citizens, a more frank and honest way of discussing this problem.” For that remark he was recalled from his post so that Washington could get back to the business of evading the historical truth.

It’s important to note that previous presidents. Bill Clinton included, also refused to recognize the genocide, and for the same slimy reasons.

A bill to recognize the genocide is in Congress and looks like it could pass. But Democrats in their usual timid manner have delayed the vote until after the upcoming April 24 anniversary of the event. Goodness, they wouldn’t want to do anything rash, we’re only talking about the slaughter of 1.5 million people here.

3 thoughts on “The politics of saying ‘genocide’

  1. The three hundred years of white-eye occupation of North “America” has been what…?

    To be perfectly honest, I don’t much care about Armenia, or Germany, seventy, eighty and a hundred years ago.

Comments are closed.