"It is absurd, then, that Turkish politicians and some academics (not all of them Turks) insist that the issue is somehow open to debate, though there is certainly room for more research to be done in the Turkish archives. And it is deplorable that writers in Turkey can still be prosecuted for describing the fate of the Armenians as genocide.
"Yet I remain far from convinced that anything has been gained by last week's resolution. Indeed, something may well have been lost. "
In the Los Angeles Times, Niall Ferguson wades into the congressional Armenian-genocide issue.
"The Armenian genocide is a clear-cut case of genocide, and the fact that the U.S. has avoided calling it by its rightful name for decades is shameful. Crimes against humanity must be acknowledged. Hitler infamously said, with reference to the Poles, 'Who, after all, is today speaking of the destruction of the Armenians?' Historical memory must not be sold away for a few pieces of silver. No one would countenance allowing Germany to deny its guilt for killing 6 million Jews. Why should Turkey be let off the hook for a slightly earlier holocaust that took the lives of as many as 1.5 million Armenians "
But in Salon, Gary Kamiya disagrees with Ferguson's arguments.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
What's in a Name?
Labels:
1910s,
1920s,
2000s,
Armenia,
diplomatic history,
politics,
Turkey,
World War I
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment