Genocide by any other name

The word "genocide" came into being in 1944. In light of this, it might be considered a bit anachronistic to call the Armenian massacres of 1915 genocide. Let us go back in time then, using the magic of The New York Times' historical archives, and see what people were calling the Turkish atrocities while they were being carried out. Here we are: Oct. 8, 1916, the Times published an article regarding an "exhaustive investigation conducted by the ex-British Ambassador to [the United States]." According to the headline, the resulting report "tells of the deportation and murder by the Turks of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in an attempt to exterminate entire Armenian nation."

An attempt to exterminate the entire Armenian nation. If that isn't genocide, then I don't know what is. For those who may be unfamiliar with the history, allow me to share some figures: Starting in 1915, the Ottoman Empire carried out a campaign of massive deportation. Before the end of the atrocities, two million Armenians were forcibly removed from their historic homeland; of these, 1,500,000 died. According to the BBC, at least 20 countries today, including France, Belgium and Canada officially recognize the event in question as genocide. Turkey, on the other hand, does not accept that any such genocide took place.

Resolution 106, which was introduced in the House of Representatives, aims to add the United States to the list of world powers officially acknowledging that what happened to the Armenians during World War I constitutes genocide. When I first read an article about this, the question seemed redundant, but when I read on Oct. 18 that it was unsure if the motion would reach a vote, my blood ran cold. For me the question had never been raised because I took it to be self-evident, but if the question was denied voice, or even worse, simply denied outright, that would be an entirely different problem.

Denying even the token justice of admitting what happened to the thousands of Armenians who lost their lives is an extraordinary affront not only to the memories of the dead Armenians and to their descendants, but also to the principles of human rights and human equality. What is worse, however, is that Resolution 106 is in doubt not because of a question of historical accuracy, but one of political inconvenience. Turkey might be offended enough to worsen the American situation in Iraq and destabilize Israel's security. Increasingly, it seems that Iraq is a lost cause and has been one since before the war started, however. As to the question of Israel, hopefully the tragic irony will not be lost to my readers.

But what is truly infuriating is that it seems that it is always politically inconvenient. It is politically inconvenient to call the genocide of the Armenians a genocide. It was politically inconvenient to do anything about genocide in Rwanda. It is politically inconvenient to do anything about genocide in Darfur. Now it seems that the only useful use of the word genocide is in referring to the Holocaust, and even then the deaths of Roma, gays, the disabled and others are often forgotten in the discussion.

To acknowledge genocide based primarily on convenience makes a horrid mockery of justice and of American ideals. Human life and human dignity is precious, and all human life ought to be equally precious. By ignoring Resolution 106, the United States will send the message that the deaths of the Armenians are meaningless to us, or at least, less meaningful than other deaths. All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

There is, of course, another reason why those in Washington may feel uncomfortable passing this resolution: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone." Apparently, some Congressmen are concerned about casting stones at Turkey in light of what happened to the Native Americans. It's a serious concern: condemning war criminals when we ourselves are guilty of war crimes. But, that concern didn't stop the Nuremberg Trials, and it hasn't stopped recognition of the Holocaust. The answer isn't to ignore the atrocities of others, especially not to pick and choose, but rather to admit one's own mistakes. The question of how the deaths of the Armenians and others will be remembered in the annals of history isn't merely an intellectual question of nomenclature. It's an important question of justice and human dignity. Martha Vega-Gonzalez is a history major from New York, N.Y. She can be reached at mvega@princeton.edu.