The documentary shown in class concerning the Armenian genocide was both moving and very informative. Aside from discussing facts about the genocide (with which I was already familiar because of assigned readings and previous knowlege), the film spent a lot of time focusing on why the Turkish government is so adamant about denying it. One of the major possible reasons that I thought was very interesting, was that the Turks want to avoid the bad press. Initially, this seems like a fairly simple and petty explanation as to why an entire government would deny the systematic extermination of an entire people. After some careful consideration, however, that seems like a perfectly legitimate reason for denial. A close parallel can be drawn to the early European immigrants to America (who eventually became the early Americans) systematically murdering and relocating the Native Americans into special reservations. Because a good deal of time has passed and the United States has built itself into a major global power, Americans can openly discuss the Native American Genocide, because even though it may not look so good on a track record, what can anyone really do to America for it. Turkey is not yet established as a major world power, and is still working to modernize and work its way into the Western World. If they admit to the Genocide at this pivitol point, it could severely damage their image.
All this being said, however, the issue of Genocide is still a touchy subject in lands where it has been admitted. Although Americans have the ability to discuss the Native American's plight, they rarely do, prefering to leave the issue alone. Just the word "genocide" seems reserved for extremely successful cases of mass murder and There are many atrocities that are carried out on large groups of people by individuals and governments all the time that are not considered genocide. Take the American Eugenics movement, for example. The United States government may not have murdered people they found to be of inferior intelligence or mental capacity, but it systematically took away their right and ability to reproduce, hoping that they could evetually exterminate an entire population of "socially inferior" people. There are still places within the United States that will only provide sterilization services to certain racial groups seeking birth control methods, limiting that group's reproductive capacity. How similar is that to "systematic removal?"
I had never related the Armenian Genocide to the Native American massacre. I would say Native American Genocide but even typing it seems weird and awkward to say. I had never given my own countries history between the Indians and early settlers any thought in relation to a genocide, but as my thoughts develop in class a begin to think that maybe the idea of a Native American Genocide is a more correct term to use when talking about the slaughtering of the Native Americans.
ReplyDeleteI really do think that what happened to the Native American population in the beginning of America's history must be considered genocide. The American government systematically relocated vast numbers of Native American tribes into the far west, and took every possible measure to force them into living on designated reservations. Because of this systematic relocation and annihilation, entire tribes are no longer in existence and thousands of languages have been lost. Interestingly, many place names (Mamaroneck, Chesapeak, etc.) are left over from Native American languages but will never be translated into their English equivalent.
ReplyDeleteI thought what you wrote was very interesting. I do however detest your comparison of the Armenian Genocide to the killings of Native American colonist. I wouldn’t call the killings of Native Americans genocide only because the American Colonies were not a "united" state until 1776. The definition of genocide is a planned destruction of a united nation and its nation’s people. Secondly, Native Americans were also killing colonists. The result of European Colonist to immigrate to North America was due to religious and social persecution in Europe. From then on it was imperialism that drove the colonist to gain more land which in turn caused the conflict between the Native Americans.
ReplyDeleteI understand the argument that the Native Americans were not subject to genocide because European Colonists were not a "united nation" at the time of the massacre. However, I can't help thinking that that is nothing more than a mere technicality. Regardless of whether or not European Colonists were a united "nation," they were still a cohesive group of people that worked to essentially exterminate another group of people because of their differences. As for the argument that Native Americans were also killing Colonists, I fail to see the connection. Must a group be entirely innocent in order for their systematic slaughters to be considered a genocide? That Colonists killed a majority of the Native Americans in the name of self defense seems a little outlandish, and hauntingly similar to the Turkish government's denial of the Armenian Genocide--"we acted purely out of self defense in a Civil War."
ReplyDeleteI thought that the documentry of the Armenian Genocide made it ever more realy that there is drastic killing all the time. Genocide happened and I think it is horrible that Turkey will not own up to their mistakes. Our former President apologized to the Native Americans, why cant Turkey apologize for the Armenian Massacre?
ReplyDelete