A fight over the word 'genocide' is no way to end the aborigin

[Yervant1]

DOUG SAUNDERS

A fight over the word 'genocide' is no way to end the aboriginal crisis

Doug Saunders

The Globe and Mail

Published

Saturday, Oct. 19 2013, 8:00 AM EDT

Last updated

Sunday, Oct. 20 2013, 12:14 AM EDT

 

Imagine if the Turkish Prime Minister issued this statement: “The Canadian aboriginal people experienced terrible suffering and loss of life. Our parliament has adopted a motion that acknowledges the native Canadian genocide and condemns this act as a crime against humanity. My party and I supported this resolution, and continue to recognize it today. We must never forget the lessons of history.”

 

Ottawa would reject it, and many Canadians would be outraged to see their country put in the same column as Nazi Germany. Many would point out the hypocrisy of such a statement coming from the Turks.

Some Canadians would cheer it. This past year has, for First Nations, been something like what 1963 was for African-Americans, and as part of that awakening, the word “genocide” has risen in popularity. In this view, the mistreatment and suffering that native and Inuit people suffered must be seen as a deliberate attempt to exterminate an entire people, and should be recognized as such internationally.

This week, when the United Nations Envoy on Aboriginal Affairs paid a study visit to Canada, prominent native and Jewish figures sent him a letter asking that Canada’s treatment of aboriginals be recognized as a genocide, encouraging him to make a statement like the one at the top of this column.

Of course, those words were not uttered by the Turkish Prime Minister. Rather, they come from a statement made last year by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, with “native Canadian” substituted for “Armenian.”

The persecution and mass expulsion of Armenians by Ottoman forces in 1915 involved truly grotesque crimes against humanity, a string of atrocities that deserve condemnation. Many people, especially Armenians, consider it a genocide, although this definition is controversial.

Mr. Harper’s Conservatives have officially applied the “G” word to the Armenian experience at least four times. This has not gone over well in Turkey, even among those who are pressing for an atonement and full apology to Armenians. Because of campaigns like Canada’s, the word “genocide” has become a fixation among both Armenians and Turks – one that many feel has stood in the way of actual reconciliation.

Canada may soon face the same tension. Was our history genocidal?

The UN Genocide Convention, which Canada ratified more than six decades ago and has applied against other countries, defines the crime as including “any of” a list of acts committed against an identifiable group, including not just mass killing and mass physical or mental harm but also “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part,” “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group,” and “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” You can find sustained examples of many of these in Canadian history, plus acts of cultural destruction such as forcing thousands of Inuit to replace their names with metal number plates.

Were those acts, as the genocide convention requires, committed with “intent to destroy, in whole or in part” the group’s population? In both the Turkish and Canadian examples, this is an open question. The Beothuk people of Newfoundland were literally exterminated, in part through deliberate acts. Some Ottoman and Canadian officials did appear to want all Armenians and natives gone. You could make a strong case, but not a completely waterproof one: Crimes against humanity, even awful ones, are not all genocidal.

It feels petty and mean to tell people whose family histories have been defined by cruelty and loss that the atrocities they suffered weren’t quite up to the definition of genocide. On the other hand, it’s an injustice to truly unambiguous genocides, such as the near-successful mechanized slaughter of Europe’s entire Jewish population or Rwanda’s mass slaughter of Tutsis, to attempt to apply the term to every mass atrocity.

Nobody wants to be labelled genocidal. Modern Turks live in a state that was created in the 1920s in opposition to the Ottomans who committed the Armenian atrocities. Post-1967 Canadians tend to see indigenous mistreatment as the act of less tolerant Dominion-era Canadians.

And yet Canada’s impoverished, racially segregated aboriginal communities are still a source of shame. Progress won’t happen without full and honest atonement. In both countries, it may be better to avoid a generation-long fight over the “G” word, and instead to speak officially of “crimes against humanity that some consider genocidal.” If we want to end the accusations, that’s the kind of compromise that is needed.

 

[Yervant1]

ARMENIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF CANADA RESPONDS TO INACCURATE GLOBE AND MAIL ARTICLE

http://www.armradio.am/en/2013/10/24/armenian-national-committee-of-canada-responds-to-inaccurate-globe-and-mail-article/

14:17 24.10.2013

Dr. Girair Basmajian, President, Armenian National Committee of
Canada has sent a letter to the Globe and Mail's editorial staff in
response to a grossly inaccurate and fact-less opinion piece written by
columnist Doug Saunders on October 19, the Horizon Weekly reports. The
letter reads:

"I am writing to you on behalf of the Armenian National Committee
of Canada. The Armenian National Committee of Canada (ANCC) is the
largest and the most influential Armenian-Canadian grassroots human
rights organization. Working in coordination with a network of offices,
chapters, and supporters throughout Canada and affiliated organizations
around the world, the ANCC actively advances the concerns of the
Armenian-Canadian community on a broad range of issues.

We write in response to one article published in the Globe and Mail
on Saturday, October 19, 2013 under the title "Genocide - is it a
question worth answering?" and "A Fight Over The Word 'Genocide'
Is No Way To End The Aboriginal Crisis" by Mr. Doug Saunders.

We are concerned, and the Armenian-Canadian community is outraged,
that this article confuses facts with opinions and doing so confuses
the reader as to whether or not the term "genocide" can be applied
to the events of 1915 - 1923 with respect to the Armenian population
of the Ottoman Empire.

Mr. Saunders begins his column by saying that if the Republic of
Turkey had ever said Canada committed genocide "Ottawa would reject
it, and many Canadians would be outraged to see their country put in
the same column as Nazi Germany." Does Mr. Saunders have any proof of
this? Has he discussed this matter with Canadian government officials
or is he simply presenting his personal beliefs as fact? We believe
that if the world community concluded that Canada (or colonial powers
governing the areas now constituting Canada) had committed genocide
with respect to its aboriginal population, the Canadian government
would not reject that notion.

Similarly, Mr. Saunders goes on to say "Many people, especially
Armenians, consider it a genocide, although this definition is
controversial" with respect to the Armenian Genocide. What Mr.

Saunders does not say is that the definition is controversial simply
because the Republic of Turkey denies the matter and that just about
every genocide scholar or historian not affiliated with the Republic
of Turkey recognizes that the fact of the Armenian Genocide. Simply
put the Armenian Genocide is controversial the way that the guilt of
a convicted murderer who denies his crime is controversial. A more
accurate statement would be "The Armenian Genocide is subject to a
campaign of denial by the Republic of Turkey."

Also, Mr. Saunders states "Were those acts, as the genocide convention
requires, committed with "intent to destroy, in whole or in part" the
group's population? In both the Turkish and Canadian examples, this is
an open question." There is no doubt by any objective observer that the
Young Turk government intended to destroy the Armenian people in the
Ottoman Empire. Again, the "open question" arises solely because the
Republic of Turkey has acted to make this an open question, whether
through the criminalization of discussion of the topic within its
own borders, its intense lobbying campaign against recognition in
other countries (including Canada) or by funding dubious, one-sided
historical scholarship throughout the world.

Finally, Mr. Saunders states "Nobody wants to be labelled genocidal.

Modern Turks live in a state that was created in the 1920s in
opposition to the Ottomans who committed the Armenian atrocities.

Post-1967 Canadians tend to see indigenous mistreatment as the act of
less tolerant Dominion-era Canadians." This statement is inaccurate
even within the context of Mr. Saunders' own beliefs because just
a few paragraphs earlier he states that some Canadians would cheer
being labelled genocidal, but it is also inaccurate in saying that the
modern Republic of Turkey was created in opposition to the Ottomans.

The modern Republic of Turkey arose from the defeat of the Ottoman
Empire following the First World War and while there was some
opposition to the past, by the 1930s the perpetrators of the Armenian
Genocide were being honoured as heroes in Turkey and the state began a
full-on campaign to recognize and glorify many aspects of its Ottoman
past. As someone who has spent considerable time in Turkey, Mr.

Saunders is no doubt aware that the Republic of Turkey is proud of
its Ottoman roots and constantly makes reference to them (except with
reference to its treatment of minorities).

The Armenian National Committee of Canada believes that in order to
counter Mr. Saunders' conflation of opinion and fact, the Globe and
Mail should provide space for an article to set out the facts on the
Armenian Genocide and to act as a counterbalance to Mr. Saunders'
article. The ANCC would be happy to provide the names of various
prominent Canadian figures who would be willing to author such an
article or, alternately, to prepare the article itself. We believe
that the readers of the Globe and Mail would benefit from having
access to information that accurately sets out the historical truth
of the Armenian Genocide and the following campaign of denial by
the Republic of Turkey rather than simply relying on Mr. Saunders'
confused explanations.

We would also like a meeting with the editorial board of the Globe and
Mail so that we can provide more accurate information about this topic
and we can begin a dialogue about improving communication between
the media and our community. The Armenian-Canadian community is an
important part of this country and we believe that our media would
better serve all Canadians if it better reflected our participation
and history in our country."

Here is the link to Doug Saunders's article

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/genocide-is-it-a-question-worth-answering/article14914529/