Between 1915 and 1923, the Ottoman Turkish government killed 60,000-1.8 million of the Armenian population, mainly through massacre and forced deportation in death marches. And today, many nations, including Turkey, and even America (or at least Barack Obama), don’t recognize it as a genocide, though most historians and genocide scholars do. To be fair, twenty countries “offically” recognize the events as a genocide, but that’s what bugs me. Why do we need to recgonize the Armenian genocide “officially”, when we can just recognize it as a genocide?
When dealing with genocide, why do we need to recognize it “officially”? Is there a problem with simply recognizing a genocide for what it is. Though, in the case of nations, it might have something to with Turkish interests. Turkey tries to deny the events were anything other than a genocide. In fact, they tried to claim that “there was no will to exterminate a population”. They tried to claim it was the “consequences of war”.
Also, you know what’s strange? America’s position. Not only do only 43 out of 50 states recognize the genocide, but also, while Ronald Reagan, an overrated right-wing nut, recognizes the genocide for what it was, Barack Obama, the darling of the masses, has gone on record to try an avoid using the term (Note: I’m not defending anyone in this statement). The only way he came close was using the Armenian synonym, Meds Yeghern, which translates to “Great Crime”. However satisfying you think it might be, he still doesn’t recognize it as a genocide.
Look, what I’m trying say is that why debate over whether to “officially” recognize a genocide for what it is, when we can just recognize it? There’s no excuse to bullshit around, or just plain deny the facts.