Tzitzernak Armenyan Imagine for a moment that every country, every relevant governing body in the world, recognizes the acts committed against Armenians by Ottoman Turkey at the beginning of the 20th century as Genocide. And imagine that within one week, a high-ranking member of every one of those countries apologizes to the present day government of Turkey (as Sweden recently did, for example). In this hypothetical case of worldwide recognition followed by apologies, I have a few questions. Are we any further along than we started? As Armenians, would we be satisfied with that type of worldwide recognition? And maybe most importantly, is that the dignity we are seeking, demanding, for our grandparents and families? Because the act of genocide, recognition aside for a moment, is fundamentally a question of human rights, of the right to life, the right to exist, as an individual, a family, as a nation, without persecution, without the ultimate persecution. Which brings us to the question of terminology-- a dimension of this issue about which countless tomes have been written, a dimension which, in the very end, is somewhat moot? Since, to some extent, whether one calls it mass organized destruction and annihilation, medz yeghern, extermination, genocide or ediconeg, it doesn't really matter, does it? However, rather than the word being the least important thing, and recognition of atrocities the most important, the issue has been relegated to a battle over the correct combination of letters and sounds. This perseveration brings what now has been reduced to a game for so many, to a whole new level, and denial of the word itself, that combination of letters and sounds, is being used to deny the atrocities themselves. All of this only serves to intensify the inherited anguish of the atrocities, and to cheapen and debase the struggle for recognition. But, I digress. The denial that a planned, mass deportation and extermination of a group of people occurred is a denial that those individuals had, and subsequently had taken away, those fundamental rights in an inhumane and deplorable manner. But, I do not need the recognition of the United States or Turkey, of Sweden or Zaire, of Russia or Cambodia, to know what happened. Nor does any other Armenian I know. We seek recognition from others for numerous reasons. To begin with, we have to seek it because so many ignore or deny it - if it were already a part of accepted world history, the question would not be raised. This brings us to the next reason. The nature of the acts themselves go against all principles of humanity, being heinous and deplorable, and occurring on a massive scale. The lack of recognition and denial of the act of genocide, in a transitive manner, is a statement that those victims did not have the right to live (since taking it away is acceptable). And, being denied this fundamental right of humanity, a right that many in developing nations now give to many non-human animals (dogs, whales, spotted owls, for example), the victims are equated to sub-human life forms. The search for recognition of the Armenian genocide is the search for the stolen dignity. Now, this jump may seem to be an overly cerebralized, calculated set of statements. However, in the end, it explains the visceral internal and often external scream many Armenians have when they hear of an individual or a nation, especially one that has the facts and truths of history, which denies or fails to recognize the Genocide of the Armenians. All one has to do is observe how fervently so many pursue the struggles for pandas, elephants, and spotted owls, and it should then be no surprise that a people would struggle even harder for the recognition of the dignity of their own family and people. Countries pass laws and sign international agreements to save whales, yet they are unable to act responsibly and ethically with regards to other humans. A modern world which claims to be so advanced, and civilized, with so many international charters and agreements for the protection of Human Rights, that cannot or will not recognize such an atrocity, is fundamentally hypocritical. And this hypocrisy itself is angering. Add to that the degradation that comes with denial, from the implication that our martyred grandparents are viewed as less than human. And what we have is the pursuit of recognition as a way of returning a dignity which was and continues to be denied to the victims. This again may seem somewhat awkward at first. But just think of how many fights have started over insulting words hurled at people's fathers and sisters, kings and gods. Some might argue that the outcome of the 2006 FIFA World Cup would have gone to the French had the Italian player Materazzi not purportedly insulted Zidane's mother: a remark which is said to be the reason behind the severe headbutt Materazzi then received to the chest by Zidane in the last minutes of the game, altering the outcome of the game and Football history forever. Now let us return to the present day. Sweden recently recognized the Armenian Genocide. Within days, there were apologies to Turkey, that it was not intentional. Some articles about the call report that the apology was in the context of concerned that recognition would interfere with the progress of relations between Turkey and Armenia. This, honestly, from a strategic point of view, may be understandable. But why then was the issue raised at all, at this time? The United States Congress Foreign Affairs Committee recently passed a resolution to recognize the Armenian Genocide, and it can now go to vote in the full House of Representatives; the government of Turkey was less than pleased. In point of fact, it passed only by one vote, the smallest margin yet (as the Genocide Act has been at this stage multiple times in the past). Why was the issue raised, at this time? Many international opinions, from multiple different sides, agree that it was to place pressure on Turkey with regards to the advancement of the Turkish-Armenian Protocols, as may be the case with Sweden. When will the act go to the House for a vote? I'm not sure anyone knows, at least, it’s not public. So here we have an atrocity of humanity, fundamentally of human rights and of dignity, now being used as a way to pressure Turkey to do one thing or another. And when the atrocity is indeed recognized, it is followed by an apology. The true meaning of the act, the significance and the weight it carries, is lost to those who are willing to use it in the game, just as the true price of the $1,000,000 poker chip is lost to the poker player entrenched in the game, thinking he has the best hand, or at least, the best bluff. But unlike the player who will go home with the value of the chip if he wins, in this world, Armenians will not go home with a prize - the search for dignity is a borrowed tool, and is only devalued further by being thrown in and out of the poker chip pot. It seems acceptable to pity the "poor, starving Armenians," as a co-worker once referred to us when she learned I was Armenian: I remember, she said well-intentioned but with more than a hint of pity in her voice: my grandmother used to speak of the poor starving Armenians. That is the imagery that has remained, literally and figuratively, in those who have a bit of knowledge. So it should not be surprising that the bartering, the parking-lot style wheeling and dealing of unrecognized atrocities of humanity is acceptable, though in point of fact it only makes more difficult the struggle to give dignity back to our forefathers. Is it truly recognition, when it is done with a wink and a nod, in return for some type of favor, or to gain some type of advantage? Is it truly recognition of an atrocity of human history when the act of recognition is so detached and incongruous with the atrocity for which recognition is sought? There is no dignity to be gained in this type of "Recognition." So, spare me the bartering and further degradation. My family has waited almost 100 years for recognition of what happened. I would rather wait 100 more, for the recognition to be true, rather than have a false, cheapened recognition that further demeans the victims of the Genocide, and is traded for silence regarding the oppression of human rights that occurs in Armenia today. N.B. I started writing this piece before reading Mahcupyan's piece in Zaman/Hetq. I believe the ideas in the two pieces dovetail, and would strongly recommend reading it to anyone who has not yet already. One of many important points in his piece is worth highlighting here. As a people searching for recognition, true recognition, our efforts should include, if not be aimed at (as Mahcupyan argues) the people of Turkey. For, really, what if the government of Turkey recognized the Genocide, but every Turk questioned denied it? Would that be recognition?