Submitted by Deniz Celik, Oct 15, 2007 14:19

The other day I was contemplating Armenian allegation of genocide against Turkey, and I began to think about the actual word itself. After a few moments I began to realize the actual weight of the word itself is a starting point that creates barriers and closes any opportunity to discuss and discern the Armenian Turkish relations and history in a rational manner. The word "Genocide" maintains numerous implications and using this loaded word as a starting point for dialog, is a tough way to commence any reconciliation. The word Genocide in this case is often used to disproportionately to represent the events, which were, but one front in a War, which lead to the eventual collapse of the Ottoman Empire. As a result of the invasion of Ottoman lands and its subsequent dismemberment at the hands of France, Great Britain, the Russian Empire, ANZAC troops, Arab agents loyal to the British Secret Service, Armenians, and even the Italians, the Ottoman Empire was destroyed along with over 4 million Muslim lives from the Balkans to the Middle East and up into the Caucus's. Armenians also suffered a great loss of lives, figures range anywhere from 300 000 to 600 000 according to reliable census figures and demographic studies from a number of sources. A tragedy for all sides would seem easy to acknowledge considering the deaths and horrific scenes of suffering that all sides obviously felt quite deeply. Yet, the tragedy and suffering has been turned into a war of words, or more specifically, a war over a word, Genocide. To be quite frank, the framing of this historical time period with such a powerful and precise word is as much responsible for the non-relations between Turks and Armenians today as the Imperialist plot that divided the two from the beginning. The reason for this is that it creates a hostile starting point, a defensive posture, and an insulting inference all at the same time. The word Genocide creates animosity almost instantly, and it does so for both the user of such a descriptive word, as well as the addressee. For this reason I feel that the terminology is of primary importance to be tackled and discussed when discerning the history surrounding the Ottoman Empire's dismemberment and subsequent results of the dismemberment. Let us put the word Genocide aside for a moment, what is it that Turks believe, how do Turks feel towards Armenians and this allegation of Genocide in their hearts and minds? I can attest to the fact that many Turks, if not most Turks that I know personally understand and are effected greatly as to the suffering of the Armenian people in Eastern Anatolia during the collapse of The Ottoman Empire. Yet it is important to note that it is also quite hard for these same compassionate, democratic and modern people to accept an accusation that fails to address the Imperialist role and impact on these lands, as well as their own suffering at the hands of Imperialist powers as well as Armenians and Greeks. Without considering the time (dates), actors (nations), and geographic scope during this theatre of war this tragedy will be misconstrued as a one sided event that had but one victim and thus the title Genocide will be wrongly attributed. The toll not only on the Greeks, Armenians, and Arabs, but also on the Turks who also lost millions of their fellow family and countrymen should be addressed, if not we fail to address the realities and resort to cheap labels and stereotypes. The suffering and understanding of such human tragedies is mutual, I can assure you we have all heard the stories of our own grandparents, having lived through war. A great number of families of Armenians, Turks, Kurds, Jews, Arabs, and Greeks have been ravaged and impacted in more ways than one on an equally disturbing level. The importance at the end of the day is the recognition of each other, the recognition of each other's right to live in peace for the moment and for the future. Instead of living in the past we must embrace our mutual futures. Of course we need to listen to each other and understand the mutual pain and separation we feel, and begin to comprehend that we are not really all that different after all. The problem with demanding the acceptance of a framed and powerful word, will only allow relations to further deteriorate into a stagnant and uncompromising stance against a future filled with opportunity. These are only some of my thoughts on the "framing" of this important historical period with a powerful word that demotes dialog and promotes animosity. If we begin to think in more positive and evolutionary ways perhaps we may be able to grasp a solution in this generation, leaving the confrontational style of the past out in the dark while we walk towards brighter days.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.