fingerlakeswanderer

fingerlakeswanderer
Birthday
May 09
Title
cassandra
Bio
Lorraine Berry lives in the Fingerlakes region of New York, although it's her transplanted home. On weekends, she can be heard throughout the area, cheering on her beloved Manchester City F.C. When not writing at Does This Make Sense? or Talking Writing, she can be found hiking with her two dogs, hanging out with her two daughters, eating what her beloved Rob has cooked for her, or teaching creative writing at a small college in the area.

MY RECENT POSTS

DECEMBER 20, 2011 9:57AM

Peter Balakian on the Armenian Genocide

Rate: 4 Flag

Peter Balakian and I communicated last night and this morning. He was kind enough to send me the following letters. The first has been sent to the Turkish government.

 

The second letter is addressed directly to the genocide deniers, some of whom chose to comment on my post yesterday. 

 

Peter Balakian is the author of Black Dog of Fate, his personal history of the Armenian Genocide. He is a poet, professor, and human rights activist. 

A link to an interview he did with NPR is here: Peter Balakian

Okay. Letter #1

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS
12 June 2006
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan TC Easbakanlik Bakanlikir Ankara, Turkey
FAX: 90 312 417 0476 Dear Prime Minister Erdogan:

We are sending again the letter we wrote to you on June 13, 2005 because we are dismayed that your government is still asking the Armenian government to establish a so- called objective commission to study the fate of the Armenian people in 1915. We are concerned that your request is a political ploy designed to deny the facts of the Armenian Genocide when, outside of your government, there is no doubt about the facts. Our previous letter follows:


We are writing you this open letter in response to your call for an “impartial study by historians” concerning the fate of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire during World War I.


We represent the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe. We are concerned that in calling for an impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide and how this event conforms to the definition of the United Nations Genocide Convention. We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the overwhelming conclusion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of independent scholars, who have no affiliations with governments, and whose work spans many countries and nationalities and the course of decades. The scholarly evidence reveals the following:


On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its Armenian citizens – an unarmed Christian minority population. More than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of the Armenian population fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.


The Armenian Genocide was the most well-known human rights issue of its time and was reported regularly in newspapers across the United States and Europe. The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by thousands of official records of the United States and nations around the world including Turkey’s wartime allies Germany, Austria and Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by decades of historical scholarship.


The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly, legal, and human rights community:


1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he meant by genocide. 2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
3) In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide. 4) 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000 declaring the “incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide” and urging western democracies to acknowledge it. 5) The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem), and the Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC) have affirmed the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide.
6) Leading texts in the international law of genocide such as William A. Schabas’s Genocide in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian Genocide as a precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the law on crimes against humanity.


We note that there may be differing interpretations of genocide—how and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims, and erase the ethical meaning of this history.


We would also note that scholars who advise your government and who are affiliated in other ways with your state-controlled institutions are not impartial. Such so-called “scholars” work to serve the agenda of historical and moral obfuscation when they advise you and the Turkish Parliament on how to deny the Armenian Genocide.


We believe that it is clearly in the interest of the Turkish people and their future as proud and equal participants in international, democratic discourse to acknowledge the responsibility of a previous government for the genocide of the Armenian people, just as the German government and people have done in the case of the Holocaust.


Approved unanimously at the sixth biennial meeting of THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS (IAGS) June 7, 2005, Boca Raton, Florida
Israel Charny
Contacts: Israel Charny, IAGS President; Executive Director, Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem, Editor-in-Chief, Encyclopedia of Genocide, 011-972- 2-672-0424; encygeno@mail.com
Gregory H. Stanton
Gregory H. Stanton, IAGS Vice President; President, Genocide Watch, James Farmer Professor of Human Rights, University of Mary Washington; 703-448-0222; IAGSVP@aol.com

 And letter #2, which addresses those who would deny that this crime against humanity took place:

An Open Letter Concerning Historians Who Deny the Armenian Genocide: October 1, 2006


As the major organization that studies genocide, we write this letter to address the issue of professional scholars who support the Turkish government’s position that what happened to the Armenians in 1915 was not planned by the Ottoman government and did not constitute genocide.
Scholars who deny the facts of genocide in the face of the overwhelming scholarly evidence are not engaging in historical debate, but have another agenda. In the case of the Armenian Genocide, the agenda is to absolve Turkey of responsibility for the planned extermination of the Armenians—an agenda consistent with every Turkish ruling party since the time of the Genocide in 1915.


Scholars who dispute that what happened to the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 constitutes genocide blatantly ignore the overwhelming historical and scholarly evidence. Most recently, this is the case with the works of Mr. Justin McCarthy and Mr. Guenter Lewy, whose books engage in severely selective scholarship that grossly distorts history. As noted genocide scholar Deborah Lipstadt has written: “Denial of genocide whether that of the Turks against the Armenians, or the Nazis against the Jews is not an act of historical reinterpretation . . . . The deniers aim at convincing innocent third parties that there is an other side of the story . . . when there is no other side.”


As scholars Roger Smith, Eric Markusen, and Robert Jay Lifton noted in their article “Professional Ethics and the Denial of the Armenian Genocide” (Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Spring ’95), scholars who engage in denying genocide are motivated by various factors, including careerism. A Reuters report (3/24/05), “Turkey enlists US scholar to fight genocide claims,” underscores the degree to which Mr. McCarthy works with the Turkish government in its effort to undermine the truth about the Armenian Genocide.


We believe it is important to note that in serving the Turkish government, Mr. McCarthy and others like him bolster a government with a long-standing history of abusing minorities, intellectuals, and the principle of free expression. In the 1990s, according to Human Rights Watch and PEN International, Turkey had jailed or detained more writers than any other country in the world. Today Turkey has put on trial some of its most distinguished writers like Orhan Pamuk for mentioning the Armenian Genocide and hundreds of other writers are facing jail sentences for expressing their intellectual ideas. For scholars to support a state with a record of this kind raises profound questions about their professional ethics.


Whatever the agendas or tactics are of the few non-Turkish historians who support the Turkish government’s version of history, their claims are the same: 1) all the documents that scholars have used for decades to write about the Armenian Genocide are forgeries or otherwise unreliable; 2) the Young Turk regime did not intend to destroy the Armenian population – the massive deaths were a result of war, not genocide; 3) these were hard times for the Ottoman Empire and many Turkish people, especially soldiers, died, as did Armenian civilians, from famine, disease, wartime chaos, not from systematic slaughter; 4) the Armenians are to blame for their fate because they were a Fifth Column allied with Turkey’s enemy, the Russians, who were fighting against the Ottoman Empire in World War I, somehow even justifying the massacre of Armenian women and children.


We believe it is important to underscore the scholarly record on the Armenian Genocide.


The documentation on the Armenian Genocide is abundant and overwhelming. The Armenian Genocide was the most well-known human rights issue of its time and was reported regularly in newspapers across the United States and Europe. The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by thousands of official records of the United States and nations around the world including Turkey’s wartime allies Germany, Austria, and Hungary; by Ottoman court- martial records; by eyewitness accounts of missionaries and diplomats; by the testimony of survivors; and by decades of historical scholarship. There are over four thousand U. S. State Department reports in the National Archives, written by neutral American diplomats, confirming what U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau called “a campaign of race extermination.” Additional evidence is in the British Parliamentary Blue Book, “The Treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16,” compiled by Lord Bryce and Arnold Toynbee; in Austrian and German foreign office records (Turkey’s wartime allies), now available as books; and in the Ottoman Parliamentary Gazette which recorded the confessions of government and military officials during the Constantinople war-crimes tribunal held after World War I. Mr. Lewy claims the Gazette records are invalid, even though their authenticity has been validated by meticulous scholarship. Add to this overwhelming body of official evidence, thousands of pages of eyewitness accounts from relief workers, missionaries, and survivors, and it is indisputable that the Armenian Genocide is a proven history.
On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic, well-planned and organized genocide of its Armenian citizens – an unarmed Christian minority population. More than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of the Armenian population fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.
The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly, legal, and human rights community:
1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he meant by genocide.
2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
3) In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the fact of the Armenian Genocide.
4) 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000 declaring the “incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide” and urging western democracies to acknowledge it.
5) The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem), and the Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC), have affirmed the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide.
6) Every book on comparative genocide in the English language contains a segment on the Armenian Genocide. Leading texts in the international law of genocide such as William A. Schabas’s Genocide in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian Genocide as a precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the law on crimes against humanity.


Roger Smith, Eric Markusen, and Robert Jay Lifton wrote in “Professional Ethics and the Denial of the Armenian Genocide” (Holocaust and Genocide Studies): “Where scholars deny genocide in the face of decisive evidence . . . they contribute to false consciousness that can have the most dire reverberations. Their message, in effect, is . . . mass murder requires no confrontation, but should be ignored, glossed over. In this way scholars lend their considerable authority to the acceptance of this ultimate crime.”


Sincerely,
Professor Israel Charny President International Association of Genocide Scholars
Professor Robert Melson Past President International Association of Genocide Scholars
Gregory Stanton Vice-President International Association of Genocide Scholars

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
As one whose maternal great grandparents were murdered by the Ottomans, I must say that the history is what it is, and I frankly cannot understand how, 100 years later, the survivors of that awful time, insist on some kind of admission by modern day Turks, that what *their* great grandparents did was genocide.

No nation, no people, no group can deny the truth. The Armenian genocide is duly recorded as fact.

Let's get on with life.
Agreed, Flylooper. But yesterday, many wanted to argue that it had not happened.
Lorraine:

I don't question your understanding of what constitutes a genocide, the deliberate and systematic extermination of a racial or national group.

Thank you for replying to my comment in your previous post. I was going to post this response there, but I found this new one when I clicked on your name. I hope your future reading on this subject stems out of your intellectual curiosity and search for truth, rather than your respect for me, as you stated in your response. If you haven't already, may I suggest that you start with the following:

Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922.
By Justin McCarthy.
Princeton, N.J.: Darwin, 1995


EXCERPT:
Link: (http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/cataclysm.htm)

"The best example of historical obfuscation may be the traditional treatment that World War I in the Ottoman East has received in contemporary histories. Most histories only mention the Ottoman deportation of Armenians. Devoid of its historical context, the Ottoman decision to deport the Armenians appears to have been irrational, motivated primarily by hatred of a minority. In fact, from the history of events in the Balkans and the Caucasus, the Ottomans knew what to expect from nationalist revolution and Russian invasion of eastern Anatolia. In Bulgaria, Greece, and Macedonia, the same processes had led to the slaughter of Turks. Could the Ottomans expect any difference in Anatolia? For 100 years, the Russians had expanded by pushing out Muslims. They had forced out the Crimean Tatars and the Circassians. In the southern Caucasus, they had replaced Turks with Armenians. In 1915, the Russians were poised to advance once again. Armenian revolutionary groups had already begun their rebellion all over eastern Anatolia, killing Muslim villagers and even seizing the city of Van. What fate could the Muslims of the east expect when the Russians invaded? The same fate that befell the Turks of Bulgaria or Macedonia."

"The Ottoman government could not ignore the lessons of Ottoman history. In its historical context, the deportation of Ottoman Armenians is logical. This is not to pass moral judgment on deportations—the actions of all groups in the World War I period were so filled with inhumanity that no group should cast the first stone. However, if one examines the history of forced migration and mortality that Turks and other Muslims underwent, one finds an explanation for the Armenian deportations as part of a historical process. That is in every way preferable to theories that explain historical events simply as a series of irrational actions."

THE MAKEUP OF THE POPULATION OF TURKEY
The migrations of the nineteenth century greatly increased the number of Muslims in the Ottoman Empire. Because it is presently impossible to estimate accurately the population of much of Ottoman Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century, only eastern Thrace, Istanbul, and Anatolia can be used for purposes of comparison. In that area, approximately within the boundaries of modern Turkey, the Muslim percentage of the population increased through migration from roughly 70 percent to 80 percent of the total from 1800 to 1912, immediately before the Balkan Wars. The Armenian and Greek population, even though it greatly increased in size from natural increase, fell from 21 percent to 17 percent of the total. The in-migration of more than 400,000 Turks during and after the Balkan Wars further increased the Muslim majority, but these population changes, which took place in 1912-13, were dwarfed by the changes during and immediately after World War I, which resulted in a demographically Muslim and Turkish republic. After the wars, the new Turkish Republic was a nation greatly affected by the in-migration of the past hundred years. Most histories recognize the great effect that out-migration of Christian minorities had on Turkey, but do not discuss the effect of the millions of Muslim immigrants and their descendants. There is no way to trace exactly the demographic impact of Muslim refugees on the population of Turkey. However, one can make a rough model of the place of the refugees and their descendants in the population of the Republic. If the refugees went through the same demographic conditions as the rest of the Muslim population of Anatolia and Thrace, they and their descendants would have been close to three million by 1923, or nearly one-fifth of the total Muslim population of Turkey. The refugees settled primarily in western Anatolia, Istanbul, eastern Thrace, and parts of northeastern and southern Anatolia. The descendants of the refugees would have made up almost one-third of the population of those “target” areas.[2]

THE POLICIES OF THE TURKISH REPUBLIC
After the defeat of the Greeks in Anatolia, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and his fellow Turkish Nationalists set upon the radical restructuring of the Ottoman government, economy, and society and the creation of the Turkish Republic. One of the social and political bases of the new republic was the disastrous history of the past 100 years, particularly the losses of the 1912-22 wars. The effects of the great Muslim and Turkish losses continued in the postwar years, affecting both foreign and domestic policy in the new republic of Turkey.

The foreign policy of the Turkish Republic was one of pacific neutrality. Even in the1930s, when nationalism and irredentism took on renewed strength throughout much of Europe, Turkey remained officially content with the territories that remained in Anatolia and eastern Thrace. To understand Turkish foreign policy one must consider Turkey as a land of recent refugee in-migration and massive mortality. Atatürk and his followers could never afford to forget that a large portion of the Turks had been forced out of the Balkans. Nor could they ignore the hatred created by the Greek invasion of Anatolia. Indeed, it would have been easy to fan the flames of irredentism and heed cries of “On to Salonica” in the period after the Anatolian War. To do so would have meant the survival of the old ideal of a military state. It may, or may not, have resulted in the expansion of Turkey, but it would surely have meant an outward-looking, expansionist state, not the inward-looking, reformist state envisioned by Atatürk. By denying any expression of irredentism, Atatürk turned the energy of citizenry and government to reform. In other words, the history of refugee migration and mortality forced the Turkish government into a quiescent foreign policy. Any other policy would have meant disaster for much-needed reform of the economy and society. This is no way diminishes the wisdom of the leaders who chose Turkish foreign policy. Lesser men would have chosen “glory” over the hard task of remaking society.

Can anyone believe that radical reforms of the type initiated by Atatürk would have been successful in the nineteenth century? Atatürk altered language, the place of religion, the form of government, education, clothing, even the self-identification of the people (from “Muslim” to “Turk”). No other Middle Eastern leader so succeeded in radical reform, though others tried. Would a people firmly embedded in the “old ways” and convinced of the righteousness of their conservative life-styles have accepted such reforms? Almost surely not. But the Turks of 1923 were not such a people. They had seen, in the most awful and impressive fashion, that the old ways did not work. Almost one-fourth of their fellow countrymen were dead. Hundreds of thousands who had depended on the sultan were displaced, living a precarious existence in a new land. A leader of exceptional force and vision was needed to guide reform, but their own history must have convinced the Turks themselves that reform was needed.

CONCLUSION—MORTALITY AND MIGRATION

Statistics are inadequate indicators of horrifying loss. ‘I’hey can but outline the enormity of human suffering. Numbers of dead enumerated in the millions stupefy one’s senses. Strangely enough, considering the details of one person’s death affects us emotionally more than the knowledge that millions died. Nevertheless, the statistics must be seen to gauge the scope of Muslim losses.

The numbers in Table 30 are low estimates of Muslim mortality. Many Muslim dead were never recorded or even estimated. Moreover, in calculating the figures in the table, low estimates have always been chosen. Had high estimates been taken, the final figures of both mortality and migration would have increased by millions. (For example, Kemal Karpat has estimated that 2 million Caucasian Muslims were driven out, of whom 1.5 million survived.) [3] Deaths of Muslim soldiers and deaths of civilians who were not in war zones (from war-caused famine, disease, etc.) have not been included, even though they can justifiably be called the results of the same factors that killed those recorded in the table. (For example, Muslim population losses in Anatolia from 1914 to 1922 were actually almost three million; only 2.4 million are listed in the table because central and northern areas of Anatolia that were not in the war zone have been excluded.) With the exception of the figures for the period from 1914 to 1922, most of the Turkish soldiers who died in the wars are also not included. Soldiers from Anatolia, in particular, fought in all the Ottoman-Russian wars and died in great numbers.

If estimates for the “unknowns” are factored in, approximately five and one-half million Muslim dead are the result. More than five million refugees had been driven from their homes, many ultimately to be figured among the dead.
- - - - - - - - -

@Flytrooper: I am all for "get[ting] on with life", but with knowing the facts, rather than rely on hearsay. I lost my great-great grandparents to Armenian atrocities as well.
Fusun,
If you read the above letter, you'll see that McCarthy has been fully discredited by his peers.
Lorraine:

Discreditation by peers does not change historic facts. It does make one unpopular, though.

Most genocide scholars label these massacres as genocide, but McCarthy views them as part of a civil war, triggered by World War I, in which equally large numbers of Armenians and Turks died.

McCarthy has been described as a "scholar on the Turkish side of the debate", and harshly criticised by other scholars who have characterized his views as genocide denial because his work denies the genocidal nature of the popularly claimed "Armenian Genocide".
~~~~~
Fusun,
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I happen to know the historians who have discredited him (I know their work; have met them at conferences), I have to take that seriously. I also know historians who have taken money for their research in order to make someone come out looking the way they want to, so these types of historical disputes are bound to be rife with corruption.

I see no way of convincing you of my point of view nor you of convincing me. I appreciate your understanding of what happened.

You should feel free to write a blog telling your understanding of what happened in 1915.
In a word: BOO-YAH!!!! ;)

In other words, you referenced a preeminent scholar on the subject, spoke to him and cited his own words. You quoted from the horse's head, so to speak. Everyone else seems to being dead set on quoting from the other end!
This is, frankly, what you and Fusun here are doing, is in the best tradition of civil discussion and disagreement.
Where I believe truth mpore tends to reside on the issue doesn't much matter.
What matters is that you both are modeling, showing what scholarly disagreement between good people looks like.

r.
And, like you, Lorraine, I hope Fusun is moved to post on the topic.
I'm glad you've shared this, because it is worth knowing. I bet if you ask the first 20 people you meet if they have ever heard of the Armenian Genocide, they will say, "No." In their run-up to election, both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama promised to recognize that history as "genocide." In both cases, pressure from Turkey (now a NATO ally) caused them to back up and call it "killings." I can never convince someone what he/she does not want to believe, but I hope to continue reminding others that this did happen, one and a half million Armenian men, women, and children lost their lives to the Ottoman Turks.

Yes Hye em.
@ FusanA: Are you quibbling about the "word" genocide? Would you feel better if I called it a "Civil War in which the vastly numerically superior and much better armed Turks annihilated a poorly armed minority group who they had previously systematically starved & abused until they had no choice between dying from starvation and dying fighting"? Is that somehow better???

BTW, the fact that Turks were killed by Armenians is not disputed. What IS disputed is the "why", the one sidedness of the whole thing, the horrendous treatment of the survivors and Turkey's denial that it ever happened in the first place!
"Discreditation by peers does not change historic facts. It does make one unpopular, though."


No.

"Discreditation by peers" FOR misrepresenting, warping and ignoring facts FOR MONEY, not only makes you a liar, but a whore.

To think otherwise, shows your bias. Sorry!
@Safe_Bet's Amy:
I am stating that "genocide" does not apply to what happened in historic concept when, at least as many Turks-if not more, were massacred by Armenians as well as by Russians and others. There was no "systematic and purposeful cleansing" of any one group of people by Turks.

Turkey is not denying what occurred in history; it is the interpretation and the popular acceptance of this misinterpretation by some, who find it more convenient rather than facing the facts.

If Turkey were to pursue the same line of thinking, then She would be more than justified in claiming a Turkish genocide by the Armenians, and does have extensive documentation in its archives to back Her claim.

@Lorraine:
I understand that we will not agree. Thank you for giving me space on your blog to express another, albeit unpopular, historic perspective.

As for writing my own piece on this subject, I do not have immediate intentions of doing so, as history already speaks for itself. Those who wish to believe what they want are free to do so. I just hope people keep an open mind.

Happy holidays and best wishes in 2012. ♥
@Dianaani:
Turkey's membership in NATO is not a recent event. She was one of the first countries to become a member of the Council of Europe in 1949, and was also a founding member of the (OECD) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1961.

Happy holidays♥
@ FusanA:

Nope!

Either, cite non-discreated references to your "genocide" of the Turks by the Armenians or acknowledge the dozens of scholars who disagree. You don't just get to say it to make it so! (Maggie Galligher is living proof of that!)
Fusun. I wish you happy holidays, too. Thank you for allowing us to discuss this, even if we aren't going to come to any understanding.
fingerlakeswanderer, you wrote:

"Agreed, Flylooper. But yesterday, many wanted to argue that it had not happened."

This denial business has been going on all my life. The important thing, at least to me, is that *I* understand the truth of the events.

For years, I carried the same illogical hated for Turks that my grandfather understandably did. Then I seemed to realize that it isn't important anymore. The rest of the world knows what happened, if not the Turks. Trying to get the modern day Turks to officially admit to what happened, namely genocide, is counterproductive - unless you are an Armenian, in which case it's Sisyphean exercise. (IOW, it ain't gonna happen!)