Armenians started using the word ‘genocide’ in 1945, Khatchig Mouradian shows

Armenian newspaper archives have the evidence

by Lou Ann Matossian

Published: Friday June 26, 2009

(L-R:) University of Minnesota distinguished historian Eric Weitz, holder of the Arsham and Charlotte Ohanessian Chair in the College of Liberal Arts; philanthropist Sita Ohanessian; and Ohanessian Lecturer Khachador (Khatchig) Mouradian, editor of the Armenian Weekly. . Lou Ann Matossian

"Was another earth-shaking storm necessary, so that men would learn the word ‘tseghasbanutiun', (Génocide)?" asked Aztag, referring to the Holocaust of the Jews. The same editorial, signed by Misakian, continued: "The attempt to exterminate the Armenians en masse – genocide – only served the purpose of filling the pages of books and providing matter for brilliant speeches, while the other [attempt of extermination] immediately resulted in a logical ending: trials and hanging" ("Tseghasbanutiun," April 25, 1948).

Through reportage, commentary, and reprints from other publications – including comments by Lemkin himself – the Armenian press of the 1940s and early 1950s reflected the Armenians' intense interest in the Genocide Convention, Mr. Mouradian said. The word hung on even as coverage of the Convention faded, but the 50th-anniversary commemorations of 1915 proved to be a turning point.

Between 1965 and 1985, tseghasbanutiun came to supplant Medz Yeghern as the "word of choice" in the Armenian media, Mr. Mouradian stated. In 1985, another watershed moment, the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities acknowledged "the Armenian genocide."

"Even in the early 1980s, in the U.S. and elsewhere, officials could get away with recognizing the Genocide because there wasn't a concerted campaign against each public individual who uttered the word," Mr. Mouradian responded to a question from the audience. "The year 1965 is very crucial because that's the time when Armenians start demanding justice. Before, it was about commemorating and rebuilding. The best way of commemorating was staying alive. Parliaments passed resolutions without any opposition.

"There starts to be a strategy, and then the reaction comes," he added. "The Turkish side, the Turkish government, the Turkish state takes initiatives on its own to deny the Genocide."

Is yeghern a bad word?

Wary of Ankara's increasing wrath, a number of world leaders have begun to incorporate the older Armenian expression into official statements as a euphemism for the "G-word," Mr. Mouradian said. On September 26, 2001, Pope John Paul II invoked "the call of the dead from the depths of the Metz Yeghern." On April 24, 2005, President George W. Bush commemorated "what many Armenian people have come to call the ‘Great Calamity'." On April 24, 2009, President Barack Obama stated, "Nothing can bring back those who were lost in the Meds Yeghern."

Alongside these examples, Mr. Mouradian cited the Turkish intellectuals' statement of apology that was announced in December 2008 and has since gathered some 30,000 signatures. The apology begins: "My conscience does not accept the insensitivity showed to and the denial of the Great Catastrophe [Büyük Felâket, Medz Yeghern] that the Ottoman Armenians were subjected to in 1915" (www.ozurdiliyoruz.com).

"You see, ‘Great Catastrophe', in Armenian ‘Medz Yeghern', was the only definition, the only expression, used until the Armenian Diaspora discovered the PR value of ‘Armenian Genocide'," statement co-author Baskin Oran explained to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Dec. 12, 2008. "Therefore, we use ‘Great Catastrophe'."

Not only does the history of Armenian expressions for 1915 show otherwise, Mr. Mouradian said, but "taking the word they used for their own massacre and using it to deny the fact that that massacre constitutes a genocide" is "complete abuse."

In a commentary cited by Mr. Mouradian, Marc Mamigonian, director of academic affairs of the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research, points out that despite efforts to turn the discussion of terms into proof that diaspora Armenians are "obsessed with the G-word," what is at issue in the apology are two things.

First, to deny "the events of 1915" is to reject not only the term genocide but also, more importantly, its meaning. Second, the apologizers have appropriated the expression Medz Yeghern/Great Catastrophe – an expression they themselves have only recently discovered – and superimposed it on the discussion, as though they possessed either the moral or the scholarly authority to do so.

"If members of the dominant ethnic group in Turkey can properly impose this term on the descendants of genocide survivors, then white Americans might just as well go back to labeling African Americans as ‘negroes'," Mr. Mamigonian writes, tongue in cheek. "After all, it is a word that they themselves formerly used" ("Commentary on the Turkish Apology Campaign," Armenian Weekly, April 25, 2009).

"In the apology campaign the Turkish audience was testing the waters to see how Turkish and Armenian audiences would react to Medz Yeghern," Mr. Mouradian responded to an audience member. "If positively, then other initiatives would have come to the fore."

"The reason the word genocide is used exclusively, by Armenians, is because genocide is defined in international law," Mr. Mouradian stated. (For Westerners, he added later, genocide is also easier to pronounce.)

So – apart from its sound – is Medz Yeghern a bad word?

Not necessarily, said Mr. Mouradian. "The term Yeghern, or Medz Yeghern, is the only word that really captures the essence of what happened in 1915. The survivors used that word. It is the only word that could really explain what happened in 1915."