By the end of the week, my family and friends around the world won’t ask me “where is it?” when I tell them I live in Denver.
In a few hours, the Democratic National Convention will start in a city that last year had over 12 million overnight visitors. Still, Denver is not, yet, as famous as New York, Chicago, Dallas or Los Angeles.
But with its beautiful architecture and nature, Colorado’s capital and largest city Denver will quickly win hearts. The nearby Red Rocks, the beautiful State Capitol (where I work), yummy restaurants and cozy bars offer locals and visitors exceptional pleasure and leisure.
Dating back to 1858, Denver is a century and a half old. It became the state capital after Golden and Colorado City lost their bid. It was a simple decision – Denver had more women than any other city in the state.
More women – more rights. In 1893, women in Colorado won their right to vote – only the second in the nation. In 1894, three women were elected to serve in the House of Representatives. Before them, no woman had served as a senator or representative anywhere else in the United States.
In 1908, when the Democratic National Convention met in Denver for the first time, women were allowed to be delegates at the convention for the first time. It wasn’t until 1920, though, when the federal government extended the right to vote to all women.
Along with progressive history, Colorado has darks sides too. In 1864, Colorado volunteers (who thought they were fighting in the Civil War) exterminated an entire peaceful camp of Native Americans at Sand Creek. And in the 1920s, Colorado’s governor was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
With a diverse history, Colorado isn’t ethnically very diverse. Denver is the exception, where along with white Americans you will see Americans from all races and of all countries. Perhaps this diversity is what makes Denver so hospitable. Hospitality in Denver is almost as good as in Armenia.
Speaking of Armenians, many people get surprised when they find a quarter-century-old Armenian Genocide monument-plaque at the Colorado State Capitol. And although the Armenian community is not very large (perhaps 4,000 in and around Denver), its roots are very old.
Once I came across to a January 27, 1884, article in the local Rocky Mountain News. It talked about four Armenians, originally from what is now eastern Turkey, who had come from Italy. In Denver, they had become merchants. But in their hearts, they had always stayed Armenians and dreamed of returning to their homeland. Their hope was to return to Armenia: “My brother feels as I do, that in our own beautiful land in Asia Minor lies our destiny and it may be that near our old home we shall find at last the ancient site of Eden.”
Had they returned to Armenia, they would have been killed either in the Hamidian massacres or in the Genocide of 1915. I don’t know if they returned or not.
A number of Armenian friends – many of them with the media – are visiting Denver for the Convention this week. Voice of America is planning to interview local Armenians and guests.
I learned from the U.S. Embassy last month that Armenia had two-member delegation traveling to Denver for the Democratic National Convention.
Native American activist Russell Means, known for long-time activism and for the recent controversial declaration of Lakota independence, is looking forward to August 25. But he won’t be in Denver to attend the first day of the Democratic National Convention or protest Columbus Day holiday, which was first celebrated in the Mile High City in 1907.
Instead, “America’s angriest Indian” will be in his native land with a group of supporters protesting what they consider violation of a federal treaty.
In the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Russell Means, the Chief Facilitator of the Republic of Lakotah, is organizing a group of Lakotah Indians to enter Sheridan Lake Recreation Area near Rapid City, South Dakota, refuse to pay the admission fee, and fish without paying the license fee. Means claims that Lakotah retained the right to fish and pass in the 1851 Fort Laramie Treaty territory and that those rights continue today and backed by Article VI of the Constitution of the united states of America.
The event, which is being billed as the Lakotah Freedom Fishing Day, is about much more than the admission fee or the fishing license fee; it is about getting the South Dakota and United States governments to follow their own laws. Means said, “After having been an occupied nation for over 150 years, we have asked the United States government to leave our country. Meanwhile, until the United States Government leaves Lakotah territory we will take every opportunity to insist it follow its own laws and that its states do the same.”
Lakotah have given notice to Larry Long, the Attorney General of South Dakota, of its plans for this event. Means said he has not heard from Long yet and does not know if the state plans on allowing the Indians to fish and pass or if the park rangers will issue citations or arrest any of the Lakotah fishermen. Means plans to call in federal marshalls to enforce the treaty rights. Means said, “According to the Civil Right Act, federal marshalls should arrest any state official who tries to stop Lakotah from entering the park and fishing. However, if the United States ignores its own laws to deny Lakotah rights, it will certainly not be the first time.”
This historic event is planned for Monday, August 25th, at 1:00 p.m.
As diplomatic as the head of the U.S. Embassy Joseph Pennington is on record, America’s Chargé d’Affaires in Armenia cannot hide his love and sorrow for the tiny ex-Soviet republic he’s been working in since July 18, 2007. He is amazed with the Armenian people’s hospitality, and, without doubt, has many friends in the capital Yerevan. Equally, he resonates with ordinary peoples’ outrage against blatant inequality before the law – explaining that institutionalized change in the public sector will make people more tolerant and patient toward economic improvement. He also has to admit that the post-election March 1 clash between opposition supporters and the police, as a result of which at least 10 people died, has “complicated the relationship” with Armenia’s government. Yet he is hopeful; and regards current affairs as “good” and “productive.”
Pennington’s wife and my good friend Amberin Zaman, a journalist for The Economist, was also present at this special interview with the chief of the U.S. mission in Yerevan on July 28, 2008.
Pennington’s desk is well organized with Armenian newspapers laying there. “Can you read Armenian?!” Pennington blushes “yes.” The well-trained diplomat’s office looks to the barely visible chapel of Yerablur – burial grounds for Armenian soldiers who fought in the Karabakh war. Pennington hasn’t been to Yerablur and, until our meeting, doesn’t know that the minute object on a hill several miles away is part of Yerablur.
Unlike in the case of the monument, Pennington recognizes the tragic consequences of the conflict with Azerbaijan. I ask him about the destruction of Jugha – the largest medieval Armenian cemetery reduced to dust by Azerbaijan in 2005. I know that Pennington has watched my film (Amberin told me so a long time ago), and I know that he cares. But as a U.S. diplomat, he has to give me the same answer – “As a general matter, we encourage countries to preserve cultural monuments.”
The young diplomat seems open to change, but until U.S. policy shifts, neither he nor any other person in his place will use the word “genocide.” Instead, they will continue to speak of “mass killings, ethnic cleansing” or simply “the events of 1915.” As a political science major, I understand where he is coming from. Yet I play devil’s advocate and press on. The beautiful Amberin Zaman jumps in and asks her husband to tell me about their experience at the “Genocide Memorial and Museum” in Yerevan, which Pennington calls Tsitsernakaberd like locals do. The g-word is not the only way of acknowledging a history that haunts today’s reality.
Pennington tells me how he and Amberin spent four hours at Tsitsernakaberd two weeks ago. Hayk Demoyan, the Museum’s director, showed them a recently arrived shipment from the US of lace, art work and toys made and used by Armenians – including survivors who ended up in orphanages — before the Genocide. I read pain in Pennington’s voice – pain for an entire people and its culture lost — and perhaps also regret for not being able to speak about these events more directly in his official capacity.
Amberin Zaman reminds me to ask about the Turkish-Armenian relationship, a topic dear to her heart. (I had encouraged her to advise me during my interview as a professional journalist). Pennington gets excited. He says that the rhetoric in the last six months between Armenia and Turkey has been very positive. He calls Armenia’s president Serge Sargsyan’s invitation to Turkish president Abdullah Gul to watch a football match in Yerevan between both countries “a brilliant idea.” Then he asks me if I have roots in Anatolia. I smile and start the list: Urfa, Diyarbakir, Istanbul, Bayazet. He says that he hopes that the border will open soon – I nod in a hopefully romantic agreement.
While Pennington enjoys his job, he also has his worries. A few days after our meeting, the opposition will hold another protest on August 1, 2008. I ask Pennington whether George W. Bush ever congratulated Sargsyan for his election. He says “no,” and I understand that Armenia’s president is standing on somewhat shaky ground. Like another friend suggested later on that day, perhaps Sargsyan can use March 1 as an opportunity to rethink political power and bring change to Armenia – such as eliminating monopoly.
Seemingly tireless, Pennington is actually tired of one thing– having to do the duties of the Ambassador. After the firing of John Evans, America’s last Ambassador to Armenia who used the word “genocide” in public, Congress hasn’t been able to confirm an envoy (until August 1, 2008 when Marie L. Yovanovitch was confirmed as Ambassador) due to pressure by many Armenian-Americans. This was a topic I didn’t bring up. But as I had entered the Embassy, I saw a photo of John Evans, along with other former Ambassadors to Armenia, hanging on a wall. I looked at the photo with much pride. Speaking truth to power had place, although small, in a building representing the United States. But commitment can work in other ways too.
There are many things about Pennington that cry love for Armenia. Large, framed photographs of pomegranates, books about Armenia and its history are all over his office. Turkish researcher Osman Koker’s magnificent collection of Turkey’s Armenian heritage in old postcards is on his table – an invitation to guests to browse through a history that is thought to be forever lost. You can feel the Armenian spirit in an office that is sponsored to represent what America’s current administration defines as U.S. interests. Diplomatic or otherwise, Pennington has been the right guy for Armenia.
In a step closer to totalitarianism, the government in ex-soviet Azerbaijan has imprisoned another journalist not in line with official views of the establishment that praises the oil-rich country as “an example of tolerance.”
According to the Associated Press, editor of the minority Talysh Sado Novruzali Mammadov was sentenced to10-years in prison for “treason.” The agency reports that “[p]rosecutors accused [Mammadov and the administrator of the newspaper, Elman Guliyev] of Talysh nationalism and undermining Azerbaijan’s statehood. The Talysh live in the south of the former Soviet republic and have close cultural ties to neighboring Iran. Guliyev acknowledged in court that the paper had received $1,000 per month from Talysh organizations in Iran.”
The conviction of indigenous Talysh activists comes a week after a Christian priest was arrested in Azerbaijan. According to Baptist Standard, “Hamid Shabanov, a Baptist pastor in Aliabad, Azerbaijan, was arrested June 20 [2008].”
Azerbaijan’s ironic self-image of “heaven of tolerance” is dimming day by day, especially that oppression in the Muslim country has shifted from being exclusively anti-Armenian. Editor of the now-banned Real Azerbaijan Eynulla Fatullayev, who had indirectly challenged Azerbaijan’s anti-Armenian rhetoric, is serving an eleven-year sentence for charges of defamation, terrorism, incitement of ethnic hatred and tax evasion. Emin Husseinov, director of the Institute for Reporter Freedom and Safety, was badly beaten last week in Azerbaijan. The Institute for Reporter Freedom and Safety was founded by Idrak Abassov, the independent Azeri journalist who confirmed for a British publication a few years ago that the medieval Armenian cemetery of Djulfa had disappeared in Azerbaijan’s Nakhichevan exclave.
While arrests in Azerbaijan in the name of anti-Armenianism have received little coverage in the West due to the sensitive conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh, the ongoing oppression in Azerbaijan against the Talysh and other minorities suggests that the fascist nationalism is not simply a reaction to losing the 1990s’ war to Armenia.
But as Azerbaijan pumps a lot of oil in the face of a $4/gallon gas crisis in the United States, democracy may be the last thing America would care about in Baku.
In a few hours, the U.S. Senate will vote on Bush’s Ambassadorial nominee to Armenia. We predict that Marie Yovanovitch will be confirmed. And the question is whether the previous nominee was denied because of not using the word genocide or because of being gay.
Making clear that she can’t use the word ‘genocide’ in referring to the Armenian extermination of WWI due to Bush’s foreign policy not to use the term, ambassadorial nominee Marie Yovanovitch’s Senate hearing became quite stressful last week.
She will most likely get the Senate confirmation given her honest hint that ANY Bush nominee would follow the order not to use the term genocide. Yet it wasn’t easy to deliver this message.
A photo posted (surprisingly) by the State Department sponsored Voice of America’s Armenian page, shows Marie Yovanovitch cleaning her nose during the hearing. More interestingly, the Armenian report refers to the Armenian genocide without quotation marks – something that U.S. State Department officials are not allowed to do themselves.
While it seems like Yovanovitch will be confirmed as the Ambassador despite that she follows her employer’s orders, one wonders whether the Genocide issue was the decisive factor in previous nominee Richard Hoagland’s failure to get the confirmation.
On January 12, 2007, the Armenian-language Hayastani Hanareptutyun (Republic of Armenia) wrote of some concerns in Armenia about Hoagland’s open homosexuality. According to the newspaper, the editor of Armenia’s Azg Daily, Hakob Avetiqyan (Hagop Avedikian), said during a press talk seating along with an ARF (Dashnaktustyun leader):
«Շատ անխոհեմ նշանակում էր սա՝ անկախ ցեղասպանության հարցից։ Անխոհեմ, քանզի Հայաստան, որտեղ ավանդապաշտությունը բավական կարեւոր գործոն է, ուղարկել մեկին, որը ոչ ավանդական սեռական կողմնորոշում ունի, չի բխում նաեւ Միացյալ Նահանգների շահերից»։(This was a very inconsiderate appointment [nomination] despite the question of the genocide. Inconsiderate, because sending somone who doesn’t have traditional sexual orientation to Armenia – a country where tradition-worshiping is a quite important factor – is not in the interests of the United States.)
As unzipped reported last year, Armenia’s anti-Semite and homophobic leader of “Armenian-Aryans” Armen Ayvazyan thanked those who ““freed the Armenian nation from the sad perspective of having a sick Ambassador, who was also denying the reality of the Armenian Genocide.” While Ayvazyan is not, to say the least, a popular figure in Armenia, Azg Daily editor’s open announcement that it is not a good decision to send a homosexual ambassador to Armenia seems worrysome.
Indeed, the editor was seating next to one of the leaders of the ARF (known as ANCA in the U.S.), the organization which heavily campaigned against the Hoagland nomination in 2007. This year, interestingly, ANCA hasn’t been actively campaigning against the new nomination. One reason might perhaps be the recent image-damaging violent post-election protest in Armenia. The new ambassador might be a compromise for continuous U.S. assistance to Armenia despite the recent poor democratic record.
Hoagland’s G-factor still seems important. Was it his refusal (without another choice) to say “genocide” or him being gay that cost him his job? Or maybe because tensions were high given the firing of Ambassador Evans – the only U.S. official in the Bush administration who openly recognized the Armenian Genocide?
In the introduction, Fried set the tone of the discussion. Talking about the South Caucasus countries’ relationship with NATO (which means alienation from Russia), he said:
[…]
Georgia has made a choice to join NATO. The United States and the nations of NATO welcome this choice, and Georgia’s neighbors should respect it. Azerbaijan has chosen to develop its relations with NATO at a slower pace, and we respect its choice. Armenia’s situation is different, due to its history and currently complicated relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey, and we respect its choice as well.
[…]
Speaking about Azerbaijan, Fried said that “Azerbaijan has had the world’s fastest growing economy for three consecutive years.” Talking about Nagorno-Karabakh, he said “While we support Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, Nagorno-Karabakh’s final status must be determined through negotiations and a spirit of compromise that respects international legal and political principles.” By “legal [principle] Fried means “territorial integrity,” by “political principles” he means “self-determination.” In other words, he hopes there is a golden mean to the conflict of the two. Fried finished the presentation on Azerbaijan by referencing the recent anti-Armenian rhetoric. “We hope that the Azerbaijani government will avoid the temptation of thinking that renewed fighting is a viable option. In our view, it is not. We have noted our concern with persistent bellicose rhetoric by some Azerbaijani officials.” Mr. Friend, again and again, failed to mention the 2005 destruction of the Djulfa cemetery by Azerbaijan. I will send him an e-mail shortly.
Talking about Armenia, Fried referenced the genocide by saying that Turkey needs to recognize it while Armenia needs to guarantee that it will not territorial claims against Turkey (ironically, official Armenia has always done the latter.
In Fried’s words:
[…]
Reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey, however, will require dealing with sensitive, painful issues. Turkey needs to come to terms with a dark chapter in its history: the mass killings and forced exile of up to 1.5 million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. That will not be easy, just as it has not been easy for the United States to come to terms with dark periods of our own past. For its part, Armenia must be ready to acknowledge the existing border and disavow any claim on the territory of modern Turkey, and respond constructively to any efforts Turkey may make.
[…]
The report went into great detail describing Armenia’s post election unrest. It said in part:
[…]
When peaceful mass protests followed the disputed vote, the United States and others pressed continuously for the government of Armenia to refrain from responding with force. However, on March 1, within hours of formal assurances by the Armenian government that they would avoid a confrontation, police entered the square. Ensuing clashes later in the day between demonstrators and security personnel led to at least 10 deaths and hundreds of injuries. Mr. Ter-Petrossian was taken to his residence by security forces, where he appeared to remain under de facto house arrest for weeks. A State of Emergency (SOE) was declared in Yerevan. Freedom of assembly and basic media freedoms were revoked. Opposition newspapers were forced to stop publishing and news websites were blocked, including Radio Liberty. The government then filled the information void with articles and broadcasts disseminating the government version of events and attacking the opposition. While it was alleged that some protesters were armed before the March 1 crackdown, there have been no convictions to date on such charges.
[…]
Ironically, Fried finished his remarks on Armenia by connecting the recent unrest (and the need to resolve it) to the absence of a US ambassador to Armenia (the Democratic-controlled U.S. senate has refused to appoint an Ambassador who refuses to refer to the Armenian Genocide as such).
Summarizing Georgia’s political situation, Fried said “Georgia’s young democracy has made progress, but Georgia needs to make more progress if it is to live up to the high standards that it has set for itself. The United States will help as it can to support democratic reform, urging the Georgian authorities to take seriously their ambition to reach European standards of democracy.”
The rest of the talk on Georgia was a detailed condemnation of Russia’s pressure on the ex-Soviet republic:
[…]
Moscow has in recent years put economic and political pressure on Georgia: closing their common border; suspending air and ground transport links; and imposing embargoes against exports of Georgian wine, mineral water, and agricultural goods. This year, despite recently lifting some of the economic and transport embargoes, Moscow has intensified political pressure by taking a number of concrete steps toward a de facto official relationship with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where Russian peacekeeping forces have been deployed since the early 1990s – up to 3,000 in Abkhazia, and 500 Russians plus 500 North Ossetians in South Ossetia. In March, Russia announced its unilateral withdrawal from Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) sanctions on Abkhazia, which would allow Russia potentially to provide direct military assistance (though the Russian government has offered assurances that it will continue to adhere to military sanctions). On April 16, then-President Putin issued instructions calling for closer ties between Russian ministries and their Abkhaz and South Ossetian counterparts. Russian investors are known to be buying property in Abkhazia in disregard of Georgian law. Some of these properties may have belonged to displaced persons, making their eventual return even more difficult. Russian banks maintain correspondent relationships with unlicensed and virtually unregulated Abkhaz banks, an open invitation to money launderers.
[…]
Interestingly, if you take Fried’s words for real there is no discrimination against minorities in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. While the U.S. State Department official repeatedly refers to “separatists,” there are no talk about discrimination against minorities and destruction of minority culture in either of the South Caucasus republics.
The report also lacks mentioning human trafficking, which is very prevalent in Armenia and Azerbaijan. Fighting and preventing human trafficking is a major step of building democracy.
It has become a major political controversy, and Barack Obama is a favorite among many Armenians for supporting the cause of recognizing the Armenian Genocide. And Ronald Reagan is often mentioned as having used the word “genocide” in describing the WWI annihilation of western Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.
And despite all the controversy around formally condemning the Armenian genocide as such, no one knew until now that U.S. is on record recognizing the Armenian genocide as early as 1951 – that is three years after the Genocide Convention was adopted.
In its written statement to the International Criminal Court right after WWII, the United States mentioned the Roman persecution of Christians, the Turkish killings of Armenians, and the Nazi murders of Jews and Poles as “outstanding examples” of genocide.
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS
RESERVATIONS TO THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION
AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
ADVISORY OPINION OF MAY 28th, 1951
CONTENTS
[…]
PART 1.-REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION AND DOCUMENTS OF THE WRITTEN PROCEEDINGS
[…]
SECTION C-WRITTEN STATEMENTS
[…]
4. – Written statement of the Government of the United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
[…]
4. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[…]
1. The Genocide Convention
The Genocide Convention resulted from the inhuman and barbarous practices which prevailed in certain countries prior to and during World War II, when entire religious, racial and national minority groups were threatened with and subjected to deliberate extermination. The practice of genocide has occurred throughout human history. The Roman persecution of the Christians, the Turkish massacres of Armenians, the extermination of millions of Jews and Poles by the Nazis are outstanding examples of the crime of genocide. This was the background when the General Assembly of the United Nations considered the problem of genocide. Not once, but twice, that body declared unanimously that the practice of genocide is criminal under international law and that States ought to take steps to prevent and punish genocide.
This new “discovery” will perhaps make the work of Barack Obama easier in recognizing the Armenian Genocide if he is elected as president. The bottom line is that the U.S. has never denied the Genocide. They know politically they can’t mention it given Turkey’s hysteria. Historically, even scholars on Turkish payroll are now backing up from denial.
And so if Armenians could spend 5% of the efforts they spend on genocide recognition on fighting human trafficking, maybe Armenian girls and women won’t have to be sexual slaves in the UAE and Turkey. Am I changing the topic? Yes I am. Isn’t it time to fight our own problems?
While Turkey says it wants to discuss “the events of 1915” with Armenia, its Ambassador to the United States has fired one of its own payroll scholars for doing the unimaginable – referring to the Armenian genocide as such.
Recounting the fiasco, The Armenian Reporter writes in its May 31, 2008 issue that a in a letter to Turkey’s government “the Middle East Studies Association [MESA] on May 27 condemned the forced resignation of Donald Quataert from the chair of the Institute of Turkish Studies after Prof. Quataert affirmed in a book review that ‘what happened to the Armenians readily satisfies the U.N. definition of genocide.'”
Expecting retaliation from at least other scholars on Turkish payroll (but apparently not from the Ambassador himself), Prof. Quataert urged pro-Turkish historians “to take their rightful responsibility to perform the proper research” on the Armenian annihilation of 1915.
The above words, mentioned in a scholarly book review by Dr. Quataert, angered Turkish Ambassador Nebi Şensoy – honorary chairman of the Institute of Turkish Studies – who requested the scholar to retract them.
“We are enormously concerned that unnamed high officials in Ankara felt it was inappropriate for Professor Quataert to continue as chairman of the board of governors and threatened to revoke the funding for the ITS if he did not publicly retract statements made in his review or separate himself from the Chairmanship of the ITS,” wrote MESA president Mervat Hatem in the letter of protest to Turkey’s Prime Minister.
The Armenian Reporter states that:
[…]
A professor of history at the State University of New York at Binghamton, Mr. Quataert chaired the ITS board of governors from 2001 until December 13, 2006. In 1985, as an associate professor at the University of Houston, he was among the 69 Ottoman, Turkish, and Middle Eastern area scholars who petitioned against a House Joint Resolution that memorialized “the one and one half million people of Armenian ancestry who were victims of genocide perpetrated in Turkey between 1915 and 1923.”
As he recalled the emerging Ottoman and Turkish area scholarship of the 1980s from a vantage point twenty years later, Prof. Quataert wrote in his book review, “the authors were not writing critical history but polemics” and “many of their works were directly sponsored and published by the Turkish government.” To date, said MESA, most of the scholarship in this area still fails to adhere to the highest professional standards “and as such serves neither the field of Ottoman-Turkish studies nor the interests of the Republic of Turkey and its citizens.”
Nevertheless, both Prof. Quataert in his review and MESA with its 2005 Academic Freedom Award lauded the new wave of critical thinking in this field – specifically mentioning a conference held at Istanbul’s Bilgi University “despite official intimidation and public harassment,” as Prof. Quataert recalled.
[…]
While it is sadenning to see an academic being de facto fired by a politician, it is encouraging that a scholar on Turkish payroll has finally realized and admitted the truth of the Armenian Genocide.
In his weekly column, California Courier publisher Harout Sassounian writes that “Prof. Quataert’s transformation from a denialist to a believer in the Armenian Genocide is based on the growing body of scholarship in recent years both within and outside Turkey. A comparison of the 2000 and 2005 editions of his book, ‘The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922,’ illustrates the gradual evolution of his position on the Armenian Genocide. In a sharp departure from the cautious language used in his first edition, Dr. Quataert… comes to the conclusion in his 2006 book review that what had happened to the Armenians in 1915 was indeed a Genocide.”
Reminding that this is not the first controversy including the Turkish-sponsored organization, College of William and Mary professor emeritus Roger Smith wrote in a discussion forum on Armenian-Turkish relations that as a de facto lobbying organization ITS shouldn’t be tax-free.
[…]
But given this latest event, in which the Turkish ambassador and the Turkish government have forced the resignation of the chair of the Institute because he refused to deny the reality of the Armenian Genocide, there are strong grounds for the IRS to revoke the tax status of the Institute. There are other grounds, of long standing: Robert Lifton, Eric Markusen, and I exposed the then executive director of ITS, Heath Lowry, for his collaboration with the Turkish ambassador to the U.S. to intimidate academics in the U.S. from writing about the Armenian Genocide as historical reality. Lowry wrote the memos and draft letters for the ambassador: for examples of this see, “Professional Responsibility and the Denial of the Armenian Genocide,” HOLOCAUST AND GENOCIDE STUDIES, Spring 1995; the actual documents are presented with analysis by Smith, Markusen, Lifton. The IRS status of the Institute should have been challenged then.
But now we have the Turkish ambassador being directly involved in forcing the resignation of the ITS chair for failure to follow the State’s position on the genocide, which, is political, not as it pretends, historical. This suggests that the Institute, or some of those closely associated with it, are undeclared, unregistered, lobbyists for a foreign government. This is a violation of Federal criminal law. Such persons could be prosecuted, but it is also further evidence that the tax status of ITS should be revoked.
[…]
Whatever the case, the lesson is that not every scholar on Turkish payroll is discrediting the Armenian genocide for money. Some of them have the ability to finally see the truth. That is – if they truly seek the truth in the first place.
Libertarian politician Bob Barr, who is featured in the mockumentary Borat as eating cheese made of the Kazakhstani journalist’s wife’s breast milk, is running for president.
A disturbing trend has emerged from the long Democratic primary. Whenever Sen. Hillary Clinton is trailing in the polls, a racially divisive issue pops up.
Clinton loses 11 consecutive races, and the photograph of Sen. Barack Obama in Somalian garb shows up.
Clinton falls behind in pledged delegates and gets caught in a lie about her Bosnia adventure, and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. story reignites.
The fallout over Obama’s “bitter” comment fits that same pattern.
He’s quoted as saying: “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Obama was apparently referring to rural voters, a demographic he has had difficulty reaching.
The comment is being characterized by some pundits, Clinton and the GOP nominee John McCain as “elitist,” and evidence that Obama is “out-of-touch” with ordinary Americans.
But during his bus tour through Pennsylvania two weeks ago, Obama made the same point at several town hall meetings and crowds applauded.
Although he may not have used the exact same words that have caused such a furor, he offered the same assessment: When people believe they are getting a raw deal, they become bitter.
Here we go again
With polls showing that Obama has begun to narrow the gap in Pennsylvania — a state Clinton was predicted to win by double digits — Clinton is stirring up a backlash that her campaign hopes will net her some swing voters.
“Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them,” Clinton told a crowd in Philadelphia.
Her campaign has fueled the controversy, with supporters passing out “I’m not bitter” stickers in North Carolina.
But Clinton and McCain’s outrage has more to do with the demographic Obama called bitter than the words he used.
Indeed, neither of them said a word when Obama used harsher language to tell a predominantly black audience in Beaumont, Texas, that they needed to do a better job parenting.
“We can’t keep on feeding our children junk all day long, giving them no exercise. They are overweight by the time they are 4 or 5 years old, and then we are surprised when they get sick,” Obama said, drawing loud applause.
Obama also chided parents for letting their kids eat “potato chips for lunch or Popeye’s for breakfast.”
He gave a similar speech at a town hall meeting in Pittsburgh, and black people applauded along with everyone else.
Obviously, it is tough for African Americans to be called out on a subject that is rarely discussed publicly, let alone in mixed company.
But blacks in the audience took the attitude that Obama wasn’t talking about them — he was talking about their cousin.
At least one expert, Bart Landry, a sociology professor of the University of Maryland, criticized Obama for his remarks, saying he gave black parents a “bum rap.”
But there wasn’t anywhere near the blowup that happened after angry sermons by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former pastor, were looped on the Internet.
Obama takes the high road
Indeed, given that Gov. Ed Rendell, who is leading Clinton’s campaign in Pennsylvania, has said publicly that “conservative whites” would not vote for Obama because he is black, Obama could have had a lot more to say about the mind-set of rural voters in that state.
Instead, throughout his campaign across Pennsylvania, Obama took the high road. He left race out of the conversation, and focused on the issues that voters raised during town hall meetings.
Clinton, who not once has challenged Rendell’s disgraceful stereotype of Pennsylvania voters as racist, has consistently seized upon polarizing issues in an effort to boost her campaign.
Obama has tried to end this latest battle of words, saying: “If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that.”
He had no reason to apologize.
In attacking Obama as “elitist” and “arrogant,” Clinton is again appealing to the lower nature of voters.
She has once again proved that she is willing to feed the ignorance of voters like the ones Rendell has described.
But worst yet, Clinton is now communicating to these voters that she that can put an “uppity” black man in his place.
