“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. In a world without genocide
denial, it would be the best word.”
–Khatchig Mouradian (2009)1
‘Medz Yeghern’: the Proper Name of the Genocide
In the concluding installment of this study on the semantics, history, and politics of the phrase
Medz Yeghern,
it
is crucial to underscore that the exhausting search for recognition
should not block the use of the words that our ancestors have bequeathed
us. It has been argued that recognition has been sufficiently ensured
by two resolutions of the House of Representatives, 3 federal court
rulings, 42 state declarations by legislation or proclamation, a
sentence in a document filed in 1951 by the U.S. government to the
International Court of Justice and another sentence in Ronald Reagan’s
proclamation,
2 along with official declarations by 20
countries and statements of a host of scholars. “We don’t say that this
is the end and the work of recognition has been done; simply, the
emphasis should be put on reparation and the rights,” Giro Manoyan, the
head of the ARF Bureau Armenian Cause office, declared recently.
3
Armenians should not be obfuscated by denial, whether mainstream or
from a lunatic fringe, which will probably be as lasting as affirmation.
Another worrisome trend—misuse—should not obfuscate them either.
The systematic and premeditated annihilation of 1915-17 became one of
the catalysts to Lemkin’s initial formulation of genocide—still without
its name—in 1933. Thus, the particular (
Medz Yeghern) gave birth to the general (
tseghasbanutiun, “genocide”). However, I will allow myself to repeat that
the common noun tseghasbanutiun is the
legal term applied to any act of systematic and premeditated annihilation, from Namibia to Darfur and from Cambodia to Rwanda, and not the
proper noun of the Armenian annihilation: in Armenian, the use of հրէական ցեղասպանութիւն (
hreagan tseghasbanutiun, “Jewish genocide”), for instance, is as legitimate as հայկական ցեղասպանութիւն (
haygagan tseghasbanutiun, “Armenian genocide”).
For instance, The French and Armenian inscriptions on the 1987 genocide memorial in Valence, France, read: “
A la mémoire des 1.500.000 Armeniens victimes du genocide perpetré par l’état turc en 1915”
/ “Ի յիշատակ մէկ ու կէս միլիոն հայերու ցեղասպանութեան կատարուած 1915ի
թուրք պետութեան կողմէ” (“In the memory of the 1,500,000 Armenians
victims of the genocide perpetrated by the Turkish state in 1915”).
Clearly, “genocide” and
tseghasbanutiun are the legal
qualifiers of the act, not the actual name, a fact noticeable in both
versions; the Armenian says: “In the memory of the genocide of one and a
half million Armenians perpetrated by the Turkish state of 1915.” The
proper noun is disclosed when
tseghasbanutiun is paired with
Medz Yeghern, as in the opening lines of the Armenian monolingual inscription beneath the
khatchkar (cross-stone)
in front of the Armenian Prelacy of Canada, in Montreal: «Կանգնեցաւ /
“Կարմիր Աւետարան” խաչքար-յուշակոթողս / սրբազան նահատակաց հայոց /
Մեծ Եղեռնի ցեղասպանութեան 90-ամեակին առթիւ / 24 Ապրիլ, 2005… » (“This
khachkar-memorial, ‘Red Gospel,’ was erected to the sacred martyrs of the Armenians on the occasion of the 90
th anniversary of the genocide [
tseghasbanutiun]
of the
Medz Yeghern, April 24, 2005…”).
The legal term
tseghasbanutiun qualifies the legal term
Medz Yeghern (“Great Crime”) in the same way that “genocide” qualifies the (non-legal) term
Shoah (“Catastrophe”) in the title of Zeev Garber’s book,
Shoah, the Paradigmatic Genocide: Essays in Exegesis and Eisegesis (University Press of America, 1994). The capitalization of the common noun
tseghasbanutiun does not turn it into a proper noun,
and the capitalization of “genocide”
does
not make “Armenian Genocide” a proper noun either, in the same way that
the capitalization of “holocaust” does not turn “Holocaust” into a
proper noun.
“Armenian Genocide” is, thus, a
sobriquet: a
common name that conceals our proper name. Borrowing the words of
literary scholar Marc Nichanian, we have to acknowledge that “Today,
they [Armenians] are using a common name as a proper name. They do not
respect the identity of the Event that has shaped them for the past 80
years. They do not respect their own memory of the Event.”
4
Medz Yeghern may be used legitimately and in good faith instead of or alongside “Armenian Genocide,” as
Shoah is
currently used legitimately and in good faith instead of or alongside
“Jewish Holocaust” by any number of non-Jews. Indeed, neither
Shoah nor
Holodomor, neither
Porrajmos nor
Sayfo,
make the experience of their original users any more unique than
Medz Yeghern; all of them are proper nouns of an event in history—regardless of any metahistorical interpretation—like
Glorious Revolution, Renaissance, Risorgimento or
Reconquista.
‘Yeghern’ = Genocide from 1965 to 2013
It is worthy to remember that word meanings are not etched in stone (for example, English
gay meant “merry, happy, carefree” before it dropped out of use after the incorporation of the slang meaning “homosexual”).
5 An unprejudiced examination of linguistic facts shows that over the past 50 years, while
tseghasbanutiun was becoming the automatic translation of the legal term “genocide,” with other calques like
azkasbanutiun or
zhoghovrtasbanutiun falling along the way, the road from the particular to the general was also widening the semantic perception of
yeghern. During the past hundred years, Armenian-English dictionaries have crossed the realm of “crime,” passed by “massacre” (
Medz Yeghern was translated as “Great Massacre,” for instance, in 1965),
6 and even stopped by
yeghern as “holocaust” in 2006.
7
The translation “holocaust” is not just a whim of dictionary writers;
we may note its use, for instance, in a bilingual booklet by writer
Levon K. Daghlian (1976),
8 an article by literary scholar Vahé Oshagan (1985),
9 and a translation by Harvard professor James R. Russell (2012).
10
Therefore, it is not surprising that
yeghern has reached the
meaning “genocide.” In a study written and published in 1965, survivor
historian Hagop Dj. Siruni (1890-1973) combined
yeghern and
premeditation and, thus, showed to have adopted
yeghern as a translation of “genocide”: “The Armenian-exterminating
yeghern was
neither the result of a casual inspiration nor the consequence of the
pretexts that the Ittihad constantly put forward; there is a whole pile
of proofs that reveals the terrible premeditation (կանխամտածութիւն,
gankhamdadzutiun).”
11
The meaning of “genocide” for
yeghern was occasionally used over the years. For example, a section of
Patma-banasirakan handes, the flagship publication of the Armenian Academy of Sciences, was devoted to the 60
th anniversary of the genocide under the title, “
Yeghern yev veradznunt. 1915-1975” (Russian: “
Genotsid i vozrozhdeniye. 1915-1975”; English: “
Genocide
and Revival. 1915-1975”). In the same issue, a chronicle of an official
homage at the monument to the victims of Tzitzernakaberd, entitled “
Yegherni zoheri hushartzanum,” became “V pamyatnika zhertam
genotsida” in Russian and “At the Memorial of the Victims to the
Genocide” in English.
12
Since the beginning of the Karabagh movement, the impact of the
pogrom of Sumgait in February 1988 created the parallel with 1915. The
synonymous character of
yeghern and
tseghasbanutiun as the
Armenian term for “genocide” was underscored and reinforced in an
unprecedented way. American anthropologist Nora Dudwick watched the
process first-hand and noted, “It seemed that every social and political
problem took on additional significance as containing a threat to the
Armenians’ continued existence as a people.”
13 The
Armenian-language banners raised during the huge demonstrations in
Yerevan reflected the perceived existential threat very explicitly. One
asked “To Recognize the
Medz Yeghern of 1915,” and another stated that “Sumgait is the Follow-Up to the
Medz Yeghern.” Yet another made the link between both: “If the USSR Government Had Recognized the Genocide [
tseghasbanutiun]
of 1915, Sumgait Would Not Have Happened in 1988”.
14
Dudwick referred to the use of “white genocide,” “cultural genocide,” and “ecological genocide” in the banners.
15 The Armenian word chosen to rhetorically enlarge the concept of “genocide” to assess political and social events was not
tseghasbanutiun, however, but
yeghern, as in the ecological struggle against the chemical giant “Nayirit” (“Down with the
Yeghern of Nayirit”), the diminishing utilization of the Armenian language (“To Betray the Language Is a White
Yeghern”),
or the destruction of Armenian historical monuments outside the borders
of Soviet Armenia (“The Destruction of Historical Monuments Is a
Spiritual [
hokevor, figuratively “cultural”]
Yeghern”).
Any counterargument that
yeghern equals
“massacre” here should be regarded as a stretch of the truth; Dudwick’s
would have hardly translated “genocide” without relying on local
informants. Moreover, a banner that mocked the Soviet slogan of
“peoples’ friendship” used
yeghern as unequivocal synonym of
tseghasbanutiun, “What Friendship after the
Yeghern of
1915-1988,” the same as another that stressed the rights of the
population of Mountainous Karabagh: “By Respecting the Inalienable Right
to Self-Determination of the Karabaghis, We Prevent the New
Yeghern [
Nor Yegherne]
, Red and White.”
16
Lawrence Sheets, currently the South Caucasus project director of the
International Crisis Group, recently recounted his visit to Armenia as
South Caucasus correspondent for Reuters in 1992. He described the
mindset created by the Karabagh conflict: “In this woman’s mind (and
those of many others), it was all part of the same pattern: The Karabagh
war was just another Turkish effort to exterminate them, a logical
extension of the almost-impossible-to-fathom
Mets Yeghern
(genocide) of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the
dying Ottoman Empire (present-day Turkey) during World War I.”
17 His use of “
Mets Yeghern
(genocide)” clarified the meaning of the word in the same way as
“Ottoman Empire (present-day Turkey).” He recorded the name of the event
as it had been spelled to him, after many banners had already used
yeghern to mean “genocide.”
In the 21
st century, the
Shoah (Holocaust) memorial
installed in downtown Yerevan by the Jewish community of Armenia (2006)
displays a bilingual inscription with two totally different texts in
Hebrew and Armenian. The Hebrew writing declares: “Lihyot o Lishkoakh /
Lizkor Korbanot ha-Shoah” (“To be or to forget / In memory of the
victims of the
Shoah”).
The members of the Jewish community, who are citizens of the republic
and fluent in Armenian, had tactfully chosen to memorialize the victims
of both genocides in the Armenian text: “Ապրել / Չմոռանալ / Հայ եւ
հրեայ ժողովուրդների եղեռնի յիշատակին” (“To live / Not to forget / In
memory of the
yegherns
of the Armenian and Jewish peoples”).
It would be unreasonable to assume that such homage downplayed the
magnitude of both genocides and stated “crime” or even “massacre” (the
word
chart would have sufficed) in the heart of Yerevan. Here,
yeghern could only mean “holocaust” or “genocide,” the same as
Shoah, and
each of those two meanings underscores their unique nature. The
translation by epress.am confirmed it: “To live and not to forget: In
the memory of the Armenian and Jewish peoples’ Genocide [
Yeghern].”
18
The identification of both concepts
yeghern and
tseghasbanutiun has
evolved in fully unexpected ways. Residents of various streets in
central Yerevan, who have seen their houses expropriated in recent
years, staged a demonstration near the presidential residence in January
2012, when the French law draft against genocide denial was initially
approved. A spokesperson for them stated: “The law draft approved by
France has not made me happy at all, because today a white
yeghern [
spitak yeghern]
is being carried in my homeland, while the authorities and the people
are watching in silence. What do we do? Should we go and ask the French
to recognize the white genocide [
spitak genotsid] of today? How
to be happy, when people are being expelled from their own homes and
thrown to the street in our country? Let’s approve a law to establish
criminal punishment to those who deny the ‘white genocide’ [
spitak genotsid] in Armenia. What do you think, will it pass in Armenia?”
19
The excerpt has the sole purpose of pointing out the abovementioned identification (
spitak yeghern = spitak genotsid),
regardless of the degree of hyperbole. Its echo, among many other
examples, was found in an editorial entitled, “What Is Going on Today in
Armenia Is a White
Yeghern” of the Yerevan-based newspaper
Haykakan Zhamanak (April 25, 2013): “People very frequently and easily claim that what is going on today in Armenia is a white
Yeghern, an internal genocide [
tseghasbanutiun],
that the Turk massacred the Armenians in Western Armenia and the
authorities of the Republic of Armenia are doing that in the Republic of
Armenia…”
20 The quotes show that the wording
spitak yeghern identifies
yeghern and
genocide because
its users claim that the situation was planned; as a matter of fact, it
is not an Eastern Armenian adaptation of the expression
spitak chart (“white massacre”), frequently used in Armenian rhetoric to symbolize assimilation in the diaspora.
References to
yeghern =
tseghasbanutiun = “genocide”
going back to 1965 may provide a context to Armenian president Serge
Sarkisian’s line on Feb. 5, 2013, that “those two words are the same for
us.”
21 Additionally, the Armenian Genocide
Museum-Institute’s website in Yerevan has entitled its section on the
destruction of Armenian cultural monuments by the Turkish state,
Mshakutayin Yeghern (in English,
Cultural Genocide;
Turkish,
Kültürel Soykırım) and employs
tseghasbanutiun six
times in the text. Neither the demonstrators at Freedom Square in 1988
nor the Genocide Museum in 2013 may be suspected of exploiting
yeghern with the aim of “undermining several decades of extensive lobbying efforts for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.”
22
The advice to look it up in a dictionary
23 seems equally moot. Linguist Ashot Sukiasyan (1922-2007) included
tseghasbanutiun among synonyms of
yeghern in the second edition of his monumental thesaurus of the Armenian language (2003, reprinted in 2009).
24 Yeghern appears as “genocide” in an Armenian-English dictionary published in Yerevan in 2009; its five authors had also translated
tseghasbanutiun as “genocide.”
25The list is likely longer.
The use of
yeghern and
tseghasbanutiun as synonyms by
current Armenian speakers should induce their Armenian American critics
to hone their linguistic skills, as a pioneering Turkish denier in
America, former ambassador and MP Mustafa Šükrü Elekdağ, had already
done by 2009-10.
Levy, Davutoğlu, and their ‘Helpers’
Moreover, heads of state (Barack Obama) who use
Medz Yeghern and, more times than not, couple it with
genocide (Pope John Paul II, Stephen Harper) are probably showing the way for
Armenian pundits, political operators, and the community at large to get thoroughly acquainted with their ancestral tongue.
It is fair to say that setting the record straight with the legal term
Great (Evil) Crime in
late 2008 or early 2009 would have thwarted the “calamity” scenario
installed by the Turkish “apology campaign.” Insistence on the
synonymous character of
Medz Yeghern and
genocide—an
insistence that should have been expected from, but not be limited to,
the president of Armenia as the counterpart of the U.S. president—could
have also made White House advisers and speechwriters desist from
including
Medz Yeghern in presidential statements between 2009
and 2013; as we already took note in a previous article, they used it
since “one side” (e.g., the Turkish one) had admitted it as a “place
marker.” Such insistence would have been crucial to avoid its worldwide
banalization and deformation. Unfortunately, history can only be written
in past tense and not in conditional mode.
Additionally, history seems to be written by the winners, as it
happened, most recently, in Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung. After
the successful appeal by the Armenian side on December 2010, the
defendant appealed in January 2011 and argued that
Medz Yeghern was
not
“the term for ‘Armenian Genocide’ in the Armenian language,” as the
majority panel had declared, because it was “generally translated as
‘great calamity,’ not ‘genocide.’” The authority for this argument was
Ben Schott’s blog entry in The New York Times
, based on Turkish columnist Ali Bulaç’s view that the “best translation” of
Medz Yeghern is “Great Calamity.”
26
The defendant-appellant also transcribed samples of criticism against
the term “by many in the Armenian community precisely because it does
not mean ‘Armenian genocide.’” Citing the September 2009
amicus brief from the Armenian Bar Association and the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA),
in which it was stated that President Barack Obama had used
Medz Yeghern, “the
Armenian name for the Armenian Genocide,” the defendant-appellant
retorted: “That representation to the panel by the ANCA simply cannot be
squared with its prior objection that the terms have fundamentally
different meanings.”
27
People not conversant in the Armenian language have been allowed to
impose their ignorance over our half-baked knowledge, inadequately
suited to engage the challenges posed by recently developed and more
sophisticated mechanisms of soft-core relativism or denial.
In this regard, let us consider the following lines by political
scientist Guenter Lewy on the genocide of the Native Americans: “In the
end, the sad fate of America’s Indians represents not a crime but a
tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. …
To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the
interests of the Indians nor those of history.”
28 The
replacement of “America’s Indians” by “Ottoman Armenians” exposes the
grounds for Lewy’s denial, couched in flawed academic methodology,
29
in his book on the Armenian “disputed genocide”: the rejection of the
malevolent design characteristic of crime, in favor of tragedy or
“calamity” which may occur independently of such design.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu recently upheld the same
rejection: “I would not call genocide what was lived through, but it is
their choice for those who call it. We need to develop a new language on
this issue. We are not denying your pain, we understand; whatever that
needs to be done, let’s do it together. But this is not a unilateral
declaration of a crime.”
30 Since 2009, his ministry has routinely condemned “President Barack Obama’s standard ‘
Medz Yeghern
(Great Disaster)’ reference to the Armenian Genocide and criticized the
U.S. for being prejudiced about 1915,” as noted by Turkish columnist
Burak Bekdil, who did not refrain from using
Medz Yeghern and
genocide in the same sentence.
31
Here is a sample from 2013: “Issued under the influence of domestic
political considerations and interpreting controversial historical
events on the basis of one-sided information and with a selective sense
of justice, such statements damage both Turkish-American relations, and
also render it more difficult for Turks and Armenians to reach a just
memory.”
32
On the other side of the divide, it is highly interesting that, in
its February 2011 response, the plaintiff-appellee in Movsesian v.
Victoria Versicherung had a moment of epiphany: It quoted the relevant
paragraph of Senator Barack Obama’s 2006 letter to Condoleeza Rice about
the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, including the use of these
two words, to bring forward the noteworthy argument that “President
Obama reasserted this view in 2009.”
33 Unheard before or
since, this is the same conclusion we arrived at quite independently in a
previous article. Noticeably, even a misnamed “great disaster” with an
additional attachment of “one of the worst atrocities of the twentieth
century” with “1.5 million Armenians massacred or marched to their
deaths” is tantamount, for the Turkish government, to “a unilateral
declaration of a crime” and “one-sided information.” An accurately named
Great Crime would have an even a greater impact.
Gabriel Sanders recently ended his review of Raphael Lemkin’s
autobiography with the following reflection: “Critics can argue that
Lemkin accomplished nothing. Genocide marches on. But Rwanda and
Srebrenica are not refutations of his legacy; they are affirmations of
his prescience. Without Lemkin, they would have been atrocities. In the
light of his Genocide Convention, they were crimes.”
34 In the light of the Genocide Convention, one may ask, what would the Great (Evil) Crime of 1915 be?
As the “great calamity” hoax goes marching on, scholars like Lewy and
politicians like Davutoğlu may enlist the logical support of Turkish
sources to their thesis and, moreover, approvingly nod to those Armenian
sources that continue to recycle statements such as, “at the end of the
day, ‘
Meds Yeghern’ is meaningless for most Americans, and does not have a judicial meaning.”
35
Diplomat and political scientist Ara Papian has observed that “‘Medz
Yeghern’ means genocide for us, but it doesn’t mean genocide to the rest
of the world.”
36 In this context, the well-known paragraph of Lewis Carroll’s
Through the Looking-Glass deserves to be recalled once again: “‘When
I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’
“‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you
can make words mean so many different things.’
“‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’”
37
Our words can only mean what we, the masters of the language, have chosen them to mean. An innocent mistranslation of
Medz Yeghern may be a mistake, but a tendentious mistranslation is a violation of the Armenian language.
Medz Yeghern and its
real and legal meaning of “Great (Evil) Crime” (as well as its contemporary meaning of “genocide”) are the only legitimate choice over the
fictitious and non-legal meaning
of “Great Calamity” and its variants “Great Catastrophe,” “Great
Tragedy,” or even the linguistically inaccurate “Great Atrocity.”
Relentless repetition installed “
Medz Yeghern (Great Calamity)” within the international media; a barrage of the continuous use of “
Medz Yeghern, the Armenian Genocide,” with or even without its literal translation of “Great (Evil) Crime,” should help install it anywhere.
In the end, any pretense of “denialist terminology” to refrain from
calling things by their 90-plus-year-old Armenian proper name—as it has
been misguidedly suggested following presidential statements of “
Meds Yeghern”
and Turkish mistranslations of “Great Calamity”—would be an act of
self-censorship, playing straight into the hands of the denier.
Moreover, it would be the most tragic irony in the ultimate stage of
genocide: denial unwittingly self-imposed by those who are bound to
fight against denial.
Notes
1 Quoted in The Armenian Reporter
, June 26, 2009.
2
The Armenian Weekly
, June 5, 2012.
3
Hayastani zrutsakits, April 19, 2013.
4 David Kazanjian and Marc Nichanian, “Between Genocide and Catastrophe,” in David Kazanjian and David Eng (eds.),
Loss: the Politics of Mourning, Los Angeles and Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003, p. 127.
5 Mark Perlman,
Conceptual Flux: Mental Representation, Misrepresentation, and Concept Change, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000,
p. 182.
6 From Catholicos Vazken I’s message: “Today, 50 years after the
Great Massacre…” (“The Message of His Holiness the Catholicos of All
Armenians in the Sad Anniversary,”
Aregak, special issue, April 1965, p. 5).
7 Nicholas Awde and Vazken-Khatchig Davidian,
Western Armenian Dictionary and Phrasebook, New York: Hippocrene Books, 2006, p. 58.
8 Levon K. Daghlian,
Yegherni husher/Memories of the Holocaust, Boston: Haig H. Toumayan, 1976.
9 Vahe Oshagan, “The Theme of the Armenian Genocide in Diaspora Prose,” Armenian Review, Spring 1985, pp. 53-54.
10 James R. Russell, “The Bells: From Poe to Sardarapat,” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies,
vol. 21 (2012), p. 153.
11 H. Dj. Siruni, “Yeghern me yev ir patmutiune” (A
Yeghern and Its History),
Ejmiatzin, February-March-April 1965, p. 7.
12
Patma-banasirakan handes, 2, 1975, pp. 264, 267 (index of contents).
13 Quoted in Mark Malkhasian,
Gha-ra-bagh! The Emergence of the National Democratic Movement in Armenia, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1996, p. 56.
14 Harutiun Marutyan, “Tseghaspanutian hishoghutiune vorpes nor
inknutian tsevavorich (1980 tvakanneri verj – 1990 tvakanneri skizb)”
(The Memory of Genocide as Marker of New Identity: Late 1980s – Early
1990s),
Patma-banasirakan handes, 1, 2005, p. 59.
15 Malkhasian,
Gha-ra-bagh!, p. 56.
16 Marutyan, “Tseghaspanutian hishoghutiune,” pp. 61, 63.
17 Lawrence Scott Sheets,
Eight Pieces of Empire: A 20-Year Journey Through the Soviet Collapse, New York: Crown Publishers, 2011, p. 131.
18 See
www.epress.am/en/2010/10/20/city-staff-busy-cleaning-traces-of-anti-semitism-on-yerevans-holocaust-memorial.html,
where it is mistakenly said that the inscription is the same in both
Hebrew and Armenian.
19 See www.epress.am/2012/01/25.
20 See www.hartak.am/arm/index.php?id=1982.
21 See www.panarmenian.net/arm/news/144433/.
22 The Armenian Weekly, Feb. 12, 2013.
23 Asbarez, Feb. 6, 2013.
24 Ashot Sukiasian,
Hayots lezvi homanishneri batsatrakan bararan (Explanatory
Dictionary of Synonyms of the Armenian Language), second edition,
Yerevan: Yerevan State University Press, 2003, p. 264.
25 Sona Seferian et al.,
English-Armenian, Armenian English Dictionary, Yerevan: Areg, 2009, pp. 456, 569.
26 The New York Times, May 6, 2009.
27 See http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/07-56722pfr.pdf.
28 Guenter Lewy,
Essays on Genocide and Humanitarian Intervention, Salt Lake City: Utah University Press, 2012, p. 102.
29 See Taner Akçam, “Review Essay: Guenter Lewy’s
The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey,” Genocide Studies and Prevention
, April 2008, pp. 111-145.
30 Milliyet, July 7, 2012.
31 Hurriyet Daily News, May 1, 2013.
32 Hurriyet Daily News, April 24, 2013.
33 See http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/07-56722pfr.pdf.
34
The Forward, Aug. 2, 2013.
35 Haykaram Nahapetyan, “Obama vs Romney: Armenian American Community
Pressures Candidates to Recognize 1915 Genocide by Ottoman Turkey,”
PolicyMic, Sept.
29, 2012
(www.policymic.com/articles/15545/obama-vs-romney-armenian-american-community-pressures-candidates-to-recognize-1915-genocide-by-ottoman-turkey).
36 The Armenian Weekly, Feb. 7, 2013.
37 Lewis Carroll,
The Annotated Alice: The Definitive Edition, introduction and notes by Martin Gardner, New York: W. W. Norton, 2000, p. 213.
