It’s obvious I do not have enough diversity training or multi-cultural sensitivity workshops under my belt, because I just don’t get this.
No doubt…obviously as a white, male, protestant, Southern American I’ve never felt the sting of bigotry (except maybe on the Southern part), or felt historically slighted or taken advantage of (Reconstruction wasn’t genocide by any means).
But someone please explain to me what is gained by deciding that something is or is not genocide. When the International United Nations Panel on the Ins and Outs and Official Historical Definitions of Genocide and Genocide-like Occurrences issued their ruling that Darfur wasn’t a prime example of genocide, name one person on the planet with a lick of sense that said, “Whew, thank God…we thought all that mindless maiming and murmuring was worth paying serious attention to, but now that we know it’s not genocide, we can move on.”
And with Darfur, we’re talking about something that was happening…well…last Tuesday. In the Turkish/Armenian example it’s something that happened in 1915. My Grandfather was born in 1915. He lived to a fairly old age, but he’s gone. Anyone over the age of 15 in 1915 would be at least 108 years old. Meaning there are MAYBE two dozen people still alive that were adults at the time of the incident in question. But that doesn’t stop the French, and even the U.S. from jumping on the “Turkey should apologize for their transgressions, damnit!–REPENT!” bandwagon.
Let me save the Armenians and Turks some trouble. Just give me a .1 percent cut on that $12 billion pipeline project and I’ll get everyone in the room and tell them what REALLY matters–whether it was “officially” genocide, or “officially” not genocide:
IT WAS 93 DAMN YEARS AGO! Build the flipping pipeline!