The G-word

In 1915, during the early years of World War I, political and intellectual leaders of the Armenian community of the Ottoman Empire were rounded up and murdered. These killings carried on until 1923 and resulted in the death of 1,500,000 people. These events are often either labeled as massacre or genocide. Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish scholar, coined the word “genocide” in 1943 as means of describing these killings. In discussing these events, Congressman Adam Schiff makes the assertion that “words matter.” The word used in describing these killings reflects viewpoints on the matter. In other words, the word “genocide” comes with heavy implications. The decision in describing these killings as genocide suggests that there was a deliberate decision in destroying the Armenian population. The oh-so-scary G-word is often missing from conversations and politicians often call these events tragic killings or massacres. The question remains whether the United States will recognize the Armenian Genocide as such, considering their unwillingness in using the word, and whether the Turkish government will cease denial and admit that the killings were, in fact, genocide.

The killings that took place during this time period were a systematic destruction ordered at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish nation acknowledges the deaths but refuses to consider them "genocide." Turkish officials instead claim that there were killings on both sides, and that the murders that took place on their part was done as a response to the Armenian people, who were rebelling against the Ottoman Empire. The photographic documentation that exists, however, coupled with eyewitness accounts and judgments made on behalf of historians who consider these mass killings to be a genocide suggest otherwise. There are, however, continuous efforts made on behalf of Turkish officials to avoid these responsibilities. Their refusal of owning up to their past has led to denial of the genocide. In fact, discussing the Armenian Genocide in Turkey is punishable under law. The following is Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which highlights Turkey’s suppression of free speech.

1. Public denigration of Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.
2. Public denigration of the Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security structures shall be punishable by
imprisonment of between six months and two years.
3. In cases where denigration of Turkishness is committed by a Turkish citizen in another country the punishment shall be increased by one third.
4. Expressions of thought intended to criticize shall not constitute a crime.

This denial has infected the United States as well. The United States is careful with their description of these mass killings. Turkey's lobbying firms convince legislators and representatives to avoid using the word "genocide." The reason for this is because the United States has an important ally in Turkey, and a result, going against Turkey and admitting the genocide can be harmful.

“Turkey engages in a form of international bullying, threatening to cut diplomatic ties or install economic sanctions, to dissuade nations of recognizing the genocide.”

France, who has recognized the Armenian Genocide now for several decades, recently passed a bill criminalizing public denial of the Armenian Genocide. Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, claimed the bill was against free speech and even claimed he would never visit France again if the bill was passed. Turkey released a statement after the passing of the bill, claiming relations between their nation and France had now been impaired. This provides us with further understanding of how Turkey is involved in "international bullying" in support of their interests.

In his online video, Congressman Bob Livingston urges Congress to vote against the Armenian Genocide Resolution, calling Turkey an "indispensable ally" and claiming recognition of the genocide will hurt our relationship with Turkey. In addition to absurd claims - he calls Turkey a secular democracy, despite the fact that it is illegal to openly discuss the Armenian Genocide in the nation - Bob Livingston supports the denial of the Armenian Genocide for Turkish interests. In his public video, he even claims that "nobody" other than historians know the details of these events; however, the International Association of Genocide Scholars has reached out to Congress in the past in attempts of having them adopt the Armenian Genocide Resolution. Condoleezza Rice has never once used the term “genocide” when describing these events, despite her efforts in playing a decisive role in the conflicts with Darfur. In a public hearing, Congressman Adam Schiff pressed Condoleezza Rice on this topic, repeatedly asking her if she believed these killings were genocide. The then-Secretary of State refused to use the word genocide and claimed:

“I think that the best way to have this proceed is for the United States not to be in the position of making this judgment, but rather, for the Turks and the Armenians to come to their own terms.”

In addition to Bob Livingston, a number of others have ignored the Armenian Genocide issue because of interests that relate directly to Turkey. George Bush's ignorance on the topic was simply because of United States-Turkey relations. The then-President remarked:

“The resolution on the mass killings of Armenians beginning in 1915 is counterproductive. Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a Democratic ally in the Muslim world.”

There should be dialogue and understanding between both nations, but the United States is responsible for standing up and acknowledging these events as genocide. There have been a number of presidents who have expressed their desire for recognizing the genocide, but little has been done after assuming office. Congressman Adam Schiff has continuously supported the recognition of the Armenian Genocide and has discussed the importance of using the word "genocide" when speaking on these topics: [Barack Obama] has said, and rightfully so, words matter. This word, genocide, matters more than almost all others, because encompassed within that single word is a crime of enormous magnitude; the deliberate to destroy an entire people. Denial of genocide is the final chapter of genocide. “

President Barack Obama had been open about his feelings toward the Armenian Genocide prior to his election. The then-Senator of Illinois made several statements on these events:

"The United States deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully… I intend to be that President.”

“There was a genocide that did take place against the Armenian people."

“The facts are undeniable… I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution, and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.”

“The United States must recognize the events of 1915-1923, carried out by the Ottoman Empire, as genocide. The Bush Administration’s refusal to do so is inexcusable.”

The views of Barack Obama have changed since he was sworn into office. The President has silenced himself in regards to this issue, much like others have, including George Bush, Condoleezza Rice and Bob Livingston. The President has done little in terms of encouraging dialogue on these events, and has even shied away from using the G-word. The President revealed a statement on day of remembrance of the Armenian Genocide in 2010, recalling on the atrocities that took place nearly a century ago. The one word missing from his statement, however, was the word "genocide," which he has refused to use since coming into office. Congressman Adam Schiff's claim that "words matter" seems to be reflected in the way certain politicians use their words, and the word that goes missing in their conversations is the G-word. In addition to citing Turkey among his top five international friends, Obama has refused to consider the recognition of the Armenian Genocide because of the relations the nation has with Turkey. The man who once said the refusal of recognizing the genocide was "inexcusable" now sides with the presidents who came before him:

“What I want to do is not focus on my views right now, and focus on the views of the Turkish and the Armenian people. If they can move forward and deal with a difficult and tragic history then I think the entire world should encourage them.”

Bibliography

http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=1513

http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=1233

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwR83GZjwdo&feature=related

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-barack-obama-armenian-remembrance-day

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR44/035/2005/en/7af4fffc-d47d-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/eur440352005en.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1C9Wdcmmsk

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123880012474888429.html

The Price Is Right

Whitney Houston's passing on February 11 didn't shock the world. The death that was heard around the world might have been a surprise for those who hadn't heard from her in years, but her passing was expected considering her long-standing history with drugs. It's unfortunate, of course, considering the impact she had made on the music industry and the talent that she had shared with the world... but there's no way anybody was shocked when they found out Whitney Houston was "found" dead in the Beverly Hills Hotel.

The various news outlets that broke news of her death claimed the cause of death had not yet been determined, and although her fans probably hoped drugs weren't involved, as soon as details starting pouring in that she had been found in her bathtub, possibly underwater, things starting getting pretty clear. The music legend, who had lived quite an insane life, no doubt died as a result of drug overdose... and that's fine. It's no big deal. It's unfortunate, it's sad, but it was also expected.

In fact, it also wasn't a shock that her album sales on iTunes went up after her death. The same thing happened with Michael Jackson when he "suddenly" died. The big surprise, however, was not news of her death or the fact that her music sales jumped, but news that the price of her albums were hiked up immediately after her passing... just hours after her death, to be exact. It's not only disgusting, but it also goes to show how money hungry and business-minded conglomerates can be.

Whitney Houston's "The Ultimate Collection" on iTunes in the UK went from $7.85 to $12.50 and "The Greatest Hits" went from $12.5o to $15.67. The issue was met with controversy, obviously, but Apple claims this was not done on their part. Instead, the blame seems to be pointing toward Sony, who owns the rights to much of Whitney Houston's music.

Sony released a statement, claiming all of this was just a "mistake," blaming the price hike on an employee.

The statement claimed that the products were "mistakenly mispriced on the UK iTunes store on Sunday. When discovered, the mistake was immediately corrected. We apologize for any offense caused."

In the same way that Whitney Houston's death wasn't a big shock, the same can be said for Sony's excuse regarding the matter. It's not a big surprise that they would blame the entire "inconvenience" on an employee, but the simple fact of the matter is that they saw an opportunity and decided to squeeze in a few extra bucks.

This is exploitation at its finest.

Stepan Partamian: The Public Intellectual

In a society that has the desperate urge to voice their opinion, those few individuals who share with us credible discourse that goes against the norm are often ignored or misunderstood. This is precisely the case with Stepan Partamian, an important figure in the Armenian community, whose teachings and criticisms of Armenian culture is often misunderstood by the general public. Stepan Partamian has authored numerous books and hosts a television show in which he expresses his views with his audience, but his controversial approach in being brutally honest often makes him seem like a radical. In addition, his physical appearance - a bald head with a long, disheveled beard - make him less likable in the eyes of his conservative audience. It's no wonder, then, that because image plays a crucial role in our society, an individual with such a physical appearance and with "radical" views - one that is outside the norm and not expected in Armenian culture - will be misunderstood.

Stepan Partamian is a figure unlike other public intellectuals; thus, in considering him as one, the term itself should be analyzed. In The Decline of the Public Intellectual, Stephen Mack defines the function of public intellectuals in society.

“So, is there any way of conceptualizing something called the public intellectual that is consistent with democratic values? Of course there is, but it needs to begin with a shift from “categories and class” to “function.” That is, our notions of the public intellectual need to focus less on who or what a public intellectual is—and by extension, the qualifications for getting and keeping the title. Instead, we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.”

In this regard, the function of the public intellectual is of more importance rather than their qualifications. This suggests that an individual’s work reveals if he or she is deserving of such a title. Partamian, despite being a prominent figure in the Armenian community, is less known to the general public. Partamian, who is a graduate of film and television from California State University, Northridge, may seem unfit to be considered a “public intellectual” especially in comparison to other individuals such as Noam Chomsky. Partamian - unlike other men and women who would be considered public intellectuals - doesn't do much of his work in an academic setting. Instead, he boldly addresses the public in front of television cameras on his television shows. The question, then, is what makes Stepan Partamian a public intellectual.

In his career, however, Stepan Partamian has been heavily involved in spreading cultural awareness, emphasizing the importance of moral values. In addition to having founded the Armenian Arts Funder, an organization that promotes artistic excellence in various disciplines, he has authored several books, including, Yes, We Have and Ayo, Menk Enk, which discuss contributions made by Armenians around the world. Partamian is also working on a larger project, known as Gifts to the World: A Compendium of Armenian Contributions to Humanity, which is due for release in April 2015, on the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

Stepan Partamian has shaped public discourse with his broadcasts and commentaries. Partamian's intention has been to educate the Armenian community and raise awareness of their own culture. This primarily comes from his resentful feelings toward the community itself; he feels that as a collective group, the Armenian community is ignorant and they refuse to educate themselves with important cultural issues. In particular, because Armenia was the first Christian nation, many Armenians feel that it is the obligation of every Armenian to believe in God. These people believe that in order to be a "good" Armenian, they must consider themselves Christians. Stepan Partamian, however, points out that these same people are hypocrites; they themselves don't go to church or read the bible, but instead wear crosses as a symbol of their Christianity. Stepan Partamian suggests that our ignorance refrains us from being educated and that we are naturally close-minded individuals who follow tradition with no reason.

In his article, How to be a public intellectual, Christopher Hitchens claims that the title “public intellectual” is one that must be earned from others. In other words, a person is not a public intellectual simply by declaring themselves as such. The public intellectual must be a title that others bestow upon an individual. In his article, he defines the term itself.

“What, then, are the uses of the term “public intellectual”? It assists us in defining someone who makes his or her living through the battle of ideas. It often helps us to learn something about a foreign culture or state…”

Stepan Partamian, regardless of his controversial opinions, and despite the fact that many people from the Armenian community might not consider him a public intellectual, is a person who bases his beliefs on his ideas. In his fight to educate the Armenian community, his discourse sheds light on the culture itself.

Stephen Mack continues outlining the tasks of a public intellectual in his article.

“Put more prosaically, public intellectuals perform an important social function...

A public intellectual is not a paid publicist, not a spinner, not in the pocket of a narrowly defined purpose. It is, of course the temptation, another one, of the public intellectual to cozy up to that which he or she should be evaluating critically. I think perhaps, too many White House dinners can blunt the edge of criticism…

So the public intellectual needs, it seems to me, to puncture the myth-makers of any era, including his own, whether it's those who promise that utopia is just around the corner if we see the total victory of free markets worldwide, or communism worldwide or positive genetic enhancement worldwide, or mouse-maneuvering democracy worldwide, or any other run-amok enthusiasm. Public intellectuals, much of the time at least, should be party poopers."

Stepan Partamian, more so than any other public intellectual in today's society, can be labeled a "party pooper." In a time of celebration, such as Christmas, his broadcasts focus on our flaws and shortcomings. The general public often considers him as being nihilistic in this sense, considering his criticism toward our culture. Partamian, however, resorts to such controversial extremes to grab the attention of his viewers - reigning in on their parades and celebrations to point out their flaws. Partamian is instead trying to highlight the importance of culture, by showing us our flaws. It’s because of this criticism that positions himself as a public intellectual.

Stephen Mack adds:

“…if intellectuals are in a better position to perform that function it’s not because they are uniquely blessed with wisdom—and it’s certainly not because they are uniquely equipped to wield social or political power. It is only because learning the processes of criticism and practicing them with some regularity are requisites for intellectual employment. It’s what we do at our day jobs.”

In The Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual, Stephen Mack discusses religious intellectuals and emphasizes the role of public intellectuals.

“Presidents, poets—and public intellectuals--have invoked his words to remind Americans of something fundamental about themselves: that they are a people defined not by race, not by ethnicity, but by moral purpose.”

The essence of Stepan Partamian’s discourse is one based on such moral purpose. The viewpoints he sets forth in his writings and broadcasts are based on his criticism of the Armenian people, but are concerned with ethical values. In broadcasts, Amote’ (It’s Shameful) and Bari Luys (Good Morning), he scrutinizes cultural values from an ethical perspective. In specific, he questions why the Armenian community is more proud that Kim Kardashian is an Armenian rather than other noteworthy figures in society. In his closing statements, he uses the phrase Bari Luys (Good Morning), as if he has just “enlightened” his audience. Partamian, in his broadcasts and his writings, is enlightening and educating his audience, and poses questions about our culture and why we are more concerned with insignificant issues. This shows us that his beliefs hail from a set of values.

In discussing the public intellectual’s work, Stephen Mack notes, “the measure of public intellectual work is not whether the people are listening, but whether they’re hearing things worth talking about.” Stepan Partamian is blunt; he points out what is wrong with our culture and points out our ignorance. The simple fact is that people don’t want to be told they are ignorant. Stepan Partamian believes that education is knowledge and knowledge is power. This is all done in benefit of educating ourselves.

The Armenian community believes he taints our image, disregarding his true intentions. In contrast, he is arguably more proud of his heritage than any other Armenian; so proud, in fact, that he wants to conserve our culture.

Stepan Partamian knows that our culture is consumed with television and therefore uses the medium to share his viewpoints. It's clear, then, that whether or not his audience is listening or if they agree with him, the public intellectual should be discussing issues that are of significance. In some instances, Partamian's words fall on deaf ears, but his discourse criticizes important issues. The people who criticize him buy his books, attend his lectures, and tune into his broadcasts, and despite the fact that they consider him controversial, they are still aware the issues he raises are significant to their culture. Stepan Partamian is misunderstood, without doubt, and his audience deems him controversial, but they will also agree that they’re hearing things worth talking about.