![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The ADL and Genocide
This is turning out to be harder to start than I expected. That's because it's complicated, I guess.
There has been a lot of coverage in the Boston Globe lately (and a bit in the national press, now) about recent events in Watertown, MA. An official "No Place For Hate" campaign was going on there, with the usual success, when someone noticed that the Anti-Defamation League which sponsors "No Place For Hate" was helping to deny the historicity of the Armenian Genocide.
A little background: Starting in 1915, the Turkish government methodically planned the extermination of the Armenian people within their borders (including all of my ancestors). One and a half million men, women, and children were methodically killed, under circumstances that do not easily bear talking about. This was widely recognized as the first genocide of the 20th century, although the word "genocide" itself wasn't coined until considerably later. There are photographs, written testimony from the US Ambassador at the time, newspaper accounts, and recorded testimony from survivors. There are even internal Ottoman government documents which are quite damning.
Nonetheless the Turkish government has never admitted that the Genocide occurred, and instead has spent huge amounts of money and time denying it. They've funded academic seats in prestigious Ivy League colleges and universities to give their denial added weight. One of their bought-and-paid-for professors was caught doing consulting work for the Turkish government; he ghost-wrote a letter for the Turkish ambassador to the US to send to a Holocaust scholar, and included with the letter was a memo which the professor wrote explaining how to best deny the genocide! That memo was, of course, intended only for the Turkish ambassador.
Anyway, it turns out that the ADL has been urging the US Congress to kill two bills recognizing the Armenian Genocide. Why? Apparently Abe Foxman, the head of the ADL, feels that genocide isn't any of the ADL's business - at least, not when it happens to non-Jews (although the ADL has made some pious noises about Darfur and Bosnia). So Mr. Foxman signed a letter (along with three other major Jewish organizations) urging congressional leaders to postpone considering the genocide bills. His primary reason is that there are Jews in Turkey whose safety might be threatened if the bill passes, and that Turkey is one of the few allies that Israel has in the Middle East.
But to put the reputation of the ADL, an organization which exists in large part to fight genocide, behind an active attempt to DENY genocide...well, that's just sickening. And if genocide is only wrong when it happens to your own people, than how can the ADL claim any sort of moral high ground?
The people of Watertown objected to the whole thing. After going back and forth for a little while, the head of the regional New England ADL also agreed that the Genocide should be recognized. He was promptly fired by Mr. Foxman for insubordination. The ADL has since published an open letter in the Globe and elsewhere, urging the Turkish and Armenian people to "seek reconciliation". But they "... believe that legislative efforts outside of Turkey are counterproductive to the goal of having Turkey itself come to grips with its past". The letter studiously avoids the word "genocide" - how considerate of them!
I'm tempted to work up a list of alternate words and phrases that can be used in place of "genocide". Words such as "troubles". "Misunderstandings". "Massive, wide-scale boo-boos." That sort of thing. But it's hard to maintain a sense of humor about this.
As it happens, my own workplace had a big "No Place For Hate" campaign not long ago, and the posters are still up on some walls. We were all invited to sign our names and join the campaign. Emails, voicemails, office mail, the works.
I never signed up.
Why? Well, at the time it was hard to say. I knew I didn't want to sign it, that the whole thing seemed wrong somehow, but I couldn't quite articulate why. Since this ADL genocide-denial issue has come up, though, I've been thinking about it a lot.
My first reaction was that the campaign was bullshit. Lots of people will happily sign any sort of pledge that's handed to them by someone, particularly if it's from someone who signs their paycheck. But that doesn't change their behavior. And to pretend that signing a poster or pledge will eliminate hate is as ridiculous as launching a war on terror! Hate is an emotion. You can sign a million pledges, but it won't affect how you feel. If hate is inside you, then pretending it isn't there won't make it go away.
What I'd like to see is a pledge to not discriminate. To not cover up injustice and atrocity. Hell, I'd like to see a pledge to pay a fair living wage to every worker! But this "No Place For Hate" bullshit is exactly that, a meaningless campaign to make legislators and executives feel good about themselves and - far more important - for use in public relations. As such, it's probably worse than nothing, because it allows people to think that they're morally superior without altering their actual behavior in the slightest. Given that moralistic veneer, they can smugly wallow in their worst excesses.
Look at Abe Foxman. He clearly thinks he's ready for sainthood. And there he is, helping to deny the same crimes against humanity that he decries so piteously when applied to his own people. Although I suspect that his real concern isn't his "people", but rather the small number of wealthy donors who are the primary financial backers of the ADL.
I also have a gut feeling that there is, in fact, a place for hate - that there are times when hate is appropriate and even necessary. Isn't it right to hate war crimes and genocide? Should we hate injustice and cruelty? How about hypocrisy? How about the corruption of civil liberties, or lying a country into a war, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and mutilations for political gain? Yes, taken too far hate can consume a person and warp them - but in proper proportion and under some circumstances, hate is both natural and reasonable.
We don't need "No Place For Hate". We need "No Place For Evil".
Okay, I should note that I don't know anything about "No Place For Hate" apart from the poster thing at work and what I've read in the newspaper. Maybe they have innovative outreach and education programs to combat injustice and intolerance. If so, that just makes what Foxman and the ADL have done that much worse - having compromised a program that does good, along with their own reputations. But as I said, I don't know if that's true of NPFH.
I have read that Watertown will likely replace the NPFH campaign with a locally-developed tolerance and diversity program. I hope they do.
There has been a lot of coverage in the Boston Globe lately (and a bit in the national press, now) about recent events in Watertown, MA. An official "No Place For Hate" campaign was going on there, with the usual success, when someone noticed that the Anti-Defamation League which sponsors "No Place For Hate" was helping to deny the historicity of the Armenian Genocide.
A little background: Starting in 1915, the Turkish government methodically planned the extermination of the Armenian people within their borders (including all of my ancestors). One and a half million men, women, and children were methodically killed, under circumstances that do not easily bear talking about. This was widely recognized as the first genocide of the 20th century, although the word "genocide" itself wasn't coined until considerably later. There are photographs, written testimony from the US Ambassador at the time, newspaper accounts, and recorded testimony from survivors. There are even internal Ottoman government documents which are quite damning.
Nonetheless the Turkish government has never admitted that the Genocide occurred, and instead has spent huge amounts of money and time denying it. They've funded academic seats in prestigious Ivy League colleges and universities to give their denial added weight. One of their bought-and-paid-for professors was caught doing consulting work for the Turkish government; he ghost-wrote a letter for the Turkish ambassador to the US to send to a Holocaust scholar, and included with the letter was a memo which the professor wrote explaining how to best deny the genocide! That memo was, of course, intended only for the Turkish ambassador.
Anyway, it turns out that the ADL has been urging the US Congress to kill two bills recognizing the Armenian Genocide. Why? Apparently Abe Foxman, the head of the ADL, feels that genocide isn't any of the ADL's business - at least, not when it happens to non-Jews (although the ADL has made some pious noises about Darfur and Bosnia). So Mr. Foxman signed a letter (along with three other major Jewish organizations) urging congressional leaders to postpone considering the genocide bills. His primary reason is that there are Jews in Turkey whose safety might be threatened if the bill passes, and that Turkey is one of the few allies that Israel has in the Middle East.
But to put the reputation of the ADL, an organization which exists in large part to fight genocide, behind an active attempt to DENY genocide...well, that's just sickening. And if genocide is only wrong when it happens to your own people, than how can the ADL claim any sort of moral high ground?
The people of Watertown objected to the whole thing. After going back and forth for a little while, the head of the regional New England ADL also agreed that the Genocide should be recognized. He was promptly fired by Mr. Foxman for insubordination. The ADL has since published an open letter in the Globe and elsewhere, urging the Turkish and Armenian people to "seek reconciliation". But they "... believe that legislative efforts outside of Turkey are counterproductive to the goal of having Turkey itself come to grips with its past". The letter studiously avoids the word "genocide" - how considerate of them!
I'm tempted to work up a list of alternate words and phrases that can be used in place of "genocide". Words such as "troubles". "Misunderstandings". "Massive, wide-scale boo-boos." That sort of thing. But it's hard to maintain a sense of humor about this.
As it happens, my own workplace had a big "No Place For Hate" campaign not long ago, and the posters are still up on some walls. We were all invited to sign our names and join the campaign. Emails, voicemails, office mail, the works.
I never signed up.
Why? Well, at the time it was hard to say. I knew I didn't want to sign it, that the whole thing seemed wrong somehow, but I couldn't quite articulate why. Since this ADL genocide-denial issue has come up, though, I've been thinking about it a lot.
My first reaction was that the campaign was bullshit. Lots of people will happily sign any sort of pledge that's handed to them by someone, particularly if it's from someone who signs their paycheck. But that doesn't change their behavior. And to pretend that signing a poster or pledge will eliminate hate is as ridiculous as launching a war on terror! Hate is an emotion. You can sign a million pledges, but it won't affect how you feel. If hate is inside you, then pretending it isn't there won't make it go away.
What I'd like to see is a pledge to not discriminate. To not cover up injustice and atrocity. Hell, I'd like to see a pledge to pay a fair living wage to every worker! But this "No Place For Hate" bullshit is exactly that, a meaningless campaign to make legislators and executives feel good about themselves and - far more important - for use in public relations. As such, it's probably worse than nothing, because it allows people to think that they're morally superior without altering their actual behavior in the slightest. Given that moralistic veneer, they can smugly wallow in their worst excesses.
Look at Abe Foxman. He clearly thinks he's ready for sainthood. And there he is, helping to deny the same crimes against humanity that he decries so piteously when applied to his own people. Although I suspect that his real concern isn't his "people", but rather the small number of wealthy donors who are the primary financial backers of the ADL.
I also have a gut feeling that there is, in fact, a place for hate - that there are times when hate is appropriate and even necessary. Isn't it right to hate war crimes and genocide? Should we hate injustice and cruelty? How about hypocrisy? How about the corruption of civil liberties, or lying a country into a war, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and mutilations for political gain? Yes, taken too far hate can consume a person and warp them - but in proper proportion and under some circumstances, hate is both natural and reasonable.
We don't need "No Place For Hate". We need "No Place For Evil".
Okay, I should note that I don't know anything about "No Place For Hate" apart from the poster thing at work and what I've read in the newspaper. Maybe they have innovative outreach and education programs to combat injustice and intolerance. If so, that just makes what Foxman and the ADL have done that much worse - having compromised a program that does good, along with their own reputations. But as I said, I don't know if that's true of NPFH.
I have read that Watertown will likely replace the NPFH campaign with a locally-developed tolerance and diversity program. I hope they do.