Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

[Crimson Glow]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

The European Armenian Federation gets it right. If Armenians in the U.S. had been as clear, Obama wouldn't have been able to use the term as a weasel word.

http://eafjd.eu/spip.php?article539

*massages his temples*

You really think that has anything to do with how Obama refers to the genocide now that he's in office? When he was running for president, he CLEARLY said on SEVERAL occasions that what happened to the Armenians in 1915 was most definitely genocide, and that as president, he would recognize it. Of course, Armenians being the ever gullible idiots they are believed this guy, despite being lied to by Clinton and Bush Jr. in the past about the same thing. He knows that the proper way to address the massacres of 1915 is genocide, and he sure as hell didn't call it a "tragedy", or "disaster" because the Armenians are "unclear" as to what they call the event. If Armenians had called it genocide from the beginning, Obama STILL wouldn't have done so himself after taking office.

Why can't Armenians get it through their head that they are a tiny, completely insignificant group of people to the vast majority of the world, and their causes, plights and desires mean absolutely nothing to anyone outside of politicians trying to get votes? Do you guys not understand that keeping good ties with Turkey is FAR, FAR more important to the US than pleasing 1.5 million American-Armenians? Use your heads a little for once. No American president will EVER officially call this a genocide so long as this nation cherishes its relationship with Ankara. This is why I keep saying we are wasting an INCREDIBLE amount of time and resources on something that will never come to fruition.

[Diranakir]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

The point is this: On April 24th President Obama was supposed to communicate with the American people and the world in PLAIN ENGLISH about the Armenian Genocide. Someone cleverly suggested a ploy for him to give the appearance he was not breaking his promise. The ploy was to use "Medz Yeghern", a term he doesn't know the true meaning of and which is unintelligible and unpronounceable to most Americans. It shouldn't have been that easy for him. The way it was, he could use it without giving an English translation in the statement because so many other sources conveniently translate it for him as "great calamity-catastrophe-disaster-tragedy, etc." all of which are morally neutral. My point is that "Medz Yeghern" is not at all a morally neutral term. It emphatically denotes human evil and responsibility. If one thinks that makes no difference, there's a real problem in that person's thinking. Yes, the President may never say "genocide", Armenians are only so important in the overall scheme of things, people don't care, etc., etc., etc., but the Armenian Genocide remains a vital historic issue and ARMENIANS SHOULD NEVER LET THEIR LANGUAGE BE USED AGAINST THEM CONCERNING IT. That's the point.

[Davo88]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

The meaning of Medz Yeghern (whether it's Great Crime or Great Calamity) is not really important because it's not even an English word, hence using it is meaningless and makes no sense at all. Obama should respect his electoral pledge and recognize the Armenian genocide for what it is.

[Diranakir]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

Yes, but because he used it all kinds of people have been invited to comment on it and supply their own definitions, including many who are definitely in the denialist camp. It should be very clear, whether the President ever says the g-word or not, that the Armenian term has moral culpability built into it. That much should be very clear to the world, no matter what. By using the Armenian term and inviting others to supply its meaning, he has given a shot in the arm to Turkey's stock line that, yes,real bad things happened in a time of war, there was suffering on both sides; there was calamity, catastrophe, tragedy, cataclysm and disaster but no genocide, all the stuff they always say. They can then say, "See, even the Armenians don't really call it genocide. They call it calamity." Let's be real. That's what it comes down to. No. One thing Armenians can be clear about is that THEIR name for the genocide means that there were criminals behind it. That should be clear, but I'm afraid some people still don't get it.

[londontsi]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

Turkish Press Review on the meaning of "Medz Yeghern"

In case anyone thought that the battle was not on concerning the meaning of the term, read these articles carefully. Can Armenians afford to be passive?



"Calamity" and "Disaster"

1. http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/de...ay&link=173578


"Tragedy"

2. http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/co...s-yeghern.html


"Tragedy"

3. http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/ne...-april-25.html


"Tragedy"

4. http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/ne...statement.html


"Genocide" [sic]

5. http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/10...ack-obama.html

Genocide being a legal word DEFINES THE CRIME, therefore a base for JUDGMENT and followed up by THE PUNISHMENT and the wrong being righted.

The word "metz yegern" only describes the CRIME ( more like the event) nothing else. Almost an "abstract" word (legally) not requiring a follow-up.

[Haykakan]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

Its sad enough that we are chasing our own tails on this issue and arguing about the play on words is even worst. I dont want to disrespect fellow members here but i think we can better spend our time discussing things that actually do matter and might make a difference in real life. Justice for our people will have to come from our own actions not from the declairations of others.

[Diranakir]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

Its sad enough that we are chasing our own tails on this issue and arguing about the play on words is even worst. I dont want to disrespect fellow members here but i think we can better spend our time discussing things that actually do matter and might make a difference in real life. Justice for our people will have to come from our own actions not from the declairations of others.

What is really sad is the abysmal lack of consciousness that gives no importance at all to what "Medz Yeghern" fundamentally means and sees the issue as so much "word play". Very sad, indeed.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

Genocide being a legal word DEFINES THE CRIME, therefore a base for JUDGMENT and followed up by THE PUNISHMENT and the wrong being righted.

The word "metz yegern" only describes the CRIME ( more like the event) nothing else. Almost an "abstract" word (legally) not requiring a follow-up.

Genocide is not a "legal word".

I am also almost certain that "metz yegern" DOES NOT mean "Great Crime". Can you imagine life in the Ottoman empire at the start of the 20th century. Our undestanding of the word "crime" would be entirely different from theirs. You call a "crime" something that the state, through laws, has deemed to be illegal. You think of the state as a body that passes those laws to protect its citizens. Ottoman Armenians would never have used a phrase that meant "great crime" - they would have had no understanding of the word "crime". Laws in the Ottoman Empire did not exist to stop "crime", they existed to oppress, they did not exist to protect victims. "Great Calamity" will be a far more accurate translation of what those who first used the phrase meant by its use.

[Diranakir]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

Genocide is not a "legal word".

I am also almost certain that "metz yegern" DOES NOT mean "Great Crime". Can you imagine life in the Ottoman empire at the start of the 20th century. Our undestanding of the word "crime" would be entirely different from theirs. You call a "crime" something that the state, through laws, has deemed to be illegal. You think of the state as a body that passes those laws to protect its citizens. Ottoman Armenians would never have used a phrase that meant "great crime" - they would have had no understanding of the word "crime". Laws in the Ottoman Empire did not exist to stop "crime", they existed to oppress, they did not exist to protect victims. "Great Calamity" will be a far more accurate translation of what those who first used the phrase meant by its use.

You say "almost" certain for good reason.You must not have thoroughly read Khatchig Mouradian's article which you yourself posted! You should read it more carefully.

"Crime" in this case doesn't refer to garden variety legality in Ottoman Turkey, it refers to a profound violation of the universal moral code. I don't know how many Armenian dictionaries you have access to, but you should look in every one of them before you make your stand on "calamity". If you don't read Armenian, have someone do it for you. In fact, in a technical sense, the Ottomans violated their own established laws.

"Crime" in English means not only the violation of a law. It also means a serious wrongdoing or offense, an unjust act. That is the primary meaning of
"yeghern".

[Haykakan]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

What is really sad is the abysmal lack of consciousness that gives no importance at all to what "Medz Yeghern" fundamentally means and sees the issue as so much "word play". Very sad, indeed.

I am not sure how you conclude that i lack consciousness but i will tell you or anyone else that there are many more productive things you can be doing then trying to give a meaning to a phrase that obviously was not meant to express such a meaning. There is no dought about the illegal nature of the genocide but the phrase in question in no way deals with that aspect. The phrase is a discription of a unprecidentet so our people made up a name to describe it and they called it what they felt at the time. Sure there are plenty of legal implications to genocide but that is hardly what the people who coined the said phrase were thinking of, they just wanted to describe the undescribable and this is what they came up with. This phrase does indeed describe a terrible criminal act but that meaning is not inherent in the phrase itself.