Customer Reviews

"Starving Armenians": America and the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1930 and After

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

"Starving Armenians: America and the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1930 and After: by Merrill Peterson, ISBN: 0-8139-2267-4 (2004) Univ. VA Press, HC 178 pgs., 22 illustrations, plus Notes 10 pgs., Index 7 pgs., 6 1/8" x 8 3/4"

Peterson, both historian & published writer, gives a meaty synopsis of Henry Morgenthau's reporting & observations while Ambassaor to Turkey & follows this with 5 chapters entitled: 1. Awakening, 2. Genocide, 3. Near East Relief (NER) in War & Peace, 4. Chaos, Carnage & Survivors, and 5. The Great Betrayal - he concludes with an enticing Epilogue.

Of the now numerous books covering the Armenian Question, Massacres & Genocide - Peterson's is one of the better written & researched chronicles of those events; he provides a good detailed accounting of the NER. In the chapter "The Great Betrayal" he pulls no punches in detailing the machinations behind the overtly indifference of various allied powers on their impotency & failure to taken any military or meaningful political actions; the US resorting instead to basically encourage & promote the US populace to render humanitarian aid via NER & later, its "greatest asset",the "International Golden Rule Sunday" (1924-1931). Standard Oil (New Jersey) under the Rockefeller empire, induced the State Department to use its influence to permit it access to Mesopotamia (Iraqi) oil reserves alongside the Anglo-Persian Company (British) which is akin to BP.

Concluding remarks on immigration quotas, & Turkey's denials of their complicity in the Ottoman massacres, AG, etc. including several scandulous attempts to deny AG through contrary teachings in several American universities are aptly detailed. Peterson presents some important detailed factual information lacking in other treatises.

Professor Merrill has written a fascinating book with many lessons. Instructive is the way oil politics at the 1923 Lusanne Conference got in the way of a European response to the national and humanitarian consequences of the Armenians' 20 previous years of suffering Turk inflicted "crimes against humanity" (the word genocide hadn't been coined, but crimes against humanity had been identified at the Versailles Conference). Now the west wants to use human rights to cover the military drive to the middle east oil spigot, thus an instructive irony.
I had experience in Central America in the late 1970s and early 1980s and comparisons with congregationalist ministers in 19th century Armenia and Catholic liberation theologians in Central America are relevant. Also, in both cases the indigenous peoples were wiped off of the map of fertile lowlands and condemned to infertile highlands. The human rights response was similar too with the congregationalist Near East Relief organization comparable to the widespread Catholic church support of Caritas, the Paulists, or others for Central American indigenous peoples under seige.
Also, here in the US Armenian success stories are legion. My family boasts relatives of the Colombosian family, famous for their Colombo yogurt. The Colombosian family lost extensive 1st generation family in the genocide. They continue to support the establishment of the Armenian holocaust museum in Washington DC, among other efforts.

Mr. Mitchell shows his true colors by citing the discredited Heath Lowry in denying the Armenian Holocaust. Mr. Lowry is a paid agent of the Turkish gov't. See The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 27, 1995, p.A44, "Critics Accuse Turkish Government of Manipulating Scholarship," by Amy Magaro Rubin. See also The New York Times, May 22, 1996, "Princeton Is Accused of Fronting for the Turkish Government," by William H. Honan. You will find similar "reviews" of books on the Armenian Holocaust by Mitchell and others, if indeed they are not the same person. For example, see Mitchell's 8 almost-identical reviews of books on this subject--just click "See all my reviews." They're simple cut-and-past jobs. And it doesn't matter whether Mitchell is his real name (perhaps he's David Irving). His reviews, whatever his real name, are simply pure propoganda. I wonder how much he got paid for his efforts.

It just astonished me as how certain discursive formations can actually lead people to believe as the 'real' reality. It does not matter whether for an event to 'really happen' or not. What matters is that you hear it on a radio or read it on a newspaper or website or even talk about it at the water-cooler. Those who have had the chance to watch 'Wag the Dog' might get the idea of how such 'reality' is constructed.

On a more advanced level 'discursivity', a la Foucault, is a building block of a discourse in which certain linkages, here and their, add to what ordinary people believe on the street.

Now obviously Hitler was one of the worst things that happened during the 20th century. This is commonsense. But to add certain 'material' so as to advance another claim by building upon Hitler, is something that should be carefully approached, at least for people who at least visit and read stuff through Amazon.
If a chain in a series of discursive formations can be shown to be weak or invalid than it would be proven that that chain of a discourse is on shaky grounds, and that most of what is known about it is likely to be false.
Unfortunately we see certain 'material' is attached to certain claims so as to resemble the Holocaust. Let us revisit a single claim on part of those would like to exploit the events during the early 20th century. A reviewer, for instance, obviously bought one claim and thus knows it to be the 'truth'

Adolf Hitler: "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

Now has anybody bothered to investigate it. No, of course. "It sounds like as if it is true, so why not believe it". Well fortunately there are still people who like investigating such stuff.
Read for example :
Heath W. Lowry
Washington, D.C.
Political Communication and Persuasion, Volume 3, Number 2 (1985)
Abstract This article traces the history of a purported Adolf Hitler quote which cites the perecent of the world's lack of reaction to the fate of Armenians during the First World War as a justification for his planned extermination of European Jewry in the course of the Second World War. By a detailed examination of the genesis of this quotation the author demonstrates that there is no historical basis for attributing such a statement to Hitler...
[...]
If one is serious about really getting into history, rather than believing simply what is out their in the popular press,
I would additionally suggest to take a tour of the documents of Ambassador Morgenthau. First let us not take any word for having a Godly truth 'Its ambassador so its gotta be true' mentality is ok if you're ok with it (respect of thought). But there are historical evidence that suggests that Morgenthau did not even know Ottoman scripture, and that this is proved throughout his letters when he attempts to translate 'words' and 'dates' of events. Do not hesitate to read...
[...]


For those who have CAREFULLY read what I have written so far, notice I am not either on one side of the argument between Armenian historians or historians of the Ottoman empire, but that I have just thrown out some thought provoking information so that one will at least ask some questions before believing what they read. Doubtless there will be those occasional pointless replies to this review, but again all I am saying is, think before you react. Now one could argue that I am saying is a postmodernist crituque and historical relativism. That would be false. I believe in historical analysis, as a scientific enterprise (and only the scientific version of it). But then again let us not forget that some American historians who were studying the case at hand were bombed by Armenians. Now if history is written by historians and that some historians (i.e. UCLA professor Stanford Shaw)are bullied so as not to investigate certain historical matters than, at least if you have a capacity to think critically than be suspicious about it. [...]
By the way absolutely nothing is mentioned about the equal ammount of civilian Turks that were slaugthered by Russian backed Armenian militia. Nor anything about the terrorism campaign of Armenians during the 1970's that left thousands of people dead and wounded. To say "denying genocide is a wrong thing" is one thing. But in doing so if one is denying the death of tens of thousands of innocent Turks, is called hypocrism and puts one in ethically shaky grounds.

The latest British governemeents acceptance that the "blue book", which Armenian claims are based upon, have been declared by the government itself to be a WW1 time propaganda material. Yes you heard it right!

Here's another eye opener: Often the claim is made there 1 million Armenians were murdered. What they do not say that the same material they indicate that a "genocide" happened says that
the ENTIRE Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire was 800 thousand (200 thousand difference!) MOREOVER Keep in mind that the Armenian diaspora, that builds its own desire to have a national identity, has a population of more than 9 million people across the world. HOW CAN this be??? Well thats how nationalism is formed: impossibile numbers, man on white horse, the evil "other" etc.... So this "genocide" attitude is more of identity building rather than real history.

Well I hope I contributed on an intellectual level and I hope 'thought thugs' would not misunderstand what I have suggested.