Actually, this is incorrect and anachronistic. Despite Werfel's "Musa Dagh"
or the contemporary report by US Ambassador Morgenthau about massacres, the
events in Turkey were never described specifically as "genocide" until after
World War II. In fact, the term "genocide" was only coined in 1943 (by Rafael
Lemkin) and only gained popular currency during the Nuremberg Trials. Of
course, this is no attempt to denigrate the tragedy of the Armenian people, but
it was not described as genocide at the time, simply because the term did not
exist.
As for being the earliest instance of genocide in the 20th century, that is
also incorrect. That title should probably go to the massacre of the Herero
and Nama in German Southwest Africa in 1904. Some 50-90 percent of the
population was killed. And why is the 20th century a starting point? If we are going
to use the term in its broader sense, it could probably be applied to the
massacre of the Albigensians in 1209 (“Kill them all. God will recognise His
own."), or the 1763 killing of Native Americans by Jeffrey Amherst by giving
them gifts of blankets infected with smallpox (see [[Pontiac's Rebellion]] for
details).
The point is that "genocide" is a very loaded term. Use it carefully.
Danny
In a message dated 7/14/2007 9:06:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
oscarvandillen(a)wikimedia.org writes:
On 7/14/07, Ronald Chmara <ron(a)opus1.com> wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, at 8:15 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
Actually Bop, I'm not sure if all wiki
articles reflect this, but the
Armenian Genocide was aboslutely the first event described as a
genocide.
[citation needed]
:)
i know the several emmy awards winning BBC documentary WORLD WAR I produced
by carl byker claims it in exactly these words.
it has been published on dvd in 2006
http://afbeeldingen.apriana.nl/DVD/AfbeeldingenW/World02.JPG
oscar
--
*edito ergo sum*
************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour