Email a copy of 'Word Atrocities: Of Little Phrases and Great Crimes' to a friend
Loading ...
Vartan Matiossian
Born in Montevideo (Uruguay) and long-time resident of Buenos Aires (Argentina), Dr. Vartan Matiossian is a historian, literary scholar, translator and educator living in New Jersey. He has published six books on Armenian history and literature (five in Armenian and one in Spanish), and scores of articles in Armenian, Spanish, and English. He is currently the executive director of the Armenian National Education Committee in New York and book review editor of Armenian Review.
Latest posts by Vartan Matiossian (see all)
- Book Review: ‘The Sins of the Fathers’—The Cardinal Sin of Denial - March 30, 2018
- SAS Holds 40th Anniversary Workshop in Yerevan - November 13, 2014
- The Quest for Aurora: On ‘Ravished Armenia’ and its Surviving Fragment - April 15, 2014
It does seem that Matiossian and Sassounian have decided that if you repeat a falsehood often enough, and do it in enough sources, then it becomes true. That might be good enough for outlets like Wikipedia, but I hope it does not cut it in real academia.
Medz Yeghern DOES NOT translate to Great Crime, and I think it does a terrible disservice to the survivors of the Genocide to rewrite their “Medz Yeghern” / “Great Calamity” – the internalised concept they used to give a description to a horror that was otherwise indescribable. Sassounian and Co want dubious US politicians to be unknowingly uttering the word “crime” when they say “Medz Yeghern”, but would it not be far better to make those same politicians knowingly use the words “Armenian Genocide”?
Whether or not it can be translated as “Great Crime” legitimately is certainly debatable. We’d have to get into literal meaning vs understood meaning, look at what Obama believed he was saying when he said it (based on context), consider what Armenians today hear/understand when someone says “Medz Yeghern”, or even what the people of the time heard when someone said it nearly a century ago. We could even ask what Obama was told it meant by the person who introduced the term to him (probably an aid or Armenian friend of an aid with whom he practiced its pronunciation before a speech). And if you think I’m over-complicating it, when cases like this go to court believe me all these questions are analyzed and then some.
For me, I’d argue that no Armenian I’ve ever met has ever interpreted Medz Yeghern as that great “calamity” or “tragedy” that “befell” our people in 1915. That sounds more like we got hit by a big tornado or experienced a plague outbreak. Genocide is an act of purpose, evil intention. Calamity? Not a chance. Ask 10 random Armenians to translate Medz Yeghern and see how many say “The Great Calamity”. If you come back with 1/10 I’d be surprised…2/10 downright shocked.
Having said all that, I completely agree with your ultimate point. I would rather see them lose the case than win on a technicality. That would actually allow Obama to have it both way like he has on so many other issues. He can tell Turkey “I never caved to Armenian pressure, I never said the word “Genocide” while simultaneously letting the Armenian people feel like they got their little victory and get us off his back. I, for one, wouldn’t want any part of that. I want the “G word”, GENOCIDE or nothing. Let Obama make his choice and live with the consequences. I couldn’t stomach seeing him get out of it on an accidental utterance…in the Armenian language no less (talk about adding insult to injury)!
– Shant