Perspectives on genocide

Today is the centenary of the beginning of the Armenian genocide, when as many as 1.5 million Armenians were murdered by the Ottoman government. Using the word “genocide” here is a bit controversial, and by “controversial” I mean that it pisses offTurkish nationalists.

The Hürriyet Daily News ran a columnarguing that the Turkish nationalist perspective on the “Armenian issue” should not be ignored, and so I’m only going to talk about that. The Council of Turkish Canadians ran a chilling ad in this morning’s Globe and Mail. Here is an excerpt of a news release from their website that has almost the same text:

Reconciliation – Not Hatred, Fairness – Not Insult

This year, once again we remember and respect the memory of victims of the Ottoman-Armenian conflict during the First World War. The conflict started with  well-documented armed revolt of Armenian nationalist groups (Dashnaks and Hunchaks) against the empire. They committed high treason by collaborating and joining the invading Russian forces. This resulted in their relocation from the war zone. The relocation was a military measure in self-defense, and also to protect all civilians of eastern Anatolia from commencing inter-communal retaliations. Most of the deaths during the relocation resulted from famine of war era, spread of diseases, attacks by bandits, and breakdown of authority in poor war conditions. Both sides committed massacres, both sides suffered tremendously, Armenians and non-Armenians alike. It was a tragic war that has engulfed every corner of the world, including Anatolia!

Now, even if this version of events were true – it ain’t – a monstrous crime would have been committed. The claim here is that because certain Armenian nationalist groups revolted, the civilian population was forced from their homes. This is the mass deportation of civilians as collective punishment – a war crime. And it’s acknowledged that the result was huge numbers of deaths – even the Turkish government says half a million – from famine, disease, banditry, and whatever “breakdown of authority” is supposed to mean.

If this was really all that happened, it would be unconscionable.

I guess what’s supposed to make this a defense of the Ottomans, not a condemnation, is the claim that this atrocity was committed out of “self-defense” and to “protect all citizens”. But you cannot claim that driving civilians out of their homes to die is self-defense. If someone tried to mug me at gunpoint and I shot him, I could claim it was self-defense. If someone mugged me, then ran off and I couldn’t catch him because no one in the neighbourhood would tell me where he was hiding so I drove the entire neighbourhood out of their homes – not self-defense.

As for forcibly relocating civilians to protect them – well, in hindsight, the strategy didn’t work too well, what with the bandit attacks and the starvation. And in foresight, it’d have been obvious the strategy would not work too well. The kind of obvious that makes someone legally and morally culpable for going through with it anyway.

And finally, there is the claim that both sides suffered terribly. I think this is supposed to be the centrepiece of the argument – mistakes were made, nobody’s perfect, lots of horrible things happened in World War I. It’s also specious. Even if Armenian groups had revolted and were committing massacres, massacring different members of the same ethnic group could not be justified.

So if the genocide deniers are right, the Ottoman Empire was guilty of horrible atrocities against the Armenian population. And that’s the best story the deniers can come up with. The truth, as we know, was worse. 

Literariness

I write fantasy. I imagine that if I am ever published, my books will appear in the fantasy/science fiction section of the bookstore. Is that a bad thing? Is it something to be ashamed of? Is fantasy only childish, escapist make-believe? I think the an…

An Open Letter to Forty-Seven Members of the United States Senate

Mar. 12, 2015

An Open Letter to Forty-Seven Members of the United States Senate:

I have noticed from the way you have been acting lately that you may not fully understand what diplomacy is. I am writing to tell you all about it. Diplomacy is very important. While you are in the United States Senate, you should seriously consider trying it.

A dictionary is a book that explains what words mean. There is a good one on the Internet at www.learnersdictionary.com. It says “diplomacy” is a word that means:

1. the work of maintaining good relations between the governments of different countries
2. skill in dealing with others without causing bad feelings

When you write a letter to the leaders of another country and you give them a basic lesson on the constitution as if they were children and you were a civics teacher, it is not good diplomacy. Let me explain why.

Eyes over here, everybody

A letter that makes someone think, “Who the [bad word] do these [bad worders] think they are?” is not good diplomacy. In diplomacy, it is important to be polite and nice to people, even if you don’t like them or you think they are bad. This is called “tact”.

When you do diplomacy, you try to convince people to do what you want. But if you talk to people like you think they are stupid, or they do not know how to google the U.S. Constitution, you are being “patronizing”. It makes people think you do not respect them. They might feel insulted. They might not want to do what you ask them to do. They might even think, “I should get some nuclear weapons just to prove you’re not the boss of me.”

I am sorry if you feel left out because President Obama is talking to Iran but you are not. That is because it is not your job. There are special people called “diplomats”, and their job is talking to leaders of other countries. You should not try to sabotage your own diplomats’ work. Doing that hurts the country’s “interests abroad”, which are things in the rest of the world that Americans want or maybe even need.

Also, if you are angry at President Obama, you should tell President Obama about your feelings, not the leaders of Iran. This is a lot like that time when Daddy was angry with Mommy but instead of having a discussion with Mommy he yelled at you for forgetting to put the milk back in the fridge. Remember how unfair you thought that was?

I hope that this letter teaches you some things that will help you be better senators.

Sincerely,

Christopher Leapock

Called it

For anyone who thought that my portrayal of jihadis as thugs with no knowledge of Islam was maybe too harsh, we have the following corroboration from the Economist: 

For recruits to an ostensibly religious militia, many of those joining IS seem to display a notable ignorance of Islam. Before leaving for Syria, Yusuf Sarwar and Mohammed Ahmed, two young men from Birmingham who pleaded guilty to terrorism offenses in July, ordered copies of “Islam for Dummies” and “The Koran for Dummies” from Amazon.

You see, just because you made something up on the spot doesn’t mean it’s not true. Metaphysical journalism wins again! Though for some reason the Globe and Mail still returned my resume with the note, “Send this again and we’ll get a restraining order.”

Charlie Hebdo

Today I conducted a metaphysical interview with one of the men who allegedly carried out the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, killing Stéphane Charbonnier and eleven others. As you may know from earlier posts, a metaphysical interview is like a real interview except instead of talking to people you speculate about what they might say. It’s basically like Fox News without the pretence of factuality.

The killers are in hiding, of course. I met them in what looked like an abandoned warehouse. Before me was a thin, thuggish man, his head not quite shaved recently enough to hide his widow’s peak. He fixed me with a menacing stare. “Allahu akbar,” he said slowly. “I am Cherif.”
“Thanks for agreeing to meet with me.” Then I froze up, not sure what to say to someone who had allegedly just gunned down twelve people in cold blood. “Um – so you are one of the alleged attackers.”

“Yes,” said Cherif. “I was one of those who allegedly executed the infidels. We allegedly cut those bastards down where they stood. We allegedly went in there, found that beast Charbonnier, that foul cartoonist, and put an alleged cap in his alleged ass. And then we allegedly shot everybody else, mostly because they were there.”

 “And – why? I guess that’s the question, right? Why did you allegedly do this?”

“To defend Islam. They blasphemed the Prophet.”

“And so you killed them all? Don’t you think that’s a bit harsh?”

“Allah is harsh,” said Cherif. He leant towards me, scowling. “You don’t fuck with Allah, see? You try fucking with Allah, and you’ll hear from us.” He tapped his chest with his fist.

“Isn’t there some kind of rule against using all those words in the same sentence?”

“This,” he went on, “was divine motherfucking wrath. The Koran says that blasphemy must be punished with death.”

“Where does it say that?”

Cherif took a yellow-striped paperback out of his pocket. The cover read Ql’iffs Notes: The Qu’ran, and below that Your imam will never know you didn’t read it! “Right here,” he said. “‘It is forbidden to make the Prophet look silly.’ And when you insult Muhammad, we are gonna fuck you up.”

“If Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons were offensive and broke Allah’s law,” I said, “God would punish the cartoonists in the afterlife, wouldn’t He? Why do you need to kill them?”

“You stupid or something?” Cherif snarled. “You want Allah should go around breaking kneecaps himself? Is Muhammad gonna have to cut a bitch?”

“I’m a little confused here, but I think – ”

“Don’t.”

“Don’t what?”

“Think.”

“What?”

“Thinking is forbidden. Islam prohibits it. Everybody knows that.”

I smiled nervously. “For a second there I thought I was talking to Geert Wilders.”

“Islam means submission to God. It does not mean ‘think about shit’. Ever heard of a Muslim who – ”

“Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina – ”

Cherif waved his Ql’iffs Notes in the air. “The Koran says – ”

“That’s not actually the Koran, though.”

He tucked in his chin and glared. “Let me tell you a story. There was once a great Islamic scholar. And when he came across people in the marketplace blaspheming and apostating and philosophering, he said to them, ‘You wanna play rough? Okay. Say hello to my little friend.’”

My jaw dropped so fast I pulled a muscle. “That’s from Scarface.”

“Yes. That scholar was the great al-Pacino.”

“It’s a movie about a psychopathic drug dealer.”

He shrugged. “It’s allegorical.”

“Holy shit,” I said. “Is this really what you believe in?”

“Hey!” said Cherif. “I’m a devout Muslim. I check Muhammad’s Twitter feed five times a day, sometimes more.”

“Muhammad died in the seventh century. He does not have a Twitter feed.”

“Well, the angel set it up for him. I don’t know. Allah is all-powerful.” Cherif narrowed his eyes. “You’re thinking again, aren’t you?”

I sighed. There was no point arguing with him. But maybe something else would work. I leant forward and said in an Oprahish kind of voice, “Was this really about Islam?”

“Everything is about Islam,” Cherif snapped. He began counting on his fingers. “Scarface, Taxi Driver, that one where they cut the guy’s eyeball open – ”

“Or is this about your own pain?” I continued. “Did you feel that Charlie Hebdo was insulting you?”

Cherif’s eyes suddenly misted over. His voice wavered. “Maybe – maybe I was jealous, since that blasphemous magazine was so popular and my rap career never took off and the networks won’t broadcast my show.”

“Your show?”

“The Super Salafist Funtime-mentalist Variety Hour. Good, wholesome, pious entertainment, but the liberal media refuse to air it.” He leapt from his chair. “We’re taping a new episode right now, in fact.”

“I thought you said the networks refused it.”

“We put them on YouTube. We get dozens of views – sometimes. Come on! You can watch!”

He dragged me through another door, where to my shock I found a soundstage. Men, and women in niqabs, were milling about. There was a live studio audience, with all the men seated on one side and all the women on the other, and a portable chain-link fence set up between them. Cherif and I sat down in the back row.

“Can you sit in the audience like this?” I asked. “You said it was your show.”

“I’m an executive producer,” Cherif said. “Now hush, it’s about to start.”

The house lights went down. A loud recording of a man singing played for a moment, and then a sign reading APPLAUSE IS FORBIDDEN in red letters lit up over the stage. Two lines of veiled women walked out and formed a sort of phalanx.

“These are the Funtime-mentalist Showgirls,” Cherif whispered excitedly.

“They’re, um, not moving.”

“Dancing is forbidden,” Cherif replied.

“Shouldn’t there at least be music or something?”

“Can’t have women and music together. Things could get out of hand.”

Several minutes went by. “How do you even know they’re women?” I whispered. “You can’t see anything but their eyes.”

Cherif pouted. “It would be improper for me to see their faces, but I talked a bunch of times with one of them, while chaperoned. There, the tall one in the back row. Her name is Richard.”

I coughed.

“She has the loveliest knuckles,” Cherif went on. “And this husky voice. Once we even talked about getting married. Richard wanted to have our wedding in Canada or Oregon, but I said, no, we should go to Saudi Arabia. And she said we couldn’t get married there for some reason she never really explained.” He sighed. “Well, maybe it wasn’t meant to be.”

The dancers filed away, and a portly man with a long beard walked onstage. “Good afternoon and welcome to the Super Salafist Funtime-mentalist Variety Hour!” he said. “I’m your host, Abdul al-Unser.” He took a book out of his pocket. “We’ll begin tonight’s show by reading some of Muhammad’s sayings.”

“You see,” said Cherif, “unlike that degenerate, corrupting mockery Charlie Hebdo offered, we both entertain and teach.”

Al-Unser began to read from the book, in what appeared to be Classical Arabic spoken with a thick French accent. I looked around the audience, then nudged Cherif. “It doesn’t seem to me like anyone here understands what he’s saying.”
“Oh, it’s fine,” said Cherif. “He’ll explain it for us afterward.”

Sure enough, after several minutes al-Unser closed the book and said, “And those are the passages where Muhammad said that we must kill all the infidels, women are not allowed to use phones, and Mountain Dew is liquified sin. And now,” he continued, “it is time for entertaining jokes. Please welcome Abdul al-Jolson!”

Another stout bearded man came on. He must have been the designated comedian, as his robe was made of different clashing plaids. “Good afternoon, al-Unser,” he said. “Tell me, how many Jews does it take to change a lightbulb?”

“Why, I don’t know,” al-Unser replied. “How many Jews does it take to change a lightbulb?”

“I don’t know either,” said al-Jolson. “I don’t speak to Jews.”

No one laughed. Cherif nudged me with his elbow and whispered, “He’s a comic genius, isn’t he?”

I was too flabbergasted to answer.

“Knock knock,” said al-Jolson.

“Who’s there?” said al-Unser.

“Allah.”

“Allah who?”

“Allahu akbar!”

I couldn’t help snickering. Cherif jabbed me hard with his elbow. “Laughing isforbidden.”

Al-Jolson bowed to the silent audience and left the stage, and al-Unser said, “And now everybody’s favourite part of the show: the Funtime-mentalist Puppets, featuring the severed heads of executed infidels!”

The curtain of a Punch-and-Judy-like booth behind him opened up to reveal two decomposing heads with arms shoved up the necks. One began moving its mouth, and a second or two later a voice said, “Good afternoon, fellow infidel. How many Jews does it take to change a lightbulb?”

“All right, that’s it.” I stood up. “This has gone way, way too far.”

“You can’t leave now!” Cherif hissed. “I co-wrote the next sketch! It’s called ‘Jihad to Avonlea’. Some hair is sticking out from under Anne’s hijab and so al-Unser – well, I won’t ruin it for you, it’s too hilarious!”

“It’s horrible,” I said. “This is all horrible. You’re so stupid and cruel it’s almost pathetic.”

Which I should not have said out loud, because I was immediately surrounded by men waving guns and shouting “Blasphemy!” and “Kill him!”

I had to think fast. “There!” I cried. “Look over there!”

No one looked. I had to come up with a better plan.

“In the…backstage dressing room! There’s a piece of toast with Muhammad’s face on it!”

The men stared at me in horror. “Kill the toast!” somebody bellowed. “Kill that blasphemous toast!” The mob charged toward the stage. There were screams as they trampled one of the alleged showgirls. And I got out of the building as fast as I could.

On Style

Be clear. Be concise. Omit needless words.This is the prevailing advice on writing these days. Avoid long sentences and figures of speech. Beware of adverbs. Go light on the exposition. Use modifiers sparingly. Show, don’t tell. It is the notion that t…