I have written much about the Armenian Genocide and the critical need to tell the story. Although I did not intend to return to the topic so soon, recent historic events prompted more thoughts. On October 28, the United States House of Representatives passed, with an astounding majority vote of 405-11, a resolution recognizing the actions of the dying Ottoman Empire against the Armenians as genocide. Such a resolution has been proposed so many times before by representatives or senators with significant Armenian constituencies only to die a slow, tortuous death in legal mumbo jumbo as others obfuscate to avoid angering the erstwhile ally, Turkey, even before its strong man Erdogan seized power. This historica resolution should have made a definitive statement to the would be Turkish tyrant, if only one senator (who after much internal debate I have chosen to refrain from calling ugly names) from my own state met with Erdogan and then stepped up to block the resolution from coming up for a vote in the Senate. In the remainder of this post, I will break down Senator Graham’s words and actions and reflection what that means in terms of the democratic process as well as the campaign for genocide recognition.

First, I want to briefly discuss the one aspect about the American democratic process that I learned as a result of studying this story and firmly believe should change. At the moment, any senator may request consent to pass a bill or resolution, otherwise known as requesting a vote. The reverse, unfortunately, also stands true. One senator, in this case Senator Graham, the senior senator from South Carolina, with a simple procedural move, denied the consent requested by Senator Menendez of New Jersey. In a supposedly democratic country whose constitution endows power to the people to elect representatives to represent their constituency in the halls of Congress, this procedural rule denies that ability to properly represent and give their constituents a voice. On top of that, by making this move, Graham appears to favor a dictator seemingly intent on violent action towards another people group rather than listen to his (Graham’s) own Armenian constituency of which I am one. This one man block should not exist. Even a president’s veto has an avenue of override with a two-third majority vote in both Congressional houses. This move appears to leave others like Menendez with no recourse.

Second, the words Senator Graham stated on the record as justification for his actions epitomize the method by which countless people fit denial of the atrocity into their paradigm. Graham stated that senators should not “sugarcoat history or try to rewrite it.” My stomach recoils at that statement. With those seven words, Graham implies two reprehensible ideas. One, he implies that such a resolution sugarcoats history. I will ask one question in response. How does acknowledging the reprehensible murders of over a million people sugarcoat anything? Two, Graham has clearly swallowed the fallacy purported for a century that the deaths came as a normal course of war and that anyone who says otherwise has their own ax to grind. Speaking as someone who has dug into the primary sources, I state vehemently that those who attempt to deny the genocide’s occurrence choose to stick their heads in the sand and rewrite history by ignoring the truth. Our own American ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the time testified to what he and his employees witnessed. Also, Senator Graham, please explain any sort of reasonable explanation for the women abducted from the marches and forced into sexual slavery and then subsequently tattooed on their face to mark them as property. A human being is not property, ever.

Third, Graham also stated that he “hoped that Turkey and Armenia can come together and deal with this problem.” What problem sir? Do you refer to the death of over a million people from starvation and violence as a problem? Surely not. Any sane person would not denigrate the death of a single human being as a problem, much less the deaths of a million. Do you refer to the century-old campaign to gain acknowledgement of the atrocity as a genocide? Surely not. To do so would cheapen the stories of every single victim of violence who seeks justice for the wrongs done to them and those they love. Do you refer to the casual dismissal by a would-be dictator of past wrongs as excusable in a time of war? Surely not. That would simply provide approbation from the purported leader of the free word to continue such vindictive strategies against nearby vulnerable groups.

Finally, as reprehensible as that last scenario may be, I believe Graham has chosen to believe the lie from Erdogan. He made his objection and subsequent statements following a meeting at the White House with the president, Erdogan and several other GOP senators. They met regarding Turkey’s military incursion into Syria targeting a US ally made vulnerable by the US president’s reallocation of troops. Instead of standing up to the strong man and forcing him to face his terrible current decisions, Graham and others expressed tacit approval for these actions by continuing the denial of historical truth. Mr. Graham, if you read this, please take a moment to consider the long term ramifications of your words and actions. If you desire to continue to serve with integrity, I would gladly provide you with my own personal research on the matter and other material that may help you learn how to better represent all of your constituents.