Let me draw a parallel imaginary case. Suppose that Mexico was a powerful and rival country with which we were at war, and suppose that we sent an army to the Mexican border to hold back the invading enemy; suppose further that not only the negroes in our army deserted to the enemy but those left at home organized and cut off our line of communication. What do you think we as a people, especially the Southerners, would do to the negroes? Our Negroes have ten times the excuse for hating the whites that the Armenians have for their attitude toward the Turks. They have no representation, although they have an overwhelming majority in large sections of the South, and have nothing to say in the making or administration of the laws under which they are governed. South of the Mason and Dixon line they are practically a subject race, while the Armenians in Turkey have not only full representation but special privileges not accorded by any other country.

The Turkish Government ordered the Armenians deported from the districts they menaced That they did not have railways and other means of transportation was not their fault, and the deportation had to be carried out on foot. That this was not done in the most humane manner possible is undoubtedly a fact, and the Turkish Government has condemned the unnecessary cruelties that occurred; but I feel confident that if America had been put in the hypothetical situation above referred to, it would have stopped that insurrection if it had had to kill every negro in the South, and would not have gone to the tedious and laborious defensive act of deportation, in spite of our extensive means of transportation.

Arthur Tremaine Chester, Angora and the Turks, 1923

 In our more "modern" example, we are not talking about the "negroes" of 1923, but the freer, yet still not truly free, American blacks of the 1960s. One didn't find many blacks in the government of the 1960s, for example, while Ottoman-Armenians had attained important governmental posts for generations.

So let's build this parallel up. Let's imagine the USA was not as powerful during the Cold War of the 1960s, and the Soviet Union had a freer hand to destabilize the United States, as it did with the Turkey of the 1970s. (And as it did with the Ottoman Empire from the 19th century onwards.)

The Russians had given the "Turkish Armenians" 242,900 rubles, as reported in a February 1915 Dashnak conference, for the initial cost of arming their Armenian allies within the Ottoman Empire. This translates to over 13 million of today's dollars to "start riots" during WWI, and who knows how much more money Russia provided in the months to come.

Now let us imagine the Black Liberation Army operated similar to the Armenian Revolution Federation (ARF, or Dashnaks), and had a history of gaining control over most American blacks; over the last few decades, the BLA had succeeded in silencing opposition, by murdering fellow blacks seen as loyal to the American government, and poisoning the minds of the bulk of African-Americans, by drilling them with "the white man is the devil" propaganda. Things boiled up to the point where polarized whites and blacks were forced to choose sides.

The Soviet Union declares war on the USA. Remember, the USA, we are imagining, was not very strong; the nation's manpower and resources would be limited, and they'd be getting attacked on all sides by the Soviets and their satellites; most Americans would be convinced if the Soviets were to succeed, the Soviets would engage in an ethnic cleansing policy (as the Russians had attained an expertise in the Muslim-polishing off business, strategies the Armenians would go on to wholeheartedly embrace). In other words, this would be a true life-or-death war; if the Americans should lose, that would not only be the end of their country, but... as the dismal years progressed under conquest... possibly the ultimate end of Americans.

Cleverly, the Soviet Union makes sure to provide the BLA with over 13 million dollars to finance their rebellion. The Soviet Union promises the eastern coast to the black Americans, as a new homeland... a promise the Soviet Union certainly does not intend to keep, but the fanatical BLA leaders can't think straight, and delude themselves into believing the Soviets are their friends. (Exactly paralleling the situation with Tsarist Russia and the Ottoman Armenians.)

In the thick of this nightmare, blacks all over the United States, now totally beholden to the views of the BLA or too afraid to challenge them, conduct operations of treachery all over the United States. Sometimes they militarily rise to detract the resources and energies of the American Army, paving the way to a Soviet land invasion. When blacks succeed in gaining control of territories, they wipe out the residents not like them (an easy feat, considering most able-bodied Ameicans are defending the homeland on multiple fronts), having succumbed to the racist propaganda of the BLA.

Now, what would the United States government and people do, in this situation?

Everyone knows the answer to that question. What we don't know is how far the U.S. government and the American people would go. That is, would they find the wherewithal to actually conduct a temporary resettlement process as the Ottomans did, what Prof. Guenter Lewy correctly called a "relatively humane" process... in order to contain the threat by the treacherous black American community? Or would it be "shoot first, ask questions later"?

The San Francisco police chief, Heather Fong, at a news conference yesterday with photographs of Sgt. John V. Young and Ronald S. Bridgeforth, who continues to be sought in the murder case from 1971. (Photo: Chiu, AP)


We're not getting into the specifics of the black movement, but the article we opened up sheds further light. An excerpt:

"It is a good day for police officers in New York and San Francisco and everywhere else," Mr. (NY Police Commissioner Raymond) Kelly said in a telephone interview from Washington. "It underscores the fact that the law enforcement community is never going to forget."

Particularly in these terrorism-intolerant times, most Americans, including most black Americans, are going to say, GOOD. These murderers got what they deserved. After all, they killed police officers. Who the hell did they think they are, killing police officers? We don't give a damn about their "cause," nobody has the right to resort to such violence, threatening the security of us all.

And they would be right to express such outrage. It is the outrage all people would feel in their own societies.

(In this case, to be precise, one cop was killed, and a civilian was wounded. And to repeat, these men were additiionally charged with "waging a violent five-year battle against the police and federal authorities," further described as a Dashnak-style " 'conspiracy to kill law enforcement officers' from 1968 to 1973, a plan that included the murders of two New York police officers, four attempted murders of law enforcement personnel, the bombing of a police officers' funeral at a San Francisco church and the attempted bombing of another San Francisco police station, as well as three bank robberies...")

On the other hand, we know the police can sometimes abuse their power... in the United States, and in all countries of the world. In their rush to convict, particularly against criminals who hurt their fellow police, some police detectives may not go about their business in an honorable fashion.

For example, we are given a taste of the "other side" in this article:

A lawyer who represents Mr. Bell, Stuart Hanlon, said he thought that the case against Mr. Bell was based on a 30-year-old confession by a suspected Black Panther member that a judge threw out in the mid-'70s because it had been physically coerced. "I think the police are outraged, and rightfully so, that one of their own was gunned down," Mr. Hanlon said. "They believe they are right. But the belief does not make it so."

Now (not knowing any of the other details, but approaching the matter solely from what this article is telling us), some of us would have alarm bells going off at this point. You mean one of these men was probably arrested on the "say-so" of someone else that had already been rejected in a courtroom of law? Something could be fishy. Is it possible that revenge-minded police rushed to judgment, and did not do their professional duty?

But you know what? Most Americans are not going to think that way. Most Americans are going to say. "GOOD. These murderers got what they deserved. After all, they killed police officers. Who the hell did they think they are, killing police officers?"

Now there were times when Ottoman-Armenians were no doubt arrested and sentenced unfairly. Police officers are human; aside from the handful who are corrupt, they can make mistakes.

Most people, however, apply a zero tolerance to Ottoman authorities having made mistakes in the case of Armenians, or more importantly, against Armenians who really were guilty. (Ironically, many Armenian terrorists were given sentences not commensurate to their murderous crimes, as Hamparsum "Murad" Boyadjian, or allowed to go free, like "Armen Garo" Pastermadjian [see last link]... only to come back and commit their murderous crimes anew. Mainly because of the protection of the imperialists.) Isn't that interesting.

The Ottoman authorities were exposed to increasingly wide scale Armenian disturbances, treachery and violence over the span of some forty years, and any cop in similar circumtances would find it a challenge to maintain their professional objectivity. Yet here, the BLA, fighting for a "cause" they had real historical reasons to flip out over, killed a few people, and it will be hard going today to find folks to look at them sympathetically.