The Pros And Cons Of The Armenian Genocide

Most social scientists have been overlooking the growth of social scientific concept of genocide. Sociologists argue that holocaust is an illustrative case of the destructive side of modernity. Comparing the two genocides, Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust, will support the theory. Because of modernity, people started recognizing when genocide is committed. Modernity has both, good and bad impacts on humanity. The good side of it is that people started labeling genocide as a new issue, instead of categorizing it as warfare and they demanded justice. Genocide is considered a crime against humanity. The negative side of modernity is the part where new advanced technology made mass killings easier providing with resources, weaponry, technology

Armenian Genocide happened in the pre modern world, when the concept of genocide wasn’t familiar yet, therefore nobody acknowledged it. But Holocaust was more modern where the technology was more developed and people had more resources and knowledge. In 1915, leaders of the Turkish government planned to banish and massacre Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. Nobody recognized it as genocide until later.
One of the few people that acknowledge that it was in fact genocide is Yossi Beilin, Minister of Justice of Israel. He says, “It doesn 't have to be this way. I think that our friendly relations with cannot dictate our attitude toward such a dreadful historic event... Something happened that couldn’t be defined except as genocide. One-and-a-half million people disappeared. It wasn 't negligence, it was deliberate (Galili

The term genocide was being used more often during the 1940’s not because mass killings were not happening before, but because nobody labeled it as genocide. The modernity did not ruin humanity. Bauman is a significant theorist of postmodernity. On one hand, Bauman believed that the modern society was a more organized culture that sought order and that they needed to control, categorize, and explain the world so it would be governable, liable, and reasonable. It is this ordering and justifying movement that Max Weber thought that was the typical force of modernization. But, on the other hand, modernity was initially considered a radical modification or simply a change, by a endless overthrowing of custom and customary forms of culture, economy, and relationship “all that is solid melts into air,” as Marx characterized this aspect of modern society (Bauman