WELLESLEY, Mass

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S recent address to the Turkish Parliament was indicative of the general post-Bush sea change in international diplomacy. He chose the higher path, in hopes that Turkey will do the same.

By describing Turkey as a progressive, secular democracy with a diverse population in which all members deserve to be regarded as equal citizens, he gave a nod to the efforts of the current administration to recognize minority rights, while assuring members of those communities that they were seen, heard and considered.

He also sent a clear message to the E.U. that the surest way to support Turkey’s evolving position on human rights and a more democratic society was to applaud its accomplishments thus far, recognize its importance in the region, and embrace the possibility that including it in the club might be the best decision for everyone involved.

There was much applause. The “good” United States was back, singing the praises of the “good” Turkey.

The Parliament whispered warmly in a palpable chorus of validation before the very first press question came forth to abruptly rip the needle from the record.

How, a Chicago Tribune reporter asked, does the president feel about acknowledging the Armenian genocide, given his support for the eponymous bill during his time in the Senate? Obama needed no time to collect his thoughts. He responded by stating that while his voting record reveals an opinion that still rings true for him, the more significant opinions will come from Turkey and Armenia. He advised the world to let Turkey and Armenia proceed in their current journey of sorting through past tragedies.

I read the following day in The New York Times that the Armenian Diaspora felt betrayed by Obama’s statement. I thought of slain journalist Hrant Dink, too, and how many diaspora Armenians felt betrayed by his opposition to France’s decision to make genocide denial a criminal offense. Hrant Dink was on to something.

As an ethnic Armenian who was born and raised in Turkey, he brought a perspective that was mindful of the position of many of his co-nationals. Hrant Dink saw firsthand how influential the Turkish state was. He lived in a shifting landscape of cultural and ethnic whitewashing, historical rewriting, and top-down amnesia. The result was a society disconnected from its cultural legacy, ignorant about the continuing existence of ethnic others, and altogether uninformed about historical events that are widely discussed in the rest of the world.

Hrant Dink understood that the most meaningful acknowledgement of past wrongs would have to come from Turkey itself. Like other Turkish nationals, he understood that outside proclamations would not have any effect on the national school curriculum.

Acknowledgement under duress would not force the people of Turkey to love one another. It would make them resentful of the Western arrogance, and this would certainly have negative repercussions for Turkey’s “indigenous foreigners.” Blame it on a reaction to more than 85 years of feeling occupied, at least in the area of the psyche, by a Western power.

The first state-sponsored 24-hour Kurdish language TV station opened this year. The Ottoman archives are now open for international scrutiny. These changes don’t signify an end to ethnic discrimination any more than Obama’s election signifies racial tolerance in the U.S. They signify important beginnings.

Hrant Dink would be relieved to hear that the leader of the free world prefers to let Turkey and Armenia be the masters of their own process of acknowledgment, grief and acceptance of the facts. The Armenian Diaspora should have their acknowledgment. Let it be based on genuine nation-state soul-searching and not paternalistic coercion.

Lisa DiCarlo is an assistant professor of anthropology at Babson College. She is the author of Migrating to America: Transnational Social Networks and Regional Identity among Turkish Migrants.