Listed below are 12 of the more common rhetorical devices being used by those seeking to overcome the growing grassroots opposition to the Turkey-Armenia Protocols.
1) “How dare you!”
This approach, very often seen in undemocratic settings, seeks to silence criticism because it represents an inappropriate challenge to those in authority. This is somewhat akin to an “ad lapidem” argument, which dismisses a position outright as absurd without providing any reasoning. Indignance is obviously a convenient approach for those in charge, but just as clearly not a sound basis for reasoned discourse.
2) “You are living a comfortable life so you don’t have a say.”
This attack sets the standard that those who don’t suffer along with the Armenian population should not comment on issues affecting Armenia’s welfare. This ignores the fact that Armenia’s leaders certainly do not share these material hardships, and, more importantly, disenfranchises 2/3 of the Armenian nation, perhaps Armenia’s greatest natural resource, from any meaningful role in the future of the Armenian people.
3) “We must live for the future, not the past.”
The is a classic “false choice” argument, that posits that you can either embrace one of two distinct values, but not both. Other variations of this black-or-white approach include, you can care about the genocide or the republic, the diaspora or the homeland, etc. All are equally false. Armenians should chart the wisest path forward, not allow themselves to be herded down intellectual cattle-chutes created by others.
4) “Opponents of the Protocols are against relations with Turkey.”
This is a common “strawman argument” that seeks to bolster its own position by defining the opposing side in the most extreme and irrational terms.
Supporters who are either unable or unwilling to make their case based on facts and analysis often try to take this shortcut. With regard to the Protocols, this involves attacking the supposed radical views of protocol opponents, who they describe as being mindlessly opposed to any relations with Turkey. This is, of course, both inaccurate and intellectually lazy. The core opposition to the Protocols is based on the desire to first remove from the present document provisions that represent a threat to Armenia and a surrender of Armenian rights, and then to see Armenia-Turkey relations normalized on a fair, constructive, and respectful basis.
5) “Trust me.”
This approach runs against the basic precepts of Western democracy, which places sovereign power in the people, fosters a sense of active citizenship, and establishes systems of limited, constitutional government.
This complete delegation of decision-making power presupposes a hierarchical relationship, in which those in power make decisions for everyone else, and the average person lacks either the confidence or the ability to take a meaningful part in charting the future of their nation. Those who utilize this approach in the Armenian context are typically seeking to cynically take advantage of the cultural and political habits that have come about as a result of Armenians having been subjects of others for far longer than they have been citizens of free societies.
6) “Protocol critics don’t care about Armenia.”
This type of “ad hominem” argument is made against the person making a point, not against the point itself. The President and some of his supporters have used this rhetorical device to seek to silence dissent both in Armenia and the Diaspora.
7) “Let’s set these Protocol detractors straight, once and for all.”
The “argumentum ad odium” is used by some supporters of the Protocols who clearly have an axe to grind against some of the document’s detractors, for sins real or imagined. They seek to strengthen their stand by appealing to existing prejudices, and, at times, seem to use the excuse of this controversy to settle old scores.
8) “The people support the Protocols.”
Some advocates of the Protocols seek to bolster their position by citing support for this document among the populations of the homeland and diaspora, but without any basis in fact or reliance upon objective data. In fact, the only polling, both in Armenia and the Armenian American community, shows that majorities in both places opposed the adoption of the Protocols.
9) “You are leading Armenia to ruin!”
This represents an appeal to fear, or “argumentum in terrorem.” It seeks to make its case by sparking fear and anxiety, not by making an intellectual case.
10) “Mr. President, you are so wise and visionary.”
This type of flattery was on full display in several of the meetings the President of Armenia held around the world. Some supporters of the Protocols framed their support within the context of their public devotion to the President’s leadership and respect for his rightful place as the “decider” on Armenian issues. They sought to simultaneously both win his favor, and to use their subservience to his authority as an example for others to follow.
11) “Those who are the most successful know best.”
This represents a particularly offensive use of the appeal to the purse, “argumentum ad crumenam,” which, sadly, is not uncommon in Armenia or the Armenian American community. It holds that a point of view is true because the speaker is rich.
12) “I know what’s right (even if I really don’t know anything).”
“Argumentum ad ignorantiam,” or an argument from ignorance, was on full display during the New York City community meeting with the October 3rd meeting with the President of Armenia. At this event, one of the most vocal supporters of the Protocols, a noted benefactor, admitted before all in attendance that he had not read the Protocols, but supported them fully.
Aram Hamparian
Latest posts by Aram Hamparian (see all)
- Armenian Americans: A Key Vote in 2024 Battleground States - October 5, 2023
- Hamparian: President Biden is on the wrong side of Artsakh - September 19, 2023
- It’s not too late for Joe Biden to stop Azerbaijan’s genocide against Artsakh - July 27, 2023
Hye, Carpa diem! (Seize the day)! Actually only Latin that I can remember….
Manooshag
How about the defense that the ARF, the main protestors agains the protocols, knew or should have known all along what Serzhik was planning. After all, weren’t you part of his coalition government? Why did you not know what was going on and stop it before it go to this stage? Or better yet, why did you, Hamparian, and your ANC-folk not raise your voice (not even a whisper) when Serzh was killing Armenians in Yerevan on 1 March. Now you cry over spilt milk. You are to blame. So lets hear your defense for having defended Mr Serzh – or the Traitor as some of your more enthusiastic AYFers were calling him on the streets of Los Angeles.
Aram Hamparian, excellent critical analysis of the logical fallacies pervading Sarkisian’s and his supporters’ approach to “public” discussion of the protocols. Another is the claim that those who are against the protocols are illogical extremists (the recent Economist article calls us “fuming” “nationalists”) who operate without valid argumentation. This would seem to be a “fallacy of projection,” actually, given what you have written.
What is particularly disturbing about the rhetorical techniques you analyze is how many of them overlap with the techniques used by genocide deniers (deniers of the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, Native American genocides, the Nanjing Massacre, the East Timor Genocide, the Guatemala Genocide, etc., etc.).
Abisoghom raises a legitimate issue about those of us who did not do anything or did not do enough about Sarkisian’s human rights abuses a year and a half ago. His implication is off, though. He is suggesting that the ARF and others should not say anything now that Sarkisian is compounding the problem because we failed to do anything or enough before. I would counter that the ARF and others have a great obligation now to oppose Sarkisian’s broadening harm to Armenians in order to to try to make up for the initial failures to do so. In an article I wrote recently, I argue for a legal investigation into Sarkisian’s crackdown against those opposing him, his jailing of opposition figures, etc. Regardless of how the protocol issue ends up, Sarkisian needs to be accountable for his actions and prevented from abuse of citizens’ rights that we have every reason to expect will happen again in the future.
I do have to say, however, in the ARF’s defense, that ARF people might have been in the government, but I am not sure they were in Sarkisian’s inner circle or privy to any of this stuff. In fact, I suspect that he did not disclose information about the protocols being developed to the ARF precisely because he expected this would be a breaking point in the relationship. The fact that he kept the contents of the protocols secret for so long is telling.
Abres, abisoghom. Those who did not complain when Robik and Serzhik stole and election have forfeited their right to complain about the protocols. And, let’s give up this crap about the Diaspora being ‘Armenia’s greatest natural resource.’ Mr. Hamparian has merely countered what he sees as rhetoric (and I’d like to seem him actually ground some of his claims) with typical ARF, Diaspora self-serving rhetoric. Drop the the pan-national garbage and take IR 101.
mr. theriault,
i didn’t see abisoghom imply anywhere that you don’t have the right to speak out against him just because you didn’t defend the people of armenia on march 1. what i understood from his analogy was that the arf is refusing to apply the same policy (i.e. yeah ok, what they did was bad but we have to look forward and so we’re ready to work with the newly elected president [u know, the one that people who died on march 1 said WASN’T the presiden] to make things better).
why can’t we apply that same logic to the protocols: yeah it’s bad, but we have to look forward and so we’re ready to work within the framework of the protocols [u know, the ones that are going to betray the armenian nation] and make sure armenia prospers, despite the genocide commission and despite recognizing the border (and possibly giving up kharabagh).
i think it’s fair, at the very least, to say that oppossition to the protocols is higher up on the priority list of the anca, hamparian, and the arf then is oppossition to the massacre of the armenian population. no? why else would they go ape-shit over this and not march 1? but in fact, there has never been ANY OPPOSSITION to the massacre of the armenian population from these people beyond the serzh-sanctioned position that they shouldn’t have been out there in the first place (remember those “outside forces?”) and thus, they deserved it.
—7) “Let’s set these Protocol detractors straight, once and for all.”
The “argumentum ad odium” is used by some supporters of the Protocols who clearly have an axe to grind against some of the document’s detractors, for sins real or imagined. They seek to strengthen their stand by appealing to existing prejudices, and, at times, seem to use the excuse of this controversy to settle old scores.—
i’m not a supporter of the protocols, but if i’m not mistaken, the arf used march 1 as an ‘axe to grind against some of [levon’s supporters], for sins real or imagined. They [sought] to strengthen their stand by appealing to existing prejudices, and, at times, seem[ed] to [have] use[d] the excuse of this controversy to settle old scores. [and i know you all know what i mean by old score].
and the funny part is,most of the above points he made are in some way addressing the agbu, the armenian assembly, and the diocese — the triumphant trio of organizations that they signed what i call the letter of shame.
you were ready to work with him when he slaughtered our people, and you should be ready to work with him now.
Henry Dumanian, I appreciate your response. To clarify, I did not say that Abisoghom explicitly argued that ARF people have no right to speak against the protocols because of past support for Sarkisian. I said that his post “suggests” this. I think a fairly straight-forward reading of his post supports this interpretation: he is suggesting that the ARF is an illegitimate critic now because it did not oppose Sarkisian before. My point is that that past history imposes an obligation to try to fix the problems that have resulted.
As a question, I was wondering where I could go for more information about the massacre you discuss. I was aware of arrests and beatings of opposition activists, but did not know that there was widespread killing.
I won’t take up your other points here, except your assumption that the protocols will ensure that Armenia will prosper — even without Karabakh. I don’t see much evidence of that. Even the ex-Agriculture Minister of Armenia, in Stepanakert in July, raised real doubts as to what is going to happen economically in border regions of Armenia and in Armenia more generally as a result of an open border. No one knows. Perhaps the most useful data might come from looking at the effects of NAFTA on Mexico, though of course the comparison is obviously a loose fit. As for the loss of Karabakh, Professor Levon Chorbajian has recently presented and published a discussion of this possibility and what it will mean. On his view, loss of Karabakh could so weaken Armenia in terms of defense and economics that it might not be a viable state in the long-term future. Beyond that, it is hard for me to accept that a country in which an anti-Armenian ultra-nationalism is so deeply entrenched that it led to assassination of a peace-activist, pro-dialogue Armenian and that it cannot even admit that its predecessor state (not even predecessor government) committed a genocide for which there is overwhelming evidence and scholarly recognition will be a good partner for “peace and prosperity.” I realize the situation is desperate, but a bad option is a bad option, no matter how much wishful thinking we direct toward it.
A loose thought: perhpas the protocols are intended to undermine and divide the Armenians, thus weakening them…
it is hard for me to accept that a country in which an anti-Armenian ultra-nationalism is so deeply entrenched…will be a good partner for “peace and prosperity.” FULLY AGREE !
If Karabagh is awarded Azerbaijan, it will embolden their continued fight against the Armenians with further destruction. I believe the Azerbaijanis have greater hate towards Armenians than does Turkey.
The irony of Armenia being the only country in the region having designs on the lands of others, expressing such plans explicitly, and which has actually attacked and invaded a neighbor and its closest ally Russia having done the same, seems to escape this crowd who continually whine about evil Turks and Muslims trying to destroy their country.
hey Murat, do I have to say it? look at Israel and Palestine…
Murat- Kibris unuttun mu? I argue that Armenians need to drop the paranoia (one of Armenia’s most prominent so-called intellectuals, Armen Ayvazyan, recently said that Turkey will recreate the Ottoman Empire in Armenia, which is just dumb), but calls from the nationalist establishment in Turkey (and Azerbaijan) hardly help the process of peace. Even Erdogan, who is probably the least nationalist mainstream politician in modern Turkey’s history, falls prey to this- see his interview in the Wall Street Journal where he plays up the notion that the Diaspora controls the Republic of Armenia (a common myth in Turkish public discourse). Moreover, outside of leftist intellectual circles, there is the inability of Turkey to recognize its own contemporary nationalism is merely a continuation of the nationalism that led to a genocide of Armenians (see Zurcher and Hanioglu). Just be careful, Mr. Kettle, before you call the Pot black.
Wow, Murat. Where did you learn that? It is Turkey and Azerbaijan who occupy native Armenian soil. Turkey even falsely claims that what little remains of Armenia, Bulgaria and Cyprus is Turkish. The elephant in the room is the Pan-Turkist and racist ideology that is taught in Turkic schools.
Mr. Theriault — how refreshing to finally have somebody who acknowledges that, at the very least, we are making a legitimate point. I thank you. As for what you said however: ”Henry Dumanian, I appreciate your response. To clarify, I did not say that Abisoghom explicitly argued that ARF people have no right to speak against the protocols because of past support for Sarkisian. I said that his post “suggests” this. I think a fairly straight-forward reading of his post supports this interpretation: he is suggesting that the ARF is an illegitimate critic now because it did not oppose Sarkisian before. My point is that that past history imposes an obligation to try to fix the problems that have resulted.” — Point taken. I would like to add, however, that the issue I raised was that Hamparian is guilty of doing things he is shunning other people (like me) for doing now — until the ARF addresses this hypocrisy honestly and truthfully it cannot, in fact, move forward and continue to address the current problems with any effective measure of force or legitimacy. “As a question, I was wondering where I could go for more information about the massacre you discuss. I was aware of arrests and beatings of opposition activists, but did not know that there was widespread killing.” — You can view the human rights ombudsman’s report ON the official government report regarding March 1 (in which he accusses of them deflating the number of people killed — note, although it would be helpful of reading his own report on March 1, I am specifically referring to his report ON the government report). And also, you can look to how the people of Armenia (and arguably even the government) refer to March 1 with almost the same tone and scourn that the words “April 24″ recieve. It is considered a massacre, and at the core of a huge chain of oppressive measures including the usual beating and intimidation, to sporadic murders and assasinations. Americans live in a post-9/11 world, the peopl of Armenia live in a post-March 1 world. I have repeatedly stressed how important it is to understand how the events of March 1 play in to the psyche of the inhabitants of Armenia. And, regarding my “assumption that the protocols will ensure that Armenia will prosper.”I never suggested that the opening of the boarder will give Armenia prosperity (at least not in the short term, but definitely not under the terms outlined in the protocols). I was only suggesting that such a position by the ARF would be along the lines of the position they had on March 2nd — admitting the faults, but choosing to work within the framework already set for the greater good. No?
Guess what Mr. Hamparian, while all you “nationalists” were living your comfortable suburban lives here in the US, Armenia was gradually sinking into a Third World state due to its minuscule size, tiny population, stagnant economy, landlocked geography, blockade, resource-less country and a constant state of war… While you people were obsessing over whether or not the US president will say the word “genocide” every year Armenia has been tethering on the edge of survival… While you people were wining and dining serpents in Washington DC your compatriots in the homeland were gradually losing faith in their very existence… After all this, what results have you had in pursuing the “Hay Dat”? How many years of the same old story, Mr. Hamparian? How much time and money has the diaspora wasted on this agenda? For real nationalists the homeland takes precedence above all other issues. I suggest you people begin spending the time and money you waste over “genocide recognition” on your homeland instead. The genocide will only get recognized and reparations will only get payed once Armenia is powerful enough to force it upon Turkey. All other means to pursue the Hay Dat is a waste of time. Regarding the protocols: It is probably the best political news Armenia has had in a thousand years.
It’s a harsh reality and the Armenian Diaspora will have to come to terms with it: the Armenian Republic is a land with a similar language and similar folklore, but today it is, for you, the Diasporan, a foreign country run by whatever machinations that are in power, with its own interests and agendas. Any Diasporan who dares to hold on to strong cultural memories and live as such, is runs the danger of being called unpatriotic by both their country of residence and , now, because of their outcry, by the country of their kinsmen , as in “where were you when we suffered, you don’t understand, eating caviar and driving mercedes all day in America, France, etc”. Similar language and folklore, certainly, but strikingly different in our world view. The day the Armenian nation will truly be a nation and not a collection of millets plus a wee neighborhood in the Caucasus is when it realizes that we are different and respects those differences, and makes an honest effort to bridge them. Those who fight for genocide resolution and against the Turkish misinformation machine should be commended (not derided), but time and again final success is taken out of their hands by something much bigger and increasingly sinister. Even the Great Hope himself (Obama) could not stand up to it. This same “group of interests” went to Serj and dictated terms that he could not refuse. The die is cast, we are seeing the world for what it is, and hopefully we will see a good solid plan from our leaders in the near future. Hope springs eternal.
Hello, Gagik. You wrote:
Even the Great Hope himself (Obama) could not stand up to it. This same “group of interests” went to Serj and dictated terms that he could not refuse.
Do you know what this put into my mind? My grandfather surviving the marches, eating from garbage piles, refusing to go to the orphanage and give up his religion. You must realize that we in the diaspora have grandparents who said “no” to everything, who watched their families killed because they would not give up their identity and their religion. Can we live with that and the idea that Sarkissian *could not* say no? They who risked massacre, butchery and starvation and said “no” anyway are our forbears here in the diaspora.