The protocols signed by the Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers in Zurich on Oct. 10 contain a clause that states the two sides agree to “implement a dialogue on the historical dimension with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial and scientific examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations.”
In the past few years, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) has issued several statements against the historical commission proposal. Most recently, the letter from the organization’s president William Schabas to Armenian President Serge Sarkisian and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated that “acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide must be the starting point of any ‘impartial historical commission,’ not one of its possible conclusions.”
In turn, Roger Smith, the chairman of the Academic Board of Directors of the Zoryan Institute, sent an open letter to Sarkisian that considered the commission “offensive to all genocide scholars, but particularly non-Armenian scholars, who feel their work is now being truly politicized.”
Several academics in Armenia have also expressed their views on the sub-commission through comments and interviews to local media outlets, with very few coming out in support of it.
In this document, compiled and edited by Armenian Weekly editor Khatchig Mouradian, Diasporan Armenian scholars who are among the most prominent in the field of modern Armenian history and social sciences share their views. These scholars closely follow developments in Armenian Genocide scholarship, and some are prominent in producing that scholarship. They, more than any politician, millionaire businessman, or showbiz personality, would know the problems associated with the “impartial and scientific examination” of the already established facts of the Armenian Genocide. This document gives the microphone to them.
***
Hovannisian: Recognition, then commission
Prof. Richard Hovannisian, the chair of modern Armenian history at UCLA, wrote:
International commissions have significant value in easing historical tensions and promoting mutual understanding. Such commissions, presently at work in Central Europe and elsewhere, have registered noteworthy progress. But these commissions are based on acknowledgement of particular human tragedies and injustices. They could not function if one of the parties was a denialist state, intent on obfuscating the truth and deceiving not only the world community but also its own people. The record is too long and too well tested for there to be any doubt about the intent of the denialist state in advocating such a commission. It is a snare to be avoided and rejected. The proper order must be recognition of the crime and only then the formation of commissions to seek the means to gain relief from the suffocating historical burden.
Balakian: Integrity of scholarship is at stake
Peter Balakian, a professor of the humanities at Colgate University and author of The Burning Tigris, wrote:
A “historical commission” on the Armenian Genocide must proceed from the unequivocal truth of the historical record on the Armenian Genocide. The historical record shows conclusively that genocide was committed by the Ottoman Turkish government in 1915. This is the consensus of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) and is the assessment of the legal scholar, Raphael Lemkin, who invented the concept of genocide as a crime in international law, and who coined the word genocide in large part on the basis of what happened to the Armenians in 1915.
Because Turkey has criminalized the study and even mention of the Armenian Genocide over the past nine decades, it should be impossible for Turkey to be part of a process that assesses whether or not Turkey committed genocide against the Armenians in 1915.
If there is a need for an educational commission on the Armenian Genocide in order to help Turkey understand its history, such a commission should be made up of a broad range of scholars from different countries, but not denialist academics or a denialist state.
The international community would not sanction a commission to study the Holocaust that included denialist scholars, of which there are many, nor would it invite a head of state like Mr. Ahmadinejad and his government to be part of such a commission. The integrity of scholarship and the ethics of historical memory are at stake.
Kevorkian: Chances of successful historical research in Turkey are close to null
Dr. Raymond H. Kevorkian, the director of Bibliothéque Nubar in Paris who has authored and co-authored several books including Le Genocide des Armeniens , The Armenian General Benevolent Union: One Hundred Years of History, and Les Armeniens, 1917-1939: La Quete d’un Refuge, wrote:
Although the mission entrusted to the “historical” sub-commission in the protocols does not explicitly raise the genocide issue, it is clear that it will be discussed within that framework one way or another. In an effort to delay qualifying the events of 1915 as genocide for a few more years, Ankara has tried to make it seem like this was an adoption of the previous Turkish proposal to establish a “committee of historians.” By assigning this issue back to the undertakings of a sub-commission, which is itself operating within the context of official bilateral relations, and by avoiding a direct reference to the genocide, the Armenian “roadmap” negotiators have clearly attempted to anticipate the bitter criticism of their opposition. They must have been persuaded that they had to avoid entering the wicked game previously proposed to Armenia, which put the 1915 genocide in doubt. On the other hand, it was inconceivable not to discuss the genocide—or rather its consequences—within the bilateral context.
The question is to determine whether the aforementioned sub-commission will deal solely with the genocide file—as it is, in essence, not empowered with the mission to look into the political aspect of the file—or if the latter will also be on the negotiation table of the bilateral commission, entrusted with the whole set of issues to be settled.
Insofar as this sub-commission has at least partly lost its initial mission to throw doubt on the facts of 1915, exchanges can prove to be useful, provided that the required experts are competent and of an adequate level. Its formation and working methods should be subject to scrutiny.
A historian’s work should by no means depend on the state. If historical research has made some progress, it does not owe it to official “initiatives.” Not surprisingly, the reasons this progress has been achieved outside of Turkey until now are obvious: If there were a true will to grasp the genocidal phenomenon developed by the Turkish society in the early 20th century, Turkish authorities should have promoted a training program for experts worthy of being called experts. This means amending Turkish legislation and encouraging young researchers to contribute to this very particular field of history: the study of mass violence.
The aforementioned elements show that the probability of a successful work in Turkey is, to this day, close to null, because the prerequisites to progress are not guaranteed. There has not been a cultural revolution that would release Turkish society from the nationalism that is poisoning and forbidding it from seeing its history in a lucid way. Thus, right from the start, the sub-commission bears an original sin: its dependency on the authority of the state.
Astourian: Politicians cannot shape historical interpretations
Dr. Stephan Astourian, the executive director of the Armenian Studies Program at UC Berkeley, wrote:
The protocols on the development of relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey states that the parties agree to “implement a dialogue on the historical dimension with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations.”
Even though the word “genocide” is not mentioned, it is difficult to envision some other issue that would require “an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archives.”
This formulation suggests that an “impartial” study is needed “to define” the problems. Over the past decade, however, the Armenian Genocide has been investigated quite thoroughly to such a point that it can now be said that denialists have lost their battle in higher academia even in the U.S., the country where they were the most influential. As for “the historical records and archives,” access to the Ottoman Interior Ministry archives is still restricted and access to the Ottoman military archives in Ankara is still closed 94 years after the Armenian Genocide. It is unclear why?
Whatever intentions motivated the agreement on the formation of such a commission, which is a decade-old Turkish precondition to the establishment of diplomatic relations with Armenia, it is unlikely that a consensus might emerge from it since reference to the Armenian Genocide in Turkey is still implicitly punishable under Article 301 of the Turkish penal code.
A certain “historian” and “Turcologist” from Armenia is reported to have stated a few days ago that “historians have no right to make political decisions.” He is right. For some reason, he did not add that politicians cannot shape historical interpretations. Whatever conclusions this commission may reach and whatever “recommendations” it may make—to whom?—it is free historical inquiry that will “define” the nature of the “historical dimension.” In this regard, impartial historians, many of whom are not Armenians, have already reached a conclusion.
Sanjian: The sub-commission is a victory for Turkey’s Kemalist establishment
Dr. Ara Sanjian, associate professor of Armenian and Middle Eastern History and director of the Armenian Research Center at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, wrote:
Agreeing to the formation of a sub-commission on the so-called “historical dimension” of relations between Armenia and Turkey is a concession, which I am afraid Armenian diplomacy will come to deeply regret. At present, I have no reason to share the optimism of President Sarkisian and his entourage that this sub-commission will indeed increase international awareness of the Armenian Genocide. Recent statements by Turkish leaders give no indication that Ankara will alter its denialist posture any time soon. We should expect the current Turkish government to fill its allotted share in the sub-commission with proved and experienced deniers. Assisted by an army of diplomats, as well as American and other public relations firms on Ankara’s payroll, these Turkish representatives will in all likelihood use the sub-commission to engage the Armenian side in protracted yet unproductive exchanges. Their objective—to give to the outside world a false impression that Turkey is not afraid of investigating the truth and that it is committed to an ostensibly serious endeavor in this regard—is unlikely to change. Ankara will use the sub-commission to continue to discourage outside parties from taking a principled stand on the Armenian Genocide issue and to delay indefinitely any meaningful discussion with Armenians on the legal, political, social, economic, and cultural repercussions of the genocide. Because of these Turkish tactics, professional historians have long been extremely careful not to get dragged into direct exchanges with deniers, and thus provide the latter with undeserved academic legitimacy. The protocols negotiated by the authorities in Yerevan have unfortunately lent Turkish state-sponsored deniers this long-sought opportunity. We should expect Ankara to use the sub-commission card effectively in its persistent quest to keep this unsavory episode from the late Ottoman era solely within the realm of a supposed academic dispute. Even if the protocols do not eventually go into force and the Armenia-Turkish border remains closed, Turkish lobbyists will constantly refer to the concession by Yerevan. Moreover, even in the unlikely scenario of President Sarkisian being forced to resign under pressure from the opposition in Armenia, we can expect pro-establishment Turkish activists to aggrandize Sarkisian as a pacifist supposedly overwhelmed by extremist Armenian groups, and all this as part of continuous official Turkish attempts to avoid facing the full consequences of the World War I genocide.
I do not place any hope on the possible participation of Swiss and other international experts in the workings of this sub-commission. In this highly charged politicized atmosphere involving many nations, independent-minded experts from third countries will either prefer to stay away or Ankara will try hard to exclude them, perhaps with the tacit support of fellow western governments, which maintain deep strategic, military, and financial interests in Turkey. Those who will end up on the sub-commission will always be under constant pressure from their respective foreign offices to be extremely careful of the political ramifications of what they say, both during the meetings of the sub-commission or outside, and not incur Ankara’s ire.
The formation of the sub-commission is a victory for Turkey’s Kemalist establishment. It will probably use the sub-commission not only to impose its denialist posture on the international scene as a supposedly legitimate “alternative view,” but it may get encouraged further and tighten the noose—through a more vigorous use of Article 301 of the penal code and other means—against various Turkey-based challengers of Kemalist myths, including issues well beyond the confines of the Armenian Genocide. Within this context, growing exchanges between Armenian scholars and activists and Turkish opponents of rigid Kemalism should continue, irrespective of the protocols.
The protocols may eventually be ratified, paving the way for the sub-commission. While listing the reasons behind my personal opposition to its formation was not difficult, the issue of how to handle this unpleasant entity, now that it has been imposed on the historians’ profession, remains to me more problematic. Should Armenian and non-Armenian experts of the 1915 genocide serve on this sub-commission and provide unwarranted legitimacy to deniers likely to represent Turkey? However painful such a climb-down may be to universally acknowledged genocide experts, the alternative may see less competent figures, either seeking undeserved celebrity status or unable—for one non-scholarly reason or another—to refuse President Sarkisian a favor, arguing the genocidal nature of the Armenian atrocities inside the sub-commission. From this angle, the establishment of the sub-commission and the opposition it has generated among established genocide scholars seem to have created a win-win situation for deniers.
Simonian: One signature offers what Turkey couldn’t achieve in decades
Hovann Simonian, the co-author of Troubled Waters: The Geopolitics of the Caspian Region and editor of The Hemshin: History, Society and Identity in the Highlands of Northeast Turkey, wrote:
The recently signed protocols between Armenia and Turkey create a sub-commission “on the historical dimension” that aims at conducting “an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archives.” The creation of this sub-commission can be considered a major success of Turkish and other deniers of the Armenian Genocide. It brings to fruition their long-held objective of casting a shadow on the objectivity and quality of the historical works affirming the veracity of the Armenian Genocide. Unable to discredit these works with their own studies, despite the large financial resources at their disposal, deniers will from now on hide behind the sub-commission and insist on waiting for its conclusions to block any discussion of the Armenian Genocide in international forums.
Another constituent that will be comforted by the creation of this sub-commission includes the waverers and bystanders of all sorts who, rather than bothering to read the authoritative literature published on the topic, claim to adopt a neutral or objective stance, stating that there are “two sides to the story”—the Armenian version and the Turkish one.
By agreeing to the establishment of the sub-commission on the historical dimension, the Armenian government has with one signature offered the Turkish state what the latter had failed to achieve in decades, in spite of enormous financial expenditures and political efforts.
Semerdjian: Protocols engage in genocide denial
In an article written for the Armenian Weekly titled “What do Google and the Protocols have in common?” Dr. Elyse Semerdjian, an associate professor of Islamic world history at Whitman College, wrote:
The protocols signed by Armenia and Turkey on Oct. 10 engage in denial of the Armenian Genocide on several levels. Not only are the injustices of the past ignored, but those injustices, rather than be acknowledged as a condition of peace, are relegated to an undesignated commission that will pursue “an impartial scientific examination of the historical records.” This statement is in effect a call for a commission to bury the issue of the Armenian Genocide once and for all by reducing it to a “historical dimension” rather than a genocide, a massacre, or any source of conflict for that matter.
To begin, the term “impartial” indicates that the protocols are written in state language, not the language of historians. In the field of history, we have come a long way towards realizing that impartiality doesn’t exist. Many of us in the field concede that it is impossible for a historian to put aside their subjectivity while researching and writing history. Historians choose their archives and their sources. That selection process, although it can be based on a balanced scientific method, can on many occasions alter the results. Most importantly, impartiality is called into question when we recognize that the historian’s ability to write history is greatly impacted by the sources in their possession. I often imagine the following scenario: After World War II, Germany provides only controlled access to its archives and releases only documents relating to Jewish uprisings, for example the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. With limited sources, a history much like the “provocation thesis” popular in Turkey today would have taken shape in Germany. The thesis goes: Armenians rebelled, Turks defended themselves, and the result was mutual death, a civil war not a genocide. This kind of history could easily be written based on scientific and “impartial” methods, especially if a historian thought they had covered all sources available. Many of us in the field of history are familiar with the kinds of sources made public regarding the Armenians that emphasize the moments in which Armenians rebelled against orders of deportation; these sources are easily found in Turkish publications that line library bookshelves and are sometimes placed on exhibition.
What the commission proposal fails to recognize is that although historians can sometimes agree upon the facts of history, debates often multiply once historians answer the “how” and “why” questions. Historians may be settled on facts of history (for example, “the American Revolution happened”), but how or why it happened is another matter. How would a commission, as part of a dialogue between nations, manage the multiplicity of historical interpretations? How would Turkey, a state that currently legally bars any discussion of atrocities committed against Armenians in World War I according to Article 301 of its penal code, be a trustworthy partner in any dialogue? Currently, Turkey threatens intellectuals who dare to speak out (Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk currently faces yet another trial); how could it, at the same time, allow freedom of expression on such a commission?
Freedom of speech issues aside, as a history professor, I struggle against attempts to homogenize history, especially as many incoming students are taught with high school textbooks that present history as fixed, while in the academic world history is much more complex. I point to this tendency existing in students, but truth be said, most people want a one-dimensional answer to complex historical issues—and states most certainly do. The internet, particularly Google, is a place people go to get those easy, one-dimensional answers. One student came to class having searched the internet on that day’s subject matter and asked: “So, I was surfing the internet last night and saw that according to the web the Armenian Genocide didn’t really happen even though your syllabus frames it as though it did. What’s up with that?” Although our reading that day covered the issue of genocide denial, explaining how the Armenian Genocide had devolved from a historical reality to a “debate” in history, it was the Googleability of the subject that took precedent that day because it offered the “one fixed answer.” Of course, Google is based on algorithims, rather than the truth of claims found on one website versus another. It can’t replace science; it is no oracle of Delphi. But none of this reasoning can undermine the fact that a first hit is often interpreted as the most important answer; and in cases it’s not, it is usually the first link clicked on. On Google, where the Armenian Genocide is concerned, it is a historical “debate” next to global warming and Darwin’s theory of evolution.
The protocols, like Google, treat the Armenian Genocide as a debate by avoiding the admission of guilt and by reducing the complexities of history into a singular answer in the service of the state. Imbedded in the logic of the protocols is the notion that if we are scientific and impartial enough, we can find the one answer to our unnamed problem. If there is to be any future commission, even if it does result in one uniform statement, it is not the end of a debate, as there will still be independent historians writing different histories. However, the commission’s ruling will be presented as the new golden rule, Google’s first hit—the one singular answer to the historical question of genocide. This answer will be cited by journalists and students alike as a definitive study because it was balanced and mutually agreed upon. Outside historians will be marginalized as the commission will be “impartial,” whereas historians working independently will not have the same weight, for they will be biased and partisan.
The idea of a commission is a concession granted to Turkey that indicates there really will be no scientific process at play. History-by-commission in itself is a partial process. It will begin with the premise that the genocide needs to be proven, putting Armenia in the weakest possible position even as a majority of scholars agree that a genocide occurred. By signing the agreement as currently worded, Armenia has taken the minority position of denial over the majority position of acceptance.
The idea of a commission is nothing new. South Africa had its Peace and Reconciliation Commission, Rwanda has its National Unity and Reconciliation Commission that is working on intercommunal dialogues, as well as the writing of a new national history that would cover the Rwandan Genocide. These projects were initiated because states tend to need uniformity of historical interpretation, and new national histories need to be agreed upon to salvage the state after the collective traumas of apartheid and genocide. There are two differences with these projects: First, they acknowledge that violence happened, and even with that acknowledgement there is a lack of satisfaction from victims who in some cases feel they have not been given due justice. Second, they deal with a national rebuilding project, and part of that includes a rewriting of the events of history, a sculpting of the common memory, if you will. None of these elements are present in the protocols. No recognition. No purging of painful memories of genocide. The fact that there are two nations at stake begs the question: Can history-by-commission serve two masters?
Historians who are selected to work on the commission agreed upon by Armenia and Turkey will be part of a bogus endeavor—stooges in a commission geared to write history for the victor under the pretense of democratic exchange. The protocols’ use of “impartial” also gives the underlying denial a sanitized, scientific feel. A 2004 study by Jules and Maxwell Boykoff found that the use of balanced language by journalists to discuss global warming was biased because it gave the impression that there was a debate in the scholarly community over its existence, while international conferences on the subject have presented a virtual consensus. Creating the impression of a debate implies a 50/50 split among the experts. Analogous to the protocols, a similar balance of denialists and affirmers of the Armenian Genocide on a future commission would presume that experts in the field were split half and half, when to the contrary a clear majority of scholars affirm that this event happened. This is the way in which innocuous terms like “balance” can produce bias as a way of consolidating a position—in this case genocide denial—rather than starting with a position of admission of guilt. The bottom line, as I see it, is that the protocols put Armenia in the weakest possible position, whereby it will become a collaborator in a bogus commission geared towards propagating the denial of its own genocide. This is disconcerting as both an Armenian and a historian.
Historians are always searching the dusty recesses of the past for lessons; I have chosen Greek epic for some insight into the protocols. Homer chose to end his epic with a bloodbath: The hero Odysseus slaughters the suitors who defiled his home. Through Zeus’ divine intervention, the memory of the slaughter is erased from Ithacan minds in order to protect Odysseus who would otherwise be endangered under the rules of blood vengeance; after all, the relatives of the suitors had a right to revenge according to custom. The gods choose to obliterate the communal memory in order to create a peace without justice. If we move forward to the present, a very different peace is created in the protocols. Rather than wipe out the memory of injustice committed against Armenians, the signatories have chosen to ignore issues of communal memory and justice altogether. In fact, they have chosen to not even name the source of conflict between the two parties in an attempt to assure collective amnesia. We learn from the ancient
Greeks that absolute denial of justice may have only been possible through divine intervention; for, if left to societal norms and intact memories, Odysseus would have surely been punished for his actions.
Arkun: Historical record clear, political solution needed
Aram Arkun, a New York based scholar who has conducted archival research and published material on various aspects of modern Armenian history and the Armenian Genocide, wrote:
An intergovernmental commission dealing with the consequences of the Armenian Genocide would indeed be a useful body if set up properly. A politically appointed historical commission, on the other hand, can end up as quite problematic, and even disastrous, under present conditions.
First, presumably one of the parties directly involved in the appointment of the historians would be the Republic of Turkey. This is a state that still can legally punish reference to the Armenian Genocide by its citizens, whose high government officials have repeated stated their clear opinion that no such genocide took place, and whose state-sponsored scholars and scholarly bodies continue to publish works intended to justify the actions of the Ottoman Empire during World War I concerning the Armenians. This does not promise well in terms of the freedom of action and opinion of the Turkish scholars appointed by the government.
Secondly, as part of a political process, this historical commission would not be, per se, a scholarly commission, but rather a tool for settling political issues. The Turkish and Armenian states, as the involved parties, are not equals in terms of their power and influence. The former is much more powerful than the latter, and so would have a much greater opportunity to both exert pressure on the workings of the commission and on the interpretation of its results. Furthermore, the United States and the other large states involved do not necessarily have any stake in a historically “correct” outcome. All they appear interested in is a resolution of any kind of the Armenian Genocide issue, which causes them periodic political headaches. Thus, if this commission is considered to be a type of “reconciliation commission,” it may not be in the position to act in a pragmatically just fashion.
Thirdly, the very creation of such a historical commission will both divide Armenian communities in Armenia and throughout the world, as well as give cover to those in academia and politics who would for non-academic reasons prefer to see the genocide recede as an issue. Already, Western media coverage is reverting back to a troubling “neutral” description of the events of 1915 which, contrary to all the extant archival evidence and widely accepted scholarly analyses, characterize the genocide as an unresolved matter. A “split decision” by this commission could indefinitely prolong such a vacillatory approach.
In sum, there is sufficient scholarly work extant on the Armenian Genocide to understand its basic nature as genocide without an intergovernmental commission, and there even exist some nongovernmental structures in which both Armenian and Turkish scholars can operate. Further academic discussion is, of course, necessary and commendable if done in a scholarly framework, but the problematic potential format of this commission would make both its scholarly and political conclusions suspect. Furthermore, the political consequences of such a commission will be both durable and enforceable irrespective of the truth of its conclusions. Armenia and Turkey have to live together as neighbors, and for this reason (and of course many others), a political solution has to be reached on the issues connected to the Armenian Genocide. But it does not seem as if the time is ripe for this yet. Hopefully, in the meantime, basic issues such as open borders and trade can be resolved to the benefit of those living on both sides of the border.
Kaligian: Commission’s mere existence will be exploited by the Turkish government
Dr. Dikran Kaligian, the author of Armenian Organization and Ideology under Ottoman Rule, 1908-1914 and managing editor of the Armenian Review, wrote:
The proposal to have an “impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archives” is dangerous on a number of grounds. Firstly, no matter the composition of the commission or how its mandate is framed, its mere existence will be exploited by the Turkish government in its genocide denial campaign. Turkey will ensure that the “examination” drags on for years, and neither the U.S. Congress nor any other legislature will consider recognizing the Armenian Genocide while there is an “ongoing examination.” Likewise, Turkey has ensured that the genocide will not be raised during its negotiations to join the European Union. This replicates what happened in 2001, when the European Commission—citing the formation of the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC)—excluded all mention of recognition of the genocide from the resolutions on Turkey’s accession to the EU.
Secondly, the decades of research and dozens of books already written on the Armenian Genocide will be immediately discredited as “biased and unscientific” because the “impartial and scientific” examination will have begun. The consensus among all genocide scholars, as embodied by the statement of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), will thus be undermined. Those few Turkish scholars who have bravely tried to educate the people of Turkey about their own history can be tarred as “agents of the Armenians,” and their lives once again endangered because the Armenian and Turkish governments have agreed that their work was “biased.”
Thirdly, because all the past genocide research has been discredited, all past decisions made based on it will be brought into question. There will not be a a state board of education that includes the genocide in its curriculum, or a newspaper that changed its policy and began allowing its reporters to use the words “Armenian Genocide,” or a university that hosts a panel or a course that includes the genocide, that will not be pressured by the Turkish government and its lobby to reverse its position because even Armenia agrees that the issue needs more study.
Panossian: Take commission seriously, but don’t lose sleep over it
Dr. Razmik Panossian, the author of The Armenians: From Kings and Priests to Merchants and Commissars, wrote:
Many Armenians in the diaspora are dead against a historical commission. They assume that it will question the very existence of the genocide. This is a correct assumption insofar as Turkey’s intentions are to use the commission to deny the Armenian Genocide—or at the very least to use it to minimize international pressure for recognition.
But this does not have to be the case, and the denial of the genocide is not an inevitable outcome of the commission. Commissions do not work if there is no political will on all sides to make them work. Armenians must come to the commission with the starting point of the reality of the genocide. The questions they should put on the table must therefore center on the effects of 1915 (e.g., the legal, political, and cultural ramifications of genocide). The Turkish side will naturally want to examine a different set of questions. If there is no common ground for discussion, so be it. A commission can easily be rendered irrelevant, it could be dragged on and on; in short, it could fail.
All eggs do not have to be put in one basket. The genocide issue must not be reduced to the commission. It might be in the interest of the Armenian and Turkish republics to focus on the commission, but this does not meant that the diaspora (i.e., certain elements of it) must follow suit. It is quite legitimate for diasporan organizations to have their own “foreign policy” that does not necessarily mirror the foreign policy of Armenia. There is historical precedence for this kind of “duality” in Armenian politics. Hopefully such a “dual track” approach will be somewhat coordinated and mutually reinforcing. In concrete terms, this would mean that while Armenia deals with the commission, the diaspora—as citizens of various host countries—can and should continue its various recognition efforts irrespective of the commission. Yes, this will be more difficult, but the efforts must continue, as must the efforts to engage with progressive Turkish civil society and academics.
The debates around the protocols and the commission highlight once again the emptiness of the oft-repeated but fictitious notion of national “unity” as applied to politics. The diaspora and the republic have certain commonalities, but also differing interests and needs. Their means of dealing with the genocide can legitimately be different as well. This is not a problem, but a healthy reality. In fact, the genius and strength of the Armenian nation is contingent on its multilocality and its differences—as long as these are more or less complementary and articulated reasonably and peacefully.
Let Armenians and Turks not be afraid of the commission—and both sides are afraid of it—but engage with it based on their multiple (and contradictory) interests. Let’s take it seriously, but not lose sleep over it. If it succeeds, fine. If it fails, that’s ok too.
Der Matossian: Involvement of governments defies the basic tenets of writing history
Dr. Bedross Der Matossian, a lecturer in the faculty of history at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), wrote:
The inclusion of the historical commission as part of the Armenian-Turkish protocols is one of the most serious blows to the historical research of the Armenian Genocide. From the perspective of a historian, the establishment of a joint commission by two governments in order to investigate the events of 1915 as part of their “normalization package” contradicts the craft of historianship. The involvement of governments in initiating and promoting this kind of understanding defies the basic tenets of writing history. In this instance, the victimized group agrees to establish a historical commission with the “perpetrator” group in order to examine the veracity of an event that has long been accepted by international scholars as the mass murder of the indigenous Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian Genocide is a fact; it can neither be subject to a historical compromise nor be the victim of a Machiavellian diplomatic plan.
In addition, attempting to question the veracity of the research conducted thus far is itself a travesty of colossal magnitude that mainly aims at serving the regional interests of international powers. This does not mean that the motives, processes, and factors that led to the genocide cannot be the subject of an honest academic discussion by all historians, regardless of their ethnic background. I say regardless of their ethnic background because in the past decade the meetings between Turkish and Armenian historians have resembled a soccer game in which a third party always gets involved as the mediator. Historians who are interested in debating the history of the Armenian Genocide should participate in conferences and workshops by first representing themselves as historians and not as Armenians or Turks. Ethnicity should not be a criterion for their historianship in venues where they talk as “Armenians” or “Turks,” thereby recreating the fixed identities and contributing to the political interests of the “perpetrator” group. On the other hand, a dialogue that does not address the power asymmetry between Turks and Armenians, and the politico-historical reasons for the current powerlessness of the Armenian position, serves the needs of the more powerful entity in the equation.
The aim of the Turkish government in this initiative is clear: to reach some kind of a historical compromise about the Armenian Genocide that satisfies the Turkish side. A sincere discussion of the Armenian Genocide requires the involvement of honest scholars who treat their material with utmost professionalism, integrity, and sobriety in their understanding of the historical, political, legal, and ethical dimensions of several shades of state-sanctioned denialism—anything from relativization to the outright distortion of facts and chronology under the cloak of “scholarship” and “dialogue.”
Marashlian: Accepting commission is like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory
Dr. Levon Marashlian, professor of history at Glendale Community College, wrote:
The dangers of the sub-commission on the “historical dimension” are so obvious that it is difficult to understand why so many supporters of the Armenian-Turkish protocols do not see them. Some Armenians who support the sub-commission do acknowledge the risks, but they also see the possible benefits; some say it will provide an opportunity to discuss consequences of the genocide, others say it may encourage more open debate within Turkey, while others say it may eventually lead Turkey closer to recognition. Supporters do not seem to realize that the chances of benefiting from these possibilities pale in comparison to the probability of suffering the damage caused by the dangers.
Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian emphatically declared “No, and once again, no,” to accusations that “we are calling into question the fact of the Armenian Genocide, that we are obstructing the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide.” Nalbandian and other defenders of the sub-commission do not see that the Armenian government’s willing participation in “an impartial and scientific examination of the historical records and archives,” during which the other side will call into question the fact of the genocide, will create a misleading impression that will be skillfully manipulated.
One of the consequences will be that when independent scholars and diasporan organizations continue their work for genocide education and international recognition, it will become harder because the Turkish government and some third parties, armed with or misled by the appearance of progress being made, will have the excuse to say that recognition efforts are not necessary for now, since Yerevan is already talking directly to Ankara about resolving the issue. This has already happened, as when President Obama referenced the Ankara-Yerevan talks to justify reneging on his promise last April.
During meetings of the sub-commission, meanwhile, historians and other experts chosen by Yerevan will want to discuss the consequences of the genocide and will try to reject efforts by the “Turkish side” to engage in denial. And if a debate does take place, the “Armenian side” will probably prevail inside the meeting room. Nevertheless, the process can still be a victory for Turkey outside the room—so long as the process continues—because Turkey’s central objective is not to reach a consensus that it was not a genocide, but simply to further distort and delay, to hinder the pursuit of international recognition as we near the year 2015. Turkey will try, but may not expect to “win” the academic argument in the sub-commission. And eventually Turkey might pay a little price in terms of public relations if its true intentions are exposed. Still, Turkey will have succeeded in obstructing—maybe for years—the increasingly successful momentum generated by decades of dedication, sacrifice, sound scholarship, and public advocacy.
Turkish journalist Mehmet Ali Birand’s CNN TURK interview in 2005 with Yusuf Halacoglu, the then-president of the Turkish Historical Society, reflected the extent to which this momentum has been succeeding. Birand, sometimes agitated during the discussion, exclaimed that although academic work on “the Armenian Question” should continue, the time has come to take “political steps, to make gestures, to shock.” Halacoglu agreed: “We are not going to change international opinion regarding Armenian Genocide claims only by publishing documents and books. It is necessary to take more serious political steps, for example, by establishing a research commission in the United States, by taking steps that will create a shock.” Halacoglu added that the approach Turkey has been using has not worked, and “if things continue this way, in the end we will lose.”
Two months later, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan sent a letter to then-Armenian President Robert Kocharian suggesting the establishment of a commission of historians. This “gesture” by Turkey confirmed that the writing of truthful history by Armenian, Turkish, American, Jewish, and other historians, along with the diaspora’s advocacy of recognition, was making impressive advances. In this context, with Turkey’s back against the wall, the recommendation to form a commission was a decision by an almost-desperate government to stall those advances, with a clever trap. And President Serge Sarkisian has walked right into it.
Theriault: Sarkisian and Nalbandian have rescued the failed Turkish denial campaign
Dr. Henry Theriault, a professor of philosophy at Worcester State College and author of several articles on genocide denial, wrote:
The notion of a “historical commission” to bring together the “points of view” of Armenians and Turks on their “common history” is not new. It is a variation of the denialist tactic of presenting the opposition of falsified history (the Armenian Genocide did not occur) to historical fact (the Armenian Genocide did occur). After the Turkish government’s suppression of global awareness of the Armenian Genocide began to fail in 1965, and the truth started coming out in compelling primary documents and powerful scholarly analyses based on them in the 1970’s and 1980’s, the Turkish government shifted its approach to denial and presenting “the other side of the story.” The tactic was simple: All it had to do was get its false version of history taken seriously as a mere possibility alongside the true facts of history, to rob those true facts of their rightful certainty. The deniers turned the actual situation of falsification against fact into the appearance of one perspective against another. This appealed to those with embedded commitments to “open-mindedness,” “fair play,” and even freedom of speech. Indeed, the Turkish government and its denialist functionaries in the United States and elsewhere intentionally played on those laudable commitments in presenting a perversion of critical thinking that violates the very basics of sound evidence evaluation.
“Historical commissions” consisting of those who assert the truth and those who assert falsehood, in equal balance, became a way of further legitimizing the false as a valid “perspective” on history. A historical commission has two functions. First, because there is no way for those who are committed to truth and those committed to falsity to come to a consensus, this method can permanently forestall a “decision” on whether the Armenian Genocide occurred, which is what the Turkish government will happily settle for. After all, if there is no official, universal fact, then no acknowledgment need happen and no reparations made. Second, it establishes the philosophically nonsensical method of determining truth by splitting the difference between opposing views, rather than looking at the evidence and coming to the conclusion determined by that evidence. History becomes a power play between competing interests, not a matter of what really happened as it has been captured in documents that, in the case of the Armenian Genocide, are as unambiguous as they are numerous.
The danger here, by the way, is not just limited to the Armenian Genocide. Denial of this sort quite literally is an assault on truth, as Israel Charny has written. This crude weapon is something of an intellectual nuclear bomb. Not only does it effectively deny the Armenian Genocide, but it advances the notion that all truth is just a matter of splitting the difference between fact and falsity. Do you hate Jews and want to stop recognition of the Holocaust? Just say it didn’t happen and people will start to think the truth is in the middle of “what Jews say” and your denialism. Upset that African Americans are recognized as oppressed by the legacy of slavery? Tell everyone that, contrary to “abolitionist propaganda,” U.S. slaves actually had it better than Africans in their time. Sooner or later, people will start to think the truth is in the middle. Don’t like the effect recognition of global warming is having on your oil company’s profits? Just fund some scientists to say there is no global warming. People will get confused and start to think the truth is somewhere in the middle. And so on. Even if it is intended for a “surgical strike” against Armenians, this weapon’s blast radius ends up taking out the very possibility of truth in history, science, and ethics. It renders evidence and logical inference based on it meaningless—or no more meaningful than groundless assertions and wild accusations. It undoes hundreds of years of philosophical and scientific progress. Fact becomes impossible. Critical thinking is replaced by what I have termed “academic relativism,” in which every claim, no matter how ungrounded on evidence, is considered perpetually legitimate.
The catalysts of that progress were quite clear about what real critical thought and evidence evaluation are. Descartes certainly doubted everything he could think—virtually every thought he had—just as deniers want us to do of the historical facts of the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, U.S. slavery, Native American Genocides, and on and on. But deniers want this to be the endpoint, the stopping point of thought. For Descartes, it was the beginning: It happens in Meditation 1, not 6. The rest of the Meditations consist of a carefully building of certainty as Descartes digs himself out of the morass of absolute skepticism. In the case of the Armenian Genocide, this building process has already occurred. Deniers forced it in the 1960’s, 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s. And, after decades of intense, evidence-based research, scholars have constructed an unassailable castle of truth regarding the Armenian Genocide. By the 2000’s, rational people who studied the evidence simply had to recognize the veracity of the genocide, as Samantha Power and so many others new to the issue did not hesitate to. The process suggested by J. S. Mill actually worked: A true idea was challenged by a false one in a manner that spurred greater research and reasoning to establish the true idea on an even firmer foundation than would otherwise have been produced.
Indeed, because of the aggressive, well-funded, geopolitically supported Turkish denial campaign that has lasted for decades, those establishing the facts of the Armenian Genocide have had to meet such almost impossibly high standards that the result has been the establishment of the truth—not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond the shadow of a doubt. The evidence of the Armenian Genocide has been tested against the harshest challenges and most dishonest tactics, and it has come through with compelling truth intact. It has been confirmed again and again, against assault after assault. The “doubts” that still exist are a testament to the great extent of the financial, political, cultural, media, and academic resources of Turkish propagandists and the great geopolitical force behind them, not a weakness in the evidence or scholarly analysis of it. Despite all the resources and power arrayed against it, the Armenian Genocide is recognized by objective scholars and others around the world.
This is significant, because another feature of the historical commission model is that somehow the difference over whether the genocide occurred is an ethnic tension between Turks and Armenians. This is as false as denial of the genocide itself is. On the side of truth are Armenians to be sure, but also countless non-Armenians whose sole motivation is witnessing the truth and countless Turks who have had enough of their government’s lies. On the other side is merely a portion of the Turkish population, together with a few academic and political mercenaries acting out of obvious interests and motives. The notion of a Turkish-Armenian historical commission suggested by the protocols, as an inter-ethnic negotiation process, is inconsistent with true demographics of the manufactured “conflict” over the truth of the genocide.
The Turkish denial effort has failed. The latest version of the historical commission ploy is a desperate attempt to undercut the final victory of the truth. It is not unlike Ataturk’s “revolution” to rescue Turkish genocidal ultra-nationalism from its defeat in World War I. Let us not forget how successful this unjust movement was. Nothing betrays more obviously the resilience of this anti-Armenianism than the refusal by Turkey to include recognition of the Armenian Genocide in the protocols and its reinsertion of denial into Armenian-Turkish relations. As Israel Charny has written, denial is the celebration of the denied genocide and the mocking of the victim group. It is the threat of renewed genocide and the assertion of the power of the perpetrator group over the victim group.
As after 1918, the great powers have again lined up against Armenians—complete with another decisive reversal of U.S. policy toward Armenians, now in the form of President Obama’s flip-flop on Armenian Genocide recognition. But even this pressure is not enough. Too many good souls around the world understand too well what is going on to be manipulated by recycled denialism. What is necessary to open the door again to denial and to undermine four decades of decisive progress is a few Armenians in key positions turning the knob. If Armenians acquiesce in denial, suddenly all the evidence becomes irrelevant: Armenians themselves recognize that the issue is not settled and that a new inquiry—balancing deniers with those who claim genocide—is needed. With the inclusion of the historical commission in the protocols, a four decade-long process by historians, political scientists, psychologists, sociologists, literary scholars, philosophers, and more, which has proven the Armenian Genocide beyond a shadow of a doubt, is dismissed. Now the real process will begin—complete with a fully legitimate denialist perspective.
Few stop to question exactly which Armenians are legitimizing denial with their signatures, whom they represent—and do not represent—and why they have come to accept a process legitimizing denial. They are Armenian and that is enough. Even many supporters of Armenian Genocide recognition are confused. And so the current Armenian government, led by Serge Sarkisian and Edward Nalbandian, has done what no one else could have—not a legion of Turkish diplomats or squadrons of deniers. Sarkisian and Nalbandian have rescued the failed Turkish denial campaign.
Mamigonian: Historical facts are not negotiated, they are studied
Marc Mamigonian, the director of academic affairs at the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR) in Belmont, Mass., wrote:
It is understood that states such as Armenia and Turkey must resolve their differences through political processes of negotiation. In scholarship, however, historical facts are not negotiated but studied. And while new research continues to expand and enrich our understanding, the basic historical facts of the Armenian Genocide are well established.
It is difficult to have confidence in a historical sub-commission established as part of a political negotiating process—let alone one that involves two states with as palpable a power discrepancy as the one that exists between Turkey and Armenia.
Furthermore, a “scientific examination” of the history of the Armenian Genocide, such as the protocols appear to call for, has been conducted by researchers for decades; and the large and continually growing body of scholarship and documentation testifies to this.
Thanks to the documentary and analytical work that has been done by the first generation of professional scholars of the Armenian Genocide, the scholarship has moved beyond “proving the genocide” and entered into more sophisticated considerations, even though aggressive genocide denial continues unabated.
Whatever relations are negotiated between Armenia and Turkey as states, the way forward for Armenians and Turks everywhere is through an honest recognition of historical events, including but not limited to the Armenian Genocide. Everything else proceeds from that starting point.
Arissian: Reparations commission instead
Dr. Nora Arissian, the author of The Armenian Genocide in the Syrian Press, wrote:
When Armenia agrees to “Implement a dialogue on the historical dimension with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial and scientific examination of the historical records and archives,” then both sides will have to “define existing problems and formulate recommendations.” Here, it won’t be equal, because the Turks have different problems and the Armenians have other, different problems. So, together they will not be able to “formulate recommendations” accepted from both sides.
Will Turkey accept the recommendations formulated by the Armenian historians? Worst-case scenario, the sub-commission may find that it is better to accept the Turkish arguments and documents. Then, will everyone agree to rewrite the history during World War I? And in the future, will historians accept the results of this commission?
Having personally had a modest experience in documenting work concerning the Arabic sources on the Armenian Genocide, and considering the huge documentary research on the archives in several countries, I assume that “Examining historical records and archives” means that all examinations and studies accomplished until now by Armenian and non-Armenian historians and scholars were in vain and will not be taken into consideration.
Clearly, the Armenian side in the commission will have problems in defending genocide matters after the opening of the border and the establishment diplomatic relations.
With this sub-commission, Armenians will move from the “economic benefit” expectation to historical loss. Without forgetting that in some way, it may be a loss for the Turkish side also.
Already, the announcement of the signing of the protocols brought a big wave of articles and analyses that tried to convince the reader that finally the Armenians had agreed to reconcile, that finally Armenia had signed a document to accept peace. In the meantime, operating a sub-commission to examine historical records and archives can lead the international community to discourage any research or resolution that leads to the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.
Instead of that commission, Turkey should operate a “reparation commission” after first recognizing the Armenian Genocide.
Khatchig Mouradian is the editor of the Armenian Weekly. He is working towards a Ph.D. in genocide studies at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.
The Armenian Weekly thanks Nayiri Arzoumanian for copyediting and Houry Tontian for the translation from French of Prof. Kevorkian’s comments.
Dr. Khatchig Mouradian
Latest posts by Dr. Khatchig Mouradian (see all)
- Khatchig Mouradian’s Eulogy of Henry D. Astarjian - April 16, 2024
- Teaching about Resistance to Genocide - May 24, 2023
- Christmas in the Time of Genocide - December 28, 2021
The meaning of any commision is to delay the progress and solution of a process. Mr. Sarksyan was able todirect the attention of Armenia’s and Diaspora’s best minds from 10/27/99 and 03/01/08 toward a dilemma that has no answer. In fact, he could tighten the bolts and knots of Armenian Communities all over the World.
Instead of viewing complaining about the idea of this commission from a passive-aggressive stance, perhaps it would be more productive if Armenians took a more pro-active approach. The door appears to be open now to intellectual curiosity and self-examination. So, take advantage of the moment. Why not invite Turkish scholars, historians and government people to the Zoryan, to a meeting with the IAGS, and to any and every venue where they can learn about that period of Ottoman history? A refusal to take part or to accept an invitation would speak volumes. At the same time, if a commission is in fact going to happen, I think it is imperative for bona fide genocide scholars, both Armenian and non-Armenian, to participate fully. This should be viewed as an essential educational opportunity, where everyone can learn something valuable, not as something to be shunned or manipulated for strategic advantage. Turkey surely knows by now that it is the only place on the planet that challenges the veracity of the genocide. It may not want to own up to the misdeeds of those who founded modern Turkey, but it is up to Armenians to ‘harkell’ them in every way possible, since they are obviously unable or unwilling to do it on their own.
We need a similar effort in Armenia. It is true that very few have openly been supportive of the commission, but manyscholars here are silent because they do not want to upset Serzhik or lose their jobs. And the very few who have spoken in support of it are employed by the state. The Genocide Museum Institute Director is one example…
Mouradian has brought together Armenian scholars from a cross section of the Armenian American community (and beyond). This document is a reminder to those who argue that there is a “silent majority” supporting the protocols that their arguments are worthless. There is only a silent majority that has serious concerns. And if they do not demonstrate and protest on the streets, it does not mean they are with the “silent majority” proponents. We are all concerned. Those who don’t care never cared. But those who care and follow cannot be with a historians commission. Unless they are following orders from the state department ot they are following their business interests in Armenia…
Ask and you shall receive your answer. And the answer cannot be accepting a historians’ commission. Mouradian has done exactly that. He has asked.
IF the Parliament will endorse the protocols, and IF the opposition (ARF) does not ask for Sargsyan’s resignation (curiously only Ter-Petrosssian’s party has done this), then what is the fuss about? On one hand, ARF is against the protocols but on the other hand it is only asking for Nalbandian’s resignation. So if we (Diaspora) can’t stop the protocols and the commission, why not at least lobby that some or all of the above historians be included on the Commission, thus at least ensuring a fair review of the documents? Is the Diaspora able to at least do that?
Diaspora needs a new political party to be responsible for Armenian interest in the world as well as in Armenia itself. We have to commit certain percentage of our income for this cause.
Long Live Armenia and Armenians!
First, Serge “claims” that the commission will not discuss whether the genocide happened. He says Armenia will only allow a discussion of the *consequences* of the genocide. If true – and I don’t think anyone really knows – this is good, but I am not sure that Turks, or the lousy Europeans, will accept such a thing. They will insist on an investigation into 1915 – 1923 and will insist that Turkish deniers take part.
Second, no commission with Turks on it can ever come to a unanimous decision. That is what the Turks are counting on and hope for: a split decision, which mean no decision. As much as I detest the TARC/ICTJ study it did grudgingly come to a decision that it was genocide. And what did the Turks do? They ignored it. Just as they will ignore a joint commission that happens to come to a decision of “genocide”. I do not think Serge or his advisors are smart enough to figure this out.
Oh, by the way, when was the last time you heard a Russian leader talk about the Armenian genocide? You probably can’t remember, and neither can I. I say this because it is clear that Russia is playing footsie with Turkey and could stab Armenia in the back as it has many times by siding with Turkey.
Look, we talk about the US not acknowledging the genocide (which is not quite true if you know the real record going back to 1951 and the World Court filing). But how about Russia? The Duma passed a genocide acknowledgment but it seems like mere formality now.
My point is, if the US is supposed to acknowledge the genocide over and over, is not Armenia’s alleged “ally,” Russia, supposed to do the same?
Apparently Diaspora does not have much voice nowdays according to Sarkissian… well, i think Diaspora did not have much voice at all… According to Sarkissian, we are wild monkeys living on an island and have no attachment what so ever with the mother ship…
However, as he himself saw during his visit to US, how his own people did not want to see his face around here because of what he has done, he still decided to put up a show and show good faith.. but again, Diaspora was out of his agenda when visiting to watch the match with his enemy.. He does not ask our permission nor cares about our views..
Therefore as Papken suggested, we need to have some sort of connection with Armenia and that is only going to happen through spending money.. I will give as much as I can no matter how little it is on a monthly basis to a cause, organization, body of strong and honest individuals to represent Diaspora…All I know is we, the Diaspora have and should have power and voice that needs to be heard and respected in the Armenian government…
Of course the Turks think that the commission is their victory, but why should we think that way.
We can turn the whole thing against them by making the discussions as public as possible and shuttering the wall of silence within Turkish society. Of course Hayastanci historians cannot do that because most of them are not professional enough, wi (I am Hayastanci myself, so I know it) so we need to include Diaspora historians and also dissident Turkish historians like Taner Akcham.
If we are smart enough, Turks will be begging us to close the commission a year after it starts working
We need a strong and a very patriotic government to take over Armenia and one who knows how to be the master in politics to come up as a winner; and I don’t mean Levon Der Bedrossian nor Serge Sarksyan as they are both NOT for Armenia or Armenia’s vital cause. I am still waiting for the ARF-Tashnagtsoutyun to create a more powerful and a much more patriotic Armenian government to take place that are not made up of Oligarchs who’s mere interests are staying in power and making mega bucks to take their millions to Dubai or to Europe. Someone here suggested that the Diaspora and the valid educated and true historians but not the one’s imposed by governments and a denialist government by Turkey. But including non-Armenian historians and the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) could also take part within the historical commission. Although at the rate that Turkey’s government is going by their denialist disastrous penal code that whomever speaks about the Genocide is committing a crime against Turkishness, I don’t think that their historians commission will be anything but employed by their denialist government (Turkey).
I still maintain that Diaspora can and should continue their mission by forming their voice through an organized supreme body or a supreme party and continue to work with the people of Armenia. NOT the doomed government of today’s Armenia but with the Armenian people who are not employed by Serge or his government.
A small subset of Armenians scholars have spoken and most decided to let the commission go forward without them, standing for principles (that had a place pre-Protocol) over perseverance. Operationally, they may be abandoning the historical commission to Soviet-era trained “experts”. Even if needed at the proceedings to help Armenians at this crucial juncture, the following have been on record as saying:
Hovannisian: Recognition, then commission – not me
Balakian: Integrity of scholarship is at stake – not me
Kevorkian: Chances of successful historical research in Turkey are close to null – pas moi
Sanjian: The sub-commission is a victory for Turkey’s Kemalist establishment – not me
Simonian: One signature offers what Turkey couldn’t achieve in decades – not me
Semerdjian: Protocols engage in genocide denial – not me
Arkun: Historical record clear, political solution needed – not me
Kaligian: Commission’s mere existence will be exploited by the Turkish government – not me
Der Matossian: Involvement of governments defies the basic tenets of writing history – not me
Theriault: Sarkisian and Nalbandian have rescued the failed Turkish denial campaign – not me
…and
Panossian: Take commission seriously, but don’t lose sleep over it – might participate
Mamigonian: Historical facts are not negotiated, they are studied – would watch
Imagine being in the same troop with the people on this list, during a crucial battle. One would never be sure if they would shoot at the real enemy or desert.
One could also imagine members of the Turkish Historical Society, reading this and beginning to breath a sigh of relief as Armenians excuse themselves one by one, making Halacoglu’s job that much easier.
David Davidian
http://www.regionalkinetics.com
Finally, at long last, Armenian American academicians speak up.
But when a Turkish scholar was arrested in Armenia a few years ago, and when some academicians in Armenia accused some Armenian American scholars of being bought off and misguided by downplaying how far back they placed Armenian origins, these Armenian American academicians spoke up loud and clear with petitions, letters, etc.
But when Hayastan came up with this silly “joint” (ie. Turkish deniers on board) historical commission idea, many of those same American academicians were silent. It took the Armenian Weekly to get them to open their mouths. This does not speak well of most of these academicians.
In terms of the so-called “joint” commission, it seems that these academicians do not wish to dignify it by saying they will take part. That is a valid position. We shall see how things develop.
Finally, I have never ever heard of a knowledgable Armenian who ever proposed to have a “joint” commission of Turks and Armenians research 1915. Funny how some people are now jumping on it as if it’s a good idea or one that we have to go along with. Even the IAGS – non-Armenians – thinks it’s a stupid idea.
If it is such a good idea, why didn’t a lot of serious Armenians propose it before? Yeh, I know – it’s a fact now, and we have to accept it. Is it a fact? Must we accept it? Who says?
When entities in Armenia charged that Western academics, including DiasporanArmenian ones, were following a narrative that did not recognize how trulyfar back Armenian history went, the Diasporan Armenian academics were quickto formulate a petition denouncing such charges. When a Turkish scholarbought an old, rare Armenian book in Armenia and was prevented by customsfrom removing it from the homeland, Diasporan Armenian academics were quickto formulate a petition denouncing Armenia’s treatment of this Turkishscholar. Now, when the Sargsyan and Erdogan administrations are putting theArmenian Genocide itself put up for historical debate, where are these DiasporanArmenian academics? Where is the denunciation? Where is the petition? What is to stop a subset (better yet, the whole lot) of Armenian scholars from joining ranks and expressing their outrage and VERY VOCALLY refusing and resisting the idea of an historic commission? Are they afraid of losing their jobs at universities? Of being denounced as “extremists” who are somehow against free speech?
I haven’t seen any analysis of what this commission would look like. Searching the internet for an analogue, I found a “Japan-China Joint History Research Committee.” It was set up in 2006, with a great deal of the fanfare, “to deepen objective perception toward history through this research and promote mutual understanding.” Sound familiar? Since then, there haven’t been many reports on it, but it seems it has quietly fallen flat on its face. The two sides each appointed 10 members, who have since decided that they can’t agree, and are issuing separate reports. I fear a similar result here, with the upshot being to put the denialist position on an equal footing with the truth.
But these are all Armenian scholars supportive of the Armenian side, what value could this add to the discussions? We know already where these people stand and this side of the story.
To be effective in this political fight, to actually get something for us Armenians out of this struggle and not just see things through the wishful-thinking colored glasses, only through I-only-hear-what-makes-me-feel-good-and-self-righteous colored glasses, we have to consider all points of views and find a way out through that. Not this one-sided opinions, what’s the value of this?
For David Davidian:
Yerevan picks historians for commission
HURRIYET
Monday, October 19, 2009
VERCİHAN ZİFLİOĞLU
ISTANBUL – Hürriyet Daily News
Yerevan has already picked the Armenian historians expected to participate in the controversial history commission, although the historic agreement aimed at normalizing relations between Turkey and Armenia has yet to be ratified by either parliament.
Also, an Armenian historian who was born in Istanbul has been unofficially put in charge of the committee by the Turkish government.
The history commission, which is expected to be part of an intergovernmental commission between the two countries, is one of the most delicate matters in the recently signed diplomatic protocols.
Although not mentioned in the protocols, Turkey has been naming a settlement on the long-standing territorial dispute of Nagorno-Karabakh and the history commission as preconditions for reconciliation with its ex-Soviet neighbor. Ankara says the joint history commission should study and discuss the 1915 deaths of Armenians during the last days of the Ottoman Empire.
Armenian President Serge Sarkisian and his government rejected Turkey’s offer of a history commission, labeling it as “politically motivated.” However, while saying Armenia would never step down from its stance on the 1915 killings, Yerevan has already chosen the historians for the commission.
The names for the commission were selected by the administration of Sarkisian, a senior Armenian government official told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review. The official was speaking on the condition of anonymity due the sensitivity of the issue. Another diplomatic source from the Turkish side also verified the appointments, further saying that the commission would begin working immediately if the diplomatic protocols are ratified by both the Turkish and Armenian parliaments.
Meanwhile, an Armenian historian who was born in Istanbul is unofficially holding meetings for Turkey about the establishment of the commission. The Armenian historian, who went to Yerevan last year to conduct research using the archives of the Genocide Museum, is also the first historian of Armenian origin who was granted special permission by former President Fahri Korutürk to conduct research using the Ottoman archives in 1974.
The Armenian side would offer only Armenian historians to the commission, he said, adding that historians from the diaspora, who have been carrying out research in the archives of many countries, would not be included.
Ara Sarafian, a leading diaspora historian and the director of London-based Gomidas Institute, said the commission matter is political and he does not want to comment on the issue. In a previous interview with the Daily News, Sarafian said Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s call for a history commission was a positive move, but added that Armenia is not the right address for the issue. “The archived documents in Armenia are insufficient. The freedom of historians is limited. So, a delicate matter such as genocide will be pulled into the political arena,” he said.
Now, Turkey cannot deny the Armenian Genocide because it agreed to investigate through joining commission. If Turkey did really believe that Armenian Genocide did not happen, it would not agree for joint commission. Like Armenians who are against joint commission do know that it did happened. Those who agree with Turkey like Mr. Sargisian, the ex-president of Diaspora, does not believe that Armenian genocide really happened.
All Armenian political organizations have lost their populous trust because having more than 100 years history have not been able to hold on Armenian national interests. The latest events prove just that.
How I can trust Mr. Sargisian on any thing he says when he say something but signs something else.
Just compare his address to his people on the morning of October 10, 2009 and the content of the so called protocols. All of us know that what is written controls not what were going on in hotel rooms.
A new political party with a charter compatible with 21st century is needed. The necessary component of this project is money. The sufficient component of it is a group of young people who are not agent of high powers.
If you agree with me, please contact with me at:
papkenhartunian@gmail.com
P.S. Gayane, I would like to have your email. Thank you.
Read Taner Akcam: A Shameful Act
I don’t think any ‘Commission’ is needed. An unconditional Turkish apology seems more in order.
Thank you Henrik.. That is a start..
Papken:
My e-mail is gayanevoskanyan@yahoo.com.
I am someone with no strong financial status; however I do love my country and countrymen and countrywomen and I will do my best to assist with whatever necessary.. one thing I do is to educate all my NON-Armenian friends by sharing stories and articles from Asbarez and Armenian Weekly.. I cause awareness what is going on in Armenia and how Armenia is treated by not only Turkey but also US and Russia and other international countries.. the more people are educated, the better we are off.. at least I hope so.. can’t do it with financial help, I do it with things like this..
Gayane
I would like to thank these scholars one by one for their thorough analysis and the Weekly for approaching them. I would like to request from Mr. Mouradian to contact scholars from Armenia and also compile their comments.
To Aram Arkun:
You posted a piece by Vercihan Ziflioglu, which is unverifiable and may be part of the continued Turkish media spin.
The article states, “Although not mentioned in the protocols, Turkey has been naming a settlement on the long-standing territorial dispute of Nagorno-Karabakh and the history commission as preconditions for reconciliation with its ex-Soviet neighbor.”
There is no reason at all to believe this and puts into question the rest of the article. The very second the Turks connect these Protocols with NKR, Armenia will, and has, cried foul. While the Armenian historian(s) section may be accurate, there is no independent way of its verification, unless you can personally attest to this part of the Turkish story. I would prefer to see this in an official Armenian declaration, rather than the Hurriyet.
David Davidian
http://www.regionalkinetics.com
Why does the possibility of confronting actual facts so scary for some? Why should some topics be taboo and get a pass from a reality check? After all, is it not Turks who have brain washed their people and hide behind lies?
Turkish and Ottoman archives have been mostly organized, open and available to serious researches of all kinds for a few decades now. That was all one would hear some years ago, that the proof was in the archives and Turkey was accused of hiding the shameful fact. Well, the smoking gun has failed to materialize and the calls have ceased.
In fact, the picture that emerges from the archives reflects very closely what many serious hitorians have claimed for a long time and got abused for it.
I do not think a commission, no matter what the outcome, will accomplish much. By that I mean, it will not change great many hearts or minds on either side. This issue is hardly about facts and figures, it is about a national identity and its defining myths. Those who naively compare notes and histories should know better.
My guess is though, if the commission does actually work professionally, Armenians will learn a lot many more important details of their history than Turks.
Meanwhile the only archives left in the dark are the Armenian and Russian ones.
I sympathize with those who are fearful of facts in this case.
Here’s some background information on Ms. Ziflioglu.
http://www.euromedalex.org/journalist-prize/vercihan-ziflioglu
Has anyone considered that maybe, just maybe, the Turks actually WANT an impartial group, or someone other than somewhat biased Armenians, to educate and even convince them of their own guilt? They know the Turkish public will not believe Armenians, so by inviting scholars who are unconnected, but fully knowledgable of this specific history episode, to the table, the facts can be aired without blaming the Armenians for partisanship. This happens in business all the time. Impartial consultants are brought in to a company to examine problems and recommend a solution that none of the players could have devised or recommended themselves because they are too close to the issues. There is an opportunity here, but as they say in psychiatry…in order for change to happen – ‘you gotta wanna’.
Karekin, I certainly considered that point. It is a supplemental reason (the main one being his exhaustive research) that I always refer to Taner Akcam and his two books (<a href=”http://www.amazon.com/Shameful-Act-Armenian-Genocide-Responsibility/dp/0805079327” rel=”nofollow”>A Shameful Ac</a>t & <a href=”http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Republic-Nationalism-Armenian-Genocide/dp/1842775278” rel=”nofollow”>From Empire to Republic</a>).<br>
Taner Akcam is Turkish.
Or was, he was granted asylum in Germany. Using his research as a point of reference should be fine for all interested parties. As <a href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/books/review/Bass.t.html” rel=”nofollow”>The New York Times</a> wrote:<br>
This dense, measured and footnote-heavy book poses a stern challenge to modern Turkish polemicists, and if there is any response to be made, it can be done only with additional primary research in the archival records.
Actually, I didn’t find it as hard to read as this quote indicates. It’s quite a page-turner.
Henrik….I have read Akcam’s work and find it very enlightening. I’ve also been to Turkey several times and spoken with many, many people there. Behind closed doors, every single one acknowledges the full truth about what happened to the Armenians…it’s not a secret, but it is illegal to talk or write about it openly and honestly. I don’t feel that Turks want to have to defend what happened, but not many are willing to go to jail for trying to correct the myths surrounding the birth of modern Turkey. The other dirty little secret of this story is this…the evil group who masterminded the Armenian genocide may have been Ottoman, but were not truly Turkish. Sadly, all Turks are now in the position of having to defend the evil deeds of those people and put themselves in jeopardy if they issue any criticism or discuss it honestly, which is another reason the burden of exposing the truth rests on outsiders. If Armenians want to help themselves, they would do well to push for true democracy and freedom of speech in Turkey, as well as in Armenia and in the diaspora. As we all know, exposing something to good, strong light will cleanse it thoroughly and get rid of anything ugly that was lingering in the darkness.
This is good time – actually anytime is a good time – for experts on the Assyrian and Pontic genocides to speak up more.
Turkey should be hit with genocide charges from all angles. Turkey exterminated its Christians in order to make it Turkicly homogeneous. That fact, not just the Armenian genocide, should be brought out.
Assyrian and Pontic Greek groups ought to speak up now and make their genocide charges loud and clear. I would like to see ANCA and Greek groups in DC coordinate their policies and activities more.
It’s a good question wether CUP (Committee of Union and Progress) was Turkish.
As far as I know, at that time, ‘Turkish’ was moving from a derogative to an expression of stout, proud nationalism. But if that nationalism is tied to genocide, I can understand the fear that the light of history might yet destroy Turkey.
BTW, I know vaguely about the Assyrian genocide, but hardly anything about that on the Pontic Greek, apart from the torching of Smyrna. Got any pointers?
Rosie Malek-Yonan has written a large book, The Crimson Field, about the Assyrian genocide.
Unfortunately I didn’t have time to read it yet.
Murat, you’re very selective. Elsewhere you discuss Karabagh without mentioning Cyprus, for example. Firstly, the Ottoman archives, (particularly the Basbakanlik Archives) were the state archives. Everything produced, therefore, has an inherent bias and is far from ‘objective.’ In fact it is this ‘document fetishism’ that plagues history writing in general. Secondly, the archives have only been professionalized recently. Thirdly, the sensitive military archives in Ankara are far from open. Fourthly, the CUP archives have mysteriously ‘disappeared.’ Fifthly, I fail to see what a state established in 1918 could possibly have archived about 1915. Finally, the Russian archives have been opened- in fact at least three people have recently written dissertations on Russian-Turkish relations using the Russian archives. Moreover, some nationalist Turkish historian (not Halacoglu, but someone of his ilk- I’m guessing you consider them ‘objective’ and ‘professional?’) published a number of documents culled from the Russian archives in either the 1980s or 1990s.
Thank you to the Armenian Weekly editor for getting our historians to finally speak up. I was beginning to think that they were all on permanent academic leave.
The joint historical commission is a Turkish – TURKISH – idea proposed 4 years ago. So, Armenia is going along with a TURKISH proposal. Are we clear about this?
Two questions arise:
1. Why would Armenia agree to a Turkish proposal? (Answer: stupidity, lack of imagination, and betrayal, once again, on the genocide issue by Russia and the US)
2. What OTHER ideas do Armenia’s president and foreign minister have for advancing the Armenian genocide issue (Answer: They have none whatsover. None as in zero. Maybe zero is too large a number. Perhaps -1000 is more like it. Does Armenia intend to join with the Diaspora in an effort to advance the genocide issue? The answer is Voch, or, in this case Nyet or No).
So that, in a nutshell, is Armenia’s leadership today: utterly clueless.
MOMENT OF TRUTH!
Let’s put teeth in the Protocols/Historical Commission by imposing the rule of binding arbitration., i.e., as it stands now the resolution of said commission is a recommendation only. If it became a binding decision on both countries, it would settle the issue once and for all. It seems only fair, since Turkey insists on the pre-condition to the Commission of removal of Armenian forces from Nagorno Karabakh, for Armenia to insist on a pre-condition of making the decision of Genocide or no Genoocide binding on both countries rather than a recommendation only. Also there should be a firm timetable for this commission to reach a decision because otherwise it becomes an endless exercise to stifle US congressional resolutions and other international recognition attempts. Also the issue of recognition of the border between both countries is obviously an attempt (a precedent) to prevent future Armenian claims to ancestral Armenian Anatolia, and as such should be removed from the Commission agenda.
I believe it was very short sighted for Armenia to limit its Commission participants to its own citizens and none from the Diaspora with its wealth of expert academics /historians. I hope this does not just pit the archives of Turkey against those of Armenia, but should include the US archives/ reports of then Ambassador to Turkey, Morganthau as well as the archives of other countries.
Left unsaid is how will this Commission render its decision, since its members come from both countries?
I predict a prolonged (years?) session ending with a statement that ” both sides suffered casualties as a result of wartime conditions/decisions” with no mention of Genocide.
Mr. Aram Chorebanian, JD, the issue will not be settled as long as all interested parties are not joined, including Armenian Diaspora. The real party in interest is Armenian Diaspora which is outcome of Armenian Genocide.
I would like to know your opinion on Wilsonian Arbitration Award as to International law. It seem to me that Armenian could argue based on the provisions of protocols calling boarders should be recognized according to international law. I belive Wilsonian Arbitration Award is part of international law.
Papken Hartunian, JD
Papken I am with you..
We are the extension of the Armenian Nation.. I don’t understand how our own president will exclude us from being involved.. without everyone on the same page, we will not be successful at anything.. especially matters that deal with Armenia, Armenians, and the Armenian Genocide.
Have to have a strong link… that is for sure..
Thanks
Gayane
Gayane, are you a citizen of the Republic of Armenia? If not, please tell me who your president is.
To Bedros:
Like I said many times.. i was born and raised in Armenia.. so REGARDLESS WHERE I AM.. i am connected to my country.. and if we provide financial aid and other aid to ARmenia.. the Armenian President can’t leave those of us in Diaspora out like anter shner..
I consider Obama and Sarkissyan good human beings and i am sure they are great people.. but I don’t consider them great or strong leaders.. not to disrespect their hard work and intellect but at times I doubt they have either.. and why i think that? ……. they sure did work hard to destroy what we worked for years and years and showed high intellect for basically falling into the Turk’s claws and instead of fighting what is right they went after their own benefits.. very smart….
Not sure if your question was directed to me in order to be critical, to prove something or just act like a smarty pants.. but in any case.. Mr. Efendi.. that is my belief and my opinion..
Thank you and have a great day
G
Gayane,
I think Obama is a good leader, Serjik not so much. Nor do I really think Serjik is all that great a person, but being a great person isn’t necessarily a quality I would have wanted in an interior minister…
Firstly, I asked what country you were a citizen of because I’m sick of most Diaspora Armenians (and I say this as a self-critical spiurkahay married to a Hayastantsi) thinking that they have some right to ownership over the Republic of Armenia- even though none of them (save for 8 members of ASALA, 2 Tashnaktsagans, and 2 independents) served in Karabakh, none of them have ever had to shower krushkayov, etc. So yes, I was being critical, but not necessarily directed at you per se, just an overarching mentality.
Secondly, I understand the strong reaction of Diaspora Armenians to the Protocols. But I fail to see how they have destroyed what the Diaspora has worked for. Really, what has the Diaspora accomplished? We’ve pursued this policy of international recognition not knowing what or how it was to be successful. I think that many of the rank-and-file actually believe ‘we’ will get the Armenian vilayets back. It’s fantasy. That’s all. So, I can’t fault the Armenian leadership for being pragmatic and showing that they actually paid attention during IR 101. At the end of the day an open border with Turkey will be of far greater economic benefit to Armenia than any kind of Diaspora funding.
Take care.
To Bedros Efendi:
Mr. Sargisian and his govenment has been taken hostage by Russia, USA and EU. Evidence, just look at the picture who were present during gning proptocols. This is a real example of a picture speaks more than thousand words. Furthermore, everybody knows that Secratary State of USA has kidnapped Mr. Nalbandian and has held him three and half hours hostage until he agreed to sign and then he was released. All these proves one thing that today Armenia has reached to the point that all world must come together and fight against Armenia to accomplish their financial gain succking petrol from East to WEST.
Gayane and most of 7 millions of other Armenians have been forced from their homeland and survived in Diaspora. As a good citizen of their country most of them became citizen of thei country and all respect their leaders till theie leaders do not lie to them. Example, all world knows that
Mr. Obama has promised several time that he will speak the truth and will recognize Armenian Genocide. I did not belived him then and wrote my opinion on it in adavnce. Of course, recogniciaon of Armenian Genocide by Obama does not bring any new and tangiable thing on the table because United Nation has recognized Armenian Genocide. The problem is that Armenias are taken poltical path rather than taken legal path to force USA to declare Armenian Genocide as such.
Being citizen of a country is a matter of choice. However, being member of a nation is not.
Our real happiness and force comes from our homeland not from US dollars. We feel we owe to our homeland roaylty because we have enjoyed her existence and have been proved of it all our life. Therefore, we have to keep it and delivere it to the next generation as much more powerful nation.
Gayane and 7 millions of other Armenians have right to change their citizenship and become citizen of their own homeland at any time, if situation in Armenia becomes much better than anywhere in the world which is very possible because we are qualified.
Now, Mr. Efendi, if you are naturalized citizen of a country, I am sure you have been asked million times “where are you from?”. My final answer to this question has been “I am from my mother?”
No one could have a normal life outside of her or his culture.
Long Live Armenia and Armenian!
Papken Hartunian
Karekin wrote:
Has anyone considered that maybe, just maybe, the Turks actually WANT an impartial group, or someone other than somewhat biased Armenians, to educate and even convince them of their own guilt? They know the Turkish public will not believe Armenians, so by inviting scholars who are unconnected, but fully knowledgable of this specific history episode, to the table, the facts can be aired without blaming the Armenians for partisanship
Karekin, this possibility does not exist because of the fact that the vast majority of academic scholarship – NON-Armenian – has spoken on this issue. It is complete and exhaustive. The International Association of Genocide Scholars, and historians universally endorse the research that conclusively shows this was genocide. I am talking about academics, now, not politicians, not hand-picked “yes-men” but people who are employed in universities as historians and in the field of genocide expertise. Even people who once defended the Turkish side now say they were misled. Academically speaking, in the circles of the universities and scholarship, this issue is overwhelmingly decided.
The only people who reject these findings are the official Turkish government. Those who are paid to support it are alone in opposing voices and the need for some commission outside of the scholarship that has already spoken. See TARC and the International Center for Transitional Justice report.
http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Turkish_Armenian_Reconciliation_Commission
Mr. Hartunian, you’re more than welcome to believe conspiracies.
Per Karekin’s post, there is some truth to it. However, Turkish political discourse (not unlike our own) is so damned nationalistic that anyone ‘accusing’ the Turks of genocide is almost immediately tarred, feathered, and thrown into disrepute. They instead trot out the same-old same-old ‘impartial scholars’ (Heath Lowry, a late medievalist who doesn’t study the 19th Century, Bernard Lewis whose political motivations and dedication to modernization theory are things of legend, and Justin McCarthy who is a walking bufoon and actually believe Yusuf Halacoglu is a sound scholar) and ramp up the story of ‘Armenian propaganda,’ arguing that everyone else has fallen prey to it. This just reinforces the ‘blame the victim’ strain of thought that is ever so pronounced in their popular media.
We’re better off just letting things in Turkey run their own course. Practically every serious scholar at Istanbul’s major universities (Bogazici, Sabanci, and to a lesser extent Koc) have, if not accepted the Genocide as fact, at least come to grips with the fact that the official story christened in the Nutuk is a bunch of crap. If Armenians actually read the Turkish press they’d be plenty aware of the growing democratization movement in Turkey. Organizing their own conferences, fighting Article 301 on their own, etc. is the best chance for Turkish recognition. Otherwise we just complicate the picture. Understandably difficult for us, but the best course nonetheless.
I can not but help dwell on a few myths here (there are so many around this topic).
There is this myth among many here that Turks are brainwashed and do not know all the facts and thus they deny unpleasant truths about their history, blinded by nationalism.
As someone who is more than a bit informed and has seen both “sides”, I can tell you that an average Turk has a better grip on the facts than an average Armenian. What many here can not grasp is that Turks are in general perfectly ok with the facts. Millions have died, all have family tragedies and stories, but for the most part it is history. Deeds are done, prices are paid, all suffered injustices and here we are.
The lack of “desired” reaction from Turks and their elected government is not because of lack of information or brainwashing, but they have simply moved on and as survivors of various ethnic cleansings and horrible designs themselves, surrounded by this blood thirst, they (a mjority anayways) do not feel the least bit of guilt or desire to go for a round two of WWI.
Also it should be noted that, in the wide spectrum of events and wars and tragedies Ottomans and their descendants lived through for two centuries, the Armenian tragedy is simply a large footnote. It simply does not have the centrality to an average Turk as it does to an Armenian for obvious reasons.
Contrary to the common rhetoric here, alleged genocide topic is very much discussed and argued, in public and in private in Turkey. There are conferences, books, seminars, speeches etc covering the whole spectrum of thoughts and opinions. In fact, it may be one of the few places in the civilized world one can even discuss the topic. Surely the nationalists do all in their power to discourage opposing views and abuse the existing laws to silence their opponents, but in the end, no single person in Turkey has been indicted or jailed or fined for claiming that it was genocide. There is no such specific law.
It is rather amazing and contemptful then that some here bring up the freedom of speech issues in Turkey without a single trace of irony, while in many “civilized” countries laws have been enacted, thanks to the efforts of diaspora, that muzzles ANY discussion of this topic! People have been actually jailed for contradicting the Armenian nationlistic view of their history!
One can list here, as some have done, a not so short list of people and notables in Turkey, who have supported the Armenian interpretation of the WWI events. There is surely a spectrum of ideas and opinions on the topic, as there should be, among millions of people of the country.
Such diversity of opinions is visibly lacking among Armenians I have noticed. How long would I survive in Armenia for example if I were to challenge the party line there? How many Armenian notables are there who support the established Turkish view? Why cant there be even one single eccentric? Is there a single academician or historian out there who has dared to challenge the Armenian myths and not abused, threatened and belittled for it?
On the other hand works of pseudo-scholar Armenians, or people with axes to grind and plain old demogouges have been paraded as “objective” analysis as long as they elaborated and extended Armenian myths. No one is critical of their objectivity though so many of the outright fabrications have been exposed. So much for honest search of truth.
What is of course scary and sad is that even among the Armenian intellectuals, who by defintion should be a bit more free thinkers and outside of the boxers, there is no divergence of opinion. Just imagine the common people. What Ottomans had to deal with a century ago becomes more clear.
Armenians have a very very long way to go before blaming others with being brainwashed and demanding apologies in my humble opinion.
For those who defend Turks by any reason should be aware that their Sultan became Khalif, first by distotring their Qouron by deleting a requirement that all Khalives must be decendants of Mohmad.
At the end of the First World War, Arabs discovered this fraud and brought Ottoman Empire to its knees.
So, Mr. Efendi read your history and be familiar who are you?
By the way, according to the Webester’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language “Turk” means:
1. a native or inhabitant of “Turkey”.
2. (formerly) a native or inhabitant of the ottoman Empire.
3. a Muslim, especially a subject of the Sultan of Turky.
4. a member of any of the peoples speaking Turkic language.
5. one of the breed of Turkish horses closely related to the Arabian horse.
6. any Turkish horse.
7. Informal, a cruel, brutal, and domineering man (emphasis added by Papken Hartunian).
One day justice will take “Republic” of Turkey a part as it did Soviet Union and others before it.
Papken Hartunian
Murat, you’re right that most Armenians do not have a grasp of how things are changing in Turkey. The problem, though, is your contention that Turks support the ‘Armenian interpretation’ of events. Thus, you have once again limited the scope of the discussion to two competing national narratives. That is not the case. It is, however, textbook nationalism. Just like your comment ‘What Ottomans had to deal with a century ago becomes more clear.’ You cannot move beyond national categories, and so long as you deal in maxims you’ll be able to explain anything and everything away.
And, Murat can, nobody has ever been jailed for saying there was not an Armenian Genocide. Fined, yes. Jailed, no. Which is wrong- just like Article 301 is wrong.
It is always amusing, if not painful, to see otherwise reasonable, intelligent Turks, defending the murderous actions of that bunch of non-Turks from Salonika who created the Armenian genocide and eliminated 25% of the population of Anatolia, bankrupted the Ottoman Empire, suppressed the country’s main religion, eliminated the caliphate, axed the Arabic alphabet and banned traditional family names and then profited from it all! It reads like some kind of wild fiction novel and if told to anyone, they wouldn’t believe it, but it is, in fact…very true. Wake up, Turks. You’ve been had….and taken for a ride.
Papken, you quote from Webster’s Dictionary and tell me I need to read up on history? Wow. All Webster’s Dictionary tells you is how English speakers have used words; it says more about English-speakers than it does about Turks.
And, really, you think the Arabs just ‘realized’ this and suddenly had a problem with it? Go on believing your conspiracy theories and crack-pot analyses…..
Bedros Efendi,
Is there any other narrative other than religious or national? What else defines the identity today, when most of us desperately need one? Nothing terribly wrong with nationalism frankly, except when it is built on negation of another one. The very nature of nationalism, causes others to awaken or take up one. Action and reaction. That is exactly how Turkish nationalism came into being belatedly, no?
Turkish identity certainly has and needs its own myths. The center piece of the myth though for the Turks is the the awakening that started with Gallipoli and continued with the War Independence and Ataturk Reforms and the Republic. I must explain here that what I mean by Turk is not an ethnic definition, since Turkey is truly a melting pot of all kinds of ethnicities, nations and groups. For many, if not all, a Turk is one who calls Turkey his/her homeland and the flag as his own. It is that simple, or should be.
It is unfortunate that Armenians have chosen a tragedy as the defining myth of their national identity. It is based necessarily on negation of another nation. I have no idea how this can be reconciled and lead to a happy ending and mutual co-existence.
Murat,
Yes, there are class narratives, gender narratives, post-modern narratives, peasant narratives, etc. Nationalism is a problem in all its manifestations because, as I said, it leads people to view the world through monolithic categories- thus, you yourself conflate all Armenian action (irrespective of whether or not they were the rich in Cairo, the socialists in the Caucasus, or subjects of either the Romanov or Ottoman Empires) into one master narrative, devoid of context or contingency. It also allows you to see this ‘conflict’ as one of two competing narratives, which (for the professional historian) it is most certainly not. It is thus no surprise that as a 19the century phenomenon, nationalism comes from the same intellectual crucible from which Social Darwinism and other ideologies sprang. Thus it segues all to easily into a ‘civilizational’ discourse.
You need, too, to actually explain by what you mean by ‘negation.’ Extermination? Disrespect? Ignoring someone? It really makes no sense.
Turkish nationalism, as I’ve explained before, is the myth unifying otherwise disparate Muslims who are either native to Anatolia or were expelled from the Balkans and the Caucasus. But it is far from a civic form of nationalism as we see at times in Switzerland or (to a lesser extent) the United States. You need only look at the TTK’s pronouncements that the Hitites were Turks, the Sun Theory (idea that all languages sprang from Turkic), Ataturk’s daughter’s dissertation from the Sorbonne (I think, pretty sure it was a French university) to see there’s a concerted effort to establish the historicity of the Turks, who have always thrown down ‘devlets’ everywhere. Thus, there’s a timelessness that they attempt to create, and it should come as no surprise then that you see these morons who killed Hrant going on and on about the ‘Turk irk’ (Turkish race- funny because irk is actually Arabic, and the word ‘soy’ was only recently created by ozturkce gurus). Thus, the person for whom Turkey is both home and flag is a Turk is a nice idea, but ultimately non-existent. Hence the movement of the last ten years or so to create the category ‘Turkiye’li.’ It removes the racial component from the idea ‘Turk’ and instead creates a more civic notion of Turkishness. Read Bercuhi Berberyan’s ‘Ermenistan’da bir Turkiye’li’ if you get the chance. Baskin Oran and others have written about it.
Nationalism stifles debate, as one who deviates from the ‘norm’ is easily branded a traitor (as I have been in the Armenian community by some, as many Turks I know have been as well). Moreover it traps everything into this ‘nation’ category, and leads to the painting with broad strokes, of which you and most Armenians here are plenty guilty of.
Armenian ‘chose a tragedy as the defining myth of their national identity’ because it explains our being in diaspora. This is one of the many things where, because you are stuck in what appears to be a CHP mode of thought, you simply don’t realize how insensitive you are.
Ultimately, I find you an engaging and well-intentioned individual, and certainly more sophisticated than most my compatriots posting here. Unfortunately you’re unable to move beyond your own nationalism as I have. You’re also unable to really debate the Genocide beyond TTK and CHP talking points as you regurgitate the myths and snippet evidence prevalent in Turkish nationalist circles to explain away the killing of an entire people. Read Sukru Hanioglu and Taraf, not Halacoglu and Milliyet. I wish you the best.
Murat,
In your last post, at first I thought you were defining Turk only as someone who considers Turkey their country and by no other definition. But I think you’re referring to a duality. From my perspective, there are ethnic Turks as well as Turkish nationals. Armenians of Turkey would fall under this second definition of Turks. A Turkish national, born in Turkey, holding a Turkish citizenship, speaking Turkish (in addition to Armenian, sometimes not) and making their life and careers in Turkey. But if you see this definition as the only definition of Turk, then this concept falls apart. In which case you are trying to redefine others who have Armenian, Jewish, Greek, Kurdish and Assyrian ancestory and see themselves as such. And this has been tried by some ultra-nationalists. There is a duality here. A parallel history that they come from. We Armenians have our own history, along with other groups that predate the Ottoman Empire. There were Armenians in Asia Minor/Anatolia/Armenian Plateau etc. long before anyone there called themselves a Turk.
The duality I referred to can be seen in Ara Guler and Hrant Dink who see themselves “of Turkey”. They do feel a connection to the country but I think Hrant was very clear about his Armenian identity.
Also, the genocide is not a defining myth in Armenian identity but a defining moment in Armenian history going back at least 2500 years.
The center piece of the myth though for the Turks is the the awakening that started with Gallipoli and continued with the War Independence and Ataturk Reforms and the Republic. I must explain here that what I mean by Turk is not an ethnic definition, since Turkey is truly a melting pot of all kinds of ethnicities, nations and groups.
In this wonderful melting pot..just how many Armenians or Kurds do you think identify with the awakening at Gallipoli …you are in your own world…nobody identifies with the myth aside from Turks who identify themselves as Turks. Your nation is built on a bunch of cowards…. look up when you declared War on Germany in WW II…its a joke and everyone knows it. Murat nobody likes your nation…nobody.
THANK YO PAPKEN..
My thoughts exactly…
I love my country and my people and again no matter where i am, i consider my country my motherland and would love to be part of as much as possible..even from distance.. we still have power to help and get her on her feet faster than anyone.. so lets just do it…
Astvats mer het.
TO: Bedros..
That is your opinion and I respect that.
BUt dont’ question my motive and my belief and my opinion.. I don’ know your background or where you are from but I am assuming you are an Armenian.. and if you are Armenian, I am sure your heart and soul is always connected with your roots and want to be connected with your country as much as possible.. Any Armenian regardless where they live have that longing and connection to their motherland.. You expect to tell me that I should just forget about ARmenia and worry about the country i currently live in and leave the matters of the Armenian people in the Armenian govt?? andddd allow them to become victims not only from their own govt but also the big three sharks, especially the Turkey. ???? This may be your mentality..but it is not mine..
Thank you
Gayane
My ultimate point is that Armenians should place blame precisely on those who masterminded the genocide, not on the Turkish people in general. The Turkish masses had no idea what was really going on. They were able to manipulate and operate in secret because they were apart from the main government at the time. The myth-making and lies continued after the fall of the empire to justify their actions, not only of creating a haven for ‘Turkish’ Muslims from the Balkans and the Caucasus who were being persecuted, but of their ethnic cleansing of Anatolia in order to ‘create space’ for them. At the same time, Armenians in the provinces were equally unaware of why they were subjected to such harsh treatment. They were blamed for all the ills that fell on the Ottoman Empire, while the true criminals were the revolutionary leaders, the Young Turks, and the CUP.
“Thus, the person for whom Turkey is both home and flag is a Turk is a nice idea, but ultimately non-existent.”
I could not disgree more. For many Turks, even the uneducated, Turk has meant one who belongs to Turkey, since they are all aware to some degree that many of their ancestors were Albanians, Tatars, Cerkez, Gurcu, Azeri, Arab, Crimean, Uygur, Ozbek, Pomak, Russian, Bosnian, Macedonian, Kirgiz, Afgan, Tajik, Laz, Kurd, Lezgi, Turcoman, Christian, Jewish and Muslim etc…
This is by no means an enlightened and minority view of what it means to be a Turk. The very statements TSK and generals, that cathedral of Turkish nationalism, make on important occasions (it is a known but undocumented fact that Cerkez are represented disproportionately among the ranks of the military for example) always underline this reality. It is the Devlet’s official policy and definition.
In contrast, how often you hear the question “who is an Armenian, or Greek, or Azeri?” for example?
You will hear “Who is American?” or “Who is a Turk?”, and I am grateful that this can be asked and discussed.
Hrant was not an Armenian, for me and the masses of Turks, he was a Turkish-Armenian. He was a pure Anadolu cocugu. It was our loss, not Armenia’s or diaspora’s.
Of course the national myth making which started so late for Turks, went through numerous gyrations and bends and twists. Sun language theory, searching for roots in Central Asia, and a whole bunch of other nonsense… but this is all history! For many anyway. This was a time, 20s-30s, a great many of European and Balkan nations were experimenting with definitions of national identity. Look where it took Germans! It is important to appreciate that while most of Europe was under the boots of generals for decades, from Spain to Greece, Turks were able to hold on to a, however imperfect, parliamentary democracy – how is that for “contextualization”? Heads of state wore tuxedos and ties, not uniforms. This was no coincidence in my opinion.
Turks were about a century late to national myth-making, and it showed. Where it has ended though is where it should be. It is a defintion that is inclusive and enduring, unlike the 150 yr-old ethno-religious centric definitions which will not last too long, or will but always in conflict, since they are based on negation of others.
Just look at the spectacle of Israel, putting a gun to the head of Abbas and demanding that not only Palestinians recognize Israel, but recognize it as a Jewish state! They have no qualms about this though a third of their citizens are Muslim Arabs, and mainly Palestinians!
In support of above, I wanted to also add this:
The most nationalist Turk, I mean an embaressingly nationalist and passionate person, who would cry at the sight of a Turkish flag, sang the national anthem at the top of his lungs whenever he had a chance, and worked tirelessly for national causes was a Turkish-Armenian – who lived abroad.
I hope this gives a pause to some here.
Well, Murat, that may be the case at this point in time, but well into the 19th C, and that means for hundreds of years, real Turks were a minority in their own country. In 1914, the 10 million people in Anatolia were roughly one quarter Greek, one quarter Turkish, one quarter Armenian and one quarter Kurdish. As native, indigenous Anatolians, many people considered the Armenians to have become more Turkish than many of those who called themselves Turks. The point is that outsiders… non-Turks…came up w/ the idea of ethnically cleansing what became Turkey, not the natives and not, I believe, the Turks. As you should know, the architects of the Armenian genocide did it outside the purview of the sultan and his government, who would not support their murderous actions. I don’t think it’s fair to blame today’s Turks for what happened, but at the same time, today’s Turks should not defend a group of people who acted in a criminal way on a mega-scale. It is indefensible and honestly, any self-respecting nationalist should denounce and distance themselves from what the CUP did, rather than support their actions, because what they did stained Turkey and set it back immeasurably.
Karekin- yes, I mostly agree with you
Gayane- no, I’m not saying ‘forget Armenia.’ As I clearly stated, I’m against a mentality prevalent in the Diaspora that the Republic of Armenia is something they claim ownership to. I am an Armenian. I live in Armenia presently. I have family here. But, at the end of the day, I am of Anatolian stock and not Caucasian.
Murat- Look into why there’s a whole discussion (and reaction against) the category ‘Turkiye’li’ as distinct from ‘Turk.’
My father’s grandmother was a teenager in Marash when the Armenians were relocated. Despite her old age, she used to remember that they had very intimate relations with her Armenian neighbors and she cried when they left as if she had lost a relative.
Shame on those who managed to set these two nations against one another.
Shame on Russians for deceiving Armenians against the Ottomans for their own interests.
Shame on Armenian gangs for falling for Russian deceipt and revolting and attacking Muslims in Eastern Anatolia.
Shame on Ottoman goverment for not managing the country well and resorting to a unpleasant solution in which innocents were hurt.
“Look into why there’s a whole discussion (and reaction against) the category ‘Turkiye’li’ as distinct from ‘Turk.’”
What is significant for me is that there is such a discussion, not why. That, if I may add without sounding nationalistic, does not make it unique, but distinguishes “modern” Turkish nationalism form many others. Frankly, I prefer it that way.
Karekin,
When you say:
“…that may be the case at this point in time, but well into the 19th C, and that means for hundreds of years, real Turks were a minority in their own country. In 1914, the 10 million people in Anatolia were roughly one quarter Greek, one quarter Turkish, one quarter Armenian and one quarter Kurdish”
You are under the impression that current concepts of national identity, or the very word itself existed that many centuries ago. You look into history and make judgements with a 19th century mindset and vocabulary. It does not work that way.
Turks came to Anatolia as a ruling class, much like Mongols came down to India. They did not quite see themselves as this or that nation. Just a collection of clans, tribes, princehoods, Sultans and beys and people who pledged alligence to them and paid taxes and sougth protection. It was pretty much the same for Armenians, Romans and Kurds. You think they called themseves a Kurdish nation?
It is a bit amusing that you still try to partition blame on this or that nation or race. It was the Ottoman ruling class who made decisions! One of them was a gypsy for petes sakes!
It is even more amusing but not surprising that you do not list any of the Armenian revolutionary organizations, parties that actually made so many fateful decisions on the behalf of all Armenians of Anatolia among the guilty.
Numerous Ottomans who were thought to have committed crimes have actually been taken to courts (what kind of courts, a whole different topic!) as early as 1919, and some have been hung for their actions against Armenians and others. Other Ottoman leaders that Armenians have consdiered responsible have been hunted like animals and murdered all through Europe and Caucuses (then again in 70s). Turks have paid a heavy price in blood, property and politically.
Has there been a single Armenian insurgent, murderer or leader who faced the music? Has any one of these people ever tried for their well documented crimes? Don’t they deserve some credit for what happened to the Armenians? No. They are mostly heros to Armenians today.
Even Greeks faced their mistakes at the end of the War of Independence and sent the ones responsible for the end of the Greek civilization in Asia Minor to the gallows.
Ottomans are history and gone for almost a century. Armenian nationalist parties, Dasnaks and Hincaks, still rule and ruin Armenian lives and others.
As I have stated before, Armenians (sorry for the broad stroke) have a very very long way to go before they can demand apologies and be credible.
Henrik, in response to your request for material on the Pontic Greek Genocide, I recently read an excellent memoir entitled,“Not Even My Name” by Thea Halo. She is the daughter of a survivor. The bookgives an excellent historical content with the family story. The parellels are incredible. I believe it is available through NAASR and public bookstores. Good luck.
Stepan
Murat,
In an earlier post you said the following
“Contrary to the common rhetoric here, alleged genocide topic is very much discussed and argued, in public and in private in Turkey. There are conferences, books, seminars, speeches etc covering the whole spectrum of thoughts and opinions. In fact, it may be one of the few places in the civilized world one can even discuss the topic. Surely the nationalists do all in their power to discourage opposing views and abuse the existing laws to silence their opponents, but in the end, no single person in Turkey has been indicted or jailed or fined for claiming that it was genocide. There is no such specific law.”
I believe you’re being disingenuous with the picture you paint. The more open discussions of genocide is a recent development even though there is still great resistence to it. Before then it was indeed a taboo subject and discouraged from discussion. There does not need to be a specific law when a more generic law on “insulting Turkishness” can be used. The change has come mostly because of Turkey’s persuit of EU membership and also thanks to Hrant Dink’s courageous public efforts for dialogue. Yes things are changing and at a faster pace. 10 years ago you could not publically say that there was no genocide because even that would have been referencing 1915.
There has indeed been a brainwashing in Turkey thanks to the government’s policies on what gets taught in the schools. Armenians are characterised as backstabers and foreigners. There was an article on a Turkish daily’s website the other day about how the textbooks have been changed for this year where demonization of others is softened. There is an official historical narrative in Turkey that does not add up and more and more are understanding this.
Murat, I can see what you’re talking about when you talk about Hrant Dink and of being from Anatolia. There were Armenians who volunteered for the Ottoman army after it was opened to minorities. Many Armenians saw themselves as citizens of the empire. But we have also been a people onto ourselves.
I’ve been following this thread and I feel that it’s important and with substance.
Also, who is this bleeding-heart abroad-living Turkish-Armenian you refer to?
Karekin,
“In 1914, 10 million people in Anatolia were roughly one quarter Greek, one quarter Turkish, one quarter Armenian and one quarter Kurdish.”
I have not checked the demographics figures but that sounds a little too cleanly distributed. You also forgot the Assyrians. I believe there was a non-insignificant population of them.
That said, empires are entities where a ruling group governs outside of their native region and thus not a majority in those areas. It has been the destiny of empires to break apart.
There was an identifiable ruling group that architected the genocide but the whole region was a tinderbox to begin with. Wars and fears are enought to set it off. There are many Turks who warned their neighbors of what was coming. There are stories of how during the marches Turks and Kurds would plead that Armenians leave their kids with them until they returned, knowing full well that the Armenians were not coming back. At the same time there are Turks and Kurds who attacked their Armenian neighbours. For an example of this, seek out an episode from the radio program Soundprint. It’s entitled “Remains of the Sword: Armenian Orphans”. It’s about 30 min and centers around a Turkish woman who discusses the story of her Armenian grandmother. It’s a fascinating insight into what happened to Armenian orphans from 1915. It’s a story from ground-zero.
Mr Efendi
No where in my posts did I say I want ownership of Armenia.. on the contrerary.. no one should own anyone or any county.. Armenia is for ALL Armenians and not just the ones living in Armenia… Hence, the reason I said we, as in Diaspora should have involvement in Armenia’s affairs and have some influence..I never said lets own Armenia.. I apologize if I misstated or you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
My dad’s entire family lives in Armenia (all 100+ of them) so even if I want to stay out of Armenia’s business, I have a reason not to…(but then again, someone who has no power, no money and no means to influence the matters, I am not sure how far i will get but all I know is I will do what it takes as little as it may be)
I hear what you are saying and I think I understand where you are coming from, but that is something alot of Armenians may not agree with.. Armenia is for all of us..
Thank you for your input and for speaking out and sharing your straight forward point of views.. it is much appreciated and respected.
Gayane
Well Murat, I’m not as clueless about history, ancient or otherwise, as you might think. It is also important to understand that those original Turkish tribes who arrived and conquered Anatolia and Armenia were rather few in number. They arrived to find a population that had been there for thousands of years, had architecture, music, literature, etc. They could not have succeeded without the help of the native Armenians who were vehemently anti-Greek, anti-Byzantine at that time. As one scholar I know puts it, within a generation, all those Selcuk Turks had become half-Armenian. As we fast-forward to Ottoman times, we find other groups being invited into the empire by the sultan and we find their descendants in Salonika plotting to overthrow the sultan and assume control of the empire. In this, they succeeded and as part of that success, worked to cleanse the empire in much the same way they had been cleansed or expelled from another empire. The truth is that these people were not ethnically Turkish…they may have assumed a Turkish character, as many people did under Ottoman rule, as a way of blending into the system, but that very system did not see them as Turks, and moreover, their connection to Islam was also suspect. Let’s ask another question by way of analogy…. are all Americans personally responsible for the one million plus casualties in Iraq and the 4 million refugees there? Or, should the blame more properly rest on those who worked so strongly behind the scenes to engineer it all…the neocons? The situation is not that dissimilar. I opposed every military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet here we are. I feel upset and disconnected from these actions, in much the way most Turkish people probably feel about what happened in 1915, but I too get lumped in with the overriding American policy which I never supported on any level.
Yes, let’s have a joint American – Japanese commission on whether the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
Let’s have a joint commission between Jews and neo-Nazis on whether there was a Holocaust.
Let’s have a joint commission of Turks and Assyrians to ascertain whether the former committed genocide against the latter or whether the Assyrians “rebelled” like the Armenians supposedly did and thus deserved to be murdered. Maybe Assyrians were trying to establish a new Assyrian Empire?
Let’s have a joint commission between Khmer Rouge and ordinary Cambodians to see who committted “auto-genocide” against whom.
Let’s convene a joint commission of Turks and Armenians to look into the 1909 Adana massacres to see whether they actually occurred or are just a figment of Armenians’ vivid imagination.
Let’s create a joint commission of Communists and Russians to see whether Communism was really as bad as some say or whether it was a Workers’ Paradise after all.
Let’s have a joint commission of atheists and Christians to determine if Jesus Christ was really the son of God or whether there is a God at all.
This is the best way to settle questions like these. Joint commissions. For example, if you want to try a murderer in front of a jury, put the defendant’s family and friends on the jury and see what decision the jury comes up with. Sounds like a good idea, huh?
Random, you say:
” The more open discussions of genocide is a recent development even though there is still great resistence to it. Before then it was indeed a taboo subject and discouraged from discussion. There does not need to be a specific law when a more generic law on “insulting Turkishness” can be used.”
That is true of course. I personally do not see why and how I should be insulted no more than Italians should be insulted if reminded and apology demanded for feeding early Chrisitians (your ancestors?) to the lions, but poeple have different sensitivities and definitions of national dignity. What offends me the most is the blatant distortion and abuse of facts and figures.
” The change has come mostly because of Turkey’s persuit of EU membership and also thanks to Hrant Dink’s courageous public efforts for dialogue. ”
Partly true, there have been numerous other Turkish intellectuals who have braved the currents and sentiments. Most important factor though has been the gradual recovery of national self-confidence and Turkey moving beyond a cold-war frontier state status. From a country who had to beg Luxemburg for a $1M loan, where 30 people (stdents, professors, writers..) were killed in an average day, now Turkey is in G20. You have no idea what it does to a national psyche. EU, has actually slowed this process with the way they have handled Turkish accession, Cyprus, Bosnia, etc.. Structural improvements and reforms are not to be confused with this.
“There has indeed been a brainwashing in Turkey thanks to the government’s policies on what gets taught in the schools. Armenians are characterised as backstabers and foreigners.”
Frankly, I have no recollection of this topic ever being covered in my history textbooks. Recent history has in general been poorly covered anyway. Armenian tragedy was simply a big footnote, buried under the general heading “minority” problems and how it was exploited by the colonial powers. Even you have to admit, there is much truth in it. Most of the brainwashing concerned Ataturk of course, and I mean this in a positive way.
“There is an official historical narrative in Turkey that does not add up and more and more are understanding this.”
I do not agree. Much is in the open.
“There were Armenians who volunteered for the Ottoman army after it was opened to minorities. Many Armenians saw themselves as citizens of the empire. But we have also been a people onto ourselves.”
Of course there were patriotic Armenians, Jews and Greeks. My grandfather, an Ottoman officer, had a young Greek officer (doctor) in hic command. When he was taken prisoner by the Greeks in Bursa, his Greek camp de aid helped him escape. There were many non-muslim soldiers who fell in Gallipoli wearing the Ottoman uniform. There were some, but not many, Armenians who were heart broken to see their Istanbul under the boots of Allied soldiers. Some contributed their efforts and money to help the Kemalists. A street is named after one such patriot in Bakirkoy I think.
Vatan is where home is after all.
Karekein, you say:
“The truth is that these people were not ethnically Turkish…they may have assumed a Turkish character, as many people did under Ottoman rule, as a way of blending into the system, but that very system did not see them as Turks, and moreover, their connection to Islam was also suspect.”
You are stuck deep in this ethno-centric explanations, and nationalistic “narrative” as a certain Efendi would say…
Ottomans were a dynasty, why is this so complicated? Like Romanovs and Habsburgs… nationalism was the poison of any empire, Turkish or Greek or Armenian did not matter. Ataturk had to fight Sultan’s army before he fought Greeks. Ottoman elite came from all backgrounds. It was pure meritocracy. It explains much of its early success and longevity for so many centuries.
I am frankly not interested in assigning guilt and judging. I do not feel qualified. Truth matters more. I mean there are people who still want “their” Constantinoupolis back, Serbs set up rape camps to avenge the Battle of Mohac which took place seven centuries ago, and some here wait and pray for a Greater Armenia! Most Turks do not get it, and they should not need to.
Hello Murat,
Yes, I understand that the Ottomans were a dynasty, but the Young Turks and certainly not the members of the CUP had anything to do with that dynasty. They were a group apart, in many ways. My reason for discussing this is not to make it an ethnocentric issue, but to show that it was not the Turkish people who were responsible for the deportations and genocide, but this shady group of characters. For this reason, they should separate themselves from their actions, especially if Turkey wants to divest itself of this burden in a mature way. I agree that this was the past, that things need to move forward and that a reconciliation is absolutely necessary, but instead of defending this group of criminals, Turkey should separate itself from them. Sadly, due to its republican and Kemalist legacy, Turkey has had a very tough time accepting or acknowledging its Ottoman past in the proper way. Let’s face it, other than a few scholars, hardly anybody in Turkey today can read any of the Osmanli inscriptions that are on its historic buildings, let alone any of the texts and documents associated with that period. This is a sad commentary on 20th C. Turkey and contributes to the disconnect with its past.
Several Bosnian survivors of Srebrenica demand justice for the genocide in front of the UN court at The Hague and every media outlet and their subsidiary covers the story. When Armenians worldwide hold protests demanding justice for the genocide it gets scant coverage if that.
The familiar shades of so called justice we know so well…
Excellent Dave..
G
Karekin,
You point is well taken, but history has already condemned Talats and Envers and Cemal Pasa (least politician of all, whose 4th Army actually fed and settled Armenian refugees in Lebanon and Syria despite a crippling drought, locust, famine, disease and overcrowding. Conditions were made worse when the Allies blocked all food shipments and help in the region. Ironic, eh?) and they have paid a price.
Believe me , if it were possible to go back to that time, before Armenians, Turks would be at their throats for dragging the country into that awful war. They are never mentioned in a positive light in Turkey. I am not that harsh on them personally. Enver was not given much of a choice by the British. Another topic. In any case, there is politics too. The young republic had to badmouth the old regime to strengthen its legitimacy. All regimes do that.
Turkish national myth requires a complete rejection of the Ottoman culture, including Islam. That was the only way Ataturk could start a new regime and republic, and a new nation, or so he thought. A look at Middle East today makes me think he was right. Yes, much is thrown out and explains some of the identity crisis in the country. Ottomans left behind a lot more than Turks acknowledge, including many of the institutions that enabled the Republic. Ataturk was an Ottoman officer first people tend to forget. As certain topics become less taboo, some of these facts are now investigated and interpreted in a different light finally. Reason for the neo-Ottomanism we hear so often lately. I am not sure though what exactly you mean with discontent with the past.
Murat,
My ancestors may have been fed to the lions but not necessarily as christians but by way of prisoners of war from Roman campaigns into Armenia. I don’t think I need an apology from you since you weren’t there in 1915. Your understanding is what I would much prefer but I don’t believe you understand yet. There has been quite a bit of distortion by the Turkish governtment over the decades. It’s easy to do when you’ve won militarily, govern a decent chunk of land and other major powers are willing to hush up to have you as an ally, a customer of weapons and a host for their bases.
Yes there have been quite a few Turkish intellectuals who have spoken up rather bravely and their contribution is very important. I have heard at least two speak when he came to the US for a conference. But they are not large in numbers. Hrant being Armenian did get quite a bit of attention and also because he tried to directly engage the rest of the country through his newspaper. I’m curious, what did Hrant mean to you given the things he spoke of and stood up for.
What I see in Turkey is a pride, nationalism, superiority complex, inferirority complex and a bit of victimhood all wrapped into one. You can see this in a billion Indians as well. Armenians don’t need to be in the G20 to feel the same thing. We humans are such contractory animals.
Another aspect of the psychology that plays a major part in Turkey is when you’ve been at the top for so long, you can only go down and this fear can be very strong. This was definitely coming into play leading up to WWI when the empire was in decline and former subjects no longer wanted to be under Ottoman rule. Over the past years we have indeed seen Turkey come into it’s full potential of demographics, economics and geography. Before then was fear and insecurity of national cohesion, and minorities in Turkey were always suspect. This has not gone away yet. Armenian private schools in Istanbul would not dare teach *any* Armenian history given how closely the state keeps an eye on them (at least the last time I checked).
The seriousness of exploitation of Ottoman Armenians against the empire is the backstabbing characterization I’m talking about. Given that this is used as a justification for the deportations, how extensive and serious was this threat when 100s of thousands of Armenians were so easily marched into the deserts like sheep?
Realist,
You have to admit, the trial of a real life war criminal is much more exciting news. I think people are watching to see if he’ll croak before the trial concludes, just as it happened to Millasovich.
Karekin,
Interestingly there are some Armenians in the diaspora who still speak (maybe even read) old Ottoman Turkish because it was passed down through the family.
Random Armenian….you are probably correct. There was alot of Turkish spoken in my grandparent’s house, as my great-grandmother spoke no Armenian at all and there were books printed w/ Armenian characters but when read, were actually Turkish in language. With 900 years of co-existence and cultural cross breeding, it is inevitable.
Murat: I understand what you’re saying, but I guess the question remains – if, as you say, the CUP triumverate is not viewed all that kindly by history, what about Turkey? Why at this point would anyone want to defend their actions or the outcomes of their actions? I mean, they pushed Turkey into a disasterous war, bankrupted the country on many levels and in many ways, pursued a divide & conquer strategy that ruined Turkey and set it back for a very long time. I think the reality is that for Armenians, something as simple as an apology would go a very long way to helping bridge this gap, which seems insurmountable, but really isn’t.
Random you say,
There has been quite a bit of distortion by the Turkish governtment over the decades. It’s easy to do when you’ve won militarily, govern a decent chunk of land and other major powers are willing to hush up to have you as an ally, a customer of weapons and a host for their bases.
Sure Turks have tried for the most part to put on their nationalistic spin, but the basic facts of the matter are rather clear still, in my mind any way.
Does not Armenia own its chunk of land? Just imagine how different things could be if Armenia then had accepted the hand Turkey extended then instead of turning into a Russian protectorate. I understand it may have been impossible to keep the bear out . Being a cold war frontier nation was not so enviable for Turks either, it set back politics, economy and democracy for decades.
“I’m curious, what did Hrant mean to you given the things he spoke of and stood up for.”
Millions walked in protest. I was not there but many in my circle were. It was a tragedy and a huge loss. I have personal friends who knew him well. He was way too ahead of many Armenians and Turks. He stood against hate politics above all.
“..when you’ve been at the top for so long, you can only go down and this fear can be very strong. This was definitely coming into play leading up to WWI when the empire was in decline and former subjects no longer wanted to be under Ottoman rule.”
I asure you, last century of the Empire was nothing but a long trail of humiliation, war, death, pain and suffering for the Ottomans. It was the sick man of Europe. There was no sense of “being on top” left.
Of course nations wanted indepenedence. Time of the empires and living side by side was gone. Problem with the Ottomans was that they were not really colonialists. They were not spread out for economic gains alone like Spanish or British or Dutch. They actually settled and became part of the populations. When a Balkan nation became independent, it was not just the Ottoman governor and the Defterdar who had to pack and leave… millions of Turkish and Muslim residents also had to be uprooted.
This was somewhat feasible in the periphery of the Empire where Turks were not a majority or a thin one. But when it came to the heartland, we are now talking about the physical living space, only one left, for the Turks. There was no other place to go and run, and it is not as if there were other nations opening their arms to the Muslim masses. That was the fundemental problem with Armenian national aspirations and the problem today with Kurdish nationalists.
How do you fit two nations into a single nation-state? You dont.
The historical record is full of pain, as Murat explains, but please, can someone take a moment to realize that from the Turkish point of view, they were the rulers…the ultimate authority in Anatolia and Armenia, for almost a thousand years. Yes, they ran an empire, on the backs of their subject peoples and with their sweat, strength, intelligence, skills and tax money. Of course there were great accomplishments, it wasn’t all bad, but…let’s face it…you don’t earn or operate an empire by being nice guys. For every Sinan, there were tens of thousands of toiling, uneducated peasants across Anatolia. On the good side, the Turkish umbrella provided a measure of safety for the Armenian masses…pay your taxes, be left largely alone. That was fine, of course, until the empire started sputtering into less favorable economic times and costly, unnecessary wars. Everyone paid the price of course, but let’s face it, no one paid as dearly as the Armenian people…for a demise they could only watch unfold, as they were not the masters of the crumbling empire and were unconnected to the sultans who spiraled into madness every now and again. Unfortunately, having already lost the Balkans and other parts of the empire, the Turks were left w/ very few scapegoats at the end, and the Armenians held the golden egg…the heart of Anatolia. And, instead of sharing it, certain circles decided it would be best to kill the native inhabitants – those who paid their taxes for a thousand years to build the empire…and steal it. So ok…it’s done, but don’t act like this was a noble act….it reminds me of Americans who still brag about decimating the native American ‘savages’… which represents very old, racists, supremacist and outdated thinking. Start treating Armenians as human beings…rather than as your lowly subjects….because, by the way, your empires are long….once you can incorporate that change in attitude perhaps your behaviors will modify as well.
Karekin,
I agree with almost all of the above. Except a few points:
Armenians never “had” Anatolia, there was not a single vilayet or city where they were a majority. Even at Van, where they were close to a majority, they were not a majority. An Armenia that was to stretch from Caucuses to Adana would have meant ethnic cleaning or worse of millions of Turks and Kurds.
Armenians were never the lowly subjects, toiling and sweating for the sake of the ruling class of Ottomans. They were, especially in the West, part of the ruling elite. They were the merchants, industrialists, professioonals and artisans. Many loacal governments were staffed and led by Armenians, they were in the Ottoman parliament (out of proportion to their numbers) and in the higher echolons of the Ottoman satate. It was the Turkish and Kurdish peasants who provided the fodder for the empire. Maybe it helps you to think of Armenians as impoverished masses, and lowly subjects brutalized by Ottomans, but it was the opposite.
Last years of Ottomans were not the times of feeling superiority. In all their writings and memoires, all Ottoman intellectuals, and statesman, including Ataturk, they describe bitterly the decay around them, sense of loss, the humiliation of being pushed around and manipulated by the Great Powers and even their own minorities. There was resentment of course but I would like someone to point at a racist and hateful manifesto or a Turkish Hitler.
I am not trying to whitewash bad policies or actions, but there is a context for all this, with very little parallels to what happened to the Jews of Europe.
In my opinion for example, Turkish Republic has real stains on its record, truly immoral policies and events, such as the treatment of minorities and what happened to the remaining Greeeks of Istanbul during 50s, for which it should apologize profusely and make reperations. These are truly responsibilities of the current regime. Erdogan has made some statements, public is sympathetic, but a lot more neeeds to be done while some of the people who suffered are still alive.
“Ulimately I am of Anatolia Stock, not Caucasian” is an ignorant and uneducated comment for someone claiming to have a grasp of history of the region.
–
I for one claim Armenia as part of my ancestral right of a homeland. Apparently the “my village your village” primitivism and provincialism has managed to creep into the “minds” of some here.
–
Paruyr Sevak warned us against this, and he was ignored by some “minds” up above. I would wager that few here have delved into the Soviet Armenian’s more honest and enlightened conceptuatlizations of what it means to be a nationalist Armenian. Sevak exemplified what it meant to be a nationalist Armenian who embraced all Armenians as his own and all historical and currently Armenian controlled territory as his homeland. Not merely in poetry, but also in critical prose he dealt with this issue.
–
Thus, the esoteric nonsense about “Turkishness and Armeniannes” above not only means nothing to the Armenian nationalist, but it is in fact a tool to discredit the desire to maintain statehood.
–
One simple factoid to the ignoramous commentary of “Anatolian versus Caucasian:” The majority of Armenians living in the current Republic, the Caucasus remnant of the historic Armenian state, have originated from the Ottoman controlled portion. My wife is from a family who migrated to the Armavir region in the 1890s from the Shadakh region of Van. My family is originally from Aynteb (originally from Ani/Akhurian), and quite frankly our cultural identities are one and the same: We are Armenians with the same cultural trimmings and traditions. We are from a primordial culture in relative terms compared to the articial “civic identities” trumpled about above, and we are well aware of this.
–
The pluralist fascism described above as some “civic identity” concoction is merely a rehashing of an Ottoman pluralist thecracy in the making. We are pretending to witness the ascendence of an “enlightened era of Turkish wesrternization,” but the tell tale signs are that Turkish medievalism is on the re-ascendency instead. Hrant Dink was a loss for Armenians, not Turks nor Turkey, although Dink himself did not realize this perhaps to his death.
–
If the “Turkish nationalist of Armenian background” is who I think he is, then I can verify that he was proven to be a non-Armenian posthumously. It is however irrelevant. Some ignoramous who thinks of himself as a “Turkish citizen” or even an inherited “Ottoman citizen” is of no consequence. You would have to be quite unconscious to forget that “Ottoman citizen” is a non-entity in an empire of conquered subjects.
Murat is the classic propagandist. The vast majority of Armenians – who were not townsfolk but peasantry, were assimilated forcefully with overwhelming and crippling taxation laws, non-representation in the court system, constant sanctioned violence and looting. The “minority status” is a direct result of this constant and systenmaticaly de-Armenization of historic Armenia. There are more than enough documentation to prove this, but one highlighted set of events revolves around the Ottoman/Safavid conflict and the Jalalin rebellions, a period during which the Armenian populations were specifically targeted and systematically subjected to poverty levels that even precipitated cannibalism. I refer to the detailed narratives of Turkish language and Armenian language sources of this period in the latter half of the 16th and eartly 17th centuries. In this period alone we saw the systematic decimation of the Armenian identity.
–
Today we see the continuation of this barbarism in the form of toponymic genocide where the Turkish authorities are still engaged in changing place names, geographical references, any remnants that seem Armenian into some artificial Turkish alternative.
–
Murat is so pathetically typical it is not even humorous anymore. Murat would do well to keep silent if he is “well-meaning.”
Very true Hagop.. Very true..
Armenians were never the lowly subjects, toiling and sweating for the sake of the ruling class of Ottomans.
This is nonsense. You may be talking about a handful of elites. But if you read the Armenian literature (of those, for example, taken on April 24, 1915) from before the genocide you will read only of grueling poverty, hardship, despair that nothing will get better, terror (from random killings, disappeared, girls kidnapped and forcibly converted to Islam). This is sheer nonsense, that people became a part of the “Balkanization” when they had it good!!
And Armenian political parties did not only consist of nationalists but also of other who worked together with Turks for a more democratic country overall and were anti-nationalist. They were among the first to be murdered in the genocide.