Mamigonian: Tlön, Turkey, and the Armenian Genocide
By Marc Mamigonian // Posted on June 4, 2012 in Opinion, Special Reports // 320 Comments // 
Email
// 
Print
The Armenian Weekly Magazine
April 2012
“It has allowed them to question and even to modify the past,
which nowadays is no less malleable or obedient than the future.”
—Jorge Luis Borges, ‘Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius’
It has long been clear—at least since 1950 and the publication of Esat Uras’ Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi,2 though, in fact, probably since 1915 itself3—that the Turkish state, with its allies and hirelings,4 has sought to construct an alternative history in which, at various times, the Armenians have either not existed, or existed only as a tool of Western imperialist powers threatening the integrity of Turkey or the Ottoman Empire; a history in which the Armenian Genocide cannot be named independent of the words “alleged” or “so-called.” In this sense, the writing of history has served as a continuation of the genocidal process.
Mainstream journalism and scholarship undertake the work—sometimes knowingly, sometimes unknowingly—of constructing Turkey’s Tlön.
In the past decade, even as a few scholars from Turkey and Turkish citizens have begun to talk and write more openly about their history, including the Armenian Genocide, Ankara, perhaps concerned that it is losing the battle to erase and rewrite history, or, on the contrary, perhaps because it believes that victory is achievable, has raised its efforts to a new level. This article examines some of the ways Turkey creates and disseminates its perversion of history and how its narrative is (unknowingly or knowingly) passed along to mostly uninformed readers, with the end result of skewing the discussion towards a narrative acceptable to Turkey. A comprehensive history and analysis is well beyond the scope of this article and, in fact, calls for a book-length study.
Outside Turkey (and perhaps even inside the country) it is not too well known that there has existed since 2001 an entity called, in Turkish, Asılsız Soykırım ddiaları ile Mücadele Koordinasyon Kurulu (AS MKK) or, in English, the Committee to Coordinate the Struggle with the Baseless Genocide Claims.
According to Jennifer Dixon, a scholar who has researched the development of the official Turkish historical narrative on the “Armenian Question,” the committee is “[c]o-headed by the Foreign Minister and the general who heads the National Security Council” and “also includes high-level representatives from a number of key government ministries and organizations, including the Ministry of the Interior, the Turkish Historical Society and the archives.” Dixon further explains that “it appears that its main goals have been to coordinate and execute a centralized strategy for responding to international pressures on this issue, and to shape public opinion in Turkey and abroad on this issue.”5
Turkey is thus perhaps the only state with an official or semiofficial entity devoted exclusively to events that it maintains did not occur. The committee has not been idle, and the number of publications devoted to refuting the “Baseless Genocide Claims” has increased substantially since 2001.6
On June 10, 2010, Turkey’s state news outlet Anadolu Agency reported that in 2011, the Turkish Historical Society (Türk Tarih Kurumu) would publish a 20-volume encyclopedia that “aims to create the most comprehensive resource on Armenian problem [sic].” Project director Prof. Enis Sahin stated, “When we first started this project, we thought it would be comprised of 5,000-6,000 pages . . . Now it seems to be a set of books of nearly 20 volumes each with 600 or 700 pages. It will become an encyclopedia.”7 Although the encyclopedia has yet to appear, this author is informed that it is still in the works.
The creation of the 20-volume Un-cyclopedia of the Armenian Non-Genocide would likely represent a milestone of sorts in the state’s untiring efforts to negate history. Sahin wrote in 2003:
If Turkey wishes to become a global state or an influential power in its region, it should overcome the difficulties it faces in the Armenian Question just like in each issue and should formulate highly realizable policies in line with its geopolitics and put them in place. These policies should be adopted as imperatives for the country; never should there be any concessions from them… It is evident that Armenian allegations of genocide are a complete deception… There should be an abundant number of works translated into foreign languages supporting the Turkish thesis in libraries and research institutions in these countries.8
Sahin’s statements suggest that his agenda is to support and advance the state’s interests (as represented by its official thesis on the “Armenian Question”) by any means necessary. Such remarks might seem unusual coming from a professor of history, but they are less so when one remembers that the Turkish Historical Society was created in 1931 by Atatürk for the development and dissemination of Turkey’s official, state-generated history.9
A DIGRESSION BY WAY OF BORGES
The Turkish Historical Society’s uncyclopedic undertaking—as a part-for-whole representation of the entire monstrous apparatus dedicated to creating a fake history—strongly calls to mind Jorge Luis Borges’ uncanny, nightmarish ficción “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius.” Not a short story in the usual sense, it is, as the author points out in the foreword to the collection The Garden of Forking Paths (1941) in which it first appeared, an example of what he calls “notes upon imaginary books.”10
It is difficult to summarize a commentary on an imaginary book. The Borgesian narrator describes his dawning awareness of the land called “Uqbar” (which, as coincidence would have it, is supposed to be located near Armenia), which is mentioned in some copies of a certain encyclopaedia. Doubting the very existence of such a place, he reads that “the literature of Uqbar was fantastic in character, and that its epics and legends never referred to reality, but to the two imaginary realms of Mlejnas and Tlön…” (19).
Later, much to his surprise, the narrator encounters one volume of A First Encyclopaedia of Tlön: “clearly stated, coherent, without any apparent dogmatic intention or parodic undertone” (22).
It emerges, finally, that this is all part of a vast intellectual conspiracy born in the 18th century: “A benevolent secret society.. . came together to invent a country. . . [and] in 1914, the society forwarded to its collaborators, three hundred in number, the final volume of the First Encyclopaedia of Tlön. The edition was secret; the forty volumes which comprised it (the work was vaster than any previously undertaken by men) were to be the basis for another work, more detailed, and this time written, not in English, but in some one of the languages of Tlön. That review of an illusory world was called, provisionally, Orbis Tertius11…” (31–32).
This might be the end of the story. Except that in a postscript written seven years later (that is, seven fictional years later), the narrator reveals, with quiet horror, that the “unreality” of Tlön begins to intrude into the “reality” of this world:
Contact with Tlön and the ways of Tlön have disintegrated this world […] Now, the conjectural ‘primitive language’ of Tlön has found its way into the schools. Now, the teaching of its harmonious history, full of stirring episodes, has obliterated the history that dominated my childhood. Now, in all memories, a fictitious past occupies the place of any other. We know nothing about it with any certainty, not even that it is false. Numismatics, pharmacology and archaeology have been revised. I gather that biology and mathematics are also awaiting their avatar. . . . A scattered dynasty of recluses has changed the face of the earth—and their work continues. If our foresight is not mistaken, a hundred years from now someone will discover the hundred volumes of The Second Encyclopaedia of Tlön. Then, English, French, and mere Spanish will disappear from this planet. The world will be Tlön (34–35).
For those who follow closely the historiography of the Armenian Genocide and the simultaneous anti-historiography of the Armenian Non-Genocide, much of this should sound less like fantasy than like grim realism. Because when it comes to the history of the Armenian Genocide, to an alarming extent, we are already living in Tlön.
But how does this process work? How does the unreality of genocide denial enter into and permeate our world? It is not by means of a secret society as in Borges’ fiction. Mainstream journalism and scholarship undertake the work—sometimes knowingly, sometimes unknowingly—of constructing Turkey’s Tlön.
For the purposes of this article, one example must suffice: a work of journalism that swallows whole the idea that the discussion of the Armenian Genocide is a “debate” and the virtual unknowability of what is actually a rather well-documented historic event or series of events. The article by Jack Grove, which appeared last year in the (London) Times Higher Education, “Can We Ever Know the Truth About the Armenian ‘Genocide?’”12 serves as a good case study, as it is almost the apotheosis of a “neutral journalistic”13 approach to the Armenian Genocide that probably unwittingly serves to advance the cause of genocide denial and the dissemination of unreality.
The strategy of denying the Armenian Genocide outright has mostly become the exception rather than the rule. This is not to suggest that what one might call classic, old-school denial14—“There was no Armenian Genocide and besides they deserved it” does not live on. Unfortunately, virulent and blatant denial and victimblaming—unlike analogous Holocaust denial, for instance—is readily available and often is authored by figures associated with one or more of the several Turkish-American groups one of the tasks of which is to import Turkey’s war on historical truth. More than 20 years ago, the pioneering genocide scholar Roger Smith wrote that “[t]he Turkish argument is elaborate and systematic and, though some of its surface details have changed over time, its basic structure has remained one of denial and justification.”15 This is still largely the case today, though one must qualify the phrase “Turkish argument” because not only, of course, is this not an argument made by all Turks, but also because denial and justification of the Armenian Genocide are not limited to Turks.16
Overall, since Smith wrote his important essay, the language and the content of Turkey’s denial have evolved,17 and this evolution has had its impact on the kind of genocide denial that the average person might encounter. The blunt instrument of old-school denial has been honed into a more precise dagger. In the U.S. and Europe, in particular, in order to advance its agenda of spreading mistruth, denial exploits cherished ideals such as freedom of speech and the belief that there must always be two sides to each story.
Instead of confronting the genocide head-on, deniers play upon widespread ignorance of the subject and seek to create doubt. By reframing well-documented history as a “controversy” with at least two legitimate “sides,” they engage in spurious, circular debates with the goal of indefinitely deferring genocide recognition and its consequences. Prof. Taner Akçam has formulated it well: “we can observe that on the subject of the Armenian Genocide, the Turkish government and entities that support its positions follow a very systematic and aggressive policy in the U.S. The essence of this policy is to make the idea that ‘1915 was not genocide’ be accepted as normal and as equivalent to the idea that ‘1915 was genocide.’”18 Consequently, if both “it was genocide” and “it was not genocide” are equally acceptable positions, then of course there can be no such thing as “genocide denial.”
This policy is being pursued in at least two related ways. The first is a campaign of legal intimidation. Examples include the failed effort in Massachusetts to sue the Commonwealth’s Board of Education for not including denial-supporting materials in its curriculum on genocide19 and the thus far dead-on-arrival defamation suit against the University of Minnesota and its Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies for identifying the Turkish Coalition of America’s website as one of many “unreliable” sources.20 This tactic seems intended to produce “a chilling effect on the ability of scholars and academic institutions to carry out their work freely.”21
Even when such lawsuits fail, they not only serve to intimidate scholars but also to advance the idea that the subject of the Armenian Genocide is inherently controversial and disputed, thus helping to re-frame the discussion in terms congenial to the agenda of new-style genocide denial. In competitive sports this is known as “working the refs.” If a coach complains constantly about penalties on his team, the beleaguered referee may unconsciously start balancing things out, if only to stop the complaints.
But, of course, the complaints never stop. Another form of this tactic is on display nearly every time a journalist writes anything about the Armenian Genocide and letters, emails, and phone calls follow from Turkish officials or domestic pressure groups, to say nothing of government and business entities seeking to assist a valued ally regarding a “sensitive” matter.22 It is understandable, though not excusable, that press outlets alter their coverage in a more “balanced” way that they think will make these complaints stop or will safeguard them against legal attacks.
Denial of the Armenian Genocide is only to be expected from advocates of Turkish state interests. More pernicious, arguably, is the conscious or unconscious adoption of denialist themes and rhetorical framing by academics and mainstream journalists. These issues of language and framing are familiar to anyone who follows media coverage of the Armenian Genocide. One is accustomed, when reading the arguments of advocates for the official Turkish position, to encounter leading questions, euphemisms, distortions, and false equivalences, all geared towards a certain “spin.” Denialist phrasing includes such old chestnuts as “so-called Armenian genocide,” “alleged massacres,” “Armenian relocation,” “civil war,” and “necessary wartime security measure.” It should be noted that this maximalist form of denial has been, if not replaced, then augmented by an ostensibly humane approach that takes note of Armenian suffering, even acknowledging massacres, but invariably stresses that the First World War was a time of great general suffering and that in no way was there a deliberate effort to eliminate the Armenians.
Sometimes the maximalist approach and the quasi-humane approach rest cheek by jowl within the same article. For example, Turkish Coalition of America “resident scholar” Bruce Fein’s “Lies, Damn Lies, and Armenian Deaths” allows that “Armenians have a genuine tale of woe” but states that they have concocted an exaggerated number of deaths during the non-genocide to make a more convincing case as they seek “a ‘pound of flesh’ from the Republic of Turkey,” an eyebrow-raising comparison of Armenians to Shakespeare’s Shylock.23
One is accustomed, too, to the “he said/she said” treatment of the Armenian Genocide that has become the most frequent fallback position for many mainstream news media, particularly when (and this is almost always the case), the writer has no background in the subject matter. NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen provides a helpful guide to the hallmarks of he said/she said reporting:
—There’s a public dispute.
—The dispute makes news.
—No real attempt is made to assess clashing truth claims in the story, even though they are in some sense the reason for the story. (Under the “conflict makes news” test.)
—The means for assessment do exist, so it’s possible to exert a factual check on some of the claims, but for whatever reason the report declines to make use of them.
—The symmetry of two sides making opposite claims puts the reporter in the middle between polarized extremes.24
The effort to get influential mainstream newspapers such as the Boston Globe and New York Times to stop mandating such inane formulations as, “Armenians claim that as many as 1.5 million….” whereas “Turkey states that Armenians and a larger number of Turks and Muslims died as a result of wartime conditions…” met with success despite the deeply entrenched tendency to engage in false equivalences in the belief that this demonstrates a lack of bias and shows journalistic objectivity.25 As Rosen writes, “Journalists associate the middle with truth, when there may be no reason to…Writing the news so that it lands somewhere near the ‘halfway point between the best and the worst that might be said about someone’ is not a truthtelling impulse at all, but a refuge-seeking one, and it’s possible that this ritual will distort a given story.”26
The problems that Rosen identifies as endemic to he said/she said journalism are on display in Grove’s article “Can We Ever Know the Truth About the Armenian ‘Genocide?’” The problems start with the title.
The title is a good example of what is known as a loaded question—a question that is deployed for rhetorical purposes in order to frame the discussion that follows. To choose another example that has more current-day resonance that a journalist might ask innocently: “Which side do you take in the global warming controversy?” Such a question presupposes the existence of a “controversy,” and a controversy presupposes the existence of two or more opinions or sides with a more or less equal claim on truth.
To ask the question “Can We Ever Know the Truth About the Armenian ‘Genocide?’” is to adopt the language of the party that asserts the existence of a controversy in the face of overwhelming evidence—a party that desperately seeks to be recognized as half of a “heated dispute” rather than as a trafficker in fake history.
The quotation marks around “genocide” signal to readers that the word thus enclosed is somehow questionable. We cannot know the writer’s or editor’s motivation for using those scare quotes. If the “controversy” is the news, according to Rosen’s model, perhaps the scare quotes are meant to telegraph journalistic objectivity by positing the existence of a “debate”: i.e., was it a genocide or a “genocide”? They may be read as: “We are not saying it was a genocide, we are not saying it was not a genocide. We are just reporting on a controversy from a neutral position.” Nevertheless, the scare quotes within a loaded rhetorical question support the reading that is most congenial to genocide deniers. Far from staking out an already specious middle position, the scare quotes place Grove and Times Higher Education in apparent alignment with those who, “when not able to silence the question of genocide altogether, [attempt] to sow confusion and doubt among journalists, policy makers, and the general public.”27
The first sentence of the article proper states what appears to be a simple fact: “Few academic subjects are as politically explosive as the dispute over the mass killings in Armenia.” The writer has correctly stated that this is an academic subject with political repercussions. However, instead of proceeding to present an accurate assessment of the academic consensus28 and the reasons for the political controversy, which would clearly require a substantial exploration of the subject, the author follows the path of least resistance and presents “both sides” of the “dispute,” which, misleadingly, becomes located in the academic realm rather than in the political.
The second sentence virtually constitutes a statement of the locus classicus of genocide denial: “Almost 100 years after the alleged atrocities of 1915–16, arguments still rage over whether the deaths of between 600,000 and 1.5 million Armenian civilians constitute genocide.” “Alleged atrocities”: that is to say, even the fact of atrocities, whether as part of the execution of a genocide or not, is called into question. A wide range of estimated deaths reinforces the idea that even after “almost 100 years” we are no nearer to the truth. The already tenuous grip on logic is altogether lost in the sentences that follow. “Most historians agree that Ottoman Turks deported hundreds of thousands of Armenians from eastern Anatolia to the Syrian desert during the First World War, where they were killed or died of starvation and disease.” Actually all historians agree that hundreds of thousands of Armenians were deported from Anatolia to the Syrian desert and that large numbers of them died. Even the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs acknowledges the death of as many as 300,000 Armenians.29 Yet Grove cannot deign to present even this as a firmly established fact.
“But was this a systematic attempt to destroy the Christian Armenian people?” Grove asks, “[o]r was it merely part of the widespread bloodshed—including the deaths of innocent Turkish Muslims—in the collapsing Ottoman empire?”
A false choice is presented here, because the extermination of the Armenians was both a systematic attempt to destroy them—a genocide—as well as part of the overall bloody collapse of the Ottoman Empire during a world war in which many Turks and Muslims also died. Likewise: Was the Holocaust a systematic attempt to destroy the Jewish people? Or was it part of the widespread bloodshed—including the deaths of innocent German civilians—in the war-torn Nazi empire? Clearly it was both. Such false opposition, which masquerades as objectivity in its pretense of emphasizing the tragedy of all loss of life, is a staple of genocide denial—any genocide denial.30
Our suggestion is not that Grove knowingly drew on the rhetorical tools of genocide denial or deliberately trivialized the extermination of the Ottoman Armenians. However, he made no attempt to answer the questions he posed or to provide any factual information that a reader could use to formulate a response. In short, he failed to do his job.
The fog of doubt hovering over the author’s references to the “alleged atrocities” and quote-genocide-unquote obscures other facts as well. Having noted that “Hrant Dink was assassinated by a 17-year-old nationalist in 2007 after criticizing the country’s denialist stance,” he then retreats and states that “[b]efore Dink’s death, such claims had resulted in his being prosecuted for ‘denigrating Turkishness.’ The Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk was also prosecuted for making similar claims.” Claims? Did they make claims or did they make factual statements that brought them into conflict with Turkey’s “denialist stance”? And what, for that matter, is Turkey’s denialist stance? Who formulates it and how is it disseminated? Surely these are questions whose answers a reader of this article would find relevant, but Grove either doesn’t know or doesn’t think this is important enough to share with readers.
The bulk of the story consists of a collection of quotes from “both sides” of the spurious “debate.” Jeremy Salt of Bilkent University takes up the classic “Yes, Armenians died, but…” position, emphasizing “the scale of the catastrophe that overwhelmed the Ottoman Empire.” All peoples of the dying empire suffered and died from “massacre, malnutrition, disease, and exposure. Armenians were the perpetrators as well as the victims of largescale violence…These are the facts that any historian worth his salt will come across,” declares Salt.
Salt’s statements call to mind part of Roger Smith’s enumeration of the rhetorical tropes of Turkish denial in 1989: “Armenians suffered and died, but this was due to wartime conditions and to elements beyond the control of the government—Kurds, criminals, officials who disobeyed orders” but “the number of Turks who died was far greater.”31 Since Grove makes no effort to explore the reliability of Salt’s account, the questions need to be asked: What is the purpose of the article and what is Grove’s responsibility towards his readers?
The comments of Hakan Yavuz of the University of Utah department of political science32 shift the discussion away from history itself and towards a “debate.” He identifies “the Armenian diaspora” as “the key obstacle to advancing the debate over the causes and consequences of the events of 1915.” The diaspora promotes what he calls “the genocide thesis” and works towards “silencing those who question their version” of history.
That is, these are simply two “narratives” of history and neither can be privileged over the other. Such an approach again calls to mind Akçam’s assessment: “The essence of this policy is to make the idea that ‘1915 was not genocide’ be accepted as normal and as equivalent to the idea that ‘1915 was genocide.’”
Yavuz presents another common talking point: “One may conclude that the Armenian diaspora seeks to use the genocide issue as the ‘societal glue’ to keep the community together.” Such a statement deftly avoids addressing what actually occurred historically, and shifts the discussion away from a discussion of facts and toward the realm of identity politics.33
While Salt along with Yavuz handle the role of “he said,” Akçam is forced into “she said.” His presence in the article appears to result not from his authorship of numerous significant books and articles on the Armenian Genocide but because he “told a conference at Glendale Public Library, Arizona [sic, the event took place in Glendale, Calif.], in June that he had been informed by a source in Istanbul, who wished to remain anonymous, that hefty sums have been given to academics willing to counter Armenian genocide claims.”
“Beyond the legal writs, however, the episode has raised questions of whether free historical investigation of the genocide claims can ever take place amid the frenzied Turkish-Armenian political climate,” writes Grove, making use of the doubt-raising term “claims.” Akçam is quoted making no such statement.
Grove writes that Akçam “believes pressure from Ankara has made it impossible for Turks to look into the subject at home.” That assertion is certainly supportable. But the fact that researchers in Turkey feel real pressure not to address the Armenian Genocide does not mean that there is no “free historical investigation of the genocide,” since Akçam is himself engaged in such work—but not inside Turkey.
Giving the impression that such work is impossible suits the purposes of those promoting denial, however, inasmuch as it questions the validity of the large body of scholarship on the Armenian Genocide. Grove’s readers are given no real opportunity to understand the actual state of “historical investigation” or who actually creates obstacles and how. A great many readers will come away from it knowing only of the existence of a somewhat nebulous “debate” that might be historical, might be political, or might be legal, but the true facts of which are either unknowable or not important. Or, in Jay Rosen’s formulation: “No real attempt is made to assess clashing truth claims in the story, even though they are in some sense the reason for the story.”
Words written more than 25 years ago by Richard Hovannisian are perhaps even more applicable today:
As the number of persons who lived through World War I and who have direct knowledge of the events diminishes, the rationalizers and debasers of history become all the more audacious . . . At the time of the deportations and massacres, no reputable publication would have described the genocide as ‘alleged.’ The clouding of the past, however, and the years of Turkish denials, diplomatic and political pressures, and programs of image improvement have had their impact on some publishers, correspondents, scholars, and public officials. In an increasingly skeptical world, the survivors and descendants of the victims have been thrust into a defensive position from which they are required to prove time and again that they have indeed been wronged, individually and collectively.34
The Times Higher Education coverage shows how genocide denial has evolved a more effective model that seeks to establish itself as the legitimate “other side of the story.” A journalist who can write without irony of “the alleged atrocities of 1915–16” clearly has fallen for this tactic. The “competing narratives” approach to the Armenian (scare-quotes please) “genocide” is the wolf of denial in the sheep’s clothing of “objective reporting.” Journalists who fail to see beyond the trap of “reporting the controversy” have effectively ceased to engage in journalism and are merely serving as conduits for genocide denial. Which brings us back to Borges. Each time an “objective, neutral” outlet uncritically passes along the Turkish state’s historical fictions, the world is that much closer to becoming Tlön.
ENDNOTES
1. The author would like to thank Dr. Lou Ann Matossian for many helpful suggestions and comments during the writing of this article.
2. The English translation, The Armenians in History and the Armenian Question, appeared in 1988 with substantial additions and was widely distributed to libraries. Uras, aka Ahmed Esat, was a former Young Turk official and a participant in the organization of the Armenian Genocide. See Hilmar Kaiser, “From Empire to Republic: The Continuities of Turkish Denial,” in Armenian Review 48.3-4 (Fall-Winter 2003), pp. 1–24.
3. Official Ottoman publications were issued concurrently with the genocide in order to offer justification of the process then unfolding. See, for example, The Armenian Aspirations and Revolutionary Movements (Istanbul, 1916; in English, French, and German) with its copious photographs of menacing-looking Dashnaks and Hnchaks and heaps of “confiscated weapons.” Taner Akçam has observed that Talaat Pasha himself “laid the groundwork for the ‘official Turkish version’ of the deportation and killings” at the Union and Progress Party’s final congress in November 1918 (A Shameful Act [New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006] p. 184). For a succinct account of the importance of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in “the consolidation of Turkish denial within official Turkish history” see Fatma Ulgen, “Reading Mustafa Kemal Atatürk on the Armenian Genocide of 1915,” in Patterns of Prejudice 44.4 (2010).
4. As early as 1924, Edward Hale Bierdstadt would assert, “So far as I have been able to ascertain, the direct propaganda in which Turkey indulges is comparatively small…because Turkey has evolved an even better method of concealing truth and spreading untruth. She makes her friends work for her” (The Great Betrayal: A Survey of the Near East Problem [New York: R. M. McBride & Company, 1924], p. 84).
5. Jennifer Dixon, “Defending the Nation? Maintaining Turkey’s Narrative of the Armenian Genocide,” in South European Society and Politics, 15:3, p. 478. Dixon’s 2011 UC Berkeley dissertation, “Changing the State’s Story: Continuity and Change in Official Narratives of Dark Pasts,” is by far the most informative source to date on the production, dissemination, and evolution of Turkey’s official narrative of genocide denial.
6. ibid., pp. 478-479.
7. Original link (no longer operative): www.armenialive.com/armeniannews/ANKARA—Turkish-Historical-Society-launches-project-on-
Armenian-issue. See www.armeniandiaspora.com/showthread.php?244763-ANKARA-Turkish-Historical-Society-launches-project-on-Armenian-issu#.T2yH89m1Vw4.
8. “Armenian Question and Turkey: What Hasn’t Been Done and What Should Be Done?” See http://www.stradigma.com/english/april2003/articles_02.html.
9. Jennifer Dixon describes the Turkish Historical Society as “quasi-official” and a “nominally an independent foundation” whose “publications frequently reproduce and advance official ideologies on a range of topics, including the Armenian question” (“Changing the State’s Story,” p. 77 and p. 56, note 140). See also Fatma Müge Göçek’s observation that “[i]n an attempt to place the blame for the past as well as present violence squarely on the Armenians, the Turkish state then drew upon its retired diplomats and ‘official scholars’ to reconstruct a mythic version of 1915. Through the selective use of archival documentation, the official Turkish Historical Society in particular started to build a large body of literature around the imagined narrative of past events” (The Transformation of Turkey: Redefining State and Society from the Ottoman Empire to the Modern Era [London: I.B. Tauris, 2010], p. 152).
10. Jorge Luis Borges, Ficciones, edited and with an introduction by Anthony Kerrigan (New York: Grove Press, 1962), pp. 15-16. The translation of “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius” is by Alastair Reid. Further citations given in the text parenthetically.
11. Borges’ “Orbis Tertius”(Latin: Third World) is undoubtedly intended to suggest the Nazi Third Reich. Connections between Orbis Tertius and Karl Popper’s World 3 are worth exploring.
12. The article appeared on Sept. 22, 2011. See www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=417484.
13. That is to say, one cannot and should not assume that Grove has any nefarious agenda. On the contrary, it is the very assumption that he is coming to the topic from an “unbiased” perspective that makes the article significant.
14. A very partial list of earlier analyses of the evolution of denial of the Armenian Genocide includes: Rouben Adalian, “The Armenian Genocide: Revisionism and Denial,” in Michael N. Dobkowski and Isidor Wallimann. eds., Genocide in Our Time: An Annotated Bibliography with Analytical Introductions (Ann Arbor. Michigan: Pierian Press, 1992); Roger Smith, “Genocide and Denial: The Armenian Case and Its Implications” (Armenian Review, 42.1 1989) and Richard Hovannisian, “The Critic’s View: Beyond Revisionism” (International Journal of Middle East Studies, 9.3, Oct., 1978); “The Armenian Genocide and Patterns of Denial,” in The Armenian Genocide in Perspective, ed. Richard G. Hovannisian (New Brunswick and Oxford: Transaction Books, 1986); “Denial of the Armenian Genocide in Comparison with Holocaust Denial,” in Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide, ed. Richard G. Hovannisian (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999).
15. Smith, p. 6.
16. Nonetheless, because deniers frame the issue as an argument about (judgment of, accusation of, attack on) Turks, Turkey, or Turkishness—and, hence, increasingly play the “anti-Turkish” or “anti-Muslim” card—as opposed to a matter of historical truth, the “defenders of Turkey” respond by attacking the ethnic/national identity of their opponents. Hence the tu quoque counterassaults on Armenians, Armenia, or Armenianness; Western “colonialists,” “genocidaires,” “religious bigots,” or “racists,” etc.
17. See Dixon, “Changing the State’s Story,” esp. chapters 3-5.
18. As stated in lecture at the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR), May 2011.
19. See Memorandum and Order, C. A. No. 05-12147-MLW, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, June 10, 2009. http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/wolf/pdf/griswold%20opinion%20june%2010%202009.pdf.
20. See http://www.mndaily.com/sites/default/files/Cingilli%20v%20U%20of%20MN.pdf for Judge Donovan W. Frank’s 3/30/11 dismissal of the case. The dismissal has been appealed.
21. The quote is from a Jan. 18, 2011 letter from the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) Committee on Academic Freedom to Turkish Coalition of America President G. Lincoln McCurdy. See http://mesa.arizona.edu/committees/academic-freedom/intervention/lettersnorthamerica.html#US20110118.
22. This is not to say, of course, that individual Armenians and Armenian groups do not also attempt to achieve influence; but the fact is that the Republic of Armenia cannot be compared as a global player to Turkey, nor are Armenians able to draw on the considerable influence of international corporations, ex-government officials, and lobbyists that support Turkey. See, for example, Luke Rosiak, “Defense contractors join Turkish lobbying effort in pursuit of arms deals,” http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/
2009/defense-contractors-join-turkish-lobbying-effort-in-pursuit-of-/. In 2008, Turkey was ranked fifth among foreign governments in total money spent on lobbying activity and first in the number of contacts with members of Congress. See http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/adding-it-top-players-foreign-agent-lobbying/.
23. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/lies-damn-lies-and-armeni_b_211408.html. Fein is also one of the two attorneys at Turkish American Legal Defense Fund, a project of the Turkish Coalition of America.
24 See http://archive.pressthink.org/2009/04/12/hesaid_shesaid.html.
25. See, for example, Christine Chinlund, “Should We Call It a Massacre or a Genocide?” Boston Globe, May 5, 2003. The Globe would announce its change in policy in July 2003.
26. Rosen, “He Said, She Said Journalism.”
27. Smith, p. 18.
28. The repeated statements of unanimous affirmation by the International Association of Genocide Scholars, for instance, go unmentioned.
29. See “Armenian Claims and Historical Facts,” http://www.mfa.gov.tr/data/DISPOLITIKA/ErmeniIddialari/ArmenianClaimsandHistoricalFacts.pdf. This document is part of the Ministry’s treatment of the “Controversy between Turkey and Armenia about the Events of 1915.”
30. See, for example, Richard J. Evans, Lying About Hitler (New York: Basic Books, 2001), for a discussion of David Irving’s willingness to acknowledge large numbers of Jewish deaths but not a systematic policy of genocide.
31. Smith, p. 19.
32. Yavuz is also the director of the Turkish Coalition of America-funded program “The Origins of Modern Ethnic Cleansing: Collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Emergence of Nation States in the Balkans and Caucasus” at the University of Utah. For Utah’s announcement of the program, see http://unews.utah.edu/old/p/031009-1.html. The university’s Middle East Center announced in its June 2009 Newsletter (29.2, p. 11) that “TCA has provided a gift of over $900,000.00 to be used towards research and scholarship.” Online at http://www.humis.utah.edu/humis/docs/organization_302_1249062720.pdf.
33. This does not necessarily mean that the quest for justice for the victims of the genocide and their descendants is not an important force in Armenian Diasporan identity, of course. Obviously one can—and many do—examine the prominence of the genocide in diasporan identity without fostering doubts about the historical facts themselves. See, for example, Anny Bakalian, Armenian-Americans: From Being to Feeling Armenian (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1993).
34. “Patterns of Denial,” p. 131.
Alan
let’s take your suggestion and see what is going to happen. Imagine that Turkey has lodge a case at this court hen the Court also invited Armenia. If Armenia says for some reason i didn’t blame Turkey for anything it may be someone else. What will turkey do? Withdraw its application and look silly ? These are the basic procedures , As you will see here if you reverse it upside down it wont work . If Armenia can afford to invade another a neighbouring country I am sure It can afford to submit a petition to the court. So your reasoning is not valid.
“”Could it be it feared that it would lose the case?”" This sentence shows typical Armenian logic. This question is also not valid. The correct question is Why Armenia is afraid of going to court and employing propaganda tactics ?
{ If Armenia can afford to invade another a neighbouring country}
You are a little confused son: your country, Turkey, invaded a neighboring country, sovereign Republic of Cyprus. Your invading military still occupies about 40% of Cyprus.
Armenia has invaded no country.
NKR declared Independence, as per USSR law, Azerbaijan invaded NKR.
NKR threw out the invaders and liberated historic Armenian lands.
And talking about invading: look up what your FM Davutoglu said in 2010 when he was visiting Uygurs of China. (Hint: he did NOT say “we are visiting the homeland of Armenians’ ancestors”).
Your ancestors, Seljuk Turks, invaded the Armenian Highlands.
Turkic Tatar tibes invaded South Caucasus, including historic Armenian lands East of present day Artsakh (Lowlands Karabagh).
Armenians indigenous; Turkic tribes invaders.
Armenians indigenous; Turkic tribes invaders.
Armenians indigenous; Turkic tribes invaders.
Keep repeating: it will eventually register in your Denialist Turk mind, John the Turk.
RVDV
I think that it not that important whether people in Azerbaijan are Turkish descent or not . What is important is they think that they are Turkish. Armenians for some reason try to prove that they are not Turkish. this looks silly same as some people in Turkey say that you Kurds are actually Turkish but you do not know this reality. I think you are studying history. Once upon a time all Turkish people in Turkey had alawi belief but the Sunni belief dominates Turkey now. There is no research to understand how this happened . If you know anything about it please provide reference.this may be something you may be interested in
Until about the 1453, there were other Turkish/Turkic Muslim groups opposed to the Ottoman sunni Islam. One group, the Bektasi, stayed in Anatolia after the Ottomans clearly had control, the other, the Safaviyya (founded by Kurds) left Turkey and later conquered Iran- Safavid dynasty. All Alevism is, is a mix of Shia Islam and shamanistic/spiritual beliefs, of course many in Turkey are too stupid and brainwashed to see this (seeing and many of the Sunni Muslims in Turkey are poor Muslims themselves).
Regarding the first part of your post I agree. Many here say there are many hidden Armenians in Turkey and that many nationalist Turks probably have Armenian ancestors. Well I’m guessing this works both ways, and that some Armenian nationalists likewise have Turkish ancestors. At least make sure you’re not related to the people you hate
.
“I think that it not that important whether people in Azerbaijan are Turkish descent or not . What is important is they think that they are Turkish.”
Yeah, I agree. I’m not Turkish but I feel like a Turk and say I am one, so yeah, I guess you’re right there.
“Armenians for some reason try to prove that they are not Turkish. this looks silly…”
john the turk,
I wonder where you got that ridiculous information. Pretty much every Armenian I have ever known, including myself, has referred to Azeris as Turks. I remember since my childhood that we simply called them Turks. In fact, “Azeri” is quite a new term for me. What is an Azeri? Just a made-up name, since there was was no such country on the world’s maps throughout history. About twenty years ago very few Azeris spoke English, and very few in the world had heard of them. There was no such nation known to the mankind until very recently. I am not even sure there was a word “Azeri” in English back then. Since the breakup of the USSR, they started identifying themselves as Azeris.
In fact, there was an Azeri on these pages by name Rashid, I believe, who not too long ago was trying to prove that “Azeris” are not original Turks but Turkified locals. Maybe you are mistaking him for an Armenian. At least one Armenian argued in response that he was a Turk and did not originate in the region.
I consider them Turks, you can have them, they are all yours.
“Many here say there are many hidden Armenians in Turkey and that many nationalist Turks probably have Armenian ancestors. Well I’m guessing this works both ways, and that some Armenian nationalists likewise have Turkish ancestors.”
RVDV,
While I do not exclude that some Armenians may have a fraction of Turkish ancestry, it does not at all work both ways, as you are trying to describe it. Armenians and any other ethnicity living under the Turkish yolk never wanted to be mixed with Turks. It occured through rape, kidnapping, and forced Turkification of representatives of other ethnic groups by Turks. This kind of barbaric and violent behavior was not practiced by other ethnic groups towards Turks. There was no systematic process of “turning” Turks into Armenians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Assyrians or others.
As for hidden Armenians, yes, there are many hidden Armenians in Turkey who do not identify themselves as Armenians out of fear, even though they know the truth. There are no hidden Turks in Armenia or anywhere else.
I just noticed that I have misspelled “yoke” as “yolk.” Sorry. I guess, it was clear what I meant.
Gina: I think you forget that in 1918 Azerbaijan became the first democratic secular Muslim country in the world. After that, they became the Azerbaijan SSR until 1991. I’m pretty sure the English language had a word for them before the break up of the USSR.
If you’d like to know what an Azeri is, there, of course, is a Wikipedia page devoted to the exact subject. Approach it with an open mind, I was very surprised at some of the facts presented.
Also, it is irrelevant if the Armenian people didn’t want to mix with Turks. It happened, many times through the ways you have said, sometimes in other ways. So just as many Turks have Armenian blood, to a lesser extent, it is reasonable to conclude the opposite as well.
Re: “hidden” Armenians in Turkey, I don’t know what you’ve been told about 2012 Turkey, but Armenians are no longer undesirable no.1. There are Armenian celebrities- like Hayko Cepkin, there isn’t a Hrant Dink case every other Tuesday. The attention has been shifted to Kurds and Alevis- you’re good, no worries.
John the turk,
“Armenians for some reason try to prove that they are not Turkish. this looks silly…”
There is nothing to prove. Armenians are not related to central Asian people in any way. You Turks are Central Asian people.
RVDV,
I did say that I do not exclude that some Armenians may have a fraction if Turkish ancestry. However, it is by far smaller than what Turks “have taken” from many ethnic groups, including Armenians, forcibly and violently. After all, Turks are the ones who look dramatically different than what they used to, not others.
Claiming that it works both ways is not only illegitimate but very offensive to peoples who had to endure the barbaric methods of involuntary assimilation imposed on them by the loathed conquerers.
So no, it does not work both ways.
“…in 1918 Azerbaijan became the first democratic secular Muslim country in the world.”
Let me enlighten you, although, I believe, you know it better than I do. Azerbaijan existed long before that as province in Iran. That’s what the term in English was for. It was stolen by this new country that you are talking about. What was the contents of it? Turks that started calling themselves Azerbaijanis.
To go back to my original point, and in order to hopefully make it clearer. Mamigonian writes:
NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen provides a helpful guide to the hallmarks of he said/she said reporting:
—There’s a public dispute.
—The dispute makes news.
—No real attempt is made to assess clashing truth claims in the story, even though they are in some sense the reason for the story. (Under the “conflict makes news” test.)
—The means for assessment do exist, so it’s possible to exert a factual check on some of the claims, but for whatever reason the report declines to make use of them.
—The symmetry of two sides making opposite claims puts the reporter in the middle between polarized extremes.24
unquote.
Of course Mamigonian is absolutely right in pointing to this predicament. One might enlarge on it and ask why certain controversies are described in this way and others not. Because i believe that not all are.
two points:
- when I say that Mamigonian engages in “tlønism” it is because he does not put the actual need to argue at the center of his description. In this way he ends up like those who simply claim that the AG has been proven once and for all, and want no “further discussion”-nonsense.
-at least in norway, the so called “Neutral Reporting” started because the public heard – mainly from me – objections to the standard received version, replete with the Andonian papers and the strange mixture of historical, general moral, and legal arguments presented – along with the refusal to discuss with “deniers” – in the “genocide” narrative. The “Armenian cause” was actually very vulnerable to objections. I was frightened by the ease by which I made the Norwegian genocide scholars look amateurish.
Ragnar, you say:
” ….when I say that Mamigonian engages in “tlønism” it is because he does not put the actual need to argue at the center of his description.”…
The opposite of “Tlonism” is not necessarily the centrality of any ‘need’ to argue, although one can use arguing, as just one *tool*, to expose Tlonism, as Mamigonian does here.
Tlonism is the ‘inventing’ of something and promoting it until it seems as if it actually took place. It is not the “negation of arguing.” On the contrary, it can engage in a lot of seemingly rational arguing, such as the official Turkish narrative or, for that matter, the examples from Grove’s article cited above..
So, no, one can not conclude from this article that Mamigonian engages in Tlonism – nor, for that matter, that he does not respect the value of intelligent arguing.
Tanya,
in a way I agree with you because my point was inaccurately formulated. Let me try again. Mamigonian notes that in the “he says/she says” journalism “No real attempt is made to assess clashing truth claims”. Unquote. So of course he acknowledges the value of intelligent arguing. The question is rather where we get by reading his article, whether it helps us to go on. One possible way to end his article would have been to speak about the possible antidotes to this predicament. To my mind the antidote has to do with intelligent arguing. I TRY to do intelligent arguing by repeatedly pointing to the clusters of facts that support the genocide thesis, and on the other hand those who go against it. Both exist to my mind. – But at this point in many people and very much so in many Armenians a kind if conviction enters the scene and blocks the impulse to argue. The conviction that “all importan points have been proved” – enters on the scene, and one leaves the strategy of arguments and goes on to “diagnosis of the Other” and rhetorical assertions that “what I say is proved by research long ago”. Continued requests for arguments are seen as “inducing doubt”. The failure of Mamigonian not to stress that one must go on arguing in detail puts his very perceptive article in the “Diagnosis Category”, unfortunately. It is a piece of diagnostics, and we have enought of that. It does not bring us forward. — This is a matter of what one EMPHASIZES as the bottom line in one’s message. Only heightened scholarly quality of the debate can solve the question. So in this sense I feel that you do not appreciate my main intended point in the above, but I agree it was not clearly put by me . I hope this was clearer.
Mr. Naess,
You must worship argumentation in believing that truth will come out and people will be persuaded and made to see the light. It must be obvious to you if you read the papers that arguments seldom if ever change minds already fixed. Each additional new piece of evidence is countered with fresh or stale arguments showing doubt and arguing the opposite. When, even current events remain subject to argument when pictures and eye witness accounts are presented, what chance has a horrendous massacre of almost a century ago? Do arguments persuade anyone to change one’s mind? People are ruled by their passions not their brains. Look at the present comments. Do you see anything other than knee jerk reactions and elaborations of preconceived opinions fired by the categorical imperative that my country does no wrong, despite all too clear crimes committed against minorities by the Turkish State continuing even today? Is it some form of infatuation, a wish to appear in print that moves us?
Mr. Mamigonian’s article has drawn close to 100 comments, all leading to nowhere, including mine. Not one mind has been changed. Don’t for a moment believe that when two people argue there positions are brought closer together because of it. On the contrary it further reinforces their opposition
In my opinion the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the Turks will take place by the decree of the Turkish State and only when the recognition costs nothing. Then it can be delegated to the footnotes of the official history texts to further burden the poor pupils’ memories along with other cruelties of the ancient past.
Ragnar,
Thank you for your reply.
If you do not find the article in question intellectually up to par with a particular set of standards, or that “It does not bring us forward” for whatever reason, that is certainly your prerogative. (Personally, I think Mamigonian’s ‘diagnostic’ piece can be very helpful in enlightening some audiences not closely familiar with the issue — but of course you don’t have to agree with my assessment.)
Your criticism originally, however, was not that the piece is not intellectually satisfying. Rather, it was that the author was engaging in “Tlonism”. THat is the accusation for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
It is clear that you do not approve of “some”! Armenians who don’t want to argue “at all” about any genocide. That, too, is your prerogative. However, it is not “objective” to then “assume” that Mamigonian is one of those Armenians simply because his essay omits to include an emphasis on what YOu happen to value most.
Just because some Armenians don’t want to argue (for whatever reason) does not mean that every “Armenian” whose essays are worth reading has to include in each essay an emphasis on “the need to argue” — just to prove that s/he is not like “those other” Armenians. Nor is there a requirement that every essay on the subject worth reading ‘has to take the matter forward’ — and forward according to whose judgment, in the first place?
I think you are jumping to conclusions based on a generalized view of “Armenians” as you see them. I also find that claiming the author is engaging in “Tlonism” – your original accusation – is an unfair assessment.
regards,
tanya
Ragnar, I’m with Tanya on this.
Erecting altars to argument is one form of ‘Tlonism’.
We can argue over the location of the tailor shop in Tlon, but the emperor of Tlon will still have on no clothes.
boyajian
you answer is entertaining, but I am not sure I follow you. If I try to give your post a charitable interpretation you want to say that we move forward also by other types of efforts than mere argumentation. If that is what you mean I agree. but on the other hand that is no answer to my charge that the tendency to produce diagnosis of the Other is exaggerated here in AW
Alan Cartwright
your answer is interesting, and it is the most paradoxical aspect I have seen when adressing this issue. Also at the WATS-listserve I met professors who uttered this kind of pessimistic views regarding the possibility of reaching conclusions and results by rational means. the paradox is 1) that people who themselves argue a lot formulate this pessimistic view – your post above is replete with implicit arguments, 2) how will you relate to the fact that George Bush invaded Iraq allegedly based on solid knowledge that weapons of mass production were being produced, but that later almost everybody believes that they did not produce such weapons. Is that change in attitude an effect of changes in solar spots, or psychological whims, or is it a result of arguments based on documentational work? Has argumentation based on fact no effect at all according to your view? — No. I believe I have very good reason to emphasize lack of rational dialogue and rational argumentation as an important factor in most controversies where an important part is a disagreement on factual circumstances (what happened?)
Tanya,
I never said anything about “all Armenians”. And of course the same criticism applied to the majority of the Turkish inputs to the issue. I speak about a troublesome aspect of the debates here in the AW. And I disagree with you regarding Mamigonian’s article. To me it is a familiar case of the diagnosis of people who hold the opposite view, only clad in more sophistiicated clothes than the usual “he is on the Turkish payroll”. But it has the merit that Mamigonian emphasizes that absence of “assessment of truth value” is a problem. And the need to assess truth values, which opens for standard scholarly argumentation, is EXACTLY my point! It is there in Mamigonian’s article, fairly hidden, but should be emphasized more. I think this is obvious to many onlookers, but difficult if one is intoxicated with the need to be “on this side, and not on the Other side” in a disagreement.
Mr. Naess,
We have reached a meta-argument position (i.e arguing about argumentation). Which is a valid philosophical issue. I wish to emphasize that I do not fault the search for facts. Albeit I am suspicious that the Ottoman archives may be corrupted based on the selling of 50 tons of archival material to the Bulgarians.
I also do not fault scholarly articles like that of Mr. Mamigonian arguing facts and linguistic issues. Yes, he may have sinned in his article like Grove has by casting doubt on the denialist position. But he has apparently studied the issue at some length and is making an important point, which is linguistic in nature. As you say we are in a paradox, we are immersed in the arguments we make. After all at the end we can only use words as signs to express meaning and they are always colored. This will always be so, deconstructionism notwithstanding.
My dismay is with the commentaries at this site, not with scholarly research. The comments with few exceptions they seem to be nationalistic pride masquerading as “arguments”. Turks may never be persuaded by historic documents. Only if a time machine could take them to the Syrian desert they might reluctantly admit what was done to the Armenians, and then maybe argue that they deserved it.
It is noteworthy that a large number of Turkish writers in Turkey are convinced of the occurrence of the Armenian Genocide, and I know of no Armenian author that denies it. Of course, this is not proof of it , but it may indicate a softening of the Turkish position and relaxation of the implementation of Article 301 of the penal code.
Alan:
You may not be familiar with the Denialist from Norway.
He has been visiting us @AW for a very long time.
His technique is to engage in endless, vacuous exchanges that have no end point and decide nothing: it is one of the more advanced methods of AG Denial that has come to fore recently – after blanket denials got ridiculed and were shot down in disgrace.
The idea is not to Deny the AG outright, but engage in endless obfuscations and word plays. Muddy the waters. Go on tangents. Run out the clock.
“everybody suffered, including Turks”; “there is no agreement it was Genocide; maybe it was, maybe not”; “let us debate and discuss a few more decades; (hopefully Armenians will either get tired or disappear by then: problem solved)”.
He is an Anti Armenian AG Denialist bigot.
He has called us Armenians “inbreds” right here @AW.
He has used an expression in reference to our murdered ancestors normally reserved for garbage: “disposed of”.
He appears frequently side-by-side with notorious AG Denialist Justin McCarthy.
And here is a post which shows his technique in compact form:
[ {I agree that the word "genocide" should not figure as prominently in the Armenian accusations against Turkey as it does. However, to simply scrap the word does not make sense. There is a real debate on whether a genocide occurred.} (Rangar Naess @Hurriyet 2011-9-12)]
Avery,
Well, I guess he has been paid well, and is simply doing his job. The rest of us are wasting our precious time on his lengthy posts. I stopped reading them long time ago.
Mr. Naess,
You can write lengthy comments or books if you wish, but the only truth is that Turks eliminated an entire race. 1.5 million people are gone with their genes, wealth, history and culture. Turks stole everything that those people ever possessed.
Instead of arguing with us whether it was genocide or not you better argue, or debate as you call it, with Mr. Lemkin’s thoughts. I am sure if he was alive he would not have any considerations for your theories.
Ragnar,
My response will be a lenghty one. Please bear with me. I also hope to be able to make it my last comment on this thread. (btw, you make mistaken assumptions about me, which I will clarify later.)
I did not say that you said anything about “all Armenians”, and I do not doubt that you have similar criticisms of “Turkish inputs”. (I am sure you are far too intelligent for that, and, on my part, I am not as unobservant as you seem to think.) I also never disagreed that Mamigonian’s work is ‘diagnostic’.
I DID, in fact, see, the first time around, what you claim is your main point in your initial post : that further high quality scholarship is needed. It is one I both agree and disagree with depending on context. I agree because further scholarship never hurts in ANY field – as long as one is aware that ‘no scholarship’ is ‘final’. I disagree that further scholarship is ‘needed’ at this point for an ‘acknowledgment’ that a genocide took place – at least if one is going to stick by the UN definition. That definition may or may not be flawed, which is yet a separate discussion.
However, I am not interested in pushing that disagreement. There are others who will argue that better than I. Instead, I decided to take your point about further scholarship ‘at face value’ – because, again, I agree that further scholarship never hurts anything – as long as one understands that it is never ‘final’. (In that sense, I agree both with you, that arguments can be valuable, AND with the comments about ‘arguments’ not resolving much ‘in and of themselves’.)
So, why did I reply?
Because I disapproved of your approach of how you were trying to get your point across. And I still do.
You were free to make a statement about your views in a straight forward way at any point. You could have said “I think the AW emphasizes diagnosis of the other writings too much and this is just another example of that”. You could have said “too many Armenians do not want to argue about the genocide, and I don’t think that is good for scholarship or to take matters forward”. You could have even said “Mamigonian’s piece makes the mistake , in my opinion, of not stressing that more scholarly argument is nevertheless needed in the field”
Had you made these statements, I probably would not have replied. I don’t feel the need to argue with these personal opinions of yours.
Instead, you claimed that there was ‘tlonism’ in Mamigonian’s work, and went on to describe your experience in Norway about “neutral reporting”, your contributions in that area, the resistance of many armenians to debate about the genocide, and the vulnerability of what you labeled the “armenian cause” (btw, what IS the “armenian cause”? )
I will set aside the obvious self praise in there. It is a vulnerability many share to want credit for what one believes one has contributed. If you say so, so be it.
What was very disturbing in what you wrote was that you were ‘projecting’ from your experience with ‘many armenians’ to Mamigonian’s *individual* “stance” *just because he did not emphasize in that essay what you think he should have emphasized*. PLUS, you called it “tlonism”, in effect, accusing not only him, but “armenians who don’t want to argue” of ‘tlonism’ – of *intentional deception* to push an ‘invented’ story as real. (might it be that some armenians who think the genocide has been proved – whether right or wrong – are just too fed up with arguing?)
Despite that, if you had just said “the AW – or many armenians- engage in tlonism”, I would have likely left that also for others to dispute.
BUT it really bothered me that you were using an individual and well written essay (with which I happen to have my own disagreements – see my first comment from June 5) and an individual person, Mamigonian, as a ‘vehicle’, with unfair accusations (not of being ‘diagnostic’ – but of being tlonist), to air your views about “the importance of further scholarship” . — surely an obvious “daaa” when taken in general.
[And yet,, you, on your part, do not indicate how this obvious "daaa" applies to the armenian genocide issue. You do not explain 'what' you think needs to be researched more. You just accuse people of how they are not as scholarly as they should be.]
Your accusation, your ‘approach’ to this thread, not only projected something on the author, not only implied tlonism on the part of ‘armenians’ , but also reduced the well written article to “just another piece of tlonism of the kind that many armenians engage in”!!!
It is interesting that when I first objected to your diagnosis of “tlonism” in Mamigonian, you immediately ‘switched’ the discussion to “your main point” which you *assumed* I hadn’t “appreciated” — instead of first acknowledging that your tlonism accusation to Mamigonian was *a mistake*. (and not just that you didn’t state your point ‘accurately’)
Then to Boyajian, you said (paraphrased) “I am being charitable about your comments about arguments, but it still doesn’t change my point that the AW exaggerates diagnostics of the other”.. First time you mentioned the “AW”.
Again, evading responsibility for your first accusation vis a vis the author.
I was being “charitable” too, Ragnar, by not writing things out this way so far. I chose to simply concentrate on your mistaken accusation to Mamigonian in order to cut to the chase of your catch 22 approach of ‘start with this essay and mention how it is ‘just another’ example of ‘refusing to argue” and, thus, of ‘tlonism’. Never mind that “tlonism”, for one thing, implies “intent to deceive”.
So, after first assuming that I didn’t appreciate your initial main point, what did you do? You ‘assumed” – or implied- I was “intoxicated” with “the need” to be on one side of an argument, and not the “O”ther!!! Do you even know me?
I do not disagree that Mamigonian’s piece is diagnostic.
I am not at this time personally interested to debate, pro or con, your personal scholarly preferences.
I simply object to your methods of argument in this thread, as I have tried to explain. You accused Mamigonian of ‘tlonism’. Let’s clear that first. Then you can go on and on, as you like, without much bother of an argument from me, about whether his piece is ‘diagnostic’, whether more scholarship is needed, whether Mamigonian should emphasize this or that, whether the AW should be this way or that way, whether ‘armenians’ or ‘turks’ or “whoever” are stupid or intoxicated, – with a need for seeing one side of an argument, or with a need for recognition… whatever you will.
I do understand everything you are saying. It just is not news to me. “How” you are carrying this discussion here , though, is something I need to object to.
Thanks for everyone’s patience.
Tanya
ps — Unlike what you imply, I am not at all ‘intoxicated with the need to be ‘on this side, and not ‘the Other side ” in a disagreement. I happen to be personally familiar with both the Turkish and Armenian experience and ‘indoctrination’, if you will. Plus, if you are going to capitalize “Other” – as if I or others see only one ‘other’ view, it is actually views similar to yours that are creating a polarity by treating the issue as one between “Armenians and Turks” — when ANY genocide research, as you must surely know, is a human/universal issue to explore! (just see the diagnostic articles written by “turks” in the AW – Gursel, Gunaysu, others)
Tania,
as I read your post I realized that your are right in much of what you say. My diagnosis of Mamigonian’s as another piece of “Tlönism” was facile. I am also not happy about my self-praise.– In other respects we still may disagree, but we dont have to go on arguing. The only point I wish to make is that I am not primarily asking for high quality scholarship. What I ask for is what I think all people who discuss seriously do, scholars or not, like arguing instead of characterising the other, answer arguments with arguments, and so on
Thank you for your clarification, Ragnar.
One thought I would like to share for its own sake, which occurred to me during this thread: Argument vs argument discussions also often involve diagnosing the ‘other’ argument, usually to show its non-validity. So diagnosis is also a kind of argument.
Avery,
I don’t like to be a party to ad hominem attacks. If Mr. Ragner Nees is a nit picker than that problem can be dealt with in a different manner, as Tanya has shown.
If equivocation is his habit then he needs to hear a story from the Turkish literature,
Nasreddin Hodja is hearing a case in the court.
The litigant argues his case. When he is finished Nasreddin says “You are absolutely right”. The defendant takes the stand and argues the exact opposite. The Hodja says to him also “You are absolutely right”. Someone listening to the exchange says to the Hodja: “Nasreddin, this is impossible. To both of them you said he was right. Both can’t be right” .The Hodja answers: “You are right too”.
On this note I am withdrawing from this thread. I think it is going nowhere.
Not all Turkophiles here are Turks. Take a closer look at whose interests are being defended if The Armenian Genocide finally gets formal recognition. Armenians had better recognize the outside forces that are at work here. Armenia is in a vise. Who benefits should Armenia fail and who would suffer the most?
Tanya,
thank you for your answer. I tend to disagree with you. Relevant arguments are about the merit of certain proposition(s). Answers that comment on the interlocutor as a person or say things like “What you say is exactly the same as what X says, and that is….Y(something bad or mistaken)” are generally held to be inapropriate. While the dividing line probably cannot be determinated with 100% certainty, the general point should be clear.
Alan
Nasreddin Hoca once went to the sea and started churning with a spoon in the water.People asked him “What are you doing”. He answered: “I am making yoghurt” – “but it is impossible to make yoghurt from water!”- ” But MAYBE it will become yoghurt (“ya tutarsa..). — Anyhow, if you leave, thank you for your input
Ragnar, you make an interesting point about diagnosis of the other. But you tell others that they argue incorrectly while arguing for the need for argument, thus arguing about how to argue, rather than bringing truth to light. Diagnosis of the other can be valid or invalid, but it doesn’t have to hold you hostage. You can allow it to be a passing moment and then move on. Refocus back to your point. Spell it out more clearly. Ask a direct question. Make a clear and concise comment. You choose your own path. If an obstacle or roadblock presents itself, you can go around it, over it, bulldoze it, or sit on it. You can choose to be the anti-obfuscation. Or not.
To argue over the color of the emperor’s non-existent new robe, or who made it, is absurd.
To take a known crime — the deportations, starvation, massacres, and a myriad of concomitant crimes which led to the destruction of the indigenous Armenian population of Asia Minor while under the control of the CUP government— and to elevate ‘analysis’ of the crime to a position of greater importance than the pursuit of justice for the crime is also absurd.
Boyajian
Now the starting point in this thread was the article of Mamigonian which really is about texts, about the “neutral referring” of journalists and so on – and in this way about argumentation as a theme. Isnt it? When I reread the exchanges in this thread isnt this the case. My own first post of june 4, to take an example, dealt with this.( For one thing I made the point that “Tlønism” is a widespread phenomenon) — yes, I think many here argue “incorrectly”, (or rather coarsely), for instance Avery, Darwin J (“all Turkophiles are not Turks”) and Sella (“I guess he has been paid well”). What kind of debate technique is this, and should one not comment on it? In an earlier thread I commented that this style would be unheard of in a normal discussion forum. — You personally dont have this style and Tanya did not, and Alan – who apparently has not been in these discussions before and has not desensitivized himself regarding this negative style – reacted megatively aganst the “ad hominem” comments of Avery regarding me. we may disagree about this, but the constant “ad hominem” attacks in the AW will certainly be one of my main conclusions when analysing the discussions I have participated in since 2009. — Of course I can argue about what actually happened in 1915 and onwards, as you maybe have realized I actually prefer this, we have also had some good discussions about the facts of 1915, but this was not what was brought to the table this time, or what?
boyajian
I believe you are having a bad day. You write: ….and to elevate ‘analysis’ of the crime to a position of greater importance than the pursuit of justice for the crime is also absurd”.unquote. When on earth did I elevate analysis in this way?
John the turk
sorry for answering so late. I did not find back to the thread for some reason. Well, I hope you are right. A comprehensive court procedure might, if not solve the question, at least sharpen the debate. However, the earlier legal advice of the ICTJ in 2002, I believe, was too broad and did not specifically adress the question of the role of the ittihadist leadership. It only says that SOME actors probably had genocidal intent and that therefore the name “genocide” is warranted. Needless to say, the trole of the ittihadists is the crux of the matter
Ragnar Naess,
“What kind of debate technique is this, and should one not comment on it? In an earlier thread I commented that this style would be unheard of in a normal discussion forum. — You personally dont have this style and Tanya did not, and Alan – who apparently has not been in these discussions before and has not desensitivized himself regarding this negative style – reacted megatively aganst the “ad hominem” comments of Avery regarding me.”
I am sorry if I have offended you in anyway but reading your posts made me think that you were working for Turks. I do not know why when you discuss Armenian genocide, the sufferings of Turks in Balkans is discussed as well, something that many denialist Turks do. Their message is-Armenians suffered but Turks suffered as well-let’s get over it. Armenians have no relations to sufferings of Turks in Balkans and, it should never be brought to the Armenian genocide discussions. Turks suffered in Balkans because they invaded to other native people’s land and oppressed people. When those native people got the chance they cleansed their country from foreign invaders that caused too many sufferings to them.
But I do want to ask you if you, indeed, called Armenians inbred? If so, would you be so kind to elaborate? Please, also provide some evidence, mainly genetic studies, that would prove that Armenians are inbred. Armenians are Christians, and unlike some Muslims, marriages to their cousins or to their relatives, are strictly prohibited.
Sincerely,
Sella
Sella,
thank you for your post. No, I never said that “Armenians are inbred”. but once I said to jda or Avery, I dont remember who, that the discussion in AW gets “inbred”. This is because some Armenians, I repeat SOME, not all Armenians in these threads in AW, have a very coarse and insulting way of discussing by attacking people who have views that diverge from certain norms they adhere to. If you deviate from this, you are attacked, sometimes in a very uncouth way. So it has nothing to do with marriage customs. I used the word “inbred” because I felt that the natural loyalty that Armenians have to each others , together with the fierce attacks on people who disagree, creates an athmosphere that works against the possibility of having discussions in which only arguments count, and not only loyalty. To take one of the latesat examples, I mentioned that I just celebrated my 70th birthday, and one Armenian participant more or less commented on the fact that I had little time left to live, as if he was happy for this. This is a kind of commentary that should never be made in a serious discussion. But I repeat that certainly not all Armenians with whom I have dioscussed in the AW make this kind of comments. But the ones who do are seldom or never checked pr criticised by other Armenians, and there is no moderator that secures a more civilized discussion. Actually the same kind of discourtesies were also rampant in the WATS listserve affiliated to the University of Michigan. Some people were consistently offensive, and nobody corrected them.
About the massacres of Turks and other Ottoman Muslims, it has a place in the complete marrative of the last Ottoman Century, but not in the sense that e.g. Turkish foreign minister Davutoglu does it when he introduced the notion of “just memory”, by saying that something like “you suffered the relocations, but we experienced Gallipoli”. Needless to say, the Armenians have for decennia asked both the Turks and the world at large to recognise that what happened was genocide, and Armenians deserve a better answer from Turkey. So I reject this way of trying to make what happened to the Turks, gruesome as it was, relevant as an answer to Armenians when they say that the CUP orchestrated mass murder of Armenians. These are two different matters, and Turkish answers dealing with the massacred and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans is a way of evading the question that is being put to them. Turkish society must work on this and come up with a better answer, even if it true that what happened to the Turks also was terrible and to my mind even genocidal according to certain criteria. But to say this is not a counterargument against the claims that CUP committed genocide against Armenians. So Turks must stop pointing to Turkish suffering when confronted with the allegations from Armenians and from many other quarters.
I hope this clarified the matter.
Ragnar Naess,
Thank you for your clarification. I am sorry that an Armenian poster told something unpleasant at your 70th birthday but I wish you a very happy and healthy life.
”About the massacres of Turks and other Ottoman Muslims, it has a place in the complete marrative of the last Ottoman Century, but not in the sense that e.g. Turkish foreign minister Davutoglu does it when he introduced the notion of “just memory”, by saying that something like “you suffered the relocations, but we experienced Gallipoli”.”
When Turks were deporting, butchering and raping the entire Armenian nation, it is only natural to expect some massacres of Ottoman Muslims by Armenians.
I have read a few times that you have referred to Turkish architraves. It has been mentioned that Turkish archives have been cleansed at least twice. Do you have any information on this? If this is true, how valid it would be to study Turkish archives with regard to Armenian genocide?
{ragnar naess
September 12, 2011
gor
I am sorry if you felt offended by my words “inbred” and “disposed of”. I will be more careful with my language in the future} posted @AW.
(Apparently it is our fault for ‘feeling offended’.
And apparently the Denialist gentleman offers a non-apology for something he apparently did not say)
And I will repeat my “ad hominem” comments:
{He is an Anti Armenian AG Denialist bigot.
He has called us Armenians “inbreds” right here @AW.
He has used an expression in reference to our murdered ancestors normally reserved for garbage: “disposed of”.
He appears frequently side-by-side with notorious AG Denialist Justin McCarthy.}
Avery
you have to produce the text when I allegedly say that “Armenians are inbred”. I never said such a thing. I was referring to the discussion as being inbred, not Armenians as such. Sella got a completely distorted picture of what I said from your words.—-Regarding the expression “disposed of” it is actually used by some people, for instance Henry Riggs, who by this expression intends to say something about the people who killed Armenians. The expression refers to how, these people treated Armenians, possibly like garbage, but not to the Armenians that were killed. But of course – if you were offended by the expression, I said I was sorry if you felt offended by the choice of words. This is plain courtesy to my mind. —But permit me to say, with all due respect, that I find your way of commenting on this episode, again and again, and distorting it, questionable. I believe I explained these things earlier. Also it is to my mind very questionable to simply say as a kind of branding of somebody that I am “seen side by side” with somebody, in this case McCarthy. It says very little about my views. This way of arguing, and leaving out my saying that I was sorry if the expression hurt you, is a good example of what I find problematic in the way some people here in the AW argue. You could never do it in another fora, and the majority of the Armenians here in the AW dont, but they also do not interfere. The Armenian case is strong but is it well served by your verbal attacks?
no you do: produce the entire post – then try to justify it in context.
also produce the entire post where you used the phrase “disposed of” – then try to justify it context.
Only one way to stop me from confronting you with these every time:
[1] Apologize to all Armenians, particularly readers of AW, for the use of the phrase “inbred”.
[2] Apologize to all Armenians, particularly readers of AW, for the use of the phrase “disposed of”.
[3] Stop Denying the Armenian Genocide in any shape or form.
These include denialist weasel phrases such as used in your post below:
{I agree that the word “genocide” should not figure as prominently in the Armenian accusations against Turkey as it does. However, to simply scrap the word does not make sense. There is a real debate on whether a genocide occurred.} (Rangar Naess @Hurriyet 2011-9-12)
Note: there is no debate; only in the make believe Universe of Denial there is.
And if you apologize, it must be genuine: no weasel words like “if anyone ‘felt’ offended”.
Avery
The phraze concerned was “I am always surprised when the Turkish side in the discussions of the allegations of genocide against Armenians tell about the Armenian guerilla attacks from august 1914 and onwards, and the Armenian side wants to belittle the importance of the attacks. If these attacks were a real threat, it gives the ittihadists a very real motive to dispose of the Armenian population. In any investigation of a crime motive is important” . Unquote.
The context deals with the itthadists’ possible motivation for murder. It is thus not part of any “denialist” discourse, on the contrary. Firstly, the expression is not so uncommon in the literature, it means “kill” or “get out of the way”. Henry Riggs uses the expression from time to time in his book from his time in Harput in 1915. What I say about the motive must be understood to deal with what possibly went on into the ittihadists heads. The word “dispose” refers to the content of their possibly criminal ideas. It does not mean that I would consider the Armenians as something akin to garbage. If you infer from my words that I see the Armenian victims as garbage, your idea is preposterous, it defies any ordinary way of interpreting texts and statements, to my mind . It is a twisting of my words into a meaning which was not there.
But I understand – or believe I understand – your feelings about it. So of course I said that I am sorry I chose these words, given your reaction.
Regarding “inbreeding”. On june 6,2011 I wrote the following on the debates in the AW: I see serious symptoms of intellectual inbreeding in an otherwise very important forum.This is sad, and maybe I should leave you alone to your inbreeding activities.Unquote.
Comment: I agree that my expression is harsh, but when I used the word “inbreeding” I talk about “intellectual inbreeding”, not genetical inbreeding. I talk about the substitution of repetition and insult for argument, and of the majority of Armenian participants acquiescing in the insults promoted by other Armenians, like when recently an Armenian participant here commented on my being 70 years old that I hopefully will soon die. It took a Turkish participant to protest, somewhat indignantly, against this. The repetitiousness and insulting language of some participants and the silence from other Armenian participants who write in a more civilized manner, and their tacit permission to let one’s fellow Armenians utter all kinds if insults without any protests, this is what I call intellectual inbreeding. I might also call it misplaced loyalty.
These words of mine on “intellectual inbreeding” were uttered in the june 2011 thread where we debated Thierault’s article on Steiner, morgenthau’s grand child, if I remember correctly. Together with the majority of those who posted mails I was critical of Steiner’s approach. She was advocating some kind of conflict resolution strategy for Armenians and Turks. But the conflict is also about what actually happened. This calls for analysis, not conflict solution strategies. This is not a denialist discourse. —- But you and I disagree about the question of analysis, because you believe it has been done. No need for more analysis of what actually happened. Then we disagree. You may of course hold that I am mistaken and misinformed, but don’t twist my words.
Mr. Ragnar,
If i were you, i would not spend my time with a tashnac such as Avery. He is an ex-commy, graduated from KGB in Ermenistan.
{“ This is sad, and maybe I should leave you alone to your inbreeding activities”} addressing Armenian posters @AW.
Try as you might to explain it away, your words are right there: no twisting necessary; no explaining away will erase the insult.
(Q: what happens when Armenians continue with their “inbreeding activities” ? A: they become “inbred”)
And some Joe Schmo using the phrase “disposed of” somewhere is no excuse for you to come to ArmenianWeekly and insult our Armenian ancestors and us.
Go to a mainstream American website and use the N-word or say something derogatory about murdered slaves and try to explain that some Joe Blow has used it somewhere: see how far you’ll get.
Go to a Jewish site and make some derogatory comment about murdered Jews, because so-and-so also wrote it somewhere: see how far you’ll get.
Or try to start a “debate” about the Holocaust: see how long before you start getting threats, assuming you are even allowed to post.
Ordinarily one would be given the benefit of the doubt: but not you. Your number one sin is your long track record of AG Denial activities.
Everything flows downhill from there. Every little transgression will be noted. “Inbreeding” directed at Armenian posters @AW; “disposed of” directed at the sacred remains of Armenian victims of the Genocide; explaining to some ‘Zeki’ the behaviour of this newly discovered inbreeding group: “…for instance in their constant praise of each others’ posts.” , as if we are some kind of anthropological curiosity that needs to be explained, so Turkish guests don’t get shocked (…and yeah, I know what you wrote later in the paragraph also: pretty smart; plausible deniability) . Taken in isolation, each can be plausibly explained away. When stitched together over time, against the background of a sophisticated AG Denial campaign, the tapestry of Anti Armenian bigotry of an AG Denialist becomes crystal clear.
And since you refuse to retract and apologize for the use of the word “inbreeding” in reference to Armenians @AW, and refuse to retract and apologize for the use of the phrase “disposed of” in reference to our murdered ancestors – and continue your efforts to explain them away – I will continue to remind readers of AW of who and what you are.
“I will admit I started relating to Turkey as kind love story for me. An infatuation. Never spoke to Justin about it..”
Anti Armenian AG Denialist Naess admitting his pro-Turkish bias at
a denialfest organized by his buddy, notorious AG Denialist Justin McCarthy, at the University of Utah.
(partial transcript by Avery from video recording)
oh look.. another crawler that we know very well.. Necati.. well well.. guess i missed a great party….
Necati.. instead of giving Ragnar advice.. why don’t you do a soul searching for yourself first… God knows you need it even more..the notorious denialist with dirty mouth……
Avery is right.. Ragnar owes a genuine apology to ALL of us here….he may be very intelligent and polite but the underlying layer is for one purpose only .. to muddy up the waters and create confusion.. he is an enigma and he will always remain as such.. i always said.. he has an agenda and no matter how good he is with words, to me he is a denialist…period..
Gayane
ragnar naess : “I am always surprised when the Turkish side in the discussions of the allegations of genocide against Armenians tell about the Armenian guerilla attacks from august 1914 and onwards, and the Armenian side wants to belittle the importance of the attacks”
What August 1914 “attacks”, ragnar ?
These things also happened in August, from http://www.armenian-genocide.org/1914.html
August 1
Germany declares war on Russia. Beginning of World War I.
August 2
A secret treaty of alliance is signed between Turkey and Germany virtually placing the Turkish armed forces under German command.
August 3
The Turkish government sends sealed envelopes containing a general mobilization order to district and village councils, with the strict instructions that they were not to be opened until further notice. A fortnight later, with the approval of the Ittihad Committee, instructions are issued to open the envelopes.
August 8
Censorship of all telegraphic communication is announced by the government.
August 18
Looting is reported in Sivas, Diyarbekir, and other provinces, under the guise of collecting war contributions. Stores owned by Armenian and Greek merchants are vandalized.
August 18
1,080 shops owned by Armenians are burned in the city of Diyarbekir.
August 22
The male population between the ages of 20 and 45 is conscripted by the Turkish armed forces.
August 28
Turkish troops are garrisoned in Armenian schools and churches in Sivas Province. In the city of Sivas, 56,000 soldiers of the 10th Army Corps are quartered in and around the Christian districts.
But there’s more ragnar, that didn’t make it into that list.
“Later in August, moderate civil bureaucrats and military men were removed from office in Anatolia.”
and
“The Special Organization bands began extortion and murder campaigns against Armenians in late August and September, apparently trying to provoke armed resistance that would provide an alibi for government retaliation.”
From Absolute Destruction: Military Culture And The Practices Of War In Imperial Germany By Isabel V. Hull.
So ragnar, how do you know these “attacks” you speak of have not been deliberately provoked by the Ottoman government ?
ragnar, next time you have contact with demographer Justin McCarthy ask him to give you a full accounting of the fate of the Armenian men drafted into the labor battalions. Ask him how many men were drafted during the war and how many were discharged (ALIVE!!) when the war ended. Ask him to account for the discrepancies between the 2 numbers.
But you must see the difference between “inbreeding” and “intellectual inbreeding”? Dont you see the difference? What you do now in your last post is exactly what I am talking about. Multiply your way of arguing by a hundred and send comments like this to people you disagree with to the main newspapers of the world! Outside a forum like AW. Note the reaction you get to this kind of discussion if you go outside the circles that you know in advance both support the genocide thesis and moreover believe this is a moral case with the peculiarity that any kind of abuse against those who disagree is legitimate! This is not a rhetorical question! Find somebody you disagree with and formulate yourself in this way! There are no doubt US congressmen and other politicians and academics who argue against your opinions. And come back and give us the references and we will see…. How will people react? Will they say “This Avery surely has an elegant pen, and a convincing one ,too!!”.
what others say about Avery is utterly irrelevant.
I have been called everything in the book: ask me if I care.
Armenia; Artsakh; Armenian Genocide; Denial; Armenian people; Armenian Highlands, etc, etc, – now you got my attention.
My goal is to counter the Denialist Disinformation agents, such a the one named Ragnar Naess. A self-admitted Turcophile who publicly admits to being in love with and infatuated with Genocidal Turkey.
Who visits ArmenianWeekly with the express purpose of plying his sophisticated AG Denialism theories.
Who insults the innocent victims of the Armenian Genocide.
Who insults the posters @AW by labeling them as “inbreeding”.
See you at the next thread, infatuated-with-Turkey Anti Armenian Denialist Bigot Ragnar Naess.
Ok here’s the Turkish position on the Armenian Genocide:
“The Turkish government acknowledges that during World War I many Armenians died, but counters that Muslim Turks died as well, and claims that the number of Armenian victims has been inflated, and that massacres were committed by both sides as a result of inter-ethnic violence and the wider conflict of World War I”
Read the last sentence. You could, per this logic, also say that the Holocaust is also not a genocide because the murder of the Jewish people were a result of inter-ethnic conflict and the wider conflict of WWII. This of course is stupid. 5.3 million German soldiers died during WWII and 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. Looking at just numbers, yes, you could argue inter-ethnic conflict and say the Holocaust was not a genocide. But, again, this is stupid and not true. “inter-ethnic conflict” of course cannot be a genocide- it basically means war. But war does not equal genocide. Genocides take place DURING wars when one side goes too far. You cannot equate Turkish soldiers being killed at Sarikamis (like my paternal great-grandfather) by enemy forces to the premeditated murder of children, women, and the elderly. I say premeditated, you read correctly. Because it was you blind fool. It takes the lowest of the low to intentionally murder children and rape young girls. And it takes the truly, absolute lowest the human race has to offer to defend them. This coming from someones whose feelings towards Turkey is love not an “infatuation”. The Young Turks disgraced the names of all Turks- the Turks who once presented the persecuted Jews of Europe with a new home, and the Turkish leaders who passed laws that effectively gave Christian serfs better rights in a Muslim nation then other Christian nations. Almost too hard to believe now isn’t it?
RVDV,
What is the Turkish position of murdering 250-500 thousands Assyrians by Ottoman Turks? I am curious what an average Turk’s position is.
Thanks in advance,
Sella
Sella: I’m not really sure. I’d guess more of the same as with the Armenian story but not sure.
Hellene
There seems to be a broad agreement that Armenian irrgular units assisted Russian invasions of Eastern Anatolia in all the wars in the 1800-eds. See Allen and Muratoff: Caucasian Battlefields. And Taner Akcam who supports the genocode thesis writes that Armenian irrgular units made attacks on Muslim villages after the mobilization in August. “…attacks on Muslim villages had become common even before the Van uprising…”(Akcam: A shameful act, p. 216). And the Russians organised units of Armenians in the autumn of 1914, partly composed of Ottoman Armenians who fled to join the Russians. But I agree that McCarthy and his associates fail to consider the possibility that what is reported as “rebellions” or “attacks” by local Ottoman gendarme or military units were in fact instances of resistance against abuses in the requisitioning of goods for the war effort, retaliation against provocations, and similar reactive events. What you refer about the burning of the Bazaar in Diyarbakir is well documented, as far as I know. – But note that Akcam holds that there were indeed Armenian attacks on Muslim villages.
RDVD
Yes, I agree with you! I disagree with the Official Turkish position, and have been disagreeing for many years. However, I also disagree with the way the crimes and catastrophies that befell the Ottoman Armenians in WW1 is being described and named in many accounts provided by genocide scholars and Armenian historians.
Ragnar… let me say this again… what befell on ARMENIANS was not a CRIME or a CATASTROPHY.. it was PURE GENOCIDE.. no ifs, buts, ors, or maybes…
I know it is hard for you to utter Genocide without cringing as it is not a standard word in your vocabulary without your own qualifications but try to get acquainted with it…
Wow.. some people are just too stubborn.. the money must be great to stick to your guns this way… who knows??
On exactly what do you agree with RVDV, Ragnar?
RVDV, a loyal Turkish citizen, believes the CUP carried out a premeditated genocide against the Armenian citizens of the Ottoman empire and that Turkey should admit to this and compensate Armenians, though he stops short on land reparations. Am I right RVDV?
Is this what you agree with, Ragnar?
Yes, you are right. Undoubtedly and undeniably the lands in question are historical Armenian lands. However, these lands had been under Ottoman control long before the genocide occurred, centuries before. The properties ON those lands need to be returned, but the land itself, in my opinion, a different story. If the issue goes to court and eastern Turkey or part of it are demanded- deservedly- by Armenians, the question of “weren’t all lands (or most) conquered or taken at some point” would be raised.
Boyajian
regarding the use of the term “genocide”, how can one avoid it in this case? Turks are too much afraid of this term to my mind. But its like “racism”. “Was this “racism” or wasnt it?” people asked in the 1960-ies. The discussion resting on one undefined word was one without any possible definite answer. One has to qualify, Gayane, in one’s treatment of terms like this, otherwise your support rests on a slogan, but not a concept, juridical or otherwise. Slogans functions in some situations but not in this. IF one wants to argue.(Nice to hear from you again, by the way!)
Premeditation? That is a plan in advance? – I believe not, the data dont support it and people like Bloxham and Kaiser argue against it .
Genocidal intent? – yes, by some, but the role of the central ittihadists is too complex to conclude this. I just read Yervant Odian’s book. How on earth did he survive if there was a general genocidal intent in the CUP towards Armenians?
Turkey’s moral responsibility – YES, Turkey must apologize and make repairs. (And after Turkey has done this, I believe Armenians also have some things to apologize about)
Land reparations? – I dont know if RVDV speaks as a politician or as an analyst in moral questions. I dont regard borders as sacred. But for Armenia to claim territories with a number of Muslim inhabitants exceeding the population of all Armenians today, does this give any sense?
Ragnar.. do you mind explanding on the following statement you made on July 3rd…
“YES, Turkey must apologize and make repairs. (And after Turkey has done this, I believe Armenians also have some things to apologize about)”
In my opinion.. Armenians do have some things to apologize about.. we need to apologize for not taking up arms sooner before we got slaughtered by the Ottomans, we need to apologize for being too trustworthy and believe that the Ottoman Empire was our home and we were going to be treated equal instead of dogs, we need to apologize for putting our faith in the same govt that shold have protected its own citizens but yet destroyed our homes, wealth and everything sacred..
But I want to hear your side of it…please do enlighten us…
Oh this is going to be good..
Thank you
Gayane
Gayane, I believe it is established that Armenian groups killed many civilian Muslim villagers in the area occupied by the Russians in the period april/may 1915 and later in the larger area occupied february Also that civilian Muslims were killed in the Russian Yerevan guberniya by Armenian groups as part of an ethnic cleansing. Read Walker: “Armenia. The survival of a nation” on the situation from early 1918 to spring 1920. According to the central book on this kind of apologies, Elazar Barkan: The guilt of Nations, these would be typical events that warrant apologies. The idea that “these things happens” espoused earlier by gor in our discussion on the fate of the Bulgarian Muslims is hardly in line with the philosophy of justice and human rights that also Armenians appeal to. —-
But the Armenians have been appealing both to Turkey and to the world at large for a long time, so I believe – by common morality – that Turkey should apologize first, and their apology must be judged by Armenians. Armenians who feel that an eventual apology is far from satisfactory should of course not apologize. But others might.
—Further, about Armenians being “treated like dogs”, see the previous debates with Karekin who has a more balanced view to my mind.
pardon, I am always too impatient sending my posts. It shpuld be “the period february 1916 until the end of the war and afterwards”
Sella and RVDV
David Gaunt has written on the persecution of Assyrians in the 2011 book “A Question of Genocide”. He provides these numbers, but there are no references to demographical research and no discussion of the numbers, in the way we see it in many works regarding Armenian mortality
Ragnar Naess
”Land reparations? – I dont know if RVDV speaks as a politician or as an analyst in moral questions. I dont regard borders as sacred. But for Armenia to claim territories with a number of Muslim inhabitants exceeding the population of all Armenians today, does this give any sense?”
You are forgetting that millions of Armenians live in diaspora while Turkish citizens comfortably live in our ancestors houses and use our ancestors lands for free for almost 100 years. Are they going to pay rent to Armenians? As we speak, revenues generated from our lands, and not only lands, flows to Turkish budget, and every Turkish citizen gets some money from there.
Well said Sella:
In the Denialist Turkish and infatuated-with-Turkey Nordic Turcophile universe, all losses and all suffering start with that of the Turks/Muslims: nothing happened prior to that. Only Muslim inhabitants cannot be inconvenienced.
Millions of Christians were exterminated so that there would be no competition for the land where those millions of Muslims now live, and where once Christians lived. Apparently the fact that the millions of Muslims living there today is a direct consequence of wiping out millions of indigenous Christians living there before is of no concern.
If not for the criminal mass murder, the approximately 4 million Christians – Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians – would have naturally increased to about 16-40 million (depending on various growth rate of 1.2% to 2%: from 1895 to 2011). [Note: growth rate in Turkey as of 2011 is 1.2%. Kurds claim their growth rate inside Turkey is about 3%.] The approximately 2 million exterminated Armenians alone would have naturally grown to: 8 million (at 1.2%) to 20 million (at 2%) in Western Armenia.
Necati
you wrote:
If i were you, i would not spend my time with a tashnac such as Avery. He is an ex-commy, graduated from KGB in Ermenistan
comment: I disagree. we are here to do dialogue – at least I am – and I will not exclude anybody. I take it that Avery writes what he does according to his conviction and loyalty. If he supports his cause in a wise way is something else.
Sella
I am not forgetting, I am talking about revision of borders and the situations that arise if 1) one nation or group want to reclaim territories they earlier inhabited, and were driven out from, where 2) there are today other groups who live, and have been living for many years. They are descendants of the ones who expelled the other ones. What about justice in this situation? One solution is that these people must leave, another that they are incorporated into the other State. One might argue that the people who owned the area before has a right to expel the descendants of those who came later. But generally icitizenship laws say that you have a right to stay in the area you were born. So this is a dilemma, both regarding the Norwegian Sami people, the indigenous people of the US, and the Armenians. Or the Muslims that were driven out of the old Russian Gubernia of Yerevan. To take the Armenian claims, he population of the “six vilayets” today is much bigger than the combined Armenian diasporas and the population of the republic of Armenia altogether. To my mind this is a dilemma, not only regarding political realism, but also in terms of justice
Ragnar Naess,
I am glad that you have not forgotten about millions of Armenians who live in Diaspora. Anytime there is a discussion about territory/population ratio, Armenian diaspora and Armenians in Armenia have to be taken into account.
As to citizenship law, are we going to punish Turkey as a successor of Ottoman empire, for grossly violating the citizenship law and deporting and killing over 1 million Armenians from their birthplace? If so, how are we going to do this?
As to land return, Turks easily take things but they are not good at returning what they took. Turks on their own are not going to return anything like they been doing for the past 97 years. There should be some kind of court decision to force Turks to return what they stole. When we talk about land return, treaty of Sevres has to be discussed automatically. Since the Turkish/Kurdish population has expanded enormously in the last 97 years, it is hard to believe that those people will leave and the land will be returned to Armenians. However, Turkey can return some of the land mentioned in the treaty of Sevres. For example, ancient Armenian city Ani, mount Ararat and some adjacent territory.
What, we Armenians, have to do is
Calculate the money that Turks stole from Armenian nation
This should include
1. The property destroyed or confiscated from Armenians after killing, raping and deporting them
2. The large land starches confiscated from Armenians, this should include the money for using them in the last 97 years
3. Money left in the banks
4. Money for causing huge physical, moral and cultural damage to Armenian nation
After Turkey will do all this and will appologize for subjecting Armenian nation
to genocide we have no problem to appologize Turkish nation for revolting against Turkish oppression and killing some Muslims. I will be the first to do so.
It is quite amusing for two people, one an Anti Armenian hatemonger who openly admits he hates “gaymenians” @AW, and even whose fellow Turks @Turkish TZ think he is unhinged, and another Anti Armenian from Norway, who with absolutely no sense of shame or propriety comes to AW as a foreign guest and calls Armenian posters @AW “inbreeding”, and who insults the sacred remains of our exterminated ancestors on the pages of AW, and who insults Armenians by denying the AG everywhere he goes – to give advice to an Armenian poster @AW.
Can’t wait to read the highly educational and entertaining “dialogue” between the two intellectual giants.
Same here Avery jan.. I am tickled to death with excitement to read this most anticipated “dialogue”….
Ragnar, I have always admired your commitment to dialogue although at times you infuriate me with your over-sensitivity to the Turkish side of the conflict and what appears to be ‘dialogue for the purpose of obfuscation’. (Sorry, that’s how I see it.) Why defend the rights of Turks when they clearly are benefiting from the fruits of genocide? What is the just resolution to the crimes perpetrated by the CUP and their cohorts?
boyajian
and I admit I have always admired you for your ability not to fall into stereotypes and ability always to retain a genuine human perspective. But I believe you must clarify your comment to me better. I do not quite understand what over-sensitivity you are talking about.Can you enlarge a little on it?
Ragnar.. over sensitivity means that you are clearly kissing Turkish behind as hard as possible by bringing isssues, events, stories about how Turks suffered by Armenians (absolutely ridiculeous) or issues, events or stories which in fact HAVE NO DIRECT relations as to what we are discussing here… and that is PURE and SIMPLE GENOCIDE.. Ottoman Turks Genocide of the Easter and Western Armenians… now is that clear enough??? I know I am not as polite and patient as our lovely Boyajian and I hope she does not mind me jumping in… but hope I made it clear for you..
I missed you and your clarity, Gayane!
Ragnar, clarify you say? By over-sensitivity I mean you have greater concern for the rights of the descendants of ‘genociders’ than you have for the rights of the descendants of those who were murdered and robbed of their inheritance.
My problem with you is your lack of balance. Armenians lived on those lands for thousands of years developing a unique culture, language, religion, but in a few short years they were wiped from their homeland. They didn’t disappear due to natural attrition or as a foreseeable by-product of war or because they were conquered. In fact, despite being conquered and despite being relegated to second class status, they contributed intellectually, economically and artistically to the Ottoman empire and maintained their unique identity throughout their subjugation. They disappeared from their homeland because they were deliberately targeted in the most immoral, illegal and inhuman manner. Had they not been forced from their homes by deportation, massacre and starvation, they most likely would have increased in number, as shown above by Avery, and continued to produce and create and grow, becoming vibrant communities today.
You advocate for the rights of those who have lived for the last one hundred years in the homes and on property illegally acquired from Armenians, suggesting that they have earned something akin to squatters rights. How much more wrong is it to take the homes of people who existed on the land and in the villages for hundreds to thousands of years? How much more wrong is it to massacre and starve a nation?
The CUP dealt a near fatal blow to the Armenian nation. Should Turkey not be held accountable for this crime AND for having avoided paying for it for all these years? Should Armenians not be compensated for their loss and for having to suffer the indignity of denial for all these years?
Everyday the threat of extinction looms over the Armenian people as a direct result of what the CUP unleashed and the immoral denial of it and machinations to avoid being held accountable by modern Turkey. Think triage, Ragnar. Armenia is left bleeding like an accident victim at the side of the road and your response is far from that of the ‘good Samaritan’ you purport to be. Look at the two ‘patients’ before you and decide which one needs help first: the one with a ‘scrape to its ego’ or the one who was all but decapitated.
My dear dear Boyajian jan.. there is no other like you with you beautiful and sooo eloquently written posts…
You summed it up brilliantly as to what ragnar is sooooooooooooooooo blind or INTENTIONALLY refuses to accept… last stage of Genocide is denial and he is one of the particles of that denial.. a different avenu of denial.. Turkey has tried in all every way to deny it but to their dismay Armenians are not stupid and we catch these things no matter how well it is packaged and beautifully wrapped like the ragnars of this world… so as much you clearly state what ragnar is missing from all this may go into deaf ears my dear…
the questions you ask him will produce even more confusing and engima answers from him.. it is the non stop whirlpool of posts by ragnar and internal pain of trying to dismantle this mental stage that ragnar is living…
but i will give the benefit of the doubt that one day that mental hybrint will break down .. still waiting…
always respectful
Gayane
gayane,
right, you are not as polite and patient as Boyajian, but you are a good girl
riiiiigghhhhhhhhttttt ragnar…
not that i solicited a response from you but if you feel the urge to blurb something out then be my guest.. my Turkophile friend….because what you say on our forums is deem to be over-sensitivity toward your beloved Turks and that my denialist friend is an automatic X in my book……
but thanks for the compliment….
G
Didn’t The United Nations mandate a Jewish State in 1947? The Jews had to wait 2,000 years. How many nations have come and gone in the last 2000 years?
We Armenians have been waiting only a fraction of that time. Already Armenia’s adversaries are desolving. Could Turkey be next? Our patience is unflinching.
Darwin, I think this fact helps motivate Armenians to keep struggling. We are an ancient people with a long memory and know that our cause is just and the battle may be lengthy. But we have faith.
boyajian,
of course Armenians are entitled to reparations, but with change of borders the question is more tangled to my mind. It is also difficult for me to argue against you because I dont know what your desired policies would be. To deport all those people who live there today? To incorporate them into a state with the combined popuation of the Armenian republic and the Armenian diaspora (who would certainly not move in great quantities…..or?). There is something unreal about the whole idea. Unfortunately for the Armenians. What standards are you appealing to?
But of course I will think about your accusations abpout me being soft on the traditionalist Turks. I engage in debate with Turkish friends and colleagues more or less in the same way as I do with you. I try to follow the same ideas of how to do dialogue and how to disagree. I expressed a lot of disagreement while I was at Erzurum in the beginning of May. But then there are things about which I agree with the mainstream Turks.I dont think I have a soft spot for Turks,
Yes Ragnar, the question is quite tangled, but the need for an apology and compensation is not. Let’s take one step at a time, please. The specific ‘policies’ will be developed once Turkey is compelled to face justice.
Deport people? No I would never advocate that. Remove some people from homes that clearly don’t belong to them? Perhaps that may become necessary. Hardships may occur if this is pursued, but what is the alternative? Allow people to stay in homes that don’t belong to them in exchange for monetary compensation to the rightful owners? Perhaps. Redraw borders? That is not unheard of. Monetary compensations to both individual Armenians and to the Armenian nation? Of course this is appropriate. This is all part of the conflict resolution discussion that will follow once Turkey is brave enough to face its history and the consequences of it.
All I want is for that discussion to take place sooner rather than later and for people like you to get out of the way. Don’t use this conflict as an intellectually stimulating endeavour. The Armenian Question is not a donkey for you to ride to the market place. My nation’s survival is in jeopardy; real lives are on the line and there is an ongoing crime happening here.
I find this a strange statement: “It is also difficult for me to argue against you because I dont know what your desired policies would be.” Perhaps it is a language translation problem, but why do you presume you would argue against me if you knew what policies I had in mind? Are you here merely to argue against Armenian ideas?
And yes, you are still too soft on Turkey.
{“…for people like you to get out of the way”}
well said Boyajian.
{“Don’t use this conflict as an intellectually stimulating endeavour. The Armenian Question is not a donkey for you to ride to the market place. My nation’s survival is in jeopardy; real lives are on the line and there is an ongoing crime happening here.”}
Sums up very well what’s it about.
Bravo Boyajian jan. Strong response to ragnar. Ay es qo responsits qefs ekav. Eresin shprtsretsir.
Boyajian
I have been thinking more about this. Of course my relationship to Turks is very different from my relationship to Armenians, even if I now know some personally. But I still think you must describe your own position better. In many ways I feel you are just crying out against a boundless catastrophy that you carry with you from your family and friends and nation. A catastrophy that cannot be undone in any way. What can I say to this except that I try to share your pain (which I am obviously not able to do in a deep and full sense of the words)? — But once we discuss reparations and apologies we are in another field, you see that Sella has concrete proposals. Then the question of justice in the form of general moral rules, and the questions of an international court, or some miraculous transformation of the Turkish attitude are brought to the table.
Well, I might have said “answer” instead of “arguing against”. And if you ever will see this international court of yours, you will have to do a hell of a lot of arguing. Not in the least by convincing people who are not yet convinced. You will need a lot of stamina facing people who will support you in this, but not in that. You will need to anticipate counter arguments, capacities it is next to impossible to improvise unless you actually have gotten acquainted with the field of arguments. The only way I know of to develop this is by doing actual dialogue. There was a time when the Turks did not answer and it was easy for the rest of the world to stick to simple formulas, like Avery does. But today people are asking questions of all kinds about both positions. When more outsider people start considering to support you there will probably be rather more than less “Ragnar”s around. They will like to listen, to understand, to ask questions. You will need your patience, which it seems you now for a moment have lost!! But of course, I see that in this field, very few actually believe in the force of dialogue. This is what I believe in. Dialogue with all the relevant positions, which does not exclude my own position, which one must be blind not to see is very much closer to the Armenian position than to the Turkish ideas that are the main obstacle to justice.
LOL.. oh my oh my.. look who is preaching about dialogue.. someone who does not know the TRUE meaning of a dialogue.. those who kiss TUrkish behind will never be able to carry on a dialogue… for example YOU.. so pleaseeee ragnar spare me your “phd” speech… you should not talk..
The reason people are asking questions is not because they suddently decided to learn about their past.. the reason people asking questions is because Armenians decides to speak up and be silent no more.. it is because they realized that TUrkey is hiding a HUGEEEEEEEEE skeleton in the closet and want to know more and more so .. THE TRUTH…. and guess what my “denialist friend who pretends to have patience but yet loses it from time to time and shows his true colors” …i would suggest you don’t speak to Boyajian the way you do.. with hint of sarcasm, cockiness and most of all “know it all”.. because Boyajian’s one strand of hair has more intelligence than entire you and then some…
Her losing patience with types of you is not unheard of.. actually that patience that she has toward you is immensly commandable because if it was not for her willingness to dialogue with the likes of you, you would not be having this back and forth conversations.. just because we are giving you a stage to sing, it does not mean you are a good singer my Turkophile friend.. so get off your high horse…
Ragnar, this is patronizing: “In many ways I feel you are just crying out against a boundless catastrophy that you carry with you from your family and friends and nation. A catastrophy that cannot be undone in any way. What can I say to this except that I try to share your pain (which I am obviously not able to do in a deep and full sense of the words)?”
Boundless pain? No. Unmet desire for justice for a still unpunished crime! The dead cannot be brought back, but the crime must not continue to go unpunished. Is this that hard to comprehend? If you can feel for those who occupy Armenian lands and worry about their displacement, how much more you must feel for the displaced Armenians around the world, no? How much more your heart must be moved by the threat of annihilation that still hangs over Armenia and Assyria. Or have you spent too much time in the permafrost?
Boyajian
I am not into this for purely intellectual reasons.
why don’t YOU tell us why you are here ragnar.. you stated it is not for purely intellectual reasons.. we already knew that… but expand on that.. do share.. don’t be shy…
Boyajian,
I dont understand why you believe that I go to Turkey just for intellectual reasons, to disagree with them and propose that Turks apologize? What you say doesnt make sense. Isnt it rather that you do not like to be challenged in your preconceptions?