Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Study the Armenian Genocide with confidence, Ara Sarafian suggests

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Study the Armenian Genocide with confidence, Ara Sarafian suggests

    Study the Armenian Genocide with confidence, Ara Sarafian suggests


    http://www.reporter.am/index.cfm?object id=3D4CD51A31-3FF3-352C-2F99C1E0C1BEA575&pg=3D 2

    by Ara Sarafian

    Published: Thursday December 18, 2008

    Sir:

    On November 26, 2008, Hurriyet Daily News published an article based
    on an interview titled, "Sarafian: Focus on the Diaspora." This
    interview followed a conference I participated in organized by the
    International Hrant Dink Foundation at Bosphorus University, Istanbul,
    on Adana in the late Ottoman period.

    The Hurriyet Daily News article caused anxiety in some Armenian
    circles because of the apparent harshness of my statements as they had
    been rendered in the Turkish press. The most forceful response came
    from my detractors in Internet chat groups.

    Given the interest created by the Hurriyet Daily News article in some
    Armenian circles, I would like to disclose the substance of my
    interview for your information. Below are the key points:


    1. Context: Turkey today


    Turkey is going through a period of change. It is true that many of
    the old anti-Armenian voices are still around, and one can still see
    restrictions on free speech in Turkey. However, there are also
    significant alternative voices being heard from academics,
    journalists, lawyers, diplomats, and ordinary people. This
    multiplicity of voices seems to be part of the democratization process
    of Turkey.

    Twenty years ago Turkish state intellectuals were denying the Armenian
    Genocide by saying that nothing happened in 1915; if there were
    killings, they were Turks killed by Armenians; that Armenian Genocide
    allegations were the product of Armenian terrorism or a Soviet
    conspiracy to destabilize Turkey. The official Turkish thesis on the
    Armenian Genocide was prescribed by the state with no alternative
    voices or dissent allowed.

    Today, the Armenian Genocide debate has already shifted inside Turkey.
    It is now quite normal to hear that "terrible things happened to
    Armenians in 1915", that Armenians were poorly treated, that there
    were massacres, etc. Turkish citizens are also more and more aware of
    the contribution of Armenians to Ottoman-Turkish identity and
    culture. Most of the protagonists making a case for the gradual
    rehabilitation of Armenians are Turkish liberal intellectuals. This
    change has been part of a process that is still in progress.

    Armenian intellectuals can play a positive role in engaging
    Turkish-Armenian debates as they open up by setting the tone for
    better understanding of a shared past, including practical ways to
    address the legacy of 1915. A sensitive Armenian approach can foster a
    positive outcome in Turkey, while a coarse response will close minds
    and play into the hands of Turkish chauvinists.


    2. Diaspora-Armenia scholarship


    Over the past 25 years, practically all cutting-edge scholarship on
    the Armenian Genocide has taken place outside of Armenia. A good part
    of this work was done by diaspora Armenians, and many non-Armenians
    were nurtured or benefited by the efforts of diaspora Armenians. The
    diaspora is at the core of the Armenian Genocide debate. If Prime
    Minister Erdogan's government is looking for an engaging strategy to
    resolve the Armenian Genocide issue, it has to address the diaspora as
    much as the Armenian government.


    3. Partisan scholarship, prosecutorial approach


    Our understanding of the Armenian Genocide has been influenced by
    partisan scholarship because a number of academic institutions and
    political parties in Armenian communities, such as in the United
    States or Great Britain, have nurtured a prosecutorial approach to the
    subject. Consequently, some important elements of the events of 1915
    have been distorted. The main thrust of the prosecutorial approach has
    been the assertion that the genocide of Armenians was executed with
    the thoroughness of the Nazi Holocaust, and that all Turks and Kurds
    were involved in the genocidal process. This approach is best
    exemplified by Vahakn Dadrian's The
    <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/157181666 6?ie=3DUTF8&tag=3Darmenrepor-20&link_code= 3Das3&camp=3D211189&creative=3D373489& creativeASIN=3D1571816666>
    History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to
    Anatolia to the Caucasus.' border=3D0>


    4. The Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust


    The Armenian Genocide is not the same as the Holocaust. The Young
    Turks did not have the apparatus to carry out a genocide on par with
    the Holocaust. It is also a fact that many Ottoman officials,
    including governors, sub-governors, military personnel, police chiefs,
    and gendarmes saved thousands of Armenians during the Genocide. Most
    Armenians from the province of Adana, for example, were not
    killed. This very basic fact is elided in the works of prominent
    Armenian historians. There are other examples too. The "Holocaust
    model" of the Armenian Genocide is fundamentally flawed.


    5. Archives


    Key "Armenian archives" on the Armenian Genocide remain closed to
    critical scholars. This matter concerns all scholars and should be
    subject to scrutiny. The most important examples are the archives of
    the Jerusalem Patriarchate, which include materials from Ottoman
    Turkey related to the Genocide. Partisan scholars have used these
    archives in their work, though their assertions can not be checked. In
    the 1980s the Zoryan Institute collected the private papers of
    individuals in the diaspora, yet the materials have remained under
    lock and key. Such standards should not be acceptable within our
    communities. We should object to them as we object to any manipulation
    of Ottoman archives in Turkey today.


    6. Diaspora and Turkey


    As Turkey continues to examine various taboos, more and more Turks are
    discovering their human, material, and historical ties to
    Armenians. If Turkey continues to develop in this direction, with
    freedom of thought and expression, there is no reason why diaspora
    Armenians cannot be brought into public and academic debates in
    Turkey. The Armenian diaspora is historically rooted in Turkey.


    7. Playing the victims of the Armenian Genocide


    The present generation of Armenians cannot assume the victim role when
    discussing Turkish-Armenian relations. Given the seriousness of the
    subject, academics and community activists should be expected to be
    well informed about their subject matter and give fair consideration
    to all parties. The Genocide issue is not a simple question of
    justice for Armenians, but a case of justice for everyone. This
    attitude is essential for the peaceful resolution of past
    differences. There is no room for ignorance and bigotry.


    8. Freedom of thought, freedom of expression in Armenia


    Recent events have shown once more that freedom of expression is not
    something that is universally respected in Armenia. In the past weeks
    we have heard of the brutal beating of Edik Baghdasaryan, chief editor
    of Hetq and the president of the Investigative Journalists'
    Association of Armenia. His beating was preceded by attempts to
    harass and intimidate him with impunity. This is not the first time
    that people have been intimidated and beaten for their critical views
    in Armenia. In my opinion this lack of freedom has restricted critical
    research in Armenia on the Armenian Genocide.


    9. Joint commission


    Prime Minister Erdogan has suggested that a commission of historians
    should be formed by the Turkish and Armenian governments to examine
    the events of 1915. I would propose an alternative as follows: (1)
    Relevant archives in Turkey should be open to researchers, with
    special procedures to allow them ready access to records; (2)
    Independent groups of specialists from different disciplines should be
    funded to collaborate on specific projects related to 1915; (3) The
    work of such groups should be open to the scrutiny of third parties;
    (4) Academic excellence should be the governing criteria in putting
    research teams together, not ethnicity, citizenship, or horse-trading
    among Turkish and Armenian bureaucrats; (5) The examination of
    archival records should not be limited to Ottoman records but include
    other archives outside of Turkey.
Working...
X