Tweet
TURKISH DIPLOMAT SAYS: USE TURKISH ARCHIVES TO RESEARCH THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
The Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/x-4814-LA-Middle- Eastern-Policy-Examiner~y2009m4d8-Turkish-diplomat -says-Use-Turkish-archives-to-research-the-Armenia n-Genocide
April 9 2009
CA
Yucel Guclu, an official in Turkey's U.S. Embassy, asks in the Spring
2009 Middle East Quarterly, "Will Untapped Ottoman Archives Reshape
the Armenian Debate?"
Guclu says that while the question "continues to polarize historians
and politicians . . . it is ironic that many of the archives that
contain documentation from the period remain untapped." He mentions
several rich sources waiting to be exploited, including the Ottoman
Archives in the Prime Minister's Office; the archives of the Turkish
General Staff Military History and Strategic Studies Directorate;
and the National Library in Ankara. He concludes that a joint
Turkish-Armenian historical commission should investigate these
materials to establish the truth about the Armenian experience.
There are two points to be made. The first is that this proposal is
utterly uncontroversial. No one is arguing against doing research in
Ottoman records.
The second, more significant point, is this: Guclu does not make
the claim that any archives contain evidence that will disprove the
genocidal character of the Armenian tragedy. The title of his piece
is a trifle misleading. The assertion that we should look does not
create any presumption about what we will find.
History is never as unambiguous as we would like. First, historians,
as human beings, have unconscious predispositions and even conscious
biases. (There's a wonderful story about Winston Churchill in
Parliament, criticizing the then prime minister: "History will say
that the right honorable gentleman was wrong in this matter." Slight
pause. "I know it will, because I shall write the history.") Second,
historical evidence can be fragmentary, suspect or simply unclear. For
example, while there is no doubt that the Nazis and their collaborators
murdered roughly six million Jews, Hitler's precise role in the
organization and unfolding of the genocide continues to be debated.
But--equally important--while the writing of history is necessarily
tentative, it isn't impossible. We can therefore judge the evidence
as we have it today as supporting the factuality of the Armenian
Genocide. If new information comes to light, we can revise our judgment
accordingly. But there is no warrant for withholding judgment,
no need to wait for a "historical commission," on the chance that
someday there may be new information.
The Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/x-4814-LA-Middle- Eastern-Policy-Examiner~y2009m4d8-Turkish-diplomat -says-Use-Turkish-archives-to-research-the-Armenia n-Genocide
April 9 2009
CA
Yucel Guclu, an official in Turkey's U.S. Embassy, asks in the Spring
2009 Middle East Quarterly, "Will Untapped Ottoman Archives Reshape
the Armenian Debate?"
Guclu says that while the question "continues to polarize historians
and politicians . . . it is ironic that many of the archives that
contain documentation from the period remain untapped." He mentions
several rich sources waiting to be exploited, including the Ottoman
Archives in the Prime Minister's Office; the archives of the Turkish
General Staff Military History and Strategic Studies Directorate;
and the National Library in Ankara. He concludes that a joint
Turkish-Armenian historical commission should investigate these
materials to establish the truth about the Armenian experience.
There are two points to be made. The first is that this proposal is
utterly uncontroversial. No one is arguing against doing research in
Ottoman records.
The second, more significant point, is this: Guclu does not make
the claim that any archives contain evidence that will disprove the
genocidal character of the Armenian tragedy. The title of his piece
is a trifle misleading. The assertion that we should look does not
create any presumption about what we will find.
History is never as unambiguous as we would like. First, historians,
as human beings, have unconscious predispositions and even conscious
biases. (There's a wonderful story about Winston Churchill in
Parliament, criticizing the then prime minister: "History will say
that the right honorable gentleman was wrong in this matter." Slight
pause. "I know it will, because I shall write the history.") Second,
historical evidence can be fragmentary, suspect or simply unclear. For
example, while there is no doubt that the Nazis and their collaborators
murdered roughly six million Jews, Hitler's precise role in the
organization and unfolding of the genocide continues to be debated.
But--equally important--while the writing of history is necessarily
tentative, it isn't impossible. We can therefore judge the evidence
as we have it today as supporting the factuality of the Armenian
Genocide. If new information comes to light, we can revise our judgment
accordingly. But there is no warrant for withholding judgment,
no need to wait for a "historical commission," on the chance that
someday there may be new information.