Tweet
Theriault: The `Neutrality' of Genocide Denial: A Response to Pam Steiner
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2011/06/04/theriault-the-%e2%80%98neutrality%e2%80%99-of-genocide-denial-a-response-to-pam-steiner/
Sat, Jun 4 2011
By: Henry Theriault
For Steiner to refuse to characterize the historical facts correctly,
according to the UN definition of genocide, is for her to give de
facto support to deniers.
It was with hope that turned to concern that I read Harut Sassounian's
crisp and clear account of the March 31 UCLA event featuring Hasan
Cemal, grandson of Cemal Pasha, with commentators Pam Steiner, great
granddaughter of Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, and Richard Hovannisian,
renowned UCLA Historian of modern Armenian history. Hasan Cemal's
willingness to use the term `genocide' accurately in reference to `the
events of 1915' was at once a meaningful step forward for him,
compared to somewhat less direct statements of his in the past, and
supports genuine progress for Turkey and Turks on this issue. Indeed,
as I witnessed first-hand as a participant in the April 2010 Ankara
conference on the Armenian Genocide, more and more Turks are willing
to confront their history vis-à-vis Armenians forthrightly and
honestly. At least for Turks willing to take a principled stand on
this issue, the word `genocide' is no longer taboo in Turkey.
Pam Steiner at UCLA.
My optimism, however, was all too fleeting. If Hasan Cemal's ideas
were evolving forward, Pam Steiner's seemed to be regressing. For she
made a conscious point, which she has since defended in a response to
Sassounian in the California Courier, to avoid under all circumstances
use of the term `genocide' to characterize the fate of Armenians in
the Ottoman Empire. As I read this, I felt as if I had been
transported back in time a decade to the times of the at ill-conceived
muddle of political manipulations known as the Turkish-Armenian
Reconciliation Commission (TARC) and even further back, to a time when
denial of the Armenian Genocide was actually credible and those
committed to truth faced an uphill battle. With a few words - or
omission of one word - Dr. Steiner seemed to want to throw us all back
there again, and to erase decades of progress on this issue, progress
that has in the past five years begun to bear quite a bit of fruit in
Turkey itself.
Armenian indignation in the face of Turkish denials of the Armenian
Genocide are not the problem, but a reasonable and ethical response to
denial which is, as the great theorist of genocide denial Prof. Israel
Charny explains, a celebration of genocide and a renewed assault on
the victim group.
Dr. Steiner rationalized her avoidance of the term `genocide' by
stating that she is now functioning as a `facilitator' of a `dispute'
between Armenians and Turks. Because of this, she must remain neutral
and avoid any statements that would suggest that she is partial to one
side. There are a number of problems with this self-analysis. First,
it is impossible to be `neutral' in the sense of not picking a side
when facing a disagreement between one group that maintains a true
view of the world and one group that maintains a false one. As others
and I have long pointed out, the goal of genocide denial is simply to
prevent a final recognition of the historical truth of a genocide, to
introduce doubt. This is what Bradley Smith, infamous Holocaust
denier, tried to do with such things as his Duke University student
newspaper advertisement denying the Holocaust. Once denial is taken as
seriously as the true facts, deniers have won, because recognition
will be perpetually prevented. Denial wins merely by being an equal
party to discourse on a genocide, while truth wins only with the
defeat of denial. Thus the relationship between deniers and those
committed to historical truth is not symmetrical, and a symmetrical
neutrality as adopted by Dr. Steiner does not fit it correctly. For
her to refuse to characterize the historical facts correctly,
according to the UN definition of genocide, is for her to give de
facto support to deniers. In this way, she will not facilitate better
relations, but will instead facilitate (make easier) denial of the
Armenian Genocide. I am sure that is not her intent, but that is the
effect of her approach.
This lack of true neutrality is perhaps evident in Dr. Steiner's call,
as reported by Sassounian, for `Armenians to acknowledge that `the
Turkish people [who] suffered horrendously during World War I...need and
deserve acknowledgment for that!'' and that Armenians need to
`'consider acknowledging Turkish suffering before they receive an
acknowledgment for theirs!'' It is difficult to understand how someone
who is truly neutral in a situation of one-sided historical violence
would understand that neutrality to consist of minimizing the
suffering of one group and aggrandizing the suffering of the other.
This is especially true when the suffering of the former group was
caused by the latter but not vice-versa. How can Turkish suffering due
to completely distinct issues that did not result from Armenian agency
at all be seen to balance Armenian suffering due directly to Turkish
violence? With logic like this, there is no end to what each group
must appreciate of the others suffering, to the point of absurdity.
The issue that stands between Armenians and Turks is the Armenian
Genocide and its denial. Other issues should not be used as a shield
to hide this fact and prevent it from being the focus. Whatever other
suffering Armenians and Turks have done is not what is causing
difficulties in Armenian-Turkish relations. When Dr. Steiner suggests
that Armenians should pretend it is, she not only loses her neutrality
but erects a significant obstacle to progress in Armenian-Turkish
relations.
Second, Dr. Steiner's approach shows great disrespect for and is
potentially harming the growing number of Turkish people who recognize
the Armenian Genocide as historical fact. There is no general
`Armenian-Turkish dispute.' On the contrary, many Armenians and Turks
see the facts the same way. There is a disagreement between many
Armenians, some Turks, and many members of third party groups and
those Turks who refuse to recognize the historical fact of the
Armenian Genocide. This is not an ethnic conflict, but a conflict over
basic ethical principle. The sides are not determined by ethnicity,
but by orientation to historical fact.
Third, this begs the question of why Dr. Steiner believes that the key
to improved Armenian-Turkish relations depends on Turks who are
committed to denial of the Armenian Genocide? Why does she not work
with the growing number of Turks who recognize the historical truth
and have an ethical commitment to improving their society and its
relations with Armenians inside and outside Turkish borders? Why not
work with them as the basis for better Armenian-Turkish relations
overall - some of us are certainly doing that. It is the progressive
Turks who are facing their history who might be the real key to the
future of Turkey and Armenian-Turkish relations.
Fourth, if Dr. Steiner is right that there is some potential for
improved relations in working with Turks who deny the Armenian
Genocide rather than (or in addition to) Turks who recognize it, then
two points still follow. One the one hand, it would seem crucial to
include Turks who recognize the Armenian Genocide as part of any group
of Turks involved in any conciliation project. Not only will that
relieve the unfair burden that would be placed on Armenians to
advocate for basic historical truth, but it will also offer resistant
Turks a model for behavior and thought that will be positive for them
and will show them that it is possible to maintain Turkish identity
and dignity while recognizing the Armenian Genocide. On the other, if
Dr. Steiner supports the status quo of denial and `dispute,' in effect
progress will become impossible unless Armenians sacrifice historical
truth to appease Turks who deny the Genocide. This might result in
tamer relations between the groups, but at the cost of the dignity and
well being of Armenians. Have Armenians not lost enough through the
Genocide? Do they now have to accept this final burden to allow many
Turkish individuals who are behaving in a psychologically and
ethically irresponsible way to feel good about themselves without
actually doing what is right? Such an approach constitutes harm and
insult to Armenians, and brings home to them once more that the
Turkish state and society have gotten away with genocide so completely
that the only thing left to do for Armenians is smile and stop
complaining.
But this suggests that, in the end, such a process will be good for
these deniers of genocide. Thus, the fifth problem: Dr. Steiner's
approach actually harms the very Turks who remain denialists and agree
to work with her. In effect, this approach is what is sometimes terms
`enabling.' By allowing genocide denial to stand as legitimate in the
process of dialogue, what Dr. Steiner is doing is to enable genocide
denial among Turks who for various reasons cannot or will not face
historical truth. A far better approach would be to use the process to
help those Turks overcome their issues. Perhaps they deny the genocide
out of a fragile sense of national identity that maintains itself in
the face of a world in which Turkey has slipped from a major power to
a secondary one, to a power inferior to the United States, Russia,
China, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, and many others, a power that
has lost ground for more than a century. The process of dialogue and
conciliation, especially if it involved Turks who recognize the
Armenian Genocide, could help these deniers overcome their
psychological blocks to recognizing the Armenian Genocide, to teach
them how to be proud of their identity while still recognizing its
negatives - indeed, to build that identity in positive ways precisely
by recognizing and dealing with its negatives, so that its goodness no
longer would depend on denial and so be a false delusion, but would be
a true goodness that these people themselves have attained. Otherwise,
these deniers will leave any process just as they entered it, living
in a fragile, tenuous world of denial and fear of the truth. Whatever
they might think about the way Dr. Steiner will help them maintain
their denialist front, they will not truly benefit from such a
process.
There is an ethical dimension to this issue. One of the great
ethicists in the Western philosophical tradition, Immanuel Kant,
maintained that all rational beings have a responsibility to treat all
other rational beings as ends in themselves, not merely means to our
own ends. This is one of the important bases of modern human rights:
all persons have inherent dignity and worth. One consequence of this
was that Kant held that it was always wrong to lie to others, even
when we would do so to spare their feelings, make them more
comfortable, etc. People have the capacity to deal with the truth
responsibly and fully, and to shield them from it is actually an
assault on their dignity, is it so lower them to sub-person status, to
assert that they are not able to live like persons. We can apply this
principle to genocide deniers. We have a responsibility to speak the
truth to them. When Dr. Steiner suppresses her own recognition of the
Armenian Genocide because it will offend or alienate Turks who are
deniers, what she is really doing is treating them as lesser beings
not capable of acting and thinking like people. This is no basis for
improved Armenian-Turkish relations or the future of genocide deniers
as human beings. Genocide deniers are not children, they are people,
and deserve to be treated as people. Meaningful facilitation and
conciliation must start with acknowledgment of the facts as they
exist, out of respect for all parties involved.
This is, of course, not just true of Turks. I was raised a U.S.
citizen and inculcated into a simplistic American nationalist
chauvinism as a young person. I had no interest in recognizing the
negatives of US identity or history - Native American genocides, racism,
wars of aggression, imperial conquests, etc. There is much in American
society that enabled me to continue with this attitude, but thankfully
as an undergraduate and graduate student I came across people, books,
and experiences that pushed me to confront reality as it actually was,
the good and bad of the United States, with an unflinching eye. The
process was not easy, but it has been, ultimately, very productive and
has helped me become a person whom I hope helps improve the United
States rather than perpetuating its flaws.
I conclude with a final reflection for Armenians. There is no doubt
that Ambassador Morgenthau deserves praise for what he did and tried
to do for Armenians during the Genocide. There is also no doubt that
members of his family have continued to support Armenians in positive
ways since the time of the Genocide. But that does not mean that
Armenians have an obligation to accept unconditionally anything and
everything a member of the Morgenthau family does. We have the right
to challenge and dissent from Dr. Steiner's approach if we choose to,
and her family ties should have no bearing on our evaluation of her
views and actions. In reality, of course, Dr. Steiner and others like
her are members of the power elite of the United States and have
access to resources, legitimacy, and connections that most
Armenians - especially Armenian scholars and activists like me - do not
have. We are never invited to run projects at Harvard, we cannot make
our voices heard in high-level policy-making and decision-making
circles. We must be aware of this and vigilant about it. Position is
not a substitute for ethical rightness, and we must resist the
tendency beaten into us by centuries of violence, vulnerability,
murder, rape, and destruction to embrace unconditionally any power
that offers us some slight hope of rescue, support, a future. However
desperate the situation of the Armenian Republic today vis-à-vis
Turkey, however much Armenians around the globe still struggle with
the legacy of the Genocide, we must face historical reality as well
and not deny it: when we have trusted the power elites of the United
States, the Ottoman Empire, and other states and societies, we have
almost inevitably set ourselves up for harm and even destruction. If
Dr. Steiner modifies her approach to facilitation to avoid the kinds
of damage and danger to Armenians I have outlined above, then we have
every reason to work with her. But if she maintains the problematic
aspects, we must recognize the likely negative outcome of dialogue on
those terms.
From: A. Papazian
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2011/06/04/theriault-the-%e2%80%98neutrality%e2%80%99-of-genocide-denial-a-response-to-pam-steiner/
Sat, Jun 4 2011
By: Henry Theriault
For Steiner to refuse to characterize the historical facts correctly,
according to the UN definition of genocide, is for her to give de
facto support to deniers.
It was with hope that turned to concern that I read Harut Sassounian's
crisp and clear account of the March 31 UCLA event featuring Hasan
Cemal, grandson of Cemal Pasha, with commentators Pam Steiner, great
granddaughter of Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, and Richard Hovannisian,
renowned UCLA Historian of modern Armenian history. Hasan Cemal's
willingness to use the term `genocide' accurately in reference to `the
events of 1915' was at once a meaningful step forward for him,
compared to somewhat less direct statements of his in the past, and
supports genuine progress for Turkey and Turks on this issue. Indeed,
as I witnessed first-hand as a participant in the April 2010 Ankara
conference on the Armenian Genocide, more and more Turks are willing
to confront their history vis-à-vis Armenians forthrightly and
honestly. At least for Turks willing to take a principled stand on
this issue, the word `genocide' is no longer taboo in Turkey.
Pam Steiner at UCLA.
My optimism, however, was all too fleeting. If Hasan Cemal's ideas
were evolving forward, Pam Steiner's seemed to be regressing. For she
made a conscious point, which she has since defended in a response to
Sassounian in the California Courier, to avoid under all circumstances
use of the term `genocide' to characterize the fate of Armenians in
the Ottoman Empire. As I read this, I felt as if I had been
transported back in time a decade to the times of the at ill-conceived
muddle of political manipulations known as the Turkish-Armenian
Reconciliation Commission (TARC) and even further back, to a time when
denial of the Armenian Genocide was actually credible and those
committed to truth faced an uphill battle. With a few words - or
omission of one word - Dr. Steiner seemed to want to throw us all back
there again, and to erase decades of progress on this issue, progress
that has in the past five years begun to bear quite a bit of fruit in
Turkey itself.
Armenian indignation in the face of Turkish denials of the Armenian
Genocide are not the problem, but a reasonable and ethical response to
denial which is, as the great theorist of genocide denial Prof. Israel
Charny explains, a celebration of genocide and a renewed assault on
the victim group.
Dr. Steiner rationalized her avoidance of the term `genocide' by
stating that she is now functioning as a `facilitator' of a `dispute'
between Armenians and Turks. Because of this, she must remain neutral
and avoid any statements that would suggest that she is partial to one
side. There are a number of problems with this self-analysis. First,
it is impossible to be `neutral' in the sense of not picking a side
when facing a disagreement between one group that maintains a true
view of the world and one group that maintains a false one. As others
and I have long pointed out, the goal of genocide denial is simply to
prevent a final recognition of the historical truth of a genocide, to
introduce doubt. This is what Bradley Smith, infamous Holocaust
denier, tried to do with such things as his Duke University student
newspaper advertisement denying the Holocaust. Once denial is taken as
seriously as the true facts, deniers have won, because recognition
will be perpetually prevented. Denial wins merely by being an equal
party to discourse on a genocide, while truth wins only with the
defeat of denial. Thus the relationship between deniers and those
committed to historical truth is not symmetrical, and a symmetrical
neutrality as adopted by Dr. Steiner does not fit it correctly. For
her to refuse to characterize the historical facts correctly,
according to the UN definition of genocide, is for her to give de
facto support to deniers. In this way, she will not facilitate better
relations, but will instead facilitate (make easier) denial of the
Armenian Genocide. I am sure that is not her intent, but that is the
effect of her approach.
This lack of true neutrality is perhaps evident in Dr. Steiner's call,
as reported by Sassounian, for `Armenians to acknowledge that `the
Turkish people [who] suffered horrendously during World War I...need and
deserve acknowledgment for that!'' and that Armenians need to
`'consider acknowledging Turkish suffering before they receive an
acknowledgment for theirs!'' It is difficult to understand how someone
who is truly neutral in a situation of one-sided historical violence
would understand that neutrality to consist of minimizing the
suffering of one group and aggrandizing the suffering of the other.
This is especially true when the suffering of the former group was
caused by the latter but not vice-versa. How can Turkish suffering due
to completely distinct issues that did not result from Armenian agency
at all be seen to balance Armenian suffering due directly to Turkish
violence? With logic like this, there is no end to what each group
must appreciate of the others suffering, to the point of absurdity.
The issue that stands between Armenians and Turks is the Armenian
Genocide and its denial. Other issues should not be used as a shield
to hide this fact and prevent it from being the focus. Whatever other
suffering Armenians and Turks have done is not what is causing
difficulties in Armenian-Turkish relations. When Dr. Steiner suggests
that Armenians should pretend it is, she not only loses her neutrality
but erects a significant obstacle to progress in Armenian-Turkish
relations.
Second, Dr. Steiner's approach shows great disrespect for and is
potentially harming the growing number of Turkish people who recognize
the Armenian Genocide as historical fact. There is no general
`Armenian-Turkish dispute.' On the contrary, many Armenians and Turks
see the facts the same way. There is a disagreement between many
Armenians, some Turks, and many members of third party groups and
those Turks who refuse to recognize the historical fact of the
Armenian Genocide. This is not an ethnic conflict, but a conflict over
basic ethical principle. The sides are not determined by ethnicity,
but by orientation to historical fact.
Third, this begs the question of why Dr. Steiner believes that the key
to improved Armenian-Turkish relations depends on Turks who are
committed to denial of the Armenian Genocide? Why does she not work
with the growing number of Turks who recognize the historical truth
and have an ethical commitment to improving their society and its
relations with Armenians inside and outside Turkish borders? Why not
work with them as the basis for better Armenian-Turkish relations
overall - some of us are certainly doing that. It is the progressive
Turks who are facing their history who might be the real key to the
future of Turkey and Armenian-Turkish relations.
Fourth, if Dr. Steiner is right that there is some potential for
improved relations in working with Turks who deny the Armenian
Genocide rather than (or in addition to) Turks who recognize it, then
two points still follow. One the one hand, it would seem crucial to
include Turks who recognize the Armenian Genocide as part of any group
of Turks involved in any conciliation project. Not only will that
relieve the unfair burden that would be placed on Armenians to
advocate for basic historical truth, but it will also offer resistant
Turks a model for behavior and thought that will be positive for them
and will show them that it is possible to maintain Turkish identity
and dignity while recognizing the Armenian Genocide. On the other, if
Dr. Steiner supports the status quo of denial and `dispute,' in effect
progress will become impossible unless Armenians sacrifice historical
truth to appease Turks who deny the Genocide. This might result in
tamer relations between the groups, but at the cost of the dignity and
well being of Armenians. Have Armenians not lost enough through the
Genocide? Do they now have to accept this final burden to allow many
Turkish individuals who are behaving in a psychologically and
ethically irresponsible way to feel good about themselves without
actually doing what is right? Such an approach constitutes harm and
insult to Armenians, and brings home to them once more that the
Turkish state and society have gotten away with genocide so completely
that the only thing left to do for Armenians is smile and stop
complaining.
But this suggests that, in the end, such a process will be good for
these deniers of genocide. Thus, the fifth problem: Dr. Steiner's
approach actually harms the very Turks who remain denialists and agree
to work with her. In effect, this approach is what is sometimes terms
`enabling.' By allowing genocide denial to stand as legitimate in the
process of dialogue, what Dr. Steiner is doing is to enable genocide
denial among Turks who for various reasons cannot or will not face
historical truth. A far better approach would be to use the process to
help those Turks overcome their issues. Perhaps they deny the genocide
out of a fragile sense of national identity that maintains itself in
the face of a world in which Turkey has slipped from a major power to
a secondary one, to a power inferior to the United States, Russia,
China, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, and many others, a power that
has lost ground for more than a century. The process of dialogue and
conciliation, especially if it involved Turks who recognize the
Armenian Genocide, could help these deniers overcome their
psychological blocks to recognizing the Armenian Genocide, to teach
them how to be proud of their identity while still recognizing its
negatives - indeed, to build that identity in positive ways precisely
by recognizing and dealing with its negatives, so that its goodness no
longer would depend on denial and so be a false delusion, but would be
a true goodness that these people themselves have attained. Otherwise,
these deniers will leave any process just as they entered it, living
in a fragile, tenuous world of denial and fear of the truth. Whatever
they might think about the way Dr. Steiner will help them maintain
their denialist front, they will not truly benefit from such a
process.
There is an ethical dimension to this issue. One of the great
ethicists in the Western philosophical tradition, Immanuel Kant,
maintained that all rational beings have a responsibility to treat all
other rational beings as ends in themselves, not merely means to our
own ends. This is one of the important bases of modern human rights:
all persons have inherent dignity and worth. One consequence of this
was that Kant held that it was always wrong to lie to others, even
when we would do so to spare their feelings, make them more
comfortable, etc. People have the capacity to deal with the truth
responsibly and fully, and to shield them from it is actually an
assault on their dignity, is it so lower them to sub-person status, to
assert that they are not able to live like persons. We can apply this
principle to genocide deniers. We have a responsibility to speak the
truth to them. When Dr. Steiner suppresses her own recognition of the
Armenian Genocide because it will offend or alienate Turks who are
deniers, what she is really doing is treating them as lesser beings
not capable of acting and thinking like people. This is no basis for
improved Armenian-Turkish relations or the future of genocide deniers
as human beings. Genocide deniers are not children, they are people,
and deserve to be treated as people. Meaningful facilitation and
conciliation must start with acknowledgment of the facts as they
exist, out of respect for all parties involved.
This is, of course, not just true of Turks. I was raised a U.S.
citizen and inculcated into a simplistic American nationalist
chauvinism as a young person. I had no interest in recognizing the
negatives of US identity or history - Native American genocides, racism,
wars of aggression, imperial conquests, etc. There is much in American
society that enabled me to continue with this attitude, but thankfully
as an undergraduate and graduate student I came across people, books,
and experiences that pushed me to confront reality as it actually was,
the good and bad of the United States, with an unflinching eye. The
process was not easy, but it has been, ultimately, very productive and
has helped me become a person whom I hope helps improve the United
States rather than perpetuating its flaws.
I conclude with a final reflection for Armenians. There is no doubt
that Ambassador Morgenthau deserves praise for what he did and tried
to do for Armenians during the Genocide. There is also no doubt that
members of his family have continued to support Armenians in positive
ways since the time of the Genocide. But that does not mean that
Armenians have an obligation to accept unconditionally anything and
everything a member of the Morgenthau family does. We have the right
to challenge and dissent from Dr. Steiner's approach if we choose to,
and her family ties should have no bearing on our evaluation of her
views and actions. In reality, of course, Dr. Steiner and others like
her are members of the power elite of the United States and have
access to resources, legitimacy, and connections that most
Armenians - especially Armenian scholars and activists like me - do not
have. We are never invited to run projects at Harvard, we cannot make
our voices heard in high-level policy-making and decision-making
circles. We must be aware of this and vigilant about it. Position is
not a substitute for ethical rightness, and we must resist the
tendency beaten into us by centuries of violence, vulnerability,
murder, rape, and destruction to embrace unconditionally any power
that offers us some slight hope of rescue, support, a future. However
desperate the situation of the Armenian Republic today vis-à-vis
Turkey, however much Armenians around the globe still struggle with
the legacy of the Genocide, we must face historical reality as well
and not deny it: when we have trusted the power elites of the United
States, the Ottoman Empire, and other states and societies, we have
almost inevitably set ourselves up for harm and even destruction. If
Dr. Steiner modifies her approach to facilitation to avoid the kinds
of damage and danger to Armenians I have outlined above, then we have
every reason to work with her. But if she maintains the problematic
aspects, we must recognize the likely negative outcome of dialogue on
those terms.
From: A. Papazian