Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Libaridian: Scholars And The Politics Of Genocide Recognition

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

  • Libaridian: Scholars And The Politics Of Genocide Recognition

    LIBARIDIAN: SCHOLARS AND THE POLITICS OF GENOCIDE RECOGNITION

    Posted on July 30, 2013

    A Response to articles in the Asbarez and the Armenian Weekly

    by Jirair Libaridian

    To read the Armenian Weekly's response to this article, click here.

    http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/07/30/waltzing-around-denial-a-response-to-jirair-libaridian/

    I read with much interest Mr. Ara Khachatourian's article titled
    "Armenian Scholars at the Center of Genocide Denial" (Asbarez, June
    5, 2013, reproduced in the Armenian Weekly), and "The Case Against
    Legitimizing Genocide Deniers: Scholars Speak Up" by the staff of
    the Armenian Weekly (June 7, 2013), reproduced in Asbarez.

    The fundamental point raised in these two articles and by the five
    scholars quoted in the latter is the following: By participating
    in an academic conference in early June in Tbilisi organized by a
    denialist academic, Professor Hakan Yavuz, and sponsored partially
    by the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA, an organization accused of
    being at the forefront of denialist efforts in American academia),
    Armenian scholars are legitimizing the denialist position of that
    scholar and organization.

    I happen to have been invited to the conference in question as a
    keynote speaker. After much deliberation that considered such concerns,
    I accepted the invitation. (That I was unable to attend the conference
    due to a health problem is irrelevant. I stand behind my decision
    to attend.)

    Leaving aside the sensationalism of the first article and the lack of
    professionalism of the second, I appreciate the concerns that underlie
    both. I hope that what began as a series of blind criticisms may be
    turned into the beginning of a shift in our methodology of discussing,
    debating and inquiring on issues critical to academia and to the
    wider community.

    I have taken on the challenge presented in Mr. Khachatourian's piece
    to argue the case for accepting the invitation to participate in that
    conference. My first attempt at a full response to the above mentioned
    articles amounted to no less than a booklet. Leaving such a text for
    a more appropriate venue, I would like to bring the attention of your
    readers to the following:

    First on the question of methodology:

    1) In preparing and publishing these articles in the Asbarez and the
    Armenian Weekly, the authors/editors never contacted me to inquire
    into my reasons for accepting the invitation, even if such a query
    might have served the purpose of better assaulting my decision. There
    is also no indication in these articles that these authors contacted
    any of the other scholars who had also accepted the invitation to
    participate. This omission may be understandable in the case of Mr.

    Khachatourian's almost-libelous piece. But the contravention of such
    simple professional standards in journalism by the authors and editors
    of the Armenian Weekly, in an article based on interviews with five
    respectable academics, is less understandable.

    Opinion articles are, professionally speaking, based on independent
    factual reporting. Neither the Asbarez nor the Armenian Weekly printed
    or produced an article that informed the public of the basic facts and
    the essence of the controversy. Opinion articles would then follow,
    but meanwhile the reader has a basis of facts and conflicting positions
    by which to assess the opinion pieces.

    Wasn't it possible for the editors of these newspapers to imagine
    that another writer could produce quotes by another five scholars or
    more whose opinions regarding participation in the Tbilisi conference
    would be the opposite of what five protagonists quoted in that article
    had to say?

    2) To my knowledge, the five scholars who were critical of those
    who accepted the invitation to the Tbilisi conference did not and
    have not shown any interest in finding out my reason(s) for having
    accepted the invitation; nor is there any evidence in that article
    that they inquired with others for their reasons.

    Two of the five scholars in question were in contact with me long
    before the conference was to convene in Tbilisi and certainly prior
    to the publication of the article in the Weekly. (At least two others
    could have been, if there was a question in their mind, since they
    know me personally.) Neither academic was interested in the reasons
    for my decision. An air of absolute certainty seems to have covered
    this issue.

    Indeed, I suggested to both scholars in contact with me that
    a workshop be organized where academics and scholars of various
    opinions could meet and discuss the pros and cons of participating in
    the conference. Even if we emerged without a consensus, at the least
    we could have mutual respect and understanding for the positions we
    have taken. There was little or no interest in such an exchange on
    the part of the two scholars in question. I have also not seen any
    evidence that others in the same group or supporting the position of
    that group ever thought about such a forum.

    3) I have great respect for all five of the scholars quoted in
    the Weekly article, as scholars. But being a good scholar does not
    qualify anyone to be the sole source of political wisdom and strategic
    judgment. I would not trust the political judgment of anyone who
    is not at least interested in the logic of someone who disagrees
    with him/her. But I need to point out that we are dealing with the
    politics of Genocide recognition and the factuality of the Genocide
    to accept at face value the assessment of good scholars.

    At the end, we are not talking about the factuality of the Genocide;
    rather we are looking at the politics of Genocide recognition.

    Second, some questions regarding the logic of our detractors:

    1) Why is the assault against the participants directed against
    scholars of Armenian origin? Are they the only ones who would have
    "legitimized" the position of the denialists? Is such legitimation
    by Armenian scholars the most important? How about the few dozen
    non-Armenians who accepted to speak at the conference or to present
    papers? How about the President of the most important professional
    association in the field, the Middle East Studies association, who
    addressed the conference, also as a keynote speaker?

    2) Are boycotts the best method to deal with such situations? Where
    is the research to back that assumption? When are boycotts, indeed,
    effective? And, are there not other options that should be considered?

    3) Will the denialists disappear if we boycott their conferences? Is
    a conference best left to denialists?

    4) Does it matter or not what one says or does at such conferences?

    Does the intent of participation have to be limited to trying to
    "convince" the other of the factuality of the Genocide? Isn't it
    possible to take an opportunity, offered for whatever reason, and
    have sufficient self-confidence to use it to one's own advantage?

    5) Are Armenians in the same situation regarding the international
    recognition of the Genocide as Jews are regarding that of the
    Holocaust? Can Armenians afford to act with the same cavalier fashion
    regarding denialists as Jews can, as suggested by Professor Dwork?

    Would we care what any scholar or politician or parliament thinks
    about the usage of the term genocide if Turkey had recognized that
    crime as Germany has done with its crime?

    6) If by merely attending a conference is sufficient for a
    scholar to have a legitimized the program and approaches of a
    cosponsoring organization, then are we to assume that when Armenian
    or other scholars attend conferences sponsored by institutions and
    scholars-Turkish or otherwise- who do not use the term genocide they
    are legitimizing the non-use of the term genocide?

    7) Can we be sure that Turkish or other scholars who share our pain
    but do not use the term genocide or who do not agree to reparations
    are less "dangerous" than those who openly oppose the use of the term?

    8) Are Turkish scholars-or, for that matter any others- legitimizing
    territorial demands against Turkey by participating in events sponsored
    by Armenian political parties that have placed such demands at the
    forefront of their programs?

    9) Should the position of a scholar or organization on the recognition
    of the Genocide be the only criterion to be considered when considering
    Turkish-Armenian contacts and relations?

    The list of questions can continue and be expanded but I will stop
    here for now and get to thereasons for my accepting the invitation
    to speak at the Tbilisi conference:

    1) This was a conference on "End of Empires" that allowed participants
    to explore contexts of specific issues, including those of interest
    to Armenians. The Genocide could be placed in its larger context,
    which often makes it more understandable for those who have a certain
    resistance to its acceptance.

    2) There were no limitations on what and how I could discuss and no
    request was made, nor could one be accepted, for prior approval of
    my talk. To my knowledge that was also the case for other Armenian
    scholars who were invited to participate.

    3) The conference was being held with the co-sponsorship of the most
    important university in Georgia, a critical neighbor of Armenia, with
    the participation of many scholars and others from that country and
    elsewhere who would have heard only a denialist position had Armenian
    scholars not participated.

    4) The conference was "legitimized," with or without Armenians, with
    the participation of not only Georgian institutions but also the
    president of MESA and others whose credentials cannot be questioned
    and cannot be judged solely by their position regarding the Genocide
    or its recognition.

    5) Genocide recognition is now primarily a political process, which
    requires a presence whereverpossible, especially where denialists
    appear.

    6) Genocide recognition is not the only factor that affects
    Armenian-Turkish contacts and relations. That observation is valid even
    for the Diaspora. The proliferation of contacts and discussion groups
    over the last 15 years is evidence of that. But that observation
    is certainly true as far as relations between the two states of
    Armenia and Turkey are concerned. One can reduce relations between
    Armenian and Turkey to Genocide recognition only at the expense of
    the security-in the widest yet most realistic sense of that term-
    of Armenia and of its people. Armenia and Turkey face not only
    security concerns-traditionally defined bilateral and regional-but
    also environmental, human trafficking, and other dimensions that
    cannot and should not be endangered by rigid policies that do not
    help resolve these issues. Some Armenians and "pro-Armenian" others
    may find this or that Turk unworthy of Armenian contact or even
    dangerous to contact. Have we forgotten that once all Turks were
    deemed dangerous? That many of these same scholars opposed sitting
    down with any Turkish scholar who did not accept the term Genocide,
    and similar charges of legitimizing the position of such Turks were
    leveled at those of us who initiated such contacts?

    7) Turks of all shades and convictions, particularly the ones who work
    for the government or are closely associated with it, are part of the
    decision making process and/or constitute an important segment of the
    public opinion that sustains/opposes the government and its policies,
    for different or even opposing reasons. Given the historical nature
    of our most fundamental difference with that government, academics
    have come to play an inordinately significant role in the formulation,
    exteriorization, and management of that conflict.

    Thus deciding to boycott such a conference would be closing one's
    eyes to the reality that we are involved essentially in a political
    process, and not just a simple moral dilemma. Not attending would
    indicate that we refuse to be involved in the political process.

    8) Turkey and the Turkish world represent a complex reality. Turkey
    or Turks cannot be seen as good or bad. The country represents a
    spectrum, like most others. We must learn to deal with all. There
    was a time when all Turks were bad. Then we started accepting a few,
    then a few more. We learned to talk to Turks who do not use the term
    genocide but share our pain and do not actively oppose the use of
    the term but still, are not too far from those who reject it, in
    political terms. What we should have learned is that seeing people
    as good versus bad has not been a useful paradigm to deal with this
    complex world. Despite the experience of the past, some still insist
    on acting and formulating policies based on old reflexes that have
    long proven to be less than relevant.

    In other words, one cannot engage in these processes expecting to
    achieve a desired goal by arbitrarily defining safe moral/intellectual
    limits for oneself, leaving out what may disturb one's comfortable
    scholarly and quasi-political world. One can decide not to enter that
    world but that does not give anyone the right to criticize others
    who see the field and the issues in a different and wider context.

    I do not wish to make this article longer than it need be and abuse
    the good will of the editors of the Asbarez and the Armenian Weekly.

    But there are two points I must add.

    First, What would be the implications of the position taken by my five
    colleagues, if we were to boycott activities sponsored by institutions
    that advocate or defend the denial of the Genocide?

    I believe it was in the 1980s that the Academic Senate of the
    University of California at Los Angeles defended the teaching of
    denialist history when it insisted-against arguments presented by
    Profess Richard Hovannisian- on the right of Professor Stanford Shaw to
    teach Ottoman history any way he wanted. UCLA-and by extension the UC
    system and any self-respecting academic institution in this country-
    is a much more important institution than TCA and Professor Shaw has
    been a much more influential scholar in the filed than Professor Hakan
    Yavuz. Should Professor Hovannisian have resigned his position because
    the University he was working at had now legitimized denialism? He
    did not, of course, and he went on teaching in the same system and
    in the same department as Professor Shaw for many years.

    I am glad he stayed, even though by the logic he and the other four
    scholars offer doing so was tantamount to legitimizing denialism.

    Second, a word on the workshop I suggested should be organized to
    discuss these arguments and others that are best discussed outside
    these pages. As indicated above, I made that offer early and had no
    taker. A third party colleague has accepted the idea and may still
    organize one in the fall. It will be too late for this conference
    but the proper way to deal with this issue is, still, to have a
    face-to-face discussion at leisure on the issues that have already been
    raised, and discuss dimensions that are not appropriate for a newspaper
    format. We may or may not reach a consensus; but I do hope, we will
    develop a more enlightened view of things based on mutual respect.

    The question is: Will the Armenian Weekly and the Asbarez, and our
    five colleagues and others insist that their position is incontestable,
    irrefutable, incontrovertible, that somehow they have managed to find
    the ultimate truth, the ultimate value and the ultimate morality in
    the politics of Genocide recognition, and that they do not need to
    listen to other, opposing views?

    One final question: Is an assault on colleagues who have a different
    approach than theirs the issue around which five scholars concerned
    with Genocide recognition should come together? Can we assume that
    these five and all others are laboring ceaselessly and gathering all
    their-and our-resources in preparation for the 100th anniversary of
    the beginning of the Genocide? Or was this the shot intended to divert
    our attention from the utter paucity of any large scale strategizing
    to face 2015?

    http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/07/30/libaridian-scholars-and-the-politics-of-genocide-recognition/

Working...
X