Tweet
VADIM GOMOZ: AT PRESENTATION OF HIS BOOK KUZNETSOV ADMITS BEING PRO-AZERBAIJANI BIAS THUS DEVALUATING THE BOOK
http://www.panorama.am/en/interviews/2013/10/29/gomoz/
19:20 29/10/2013 " SOCIETY
Panorama.am had an exclusive interview with Vadim Gomoz, the editor of
"Wikipedia".
- You've been at the presentation of Oleg Kuznetsov's book in Moscow,
"Truth about the "myths" of Karabakh conflict", which was initially
considered as a response to the book of candidate of historical
sciences Stanislav Tarasov called "Myths about Karabakh conflict."
However, you publicly unveiled a lot of historical inaccuracies and
fact juggling in the content of the book concerning the history of
the Armenian people. Tell us more about it.
- The story of this book revealed an interesting problem. As far as
I understood from the presentation most of the work was actually
carried out by Azerbaijani historian Eldar Abbasov who spoke at
the presentation. He, having investigated the archival documents,
demonstrates incapacity of allegations of Stanislav Tarasov. According
to Abbasov, a selective quoting and document reduction has been made
during the publication. I am not going to judge who is right and
who is wrong, for that I will have to get more familiar with these
documents kept in the archives, however I liked Abbasov's presentation,
it was absolutely correct. Among the Azerbaijani representatives he
was the only one who spoke to the point, and never made anti-Armenian
attacks. Nevertheless, in the end the results of his works have been
presented in Kuznetsov's book, and are openly preceded by anti-Armenian
propaganda, with all sorts of absurdities.
- Thus, it means that this product of Azerbaijani propaganda has
caused exactly opposite effect?
- Any historian who will read this book will not be able to go on. If
the author can allow himself to make racist attacks against Armenians,
accompanied with unfounded allegations that contradict to everything
we know about the history of the region, then where are the guarantees
that by presenting the documents, the author will follow the criteria
of scientific scrupulousness? Such passages, on the contrary, a
priori persuade the third-party reader in Tarasov's correctness,
who is forced to argue with such opponents and on their background
appears to be a pillar of academic correctness and integrity.
- It is known that Kuznetsov claims in his book about Stanislav
Tarasov's pro-Armenian disposition, at the same time he does not shun
of cooperation with the Azerbaijani side.
- At some point Kuznetsov stated, "Yes, maybe I am not objective,
but I unmasked Tarasov." From my point of view, just on the contrary,
he did everything to avoid the opportunity to oppose Tarasov on the
merits. Summarizing; they say the smart learns from others' mistakes,
stupid - on its own. This case can serve an excellent lesson for all
parties of the Karabakh conflict. As soon as the academic study gets
surrounded with propaganda hullabaloo, together with xenophobic tinge,
the credibility of that study tends to zero.
And this, from my point of view, is the main result of Oleg Kuznetsov's
book presentation.
There are normal researchers in both sides. The problem is in
isolating them from aggressively ignorant crowds, because when there
are ambassadors, Ph.D.s, distinguished writers all around you, and
everyone is trying to dehumanize the opponent, even the mere silence
seems to be a courageous deed. And if you try to argue, they may call
you a "public enemy."
http://www.panorama.am/en/interviews/2013/10/29/gomoz/
19:20 29/10/2013 " SOCIETY
Panorama.am had an exclusive interview with Vadim Gomoz, the editor of
"Wikipedia".
- You've been at the presentation of Oleg Kuznetsov's book in Moscow,
"Truth about the "myths" of Karabakh conflict", which was initially
considered as a response to the book of candidate of historical
sciences Stanislav Tarasov called "Myths about Karabakh conflict."
However, you publicly unveiled a lot of historical inaccuracies and
fact juggling in the content of the book concerning the history of
the Armenian people. Tell us more about it.
- The story of this book revealed an interesting problem. As far as
I understood from the presentation most of the work was actually
carried out by Azerbaijani historian Eldar Abbasov who spoke at
the presentation. He, having investigated the archival documents,
demonstrates incapacity of allegations of Stanislav Tarasov. According
to Abbasov, a selective quoting and document reduction has been made
during the publication. I am not going to judge who is right and
who is wrong, for that I will have to get more familiar with these
documents kept in the archives, however I liked Abbasov's presentation,
it was absolutely correct. Among the Azerbaijani representatives he
was the only one who spoke to the point, and never made anti-Armenian
attacks. Nevertheless, in the end the results of his works have been
presented in Kuznetsov's book, and are openly preceded by anti-Armenian
propaganda, with all sorts of absurdities.
- Thus, it means that this product of Azerbaijani propaganda has
caused exactly opposite effect?
- Any historian who will read this book will not be able to go on. If
the author can allow himself to make racist attacks against Armenians,
accompanied with unfounded allegations that contradict to everything
we know about the history of the region, then where are the guarantees
that by presenting the documents, the author will follow the criteria
of scientific scrupulousness? Such passages, on the contrary, a
priori persuade the third-party reader in Tarasov's correctness,
who is forced to argue with such opponents and on their background
appears to be a pillar of academic correctness and integrity.
- It is known that Kuznetsov claims in his book about Stanislav
Tarasov's pro-Armenian disposition, at the same time he does not shun
of cooperation with the Azerbaijani side.
- At some point Kuznetsov stated, "Yes, maybe I am not objective,
but I unmasked Tarasov." From my point of view, just on the contrary,
he did everything to avoid the opportunity to oppose Tarasov on the
merits. Summarizing; they say the smart learns from others' mistakes,
stupid - on its own. This case can serve an excellent lesson for all
parties of the Karabakh conflict. As soon as the academic study gets
surrounded with propaganda hullabaloo, together with xenophobic tinge,
the credibility of that study tends to zero.
And this, from my point of view, is the main result of Oleg Kuznetsov's
book presentation.
There are normal researchers in both sides. The problem is in
isolating them from aggressively ignorant crowds, because when there
are ambassadors, Ph.D.s, distinguished writers all around you, and
everyone is trying to dehumanize the opponent, even the mere silence
seems to be a courageous deed. And if you try to argue, they may call
you a "public enemy."