Rich wrote: “ethnic cleansing:
–noun the elimination of an unwanted ethnic group or groups from a society, as by genocide or forced emigration.”

You proved my point actually, thanks. It says “OR genocide” which does not mean that every ethnic cleansing is done through genocide. Emrehan explained well the conditions which lead to ethnic cleansing of Armenians: Relocation, ethnic conflicts, emigration.

Emrehan,

You missed my family. They were among the remaining ones, who were among the most loyal to the Ottomans, honored by the Sultans. Yet their families were still obliterated, even though they were not very much liked by the Dashnaks or Hunchaks.

There is the hole in your argument, the majority of the Dashnak and Hunchak leaders lived and died long after 1915, while those loyal to the state were killed. The governor who ordered my great-grandfather and grandfather killed considered Armenians to be microbes.

Kader wrote:

“Anyway, ethnic cleansing and genocide are different things.”

----------

ethnic cleansing:
–noun the elimination of an unwanted ethnic group or groups from a society, as by genocide or forced emigration.

[Origin: 1985–90]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

---------

Dear Whitewashed History;

I’ve been reading the weblink you provided, supposedly containing biographies of “survivors.”

Dude, of the so-called “survivors” on that website, over 80% of them are either Hunchak or Dashnak revolutionaries, many of which took up arms against the Ottomans PRIOR to 1915, and openly engaged in insurgencies against the Ottoman Empire.

Here is a sampling:

AGHASI (Karapet Tursargisian)
Leading Hunchak; most significant leader of the battle against the Turkish forces in October–November 1895.

AGHBALIAN, NIKOL
Participated in 8th Dashnak party congress, Erzerum, 1914. Member of Armenian National Council 1914–15; also one of the organisers of the Armenian volunteer forces.

ANDRANIK (Ozanian), General
Began revolutionary activity in Sivas province in 1888. Joined the Dashnak party in 1892...Soon identified himself with the Macedonian struggle; led a troop of 230 Armenian volunteers in the First Balkan war, 1912…
[They go on with more details of battles with Turks, this Andranik is infamous for his massacres against Turks]

ARAPO (c. 1863–93) Fedayi active in Bitlis–Sasun region before Sasun revolt. Sentenced to 15 years’ hard labour; escaped from Bitlis jail. Organised villagers against Kurdish aghas and Ottoman tax-collectors. Killed in a skirmish in valley of Kyali-sor.

ARMEN GARO (Garegin Pasdermadjian)
Joined Dashnak party 1895. Participated in seizure of Ottoman Bank, Constantinople, 1896.  Returned to Erzerum after Ottoman constitution of 1908; elected a deputy in the Ottoman Parliament. Quitted Ottoman empire on outbreak of war; helped establish Russian–Armenian volunteer units...Took part in organising assassinations of Turkish leaders in 1921–2.
[Talk about treason, here is a prime example!]

DUMAN, NIKOL
Joined the Dashnak party. To Tabriz in 1891, ostensibly as a teacher but with the real intention of becoming a revolutionary. To Salmas in 1893; led a band of 50 men against Van in 1895, having several dust-ups with Kurds en route. Returning (May 1896) there were more skirmishes...Established a new guerrilla group in Persia in 1904, with the intention of going to Sasun; stopped at the border...Failed in a suicide attempt; died in Baku, September 1914.

SMBAT (S. Baroyan) (Moush 1882 – Yerevan 1955) Early engagement in guerrilla activity against Turks. Became a Dashnak fedayi, joined the Vardanantz group when aged 15. Served under Andranik at Arakelotz Vank and in the 1904 Sasun rebellion. Then to Persia with Andranik and Kaidsak Arakel; fought at Urmia and Khoy. In Transcaucasia during the 1905 Armeno-Tatar wars; fought under Nikol Duman at Yerevan and Kamarlu (modern Artashat). Returned to Moush after the constitutional revolution of 1908. A member of Andranik’s troops in 1914; took part in the battle of Diliman (Shahpur), April 1915…

Even General Dro, like Andranik, infamous for his atrocities against Turks, is on this list…

So these life-long revolutionaries and rebels are who I am supposed to sympathize with as “survivors” and “victims” ???

You’ve got to be kidding me…

Dear Rich;

I believe my statement has been misunderstood again.  When I say, ““At some point, the Armenian community is going to have to throw out the Dashnak elements, ideology, and mythology of their society…”

I am referring to the fact that most Armenians I talk to are completely misinformed and misled about certain basic facts of history, which I’ve listed in my previous post.  Eg.  Armenians being a minority, there being a substantial movement for independence (not just civil liberties); collusion with invading armies; massacres of Turks, etc…

In previous posts, I have already provided many foreign sources which corroborate my statements on these points.

The Dashnaks are in power in Armenia, and they have many organizations in America, such as Armenian Revolutionary Federation, Armenian Youth Federation, and others in California, etc.

The Dashnaks have formed the nucleous of thought, and propaganda among the Diaspora Armenian populatation.  Yet these Dashnaks are the same ones who massacred Turks, organized the Armenian rebellions with support from Europe, and instigated the violence in the first place.

Do you really think they are going to share with the Armenian community their dirt, and fess up?  Of course not.  For decades they’ve been spreading their own version of history, deceiving Armenians on even the very basic facts (I’m not even dealing with the genocide accusations yet, I am talking about background facts).  And this is why there is such a huge divide.  Indeed, it was the Armenian revolutionaries who submitted to Europe the forged documents so that they could achieve their own political aims in Paris and Sevres…

What I am saying is that until the Armenian community can take a look at itself, and separate the true facts from their own propaganda, which run contrary to even foreign historian’s publications, we will get nowhere…

Dear Whitewashed History;

First of all, thanks for the link.  I have read some accounts of Armenians before, and I will take a look at the link you provided.

Unfortunately, pretty much all of the Turkish memoirs that recount first hand accounts of what Turkish families suffered through during that period is in Turkish.  However, for an academic treatment, if you are interested I recommend you read Justin McCarthy’s “Death and Exile:  The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims”; Stanford Shaw’s “From Empire to Republic:  The Turkish War of Liberation”; and Robert Zeidner’s “The Tricolor over the Taurus”.

You wrote:  “If I listed the books you want, that would point to my identity.”

Ok, I understand.

You wrote:  “To paraphrase Hrant Dink “There are almost no Armenians in Eastern Anatolia today.” The mission was accomplished!” “

It is true that there are few Armenians in Eastern Anatolia today, but why?  Hrant Dink and other Armenians, such as yourself, imply that this is because of genocide.  What you are overlooking, is the historical fact that in mid 1918, the same Young Turk regime that ordered the relocations, reversed their order and began systematically BRINGING ARMENIANS BACK to their former homes, this time reversing the direction of the caravans, and escorting Armenians back to their old homes, EVICTING ANY MUSLIMS who may have taken them over.

In fact, many did return, however, conflicts arose between the local Turkish and Armenian populations.  Some Armenians tried to take matters into their own hands, and forcibly reposses their old homes.  If they found their old homes destroyed, they would try to grab the nearby home, even if the title belonged to someone else.  And many other problems, especially if the Muslim did not want to relinquish their new home.  For example, many of the Turks who took over those homes were themselves refugees driven out from the Balkans.

Armenians and Turks were not able to co-exist.

Many Armenians thus chose of their own will to immigrate to other countries.  As an example, take the Armenians of Musa Dagh, who fled on a French ship and eventually returned to their homes in Hatay, which was ruled by France after the war.  When France turned over Hatay to Turkey, many chose to immigrate.  Those who stayed are still living there today near Musa Dagh.

The subsequent clashes in Eastern Anatolia between Armenian militias and the Turkish resistance (not to be confused with the Ottoman army) also caused Armenians to, of their own volition, leave.  Many Turks also fled that region during this period of fighting.  A friend of mine from Kars had all his family killed by Armenians save his grandfather, who as a child was able to flee to safety in Sivas, in the interior.  His grandfather never returned to Kars.

Thus, the fact that there are few Armenians in Turkey cannot be attributed to government policy.  After the relocations, Armenians were free to return; many did, but then left again once intercommunal violence flared up.

I would also like to point out that during this period, nationalism caused many problems in terms of “dividing up” ethnically mixed regions.  I have already mentioned the Balkans and Caucasus; Turks in Crete were also killed and driven out, as well as those in other areas re-conquered by Christians.  The Armenian case in this regard is not unique.  Unfortunately, ethnic cleansing happened in many locations.

While such history is painful - to all those involved - we should be careful in ascribing blame, and not fanning the flames by describing events with wrong terms.  What happened was not genocide.  In today’s lingo, it would be called ethnic cleansing ( to which there were many contributing factors, the relocation orders being just ONE of MANY factors that caused the Armenians population in Eastern Anatolia to dwindle ).  Furthermore, both Turks and Armenians were victims of ethnic cleansing during this period.

WWH wrote: “To paraphrase Hrant Dink “There are almost no Armenians in Eastern Anatolia today.” The mission was accomplished!” “

I don’t think anybody questions this. If you claim Ottoman Empire commited ethnic cleansing, yes she did. There are some factors that led to this but if the Armenian claims were just this, I would think that Turkey would be willing to negotiate with the survivors and get to a settlement where a fair portion of what people lost in those days are compensated. This is never done to the Turks that were ethnically cleansed from Balkans or middle east but it shouldn’t stop Turkey from doing the right thing. I have no idea how a settlement can be reached but probably if both sides try, we can meet in the middle…

Anyway, ethnic cleansing and genocide are different things. And it was the WW1 times with a lot of internal/external conflicts. You should look at the countries who provoked Armenians to rebel against Ottoman Empire. You should take into effect also that many of the things that was written in those times were war propaganda (like the famous blue book of England).

Emerhan wrote:

“At some point, the Armenian community is going to have to throw out the Dashnak elements, ideology, and mythology of their society…”

I’m not sure if you realize but the international community on this subject are not comprized of the organizations, ideology, mythology you describe above.

It is a much wider scope then Armenian, and non-Armenian, Turkish, and non-Turkish.

The Armenian genocide is a human rights issue that effects everyone in the international community even the willing, and unknowing deniers are victims as well.

So you see I am acting on behalf of your self-interests as well.

Part VI.

Concluding Comments: Scholars and Truth

Scholarship is, or should be, a quest for truth. What scholars write and say in that quest matters a great deal. Directly or indirectly, our words contribute to a shared consciousness—to the constellation of beliefs that a
society forms in connection with issues of any kind. Scholars’ contributions to that shared consciousness become especially important in relation to a society’s struggles with large, disturbing, and threatening historical events.

Nowhere is scholarly research and commentary more significant than in connection with genocide. Here the scope of mass murder and the depth of its moral violation defy understanding and arouse every kind of confusion, whether
in the form of diffuse passions or resistance to painful evidence. Careful scholarly evaluation can hardly eliminate these confusions, but it can
diminish them in favor of reasoned nterpretation and the channeling of
passion into constructive policy. Generally speaking, the extremity of human harm brought about by genocide raises the stakes of scholarly commentary.

Where scholars deny genocide, in the face of decisive evidence that it has occurred, they contribute to a false consciousness that can have the most dire reverberations. Their message, in effect, is: murderers did not really murder; victims were not really killed; mass murder requires no confrontation, no
reflection, but should be ignored, glossed over. In this way scholars lend their considerable authority to the acceptance of this ultimate human crime. More than that, they encourage—indeed invite—a repetition of that crime
from virtually any source in the immediate or distant future. By closing their
minds to truth, that is, such scholars contribute to the deadly psychohistorical dynamic in which unopposed genocide begets new genocides.

Those of us who wish to be true to our scholarly calling have a clear obligation here. We must first expose this form of denial. At the same time we must ourselves bear witness to historical truths—to the full narrative of
mass murder and human suffering. To be witnessing professionals in this way
requires that we take in grim details so that we can tell the story with accuracy and insight. It is a task to which we must bring both heart and mind, an approach that combines advocacy and detachment. We require sufficient
detachment to maintain rigorous intellectual standards in evaluating evidence
and drawing conclusions. At the same time our moral advocacy should require us
to open ourselves to suffering as a way of taking a stand against cruelty and
killing, whatever its source.

Rich,

You guys talked among yourselves in the absence of Turks and decided that Turks were guilty and now you claim that people who deny the genocide claims are one or more of those things you mention in your posts below. This is not like denying the world is spherical (even though some people do it still http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society).

There is a legitimate discussion going on. We came into the discussion a little late but this does not make us wrong. You were brought up with the stories that you believe now so there is no way that you can be objective in this matter. I am not saying your stories are wrong but they are half-truths. Of course your relatives will not tell you how the Armenian bandits killed the Muslims.

The fact is that you have no proof that shows direct government decision to *kill* Armenians. Some officials did that but it was not the orders from Istanbul. And many of those officials were hanged for not obeying the orders. Your most important evidence, the Talat Pasha telegrams turned out to be forgeries. Many Armenian claims about the number of dead are exaggerated. Many Armenians deny that there were armed Armenian groups in Anatolia at the time trying to gain independence. You also look over the fact that Britain prosecuted Ottoman officials for genocide when all the Ottoman archives were open to them and Britain does not recognize genocide claims.

If you don’t keep your accusations fair, you will get nowhere.

Dodging the real issues again, are we Rich?  You really are incredible. 

You deny Turkish mass graves of Turks killed by Armenians, instead blaming the Ottomans for that as well;

you deny Armenian independence movement, their collusion with Allied armies;

you deny Armenian atrocities;

you deny that Armenian population was a minority;

you refuse to discuss any of the history, obviously dodging my points made about the fabricated Talat Pasha telegrams.

You call even American archival documents “Turkish propaganda”, and call anyone who contests anything Armenians say “genocide deniers.” - I guess that is your way of not confronting the facts I’ve presented here in this forum.  Unfortunately, if there is ever to be Turkish-Armenian reconciliation, these are facts that the Armenian community is going to have to deal with.  At some point, the Armenian community is going to have to throw out the Dashnak elements, ideology, and mythology of their society…

And yet you speak of “dialogue” and how you are supposedly so “open to other ideas.”

Sure…

Take care buddy, it’s clear that you are really not interested in dialogue with Turks, merely regurgitating what you’ve been indoctrinated with.

Emrehan,

OK, here is a link to peruse:

http://armenia-survival.50megs.com/Survival_Biographies.htm

Emrehan,

Bottom line!

To paraphrase Hrant Dink “There are almost no Armenians in Eastern Anatolia today.” The mission was accomplished!”

If I listed the books you want, that would point to my identity, something that I am not ready to do given the current elevation of emotions related to this subject on both sides of the argument.

Part VI.

Concluding Comments: Scholars and Truth

Scholarship is, or should be, a quest for truth. What scholars write and say in that quest matters a great deal. Directly or indirectly, our words contribute to a shared consciousness—to the constellation of beliefs that a
society forms in connection with issues of any kind. Scholars’ contributions to that shared consciousness become especially important in relation to a society’s struggles with large, disturbing, and threatening historical events.

Nowhere is scholarly research and commentary more significant than in connection with genocide. Here the scope of mass murder and the depth of its moral violation defy understanding and arouse every kind of confusion, whether
in the form of diffuse passions or resistance to painful evidence. Careful scholarly evaluation can hardly eliminate these confusions, but it can
diminish them in favor of reasoned interpretation and the channeling of
passion into constructive policy. Generally speaking, the extremity of human harm brought about by genocide raises the stakes of scholarly commentary.

Where scholars deny genocide, in the face of decisive evidence that it has occurred, they contribute to a false consciousness that can have the most dire reverberations. Their message, in effect, is: murderers did not really murder; victims were not really killed; mass murder requires no confrontation, no
reflection, but should be ignored, glossed over. In this way scholars lend their considerable authority to the acceptance of this ultimate human crime. More than that, they encourage—indeed invite—a repetition of that crime
from virtually any source in the immediate or distant future. By closing their
minds to truth, that is, such scholars contribute to the deadly psychohistorical dynamic in which unopposed genocide begets new genocides.

Those of us who wish to be true to our scholarly calling have a clear obligation here. We must first expose this form of denial. At the same time we must ourselves bear witness to historical truths—to the full narrative of
mass murder and human suffering. To be witnessing professionals in this way
requires that we take in grim details so that we can tell the story with accuracy and insight. It is a task to which we must bring both heart and mind, an approach that combines advocacy and detachment. We require sufficient
detachment to maintain rigorous intellectual standards in evaluating evidence
and drawing conclusions. At the same time our moral advocacy should require us
to open ourselves to suffering as a way of taking a stand against cruelty and
killing, whatever its source.

Part V.

Careerism, Power, Knowledge

“Careerism” is a complicated phenomenon, but for our purposes we would identify two (non-exclusive) forms that it may take: one that is oriented more toward material goals, and one that involves more the satisfactions that go
with power. Both share the “thoughtlessness” that Hannah Arendt saw as the essence of the “banality of evils”: an imaginative blindness that prevents one from reflecting upon the consequences of one’s actions. [13] But elsewhere Arendt also speaks of a “willed evil,” and the second type of careerism is not
far removed from this: not simply the obliviousness to hurt, but the
infliction of hurt. [14]

Intellectuals who engage in the denial of genocide may be motivated in part by either type of careerism, or by both. The more insidious form, however, is the second type of careerism. Here material rewards are important, but more so,
the opportunity for certain psychological and social satisfactions: a sense of importance, of status, of being in control, all of which can come through identification with power, something we believe we have shown in the
memorandum we have analyzed. The price for intellect in the service of denial,
however, is a particular conception of knowledge, one in which knowledge not
only serves the ends of those in power, but is defined by power But to define
truth in terms of power is to reveal the bankruptcy, irrationality, and above
all, danger, of the whole enterprise of denial of genocide. Inherent in such
a view of knowledge is both a deep-seated nihilism and an urge to tyranny.

notes:

13. Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil,
revised and enlarged edition (New York: The Viking Press, 1964), pp. 49,
278-88.

14. Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1958), pp. 239-40.

Part IV.

Ideology, Bigotry and the Denial of the Holocaust

Scholars who have analyzed deniers of the Holocaust have concluded that they are primarily motivated by ideology. Thus, Vidal-Naquet, in his examination of Faurisson and other French “revisionists,” asserts that “all revisionists are resolute anti-Zionists.” [10] Similarly, on the basis of her even more
comprehensive survey of Holocaust deniers, Lipstadt concludes that “it is clear that deniers have no interest in scholarship or reason. Most are antisemites or bigots.” [11]

These answers are no doubt correct, but they are incomplete. It may be that all revisionists are anti-Zionists, but there are surely anti-Zionists (some of them Jewish) who do not deny the reality of the Holocaust. Similarly, there
are people who are highly antisemitic, but are well aware that the Holocaust took place.

Intellectual Confusion, Rationalization

Clues to the thinking of academics who question the reality of the Armenian genocide have been provided by Israel Charny and his colleague Daphna Fromer, who sent questionnaires to sixty-nine scholars who signed an advertisement
which, in the words of Charny and romer, “questioned insidiously the evidence
of the Armenian genocide” and appeared in several newspapers, including the New York Times and the Washington Post. [12] In analyzing the comments of the seventeen scholars who provided “active responses” to their mailing, Charny and Fromer discerned a number of “thinking defense-mechanisms” that enabled
the scholars to engage in “the denial of genocide.” These mechanisms included
what the authors term “scientificism in the service of denial,” i.e., the claim that not enough empirical evidence is available to justify an unequivocal position on the reality of the genocide; and “definitionalism,”
i.e., acknowledging deaths, but denying that they were the result of “genocide,” thus shifting responsibility for the genocide away from the Turkish government and trivializing the killing of over a million Armenians as
the inadvertent result of famine, war, and disease.

Whether anyone is led into denial by such reasoning is an open question, but such thinking does serve to make denial easier thereafter, while, at the same time, it preserves the appearance of objectivity.

notes:

10.Ibid.,p. 87.

11Deborah E. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, p. 206.

12.Israel W. Charny and Daphna Fromer, “A Follow-up of the Sixty-Nine
Scholars Who Signed an Advertisement Questioning the Armenian Genocide,”
Internet on the Holocaust and Genocide, Special Double Issue 25/26 (April
1990), pp. 6-7.

Part III.

...A number of scholars have argued, in fact, that the deliberate denial of a known genocide is a harmful act that deserves to be included in the same moral domain with indirect and direct contributions to the actual genocides. Thus,
Charny states that “Denials of genocide make no sense unless one sees in them renewed opportunities for the same passions, meanings, and pleasures that were at work in the genocide itself, now revived in symbolic processes of murdering the dignity of the survivors, rationality, dignity, and even history itself’
(emphasis in original). [7] Indeed, denial may be thought of as the last stage of genocide, one that continues into the present. A kind of double
killing takes place: first the physical deed, followed by the destruction of remembrance of the deed.

Historian (and Holocaust survivor) Erich Kulka regards the denial of genocide as an offense in its own right, asserting that “Attempts to rewrite Holocaust history on the pretext of ‘revisionism,’ aided by scholars with academic
backgrounds, must be viewed as intellectual aggression,” a repetition in thought of what was enacted earlier as physical deed. [8] In his recent book on denial of the Holocaust, Pierre Vidal-Naquet characterizes Robert Faurisson, whose “scholarly” denials of the Holocaust have been widely disseminated, as a “paper Eichmann.” [9]

We concur with Charny, Kulka, and Vidal-Naquet in regarding denial of genocide as an egregious offense that warrants being regarded as a form of contribution to genocidal violence. Denial contributes to genocide in at least two ways.
First of all, genocide does not end with its last human victim; denial continues the process. But if such denial points to the past and the present, it also has implications for the future. For by absolving the perpetrators of
past genocides from responsibility for their actions and by obscuring the reality of genocide as a widely practiced form of state policy in the modern world, denial may increase the risk of future outbreaks of genocidal killing.

Why Might Intellectuals Engage in the Denial of Known Genocides?

There are several possible motivations for denial of genocide, and these can be complex. The motivations to which we would call attention include: self- serving ideology, bigotry, intellectual confusion, careerism, identification
with power, and a particular conception of knowledge. It seems unlikely, however, that denial rests only on one of these motivations; moreover, the particular combinations of motivations may vary with individuals. Also, what
prompts denial may vary with different examples of genocide: anti-Zionism, for example, may help explain denial of the Holocaust, but in terms of its content tells us nothing about why the Armenian genocide has been denied. On the other
hand, if we focus not on the content of the motivation, but on its form (ideology) and goals (political and psychological purposes), then the
motivations for denial in these two cases may have more in common than appear at first glance.

notes:

6 Israel W. Charny, “The Psychology of Denial of Known Genocides,” in
Charny, ed., Genocide, 2:23.

7.Ibid., p. 18.

8.Erich Kulka, “Denial of the Holocaust,” in Charny, ed., Genocide, 2:57.

9.Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Assassins of Memory: Essays on the Denial of the
Holocaust (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), p. 57.

Part II.

notes continued:

1. Herbert
Hirsch, “Nazi Education: A Case of Political Socialization,” Educational
Forum, 53:1 (1988), pp. 63-16; Robert Jay Lifton, The Nazi Doctors: Medical
Killing and the Psychology of Genocide (New York: Basic Books, 1986); Ingo
Muller, Hitler’s Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich, trans., Deborah Lucas
Schneider (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991); Benno Muller-Hill,
Murderous Science: Elimination by Scientific Selection of Jews, Gypsies, and
Others, Germany 1933-1945 (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1988); Robert Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); Gunter W. Remmling, “Discrimination,
Persecution, Theft, and Murder Under Color of Law: The Totalitarian
Corruption of the German Legal System, 1933-1945,” in Isidor Wallimann and
Michael N. Dobkowski, eds., Genocide and the Modern Age: Etiology and Case
Studies of Mass Death (Westport, CT, and London: Greenwood Press, 1987), Ch.
10; Telford Taylor, “The Legal Profession,” in Henry Friedlander and Sybil
Milton, eds., The Holocaust: Ideology, Bureaucracy, and Genocide (Millwood,
NY: Kraus International Publications, 1980), pp. 133-140; and Max Weinreich,
Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes Against the
Jewish People (New York: YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, 1946).

...If highly educated academics and professionals have been able to repudiate their ethical codes and serve as accomplices and
perpetrators of actual genocides, it is likely that they would be even more able to engage in an activity in which no one is killed.

It would be a mistake, however, to underestimate the serious harm caused by denial of genocide, particularly denial wrapped in the guise of legitimate scholarship. In this section, we examine the harm done by pseudo-scholarly
denial of known genocides and consider the assertion, put forth by some scholars, that deliberate denial is a form of aggression that ought to be regarded as a contribution to genocidal violence in its own right. Then we
briefly address the question of what might motivate academics to make a career
out of denial of genocide.

Some of the ways in which denial of genocide causes “violence to others” have identified by Israel W. Charny in his essay on “The Psychology of Denial of Known Genocides,” in which he emphasizes that denial conceals the horror of
the crimes and exonerates those responsible for it. [2] This point is echoed by Deborah Lipstadt, who, in her recent book on denial of the Holocaust, writes that “Denial aims to reshape history in order to rehabilitate the
perpetrators and demonize the victims.” [3] Denial also, according to Charny, “attacks the historical spirit and morale” of the survivors and the descendants of those killed and places “further burdens on their recovery.”
[4] In short, denial prevents healing of the wounds inflicted by genocide. [5] Furthermore, it constitutes an “attack on the collective identity and national cultural continuity of the victim people.” [6]

notes:

2. Israel W. Charny, “The Psychology of Denial of Known Genocides,” in
Charny, ed., Genocide, 2:23.

3. Deborah E. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth
and Memory (New York: The Free Press, 1993), p. 217.

4 Israel W. Charny, “The Psychology of Denial of Known Genocides,” in
Charny, ed., Genocide, 2:22.

5.See, for example, Levon Boyajian and Haigaz Grigorian, “Psychological
Sequelae of the Armenian Genocide,” in Hovannisian, ed., The Armenian Genocide
in Perspective, Ch. 10, and Miller, Survivors: An Oral History of the Armenian
Genocide, Ch. 8.

6 Israel W. Charny, “The Psychology of Denial of Known Genocides,” in
Charny, ed., Genocide, 2:23.

Part. I.

Starting off our new year and possibly going into our next I wanted to delve into the various reasons of Armenian genocide denial. The main dialoge that we have thus engaged in revolves around the scholarship of legitimacy of the Armenian genocide and attempts to repudiate it through denial. I find it appropriate to give the opportunity to our readers the various reasons why the latest form of denial are takening place. Here is a compilation of information I have sourced to inform truthdig readers as to the reasons of Armenian genocide denial.

(Please note: I needed to section off my posts due to the volume of information therefore I have posted them in parts ranging from roman numerals I. II. III., etc...)

The Harmfulness of Genocide Denial

We should not be surprised by instances of what many would consider to be inappropriate use of academic credentials and skills, since, after all, academics and professionals have contributed in direct ways to genocidal
killing projects, including the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust. They have
done so by lending their talents and prestige to racist, victimizing ideologies that are central features of many genocides, by helping to create
and administer the policies and technologies of mass killing, and by actually engaging in the killing. [1]

notes:

1. For a survey of the roles of several] professions in the Holocaust and
other eases of genocidal killing, see Eric Markusen, “Professions,
Professionals, and Genocide,” in Charny, ed., Genocide, 2:264-98. With few
exceptions, studies of the role of specific professions in genocide
focus on the Holocaust; but see the path-breaking article by Vahakn N.
Dadrian, “The Role of Turkish Physicians in the World War I Genocide of the
Ottoman Armenians,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 1:2 (1986), pp. 169-92.
On the involvement of various professions in the Holocaust, see, among others,
Omer Bartov, The Eastern Front, 1941-45: German Troops and the Barbarisation
of Warfare (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986) and Hitler’s Army: Soldiers,
Nazis, and War in the Third Reich (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991);
Alan D. Beyerehen, Scientists Under Hitler: Politics and the Physics
Community in the Third Reich (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977);
Christopher R. Browning, The Final Solution and the German Foreign Office: A
Study of Referat D III of Abteilung Deutschland, 1940-1943 (New York: Holmes
& Meier, 1977) and “Genocide and Public Health: German Doctors and Polish
Jews, 1939-41,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 3:1 (1988), pp. 21-36; Michael
H. Kater, Doctors Under Hitler (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 1989); Peter Hayes, Industry and Ideology: 1. G. Farben in the Nazi
Era (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987);

Most of the references I and Emrehan made were from non-Turkish sources. So, the academic freedom in Turkey right now does not have any relevance to the discussions of whether the events of 1915 were genocide or not.

I think Turks and Armenians should talk more. There were a lot of going back and forth in our conversations but among them, I was able to see real feelings of pain in WWH and Rich which still is alive. I wasn’t able to understand this before. I was thinking Armenians were all sick to keep going on and on about the events of 1915. It makes more sense now. I think a closure will be good for both Armenians and Turks. We should keep on talking. We should talk directly. Armenians have more power then Turks in foreign countries. Of course it looks very logical to you to use this power. But when you put third parties in discussions, you eliminate the chance of mutual understanding. When non-Armenian people become your advocates, whatever they say, they can not touch hearts of Turkish people. They only will make Turkish Armenian divide more. When Turkey is attacked again and again by French, Dutch and any other European country whose past is definetely much more bloody then Turks, we feel adgitated. We feel angry that we don’t care about what happened to WWH’s or Rich’s ancestors.

I see no way that Turkey will ever accept claims of genocide while there are many Turks/Kurds in Turkey whose ancestors were killed by Armenians/Russians/Greeks/Bulgarians/Europeans. But I can definetely see Turkish people to be able to understand your feelings and feel your pain together with all that others who suffered. It will only be then that we will have a closure. The pressures of EU will never solve this.

As sides argue, they usually become more seperated at the end. We can see this in some Armenians who claim 1.5 million were killed (the real number seems to be 600,000) or in Turks who say 50,000 Armenians were killed. When you look at all that was going on in that time, I don’t see it is fair to put all the blame on Turks. It is not fair to deny that Armenians suffered a lot and Ottoman Empire was responsible for it. But you have to put the blame fairly. It was not genocide. It was relocation executed very poorly.

Dear Rich;

Let me please remind you how we got into this discussion:  I had mentioned many western historians who disagreed with Armenian claims, and you said that they supposedly only wrote that way because of wanting to be politically correct.

I then wrote that because of the attacks of the Armenian lobby, aimed at ruining that historian’s career, suppressing publications, and laws like the French law, it actually takes more courage to say Armenians are wrong, than the other way around.

So, in fact, we are not here discussing the Turkish government, Orhan Pamuk, Elif Shafak, or anything else.  The Turkish laws have not limited Dadrian, or any other pro-Armenian historian from saying what they wish.  On the other hand, in the West, historians are under pressure to go along with Armenian views, contrary views are suppressed, and YES the French law is the best example of this.

You wrote:  “Becasue they are not “historians” does not mean they can not conduct comprehenisive research.”

True, however, Orhan Pamuk has not conducted research on this subject, he just has a nice clip accusing Turkey of genocide.  And I doubt that Elif Shafak has done any new, conclusive research either. 

Regardless of who the person is, the important thing is on what they base their assertions.  If the sources are flawed, then the conclusions will be wrong.  This is something that even some pro-Armenian historians in Turkey have fallen victim to.

For example, Baskin Oran once mentioned a particular document from the Ottoman archives as “proof” of his views.  Now, Baskin Oran does not know Ottoman Turkish.  When Yusuf Halacoglu (who does know how to read the Ottoman script) pulled up the archive in question, and read outloud to Baskin Oran what it said, it was clear that the mentioned document had nothing to do with genocide, massacres, or anything.

This is ignorance.  It means that some people are expressing views without really truly knowing the subject they are speaking about.

And as far as Taner Akcam is concerned:  he was convicted in Turkey for being a member of the communist terrorist group, Dev-Sol.  That is a fact - that he escaped from prison and remade himself as a historian, was discovered by Dadrian, and began work in Dadrian’s Zoryan Institute is also a fact.  In my view, Akcam offers nothing new to the debate that Dadrian has not already published.  Same flaws, same logic.

My problem with him is the same as Dadrian - using as sources documents of dubious authenticity, documents which were not even admissible in courts of law.

Dear Whitewashed History:

I am not sure where you get the idea that I am not comfortable talking to someone with “your approach” - (whatever that is, I didn’t realize that Rich was following a “standard” script, and that you were “unique”.  I am merely replying with my thoughts about what you write.)

You mentioned that you learned about your family from books - would you mind telling me the title/author of these books.  I’d be interesting in reading them.

As far as my conversation with Rich is concerned; I actually am not too pleased with the discourse, because we are talking about everything BUT what really needs to be discussed, namely, the history and what our peoples (Armenian and Turk) lived through.

Interestingly, every time I mention something specific about the history - the most recent example being the Talat pasha telegram forgeries - Rich continues with anti-Turkish discourse focused on current politics, diverting from the main subject. 

That is his choice; however, if you’re asking my preference, no, I’d rather discuss things scientifically, citing sources, trying to ascertain exactly what’s going on.  Because it is only through such discussions that we can bridge the divide between Armenians and Turks.  Instead, I find myself constantly being insulted and accused of “government propaganda” and so forth.  Which is not only incorrect, but unproductive.

Emerhan,

I would not be quick to discount academics who study history. Becasue they are not “historians” does not mean they can not conduct comprehenisive research.

Also the Turkish scholars you mentioned such as Orhan Pamuk and Elif Shafak are part of the international public discussion of the Armenian genocide, enough to where the Turkish press and government is attacking them.

They are intellectuals and have the public’s ear whether people choose to except it or not, is another story.

Adding to the lists as I mentioned in my previous post was Taner Akcam a sociologist and historian as his biography describes. I believe you also called him a “poster boy” in a previous post somewhere. Also decrediting him as a terrorist, but not supprisingly he is free to walk freely in the Universities in America and Germany.

Emerhan wrote:

“...Turkey needs to improve in this area, does not mean that the historial arguments being put forth is false.  You need to separate this issue, from the historical issues being discussed.”

I think somewhere in our posts we lost the point that I was trying to make. The atmosphere in Turkey is not condusive to scholarly research of people who appose Turkey’s policies, citing 301 as an example.

The point is the issues that need to be discussed, researched, is hardly possible geven the attitude of self critisism in Turkey.

Your mentioning Frances laws is off the subject we are talking about the Turkish government, and not the Christianization, of anything else either.

Emrehan,

I see that you are much more comfortable with the standard Armenian approach of Rich than you are with my approach. I knew little of my Armenian background until I was in college. I learned about how prominent my family was from books, as my parents had been traumatized and desperately wanted to forget their childhood and to not pass on their pain to their children. I see things somewhat differently than most Armenians. I guess that you are more comfortable with the standard back and forth volley between Turks and Armenians that is eluciated more closely by Rich.

This is a recent article to further substantiate my comments that Turkey is not ready for self critisism.

With hope this will change.

Associated Press
Dec 31 2006

Academic in Trouble for Ataturk Speech

By SUZAN FRASER
Associated Press Writer

When political science professor Atilla Yayla questioned the legacy of the revered founder of modern Turkey, nationalists called him a
traitor and his university suspended him.

Yayla said he was punished for shattering a taboo: daring to criticize Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, a leader so idolized that his
portrait hangs in all government offices, life stops for a minute every year on the anniversary of his death 68 years ago, and his ideas are still the republic’s most sacred principles.

“There was a lynching campaign against me,” Yayla recalled recently in his office surrounded by books on liberal thought.

In a Nov. 18 speech, Yayla said that the era of one-party rule under Ataturk, from 1925 to 1945, was not as progressive as the official
ideology would have Turks believe but was “regressive in some respects.”

The uproar that ensued shows how Turkish universities, most of them state-controlled, are not always places where ideas float freely.
Anyone deviating from the set of principles inspired by Ataturk and closely guarded by the military, bureaucracy and judiciary, is
chastised and, in some cases, fired.

Ataturk was a soldier and statesman who founded secular and Westward-looking Turkey from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire in 1923.

He set about on a series of secular reforms that imposed Western laws, replaced Arabic script with the Latin alphabet, banned Islamic
dress and granted women the right to vote. The country he founded is frequently held up as an example that democracy can exist in a
predominantly Muslim country.

“As an academic, I must be free to think, to search and share findings,” Yayla, 50, said in an interview at the Ankara-based Association for Liberal Thinking, an organization he co-founded in 1994. “If Turkey wants to be a civilized country, academics must be able to scientifically criticize and evaluate Ataturk’s ideas.”

Yayla’s ordeal is a reminder of how Turkey is still grappling with ensuring basic freedoms - one of the main problems it must address if
it wants to realize its ambition of joining the European Union.

Many European observers think academic and artistic freedoms still clash too often with patriotic rhetoric. Novelist Orhan Pamuk, before
winning the 2006 Nobel Prize for literature, stood trial for “insulting Turkishness” after telling a Swiss newspaper that 1 million Armenians were killed on Turkish territory in the early 20th century. Turkish authorities say the number is greatly inflated and often cited out of the context of the violence surrounding the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

The trial, like many of its kind, was dismissed on a technicality.

Another writer was recently charged with insulting Ataturk because he wrote that the leader fled an assassination attempt dressed in
women’s clothing.

Yayla has insisted he was not insulting Ataturk but questioning the rigid way some followers interpret his principles.

“Some people have created a cult of Ataturk, but by doing this, what they want to do is not to revere Ataturk but rather to ... give themselves an undisputed position in political life,” he said. “That is what I cannot accept.”

Gazi University’s chancellor, Kadri Yamac, bowed to public pressure and temporarily removed Yayla from his teaching post pending the outcome of an investigation, saying a professor “does not have to like Ataturk but I cannot allow a person who is opposed to the republic’s main principles to educate students.”

The professor also has his supporters. Academics have signed a petition to have him reinstated. A group of protesters wearing masks bearing Yayla’s image sent the university chancellor a parcel containing sticky tape - to “gag professors.”

Dear Rich; I believe you have misunderstood some of my previous remarks, and therefore made some responses that don’t really correspond to the point I was trying to make.  Hopefully, I can clarify.

You wrote:  “Emerhan your broad generalized response painting all those who contradict or oppose Turkey’s Armenian genocide denialist polices as “not historians”...”

I did not say that all those that oppose Turkey’s position are not historians.  Writers such Orhan Pamuk and Elif Shafak are not historians, and these are who I am calling “poster boys.”

You wrote:  “...gives the impression that you reject what they have written.”

I don’t reject anyone’s writing based on whether they are Armenian or Turkish, rather I look at the sources on which they base their writings.  My chief problem which much of the literature that claims the events were a genocide is that they rely on dubiously sourced documents; especially the Talat Pasha telegrams you have previously referred to, have been shown to be forgeries, fake documents whose originals have mysteriously disappeared after being purchased from a drunken and destitute man.

These documents were so questioned in terms of sources that they were not even admitted into evidence in the Malta Trials or the trial of Talat Pasha’s assassin.  Yet, Armenian historians continue to cite these documents that were fabricated by Dashnaks in the 1920s as though they were true.

You wrote:  “I dont know about you but I am open to hear, listen and read about a broad spectum of sources on the subject of Armenian genocide and not quick to discredit them, and call them “poster boys” for anyone.”

As I mentioned before, I don’t consider novelists to be “sources.” I discredit them on the basis of their work, not who they are.  I too read Armenian websites and sources, but I have found numerous basic historial errors in their arguments.  That is my criticism.

You wrote:  “I would welcome debate rather then discrediting an opposeing view.”

We are in much need of debate.  Honest debate, with mutual respect, so that we can sort out the sources and separate the fake from the bona fide and come to a correct conclusion about this period.

Rich wrote: “301 does not suggest it’s country is ready for self critisim.”

Turkey has a general problem with its politicians who also are not mature enough to accept healthy criticism.  As I mentioned before, I would have much rather debated Orhan Pamuk in open TV, rather than sue him under 301.  However, the fact that Turkey needs to improve in this area, does not mean that the historial arguments being put forth is false.  You need to separate this issue, from the historical issues being discussed.  As I mentioned before, in the West, historians also face obstacles to voicing their research, as best exemplified by the anti-free speech French law.

You wrote:  “I hope you don’t base all of your information on one person. To gather and inform ourselves we must look at multiple sources of information, not to be selective. I am sure you agree.”

I don’t base my sources on one person, of course I agree with you on this point.  In my posts, I have cited many sources, many of which by the way, are not even Turkish, and I do make a great effort to especially track down and read uncorrupted documents from the period.

Let us not forget the Turkish government was not always open to academic discussion of the Armenian genocide on the contrary they have been active in trying to shut down academic conferences, and exclusion of information in the Holocaust Museum on the subject of the Armenian genocide.

If they did not feel were guilty why then would they be compelled to disrupt academic conferences. 

There have also been attempts by the Turkish government to disrupt academic
conferences and public discussions of the genocide. A notable example was the
attempt by Turkish officials to force cancellation of a conference in Tel Aviv
in 1982 if the Armenian genocide were to be discussed, demands backed up with
threats to the safety of Jews in Turkey. [1] The U.S. Holocaust Memorial
Council reported similar threats over plans to include references to the
Armenian genocide within the interpretive framework of the Holocaust Memorial
Museum in Washington. [2]

1.  Israel W. Charny and Shamai Davidson, eds., The Book of the International
Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide: Book 1, The Conference Program and
Crisis (Tel Aviv: Institute of the International Conference on the Holocaust
and Genocide, 1983), pp. 269-315, and Israel W. Charny, ed., Toward the
Understanding and Prevention of Genocide (Boulder, Colorado and London:
Westview Press, 1984), pp. 364-372.

2. New York Times, 22 June 1982, p. A 4.

Rich,

There is no statute limits for murder but in this case, whatever you get from Turkish government will be coming from Turish citizens who had nothing to do with the events. If you get money, that comes from people; if you get properties, that will come from people who did not take them away at the first place. So, saying that you want something from the government and not the people is practically impossible.

If you had accounts in Ottoman Bank, I think you should be able to get that money. But for any other thing that Armenians had before, how would you get that back? Probably those properties changed hands many times till now and if you try to get it from the person who owns it now, it will be unfair to them.

By the way, I don’t think the government is directly responsible for murder but for relocation. The murders were perpetrated by civillians. Many government officials were hanged for their involvement in attrocities. For the ethnic cleansing charges, it is so hard to make things fair after 90 years because of the things I wrote in the previous paragraph. Actually, Turks are probably one of the most ethnically cleansed nation on earth in 19th and 20th centuries. If things were made fair, it would be most beneficial to Turks about their properties in Balkans, Caucasus, Kerkuk and Musul (there is ethnic cleansing of Turks in Iraq as we speak), middle east. Human history is a history where land and properties change hands. Instead of living in the past where we can not do much about, we should look at things happening now in places like Darfur.

I think the only thing Turkey should do is to be more democratic as WWH suggests. But you have to know that the Greek and Armenian diasporas actions abroad makes the political climate so bad for the Turkish Armenians and Greeks. Of course it is not a defense but just to let you know.

Another question to you: Would you come and live in Turkey where your ancestors lived if the political climate was better?

Emerhan wrote:

“I don’t support Turkey’s application of 301 - I think if we put Orhan Pamuk and others on national TV and debated with them the Armenian issue, it would be much more effective.  Not only would free speech be preserved, but they would be humiliated for their ignorance.  Those Turks are nothing more than poster boys, who are not historians, and have very little knowledge of the history of the period.  A good debate would put them in their place.

Again, 301 is not important for foreign scholars who oppose Armenian views.  You’ve got to look at Western laws, which DO EFFECT them, like the one in France.”

Emerhan your broad generalized response painting all those who contradict or oppose Turkey’s Armenian genocide denialist polices as “not historians”, or “very little knowledge of the history of the period” gives the impression that you reject what they have written.

Emerhan wrote:

“they would be humiliated for their ignorance”
Your conclusions on there level knowledge seems evident, and absolute. Making conclusions before witnessing a debate that you welcome does not make sense.

Emerhan wrote:

“Those Turks are nothing more than poster boys, who are not historians, and have very little knowledge of the history of the period.”

I think your emotions are getting the better of you, surely you are not serious on this comment. You seem more upset if Turkish scholars also state the the Armenian genocide did occur.

I dont know about you but I am open to hear, listen and read about a broad spectum of sources on the subject of Armenian genocide and not quick to discredit them, and call them “poster boys” for anyone.

I would welcome debate rather then discrediting an opposeing view. Seems your working on two fronts discredit the opposition, and substantiate your position.

When people start to discredit an opposing view by unfounded, slanderous statements it does not give there position much credibility. I would seriously question the the motives, and sincerity of a person who would need to discredit an opposing view.

Emerhan wrote:

“Rich:  as for 301, Murat Belge, Elif Shafak, and others are Turks.  What we are talking about is foreign historians, in foreign lands, like Bernard Lewis, and others.  It is easy to obtain pro-Armenian books in Turkey, like those of Toynbee and others, I have seen them on the shelves of bookstores.”

Foreign historians and Turks within its borders are also effected by 301. Turkish scholars within its borders can diswayed from approaching this subject becasue of article 301.

I am not so selective when it comes to historians either in Western Countries or within Turkeys borders. One of the best ways to truely transparent for Turkey is to allow for self criticisim of it’s country. 301 does not suggest it’s country is ready for self critisim.

Emerhan wrote:

“My point is again, that for a man like Bernard Lewis and others, 301 is a non-issue, it doesn’t effect them.”

Bernard Lewis is one person a broader view is not limited to one person, or only Western historians, but Turkish historians as well as others.

I hope you don’t base all of your information on one person. To gather and inform ourselves we must look at multiple sources of information, not to be selective. I am sure you agree.

Emrehan wrote:

“Again, you only look at things from a western Christian perspective. What about the Muslims driven out of the Balkans?  Yugoslavia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc...all had huge Muslim minorities, and even places where majority were Muslims.  You forget they had been under centuries of Ottoman rule, and that many Muslims had become the local population??

The calamity of WWI, and the ethnic cleansing that ensued, cost the Turks dearly as well.  While you are so eager to Christianize Turkey, will you also Islamify Eastern Europe?  Who will give those Turkish homes back, and restore the Ottoman Turkish culture of Eastern Europe?”

I see again how you misperceive every statement that I make. You view a call for an open society in Turkey as “Christianization.”

Then you tie the situation of Turkey with that of Eastern Europe. I guess that two wrongs make a right in your eyes! Moslems from the Balkan counties, who were most probably natives of those nations who had converted to Islam, have every right to correct the wrongs done to them, just as the former Christians of present day Turkey are attempting to do.

There are Ottoman relics that are now being restored in Eastern Europe. This trend should continue.

Western Europe is becoming very Islamized.  Go to Germany, Holland, Belgium, or France. I was recently in France and was surprised that I was staying in a hotel that was in a predominantly Moslem neighborhood. Again, Emrehan, your double-standard viewpoint comes shining through time and time again. You are pleased to see the Islamization of Western Europe but view equal rights for Christians in Turkey as “Christianization.” What hypocrisy!!
Since your viewpoints are the prevailing Turkish viewpoints, it is no wonder that Turkey is having a difficult time entered the EU.