Sixty-nine Scholars who Signed an Advertisement...

[Guest Fadi]

Published by the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide

Special Double Issue 25/26, Avril 1990,

75th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

 

 

A Follow-up of the Sixty-nine Scholars who Signed an Advertisement

Questioning the Armenian Genocide

 

By Israel W. Charney and Daphna Fromer

 

How are we to understand the mind of a rational person who denies the historical authenticity of a major historical tragedy such as the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide? On December 2, 1985, 69 scholars signed an advertisement which appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Washington Times which questioned insidiously the evidence of the Armenian genocide. Instead of denying the occurrence of the genocide outright, the scholars proceeded self-righteously in the name of values of historical and scientific truth to call on the Turkish and other governments to open all the archives so that the facts -- presumably unknown even in their essence as to whether or not there was a state-authorized and executed genocide of the Armenians -- will be ascertained.

 

Since its publication, the advertisement has been repeatedly used as proof that "many scholars do not believe there was a genocide of the Armenian people by the Turks," and it appears as a key document in repeated Turkish lobby statements to members of the U.S. Congress.

 

In an effort to understand more fully the attitudes of the scholars who signed the advertisement, the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem undertook a follow-up study of the signators. In an accompanying statement of "Acknowledgment of Bias,", the Institute conveyed to the scholars that our studies of the subject have previously convinced us of the authenticity of the Armenian genocide, moreover that we have had our own direct experience with the Turkish government efforts to suppress the record in connection with the landmark International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide in Tel Aviv in 1982.

 

The questionnaire inquired into the respondents' knowledge of and opinion about the events that took place at the time of the Armenian genocide, their knowledge of and opinions towards any attempts to suppress and revise the historical record by either the Turks or the Armenians, their knowledge of the uses to which the advertisement has been put and about signators' current attitudes about the advertisement and their participation in it.

 

A total of 62 mailings are presumed to have reached their destination -- we failed to find an address for one signators and six other packages were returned as undeliverable. Of these 62, 4 returned empty questionnaires as statements of their refusal to participate, 10 wrote letters -- an number of them detailed and expository -- explaining their refusal to answer the questionnaire and also their attitudes about the subject of the Armenian genocide, while 7 returned completed questionnaires. Altogether, the total of 21 active responses represents a surprisingly high figure of 34% responses (compared to an average expectation of 10% responses to mail questionnaires in the social sciences). As the emotional intensity of the responses show, indications are that not only the questionnaire itself aroused tension but the subject of the advertisement is, as it should be, a focus of no little tension for many signators.

 

Some of the information revealed by those who did respond sheds light on the creation of this very clever propaganda technique, an in our judgment provides sufficient evidence on which to discredit the advertisement: Like in an earlier report by the Armenian Assembly of America of its follow-up correspondence with the 69 signators, several respondents indicated that

 

a.) they had no doubt about the essential truth of the Armenian genocide;

 

b.) they are fully aware of the Turkish government's intention to falsify the record through censorship, suppression and revision of the facts;

 

c.) and as to the advertisement itself, that they had not been aware that the Turks would use their call to open the archives to "prove" that there was no Armenian genocide, nor did they know that there would be repeated use of their statement beyond a single advertisement.

 

It should be noted that at the same time, all the respondents who commented on the matter were adamant that they received to reward or promise of reward for their participation in the advertisement, and a good number of them were insulted and irate at what they felt were implication of such questions by us.

 

What stands out in the responses of these 17 scholars is that many of them go to great pains to explain that their intentions are innocent and good, they are only interested in being responsible academicians, indeed that they want to bring an end to inter-ethnic tensions and help people forget and forgive old-time events that should not be allowed to get in the way of present-day peaceful relationships between peoples. We call this presentation style of "innocence and self-righteousness" and include it in the list of mechanisms of language and propaganda which are the ones we found were being used to disguise and justify the full meaning of the denials.

 

The following are the patterns of "thinking defense-mechanisms" which we identified "allow" the scholars to engage in the denial of the genocide:

 

1. Innocence and Self-Righteousness. The respondents claim that they only intend to ascertain the truth. Moreover, they do not believe that human beings could have been so evil as the descriptions of the genocide imply. Furthermore, even if many deaths took place a long time ago, it is important to put them aside now and forgive and forget.

 

2. Scientificism in the Service of Denial. The position taken is seemingly an innocent one that we do not know enough to know what the facts of history were, and rather than condemning anyone we should await the ultimate decision of research. This is a manipulative misuse of the science-value principle that facts must be proven. The very purpose of science, which is to know, is invoked in order to justify a form of know-nothingness.

 

3. Practicality, Pragmatism, and Realpolitik. Here the claim is made that dealing with ancient history is impractical, it will not bring peace to the world in which we live today. One must be realistic and live through realpolitik.

 

4. Idea-Linkage Distortion and Time-Sequence Confusion. This is a dishonest linkage of different ideas often out of time sequence to excuse denials of the facts, e.g., current Armenian terrorism against Turks will be exonerated and encouraged if Turkey admits to past events of the Armenian genocide; Turkish national responsibility for the Armenian genocide would constitute "retribution" against innocent present and future grandchildren and great-grandchildren of past perpetrators; the damage that present acknowledgment of the genocide would cause to the real security needs of the U.S. and NATO today does not justify bringing out the past record of long-ago events which are all over.

 

5. Indirection, Definitionalism, and Maddening. These are responses which avoid the issue by failing to reply or by going off on tangents about trivial details that avoid the essential issue of whether genocide took place. Definitionalism refers to a form of maddening resistance that is particularly common to academics who enter into definitional battles overwhether or not a given event really fits the pure form of definition of genocide, so that so much energy goes into the definitional struggle that the significance of the event and its enormous human tragedy are virtually written out of existence.

 

Denials of genocide are rooted in several mind-phenomena which represent some of the weakest aspects of the development of the human mind and civilization as a whole. For the inability to differentiate between the factual and not-factual certainly stands in opposition to all that Western-world science and development strive for in the ways of truth and knowledge.

 

 

About the authors:

 

Israel Charney is Executive Director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem. He is author of How Can We Commit the Unthinkable? (1982); editor, with Shamai Davidson, of The Book of the International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide (1983); editor of Toward the Understanding and Prevention of Genocide (1984); and editor of Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic Review.

 

Daphna Fromer is a Fellow of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide.

Edited April 11, 2003 by Fadi

[Munzur]

Thanks for posting this Domino.

 

You know, there was a 3rd Turkish-Armenian dialogue panel on the genocide at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis. I was there as an observer and I was going to write down my perceptions of the conference, but I haven't gotten the chance to. It was an interesting conference, but what struck me was that the workshop was less about the genocide an sich and more about the political implications of the genocide. A lot of experts were present, including Stephan Astourian, Vahakn Dadrian, Taner Akçam, Ronald Suny, Hans-Lukas Kieser, etc. etc. The papers were extremely interesting and will hopefully be published this year.

 

For now, this is it. I will write more when I have time.

[ES]

Hello All

 

About Armenian Genocide lecture organized by students at Concordia

 

Domino did you had anything to do with the lecture that went on last week at Concordia university in Montréal?

 

I heard it was very well organized, and I heard very high praises from the Armenian local community there.

 

 

Sincerely

ES

[Guest Fadi]

Hello All

 

About Armenian Genocide lecture organized by students at Concordia

 

Domino did you had anything to do with the lecture that went on last week at Concordia university in Montréal?

 

I heard it was very well organized, and I heard very high praises from the Armenian local community there.

 

 

Sincerely

ES

WHat makes you believe that ?

[THOTH]

Munser - please tell us more!

 

Domino - weren't these "scholars" mostly Turkish bought and paid (basically)...or am I thinking of another pitiful Turkish propaganda effort?

[Guest Fadi]

They are Thoth, well, forget what I said, I leave you decide by yourself.

 

Here are those that have signed that trash in question.

 

---------------------------

 

Note:

 

ITS, stands for the Turkish Studies Institute, in Washington D.C., honorary

chairman, the Turkish Ambassador to the U.S.. The Institute's purpose is to

counter Armenian activity at the "academic level" and to act as a pro-Turkey

lobbying group.

 

ARIT, stands for the American Research Institute in Turkey.

 

The number in ( ) stands for the number of monetary grants by either ITS, or

ARIT to the "scholar", and the items between [ ] indicate the total number

of grants to the rest of the College or University the "scholars" are

affiliated with.

 

 

 

Abu El Haj, Rifaat Cal. St. Univ, Long Beach ITS(1)

Atis, Sara Univ. of Wisc @ Madison ITS(1), [iTS(8)]

Barbir, Karl K. Siena Coll. (NY) Arab-Ottoman Studies

Basgoz,Ilhan Indiana Univ. ITS(3), ARIT(2),

[iTS(8)]

Bates, Daniel Hunter Coll., Univ of NY [iTS(1)]

Bates, Ulku Hunter Coll., Univ of NY ARIT(1), [iTS(1)]

Bayerle, Gustav Indiana Univ. ARIT(1), [iTS(8)]

Bodrogligetti, Andras UCLA ITS(1), [iTS(4)]

Burrill, Kathleen Columbia University ITS(8), ARIT(1),

[iTS(9)]

Childs, Timothy SAIS, John Hopkins Univ. 19th-20th century

Ottoman history

Daulet, Shafiga Univ. of Conn. [iTS(4)]

Davison, Roderic Geo. Wash. Univ. ARIT(1)

Denny, Walter Univ. of Mass. ARIT(1)

Duben, Alan Anthropoliogist

Ervin, Ellen N.Y. Univ. ITS(1), [iTS(6)]

Farah, Caesar Univ. of Minn. ITS(1)

Findley, Carter Ohio State. Univ. ITS(2), ARIT(1),

[iTS(3)]

Finefrock, Michael Coll. of Charleston 20th century Turkish

history

Fisher, Alan Mich. State Univ. ARIT(1), [iTS(1)]

Fleischer, Cornell Wash. Univ, Misssouri 16th-17th century

Ottoman history

Golden, Peter Rutgers Univ.

Goodrich, Tom Indiana Univ of Penn. 16th century Ottoman

history

Gould, Andres Historian

Griswald, Willaim Colo. State Univ. ARIT(1)

Halasi-Kun, Tibor Columbia Univ. ITS(3), [iTS(10)]

Hickman, William UCAL, Berkeley ARIT(1), [iTS(3)]

Hurewitz, J.C. Columbia Univ (ret) ITS(10)

Hymes, John Glenville State Col., W. Va. 19th-20th Century

Ottoman history

Inalcik, Halil Univ. of Chicago ITS(1), [ARIT(9)]

Jaeckel, Ralph UCLA [iTS(4)]

Jennings, Ronald Univ. of Illinois ARIT(1), [iTS(3)]

Kelly, James Univ. of Utah ITS(2), ARIT(1),

[iTS(5)]

Key, Kerim Southeastern Univ. 19th-20th Century

Ottoman history

Kunt, Metin Ottoman history

Latimer, Frederick Univ. of Utah (ret.) Ottoman history

Levy, Avigdor Brandies Univ. ARIT(1), [iTS(7)]

Lewis, Bernard Princeton Univ. [iTS(3)]

Lowry, Heath Inst. of Turkish Studies ARIT(2)

McCarthy, Justin Univ of Louisville ITS(1), ARIT(1)

Mandaville, Jon Portland State Univ. ARIT(1), [iTS(2)]

Meeker, Michael UCAL San Diego Turkish studies

Murphy, Rhodes Columbia Univ. ITS(1), ARIT(1),

[[iTS(10)]

Naff, Thomas Univ. of Penn. [iTS(9)]

Oberling, Pierre Hunter Coll., Univ of NY ITS(1), [iTS(1)]

Ochsenwald, William Va. Polytech Inst. ARIT(1)

Olson, Robert Univ. of Kentucky 18th-20th century

Turkish history

Peachy, William Ohio State University ARIT(2)

Quataert, Sonald Univ of Huston ITS(2), ARIT(1),

[iTS(2)]

Reed, Howard Univ. of Conn. ITS(1), [iTS(5)]

Rustow, Dankart City Univ of NY ITS(1)

Shaw, Ezel Kural Cal. State Univ, Nothridge 19th century Ottoman

history

Shaw, Stanford UCLA ITS(1), ARIT(2),

[iTS(4)]

Smith, Elaine Foreign Service (ret.) Modern Turkey

Smith, Grace UCAL, Berkeley ITS(1), ARIT(1),

[iTS(3)]

Smith, John Masson UCAL, Berkeley ARIT(1), [iTS(3)]

Soucek, Svat ARIT(1)

Staab, Robert Univ. of Utah [iTS(5)]

Starr, June SUNY Stoneybrook Anthropologist

Stewart-Robinson, James Univ. of Mich. [iTS(3)]

Stoddard, Phllip Middle East Institute, (Dir.) ITS(3)

Tachau, Frank Univ. of Illinois ITS(1), ARIT(2),

[iTS(3)]

Tamkoc, Metin Texas Tech [iTS(1)]

Thomas, David RI College ARIT(2)

Yenzke, M.L. Dickinson College ARIT(1)

Walker, Warren Texas Tech [iTS(1)]

Webster, Walter Rutgers Univ. 1930's Turkish History

Woods, John Univ. of Chicago [iTS(9)]

Zilfi, Madeline Univ of Maryland ARIT(2)

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

sources for the above chart: Middle East Studies

Association Bulletins, Directory of American Scholars,

and the Ottoman Studies Directory.

[Guest Fadi]

Thanks for posting this Domino.

 

You know, there was a 3rd Turkish-Armenian dialogue panel on the genocide at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis. I was there as an observer and I was going to write down my perceptions of the conference, but I haven't gotten the chance to. It was an interesting conference, but what struck me was that the workshop was less about the genocide an sich and more about the political implications of the genocide. A lot of experts were present, including Stephan Astourian, Vahakn Dadrian, Taner Akçam, Ronald Suny, Hans-Lukas Kieser, etc. etc. The papers were extremely interesting and will hopefully be published this year.

 

For now, this is it. I will write more when I have time.

Those are intellectuals discussing with each others, what make that a dialogue ? I mean, Taner Akcam, and those Turks already recognise the genocide. Am I wrong ?

[Munzur]

Domino:

 

Yes you are wrong, because not all "Turks" there recognize the genocide as it happened, or they do not agree to the minimal level of consensus on the historical facts. I won't name names, but apart from Akçam there was only 1 'Turkish' scholar that used the word 'genocide'. On the 3rd day there was even a hot debate on why the word 'genocide' should or should not be used (which is of course a discussion for genocide scholars and not for scholars of Ottoman history).

 

Personally, I have to agree with Hilmar Kaiser when he said that it's idiotic to continue speaking about the genocide in terms of the bi-polar 'Turks' vs. 'Armenians'. At best, there is only good research and bad research. I suggest we stop using the above terms to formulate stands and perceptions of the genocide because it's exactly what the Turkish government wants: to polarize the academic debate on grounds of ethnic background (when e.g. the Kurdish population participated more in the killing than Central-Anatolian Turkish peasants, who barely saw any Armenians in WW I). It's much wiser to speak about 'denialists' and 'realists', especially since Turkey buys corrupt scholars to articulate its denial with a quasi-academic voice.

 

Thick volumes can be written on this process alone, but sometimes it's just disturbing to witness how much this galvanized topic is affected by childish, nationalist emotion.

[Guest Fadi]

Domino:

 

Yes you are wrong, because not all "Turks" there recognize the genocide as it happened, or they do not agree to the minimal level of consensus on the historical facts. I won't name names, but apart from Akçam there was only 1 'Turkish' scholar that used the word 'genocide'. On the 3rd day there was even a hot debate on why the word 'genocide' should or should not be used (which is of course a discussion for genocide scholars and not for scholars of Ottoman history).

 

Personally, I have to agree with Hilmar Kaiser when he said that it's idiotic to continue speaking about the genocide in terms of the bi-polar 'Turks' vs. 'Armenians'. At best, there is only good research and bad research. I suggest we stop using the above terms to formulate stands and perceptions of the genocide because it's exactly what the Turkish government wants: to polarize the academic debate on grounds of ethnic background (when e.g. the Kurdish population participated more in the killing than Central-Anatolian Turkish peasants, who barely saw any Armenians in WW I). It's much wiser to speak about 'denialists' and 'realists', especially since Turkey buys corrupt scholars to articulate its denial with a quasi-academic voice.

 

Thick volumes can be written on this process alone, but sometimes it's just disturbing to witness how much this galvanized topic is affected by childish, nationalist emotion.

Dear Munzur, I do not think anymore that dialogue could just resolve our situation. And I agree with Kaiser here, there is bad research and good research, and as long as there is those bad researchs presented as researchs, then dialogues are not possible. They should start doing good researchs, then perhaps they could come and try to dialogue about their "good researchs." Thats only an opinion of mine. I just feel that those dais dialogues never served at anything, because there is one party that comes there not for dialogues but to sell its bad researches.

 

Here is my problem, when there is Turks and Armenians that recognise the genocide, I don't think it is really dialogue, when on the other hand, when you have two parties, one rejecting it and the other accepting it, we are in a polarised discussion, and that one party is not open to any new arguments. There never has any real dialogues. Thats how I see it.

[Munzur]

This genocide thing is a serious problem, more serious than I thought it was when I first stepped in. We'll have to be patient and wait for more Turkish students to investigate into the matter... there's a lot of talent, e.g. in Germany, so perhaps the future isn't that dim after all.