Genocide Museum

[Vigil]

The Washington Post

March 7, 2004 Sunday

Final Edition

 

AnswerMan

 

What's with the National Bank of Washington building at 14th and G

streets NW? It has been languishing, empty, for years. How can a fine

building in such a prominent spot be unwanted and unloved?

 

Carol Griffith, Washington

 

The building may be empty, but it isn't unloved. In 2000 the Armenian

Assembly of America paid $7.25 million for the landmark and some of

the surrounding property to house a museum. "The purpose is to

educate and inform the public on the Armenian experience in the 20th

century, focusing on the Armenian genocide," said Rouben Adalian,

director of the Armenian National Institute.

 

It's a touchy subject. Armenians say that between 1915 and 1923, 1.5

million Armenians were massacred or perished in forced death marches

at the hands of the Ottoman Turks. The Turkish government says those

claims are exaggerated. Museum backers are raising more money and

hope to open in 2008.

Edited May 31, 2004 by Vigil

[DominO123]

The Washington Post

March 7, 2004 Sunday

Final Edition

 

AnswerMan

 

What's with the National Bank of Washington building at 14th and G

streets NW? It has been languishing, empty, for years. How can a fine

building in such a prominent spot be unwanted and unloved?

 

Carol Griffith, Washington

 

The building may be empty, but it isn't unloved. In 2000 the Armenian

Assembly of America paid $7.25 million for the landmark and some of

the surrounding property to house a museum. "The purpose is to

educate and inform the public on the Armenian experience in the 20th

century, focusing on the Armenian genocide," said Rouben Adalian,

director of the Armenian National Institute.

 

It's a touchy subject. Armenians say that between 1915 and 1923, 1.5

million Armenians were massacred or perished in forced death marches

at the hands of the Ottoman Turks. The Turkish government says those

claims are exaggerated. Museum backers are raising more money and

hope to open in 2008.

Waste of money... we don't need a museum... that money will be better spend at building a virtual library, a documentation center accessible from the web, debunking all denialist claims etc... I always said it, and will say it again... they are just trowing that money on a stupid project.

[Sasun]

Waste of money... we don't need a museum... that money will be better spend at building a virtual library, a documentation center accessible from the web, debunking all denialist claims etc... I always said it, and will say it again... they are just trowing that money on a stupid project.

I disagree Domino, it is not a waste of money. It is a more effective way than most other things. Even if someone never goes to that museum simply the fact that he knows such a museum exists means that he knows there was Armenian genocide.

 

As for a virtual library, I think that's a great idea. But it can be done with much less money. A few individuals can build it over time, like http://www.armenianhouse.org , they have been adding more and more sources. You can do the same thing, perhaps better organized and more user friendly. If you want to do you can easily find volunteers to help. I could volunteer for example.

[DominO123]

I disagree Domino, it is not a waste of money. It is a more effective way than most other things. Even if someone never goes to that museum simply the fact that he knows such a museum exists means that he knows there was Armenian genocide.

 

As for a virtual library, I think that's a great idea. But it can be done with much less money. A few individuals can build it over time, like http://www.armenianhouse.org , they have been adding more and more sources. You can do the same thing, perhaps better organized and more user friendly. If you want to do you can easily find volunteers to help. I could volunteer for example.

Sasun, when I reffered to a virtual library, it was to replace the museum project, one that would cost millions... hundreds of works, hundreds of newspapers, magazines articles, archival materials, translations in many languages... part studying analysing denialists etc... there is nothing that could beat that not a museum, nothing... a Museum don't convince, it does not analyse, etc... it is justa structure that very limited persons could have access too.

 

Of course people could work for a site... but it has nothing to do with a project of millions... an entire server of hundreds of MBs of datas, tens of thousands of pages... millions of people will access to it, searchers around the world... imagine that there is a claim by denialists with sources and stuff... they just do a search on that site and they will find a counterargument debunking it and stuff... every answers everything there...

 

But noooo!!! Of course they will not do it, why should they, they preffer making money with the Armenian genocide... writting books and stuff... if such a site existed Zoryan, Gomidas and other such organisations will lose part of their revenues... no wonder after years Zoryan didn't even compleated its genocide site, they have all the ressources they need... obviously it is on purposes.

Edited March 9, 2004 by Fadix

[Armat]

I personnaly think a museum with ten visitors a mouth would be a waste however active library,school field trips, vidio, presentations and yes concerts as well could be a wonderful coltural magnet.All depends on the organizers and how they will promote it.

Domino I also see your point which is very valid point however as humans we are symbol concious and a museum for some reason solidifies the AG as a undispuited event.All depends what would be inside that building.

Edited March 9, 2004 by Armat

[DominO123]

I personnaly think a museum with ten visitors a mouth would be a waste however active library,school field trips, vidio, presentations and yes concerts as well could be a wonderful coltural magnet.All depends on the organizers and how they will promote it.

The thing is that a Museum is for a general public, this may work for the Shoah, but it does not in the cases of the Armenian genocide... in our cases there is a government that pay millions per years to deny it... so where the most part of the energy must be concentrated is at debunking their claims and targeting the accademia, making them avelable sources to study... libraries is a good idea... but new technology is really what we need, and the internet is the best option... with the money they will be spending for a Museum that will target the wrong people... something really big can be done... once for all, doing the job compleatly and leaving others to study it... thousands of thousands of pages, studies regarding denialism falsehood, deniars etc... braking all denialist claims, providing all the ressources... this is really what we need.

 

They know it, but they know as well that if they do that there will be no revenue generated from the Genocide. I know some must live, and it is their job, but for this there is ways, it is done in other fields.

[Sasun]

I still think that a museum is more important for common education than libraries. Libraries are for research, they are good only for historians and experts, perhaps a few students too. Ordinary people will never go to a library and read a research subject or an old newspaper. They would rather prefer to see something that is easy to comprehend and doesn't take much time. Visual presentation can tell much for someone who knows nothing on the subject and is not willing to read. Sure a museum will not satisfy a researcher's needs, that's where a library is needed. But for public exposure library plays very little role. The same way consider someone who is not a particularly big art lover, he will go to a museum to see paintings but not go to a library to study paintings.

Domino, you are concerned about denialists, I understand that a library of well written rebuttals and gathered together plain facts will take care of denialists. This is true for the academic level, and a museum will be less helpful. But if there is a museum, it will make the denialists' job much harder. Ordinary Joe goes to a museum and gets a very basic education on the genocide. He has learned a little and is not planning to learn more, that's enough. It will be hard for the denialists to convince Joe that this museum is wrong. What are they going to do to counter, build a denialists museum?

And Armat, I think more than ten people will go to the museum, although not as many who go to art museums. It depends on the quality of the presentation.

[Sasun]

What I wanted to say is there shouldn't be a trade-off between a museum and a library, both are needed.

[DominO123]

I still think that a museum is more important for common education than libraries. Libraries are for research, they are good only for historians and experts, perhaps a few students too. Ordinary people will never go to a library and read a research subject or an old newspaper. They would rather prefer to see something that is easy to comprehend and doesn't take much time. Visual presentation can tell much for someone who knows nothing on the subject and is not willing to read. Sure a museum will not satisfy a researcher's needs, that's where a library is needed. But for public exposure library plays very little role. The same way consider someone who is not a particularly big art lover, he will go to a museum to see paintings but not go to a library to study paintings.

Domino, you are concerned about denialists, I understand that a library of well written rebuttals and gathered together plain facts will take care of denialists. This is true for the academic level, and a museum will be less helpful. But if there is a museum, it will make the denialists' job much harder. Ordinary Joe goes to a museum and gets a very basic education on the genocide. He has learned a little and is not planning to learn more, that's enough. It will be hard for the denialists to convince Joe that this museum is wrong. What are they going to do to counter, build a denialists museum?

And Armat, I think more than ten people will go to the museum, although not as many who go to art museums. It depends on the quality of the presentation.

Sasun, your point might be true in the cases of the Shoah, but not the Armenian genocide. We can build a museum when denialism is defeated... we need the accademia, intellectuals in our side, international bodies etc... the common Joe has little or no influence, what he has learned won't make advance our causes... I try to see you point, but can't see how you can agree about wasting millions on a museum.

[_Anka_]

I think that in both cases you guys are right. Instead of waisting their money on other unuseful causes and things they should built a separate library inside of the museum.

[Sasun]

Yeah but common Joe knows neither the facts nor the denialist view on the genocide. Its not like everyone thinks genocide didn't happen because the denialists have told them so. Most people simply don't know anything.

 

Common Joe does have influence, his views are known as public opinion. No politician would go against public opinion. When Joe learns from the museum he will know at least something on the question if and when he has to vote. Politicians are less interested in the truth than about how the voters feel. We know that they are hypocrits, they may know the truth but vote against genocide resulutions. When confronted with the truth contained in the research and the feelings of the voters who have visited the museum it is harder to vote against a genocide resulution.

 

Of course, academia is the first place to go searching for the truth, I understand your concern. You are saying it is a waste of millions. There are more millions, its not the only money available. Even if it was the only money I would say split it between a museum and a library.

As to some folks making money on the Genocide, I don't know much about it so I won't say anything.

[Sasun]

they should built a separate library inside of the museum.

That's another solution, but Domino is talking about an online library