Tweet
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE COMMEMORATION DAY: CONFRONTING DENIALISM
Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mikaela-luttrellrowland/armenian-genocide-commemoration-day_b_1447786.html
April 24 2012
by Mikaela Luttrell-Rowland. Academic Program Liaison Officer, Clark
University's Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies
During the Armenian genocide in 1915, an unknown number of young
Armenians survived because they were adopted as daughters and sons of
Muslim families. Many lived the rest of their lives with Turkish,
Kurdish, or Arabic names and identities to escape the forced
deportation and systematic murders of the Armenian population by
the Ottoman Empire. Until recently, accounts of these survivors have
largely been silenced. Professor Ayse Altinay's ground-breaking new
book on this subject, Les Petits-Enfants, focuses on these stories
and on the second and third generations.
April 24 marks Armenian Genocide Commemoration Day. While the
international community has long accepted the mass murder of
the Armenians as genocide, this day of remembrance reminds us,
too, that even today--in 2012-- the Turkish government denies that
historical crime. Indeed, they staunchly reject responsibility. This
denialism--and the re-writing of history their stance entails-- has
ramifications which command our attention. It creates everyday silences
that make life difficult for the generations that Altinay writes about.
Part of the denialist position by the Turkish state can be explained by
the link between militarism and nationalism. Laws such as Article 301
of the Turkish Penal Code make it a crime to insult "Turkishness",
and set the stage to prosecute public intellectuals, historians,
and activists. Further, they contribute to the framing of how the
Armenian genocide can be publicly discussed. They factor into how
history text books and curriculums are written in Turkey. Who is
deemed responsible? Who is regarded as "other" or non-Turkish? In
the hazy upholding of nationalism and 'national security,' what is
left off the page and out of the historical narrative?
As a Latin Americanist, I ask these questions from a comparative
perspective. Denying the Armenian genocide is not just about protection
of Turkish nationalism. Nor do these questions arise only within
contexts of genocide. In post-conflict countries around the globe,
states and governmental institutions struggle with how they write
(or re-write) history in order to protect national interests.
And scholars, activists, teachers, journalists, and families grapple
with how to reconcile those stories with their own lived experiences.
Professor Taner Akcam at the Strassler Center for Holocaust and
Genocide Studies at Clark University is an example of one such person.
Akcam was the first Turkish scholar to speak openly about the
Genocide against the Armenians, and to overtly challenge the moral and
political stance by the Turkish government in its denial of Ottoman
responsibility. He holds the only endowed Professorship in the world
dedicated to research and teaching on this subject. His stance:
denialism of the Armenian genocide cannot, and must not, be tolerated.
But this is a position that is still wildly contested in Turkey.
Further, he along with many fear prosecution for these views by the
Turkish government under Article 301. Akcam has been the target of
death threats and intimidation from Turkish ultranationalists. Data
released by PEN International notes that Turkey has the world's highest
imprisonment rate for journalists. By the end of 2011, according to
the figures, there were 30 writers in prison in Turkey and 70 on trial.
Yet thoughtful and effective activism and scholarship continues on
this subject. In October 2011, the European Court of Human Rights
ruled favorable in the case of Taner Akcam v. Turkey, and upheld
that Article 301 violates Article 10 of the European Convention on
Human Rights. Indeed, the courts agreed that he faces risk of unjust
prosecution, and ruled that his freedom of expression was violated.
Landmark human rights cases such as this matter. And they matter
because they set the stage for what can and cannot be taught, and for
how history is to be written. They challenge and expand what is deemed
too contested, or too political. The Turkish state has obfuscated
information--deliberately concealing or destroying artifacts. Hidden
files, barred access, and lack of transparency make the Armenian
genocide an ongoing challenge for historians and educators--and for
the survivors, children, and grand-children of survivors.
Framing and terminology carry weight. Partly because they have an
impact on how we teach young people, what kind of curriculum is written
into text books, and the types of public scholarship and debate that
are able to take place. And terminology is important because it can
prompt external intervention from other countries.
These are not just quibbles over language; investments to deny or
re-write history are often rooted in questions about resources and
political interests.
And so, on this day of remembrance, let us move the conversation
beyond commemoration or even recognition. Let us confront denialism:
past and present.
Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mikaela-luttrellrowland/armenian-genocide-commemoration-day_b_1447786.html
April 24 2012
by Mikaela Luttrell-Rowland. Academic Program Liaison Officer, Clark
University's Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies
During the Armenian genocide in 1915, an unknown number of young
Armenians survived because they were adopted as daughters and sons of
Muslim families. Many lived the rest of their lives with Turkish,
Kurdish, or Arabic names and identities to escape the forced
deportation and systematic murders of the Armenian population by
the Ottoman Empire. Until recently, accounts of these survivors have
largely been silenced. Professor Ayse Altinay's ground-breaking new
book on this subject, Les Petits-Enfants, focuses on these stories
and on the second and third generations.
April 24 marks Armenian Genocide Commemoration Day. While the
international community has long accepted the mass murder of
the Armenians as genocide, this day of remembrance reminds us,
too, that even today--in 2012-- the Turkish government denies that
historical crime. Indeed, they staunchly reject responsibility. This
denialism--and the re-writing of history their stance entails-- has
ramifications which command our attention. It creates everyday silences
that make life difficult for the generations that Altinay writes about.
Part of the denialist position by the Turkish state can be explained by
the link between militarism and nationalism. Laws such as Article 301
of the Turkish Penal Code make it a crime to insult "Turkishness",
and set the stage to prosecute public intellectuals, historians,
and activists. Further, they contribute to the framing of how the
Armenian genocide can be publicly discussed. They factor into how
history text books and curriculums are written in Turkey. Who is
deemed responsible? Who is regarded as "other" or non-Turkish? In
the hazy upholding of nationalism and 'national security,' what is
left off the page and out of the historical narrative?
As a Latin Americanist, I ask these questions from a comparative
perspective. Denying the Armenian genocide is not just about protection
of Turkish nationalism. Nor do these questions arise only within
contexts of genocide. In post-conflict countries around the globe,
states and governmental institutions struggle with how they write
(or re-write) history in order to protect national interests.
And scholars, activists, teachers, journalists, and families grapple
with how to reconcile those stories with their own lived experiences.
Professor Taner Akcam at the Strassler Center for Holocaust and
Genocide Studies at Clark University is an example of one such person.
Akcam was the first Turkish scholar to speak openly about the
Genocide against the Armenians, and to overtly challenge the moral and
political stance by the Turkish government in its denial of Ottoman
responsibility. He holds the only endowed Professorship in the world
dedicated to research and teaching on this subject. His stance:
denialism of the Armenian genocide cannot, and must not, be tolerated.
But this is a position that is still wildly contested in Turkey.
Further, he along with many fear prosecution for these views by the
Turkish government under Article 301. Akcam has been the target of
death threats and intimidation from Turkish ultranationalists. Data
released by PEN International notes that Turkey has the world's highest
imprisonment rate for journalists. By the end of 2011, according to
the figures, there were 30 writers in prison in Turkey and 70 on trial.
Yet thoughtful and effective activism and scholarship continues on
this subject. In October 2011, the European Court of Human Rights
ruled favorable in the case of Taner Akcam v. Turkey, and upheld
that Article 301 violates Article 10 of the European Convention on
Human Rights. Indeed, the courts agreed that he faces risk of unjust
prosecution, and ruled that his freedom of expression was violated.
Landmark human rights cases such as this matter. And they matter
because they set the stage for what can and cannot be taught, and for
how history is to be written. They challenge and expand what is deemed
too contested, or too political. The Turkish state has obfuscated
information--deliberately concealing or destroying artifacts. Hidden
files, barred access, and lack of transparency make the Armenian
genocide an ongoing challenge for historians and educators--and for
the survivors, children, and grand-children of survivors.
Framing and terminology carry weight. Partly because they have an
impact on how we teach young people, what kind of curriculum is written
into text books, and the types of public scholarship and debate that
are able to take place. And terminology is important because it can
prompt external intervention from other countries.
These are not just quibbles over language; investments to deny or
re-write history are often rooted in questions about resources and
political interests.
And so, on this day of remembrance, let us move the conversation
beyond commemoration or even recognition. Let us confront denialism:
past and present.