Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Recognizing Fact Of Genocide Should Be By-Product Of Historian's Wor

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Recognizing Fact Of Genocide Should Be By-Product Of Historian's Wor

    RECOGNIZING FACT OF GENOCIDE SHOULD BE BY-PRODUCT OF HISTORIAN'S WORK

    PanARMENIAN.Net
    02.05.2006 00:43 GMT+04:00

    /PanARMENIAN.Net/ In the books "The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman
    Turkey: A Disputed Genocide" by Guenter Lewy and "The Great Game of
    Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism, and the Destruction of the Ottoman
    Armenians" by Donald Bloxham, the authors pay special attention to
    the term "genocide". Both Bloxham and Lewy dwell at length on genocide
    denial, and the appropriateness of genocide as a term. "Genocide," says
    Bloxham, is a 1940s word being applied as a "retrospective projection"
    upon historical events of decades before: [p.95] "...the killing
    did constitute a genocide - every aspect of the United Nations'
    definition of the crime is applicable - but recognizing that fact
    should be a by-product of the historian's work, not its ultimate aim
    or underpinning." The sticking point is the perpetrator's intent:
    without intent there cannot be genocide. But intent need not be a
    clear-cut, one time manifestation: it can develop, grow, and feed
    upon itself and events. Hence, says Bloxham: "[p.96]...Pinpointing
    the precise time within that period of radicalization at which a
    state framework that is demonstrably permissive of murder and atrocity
    becomes explicitly genocidal is extremely difficult and unlikely ever
    to be achieved definitively."

    Meanwhile, Lewy finds little tangible evidence of premeditated mass
    homicide (i.e. genocide), of Armenians. Perhaps this evidence will
    be found, he allows, but it is not there yet. Apparently, crucial
    archival documents have gone missing, or have been destroyed, or have
    not been made available by Turkish authorities (even now, possibly
    due to archival disorganization). In addition, documentation might
    have been deemed spurious to begin with, or was used selectively for
    political purposes (e.g. to deflect blame for Armenian massacres,
    or, on the other hand, to build a case for creating an Armenian
    state in eastern Anatolia, or for keeping land and property out
    of Armenian hands after the collapse of the Ottoman empire). Lewy
    concludes that there is plenty of testimony and documentation that
    atrocities and massacres occurred, but, he cautions, premeditation
    has yet be ascertained.

    Lewy analyzes what he calls the "politicization of history" regarding
    Ottomans and Armenians, and believes both sides are stuck in a semantic
    bind. He says that the legalistic definition of "genocide" has been
    conflated with the common use of the word as a term of opprobrium,
    and proposes that separating these two meanings just might provide
    the basis for more productive discussions between Turks and Armenians
    today. This is a point worth pondering, while not forgetting that the
    1948 UN definition of genocide was based on writings by jurist Raphael
    Lemkin - who had precisely the Armenian, and other, massacres in mind.
Working...
X