[The] willingness to ascribe to the deniers and their myths the legitimacy
of a point of view is of as great, if not greater,
concern than are the activities of the deniers themselves.
of a point of view is of as great, if not greater,
concern than are the activities of the deniers themselves.
—Deborah Lipstadt
The participation of a number of Armenian studies and genocide studies scholars (*) in the conference
“The Caucasus at the Imperial Twilight” in Tbilisi, Georgia, organized
by Prof. M. Hakan Yavuz of the University of Utah and sponsored by the
Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) has generated a controversy in the diaspora as well as in Armenia over the enabling of genocide denial.
The individual and organization at the heart of this conference have
for much of the past decade been actively engaged in efforts to extend
denial of the Armenian genocide into academia as well as in the
political realm in North America.
The TCA has also lobbied aggressively to block recognition of the
Armenian genocide and has engaged in legal actions against, most
notoriously, the University of Minnesota and its Center for Holocaust
and Genocide Studies (CHGS). The suit alleged defamation because the
CHGS website had identified the TCA as an “unreliable” source on the
Armenian genocide that engaged in genocide denial. The suit was dismissed
and the dismissal upheld, with the decision stating that “the Center’s
statement about the TCA is true and, therefore, not actionable.” In
addition, in 2011 the U.S. House of Representatives Ethics Committee ruled
that the TCA had provided some $500,000 in improper gifts in the form
of legal counsel to now former Ohio Representative Jean Schmidt.
A key element of the TCA’s mission is to normalize the presentation of denial of the Armenian Genocide within academia.
This approach seeks to establish the Turkish state’s denialist
narrative as a legitimate historical viewpoint, as just another
scholarly “perspective.” In order to succeed, however, they need
legitimate scholars to function as “the other side.”
By participating in the Tbilisi conference, scholars, whether
intentionally or not, are providing just that “other side” of the
“debate” over the Armenian genocide, argued several prominent scholars
contacted by the Armenian Weekly.
Prof. Richard Hovannisian
“I learned a long time ago that providing a platform for deniers,
under any guise, is a serious mistake because it affords them a claim to
legitimacy. It is no less harmful to the cause of serious scholarship
to participate in a conference organized and sponsored by a deceptive
university professor and an organization that has repeatedly supported
the publication of denial literature and initiated legal proceedings
against institutions that exclude denial materials from their programs,”
said Prof. Richard Hovannisian, former holder of the Armenian
Educational Foundation Chair in Modern Armenian History at UCLA.
“No matter how well-intended it may be, participation in such a
conference confers on those behind it an unmerited status as partners in
a scholarly dialogue when, I believe, the real purpose is to create
doubt and undermine honest scholarly investigation,” added Prof.
Hovannisian.
Prof. Roger Smith
Prof. Roger Smith, a founding member of the International Association
of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) and a former president of the association,
concurred. “Invitations to conferences such as the one organized by
Hakan Yavuz of the University of Utah, a university that has numerous
graduate students who are churning out denial of the Armenian Genocide,
are simply lures and traps,” he said. “Lures in the sense that it gives
the appearance of welcoming dissenting views and appears to offer an
opportunity to refute the narrative upheld by ‘historians who hold other
views of what took place in 1915.’ It suggests a debate and an
assessment of the evidence: a normal process in scholarly inquiry. Some
scholars may, not unreasonably, jump at the bait, and hope to dislodge
the claims of those who argue that the Genocide never took place, that
the Young Turk regime is not responsible for whatever happened, and
that, in any case, the term ‘genocide’ is not applicable for a variety
of reasons. But the trap is when such well-known, non-denialist,
scholars participate in such conferences, they inescapably offer
legitimacy to the whole conference, to its framework. And that is
precisely what the organizers seek: the appearance of legitimacy for
bogus history,” he added.
Marc Mamigonian
Marc Mamigonian, the Director of Academic Affairs of the National
Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR), said, “Deniers
have already hijacked the discussion of the Armenian genocide to an
unhealthy extent through their efforts to manufacture doubt about
established historical facts. Participating in forums organized and
funded by individuals and entities who promote the Turkish state’s
denial of the Armenian genocide only contributes to the myth of a
scholarly debate. This also undermines scholars who strive to create
honest scholarship in the face of denial and intimidation. Denial—even
if it carries a university imprint—must not legitimized and granted a
place at the same table as scholarship, because it does not belong
there.”
Prof. Keith Watenpaugh
Prof. Keith Watenpaugh, Associate Professor of Modern Islam, Human
Rights and Peace at UC Davis, said, “The Turkish Studies Project (TSP)
at the University of Utah, which is the sponsor of this conference is
funded by the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA). As a federal judge
recently ruled, the TCA is a denialist organization. It uses its money
and relationship with the University of Utah to support Armenian
Genocide denial through publications and through conferences like the
one in Tbilisi. Given the genocide denial framework established by the
TSP and its director, the Political Scientist M. Hakan Yavuz, the
participation by scholars—Armenian or otherwise—cannot help but lend
legitimacy to its broader denialist enterprise. I would not participate
in something like this. I am reluctant to criticize the few Armenian
scholars who did participate, because I stand in solidarity with all
those who resist denial and its corrosive effects, even if I don’t agree
with the way they go about doing it.”
Watenpaugh added, “Instead we should be asking questions about the
continued relationship between the University of Utah and the TCA. It is
hard for me to understand why an important American research university
would lend its good name to a political organization that seeks to
violate academic freedom by, for example, bringing suit against the
Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the University of
Minnesota, and by promoting the falsification of history through its
grants and political advocacy. The real issue here is the fact that the
University of Utah has provided an institutional home to genocide
denial.”
“Armenians and others should be confident that there are more and
better venues of interchange between Turks and Armenians in which
elements of their shared past can be examined honestly and in a
framework of legitimate historical enquiry. In fact scholarship on
late-Ottoman Armenian society and history is one of the most vital
fields of history today and the Armenian Genocide is firmly established
in the global history of human rights and genocide studies,” Watenpaugh
concluded.
Prof. Debórah Dwork
In turn, Prof. Debórah Dwork, the Director of the Strassler Center
for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Clark University, told the
Armenian Weekly that “there is no reason—none!—to engage genocide
deniers, whether they are deniers of the Armenian Genocide or of the
Holocaust, or of any other genocide.” She explained, “A conference or
debate offers them an arena to make their arguments. Why would I offer
them such an arena? Speaking to them, or arguing with them elevates them
to the status of legitimate scholars, and their positions to the status
of legitimate history. We are not equals and there aren’t two
legitimate, equally historically valid ‘sides.’”
According to Prof. Dwork, “engaging with deniers allows them
to set the issues to be discussed; it allows them to hijack the
historical account. Why should I talk about the points they wish to
raise? And please, would someone tell me why I should I waste my time
refuting their arguments? Time is the coin of the scholarly realm, and
if we spend it on deniers, we are not moving our research forward.” She
concluded, “Engaging with deniers thus undermines history thrice over:
it offers them a platform; it confers legitimacy upon them, and it
diverts scholars from their own research which, of course, plumbs
precisely the genocide the deniers refute.”
"The Armenian Weekly," June 7, 2013
(*) The seven-member organizing committee included Asbed Kotchikian (Bentley University), also scheduled to chair the panel "Making of Georgian State" and to give concluding remarks. Gerard Libaridian (University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, retired) was one of the keynote speakers and also chaired the panel "Ottoman-Armenian Relations." Among the 78 papers, there were four (4) to be presented by five scholars from Armenia (one of them by two scholars), but only Ara Papian (Modus Vivendi Center) was present at the conference. Also two (2) papers by Armenian American scholars Richard Antaramian (University of Michigan-Ann Arbor) and Garabet K. Moumdjian (independent historian) were announced ("Armeniaca").
No comments:
Post a Comment