Kamo Mailyan
It took a long way for Alan Whitehorn to re-unite
with his ancestral roots in Armenia, but not a long decision to start
writing about genocide. Alan Whitehorn is an author of poems and books
about the Armenian Genocide and has brought significant contribution to
genocide recognition and education not only in Canada, but beyond its
boundaries as well.
Going Back to Roots
Alan Whitehorn tried multiple times to go to both Soviet Armenia and
the Republic of Armenia – the piece of Armenia that remained after the
1915 Armenian Genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire that wiped out
Western Armenia’s indigenous Armenian population. He wanted to see his
relatives and ancestral homeland, however, every time something would
happen and interrupt his plans.
“Between the early 1960’s and 2004, I tried four times to go to
Armenia, and something would happen and I wouldn’t make it. The first
time was in 1963, the last time was in 2001 – when the planes stopped
flying after September 11. I finally made it in 2005. It was an
overwhelming experience. I was coming as a senior academic, but also
someone who had lived for more than five decades in the diaspora. You
come with a lot of expectations and stereotypes, and you discover how
complex, how dynamic and how rich the history of Armenia is. As a
professor of political science, you know a lot, but you learn more when
you travel to a country for the first time. My trip to Armenia in 2005
was a particularly moving experience. I ended up writing a lot of poems
about my visits to different sites, hearing stories, recalling what
people were telling me about their family experiences and accounts about
the Armenian Genocide. The book ‘Ancestral Voices’, which came out in
2007, is a collection of poems from my travels through Armenia in 2005.”
After his first visit to Armenia in 2005, Alan Whitehorn has been travelling to Armenia for five weeks every year till 2015.
In Search of Roots: the Path that Led to Writing About the Armenian Genocide
As a person who was always interested in self-education, Alan
Whitethorn began writing as a political scientist about the Armenian
Genocide almost by accident.
“Several decades ago I had heard a lot about the Armenian Genocide.
There were not as many books on the Armenian Genocide as there are now. I
wanted to learn more. I wanted to know more from primary sources and
sources contemporary to the actual events. I went to the archives of the
Toronto Globe (now the Globe and Mail) of 1915 and I went through the
newspaper microfilm files and I looked at every page of every day for
the entire year of 1915. I looked at what was reported, what we knew and
what we didn’t know. I was surprised how much was written.
Not always on the first page, but a lot was written. We have seen the
equivalent of Americans’ writings of what was in the New York Times and
in other newspapers. I took notes, photocopies from the microfilm,
which was of terrible visual quality – not like the modern digital
technology now. I created a file for my own interest,” says Alan
Whitehorn about his efforts to learn more about the Armenian Genocide.
He put the files to the side, until about ten years later when a Consul
from the Turkish Embassy had written to the Globe and Mail and was
denying the Armenian Genocide. “This was too much. I went back to my
files of ten years earlier. I went to my notes and photocopies and typed
a letter to the Globe, responding to the Turkish Consul. I quoted from
the 1915 headlines from the Toronto Globe articles and they published
the letter. Who knew that a little letter in reply to someone who was
denying the Genocide would become the beginning of a new phase in my
life and career, both as an academic and human rights activist?”
Alan Whitehorn did not have any intent or plans to become a genocide
scholar, but unexpectedly the Turkish Consul’s denial of the fact of the
Armenian Genocide put him on that path. Following the publication of
the response letter, Alan Whitehorn was invited to give a paper to a
conference on ethnic and religious minorities in the Ottoman Empire. In
his overall academic work Alan Whitehorn cooperated with Lorne and
George Shirinian, both brothers and sons of orphans of the Armenian
Genocide who had been “Georgetown Boys and Girls”. Over the years,
Lorne Shirinian, as a writer and publisher, and George Shirinian, as
Executive Director of Zoryan Institute, collaborated with Alan Whitehorn
in writing about what happened to Greeks, Assyrians and Armenians in
the Ottoman Empire. In 2001, Lorne Shirinian and Whitehorn “produced a
little booklet that was intended to help the members of the Canadian
Parliament and others to learn about the Genocide. It is called ‘The
Armenian Genocide: Resisting the Inertia of Indifference’. We ended up
going to Parliament Hill and giving copies to senators, members of the
House of Commons and their staff and did lobbying. At that time, a
number of key figures of the Armenian diaspora were lobbying very long
and hard. To my pleasant surprise, we eventually succeeded first in the
Senate, then the House of Commons and finally with the Prime Minister
recognizing the Armenian Genocide. During the debates, some of my poems
were read both in the Senate and the House of Commons during
parliamentary discussions and debates,” said Alan Whitehorn and went on
adding that it didn’t come easily, as there was pressure and
intimidation attempts by a foreign government.
Working for Recognition and Education
An important phase that happened in efforts at education about
genocide was when the Toronto District School Board started thinking of
offering a course on genocide and human rights. Toronto is the largest
district school board in Canada, and what Toronto does often is copied
by other smaller boards. The discussion was what content and which case
studies to include in the education curriculum. A number of scholars and
the Armenian community lobbied to include the Armenian Genocide as one
of the most important cases of the 20th century. The Turkish community, including its Embassy, lobbied against.
“As someone who is now increasingly writing on the Armenian Genocide
and learning more and more, I wrote a letter making a case for why the
Armenian case study should be included in such a course. The school
board publicly circulated all written submissions and made it available
to anyone who was interested. One of the interested parties was the
Turkish government. It was interested to see who was writing to
recommend that course. Not surprisingly, I experienced backlash. I was
doing a lot of writing and lobbying for the recognition of the Genocide,
and now I was writing a letter! I was also teaching a course on
Genocide and Human Rights at the Royal Military College of Canada.”
Professor Whitehorn added that a foreign government began to take
greater interest and show significant unhappiness with the work he was
doing on the Armenian Genocide and even tried to silence him. There were
attempts to lobby and even to threaten the Canadian government to stop
him from teaching not only on the Armenian Genocide and human rights,
but in other areas as well.
One can frighten or try to silence an academic from publishing
scholarly articles or poems, but that wasn’t for Alan Whitehorn. “As a
result of that increased attention and threats from overseas to a
Canadian academic, I wrote the book ‘Just Poems: Reflections on the
Armenian Genocide’. To me, that’s one of the most important books that I
have written, as it was clear there were threats not only to me, but
the Canadian Government as well. There was a significant risk
personally. The book is a collection of poems on the Armenian Genocide.
Most of them were written in the troubling 2008-2009 period.” Many of
the poems are available in the Armenian language as well. Aram Arsenyan,
who is considered one of the best translators in Armenia, transcribed
the poems to make them available in Armenia. “We also worked together on
a collection of poems for the volume – ‘Return to Armenia’, which came
out in 2012. It includes poems from older volumes, including ‘Ancestral
Voices’, and new poems as well. It is in a bilingual format – the same
poem is both in English on one page and in Armenian on the facing side.”
The First Encyclopedia in English on the Armenian Genocide
Several years before 2015, the 100th memorial of the
Armenian Genocide, Alan Whitehorn was asked by ABC-CLIO, a major
educational publishing house in the U.S., to contribute a number of
entries on the Armenian Genocide, which would become part of a
four-volume encyclopedia entitled ‘Modern Genocide’. “I was asked to do
thirteen entries for this encyclopedia, and most importantly, the seven
overview essays (introduction, causes, the perpetrators, victims,
bystanders, consequences and international reaction) that would begin
the large section on the Armenian Genocide.”
There are ten genocides covered in the volumes and the Armenian
Genocide, as a major case study, is one of them. As there was increasing
demand for a separate volume on the Armenian Genocide, Alan Whitehorn
published in 2015 the first encyclopedia in English on the Armenian
Genocide – ‘The Armenian Genocide: The Essential Reference Guide’. Any
encyclopedia is a collaborative effort and Whitehorn received
much-valued assistance from several people, particularly George
Shirinian and Vartan Matiossian.
There is a challenge when publishing something about the Armenian
Genocide as the denial by the Turkish government is so determined,
ongoing and malevolent. “When anything is written in such an
encyclopedia it needs to be ‘bullet-proof’, which means that it needs to
be not only accurate, but also that it can stand up to possible
deliberate misinterpretation by those with malevolent intent. You have
to be extra careful and need to do additional editing. You need to make
sure it cannot be misconstrued. The book, consisting of 425 pages, has
about 150 entries, a timeline, primary documents and an extensive
biography. The goal of the encyclopedia was to answer questions
regarding the Armenian Genocide for the general audience and scholars
around the world,” said Alan Whitehorn. Shortly after the encyclopedia
was published, he had major health issues and was unable to lecture and
promote the encyclopedia and the publication of his next book was
greatly delayed. “My sickness was so severe that I couldn’t even look at
the computer screen for fifteen or twenty seconds because of pain. Now
almost three years later, I am able to do work, albeit at a slower pace.
In the new book that is going to be published next year, there is a
chapter looking at an analysis of phases and stages of genocide. I am
happy to say that the pioneering genocide scholar Gregory Stanton has
modified and expanded his eight stages of genocide to ten stages now,
and he included two stages similar to that which I had suggested in some
of my earlier writings.”
Humanity Does Not Learn Sufficient Lessons From History
Genocide is not accidental – it goes through stages leading to
genocide. What we see now happening in the Middle East has gone through
many phases that describe the steps leading to genocide. Even now, one
century after the Armenian Genocide, such genocidal acts are happening
in the Middle East. Could the fact of past genocides not being
recognized by the world be one reason why such atrocities are still
happening? Could the international community’s failure to recognize
genocides in the past unleash the hands of perpetrators and powers with
malevolent intent to commit new genocides?
“Yes, we can make comparison with today. I think the more genocides
you study and the more you look at the academic literature, the more you
can see similarities in terms of not only causes but phases, stages,
elements, or dimensions. A number of them are striking. The first is you
have some kind of ethnic, linguistic or religious polarization and
intolerance. You have separate and unequal divisions, but also
non-acceptance. You add to that history of inequality, crises, or war. A
war unleashes, first of all, more executive malevolent power and
lessens democratic pluralistic constraints. The other thing is that
amidst war and crisis there is a sense of urgency and willingness to do
more desperate, violent and dramatic deeds. You combine that with
individuals who are ambitious, who think authoritarian means are the
swifter way. Then combine that with unacceptance of the ‘other’, that
being different is unacceptable, intolerable, and link it with the
tendency to portray the ‘other’, somehow in cooperation with an outside
enemy – another government, another force. If you look at Syria today,
as was the case in the Ottoman Empire of WW I, you see many of the same
preconditions and, and ultimately a similar outcome.”
What is the role of public opinion of the great powers? What is the
role of bystanders? Most of the world is composed of bystanders. Do they
help to stop the destruction, conflict, the persecution? Or do they
focus on other things? Perhaps they say it’s too far away and not their
concern?
“As a political science professor, one of the things I tried to teach
my students is that it is sadly easier to hate than to love, it is
easier to be fearful than feel secure. It is partly because the outside
environment seems to be more threatening. We do not feel in control of
things, and this is even more so when war occurs. Thus, the challenge in
Armenia in WW I, Rwanda in the 1990s and Syria and Sudan today is ‘How
do you get the global community engaged in a sustained way?’. One of the
striking things about Syria and the Middle East is many of the roots of
the problems go back to the post–WW I settlements and agreements that
didn’t really recognize the demographic, ethnic and linguistic
composition in the Middle East. It was a peace treaty process that paid
more attention to the interests of Britain, France and the bigger
corporations. I think we are paying the price today because when the
boundaries were drawn, they were not paying attention to the ethnic and
linguistic composition and they were thinking in terms of economic and
military influence of the French and British and others.”
“Genocide recognition is always important because I think we learn by
knowing what happened, and sometimes we need to learn and to
re-interpret. I am a strong believer in the importance of military hard
power to stop genocide during urgent times, but it is not enough. You
need the more time-consuming soft power of education. In the long-run,
education is a firmer foundation. In the Ottoman Empire, genocides
against the Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians and the others were stopped by
foreign armies. The German Nazi genocide of the Jews, the Slavs and the
Romani were stopped by the allied armies in WW II. The Cambodian
Genocide was stopped by the Vietnamese army. We realize that military
hard power as a last resort is needed to stop genocide, but in the
long-run to fully put an end to and prevent genocides and stop them from
reoccurrence, education is key.”
Armenia Today: A Need for Paradigm Change
When speaking of Armenia, Alan Whitehorn is not optimistic about the
future of the South Caucasus. “One of the interesting things is that had
the next book come out earlier, my warnings about the future of the
South Caucasus and Armenia would have been a cautionary tale ahead of
the 2016 conflict, but would not have been as stark as it would be
today. I am much more pessimistic today than I was two or three years
ago – and I was quite pessimistic then. The closing chapter of the next
book suggests that there needs to be a paradigm change. Armenia cannot
continue the path it has been on. It is not sustainable in terms of
demographics and armed conflict.”
Alan Whitehorn’s new book will discuss ways and mechanisms of
re-building peace in the South Caucasus. “Much of the book will be
focused on the Armenian Genocide of course – the history leading up to
the genocide, analytical writing of genocide leading to the Armenian
case study, but also looking at Armenia’s future in a very frank way.
One of the areas that increasingly people are agonizing over is the
depopulation of Armenia. At some point, there is a critical mass and a
time when you reach that critical mass. Coming from Canada, I suggested
that we have a history in North America in which we experience waves of
immigration as a way of re-generating ourselves. Maybe Armenia needs to
reflect more deeply on its emigration crisis, how it occurs and from
where it occurs. Maybe Armenia should do like Canada and accept
immigrants more widely.”
In private conversations during his visits to Armenia, Alan Whitehorn
has tried to explain the benefits of immigration and the negative side
of depopulation in Armenia, however he found resistance among local
Armenians toward different immigration policies. “Unless they come to
Toronto and Vancouver to see these incredibly diverse cities, I think it
is very hard in Yerevan to conceptualize immigration waves and
diversity and explain to people how they work. For example, this is one
of my provocative examples – there are apparently about a thousand
medical students in Yerevan from India. Many of them are able to pick up
Armenian successfully for whatever linguistic reasons. Given that India
is overpopulated, Armenia is underpopulated, maybe some of those
medical students could be immigrants to Armenia. Many hard-working,
bright Armenians had to go to Russia, Canada and other countries to find
a better life. Migration is a key part of global history. What was
striking for me after so many visits to Armenia was to see so many young
people whose fathers, or sometimes both fathers and mothers, were out
in other countries to work for so many years. It really hit me – the
number of young twenty-year-olds that were living with grandparents.”
Alan Whitehorn is not optimistic about economic development prospects
in Armenia and in the South Caucasus. “The economic conditions are less
than promising in Armenia. Unless you have a greater sense of altruism
in the government stratum and less entrenching of power and enriching
private wealth, the country’s opportunities are not as good as they
should be. Ultimately, closed borders and ongoing threats of war are
going to stop Armenia from having a bright dynamic future.”
As war and other conditions prevent Armenia’s economy from growing,
Alan Whitehorn believes that the status-quo in Artsakh is not a viable
long-term option. “Weaponry on both sides of the conflict are getting
more and more dangerous. The status-quo is not a viable option. As a
political scientist, I say that. As a diaspora Armenian, I am always
hopeful. If we could survive the Armenian Genocide, we can survive
anything. The lectures I give on the South Caucasus and international
relations are somehow more pessimistic than my lectures on genocide
because for the Genocide the worst has passed, but for the South
Caucasus the worst is likely ahead, unless there is a paradigm change.”
en.168.am, September 25, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment