'We haven't said our last word yet': Traces of genocide, silence on the streets (original) (raw)
Related papers
Remembering the Armenian genocide in contemporary Turkey
In this article I argue that the notable memory boom in Turkey since the 2000s about the Armenian genocide has diverted the attention away from the importance of formal genocide acknowledgement; in addition, the responsibility of genocide denial is assigned to the Turkish State only. Looking at the memory frames in the current public discourse however, in qualitative terms there is more of a continuity than rupture in denialist discourse patterns. Most importantly, the public talk about the Armenian genocide serves as a key argument in the Turkish State’s denialist program, where it argues that the “Armenian issue” is not a taboo topic in Turkey anymore. Taking into consideration that the engagement of Turkish civil society has garnered much – if not most – attention in Turkey and internationally, I ultimately argue, to focus on the needs and the claims of the victims rather than making the emergence of a strong civil society in Turkey an end in itself.
Censorship, indifference, oblivion. The Armenian genocide and its denial
Truth, Silence, and Violence in Emerging States. Histories of the Unspoken, 2019
As scholarly research on the extermination of Ottoman Armenians took shape in the last two decades, researchers engaged in it overlooked the fact that the genocide of the Armenians was silenced and effectively forgotten for most of the twentieth century. The debate that emerged was largely focused on proving—or disproving—that the “events” qualify for the legal term “genocide.” This debate is the direct result of the persistent denial by the Turkish state, many influential actors of international relations, as well as scholarly institutions and intellectual figures. Yet oblivion of the extermination of an important demographic and cultural component that played a key role in the Ottoman civilization, indifference toward the first genocide of modern times, did not make the “event” and its consequences simply disappear. Among its many consequences, it has left its marks on scholarly research and on the profession of historians that still needs to make its own mea culpa.
This paper focuses on two recent periods in which agents of the Turkish state actively defended Turkey’s official narrative of the Armenian genocide. I argue that the set of strategies developed by Turkish officers and bureaucrats under the military regime in power from 1980 to 1983 established a pattern of state response that was replicated by bureaucratic elites in the face of new challenges to the official narrative two decades later. Understanding this authoritarian legacy helps explain the mechanisms by which and repertoire of action through which agents of the Turkish state have defended and re-produced its official narrative.
The following annotated bibliography of the Armenian Genocide covers some of the main books published in English from 2010-2021. The bibliography does not include books that were published in Armenian, French, German, and Turkish. Furthermore, it does not include edited volumes on the Genocide or monographs dealing with its denial or critiquing it. It also does not cover the Armistice Period (1918-1923) in Istanbul, except when dealing with the Military Tribunals (1918-1922). This annotated bibliography provides a glimpse into the latest developments in the field of the Armenian Genocide studies, pioneered by the late sociologist Vahakn N. Dadrian. Dadrian played an important role in founding the scholarly basis of the field in the Western academic world. Since then, research on the genocide has developed dramatically with multiple interpretations of the factors and repercussions of the Genocide ranging from contingency to continuity and from cumulative radicalization to premeditation. In addition, with the unearthing of new archives, different facets of the Genocide have also been explored. The reader will notice that in my brief descriptions of the books, I do not evaluate their quality in a critical manner. I simply present their main arguments and their contribution to the field. Towards the end of each description, I provide the main themes and the key concepts covered in the book. The annotated bibliography is divided into the following themes: 1) Intent in the Genocide based on German and Ottoman Documents 2) Continuum, Contingency, and Cumulative Radicalization 3) Legal History of the Genocide 4) Second Phase of the Genocide 5) Case Studies of the Genocide based on Provinces 6) Germany and the Armenian Genocide 7) Humanitarian Aid and Humanitarianism 8) Biographies of the Architects of the Genocide 9) Armenian Legionnaires 10) Memoirs translated from Armenian to English