Just to note that said list does include some moderately heavy hitters in the field. I own books written by at least five of them and I’m probably missing a couple ;). And I suspect some of them are more nuanced than the equivalent Holocaust deniers.
For example Donald Quataert on the massacres:
Was this the first twentieth century genocide? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that Armenians died because of their identity, not because of their actions or beliefs. And yet this was not a Nazi-style event that sought to round up and eliminate every single member of a group as such. Notably, Armenians outside the battle zone were not singled out for deportation or murder. Neither the Ottoman government nor the Special Organization sought to deport or murder the Armenian communities living in western Anatolia and the southern Balkans. In places such as Istanbul and Izmir, the large Armenian communities in 1915-1916 remained intact and in place, going about their business. At the very same moment, by marked contrast, their compatriots in the war-torn eastern provinces were being slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands.
I’m not sure that the above quite rises to the level of blatant denialism ( hmm…wonder if that is a word? ) in my mind.
If large numbers of biologists and senior members the Harvard Medical school repeatedly insisted that vaccinations caused autism you’d have a point, but you don’t.
By contrast, huge numbers of well-respected Middle Eastern historians who’s specialty is the Ottoman Empire say that what happened didn’t constitute a genocide and most of what is popularly believed about it is false and a result of wartime propaganda.
That includes people who aren’t on that list, such as Norman Itzkowitz, a tenured Middle Eastern Studies professor at Princeton(a university not known for employing unreliable hacks).
Now, if you’re going to claim that “the vast majority of knowledgeable specialists hold opposing views” then perhaps you can start listing the Middle Eastern Studies professors who can read and write Ottoman who’ve studied the records who claim that Bernard Lewis(probably the most respected living authority on the Ottoman Empire) is wrong.
Every single person on that list is a specialist in Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern studies.
Name one that isn’t.
Your link is an assertion put forth not evidence and the website making the assertion is an Assyrian website with an obvious axe to grind.
You might as well link to a Turkish activist website denying that what happened to the Armenians constitutes a genocide to prove it.
That list does absolutely nothing to support your contention that “the vast majority of knowledgeable specialists hold opposing views.”
Leaving aside the non-academics on the list, I’m not how many, if any of the ones listed would have any specialized knowledge regarding the Ottoman Empire.
For example, Raul Hilberg is certainly one of the most respected scholars of the Holocaust, but I’ve never seen any evidence that he done anything that would make him an expert in the Middle East.
Similarly David Brion Davis is one of the foremost scholars regarding American slavery and Henry Louis Gates is THE giant in the field of African-American studies, but neither has ever claimed to have any specialized knowledge in the Middle East.
In fact, I’m not sure there’s a single person on your list who’s even capable of reading Ottoman.
Now, if you’re correct and the vast majority of specialists on the Ottoman Empire think that Bernard Lewis, Heath Lowry, and Norman Itzkowitz are wrong, please list a few and their credentials because so far all you’ve shown is that, as we all know, it’s popularly believed that the Ottoman Empire perpetrated a genocide, but you’ve done nothing to prove that this is what specialists believe.
Moreover, it’s really sickening to use words like “denialist” to describe people like Lewis as if they’re comparable to Holocaust deniers.
None deny that several hundred thousand Armenians were killed but they argue that the numbers were wildly inflated and that the Ottoman Empire didn’t intend to exterminate the Armenians.
Furthermore, they point out that many of the “sources” were largely the result of wartime propaganda.
Let’s remember that at the same time that the newspapers were reporting on the Armenian massacres they were reporting about Germans against in mass rapes against the Belgians and “crucifying cats to the church doors”(bonus points to whoever gets the reference).
So it was a regional incident, I can see then why some would cry foul as in their region there was no ethnic cleansing, but one can see that mass murder took place.
It is more clear then that a crime took place, there are people who deny that even the mass murder in the region took place and I think that that is one of the main problems.
Who takes the blame is then another issue but IMHO the attempts to avoid any responsibility look really crass.
I don’t think anyone has denied a mass murder took place.
That said, the majority of Armenians who died weren’t deliberately murdered by Turks but starved to death due to the incompetence of the Ottoman government which was expelling large numbers of Armenians from a war zone while it was being dismembered by the great powers.
Probably vastly larger numbers of Irish Catholics died during the potato famine and most of us would condemn the British government for it’s role in that tragedy, but I think most people would object to calling it genocide.
What the Ottomans did reminds me of the British policy of placing all the Boer women and children in concentration camps and being unable to deal with the disease outbreaks that killed off around 25,000 of them.
Britain was guilty of a war crime then, but I don’t think any would call it a genocidal act.
For myself, I think it was unquestionably a brutally effective ethnic cleansing and mass-murder, but it certainly wasn’t genocide.
It should also be remembered that this followed far more brutal ethnic cleansings of Muslims from the Balkan areas of Europe which nobody cared about then and still doesn’t care about.
Finally, it’s worth noting that Ottomans left alone a sizable number of Armenians(roughly 100,000 IIRC) living in Istanbul so it’s ridiculous to claim that they threw all the Armenians out of Anatolia. They punished the ones who lived in areas where the Armenians revolted and engaged in ethnic cleansing against the Muslim inhabitants of those areas, but not those living in the very capital of the Ottoman Empire.
I certainly don’t remember Hitler deciding to leave the Jews of Munich and Berlin alone.
This is a fallacy, while tragic it does not follow that if many others consider that what took place in Eastern Anatolia was a genocide, that does not mean that one should dismiss the Eastern Anatolia one just because other genocides were missed.
But I already granted that, what I have seen is that indeed,
I would then, for the sake of accuracy to refer to the Eastern Anatolia massacre as the genocide.
And that is why I do think this inaccuracy has helped in the denials, really, most Turks were innocent, if we concentrated on the specific region I think most of the denials (specially of the few scholars on the fence) would disappear, as it would would be clear that it was the then rulers and authorities in that region who deserve the judgement of history at least.
That necessarily raises the uncomfortable question of “Up to the point of supporting their independence?” Paying attention to the Armenian genocide does not.
It was chosen because it is indeed the overwhelming opinion of historians, when 60 minutes (CBS) reported on the vote of congress to not ignore the Armenian genocide they also reported that the overwhelming number of historians agreed.
Actually, the idea that “the overwhelming opinion of historians”(at least of historians who specialize in the Middle East and the Ottoman Empire) believe that what happened was a genocide is a fallacy.
You’ll notice that we’ve produced 69 prominent Middle Eastern historians who’ve said it didn’t and the other side has yet to produce a single specialist who says it did.
Now, if you’re correct and “the overwhelming opinion of historians” is that what occurred was a genocide then please give the names of four Middle Eastern scholars affiliated with prominent American or British universities who can read and write Ottoman who make such a claim.
If you’re right then that shouldn’t be too difficult.
As it is though there seem to be far more Ottomanists who agree with Bernard Lewis, Heath Lowry, and Norman Itzkowitz than disagree with them.
Please explain why Lewis, Itzkowitz, and Lowry are wrong.
Huh?
There were no “Turkish authorities” in 1915 and who claimed that the Kurdish militias were under anything but nominal(if that) control of the Ottoman authorities?
If you’re interested in the subject read David MacDowall’s A Modern History of the Kurd**s where he discusses Kurdish raiding parties attacking and killing the Armenians being deported in response to Armenian massacres of Kurds conducted by the Dashnaks.
Remember that the Armenians were certainly more than willing to engage in tactics at least as brutal if not more so.
There’s a reason that he Turkish government has opened up the Ottoman archives and made it available to all, while the Dashnaks have repeatedly refused to allow any scholar except for those deemed suitably “pro-Armenian” to examine them.
I noted that your cite is to an uncited statement on a TV channel website, which itself as far as I can tell is not particularly known for being rigorous in presenting “history.”
You may wish to pretend that is an ad hominem, but it simply goes to the direct authority and relevance as a rebuttal.
Again… not a real cite to historians. But at least it seems to be of better quality.
(That’s a representative quote.) I think the real debate here is linguistic, not about the history. “Brutally effective ethnic cleansing and mass-murder” is genocide. The various crap in the Balkans in the '90s wasn’t even in the same league as the Armenian Genocide, yet the perpetrators of atrocities like the one at Srebenica were tried, among other things for genocide. The Armenian massacres happened in the context of ethnic unrest, even civil war? Sure. So did the Rwandan Genocide (indeed, the conflict there was existential — the Hutu regime didn’t just lose some territory, it lost all its territory.) There’s lots of room for subtlety, but none of that takes away from the fact of genocide.
You also made reference to Peter Balakian and his biases. I’m sure he has them — but one of his works is the translation of his great uncle Grigoris Balakian’s eyewitness account of the Armenian Genocide. Sad to say, I’ve only read the first couple chapters. The elder Balakian was removed from Istanbul along with most of the local Armenian intellectuals — much like, say, Pakistan’s attempt to kill all Bengali intellectuals during East Pakistan’s war of independence. Surely Grigoris is as reliable as, say, Elie Wiesel?
Honestly, so far as I can tell, the Armenian Genocide was not all that unique —which seems to be your argument. Were Turkey to recognize that it happened, there really would be no argument left to have.
We already established there was mass murder. And that not all Turks deserve the blame. But it is still a fallacy to claim that most historians do not agree that there was genocide on that area of Turkey.
Sorry to say but you have fallen for a classic denialist maneuver. This same tactic was seen with geneticists and the race issue, doctors with the tobacco cancer connections, and global warming.
The purpose is precisely to seed doubts, but the clear reason why they rely on popular press propaganda is that in the real world the minority report or the individuals would have to face their peers. The very move to use the press is an indication that they are the minority on this.
And then I have seen reports that several of the signers are now critical or sorry to have taken part on that non reviewed opinion piece of the minority.
I did not realize that the Southern Poverty Law Center was considered to be a reliable source regarding the Ottoman Empire.
Do they even employ a single person who can read and write Ottoman.
I also note that GIGO continues to insist that “the overwhelming consensus” amongst historians is that a genocide occurred and yet once again refuses to produce a single specialist in the region and time period who challenges Lewis’ assertions.
So far the only specialists in the region cited in this thread(69 of them) say that what occurred wasn’t a genocide.
GIGO is behaving very much like those who when confronted by all the climatologists who say global warming is real claims, “I don’t care what they say, I heard on Fox News that it’s false so it must be.”
For his sake I hope he’s never ridiculed those who deny global warming.
It wasn’t clear to me that they were all specialists (ETA: for most of them, their specialty remains unnamed). More importantly, the letter you’re citing doesn’t say that the Armenian Genocide never happened. It takes exception to the words “Turkish” and “genocide” —the former because modern Turkey did not yet exist and the latter because of the context in which the genocide happened (which, as I have pointed out, does not stop it from being a genocide.)
IOW, it doesn’t support the position you say it supports.
As mentioned by the historian this line is of reasoning is silly, when the ottoman records that where key were destroyed, and on the affirmations that point that they are missing is a reflection on how reliable your sources are when then they claim that the Turkish government opened the records.
The book cited already deals with that. He investigated the region and time period.
And already several reported to not agree on how the document is being used nowadays. It remains a minority report.
I have already, so it is just another show of ignorance here.
BTW it is thanks to the global warming issue that I became aware of the tactic of using newspapers to claim that there is no consensus on an issue.
For starters the side claiming that it was a genocide regularly claims that 1.5 million Armenians were killed in the slaughters, when the truth is that in reality it’s more likely that around 600,000-800,000 died, which pales before the number of Muslims who were slaughtered and expelled from the Balkans over the course of several decades prior to the War.
Furthermore they have regularly attacked the historians and academics who have expressed their opinion by tarring them “denialists”, comparing them to Holocaust Deniers.
In fact, as mentioned earlier, Bernard Lewis, the world’s foremost living authority on the Ottoman Empire was tried in Paris for expressing his opinion on the matter.
The letter was written and it was organized by Heath Lowry, the Ataturk Professor of Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies at Princeton. He made certain that everyone who signed it was a specialist in the field which is why he said so in the letter.
Also, you’ll note that the way it is portrayed in the letter is dramatically different than the Armenian propaganda position that is regularly put out and believed even by smart people like Cecil.
You’ll notice that this letter implies that both sides were equally guilty of atrocities and is quite different from the Armenian line put forward in places like Cecil’s earlier column.
The people who accuse Heath Lowry, Bernard Lewis, and Justin McCarthy of being genocide denialists would disagree with you.
Did anyone catch this item in the previously linked SPLC article?
“…in 1985, Turkey bought full-page advertisements in The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Washington Times to publish a letter questioning the Armenian genocide that was signed by 69 American scholars. All 69 had received funding that year from the Institute for Turkish Studies or another of Turkey’s surrogates like the Ankara Chamber of Commerce, a quasi-governmental agency in Turkey’s capital city.”
Interesting that you bring up global warming denial. Again, from the SPLC link:
“The relationship of Turkey to U.S. scholars promoting Armenian genocide denial is similar to that of the oil industry to fringe climatologists who dispute the reality of global warming. The cause and effect relationship is murky. It’s impossible to know for sure if they’re making the claims to get the money or getting the money because they make the claims…”
As for the demand that I come up with yet more historians to refute the Warraq 69 (who must be profs in Middle Eastern history, speak and write Ottoman, make gourmet baklava etc.), first of all I’m still not convinced that the Warraq
The Institute for Turkish Studies has since received sizable donations from American defense contractors that sell arms to Turkey, including General Dynamics and Westinghouse. Turkey continues to provide an annual subsidy to support the institute. In 2006, the most recent year for which tax records are available, the institute awarded $85,000 in grants to scholars. Its chairman is the current Turkish ambassador to the U.S., Nabi Sensoy.
The first unassailable evidence of the extent of the Armenian genocide denial industry’s reach in academic circles arrived in 1990 in an envelope addressed to Robert Jay Lifton, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center and John Jay College. It contained a letter signed by Nuzhet Kandemir, who was then Turkey’s ambassador to the United States, protesting Lifton’s inclusion of several passing references to the Armenian genocide in his prize-winning book The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide.
“It is particularly disturbing to see a major scholar on the holocaust, a tragedy whose enormity and barbarity must never be forgotten, so careless in his references to a field outside his own area of expertise,” Kandemir wrote. “To compare a tragic civil war perpetrated by misguided Armenian nationalists, and the human suffering it wrought on both Muslim and Christian populations, with the horrors of a premeditated attempt to systematically eradicate a people is, to anyone familiar with the history in question, simply ludicrous.”
There was nothing out of the ordinary about Kandemir’s letter. Academics who write about the Armenian genocide were then and still are routinely castigated by Turkish authorities.
What Lifton found intriguing, however, was a second letter in the envelope, which the Turkish ambassador had included quite by accident. It was a memo to Kandemir from Near East historian Heath Lowry, in which Lowry provided Kandemir with a point-by-point cheat sheet on how to attack Lifton’s book, which Lowry chummily referred to as “our problem.”
Lowry at the time was the founding director of the Institute for Turkish Studies. He resigned that position in 1996 when he was selected from a field of 20 candidates to fill the Ataturk Chair of Turkish Studies at Princeton University, a new position in the Near Eastern Studies department that was created with a $750,000 matching grant from the government of Turkey.
Prior to joining the Princeton faculty, Lowry had never held a full-time teaching position and had not published a single work of scholarship through a major publishing house. As a result of that and of what The Boston Globe described in 1995 as his work as “a long-time lobbyist for the Turkish government,” his appointment sparked a firestorm of controversy. A protest group called Princeton Alumni for Credibility published a petition decrying Lowry’s appointment that was signed by more than 80 leading scholars and writers, including Kurt Vonnegut, Arthur Miller, Cornel West, Joyce Carol Oates and many historians and experts in genocide.
Peter Balakian, the director of Colgate University’s Center for the Study of Ethics and World Societies and the author of The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response, called Lowry “a propagandist for a foreign government.”
Speaking at a 2005 symposium at Princeton commemorating the 90th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, Balakian posed a rhetorical question: “Would a university want someone who worked with a neo-Nazi group to cover up the Holocaust on their faculty?”
The relationship of Turkey to U.S. scholars promoting Armenian genocide denial is similar to that of the oil industry to fringe climatologists who dispute the reality of global warming. The cause and effect relationship is murky. It’s impossible to know for sure if they’re making the claims to get the money or getting the money because they make the claims… huge numbers of well-respected Middle Eastern historians who’s specialty is the Ottoman Empire say that what happened didn’t constitute a genocide and most of what is popularly believed about it is false and a result of wartime propaganda.
That includes people who aren’t on that list, such as Norman Itzkowitz, a tenured Middle Eastern Studies professor at Princeton(a university not known for employing unreliable hacks).
Now, if you’re going to claim that “the vast majority of knowledgeable specialists hold opposing views” then perhaps you can start listing the Middle Eastern Studies professors who can read and write Ottoman who’ve studied the records who claim that Bernard Lewis(probably the most respected living authority on the Ottoman Empire) is wrong.
Every single person on that list is a specialist in Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern studies.
Name one that isn’t.
Your link is an assertion put forth not evidence and the website making the assertion is an Assyrian website with an obvious axe to grind.
You might as well link to a Turkish activist website denying that what happened to the Armenians constitutes a genocide to prove it.
That list does absolutely nothing to support your contention that “the vast majority of knowledgeable specialists hold opposing views.”
Leaving aside the non-academics on the list, I’m not how many, if any of the ones listed would have any specialized knowledge regarding the Ottoman Empire.
For example, Raul Hilberg is certainly one of the most respected scholars of the Holocaust, but I’ve never seen any evidence that he done anything that would make him an expert in the Middle East.
Similarly David Brion Davis is one of the foremost scholars regarding American slavery and Henry Louis Gates is THE giant in the field of African-American studies, but neither has ever claimed to have any specialized knowledge in the Middle East.
In fact, I’m not sure there’s a single person on your list who’s even capable of reading Ottoman.
Now, if you’re correct and the vast majority of specialists on the Ottoman Empire think that Bernard Lewis, Heath Lowry, and Norman Itzkowitz are wrong, please list a few and their credentials because so far all you’ve shown is that, as we all know, it’s popularly believed that the Ottoman Empire perpetrated a genocide, but you’ve done nothing to prove that this is what specialists believe.
Moreover, it’s really sickening to use words like “denialist” to describe people like Lewis as if they’re comparable to Holocaust deniers.
None deny that several hundred thousand Armenians were killed but they argue that the numbers were wildly inflated and that the Ottoman Empire didn’t intend to exterminate the Armenians.
Furthermore, they point out that many of the “sources” were largely the result of wartime propaganda.
Let’s remember that at the same time that the newspapers were reporting on the Armenian massacres they were reporting about Germans against in mass rapes against the Belgians and “crucifying cats to the church doors”(bonus points to whoever gets the reference).
[/QUOTE]
Did anyone catch this item in the previously linked SPLC article?
“…in 1985, Turkey bought full-page advertisements in The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Washington Times to publish a letter questioning the Armenian genocide that was signed by 69 American scholars. All 69 had received funding that year from the Institute for Turkish Studies or another of Turkey’s surrogates like the Ankara Chamber of Commerce, a quasi-governmental agency in Turkey’s capital city.”
Interesting that you bring up global warming denial. Again, from the SPLC link:
“The relationship of Turkey to U.S. scholars promoting Armenian genocide denial is similar to that of the oil industry to fringe climatologists who dispute the reality of global warming. The cause and effect relationship is murky. It’s impossible to know for sure if they’re making the claims to get the money or getting the money because they make the claims…”
As for the demand that I come up with yet more historians to refute the Warraq 69 (who must be profs in Middle Eastern history, speak and write Ottoman, make gourmet baklava etc.), first of all I’m still not convinced that the Warraq 69 are so expert. Most are listed as generic “history” profs/assoc. profs, professors of language, anthropology, political science (and one “turcologist”). Even if one disregards their funding sources, how do they stack up against the far greater number of historians/experts who do accept the compelling evidence for the Armenian genocide, including international genocide scholars (see previous link) who seem to be in excellent agreement on this score?