967) Not one non-Armenian Scholar believed this was a "Genocide". It looked like a duck, walked & talked like a duck, it must be a duck

He could not find one non-Armenian scholar who believed this was a genocide, but since "it looked like a duck, it walked like a duck and it talked like a duck, it must be a duck." If that's not the product of excellent propaganda, I don't know what is.


Letters to the Editor
www.salon.com

Turko-Armenian war brews in the Ivory Tower
BY CHRIS SHEA
(06/09/99)

Say it like it is: Armenian genocide. Not massacres, horrors, alleged massacres, deportations, civil war, etc. Impartial journalism does not mean that you need to present a lie to balance every truth.

-- Rafi Kalachian


I am a Turkish-American and I am sure my views will also be looked upon with a certain wariness, but I do not subscribe to the idea that I am disqualified from objectivity by my ethnicity.

First, at the very beginning of the article, you seem to reach a conclusion -- "The central Armenian experience of the 20th century, after all, was the death of as many as 1.5 million Armenians ..." and "Every neutral scholar agrees that the Turkish position is propaganda."

The United States helped to sponsor war propaganda against Turkey during World War I as part of an official campaign to smear its enemies, as it did with Germany. Part of this propaganda was the evil butchery of the Turks against the defenseless Christian Armenians. This is what has been rooted in the popular memory of America, with very few Turkish-Americans to combat the insinuations of savagery, yet this is not propaganda?

As far as I could see from the article, every non-Armenian scholar in the field believes it is an open question whether this event was a genocide. Is it the claim of the article that all of these people are tainted by the tentacles of the Turkish government? If not, then why is it not pointed out that no one outside of the "Armenian position" believes it is a genocide? Why is it assumed that the "Turkish studies side" has the burden of proof in overturning the verdict of Turkish guilt? It is because of the underlying assumption that despite what these people in "Turkish studies" say, there must have been a genocide.

I once asked a professor of mine who taught a class on the laws of war and war crimes at Columbia Law School to deprogram me from all the propaganda I had received growing up Turkish. I asked him to please find me evidence of the genocide by neutral scholars so I could know the truth.

After investigating the issue, he came back and said that he could not find one non-Armenian scholar who believed this was a genocide, but since "it looked like a duck, it walked like a duck and it talked like a duck, it must be a duck." If that's not the product of excellent propaganda, I don't know what is.

-- Cenk Uygur