Ara Sarafian, the head of the London-based Gomidas Institute, gave an interview to Hurriet last week. The historian argued, that multilateral efforts to improve relations between Armenia and Turkey are the wrong way to resolve the Armenian issue and stressed, that the solution lies in the huge and influential diaspora.
I have very limited knowledge about Sarafian’s views and activities. What little I know comes from this post at the Caucasian Knot and a recent entry in my own blog. However, there are a couple of points made by the historian in the Hurriet interview that took me by surprise.
1. Sarafian said there were two problems that would arise out of any effort to improve relations with Armenians through closer ties with Armenia. “Freedom of expression for historians in Armenia is limited and the genocide issue has become a political tool,” he said.
2. “We cannot compare the Armenian genocide with the Holocaust. Those who were banished from their land suffered a lot but survived,” he said.
3. He said the restoration of the Armenian Akdamar Church in the recent past could have created an environment of dialogue but had become a missed chance. “Armenians did not want to take that chance because it did not suit their interests,” he said.
These are all quite arguable statements. I know the journalist personally, so I dismiss the option that the words of Sarafian were misrepresented. But – I can’t bring myself to agree, even to a smallest degree, to what Sarafian has said in the points highlighted by me.
Artur Papyan
Journalist, blogger, digital security and media consultant
11 Comments
Comments are closed.
Artur, read Ara’s response to such criticism in The Armenian Reporter.
http://www.reporter.am/go/article/2008-12-18-study-the-armenian-genocide-with-confidence-ara-sarafian-suggests
http://www.armenews.com/article.php3?id_article=47470
http://www.azad-hye.net/news/viewnews.asp?newsId=521jsl42
I’d also add that history in Armenia is a means of manipulation especially for nationalistic rather than academic purposes. The same in Azerbaijan and probably the entire former Soviet Union, in fact.
Just talked to a couple of historian friends specialized on Armenia – Turkey relations about Ara Sarafian. The general consensus is – Sarafian is a highly controversial person, who becomes a nationalist Armenian when talking to Armenians and a very ‘moderate’ – ‘soft’ Armenian historian when talking to Turks.
Really ‘just talked’ lol..
Well, for sure historians in the Diaspora and Armenia are at each other’s throats, but anyway, I’d be interested in knowing who those historians are and what their specialization is. I’ve known Ara since 1996 and he’s never been nationalistic, but very definitely one to speak his mind and controversial. However, so far that’s the only thing people have said in response to his statements.
Nobody has actually countered them with any factual argument. Incidentally, Ara would welcome that, I’m sure, but it’s not there. Instead, we get vague comments such as “Sarafian is a highly controversial person, who becomes a nationalist Armenian when talking to Armenians and a very ‘moderate’ – ’soft’ Armenian historian when talking to Turks.”
Where’s the academic discourse?
Incidentally, Ara responded to an open letter which didn’t counter anything he said but merely told him not to speak to Turkish journalists with a full response and argument. In order to make this discussion valid, I’d suggest your historian friends respond with an academic-based response rather than a personal slur.
I have seen Ara Sarafian speak and read 2 of his books: ‘United States Official Records On the Armenian Genocide 1915-1917’; and ‘The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-1916 (The Blue Book)’. There is no question as to his integrity as a historian. He is one of the few Armenians to have actually done archival research in the United States, Great Britain and Turkey. He does not hesitate to engage Turks despite having been denied access to Ottoman archives in the 90s.
However, we must be skeptical of some of the statements in the Hurriyet interview and in his letter to the Armenian Reporter. In particular his statement that ‘In the 1980s the Zoryan Institute collected the private papers of individuals in the diaspora, yet the materials have remained under lock and key’ is more than problematic. A quick check with Zoryan, which anyone could have done, reveals that Zoryan does indeed possess a unique collection of materials which are kept ‘under lock and key’ because they are rare and priceless but which are accessible and are in fact being accessed by scholars from all over including Istanbul.
My personal view is that we should be uncomfortable with historians engaging in polemics. A scholar should avoid engaging in contemporary geo-politics and stick to what he does best which is research.
It is immoral to compare one genocide with another. The practice of benchmarking or indexing genocides is becoming a common “trend” where the Holocaust is set as the “base index” and a “monopoly”.
The main reason for this is that the world ignores any other genocide which derives from the incapacity of the UN as a proper organization. Now days the UN is not more than a charity.
This is very hot info. I think I’ll share it on Twitter.