2009/10/01 by Ronald Grigor Suny · 5 citations
Social Sciences · #Turkey's Politics and Society
paper · pdf · doi:10.1086/ahr.114.4.930
openalex publication_date 2009/10/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29
In the summer of 2002, the reporter Ron Suskind was told by a White House aide about displeasure with a critical article he had written. “The aide said that guys like me,” Suskind writes, were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That's not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”1 Positioned on both sides of the discussion, historians have been both the producers of sanctioned historical memories and among the principal destabilizers of official narratives. A few years ago, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and President George W. Bush talked about “revisionist history,” referring to those with different memories of why the United States invaded Iraq—the second time.2 Long before its latest political deployments, the term “revisionist history” had its own controversial pedigree. Most infamously applied to those discredited cranks who deny the validity of the Holocaust, revisionism has been equated with the most egregious practices of historical falsifiers. Conservatives have criticized revisionists who questioned the sanitized narratives of American history that neglected the horrors of slavery and racism, the treatment of Indians, or the darker sides of the Vietnam War. Western historians of the Soviet Union who attempted to rethink the Bolshevik victory in the revolution of 1917 or the social history of the Stalin era in the Soviet Union have been labeled revisionists, a term which in the polemics of some means “apologists for communism.” Israeli revisionist historians have been attacked for interrogating the foundational myths of how their state was established and how the indigenous Palestinians became refugees. And the Turkish state and Turkophilic historians have revised the mass deportation and killing of Armenians in 1915 from state-initiated ethnic cleansing and massacres into a civil war between Muslims and Christians. Revisionism works both ways, as falsifying or whitewashing the past, or simply as what good historians regularly do: bringing new evidence to bear to reinterpret existing stories of whence we have come. Historical revisionists at their best are subversives, undermining unquestioned assumptions with documentation and argument. The result of the last forty years of rewriting American history has been a history that now includes women and minorities, slavery and ethnic cleansing, blemishes as well as beauty marks. The revisionist historians of the Cold War forced a fundamental rethinking of responsibility for the dismal end of the Grand Alliance. A shift in the angle of vision and the opening of Soviet archives have led historians of the USSR to a deeper appreciation of the depths of the brutality of Stalin's regime, of how ordinary Russians managed to live and love under Stalinism, but also how even radical authoritarian political projects can have massive social support. Aware that someone had to educate the educator, most historians appreciate the provisional nature of their conclusions. Postmodernist doubts about the possibility of finding the “truth” disarm to a degree those who face the fierce certainty of faith-based ideologues. In the besieged public sphere of early-twenty-first-century America, rather than “the truth shall make us free,” plausible explanations that people are willing to accept seem adequate. Credibility replaces fact and truth. A contemplative lot, historians might prefer to shy away from confrontation with governmental opposition or public protest, but the cost of retreat is the replacement of critical assessments by the feel-good narratives of the organic intellectuals of the state. The commitment of professional historians to the mustering of evidence and careful argument and the submission of their findings to peer review at least provides some assurance that their conclusions are reliable, if never definitive. However doubtful its ontological status in the minds of some intellectuals—and, apparently, state officials—reality has a nasty habit of biting back. When usable pasts and preferred realities are being proliferated, historians can take some comfort in the thought that dangers lurk when intellectual constructs stray too far from careful and accurate readings of the world. Revision of history is constant, even essential, and it is especially needed in the story of the Ottoman Armenians. The conventional histories have led to two separate, contradictory nationalist narratives that appear to defy reconciliation. Although the existing literature produced by Armenian and Turkish historians actually agrees on many of the basic facts, the various authors interpret them so differently that neither explanations of the causes of the events nor a synthetic narrative has been convincingly elaborated. Armenians passionately defend the case that massive deportations and massacres of a peaceful, unthreatening people were ordered by and carried out by the Young Turk authorities and that these events constitute a genocide. The Turkish state and those few historians who reject the notion of genocide argue that the tragedy was the result of a reasonable and understandable response by a government to a rebellious and seditious population in time of war and mortal danger to the state's survival. Raison d'état justified the suppression of rebellion, and mass killing is explained as the unfortunate residue (“collateral damage” in the now-fashionable vocabulary) of legitimate efforts at establishing order behind the lines. This position, which Armenians and those who recognize the events of 1915 as genocide call denialist, might be summarized as: There was no genocide, and the Armenians are to blame for it. They were who a danger to the empire and what and had in the Ottoman between the state and its from the the nationalist and of the Armenians. the by the Armenians and their to the of the the was no or by the Young Turk to the Armenians as a the other many historians to the Armenians have away from explanations that might blame at all on the of Turkish a of the and causes of the to to the Armenian in have been to in the of the Young it is is and in to the of When is it is an are the of people who massacres and killing to their that were the causes of the The argument from that the was the of a that for and was in the of the Ottoman by the of with a population by and not the that Turkish and attempted to in the that have with the of the The of that the be to the and and were on by the Ottoman state. When Armenians from in Ottoman to and the for the the The argument that a by and fact be is by the evidence that with and sanctioned by managed to in the from to and to some degree in the Ottoman in the and even so in the in was a to in both and the Ottoman but it was not an as Ottoman Young Young and to The argument that also before of be defined by its even of and and were of Ottoman of all was in the an which the state managed other has to the Ottoman was in a by a rather than a empire by the House of as as the empire was in the of to and by the Young in their the The who of the empire in were not but to bringing and and to their even to who willing to Turkish or when it their The argument that two two other in a for the is most by the of can be as an for the Turkish massacres of the the Armenian was the of all the of the and and bringing the the from the to the in the of the Turkish to these have not the but the of the Turkish state. Turkish and Armenian had for in a between them between two for the of a that with the of when a and a Armenians In what to be a and of why their Ottoman have mass a Armenian the Armenians and “in the of the Turkish that the and of a In he the history of from a in which Armenians and were the into in which have an to the of the who now can rather than as their the of as if it has a of even in political that out of and the contradictory of In the and Ottoman was into a but the of the in the it a state with and existing an of in which was an Western that the was the principal of political the were a to survival. of a notion of ethnic as the for a of the which in the into the of Armenian is and the Young were never Turkish but Ottoman in fundamental They were state empire rather than the of an ethnic There was no thought of the that and when in the Young were to and into the other the of the and the the for the for those who had in before the and who 1915 by Armenians. The narratives of the Turkish state and its and the Armenians and are neither in their of and in nor in the and of their Turkish official are a of of the or the notion of civil among them of the of W. of Ottoman and Turkish at has been on for many the who had from and a new an political who at the of by political and them of the of of of the of of of and of 1915 as of the of ethnic cleansing and even have been by a of in or of Turkish them and have far notion of civil war and the and of the massacres by the Young Turk political has as genocide is by of these historians as of a population that was the have to the of the Ottoman in the as a that about the of the empire and the Young to the Ottoman in the a new in The stories are being revised by professional historians and a new of in in the in the and in the and of and have the of 1915 into new In the last became an and became a state with an civil years ago, the of Armenian and Turkish historians to the last years of the Ottoman have been but with the Cold War in the past, the opening of on the of the Turkish into the and the by Turkish to the of the a but that and own with a in when I was to a and at in and at the of and at the time a of political at that I about the the official of the Turkish government that no genocide had and with in that to the Turkish state were by a and even it also was an that I not I with some of that I was an Turkish the if we can you was not the of assurance I to but as someone who has intellectual between and on the of genocide, I to to by the of of was a established in and The was with in who have been for American and the was both Turkish and The on being Western and with the between its to a vision of and on the and the critical of some of its and the in among Turkish on the from the I by and the for the to a tragedy that Armenians and opening to the have the massive deportation and killing of of of Armenians in in 1915 as the of two the of two people a of that those who deny that a genocide have these events as a civil war between and Armenians. I will argue is than a civil which never and in the of professional the when state authorities to the Armenians from what had been their in order to a of of a Armenian to the war to Armenians for which the Turkish authorities to be rebellious and and to their to create a empire that from the to about Armenian I told the that most Armenians for what had and for the that had by both Armenians and Armenian in the and that the way to the by memories was to face what had I said that many Armenians in the United States be that a had been in and even by the that I had been by the some the I that had from the of and from the that the Armenians now by had left the massacres of and but all of their left behind were the The with which those were left me with the that what I had about 1915 had a a me to about the I with an Armenian and and a in Ottoman and and we a to and other to on the in the last years of Ottoman The from both the Armenian and Turkish was to the of a and in genocide to in Armenian that “the are to and that is than a were willing to that we our be the on at the of the of doubts and in the of the of it that he not to be as a but simply as a the to the of the Armenian some people like the rather than the A has been by those who accept a nationalist he like make the in their own so the in their own the Turkish to about the in the of the for the it at the of of the Young Turk had other to to make for from In the government from the the Young Turk the the that out many of the deportations and massacres of Armenians. its was to in the to into a war with the of the Ottoman at at the of the to Armenians were A an official from the of to the and an of and with to historians efforts as the to a between Armenian and Turkish the Turkish state even its of of the were Turkish who had in a with the as as and had the even by the Turkish to an of the me and the genocide and that we the we had for the in to the 1915 both and our When the House of in on a the mass of Armenians in the Ottoman as genocide, Turkish in to and it was of the Turkish position, among them and the United States on as tragedy as the genocide in the to the in was that if the House the of the massacres as genocide. The the Armenian of history as and in an Armenian as was about to the the of President House to and the A in when the House on that the 1915 deportations and massacres to genocide. its and American to and the was Although had and historical the time on not on or not had been a genocide. In both and the those who political the that the be to the as if the political of the be had been on the that as as the had at least what best and the review the various and make about the most as to their to in political but all were to to and as of as our of at the of at the of in at and at the of from the and of the new some by with what had been as a controversial from with historians from and their their findings in an of far There was no that deportations and massacres had that the forced of the Armenians had been ordered by the Young Turk that the mass killing was the result of both government and and that while were of Armenian at was no civil The two nationalist narratives were by a on many in and about the of the of the Young Turk most the of to call the mass genocide to be In of the United on the and of the of means of the with to in or in a or as of the or to of the on the of to about its in or in to the of the to A the has and even as it is Most of all for has been the to the and of the Young as well as the of their to the Armenian that massacres of were a Turkish The massacres of the and the killing of Armenians in in were of the which in was a before War argue that the massacres were events different in from the of 1915 and that the was a that in a of the at in the of The that the was in and a Turkish of to the notion of “the an of and as well as to the in between and even those who to the of Ottoman state Armenians that the massacres a for official on as well as and by the to the way for it is that an among the Turkish before the that some radical solutions to the Armenian the and that the world war an for out the most the the that the Young Turk to ethnic cleansing and genocide the of war and the that their was in and that the Armenians were as the that the Russians and other to their own into the can be summarized in the that had been no world have been no genocide, not have been no war to the but also the radical of among not have been as the have been for a and political for and the of the Ottoman of war on the government was in with the Armenian political the to its in the from Armenians. The but it is that the Young were a of political of genocide. When it the Armenian was the result of and and by war and in which Armenians were as of in the of the of Union and as to the most to the In the of the evidence at that the to the Armenians was in 1915 and was to the of that The were now for an for the had been the state to be at from the and and the Armenians be to the as in the to have been the and at an danger from their Armenian has in the of into for The managed to to the Ottoman them from into historical actors in their own but a of mass deportation and or to the of and Armenians. before and the of War Young the Armenians as the principal to their for the and even their This of with at what to be Armenian Muslims in some of and the of many Armenians for a that the Armenians an to be not as an but as a of of an Armenians were and became the of both their the and their as which had in at the end of the last had by even in the and among the and among Turkish in and as well as in the public sphere who the for The on rather than or political to or managed to while political efforts the of the The by many Armenians of as became the of the possibility of a on who had and Armenians the The of Armenian had had with other than A few years he with even among the of the away for but the And the of those as also of people in history and its the most and were those who and in an to the Turkish in which he that genocide had but on the Turkish state and other not to take official on historical the the Turkish state and on and he them to on is so that even finding the to on is a The Turkish state not not but the of of the Turkish to but the to to The an when Turkish in to their own on “The Ottoman Armenians the of Ottoman in by of and by and was by its the before it was to of an of and The of had that the be to in the I had not to as by nationalist the at the end of at by about a nationalist who or historians for two to and of a in the the of Armenian in Ottoman the of some Armenian the of the 1915 of the Ottoman and the massacres of and the of the Young on the what had so years with the in of those who had the or were on the how had their Armenian and on “the social of the Armenian forced and on the of Turkish nationalist in the on the events of War I and on the that had the of what to the Armenians. In an to the the Turkish Armenian a in of the told the Turkish not to take it away but to under as Turkish civil the and works the of Ottoman the from and the state and as well as The most Turkish the of the Turkish Armenian the and the were among those who were to or with for to Most of the were but was and a the by the into the were the When was the in in to a that and a Armenians were in these before the that had the the a of the Armenian The no be of a genocide no be both the Turkish and Armenian have that the be left to official Turkish with governmental to recognize 1915 as a genocide and to make a have the out of the of the historians and the and of the Turkish and Armenian as the among was the of and the of and The Turkish with a by all the as by political and that it as well as for of between and a to the United for and the deportation of some Armenian in the the as a of own who have been the in which history is and were by the by that if the he by the in He never that a nationalist from in The of is that he was in the of a notion of while he was a Turkish vision of was of a the of in which own the live with and the other who had in the empire out of which the Turkish had he not was the of the history of those a history that not the mass killing of Armenians but the of was an in the civil in and people who had in the of at of for the of with are all we are all to shift the for Armenians and than Armenians were as in on a of became of an to the a way into the to to as in the of a from on new was in public as a government the of the and and was forced at to take a on the Armenian The of the became even to or to had had into a but now it was just as to as to how historians to the of genocide to it not be from the public are as to on 1915 a genocide, have a of what and The of the is both and of the that public of the term them with the Turkish with the United of genocide. The in our the of official and the but in a of we he that we all that deportations and massacres had that had been and carried out by the Young and their and that the of these had been defined and some other minorities, as well as the he you accept that all and you not to call it genocide, you us the of 1915 as an of ethnic cleansing, is And we appear to have a that ethnic cleansing, like genocide, is an by state The between the two is a but ethnic of an defined of people from a not mass from forced and it. on the other is the mass killing of a ethnic or with the of or its or a or and carried out by genocide not simply and in a it is both time and some and and its and and in for a among is the of a in the case of the Armenians and the was or an unfortunate of a of in of the in the at the for in the at for a to the of from the of The of the two and a of was how far we had that had the had been and how and our of the Young Armenian and the of the had A of with careful of Ottoman how the deportations had been and carried out by the Turkish of of the the had been that people to the of A of of the of that on the Young had not their in the Armenian the of those massacres in the Turkish that it a of Ottoman in the of and the mass killing of a genocide in its own A if not was that the Young had had no for no for the that in a was to them by and out to them in the The for the from of Armenians and at the of the Ottoman both the certainty of some and the of about the nature of the There be no from the political of the on genocide, and the Armenian has been the of are in these no how to the of their and both and their and have to with the of their two and their both at and in the are to live in the and the as have for a in the past, by their their of in who have so to the with which now the of has the other as to of the and of the last the histories preferred by most Armenians and in their nationalist which the other people as and their own as the of the of historians as well as be by critical historical so that to defend and can be by narratives that us