Podcasts about genocide armenians

On April 24, 2021 President Biden used the word “genocide” to describe what happened to the Armenians of Turkey.  Whether to use this word had been a matter of debate since the 1970s.  In 1915 the Ottoman government, fearing that the Armenians in eastern Turkey would align with the Russians, decided to evacuate the whole Armenian population of Eastern Turkey by marching them across the desert to the Arab provinces of Lebanon and Syria.  They also massacred Armenians in other parts of Turkey.  Many young women were forced to marry Turks, and there were many forced conversions.  No one is certain how many people were lost, through murder or death or forced absorption.  Was it half a million or a million or a million and a half?  Most scholars use a number close to a million.  The Biden announcement had a softening provision, but two provocations.  Biden referred to events during Ottoman times, the previous, discredited regime.   This seems to spare the Turkish Republic direct responsibility.  But a State Department press release referred to the capital of Turkey as Constantinople, a name that goes back to Christian times and has not been used since 1453.  The State Department also used the highest estimate of losses, a million and a half.  The controversy over the use of the word genocide has to do with the official definition of the term.  It requires intent.  The Turks insist that while there were massive losses among the Armenians, there was no “intent” to exterminate the Armenians as a people or to commit mass murder.  They also say the word draws a comparison with the Holocaust.  The Armenian deaths were a by-product of war, they insist, a war in which not only Armenians died but Turks and Kurds and others.  Two points about the Armenian genocide are worth noting.  First, after the war, the Turks put several officials on trial for war crimes.  (The word genocide did not exist at the time).  Many observers were curious about why the current leaders do not say, “we disagree with the word genocide but agree that some of those leaders committed crimes against some of our people, as we showed by putting them on trial and finding them guilty.” But those trials are controversial and were carried out by the old regime, which is not seen as legitimate today.  Second, the national hero of Turkey, Mustapha Kemal Ataturk, was fighting the British at the time and was not involved in these events.    Back in 2020 I prepared a lecture on this topic.  In the age of pandemic, the lecture was recorded and shared with students.  I just listened to it and found it informative and nuanced.  It was done on my computer rather than with the fancy microphone that I now use, but the sound is ok. I wish I could provide you with the written definitions of genocide that I made available to students.  You should listen carefully as I read definitions or as I discuss the model to predict future genocides. Three points.  First, the situation of the Albanian refugees from Kosovo was terrible but stating that 90% of the population were displaced may have been an over-statement by some world leaders for whatever reason.  Second, Leo Kuper in his valuable book Genocide uses the term “genocidal massacre” to describe targeted killings short of a full genocide.  An example might be killing a whole village or widespread massacres to intimidate a targeted population. Third, regarding  “war crimes,” there is a concept of “disproportionate response.”   It consists of “extensive destruction not justified by military necessity.” Massive bombing in response to a homemade missile might be an example.  Bad as it may be, this is not genocide.   I will soon post a talk on the Holocaust. 

Hitler famously said about the Armenian genocide “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” For much of the last 75 years, few people did in fact speak of it.  When they did, the discussion largely revolved around the question of whether the killing deserved the label of genocide.  Scholarly analysis did exist.  But, in the public mind, it was largely swallowed up in a bitter debate about how to label, remember and interpret these events.  Tuning out the vitriolic rhetoric, many of my students thought about Armenia only in the context of the lessons Hitler apparently drew from it. This has gradually begun to change as historians and social scientists such as Taner Akça and Vahakn Dadrian have turned their attention to Armenia.  The book that forms the subject of today’s interview–A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire (Oxford University Press, 2011), edited by Ronald Suny, Fatma Müge Göçek, and Norman Naimark– is an outstanding example of this new scholarship.  All three have a deep and long-lasting engagement with the subject and have played an important role in creating a dispassionate dialogue about the genocide. A Question of Genocide forms one of the important outcomes of this dialogue.  Its essays are  models of careful analysis and research.  Rather than attempting to present a complete narrative of events, they engage specific locations, questions or subjects.  They demand careful attention and reflection.   But, put together, they offer an excellent synopsis of the state of research and opinion on the period and subject. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hitler famously said about the Armenian genocide “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” For much of the last 75 years, few people did in fact speak of it.  When they did, the discussion largely revolved around the question of whether the killing deserved the label of genocide.  Scholarly analysis did exist.  But, in the public mind, it was largely swallowed up in a bitter debate about how to label, remember and interpret these events.  Tuning out the vitriolic rhetoric, many of my students thought about Armenia only in the context of the lessons Hitler apparently drew from it. This has gradually begun to change as historians and social scientists such as Taner Akça and Vahakn Dadrian have turned their attention to Armenia.  The book that forms the subject of today’s interview–A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire (Oxford University Press, 2011), edited by Ronald Suny, Fatma Müge Göçek, and Norman Naimark– is an outstanding example of this new scholarship.  All three have a deep and long-lasting engagement with the subject and have played an important role in creating a dispassionate dialogue about the genocide. A Question of Genocide forms one of the important outcomes of this dialogue.  Its essays are  models of careful analysis and research.  Rather than attempting to present a complete narrative of events, they engage specific locations, questions or subjects.  They demand careful attention and reflection.   But, put together, they offer an excellent synopsis of the state of research and opinion on the period and subject. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hitler famously said about the Armenian genocide “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” For much of the last 75 years, few people did in fact speak of it.  When they did, the discussion largely revolved around the question of whether the killing deserved the label of genocide.  Scholarly analysis did exist.  But, in the public mind, it was largely swallowed up in a bitter debate about how to label, remember and interpret these events.  Tuning out the vitriolic rhetoric, many of my students thought about Armenia only in the context of the lessons Hitler apparently drew from it. This has gradually begun to change as historians and social scientists such as Taner Akça and Vahakn Dadrian have turned their attention to Armenia.  The book that forms the subject of today’s interview–A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire (Oxford University Press, 2011), edited by Ronald Suny, Fatma Müge Göçek, and Norman Naimark– is an outstanding example of this new scholarship.  All three have a deep and long-lasting engagement with the subject and have played an important role in creating a dispassionate dialogue about the genocide. A Question of Genocide forms one of the important outcomes of this dialogue.  Its essays are  models of careful analysis and research.  Rather than attempting to present a complete narrative of events, they engage specific locations, questions or subjects.  They demand careful attention and reflection.   But, put together, they offer an excellent synopsis of the state of research and opinion on the period and subject. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hitler famously said about the Armenian genocide “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” For much of the last 75 years, few people did in fact speak of it.  When they did, the discussion largely revolved around the question of whether the killing deserved the label of genocide.  Scholarly analysis did exist.  But, in the public mind, it was largely swallowed up in a bitter debate about how to label, remember and interpret these events.  Tuning out the vitriolic rhetoric, many of my students thought about Armenia only in the context of the lessons Hitler apparently drew from it. This has gradually begun to change as historians and social scientists such as Taner Akça and Vahakn Dadrian have turned their attention to Armenia.  The book that forms the subject of today’s interview–A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire (Oxford University Press, 2011), edited by Ronald Suny, Fatma Müge Göçek, and Norman Naimark– is an outstanding example of this new scholarship.  All three have a deep and long-lasting engagement with the subject and have played an important role in creating a dispassionate dialogue about the genocide. A Question of Genocide forms one of the important outcomes of this dialogue.  Its essays are  models of careful analysis and research.  Rather than attempting to present a complete narrative of events, they engage specific locations, questions or subjects.  They demand careful attention and reflection.   But, put together, they offer an excellent synopsis of the state of research and opinion on the period and subject. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hitler famously said about the Armenian genocide “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” For much of the last 75 years, few people did in fact speak of it.  When they did, the discussion largely revolved around the question of whether the killing deserved the label of genocide.  Scholarly analysis did exist.  But, in the public mind, it was largely swallowed up in a bitter debate about how to label, remember and interpret these events.  Tuning out the vitriolic rhetoric, many of my students thought about Armenia only in the context of the lessons Hitler apparently drew from it. This has gradually begun to change as historians and social scientists such as Taner Akça and Vahakn Dadrian have turned their attention to Armenia.  The book that forms the subject of today's interview–A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire (Oxford University Press, 2011), edited by Ronald Suny, Fatma Müge Göçek, and Norman Naimark– is an outstanding example of this new scholarship.  All three have a deep and long-lasting engagement with the subject and have played an important role in creating a dispassionate dialogue about the genocide. A Question of Genocide forms one of the important outcomes of this dialogue.  Its essays are  models of careful analysis and research.  Rather than attempting to present a complete narrative of events, they engage specific locations, questions or subjects.  They demand careful attention and reflection.   But, put together, they offer an excellent synopsis of the state of research and opinion on the period and subject.

The news includes: The Guys will be at the Southern California Genealogical Society's Jamboree on June 8-10, 2012. RootsMagic announces new webinars and additions to its catalog of recorded webinars. FamilySearch announces the addition of millions of new records on its site and the completion of almost half of the 1940 U.S. federal census. The Federation of Genealogical Societies announced that its Malcolm H. Stern-NARA Gift Fund has participated with NARA recently in digitizing and making available the records of the Sultana Disaster at the Fold3.com website. Ancestry.com announced that it has added its 10 billionth record to its site. Ancestry.com announced its AncestryDNATM service. Listener email includes: Michael asks about the notation on the 1880 U.S. federal census of “NG” under the birthplaces of an ancestor's parents. Chris sent a link to a fascinating article about using DNA to determine the origin of the Melungeons.(http://news.yahoo.com/dna-study-seeks-origin-appalachias-melungeons-201144041.html) Rich also sent another link on the same subject right after the podcast was recorded. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/melungeon-dna-study-origin_n_1544489.html?ref=fb&ir=Black+Voices&src=sp&comm_ref=false#s=1022230) Laurie asked about the available DNA tests, and Drew weighs in based on his experience. Walter asks whether there is a DNA test available to determine whether his mother and a good friend, who looks like his mother's twin, are related. Susanne asks about genealogy sites that are free. Bob talks about the work he and his wife are doing as arbiters for the 1940 indexing project. Tom asks when we think an index to the 1940 census will be available, and comments about the indexes not being made available until an entire state is indexed. Amy shares information about Titanicat by Marty Crisp. Linda writes about resources for the descendants of the Armenian Genocide. She tells us that University of Michigan Professor Fatma Muge Gocek has done extensive research on this issue with other area specialists (one is also here at U Michigan – Ronald Suny in Political Science). If the person who asked the question in an earlier podcast is still trying to find resources that might help her find information on her ancestors, she might send an e-mail to either Professor Gocek (Gocek@umich.edu) or Professor Suny (rgsuny@umich.edu) to see if they know where information on where people were moved or killed and records that might be useful. Gocek, Suny, and another scholar, Norman Naimark at Stanford, co-wrote a book, A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/MiddleEastern/?view=usa&ci=9780195393743) about the genocide. The Guys both recommend checking the University of South Florida's Holocaust & Genocide Studies Center site at http://lib.usf.edu/hgsc. Ann has a question about her husband's paternal grandfather who was born in international waters while his mother was emigrating from Wales to the United States. In another email, she reports on remarkable files uncovered in the possession of a library. Jo wrote to provide some clues and resources to Moshe who is researching a Jewish man named Markowsky.