Tall Armenian Tale

 

The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide

 

  Is Henry Theriault "Brainwashed or Something"?  
HOME
First Page
Background
Scenario
End-of-argument

 

SECTIONS
Quotes
Thoughts
Census
Questions
Reviews
Major Players
Letters
Cumulative
Search
Links & Misc.

Translate

COMMENT
Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems
Others
 

 

"If someone asks what it would take to make me change my mind about, say, the Armenian genocide or the Rwandan genocide, I would answer that if I suddenly found out I've been brainwashed or something, then I would have to accept the argument that these genocides didn't occur." 

The above is how Prof. Henry Theriault was quoted in an April 2004 interview by Aztag's Khatchig Mouradian (http://www.aztagdaily.com/interviews/Theriault.htm). 

Letís try to find out if Henry Theriault is "brainwashed or something."

 

 
 

In 2004, I attempted to communicate with Mr. Theriault, regarding a Journal of Holocaust and Genocide Studies review he had written  regarding Norman M. Naimark's 2001 book, "Fires of Hatred...," detailing nine case studies of "Ethnic Cleansing." Time and again, Dr. Theriault returned to what appeared to be his passion, the Turks' villainy, without even wasting a word on a case study hardly any "genocide scholar" shows an interest in, the Crimean Turkic Tatars. The review may be accessed at armeniandiaspora.com/archive/40.html, and the two paragaphs I focused on may be read directly on this page if you [Click Here].

 


 In my first letter of April 9, 2004, I wondered what his sources were for the concentration camp, and whether he investigated the validity of the Andonian forgeries that he embarrassingly set forth as legitimate. (You know, the ones that Andonian himself referred to as propaganda sixteen years afterwards, and the ones even Taner Akcam doesn't accept, exhibiting a rare disagreement with his mentor, Prosecutor Vahakn Dadrian.) The text of that letter may be [Read Here].

 I never heard from him, even though the charges he was making were very serious. I wrote a second time, asking for the "specific facts that allowed (him) to make these claims." He didn't respond to that one either.

 

 Had I read the Aztag interview which inspired this page, learning more about his thought process, perhaps I would not have been as surprised. I'm aware evidence means little to the typical "genocide scholar," and  Prof. Theriault seems to plainly state history is not all that important.

Henry Theriaultís background is in philosophy. Like almost all the rest of his "genocide scholar" breed, he is not a historian, and yet it is these non-scholars ó who only give credence to one side of the story ó that take it upon themselves to judge upon matters of history.

Mouradian's interview (which turned out to be more of a "lively discussion," as the interviewer tells us) reveals "Professor Henry Theriault received his B.A. from Princeton University and his Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Massachusetts. He serves as Associate Professor of philosophy and coordinates the Center for the Study of Human Rights at Worcester State College (Massachusetts, USA)."

I'm not saying Prof. Theriault is brainwashed; only he knows the reasons why he has given himself so extremely to the Armeniansí cause. However, if one is to be brainwashed, Massachusetts is a good place to start. The state is "Armenian country." As Peter Balakian outlined in his "Burning Tigris," Massachusetts is the root of where the despicable Armenian propaganda campaign began in the United States. Massachusetts also harbors the offices of the A.R.F., the terrorist Dashnak organization behind todayís Republic of Armenia. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the USA has a law against foreign governments allowed to operate a branch on American soil.

 


 The interview was conducted while Prof. Theriault was making a tour in Beirut, "initiated by the Lebanese-Armenian Heritage Club of the American University of Beirut. He gave public lectures at the American University of Beirut, Haigazian University, the Hagop Der Melkonian hall, and the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia."

Hereís something I donít understand about these "genocide scholars." There is simply no end to the examples of "Manís Inhumanity to Man" throughout history. Yet, aside from paying the occasional lip service to Bosnia and Rwanda, genocide institutes almost wholly concentrate on the Holocaust and the alleged Armenian Genocide. Genocide-obsessed, deep-pocketed Armenians have certainly helped finance these institutions, as with the case of Stephen Feinstein's "Council of Holocaust and Genocide Studies," one of the worst hotbeds of Turcophobic Armenian propaganda to be found anywhere.

Professor Robert Melson

Professor Robert Melson

   If we take a look at which topic commands the attention of many of these genocide scholars by running searches on their names, very often we find their lecturing and writing activities focus on denying the historical reality of what they term the Armenian 'genocide.' It's very suspicious. For example, non-Armenians Robert Melson and Roger Smith have devoted themselves wholeheartedly to the Armenian cause ó even to the extent of belonging (at least in 2003) on the seven-member Academic Council of the very partisan Armenian National Institute (ANI)... which openly declares its "overarching goal" as "the worldwide recognition of the Armenian Genocide."

What kind of a scholar would sacrifice his or her objectivity and pursuit for truth by being part of such an agenda-ridden organization? Wouldnít we say, "We feel strongly that there's been a violation of academic standards," as smear campaign participant Robert Jay Lifton unfairly said about Heath Lowry? All of these gentlemen have been highly active in pushing the Armenian cause for perhaps over a generation; the "retired" Dr. Smith appeared in a talk in Fordham University in April 2005, and Dr. Melson appeared similarly in Purdue, in March of that year.

Professor Roger Smith

Professor Roger Smith

(Prof. Turkkaya Ataov listened to Melson's talk, but Melson declined to reciprocate, in what I think was a somewhat cowardly fashion. Prof. Ataov told the audience he felt bad Melson was no longer around, as he corrected some of Melsonís claims, and Ataov would have preferred nothing better than to have engaged Dr. Melson. Regardless, Melson's arguments did not win over this particular audience, a danger the pro-Armenians face whenever they lose their luxury for monologue. Moderator Ani Kalayjian did her level best to curtail the discussion of the issues in the talk Smith was part of.)

Israel Charny has taken part in numerous speaking engagements, the principal topic for most being the so called "Armenian genocide." He doesn't seem to be in much demand even for his own Holocaust.

henry theriault

Henry Theriault with Ms. Heroian
at a symposium presented by the
Strassler Family Center for the
Holocaust and Genocide Studies

It would be interesting to research the financial sources supporting these activities and speaking arrangements around the world. Why would the Lebanese-Armenian Heritage Club all the way in Beirut pick Henry Theriault to go across the world and give his series of talks? Henry Theriault has obviously made himself enough of an expert on the Armenians' genocide to become such a commodity. One wonders if he is in much demand for other topics, to be invited at a destination so far away. It's a good thing the opposition for these genocide scholars conduct themselves in gentlemanly fashion and donít investigate these matters. The "deniers" donít have a multi-million dollar budgeted "Armenian Assembly of America" to dig up wrongful "convicted felon" dirt on authors in an attempt to discredit them, nor do they conduct organized smear campaigns in an underhanded way to attempt the ruin of reputations and to ultimately stifle debate. No, what the "deniers" do is honorably focus on what comes from genocide advocates' mouths and pens. Luckily, they get themselves in so much trouble when they express themselves, there is no reason for below-the-belt blows, even if the "deniers" were as unethically inclined.

If it wasn't for the Armenian genocide industry, who would even be talking about people like Roger Smith, Taner Akcam, and Henry Theriault? Thar's gold in them Armenian genocide hills, fer sure.

Henry Theriault at a genocide conference in Japan, where
his topic was "denial." I Wonder which "genocide" he mainly
referred to?


 So let's examine Henry Theriault's mind, and try to see why he feels so strongly about the Armeniansí genocide, much to the exclusion, it appears, to the many unheralded historic examples of ethnic cleansing campaigns. Maybe we can even get a clue to see whether he is "brainwashed or something."

The most striking overall impression is that his criticisms about the "deniers" are exactly what his kind is guilty of.

Henry Theriault begins by advocating his area of expertise, "philosophy," to analyze history. To his mind, the Armenians' genocide is already a done deal, and there is no general need to fuss with the annoying historical details. No, what is of primary importance is to stifle any debate by labeling those who don't agree as "deniers."

Labeling is the last thing a true scholar ought to resort to, perhaps unless the opponent is truly and hopelessly without credibility, and is possessed of overriding fanaticism. Labeling is a tactic for the desperate, not for the intellectual.

He says: "People often respond to denial on the level of presenting the facts. However, denials are really never about the facts, they are about trying to manipulate a target audience and make them see the realities of the world in a way that's not accurate."

Itís embarrassing! Embarrassing that a "professor" would be caught on record saying such incredible nonsense.

He is actually telling us the facts are not important. Because he is presumably so convinced in the truth of this alleged genocide, a "genocide" that even the British could not prove at the Malta Tribunal when they examined the ridiculous evidence, he is telling us we must move on and focus on the dishonesty of those who disagree. It sounds like he's advocating the time-honored pro-Armenian smear campaign, instead of honorable discussion.

How dare he make such a ridiculous statement such as, "denials are really never about the factsĒ
"? In the case of this genocide con, it is the facts, and only about the facts.

Letís take the testimony of someone who sounds like he might have been a genuine eyewitness, UPA correspondent Henry Wood, who reported (in Briton C. F. Dixon-Johnson's 1916 work, "The Armenians"):

"It appears obvious that the Turkish authorities, anxious for the safety of their lines of communication, had no other alternative than to order the removal of their rebellious subjects to some place distant from the seat of hostilities, and their internment there. The enforcement of this absolutely necessary precaution led to further risings on the part of the Armenians. The remaining Moslems were almost defenceless, because the regular garrisons were at the front as well as the greater part of the police and able-bodied men. Already infuriated at the reports of the atrocities committed at Van by the insurgents, in fear for their lives and those of their relatives, they were at last driven by the cumulative effect of these events into panic and retaliation and, as invariably happens in such cases, the innocent suffered with the guilty."

Here, Wood is outlining the facts. He has no reason to have done so for devious purposes. The censors during the war frowned on this kind of testimony, so he was going against the grain. Certainly, Wood was not a tool of the Turkish government. Did Wood attempt to "manipulate a target audience and make them see the realities of the world in a way that's not accurate"? Quite the opposite.

H.J. Pravitz, in his April 23, 1917 report, "The situation of the Armenians: By one who was among them,"
hated the omnipresent propaganda of the period in the West, based on religious and racist bigotry. The Swede was a genuine eyewitness in 1915, starting "with a certain prejudiced point of view, partly received from American travelers, about the persecution of the Armenians by their Turkish masters." Pravitz saw the Armenians firsthand, "in the trains in Anatolia, in oxen wagons in Konia and elsewhere, by foot in uncountable numbers up in the Taurus mountains, in camps in Tarsus and Adana, in Aleppo, in Deir-el-Zor and Ana." He concluded: "I sure got to view misery, but planned cruelties? Absolutely nothing."

(Including none of Henry Theriault's "barbed wires," at the Deir-el-Zor camp. In order for there to be barbed wires, you'd need an enclosed concentration camp. There were no constructed Dachaus and Auschwitzes in areas the Armenians were relocated to.)

"In summary, I think that Mrs. Stjernstedt, somewhat uncritically, has accepted the hair-raising stories from more or less biased sources..." Pravitz wrote.

These are the same "hair-raising stories from more or less biased sources" that Henry Theriault accepts without question, in ways that would shame the genuine scholar. Could these same hare-brained stories have ďbrainwashedĒ him, or something? I don't know.

 

 Henry Theriault says: "...if you approach the deniers from a historical perspective, you state the facts and you end up getting into a debate about which facts count and which ones don't. In my opinion, you can almost never win that debate. A denier can always reject whatever fact you have, any document you produce, no matter how good the evidence. A denier can always bounce back and you get in an ongoing battle over the facts; a battle that doesn't end, and the ultimate result is a kind of stalemate where whatever historical facts you are trying to prove is never really proven."

Remarkable. This is the exact frustration with closed-minded pro-Armenian debaters.

And it is a debate that one cannot win. The reason: the pro-Armenians treat their genocide as a religion. They are faith, not reality based. They cling to their Morgenthaus, missionaries, consuls, Bryces, Lepsiuses, New York Times reports, as if they are the Ten Commandments. There is no arguing with a religious fanatic.

But if Henry Theriault were to debate me, and others like me, he will find we are completely reality-based. The genocide con job is not my religion. The only thing that motivates me is seeing how the truth is being distorted so, yes, criminally. But if Henry Theriault were to show me real evidence... real, ironclad evidence from sources without conflicts of interest... there is an excellent chance I will say, whaddaya know! I was wrong, there was an Armenian genocide!

Why not? Contrary to what genocide fanatics are quick to claim in their immoral smear campaigns, those as myself are not paid a dime by anyone. (Iíve gotten an idea of how the Turks conduct themselves with the making of the TAT site, and if these genocide fanatics could only see the utter poverty and lack of support the Turkish side operates under... the scales are so uneven, itís ludicrous.) I am not a "my country, right or wrong" type. If the Turks committed this crime, so what? I would feel absolutely no hesitation in admitting it, just as I don't try to hide the genocidal crimes my country, the USA, has committed. My personal sense of honor would not permit me to say otherwise.

But Henry Theriault wonít debate me. He knows he would be ripped apart. (Especially when his "historical facts" consist of eyewitnesses with political reasons to lie, and ... the Andonian telegrams.) He wasnít even brave enough to respond to my simple query for him to pony up the evidence for his claims. (I have a better idea now that Iíve read this interview; facts are totally dispensable, to his mind.) His sources of hearsay and canards simply cannot stand up to objective, scholarly scrutiny. That is what the British discovered, to their dismay, when almost all of this garbage was available to convict the Turks awaiting trial at the Malta Tribunal; none could be used.

Henry Theriault actually said: "...[T]he Turkish deniers(')...arguments can be discredited, they can be completely fallacious and yet, every time they make them, they get taken seriously again and again, and you have to fight that battle forever."

Exactly which are these fallacious arguments, I wonder? That there was an Armenian rebellion? That an intentional, systematic extermination campaign could not be possible if large categories of Armenians were exempted? That the Armenian men joined the enemy in droves, instead of being murdered in one magical swoop (leaving behind only defenseless Armenian women, children and elderly, as Theriault's propaganda tells us)? That the bankrupt Sick Man would have been mad to undergo such a colossal operation when there was a true life-or-death struggle, with manpower and resources desperately needed to fight world superpowers? That the bulk of the Armenians who died of famine and disease lost their lives from the same causes that claimed the rest of the Ottoman population? That the Armenians themselves truly conducted the systematic extermination campaign, targeting the non-Armenian women, children and elderly who were the real defenseless ones, when all the men were off fighting the war?

If these inarguable HISTORICAL FACTS can be discredited, they can only be done so by the dishonorable Dadrians of the world, weaseling away with the mountains of dirt that have been compiled, solely for the purpose of serving the genocide agenda. If Henry Theriault feels he can successfully combat the way it really happened through legitimate arguments and legitimate sources, I wish he would give it a try.

Henry Theriault is mistaken on a second count. Those who attempt to present the real truth do NOT get taken seriously. This is the effect of the tidal wave of horrible propaganda that has been presented near-unilaterally for a century and longer. Peopleís belief systems have been so ingrained with the lies, when they encounter the genuine facts, they are the ones who enter a state of "denial."

 

 


 Henry Theriault tells us the "deniers" (he uses this labeling over and over again, hoping to achieve his moral superiority, but eating away at his credibility each time he uses it) "create a situation where there's no clear truth." No, the clear truth is there, for anyone objective enough to study it. Itís the pro-Armenians who dishonorably must try and discredit, every chance they get. Why does Henry Theriault think the Armenians never took their case to an international court, and instead try to connive their way into people's minds with meaningless political resolutions?

Now letís check out how Henry Theriault gets himself in hot water:

"I find the claim put forth by some extreme deniers that the Armenians committed genocide by killing Turks and other Muslims very striking. If anyone with a basic understanding of history just looks at the number of Armenians who were in the Ottoman Empire and what possible access of arms they had, the notion that Armenians committed genocide becomes so absurd."

Is Henry Theriault "brainwashed or something"? Or is he just being a racist at this point?

"Anyone with a basic understanding of history"?? Sounds like that counts Henry Theriault out.

"Anyone with a basic understanding of history" and is not biased will quickly learn the Armenians waged a terror campaign with a separatist goal for forty years or so, clearly outlined in their charters as Armenian historians (Nalbandian, K. Papazian) have outlined. Actual documents verify the Russians financed part of the operation, not to mention the wealthy Armenians arming themselves with sophisticated weaponry (like mausers) for years... waiting for their opportunity to strike. (Even Henry Morgenthau knew this, writing in his "Story" book: "...In the early part of 1915, therefore, every Turkish city contained thousands of Armenians who had been trained as soldiers and who were supplied with rifles, pistols, and other weapons of defense. The operations at Van once more disclosed that these men could use their weapons to good advantage...")

Dro

A glamour shot of Dro

  Practically the moment war broke out, the Armenians attacked, as pro-Armenian sources tell us. Tens of thousands of Ottoman-Armenian men joined the Russians (comprising an army of 150,000, according to an Armenian source; another Armenian source claimed nearly twice as many) or stayed behind (50,000) to pose a significant military threat to the Ottoman army. Those fighting under cowards Dro, Antranik, Kerry and others waged a systematic extermination campaign because Armenians were a minority everywhere; they even targeted Jews, and Greeks in Trabzon. Of course, their main victims were Ottoman Muslims, which they polished off with blood-curdling savagery, according to testimony even from their allies, Russian and French officers. The victims were easy pickings, since the Turkish men were mostly away, and the mortality for the Turks exceeded half a million, according to internal government documents never meant to be publicly released. Since Turkish lives did not count, few Westerners can corroborate, but there are some ó like British Col. Wooley ó  verifying these dizzyingly high numbers. The Armenians merely continued the Orthodox campaign of "Death & Exile" (as Prof. McCarthy documented in his book by the same name) that had been going on the previous century, claiming the lives of over 5 million Turks/Muslims, and exiling a similar number.

So when I bring up the issue of racism, that is not a cheap shot. I donít believe in hurling charges like "denier" or ďgenocideĒ lightly. Imagine. Henry Theriault is supposed to be a sort of "genocide scholar," and not only is he ignoring the extermination campaign waged against the Turks, he is actually going out of his way to pretend it never happened. Why would he be such a "denier"? Is it because of ignorance, and not having a "basic understanding of history"? Is it because he wants to cover it up, because he has a mysterious agenda? Or is it simply because he is playing God again... just like when he wants you to believe the genocide occurred, and thatís that, because he thinks so... when he now determines Turkish lives were simply not as valuable as Armenian ones? That is the kind of thinking the fellows with the white hoods could be proud of.

 

The philosopher opines, "These two groups hate each other, and who knows what is the truth is and what's not," once again showing his lack of "a basic understanding of history." The Turks did not ever hate the Armenians. If the Armenians were hated, they could not have been allowed to prosper for six centuries. (How long did the Armenians allow the Turks to stick around in Armenia? Hint: "In Soviet Armenia today there no longer exists a single Turkish soul." Sahak Melkonian, Preserving the Armenian Purity, 1920.) The Turks donít hate the Armenians now. Modern Turkey humanely embarked on the course to not stress past ills, instead focusing on love and brotherhood. What Turks hate is the deception practiced by genocide-obsessed Armenians, and their supporters. It is many Armenians who are bred on hatred and vengeance, as one can see in an eye blink upon a visit to their omnipresent Internet forums. As Gostan Zarian wrote in Island & A Man, "...Hatred and envy: they seem to come naturally to us... will our sermonizers ever learn, not so much to love one another (that would be too much to ask) but at least, to accept one another..."

"One may disagree on the number of Armenians killed in the Armenian genocide, but the fact that a large number of Armenians were killed because of a systematic state policy is something that's either a fact or it isn't," Henry Theriault tells us. And because he can't prove his genocide as a fact, he shamefully engages us on what I suppose is to be taken for "philosophical" discourse, explaining, essentially, why the facts donít matter.

He tells us "the evidence standards" are too "extreme." He doesnít approve that the "deniers" call for "absolute data," without ambiguity. "But sometimes even in the hard sciences, absolute data is not available," he continues, in addition telling us "objectivity" is not the same as "neutrality." (Huh?)

(Yes, they're not exactly the same. But for all intents and purposes... Objectivity: Judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.  Neutrality: balanced between two or more opposites. The meanings are pretty close.)

Since we should arrive at conclusions (and we're talking about very serious conclusions here) without relying on absolute data, I suppose itís all right to believe in such claims as "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction," simply because we want to believe it, because the Iraqis are evil. Thus, itís perfectly fine to start wars without reliable justification, killing and maiming thousands of people.

Henry Theriault tells us "direct and conclusive evidence of a crime" is rare in a murder case. It boils down to the witnesses who can be trusted.

Henry Theriault

Professor Henry Theriault  (photo: Ashnag)

  Good. Maybe one day Henry Theriault will experience the misfortune of having more than his share of unreasonably protective parents for neighbors. One day, one kid says to his nutty mom that Henry Theriault patted the kid on the head. Word spreads. Could Henry Theriault be a child molester? More reports filter in. Henry Theriault was seen walking by the schoolyard in a raincoat. What was Henry Theriault doing, so close to school grounds? And in a raincoat, yet! These ridiculous rumors multiply, until finally the hysterical, fanatical neighbors press charges. Their kids are "coached" by psychologists, and you know what that means. When his day in court arrives, the prosecutor points to all the fine, upstanding citizens in the courtroom, all beyond reproach. Surely they are all trustworthy witnesses. While not one can actually admit to any witnessed hard fact, the judge tells the jury to "put the evidence together and the bottom line is that you eventually have to come to a conclusion," the words Henry Theriault uses in the interview.

While being taken away, Henry Theriault screams at the top of his lungs,
"This is crazy! Iím innocent!" The lips of the fanatical parents curl as they whisper to one another: "Denier!"

This is exactly the kind of evidence Henry Theriault wants us to accept for his precious genocide. As Arnold Toynbee is on record for admitting, "all
" of the evidence for the Blue Book came from missionaries. Aside from suffering, missionaries didnít see a thing. The prayers of missionaries show their godly duty was to make the Turks appear as monsters. Everybody believes the missionaries, because clergymen are "moral" individuals (just like "genocide scholars" appear to be on the surface), and clergymen simply do not lie.

 


 The foreign consuls listened to these missionaries and the Armenians, even the Christian Germans and Austrians who were raised on "Terrible Turk" stories. The newspapers listened to them. Nobody wanted to listen to the Turks. As Pauline Kael wrote in her "Midnight Express" analysis, "Who wants to defend Turks"? Turks already are known as savages; the dictionary even gives us that definition for the word Turk. The Turks must be guilty ó who needs evidence?

It is truly repulsive, the idea Henry Theriault is trying to have us swallow here. Is this his idea of "philosophy"? If he keeps that up, heís going to make me more a believer of Hobbes, rather than Locke.

If we are to listen to witnesses, the "objective" or "neutral" among us should only do so with witnesses we know had no reason to lie. That leaves out almost all the sources for genocidal evidence. There is a voluminous supply of Westerners who had no fondness for Turks, and no reason to lie; these are the ones we should listen to. (We should also start listening to the Turks. Western travellers have documented how honest they were compared to the Empire's Christians, and you'll notice the Turkish perspective is wholly absent in this discussion, so successfully has the propaganda branded them as the criminals and liars.) There are also many Armenians, like Boghos Nubar and Hovhannes Katchaznouni, who have been caught on record countering the propagandistic claims. Why is Henry Theriault not listening to these sources? Are Boghos Nubar and Hovhannes Katchaznouni "deniers"?

We must also keep in mind what genocide scholar Rudolph Rummel has written: "Genocide is horrible, an abomination of our specious, totally unacceptable. It is an obscenity, the evil of our time.." So one had better be damned sure not to make the charge frivolously. We must also not forget what genocide scholar Henry Huttenbach has written: "There is no crime without evidence. A genocide cannot be written about in the absence of factual proof."

I am sorry, Henry Theriault. I don't care how much in a tizzy you are to have this con job accepted as the reality, for whatever mysterious reasons you have; don't you tell people that the facts are not important. The facts are everything. You are accusing an honorable nation of the worst crime, as if the crime were on the order of shoplifting. Your honor as a man should prevent you from being a party to a frivolous, political accusation; otherwise, it is you committing the crime ó the crime of Rufmord.

"Anyone who studies the events in the Ottoman Empire during that period of time would conclude that what took place was genocide," Henry Theriault tells us, but these would only be lazy-thinking people without "objectivity" or "neutrality," not bothering to scratch beneath the surface. Since Henry Theriault has told us these are two different meanings, he should concentrate on mastering at least one of them, and re-evaluate the annoying genuine facts. That is, if truth is his goal.

I'd like to digress away from the interview subject and examine what the interviewer has stated: "However, the Turks who are not aware of the facts, and who are brought up in schools where the denialist or, at best, the relativist approaches are being taught..." It is only recently where I understand Turks in Turkey are beginning to study this topic, thanks to the dishonest pressure of the European Union, trying to protect their Armenian darlings, as always. This topic was not a curriculum in Turkish schools, generally speaking. I know this from Turks I run into who have arrived in the United States. Their knowledge is zip, and if anything, they have only been exposed to the topic in the United States, because of the vast genocide propaganda machinery. If anything, many of these Turks are becoming "brainwashed," if I may use Henry Theriaultís word, into believing there has been a genocide. The propaganda is so ubiquitous and commonly accepted as fact, and most Turks approach issues from an honest perspective, they are quick to believe in the nonsense everyone else believes in. Turncoats like Taner Akcam (who corroborates that the topic has been mostly absent from the Turkish school curriculum) do the most damage. Ignorant Turkish-Americans who go to see him and other pro-genocide "Turkish scholars" think, oh, hereís a Turk saying these things... it must be true.

 


 Henry Theriault goes into an interesting analysis about how Turkey is a slave to America, nobody likes the Turks, Turkey has many problems... thus, Turks are caught in a corner without a feeling of self-worth, and that's why they are quick to accept the ďdenialistĒ point of view; they think, in Henry Theriault's words, "I desperately need to have a proud identity and anybody that says anything negative at all about Turkey as (sic) my enemy and it's got to be wrong."

Frankly, I donít know much about the Turks in Turkey, and some of the things Henry Theriault tells us are not untrue; caught between east and west, there are times I'm sure the nation can have an identity crisis. But Iím also sure Turkey, like all nations, stresses the positive about their country, and I'd doubt Turks have a sense of self-loathing. They have plenty to be proud of, having had a long and rich history, being part of a nation that was never subjected to the imperialist West, unlike just about every other country on earth. This is not the reason why the Turks reject the genocide argument. They reject it because they know it is not the truth, and I hope Justin McCarthy is correct about the Turks, when he declared:

"...Whatever the European Union demands, I have faith in the honor of the Turks. What I know of the Turks tells me that they will never falsely say there was an Armenian Genocide. I have faith in the honesty of the Turks. I know that the Turks will resist demands to confess to a crime they did not commit, no matter the price of honesty. I have faith in the integrity of the Turks. I know that the Turks will not lie about this history. I know that the Turks will never say their fathers were murderers. I have that faith in the Turks."

Henry Theriault compares this psychological analysis: "But the anger that an Armenian feels at denial and the anger that a Turkish person might feel at having to confront the fact of the genocide are not the same angers...."

If Henry Theriault wants to do good, maybe itís time for him to tell the Armenians to grow up. Maybe if the Armenians weren't so obsessed with their identity-affirming genocide, they wouldnít have reason to feel such anger.

As the rare Armenian scholar (Dr. Robert John) with a sense of genocide sanity has written, "The time has come to stop psychologically damaging ourselves and our children by 'Holocaust studies' and 'Holocaust museums.' The Armenian, the Jew, or the African, should not damage their development with a continual conditioning of hate, neither should spurious guilt be visited upon others. These negative preoccupations and obsessions are obstructing our evolution."

But I don't think Henry Theriault is capable of doing so, because he has some growing up to do of his own. He has become a professional part of the process that perpetuates the anger of the Armenians, about which Dr. Gwynne Dyer has written, "The deafening drumbeat of the propaganda, and the sheer lack of sophistication in argument which comes from preaching decade after decade to a convinced and emotionally committed audience, are the major handicaps of Armenian historiography of the diaspora today."

It is this very anger that caused many young Armenian men to "lose it" in the 1970s-1980s and embark on a campaign of terroristic death and destruction, killing so many.

 

"What I'm saying is that if one is going to explain a complicated historical event that involves millions of people, one has got to recognize that your understanding of that event is going to be very complicated... It doesn't mean you can't say that the Turkish government committed genocide of Armenians; of course they did, but that genocide was complicated..."

Quite a contradiction. If anything, Henry Theriault's evaluation of this history is anything but complicated. It boils down to: the barbaric Turks were the Nazis, and the poor, innocent Armenians were the Jews. Case closed. "Of course" there was a genocide, he says.

If thereís anything "of course," itís that some Turks were villains. Some were victims. Some Armenians were victims. Some were villains. That is the reality. He is right; it is complicated. But not for the reasons he describes. He has nerve, presenting himself as a candidate to evaluate the complications, when he possesses neither the "objectivity" nor the "neutrality" to look at the episode in true scholarly and scientific fashion. Henry Theriault has boiled the process down to black and white, and he dares to pass himself off as one qualified to educate us about the grays.


 

 

Aztag's Mouradian wonders what Henry Theriault thinks of fellow "genocide scholar" Rudolph Rummel's opinion that the Armenians shouldn't ask for reparations. We learn that "The amount of time that passed doesn't matter; it's whether the repercussions of the genocide and the loss of land still have an impact." Henry Theriault compares with American Indians, saying, "I fully support the case of land claims of native Americans."

"The case of Armenians is similar. If you just look at the delicate political situation of Armenia, its vulnerability to Turkey, the dependence on Russia and the US and others for basic survival, what I mean becomes clear. So I think that part of the reparations is to help rebuild the victim community in a way that makes it secure and viable."

Ohh, boy.

I am now praying for a Native American tribe to reclaim lands Henry Theriault's dwelling rests upon. I hope he will set an example for the rest of us by handing over the deed to his house, to "help rebuild the victim community."

This is what happens when a "genocide scholar" who doesnít care about historical facts offers his dubious opinion. The right for reparations was given up in the Treaty of Gumru/Alexandropol, the terms of which were revealed in a 1955 publication from the Armenian Information Service. Arthur Derounian wrote: "Highly significant Is Article 8, wherein Dashnags agreed Ďto forego their rights to ask for damages . . . as a result of the general war,í thus closing the doors FOREVER to reparations for the enormous destruction of Armenian life and property." (Similar rights were also renounced in the earlier Treaty of Batum; scroll further down the
above link.)

I hope Henry Theriault won't next suggest the Armenians are not bound to past agreements because they are such poor victims, they should be given anything they ask for.

 

 


It's a good thing Henry Theriault is such an "objective" and "neutral" scholar, and wouldn't dream of playing partisan: ďIf you just look at the delicate political situation of Armenia, its vulnerability to Turkey..."Between the lines, is he trying to tell us the savage Muslim hordes in Turkey are ready to gobble up Armenia at the first opportunity?

This kind of line, implied though it may be, is strictly out of the Armenian propagandistsí handbook. Itís repeated ad infinitum in Armenian forums. All right, these Armenians may be bred on anti-Turkish hatred, but why is Henry Theriault giving us the same idea?

If he gave history any weight, he will learn if Turkey had the desire to swallow Armenia, there was nothing stopping Turkey from doing so in 1920, after Armenia provoked the two nations' war (as first Prime Minister Katchaznouni detailed in his 1923 manifesto). Since then, true to its credo of "Peace at home, peace in the world," the only military adventure Turkey has been involved in have been the ones suggested by "master" America, aside from the Cyprus intervention that the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee allowed Turkey to perform legally. If Turkey hadn't done so, all the Turkish Cypriots would have been exterminated, as coup leader Sampson admitted in a 1981 Greek newspaper interview.

If that had happened, I have a feeling Henry Theriault would be far away from advocating these victimsí rights... just like he very likely doesn't utter a peep about the 1992 Armenian massacres of unarmed civilians, which frightened nearly a million Azeris from their ancient land of Karabakh, with the shirts on their backs. Why doesn't he "fully support the case of (these) land claims"?

The reason is, for Henry Theriault issues such as "human rights" and "victim community" only apply to $pecial ethnic groups, demonstrating once again the hypocrisy of his genocide scholar ilk.

 

 

 

 

 

 


 
ARTICLES
Analyses
"West" Accounts
Historical
Academic
Crimes
Terrorists
Politics
Jewish
Miscellaneous
Reference

 

REBUTTAL
Armenian Views
Geno. Scholars

 

MEDIA
General
Turks in Movies
Turks in TV

 

ABOUT
This Site
Holdwater
  ©