Levon Marashlian earned
enough points with me to rank up there among My Favorite Armenians, when he
had the guts to attend a REAL academic debate on the genocide subject, in
1990... as detailed in Dr. Marashlian's Report on an Important
However, here it is, many months later in the
preparation of this site (March 2004)... and I ran into another essay written
by Levon Marashlian that... this time... caused my heart to sink. Truly, there
is no room to misinterpret where the Glendale Community College professor
(and, currently, "visiting professor" of UCLA, the university of his
mentor Richard Hovannisian) is coming from — he is unabashedly singing the Armenian
In an article entitled “Armenian-Turkish Dialogue and Unfounded Accusations,” the former
of Richard Hovannisian has gallantly stepped up to the plate, to defend his mentor’s
honor... but wait until you see the manner and the style with which Marashlian has decided
to handle the matter!
We all know there can be no room for dissent in
the Armenian camp. This is why those Armenians who have fond memories of the old country
must secretly hide their feelings of resentment, as their “Silent Majority”
hysterically continues their campaign of “Hate the Turk,” and poisoning minds
everywhere. There are few who dare to deviate
from the norm, for two reasons: 1) Even if Armenians know they are in the wrong, they must
keep silent... as the rule to be followed is: “My People, Right or Wrong,” and
2) Those Armenians who believe truth and integrity hold sway over tribal loyalties are
afraid to speak, with full knowledge of what has historically happened to those who have
pointed fingers at their own. This is what Dr. Heath Lowry called “The Curtain of
Fear,” and what has allowed for more Armenian victims from Armenians than from Turks at certain points
of history... and when Armenians don’t hero-worship
their assassins by setting up defense funds
or holding national ceremonies
for their mass-murderers (Marashlian himself is on record for calling these terrorists
"patriots"), they can’t bear witness to the actions of their criminals, as
Armenian-American colonists demonstrated in 1933... when their own priest was killed in
front of the entire assembly!
In the last generation, Armenian terror tactics
have largely shifted from knives, bombs and bullets to defamation campaigns. And it doesn’t
matter if the targets are historians the Armenians consider as “pro-Turk,” such as
Heath Lowry or Bernard Lewis (level-headed others will substitute the term “pro-Truth”
for “pro-Turk”), or if the targets are Armeni-Lemmings who have established a solid
history of singing the Armenian AND? Anthem. This is what missionary James
Barton was bemoaning to Admiral Mark Bristol, in his famous letter... after a quarter-century of dutifully vilifying Turks
in the service of Armenians; once the Armenian servant became hesitant to go all the way,
then he became subject to attack. ("I
probably have suffered as much from the lack of appreciation on the part of Armenians as
anyone. For twenty-five years I have worked for them, I doubt if there is anyone in the
country that has been more frequently attacked than have I, from Cardashian down.")
In Barton’s case, the shameless and ungrateful attacker was lawyer Vahan Cardashian.
Armenians and loyalty.... like oil and water.
On TAT, we already took a look at one rare example
of “An Armenian Tangles with an Armenian”...
that was when Dr. Rouben Adalian viciously jumped down the throat of Armenian Forum
co-editor, Ara Sarafian, when Sarafian dared to question the validity of the infamous “10,000
Drownings” story. Adalian defended the cornerstone of Armenian genocidal “proof,”
Lord Bryce’s “Blue Book,” and practically accused Ara Sarafian of being an agent for
the Turkish government. (I guess Ara Sarafian felt the need to prove to the Armenian
community that he was no traitor, since he served as editor for 2000’s
Armenian-reprinting of the discredited war propaganda work... trying to make the Blue Book
appear as valid history.)
Lima stands at center, with Armenian Forum partner Ara
Sarafian at his side. A portrait of the great Armenian writer William Saroyan
keeps an eye on them. Have these boys read Saroyan, or did they purposely turn
a deaf ear when Saroyan declared, "‘’The real enemy of the Armenians
were the Russians, not the Turks’’?
The victim of attack in this episode: the other
co-editor of Armenian Forum, Vincent Lima.
Levon Marashlian begins his emotional attack by declaring:
A far-reaching issue involving Armenian-Turkish dialogue and unfounded
accusations by Vincent Lima, co-editor of Armenian Forum, has been brewing for
several months. It boiled over this summer when we learned in July, in an interview
conducted in Istanbul, that Turkish deniers of the Genocide have exploited
unjustified and destructive charges by Mr. Lima against Dr. Richard Hovannisian,
Armenian Educational Foundation Chair in Modern Armenian History at UCLA.
(Well... Levon sure isn't helping his academic integrity with such name-calling as
"deniers." That's a catchphrase the Armenians have made excellent use of,
in their attempts to equate their beloved "genocide" with the very real
Holocaust. Is Levon Marashlian attempting to reduce the character of the very
honorable [by his own admission] Turkish scholars he met at the 1990 Ankara
conference, by portraying them as crazed neo-Nazis who contemptibly pretend there
was no genocide against the Jews?)
(At least Marashlian contained himself and
didn't go all the way by using the word "fascist," as Ara Sarafian did...
in an interview with The Armenian Weekly, to be found in the
pages of Armenian Forum.)
Here is what Vincent Lima said:
"The only clue at my disposal is Professor Richard Hovannisian's amazing
statement on 13 September 1998 suggesting that there is a need for special caution
in any 'dialogue with the Turks.' The statement is amazing not only for its racist
content but also for its lack of self-confidence."
Marashlian declares: “The only thing amazing in the passage above is Lima's
bizarre belief that a call for caution has a ‘racist content’ and that it
reflects a ‘lack of self-confidence.’ “
We will get to to how Levon Marashlian defends
his position momentarily, and whether it is fair to classify Lima’s comment as a
“bizarre belief.” Let us first examine how Marashlian’s mentor, Richard
Hovannisian, has stacked up in his impartial attitude and quality of scholarship.
In his book, Christian Scholar Samuel
Weems dissected Richard Hovannisian’s four-volume “The Republic of
Armenia.” Time and again, Weems exposed the inconsistencies, manipulations,
fabrications (Hovannisan’s “cooked book” figures, in particular... the same
numbers for casualties are used for refugees) and downright stupidities in
One of many examples (Armenia — Secrets of a “Christian” Terrorist State,
p. 128, 2002):
Hovannisan goes on to add another reason why there could not have been a
large-scale killing of Armenians by Turks in 1915, “Even though the Ottoman Empire
had long since capitulated, Turkish Armenia still languished under the hand of the
butcher, the refugee throngs, denied the right to reclaim their villages, died of
starvation and disease all along the border, and countless Christian women and
children remained prisoners of the harem.” (P295)
How can an unbiased historian use a phrase such as “languished under the hand of
Weems makes an excellent point. My answer is: only a racist historian can make such
a statement... unless he has the ironclad facts to back up his case. And impartial
truth-seekers are all fully aware Armenian evidence boils down to hearsay and
canards, and there is not even one bit of genuine evidence proving the Ottoman
government was behind a systematic extermination plan.
Weems goes on:
Clearly, he uses such adjectives in an attempt to write a new and slanted version
of history to justify and excuse his native Armenia.
There is no question about it: Thousands upon thousands of Armenians did die of “starvation
and disease.” Why? Historical evidence records most of these individuals chose to
follow their dictator leaders into a desolate land and this was the terrible price
they paid. Other Ottoman citizens of other races (such as Kurds) who remained loyal
to their country did not share this fate. To call the Turks “the butcher” is
just plain nonsense. A more proper description than “languished under the hand of
the butcher” should be “languished under the hand of the greedy Armenian
Hovannisian cries out that “countless Christian women and children remained
prisoners of the harem.” Again — this is pure nonsense. Hovannisian doesn’t
name a single “harem” anywhere in his four-volume series. No names, no
addresses, nothing. He couldn’t name any, because there weren’t any.
Sam Weems, by the way, was also vicitimized by yet another grotesque Armenian smear
campaign... when the $2.5 million budgeted Armenian Assembly of America committed
libel by claiming Weems was a “convicted felon.”
What Weems provides is only one example of Hovannisian’s bias and agenda-laden
scholarship. (I can’t even label Hovannisian’s work as “poor” scholarship,
because that would mostly imply shoddy research. I believe those such as Hovannisian
and Dadrian have researched this arena inside out, and know the real truths and
lies; it’s not they are misled, like your typical Armeni-Lemming... what is
happening is that they know the real truth and are deliberately misleading, making
them the worst type of historian... and guilty of first-degree ethocide.)
Let’s look at a few more examples of
Hovannisian’s racist regard for Turks as inhuman creatures. In a PBS-TV debate, Hovannisian was caught on
record saying “My father, when he had an opportunity, would kill something.” He
couldn’t even bring himself to admit those were human beings his father was
killing, and not things.
Hovannisian, who authored or edited several works on Islam (which would indicate he has
more than a basic knowledge of the religion) asked during a presentation sponsored by the
Armenian-hotbed University of Minnesota’s CHGS, “ Which religions recognize one
The answer was, “Judaism and Christianity.” Dr. Hovannisian followed up with: “Moslems
were killing Christians everywhere in the 19th century.”
Dr. Meltem Deniz, who bore witness to this
Would he not know that Islam as well recognizes one God? .....
If that is the case, what was his objective?
What made him think that he has the right to insult my religion and faith? What made him
think that he has the right to convey wrong information such as ‘Moslems were killing
Christians everywhere, when actually it was the “Christians” who occupied the “Moslem”
lands in the 19th century? Was he trying to imply and emphasize that Christianity is an
evolved religion, but Islam is a primitive one, and so the Moslems are primitive and
What he did overall was use the manifestation of
religion to propagandize or advocate national and/or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination and hostility. I would also consider this as a verbal
harassment on the basis of religion and national origin.
As far as the other charge of Richard Hovannian’s ‘lack of self-confidence,’ Levon
Marashlian himself is in a good position to shed light on that one. The very conference Marashlian attended that I give him
huge credit for was turned down by Richard Hovannisian. The propagandist-professor
reportedly did not even extend the courtesy of a reply.
If Hovannisian was so confident of his historical position, wouldn’t he have jumped at
the chance to prove the “pro-Turk” scholars wrong?
In this very conference, there was another telling clue; let us have Dr. Marashlian tell
us, in his own words:
(Dr. Salahi) Sonyel also recalled that in 1984
he had met Marashlian and his mentor Dr. Richard Hovannisian in San Francisco, where
"I personally asked Prof. Hovannisian, why don't we come together (?) I said to him and set up a sort of organization to study the
Turkish-Armenian relations, and let's publish papers together. I will help you come into
the Turkish archives, you help me go into the Armenian archives, we put our heads
together, and we'll try to get at the root of the problem. All I received from him was a
grin and a hand shake. The offer still stands."
Dr. (Mehmet) Saray: "I think we must come together. We must arrange joint sessions,
symposiums. There is no point in hating, refusing to shake our hands, etc. etc. I think as
a civilized people, we can come together."
That was in 1990, and you can bet your bottom dollar Richard Hovannisian still has trouble
bringing himself to agree with Dr. Saray, and hasn't lifted a finger to take Dr. Sonyel up
on his offer.
Isn’t it obvious those like Richard Hovannisian cannot stand the idea of "come
together," since they can only pull the wool over peoples' eyes through monologue,
rather than dialogue?
This is why biased presentations given by the “Armenian
Genocide Club” are often operated behind closed doors. Filmings and tapings are
generally prohibited. (Exactly the way the Chicago workshop this Marashlian attack
concerns was conducted.) When Dr. Deniz questioned a map presented by Richard
Hovannisian at the aforementioned CHGS
conference, the director of CHGS, Dr. Stephen Feinstein, threatened to call the
The degree of dishonesty is simply stomach-churning.
Let us continue our exploration of Levon Marashlian’s self-exposure to the
Dr. Marashlian asks:
Given the decades of dispute involving the scholarship and politics surrounding
the historiography of the Genocide, it is quite natural to exercise caution in a
dialogue between Armenians and Turks. In fact, it would be amazing not to exercise
caution. What would Lima want? Should Armenians exercise no caution?
What is “caution”? The way to conduct true debate is to invite participants from
both ends of the spectrum and engage in a real academic exchange of facts and
thoughts... exactly as was the case in the 1990 Ankara conference that Marashlian
attended. Practically all the major Armenian scholars were invited, and only
Marashlian apparently accepted; the only way for the organizers of this Ankara
conference to have exercised caution would have been NOT to invite
propagandists/prosecutors such as Dadrian and Hovannisian... and yet, the Turkish
organizers were confident and big hearted enough to invite even these
Similarly, the only way members of the “Armenian Genocide Club” exercise caution
is NOT to invite scholars who have opposing views (and who are objective, without
the hysterics of the Dadrians and Hovannisians... such as Professors Justin McCarthy
and Bernard Lewis)... but they usually don’t dare. Instead, they pretend to
display objectivity by including Armenian-sponsored Turkish Turncoats such as Taner
Akcam (and some of the turncoats have had other reasons to turn, besides direct
sponsorship... see the Turkish
Scholars page), and then dishonestly turn to these
Armenians-in-Turkish-clothing, and then say, See! The Turks agree with us.
Marashlian criticizes Lima for inconsistency in
criticizing Hovannisian, and at the same time for congratulating the pro-Armenians
who organized the paranoid and conducted-behind-closed-doors Chicago workshop
(including the Armenians Ronald Suny and Kevork Bardakjian, the "genocide
scholar" Robert Melson, and the Armenian-in-Turkish-clothing Fatma Müge Göcek
[with cameos by her turncoat comrades, Engin Akarli, Selim Deringil, Halil Berktay
and a few others], the latter of whom, along with other pro-Armenians from this
Chicago event —Stefanie Platz and Kenneth Church — have jobs in Dennis Papazian’s
Armenian Hotbed, the University of Michigan.) Marashlian might have a point... but
Vincent Lima can’t be TOO critical of Armenian policy, so let’s give him a
break. For him to reveal the degree of honesty he has revealed is already in the “rare
and unheard of” category.
Marashlian is not bashful when it comes to mercilessly skewering Vincent Lima, using
such terms as “arrogant intolerance.” Marashlian complains: “Raising
the specter of (racism) serves to discredit a renowned scholar who for 25 years has
been at the forefront of the academic effort against the denial. The discrediting of
Hovannisian, of course, would be welcomed by deniers. What in the world does Lima
think he is doing?”
(If you thought you noticed your computer vibrating just now, that could only have
been Marashlian's shock resonating your way: why, this is outrageous! One of our
very own is traitorously compromising our entire raison d'etre! What in the world
does Lima think he is doing?)
Marashlian is correct in one sense; Hovannisan
has been renowned. The reason is, the near-unilaterally presented Armenian “Genocide”
propaganda for some ninety years and longer has had the longest time to incubate,
and is now perceived as the general wisdom. Naturally, a fraudulent historian such
as Richard Hovannisian would be regarded as “renowned” by the ignorant and
biased, lazy-thinking Western world community. However, what separates a true
intellectual or academician is braving the waters beneath the surface... and it’s
not difficult to ascertain where the heart of this “renowned scholar” truly
The purpose of a real scholar is not to openly be part of an agenda, such as being
“at the forefront of the academic effort against the denial,” as Marashlian
openly admits. The purpose of a real scholar is to tell the truth, no matter how
much it may hurt.
Why, even Vincent Lima paid lip service to this
"foreign concept" to the Armenians:
"The job of honest scholars is
to question and correct and debunk."
From his "Another
Crack in the Wall of Silence" that Levon Marashlian decided to savage.
(Maybe it was the quote above that got Levon Marashlian to bare his teeth.)
Let us keep in mind that even Richard Hovannisian
was affected by a bout of “temporary sanity” in 1982, when he declared, (at the
"Congress on the Problems of World Armenians"): "The Armenian
problem could not be proved. The genocide is not valid legally and it is exposed to
prescription." If Hovannisian himself once admitted the genocide
could not be proven, what would a legitimate scholar be doing, placing himself “at
the forefront of the academic effort against the denial”? The reasons
obviously wouldn’t have much to do with respecting genuine historical facts.
Marashlian begins a following sentence in the following manner: “Added to
Lima's dangerous irresponsibility is his unscholarly and mean-spirited manipulation
of Hovannisian's statement which...” WHEW! Calm DOWN, Professor Marashlian!
Poor Vincent Lima simply expressed an opinion based on real facts, for goodness’
Let us once again examine Lima’s little footnote (that's correct; this statement
wasn't even in the main body of his essay):
"The only clue at my disposal is Professor Richard Hovannisian's amazing
statement on 13 September 1998 suggesting that there is a need for special caution
in any 'dialogue with the Turks.' The statement is amazing not only for its racist
content but also for its lack of self-confidence."
Hovannisian warns against dialogue with the Turks. Turks exactly like Marashlian’s
opponents at the 1990 Ankara conference that Marashlian himself found generally kind
and fair and warm. (The only one Marashlian mainly criticized was a non-Turk,
British Professor Andrew Mango.) Does Marashlian believe, based on his own
experience, that such Turks would purposely distort Hovannisian’s conclusions
(which would be a reason for “caution”) instead of debating such conclusions on
their own merit? If these Turks came across as human beings with integrity, then why
WOULD Hovannisian be afraid of any dialogue with them? The only two logical reasons
are that 1) Hovannisian is contemptuous of Turks (which would be racism), and 2)
Hovannisian knows his findings rarely have a leg to stand on (which would betray a
lack of self-conidence).
IN HIS OWN WORDS, WHAT LEVON MARASHLIAN WROTE ABOUT EXACTLY THE KIND OF TURKS
HE NOW SAYS ARMENIANS NEED TO BE CAUTIOUS OF IN A DEBATE... IMPLYING THAT
THESE TURKS WOULD BE UNDERHANDED, AND WOULD TRY TO PULL A FAST ONE.
(OTHERWISE, WHY THE "CAUTION"?)
(After earlier stating in
his report that he had met "several Turks... who appeared genuinely
open-minded," Marashlian informs us, using the third person):
Reflecting on his week
in Turkey, Marashlian said: "It was rewarding on the professional
level and quite enjoyable on the personal level. All the Turks I met were
friendly, and although I vigorously disagreed with their position on the
Armenian Question, I got along quite well with them, especially with
Mehmet Saray, Kamuran Gurun, Sinasi Orel, Ezel Kural, Salahi Sonyel,
Husamettin Yildirim, Esin, Gulfem Aslan and Recep Guvelioglu of Turkish TV,
and Sinan Kuneralp of ISIS Press, who for years has been advocating a
scholarly exchange between Turks and Armenians."
COULD THERE BE ANOTHER REASON FOR
THIS "CAUTION"... SUCH AS, OHHHH, PERHAPS EXPOSING THE THINNESS OF
ARMENIAN EVIDENCE? COULD THIS BE WHY ARMENIANS HATE GETTING CAUGHT IN REAL
DEBATES, WITH GENUINE TURKISH SCHOLARS?
So why would Marashlian attempt to present such
obvious racism and lack of self-confidence as “unscholarly and mean-spirited
manipulation”? Aside from being little different from his mentor, Marashlian’s
message is clear:
Step out of line, and your precious character will be open to wild and merciless
attack; even if... or especially if... you are an Armenian member of the Armenian
It’s like the Mafia! Once you rat on your paisans, you’re dead..!
volunteer bandsmen who fought the Ottoman army and committed unspeakable
atrocities against Turkish villagers. (From the Armenian Daily "Azk"
of March 2nd 1915... a year when Marashlian insisted there was no Armenian army,
to Justin McCarthy, during their conflict at the 1990 Ankara conference. )
Marashlian writes, “What does it say about
Lima and the virtue of being grateful, when he turns against someone who
congratulated him and his partner and wished them success?” In other words, if
someone says something nice about you, you should shut your mouth when that someone
does something you don’t approve of?
Talk about the irony of “the virtue of being grateful”... a foreign
concept to most Armenians. Let us ask James Barton how he felt when Vahan Cardashian
savagely came after the missionary’s hide. I wonder how the Armenians’ greatest
friend, President Woodrow Wilson, felt when Armenians embarked on their typical
campaign of attack once the president refused to totally support Armenians’ hopes
to get free Ottoman land, by committing American lives and millions of dollars? And
what of Levon Marashlian himself... after Heath Lowry had treated Marashlian so
kindly in the 1990 conference, did he make an attempt to still Peter Balakian’s
disgusting smear campaign against the Princeton professor, years later? Where was
Marashlian’s “virtue of being grateful”?
Marashlian continues with his attack: Lima's ridiculous reference to a lack of
self-confidence brings to mind the image of a mouse trying to push over an elephant;
it simply makes Lima look silly. But the bigger picture--referring to racism in his
criticism of a distinguished scholar who has congratulated him and promoted his
publication--makes one wonder whether Lima has any sense of humility, civility,
conscience, or common decency.
Talk about looking silly..! What was that about people living in glass houses?
LEST WE LOSE SIGHT OF THE IRONY...
Vincent Lima is no counterpart to Taner Akcam; he is
definitely no "Armenian Turncoat." Here is what he had to say during a
1998 interview with The Armenian Weekly:
Vincent Lima and Ara
Professor Richard Hovannisian has often complained that
responding to Turkish government- sponsored denial saps all our energies; it denies
us the opportunity to come to grips with the actual events of the Genocide. He is
right. But now, as a matter of scholarship, the veracity of the Armenian Genocide is
unassailable. Now it's time to move forward with the work of analysis. The
possibility of moving forward exists today thanks to the lifetime work of Vahakn
Dadrian—whose contributions encompass both meticulous documentation and brilliant
analysis; the key role of Professor Hovannisian; the solid work of Donald Miller and
Lorna Touryan Miller; the path-breaking research of Raymond Kévorkian, to name a
few scholars; and the unsung but vital contribution of all the survivors who have
written their memoirs.
This is the full-fledged, fellow singer of the Armenian AND?
Anthem that Levon Marashlian set his sights on for his no-holds-barred attack,
just for one itty-bitty remark (which actually only appeared as a footnote!)
that was not completely in line with the Armenians' genocide facade. Even actual
traitors like Taner Akcam don't get the level of viciousness (from this site, for
example) that Marashlian has designated for his fellow propagandist. Wild!
Hovannisian participated in “a panel including the
Genocide at the 11th Biennial Conference of the International Oral History Association
held in Istanbul in June,” and Marashlian reports:
The "Turkish Historical Foundation had found a strong weapon with which to sustain
its argument that `Hovannisian has stated that he will never sit around the table with
Turks'," said Hovannisian, adding, it was "deplorable that the opportunity was
given to use an Armenian source to further the attempt to suppress the panel."
Isn’t that just like Richard Hovannisian. Criticizing as “deplorable” an
inconvenient FACT that gets in the way of his position. Exactly the way Hovannisian
regards his treatment of history.
For example, when he was caught off-guard
and replied truthfully to why Ottoman Jews were not treated similarly to the Ottoman
Armenians (because the Jews did not want their own homeland, he unthinkingly replied;
interesting that none of the Armenian pseudo-reasons first came to the renowned scholar’s
mind, such as pan-Turanism, Moslems hating non-Moslems, the Turks being after Armenian
wealth [as if Ottoman Jews were not wealthy], and a needing to find a scapegoat to feed
frustration over lost Ottoman lands), Richard Hovannisian later tried to explain his faux
pas by coming up with some smokescreen reason that he found no less deplorable. Prof.
Hovannisian, if you’re going to blurt out some comment you’re going to regret later,
then be MAN enough to accept the responsibility for your comment. That is what a MAN does;
accept the responsibility for one’s statements, or actions. Not the Armenian way, I
know... since the only reason why tragedies befell the Armenians was because they betrayed
their nation in their nation’s darkest hour. How about being MAN enough to accept the
responsibility for your forefathers’ actions, instead of dishonorably trying to make it
appear like there was a genocide?
Here is how Marashlian explains the behavior of his villain-of-the-moment, Vincent Lima:
And now, instead of being a gentleman and admitting the harm he has caused, Lima is
trying to deflect the blame, for what he calls "the fallout," away from his own
blunder to Hovannisian himself. Lima wrote to H-TURK on July 13: "The opportunity [to
use an Armenian source] was given by Professor Hovannisian himself," since it was he,
"speaking before 300-odd people in Pasadena in September 1998, who suggested that
there is a need for special caution in any dialogue with 'the Turks.' Public intellectuals
cannot make statements before large audiences and expect to escape responsibility for
those statements." He added: "I stand by my [March 2000] report, which can be
found online at <http://www.gomidas.org/forum/chicago.htm>."
Well, who could disagree with that? Of course, Levon Marashlian would, and here’s how he
expressed his disagreement:
Since Hovannisian's trip to Istanbul in June exposed the holes in the spin Lima posted
in March, he is now resorting to an adolescent ruse to cover up his big blunder: "I
am glad to see that Professor Richard Hovannisian has revised his longstanding position
against conversations with Turkish scholars," wrote Lima.
Did Levon Marashlian consider the reason why Hovannisian made a trip to Istanbul in June
might have had a connection to the “fallout” of his own dumb statement that Lima
exposed earlier? If Marashlian wishes to expose the holes in Lima’s “spin,” then
Marashlian ought to come up with examples of Hovannisian’s sincere dialogue with Turks
BEFORE the time of Lima’s “spin.”
And here’s how Marashlian tries to do exactly that:
The co-editor of Armenian Forum needs to learn to write more accurately--after doing
his homework. Hovannisian indeed has had "conversations" with Turkish scholars
over the course of many years, long before the Istanbul conference. He had even
participated in conferences with Turkish scholars before the Istanbul conference. In the
paragraph following his comment on "conversations," Lima himself mentions one of
those meetings, where Turkish scholars who "have tried to distance themselves from
Ankara's official line" on the Genocide "spoke at an ARF-sponsored conference at
the Sorbonne in Paris in 1998."
In other words.... Marashlian tries to use the latter-day Dashnaks’ phony talk in Paris
with Turkish Turncoats as an example of Hovannisian’s having a dialogue with Turks!
But Lima leaves out a crucial fact: Hovannisian also
participated in that same Paris conference! Lima's brazen distortion through
omission is outrageous.
There was nothing to omit.... this was not an example of Hovannisian sitting down
with REAL Turkish scholars, as Marashlian hiimself did in 1990.... Hovannisian was
simply among pals of the Armenian Genocide Club, some of whom happened to include
Armenians-in-Turkish-clothing. There is someone engaged in outrageous distortion
here, and it’s not Vincent Lima.
Marashlian further damages whatever is left of his credibility by giving another
example of Hovannisian’s sharing a podium with Turks (i.e.,
Armenians-in-Turkish-clothing), in an October 1996 Bochum, Germany conference. “The
truth is, neither Hovannisian nor several other scholars who were absent from the
Chicago conference--most notably Dr. Vahakn Dadrian--have ever opposed a
The TRUTH is Hovannisian and Dadrian have almost ALWAYS opposed a constructive
dialogue with REAL Turkish scholars. The key word is “constructive”: the
Armenian definition of this word is when the dialogue takes place with Turkish
Turncoats, or Armenians-in-Turkish-clothing; when REAL Turkish scholars are involved, the dialogue turns “destructive”
to the Armenians.
If ”Hovannisian nor several other scholars who were absent from the Chicago
conference--most notably Dr. Vahakn Dadrian--have ever opposed a constructive
dialogue” with REAL Turkish scholars, then why did they reportedly refuse to
give even the courtesy of a simple reply to the kind invitation sent to them at the
1990 Ankara conference... the one that I singled Marashlian out for praise, for
having had the courage to participate?
When Levon Marashlian contemptuously writes, “The co-editor of Armenian Forum
needs to learn to write more accurately--after doing his homework,” he would
do better to substitute “Levon Marashlian” for “The co-editor of Armenian
A primary player in this evolutionary (expanding pool of dialogue) process
is Dr. Dadrian. Yet Lima criticizes him (indirectly) for not going to Chicago, even
though Dadrian already has been having a productive dialogue--predating Chicago by
several years--with Turkish scholar Taner Akcam and publisher Ragip Zarakolu.
I can't conclusively comment on Ragip Zarakolu at the moment (a search revealed his
name associated with tons of Armenian and "Kurdistan" sites, and
keeping constant company with the likes of Akcam and Halil Berktay), but “Turkish
scholar Taner Akcam” is only given as an example to pull the wool over the eyes of
those who don’t know better. Marashlian should be ashamed of himself for giving
the one-time Armenian-sponsored Akcam as an example of a real Turkish scholar, when
Marashlian fully knows the difference between this Turkish Turncoat and a real
Turkish scholar; woefully disingenuous of Levon Marashlian.
Prof. Marashlian continues his eye
wool-pulling by stating further:
One of the reasons why the dialogue is evolving in the right direction, why a few
Turkish progressives are now stepping back from Ankara's line, is because Hovannisian,
Dadrian, and many others (including myself) have been steadfastly countering that official
line in scores of scholarly and mainstream publications, public forums, governmental
hearings, scholarly meetings, informal conversations, exchanges on the Internet, as well
as on radio and television during the last 20-plus years. One example is my participation
in the 11th Turkish Congress of History in Ankara in 1990 (where--coincidentally--Sarafian
was present as an observer). In those academic, civic, and media exchanges, that started
in the late 1970s, intensified throughout the 1980s, and continued in 1990s, in debate
after debate, it is the Armenians who prevailed overall--by exposing and discrediting the
deniers' disinformation time and time again.
Here are the real reasons that explain the goings-on:
The 1990 conference was one of the FEW authentic debates. Armenian-sponsored talks (taking
place at hypocritical genocide institutions, whom the Armenians have cleverly allied
themselves with over those past twenty years that Marashlian refers to) that take place
behind closed doors and involve only those who are full-fledged members of the “Armenian
Genocide Club” (where membership is granted only if you admit to a genocide having taken
place) cannot constitute as genuine debates. One can only have a debate if two opposing
sides are present, not one side where everyone agrees with one another.
Those like Marashlian might prefer a wool-pulling-over-the-eyes term such as “progressives”
to describe Turkish Turncoats. A better word would be “opportunists,” And that word
does not apply to those Turkish Turncoats who were sponsored by the Armenians.... such as
when ex-terrorist Taner Akcam cozied up with Vahakn Dadrian, and then suspiciously was
hired at Dennis Papazian’s university... a job he got fired from, once his shoddy
credentials were exposed by Michigan’s Turkish community. Of all the American
universities, it is telling that Fatma Müce Göcek happened to land a job at Papazian’s
university, as well. I don’t know the circumstances behind her getting this job, but I
wonder if the following speculation can be too far off the mark: “Hmmmmm.... if I sell
my soul to the Devil and become a complete mouthpiece for the Armenians... I can have this
neat, lucrative career in the United States of America, following my neat, lucrative
career in Germany.”
In REAL debates, the Armenians have no chance of prevailing. Marashlian did not prevail at
the 1990 conference; nobody came up to Marashlian afterwards and said, You’re RIGHT,
Levon! By God, you have come up with IRREFUTABLE evidence that there was a
government-sponsored plan of extermination directed against your people. If anything,
Marashlian was treated courteously but appears to have been humored, overall.... even in
his self-written piece, where Marashlian tries hard to come across as having trounced the
pro-Turks... it isn't difficult to read between the lines.
Professor Heath Lowry
There is truth in Marashlian’s
statement where he and other propagandists have been “steadfastly countering” what he
likes to represent as “the Turkish government says.” (By writing “Ankara’s line”...
when the reality is, it’s not just the Turkish government that believes there was no
genocide. Sixty-nine Western scholars thought otherwise in their 1985 statement, at the point where this subject matter was
intensifying, as Marashlian put it. It was also at this point where the Armenians thought,
Hey! We had better do something, otherwise people are going to stop believing the Con Job
we worked so long to set up. This is when they began to actively ally themselves with
today’s missionaries, the hypocritical genocide scholars... and began their terror
campaign of smear campaigns. Few Western historians today dare to enter this minefield
today.... who would want to come under the kind of attack Heath Lowry was subjected to?)
Another thing Marashlian and his
co-propagandists can rely on are that the Turks in Turkey are misinformed about this
matter.... since, unlike the Armenian practice of fostering hatred in their homes
and churches, the Turks ignored the Turco-Armenian goings-on of WWI. Not to cover up
crimes, as the Armenians conveniently love to claim... but to discourage feelings of
hatred and racism against the Armenians, which would become easily apparent when
Armenian atrocities and betrayal would come to the forefront. Therefore, the largely
ignorant and apathetic Turks of Turkey appear to be ripe for the picking.... a
nation that the Armenians falsely present as where the topic is taboo, under threat
of imprisonment. Yet, Marashlian himself has written a book in Turkish, obviously
for distribution in Turkey.... that he has put up at his own web site. Little by
little, there are signs that even Turkish schoolchildren are getting brainwashed,
and Turkish Turncoats such as Halil Berktay (who actually refers to northeastern and
eastern Turkey as “Turkish Armenia”) have gained ground in Turkish universities.
It’s a despicable situation.
The bottom line is, the Turks have better things to think about than a conflict that
took place nearly a century ago. By contrast, the Armenians regard their beloved
genocide as Raison d’Etre #1. The Armenians have the deep pockets to finance their
passion... the $2.5 million budgeted Armenian Assembly of America, for example, has
forty to fifty professionals working full time to undercut Turkish interests. (Add
to this all the other well-financed Armenian organizations throughout the world...
the AGBU has a budget ten times as much as the AAA, for example.) There are no
comparable Turkish organizations doing anything of the sort. The modestly-financed
ATAA in the USA mainly has less-activist matters in mind, and local Turkish-American
organizations prefer to plan for their next picnic.
For the moment, the Armenians are still way ahead in this information war... sitting
prettily with Westerners having been brainwashed with only one side of the story,
which offers the luxury of quick acceptance of the Armenians’ sinister campaign of
recent years: branding anyone a neo-Nazi like “denier” who dares to suggest
otherwise. That fringe benefit automatically comes with putting the Holocaust on a
parallel with the Armenian “Genocide”... which many Jewish Holocaust scholars
unthinkingly abet. As Prof. McCarthy opined, such scholars might have an irrational
fear that damaging the credibility of the established and “sexy” Armenian “Genocide”
(with its tailor-made cast of characters: the poor, innocent Armenians and the
barbaric Turks) might somehow compromise the Holocaust. Whatever the reason, the
lack of integrity of these so-called scholars who refuse to objectively examine all
of the facts is inexcusable.
Marashlian steps on the soapbox to criticize those like Lima and Suny who weren’t
actively present during the bloodier days of this debate... beginning with the late
1970s and, mostly, the 1980s... when Turks finally started speaking up with their
side of the story. In other words, how dare the newcomers bask in the limelight
and/or deviate from the official line, once the dirty work of scaring away Western
historians from entering this minefield (and successfully classifying those who
speak the truth in the role of neo-Nazi “denier”) have been done, thanks to the
overwhelming superiority of Armenian money and manpower devoted to this “cause.”
Sort of like the way today’s feminists are being criticized for taking it too
easy, and forgetting about what the radical feminists of yesteryear had to endure.
The Glendale Community College professor’s concluding remarks:
There is a litany of other serious flaws in Lima's report on the Chicago workshop
and in other writings by him, but the evidence offered here hopefully is enough to
alert readers who may have been deceived by him. People need to know that Vincent
Lima's less than professional tactics include destructive manipulation--apparently
driven by irresponsible arrogance and some unannounced agenda which appears to have
little to do with defending the truth and improving relations between Turkey and
Can you believe it? “Unannounced agenda”... shades of Rouben Adalian’s
barely concealed implication (see link below) that the other Armenian Forum
editor, Ara Sarafian, might perhaps be a tool of the sinister Turkish government! In
other words... beware, boys. Deviate just a tiny bit from our established and
carefully cultivated Con Job, and you, too, can suffer the smear campaign
consequences of Heath Lowry, Bernard Lewis, Sam Weems, James Barton, Woodrow Wilson,
and so many others.
The Armenian “Curtain of Fear” is alive and well.
An Armenian Tangles with an Armenian