Revolution
...s, historical sources or among society in general because it is regarded as such a social taboo to speak of it. This political correctness continues on through the educational system where the facts are further ignored or called “ludicrous” and “impossible”, abandoning the students to regurgitate the “proper” facts taught to them by their professors. As Trouillot proposes, if the History 1 is the facts of the matter, then the History 2 places the emphasis on our knowledge of the socio-historical process of History 1 or on a story about that process. The “what is said to have happened” of the genocide, then, is in stark contrast to what is documented in Turkish history to have happened. Just like Trouillot in his novel, I think it is important not to lose the History 1 of the of the topic at hand – the genocide – but it is important to take into consideration why History 2 becomes important to people in the present: because it means knowing the real story, whether it be good or bad, and it is vital for both History 1 and History 2 to have real legitimacy. If this means that both sides of history need to be interrogated, then that is exactly what needs to be done in Turkey for the other side of the argument to be acknowledged. Sources choose to talk or not talk about certain subjects; if it is unthinkable, sources will look for an explanation elsewhere. Just like the plantation owners in Saint Domingue could not fathom that the slaves could create a revolution, hence creating a biased attitude towards the events occurring around them, similarly it appears as though Turkish historians could not believe that their patriotic Ottoman army could be a part of such brutality towards Armenian peoples who had lived amongst them for hundreds of year. What is explained in textbooks and by academia to be the cause of the significant number of Armenian deaths was the fact that in the second year of the World War, Armenian people started to take up arms against the Ottoman army and Turkish citizens. As a result of this betrayal, the Ottoman government decided to deport all Armenian’s living on Ottoman soil to the east, and as a result of this long journey in cold harsh weather conditions, a significant number of Armenian’s died on the way. Besides, they add, it happened during a war, and if they did not support the home country, then they were considered enemies. I have been witness to such teachings in formal academic institutions, but it seems as though I have learned more, perhaps a glimpse into the other side of the argument, through social interactions. The History 2 of the genocide debate obviously has a much stronger affect on world perceptions that Turkey would like to think. While a large portion of the Turkish society does reject the argument that genocide did take place, there are some people out there that acknowledge that brutality and killing occurred on both sides. Some go even further by claiming that their grandparents observed the deportation of Armenians and those that could not keep up with the rest were left behind to die or killed. How come then, are these voices not heard in a public setting? How come these stories are not accounted for in archives? The brainwashing of Turkish society has continued for more than 80 years since the events of the first World War, and even though foreign documentation is available to prove that a type of extermination policy was underway in Turkey, the silencing of the facts continue. Only the favorable aspects of history are presented and consequently people are educated on only half of their story, which conversely becomes part of a distorted worldview. History 1 is being refuted by History 2. As there is such a thing as “what happened”, it...