Turks, Armenians, and the “G-Word”

Cooper, Belinda; Akçam, Taner

doi:10.1215/07402775-2005-4009

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This sharp drop in numbers is attributed to 1,150,000 Armenians losing their lives during the deportation of Armenians that started in 1914 (Aktar & Kırmızı, 2013). Thus, while Armenians generally argue that they have been victims of a systemic genocide Turks contest these claims and "the Armenian issue" is not usually discussed in the public sphere (Cooper & Akçam, 2005;Karasu & Uluğ, 2020;Neyzi & Kharatyan-Araqelyan, 2010).…”

Section: Armenians As Ethnic and Religious Minoritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Missing the Good Old Days: Investigating Outgroup Attitudes through Collective Nostalgia and Global Identification

Koç¹,

Akkurt²,

Aksu³

et al. 2022

Examining Complex Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Armenians As Ethnic and Religious Minoritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Missing the Good Old Days: Investigating Outgroup Attitudes through Collective Nostalgia and Global Identification

Koç¹,

Akkurt²,

Aksu³

et al. 2022

Examining Complex Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…27 The recognition of crimes perpetrated against a group of people has far-reaching impacts in easing the trauma of victims and, more importantly, in reducing the likelihood of revenge. 28 Acknowledging the culpability for crimes committed also provides a base for reducing "othering" on the basis of cultural, national, religious or ethnic grounds. 29 The Security Council is the peak body in the UN for binding decisions and has the power to authorize intervention in situations of mass atrocities.…”

Section: Diplomatic Language and Genocide Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Politicization of the Genocide Label: Genocide Rhetoric in the UN Security Council

Ringrose

2020

GSP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the intersection of language, power and national interest by discussing how the UN Security Council permanent five (P5) members navigate the linguistic rhetoric of genocide in debates surrounding the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. A discourse analysis methodology is adopted to ascertain how P5 member-states framed the genocide in Srebrenica through an analysis of linguistic themes and silences in council debates. This article argues that UN P5 members use language as a mechanism to frame a conflict in a particular way that aligns with their own national political interests. The article reaffirms the importance of genocide recognition, not only as a vital legal instrument, but one that has the ability to acknowledge the significance of an atrocity and an important variable in post-conflict growth and mediation.

show abstract

“…31 Admitting to genocide would potentially reify Western notions that denigrate Turks as barbaric, call into question the foundations of modern Turkey and propagate other minority groups to speak against aggression, and it could potentially force Turkey to concede to Armenian property restitution claims. 32 Furthermore, many official state governments worldwide, including the United States, refuse officially to recognize the Genocide for various socio-political reasons, frustrating many Armenians in their search for justice. While some national governments and international organizations, like the EU, have called for the Republic of Turkey to recognize the events of the early twentieth century as genocide, denial has for the most part been unchallenged because Turkey 'simply matters more in a material sense than Armenia or the Armenians'.…”

Section: The Demand To Memorialize: the Friction Between Denial And R...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Cost of Memorializing: Analyzing Armenian Genocide Memorials and Commemorations in the Republic of Armenia and in the Diaspora

Papazian

2019

HCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In April of 1965 thousands of Armenians gathered in Yerevan and Los Angeles, demanding global recognition of and remembrance for the Armenian Genocide after fifty years of silence. Since then, over 200 memorials have been built around the world commemorating the victims of the Genocide and have been the centre of hundreds of marches, vigils and commemorative events. This article analyzes the visual forms and semiotic natures of three Armenian Genocide memorials in Armenia, France and the United States and the commemoration practices that surround them to compare and contrast how the Genocide is being memorialized in different Armenian communities. In doing so, this article questions the long-term effects commemorations have on an overall transnational Armenian community. Ultimately, it appears that calls for Armenian Genocide recognition unwittingly categorize the global Armenian community as eternal victims, impeding the development of both the Republic of Armenia and the Armenian diaspora.

show abstract

Turks, Armenians, and the “G-Word”

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Missing the Good Old Days: Investigating Outgroup Attitudes through Collective Nostalgia and Global Identification

Missing the Good Old Days: Investigating Outgroup Attitudes through Collective Nostalgia and Global Identification

The Politicization of the Genocide Label: Genocide Rhetoric in the UN Security Council

The Cost of Memorializing: Analyzing Armenian Genocide Memorials and Commemorations in the Republic of Armenia and in the Diaspora

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About