Choose Truth Over Propaganda

5 
In an article written to the Chicago Tribune, October 16, 2007, Professor Normon Stone supports Turkey’s call for a joint historical review:  
 
“Unfortunately, the issue has never reached a properly constituted court. If the Armenians were convinced of their own case, they would have taken it to one. Instead, they lobby bewildered or bored parliamentary assemblies to ‘recognize the genocide’. 
 
Congress should not take a position, one way or the other, on this affair. Let historians decide. The Turkish government has been saying this for years. It is the Armenians who refuse to take part in a joint historical review, even when organized by impeccably neutral academics. This review is the logical and most sensible path forward. Passage of the resolution by the full House of Representatives would constitute an act of legislative vengeance and would shame well-meaning scholars who want to explore this history from any vantage point other than the one foisted upon the world by ultranationalist Armenians." 
 
In a speech given by Professor McCarthy, an expert in Ottoman history, he gives an analysis of events at and around that period in history. After which, he explains the difference between reasoned historical analysis and ideology (to read full speech http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/Armenia/justin.html ), : 
 
“How do we know that this analysis is true? It is, after all, very different than what is usually called the history of the Armenians. We know it is true because it is the product of reasoned historical analysis, not ideology.  
 
To understand this, we must consider the difference between history and ideology, the difference between scientific analysis and nationalist belief, the difference between the proper historian and the ideologue. To the historian what matters is the attempt to find the objective truth. To the nationalist ideologue what matters is the triumph of his cause. A proper historian first searches for evidence, then make up his mind. An ideologue first makes up his mind, then looks for evidence.  
 
A historian looks for historical context. In particular, he judges the reliability of witnesses. He judges if those who gave reports had reason to lie. An ideologue takes evidence wherever he can find it, and may invent the evidence he cannot find. He does not look too closely at the evidence, perhaps because he is afraid of what he will find…. 
 
A historian first discovers what actually happened, then tries to explain the reasons. An ideologue forgets the process of discovery. He assumes that what he believes is correct, then constructs a theory to explain it… 
 
A historian knows that one has to look back in history, sometimes far back in history, to find the causes of events. An ideologue does not bother. Again, he may be afraid of what he will find… 
 
The historian studies. The ideologue wages a political war… 
 
We must affirm a basic principle: Those who take propaganda as their source themselves write propaganda, not history…  
 
Scholars have the right to make mistakes, but scholars also have a duty to look at all sources of information before they write. It is wrong to base writings on political propaganda and to ignore the honest reports of the Ottomans. The first place to look for Ottoman history should be the records of the Ottomans.  
 
Why rely on Ottoman archival accounts to write history? Because they are the sort of solid data that is the basis of all good history. The Ottomans did not write propaganda for today's media. The reports of Ottoman soldiers and officials were not political documents or public relations exercises. They were secret internal reports in which responsible men relayed what they believed to be true to their government. They might sometimes have been mistaken, but they were never liars. There is no record of deliberate deception in Ottoman documents. “ 
 
Professor Justin McCarthy, from the University of Louiseville... first Presented During A Conference at Yeditepe University in Istanbul: 
 
 
….. “They have no time for detailed research on historical issues. They have little or no training in the study of history. To them I offer this unsolicited advice: if you cannot do the work necessary to find the truth, say nothing.”… 
 
…. “Historical knowledge depends on debate. No matter how hard we try to see all sides of an issue, each of us is fallible. All historians can make mistakes. We learn our mistakes through debate. We listen to others who disagree with us, consider our evidence, and sometimes change our minds. Someone who will not study the evidence brought by others is not a scholar. Someone who will not listen to the judgments of others is only pretending to be a historian.”… 
 
…”I renew the call for honest debate. Those who believe in their cause should be willing to defend it with their words. They must be willing to argue, not just to preach to those who agree with them.”… 
 
I, personally, will not believe any ALLEGED genocide took place, unless it can be proven by objective historians, who have scientifically researched all the material available to them in the archives of Turkey, Armenia and other relevant nations, debated the issues, and come to a consensus on the issue and notified the world of their findings. If it is proven, I will voice my condemnation. If it is disproven, I will expect an apology to be made to the people of the present Republic of Turkey and the people of the past Ottoman Empire and public condemnation of all those who perpetrated the lies against them. As I see it, this is the only JUST and CONSCIONABLE way to address the issue.

Guest