Home Examination -- Memory Studies Culture Dixon

¶ … Home Examination -- Memory Studies

Culture

Dixon begins her article with explanation of her topic, the official Turkish narrative of the Armenian question, as well as the order in which the article will proceed in defending its arguments. The two time periods in question for Dixon are the 1980s and the early 21st century. In the 1980s, Turkish officials responded to the long silence regarding the Armenian question. The response in the 1980s was indeed a response predicated on events that occurred decades prior, as well as extremely recent events in Turkey's political and military history. Dixon explicates:

In the wake of the 50th anniversary of the Armenian genocide in 1965, groups throughout the Armenian diaspora mobilised, and some decided to take action to increase international awareness and recognition of the Armenian genocide…Individuals and groups began political efforts to get other states to officially recognise the Armenian genocide. At the same time, others resorted to terrorism…intended to pressure Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. Despite these new pressures, there were no notable changes in Turkey's policies concerning the Armenian question in the 1970s. (2010,-Page 471)

These pressures and tensions continued to build as Turkey engaged in conflict with Cyprus. A breaking point in the struggle for recognition of the Armenian genocide came after the coup of 1980. The coup forced several key shifts in Turkish politics, including the plan and methods of recognition of the conflict with Armenia. An official narrative to defend and support the Armenian attacks was prepared and disseminated with meticulous intention.

In 1981, the Turkish government formed the Directorate General of Intelligence and Research (I-stihbarat ve Arast-rma Genel Mudurlugu, IAGM). The purpose of this group was to establish scholarship on the issue of the Armenian genocide. This group additionally collaborated with the various departments of the Turkish government in the construction and composition of the official narrative. (Dixon, 2010) After the scholarship was performed and the narrative completed, published copies of the narrative became available for public consumption. Qualified diplomats and historians composed and published books on the subject and the literature about the "question" proliferated. (Dixon, 2010) Furthermore, other aspects of the plan to recognize the genocide included finding and planting artifacts of the genocide within the Ottoman archives. Now that there was an increase of literature on the subject, the subject also taught in schools to the Turkish youth. (Dixon, 2010) Finally, the Turkish government sought international support of their actions, including presentation of the official narrative to the United States of America specifically, who was engaged in a Cold War with Russia at the time. The first period of time Dixon focuses upon is the actions of the Turkish government during the 1980s.

Events during the last decade in the 20th century would prompt another public response from the Turkish government regarding the Armenian genocide. Some key events from the 1990s include the recognized independence of Armenia by the Turks in 1991, and the severed negotiations regarding a border issues just a few years later. (Dixon, 2010) Another event that contributed to tensions and further recognition was the application for membership into the European Union in 1999 by Turkey. As part of the application process, Turkey's part in Armenian history came under more public and international examination. The 21st century version of recognition has a different energy than the movement in the 1980s and it is clear that some of the methods derive directly from actions taken in prior decades.

Whereas in the 1980s there was terrorism, in the 21st century, there is more domestic activism and grassroots organization. In the 1980s, students were first introduced to the Armenian genocide as a subject, but in the 21st century, there is a great more critical thought and scholarship that the young people generate independently or in conjunction with their formal education. (Dixon, 2010) The subject of the genocide has moved into the public sphere. It is a subject that is safe or fair for intellectuals, politicians, journalists, and students, whereas in other times in Turkish history, the subject was completely taboo to speak of. Additionally, internal shifts of power within the Turkish government, potentially into the power of individuals and/or groups who are not a part of the political elite and mainstream, weaken those who would keep the country in the dark, barely informed, or brainwashed regarding the Armenian question.