SJS 3: "A New Understanding of a Century-Old Genocide"

Unit 3 SJS: "A New Understanding of a Century-Old Genocide"

Citation: Eissenstat, Howard. “A New Understanding of a Century-Old Genocide.” Current History 114.774 (2015): 285-87. Print.

Author Credentials: Howard Eissenstat is qualified to discuss this issue as he is an author of a book on the development of Turkish nationalism, as well as a history professor at St. Lawrence University. His primary research goes to the Late Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic and he has served as a Country Specialist on Turkey for Amnesty International. Also, he frequently speaks to government officials, the press, and community groups regarding issues related to Turkey and the Middle East.

Summary: The article opens by discussing the open letter sent to Congress from United States scholars that stated the disagreement with the joint resolution to recognize Armenian ancestors of victims of the genocide in Turkey. This letter signified a moment in a battle over the past. There were many viewpoints and responses to the claims of the genocide, some positive, some negative. However, in the mid 1990’s, the more negative debates were broken up and many new works with new insights and understandings to the Armenian genocide surfaced. The breakup of Yugoslavia and the Rwandan genocide allowed for a broader approach to the concept of genocide. Ronald Grigor Suny is then introduced in this article as he plays a major role in the development of the new scholarship on this genocide. Unlike the first generation of scholars, Suny does not think that the genocide was preordained. Instead, he argues that the crucible of the Great War created a new context in which genocide was possible and attractive to the Young Turk government. He believes that it was more of a reaction to a moment of crisis that grew more radical over time and a product of state policy. Sunny’s points differ greatly from the popular public debates and he simply wants to explain and aid readers in understanding the tragedy within the context of larger processes of nationalization and integration. Eissenstat concludes the article by urging historians to further the knowledge of the genocide and, “... to take stock of what the best historians in the field discovered”.

Analysis: While the author of this article does not directly state his argument and opinions, the author can infer the bias through the examples that he includes into the article. Based on the context, the author appears to agree with the points made by Ronald Grigor Suny as they consume a large portion of the piece. In addition, I believe the argument made is fairly strong and reasonable. The author includes many details and evidence to support and back up the argument. Within his evidence, there is a distinguishable factor that allows the reader to view opinion from facts. With this in mind, the author would appear more reliable if more of his own thoughts and opinions were directly stated, but he does include sufficient information and knowledge on the subject.