Navigation – Plan du site
Études

Museums and Monuments: comparative analysis of Armenian and Jewish experiences in memory policies

Musées et monuments : comparaison des expériences juives et arméniennes dans les politiques de la mémoire
Harutyun Marutyan
p. 57-79

Résumés

Cet article propose une analyse comparative des politiques mémorielles qui sont menées autour de l’expérience génocidaire juive et arménienne. Il s’intéresse en particulier à la médiatisation de la mémoire, à travers la création et les usages de musées et de monuments, et tente d’expliquer les differences observées dans les deux cas.

Haut de page

Entrées d’index

Index géographique :

Arménie, Israël, Europe, États-Unis
Haut de page

Texte intégral

1Despite the fact that Armenians and Jews have essentially lived on separate states, they nevertheless have had a mutual knowledge of each other due to contacts within the territories of their homelands and in professional spheres across the empires and extra-territorial communities in which they lived. They are also often perceived as two peoples with similar historical fates. This circumstance and, in particular, the fact that both suffered genocide in the twentieth century, allows me to view them as “neighbours in memory.”

  • 1 The comparison between Yad Vashem and Tsitsernakaberd would extend the scope of this article. The i (...)
  • 2 The article gives preference to the use of the term “Jewish Holocaust”, as foreign authors who char (...)
  • 3 In the coming years I intend to write and publish a monograph (consisting of five chapters and 27 s (...)

2This “neighbourhood” has various manifestations. Of these I would single out the study of the structural peculiarities of the memories1 of the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust.2 The study of this issue allows not only to discuss questions that hold value for Armenian sociopolitical and scientific thought of the start of the 21st century regarding the study of Armenian Genocide, but also to derive valuable lessons, both for the Armenian people in general and for the Armenian academic community.3

  • 4 There are various websites and enumerations of museums, monuments and memorial complexes devoted to (...)
  • 5 I bear in mind the Genocide Memorial Complex by the church of Holy Martyrs in Deir ez Zor (presentl (...)
  • 6 It should be mentioned, that the comparison between the policies of memories should be made with th (...)
  • 7 The article does not pursue the analysis of the formation, architecture and history of the museums (...)

3In 2013, the total number of museums plus exhibitions – temporary and permanent – devoted to the Jewish Holocaust totaled 67 throughout the world.4 By contrast, in the case of the Armenian Genocide that number was barely 4-5.5 Why? The question has no simple answer.6 In this article I will present some of the factors that may explain this disparity, leaving aside factors that refer to inner communities’ issues such as financial issues, communities and lobbying agendas, level of access to mass media and communication channels and others. Instead I will look at memory management related factors in both cases to the extent that they translate into memory practices under the form of museum or monument.7 The geographical scope of the article extends to museums and monuments mainly located in the United States and Europe, as well as in the national states having a claim in representing the descendants of the victims of both genocides.

Contrasted geographies of history and memory policies

  • 8 There are various opinions in Armenian historiography, as to the territorial inclusion of the Genoc (...)

4The Genocide of Armenians took place in the Ottoman Empire, that is to say, within one state.8 Later on two states, Turkey and Syria were formed on the land where the mass killings and deportations of Armenians had taken place. Some parts of the territory of the latter had practically been exceptionally sites of death marches and concentration camps.

5The mass killings of Jews occurred mostly in the countries of Eastern Europe occupied or dominated by Nazi Germany, and also on the territory of the Soviet Union, but Jews doomed to destruction were being brought to these concentration camps and sites of mass destruction also from other European countries under Nazi command. In many countries special troops had been organized for the destruction of Jews. In a number of cases it was being done by local forces. By such an estimate the boundaries of Holocaust directly or indirectly included 17 (now 25) European countries: Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia (Czech Republic, Slovakia), Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Denmark, Yugoslavia (Serbia, Croatia), Greece, Norway, USSR (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldova, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia), Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Romania.

6The geopolitical events that resulted in the formation of the two post-world wars states impacted the memory policies relating to both genocides. Whereas in the case of the Holocaust, there are now 17 to 25 states in Eastern and Western Europe that can run memory policies, in the case of the genocide of the Armenians, only two states can do that: Turkey and Syria. This has even more been prevented by Turkey’s open state sponsored policy of denial (in its several variations), silencing the numerous collective bearers of memory – apart from the victims and their descendants – still living on these territories, now mostly Kurds and Alevis. Thus the transference of information about massacres and mass deportations by contemporaries and partly by eye-witnesses (besides the victims and their relations) to younger generations has in one case been done within one or two public units, and in another – within about twenty or more states. To conclude, the territorial and quantitative frames of the bearers of collective memory in respect of the phenomenon are considerably different.

7One other thing to be noted is the fact that for a part of European population (in particular the people in France and Greece) the development of collective memory about the Genocide was conditioned by contacts with solely the survivors – refugees. Surely Armenian refugees temporally were also victims of World War I, but of its arena that was outside Europe. While in case of the Holocaust, World War II has been part of history of many of the European countries – millions of people had come to contact with fascism and Nazism directly, face to face. War had been part of their day-to-day life for at least 5 to 10 years. Their relatives, friends, neighbours, acquaintances, and many others had fallen victim to it. This fact was sure to influence, one way or another, the creators of historical memory – journalists, historians, writers, artists and others. In the first case their message was mediated by stories of refugees speaking a strange language; in the second, they and their immediate milieu were the direct bearers of the message.

  • 9 Before the genocide smaller Armenian communities had lived worldwide, however the genocide refugees (...)

8Over 1,5 million people perished in the Armenian Genocide, that is, almost two thirds of the 2,4-2,5 million Armenians inhabiting the Ottoman Empire. About half a million survivors became the founders of the worldwide Armenian Diaspora.9 Several hundred thousands immigrated to Eastern Armenia.

9The number of Jews who perished in the Holocaust is over six million – about two thirds of Jews inhabiting Europe, or one third of Jews worldwide.

10This might mean that, if in case of Armenians the number of Genocide survivors settled in countries other than their Motherland is about half a million, in case of Jews their number might reach about three million.10 These numbers are largely conditional, for in both cases later on there had been migration/repatriation of the said population to their newly founded countries/states. It is true that in both cases the survivors usually, for quite a long time (several years to several decades, and sometimes for as long as their whole life) refused to share their experiences with their descendants and other people. Still, when the public at large got access to memories about the atrocities, the numbers of people to render these were considerably different.

  • 11 On Soviet-Turkish Relations”, Sovetakan Hayastan, July 19, 1953. For details, see Arman Kirakosyan (...)
  • 12 Arman Kirakosyan, op. cit., p. 5.

11In the case of the Armenian Genocide part of the survivors immigrated to the territory of the Russian Empire where after the end of World War I the first Republic of Armenia was formed (May 1918 - December 1920). It lasted for two and a half years, and perished as a result of joint military attacks of Kemalist Turks and Bolshevik Russians. The second Republic of Armenia (1920–1991) was part of the Soviet Union, and was, in the majority of cases, devoid of any opportunity for an independent policy. Turkey – the country that had perpetrated the Genocide – had signed a friendship treaty with Russia/USSR that lasted from 1921-1925 to 1945. In 1953 the USSR declared that it had no territorial claims whatsoever on Turkey.11 To conclude, the policy of the Soviet Union towards Turkey within 70 years, with a few exceptions, can be defined as that of “mutual understanding and neighbourhood.”12

  • 13 Mets Yeghern – the great calamity. The Armenian word yeghern, connoting such meanings as “evil, per (...)

12Conditioned with the above said and a number of other factors, the policy of the Soviet Union and Soviet Armenia in respect with the Genocide was not linear – it rather changed with time. Thus, after the establishment of Soviet power in Armenia on December 2, 1920, talk of the Genocide gradually died down and discussion of Turkish-Armenian antagonism was not encouraged. In the years of Stalin’s dictatorship any talk about the Mets Yeghern13 and Western Armenia used to be viewed as manifestation of nationalism, and was punished by confinement, exile or execution by shooting. The situation started to gradually change in the second half of the 1950s due to Khrushchev “thaw”, and reached its culmination on April 24, 1965 – the 50th anniversary of the Genocide, with mass demonstrations in Yerevan.

  • 14 For more details see: Azat Eghiazarian, “The Reflection of the Genocide in the Soviet Armenian Lite (...)
  • 15 See: Silva Kaputikian, Mtorumner chanaparhi kesin [Thoughts on the Halfway], Yerevan: Haypethrat, 1 (...)
  • 16 The issue is discussed also in Harutyun Marutyan, Iconography of Armenian Identity, vol. 1, The Mem (...)
  • 17 It is important to note that at the beginning of the 1960s construction of memorial complexes to th (...)
  • 18 Moment of Silence (“To the bright memory of the fallen in the Great Patriotic War”) – the tradition (...)

13These demonstrations, along with the rapid growth of interest in the theme of Armenian Genocide in art and literature before and after, came to prove that the memory of the Genocide persisted in the minds and hearts of the people, despite the official policy of consigning it to oblivion. But in those memories, Armenians were seen solely as martyrs who had lost their land and were in need of compassion, that is, only the memory of pain, loss and victimhood was being emphasized, one way or another. Free circulation of the themes of the national liberation struggle, partisan heroes (fedayees) and independence remained under an undeclared ban from an ideological point of view.14 The main content of the literary works that broached the subject of the Genocide in that period are exemplified by the image of the behest of “peaceful revenge” in a book by poetess Silva Kaputikian, Midway Contemplations. Kaputikian’s appeal,“You must take revenge by continuing to live,”15 can actually be interpreted as a literary formulation of the official policy in regard to the memory of Genocide.16 In 1965-1967 the Memorial Complex to the Martyrs of the Armenian Genocide17 was built, and starting with 1975 Soviet Armenian leadership started to officially visit it, and were the first to lay wreaths on Commemoration Day. This and the Moment of Silence18 rendered state-wide importance to the ceremony of commemoration of the martyrs of the Mets Yeghern.

  • 19 See footnote 8.
  • 20 The issue of identity is a very complex one. For that reason I will not venture into giving a defin (...)

14As stated above,19 on November 22, 1988 the “Law on the Condemnation of the 1915 Genocide of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey” was passed in the Armenian SSR which determined April 24 as the Genocide Martyrs’ Commemoration Day. On August 23, 1990 the issue of the Genocide was included in the Armenian Declaration of Independence with the following wording: “The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.” This was also a declaration of a course in the foreign policy of Armenia. Today the memory of the Armenian Genocide is one of the pillars of Armenian identity.20

The ideological background of genocide museums foundations in the national successor states

15Several hundred thousand Jewish survivors settled in the State of Israel formed three years after the end of World War II. They actively engaged in the development of the newly formed Israeli society and in about two decades the Holocaust memory became one of the central components of Israel’s national identity. The first Holocaust museum in Israel was founded by Holocaust survivors, as soon as spring 1949. As can be understood from the name – “Ghetto Fighters’ House - Itzhak Katzenelson Holocaust and Jewish Resistance Heritage Museum” – the exhibition was devoted to the resistance of Jews in World War II.21 In 1953 the Jewish parliament decided to determine a “Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Day.” In the same year “Yad Vashem: The Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority” memorial complex with accompanying museum was founded. As was noted by Matthias Hass, in the first years of its existence Yad Vashem was not the central site of Israeli memorial culture. Remembrance of the Holocaust was not even of significant importance in society: developing the state and society were more important priorities which left little room for the past.22 The situation started to change in 1967. After the Six Day War, Yad Vashem became involved in debates on the politics of memory, and the history of the Holocaust was used to mobilize society. In theses debates the battles against the Nazis merged with the battle for independence and the wars in 1948, 1967 and also 1973, forming one single battle for the survival of the Jewish people.23

16Thus, if in the case of Armenia more or less active discussions on the subject of the Genocide (in fiction as well as historiography) started to appear some 40-50 years after the starting date of the genocide (1915); the first official visits of authorities to the Genocide Memorial Complex started 60 years after; the Genocide became a political factor 75 years after; and the first museum was founded only 80 years after the Genocide, in the case of Israel only eight years after the Holocaust a Law was passed by which the victims were officially commemorated yearly on state level and the first museum was founded. This naturally implies considerably different opportunities and scales of propagation. For Armenians one important reason lied in limitations caused by the lack of an independent state, a factor among others that didn’t allow for independent internal and foreign policy (it is characteristic that the USSR never officially recognized the Genocide), including in research policies and publicity of the Genocide issue. In addition, and as noted above, Soviet nationality policy emphasized such aspects of Armenian history as deemed appropriate, i.e. it entertained constant victimization of the Armenian people.

17Here I would like to note a significant factor in presenting the issue of the Armenian Genocide to the international society. In order to gain the approval of the higher authority – the Communist Party of the USSR for the arrangements of “events in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of mass killings of Armenians in 1915,” the Soviet Armenian Communist Party leadership took advantage of the factor of the Armenian Diaspora, thus moving the issue to an ideological level.

  • 24 See in detail: Avag Harutyunyan (ed.), Hayots tseghaspanutyan 50-amyake yev Khorhrdayin Hayastane ( (...)
  • 25 Since the end of 1990s, for about one and a half decades, the issue of the recognition of the Armen (...)

18In particular, the letter24 of December 1964 of the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Armenian Communist Party Yakov Zarobyan to the Central Committee of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) stated, that “the reactionary forces of the Armenian Diaspora [having in mind the Dashnaktsutyun party]”, noting that “Soviet Armenia does nothing to commemorate the anniversaries of mass killings of Armenians,” insist that “our country neglects the memory of hundreds of thousands of our compatriots, thus actually exonerating the policy of genocide.” It concluded: “We think it appropriate to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the date in the light of the absolute victory of the CPSU Leninist national policy, to signify the great achievements of the reborn Armenian people in the spheres of economy, culture and science.” It suggested that “the arrangements should be carried out in a way, as to have no negative effect on the policy of the USSR of improvement of mutual relations with neighbouring countries, and with Turkey in particular. It should pursue an objective that a similar tragedy is never to be allowed in the history of any people [my highlight].” This last wording in particular was highly representative of the Soviet ideology and commonly acceptable, and was especially often used when representing the Great Patriotic War and some of its episodes. On the other hand, the statement indicated that the Armenian Genocide was being moved from the level of a solely Armenian tragedy to the level of world history.25

  • 26 See in detail: L. Fyodorov, “V. I. Lenin and I. V. Stalin on the First World War”, Voenno-istoriche (...)

19Another important ideological clause included in the above-said letter was the following: “To erect in Yerevan a monument to the Armenian martyrs fallen in World War I. The monument is to symbolize the revival of the Armenian people [my highlight].” The term “World War I” used in the letter was chosen to not solely indicate the time, but also to move the incident to the “world” level. Besides Soviet ideology, pursuant to Leninist characterizations, had described World War I as an “imperialist war”26 for decades. And it was the Soviet Union, the leader of “world socialism” that confronted “world imperialism” with all possible means.

  • 27 See, e.g. Avag Harutyunyan (ed.), Hayots tseghaspanutyan 50-amyake…, op. cit., pp. 48, 60, 64.

20Another characteristic feature is that there was no mention of any kind of those who had been responsible for making Armenians “fallen martyrs” – it was sufficient that it had happened “in the years of World War I.” From this aspect it is noteworthy that on republican level in the resolutions of the Central Committee of Armenian Communist Party and the Soviet of Ministers of Armenian SSR27 the formulation “World War I” did not occur: instead, the terms Mets Yeghern or “Armenian massacres” were used. In addition, the wording “the revival of the Armenian people,” conveyed the abiding Soviet propaganda theme of Armenians being rescued from physical destruction by Soviet power, the true mean of their “revival.” These elements once again evidence the fact that ideologically speaking, in Soviet Armenia, the Genocide of Armenians remained as though isolated from world-wide experienced historical events.

21To generalize, I should probably fix that the main clauses of the said letter were in fact guidelines. This is an example of a strategy, when looking forward to a positive solution, the issue of the Armenian Genocide was being presented to the less informed (in this case – communist party) higher authorities in a “language” understandable and acceptable for them, in this case – in the language of “soviet ideology,” thus removing the issue from the sphere of ethnic confrontation.

22Meanwhile, the Armenian historiography engaged in the research of the Genocide issue, followed quite another route. In a situation of Turkish denial, attempts at proving the fact of the Genocide by all means, and at disclosing more and more facts to this, was for decades a major goal of the historiography on the genocide. This in its turn seemingly led to approaching the issue as a problem of ethnic conflict. To be more specific, in many of the studies on the Armenian Genocide the emphasis is mainly on the fact of mass killings of Armenians (the martyrs) by the Turks (perpetrators): the stress, whether intentionally or not, is laid on the fact of one ethnicity killing another. Although in the last two to three decades, scholars have departed from that trend and relocated the genocide of Armenians in a global and political history, there is still a strong legacy of the ethnic approach, particularly in Armenia. Evidence of this can be seen in contemporary Armenia’s foreign policy which has since 1998 put the issue of international recognition of the genocide on its agenda.

  • 28 On the issue see, e.g.: Harutyun Marutyan, “German Reparations to Jewry: Formation, Process and Rec (...)

23In blatant contrast, the Holocaust of Jews was condemned, along with other Nazi military crimes against humanity, already during the Nuremberg trials (1945-1946). In September 1951 the Chancellor of West Germany addressed the Parliament, stating that Germany was willing to pay indemnity to Israel for the crimes committed by Nazis.28 Thus the Holocaust was from the outset recognized both internationally and by the new leadership of the country most responsible for its perpetration. In spite of the existence of negation and anti-semitism (which is also internationally condemned and is often punishable by law), scholarly researches on Holocaust did not need to engage in attempts of proving the fact of it.

  • 29 For a discussion of this issue see also: Harutyun Marutyan, Iconography of Armenian Identity…, op. (...)

24For several decades now in discussions of the Holocaust, many researchers have emphasized that the guilt is not with the “Germans” (as a people) but with the SS, Nazism, fascism, racism and other equivalent ideologies. In other words they do not give an ethnic qualification to the conflict that took place in the past, but view it as a result of the workings of a criminal ideology.29 In case of the Armenian Genocide, and as far as Armenia is concerned, a series of factors have weighed on the imprisonment of the issue within an ethnic approach. Some of them are legacies of Soviet ideology and historiography, where the national category was – though paradoxical – the only one authorized. Others belong to post-Soviet geopolitical and socio-economic factors, such as: lack of access to international academic publications due to socio-economic hardships; ongoing Turkish denial unsuccessfully countered by incomplete international recognition; and possibly, the importance of the Karabakh issue, perceived indirectly as yet another Turkish-Armenian conflict. For all these reasons, the issues of the Young Turk ultra-nationalist and racist ideology has not yet received the same level of attention as in international scholarship. Although the issue of comparison between the Young Turk and Nazist ideologies and their interaction with both World Wars has been devoted growing scholarly attention, it is not yet firmly embedded neither in the Republic of Armenia’s scholarship nor in the consciousness of ordinary people. It is our belief that these factors hinder the Armenians dialogue with the world, lessen to some extent the interest in the Armenian Genocide, diminish the political scope of its spreading, and prevent its perception as part of a global calamity caused by inhumane ideology having led, like the Jewish Holocaust, to the destruction of millions of people.

Some aspects of Holocaust and Genocide memories in the United States and in Western Europe

25The latter idea becomes even more apparent in light of the analysis of the location of the earlier mentioned 67 museums of the Holocaust. Over half of them – 34, are in the territory of Europe.30 As a reminder, besides the United Kingdom (where two of the museums are located), 12 European states hosting these museums (Germany included) were either occupied by the Third Reich in World War II, or were controlled by it. The majority of the other half is in the USA (i.e. 19). In addition, Australia, Canada and the South African Republic host two each, and Argentina, Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Japan one each. Last but in least, four more are in Israel.

  • 31 In the USA the first Holocaust museum was opened in the beginning of 1960s in Los Angeles. See in d (...)
  • 32 Edward T. Linenthal, Preserving Memory: The Struggle to Create America’s Holocaust Museum, New York (...)
  • 33 Id., pp. 44, 216, etc. This phenomenon has been widely considered in many other works on Jewish Hol (...)
  • 34 Id., pp. 12-13.
  • 35 Id., pp. 44-45. From this aspect the definition “The Armenian Cause” (in Armenian, Hay Dat’), beari (...)
  • 36 For reasons of efficiency, I will not enter in the discussion of the Yiddish speaking Jews ethnic o (...)

26Why would one third (28%) of the total number of the Holocaust museums be located in the territory of the United States?31 The reason is likely not to be just the existence of a large and influential Jewish Diaspora, but we have also to consider a number of factors ranging from early Jewish presence in the American history and foundation up to ideological conflict of the Cold War period. In the monograph devoted to the creation of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), its author Edward T. Linenthal used the following idea in his first sentence: “the Holocaust became an event officially incorporated into American memory.”32 The idea appears elsewhere in the book, when both positive and negative aspects of the “Ameri­canization of Holocaust” are considered.33 As Linenthal notes when assessing the appointment of a Commission on the Holocaust in 1978 by President Carter, “he signaled that the Holocaust had moved not only from the periphery to the center of American Jewish consciousness, but to the center of national consciousness as well. Too important a story to be bounded by ethnic memory, it was, by virtue of its awesome impact, its poisonous legacy, and its supposed valuable ‘lessons,’ worthy of inclusion in the official canon that shaped Americans’ sense of themselves.”34 On yet another page, he presents the deputy director of the above mentioned Commission Michael Berenbaum’s opinion that “The story [of Holocaust] would, however, have to be told in a way that would be meaningful to an American audience; it would have to move beyond the boundaries of ethnic memory.”35 That is, one can see an effort to take purely “ethnic” – to pick up on the wording of the author36 – tragedies beyond those boundaries, and to present them to the world as evil of international level. At least in the case of the USHMM, which has been functioning for 20 years already and has been visited by more than 35 million people, we are faced with facts that show what happens when basic American values are trampled. Thus the memory of the Jewish Holocaust is now officially accepted by the world as an important part of the international memory of struggle against evil. This is the niche that for different reasons wasn’t occupied in case of the Armenian Genocide, as evidenced above. Faced with the claim of the uniqueness of the Holocaust, the impression is that the Armenian Genocide was often only perceived as the first genocide of the 20th century, instead of an event connected to the world history.

27As it was already mentioned, there are more than thirty Jewish Holocaust museums in Europe where the citizens themselves are for the most part bearers of the Holocaust collective memory. The memory of the Armenian Genocide is quite significantly present although hushed up among Turkey’s citizens. Yet here it has been denied for decades. And of course there can be no talk of any museums or monuments in a situation when negation has been raised to the level of official ideology.

28This means that we deal with two diametrically opposite approaches to the appreciation and propagation of the issue on the territories of implementation of the Genocide/Holocaust, and the outcome is only natural: half of all the existing museums of Holocaust are in Europe; there is not one Genocide museum in Turkey. There is but one museum in the territory of Syria, at the Church of the Holy Martyrs in Deir ez Zor desert. This gap is acutely felt by leaders of the Republic of Armenia, as evidenced by the following statement of the Armenian president in 2010 during a state visit to Syria, at the Church of Holy Martyrs at Deir ez Zor: “Quite often historians and journalists soundly compare Deir ez Zor with Auschwitz saying that ‘Deir ez Zor is the Auschwitz of the Armenians’. I think that the chronology forces us to formulate the facts in a reverse way: ‘Auschwitz is the Deir ez Zor of the Jews’. Only a generation later the humanity witnessed the Deir ez Zor of the Jews.”37

29In the foundation and functioning of Holocaust museums, a certain part belongs undoubtedly to the Jewish factor, which has different formats in different countries. In one case the decisive factor may be the activity of the Jewish community in the given country (state, settlement), in another, the participation of international Jewish structures. In quite many of the cases the functioning of a museum is financed both by the state and the Jewish organizations, as well as by private benefactors. This is the case, for example, with the USHMM. So the presence of a Holocaust museum, as well as of a monument or a memorial complex, be they big or small, is the indicator of an organized and active community. Paradoxical though it may seem, the launching of a campaign to found a museum actually may increase the level of activity and organization of a given community. And of course when there is an ideological commitment from the part of an interested third-party, especially state or government administration, the financial issue of maintenance of a museum is no longer the problem of one community, but involves the citizens at large, both on the level of private donations and allocations from the state budget (formed by all tax-payers’ money).

  • 38 The ideological and artistic analysis of the monuments to the martyrs of the Armenian Genocide is a (...)

30In the case of Armenians, as has been previously said, the ideological emphasis on the Genocide has been insufficient thus not reaching the same kind of commitment. As a result of Turkey’s relentless denialist policy throughout the century, lobbying structures in the USA and in European countries considered the pursuit of the Armenian Cause to be their main aim, and were thus more interested in gaining the recognition of the Armenian Genocide through working with political circles. Of course, numerous monuments were built with means donated by Armenian communities and private benefactors. Yet these monuments, which served for annual commemorations of the Genocide Martyrs on April 24, were, in my opinion, built more to the purpose of these communities and their memory than for the public a large.38

31The propagating scope of a monument is usually comparatively low for the people of the given country. Information about the Armenian Genocide may be conveyed either by inscriptions on monuments, or personal contacts with Armenians, the books, the press and the internet. In comparison, the propagation scope of a museum is considerably higher than that of a monument. For example the information contained in a museum exhibition is much more coordinated, persistent, and is also presented in different languages. It is not just a purposeful and scientifically grounded exhibition of classified, commented, technically and artistically designed museum objects. A museum exhibition offers a much broader opportunity for not just maintaining, but for disseminating a genocide memory beyond ethnic bounds, and thus for introducing it into the value systems of other nations and states, into other identities even. It is by way of museum exhibitions and their scientific-educational, cultural and propagating activities that opportunities are created for the demonstration of certain political attitudes and national issues to thousands of visitors. A museum exhibition is a cultural text of a kind, a public memory system, and by way of communicating with it people with various different attitudes may reach common approaches to certain issues.

  • 39 Considerations about the issue see, e.g.: Jean Murachanian, “A Monumental Purpose: Armenian Heritag (...)
  • 40 See, e.g.:Pasadena City Council Unanimously Approves Genocide Memorial Plans”, http://asbarez.com (...)
  • 41 Certain developments among Armenians of the American Diaspora, some of which I witnessed in 2010 wh (...)
  • 42 On these, see, e.g. Dr. William L. Shulman (ed.), Association of Holocaust Organizations: Directory(...)
  • 43 On the issue see: “Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and (...)
  • 44 See e.g. Learning from the Past: Global Perspectives on Holocaust Education. Salzburg Global Semina (...)

32As stated above, the worldwide Armenian diaspora is first and foremost the result of the Genocide, thus making the memory of that event crucially important. So it is that the Armenians, whether they like it or not, are expected to explain to the citizens of the countries that have received them, why and how they have come to be in their countries. So far, monuments give public information about this origin, yet not an explanation neither a display of how that history is narrowly connected to the history of the states in which they are living. This is true even in areas with numerous Armenian population, such as Boston39 (opened in May 2012) and Pasadena (Los Angeles; to be opened on April 24, 2015),40 two towns where most of the Armenian-American population is concentrated. In contrast to the message-diffusion capacity of a monument, a museum would be highly wider. As regards museums initiatives, one attempt has so far failed in Washington; one is currently underway in Paris, which is expected to open in 2015 for the centennial of the Genocide. Still, a museum would require vast organizational and collecting activities, intellectual resources and museum curators’ professional experience as well as the mobilization of state and community. I regard the realization of these requirements to the purpose of spreading knowledge about the Holocaust/Genocide as telling us something about the quality of the interaction between the said community, the society at large and the state. In the case of the Armenians, my hypothesis is that the absence of such realization and the ways chosen so far for the defense and diffusion of the Genocide memory can be explained by the original “ghettoisation” of the Armenian refugees and their slow departure from foreign immigrants up to a full fledged American/French/ or otherwise Armenian communities.41 While the concept of a “community” presupposes complete integration in the political, social, economic and cultural life of a given state, for example, the existence of not just senators and congressmen assisted by lobbyists, but of serious public figures within the government. In addition to these factors, and to follow up on the state of the art in the historiography, I can see a relation between the amount of research, research centers42 and inclusion in education curricula devoted to the Holocaust, and the variety of means used to preserve memory and communicate about the event. The Holocaust has since long been firmly included in the curricula of American and European schools,43 and this geography has a tendency to spread.44

*

  • 45 Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s statement on April 24 2014, where he expressed a shared grief betw (...)
  • 46 As stated by a number of researchers, for about half a century the Armenian Genocide was designated (...)

33Thus, a number of reasons explain the disparity in memory preservation and communication between the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide, where the former’s is mainly conveyed through museums and the latter’s through monuments. Geographically the Genocide was perpetrated in the territory of the Ottoman Empire, and its successor the Republic of Turkey not only doesn’t recognize the fact, but denies it officially.45 Half of all the Holocaust museums are currently in the territory of Europe, and Germany – the prime actor in the organization of mass killings of Jews – has officially recognized its guilt towards individual victims and their descendants as well as towards the State of Israel. Other European states, whose territories have been one way or another engaged in the Holocaust, also admit this reality. It is part of their educational and value systems, and is widely exhibited in museums. In this case the emphasis is on the ideology of the phenomenon, i.e. that it has been a manifestation of racism, of violation of democracy and of human rights in particular, a manifestation of an inhumane ideology. Interpretations with such an emphasis move the phenomenon from the boundaries of ethnic memory and onto a global level. In the case of the Armenian Genocide, conditioned by Turkey’s negation and by the fact that the Armenian tragedy was ‘a forgotten genocide,’46 for decades scholars have been engaged in proving the fact of the genocide. Such an approach has unintentionally led to emphasizing the Genocide as only an ethnic tragedy, which has not helped to its being perceived as a global calamity, and naturally, to being properly exhibited in museums. In the case of the Armenians, giving preference to the construction of monuments to the Genocide martyrs may be to some extent conditioned by their protracted transformation into full-fledged diaspora communities.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Abrahamian Levon, Armenian Identity in a Changing World, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2006.

Avetikian Gabriel, Syurmelian Khachatur, and Avgerian Mkrtich, Nor Bargirq Haykazyan lezvi [New Wordbook of Old Armenian], vol. 1, Yerevan: Yerevan University Press, 1979 [1836], (in Armenian).

Boyajian Dickran H., Armenia: The case for a Forgotten Genocide, Westwood, N.J.: Educational Book Crafters, 1972.

Churchill Winston, The World Crisis, vol. 5, The Aftermath 1918–1928, New York, London: T. Butterworth, 1929.

Dadrian Vahakn N., The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus, Providence, Oxford: Berghahn Books, 1995.

Dyatlov Viktor and Melkonyan Eduard, Armyanskaya Diaspora: Ocherki sotsiokul’turnoy tipologii [Armenian Diaspora: Essays on Sociocultural Typology], Yerevan: Institut Kavkaza, 2009 (in Russian).

Eghiazarian Azat, “The Reflection of the Genocide in the Soviet Armenian Literature”, Lraber hasarakakan gitutyunneri, no. 4, 1990, pp. 36-47 (in Armenian).

Ferriman Duckett Z., The Young Turks and the Truth about the Holocaust at Adana in Asia Minor, during April, 1909, London, 1913 (autotype publication, Yerevan: The Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute, 2009).

Fyodorov L., “V. I. Lenin and I. V. Stalin on the First World War”, Voenno-istoricheskiy zhurnal, no. 1, 1939, pp. 133-137 (in Russian).

Harutyunyan Avag (ed.), Hayots tseghaspanutyan 50-amyake yev Khorhrdayin Hayastane (pastatghteri yev nyuteri zhoghovatsu) [The 50th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide and the Soviet Armenia (Collection of Documents and Materials)], Yerevan: Gitutyun, 2005 (in Armenian).

Hass Matthias, “The Politics of Memory in Germany, Israel and the United States of America”, The Canadian Centre for German and European Studies, Working Paper Series, no. 10, 2004, pp. 6-12.

Housepian Marjorie, “The Unremembered Genocide”, Commentary, 42 (3), Sept. 1966, pp. 55-61.

Kaputikian Silva, Mtorumner chanaparhi kesin [Thoughts on the Halfway], Yerevan: Haypethrat, 1961 (in Armenian).

Kaputikian Silva, Ejer pak gzrotsnerits [Pages from Closed Drawers], Yerevan: Apollon, 1997 (in Armenian).

Kirakosyan Arman (ed.), Armeniya i sovetsko-turetskiye otnosheniya v diplomaticheskikh dokumentakh 1945-1946 gg. [Armenia and Soviet-Turkish Relations in Diplomatic Documents of 1945-1946], Yerevan: Tigran Mets, 2010 (in Russian).

Kobelyan Khachatur, A Comparative Analysis of the Organization and Exhibitions of Genocide Museums, PhD dissertation, Yerevan State University, 2014.

Konradova Natalia and Ryleeva Anna, “Heroes and Victims: Memorial Complexes of the Great Patriotic War”, Neprikosnovennyi zapas. Debaty o politike i kulture, no. 40-41, 2004, pp. 134-148 (in Russian).

Kozlov M. M. (ed.), Velikaia Otechestvennaia Voyna 1941-1945: Entsiklopediya [Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945: Encyclopedia], Мoscow: Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia, 1985 (in Russian).

Lenin Vladimir Illich, Polnoye sobraniye sochinenii [Complete set of works], vol. 26: July 1914 - August 1915, Moscow: Izdatelstvo politicheskoi literaturi, 1969.

Linenthal Edward T., Preserving Memory: The Struggle to Create America’s Holocaust Museum, New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.

Marutyan Harutyun, “German Reparations to Jewry: Formation, Process and Recent Situation”, 21-rd dar: Teghekatvakan-verlutsakan handes, no. 4, 2008, pp. 135-155 (in Armenian).

Marutyan Harutyun, Iconography of Armenian Identity, vol. 1, The Memory of Genocide and the Karabagh Movement, Yerevan: Gitutyun, 2009 (Anthropology of Memory 3).

Marutyan Harutyun, “Structural Distinctions between Armenian Genocide and Jewish Holocaust Memory”, Patmabanasirakan handes, no. 2, 2011, pp. 24-46 (in Armenian).

Marutyan Harutyun, “The Centenary Old Genocide Memory and the Process of Formation of the ‘American-Armenian nationality’”, in Aram Simonyan, Pol Haydostian, Andranik Dakessian, Yuri Avetisyan (eds), Haykakan inqnutyan khndirnere 21-rd darum. Gitazhoghovi nyuter [The Problems of the Armenian Identity in the 21st Century. Papers of the International Conference], Yerevan: Yerevan State University Press, 2013, pp. 42-54 (in Armenian).

Marutyan Harutyun, “The Information on Holocaust in the School Textbooks of Armenia”, in Sargis Harutyunyan, Harutyun Marutyan, Suren Hobosyan, Tamar Hayrapeyan, Levon Abrahamian (eds), Avandakane yev ardiakane hayots mshakuytum. Derenik Vardumyani 90-amyakin nvirvats hodvatsneri zhoghovatsu (Hay zhoghovrdakan mshakuyt, xvi) [Tradition and Modernity in Armenian Culture. Papers in Memoriam of Derenik Vardumyan to Mark His 90th Anniversary (Armenian Folk Culture, xvi)], Yerevan: Gitutyun, 2014, pp. 366-372 (in Armenian).

Melkonyan Eduard, “Armenian Diaspora”, in Hovhannes Ayvazyan (ed.), Hay Spyurq. Hanragitaran [Armenian Diaspora. Encyclopedia], Yerevan: Haykakan hanragitaran, 2003, pp. 7-16 (in Armenian).

Ministry of Diaspora of the Republic of Armenia, Memorials of Sorrow, Remembrance and Struggle: Memorials in Remembrance of the Armenian Genocide Victims, Yerevan: Tigran Metz, 2010 (in Armenian and English).

Milton Sybil, In Fitting Memory: The Art and Politics of Holocaust Memorials, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1991.

Ostow Robin (ed.), (Re)Visualizing National History. Museums and National Identities in Europe in the New Millennium, Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press, 2008.

Shulman William L. (ed.), Association of Holocaust Organizations: Directory, Houston, Texas, 2008, 264 p.

Strom Margot Stern, Parsons William S., Facing History and Ourselves: Holocaust and Human Behavior, Watertown, MA: Intentional Educations, 1982.

Politicheskoye upravleniye RKKA [Political board of the Worker-Peasant Red Army], Vtoraya imperialisticheskaya voyna nachalas [The Second Imperialist War has begun.], Moscow: Gosudarstvennoye voennoye izdatelstvo narkomata oborony Soyuza SSSR, 1938 (in Russian).

Williams Paul, Memorial Museums: The Global Rush to Commemorate Atrocities, Oxford and New York: Berg, 2007.

Wolschke-Bulmahn Joachim (ed.), Places of Commemoration: Search for Identity and Landscape design, Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2001.

Young James E., The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Young James E., At Memory’s Edge: After-Images of the Holocaust in Contemporary Art and Architecture, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000.

Haut de page

Notes

1 The comparison between Yad Vashem and Tsitsernakaberd would extend the scope of this article. The interested reader can find information on this issue in a previous work: Harutyun Marutyan, “Structural Distinctions between Armenian Genocide and Jewish Holocaust Memory”, Patmabanasirakan handes, 2011, no. 2, pp. 24-46 (in Armenian).

2 The article gives preference to the use of the term “Jewish Holocaust”, as foreign authors who characterize the massacres of Armenians in the second half of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries and the Genocide have been using the definition “Armenian Holocaust”. See, e.g. “Another Armenian Holocaust”, The New York Times, September 10, 1895; Corinna Shattuck, “Three Days of Butchery; A Woman Describes the Massacre of Armenians in Ourfa. Not less than 3.500 were Killed. Terrible Slaughter in a Church”, The New York Times, February 17, 1896; Duckett Z. Ferriman, The Young Turks and the Truth about the Holocaust at Adana in Asia Minor, during April, 1909, London, 1913; Winston Churchill, The World Crisis, vol. 5, The Aftermath 1918–1928, New York, London: T. Butterworth, 1929, p. 157.

3 In the coming years I intend to write and publish a monograph (consisting of five chapters and 27 sub-chapters) on the structural characteristics of the memories of the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust. This article, with certain changes, will be part of the said work.

4 There are various websites and enumerations of museums, monuments and memorial complexes devoted to the Jewish Holocaust. The article bases upon the following list: Holocaust Museums, Monuments, and Memorials around the World. Updated – January 2013, http://www.state.nj.us/education/holocaust/resources/world.pdf that includes 111 museums, monuments and memorial complexes. I have examined the list one by one, to determine which of these are museums or have an exhibition on the Holocaust. According to my estimate their number is 58, to which I have added 9 more names found in other listings, with apparent functions of a museum and with exhibitions on the Holocaust. According to the above said list there are only 25 monuments to the Holocaust (besides memorial complexes) which number, to my belief, does not reflect the reality. The consideration of information found in different sources (which I have not summarized) allows us to believe that their number is considerably larger.

5 I bear in mind the Genocide Memorial Complex by the church of Holy Martyrs in Deir ez Zor (presently half ruined), a small part of the exhibition in the Armenian Library and Museum of America (Boston, MA), a small part of the exhibition at Ararat-Eskijian Museum in Los Angeles, the section devoted to the Genocide at the History Museum of Armenia (Yerevan), and the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute (Yerevan). An incomplete list of monuments to the Armenian Genocide (288 monuments) in 43 countries, with accompanying photographs can be found in an album titled Memorials of Sorrow, Remembrance and Struggle (Yerevan, 2010), as well as on the website of the Armenian National Institute (Washington, DC) http://www.armenian-genocide.org/memorials.html, which lists 166 monuments and memorial complexes from 31 countries of the world.

6 It should be mentioned, that the comparison between the policies of memories should be made with the consideration of the radically different political settings: one within a newly formed, independent state, and the other within a totalitarian and soviet ruled territory.

7 The article does not pursue the analysis of the formation, architecture and history of the museums of the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust, which is widely researched for the latter. On these aspects, see, Sybil Milton, In Fitting Memory: The Art and Politics of Holocaust Memorials, Detroit : Wayne State University Press, 1991; James E. Young, The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1993; James E. Young, At Memory’s Edge: After-Images of the Holocaust in Contemporary Art and Architecture, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000; Joachim Wolschke-Bulmahn (ed.), Places of Commemoration: Search for Identity and Landscape design, Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2001; Paul Williams, Memorial Museums: The Global Rush to Commemorate Atrocities, Oxford and New York: Berg, 2007; Robin Ostow (ed.), (Re)Visualizing National History. Museums and National Identities in Europe in the New Millennium, Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press, 2008. The dissertation of Khachatur Kobelyan, a staff member of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute, titled “A Comparative Analysis of the Organization and Exhibitions of Genocide Museums” is also related to the issue.

8 There are various opinions in Armenian historiography, as to the territorial inclusion of the Genocide. Part of Armenian historians qualify the mass killings in the course of the 1918 and 1920 invasions of the Turkish army into Armenia, including the massacre of September, 1918 in Baku, to which about 30,000 Armenians fell victim, as perpetuation of the genocide policy. In some cases the policy of the newly formed Republic of Azerbaijan towards its citizens of Armenian origin and, in particular, the massacre of Armenians in Shushi in April, 1920 too is qualified as a manifestation of genocide. That is why I have been guided by two basic documents: (a) the Law of November 22, 1988, no. 1401-XI of the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic “On the Condemnation of the Genocide of Armenians in Ottoman Empire in 1915”, and (b) the “Armenian Declaration of Independence” of August 23, 1990 of the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic, where paragraph 11 states that “The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia” (see http://www.parliament.am/legislation.php?sel=show&ID=2602&lang=eng).

9 Before the genocide smaller Armenian communities had lived worldwide, however the genocide refugees not only added substantial numbers to these communities but also transformed them into full-fledged diaspora. A number of scholars from Armenia and Russia have worked on this issue. See for example: Eduard Melkonyan, “Armenian Diaspora”, in Hovhannes Ayvazyan (ed.), Hay Spyurq. Hanragitaran [Armenian Diaspora. Encyclopedia], Yerevan: Haykakan hanragitaran, 2003, p. 9 (in Armenian); Levon Abrahamian, Armenian Identity in a Changing World, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2006, pp. 323-331; Viktor Dyatlov and Eduard Melkonyan, Armyanskaya Diaspora: Ocherki sotsiokul’turnoy tipologii [Armenian Diaspora: Essays on Sociocultural Typology], Yerevan: Institut Kavkaza, 2009, pp. 21, 40-43 (in Russian).

10 For estimates see, e.g. http://www.historiography-project.com/

11 On Soviet-Turkish Relations”, Sovetakan Hayastan, July 19, 1953. For details, see Arman Kirakosyan, “Preface”, in Arman Kirakosyan (ed.), Armeniya i sovetsko-turetskiye otnosheniya v diplomaticheskikh dokumentakh 1945-1946 gg. [Armenia and Soviet-Turkish Relations in Diplomatic Documents of 1945-1946], Yerevan: Tigran Mets, 2010, pp. 5-52 (in Russian).

12 Arman Kirakosyan, op. cit., p. 5.

13 Mets Yeghern – the great calamity. The Armenian word yeghern, connoting such meanings as “evil, peril, crime, disaster, accident, [and] loss,” has long been used in Armenian medieval literature. Gabriel Avetikian, Khachatur Syurmelian, and Mkrtich Avgerian, Nor Bargirq Haykazyan lezvi [New Wordbook of Old Armenian], vol. 1, Yerevan: Yerevan University Press, 1979 [1836], p. 654 (in Armenian). After the events of 1915, the word was used to describe the large-scale massacres carried out by the Turks and the Kurds in the Ottoman Empire. Before the term “genocide” gained wide circulation in the mid-1960s, the term Mets [“Great”] Yeghern was often used to describe the phenomenon. Today the terms Metz Yeghern and “Genocide” are still synonymous to the Armenian people, and have almost identical usage.

14 For more details see: Azat Eghiazarian, “The Reflection of the Genocide in the Soviet Armenian Literature”, Lraber hasarakakan gitutyunneri, 1990, no. 4, pp. 36-47 (in Armenian).

15 See: Silva Kaputikian, Mtorumner chanaparhi kesin [Thoughts on the Halfway], Yerevan: Haypethrat, 1961, p. 112 (in Armenian).

16 The issue is discussed also in Harutyun Marutyan, Iconography of Armenian Identity, vol. 1, The Memory of Genocide and the Karabagh Movement, Yerevan: Gitutyun, 2009 (Anthropology of Memory 3), pp. 38-39.

17 It is important to note that at the beginning of the 1960s construction of memorial complexes to the victory of the Great Patriotic War, such as the “Memorial Complex to the Heroes of Stalingrad” (1963-1967) in Volgograd, the “Monument to the Unknown Soldier” in Moscow’s Red Square (1965-1967), and others, had already started in the Soviet Union. Cf. Natalia Konradova and Anna Ryleeva, “Heroes and Victims: Memorial Complexes of the Great Patriotic War”, Neprikosnovennyi zapas. Debaty o politike i kulture, no. 40-41, 2004, pp. 138-139 (in Russian, my translation). This means that the building of Memorial Complexes to the Martyrs of Genocide fell naturally into the context of monuments of a commemorative nature, the construction of which had started at the time. In this respect, the perception of Silva Kaputikian reflected in her letter of 1975 to the leaders of the USSR and CPSU, is characteristic: “The symbol behind it [the Memorial Complex to the Martyrs of the Armenian Genocide] is very much the same as that of the monuments in Stalingrad, Oswiecim [Auschwitz-Birkenau], Liditsa, Salaspils and Hiroshima, or the memorial complex to the victims of the Belorussian Khatin that was burnt to ashes, set on fire by fascists. I call to people to never forget the victims of violence and massacre, to never allow a repetition of it elsewhere in the world.” Silva Kaputikian, Ejer pak gzrotsnerits [Pages from Closed Drawers], Yerevan: Apollon, 1997, p. 142 (in Armenian).

18 Moment of Silence (“To the bright memory of the fallen in the Great Patriotic War”) – the traditional annual transmission-requiem of the Soviet (later of the Russian Federation) TV; a solemn ritual to celebrate the victory over Fascist Germany – was first broadcast on May 9, 1965. The program is a manifestation of devotion and respect to the Soviet soldier, partisans, the underground fighters and those who acted in the home front, also to the soldiers of anti-Hitler coalition, to the fighters in the Resistance movement and the European anti-fascists. The TV screen shows the Monument to the Unknown Soldier by the Kremlin wall and the eternal flame. The music of Rakhmaninov, Skryabin, Schumann and Bach plays, and a text prepared by journalists is read. See M. M. Kozlov (ed.), Velikaia Otechestvennaia Voyna 1941-1945: Entsiklopediya [Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945: Encyclopedia], Мoscow: Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia, 1985, pp. 448-449 (in Russian). Since 1975 the Moment of Silence is annually broadcast in Armenia on April 24 as well: the TV screen shows the Genocide Memorial Complex and the eternal flame, and the throng of people paying tribute; spiritual music plays and an accompanying text is read. See “TV Screen [Program of TV]”, Yerekoyan Yerevan, April 23, 1975 (in Armenian).

19 See footnote 8.

20 The issue of identity is a very complex one. For that reason I will not venture into giving a definition of this term. Within the scope of this article, suffice it to say that collective memory of the genocide is one significant element to which massive numbers of Armenians world-wide and in Armenia, along with the Republic of Armenia, relate to. According to my own estimates coming from multiple encounters with my fellow colleagues, about 40% of the current population of the Republic of Armenia is descendants of Western Armenians.

21 See for details: http://www.akko.org.il/en/Old-Acre-The-Ghetto-Fighters'-House-

22 Unfortunately, I do not have enough data to compare with the Armenian Genocide remembrance policy during the First Armenian Republic (1918-1920).

23 See in detail: Matthias Hass, “The Politics of Memory in Germany, Israel and the United States of America”, The Canadian Centre for German and European Studies, Working Paper Series, no. 10, 2004, pp. 6-12.

24 See in detail: Avag Harutyunyan (ed.), Hayots tseghaspanutyan 50-amyake yev Khorhrdayin Hayastane (pastatghteri yev nyuteri zhoghovatsu) [The 50th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide and the Soviet Armenia (Collection of Documents and Materials)], Yerevan: Gitutyun, 2005, pp. 37-40 (in Armenian).

25 Since the end of 1990s, for about one and a half decades, the issue of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide has been a component part of the foreign policy of the Republic of Armenia. This fact too could maybe be considered as an attempt of internationalization of the issue of the Armenian Genocide, of taking it beyond the confined Armenian frames.

26 See in detail: L. Fyodorov, “V. I. Lenin and I. V. Stalin on the First World War”, Voenno-istoricheskiy zhurnal, 1939, no. 1, pp. 133-137 (in Russian). Cf., e.g. Politicheskoye upravleniye RKKA [Political board of the Worker-Peasant Red Army], Vtoraya imperialisticheskaya voyna nachalas [The Second Imperialist War has begun.], Moscow: Gosudarstvennoye voennoye izdatelstvo narkomata oborony Soyuza SSSR, 1938 (in Russian).

. Soviet historiography regarded Lenin’s definition of an imperialistic war turning into a civil one to later lead to a revolution, as a guideline. See in detail, e.g.: “Preface”, in V. I. Lenin, Polnoye sobraniye sochinenii [Complete set of works], Fifth edition, vol. 26: July 1914 - August 1915. Moscow: Izdatelstvo politicheskoi literaturi, 1969, pp. vii-xxvii.

27 See, e.g. Avag Harutyunyan (ed.), Hayots tseghaspanutyan 50-amyake…, op. cit., pp. 48, 60, 64.

28 On the issue see, e.g.: Harutyun Marutyan, “German Reparations to Jewry: Formation, Process and Recent Situation”, 21-rd dar: Teghekatvakan-verlutsakan handes, no. 4, pp. 135-155 (in Armenian).

29 For a discussion of this issue see also: Harutyun Marutyan, Iconography of Armenian Identity…, op. cit., pp. 33-34.

30 In June 1947 a museum was opened in Auschwitz-Birkenau former concentration camp (http://en.auschwitz.org/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=227&Itemid=13&limit=1 &limitstart=7), followed by museums opened in a number of other concentration camps.

31 In the USA the first Holocaust museum was opened in the beginning of 1960s in Los Angeles. See in detail: http://www.lamoth.org/the-museum/history/

32 Edward T. Linenthal, Preserving Memory: The Struggle to Create America’s Holocaust Museum, New York: Columbia University Press, 1995, p. 1.

33 Id., pp. 44, 216, etc. This phenomenon has been widely considered in many other works on Jewish Holocaust memory.

34 Id., pp. 12-13.

35 Id., pp. 44-45. From this aspect the definition “The Armenian Cause” (in Armenian, Hay Dat’), bearing ethnic connotation even on title level, may be characteristic. The Armenian term dat’ means “judgment, court of justice, tribunal, trial”. The definition itself points at proving: a case is something to be investigated and proven and it is for a court of law to announce the final verdict. On the founding of the “Armenian Cause” Committee see article published in 1947: “The Founding of the Armenian Cause Committee”: http://ancnews.info/?page_id=656

36 For reasons of efficiency, I will not enter in the discussion of the Yiddish speaking Jews ethnic or religious identity here.

37 http://www.president.am/en/statements-and-messages/item/2010/03/24/news-58/ (retrieved in April 27, 2014).

38 The ideological and artistic analysis of the monuments to the martyrs of the Armenian Genocide is a subject for a separate research, and does not relate to issues considered in this article.

39 Considerations about the issue see, e.g.: Jean Murachanian, “A Monumental Purpose: Armenian Heritage Park”, http://asbarez.com/111105/a-monumental-purpose-armenian-heritage-park/

40 See, e.g.:Pasadena City Council Unanimously Approves Genocide Memorial Plans”, http://asbarez.com/113690/pasadena-city-council-unanimously-approves-genocide-memorial-plans/

41 Certain developments among Armenians of the American Diaspora, some of which I witnessed in 2010 when I was in the United States as visiting researcher at the USHMM, indicate that an “Armenian-American nationality” is in the making. See Harutyun Marutyan, “The Centenary Old Genocide Memory and the Process of Formation of the ‘American-Armenian nationality’”, in Aram Simonyan, Pol Haydostian, Andranik Dakessian, Yuri Avetisyan (eds), Haykakan inqnutyan khndirnere 21-rd darum. Gitazhoghovi nyuter [The Problems of the Armenian Identity in the 21st Century. Papers of the International Conference], Yerevan: Yerevan State University Press, 2013, pp. 42-54 (in Armenian).

42 On these, see, e.g. Dr. William L. Shulman (ed.), Association of Holocaust Organizations: Directory, Houston (Texas): Holocaust Museum, 2008.

43 On the issue see: “Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research” internet materials http://www.holocausttaskforce.org/index.php. See also Harutyun Marutyan, “The Information on Holocaust in the School Textbooks of Armenia”, in Sargis Harutyunyan, Harutyun Marutyan, Suren Hobosyan, Tamar Hayrapeyan, Levon Abrahamian (eds), Avandakane yev ardiakane hayots mshakuytum. Derenik Vardumyani 90-amyakin nvirvats hodvatsneri zhoghovatsu (Hay zhoghovrdakan mshakuyt, XVI) [Tradition and Modernity in Armenian Culture. Papers in Memoriam of Derenik Vardumyan to Mark His 90th Anniversary (Armenian Folk Culture, XVI)], Yerevan: Gitutyun, 2014, pp. 366-372 (in Armenian).

44 See e.g. Learning from the Past: Global Perspectives on Holocaust Education. Salzburg Global Seminar, June 27 – July 1, 2012; Why Teach about Genocide? The Example of the Holocaust: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/resources/online-materials/single-view/news/why_teach_about_genocide_the_example_of_the_holocaust/#.UvzVsmJfr4Y Details in relation to the last consideration see, e.g. in the following document adopted at the conclusion of the September 2012 meeting of Ministries of Education of 14 States of Sub-Saharan Africa: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/200829.pdf

45 Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s statement on April 24 2014, where he expressed a shared grief between all the victims of World War I events related in the Ottoman Empire is no departure from that denialist policy which simply assumes a variety of formats.

46 As stated by a number of researchers, for about half a century the Armenian Genocide was designated as a “forgotten genocide.” Thus, for example, Margot Strom and William Parsons in their book have a chapter titled “The Armenians: A Case of a Forgotten Genocide. Do We Learn From Past Experiences,” where is written: “Until recently the silence on the genocide of the Armenian people has been almost complete and so the label the ‘forgotten genocide’ takes on new meaning…” Margot Stern Strom, William S. Parsons, Facing History and Ourselves: Holocaust and Human Behavior, Watertown, MA: Intentional Educations, 1982, p. 317. Vahakn Dadrian with the following wording described the term “forgotten genocide”: “The events of that time [when Armenian massacres took place] have subsequently slipped into the shadows of world history, thus gaining the title ‘the forgotten genocide’”. Vahakn N. Dadrian, The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus, Providence, Oxford: Berghahn Books, 1995, p. xviii. He is quoting also Dickran H. Boyajian, Armenia: The case for a Forgotten Genocide, Westwood (N.J.): Educational Book Crafters, 1972; Marjorie Housepian, “The Unremembered Genocide,” Commentary, 42 (3), Sept. 1966, pp. 55-61.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Harutyun Marutyan, « Museums and Monuments: comparative analysis of Armenian and Jewish experiences in memory policies », Études arméniennes contemporaines, 3 | 2014, 57-79.

Référence électronique

Harutyun Marutyan, « Museums and Monuments: comparative analysis of Armenian and Jewish experiences in memory policies », Études arméniennes contemporaines [En ligne], 3 | 2014, mis en ligne le 01 décembre 2014, consulté le 24 octobre 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/eac/544 ; DOI : 10.4000/eac.544

Haut de page

Auteur

Harutyun Marutyan

Institute of Archeology and Ethnography, National Academy of Sciences, Armenia

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Bibliothèque Nubar de l’UGAB

Haut de page
  • Logo Bibliothèque Nubar de l'UGAB
  • Logo Union générale arménienne de bienfaisance (UGAB)
  • Logo DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals
  • OpenEdition Journals