Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Criticism of Bernard Lewis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Criticism of Bernard Lewis



    The whole article is interesting but below is the section as it relates to Armenians in particular:


    Perhaps most concerning in the realm of dhimmitude have been Lewis’ inexplicably evolved views on the jihad genocide of the Armenians. His renowned The Emergence of Modern Turkey,* originally published in 1962 (reissued in 1968 and 2002), includes these characterizations of the mass killings of the Armenians by the Turks in 1894-96, 1909, and 1915:


    (1894-96, p. 202) The Armenian participants mindful of the massacres of 1894-96, were anxious to seek the intervention of the European powers as a guarantee of effective reforms in the Ottoman Empire [in the 20th century].

    (1909, p. 216) With suspicious simultaneity a wave of outbreaks spread across Anatolia. Particularly bad were the events of the Adana district, which culminated in the massacre of thousands of Armenians…While Europe was appalled by Turkish brutality, Muslim opinion was shocked by what seemed to them the insolence of the Armenians and the hypocrisy of Christian Europe. The Turks were, however, well aware of the painful effects produced by these massacres in Europe, which had not yet forgotten the horrors of the Hamidian repression [i.e, the 1894-96 massacres]

    (1915, p. 356) Now a desperate struggle between them [i.e., the Turks and Armenians] began, a struggle between two nations for the possession of a single homeland, that ended with the terrible holocaust of 1915, when a million and a half Armenians perished.

    Thus when Lewis wrote his authoritative history of modern Turkey, he understood, and made explicit, that the Armenians had been massacred under successive Ottoman governments in 1894-96, and 1909. Moreover, he maintains that the Armenians were subjected in 1915 to a “holocaust”, during which 1.5 million “perished”. By 1985, however, Lewis was the most prominent signatory on a petition to the US Congress protesting the effort to make April 24 – the date the Armenians commemorate the victims of the genocide – a nationwide Armenian-American memorial day, which would include the mention of man’s inhumanity to man. Both this petition drive and a simultaneous high profile media advertisement campaign were financed by the Committee of the Turkish Association. Vryonis* has raised, unabashedly, the appropriate questions and accompanying concerns regarding Lewis’ actions:


    When was Professor Lewis expressing an objective opinion: when he wrote the book [i.e., The Emergence of Modern Turkey, 1962/68 versions], or when he signed the political ad? To phrase it more bluntly, what shall we believe? Certainly, the data available to him in the writing of the book were sufficiently clear and convincing for him to proceed to these three clear and unequivocal statements [i.e., describing the 1894-96, and 1909 events as massacres of the Armenians by the Turks, and the 1915 slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians by the Turks as a holocaust]. What had changed? The subject had entered the sphere of politics, and Prof. Lewis, along with so many other signers of the ad, had decided to take sides where their economic, professional, personal, and emotional interests lay: with the Turkish government, and not with history.*

    Furthermore, during the past decade, as Yair Auron has observed, when Lewis was requested,*


    *…to make available the academic research published in recent years, which, in his professional opinion, constitute the basis for the change from his original position to his new position that there was no state-planned or administered genocide/mass murder of the Armenians…Lewis did not respond to this demand, even though he noted that letters to him and his reply would be published.

    *Auron’s final assessment is apt:


    *Lewis’ stature [has] provided a lofty cover for the Turkish national agenda of obfuscating academic research on the Armenian Genocide.

    Lewis’ wildly fluctuating opinions aside, a consensus among bona fide genocide scholars has emerged which is consistent with Richard Rubenstein’s conclusion from 1975, that the 1915 Turkish massacre of the Armenians was,*


    *…the first full-fledged attempt by a modern state to practice disciplined, methodically organized genocide

    And Bat Ye’or reminds us why the Armenian genocide was a jihad genocide*committed against a non-Muslim people “violating” the ancient dhimma, a “…breach…[which] restored to the umma [the Muslim community] its initial right to kill the subjugated minority [the dhimmis], [and] seize their property…”. Moreover, the massacres,


    were perpetrated solely by Muslims and they alone profited from the booty: the victims’ property, houses, and lands granted to the muhajirun, and the allocation to them of women, and child slaves. The elimination of male children over the age of twelve was in accordance with the commandments of the jihad and conformed to the age fixed for the payment of the jizya. The four stages of the liquidation – deportation, enslavement, forced conversion, and massacre – reproduced the historic conditions of the jihad carried out in the dar-al-harb from the seventh century on. Chronicles from a variety of sources, by Muslim authors in particular, give detailed descriptions of the organized massacres or deportation of captives, whose sufferings in forced marches behind the armies paralleled the Armenian experience in the twentieth century.

    Bernard Lewis possesses an enormous fund of knowledge regarding Islamic civilization accrued over a distinguished career of more than six decades of serious scholarship. A gifted linguist, non-fiction prose writer, and teacher, Lewis shares his understanding of Muslim societies in both written and oral presentations, with singular economy and eloquence. These are extraordinary attributes for which Lewis richly deserves the accolades lavished upon him in the recent spate of 90th birthday homages. And even Lewis’ detractors cannot deny his deep seated affection and genuine concern for the Muslim world. For example, Ian Buruma sees Lewis’ cheerleading role in relation to the war in Iraq as a manifestation of this phenomenon:


    …perhaps he loves it too much. It is a common phenomenon among Western students of the Orient to fall in love with a civilization….* His beloved civilization is sick. And what would be more heartwarming to an old Orientalist than to see the greatest Western democracy cure the benighted Muslim?

    But Lewis’ remarkable contributions are diminished by a yawning gap in his understanding of dhimmitude, including an apparent unwillingness to even acknowledge this uniquely Islamic institution. His myriad works and addresses are largely devoid of the concerns for the dhimmis—past (here, and here) present (here), and ominously, future (here)—Lewis freely expresses for their Muslim overlords. This critical limitation and its implications must also be recognized by all those for whom Lewis remains an iconic source of information, and advice.

    * Note: The 2002 edition of The Emergence of Modern Turkey, p. 356, reads:


    Now a desperate struggle between them [i.e., the Turks and Armenians] began, a struggle between two nations for the possession of a single homeland, that ended with the terrible slaughter of 1915, when, according to estimates, more than a million Armenians perished, as well as an unknown number of Turks.

    In this revised text, “slaughter” replaces “holocaust”, the estimate of the Armenians who “perished” is changed from 1.5 million to “according to estimates, more than a million”, and a concluding remark is added referring to the “unknown number of Turks” who also perished in the putative struggle for possession of a single homeland. Peter Balakian makes these germane observations (from, The Burning Tigris, New York, 2003, p. 432, note 25):


    …without any substantiation, Lewis dispense of the Armenian Genocide in a couple of sentences, calling it a ‘a struggle between two nations for the possession of a single homeland’. Lewis never explains how an unarmed, Christian ethnic minority in the Ottoman Empire could be fairly called a ‘nation’, that could engage in a ‘struggle’ with a world power (the Ottoman Empire) for a single homeland. In a recent interview, There Was No Genocide: Interview with Prof. Bernard Lewis, by Dalia Karpel, Ha’aretz (Jerusalem, January 23, 1998), Lewis asserts that the massacres of the Armenians were not the result ‘of a deliberate preconceived decision of the Turkish government’. These evasions are aimed at trivializing the Armenian Genocide.

    Andrew Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad.
    General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

  • #2
    Nice article, thanks Joseph

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Gondorian
      Nice article, thanks Joseph
      You're welcome Gondorian. It should also be remembered that Bernanrd Lewis consulted Bush regarding the Middle East and helped encourage him to invade Iraq.
      General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Joseph
        You're welcome Gondorian. It should also be remembered that Bernanrd Lewis consulted Bush regarding the Middle East and helped encourage him to invade Iraq.
        Which just means that he knows his priorities. He is a Jew first, an Orientalist and genocide denier second.
        Plenipotentiary meow!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by bell-the-cat
          Which just means that he knows his priorities. He is a Jew first, an Orientalist and genocide denier second.
          Absolutely.He's the epitomy of dhimminitude.
          General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

          Comment


          • #6
            Bernard Lewis and The Spectre of Comparisons


            Josh Strawn, November 9, 2007

            TAGS: Armenian Genocide Bernard Lews Holocaust

            Bernard Lewis enjoys a status unparalleled by most historians and it's
            one that puts him in a unique position of power and influence. xxxx
            Cheney has made no secret of the esteem in which he holds Lewis, and
            one can be certain that the Vice President isn't alone in thinking that
            Lewis is the go-to guy for information about the Middle East. While it
            might be tempting to make the assumption that Cheney's vote of
            confidence is reason enough to doubt Lewis, taking the lazy
            'if-the-Bush-administration-says-white-I'll-say-black' route is always
            a bad idea . There are reasons to fear Lewis' influence that run far
            deeper. One of them comes to light in the video below, where he can be
            seen denying the Armenian genocide outright.

            Most worthy of attention here are the precise terms in which the
            questioner poses his question. At no point does he ask whether Mr.
            Lewis believes the Armenian genocide was at all similar to the
            Holocaust. He merely asks whether Lewis has revised his position,
            namely that the mass murder of a million Armenians was a brutal
            by-product of war, not genocide. Lewis responds, fairly enough, by
            saying that it is a question of definitions. So a little about those,
            then...

            I was fortunate enough to have studied briefly with philosopher Richard
            Bernstein on the subject of Evil in the 20th Century. This was in part
            an investigation into the atrocities of the last hundred years, but
            also into the rhetoric and definitions of evil, into resistance to
            evil, and into how language can be either complicit in or a resistance
            to evil. Offered as an example of resistance was Raphael Lemkin's
            one-person crusade to imagine a word that might describe the particular
            atrocity of systematic human extermination on the basis of particular
            categories. In some sense, Lemkin's invention of the word 'genocide'
            gave us a way to speak the unspeakable and thus to specify what we mean
            when we say 'never again.' And while some intellectuals have taken
            offense at such gestures, it's hard to argue against the notion that
            the collective will understands itself and its intentions much better
            through speech than through reverent silence.

            Reverent silence is one thing, but irreverent silence or purposive
            rejection of this very valuable definition effectively participates in
            the reverse of resistance to evil. When you do so from a place of
            influence like Lewis', your culpability increases proportionately. His
            rhetorical underhandedness stems from a premise he himself conveniently
            inserts--one that, as mentioned before, is never offered by his
            interlocutor. The focus of his answer becomes the comparison to the
            Holocaust, a comparison he feels is inaccurate. The atrocity that took
            place in WWII, however, is beyond compare, which means that by Lewis'
            definition, that is the only thing we could possibly call genocide. The
            lexical weapon is thus confined to a singular past historical event,
            rendering it useless to the present, future, or to anything that came
            before that event.

            Scholars like Lewis would do well to assimilate one of the keystone
            lessons of postcolonialism--that some comparisons can sometimes be
            useful, but others can prevent one from grasping the specificity of a
            situation--from seeing it on its own terms. Lewis opts for the worst
            use of comparison. The French Revolution is not the American is not the
            Russian, and so on, but the notion of revolution as we understand it
            applies to all three. Likewise with the Armenian genocide and the
            genocide of Jews during the second World War. One is not the other,
            granted (does Lewis think this comes as a shock?) But the need to
            understand them and speak about them plainly as events worthy of moral
            outrage on many of the same grounds is vital.

            A concrete case in point: when Representative Ed Whitfield takes the
            podium to oppose H.R. 106 on the grounds that damaged relations with
            Turkey will compromise the War on Terror, he has one of the world's
            most revered historians of the Middle East backing him up. But in
            reality, our leaders have no right to call the invasions of Iraq and
            Afghanistan a campaign against a genocidal regime and ideology while
            simultaneously refusing to recognize the very event that prompted Mr.
            Lemkin's interest in the topic. Whitfield and his ilk should be far
            more concerned about how their disingenuous treatment of such an
            important concept serves to make the public rightly skeptical about the
            fight against genocidal terror. If that fight is to be a principled
            one, one must take the principle first, unequivocally, and let all else
            follow. Selective applications based on tendentious arguments from
            over-esteemed scholars won't do.
            General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

            Comment

            Working...
            X