{"id":434,"date":"2013-05-16T17:17:49","date_gmt":"2013-05-16T17:17:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wordpress.clarku.edu\/takcam\/?p=434"},"modified":"2013-05-17T20:11:41","modified_gmt":"2013-05-17T20:11:41","slug":"the-torossian-debates-whats-ended","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wordpress.test.clarku.edu\/takcam\/debates\/the-torossian-debates-whats-ended\/","title":{"rendered":"The Torossian Debates: What’s Ended"},"content":{"rendered":"

As far as this debate goes, let\u2019s accept that the Torossian debates have come to an end with my piece that was published in T24<\/a>. I showed without question that there was an Armenian officer named Sarkis Torossian and that he fought for the Ottoman Army. Even if his memoir contained information that was exaggerated or wrong in places, in the end he was telling us about his own life and that much of this story should be considered finished.<\/p>\n

Still, it seems like there is just one issue left over from the first stage of the debate. In a note to Halil Berktay, Hakan Erdem expressed his doubts over a document belonging to Torossian, that I had published<\/a>. The document in question is Torossian\u2019s military draft and health record from 1942. I had claimed that Hakan Erdem had published the wrong document as an \u201cunfortunate act\u201d thinking it was Torossian\u2019s and I had presented another document as the correct one. The importance of all this is that in the document that I published the words \u201cscar on left side of head\u201d appear. In his memoir, Torossian had stated that in November 1916 he had been injured on the left side of his head in Romania. Placed alongside the other documents that I had published, this document showed that the claim that Torossian had entered the US in 1916 was a tale made up by Hakan Erdem.<\/p>\n

On the Subject of the Culture of Debate<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hakan Erdem insists that the document he published is correct and accuses me of presenting a document whose origins are unknown, without attributing a source. But the issue doesn\u2019t just end here. Based on Hakan Erdem\u2019s informational note, Halil Berktay continues with \u201c\u2026I want to emphasize that this is a very serious charge. If it\u2019s true, no one can get away with this\u2026This strikes right at the heart of scholarly ethics and is a direct violation. Things like this, for example, the equivalent in the natural sciences would be the knowing falsification of research and experiment results. They couldn\u2019t care less how sorry you are, especially in American universities. There are plenty of precedents. They\u2019ll close down all of your projects; shut down your laboratories; during the investigation they will walk you out of the office and prohibit you from stepping back inside; depending on how serious the incident is, even if you\u2019re tenured, you can be shown the door for \u2018moral turpitude\u2019\u201d.<\/p>\n

After accusing me of \u201cknowingly falsifying a document\u201d and \u201cmoral turpitude\u201d, I don\u2019t know if Mr. Berktay didn\u2019t stop there and went ahead to demand in writing that I be \u201cshown the door\u201d at the university where I work. But in his other writings on the subject, he doesn\u2019t hesitate to make the debate personal and directs plenty of insults in my direction. Of course, none of what he says deserves to be responded with in similar fashion. It isn\u2019t me who set the tone and language of this exchange.<\/p>\n

Where did Hakan Erdem Make his Mistake?<\/strong><\/p>\n

If you look closer, there\u2019s a strange side to the disrespectfulness directed at me. The reader should be made aware of the fact that in the end, this isn\u2019t a disagreement over \u201chistoriography\u201d or \u201cfalsification of documents\u201d. The problem is really quite simple and it\u2019s about downloading documents properly from the internet. What Hakan Erdem calls \u201chistoriography\u201d consisted of becoming a member of a site called www.ancestry.com, and downloading some documents related to Torossian from there. As for the information found on Captain Torossian\u2019s military draft and health record from the Second World War, which is the subject of this argument, it can be found at the same site<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Hakan Erdem became a member of the site, entered Sarkis Torossian\u2019s name and related information and believing that the documents that popped up belonged to Torossian, he published them. Because the site requires payment to access it, showing you what Erdem\u2019s mistake was would be difficult. However, I can show you what happened through another site<\/a> that is free and that presents the same documents. In order to understand Hakan Erdem\u2019s error you will need to look at the document numbered 227<\/a>. If you open this link you will see two different documents that I have published below. The first document contains Torossian\u2019s identification information; the second document shows no name but gives some health related information about what should be the individual (Torossian) identified in the first document. These are the two documents that Hakan Erdem published and identified as belonging to Sarkis Torossian.<\/p>\n

However, there\u2019s something a little odd about the second document, the one that doesn\u2019t have a name and which lists physical characteristics claimed to be about Torossian. The stamp at the bottom of the document is from a town called Glassport, in Allegheny County, in the state of Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, Torossian lived in Philadelphia, in a different county in Pennsylvania. When Hakan Erdem published all the military draft records of Torossian\u2019s brothers he should have picked up on this because all of the siblings lived, not only in the same city, but in the same area of the city. But, Hakan Erdem did not notice this. In addition, the individual\u2019s physical characteristics are listed as: blue eyes, brown hair, pink cheeked and freckled. For an Armenian from Anatolia, these are physical characteristics that we don\u2019t see very often. (see document 227<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Despite having detected something odd about this document that Hakan Erdem had published, since it didn\u2019t carry much importance as far as the subject of debate was concerned, I didn\u2019t spend much time pondering over it and didn\u2019t feel the need to go to the internet site and check it for myself. This was true up until the time when I obtained the citizenship records and family photographs of Torossian from Torossian\u2019s granddaughter, Louise Schreiber. At the time that Torossian applied for citizenship, his physical characteristics had been listed in the documents. Not a single word about blue eyes, freckles, pink cheeks etc. was on the document. Also, the family photos that Louise Schreiber presented of Torossian showed nothing of an individual with blue eyes or freckles.<\/p>\n

Based on this, I went to the webpage that Hakan Erdem had pulled the document from and was able to easily see where the mistake had been made. At the bottom of the web address where the documents had been downloaded<\/a>, was a warning note directed at the reader: \u201cNote regarding the images for the states of DE [Delaware], MD [Maryland], PA [Pennsylvania] and WV [West Virginia]: these four states were microfilmed at the National Archives in such a way that the back of one person\u2019s draft card appears in the same image as the front of the next individual\u2019s card. Thus, when viewing the scanned image of each person\u2019s original draft card you will see the correct front side of each person\u2019s draft card, but the back side of the previous person\u2019s card. The draft cards for states other than Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and West Virginia were microfilmed in a different manner and thus images of the original draft cards from those other states display correctly in the database.\u201d (Record 1<\/a>)<\/p>\n

In other words, the website in question explains quite clearly the issue that needs to be paid attention to when downloading documents. When the draft cards were scanned in the microfilm, the sequence was misfiled and researchers need to pay special attention to this.<\/p>\n

Again, it\u2019s possible to show what happened from the documents that are numbered 226, 227 and 228 at the website I mention above<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Based upon the explanation that was given, the information that appears in the nameless record that appears alongside the page on Sarkis Torossian, are not about Torossian. This information pertains to John Toroski which appears on the previous page (Image 226). It\u2019s possible to see and understand this by looking at the documents. In the address portion of the card which gives information about John Toroski, not only do you see the abbreviated county name of Allegheny but at the very bottom you\u2019ll see that the mark (X) between the names John and Toroski was witnessed by Margaret S. Faherty. (Record 2<\/a>)<\/p>\n

If you look at the nameless health card record published above, which supposedly belongs to Torossian, you will see the County of Allegheny and the name Margaret S. Faherty (Record 1). Following this, it is logical that Torossian\u2019s correct health related information appears in the page of the records of the person named Demetrius Torous, who follows him (Image 228) (Record 3<\/a>).<\/p>\n

As can be seen on the record, the statement \u201cscar on left side of head\u201d appears on the nameless health card of Torossian and so does the address of Philadelphia. This site, where the records are available for free, also warns researchers to be aware of the confusion. (Record 4<\/a>).<\/p>\n

As I said, the matter is quite clear and all it has to do with is carefully reading what is written on the internet site where the records are downloaded. If those who address me had bothered to read the web pages in front of them with care instead of throwing insults my way, none of this would have been necessary.<\/p>\n

Conclusion: Again on Culture of Debate<\/strong><\/p>\n

In my article about Torossian, the one that caused the launch of personal attacks against me, I had not made a big issue of what was an obvious error on Hakan Erdem\u2019s part. It was mentioned in a footnote as \u201cunfortunate\u201d, that\u2019s all. If I may say so, I had treated Hakan Erdem\u2019s mistake with understanding and had not turned the debate into something personal that would demean him. Nevertheless, the record was extremely important because it supported what Torossian had described about Romania and it showed that it was impossible for him to have traveled to America in 1916. If I had wanted to I could have turned this into something much bigger. In fact I could have made it the headline of my article and claimed that Hakan Erdem had acted intentionally. I could have stated that what Hakan Erdem was up to wasn\u2019t \u201chistoriography\u201d but rather \u201cGoogle historiography\u201d and he couldn\u2019t even get that right. I could have embarrassed him by stating that he can\u2019t even read a website correctly nor download a document with any success. I did not do any of these. It\u2019s obvious that I made a choice not to.<\/p>\n

My point here isn\u2019t to turn this debate into something personal by writing about everything I could have said but didn\u2019t. I apologize in advance for any statement that could be interpreted that way. I bring this up here in order to show the level of reaction and insult that spewed forth from those who were addressing me for a serious error that was not even mentioned in the body of my article. In other words, I am trying to underline the difference between the way I have conducted myself versus those who have addressed me. It has everything to do with the culture of debate and what is clear is that what others consider and understand to be a debate is nothing other than the art of insult. If I were to state that the one other thing that ended with the Torossian debates is the ethos of debate between academics, I don\u2019t think this would be an exaggeration.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s an issue that I just can\u2019t wrap my head around and have a really difficult time processing. As I said, the issue isn\u2019t really about historiography but about downloading documents from the internet. If Hakan Erdem and I are looking at the same website and if we\u2019re observing the same documents that we believe pertain to Torossian, why would I engage in obvious fraud, an act that I would be caught red handed at? Truly, how could they really believe that I could be guilty of such a commonplace act of fraud? Don\u2019t Hakan Erdem and Halil Berktay know that I have been working in the field of Armenian genocide studies since the 1990s? If you have been working on the subject area of the Armenian genocide, you need to know one thing. Those who are in opposition to you will view document falsification and fraud as legitimate. In fact, this is their modus operandi<\/em>; this is how they \u2018roll\u2019. But you on the other hand, don\u2019t have the right to make one small mistake, not one. They\u2019ve got zero tolerance for you. Make one small mistake and they will be on you very quickly and you\u2019ll be hit with every kind of verbal assault imaginable. As I said, they\u2019re free to make mistakes\u2026.<\/p>\n

Because of its significance, I had written many times about this \u201czero tolerance\u201d issue. One of the examples had to do with what happened to me when I recounted that Mustafa Kemal had called the genocide \u201cfazahat<\/em>\u201d (shameful act). I was called a fraud and made the target of attacks. In the response that I gave on the subject, these were my exact words \u201cIt\u2019s been said that \u2018it\u2019s human to make mistakes\u2019. No doubt, I and other social scientists in my position are capable of making mistakes. However, especially in Turkey, because of the extremely \u2018sensitive\u2019 character of the subject matter, we know that we work in an environment of \u2018zero tolerance\u2019; that the tolerance shown towards others is not extended to us and that in the face of even the smallest of errors, we can be strung up. If it must be repeated, the seriousness with which our ideas are taken, depends on the fastidiousness with which we cite our sources.\u201d1<\/a><\/sup> It is upsetting for me, to see Hakan Erdem and Halil Berktay behave in a similar manner as those who defend the official state position. If only Haken Erdem had asked me what I meant by the expression \u201cunfortunate\u201d.<\/p>\n

What I have to say about the Torossian debates and Hakan Erdem\u2019s book is this. Any history book written over a span of 2.5 months that is based upon Google searches will not have a shelf life that\u2019s much more than 2.5 months. I hope this is Erdem\u2019s last attempt at writing history with shortcuts. I also recommend that he give some serious thoughts on why the Turkish media showed such intense interest over his book, which was full of such serious errors but remained silent over my critiques (with the exception of Engin Ard\u0131\u00e7).<\/p>\n

My final words are a small piece of advice directed at students of social science, in particular, history. Internet should never be your sole source of information but if you are going to download documents from websites, never neglect to read the site and document carefully from beginning to end. Even more importantly, if you are going to be working in the field of mass violence like genocide, do not even think of putting pen to paper, until you have spoken with the survivors or with the close relatives of those who were killed. Take their documentation seriously and give what they have to say the importance it deserves. Failing that, you\u2019ll end up in the same place that Haken Erdem and Halil Berktay have fallen into.<\/p>\n

<\/a>1<\/sup> Radikal, 12 November 2006, http:\/\/www.radikal.com.tr\/ek_haber.php?ek=r2&haberno=6431<\/a> \u21a9<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As far as this debate goes, let\u2019s accept that the Torossian debates have come to an end with my piece that was published in T24. I showed without question that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":283,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[17270],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-434","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-debates","7":"czr-hentry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.test.clarku.edu\/takcam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/434","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.test.clarku.edu\/takcam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.test.clarku.edu\/takcam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.test.clarku.edu\/takcam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/283"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.test.clarku.edu\/takcam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=434"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.test.clarku.edu\/takcam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/434\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":534,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.test.clarku.edu\/takcam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/434\/revisions\/534"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.test.clarku.edu\/takcam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=434"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.test.clarku.edu\/takcam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=434"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.test.clarku.edu\/takcam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=434"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}