TRAUMATIC PAST AND THE POLITICS OF MEMORY: WHAT SHOULD BE AND SHOULD NOT BE THE ARMENIAN APPROACH?
prev
next
prev
next
Author(s)
Author(s)
TRAUMATIC PAST AND THE POLITICS OF MEMORY: WHAT SHOULD BE AND SHOULD NOT BE THE ARMENIAN APPROACH? Arthur Atanesyan
Armenia has a history marked by traumatic and harrowing events. In the 20th century, it endured the Armenian Genocide, recognized as the first genocide of such magnitude committed against an ethnic group by a state government with the intention of erasing all existence and memory of it from the land where the Armenian people originated. A nation that has endured genocide must learn lessons to prevent such atrocities from happening again. Failure to draw the right conclusions and implement appropriate policies in a timely manner can result in similar threats reemerging. Every nation must remember its traumatic events in a manner that enables and encourages necessary policies and actions. If similar risks and threats reappear, it may indicate that the nation has either failed to remember its traumatic past in a way that serves it instrumentally and pragmatically or has not remembered it at all. Have Armenians adequately remembered their Genocide? If so, why is there a resurgence of the risk of another genocide affecting the Armenian population, not only in Karabakh but also in Armenia, in modern times? Do Armenians need to reconsider their politics of memory in this context, and if so, are they doing it correctly? This paper critically addresses these questions, accompanied by a brief conceptual exploration and case studies.
DOI: 10.46991/BYSU.F/2024.15.2.15 Journal of Sociology: Bulletin of Yerevan University, 15(2 (40) 15-26
