{"title":"Playing Hardball (1994–2008)","authors":"Jennifer M. Dixon","doi":"10.7591/CORNELL/9781501730245.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter analyzes Turkey’s narrative of the Armenian Genocide over the period from 1994 to 2008. In the mid-1990s, subtle changes emerged in the tone and substance of the state’s narrative. Overall, however, despite major structural changes at the international level – including the end of the Cold War and Armenian independence – and the beginnings of domestic challenges to the state’s thesis, the content of the narrative was remarkably stable. These continuities stemmed in particular from feedback effects that reinforced domestic constraints on change. Beginning in 2001, the narrative shifted more substantially, coming to include a limited acknowledgment of Armenian deaths and suffering, while rationalizing these facts and continuing to reject the label “genocide.” These changes were made primarily in response to increased international recognition of the genocide and the broadening of domestic contestation questioning the official narrative, and reflected officials’ continued territorial and identity concerns.","PeriodicalId":292609,"journal":{"name":"Dark Pasts","volume":"78 5 Pt 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dark Pasts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7591/CORNELL/9781501730245.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This chapter analyzes Turkey’s narrative of the Armenian Genocide over the period from 1994 to 2008. In the mid-1990s, subtle changes emerged in the tone and substance of the state’s narrative. Overall, however, despite major structural changes at the international level – including the end of the Cold War and Armenian independence – and the beginnings of domestic challenges to the state’s thesis, the content of the narrative was remarkably stable. These continuities stemmed in particular from feedback effects that reinforced domestic constraints on change. Beginning in 2001, the narrative shifted more substantially, coming to include a limited acknowledgment of Armenian deaths and suffering, while rationalizing these facts and continuing to reject the label “genocide.” These changes were made primarily in response to increased international recognition of the genocide and the broadening of domestic contestation questioning the official narrative, and reflected officials’ continued territorial and identity concerns.