I think one of the greatest and worst psychological defense mechanisms in the human mind is denial. It is an outright refusal to admit that something has occurred or is currently occurring. The irony is that what is used to protect us actually hinders progress and true peace. As a mechanism, it is so tempting to use, even when confronted with its faults.
Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, the scholar who came up with the five stages of grief, commented about the existence of denial, “There is a grace in denial. It is nature’s way of letting in only as much as we can handle.” However, if our goal in life is to achieve a truer understanding of the world, then this is one of the first emotional barriers that needs to be torn down.
Denial has been used countless times in the recording of human history. This is called negationism or historical revisionism, either an illegitimate distortion of the historical record or a legitimate academic revision on already accepted knowledge about a historical event. Not all historical revisions are bad, but distortion, or denial of historical record, is very worrisome.
Individuals, groups of people or governments often take part in this historical revision. Today, the outright massacre of Armenian people by the Ottoman Empire in 1915 is actively ignored in modern Turkey. According to The New York Times, “The Turkish government acknowledges that atrocities were committed, but says they happened in wartime, when plenty of other people were dying. Officials stoutly deny there was ever any plan to systematically wipe out the Armenian population — the commonly accepted definition of genocide.” There is no wide display or memorial on the subject in Turkish capital of Ankara, and the government seems reluctant to meet Armenian demands for an apology.
Genocidal history is especially a complicated memory that a number of people find hard to digest. A general definition for the term genocide is the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. In the Armenian Genocide, nearly 1.5 million Armenians were killed, some in local massacres and others in deportations that often granted them harsher treatments which led to starvation and death. There are many testimonies, memorials and surviving records of such events that are still censored in Turkey today. In Turkey, textbooks describe the Armenians as traitors, calling genocide a lie and depicting Ottoman Turks to have taken a necessary measure to counter Armenian separatism.
It is understandable that people have differing views on these worldly matters, however, every different view has possibilities to become both deceiving and enlightening. In the disapproval of Armenian Genocide, it seems to have both. On one side, it could cause the nation of Turkey to become ever more unified in an ideological sense so that they will better follow the regime given an altered history that offers little to no glimpse of national guilt from the past. On the other side, it can provide room for another genocide to occur in the future as people have little understanding of the atrocities—so that they are not educated of the flaws and tragedies of fierce nationalism.
Because genocide affects both victims and the accused in different manners, it is important that both sides come to certain agreeable terms in determining the understanding of a historiography that they were involved in. If not, the accused could deny any genocide and cause another similar event to occur with less guilt. Or the victims will never be able to have good relationships with the accused, which could potentially cause conflicts stemming from a lack of understanding. For example, China and Korea, victims of the Japanese military in World War II that took violent measures on civilians, have trouble engaging in an optimistic relationship or understanding with the current Japanese government given its attempt to alter the teaching of history in favor of its ancestors.
I will not deny that there are some circumstances in which historical revision is not completely wrong, but I worry about the alternative scenario and the possible abuse of the method’s power. Because people are less educated about the genocide, they will have less understanding of the horrors of the past and may cause similar terror with less guilt. If people understand and learn about these terrors, they will tend to try their best to avoid it. However, the complete avoidance of tackling terror is also troubling in that our world leaders will not be able to understand how to handle those atrocities. An example of this can be found in the failure of pacifism policy in the years preceding World War II that manifested itself in British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain allowing the Nazis to take over the Sudetenland and other territories in Europe in fear of another war.
So, how can we properly handle bad memories of past? We should try our best to remember both the victims and the perpetrators of historical violence. If we focus too much on the victims, we will never be able to adequately prepare ourselves for another attack. History may seem like the study of an aloof past, but this is simply not the case. Just look to current events. The rise of ISIS, independence movement for Tibetans and ethnic genocide of Rohingya in Myanmar are all happening today and are related to some contributing factors of genocide. It is one of the most powerful tools in figuring out how we should live in order to avoid the worst possible scenarios and pursue what’s the better option. History is what made, makes and will make us in the world.
Hae Rin is a freshman majoring in history. What do you think of her perspective? Send comments to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
