In studying the Armenian Genocide further in class, we came across an interesting idea in our last class (H block). Because the Turkish government had done such a good job at keeping all borders and ears closed about what they were doing during the years of, prior and after the genocide, it made it extremely difficult for any outside source or nation to get any knowledge about the situation. Therefore, journalists couldn’t report about the horrific stories, and governments couldn’t act towards aid. Nevertheless, this doesn’t justify anyone for not acting or doing anything.
Then there was a photographer named Armin T. Wegner, who very discretely took several photographs of the Armenian genocide, in particular, the chilling images of dead children who had starved to death. Today, this is some of the only photographic evidence that we still have of the genocide. In term, this eventually helped Armenia eventually become its own state.
It is partly because of these mere pixels on a page that give the rest of the world the blatant proof that was needed. It speaks a lot about the power that images and the media in general can have over history and in present society as well.
What if there were no photographs at all from the Armenian genocide? Would the term “Armenian genocide” still be recognized as a valid crime by some, or would there by less certainty and support?
In class, we also talked about the power of films about events such as the Holocaust and 911, and the type of power, negative or positive, that they can have on an individual, on a nation, and to the rest of the world. What other examples or thoughts do you have about the influence of the media on our perception of history, and how it affects the worldviews of yourself and an entire society?
The above two photographs are both copyrighted by Armin T. Wegner. Some of Wegner’s photographs can also be found on the Armeniapedia by Wikipedia: http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide_Photos&printable=yes
Please take a look and give some responses.
2 comments:
Honestly, I don't think people would feel as much sympathy for the Armenian Genocide had there been no pictures. I'm not proud of this answer and would like to think otherwise, but seeing is believing, as the saying goes. A combination of Morgenthau's words, survivor accounts, and the pictures pretty much solidifies the event. Without photographs, it is much easier to brush off primary source documents as biased, exaggerated, or forged. Pictures add an element of reality and closeness to the past (and as we discussed in class, proximity to an event can play a big role in feelings of responsibility) because the viewer is seeing what the photographer was seeing at that exact moment.
I completely agree. Perhaps it is because of the way our minds and eyes respond to things, but images and photographs can "tell a thousand words" and tell a truth which no other amount of words or fluff could describe.
This reoccuring idea of the power of photographs have been present all throughout history. I recall in Photo class last year, we watched a documentary on photography throughout history, and one specific example I remember was the documentation of World War I through photographs, and the different light that it brought on the war, that honestly, terrified the people, and allowed the public to see the truly horrific sights and aftermaths of war. There was so much propoganda and pro-war attitude during WWI that these images allowed any person walking on the street to see the brutal and bloody reality war, in a more negative light.
Other examples have been the first photograph of the earth from the moon, or the first collection of photographs of the Native Americans that exposed the world to a completely different culture and people who frankly, no one really knew or had really thought about before then.
Photographs are essential in history, and play a HUGE role in the world around us today. Think of how many images you see in one day. What would the world be like without any images??
Post a Comment