Editing Genocide denial (section)

== Effects ==
{{tone|date=February 2020}}
Genocide denial has an impact on both victim and perpetrator groups. Denial of a genocide affects relations between the victim and perpetrator groups or their respective countries, prevents personal victims of the genocide from seeking closure, and adversely affects political decisions on both sides. It can cause fear in the victims to express their cultural identity, retaliation from both parties, and hamper the democratic development of societies.

'''Effects on personal victims of the genocide'''

While confrontation of the committed atrocities can be a tough process in which the victim feels humiliated again by reliving the traumatic past,<ref name="Margalit">{{cite book |last= Margalit |first= Avishai |title= The Ethics of Memory |url=https://archive.org/details/ethicsofmemory00avis |url-access=registration |year=2002 |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |isbn=0-674-00941-X |pages=61–64}}</ref> it still has a benign therapeutic effect, helping both victim and perpetrator groups to come to terms with the past.<ref name="Amstutz">{{cite book |last=Amstutz |first=Mark R. |title=The Healing of Nations: The Promise and Limits of Political Forgiveness |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=gTFnh2GuD8EC |year=2005 |publisher=[[Rowman & Littlefield]] |isbn=0-7425-3580-0 |access-date=2 October 2020 |archive-date=11 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511235020/https://books.google.com/books?id=gTFnh2GuD8EC |url-status=live |pages=24}}</ref> From a therapeutic point of view, letting the victim confront the past atrocity and its related painful memories is one way to reach a closure and to understand that the harm has occurred in the past.<ref name="Colvin">{{cite book |last=Colvin |first=Christopher J. |chapter=The Healing of Nations: The Promise and Limits of Political Forgiveness |editor1-first=Katherine |editor1-last=Hodgkin |editor2-first=Susannah |editor-last2=Radstone |title=Contested pasts: The politics of memory |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J0VkXJT_zXoC |year=2003 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |isbn=0-415-28647-6 |access-date=2 October 2020 |archive-date=11 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511235016/https://books.google.com/books?id=J0VkXJT_zXoC |url-status=live |page=156}}</ref> This also helps the memories to enter the shared narrative of the society, thereby becoming a common ground on which the society can make future decisions on, in political and cultural matters.{{sfn|Avedian|2018|p=45}}

Denying recognition, in contrast, has a negative effect, further [[victimising]] the victim which will feel not only wronged by the perpetrator but also by being denied recognition of the occurred wrongdoing. Denial also has a pivotal role in shaping the norms of a society since the omission of any committed errors, and thereby the lack of condemnation and punishment of the committed wrongs, risks normalising similar actions, increasing the society's tolerance for future occurrences of similar errors.{{sfn|Avedian|2018|p=110}}

According to sociologist Daniel Feierstein, the genocide perpetrator implements a process of transforming the identity of any survivors and erasing the memory of the existence of the victim group.<ref>Feierstein, Daniel, (Hinton, Alexander Laban, editor) (2014). ''Hidden Genocides: Power, Knowledge, Memory''. Chapter 5: Beyond the Binary Model: National Security Doctrine in Argentina as a Way of Rethinking Genocide as a Social Practice. [[Rutgers University Press]]. ISBN 9780813561646. [[JSTOR]] j.ctt5hjdfm. pp 79.</ref>

'''Societal effects of genocide denial'''

Bhargava notes that "[m]ost calls to forget disguise the attempt to prevent victims from publicly remembering in the fear that 'there is a dragon living on the patio and we better not provoke it.'"<ref name="Bhargava">{{cite book |last=Bhargava |first=Rajeev |chapter=Restoring Decency to Barbaric Societies |editor1-first=Robert I. |editor1-last=Rotberg |editor2-first=Dennis F. |editor2-last=Thompson |title=Truth v. Justice: The Morality of Truth Commissions |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Y2h0bqpNh2UC |year= 2000 |publisher=[[Princeton University Press]] |isbn=0-691-05071-6 |access-date=2 October 2020 |archive-date=11 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511234952/https://books.google.com/books?id=Y2h0bqpNh2UC |url-status=live |page=52}}</ref> In other words, while societally "forgetting" an atrocity can on the surface be beneficial to the harmony of society, it further victimizes the target group for fear of future, similar action, and is directly detrimental to the sociocultural development of the victim group.

On the other hand, there are cases where "forgetting" atrocities is the most politically expedient or stable option. This is found in some states which have recently come out of minority rule, where the perpetrator group still controls most strategic resources and institutions, such as South Africa.<ref name="Gutman">{{cite book |last1=Gutman |first1=Amy |last2=Thompson |first2=Dennis F. |chapter=The Moral Foundations of Truth Commissions |editor1-first=Robert I. |editor1-last=Rotberg |editor2-first=Dennis F. |editor2-last=Thompson |title=Truth v. Justice: The Morality of Truth Commissions |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Y2h0bqpNh2UC |year=2000 |publisher=[[Princeton University Press]] |isbn=0-691-05071-6 |access-date=2 October 2020 |archive-date=11 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511234953/https://books.google.com/books?id=Y2h0bqpNh2UC |url-status=live |page=39}}</ref> This was, among others, one of the main reasons for granting amnesty in exchange for confessing to committed errors during the transitional period in South Africa. However, the society at large and the victims in particular will perceive this kind of trade-offs as "morally suspect,"<ref name="Rotberg">{{cite book |last1=Rotberg |first1=Robert I. |chapter=Truth Commissions and the Provision of Truth, Justice, and Reconciliations |editor1-first=Robert I. |editor1-last=Rotberg |editor2-first=Dennis F. |editor2-last=Thompson |title=Truth v. Justice: The Morality of Truth Commissions |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Y2h0bqpNh2UC |year=2000 |publisher=[[Princeton University Press]] |isbn=0-691-05071-6 |access-date=2 October 2020 |archive-date=11 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511234954/https://books.google.com/books?id=Y2h0bqpNh2UC |url-status=live |page=8}}</ref> and may question its sustainability. Thus, a common refrain in regard to the Final Report (1998) by South Africa's [[Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa)|Truth and Reconciliation Commission]] was "We've heard the truth. There is even talk about reconciliation. But where's the justice?"<ref name="Bevernage">{{cite book |last=Bevernage |first=Berber |title=History, Memory, and State-Sponsored Violence: Time and Justice |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=o6TJnja5XToC |year=2012 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |isbn=978-0-415-88340-5 |access-date=2 October 2020 |archive-date=11 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511235043/https://books.google.com/books?id=o6TJnja5XToC |url-status=live |pages=47–48}}</ref>

'''Effects on democratic development'''

The denial has thereby a direct negative impact on the development of a society, often by undermining its laws and the issue of justice, but also the level of democracy itself.{{sfn|Avedian|2018|pp=33–38}} If democracy is meant to be built on the rule of law and justice, upheld and safeguarded by state institutions, then surely the omission of legal consequences and justice would potentially undermine the democracy.<ref name="Jelin">{{cite book |last1=Jelin |first1=Elizabeth |last2=Kaufman |first2=Susana G. |chapter=Layers of Memories: Twenty Years After in Argentina |editor1-first=David E. |editor1-last=Lorey |editor2-first=William H. |editor2-last=Beezley |title=Genocide, Collective Violence, and Popular Memory: The Politics of Remembrance in the Twentieth Century |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MKPBEx5DbiMC |year=2000 |publisher=SR Books |isbn=0-8420-2982-6 |access-date=2 October 2020 |archive-date=11 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511235040/https://books.google.com/books?id=MKPBEx5DbiMC |url-status=live |page=36}}</ref> What is more dangerous from a historical point of view is that such a default would imply the subsequent loss of the meaning of these events to future generations, a loss which is resembled to "losing a moral compass."<ref name="DeBrito">{{cite book |last1=De Brito |first1=Alexandra Barahona |last2=Enriquez |first2=Carmen Gonzalez |last3=Aguilar |first3=Paloma |chapter=Introduction |editor1-last=De Brito |editor1-first=Alexandra Barahona |editor2-last=Enriquez |editor2-first=Carmen Gonzalez |editor3-last=Aguilar |editor3-first=Paloma |title=Genocide, Collective Violence, and Popular Memory: The Politics of Remembrance in the Twentieth Century |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2BByTH0r588C |year=2001 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=0-19-924090-6 |access-date=2 October 2020 |archive-date=11 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511234956/https://books.google.com/books?id=2BByTH0r588C |url-status=live |page=25}}</ref> The society becomes susceptible to similar wrongdoings in the absence of proper handling of preceding occasions.<ref name="Adler2">{{cite book |last1=Adler |first1=Nanci |chapter=Conclusion |editor1-last=De Brito |editor1-first=Alexandra Barahona |editor2-last=Enriquez |editor2-first=Carmen Gonzalez |editor3-last=Aguilar |editor3-first=Paloma |title=Genocide, Collective Violence, and Popular Memory: The Politics of Remembrance in the Twentieth Century |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2BByTH0r588C |year=2001 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=0-19-924090-6 |access-date=2 October 2020 |archive-date=11 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511234956/https://books.google.com/books?id=2BByTH0r588C |url-status=live |page=311}}</ref> Nonetheless, denial, especially immediately after the committed wrongdoings, is rather the rule than the exception and naturally almost exclusively done by the perpetrator to escape responsibility.

'''Implicit denial of genocide'''

While some societies or governments openly deny genocide, in some other cases, e.g. in the case of the "[[Comfort women]]" and the role of the Japanese State, the denial is more implicit. This was evident in how an overwhelmingly majority of the surviving victims refused to accept a monetary compensation since the Japanese government still refused to admit its own responsibility (the monetary compensation was paid through a private fund rather than by the state, a decision perceived by the victims about state's refusal to assume any direct responsibility).<ref name="Minow">{{cite book |last=Minow |first=Martha |title=Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History After Genocide and Mass Violence |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8MRQCwAAQBAJ |year=1998 |publisher=[[Beacon Press]], cop. |isbn=0-8070-4506-3 |access-date=2 October 2020 |archive-date=11 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511234957/https://books.google.com/books?id=8MRQCwAAQBAJ |url-status=live |page=105}}</ref> This can have the same effects on societies as outright denial. For example, atrocity denial and self-victimisation in Japanese historical textbooks has caused much diplomatic tension between Japan and neighbouring victim states, such as Korea and China, and bolstered domestic conservative or nationalist forces.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Schneider |first1=Claudia |title=The Japanese History Textbook Controversy in East Asian Perspective |journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science |date=May 2008 |volume=617 |pages=107–122 |doi=10.1177/0002716208314359 |jstor=25098016 |s2cid=145570034 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/25098016 |access-date=20 April 2023}}</ref>

'''Turkey and Armenian genocide denial'''
{{Undue weight section|date=April 2023}}

The Turkish state's [[Armenian genocide denial]] has had far-reaching effects on the Turkish society throughout its history in regard to both ethnic minorities, especially the Kurds, but political opposition in general.{{sfn|Avedian|2018|p=48}} The denial also affects Turks, in that there is a lack of recognition of Turks and Ottoman officials who attempted to stop the genocide. This lack of recognition of the various actors at play in Turkey could{{Weasel inline|date=April 2023}} result in a rather homogeneous perception of the nation in question, thus making Armenians (but also third parties) project the perpetrating role onto the entire Turkish society and nation, causing further racial strife and aggravating the prospects of future reconciliation.{{sfn|Avedian|2018|p=24}} For example, Armenian terrorist groups (e.g. [[ASALA]] and [[Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide|JCAG]]) committed terrorist acts during 1970's and 1980's as a direct result of the Turkish state denial of the genocide.{{sfn|Avedian|2018|p=110}}

=== Prevention ===
Denial may be reduced by works of history, preservation of archives, documentation of records, investigation panels, search for missing persons, commemorations, official state apologies, development of truth commissions, educational programs, monuments, and museums. According to Johnathan Sisson, the society has the right to know the truth about historical events and facts, and the circumstances that led to massive or systematic human rights violations. He says that the state has the obligation to secure records and other evidence to prevent revisionist arguments.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sisson |first1=Jonathan |date=2010 |title=A conceptual framework for dealing with the past |url=https://www.eda.admin.ch/dam/eda/mehrsprachig/documents/publications/Politorbis/politorbis-50_EN.pdf |journal=Politorbis |volume=50 |issue=3 |pages=11–15 |quote=In order to re-establish fundamental trust and accountability in society, there is a need to acknowledge publicly the abuses that have taken place. (p. 11) It is based on the inalienable right on the part of society at large to know the truth about past events and the circumstances that led to the perpetration of massive or systematic human rights violations, in order to prevent their recurrence in the future. In addition, it involves an obligation on the part of the State to undertake measures, such as securing archives and other evidence, to preserve collective memory from extinction and so to guard against the development of revisionist arguments. (p. 12) These involve symbolic acts, such as an annual homage to the victims, the establishment of monuments and museums, or the recognition by the State of its responsibility in the form of a public apology, that discharge the duty of remembrance and help to restore victims' dignity. Additional measures in this regard foresee the inclusion of an accurate account of the violations that occurred in public educational materials at all levels. (p. 13) Right to know: Truth commissions, Investigation panels, Documentation, Archives, History books & Missing persons.(pp15)}}</ref> Genocide scholar Gregory Stanton suggests that prosecution can be a deterrent.<ref>{{harvnb|Stanton|2020}}: "The best response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts. There the evidence can be heard, and the perpetrators punished.... When possible, local proceedings should provide forums for hearings of the evidence against perpetrators who were not the main leaders and planners of a genocide, with opportunities for restitution and reconciliation. The Rwandan gaçaça trials are one example. Justice should be accompanied by education in schools and the media about the facts of a genocide, the suffering it caused its victims, the motivations of its perpetrators, and the need for restoration of the rights of its victims."</ref>