Armenian-Americans and the semicentennial of the Medz Yeghern: Ethnic mobilization in action

Introduction

Since antiquity, people have remembered their ancestors, especially those who died at the hands of oppressors. Sustaining memory of a tragic past has been considered a sacred duty, thus impacting collective behavior. Among other things, remembrance has been seen as protecting individuals or communities from recurrence of tragedy, and anniversaries provide occasions to do such memory work collectively. Not only are cyclical commemorations a source of strength and unity for a community, but they also – especially in times of crisis – stabilize the world around. Milestone anniversaries, in particular, mobilize groups to celebrate perseverance; such anniversaries also congregate larger numbers of participants and observers.

It has been no different in the case of Armenians whom history marked cruelly at the beginning of the 20^th century and whose memorial culture, especially linked to their greatest tragedy in modern times, this article investigates. In April 2015, Armenian people – en masse and worldwide – paid tribute to the centenary of the genocide committed on their ancestors by the Ottoman Empire. The commemoration was remarkably stately: the canonization of one and a half million Armenian victims by the Armenian Apostolic Church, recognition of the genocide by world leaders and parliaments, and a civic marking of the occasion in Istanbul (where the genocide began). Yet the centennial had been preceded by earlier milestones, particularly the 50^th anniversary of 24 April 1965, which most significantly altered the means of commemoration, affecting observances for all the decades to come.

The text at hand places that 1965 turning point in Armenian memorialization under a microscope. Explicitly shown herein, by focusing on the diaspora community in the USA, will be how the semicentennial differed from its predecessors and how it influenced successor events. For some, that milestone in remembrance of the Medz Yeghern ¹ is viewed as solely a politically controlled campaign (Gunn, 2014); most commonly, it is depicted as a purely grassroots, spontaneous movement. This article, however, proposes looking at this pivotal moment through the prism of reactions to a lasting injustice. The focus here will be on specific communities that strove for public attention: how did they mobilize, how did they organize activities at ground level, and how did they interpret the words of political and church leadership, putting them into practice? A more comprehensive understanding of the nature and essence of that profound 1965 shift will help us understand why, to this day, the issue of genocide memory is part of the political mainstream among Armenian-Americans.

As for the structure of this article, sources and methods will be submitted first, followed by a basic theoretical concept applied here – that is, Charles Tilly’s resource mobilization theory (1978), later reformulated by Anny Bakalian and Mehdi Bozorgmehr (2009). This theoretical framework offers a valuable analytical tool in investigating (ethnic) mobilization toward the open formulation of demands. In line with that theory and pursuant to the presentation of the pre-1960s memorialization praxis, the contents of the article at hand will be organized in accord with successive elements of the mobilization process: political opportunity structure (was this a favorable moment to go public with claims?), framing process (what constituted the cultural framework for claims-making?), collective actions repertoire (what methods were used?), and resources mobilization (what resources were mobilized?). The most substantive part of the analysis will offer the 50^th anniversary of the genocide as an example of such ethnic mobilization.

Sources and methods

The events of 1965, as they occurred in the Armenian diaspora in the United States, are the main subject of this analysis. Although the significance of the 50^th anniversary is nothing new for researchers dealing with Armenian issues in general, there are not many systematic sociological analyses in particular. This article aspires to partially fill this gap.

The research was based on an archival query and content analysis of the two major Armenian newspapers (Hairenik Weekly ² and The Armenian Mirror-Spectator ³ ), published in Watertown, Massachusetts (USA) within a two-year timeframe from January of 1964 to December of 1965. ⁴ Print copies of these newspapers were accessed in 2017 in various locations, including at the Hairenik Association (publisher of HW), and the Baikar Association (publisher of AMS), both still located in Watertown. ⁵ To some extent, the research material was supplemented by videos, leaflets, brochures, and other publications issued by the committees commemorating the semicentennial. These extant texts were also accessed in 2017 at The Mesrob G. Boyajian Library in the Armenian Museum of America in Watertown. An additional source consisted of clippings from The New York Times, accessed via the ProQuest database search engine.

In terms of methodology, collection and analysis of the primary research material was rooted in grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006). At first, while browsing the ethnic press, I noted key fragments of the pieces on the genocide’s half-century anniversary. These annotations would be useful in a later stage of analysis: collected excerpts were printed out, arranged chronologically, and initially coded without distinguishing the source. Only later, while transferring the data to a software program, were the sources (HW or AMS) added. At this stage, it was clear that no critical differences in their approaches to commemoration existed between the two conflicted Armenian groups standing behind the analyzed publications. ⁶ Concentrated codes were grouped and developed later in the analytical process which was anchored in the theory of ethnic mobilization discussed below.

Ethnic mobilization

Charles Tilly, whose work significantly advanced the study of social movements, identifies mobilization as “the process by which a group goes from being a passive collection of individuals to an active participant in public life” (Tilly, 1978: 69). Focusing on another aspect, Ruud Koopmans and colleagues (2005) offer a definition of claims-making which they understand as “a unit of strategic action in the public sphere. It consists of the purposive and public articulation of political demands, calls to action, proposal, criticism, or physical attack, which, actually or potentially, affect the interests of integrity of the claimants and/or other collective actors” (Koopmans et al., 2005: 254, italics original). The terms “mobilization” and “claims-making” will be used interchangeably here. For the sake of clarity, I perceive the public sphere (or public life) as that part of social life in which citizens – using tools guaranteed by law, such as freedom of expression and the right to assemble or establish organizations, etc., – discuss issues of great importance in order to reconcile interests and build agreement (Habermas, 1989).

Suzan Olzak (2006) complements her definition of mobilization by embedding it in the context of ethnicity. Ethnic mobilization is here understood as a “collective action based upon ethnic claims, protest, or intergroup hostility that makes reference to a group’s demands based upon one or more cultural markers” (Olzak, 2006: 4-5). In other words, it is a “process by which a group organizes along ethnic lines in pursuit of collective political ends” (Nagel and Olzak, 1982: 127). Ethnicity will be viewed as a self-ascribed (or ascribed by others) status related to such attributes as language, church membership, nationality, physical characteristics, etc., activated situationally (Nagel and Olzak, 1982). “Which of these identities becomes salient at a particular moment depends upon the situational constraints and the strategic utility attached to the identity” (Nagel and Olzak, 1982: 129).

Nagel and Olzak (1982), following other researchers and rich literature on the topic, distinguish two forms of ethnic mobilization formation. One is emergent, which “occurs among formerly separate, even factious, and often culturally diverse groups” (Nagel and Olzak, 1982: 128-129). The other, resurgent, arises in groups with a history of past ethnic activity, mobilization, and organization. It “takes the form of a renaissance of ethnic sentiment and organization among a formerly mobilized, though recently inactive, ethnic group” (Nagel and Olzak, 1982: 129). Particularly in this resurgent category, the authors include the ethnic mobilization of the Armenians. Given the date of their article’s publication, they likely assigned Armenians to this category based on claims this ethnic group began making in the 1960s and 1970s, around the time of the semicentennial of the Medz Yeghern.

For a collective action to be effective, certain conditions should be met. One mobilization model can be found in the political theory of revolution analyzed by Charles Tilly who, in his study (1978), defines and describes the conditions affecting mobilization and compelling people to undertake collective actions until the outbreak of a revolution. He identifies four important factors in that progression. First are the interests of the contesting group. These are “the shared advantages and disadvantages likely to accrue to the population in question as a consequence of various possible interactions with other populations” (Tilly, 1978: 54). In other words, each member of the group assesses the pluses and minuses of the rivalry of his or her group with other groups. The second element, organization, is considered a shared identity and unifying structure which affect the ability to use resources. In the case of a loss of common identity and unified structure, disorganization occurs. The third characteristic is mobilization. It is a process by which a given group gains access to and control over resources. In the case of a loss of control and resources, we are dealing with demobilization. The final component – collective action – is a consequence of the preceding three and consists of carrying out joint activities in order to achieve common goals. Originally, Tilly’s model included a fifth element as well – opportunity which can be understood as the probability of success of a joint action.

Yet an adaptation of Tilly, Anny Bakalian and Mehdi Bozorgmehr’s (2009) model of mobilization – encompassing the components of political opportunity structure, framing mechanisms, repertoires, and resources mobilization – appears to be more relevant in tracing how Armenian-Americans strategically approached the 50^th anniversary. In accord with Bakalian and Bozorgmehr’s (2009: 18) claims-making model and political opportunity structure factor, if collective action is to succeed, then “‘institutional structure [s] and ideological disposition of those in power’ must be sufficiently open to the demands of the group claimants.” The point of the second condition – the framing mechanisms – is to create a cultural framework corresponding with demands. Language, symbols, and forms should be wisely chosen so that opponents, but also – or perhaps, above all – the general public can easily understand what the claims are about. In order to reach the support and empathy of a larger audience, the frames should be “culturally resonant” and “morally justifiable” (Bakalian and Bozorgmehr, 2009: 18). The framework should also serve movement leaders in inspiring (e.g., ethnic) compatriots to engage actively rather than remain bystanders. Next, the repertoires translate the structures and meanings contained in the framework into action. A repertoire or “ensemble of performances” entails various methods: “forging coalitions or forming special-purpose organizations; distributing press releases; and holding public meetings, rallies, demonstrations, strikes, petition drives, conferences, solemn processions, and vigils” (Bakalian and Bozorgmehr, 2009: 20). Among the various forms, Tilly also recognizes, “the massed march, the assembly with speechmaking, the temporary occupation of premises” (Tilly, 1978: 152). Finally, the pivotal element in a collective movement is resources mobilization which can draw on four types of resources: (1) moral (those considered socially worthy or legitimated); (2) material (a variety of goods and services such as finances, infrastructures, offices, equipment, and access to transportation, etc.); (3) informational (including the “know-how” of lobbying and claims-making, technical support, referrals, etc.); and (4) human (such as audiences, leaders, spokespersons, volunteers, supporters, newly recruited members, group cohesion, access to media, elites, preexisting coalitions with potential institutional partners, etc.) (Bakalian and Bozorgmehr, 2009: 21).

Finally, applying the theory of mobilization partially places my considerations in the field of historical sociology. In focusing on mechanisms and collective behaviors employed in a specific time in the past, this field’s conceptual apparatus – emphasizing the relationship between structural and subjective dimensions – is useful and warranted in the study of the 1965 commemorations of the Armenian genocide committed a half century earlier.

Laying the groundwork for the 1965 commemoration

Sociologists and psychologists researching issues surrounding the Armenian genocide (or other historical crimes against humanity) often use existing studies on the Holocaust of European Jewry as a frame of reference. Indeed, in comparative studies, scholars discover edifying similarities and differences when examining various aspects of victim fate and survivor memory. As the mechanisms of such crimes and their aftermaths are similar, why not use extant literature to develop one’s argument?

Thus the Holocaust served as a natural reference point for how to bring the forgotten Armenian genocide into the light of day. Mainstream discussions on compensation and justice for Holocaust victims, arising already in the early-1950s, inspired Armenians to speak up for their cause (Diłanian-Pinkowicz, 2023). Yet, until the late 1940s, Armenian-Americans could not have drawn inspiration from the Jewish-American or any other minority community on how to develop their culture of commemoration, narratives, and rituals vis-à-vis the traumatic past. Still they did nurture and sustain their memory of 1915. Indeed, immediately after WWI ended, they established a remembrance day that provided an annual opportunity to reflect upon those who had perished. ⁷ In the process of collective memory shaping, a growing number of Armenian organizations was involved – religious, philanthropic, educational, political, and cultural – on both sides of the Armenian (political) partisanship. ⁸

Pre-1960s memorialization in the US developed out of collective, grassroots activities. Without patterns to follow, Armenians who found safe haven in America did what they believed should be done to keep the painful past from vanishing into oblivion. Briefly, the commemorative practices before 1965 were characterized by: (1) a communal and associational nature, not oriented at gaining the attention of non-Armenian groups; (2) mostly religious or grieving types of ritualization, augmented by educational and cultural programs; and (3) certain political elements signaling the disparities between the two factions under whose auspices events were held.

Contrary to the stereotypical image of minorities in exile, Armenian-Americans were not a homogeneous community and were divided internally. Yet their inner hateful quarrels (rooted in incongruent church and political affiliations) did not lead to the creation of separate memory cultures. Although observances were conducted separately, the repertoire of words and actions used by both sides did not differ much. Both groups performed commemoration mainly through memorial services of a religious nature, poetry readings, concerts, and educational events. They memorialized their dead in the columns of their ethnic press and periodicals; they also wrote letters to the editors, attended meetings with survivors, and donated funds to the establishment of Armenian educational centers. ⁹ The whole of their efforts and engagement contributed to a culture of remembrance lasting for more than four decades, until the 50^th anniversary which marked a new direction in commemorating the Medz Yeghern by introducing it into the American public space.

Political opportunity structure

In 1964, Armenian-Americans started to prepare for the next year’s round anniversary. They considered the mid-1960s a favorable moment to publicly formulate their demands for justice. As the AMS presupposed, “the changing of international conditions, the softening of antagonism between Washington and Moscow, increase the possibility of a plausible result in this endeavor” (AMS, 15 August 1964: 2). The new circumstances, as the community saw them, favored peaceful conflict resolution: “war will not have a role in the resolution of the Armenian question” (AMS, 15 August 1964: 2). Since Armenians envisaged nonviolent means of exerting pressure, their chances of success increased.

Another international factor influencing Armenian-Americans to go public with their claims was the aftermath of the Shoah, including victim compensation issues and highly publicized court proceedings (especially the Eichmann trial). These developments, however, only compounded frustrations among Armenian-Americans considering the lack of similar reparation or redress (Diłanian-Pinkowicz, 2023).

With no desire to disconnect the 1960s Armenian mobilization in the United States from the global one occurring simultaneously, the focal point here is an American case study. ¹⁰ Key, therefore, are additional political incentives emerging there and then. One was the civil rights and anti-war movements resonating in the political mainstream. Alongside the antiwar activism, the mobilization of African-Americans in the struggle for recognition of their rights encouraged other minority groups, firstly, to emphasize their ethnicity, and secondly, to similarly manifest their claims. For Armenian-Americans, too, the 1960s brought about a swelling in Armenianness in all aspects of public life. The xenophobia of the 1920s – which had compelled many immigrants to Americanize their surnames or to avoid using the Armenian language publicly – gave way in the 1960s to fashionable ethnicity. The surge of energy reflected throughout American society, the revival of ethnicity, and the influx of new members into specifically this diaspora facilitated a shedding of the stigma attached to being Armenian. Moreover, the African-American and pacifist demands sparked a need among Armenian-Americans to seek acknowledgment of and justice for themselves. Witnessing mass protests by Blacks and their acts of disobedience made Armenians realize that justice could not be served behind the closed doors of Armenian churches, community centers, or private households and would by no means come as a gift from the UN. The only way to obtain compensation for the horror they had undergone was to bring the buried memories of the Medz Yeghern out into the daylight. This is how one anonymous AMS reader perceived the civil rights movement:

The struggle of the American Negroes today for civil rights and the dignity of being treated as human beings is very similar to the struggle for reforms and for freedom of the Armenians prior to the massacres of 1915 and the years that followed…. The methods of the Turks were the most barbaric ever recorded in history. Should we “pray for our persecutors?” Does Martin Luther King, a great leader, preach to his followers contentment with prayer? No, he heads their marches and defends their cause most fearlessly.... Religious men from all churches in America have recently gone to Washington to put pressure on Congress for just action. Are they all “damning their souls” by asking for justice? (AMS, 10 April 1965: 3).

Finally, some Armenian-Americans also hoped that, with the nearing anniversary, internal (communal) obstacles might finally be reduced, to a certain degree at least. Such an expectation was expressed in documents issued by Armenian church leaders as the anniversary approached, as well as in statements by the two main political parties active in the Armenian diaspora in the USA.

In 1964, the Armenian church, playing a dominant role in Armenian public and social life in the country and abroad, published two encyclicals regarding the 50^th anniversary. In the letter sent on 16 August 1964 (reprinted in the AMS on 23 January 1965), the Catholicos from Etchmiadzin instructed his clergy and people how they should approach this solemn moment. The leader proposed “that the forthcoming year 1965 be declared for all churches and our people a year of national mourning and prayer” (as cited in Nazer, 1968: 17). He requested that the Armenian press, historians, writers, churchmen, and all “people of letters” publish “the historic evidence, documents, studies, memoirs, literary and artistic works of Armenian and non-Armenian authors” (Nazer, 1968: 17).

The second encyclical was issued on 19 August 1964, by the Catholicos of the House of Cilicia Khoren I (reprinted on the front-page of HW on 8 October 1964). ¹¹ The church leader proposed abandonment of the former manner of celebrating the Memorial Day, proper to the early decades after the tragedy. He emphasized: “April 24 is no longer a day of tears and mourning…. A nation cannot live and perpetuate itself by weeping and tears” (as cited in Nazer, 1968: 20-21). Instead, the leader encouraged his community of priests and believers to take a new approach aimed at building the necessary structures to move the Armenian question forward. “Today the event and the meaning of April 24 must be analyzed and grasped with clear and searching light of the mind” (Nazer, 1968: 21). Similar to the document published by the Catholicos of All Armenians, this encyclical also highlighted the role of historians in laying the foundation for the shift that was to be achieved by the round anniversary. These encyclicals – very similar in their message – received wide coverage in the ethnic press and assuredly influenced a gradual (forthcoming) transformation of the Armenian community, from one divided and focused on its differences into a single movement.

Framing process

Based on the categories emerging from my analysis, the intended audience was threefold: (1) Armenian-Americans, (2) the American public, and (3) official US agencies and the global community. The cultural framework itself for the public formulation of claims comprised three pillars.

The first of these involved education and awareness-raising – teaching about the genocide and reaching as many people as possible. By the 1960s, there were Armenian-Americans who, due to their age or lack of contact with other Armenians, needed to be provided with knowledge as well as instructed on action-taking. Publications served to enlighten those unfamiliar with the issue of the Medz Yeghern and without “an adequate grasp of the situation to pass any responsible judgment” (AMS, 9 January 1965: 3). I emphasize this awareness-raising within the Armenian group because it is fundamental for ethnic identification which can lead, in turn, to participation in collective action.

Keeping Americans as a whole in mind, the HW noted on its front page: “we deem it both vital and necessary to explore the human, political and juridical facts of the Great Crime and projecting the same to the attention of the American public” (HW, 18 March 1965: 1). The AMS also highlighted the vital importance of making the general public aware of the matter, if Armenians wanted the semicentennial to be meaningful and its commemoration justified: “we must use this opportunity to write and talk about it for the public outside of us for the purpose of acquainting them with the scope of the tragedy… and the justice of the rights of the surviving Armenians” (AMS, 15 August 1964: 2). To ensure widespread comprehension, the language of transmission was English. “We continue to plan and attempt publications, again in the English language, with the same obvious and essential goal… to stir up recognition and sympathy in governmental and public opinion for the despoiled rights of the Armenian people” (AMS, 8 August 1964: 5). It is worth noting that, prior to 1965, there were not many English-language publications on the Medz Yeghern.

As for US governmental agencies and the international audience, “[I]n every country… it will be necessary to enlighten the intellectual class and political leaders of native peoples in order to secure their sympathy and help in favor of the Armenian Question” (AMS, 15 August 1964: 2). The Armenian cause “must be made known to foreign circles” (AMS, 15 August 1964: 2). To accomplish this, the American diaspora – as the most active, numerous, and “neighboring” with UN headquarters – needed to rise to the challenge. The ADL party, therefore, planned to coordinate work on the “Memorandum to the UN for the Purpose of Reviving the Armenian Question” (AMS, 15 August 1964: 2).

Mobilization and unification of language constituted the second pillar. The discourse, as articulated, was to compel the entire diaspora to embark on united action. As Khoren I poetically wrote in his encyclical: “If we remain silent to this crying injustice, the ruined stones of our ancestral homeland will cry out and will ring our protest to the whole world, a protest, which is just even by the strictest sense of injustice” (as cited in Nazer, 1968: 22). According to this hierarch, Armenians must raise their voices in unison, demonstrating to the world that this is a unified, aware, and self-conscious nation. The anniversary, apart from being an occasion to worship the dead, was seen also as levying a duty to collectively protest against injustice. “We ENJOIN and with cordial and fervent sentiments, we recommend that our entire Armenian nation shall make the year 1965 THE YEAR OF UNITY AND FRATERNITY” (Nazer, 1968: 23, capital letters original). Similarly, the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin proposed consolidation in undertakings: “in all Armenian Communities and colonies… through the cordial co-operation of all Armenian associations, without exception, there be organized solemn gatherings of national observance, lectures, and literary functions for the Armenian and non-Armenian audiences, devoted to the April Massacre” (as cited in Nazer, 1968: 17).

The third and final pillar around which Armenians shaped their message referred to human rights. Precisely this rights-based approach was elaborated in a video prepared specifically for the semicentennial. In this 18-min-long film, Setrak Minas, the national chairman of the Commemorative Committee, clearly expressed Armenian demands for “equal justice under the law: the right to be indemnified for injury, the right of self-determination, and the right to be free” (Armenian Genocide 50th anniversary UN debate” [1965] 2014: 6:44-6:54). Minas highlighted that “there can be no segregation of peoples in the application of human rights” (“Armenian Genocide 50th anniversary UN debate” [1965] 2014 7:10-7:13). On that occasion, Armenians from the Boston Commemorative Committee also published a leaflet entitled “Is the U.S. Interested in HUMAN RIGHTS in JUSTICE?” (1965, capital letters original) urging Americans, “to support immediate Senate ratification of the Genocide Convention; to recognize America’s longstanding moral and legal obligations to Armenia and to President Wilson’s territorial decision” (n.p.). ¹² The argumentation drew perceptible analogies to the Shoah’s aftermath: Nazis were accused and found guilty, and the Jewish people received compensation. Even though the crimes were akin, the consequences in the Armenian situation were significantly different: the oppressor never admitted any crime and went unprosecuted, confiscated lands and properties were unreturned, and the descendants of the victims did not receive any redress. These semicentennial appeals imparted ethical and moral justification for Armenian demands. As with the other two pillars, the equal treatment, human rights-based rationale also appeared on both sides of the Armenian political scene. The three pillars together facilitated the creation of a cultural framework within which demands were made.

Collective actions repertoire

What was found amidst the repertoire of collective actions through which Armenians planned to achieve their goals? That catalog included almost all the elements mentioned in the literature (Tilly, 1978; Bakalian and Bozorgmehr, 2009): commemoration committees and public gatherings that included speeches, demonstrations, processions, masses, vigils, publications, memorial dinners, films, exhibitions, press materials, and advocacy activities. In contrast to previous anniversaries, Armenian-Americans set out on this occasion to produce more lasting pedagogical and coalescent content.

The first overarching measure, carried out in both political caucuses, was special-purpose committees responsible for planning and coordinating the commemoration. For both parties, the central committees (established either in Lebanon or in the USA) coordinated the national committees, which, in turn, harmonized locally-held actions.

In addition to the national and religious observances that had accompanied annual remembrances since the beginning, the committees, for the first time in history, wanted to organize marches and demonstrations in all major cities of the United States. Among the rally attendees, the organizers wanted to see “representatives of the press, radio and television, governors, congressmen, senators and political and governmental personalities, to explain to them the meaning of the Fiftieth Anniversary” (HW, 18 March 1965: 4). Mass gatherings would thus not only help to reach local communities, but also to gain the attention of media and other influencers who would, consequently, share information with the larger American society.

Especially the Dashnaks, recognizing the potential and power of the fourth estate, methodically prepared themselves for how to best respond to media needs. In “Public Relations Guide for Local Committees” (1965), they listed the first steps necessary. Among other things, each committee was “to make an approximate estimate of … the cost of radio and television, or all agencies associated with the publicity effort,” in order to “organize well-planned press conferences, especially in New York, Washington, Boston, Detroit, Chicago and Canada regions. To invite American and foreign representatives of the press, political figures, prominent personalities, and the official representatives of the Armenian communities in the Diaspora” (“Public Relations Guide for Local Committees,” 1965: 14). They set up something of a toolkit which included video and radio tapes “lasting 3 to 5 and 20 to 30 min”; the kit further included additional publicity and marketing materials such as booklets (four in English and one in Armenian), commemorative stamps, commemorative emblems, propaganda flyers, and 20,000 pamphlets for distribution among non-Armenian individuals, institutions, and foundations (HW, 18 March 1965: 1). The Dashnaks also planned the publication of two historical volumes about the Medz Yeghern, based on scientific and statistical documentation; the volumes were to reach universities, libraries, publishing houses, political leaders, governmental functionaries, and the younger generation of Armenian-Americans unable to speak or read Armenian. Moreover, understanding the universal need for visualized content, the Dashnaks intended to publish authentic photographs documenting the forgotten crime. Books, videos, special editions of English-language newspapers, leaflets, brochures, and photo albums: all these media of communication were to provide a broader knowledge-access platform. Foremostly, they were to make Americans and other foreigners aware of the Medz Yeghern.

Resources mobilization

Moving to the last component of ethnic mobilization in the Armenian press, I find indicators that, before the 50^th Memorial Day, Armenian-Americans were marshaling all four types of resources: moral, material, informational, and human. Unquestionably, words of encouragement coming from Armenian church leaders (reprinted in the US-Armenian press) served as watchwords validating action and rallying even previously reluctant community members to engage. However, gaining legitimation among the general American public was a challenge for the direct organizers of this crucial commemoration. As mentioned earlier, Armenians strove to win broad social acceptance for their cause precisely by referring to human rights and universal values.

The second resource that Armenian-Americans mobilized was financial capital. In the 1960s, there were a few very wealthy individuals generously supporting the community from within; among these philanthropists were Alex Manoogian (an industrial engineer and businessman) and Stephen P. Mugar (an entrepreneur). Further, ordinary readers spontaneously responded to ethnic press appeals for donations. HW urged its audience: “If we are to mobilize a substantially effective movement and shall create a wave of interest…, we must not hesitate to make the necessary material sacrifices because these days every lever is moved by financial power” (HW, 18 March 1965: 1). Subsequent issues showed that readers responded to this call generously. The summary accounting of expenses reported in the following year showed that the 1965 collection brought $90,000, spent on the production and distribution of printed and video materials as well as covering other committee costs (HW, 19 May 1966: 4). Separate funding requests were made by the Boston commemorative committee to cover “the expenses involved in the Boston observance (television, music)” (HW, 8 April 1965: 4).

The AMS, too, invited its community to join in financially supporting the anniversary issue. They planned to print a special edition in a larger quantity, distributing it to other non-Armenian newspapers, radio stations, columnists, commentators, government officials, etc. (AMS, 3 April 1965). The response was so favorable that the publishers decided to put out two commemorative editions: one on 24 April 1965, and another on 22 May (with an overview of the observances). In the AMS case as well, separate fundraising calls were issued first on behalf of the Boston committee to organize a local commemoration (AMS, 10 April 1965), and then for the translation and publication of the book, Bloody Desert by Hagop Kouyumjian (AMS, 31 July 1965).

Private donations constituted an important source of funding to cover the expenses of this campaign. As the ADL emphasized, it did not seek funding from the Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin, because this would limit the repertoire of campaign activities – some would likely be incongruent with the church’s image. Neither did the ADL appeal to Soviet Armenia for government funds due to the “accepted international rules which do not allow any government to provide objectives and ways for affairs of such essence to its fellow countrymen who live in different nations and are their citizens” (AMS, 15 August 1964: 2). Indisputably, however, the resources that the communities did accumulate and have at their disposal on the eve of the 50^th anniversary did not amount to the millions of dollars necessary to run a lobbying machine in the United States. The community would realize that soon after the milestone observance.

In the 1960s, inasmuch as possible, Armenians in America also mobilized their informational capital. They were well aware of a need to collect all possible data and facts about the genocide. The press made calls for photographs, for instance: “Anyone owning or knowing the whereabouts of photographs depicting the 1915 massacres and the plight of the refugees following the massacres is asked to send such photographs or information concerning such photographs” (HW, 4 February 1965: 1). At the beginning of 1965, the AMS issued a request for manuscripts of “articles, stories, poems, translations of informative material” that the paper would publish throughout the upcoming months. They aimed to regularly cover the events of the genocide in order to educate their readers. As seen retrospectively, despite all efforts, Armenians managed to acquire only a small amount of strategic know-how on lobbying and claims-making. Realizing this after the anniversary commemorations, the Armenian diaspora in the US would quickly begin to fill the gaps in such skills and competencies.

Fortunately, Armenian-Americans did possess a moderately high level of human capital. It is difficult to be precise in estimating the number of Armenians in the US, as the census at the time indicated “country of birth” which, in the case of those born in Turkey, is misleading. HW, however, using its own methodology, estimated the number of Armenian-Americans at about 285,000 in the 1960s (HW, 31 October 1968: 2). In many smaller cities (e.g., Fresno, California) or in suburbia (e.g., Watertown in the Boston metropolitan area), the number of Armenians was comparatively high and locally noticeable. Bearing in mind that the Medz Yeghern practically erased the Armenian intelligentsia, it is worth noting that it was only in the 1960s that a gradual rebirth of this class took place. Educated at American universities, they started careers in highly-regarded professions: scientists, professors, lawyers, doctors, and entrepreneurs of various kinds. Leaders derived from this elite began to operate or fund diaspora institutions through which the community could generate more potential. These were not yet advocacy institutions acting on a national level, but rather more grassroots cultural, educational, and research organizations. Among the most well-known were: The Armenian Cultural Foundation formed in 1945 (experiencing noticeable growth in the mid-1960s, presently active); The National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR) founded in 1955 (presently active); and The Armenian Historical Research Association, founded in the 1960s (active relatively briefly).

Yet the institution of more remarkable importance since its very launching has been the NAASR, whose initial mission was to create chairs/programs of Armenian studies at the most recognized universities in the United States. Through its endeavors, the first such program in America was initiated at Harvard in 1957 with that university’s inaugural chair established 2 years later (1959).

Overall, many a cultural, educational, and/or research initiative was brought to fruition by individuals or organizations who held the Armenian cause dear. They were not only dedicated but, more importantly, active in community mobilization. They served as volunteers and supporters inspiring others to carry out collective undertakings across any and all divides.

24 April 1965: Armenian mobilization consummated

As noted earlier, 50^th anniversary commemorations constituted a transdiasporic phenomenon, characteristic of nearly all the post-genocide diasporas. In Beirut, 85,000 people attended a celebration organized jointly by all Armenian political factions and religious denominations; in Paris, 3000 participated in a requiem mass at Notre Dame; and in Buenos Aires, 12,000 took to the streets to demand justice (Bobelian, 2009: 125). Yerevan, the capital of Soviet Armenia, witnessed its first civic, public demonstration of around 100,000–200,000 participants (Sarkissian, 1966; C. Mouradian, 1999) – alongside the first state observances held in the Opera House and attended by dignitaries of the regime as well as guests from the diaspora (Sarkissian, 1966). That year, the Uruguayan parliament enacted a Day of Remembrance for the Armenian Martyrs, the first country to do so. In the USA, the Medz Yeghern semicentennial instigated a mobilization of unprecedented scale: members of the Armenian-American community organized a variety of events from coast to coast. Many happenings were reported in the Armenian press, some even covered by local or national, non-Armenian media.

As a result of advocacy activities started beforehand by Armenian communities, several states and cities issued commemorations or resolutions. For instance, as the Watertown Press from 26 March 1965 informed: “The Watertown town meeting on 22 March, on motion of Aram Kaloosdian passed the resolution commemorating on the Armenian massacres and urging the proper recognition of these painful past events” (as cited in HW, 8 April 1968: 1&3). On a national level, on 5 April, Congressman William L. St. Onge of Connecticut delivered remarks on the genocide, with a detailed description taken from Arnold J. Toynbee’s book on The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16. The Congressman called the events “probably the first genocidal act in modern days” (Congressional Record as reprinted in AMS, 1 May 1965: 1; HW, 29 April 1965: 1-2). ¹³ Overall, spanning just over a single month (4 April-6 May 1965), 42 legislators broached the subject of the 1915 massacres in the Senate or the House.

In 1965, requiem masses – the oldest form of commemoration by Armenian victims – took on a unique and global dimension. Responding positively to a request sent by the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin to non-Armenian churches, three other religious leaders – Pope Paul VI, Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia, and Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey – held services in memory of the Armenian people (AMS, 24 April 1965). Although these services neither took place in the US, nor were they a direct product of Armenian-American activism, this form of recognition by the highest-ranking representatives of other Christianities was noticed and appreciated by Armenians in the United States.

In North America, such international and interfaith attention endowed requiem liturgies with deeper meaning. For instance, the Boston committee organized a ceremonial mass in the Roman Catholic Cathedral of the Holy Cross. 15 hundred guests attended the service which was also televised locally. An auxiliary bishop, representing Cardinal Cushing, led the ceremony; a 45 person choir performed in Latin and Armenian, accenting the interfaith experience. “This Armenian massacre was really ‘genocide;’ it was an attempt to extinguish an entire race of people, as such” (AMS, 22 May 1965: 5), the attendees heard from their Roman Catholic hosts. The Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Boston said on that occasion: “We join you in our thoughts and words and prayers. Like Pope Pius X we claim kinship with you – for as he said, ‘Armenia is motherland to us all’” (AMS, 22 May 1965: 3; HW, 6 May 1965: 2).

Three thousand adherents were present at the memorial service in the Episcopal Church of St. Mary the Virgin in New York City. This service was concelebrated in Armenian by Archbishop Sion Manoogian, the Primate of the Armenian Diocese, with an Episcopal priest who delivered the sermon in English (AMS, 3 April 1965). In New York’s Riverside Cathedral, the Armenian Prelacy organized a separate requiem in cooperation with different Apostolic and Protestant Armenian churches. The evening service gathered 2500 persons (HW, 13 May 1965: 3). As HW noted, the audience included (in addition to representatives of other denominations) “a number of United Nations delegates and distinguished personalities from all classes of the American Armenian society” (HW, 13 May 1965: 3).

As with observances held in previous years, services in 1965 were often followed by cultural-educational programs or special events. For example, the Diocese of the Armenian Church organized (and sponsored) a solemn concert in New York’s Philharmonic Hall (AMS, 23 March 1965). A service held at John Hancock Hall in Boston – under the auspices of the Armenian churches – drew 500 Armenians (Boston Traveler as reprinted in HW, 6 May 1965: 3) representing various cultural, charitable, political, academic, and compatriotic organizations.

Memorial dinners were yet another emblematic way of revering the anniversary. Such banquets were held not only for the Armenian community, but also for the general, American audience, especially its most distinguished representatives. One such gathering in Detroit assembled 200 guests, many of whom were (as commentators noticed) representatives of the younger generation (HW, 15 April 1965: 1).

Commemorative vigils were a form dominating on college campuses. For instance, Armenian-American students of the University of California in Los Angeles held a vigil during which invited speakers presented a chronicle of the genocide and its aftermath. This particular observance was foreshadowed by a week of dissemination of pamphlets, literature, and posters as well as an exhibit about Armenia (HW, 15 April 1965: 1, AMS, 10 April 1965: 1). Through public, memorial programs held on campus, students wanted to make their non-Armenian peers aware of the atrocities committed by the Turks during WWI.

Public demonstrations – the emerging benchmark for all future April 24^th commemorations – took on various forms. In San Francisco, during a joint observance prepared by all Armenian churches and communities, commemorators gathered in front of the City Hall from whence they launched a “dignified parade.” As the organizers explained: “This parade is to symbolize a quite different march taken 50 years ago. It is to symbolize the death march to Der-El-Zor by the Armenian nation, and it is to let the world know that we have not betrayed those two million who died on that march” (HW, 22 April 1965: 7).

The biggest American demonstration was organized in New York by Dashnak milieux. The memorial walk led from St. Illuminator’s Armenian Apostolic Cathedral, through UN headquarters and the US Mission to the UN (USUN), to a wreath-laying ceremony at the Eternal Light Flagstaff in Madison Square Park (HW, 15 April 1965: 7). Undoubtedly, this culminating site was included in the itinerary due to the lack of some other, physical, Armenian lieu de mémoire in the public space. Armenian-Americans decided to pay homage in a place at least remotely related to the tragedy: the Eternal Light Flagstaff commemorates the 1918 Armistice and those who fought for freedom in WWI. One of its inscriptions reads, “In memory of those who have made the supreme sacrifice for the triumph of the free peoples of the world.”

As the media reported, there were around 2400 participants in this procession, among whom were many survivors, their families, “all Armenians, Dashnaks and anti-Dashnaks, neutrals, artists, laborers, doctors, engineers, diplomats and at least four millionaires. Everyone was there with the exception of the clergy of the Etchmiadzin prelacy” (HW, 13 May 1965: 1). The absence of Etchmiadzin representatives could stem from this church’s withdrawal from all observances of a public, demonstrative nature. Manifestation of the flag of the First Republic of Armenia (under which symbol this march was held) could have also led to this eschewal.

Looking at the claims the Armenian-Americans made on the occasion of the semicentennial, noteworthy are certain slogans appearing on the banners carried. Some towards the front read: “Turkey, Author of Genocide” and “Armenian Land Held by Turkey” (HW, 6 May 1965: 4). Other placards announced “Unpunished, unrepentant,” “The Armenian Question unfinished,” “Nuremberg for the Turks,” to quote a few (HW, 13 May 1965: 3).

The same day, another march (yet far smaller in number) traversed the streets of New York. The “March of Silence,” organized by Charles Metjian ¹⁴ (and announced in the AMS), gathered around 200 participants for a two-hour peaceful demonstration in front of UN headquarters (AMS, 24 April 1965: 2). A few Armenian New Yorkers with more out-of-state compatriots participated in this procession, “holding impressive placards on which vivid messages were printed and maps drawn” (AMS, 22 May 1965: 4). Nine hundred leaflets and a reading list on the genocide were distributed among passers-by (AMS, 22 May 1965: 4).

As revealed earlier, the main focus of the 50^th anniversary was to attract the attention of the general media and other influencers of public opinion. Locally, Armenian-Americans drew such attention either by buying advertising space or by creating editorial content. For instance, the commemorative committee from Whitinsville, Massachusetts bought a full-page advertisement in a local newspaper with a circulation of 40,000; under this community’s influence, front-page articles about the Medz Yeghern and Armenian observances also appeared (HW, 6 May 1965: 4). The most active members from this region also sent letters to the editor in which they explained the significance of this Memorial Day. Moreover, local radio station WLYN in Lynn, Massachusetts broadcasted three tapes on the Armenian massacres (the aforementioned material prepared by the Commemorative Committee). Through the efforts of the Springfield, Massachusetts community, WWLP televised a special half-hour program on the afternoon of 24 April 1965, commemorating Armenian Martyrs’ Day (HW, 20 May 1965: 5). As a newspaper reported, “[t]he factors leading up to the 1915 massacres were pointed out and pictures of the Turkish brutality were shown” (HW, 20 May 1965: 5). Apparently, “the program was well-received in Springfield and neighboring communities by both Armenian and non-Armenian alike” (HW, 20 May 1965: 5).

Nationally, in 1965, The New York Times (NYT) referred to the Medz Yeghern in 17 texts, 12 of which pertained specifically to the April commemorations. Although nominally municipal, the NYT’s readership stretches coast to coast, hence coverage of Armenian issues reached further and deeper into American society. On 24 April, the newspaper published a note, “Armenians to Mark Massacres of 1915” (NYT, 24 April 1965: 32) which presented how the semicentennial would be celebrated by the New York metropolitan Armenian community. Reprinting the communiqué sent to its editorial office by the Commemorative Committee, the NYT announced the itinerary (i.e., church services, memorial procession to the Eternal Light monument, and concert in the Philharmonic Hall). The following day (25 April), the author of “Armenians Mark a Tragic 1915 Day” (NYT, 25 April 1965: 80) reported in great detail about the Armenian-American demonstrations.

Apart from national media outlets, the April 24^th special edition of the AMS (distributed among VIPs and key American institutions) likely also made a strong impact on the non-Armenian audience. That commemorative issue was sent, among others, to the president and vice-president of the US, speaker of the House of Representatives, the UN Secretary-General, ambassadors to the US from Greece, Bulgaria, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Cyprus, and Turkey, all members of the International Court of Justice, all delegations to the UN, all US senators and congressmen, the US president’s cabinet members, select magazines, literary presses, and other national associations (AMS, 1 May 1965: 1). ¹⁵

By way of bringing the 50^th anniversary to closure, the first US monument dedicated to the memory of the genocide’s victims was unveiled on 23 May 1965, on the private property of the Home for the Armenian Aged in Emerson, New Jersey. Present among a thousand guests gathered in the official and public ceremony was Representative Joelson who said: “Last Sunday I buried my dear mother, but I know where she is buried and I can visit her grave. This 15-foot monument will be a memorial stone for the two million Armenians who never had a marker for their graves” (AMS, 5 June 1965: 6). In years to come, more memorials would arise, including the largest one unveiled – despite Turkish pressure to block the project ¹⁶ – some 3 years later in Montebello, California.

Considerations and conclusions

To a certain extent, the 1965 commemoration did complete its mission. Perhaps group unity was not wholly achieved, but demands were voiced loudly and mostly in unison. Applying Nagel and Olzak’s terminology (1982), what was internally an “emergent” form of mobilization (notwithstanding a community at variance with itself) was externally perceived as a “resurgent” form, arising in a previously inactive yet cohesive group. American journalists wrote about the Medz Yeghern in the way Armenians wanted; the non-ethnic media used the same framing mechanisms as those prevailing in Armenian-American newspapers. The US press informed the general public, raising its awareness about the genocide. American mass media included general information about the geopolitical setting of Armenia, the country’s tragic past, and the perpetrators of the crime. No information leaked to the outside world about tensions, a lack of cooperation between factions, or about “competing” commemorations, taking place at the same time in different parts of cities.

Although Armenian ethnic mobilization may not have been consolidated structurally, the disorganization about which Tilly (1978) wrote did not occur. The commemorations might have been fragmented, but not disorganized. Both blocs used the same genre of actions and claims. Detectable herewith is the de facto formation of an ethnic body politic – one transcending intra-ethnic competition and dispute, one leading eventually to full reunification of the group on subsequent round anniversaries (particularly in 1975).

Most importantly for Armenian-Americans, discussions on the Armenian genocide penetrated mainstream media and the political scene. Such a conclusion is in line with Zaven Sinanian’s both qualitative and quantitative analysis (1987) of genocide-related articles from back issues of The New York Times between 1965 and 1983. His study (complementary to mine here) reveals that the number of pieces dedicated to Armenian issues progressively increased in subsequent years. Looking at this over the longer run – from 1965 to 2023 – over 30 countries around the world have recognized the Armenian Genocide. More recently, this has come to include the United States.

An aspect that probably helped the most in breaking through to the media was the interreligious nature of the celebrations. Indeed, each of the Armenian-American newspapers analyzed herein stressed the participation of representatives of various faiths. Moreover, those Armenian leaders who decided to appeal to universal human rights and minority rights demonstrated a keen sense of timing. Not only were these frames of reference “culturally resonant” and “morally justifiable” in broader society (Bakalian and Bozorgmehr, 2009), but, the 1960s (especially the second half) proved to be a turning point in discussions of such issues.

The mass movement that led to the formal abolition of racial segregation in the United States sought civil rights reforms and an end to ongoing political, economic, and cultural oppression. That undertaking resonated strongly with other minority groups, including Armenians, who situated their demands for justice in this sociopolitical climate. Globally, too, the 1960s witnessed that movement’s full blossoming with international NGOs – Amnesty International (1961) at the forefront – emerging in increasing numbers. Over time, institutions dedicated to human rights and memorialization of crimes against humanity also began to emerge – such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center (1977) and its Museum of Tolerance (1993). Against that backdrop, public support for claims for justice was no longer so challenging to gain.

The mobilization model applied here would also appear to be highly useful in explaining the political violence that later dominated the thinking of the most radicalized Armenian activists a few years after the ground-breaking anniversary. ¹⁷ That radicalization constituted a kind of revolutionary situation, to cite Tilly (1978), whose outcome caps the process of mass mobilization. The trigger in this case was an Armenian inability to repel, by legal means, the Turkish disinformation penetrating the most influential milieux, e.g., American academia, media, and politics. The political violence comprised strategic and rational contestation of the status quo, a shift of tactics from the nonviolent (used in the 1960s) to the terrorist (widely unaccepted within the ethnic group).

Application of the ethnic mobilization model in analysis of the Medz Yeghern semicentenary remembrances has enabled a capturing of the shift from a focus on individual actions by principal agents to the collective behavior of a minority community. This conceptual apparatus has facilitated identification of the entire cast of actors actually involved in constructing and executing the 1965 campaign in the US. My analysis has revealed that standing behind the Armenian revival at this point was not single party leadership, but rather a range of actors laying the foundations for a more inclusive movement. The ethnic mobilization of Armenian-Americans brought together politicians, academics, journalists, activists, the clergy, lobbyists, financial supporters, active participants as well as passive observers.

Concurrently, the 1960s brought a partial end to the spontaneity, disintegration, and grassroots nature of early commemorative projects. It was then that Armenian-Americans (like Jewish-Americans around the same time) started engaging with the genocide committed against them in their interactions with American society at large. This proliferation of memorialization enabled the Medz Yeghern to reenter the American consciousness long decades after the crime. In this last phase before 1965, the impact of Holocaust-related matters on Armenian thinking was significant. This is intriguing in light of widespread, prevailing opinions that, until the 1960s, the Shoah was practically nonexistent in the collective thinking of American Jews – a thesis which Hasia Diner (2009) reveals as false. Holocaust discourse as well as the overall changes taking place in American society inspired and encouraged Armenian-Americans to engage with the Medz Yeghern, according to their needs and interests.

The matter of identity would require much longer a discussion, but it is worth signaling at least that the cultural marker connecting Armenians across the divide was the experience they all shared of an injustice (lived or transmitted). Separately but along ethnic lines, they mobilized to achieve their singular political goal. From a temporal perspective, the 1965 public commemoration was not a one-off occurrence but the spark for a movement that redefined and enhanced Armenian-American ethnic identity. The Medz Yeghern, as an origin myth, has become a common denominator for all Armenians, the factor unifying the divided diaspora. Participation in open, communal, and annual commemorations has now become a determinant at the heart of their identity. The integrative power of remembrance found its fullest expression in the 1970s when, finally, Armenians prioritized demands for justice over internal divisions. As written in the 1971 Memorial Day editorial of The Armenian Weekly: “It is no easy exaggeration to say that the memory of the Massacres of 1915 is perhaps the single most important catalyst of the Armenian existence today” (AW, 22 April 1971: 2).

Whether the activism of the Armenian-Americans of 1965 was a success cannot be quantitatively measured. To this day, Turkey denies its guilt and has not been held responsible for that crime against the Armenian people. However, taking into account how genocide has reemerged in social, educational, and political milieux in so many countries, we can be sure that the communality of the 1960s (in print as well as on foot) has played a role. The mobilization and stubbornness of people who were brought up in the shadow of a genocide has resulted, in fact, in a sustained, public revival of this matter. No longer found solely in the columns of the Armenian press, the Medz Yeghern has made its way into those of major American newspapers and mass, social media around the world. Therefore, the leaders of that renaissance and those that joined in to publicly reintroduce this issue – a generation now slowly passing away – can take much satisfaction in present-day outcomes. Those leaders fulfilled a commitment bequeathed them by the survivor generation. Their legacy continues and is passed on to the next generation in the USA, in the world, and in the homeland.