Comments on: Smith: The Politics of Genocide and the Turkey-Armenia Protocols

By: Karekin

Karekin — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:11:40 +0000

Hello Murat…so yes, I do understand quite well that the Seljuks took Asia Minor w/ the help of the native born Armenians, and then another 600 years of Ottoman rule led to a significant Turkish/Armenian symbiosis, which overall was positive. However, as you know, it was that last few years, dominated – not by the sultan – but by the Young Turks and their CUP that really caused the major problems. I think without them and their evil deeds, Armenians and Turks would have not had such a horrible divorce.

By: Haro Mherian, PhD Mathematics

Haro Mherian, PhD Mathematics — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:05:08 +0000

Սաւոր նայէ՛ ինչ է ասում, Մուրատ էֆենդի տիոր, եղեր Մանազկերտում մենք՛ ենք օգնել Բիւզանդական բանակի ջարդին։ Այդ նոյն Ալբասլան վիշապը արիւնաքամ արեծ ամբողջ Անին։
Նորից խնդրում եմ բոլորից կարեւորութիւն չտալ Ռակնարի եւ Մուրատի Թուրք երեւակայութեանը։ Սրանք նոր տիպի Թալեատականներ եւ Քէմալականներ են։

By: Haro Mherian, PhD Mathematics

Haro Mherian, PhD Mathematics — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 05:19:03 +0000

Այստեղ կարծէս Ռակնար Նաեսը, Մուրատ եւ Հուսեյնը միեւնոյն անձն են մեր (Հայերիս) վրայ տեղեկատուական կռիւ են մխում այս արձակագրի տակ իրանց նշումներով։ Խնդրում եմ բոլորից չենթարկուեք այս թակարդին։
Շնորհակալութիւն
Հարօ

By: Murat

Murat — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:40:06 +0000

Karaekin,

It is really not that relevant to the topic, but I have to comment on the notion of Turks sweeping dwon from Asia to conquering and subjugating the Armenians. Firstly, Turks, by that time highly imbued by Persiona culture, battled Romans and grabbed Asia Minor from them. It is said Alaparslan had Armenians among his troops at Manzikert, as well as other groups who disliked Romans more than Muslim Turks apparently. I doubt if Armenians as a nation would have made it to this century if it were not for the Ottoman system of governing. Some irony.

I have to admit, me and probably many Turks fail to understand this deep need for apologies and repentence. This may make us come across insensitive. I have been always impressed though with the strong bond Armenians everywhere have felt for their ancient homelands. The sense of loss is so strong and obviously this was a defining event and a massive tragedy. I do not think you will find many Turks who will deny this, I certainly do not.

You also have to realize that many Turks, especially those in Istanbul have grown up with, went to school with, befriended, partnered with, and some even married with Armenians. I have been to more Greek and Armenian Churches than Mosques. I have a perspective on Armenians as people and as essential part of Turkish culture and history, that you may not appreciate.

By: Ragnar Naess

Ragnar Naess — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:16:35 +0000

murat
thank you for your post. As you say very much of what goes on in the exchange of words on the Armenian fate “…is hardly about the facts of the matter, but perceptions and cherished myths”. You also wrote on oct 26 that “The argument is more about how to categorize this tragedy and the official acts and policies relevant to it. In my opinion this is what it boils down to.”
I agree that what you say is an important ingredient in the whole picture. Where I tend to disagree with you is if you hold that it is exclusively so. Whether characteristics like “genocide”, “hardship due to war conditiom”, “local killers” or “centrally orchestrated program of extermination” apply to the Armenian catastrophy or not is also an ordinary empirical and analytical question. And attempts at analysis in the ordinary sense of the word is what I for better or worse try to contribute with. I agree that it may just open the door for endless argument. but not necessarily so.

By: Karekin

Karekin — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:35:54 +0000

Yes, Murat…you say facts are facts, but while that may be true in science or physics, everything in life is viewed through a different prism, thru different eyes. So in reality, nothing is the ever truly same. If someone is color blind, the world is very different. One man’s trash is another’s treasure. To the native Americans, the white man brought pain, death and destruction. To the English, they saw themselves as bringing civilization to the savages. It seems that many Turks continue to identify w/ mentality of a ruling class, along with the concept of empire and power, and hold that point of view rather dearly. But, why not change positions for once, at least hypothetically, and attempt to see and feel the situation from the view of one of the subjects of that empire? It could be very enlightening. I think Armenians need to do the same, as well, and try to understand how their actions may have been viewed at the time from the confines of the Topkapi Sarayi. This isn’t being said to get anyone off the hook or to absolve responsibility, especially those who abused their power over others, but, it can help to bring empathy and understanding to both sides of this debate. In much the same way Americans have no real sympathy for a million dead Iraqis or the thousands being bombed everyday in Afghanistan, everyone conveniently forgets that this involved real people, not just some abstract entity, and there is a legacy attached to it. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction…in political terms, it is called ‘blowback’. Perhaps someday, the people of Turkey will understand that what was experienced during the waning years of the Ottoman Empire was just that…blowback. You can only push so far. Eventually, there will be a reaction. Turks got their way, they got their country, almost free of minorities, a Turkey for the Turks….but it came at a price, unfortunately, a big price.

By: Murat

Murat — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:46:53 +0000

Ragnar,

I am grateful for your thoughtful exchange. I wish I were more knowledgeable on some of the points you raised so we could compare notes, but I am not a historian or a scholar on this topic. Though I do not believe one has to know every detail to render a judgement or declare a position or claim to know it as a fact.

Though I am fully supportive of all dialogue, and vehemently against any limitation of any expression on this topic, I am just not of the opinion that a through evaluation will change the fundementals of the facts known. I have personally witnessed softening of positons and change of mood as a result of dialogue. That in itself is good enough reason alone.

As I had claimed before, in my opinion this is hardly about the facts of the matter, but perceptions and cherished myths. Facts in excruciating detail have been around for a while. They are tested vigorously by both sides. Casual fabrication of alternate reality and evidence is not possible anymore. This leaves behind opinions, interperetations, definitions, word games and yes, sementics. A recepie for endless arguments.

By: Ragnar Naess

Ragnar Naess — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:02:14 +0000

What you say makes sense to me now, mr. Mherian. I will not insist on any debate with you. You are of course in your full right.

By: Karekin

Karekin — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:02:22 +0000

Murat….you say….’Armenians started a war, fought it and lost it big’. I think many historians and scholars would find this assertion a bit far-fetched. You’ve probably been taught this since infancy, but let’s face facts: Sultan Abdul Hamid launched countrywide massacres of hundreds of thousands of innocent Ottoman Armenian citizens in the 1890’s, as a way of frightening them all into submission, even though similar measures were never issued against the other minorities in such a brutal way. If, as you say, Armenians ’started a war’… it’s hard to imagine how they conducted that…..was it with tanks? planes? an imperial army? Please explain. It’s like saying the stone throwing Palestinians are launching a war on Israel. Get real. For most observers, it’s about self-defense. A war takes place between states or equal players. If anything, the real ‘war’ or offensive, was launched by the Ittihadists – who were now in charge of a bankrupt empire – against the largest and oldest of Turkey’s minorities…with the goal of stealing their land, their wealth and their businesses. Armenians had every right to defend themselves and if that meant some kind of retaliation against the superior forces of the empire, so be it. Didn’t the Bosnians have a right to self-defense against the Serbs? I really fear that the Turkish resistance to issuing an apology to Armenians comes from an inability to say ‘never again’, as the Kurds are, in many ways, the new Armenians in Turkey, and who at any moment, could feel the wrath of the state and military.

By: Ragnar Naess

Ragnar Naess — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:07:07 +0000

Murat
Thank you for your post.
I don’t think an exhaustive analysis is a utopia and that attempts at this must necessarily lead to endless bickering. I will limit my answer to this point and try to be short: first, there has been a certain convergence between the opposite positions during the last 20-30 years. If we contrast the 1977 book by the Shaws with Yves Ternon’s first book on the Armenian genocide issued in the same year, they are miles apart. Today there is more common ground in research on the theme. The dimensions of the catastrophy suffered by the Armenians is more recognised than in Shaws wild underestimation of 1977, and the actual threat of the powers to the ottoman state and the lethal effects of the ethnic cleansing of Moslems (1864, 1977-78, 1912-13) cannot be ignored today as then. Even if this has no bearing on what happened in 1915, a major source of Turkish resentment of onesided Western perceptions is being gradually removed. Everybody has read “Death and exile”. While it would on principle be possible to go on bickering indefinitely on details, this has not happened. The discussion was not endless,on certain points at least. Needless to say, Sonyel is a great improvement when comparing what he has to say in 2003 on the Armenian fate with what Stanford Shaw said in 1977.
The second is that Turkish and Armenian/Western historiography has been so divided, as inhabiting different worlds, with the one camp not relating to the other at all, that we must expect that a conscious effort by each side to relate honestly and explicitly to the arguments of the other(s) will produce an effect. Even if the debate on certain points may go on indefinitely, the area of total disagreement will shrink.
Thirdly, I believe that the public eye will have an effect like it probably had for all those who witnessed the Akcam/Halacoglu debate. It will be apparent to the audience who has trouble defending ones position and who is on safer ground. This is how research communities often function. As Halacoglu got into trouble with his claims that offenders against Armenian deportees were prosecuted, genocide researchers have repeatedly gotten into trouble when they try to PROVE genocidal extent in the ittihadist elite. I am not so much thinking about the Andonian papers as the wildly improbable “minutes from the Central Committee of CUP” by Mevlanzade Rifat which by the way is uncritically cited by Anette Höss in her dissertation on the 1919-23 trials. The dissertation is hailed as a landmark by many genocide scholars. Further – the public eye notices the degree to which scholars like Dadrian, Akcam and Kevorkian slip into conjecture when dealing with genocidal intent. The weaknesses of their scholarship on this point, while impressive on others, is noted by many who are highly critical of the received Turkish position.
I hope this clarifies my position. Whether I am right or wrong is of course another matter.
However, I should add that I am often misunderstood. Primarily I am a stickler for dialogue. If the dialogue gets better according to certain specifiable criteria, and there exists a critical audience, we must expect results. But I add that both parties must be prepared in principle to see their cherished beliefs discarded. Of course, this also holds for my belief in dialogue.