Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Dec 18 2011
Why is it difficult to confront 1915?
MARKAR ESAYAN
[email protected]
We have entered yet another season of genocide discussions. The
discussions this year started well before April 24 because of a move
by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
We are now going to repeat our clichés and regular statements on the
subject. And then, all of a sudden, the season will be gone. In the
end, we will not have made any significant progress on this extremely
important issue.
Any of my columns that make reference to 1915 or Armenians attracts
greater attention than the others. I think curiosity and an eagerness
to learn play a visible role in this because our people are smart and
have a conscience. The following is clear to almost everyone: Ours is
a fabricated and manufactured history. We have experienced a lot over
the last decade indicating that our history was not what we have been
told.
Take the 1937-1938 Dersim massacres, which have been referred to by
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an in a recent apology. The state
told us that there were rebellions in Dersim and that what happened
was a necessary reflex to repress these rebellions. And Dersim has
remained the accused all the time. Until ErdoÄ?an, nobody attempted to
tell the truth. Of course, I am referring to influential politicians.
They knowingly perpetuated this lie.
Then we learned that there was no rebellion in Dersim. Mustafa Kemal
and İsmet İnönü viewed these non-Turkish elements as a threat. They
decided to repress and then murder them because they were Kurds and
Alevis. The prime minister referred to this in Parliament. But what
happened or what changed to cause the prime minister to reveal the
truth?
Morality¦
The previous attitude was immoral. ErdoÄ?an realized that and in his
term, he did not act with the same immorality. That is it. It is
immoral to deny brutality, massacres and genocide because of political
reasons.
Let me be clear: Whether or not they fall within the proper definition
of genocide, the 1915 Armenian massacres are no different than the
Dersim massacres in terms of their characteristics and mentality. But
Turkey will keep denying this great suffering and pain for a long
time. I do not have any expectation that there will be an opening on
this matter similar to the one in the discussion of Dersim. This is
not because I am pessimistic; I hold this view because 1915 is
inextricably connected to other major structural issues for Turkey.
Above all, I think the primary reason that we avoid discussing the
Armenian massacre is that our beliefs will collapse on us. Even though
it is argued that the War of Liberation was fought against imperialist
states, this is not entirely the case. The committees of defense and
resistance which organized the War of Liberation were founded to fight
the Greeks and the Armenians. But more importantly, most of the
founders of these committees were former members of the Committee of
Union and Progress (CUP) who were sentenced to death because of their
involvement in the murder of Armenians.
Taner Akçam wrote on this matter as follows: `For the members of the
Committee of Union and Progress, and particularly of the Special
Organization, who were wanted because of the charges against them,
organizing the War of Liberation was a matter of life or death. The
national resistance was the last resort for them. They were to choose
one of two alternatives; they would have turned themselves in and been
sentenced to heavy punishments, including the death penalty, or they
would have moved to Anatolia to organize the national resistance.
Falih Rıfkı Atay beautifully explains this: `When the British and
their allies decided to hold those who were involved in the killing of
Armenians accountable after the war, all those accused took up arms
and joined a gang'.'
Take Topal Osman, the role model of Ergenekon suspect Veli Küçük, who
also erected a statue of him. He was wanted for his role in the
Armenian massacre. For this reason, he escaped and created a gang of
his own. Lazistan Deputy Ali Å?ükrü, in a parliamentary meeting, proved
that Mustafa Suphi and his friends from the Turkish Communist Party
were killed by Topal Osman and his man Yahya Kaptan upon receiving
instructions from Mustafa Kemal; after this incident, Topal Osman was
asked to kill him. Topal Osman was also murdered in the aftermath.
In addition, Parliament adopted a bill on May 8, 1920, that would
ensure the release of those who were under detention in connection
with the crime of deportation. This is one of the first decisions of
Parliament. Why is that? Is it not a payment of debt?
I am not sure if I have been able to give you some hints as to why the
1915 issue is a difficult one to discuss. Do you think we are ready to
ask these questions?
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-266069-why-is-it-difficult-to-confront-1915.html
Dec 18 2011
Why is it difficult to confront 1915?
MARKAR ESAYAN
[email protected]
We have entered yet another season of genocide discussions. The
discussions this year started well before April 24 because of a move
by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
We are now going to repeat our clichés and regular statements on the
subject. And then, all of a sudden, the season will be gone. In the
end, we will not have made any significant progress on this extremely
important issue.
Any of my columns that make reference to 1915 or Armenians attracts
greater attention than the others. I think curiosity and an eagerness
to learn play a visible role in this because our people are smart and
have a conscience. The following is clear to almost everyone: Ours is
a fabricated and manufactured history. We have experienced a lot over
the last decade indicating that our history was not what we have been
told.
Take the 1937-1938 Dersim massacres, which have been referred to by
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an in a recent apology. The state
told us that there were rebellions in Dersim and that what happened
was a necessary reflex to repress these rebellions. And Dersim has
remained the accused all the time. Until ErdoÄ?an, nobody attempted to
tell the truth. Of course, I am referring to influential politicians.
They knowingly perpetuated this lie.
Then we learned that there was no rebellion in Dersim. Mustafa Kemal
and İsmet İnönü viewed these non-Turkish elements as a threat. They
decided to repress and then murder them because they were Kurds and
Alevis. The prime minister referred to this in Parliament. But what
happened or what changed to cause the prime minister to reveal the
truth?
Morality¦
The previous attitude was immoral. ErdoÄ?an realized that and in his
term, he did not act with the same immorality. That is it. It is
immoral to deny brutality, massacres and genocide because of political
reasons.
Let me be clear: Whether or not they fall within the proper definition
of genocide, the 1915 Armenian massacres are no different than the
Dersim massacres in terms of their characteristics and mentality. But
Turkey will keep denying this great suffering and pain for a long
time. I do not have any expectation that there will be an opening on
this matter similar to the one in the discussion of Dersim. This is
not because I am pessimistic; I hold this view because 1915 is
inextricably connected to other major structural issues for Turkey.
Above all, I think the primary reason that we avoid discussing the
Armenian massacre is that our beliefs will collapse on us. Even though
it is argued that the War of Liberation was fought against imperialist
states, this is not entirely the case. The committees of defense and
resistance which organized the War of Liberation were founded to fight
the Greeks and the Armenians. But more importantly, most of the
founders of these committees were former members of the Committee of
Union and Progress (CUP) who were sentenced to death because of their
involvement in the murder of Armenians.
Taner Akçam wrote on this matter as follows: `For the members of the
Committee of Union and Progress, and particularly of the Special
Organization, who were wanted because of the charges against them,
organizing the War of Liberation was a matter of life or death. The
national resistance was the last resort for them. They were to choose
one of two alternatives; they would have turned themselves in and been
sentenced to heavy punishments, including the death penalty, or they
would have moved to Anatolia to organize the national resistance.
Falih Rıfkı Atay beautifully explains this: `When the British and
their allies decided to hold those who were involved in the killing of
Armenians accountable after the war, all those accused took up arms
and joined a gang'.'
Take Topal Osman, the role model of Ergenekon suspect Veli Küçük, who
also erected a statue of him. He was wanted for his role in the
Armenian massacre. For this reason, he escaped and created a gang of
his own. Lazistan Deputy Ali Å?ükrü, in a parliamentary meeting, proved
that Mustafa Suphi and his friends from the Turkish Communist Party
were killed by Topal Osman and his man Yahya Kaptan upon receiving
instructions from Mustafa Kemal; after this incident, Topal Osman was
asked to kill him. Topal Osman was also murdered in the aftermath.
In addition, Parliament adopted a bill on May 8, 1920, that would
ensure the release of those who were under detention in connection
with the crime of deportation. This is one of the first decisions of
Parliament. Why is that? Is it not a payment of debt?
I am not sure if I have been able to give you some hints as to why the
1915 issue is a difficult one to discuss. Do you think we are ready to
ask these questions?
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-266069-why-is-it-difficult-to-confront-1915.html