Tweet
Assyrian International News Agenct - AINA
Oct 23 2011
Turkish Scholar Discusses Assyrian, Greek, Armenian Genocide
The following interview was conducted by Linda Abraham for the
Assyrian Genocide Research Center.
Altug Taner Akçam is one of the first Turkish scholars to openly
acknowledge and discuss the reality of the Armenian Genocide.
Professor Akçam's initial research topic was the history of political
violence and torture in late Ottoman and early Republican Turkey.
Since 1990, however, he has focused his attention on Turkish
nationalism and the Armenian Genocide, with eleven books and numerous
articles to his credit. Akçam graduated from Middle East Technical
University in Ankara and immigrated to Germany where he worked as a
research scientist in the sociology department at the Hamburg
Institute for Social Research. In 1995 Akçam earned his doctorate from
the University of Hannover with a dissertation entitled, The Turkish
National Movement and the Armenian Genocide Against the Background of
the Military Tribunals in Istanbul Between 1919 and 1922. Akçam is
presently Robert Aram, Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marian
Mugar Chair in Armenian Genocide Studies at the Strassler Centre for
Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Clark University, Massachusetts.
You were one of the first Turkish scholars to publish on the
until-then taboo topic of political violence and genocide in late
Ottoman and early Republican Turkey; where did your interest in this
field emanate from?
Actually, I ended up working on this topic totally by coincidence.
Nevertheless, looking back I would say that there are actually three
major reasons. First, in 1988 I started studying the history of
violence and torture in Ottoman-Turkish society. If one studies
violence in Ottoman society he unavoidably comes across the genocide
of the Armenians; particularly in the second half of the 19th century
where violence was a common device used against them. Facing the
reality of violence against the Armenians motivated my curiosity to
examine the issue further.
The second reason, that has propelled me to deal with this topic is my
interest in Turkish national identity. One of the important aspects of
my study on violence and torture was to find out the relationship
between violence and the emergence of Turkish national identity.
Through my study I became aware that there is a strong relationship
between Turkish national identity and violence but the idea was not
developed strongly enough at the time. While I was working on my
project, I was discussing it with my German colleagues, and in these
discussions it became clear to me that there are strong similarities
between the Turkish and German national identities. Not surprisingly,
some of the founders of Turkish nationalism were influenced by German
ideas of nationalism. This connection led me to research this topic
further. I read Norbert Elias' book "Studien über die Deutchen" (in
English: "The Germans") and this book changed my understanding
essentially. Hence we can understand the Holocaust only if we
understand German attitudes and behaviors towards Jews. This is the
case in the Armenian Genocide also. Then I wrote a working paper on
the similarities between Turkish and German national identities for my
colleagues at the Institute. This was my first theoretical encounter
with the Armenian Genocide.
The third reason was the beginning of a major project at our Institute
in 1991. Before the beginning of the war in Yugoslavia, our Institute
raised the question of whether Nuremberg can be applied universally or
was it only an exception after the Second World War? It was a
multi-faceted project and encompassed the incidents of major
mass-violence in the 20th century. The question was to seek the
possibilities of developing a macro theory in whose framework we can
explore the reasons for the occurrence of three important mass
annihilations in the 20th century. The case studies chosen were
Auschwitz, the Soviet Gulag and the dropping of the atomic bomb on
Hiroshima. Within this project I suggested working on the Turkish
military court-martials, which were held between 1919 and 1921 in
Istanbul with the purpose of bringing the criminals to justice. These
trials and the debates revolving around them at the Paris peace
conference and in Istanbul were the precursors of the Nuremberg
trials. The institute accepted my proposal and this research became my
PhD.
These three points were the initial reasons propelling me to study the
Armenian Genocide.
How can the low interest in the Assyrian genocide amongst genocide
scholars be explained?
There are a couple of reasons why the focus has been mainly on the
Armenian genocide. One reason is the scale of the atrocities against
the Armenians. They were the main group targeted for the genocide;
their existence as a group was the major reason for the deadly
decision of the Ottoman authorities. This is however not enough to
explain why we haven't included the Assyrians in our research. If we
look for a special reason, I would say that the lack of proper
documentation is the most important reason for this. Unfortunately
there are not many materials available for the scholarly world in the
form of archival materials etc. on the Assyrian genocide. For example,
I looked at the Ottoman archives in order to find out the policy of
the Ottoman government towards the Assyrians. My central question was
to find out whether or not there was a centrally organized policy and
campaign against Assyrians, but I was not able to find any material.
The third reason as to why the Assyrian genocide hasn't been studied
enough is because of the lack of interest amongst the Assyrian people
in the field of genocide studies. In the absence of official documents
produced by the perpetrator society, the materials produced by the
victim society are the most important source. Unfortunately, because
of a variety of reasons, Assyrians haven't documented the crimes
committed against them. We don't have materials in this regard. If you
add the language difficulties, it is quite understandable why there is
a low interest among scholars.
My dear Assyrian friends should not misunderstand me; however, instead
of criticizing the scholars for their disinterest in the Assyrian
genocide, they should look for the reason somewhere else. If you look
at other cases of genocide you will see that it is first and foremost
the victim societies that worked tirelessly to make their cases known.
So, it is first and foremost the Assyrian community that has to work
hard, and invest in education and research to present their case to
broader society. It is unfortunate but true that if a victim group
does not invest energy and promote scholarly work about their
experiences, the academic world cannot develop an interest easily from
within itself.
Let me give you some simple examples from other fields, the Holocaust
is an extremely well known tragedy because of the interest and
dedication of the Jewish people. It was originally Jewish communities
in the United States that worked very hard and promoted remembrance of
their tragedy; it was the Jewish people who pushed the Universities to
establish Holocaust research centres. And today, the genocide against
the Jews is an inextricable part of the American university system and
is being taught in many different universities. If the Assyrian people
want their genocide to be known and studied, then my humble suggestion
is that the Assyrian people should invest in education in order to
promote their case. They should follow the footsteps of the Jewish and
Armenian peoples.
I should add that I am not merely talking about material contributions
in the form of financial donations etc. in the education system. I am
referring to efforts for creating important materials for the
scholarly community also. If we take the Jewish or Armenian cases as
an example, we would observe that the first scholars of the Holocaust
or Armenian genocide were the Jewish or Armenian survivors themselves.
They collected firsthand accounts and this comprised the basis for
much of the research that followed. Also, look at the second
generation of Armenian scholars; Vahakn Dadrian and Richard
Hovannisian, they are the first ones who acted as voices for wider
Armenian Genocide scholarship. There might be some Assyrian survivors
who documented their experience and provided some information but it
is not available to the English speaking world. These materials should
be made available for interested audiences. We need also some young
Assyrian scholars, who could overcome the language barriers and do
similar work as that done by Vahakn Dadrian or Richard Hovannisian for
the Armenian cause.
My humble opinion is that Assyrians lack interest towards their own
genocide and that is one of the major problems that the field is
facing now. They need to make it very clear to their next generations,
and their youth that they must study their language, history, and be
interested in the genocide topic in order to eventually become
scholars.
My appeal to the Assyrian people is that they need to come together
and stop complaining about the lack of interest towards their cases.
They need to promote genocide education and help to train their own
scholars. I would love to teach Assyrian students who are interested
in the genocide. Our Holocaust and Genocide Studies Center is open to
cooperation.
In your opinion, is cooperation by the three main victim groups
necessary in gaining Turkish and international recognition of the
genocide?
Of course they can work together. I think the main question is how
they can achieve the acknowledgement of the different mass crimes by
the Turkish government? How can we get the Turkish government to
acknowledge its historic wrongdoing of the past?
There are several ways to answer these questions. For example,
Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians prefer to increase the pressure on
Turkish government. Their main strategy is to convince third parties
so that these third parties can pressure the Turkish government on
their behalf. In order to achieve this, these groups have been trying
for decades to get recognition from different Parliaments in the form
of resolutions, governmental decisions or decision of different
international bodies. It is true that until recently, each group was
pushing its own case and it is also true that they might be stronger
if they unite their forces and to get resolutions not only for their
cases but for all cases together. I am not sure whether this is a new
contribution or whether this brings a new aspect to the problem that
we are facing.
I call this strategy "conventional war" with "conventional methods".
Even though I am not against these kinds of efforts -- since they
(Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks) do not have much leverage in their
hands, except to win over the third parties -- I am very sceptical
about the success of this strategy. I think there is an urgent need to
shift the focus of interest. My humble suggestion in this regard is
that Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks should start focusing on Turkey.
For me, the democratization process in Turkey is as important, if not
more important, than efforts to win the support of third parties. I
think the emerging civil society in Turkey and their fight for a
democratic society is more important for the acknowledgment of the
Genocide than parliamentary decrees from outside Turkey. Of course
they are not mutually exclusive. Armenians, Assyrian and Greeks can
still continue to work with their "conventional methods" but they have
to understand that there is something growing in Turkey, which could
be more effective than the parliament resolutions.
Therefore the Assyrians, Greeks and Armenians should develop strong
connections with the democracy movement in Turkey. The recognition of
the mass crimes of the past is directly related to the democratization
process of Turkey. The Assyrians, Greeks and Armenians need to create
a strong relationship and work together with the democracy movement in
Turkey towards the recognition of their cases.
And they have to find a language, which is adequate for such
"conversation". I think the existing language is still part of the
problem rather than part of the solution and does not help both sides.
We have to understand that the language of "war" is different than the
language of "peace". My observation is that the language of
"conventional war" still dominates the field. There is a mistrust and
suspicion in both sides. Whatever has emerged from grassroots
organizations within Turkey or the Armenian diaspora has been received
by the opposing side with great caution. The reason for this is the
mentality and the language of "conventional war".
The main logic or mindset that drives the language used by each side
is that there is this monolithic other, who is our enemy. The usage of
the term "Turk" is the best example to show this. It is not the "Turk"
that exists today as a living breathing individual. The "Turk" is and
abstract construction and is what is not "Armenian", "Assyrian" or
"Greek". As such, one can easily substitute these terms "Turk" or
"Armenian, Assyrian and Greek" for any characteristics of what
comprise the "Other." Today, and for much of our pasts, we have a
monolithic, stereotypical image of the other side.
Each side has developed a very negative picture of the other, which is
an abstraction, to which they constantly refer to confirm the
righteousness of their own positions. We are wiser, fairer, kinder,
more capable, more attractive, and generally better that other party.
The other side is deceitful, aggressive, heartless and incapable of
change for better. We have a differentiated view of ourselves while
maintaining an undifferentiated, stereotypical view of the other. We
have to change this language and understanding.
Even though there are some positive developments in this regard but
still we have to work very hard to change the "language of
conventional war" and develop a language that helps to overcome the
divides, which were built up over the years between different people
in Anatolia.
Do you consider the 1915 genocides of the Assyrians, Armenians and the
Greeks to be one genocide?
It is a very difficult question. My simple answer is "no"; what
happened to Greeks during the war years cannot be called genocide, it
is simply wrong. My complicated answer is "yes", this term might be
used, but not for the First World War years but only if you broaden
the scope of the years. If you use the time frame between 1912 and
1923, including the Pontus Greeks, this term might be used but I
personally think that it's still fraught with a lot of problems. The
term can cause understanding of that era to darken rather than to
enlighten and explain the above-mentioned period.
First of all, it is indeed very important to consider these three mass
crimes in interrelation with each other and as a part of an existing
process, regardless of whether we give them all one and the same name.
It is a fact that the Ottoman policies towards Greeks, Armenians and
Assyrians were not separate events from each other and they were
strongly interconnected. However, it is very difficult to argue that
the Ottoman policies towards these groups were all the same, and
therefore that we can bring more light into the process by using "a
common definition" for all these mass crimes. As we know, there was a
general Ottoman policy not only towards the Christian population of
Anatolia but also towards the non-Turkish Muslim groups. I call this
policy "demographic policy" and it aimed at the radical restructuring
of Anatolia's population. The policy began to be implemented after the
loss of the Balkan Wars in 1912-3. The policy against Christians and
non-Turkish Muslims was implemented in a different manner. Christians
were to be eliminated by expulsion or massacre. Non-Turkish Muslims,
such as the Kurds, Arabs, and Balkan migrants (refugees from Christian
persecution), were relocated and dispersed among the Turkish majority
to be assimilated into the dominant culture. Within this broader
picture the treatment of Christian populations was different from each
other and varied from time to time.
So, if one aims to show the common characteristics of these policies
against Christians (to get rid of them of Anatolia by different
means), you may try to find one term for all these cases. But only one
single term eradicates the differences between these policies. For
example; I don't think that we can call what happened to the Greeks
during the First War Years a genocide. It is totally wrong, in my
opinion and has no basis.
In 1913--4 the Greek population was put on ships and forcefully sent
to Greece. There were sporadic massacres also but the main aim was to
send them to Greece. We know that during the Armenian genocide some
Armenians on the deportation route were separated by the Ottoman
authorities because they were held as Greeks. In certain regions
Armenians were hidden by Greeks because the latter were not a target
of deportations. There were also some deportation of Greeks towards
the end of the war, especially in 1917; however, the purpose of it was
not to exterminate but to empty the costal region for military
purposes.
It seems to me that the usage of the term genocide for what happened
to Greeks during the First World War years is more politically
motivated than actually grounded in sound research, which is a common
phenomenon in our field. It might be useful for those who want to get
attention to their causes. However as a genocide scholar I prefer to
use different terms that shed more light on and increase our
understanding of the different forms of violence. For me
thnic--cleansing is a more proper term to define what happened to the
Greek people during the war years.
I have to add that I consider the Pontus case different from the
wartime experience of Greek population. Indeed what happened to the
Pontian people in 1921 and 1922 was equal to a genocide. However, it
was not the Ottoman government who implemented this policy against the
Greeks of Pontus; it was the Turkish Nationalist government. If you
want to develop one common term, for the period of 1912-1923 I prefer
"genocide and ethnic cleansing policies of the Ottoman and Turkish
governments" as an appropriate description.
Would you consider writing on the Assyrian Genocide?
First of all, I think we are coming to a point where to talk on
Armenian and Assyrian cases separately is becoming more and more
problematic. We can be an expert in one of these cases, but we should
not forget that it was the same Ottoman government that implemented
the policies against both the Assyrians and the Armenians. The
distinction between both cases is sometimes very difficult.
On the other hand, this does not mean that I can be an expert on the
Assyrian genocide. I teach on the Assyrian genocide but I cannot write
a book specifically on this topic. I agree that I should incorporate
the Assyrian aspect into my research more and more but this does not
make me an expert on the Assyrian people and their history. Because of
my age and education I cannot be an expert concerning the Assyrian
genocide. The languages that I can read and write are not sufficient
enough for me to be considered a scholar in the Assyrian case. In
addition to what I have said above (i.e. incorporating the Assyrian
genocide into my writing and research) what I really would like to do
(and this is my appeal to Assyrians) is to train Assyrian (or of
course other) students, who want to study and become an expert on the
Assyrian genocide. I can do this within the graduate program at our
Institute. Please send us as many Assyrian or other students as you
can, who want to study the Assyrian case. I can train them in this
topic. Needless to say, the students must be capable in their own
language in order to be able to study the Assyrian genocide.
What do you think is the rationale behind Turkey's denial of the
Assyrian, Armenian and Greek Genocide?
I think we should not confine ourselves to looking at the attitude of
the state; we must look into the society also. There are several
reasons for Turkish denial; one is a very general factor, which I call
amnesia and/or lack of interest. We have to keep in mind that we,
Turks, are generally disinclined to talk and unwilling and reluctant
to delve into the past. I would say that ignoring the past is a common
custom in Turkey. You could almost say that a lack of curiosity about
history is a national trait.
If you want to understand a culture you have to look at its proverbs
to find deeper cultural assumptions (values). In the case of Turkey we
have dozens of sayings with the same message: that the past is not
important and not worth dwelling on. The most common one is "bosver"
which can be translated as "forget it or never mind"; "baska isin
gücün mü yok?", which can be translated "don't you have something
better to worry about?".
And so, in line with this prevailing mindset in Turkey not only are
the mass atrocities during the First World War years forgotten; so is
the very recent past. We are a society that tends to forget and loves
to forget. Of course, as intellectuals, we could argue that this is a
very serious cultural flaw and amounts to willful amnesia and many of
Turkey's current problems stem from this tendency. Because people
don't face and confront their issues or problems honestly and move on
without truly addressing them, so the problems then add up, accumulate
and end up getting out of proportion.
The second important reason for societal denial is the reform of the
alphabet and nationalistic historiography. In 1928, through an
alphabet reform program, Turkish scripts was changed from Arabic
letters to the Latin alphabet. Through this reform the Turkish people
lost every connection to their written history; they couldn't even
read the letters or diaries of their ancestors. As a result, current
generations are totally dependent on a version of history that the
Turkish state has defined and written for them. Can you imagine a
society that has almost no access to what happened before 1928?
One can add to this reality, the fact that the Turkish state has a
certain stake in representing history in a certain way in order to
legitimize its existence. Therefore, you can understand why Genocide
is not a prominent topic in Turkish society. The recent scandal
regarding Turkish history books and their labelling of Assyrians as
traitors is a perfect example of this.
Of course none of these factors explain why the topic of the Armenian
or Assyrian Genocide strikes a nerve with the Turks. There must be
some other underlying causes for this sensitivity which go beyond this
general reasoning.
The third factor I would refer to is that Armenians, Assyrians, and
Greeks, generally the Christians, have symbolized and have been a
constant reminder to the Turks of their most traumatic historical
events, namely the collapse of the Empire and the loss of 85% of their
territory over a 40-year period. Muslim--Turks lived the last
100-years of their Empire, under the constant fear that they would
disappear from the stage of history. In a simple way they felt they
would disappear; would be pushed aside, squeezed out and completely
carved up by European powers and the other nations in Anatolia. In
other words they were looking at the total annihilation of their
state's existence. So naturally any reminder of this period is avoided
at all costs. Metaphorically speaking the Turks conceive of themselves
as a phoenix rising from the ashes and the Christians are the reminder
of the ashes.
Finally, the fourth reason is the fear of consequences. I would divide
this fear into two main categories; Material and Moral. The most
common argument we have heard is that if Turkey were to acknowledge
the Genocide they would have to pay compensation in the form of land
and money. This might be indeed one of the reasons but I don't think
that this is the primary fear of Turkey although it is often used it
as one of the main arguments. At least this argument has some tangible
form of reconciling the loss of individual properties and wealth.
Therefore, in this respect, if Turkey acknowledges its past
wrongdoings, it must pay reparations or make restitutions in the form
of a specified amount of money or the return of churches or other
important historic building to the Armenians or Assyrians to rectify
the losses of the past. There are other forms of compensation, which I
cannot discuss here.
The moral factor is the connection between the Genocide and the
formation of the Republic. This problem is related to the fact that
some of the founders of the Turkish state were the very same members
of the party who organized the Genocide. As is the case in every
nation state, the Turks also glorified these persons as founding
fathers and heroes. We must then understand how difficult it is to
change the historical narrative and call some of the founders
murderers or thieves. If that occurs, the very existence and identity
of the state is questioned. It is therefore almost self-destructive to
bring up this topic. Can you imagine for example, American history
being rewritten to portray Washington and Jefferson primarily as slave
holders?
I have to add to this picture that there are serious changes in
Turkey. With the establishment in 2002 of the AKP government, Turkey
has entered into an increasing democratization process with a growing
civil society. To challenge the existing denialist policy is much more
possible than ever before. I cannot go into detail of these changes
here but would just like to bring to the reader's attention that there
is now a deputy of Assyrian origin in the Turkish parliament and he
and his colleagues are open to examining Turkey's past wrongdoings.
By Linda Abraham
Assyrian Genocide Research Center
Edited by Joseph Haweil.
http://www.aina.org/news/20111023134524.htm
From: Baghdasarian
Oct 23 2011
Turkish Scholar Discusses Assyrian, Greek, Armenian Genocide
The following interview was conducted by Linda Abraham for the
Assyrian Genocide Research Center.
Altug Taner Akçam is one of the first Turkish scholars to openly
acknowledge and discuss the reality of the Armenian Genocide.
Professor Akçam's initial research topic was the history of political
violence and torture in late Ottoman and early Republican Turkey.
Since 1990, however, he has focused his attention on Turkish
nationalism and the Armenian Genocide, with eleven books and numerous
articles to his credit. Akçam graduated from Middle East Technical
University in Ankara and immigrated to Germany where he worked as a
research scientist in the sociology department at the Hamburg
Institute for Social Research. In 1995 Akçam earned his doctorate from
the University of Hannover with a dissertation entitled, The Turkish
National Movement and the Armenian Genocide Against the Background of
the Military Tribunals in Istanbul Between 1919 and 1922. Akçam is
presently Robert Aram, Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marian
Mugar Chair in Armenian Genocide Studies at the Strassler Centre for
Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Clark University, Massachusetts.
You were one of the first Turkish scholars to publish on the
until-then taboo topic of political violence and genocide in late
Ottoman and early Republican Turkey; where did your interest in this
field emanate from?
Actually, I ended up working on this topic totally by coincidence.
Nevertheless, looking back I would say that there are actually three
major reasons. First, in 1988 I started studying the history of
violence and torture in Ottoman-Turkish society. If one studies
violence in Ottoman society he unavoidably comes across the genocide
of the Armenians; particularly in the second half of the 19th century
where violence was a common device used against them. Facing the
reality of violence against the Armenians motivated my curiosity to
examine the issue further.
The second reason, that has propelled me to deal with this topic is my
interest in Turkish national identity. One of the important aspects of
my study on violence and torture was to find out the relationship
between violence and the emergence of Turkish national identity.
Through my study I became aware that there is a strong relationship
between Turkish national identity and violence but the idea was not
developed strongly enough at the time. While I was working on my
project, I was discussing it with my German colleagues, and in these
discussions it became clear to me that there are strong similarities
between the Turkish and German national identities. Not surprisingly,
some of the founders of Turkish nationalism were influenced by German
ideas of nationalism. This connection led me to research this topic
further. I read Norbert Elias' book "Studien über die Deutchen" (in
English: "The Germans") and this book changed my understanding
essentially. Hence we can understand the Holocaust only if we
understand German attitudes and behaviors towards Jews. This is the
case in the Armenian Genocide also. Then I wrote a working paper on
the similarities between Turkish and German national identities for my
colleagues at the Institute. This was my first theoretical encounter
with the Armenian Genocide.
The third reason was the beginning of a major project at our Institute
in 1991. Before the beginning of the war in Yugoslavia, our Institute
raised the question of whether Nuremberg can be applied universally or
was it only an exception after the Second World War? It was a
multi-faceted project and encompassed the incidents of major
mass-violence in the 20th century. The question was to seek the
possibilities of developing a macro theory in whose framework we can
explore the reasons for the occurrence of three important mass
annihilations in the 20th century. The case studies chosen were
Auschwitz, the Soviet Gulag and the dropping of the atomic bomb on
Hiroshima. Within this project I suggested working on the Turkish
military court-martials, which were held between 1919 and 1921 in
Istanbul with the purpose of bringing the criminals to justice. These
trials and the debates revolving around them at the Paris peace
conference and in Istanbul were the precursors of the Nuremberg
trials. The institute accepted my proposal and this research became my
PhD.
These three points were the initial reasons propelling me to study the
Armenian Genocide.
How can the low interest in the Assyrian genocide amongst genocide
scholars be explained?
There are a couple of reasons why the focus has been mainly on the
Armenian genocide. One reason is the scale of the atrocities against
the Armenians. They were the main group targeted for the genocide;
their existence as a group was the major reason for the deadly
decision of the Ottoman authorities. This is however not enough to
explain why we haven't included the Assyrians in our research. If we
look for a special reason, I would say that the lack of proper
documentation is the most important reason for this. Unfortunately
there are not many materials available for the scholarly world in the
form of archival materials etc. on the Assyrian genocide. For example,
I looked at the Ottoman archives in order to find out the policy of
the Ottoman government towards the Assyrians. My central question was
to find out whether or not there was a centrally organized policy and
campaign against Assyrians, but I was not able to find any material.
The third reason as to why the Assyrian genocide hasn't been studied
enough is because of the lack of interest amongst the Assyrian people
in the field of genocide studies. In the absence of official documents
produced by the perpetrator society, the materials produced by the
victim society are the most important source. Unfortunately, because
of a variety of reasons, Assyrians haven't documented the crimes
committed against them. We don't have materials in this regard. If you
add the language difficulties, it is quite understandable why there is
a low interest among scholars.
My dear Assyrian friends should not misunderstand me; however, instead
of criticizing the scholars for their disinterest in the Assyrian
genocide, they should look for the reason somewhere else. If you look
at other cases of genocide you will see that it is first and foremost
the victim societies that worked tirelessly to make their cases known.
So, it is first and foremost the Assyrian community that has to work
hard, and invest in education and research to present their case to
broader society. It is unfortunate but true that if a victim group
does not invest energy and promote scholarly work about their
experiences, the academic world cannot develop an interest easily from
within itself.
Let me give you some simple examples from other fields, the Holocaust
is an extremely well known tragedy because of the interest and
dedication of the Jewish people. It was originally Jewish communities
in the United States that worked very hard and promoted remembrance of
their tragedy; it was the Jewish people who pushed the Universities to
establish Holocaust research centres. And today, the genocide against
the Jews is an inextricable part of the American university system and
is being taught in many different universities. If the Assyrian people
want their genocide to be known and studied, then my humble suggestion
is that the Assyrian people should invest in education in order to
promote their case. They should follow the footsteps of the Jewish and
Armenian peoples.
I should add that I am not merely talking about material contributions
in the form of financial donations etc. in the education system. I am
referring to efforts for creating important materials for the
scholarly community also. If we take the Jewish or Armenian cases as
an example, we would observe that the first scholars of the Holocaust
or Armenian genocide were the Jewish or Armenian survivors themselves.
They collected firsthand accounts and this comprised the basis for
much of the research that followed. Also, look at the second
generation of Armenian scholars; Vahakn Dadrian and Richard
Hovannisian, they are the first ones who acted as voices for wider
Armenian Genocide scholarship. There might be some Assyrian survivors
who documented their experience and provided some information but it
is not available to the English speaking world. These materials should
be made available for interested audiences. We need also some young
Assyrian scholars, who could overcome the language barriers and do
similar work as that done by Vahakn Dadrian or Richard Hovannisian for
the Armenian cause.
My humble opinion is that Assyrians lack interest towards their own
genocide and that is one of the major problems that the field is
facing now. They need to make it very clear to their next generations,
and their youth that they must study their language, history, and be
interested in the genocide topic in order to eventually become
scholars.
My appeal to the Assyrian people is that they need to come together
and stop complaining about the lack of interest towards their cases.
They need to promote genocide education and help to train their own
scholars. I would love to teach Assyrian students who are interested
in the genocide. Our Holocaust and Genocide Studies Center is open to
cooperation.
In your opinion, is cooperation by the three main victim groups
necessary in gaining Turkish and international recognition of the
genocide?
Of course they can work together. I think the main question is how
they can achieve the acknowledgement of the different mass crimes by
the Turkish government? How can we get the Turkish government to
acknowledge its historic wrongdoing of the past?
There are several ways to answer these questions. For example,
Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians prefer to increase the pressure on
Turkish government. Their main strategy is to convince third parties
so that these third parties can pressure the Turkish government on
their behalf. In order to achieve this, these groups have been trying
for decades to get recognition from different Parliaments in the form
of resolutions, governmental decisions or decision of different
international bodies. It is true that until recently, each group was
pushing its own case and it is also true that they might be stronger
if they unite their forces and to get resolutions not only for their
cases but for all cases together. I am not sure whether this is a new
contribution or whether this brings a new aspect to the problem that
we are facing.
I call this strategy "conventional war" with "conventional methods".
Even though I am not against these kinds of efforts -- since they
(Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks) do not have much leverage in their
hands, except to win over the third parties -- I am very sceptical
about the success of this strategy. I think there is an urgent need to
shift the focus of interest. My humble suggestion in this regard is
that Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks should start focusing on Turkey.
For me, the democratization process in Turkey is as important, if not
more important, than efforts to win the support of third parties. I
think the emerging civil society in Turkey and their fight for a
democratic society is more important for the acknowledgment of the
Genocide than parliamentary decrees from outside Turkey. Of course
they are not mutually exclusive. Armenians, Assyrian and Greeks can
still continue to work with their "conventional methods" but they have
to understand that there is something growing in Turkey, which could
be more effective than the parliament resolutions.
Therefore the Assyrians, Greeks and Armenians should develop strong
connections with the democracy movement in Turkey. The recognition of
the mass crimes of the past is directly related to the democratization
process of Turkey. The Assyrians, Greeks and Armenians need to create
a strong relationship and work together with the democracy movement in
Turkey towards the recognition of their cases.
And they have to find a language, which is adequate for such
"conversation". I think the existing language is still part of the
problem rather than part of the solution and does not help both sides.
We have to understand that the language of "war" is different than the
language of "peace". My observation is that the language of
"conventional war" still dominates the field. There is a mistrust and
suspicion in both sides. Whatever has emerged from grassroots
organizations within Turkey or the Armenian diaspora has been received
by the opposing side with great caution. The reason for this is the
mentality and the language of "conventional war".
The main logic or mindset that drives the language used by each side
is that there is this monolithic other, who is our enemy. The usage of
the term "Turk" is the best example to show this. It is not the "Turk"
that exists today as a living breathing individual. The "Turk" is and
abstract construction and is what is not "Armenian", "Assyrian" or
"Greek". As such, one can easily substitute these terms "Turk" or
"Armenian, Assyrian and Greek" for any characteristics of what
comprise the "Other." Today, and for much of our pasts, we have a
monolithic, stereotypical image of the other side.
Each side has developed a very negative picture of the other, which is
an abstraction, to which they constantly refer to confirm the
righteousness of their own positions. We are wiser, fairer, kinder,
more capable, more attractive, and generally better that other party.
The other side is deceitful, aggressive, heartless and incapable of
change for better. We have a differentiated view of ourselves while
maintaining an undifferentiated, stereotypical view of the other. We
have to change this language and understanding.
Even though there are some positive developments in this regard but
still we have to work very hard to change the "language of
conventional war" and develop a language that helps to overcome the
divides, which were built up over the years between different people
in Anatolia.
Do you consider the 1915 genocides of the Assyrians, Armenians and the
Greeks to be one genocide?
It is a very difficult question. My simple answer is "no"; what
happened to Greeks during the war years cannot be called genocide, it
is simply wrong. My complicated answer is "yes", this term might be
used, but not for the First World War years but only if you broaden
the scope of the years. If you use the time frame between 1912 and
1923, including the Pontus Greeks, this term might be used but I
personally think that it's still fraught with a lot of problems. The
term can cause understanding of that era to darken rather than to
enlighten and explain the above-mentioned period.
First of all, it is indeed very important to consider these three mass
crimes in interrelation with each other and as a part of an existing
process, regardless of whether we give them all one and the same name.
It is a fact that the Ottoman policies towards Greeks, Armenians and
Assyrians were not separate events from each other and they were
strongly interconnected. However, it is very difficult to argue that
the Ottoman policies towards these groups were all the same, and
therefore that we can bring more light into the process by using "a
common definition" for all these mass crimes. As we know, there was a
general Ottoman policy not only towards the Christian population of
Anatolia but also towards the non-Turkish Muslim groups. I call this
policy "demographic policy" and it aimed at the radical restructuring
of Anatolia's population. The policy began to be implemented after the
loss of the Balkan Wars in 1912-3. The policy against Christians and
non-Turkish Muslims was implemented in a different manner. Christians
were to be eliminated by expulsion or massacre. Non-Turkish Muslims,
such as the Kurds, Arabs, and Balkan migrants (refugees from Christian
persecution), were relocated and dispersed among the Turkish majority
to be assimilated into the dominant culture. Within this broader
picture the treatment of Christian populations was different from each
other and varied from time to time.
So, if one aims to show the common characteristics of these policies
against Christians (to get rid of them of Anatolia by different
means), you may try to find one term for all these cases. But only one
single term eradicates the differences between these policies. For
example; I don't think that we can call what happened to the Greeks
during the First War Years a genocide. It is totally wrong, in my
opinion and has no basis.
In 1913--4 the Greek population was put on ships and forcefully sent
to Greece. There were sporadic massacres also but the main aim was to
send them to Greece. We know that during the Armenian genocide some
Armenians on the deportation route were separated by the Ottoman
authorities because they were held as Greeks. In certain regions
Armenians were hidden by Greeks because the latter were not a target
of deportations. There were also some deportation of Greeks towards
the end of the war, especially in 1917; however, the purpose of it was
not to exterminate but to empty the costal region for military
purposes.
It seems to me that the usage of the term genocide for what happened
to Greeks during the First World War years is more politically
motivated than actually grounded in sound research, which is a common
phenomenon in our field. It might be useful for those who want to get
attention to their causes. However as a genocide scholar I prefer to
use different terms that shed more light on and increase our
understanding of the different forms of violence. For me
thnic--cleansing is a more proper term to define what happened to the
Greek people during the war years.
I have to add that I consider the Pontus case different from the
wartime experience of Greek population. Indeed what happened to the
Pontian people in 1921 and 1922 was equal to a genocide. However, it
was not the Ottoman government who implemented this policy against the
Greeks of Pontus; it was the Turkish Nationalist government. If you
want to develop one common term, for the period of 1912-1923 I prefer
"genocide and ethnic cleansing policies of the Ottoman and Turkish
governments" as an appropriate description.
Would you consider writing on the Assyrian Genocide?
First of all, I think we are coming to a point where to talk on
Armenian and Assyrian cases separately is becoming more and more
problematic. We can be an expert in one of these cases, but we should
not forget that it was the same Ottoman government that implemented
the policies against both the Assyrians and the Armenians. The
distinction between both cases is sometimes very difficult.
On the other hand, this does not mean that I can be an expert on the
Assyrian genocide. I teach on the Assyrian genocide but I cannot write
a book specifically on this topic. I agree that I should incorporate
the Assyrian aspect into my research more and more but this does not
make me an expert on the Assyrian people and their history. Because of
my age and education I cannot be an expert concerning the Assyrian
genocide. The languages that I can read and write are not sufficient
enough for me to be considered a scholar in the Assyrian case. In
addition to what I have said above (i.e. incorporating the Assyrian
genocide into my writing and research) what I really would like to do
(and this is my appeal to Assyrians) is to train Assyrian (or of
course other) students, who want to study and become an expert on the
Assyrian genocide. I can do this within the graduate program at our
Institute. Please send us as many Assyrian or other students as you
can, who want to study the Assyrian case. I can train them in this
topic. Needless to say, the students must be capable in their own
language in order to be able to study the Assyrian genocide.
What do you think is the rationale behind Turkey's denial of the
Assyrian, Armenian and Greek Genocide?
I think we should not confine ourselves to looking at the attitude of
the state; we must look into the society also. There are several
reasons for Turkish denial; one is a very general factor, which I call
amnesia and/or lack of interest. We have to keep in mind that we,
Turks, are generally disinclined to talk and unwilling and reluctant
to delve into the past. I would say that ignoring the past is a common
custom in Turkey. You could almost say that a lack of curiosity about
history is a national trait.
If you want to understand a culture you have to look at its proverbs
to find deeper cultural assumptions (values). In the case of Turkey we
have dozens of sayings with the same message: that the past is not
important and not worth dwelling on. The most common one is "bosver"
which can be translated as "forget it or never mind"; "baska isin
gücün mü yok?", which can be translated "don't you have something
better to worry about?".
And so, in line with this prevailing mindset in Turkey not only are
the mass atrocities during the First World War years forgotten; so is
the very recent past. We are a society that tends to forget and loves
to forget. Of course, as intellectuals, we could argue that this is a
very serious cultural flaw and amounts to willful amnesia and many of
Turkey's current problems stem from this tendency. Because people
don't face and confront their issues or problems honestly and move on
without truly addressing them, so the problems then add up, accumulate
and end up getting out of proportion.
The second important reason for societal denial is the reform of the
alphabet and nationalistic historiography. In 1928, through an
alphabet reform program, Turkish scripts was changed from Arabic
letters to the Latin alphabet. Through this reform the Turkish people
lost every connection to their written history; they couldn't even
read the letters or diaries of their ancestors. As a result, current
generations are totally dependent on a version of history that the
Turkish state has defined and written for them. Can you imagine a
society that has almost no access to what happened before 1928?
One can add to this reality, the fact that the Turkish state has a
certain stake in representing history in a certain way in order to
legitimize its existence. Therefore, you can understand why Genocide
is not a prominent topic in Turkish society. The recent scandal
regarding Turkish history books and their labelling of Assyrians as
traitors is a perfect example of this.
Of course none of these factors explain why the topic of the Armenian
or Assyrian Genocide strikes a nerve with the Turks. There must be
some other underlying causes for this sensitivity which go beyond this
general reasoning.
The third factor I would refer to is that Armenians, Assyrians, and
Greeks, generally the Christians, have symbolized and have been a
constant reminder to the Turks of their most traumatic historical
events, namely the collapse of the Empire and the loss of 85% of their
territory over a 40-year period. Muslim--Turks lived the last
100-years of their Empire, under the constant fear that they would
disappear from the stage of history. In a simple way they felt they
would disappear; would be pushed aside, squeezed out and completely
carved up by European powers and the other nations in Anatolia. In
other words they were looking at the total annihilation of their
state's existence. So naturally any reminder of this period is avoided
at all costs. Metaphorically speaking the Turks conceive of themselves
as a phoenix rising from the ashes and the Christians are the reminder
of the ashes.
Finally, the fourth reason is the fear of consequences. I would divide
this fear into two main categories; Material and Moral. The most
common argument we have heard is that if Turkey were to acknowledge
the Genocide they would have to pay compensation in the form of land
and money. This might be indeed one of the reasons but I don't think
that this is the primary fear of Turkey although it is often used it
as one of the main arguments. At least this argument has some tangible
form of reconciling the loss of individual properties and wealth.
Therefore, in this respect, if Turkey acknowledges its past
wrongdoings, it must pay reparations or make restitutions in the form
of a specified amount of money or the return of churches or other
important historic building to the Armenians or Assyrians to rectify
the losses of the past. There are other forms of compensation, which I
cannot discuss here.
The moral factor is the connection between the Genocide and the
formation of the Republic. This problem is related to the fact that
some of the founders of the Turkish state were the very same members
of the party who organized the Genocide. As is the case in every
nation state, the Turks also glorified these persons as founding
fathers and heroes. We must then understand how difficult it is to
change the historical narrative and call some of the founders
murderers or thieves. If that occurs, the very existence and identity
of the state is questioned. It is therefore almost self-destructive to
bring up this topic. Can you imagine for example, American history
being rewritten to portray Washington and Jefferson primarily as slave
holders?
I have to add to this picture that there are serious changes in
Turkey. With the establishment in 2002 of the AKP government, Turkey
has entered into an increasing democratization process with a growing
civil society. To challenge the existing denialist policy is much more
possible than ever before. I cannot go into detail of these changes
here but would just like to bring to the reader's attention that there
is now a deputy of Assyrian origin in the Turkish parliament and he
and his colleagues are open to examining Turkey's past wrongdoings.
By Linda Abraham
Assyrian Genocide Research Center
Edited by Joseph Haweil.
http://www.aina.org/news/20111023134524.htm
From: Baghdasarian