Tweet
ORIENTALISM: 'TERRIBLE TURK' BECOMES A 'GENOCIDAL TURK'
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Jan 15 2014
by M. Hakan Yavuz*
15 January 2014 /
How does the Orientalist discourse of the past inform and restructure
the present political discourse on "the other"? How can we explain the
continuity of political discourses that are constructed upon the 20th
century's "scientific racism" (i.e., anthropological justification
of racism and thus colonial conquest)?
In the light of these broader questions, this article seeks to unpack
the symbiotic relationship between past Orientalist discourses
of the early 20th century and their contemporary (re)construction
through the concept of genocide in the events of 1915. What is the
connection between the events of 1915, the use of the term genocide,
and Orientalism? How do genocide scholars use images of the "terrible
Turk," backward Islam and the despotic Ottoman state to build a new,
genocidal image of Turks?
The Armenian genocide paradigm, which mostly shies away from
methodological, conceptual and theoretical debate in academic circles,
revitalizes the arsenal of politically motivated Orientalist images
to perpetuate the "bloodthirsty" Turkish image along with that of
intolerant Islam. As long as we allow ourselves to be influenced by the
racist discourses of John Henry Newman, William Gladstone, Viscount
James Bryce and Henry Morgenthau Sr., we cannot fully understand
this modern "crusade" discourse against Muslim Turks. These men were
racists, and their writings are the basis for the debate over the
Armenian issue against the Ottoman state and Turks. Newman, who never
had anything neutral to say about the Turks, said that he considered
the Ottoman state to be an "infamous power, the enemy of god and man."
Ambassador Morgenthau's memoirs provide some of the more powerful
weapons to undergird the genocide thesis (Henry Morgenthau, Ambassador
Morgenthau's Story [New York: Doubleday, Page and Company, 1918]).
Almost all scholars who insist on naming the events of 1915 as
genocide refer to this foundational text. Ronald Grigor Suny, a
leading historian of Russia and the Caucasus, who identifies the
memoires of Morgenthau as the most important "account" of the events
of 1915 as genocide, presents his characterization of the Turks only as
"essentializing nationality" rather than pure racism. Suny argues that
"the ambassador reveals himself as a keen observer, privileged in his
access to power, judicious in his evaluations of both the political
context and the key players, and highly ethical and fearless in his
defense of his government and his own values."
Although his official reports to the Department of State were very
different from his controversial memoirs, he offers the most racist
and dehumanizing characterization of Turkish culture, history and the
Turks themselves. The problem here is that the conceptual outcome
of this thesis is totally built on the Orientalist-essentialist
historiography within this text. The depiction of "the Turk" as the
inferior and backward "other" can be read throughout the text. For
Morgenthau, the Turk is "psychologically primitive," a "bully and a
coward" who can be "brave as a lion when things are going his way,
but cringing, abject and nerveless when reverses are overwhelming him."
Morgenthau does not stop there: For him, the Turks, "like most
primitive peoples, wear their emotions on the surface." Morgenthau
describes the Turks variously as "inarticulate, ignorant, and
poverty-ridden slaves," "barbarous," "brutal," "ragged and unkempt"
and "parasites." The ambassador's hatred of the Turks allows him to
conclude that "the descendants of Osman hardly resemble any people
I have ever known. They do not hate, they do not love; they have no
lasting animosities or affections. They only fear."
Of course, this discourse was not independent of the European
justifications of the colonial conquest of the "Orient" through the
scientific racism within the discipline of anthropology. As far as
Ottoman history is concerned, his racism has no boundaries and he
argues that "after five hundred years of close contact with European
civilization, the Turk remained precisely the same individual as the
one who had emerged from the steppes of Asia in the Middle Ages." The
Turks, for the ambassador, are sub-human; when they conquered land,
they "found it occupied by a certain number of camels, horses,
buffaloes, dogs, swine, and human beings. Of all these living things
the object that physically most resembled themselves they regarded as
the least important." Morgenthau tried to explain the violence-prone
Turkish character in terms of Islam. Violence, for him, is innate and
endorsed in Islam. Suny aptly argues that Morgenthau's text "became
foundational for Western and Armenian historiography of the genocide."
Given his deep hatred of the Turks and Islam, and considering that the
text was war propaganda, I wonder why Suny takes Morgenthau's alleged
conversation with then-Interior Minister Talaat PaĆ~_a seriously,
since he hardly mentions those conversations in his official reports
to the State Department.
When it comes to his description of Armenians, he argues that they
"are known for their industry, their intelligence, and their decent
and orderly lives. They are so superior to the Turks intellectually and
morally." Morgenthau applauds the rebellion against the Ottoman state
and gives his full support to the Armenian rebellion by arguing that
the Armenians "would also have welcomed an opportunity to strengthen
the hands of the Allies." The reason this racist text has become the
main source of the genocide thesis in the West has to do with what
can only be described as an ingrained hatred of the Turks.
Without questioning the racist and dehumanizing tone of this war
propaganda book, Suny argues that "the themes of Morgenthau's memoir
remain among the most powerful elements constituting both the narrative
of the genocide and its explanation up to the present." In fact,
this racist text has become the main source of dehumanization of the
Turks and Muslims as "genocidal."
The writings of Arnold J. Toynbee and Viscount Bryce are not much
different from the American ambassador's racist text. The second most
damning weapon in the arsenal of the genocide thesis is the writings
of these two British officials/scholars. Bryce in the preface of
"The Murderous Tyranny of the Turks" proudly announces the Allies'
determination to "deliver the Christian population of what is called
the Turkish Empire, whether in Asia or in Europe, from a Government
which during those five centuries has done nothing but oppress them."
The Turk, for Bryce, "cannot administer... cannot secure justice. As
a governing power, he has always shown himself incapable, corrupt
and cruel. He has always destroyed."
The genocide label has become a surrogate discourse of Orientalism to
portray the Turks as bloody, backward and despotic. One wonders why
Bryce and Toynbee did not care about contemporary massacres in the
British colonial empire, but wanted instead to focus on the Ottoman
domain and construe a barbaric image of the Turks. This is the case for
Morgenthau, who says nothing about US policies in the Philippines or
discrimination against African Americans, but rather became a moral
preacher against the "Oriental" Turk. Why are the killings carried
out by Britain and America not labeled genocide, and why did these
three racists provide the intellectual arsenal for the "bloody"
images of Turks?
Today, the Armenian "genocide" discourse is used to perpetuate the
image of "the terrible Turk," to undermine the legitimacy of the
Turkish Republic and to keep Turkey out of the European Union. The
genocide narrative is put into use and shared by many who share little
else except their dislike of the Turks.
*Professor M. Hakan Yavuz is an instructor at the University of Utah.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-336661-orientalism-terrible-turk-becomes-a-genocidal-turk-by-m-hakan-yavuz-.html
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Jan 15 2014
by M. Hakan Yavuz*
15 January 2014 /
How does the Orientalist discourse of the past inform and restructure
the present political discourse on "the other"? How can we explain the
continuity of political discourses that are constructed upon the 20th
century's "scientific racism" (i.e., anthropological justification
of racism and thus colonial conquest)?
In the light of these broader questions, this article seeks to unpack
the symbiotic relationship between past Orientalist discourses
of the early 20th century and their contemporary (re)construction
through the concept of genocide in the events of 1915. What is the
connection between the events of 1915, the use of the term genocide,
and Orientalism? How do genocide scholars use images of the "terrible
Turk," backward Islam and the despotic Ottoman state to build a new,
genocidal image of Turks?
The Armenian genocide paradigm, which mostly shies away from
methodological, conceptual and theoretical debate in academic circles,
revitalizes the arsenal of politically motivated Orientalist images
to perpetuate the "bloodthirsty" Turkish image along with that of
intolerant Islam. As long as we allow ourselves to be influenced by the
racist discourses of John Henry Newman, William Gladstone, Viscount
James Bryce and Henry Morgenthau Sr., we cannot fully understand
this modern "crusade" discourse against Muslim Turks. These men were
racists, and their writings are the basis for the debate over the
Armenian issue against the Ottoman state and Turks. Newman, who never
had anything neutral to say about the Turks, said that he considered
the Ottoman state to be an "infamous power, the enemy of god and man."
Ambassador Morgenthau's memoirs provide some of the more powerful
weapons to undergird the genocide thesis (Henry Morgenthau, Ambassador
Morgenthau's Story [New York: Doubleday, Page and Company, 1918]).
Almost all scholars who insist on naming the events of 1915 as
genocide refer to this foundational text. Ronald Grigor Suny, a
leading historian of Russia and the Caucasus, who identifies the
memoires of Morgenthau as the most important "account" of the events
of 1915 as genocide, presents his characterization of the Turks only as
"essentializing nationality" rather than pure racism. Suny argues that
"the ambassador reveals himself as a keen observer, privileged in his
access to power, judicious in his evaluations of both the political
context and the key players, and highly ethical and fearless in his
defense of his government and his own values."
Although his official reports to the Department of State were very
different from his controversial memoirs, he offers the most racist
and dehumanizing characterization of Turkish culture, history and the
Turks themselves. The problem here is that the conceptual outcome
of this thesis is totally built on the Orientalist-essentialist
historiography within this text. The depiction of "the Turk" as the
inferior and backward "other" can be read throughout the text. For
Morgenthau, the Turk is "psychologically primitive," a "bully and a
coward" who can be "brave as a lion when things are going his way,
but cringing, abject and nerveless when reverses are overwhelming him."
Morgenthau does not stop there: For him, the Turks, "like most
primitive peoples, wear their emotions on the surface." Morgenthau
describes the Turks variously as "inarticulate, ignorant, and
poverty-ridden slaves," "barbarous," "brutal," "ragged and unkempt"
and "parasites." The ambassador's hatred of the Turks allows him to
conclude that "the descendants of Osman hardly resemble any people
I have ever known. They do not hate, they do not love; they have no
lasting animosities or affections. They only fear."
Of course, this discourse was not independent of the European
justifications of the colonial conquest of the "Orient" through the
scientific racism within the discipline of anthropology. As far as
Ottoman history is concerned, his racism has no boundaries and he
argues that "after five hundred years of close contact with European
civilization, the Turk remained precisely the same individual as the
one who had emerged from the steppes of Asia in the Middle Ages." The
Turks, for the ambassador, are sub-human; when they conquered land,
they "found it occupied by a certain number of camels, horses,
buffaloes, dogs, swine, and human beings. Of all these living things
the object that physically most resembled themselves they regarded as
the least important." Morgenthau tried to explain the violence-prone
Turkish character in terms of Islam. Violence, for him, is innate and
endorsed in Islam. Suny aptly argues that Morgenthau's text "became
foundational for Western and Armenian historiography of the genocide."
Given his deep hatred of the Turks and Islam, and considering that the
text was war propaganda, I wonder why Suny takes Morgenthau's alleged
conversation with then-Interior Minister Talaat PaĆ~_a seriously,
since he hardly mentions those conversations in his official reports
to the State Department.
When it comes to his description of Armenians, he argues that they
"are known for their industry, their intelligence, and their decent
and orderly lives. They are so superior to the Turks intellectually and
morally." Morgenthau applauds the rebellion against the Ottoman state
and gives his full support to the Armenian rebellion by arguing that
the Armenians "would also have welcomed an opportunity to strengthen
the hands of the Allies." The reason this racist text has become the
main source of the genocide thesis in the West has to do with what
can only be described as an ingrained hatred of the Turks.
Without questioning the racist and dehumanizing tone of this war
propaganda book, Suny argues that "the themes of Morgenthau's memoir
remain among the most powerful elements constituting both the narrative
of the genocide and its explanation up to the present." In fact,
this racist text has become the main source of dehumanization of the
Turks and Muslims as "genocidal."
The writings of Arnold J. Toynbee and Viscount Bryce are not much
different from the American ambassador's racist text. The second most
damning weapon in the arsenal of the genocide thesis is the writings
of these two British officials/scholars. Bryce in the preface of
"The Murderous Tyranny of the Turks" proudly announces the Allies'
determination to "deliver the Christian population of what is called
the Turkish Empire, whether in Asia or in Europe, from a Government
which during those five centuries has done nothing but oppress them."
The Turk, for Bryce, "cannot administer... cannot secure justice. As
a governing power, he has always shown himself incapable, corrupt
and cruel. He has always destroyed."
The genocide label has become a surrogate discourse of Orientalism to
portray the Turks as bloody, backward and despotic. One wonders why
Bryce and Toynbee did not care about contemporary massacres in the
British colonial empire, but wanted instead to focus on the Ottoman
domain and construe a barbaric image of the Turks. This is the case for
Morgenthau, who says nothing about US policies in the Philippines or
discrimination against African Americans, but rather became a moral
preacher against the "Oriental" Turk. Why are the killings carried
out by Britain and America not labeled genocide, and why did these
three racists provide the intellectual arsenal for the "bloody"
images of Turks?
Today, the Armenian "genocide" discourse is used to perpetuate the
image of "the terrible Turk," to undermine the legitimacy of the
Turkish Republic and to keep Turkey out of the European Union. The
genocide narrative is put into use and shared by many who share little
else except their dislike of the Turks.
*Professor M. Hakan Yavuz is an instructor at the University of Utah.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-336661-orientalism-terrible-turk-becomes-a-genocidal-turk-by-m-hakan-yavuz-.html