Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
April 4 2015
Burdens of History
DOÄ?U ERGÄ°L
April 04, 2015, Saturday
April 24 is only three weeks away.
It is a day that both Armenians and Turks think should have never
happened. But it did, a hundred years ago.
The Ottoman Empire had lost its imperial grandeur: Impoverished and
unable to hold together subject peoples/nations with a central
administration in entropy it disintegrated.
Western powers with the appetite to partition its rich provinces
helped the non-Turkish Ottoman peoples to attain their national
states.
The Armenians were too far away from Western reach and thinly
scattered to form a majority in order to claim independence. Their
constant demands for reform and better administration were repressed
several times until they were treated as treason when Armenians
solicited the help of Western powers.
Entrance to World War I and successive defeats sharpened the
government's reaction to unruly behavior in the war zone. The alliance
of some Armenians with the invading Russians, and the fictive danger
posed by the rest in other parts of the country, led to a brutal
retaliation. The Young Turk government of the time had no stomach to
share power with any of the minorities and blamed them for the poor
state of the country.
Mainly from the Balkans, which was tragically lost, the nationalist
rulers of Turkey wanted to avoid a similar disaster in the heartland.
Armenians
became the scapegoat of their fears and worries.
Armenians have no doubt that the ominous cleansing of Anatolia of
their kind was genocide. What they went through is described as such
in the 1948 UN law on genocide. They have convinced many people and
governments that it is so.
The popular Turkish view accepts the fact that a great catastrophe had
took place during World War I that has since consumed Turks and
Armenians alike. The official view is that whatever the Armenians have
suffered is because of their rebellious minority that led to the
suffering of the innocent majority.
The continuation of official Turkish callousness and popular lack of
empathy for the grief of Armenians who lost their lives, loved ones
and their homeland has had a maddening effect on them. For the
Armenians, Turks are more than an enemy. They are the ones who have
stolen their lives, lands and history. They compress all that has
transpired under the term `genocide'.
This is a legalistic and extremely emotional concept; the epitome of
crimes against humanity. Turks reject being the perpetrator of such a
major crime and deny Armenian claims for a number of reasons. Firstly,
they say such a term obstructs the understanding of the historical
complexity of the phenomenon.
Furthermore, Armenians' interpretation of the catastrophic period has
been increasingly radicalized over time. Genocide became an
ideological tool with which to punish the Turks, leaving no room for a
different interpretation of events.
In the genocidal narrative there is one clear victim and one clear
perpetrator. A richer and more nuanced narrative cannot find a chance
to bridge the divide. Yet it is necessary for both nations to find a
common language and a shared method to understand their mutual past
and present feelings.
The best approach for the Turks is to ask four simple questions,
starting with how their two million Armenian compatriots vanished from
their common homeland. If they were all deported for the duration of
the war, how come they did not return? Being the subject of private
law, how would the properties they left behind be dealt with upon
demands from their descendants? Do their descendants have a right to
the citizenship denied to their ancestors for the restoration of the
injustice done?
As regards the Armenians, they have to understand that Turks were
deliberately left ignorant of their past. The trauma of losing an
empire needs a lot of critical thinking that was omitted because the
founders of the Republic of Turkey and the losers of World War I were
of the same political stock, namely the Committee of Union and
Progress (Ä°TC) who planned and executed the Armenian campaign. They
both believed in the merit of an ethnically and religiously homogenous
nation.
If an Armenian-Turkish dialogue has to be developed, an alternative
concept must also be developed for practical purposes. Only after a
more objective and fair assessment of the past is made can the
correctness of any concept be debated with less emotional fervour.
After all, what transpired happened a century ago and there was a
different state to be held responsible. Maybe then Turks will
understand why there is no pride and reward in shouldering the
responsibility of their ancestors who were not as spotless as they
thought they were.
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist/dogu-ergil/burdens-of-history_377108.html
April 4 2015
Burdens of History
DOÄ?U ERGÄ°L
April 04, 2015, Saturday
April 24 is only three weeks away.
It is a day that both Armenians and Turks think should have never
happened. But it did, a hundred years ago.
The Ottoman Empire had lost its imperial grandeur: Impoverished and
unable to hold together subject peoples/nations with a central
administration in entropy it disintegrated.
Western powers with the appetite to partition its rich provinces
helped the non-Turkish Ottoman peoples to attain their national
states.
The Armenians were too far away from Western reach and thinly
scattered to form a majority in order to claim independence. Their
constant demands for reform and better administration were repressed
several times until they were treated as treason when Armenians
solicited the help of Western powers.
Entrance to World War I and successive defeats sharpened the
government's reaction to unruly behavior in the war zone. The alliance
of some Armenians with the invading Russians, and the fictive danger
posed by the rest in other parts of the country, led to a brutal
retaliation. The Young Turk government of the time had no stomach to
share power with any of the minorities and blamed them for the poor
state of the country.
Mainly from the Balkans, which was tragically lost, the nationalist
rulers of Turkey wanted to avoid a similar disaster in the heartland.
Armenians
became the scapegoat of their fears and worries.
Armenians have no doubt that the ominous cleansing of Anatolia of
their kind was genocide. What they went through is described as such
in the 1948 UN law on genocide. They have convinced many people and
governments that it is so.
The popular Turkish view accepts the fact that a great catastrophe had
took place during World War I that has since consumed Turks and
Armenians alike. The official view is that whatever the Armenians have
suffered is because of their rebellious minority that led to the
suffering of the innocent majority.
The continuation of official Turkish callousness and popular lack of
empathy for the grief of Armenians who lost their lives, loved ones
and their homeland has had a maddening effect on them. For the
Armenians, Turks are more than an enemy. They are the ones who have
stolen their lives, lands and history. They compress all that has
transpired under the term `genocide'.
This is a legalistic and extremely emotional concept; the epitome of
crimes against humanity. Turks reject being the perpetrator of such a
major crime and deny Armenian claims for a number of reasons. Firstly,
they say such a term obstructs the understanding of the historical
complexity of the phenomenon.
Furthermore, Armenians' interpretation of the catastrophic period has
been increasingly radicalized over time. Genocide became an
ideological tool with which to punish the Turks, leaving no room for a
different interpretation of events.
In the genocidal narrative there is one clear victim and one clear
perpetrator. A richer and more nuanced narrative cannot find a chance
to bridge the divide. Yet it is necessary for both nations to find a
common language and a shared method to understand their mutual past
and present feelings.
The best approach for the Turks is to ask four simple questions,
starting with how their two million Armenian compatriots vanished from
their common homeland. If they were all deported for the duration of
the war, how come they did not return? Being the subject of private
law, how would the properties they left behind be dealt with upon
demands from their descendants? Do their descendants have a right to
the citizenship denied to their ancestors for the restoration of the
injustice done?
As regards the Armenians, they have to understand that Turks were
deliberately left ignorant of their past. The trauma of losing an
empire needs a lot of critical thinking that was omitted because the
founders of the Republic of Turkey and the losers of World War I were
of the same political stock, namely the Committee of Union and
Progress (Ä°TC) who planned and executed the Armenian campaign. They
both believed in the merit of an ethnically and religiously homogenous
nation.
If an Armenian-Turkish dialogue has to be developed, an alternative
concept must also be developed for practical purposes. Only after a
more objective and fair assessment of the past is made can the
correctness of any concept be debated with less emotional fervour.
After all, what transpired happened a century ago and there was a
different state to be held responsible. Maybe then Turks will
understand why there is no pride and reward in shouldering the
responsibility of their ancestors who were not as spotless as they
thought they were.
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist/dogu-ergil/burdens-of-history_377108.html