Introduction
The Armenian Genocide, which is otherwise known as Armenian Holocaust was the methodical annihilation of members of the Armenian minority within the borders of their native land which is now the Republic of Turkey. Reports revealed that the victims reached over a million Armenians who were rounded up by the Ottoman authorities. Historically, the Armenians are descendants of the ancient people even before the first century of the current era. Moreover, the Armenians were the first nation to adopt deeply adopt Christianity in their culture, which makes them different from other people in the neighboring regions. Accordingly, there are some people, such as the UK government who believed that a genocide did not occur among the Armenians, while many scholars and historians described the fate of these people as genocide. This paper aims to examine the account of the Armenian genocide according to the interpretations and writings of past historians.
The Prelude to the Genocide
In Gocek’s Denial of Violence, she pointed how the existence of the Muslims and the non-Muslims were not only legitimated according to the Muslim practice, but that it was also assumed that both were content with this kind of arrangement. The Armenians have long suffered from injustices and were referred to as second class citizens under the rule of the Ottoman government. For instance, Sultan Abdul Hamid II, who was the leader of the Ottoman government in 1876 clearly showed his anti-Armenian stance when he denied about the reports of abuses committed against the Armenians; and he cited that the lootings and murders committed against the Armenians were all fabricated. The plea for greater autonomy and grant of better security was denied to the Armenians under his rule. A few years later, Hamid II created the Hamidiye, comprised of Kurdish people who were tasked to deal with the Armenians as they wished. Sometime in 1908, the Armenians, together with the Arabs, Greeks, Jews and Kurds worked on creating a new state that was geared towards a government that equally represent the people. The movement resulted to Sultan Abdul-Hamid’s removal from power and the Ottoman subjects were able to enjoy equal rights under the modern constitutional government. However, triumph was only short lived as the supporters of Sultan Hamid, in their effort to restore the Sultan into power, carried a massacre of Adana that resulted in the killing of about 30,000 Armenians. The people involved in this massacre were never punished, and the event was just an initiation of the Ottoman government’s objective to get rid of the Armenians.
The Balkan Wars
After the massacre in Aldana, the relationship between the Armenians and the Turks has drastically changed. The disdain of each group for the other was further escalated during the Balkan war in 1912 and 1913, which, according to scholars, was the major “turning point in the evolution of the relationship between the Young Turks and the Armenians”. It was the concept of Turkish nationalism and the transformation of government policies that played a pivotal role in the Turk’s anti-Christian sentiments. However, some scholars argued that it was not the Balkan war that triggered the widening of the relationship gap between the Turks and the Armenians. That is, even before the war, the Young Turks “had a strong nationalistic feeling even before the Young Turk Revolution of 1908”. Still, some Turkish scholars suggested that the resentment on the part of the Young Turks towards the Armenians, combined with the feelings of vengeance of Ottoman Turkish officials contributed to the Armenian massacre that occurred a few years later.
Armenian Genocide of 1915 Recalled
The Armenian genocide started in 1915, when the Ottoman government ordered the rounding up of Armenians in April of that year. No argument can deny the fact that the Ottoman government caused the deportation of over two million Armenians that resulted in massive death due to diseases, starvation and murderous attacks. However, up to this day, the Turkish government and some scholars remain to deny that the massive killing that was initiated in 1915 was a genocide. In a compiled narrative of the survivors of the genocide entitled Witness to the Armenian Genocide, Khanum Palootzian, who was in her early 20s during that time recalled how they were uprooted her and her family in what she perceived as the Turk’s goal to annihilate them. Her narrative of what happened during 1915, together with other stories from survivors showed just how the Ottoman empire wanted the total eradication of the Armenian race.
Our houses, farms, sheep, cows, fuel, horses, donkeys, chickens, our furniture,
Beds, foods, and all belongings were collected and forcefully confiscated. They
didn’t even give us one piastre as payment for all they took. My stepfather,
when they were going to kill him, pleaded that they let him pray before dying.
As he knelt and prayed, they took a sword and cut off his head. They marched
us into the mountains, fields and gorges to die of hunger. All the Armenian men
and boys were killed with axes and swords. And all the women and girls were
killed through thirst, hunger and an even worse fate that I don’t wish to say.
Pregnant women were eviscerated, their stomachs cut open with swords and
their babies ripped out, thrown against the rocks. These I saw with my own
eyes.
According to how Hovannisian narrated in the first chapter of The Armenian Genocide, the Ottoman have the advantage and the upper hand to control the less able Armenians. The historian pointed how the Turks were not content on treating the Armenians as second class citizens, but went so far as to conceptualize the total eradication of their race. This can be assumed at how the Young Turks were able to systematically arrest million Armenians with ensured coordination and genocidal operations. It was not an act that was aimlessly thought of, but an act that was thoroughly planned, which means that there was an ample time for the Turk to plan the genocide against the unsuspecting Armenians. Accordingly, much as nothing can be done about the massacre, people will remain will be reminded by history that such shameful act was even planned and executed. This is in addition to the fact that the Turkish Republic, for some reason, remained in denial in executing the genocide.
As pointed out by this author in his Looking Backward, Moving Forward, the genocide committed against the Armenians almost defies understanding, but that we should remain to understand to prevent the repeat of this kind of crime. Accordingly, this denial has several consequences in the current times. For example, the Turkish government has been spending a lot in defending itself from the insistence that it employed genocide to the Armenians. On the other hand, the Armenian government and other organizations have shelled out millions for the recognition of the genocide that was perpetrated towards its people. Currently, the relationship between the Armenian and the Turkish government remain cold, their borders closed, “since Turkey has the nonrecognition of the Armenian Genocide as one of the preconditions for re-establishing relations and opening the border”.
The Armenian Genocide as a Nationality Conflict
tolerance of other religions. Accordingly, the understanding of the nature of Islam religion, in relation to its impact on the Ottoman leaders and the people was a vital element in determining the political and social decisions of their government.
The Ottoman government is largely impacted by the Islamic doctrine. For example, the Sultan, who occupies an important position, thus can exercise supreme political authority, is also regarded as the successor of Mohammed. Therefore, his duty extends beyond the political sphere as he also served as the defender of Islam, and included in his responsibility is the protection of the Islamic doctrine. Dadrian pointed out how the Islamic doctrine serves, not only within a religious context, “but a fixed and infallible doctrine of duties, including regulations of juridical and political nature”. Within this context, the non-Muslims within the jurisdiction of the Ottoman government are required to submit to the authority of the Sultan and are considered as second class citizens in within that dominion. The Islamic foundation of the Ottoman Empire, resulted in the development of state policies where the non-Muslims within the territory are required to pay taxes, in exchange for their security, the protection of their properties and the freedom to observe their civil rights and practice their religion. Thus, the non-Muslims are regarded as tolerable infidels who occupy a lesser status than the Moslems. This is further explained by scholars who pointed out that this system is in parallel with the teaching of the Islamic doctrine where it specifically state the non-admission of equality among non-Moslems. Therefore, according to the legal implication of Islam in the Turk government, the Moslems were regarded as superior, in contrast to the Armenians who were considered as subordinate. This premise was substantiated by Dadrian’s argument which expressed that the Islamic doctrines are sacred and should not be tampered by humans, but should be accepted as it is.
The Genocide Under the Cover of WWI
Some of the survivors of the Armenian genocide clamored for justice for the inhumane treatment they received from the massacre perpetrators. But as discussed previously, the Turkish government remains to deny that a genocide occurred, which coincided with WWI. Hovannisian agreed that the massacre was a genocide, because almost all of the Armenians, regardless of sex, status, age and religious denomination were targeted, all with the apparent purpose of eliminating them, while in the course of robbing all they have. While there are many scholars who argued that the genocide would not have occurred had it not been for the escalation of WWI, still others suggest that the genocide was already planned even before the start of the war. The Young Turks objective in joining Germany was motivated by the purpose of resolving internal conflict, and eventually used the war to push through with the genocide. As recounted by some survivors, the Armenians were forced to evacuate towards the Southern part of Anatolia, as they were accused to have a close collaboration with the Russians. But as Peter Balakian argued, it was an effort by the government to round the Armenians and proceed with the planned genocide. Thus, under the cover of war, the perpetrators remain unpunished. While war crimes were persecuted under the Turkish Courts, and the crimes against the Armenians were documented, there was a failure in prosecuting the people involved in the crime.
The Genocide as a Revolutionary Act
In Melson Robert’s argument, he suggested that the genocide of the Armenians should not be taken as a response to provocative acts of the victims. Rather, it should be perceived as a “reaction to the continuing disintegration of the empire settled on a narrow nationalism and excluded Armenians from the moral state of the universe”. Nevertheless, Melson’s argument was in parallel to that of Dadrian and Balakian who argued that the WW was used as a shield to the genocide. Melson suggested that the hidden intent of the Ottoman Empire in joining the Central Powers was to use the military as an excuse to annihilate the Armenians. This analysis lends credibility to the argument that the Armenian genocide was a premeditated plan, that was motivated by the concept of eradicating a group of people. This tragic phenomena are referred to as the ethnic cleansing which encompasses forms of forced deportation and genocide, and is “associated with crimes against property as well as people”. Scholars pointed out that violence is likely to occur due to ethnic and protests that emerged due to ethnic inequalities that leads to the breakdown of societal order.
Conclusion
The Armenian Genocide was the atrocities perpetrated against the Armenian people sometime in WWI. Genocide is referred as the systematic destruction of a group of people, including their culture and practices with the intent of drastically putting an end to their existence. The killing of millions of Armenians is considered by many scholars as a genocide by the nature of its implementation that required adequate planning and implementation. Accordingly, this is a crime that can only be implemented by a strong authority, thus the killing of the Armenian people was thought of as conceptualized and supported by the Turkish government.
While the Turks vehemently denied the genocide allegation, many scholars suggested that the manner of the implementation constitute genocide which can only be perpetrated by the Turkish government. This crime against humanity was perpetrated under the cover of WWI, thus the massive starvation, expropriation, tortures and massacre were claimed to be a result of the War and not as an express effort of one government to annihilate a group of people. For one, the Turks, by the principle of their Islamic beliefs, have all the reason to hate the Armenians, who generally do not share their religion. By virtue of their Islamic beliefs, the Turks regarded the Armenians as second class citizens who, before the genocide, were subject to pay taxes and toll to the Ottoman government in order to receive protection and the freedom to practice their religion and exercise their civil rights. A century after the perpetration of the atrocities against the Armenians, the Turkish government remains in denial of the accusation, while the Armenians are still seeking an international recognition of the violence committed against their humanity.
The central issue of the Armenian genocide is the idea that people can cause the mass destruction of men, women, and innocent children. While ancient history has been a witness of several instances of a genocidal and extremely brutal killings of many people, these events occurred in the absence or lack of refinement among different societies. The occurrence of the First World War, and in its perceive use in shielding what turned out to be one of the tragic incidents of massacre in world history was not supposed to happen in a civilized society of the 20th century.
The Armenian genocide was reflective of an instance where a more powerful group of people within a society turns against the weaker subgroup who were perceived as threats or as internal enemies. For one, the Armenians were considered as second class citizens and were only protected by the Ottoman government in exchange for paying taxes and tolls. This was one among the less oppressive acts against the Armenians, which, according to many historians, gradually escalated into the most destructive acts. It was concluded that the Armenian genocide occurred as the perpetrators found it in their reasoning to destroy the Armenians.
Bibliography
Andrews, Dave. The Jihad Jesus: The Sacred Nonviolent Struggle for Justice. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2015.
Balakian, Peter. The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and American’s Response. Harper Collins. 2003
Cohan, Sara. "A Brief History of the Armenian Genocide." Social Education 69, no. 6 (2005): 333-337. http://www.teachgenocide.org/files/DocsMaps/A%20Brief%20History%20of%20the%20Armenian%20Genocide.pdf.
Dadrian, Vahakn. The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus. Oxford University Press. 1995
Dadrian, Vahakn. Warrant for Genocide: Key Elements of Turko Armenian. Transaction Publishers. 1999
Gocek, Fatma. Denial of Violence: Ottoman Past, Turkish Present, and Collective Violence Against the Armenians, 1789-2009. Oxford University Press, 2014.
Hovannisian, Richard. The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies Transaction Publishers, 2011.
Hovannisian, Richard. Looking Backward, Moving Forward: Confronting the American Genocide. Transaction Publishers. 2003
Melson, Robert. Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust. University of Chicago Press. 1996
Bibliography
Palootzian, Khanum, Mesrob Kloian, and Zakaria Kloian. "Witnesses to the Armenian Genocide." n.d http://www.teachgenocide.org/files/Witnesses%20to%20the%20Armenian%20Genocide.pdf/.
Robertson, Geoffrey. Was There an Armenian Genocide. London2009.
Suny, Ronald, Fatma Göcek, and Norman Naimark. A Question of Genocid: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire. Oxford University Press, 2011.
