Taner Akcam
Education is extremely centralized in Turkey. All issues, including
setting policy, the administration, and content of education are decided
and implemented by the national government. Textbooks that are to be
taught in schools are either prepared by the Ministry of National
Education (MEB) or must be approved by the Ministry’s Instruction and
Education Board.1 For this reason, there’s a direct
connection between the books taught in schools and the Turkish
government’s policies. The content of history textbooks, in particular,
reveals firsthand information about government policies and goals.
The MEB made elementary and middle school textbooks available on the
internet for the 2014-15 school year. Anyone can now download and read
these books.2 I did a quick review of the history books that
are to be taught this year, to see what is being taught to our children
about the Armenian Genocide. I have to characterize what I found as both
shocking and saddening.
Secondly, the textbooks are written in a very slipshod and haphazard
manner. Even the most perfunctory Google search would improve the
content, it is so filled with blatant errors. At the risk of offending
some people, it is as if the text was written with an arrogance marked
by the sentiment, “Put out a bunch of crap; the yokels won’t know the
difference.” In my opinion, these textbooks constitute a supreme act of
disrespect towards the students of present-day Turkey.
Third, these textbooks are required reading in Armenian schools, as
well. The only Armenians schools in existence in Turkey are presently
located in Istanbul. As of 2014, there are a total of 16 schools, and of
these 11 are K-8 schools and 2 are high school level. There are about
3,000 students in total.3 In history classes, which are
required, these students are taught that they are “traitors and societal
elements that murdered Turks and are easily incited” and that their
problems constitute “a threat to national society.” One can’t help but
see that this is a purposely driven attempt at “identity destruction” by
the Turkish government. It is also possible to detect a policy of
elimination by examining these schools and the change in the number of
students over the past 40 years: “There were 32 schools during the
1972-73 school year, 7,336 students…during the 1999-2000 school year the
number of schools was 18 with students numbering 3,786. There has been a
50 percent decrease in the number of schools and a 60 percent decrease
in the number of students over the past 40 years.” Those who present
this data consider it “a complete disaster,” and that is an accurate
assessment.4
One needs to evaluate what’s written in the books in light of another
source of information. Leading up to the prime minister’s election of
2015, the AK Party,5 which has been the ruling party of
Turkey for the past 13 years, and its leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, have
initiated a new project called the New Turkey Project. A “vision
statement,” which consists of chapters and titles under “Democratic
Administration,” “Prosperity State,” and “Trailblazer Country,” was also
prepared for this project. A free and democratic Turkey is promised by
the New Turkey Project.
The party has also published a book called The Silenced Revolution, Turkey’s Democratic Change and Transformation Inventory 2002-2012,
which describes its achievements during the 2002-12 period and, more
importantly, explains its philosophy. In order to better understand
what’s written in the textbooks and to make a proper comparison, it’s
helpful to present a few quotes from this book: “We have taken
significant steps in the fields of democratization, law, and the fight
against terrorism, each of which is deemed the ‘silent revolution.’ We
have never made concessions with regard to democracy, security, or
freedom. We have embraced a paradigm-shifting approach as our foundation
in order to restore peace in the society and developed a new ‘security
paradigm’… This revolution has introduced an understanding that
recognizes differences as diversity and puts the emphasis on serving the
citizens instead of a statist approach which sees its own citizens as a
threat.”6
Based on both the various claims that were voiced in this book and in
the context of the New Turkey Project, a group of intellectuals and
writers, known for their progressive-democratic views, announced that
they supported the AKP and its project. Additionally, they invited all
Christians and Jews, especially Armenians, to become the founding
pillars of this New Turkey. Those who did not accept the invitation
faced very harsh criticism.7 According to these
intellectuals, the AKP under Erdogan’s leadership rolled up its sleeves
to establish a new and democratic Turkey, and the right position to take
was to accept the invitation to become a founding member and support
the AKP.
Another major point made by those who believe the AKP is sincere in
working towards a New Turkey is that Erdogan, on April 24, 2014,
extended his condolences for the Armenian losses of 1915. This was truly
a first! Both this public expression of condolence and the fact that
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu continues to make statements about
approaching history with a “just memory” in different settings (i.e.,
the idea that both Turks and Armenians have suffered equally) made it
seem as though Turkey was ready to initiate a new phase on the lingering
Armenian-Turkish conflict. After Erdogan’s condolences, Davutoglu made
frequent statements to the effect that “we’ve done what we need to do on
this issue; now it’s the Armenians’ turn.”8 It would be fair
to say that this and similar arguments propelled those who take a deep
interest in the subject, particularly in light of the upcoming 100th anniversary of the genocide, to begin feeling hopeful.
For all of the above reasons, I decided it was time to take a look at Turkish textbooks. There’s so much you can learn about a country through what is taught to the young, the custodians of the future. It is there that we can see for ourselves what kind of New Turkey the AKP is planning on promoting, and to confirm claims that they have backed off from seeing and presenting their own citizens as enemies of the state. Specifically, we can see how they perceive Armenians. As we say in Turkish, textbooks truly are where “the clarinet toots its tune.”
This is what I found: Turkish history textbooks are filled with the message that Armenians are incited by foreign sources, want to partition the country, and kill Turks and Muslims. They direct their own citizens to view a specific citizen group (Armenians) as the enemy. In addition, they define the “Armenian Problem” as the biggest threat to national security and urge Turkish youth to be vigilant against this threat.
This is what I found: Turkish history textbooks are filled with the message that Armenians are incited by foreign sources, want to partition the country, and kill Turks and Muslims. They direct their own citizens to view a specific citizen group (Armenians) as the enemy. In addition, they define the “Armenian Problem” as the biggest threat to national security and urge Turkish youth to be vigilant against this threat.
One should add that this information continues to be taught to
Armenian children, without exception, just as had been done in the past.
There’s nothing new about the New Turkey. Everything here is a repeat
of what’s been going on for decades. The AKP continues to promote a
national security concept that’s been the modus operandi of past authoritarian regimes under military tutelage and the “hit” team, which was formed by the military, the Ergenekon organization that AKP claims to have now suppressed.
Without going on too much further let’s move on to the textbooks.
Primary school education: Grade 8
‘The Republic of Turkey: History of the Turkish Revolution and Principles of Ataturk’
This book was written for the 8th grade by Salim Ulker. In
accordance with a decision dated May 31, 2013, and numbered 29 by the
MEB Board of Instruction and Education, it was approved as a textbook
for a 5-year period. In actuality, there are two separate books. One is
the textbook and the other is the student’s workbook.9 The
Armenians and 1915 are covered in the seventh unit of both books. The
heading of the unit is “Turkey after Ataturk: The Second World War and
its Aftermath,” and the fifth topic deals with threats against Turkey.
The heading states, “In this subject we are going to learn about
internal and external threats to our country and that we must be
vigilant against these threats.”10
The goals of these threats are defined as “destroying the state’s
order.” What then constitutes the first and primal threat?
“Turkish-Armenian relations.” The question children are asked to debate
is, “What should be done to promote our country’s justification against
Armenian claims?” Stating that “we have duties in relation to the
internal and external threats against our country,” students are invited
to “be conscious of these threats.”11
After teaching that the Armenian issue is a national threat, a
homework exercise is presented in the student workbook. The title of the
ninth activity is “The Powers that Threaten Turkey and National
Security,” and the homework given to students is: “Next to the sources
of threats against our country, which are written below, write on the
dotted line what should be done both as a country and as a citizen.”12
What did I say was the biggest threat? You didn’t read this wrong: It
is the “Armenian matter,” “Armenian claims.” Students are additionally
asked to research “the primary duties of the National Security Board,
which was formed in furtherance of our national politics because of the
threats against our country.”13
I feel compelled to add one more note here. Ever since Hrant Dink’s
murder by a young man, frequent soul-searching has led many to wonder,
“Where do individuals who commit murders like that come from?” It seems
apparent what the answer is now. They get trained in Turkish schools!
Middle school education
‘History of the Turkish Revolution and Principles of Ataturk’
This second book was prepared for middle school education; there’s no
indication which year it is meant for specifically. The book was
written by a commission and approved as a textbook by the MEB Board of
Instruction and Education in a decision dated Dec. 8, 2011 and numbered
261.14 It is a publication of the Ministry of National Education.
In this book, the Massacre of Adana, which ended with the death of
20,000 Armenians in 1909, is identified as “The Rebellion of Armenians
of Adana.”15 This is terminology that even the Union and
Progress Party (CUP), which was in power at the time, didn’t use. In
fact, the CUP and its ally, the Dashnaktsutyun (Armenian Revolutionary
Federation) released a joint declaration in August 1909 criticizing the
massacres as “enacted against the revolution, as a counter-revolutionary
action” and stating that they would continue to work together against
attempts by counter-revolutionaries to oppose the constitution.16 In other words, the visionaries of today’s New Turkey are way behind the Unionists of 1909.
There is a great deal of information in the book that can be
considered outright falsehoods. Stating that the first Armenian
socialist organization, known as the Hnchaks, was “established in 1877
by the Armenian Patriarch Zaven Effendi” is just one example of the many
errors throughout. Neither the year of formation nor naming Patriarch
Zaven as the founder is true. When the organization was formed in 1887,
Zaven, who would later take on the role of Armenian patriarch of
Istanbul, was a mere child of 9. This kind of information can be easily
gleaned from the internet.
The book addresses the genocide under the heading, “1915 Armenian Events.”17
It starts with the kind of banal statements that are low on facts and
that we’ve heard hundreds of times over—that is, that the Armenians
sided with the Russians during the war. It goes from there to describing
how the Hnchak and Dashnak organizations instituted
rebellions in many parts of Anatolia. Not only that, but these
organizations “didn’t hesitate to kill Armenians who would not join
them” and even issued instructions that “if you want to survive you have
to kill your neighbor first.” Based on this, Armenians murdered “many
people living in villages, even children, by attacking Turkish villages,
which had become defenseless because all the Turkish men were fighting
on the war fronts.”18
The Armenians didn’t stop there. “They stabbed the Ottoman forces in
the back. They created obstacles for the operations of the Ottoman units
by cutting off their supply routes and destroying bridges and roads.”
Then, as if that wasn’t enough, “They spied for Russia and by rebelling
in the cities where they were located, they eased the way for the
Russian invasion.”19
According to the book, it was inevitable that certain precautions had
to be taken to prevent collaboration between the Russians and
Armenians, especially when there was a life-and-death battle going on in
Gallipoli. According to the book, the law, which authorized the
deportation, arose as a product of necessity, but the deportation had
another very important role—protecting and saving Armenians. From who,
you ask? Other Armenians. This is not a joke; this is seriously what the
book claims: “Since the Armenians who engaged in massacres in
collaboration with the Russians created a dangerous situation, this law
required the migration of [Armenian people] from the towns they were
living in to Syria, a safe Ottoman territory.”20
Not only did the Ottoman government try to protect Armenians from the
Armenian gangs, during the deportations they did everything they could
to ensure their safety: “Despite being in the midst of war, the Ottoman
state took precautions and measures when it came to the Armenians who
were migrating. Their tax payments were postponed, they were permitted
to take any personal property they wished, government officials were
assigned to ensure that they were protected from attacks during the
journey and that their needs were met, police stations were established
to ensure that their lives and properties were secure.”21
There are also plenty of inaccuracies and outright lies in the book
about the 1919-23 period, what is known as the Turkish War for
Independence, but I will let other historians write on that issue.
Middle school education: Grade 10
Another history book written for the 10th grade was
“approved as a textbook by the MEB Board of Instruction and Education in
a decision dated May 4, 2009, and numbered 67.22 The book
covers the period from the establishment of the Ottoman Empire through
the Republic, and so the Armenians appear throughout, from the early
period of Ottoman administration until the end of the empire. According
to the book, under the administration of the Ottomans, the Armenians
lived a life that was pure heaven, plain and simple. Since the early
Ottoman era isn’t one that I deal with in my research, I will skip
what’s said about that period.
However, there’s a piece about the Ottoman-Russo War of 1877-78
that’s worth mentioning here. The book clearly states the reason the
Ottomans lost the war with the Russians in 1877-78 was the Armenians.
Incited by the Russians, the Armenians rebelled and surrounded the
Ottoman Army from behind, leading to the Ottomans’ defeat. “For the
first time in the Ottoman state, the Armenians, who had been incited by
the Russians, had also rebelled. Working in conjunction with the Russian
Army, Armenian bandit militia were able to place Turkish soldiers
between two firing fronts. Based on this development the Ottoman state
was forced to propose a ceasefire from Russia.”23 Needless to
say, there is no historical account of an Armenian uprising, nor of
separate Armenian bandits or militia units attacking the Ottoman Army
from behind. This is a first-class fabrication.
The book is filled with similar nonsense that cannot be taken
seriously. For example, under the subheading “The Incitement of
Armenians and Their Organization,” it propounds this claim to describe
how the Armenians were incited by foreign powers: “The Armenians who
were living under the Ottoman administration had not been influenced by
the French revolution. This situation changed after the Russians got
involved.”24 Another similar claim is that during the war of 1877-78, Armenians committed atrocities against Muslims.25
It is extremely upsetting to see that the youth of Turkey are being
educated by way of this heap of garbage that can’t rightly be called
scholarly information.
The Massacres of 1894-96 and 1909
It is quite interesting what the book relates of the Abdulhamit
period of 1894-96, when between 80,000-300,000 Armenians were massacred.
In actuality, nothing is said at all because according to the book
there were no massacres during this period; no Armenians were killed.
The only thing that happened was that the Armenians were incited and, as
a result, had an uprising. This information is presented under the
heading, “The Problems that Armenians Created.”
To provide a few examples of the information that’s presented: “The
Armenian committees instigated their first rebellions in 1890 in Erzurum
and Adana. In 1893, they killed 25 soldiers after firing upon security
forces in Merzifon.” The most violent of the Armenian uprisings occurred
in Sason and “the Armenian community there was urged to stop paying
taxes to the state and to kill Muslims.” Armenians also “engaged in
uprisings in Kayseri, Yozgat, Corum, Zeytun, and Kahramanmaras.” The
Armenian organizations spread their uprisings all over the place and
“they even killed Armenians who wouldn’t take part in them.” At one
point, a heading asks students, “What could be the reasons the Armenian
terrorist organizations spread the uprisings throughout the country?”26
The information given in the book about the 20,000 Armenians murdered
between April 14-16, 1909, during the Adana Massacre is not much
different. According to the book, Armenians rebelled and murdered
Muslims, and the Ottoman rulers had to suppress the rebellion. It states
simply, “Armenians instigated a massacre in Adana and Dortyol in 1909
by attacking Muslims.” The ringleader of the rebellion had been
“Armenian Bishop Museg” and “once the Ottoman state had suppressed the
rebellion, he escaped to Egypt.”27
This rather strange bit of information doesn’t stop there. After the
events in Adana, “European public opinion again started to turn against
Turkey. The Union and Progress administration of the Ottoman government
signed a treaty that would encompass some reforms to be performed
together with Russia (1909). According to the treaty, Russia would have
the last say in any reforms that were to be agreed to regarding the
Armenians.”28 There was neither a rebellion in Adana nor was
there ever a Reform Treaty signed with Russia in 1909. These are all
figments of the writer’s imagination.
1915 and the subject of genocide
When it comes to the subject of 1915, the writing gets even more
bizarre. The information on the topic is presented under the heading,
“The Armenian Problem During the World War I Years” and starts with this
sentence: “The entry of the Ottoman state into World War I was viewed
as a great opportunity by Armenians…by invading Erzurum, Erzincan, Mus,
and Bitlis in Eastern Anatolia, Russia further incited the Armenians in
these regions.”29
The internal contradictions presented by this information alone are a
serious problem. For example, the Russian units invaded the cities
mentioned above in April 1916 and later. At that date, the deportations
had all been concluded and the Armenians had been annihilated. So, for
example, when the Russians entered Erzurum, there wasn’t a single
Armenian around to incite.
When you see what’s been written under the heading “Armenian
Deportation,” you start to wish things had ended with the account about
Russians invading. It goes: “The Armenians who were armed by the
Russians, started to engage in massacres raiding Turkish villages. …
While the Ottoman state was in the middle of a life and death struggle
in Gallipoli, Armenians escalated their activities towards a complete
rebellion. “Ararat,” the official newspaper of the Armenian
organizations, published the declaration below describing the actions
that Armenians were going to take (August 1914).”30
The book publishes a declaration consisting of 15 articles, which it
claims were taken from “Ararat” magazine. It’s helpful to quote some of
the articles word for word here: “1 – Every Armenian, regardless of who
they are, should sell some of their worldly goods and arm themselves. 2 –
Armenians who are called to arms under the announcement of mobilization
shall disobey the command; they shall forbid anyone around them,
including Muslims, from joining the army. 3 – Armenians who have been
conscripted into the armed forces, however this may come about, shall
escape the army and join the Armenian gangs and volunteer militias. … 6 –
All Muslims above age 2 who are seen behind army front lines shall be
murdered at every opportunity… 7 – The food, goods, and property of
Muslims shall be confiscated or burned and destroyed. 8 – They shall
burn down the homes, grains, churches, and pious foundations that they
abandon and spread the word that Muslims caused it. 9 – They shall set
fire to official state buildings and murder Ottoman police and
gendarmerie. 10 – They shall kill Ottoman soldiers who return from the
front wounded. … 14 – The price of the rebellions, revolutions, and
massacres performed by Armenians is to be paid by Muslims and this shall
be broadcast to domestic and especially foreign public opinion. 15 –
They shall perform spying and consulting to the Entente states.”31
The book goes on to claim that Armenians “immediately began to
implement the declaration” and that “they inflicted the greatest harm to
the Turkish people during the years of the First World War.”32
It is meaningless to even engage in a discussion over whether such a
declaration from “Ararat” magazine really existed. It isn’t even worth
saying, “Produce this document; otherwise, we’ll accuse you of lying.”
Those who wrote and endorsed this book did it knowingly and shrewdly
calculated the consequences. Their act brings to mind the Nazi
Propaganda Ministry.
The only reason to spend so much time discussing the aforementioned
document is to show what’s being taught to the youth—in the form of
hate-driven emotions against Armenians. Its effect on Armenian students
in Turkey can only be imagined.
The book goes on to describe the so-called massacres perpetrated by
the Armenians against Muslims from 1915 onward. The governor of Van,
Cevdet Bey, apparently “forced a migration of Turks, which was known by
the Ministry of the Interior, in order to save them from the massacres
of Armenians.” Turks left all of their belongings behind and started
migrating, but “the migrating Turks were killed en route by Armenian
gangs…without regard for women or children. While most of those who, for
whatever reason, could not leave were killed by Armenians as well,
women in particular were subjected to terrible treatment.”33
The first step that the Ottoman state took was to close down “the
Armenian terror…organizations in order to prevent collaboration between
the Armenians and Russians and to stop the massacres.” Then they
deported the Armenians to Syria—“temporarily.” On April 24, 1915, the
government issued a directive “to close down the Armenian committee
headquarters, to confiscate their records, and to arrest the committee
leaders.” What’s been described as genocide, it claims, was this
directive and the 2,345 individuals who were arrested as a result of it.
However, when these actions proved to be inadequate, the law on
deportations was enacted and “with this law, only those Armenians in the
region who had been involved in the acts of rebellion were taken from
the war zone and dispatched and settled into more secure areas of the
country.” Meanwhile, the communities of “Assyrians, Chaldeans, Jews, and
Greeks” in the same regions were supposedly left undisturbed. The
authors of the book point to this as a piece of grand truth and state
that “it’s quite noteworthy that these individuals were not subjected to
deportation while Armenians who had joined in rebellion were.”34
The idea that the deportations were limited to the provinces where
rebellions had occurred—and that even there only rebellious Armenians
were deported, and other Armenians left alone—was quite prevalent during
the 1980’s and 1990’s. Later, it became clear from the official Ottoman
documents published through the Prime Ministerial Ottoman Archives that
not only were all Armenians, without exception, deported from
the provinces where rebellions were claimed to have taken place, but
that Armenians were deported from every province and town in Anatolia, and even cities in Thrace, like Tekirdag and Edirne, located in the European region.35
For this reason, these theories were abandoned, and the fact that the
deportations had involved all Armenians was generally accepted. It
appears that the AKP, which claims to be readying itself to establish a
New Turkey and is supposedly conducting a “silent revolution,” prefers
to roll back the clock to the 1980’s when it comes to denialist
policies.
Deportation as a means to save Armenians from Armenian gangs
The book puts forth a big claim to justify the deportations. They
were enacted, it says, in order to save Armenian lives! Yes! The
deportations “secured the lives of the Armenian people.” But, “Who was
threatening the lives of the Armenians?” The answer provided by the book
is quite simple: other Armenians! The state made the decision to
conduct a deportation in order to protect Armenians from other Armenians
because “these [Armenian] gangs were killing Armenians who did not join
in acts of terror and rebellion.”36
Despite being in the middle of difficult wartime conditions, the
Ottoman state took extraordinary precautions! “Through the publication
of regulations, the Ministry of the Interior had planned how the
deportation was going to be conducted down to the smallest detail.” For
example, “The elderly, infirm, blind, widowed, and orphaned were not
subject to the deportation. … Care was taken to ensure that the
locations where migrated Armenians would be settled featured
agricultural fields that were fertile and police stations were
established at these locations to secure their safety…and the groundwork
was laid for them to continue their professions and work in the places
where they were settled.”37
Reading this, one can easily conclude that the deported Armenians
were quite fortunate. Not only was their safety secured, but they were
provided with every kind of opportunity despite the difficult
conditions! What more could a person want?
Numbers and mass graves
The figures presented in the book on deportees and deaths are very
important. There’s been a bit of a “mark–up” in the figure propounded by
the former president of the Turkish Historical Society, Yusuf
Halacoglu, that 30,000 Armenian casualties resulted from the entire
deportation. The book states that “based on figures from unbiased
researchers, 300,000 Armenians lost their lives due to war and
sickness.” Yet, the number of Muslims that were killed and/or forcibly
deported by Armenians is way beyond this figure: Armenians killed
600,000 Turks. “According to official Russian records,” it reads,
“Armenians killed around 600,000 Turks in just Erzurum, Erzincan,
Trabzon, Bitlis, and Van and forced 500,000 and to migrate.”38
The last claim on the subject of 1915 is like the last curtain of a comedy: “If
the Ottoman state had indeed wished to annihilate the Armenians, would
it have made sense to take so many precautions both during and after the
deportation? Besides, where are the mass graves of all those people
that were supposedly killed?”39 There really isn’t too
much one can say after this statement. Maybe one should apply to the
Turkish government for permission to engage in unrestricted excavations,
using the claims in the book as an excuse?
The nonsense doesn’t end here, unfortunately. The book claims that
Armenians who were deported were then able to return to Turkey unscathed
and reclaim their properties. We all know this to be untrue.
ASALA and the diaspora
The book also covers the assassination of Turkish diplomats by
Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA), presenting a
long list of these acts.40 There is considerable space given
to activities by the Armenian Diaspora, whose members work “to gain
recognition of a so-called genocide by creating the image of themselves
as people who have been subjected to persecution and injustice.” It
claims that the diaspora has been successful in doing so—“In some of the
European states and in American schools, their claims of so-called
genocide have begun to be taught in lessons”—and explains why: “because
in the countries where Armenians are found, especially in the USA, they
have formed a strong political unit by constituting a singular voting
bloc. They have asserted and achieved their genocide related demands as a
condition to any party to which they will give their votes.”41
The book also makes some claims regarding the purpose behind both
ASALA’s and the Armenian Diaspora’s actions. We should read these claims
as reflecting the Turkish government’s official viewpoint on the
subject.
What are the ‘Four Ts’?
According to the book, the actions of both ASALA and the Armenian
Diaspora have been driven and continue to be driven by the framework of
the “Four Ts” plan: Tanitim, Taninma, Tazminat and Toprak
(Publicity, Recognition, Compensation, and Territory). There must be a
struggle, it says, against these Armenian efforts and lists the Turkish
government’s efforts: “To counter the Armenians’ claims about genocide,
at the end of 2001 Turkey formed the Commission to Coordinate the Fight
Against Baseless Genocide Claims. This commission started scholarly
studies on the subject of the baselessness of Armenian claims.
Additionally, by placing the Armenian problem into school curricular
programs, a process of informing young people was initiated. Also, the
Commission on Higher Education (YOK) established the National Committee
on Turkish-Armenian Relations.”42
Whether or not the Commission to Coordinate the Fight Against
Baseless Genocide Claims is still active has been a topic of curiosity
in the public. Reading these current textbooks, one can conclude that
the commission is still active—and that, in fact, these textbooks were
prepared with the contribution of this commission.
Armenians as the ‘Other’ in the New Turkey
I have only mentioned what was written about 1915 in these three
books. It would be valuable to conduct a similar review about other
Christians (Assyrians and Greeks) and Jews in a way that covers the
entire Ottoman period up to the Republican years. However, the picture
that emerges when doing a limited review of just the events around 1915
is quite pathetic.
In these textbooks taught in Turkish (and Armenian) schools,
Armenians are defined as the enemy. The young minds that we will
bequeath our country to are being educated on an image of Armenians as
“those who are eager to be incited, who wish to divide our country and
collaborate with our enemies.” Additionally, the historical problems
that have been defined as the Armenian problem continue to be perceived
as a threat against Turkish national security. Even if we set aside for a
minute the diaspora and Armenians in Armenia, it is clear that the
government perceives a segment of its own citizens and their problems to
be a threat against national security, and educates all of its citizens
to engender feelings of hatred and enmity towards this one segment.
The situation is truly desperate. Based upon what’s been written, two
questions come to mind: How do Armenians who continue to live in
Turkey, and who are its citizens, manage to live in this country? What
is it like to live as an Armenian in a country where innocent young
minds are taught to be enemies of Armenians, and where Armenians are
presented as a threat against national security?
If I were asked to make a proposal, I would make one single request
of every individual and organization reading this article. The 100th
anniversary of the Armenian Genocide is approaching in 2015. The
Turkish government is going to put up smokescreens, claiming to be
interested in making amends, and claiming that Armenians are the ones
who keep backing away, etc. It is going to try to create the impression
that it is the side that is willing to compromise and to find
solutions. Please place these textbooks directly in front of them at
each and every opportunity, and make it clear to them that if they want
to reclaim any kind of integrity on the subject they should first pull
these books from circulation.
Notes
1 Talım ve Terbiye Kurulu
2 See
www.meb.gov.tr//2014-2015-egitim-ogretim-yiliinda-okutulacak-ilk-ve-orta-ogretim-ders-kitaplari/duyuru/7013,
Introduction: Sept. 12, 2014.
3 Gunay Gokɪsu Ozdogan, Ohannes Kilicdagi, “Listening to the
Armenians of Turkey: Their Problems, Demands and Proposed Solutions”
(Istanbul: TESEV, 2011), 43.
4 Ibid.
5 Justice and Development Party
6 “The Silenced Revolution, Turkey’s Democratic Change and
Transformation Inventory 2002-2012” (Ankara: Republic of Turkey Prime
Ministry Undersecretariat of Public Order and Security 2013), 10. The
quote is from the introduction written by then-Prime Minister Erdogan.
7 The most famous of those who issued the invitation and who
criticized is Etyen Mahcupyan. The fact that Mahcupyan was one of Hrant
Dink’s closest friends and said that “had Hrant lived he would have
voted for the AKP” led to some very heated debates around the subject.
For an example of what Mahcupyan wrote on the subject, see
www.aksam.com.tr/yazarlar/etyen-mahcupyan/bir-ermeni-olarak-e2-80-a6/haber-334649.
8 For just one example, see
www.todayszaman.com/news-346158-davutoglu-says-turkeys-1915-statement-achieved-its-goal.html,
Introduction, Sept. 14, 2014.
9 Each book can be accessed at
www.meb.gov.tr/2014-2015-egitim-ogretim-yilinda-okutulacak-ilk-ve-orta-ogretim-ders-kitaplari/duyuru/7013.
10 Salim Ulker, Ilk Ogretim T.C. Inkilap Tarihi ve Ataturkculuk 8 (Primary
Education R[epublic of] T[urkey] History of Revolution and Principles
of Ataturk 8), Textbook (Ankara: Semih Ofset, 2014), p. 178.
11 Ibid, 179
12 Salim Ulker, Ilk Ogretim T.C. Inkilap Tarihi ve Ataturkculuk 8 Ogrenci Calisma Kitabi (Primary
Education R[epublic of] T[urkey] History of Revolution and Principles
of Ataturk 8, Student Workbook) (Ankara: Semih Ofset, 2014), p. 118.
13 Ibid.
14 Commission (ed.), Ortaogretim Turkiye Cumhuriyeti Inkilap Tarihi ve Ataturkculuk, (Middle School Education Republic of Turkey History of Turkish Revolution and Principles of Ataturk) (Ankara: MEB, 2014), 21.
15 Ibid., 21
16 Dikran M. Kaligian, The Armenian Organization and Ideology under Ottoman Rule 1908-1914, (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2011), 43-81.
17 Commission (ed) Ortaogretim Turkiye Cumhuriyeti Inkilap Tarihi ve Ataturkculuk, (Middle School Education Republic of Turkey History of Turkish Revolution and Principles of Ataturk), 23.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.
22 Vicdan Turan, Ilhan Genc, Mehmet Celik, Celal Genc, Ortaogretim Tarih 10 (Ankara: MEB, 2014).
23 Ibid., 186
24 Ibid., 188
25 Ibid., 186
26 Ibid., 188-89
27 Ibid., 189
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid., 210
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid., 211
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid., 212
35 For an example of the published records by the T.C. Basbakanlik Devlet Arsivleri Genel Mudurlugu Osmanli Arsivi Daire Baskanligi (translated:
Presidential Office of Ottoman Archives General Directorship of the
Prime Ministerial State Archives of the Republic of Turkey), see Osmanlɪ Belgelerinde Ermeniler (1915-1920) (Ankara, Basbakanlik Printers, 1995).
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid., 212-213
39 Ibid., 213
40 Ibid., 214-215
41 Ibid., 215-216
42 Ibid., 216
"The Armenian Weekly," December 4, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment