Samim Akgönül
Once upon a time, I had become a good
reader of Harry Potter thanks to my children. I watched, of course, the
film series several times. I noticed in this period: Voldemort is
normally a person "who must not be named." But everyone, without
exception, knows that his name is Voldemort and say it. I remember
asking my eldest son "But his name should not be said, how it is
possible that everybody say his name?" He answered with a very serious
expression: "No, only cowards do not say it."
In Turkey, reactions about the Armenian
genocide have become very bizarre in 2015. This has become more visible
with the recent statements of the Pope and the decision of the European
Parliament.
On April 12, 2015, the Vatican, with the
initiative of the Armenian Catholic Church organized a Mass to mark the
centenary of the genocide. People retained the breath in Turkey. Would
Pope Francis say "genocide" or "massacre" at the Mass held at the
centenary’s occasion? It would be nice if he says “massacre” or
“disaster” ... We realized later that this issue was raised during
Pope's visit to Turkey. "Say what you want, but not genocide," it had been
told to him. Mehmet Paçaci, Ambassador of Turkey to the Vatican,
relieved hearts: "He will not say genocide."
During the Mass where Armenia's Head of State was also present, the Pope stated:
"In the past century, our human family
has lived through three massive and unprecedented tragedies. The first,
which is widely considered ‘the first genocide of the 20th century’
struck your own Armenian people."
Following these remarks, the Ambassador
was immediately recalled to Turkey for "consultation" and said that the
Pope had not kept his promise and he exceeded his "religious" mission.
"He has shamed himself speaking of genocide," had been said.
Every year on April 24, we can observe
that people retain their breadth at the statements of the Pope and the
President of the United States. If they say “massacre,” “catastrophe” or
“Great Calamity,” it's feast time in Ankara.
But those who read the text so far must
be aware: these manifestations of joy diminish progressively. The word
that starts with "G" has long time ago become normal outside Turkey's
borders. As for the reactions to the pronunciation of the word, it
should be noted that they can be used together or alternately by the
same people. Depending on the situation, one or more of these reactions
may appear. I could identify ten of these reactions:
"In fact, we were massacred by them": I heard, gradually less and less, this argument until 2015. Finally,
there is an obvious demographic problem. But I see that this argument is
resurrected in 2015 probably due to the tactics that can be summarized
as "the best defense is attack." According to the last Ottoman census of
1914, there were 13 million Muslims and 1 million 800 thousand
Armenians in the country (There are also 1 million 600 thousand Greeks. I
do not even mention it). According to the first census of Republic of
Turkey done in 1927, the Armenian population is 64,000. Fuat Dündar has written on this subject several times. It is not necessary to give more
details here.
“They committed massacres also”:
There is here a fundamental and structural problem, outside the
statistical abyss discussed below. This argument makes equal the
possible crimes committed by Armenians -while the principle must be the
individuality of crimes- and the mass crime committed by the Ottoman
State. Thus the Turks identify themselves with the Ottoman State.
"They collaborated with the Russians":
This was the most widespread argument. But it was gradually abandoned
when it became difficult to explain that the participation in the
Russian army in the region of Kars could be a pretext for deportation in
the provinces of Eskisehir, Malatya or Edirne (I still hear it
sometimes).
"This kind of things happen during the war":
Of course this kind of things does not happen during the war. If they
happen, they are considered as war crimes. In addition, there is not a
war in most of the places where "this kind of things" happened in
Anatolia.
"But Muslims are killed in the world and you say nothing about it":
This argument is problematic on three points. First, it is an
anachronism and a comparison of things that could not be compared.
Second, any massacres cannot be a pretext for another massacre. Third,
"No, we say many things about it,"
"But Americans also massacred Indians":
This is a confession. That means "Yes, we also committed massacres." In
addition, the United States does not deny it and gave a status to
survivors. Even if it was the opposite, should be wild because there are
other examples of savagery?
"But the French massacred Algerians and Germans Namibians": You can expand the list. See above.
"We should leave this subject to the historians":
This is an important argument. But there are several issues. First,
which historians? Who will select these historians? Secondly, historians
have written entire volumes on this subject. There are very few things
unknown. Imagine that a historians’ commission is, by chance,
established. Let’s suppose that this commission has done its research
and has given its verdict (even if an historian cannot give a verdict).
The commission said "This is a genocide." Those who oppose this
definition will they say "Okay, so this is a genocide"? Or let’s suppose
that the commission ruled that this was not a genocide. Armenians
around the world will they say "Okay"? I repeat: a historian does not
judge. He consults and analyzes documents. History is today of
yesterday.
There is also the famous question of the
archives. Based on the documents from archives around the world,
historians have written about the genocide that was decided and
committed against Ottoman Armenians. All the archives in Turkey are not
accessible (for example General Staff's archives are not). The
accessible archives are those that have been cleaned and they are not
open to everyone. Lastly: the Armenian Genocide is not long over a
question about history. For a nation, it is a question of reconciliation
and strengthening its weak foundations. The Armenian Genocide issue is
significant to save Turkey. It has no relation with Armenians.
"Our common pains":
This is a new argument. If it included the meaning "The pain that
Armenians suffered between 1909 and 1915 and later are also the pain
that we share," we might appreciate it. But this is not the case. It
means "We have been killed also (whatever that means), we also have
pain, we cannot take care of you." This argument has also the "Don’t compare
the suffering" version. But saying this, on the contrary, pains are
compared.
"The notion of genocide did not exist in 1915":
It is a technical argument. It is the strongest of the used arguments.
Those who use this argument agree on the fact that Armenians were
exterminated in 1915. But they say that genocide is a legal concept that
was created after World War II and the Armenian Genocide can not be
qualified as genocide (at least, those who are the most reasonable say
that). The weaknesses of this argument are: First, the jurist Raphael
Lemkin who first used the term "genocide" claims that he invented this
word inspired by the Armenian and Jewish genocide. Second, the
definition of genocide fits to what Armenians suffered. Lastly, the
water was always water before it was defined as H2O.
Am I wrong? Voldemort's face did not become clearer with each episode?"Repair" (repairfuture.net), July 6, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment