This post is from a different forum. For more info about the discussion itself go to HyeForum. (The name I use there is Yalpa.)
I am not so sure about the argument of cultural divide between Armenians and Turks, either. I wouldn’t deny that there are cultural differences between Armenians and Turks, but we should also not forget that in cultural terms Turks are closest to Greeks and Armenians and Armenians are closest to Turks. Culturally they are as close as brothers and sisters would be. We may not like it, but this is a fact very difficult to deny. We may still assume that there are cultural differences between these groups, but when we decide to compare them it won’t be difficult to see that they are closer to each other than they are to any other culture.
What about the cultural differences they have? What are we talking about here? There are of course minor differences here and there (excluding the religions and the practices related to them), but when we get down to the scale that families and neighborhoods exist in and interact with each other, it will be very difficult to observe any difference. However, when we change our scale and start looking at these groups as nations we will see some differences. I believe that these differences come from three sources: religion, modernity and the secondary status that Armenians had in the Muslim/Turkish society.
Religions these groups had for centuries played an important role in molding the modern national identities they developed for themselves. I believe that both identities are not fully modern, but between modern and medieval or medieval with a modern dress. Perhaps Armenians are a bit more modern in their national identity than Turks. Second source is the process of modernization these two groups went through during the last two centuries of the Ottoman Empire. Here, too, Armenians became part of this process before Turks did, but also the Turkish experience was hindered in some areas. The fact that Armenians had their own “millet” in the Ottoman Empire may have protected them from unwanted interruptions and interferences. Finally, the fact that Armenians were given a status below the Muslims in the Ottoman society must have affected them in ways very different from what the Muslims experienced in the same society.
To sum it up, there are cultural differences between these two groups, but not in their daily, person-to-person cultural practices. In this area they are very similar. In fact Anatolian Turks are more similar to Armenians and Greeks than to those Turkish speaking groups in Central Asia. However, they are different in their invented modern identities, histories, national myths and cultural practices (which belong to the scale that is generally outside the daily practices of families and individuals; that is, we cannot learn these cultural differences unless we go through some form of mandatory modern nationalist education.
This message has been edited by pigeti on Nov 26, 2005 12:40 PM This message has been edited by pigeti on Nov 26, 2005 12:37 PM
Actually I don’t think the cultural differences were never really big [between Armenians and Turks], except in the areas of religion and language and even in these areas there were significant convergences. The term gavur in the medieval times was essentially a religious term indicative of some form of hierarchical difference (definitely in a discriminative manner) that was assumed to exist in a Muslim society. It was neither used just for Armenians nor did it have the meaning that it was going to have with the modern era. In fact, to discriminate against certain groups and upset the prevailing order was hardly encouraged in the Ottoman Empire.
I believe Armenians were definitely singled out for killing, destruction, removal or whatever else, but I don’t think the explanation for this is to be found in the pre-modern Ottoman period. Yes, there were some groups who were killed, tortured and destroyed, but these were not the Armenians. In my opinion, the genocide victims of the pre-modern Ottoman world were Alevis. They were the ones from whose heads mountains were made.
The conditions of extreme persecution and brutality eventually pushed Alevis towards a hidden cultural existence, away from the mainstream Muslim ideology. They were never really able to practice their own beliefs in open or claim an Alevi identity. For example, whereas Christians and Jews could practice their own religions, live in their own communities, judged in their own courts and own businesses and lead lives under and with their own identities, Alevis could never do any of these. Even today similar conditions still prevail for them. Whereas the recognized “millet”s of Greeks, Armenians and Jews could take advantage of the products and conditions of the newly arrived modernity in the nineteenth century (beginning at the end of the eighteenth century), Alevis could not. The fact that they had been persecuted for so long and did not have a legitimate religious and cultural existence had simply disabled them in so many ways that they could not take part in this new development as a cultural group. This alone should be enough to show who the real target of the pre-modern Ottoman genocidal policies were.
Alevi situation was probably similar to what the Ottoman Armenians found themselves in after 1915. The Armenian community of Turkey is still struggling to come back culturally. But this was not the case for the Ottoman Armenians during the pre-modern and early modern Ottoman periods. Life during these periods was certainly not prefect for Christian subjects of the Ottoman period, but it was hardly in the form of constant rape, killings and etc. The existing evidence simply doesn’t give us this kind of picture. Had the Ottoman Armenians been under conditions of constant brutality and injustice as what Alevis went through, they would have had a hidden existence like them later on. But we know this did not happen. Armenian identity, their existence as a cultural group was recognized by the Ottoman state. Although they were discriminated in accordance with the Islamic principles that prevailed at the time, their situation was very different from some other groups who really suffered. But, of course, this did not last and this time, the victims of the modern period were Christians and particularly Armenians.
It is usually easy to end the discussion by declaring that there were nevertheless big differences whatever they might have been, but I believe the real solution will eventually come by looking at the details that are being avoided. It is interesting that nearly every Near Eastern culture (including Balkans) is similar in at least one way: they all despise theory, hard intellectual work and are for being more practical by skipping the details.
Sorry! I forgot to specify how I define the divide between pre-modern and modern is in the Ottoman Empire. I simply assumed that everyone was familiar with this subject and the Ottomans in general. My fault. Although historians are still debating on the subject, it is generally accepted that the nineteenth century is the modern era for the Ottoman history. So, all of those massacres that took place in the nineteenth century had nothing to do with the pre-modern Ottoman period and since I do not deny the existence of massacres aimed at Armenians in this period, those counter-arguments against what I wrote means nothing as far as I am concerned. In fact, they support my point. By the way, I am afraid that none of those sources mentioned are relevant to the subject.
If I go back to the subject of when the modern era starts, it is way before 1860’s Quebecer. 1800’s is definitely the modern period and I would look for its beginning in the mid 1700’s. By the way, I am talking about the Ottoman world (with Muslims and Christians), not necessarily about the Ottoman Muslims only. The process of modernization started much earlier for the Ottoman Christians. My whole point is that the Armenian-Turkish/Muslim conflict is a modern phenomenon. It doesn’t exist in the pre-modern era. The life was perhaps not great for Armenians, but in the pre-modern period there were other groups who had it worse than Armenians. The six hundred years of brutality in the form of massacres, rapes and killings is simply a modern myth invented for nation building purposes like other nationalistic myths found in every modern nation-state. We may of course have another separation as in the form of pre-Young Turk era versus the Young Turk era or the era of Turkish nationalism, but that is a different topic.
What do you mean you don’t agree with me? How dare you? What the hell do you know about the Ottomans anyway? Just kidding!
But seriously, you need to say more than that the massacres were committed under the reign of an Islamic regime. Is having an Islamic regime enough to bring into the discussion the whole history of the Ottoman Empire? Can we claim that the political and social matrix (even if it is religiously based) that was responsible for the massacres and later the total or nearly total annihilation of Ottoman Armenians and their culture was established in the pre-modern era? We might as well go all the way back to the Arabs since it was their religion to begin with; they were the ones who came up with it. And finally why not bring in Judaism as well, since Islam is almost a replica or a very similar version of it? I don’t think that the pre-modern period of the Ottoman period is connected with the modern period in this respect just because they both used Sharia (Islamic Law) in managing the empire. In fact one of them must have not been an Islamic regime; otherwise what happened would not happen.
I will claim, first of all, that the Ottoman state was never a true Islamic regime. They never let Islam have full control of the state. Secondly, I will stick to my original claim that the massacres and the genocide at the end are entirely modern phenomena. And finally I will state that Abdul Hamid was probably the most modern emperor in the Ottoman history. We could even say that he laid the groundwork or established the infrastructure for the modern Turkey. He did put a stop to the constitutional rule or what was to become a constitutional rule during his reign, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that he was anti-modern.
This is where I will stop, since I have to get busy with something else now. I will perhaps continue tomorrow, but before I do that, could you briefly explain me what made you state what you stated in your reply to my previous post? Why do you think that being an Islamic regime is important or necessary in understanding the massacres or is linked to them?