Munzur

This is indeed very interesting material on these Armenian relics and should indeed be published in some scholarly or journalistic form. Maybe I'll take a look there myself this summer! Didn't you encounter any difficulties with the authorities, bell?

Sure dude. It seems you got your mind made up. Nothing to discuss about then. You keep on believing what you want to believe, and keep on keeping on with your prejudiced self, fragmented information and nationalist rhetoric.

This is what we call a 'sweeping statement', which are not only 99% of the time historically incorrect, but also reveal a nice thick layer of ignorance and prejudice. The average genocide scholar would lambast this absurd statement. Nobody is genetically predisposed to be violent or even genocidal, whether German, Hutu, Serb, or Turk, and it is simply historically wrong to claim that 'Kurds' have always been on the perpetrating side of the violent spectrum. It is indeed a question who is versed in Kurdish history and who is not. The annihilation of many Assyrian villages and its inhabitants in the 1830s was not committed by "the Kurds" but by Emir Bedirxan and his allies, e.g. Xan Mahmud and Nurullah Beg. And it was not a manicheistic battle of Kurds vs. Assyrians, but of Bedirxan vs. Mar Shimun, two power-wielders in the region. I have to note that Xan Mahmud's army included several thousands Armenians and Assyrians of his tribe, who sided with the Bedirxan chieftains (Arshak Safrastian, Kurds and Kurdistan (London: Harvill Press, 1948), p.51). On the other hand, an authority on Kurdish history writes in his classic book: "Several Nestorian opponents of the Mar Shimun remained not only unharmed but even received gifts from Bedr Khan because they had previously proclaimed their loyalty to him" (Martin van Bruinessen, Agha, Shaikh and State: The Social and Political Structures of Kurdistan (London: Zed, 1992), p.203, footnote 113). I guess these are trivial platitudes in your ideological narrative of dumbing down a very complex history of local power struggles to a manicheistic view of perpetual victimization of Armenians and opportunistic demonization of Kurds. Richard Hovannisian has writted on Kurds saving Armenians and Assyrians, and published an excellent article on it, based on Oral History archives. Currently George Shirinian of the Zoryan Institute is preparing a collection of stories of Muslims saving Armenians and Assyrians, and there are many Kurds among them too. As to your second post, I can only repeat what I wrote first (and what you conveniently overlooked): "The pitfalls of such generalized thinking is that people start thinking of millions of people as abstractions, personified in chieftain X or Y." Yes, Ismail Agha Simko is responsible for the murder of Mar Benjamin Shimun in 1918 and yes, he did instrumentalize Kurdish nationalism. But I am holding in my hand here two brochures, one by the Kurdish Socialist Party (1991), the other by Komala (undated, probably the 1980s). Both of them condemn Simko's assassination as "a despicable murderous act against our Assyrian brothers". Whether one wants to see nuances or not does not depend on intelligence, but on conviction. Some people are just convinced of certain things, even though they are myths, or dogmatically closed to new interpretations. I would like to continue this captivating exchange but... *sigh* ... this discussion is not about history, it is about nationalism. It is about the fundamental ideological conviction that one's own people is superb and more civilized, elegant (and more superlatives), and others (especially 1 constructed 'Other') is inhuman, brutal, and the like. Hence, people do not want to see certain events that did or did not happen in history. These are serious sociological missers and a deplorable malfunction of human existence. Unfortunately.

I don't know if this is an analytical remark, a complimentary one for me, or a condescending racist one towards Kurds. With "the Narek tribe of Silvan" I mean the Sunni Kurmanj-tribe called Narek living in Silvan (formerly Farqin or Meyafarqin), the town between Diyarbakir and Bitlis. Their chieftain was Khalid Agha, a huge man, and a brave, but stubborn individual. He saved many Armenians and Assyrians who now live in Syria and perhaps even in the west. It was his grandson Yusuf Azizoglu who mentioned the Armenian genocide in the Turkish parliament in 1967 and was subsequently banned from any political activity in Turkey. He then returned to Diyarbakir where he built the first large hospital in Eastern Turkey. I think it's safe to say that one way or the other, the then progressive elements of Kurdish society have remained progressive throughout history. The same goes for Kurdish accomplices in the genocide, many of them are now rich, corrupt, own huge lands, and between 1984-1999 they have sided with the Turkish state in trying to stamp out the PKK.

Phew, you guys, there's really a lot of research still to be done on Kurdish-Armenian relations... somebody really needs to seriously specialize in it. Maybe I can write a comprehensive article on it later because Koucharian and Hofmann's article is really insufficient, prejudiced, and very, VERY ahistoric. Some quick remarks: 1) It is a cardinal sin in history to speak of 'THE Kurds', 'THE Turks' and 'THE Armenians', for 2 reasons: a ) Eastern Anatolian society was/is strongly tribal and local, thus, as such, one needs to name tribes as actors, and regions as settings, as it is obvious that Bursa or Adapazari Armenians never suffered from Kurdish exactions. So we should be careful in generalizing since it doesn't add to our understanding of what happened. b ) 'Ethnic thinking' didn't exist among 95% of the Kurdish population, and there were Kurds and there were Kurds. If you were an Armenian peasant, working for Kurdish tribe X in Bitlis, then you could've gotten killed by Kurdish tribe Y from Mush, and vice versa. The chieftain of your tribe X, who decides on life and death, would then take revenge on tribe Y by killing 'its' Armenians. The pitfalls of such generalized thinking is that people start thinking of millions of people as abstractions, personified in chieftain X or Y. That is typical in modern ethnic nationalism: "Georgians are backstabbers," "Kurds are barbarians," "Turks are racists," "African-Americans are dumb," "Germans are hierarchic," "Arabs are lazy," etc. etc. I cannot underline this enough: this is all nonsense and bears no socio-historical truth whatsoever. 2) What happened in 1915 was an aberration in Kurdish society - and I'm not even mentioning the infinitely complex relation between Muslim Kurds, Jewish Kurds, Yezidi Kurds, and Alevi Kurds. All of a sudden, the government ordered chieftain X or Y to kill its OWN Armenians, a very costly operation for the tribes in question. Many tribes (such as the Narek tribe in Silvan, or the Bezik tribe in Malatya) refused, and urged their Armenians to convert to Islam and reconvert once the Ittihadist wind blew over. It didn't, and the Armenians were excised out of Eastern Anatolia (western historic Armenia, northern Kurdistan, whatever you wanna call it), thus destroying the very fabric of the Kurdish economy. One reason why Turkey can't join the EU is because it doesn't meet the economic criteria: the economy of Eastern Turkey hasn't kept up with the rest, and the reason why Eastern Turkey is poor is because of the genocide. 3) It is true that Kurdish nationalism benefited from the genocide: the entire region north of Lake Van became more than 80% Kurdish (although many of those Kurds were deported in the 1930s, the Armenian farms distributed to ethnic Turks). However, there is a gaping hole in Armenian and Kurdish historiography, i.e. 1915 in the collective memory of the Kurds. Drawing from my preliminary oral history research, we can say most Kurds deplore the genocide, but not too much, since they know certain Kurdish tribes played a role, and they'd like to hear THEY are victims of history - apart from the fact that indeed the Van, Kars, Ararat regions would be lost to Kurdish nationalist aspirations. However, Kurdish collective memory is packed with fascinating detailed information on the genocide, and Armenians in general. I could name you guys the family names of aristocratic Armenian families from cities like Diyarbakir and Kharpert (Elazig), who converted to Islam and live happy lives in those cities; some Kurdified, and are rabid Kurdish nationalists, some are pious Muslim Turks, one family even leading a prominent Islamic fundamentalist order (Nakshibendi) in Mush. I know these people personally, there're there, tangible evidence of the genocide. Few people know this, but it's real. That is the disadvantage our friends in North America deal with: being far from the reality of the 'Old Country'. Anyway, I'm getting too carried away again. More research is on its way.

I read the book. It's good, as most of Hilmar's work is. His theses are in general, correct and balanced. Racism towards Armenians was not an exclusively German endeavour. Mark Sykes wrote in The Caliph's Last Heritage about the "greedy and avaricious Armenian race" that nobody liked, etc. etc. He was particularly negative about the urban Armenian elite, whom, he contends, deserved what they got. I was very disturbed by it, but once you get to think about it, peasants are frugal everywhere in the world, it's their living. He IS positive on the Kurds, whom he calls "noble savages": very hospitable, but very savage. Personally, I don't think "national characteristics" exist... personal behaviour is personal and temporal, if not, very often situational. There is no such thing as "Kurds are hospitable," or "Armenians are hard-working," or "Jews are gifted merchants," or "Italians are friendly". It's all nationalist BS if you ask me, but because of the fact that nation-thinking and nationalism is ubiquitous in the modern world, we buy this type of nonsense.

Well, I'm gonna be there Thoth. Perhaps I can slip into an internet cafe once in a while to write about how it's coming along. It all looks very promising, but we'll have to see how it goes. I get bored fast and I set the academic standard high. Judging from the impressive staff, the two-volume syllabus, and a preliminary list of the attending students, I think: next to being unique, the course will probably be fantastic.

Again, a relevant and important topic. I believe we had this discussion about the Kurds some time ago. I can't remember if it was this very topic (because then my posts would have disappeared). I still think this is an important topic. I can't stress it enough: there are Kurds and there are Kurds. Let's please differentiate when we speak about 'The role of THE Kurds in the Armenian genocide'. I'm writing a monograph on this historical phenomenon, incorporating the different attitudes of Alevi, Yezidi and Muslim Kurds towards the Armenians and Assyrians before, during and after WW I. Really, the relations between Yezidi and Muslim Kurds were worse than those between Yezidis and Armenians, and this is not a simple matter of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. I quote from Hilmar Kaiser: Hilmar Kaiser, "'A Scene from the Inferno': The Armenians of Erzerum and the Genocide, 1915-1916," in: Hans-Lukas Kieser & Dominik J. Schaller (eds.), Der Völkermord an den Armeniern und die Shoah (Zürich: Chronos, 2001), p.129. Of course it's a fact that Muslim Kurds conducted and executed the mass killings, rapes and abductions of Armenian deportees and Assyrian villagers. Without their participation and willing obedience to Turkish orders there wouldn't have been an Armenian genocide, at least not on this scale. It's now useless to treat the obscene horrors in detail, this doesn't in any way enhance our understanding of the genocidal process. What is often overlooked is the role Alevi and Yezidi Kurds played in rescuing a lot of Armenians: the Dersim region about 20.000, the Mardin Yezidis about 5000. This shouldn't be forgotten. When I spoke to Vahakn Dadrian about this, and I will soon again speak to him again at the Zoryan Institute Genocide & Human Rights Program in Toronto (in August), he kept on emphasizing the role of Islam when assessing the position of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Then I asked this question: "If Islam was such a determinant factor in the genocide, doesn't this imply that non-Muslims, such as Alevis and Yezidis would not only have helped the Armenians, but were also oppressed themselves?" I believe it's important to think about this question. We need to get rid of some of these stubborn dichotomies when dealing with the genocide. There are huge grey areas when it comes to defining 'perpetrators, victims and bystanders'. Turkish denialist efforts have concentrated on downplaying the Armenian demographic presence in western historic Armenia by subsuming Alevis and Yezidis under the category of 'Muslims'. This is wrong and works in our interest, as people concerned with the genocide. A dialogue between Kurds and Armenians should be based on resolving these difficult historical matters and not on the principle of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. In the end, this will lead to fratricide.

This genocide thing is a serious problem, more serious than I thought it was when I first stepped in. We'll have to be patient and wait for more Turkish students to investigate into the matter... there's a lot of talent, e.g. in Germany, so perhaps the future isn't that dim after all.

Domino: Yes you are wrong, because not all "Turks" there recognize the genocide as it happened, or they do not agree to the minimal level of consensus on the historical facts. I won't name names, but apart from Akçam there was only 1 'Turkish' scholar that used the word 'genocide'. On the 3rd day there was even a hot debate on why the word 'genocide' should or should not be used (which is of course a discussion for genocide scholars and not for scholars of Ottoman history). Personally, I have to agree with Hilmar Kaiser when he said that it's idiotic to continue speaking about the genocide in terms of the bi-polar 'Turks' vs. 'Armenians'. At best, there is only good research and bad research. I suggest we stop using the above terms to formulate stands and perceptions of the genocide because it's exactly what the Turkish government wants: to polarize the academic debate on grounds of ethnic background (when e.g. the Kurdish population participated more in the killing than Central-Anatolian Turkish peasants, who barely saw any Armenians in WW I). It's much wiser to speak about 'denialists' and 'realists', especially since Turkey buys corrupt scholars to articulate its denial with a quasi-academic voice. Thick volumes can be written on this process alone, but sometimes it's just disturbing to witness how much this galvanized topic is affected by childish, nationalist emotion.

Thanks for posting this Domino. You know, there was a 3rd Turkish-Armenian dialogue panel on the genocide at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis. I was there as an observer and I was going to write down my perceptions of the conference, but I haven't gotten the chance to. It was an interesting conference, but what struck me was that the workshop was less about the genocide an sich and more about the political implications of the genocide. A lot of experts were present, including Stephan Astourian, Vahakn Dadrian, Taner Akçam, Ronald Suny, Hans-Lukas Kieser, etc. etc. The papers were extremely interesting and will hopefully be published this year. For now, this is it. I will write more when I have time.

Hi Raffi, Yes there is a two-week genocide course in Toronto, next August. A lot of experts and genocide scholars will attend; I'm going to be there too to follow the course. You can consult the following site for information on the course: http://www.zoryaninstitute.org/genocidepro...gram/index.html Take care, and good luck!

I know a lot needs to be done still, not only because it's intrinsically interesting to conduct Oral History research in the region, but also to write down accounts and views of the local bystander and perpetrator communities (e.g. Alevi Kurds, Yezidi Kurds, Lazes, etc.), a highly neglected area of study. Luckily the Armenian diaspora has loads of oral history documentation, especially in the US. I'm equally interested in how Armenian seniors in the diaspora perceive the present East-Anatolian population, such as the Kurds or Kizilbashes. I guess I need to dive into the oral history archives in Glendale, Berkeley, Boston. P.S.: Thoth, it really shows that you're by no means an abstracted xenophobe, hating people you've never seen. Big up to your nuances concerning ethnodiversity and sense of reality.

Stormy, don't underestimate government heterophobia in Turkey. Any mention of ethnicity (let alone Armenianism) in connection with the 'East' is potentially deadly. They wouldn't harm American citizens, but I have a Turkish passport so I need to watch out. If I had walked into a village square or city cafe, one where no one knew me, and bluntly asked "Excuse me, I'm a genocide scholar and I would like to know if the Armenians were really horribly slaughtered by our government... and oh yeah, did your grandfather participate in the killing?", I would be lynched (the incident where a Turkish TV crew went to a Hemshinli village, said "you guys are actually Armenian" and got beat up is infamous). No, my M.O. was all about stealth. In some villages I didn't utter the word "genocide" or "Armenians" for weeks, letting the people get used to "this European kid who studies history." Then, once they trusted me, I'd do the interviewing. Parev Azat, thank you, I was quite busy for a while. The Oral History material will be published. I conferred with Ara Sarafian (Gomidas Institute) and we agreed on publishing the results, only if there's enough material. So it'll be a couple of a years before I can publish all of it in the form of a decent book. I want it to be an eye-opener for both the genocide survivors and the Turkish government. Because we can peck fights in European archives and American Congresses but... the event happened in the Eastern provinces and affected those people a lot. [ February 22, 2003, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Munzur ]

hagarag: Of course, I realize that not all Armenians are alike, just like Turkomans from Iran are different from Bosnian 'Turks' or Chechens. I'm just trying to make sense out of this genocide thing and how it worked out for 1) the region in question, 2) the survivors that inhabited it, 3) the present population. Stormy: I'm one of the second generation of those millions of people that emigrated from rural Turkey to Western Europe during the 1960s and 70s. Since 90% of my relatives still lives there, every summer we spend two months in the Eastern provinces. Upon reading the vast amount of academic genocide literature, I realized that having access to the region's population is a prerogative that most Armenian genocide scholars don't have. Moreover, there is NO objective Oral History research on the bystander and perpetrator descendants (the few subjective interviews that the government did are full of omissions and distortions; they just pay people to demonize Armenians). So I started interviewing grandparents of friends and travelling from village to village, socializing and sampling the collective memory, interviewing every senior I met. I have a pretty good picture how the various people in the region think about Armenians and the genocide (highly interesting for having people acknowledge the facts). For me, the crucial element was having the people accept you within the confines of their "we"-group. Since I have more identities than one, this was easy: I just posed as a Kurd, Turk, Kizilbash, whenever convenient. You just need to strike the right nerve. The dark side of this research is that I don't know whether the Turkish secret service opened a file on me. As you know, the Eastern provinces have been the scene of death, destruction, genocide and carnage from 1890 until today. Kurdish nationalism was and is a horrible taboo so I was lucky that the PKK war ended. Frankly, I don't think they watched me, not only for the simple fact that I "infiltrated" those communities with the help of friends and relatives. I also didn't talk much, I wasn't busy getting people to acknowledge the genocide; I just let them talk. But there's a lot more work to do, and FAST.