Munzur

bellthecat: Provide me the name of the academic in question, perhaps we can invite him to the presentation. He’s not a specialist and can claim anything he wants; all of the sociologists, historians and interested academics I discussed the topic with in The Netherlands and Belgium acknowledge the historicity of the genocide. One day, denying the Armenian Genocide will be as much a moral crime as denying the Holocaust – that day we will sue him, how about that? As far as the reasons why ‘the Kurds’ actively participated in the genocide, it’ll be a long story to invoke all elements but there are 4 main reasons: 1. Economic: from the memoires and family sagas of survivors the theme of robbery keeps on repeating itself. Money, gold, clothes, cattle, anything valuable... An important motive for the crimes committed was to acquire wealth from the relatively affluent Armenians, e.g. see: Kerop Bedoukian, The Urchin (London, 1978), pp.29-32; Donald E. Miller & Lorna Touryan-Miller, Survivors; An Oral History of the Armenian Genocide (Los Angeles & Berkeley, 1993), pp.155-192; Florence M. Soghoian, Portrait of a Survivor (Hanover, MA, 1997), pp.19-34. As a matter of fact, even now, 90 % of all rich Kurdish families have inherited their possessions from forays, committed by their grandfathers; Hikmet Kıvılcımlı, İhtiyat Kuvvet: Milliyet (Şark) (İstanbul, 1979), p.20. 2. Religious: as far as the Sunni (Şafî Muslim) Kurds are concerned, a single fetva could spark off a horrible massacre. It’s also commonly known that lots of Şeyhs didn’t in the least respect the religious beliefs of the Armenian population, such as the Şeyh from Zîlan (Ararat region) who was known for his bloodlust, or Sağırzade, the müftü of Malatya, who directed the strangulation of the Armenian Catholic Primate of Malatya. A lot of these Islamic clergymen urged the Kurds that killing a number of Christians would lead to a secured place in heaven; see e.g. Henry Morgenthau, Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story (Ann Arbor, MA, 2000), pp.209-210; Johannes Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien (Potsdam, 1919), p.LXV. 3. Feodal: remember that Kurdish society is (still) very feodally organized. Obedience to the ağa, mir, bey or şıx was unquestioned. In this way, if a single ağa had a grudge against Armenians, he could quickly mobilize up to thousands of armed men that he could send on any mission at any time. It is precisely this societal structure that lead to the consistency that certain areas were totally cleansed of Armenians and certain areas were not. Naci Kutlay, İttihat ve Terakki ve Kürtler (Ankara, 1992), pp.259-276. 4. Sexual: there are endless accounts of the abduction and rape of Armenian (and Syriac-Aramean) women by Kurdish men. I don’t interpret this as a concomitant effect but as a primary motive of the Kurdish perpetrators. See: Ara Sarafian, “The Absorption of Armenian Women and Children into Muslim Households as a Structural Component of the Armenian Genocide”, in: Omer Bartov & Phyllis Mack (eds.), In God’s Name; Genocide and Religion in the Twentieth Century (New York & Oxford, 2001), pp.209-221. Next year I’m going to write a voluminous essay on this topic. Perhaps it can be translated and I could send it to you if you’re interested. quote: From most eye witness accounts the main reason given seems to be that they simply liked killing, and 1915 gave them the opportunity to behave like a fox in a hen house. Did they understand the bigger picture? To claim that the sole reason for ‘the Kurds’ (which ones, perpetrator, victim or bystander? Zaza, Kızılbaş, Yezidi? Koçer, Aşiret, Mîrinan?) was the intrinsic value of murder would be short-circuiting a complex sociological discussion of interethnic and intertribal power structures. On the other hand, you have a point when you claim that sadism could be a fluctuating but always present factor: we can think of Mırza Bey, the Kemah defile brigand chief, who kept on boasting of having killed 70,000 Erzurum province Armenians passing through the Kemah defile, or brigand chief Amero, who carried out the mutilation and murder of 636 Armenian notables of Diyarbekir, on orders of governor Dr. Mehmet Reşit, or the Bedirxan family, who basically wiped out the entire Aramean race. The fact that torture was involved denotes murderous sadism. Anyway, in order for an understanding of Kurdish complicity in the Genocide, I believe all parties should try to evade narrow-mindedness and ethnocentrism. Only this way we can understand and hopefully, prevent future genocides. Munzur

Thanks for the enthusiasm and the interest! My first objective is to bring (Dutch-speaking) college students of the Armenian Genocide from the Netherlands and Belgium together. This way it'll be possible to organize a panel in the manner I mentioned before. I wonder if there are such people on this forum, so hereby I call upon interested students. It'd be nice and fruitful to come together and see if, and when we can prepare such a panel. Regards, Munzur

Dear Thoth, Before writing on the genocide, I understand I have to introduce myself. I’m a 20-year old native from Dersim, but I have been living in Europe for 19 years. For those of you who are not acquainted with my place of birth: Dersim is the name of both the mountainous region between Erzincan and Elazığ (Elaziz), and the unique people that inhabit the region. The natives predominantly speak Zaza and adhere to the syncretistic “Alewi” religion; the people call themselves Dêsımız and consider Dersim an autonomous ethnical-religious entity – not Kurdish and certainly not Turkish. I was brought up with this culture and collective memory. It is against this background that I first questioned the history, politics and sociology of my own people. Just when I was acquiring knowledge I found out that I have an Armenian grandmother on my father’s side of the family and an Armenian grandfather on my mother’s side. To make a long story short: I searched, found and read lots of academic literature, learned about the genocide, tumbled into the rabbit hole deeper and deeper, and here I am. What struck me most was the trivial indifference of the academy and the ignorance of post-industrial information societies in general, a fact which (in my opinion) led to the genocide almost exclusively being an important topic in Armenian diaspora communities, e.g. in Holland. I guess I was one of the very few non-Armenians that attended the commemorations in Assen in 2001 and 2002, and I must admit: I was looked upon with suspicion (upon recognizing that I didn't speak Armenian, two men even frisked me). I understand how and why the topic became monopolized in Armenian communities but the genocide was a major violation of human rights and it was carried out in East Anatolia, so it concerns me as a bystander (and every other East Anatolian native) but it also concerns me personally as a victim, having Armenian grandparents. This is why I care. About my accumulated expertise on the genocide, I can’t totally explain how much I know since “much” and “little” is always relatively viewed, but I could sketch my use of sources if you’d like. Since I’m able to read 7 languages (Dutch, German, English, French, Turkish, Ottoman and Zaza), I can predicate my genocide-studies upon to the primary and secondary sources written in these languages, with the exception of Zaza of course – which is, with Turkish and Kurmancî, relevant for gathering “tertiary sources”: Oral History, something that still hasn’t been carried out systematically but can contain very valuable material. I only wish I could read Armenian and Russian too, but fortunately there are translations and Armenophone friends that can translate. It’s evident that in order to become versed in the in-depth studying of the perpetrator side, one must read Turkish and Ottoman: almost all of the memoires of the Ittihadists are written in either modern Turkish or Ottoman. The same thing goes for the relevant Takvim-i Vekayi issues, the most crucial body of evidence in the entire study of the Armenian Genocide. The German language is equally important since imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary were the allies of Turkey during the war. From Lepsius to Pomiankowski and Wangenheim to Scheubner-Richter, the Germans are known for their accurate and extensive archival material. The importance of French and English is, of course, obvious. Another point is the bigger picture: I travel to East Anatolia every summer to visit my relatives and I strongly believe that viewed from inside the region, the Armenian Genocide is a determinating event in the minds of people still living there. I traveled extensively and carried out Oral History research by interviewing elderly Kurds, Turks, Alevis, Arabs, Dersim natives, Laz, Circassians, etc. The outcomes of this research is very relevant for an understanding of the genocide. For instance, one starts to understand the various reasons why Kurds participated in the massacring, or the policy of “colonial rule” (müstemleke-i tarz) towards East Anatolia and its inhabitants, most specifically in the period 1923-1950. This puts the genocide in a whole new perspective. I hope this illuminates my motives. My ultimate purpose is for the genocide to become generally recognized as the precursor of the Holocaust, so you probably have a point when you say this will keep me busy for a lifetime Thank you all for taking the time to read my comments. Munzur P.S.: bellthecat: Do you consider it fair to get the impression from 1 Dutch Art History specialist that his denialist views are the norm amongst ALL Dutch academics? On the other hand, it’s a sign for us only to start working harder on the general recognition of the genocide here in the Netherlands. I find it deplorable that a lot of people can be bought but of course, it is horrible that he barters away his academic integrity for anything else.

Dear people, For quite some time I've been privately studying the Armenian Genocide and the primary and secondary sources coherent to it. Being a Sociology-student at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands (not far from Assen by the way), I have finally decided to specialize in Genocide Studies, most specifically the phenomenon of Genocide and Ethnocide in "East Anatolia". It is in this context that in the current academic year, I thought of the idea of organizing a presentation-type of panel-discussion of the Armenian Genocide at the faculty of Sociology. This presentation will be in Dutch, comprised of 3 to 4 participants (including me), who will all individually expound on a specific aspect of the Genocide. Altogether, the presentation has to provide a complete image of the Genocide tragedy. It is also possible to tackle the issue from a comparative point of view. If this plan is received well, we won't have much trouble organizing such an event on faculty ground, which will probably enable us to use audio-visual material as well. I must add that it will exclusively be an initiative of experts in this field, whether students, Bachelors, Masters, PhD's, etc. The problematic situation concerning the genocide commemorations in Assen has shown that the Armenian Genocide needs academic attention in the Netherlands. Thus far, as far as scholars are concerned, only Dr. Ton Zwaan (University of Amsterdam), Prof. Dr. Johan van der Dennen (University of Groningen), Prof. Dr. Erik Jan Zürcher (University of Leiden), and a few other Dutch academics have more or less paid attention to the genocide. I plead this to be carried out academically for the simple fact that university activities are more resistant (if not immune) to provocation and disturbance. Turkish-nationalist associations won't be able to protest against sociological inquiry and historical documentation in the academy. It will also be informative for students and academics in general if we do it this way, with backing from the faculty staff. If there's zest for my initiative, I am open for suggestions and discussion. Experts of the Armenian Genocide in Holland can mail me if they're interested. Munzur