'ORPHANS OF THE GENOCIDE' TO BE PRESENTED AT WOODBURY UNIVERSI

[Yervant1]

'ORPHANS OF THE GENOCIDE' TO BE PRESENTED AT WOODBURY UNIVERSITY

 

http://asbarez.com/105491/%E2%80%98orphans-of-the-genocide%E2%80%99-to-be-presented-at-woodbury-university/

 

Filmmaker Bared Maronian during the making of "Orphans of the Gencode"

 

GLENDALE-On September 30 at 4p.m. the documentary film "Orphans of

the Genocide" will be screened at Woodbury University, Fletcher

Jones Foundation Auditorium, at 7500 Glenoaks Blvd., Burbank,

California. Four-time regional Emmy Award-winning filmmaker Bared

Maronian will present the broadcast version of the film to the public

(see www.armenoidteam.com). The event is organized by Ararat-Eskijian

Museum in Mission Hills Calif.

 

The stories of these genocide orphans are told by the orphans

themselves, backed by expert opinion from such scholars as Deborah

Dwork and Keith Watenpaugh.

 

"'Orphans of the Genocide" tells the story of hundreds of thousands

of Armenian Genocide orphans. It is a posthumous tribute to the memory

of those Armenian children victimized by the horrors of a systematic,

concerted process of annihilation, and a celebration of their survival

against all odds."

 

Maronian has made use of archival photos and documents from the

Rockefeller Archive Center, Das Bundesarchiv (German National

Archives), Statens Arkiver (Danish National Archives), the

Library of Congress, U.S. National Archives, the Armenian Genocide

Museum-Institute, AGBU Archives, Noubarian Library, Houshamadyan

Archives, ARS Archives, and other private archival collections. In

an exclusive on-camera interview, 105-year-old Almas Boghossian of

Whitensville, Mass., tells how she became a Genocide orphan, walked

from Husseinig to Der Zor on foot, and how she was adopted by an Arab

family, admitted to an Armenian orphanage in Aleppo, and eventually

claimed by a relative in the United States.

 

Almas's grandson, Bruce Boghossian, is the current president of

the American University of Armenia. Besides personal accounts, the

documentary also examines one of the largest orphan relief efforts of

mankind that was spearheaded by the American Near East Relief Sociey

(NER). Robert Wirt, a U.S. Special Forces Green Beret, based on his

great grandfather Loyal Lincoln Wirt's memoirs, describes how Loyal

witnessed NER's herculean task of establishing 212 orphanages for

200,000 orphans scattered from Constantinople to Aleppo."

 

A special segment is dedicated to Alexandrapole, currently Gyumri,

Armenia, where an orphanage once stood that housed 22,000 Genocide

orphans. Another special segment of the documentary deals with the

Antoura Orphanage in Lebanon, where 1,000 Armenian orphans were

stripped of their identity and Turkified. Independent researcher

Missak Kelechian and world-renowned journalist Robert Fisk delve into

the details of this operation masterminded by Jemal *****.

 

This event is a fundraiser to complete the full version documentary.

 

For more information contact the Ararat-Eskijian Museum at

818-838-4862; Maggie Mangassarian-Goschin (818) 357-1606; or

ararat-eskijan museum.netzero.net.

[Yervant1]

THREE GREAT MASSACRES AND THE HERITAGE THAT COULD NOT BE SHARED: ARMENIAN ORPHANS

AGOS (Armenian Newspaper), Istanbul
Nov 14 2014

The third guest of The History Foundation's Thursday Talks series
titled 'Deportation-Massacre-Genocide 1915-2015' was Assistant
Professor Nazan Maksudyan, Head of the Department of Social Sciences
at Istanbul Kemerburgaz University. Maksudyan held a speech titled
'Three Generations, Three Massacres: Armenian Children and Orphans
from 1895 to 1915' and we had the chance to talk to her about the
perception of children during the Ottoman period, and the conditions
and political roles of Armenian orphans.

EMRE CAN DAÄ~^LIOÄ~^LU

In your speech, you focused on three generations of Armenian orphans
that resulted from three massacres, those of 1894-6, 1909 and 1915.

Did you manage to access statistical data on these orphans?

It is very difficult to provide statistics regarding this matter. 50
thousand orphans are mentioned for the 1894-96 Massacres. We know
that the number of the dead stands at 200-300 thousand. Therefore,
the figure 50 thousand is too high according to some, and too low for
others. We know that 20-30 thousand people were murdered during the
1909 Adana Massacre, and the number of children in orphanages was at
3,500. However, there were of course children that never made it to
orphanages. In 1915, the matter becomes even more complicated. It
is said that 500-600 thousand children maanged to survive. Even if
I were to define children as those aged 17 and lower, in the context
of the massacres, the children in orphanages during that period are
often those under the age of 13. Because male children over the age
of 13 were perceived as a threat and often murdered as well. Girls
over the age of 13 were abducted, captured, or forced into marriage.

How does the perpetrator's perception of children change in the
massacres? Under what circumstances are children perceived as a
threat? Under what circumstances are they protected?

This is another issue that cannot be understood when approached
from a nationalist perspective. A more hard-line racist approach
takes into account the 'potential of the child to return' and
thinks that children must be murdered as well. There are examples
of this kind in history. However, children deemed beautiful were
immediately taken in by households, or those deemed intelligent
were adopted. Therefore, there is a perception that these children
could be used for other means. The missionaries, on the other hand,
come up with this viewpoint: "The Muslims took the intelligent
Armenians because they weren't bright themselves." That, of course,
is the product of another racist approach... Yet there is also the
fact that, while slightly elder children who could use weapons were
perceived as a threat, whereas younger children were not. Guven Gurkan
Oztan also pointed this out at my speech at The History Foundation,
the situation changed in the 1920s. In 1927, there was a debate
where the view was expressed, "Street urchins cannot be of our kind;
they must be of Armenian stock". A new differentiation has emerged;
a national identity is imposed on children. During the time of the
Empire, there was the view that children could be transformed into
anything if they were beautiful and intelligent, that is why everyone
wanted to claim orphans as their own. The Americans, the Patriarchate
and the State wanted to "save" these children.

What, in your opinion, was the reason for that?

This particular point is a complete mystery for me. I said it during
my speech as well. Most of these children were ill and exhausted. And
those who wanted to save them were also impoverished and tired. Today,
in Istanbul, no one tries to claim the thousands of Syrian children
under similar conditions with a similar motivation. I really cannot
make out why. Although I find absurd the thesis of the Americans
based on Armenians being beautiful and intelligent, I do think that
such a perception may have existed during that period.

Harput, 1910. Note on the back of the photograph, written most probably
by the missionary Maria Jacobsen: '8 poor children I brought from
Arapgir. Little Vartuhi is missing fingers and toes, three of them
are blind, the others disabled.' © KMA Archives, Denmark

As the 1894-96 Massacres and the 1909 Adana Massacre took place,
a modernization campaign was continuing throughout the Ottoman Empire.

What was the role deemed appropriate for these children within this
modernization campaign?

In fact, the role ascribed to children within such a perception, also
explains why orphans were important politically. Groups such as women,
children or the sick, which the State did not take seriously before
centralization, had to be taken under control after modernization. The
modern state is administered with concerns over population. This
process, during which the State consolidated its power, accelerated
during the reign of Abdul Hamid II, and continued at a similar pace.

Therefore, the State began to take children into consideration as its
subjects. This is also why an institution like Darulaceze was founded
in 1897, and gathered abandoned children off the streets. Communities,
in turn, perceived this as an intervention into their domain of
influence. On the other hand, characteristics that more strongly
refer to identity, which we could describe as nationalism, began
to constitute problems. In this sense, the activities of the State
concerning orphaned children were not ascribed a positive meaning.

This meaning varies according to how one perceives the movement of
Ottomanism that came to the fore during the time of the Young Turks.

In other words, is Ottomanism about everyone putting away their
differences and speaking Turkish, or is it about everyone retaining
their differences? According to Cemal *****, everyone had to learn
Turkish, and so Turkish was made mandatory at the orphanage. On the
other hand, this lead to the loss of the community identity. This,
to a certain extent, is the departure point of the dispute over the
struggle to claim orphans.

What are the similarities between these three generations of orphans?

As I mentioned before, the fact that all the actors involved struggled
to claim them as their own became the common fate of these three
generations. In 1894-96, the Abdul Hamid II regime clutched onto them
on the one side, while the missionaries tried to clinch them on the
other. In 1909, this time it was the Young Turks Regime that tried
to claim the children. Cemal *****, Governor of Adana at the time,
tried to assume the care of the children, whereas Zabel Yesayan,
on behalf of the Patriarchate, had to fight him for them. Whereas in
1915, almost all state officials adopted a child each; and in 1919,
the Patriarchate tried to reclaim these children. Another similarity
exists in the efforts to severe their ties with their roots. In a
world where identity was determined via language and religion, they
faced the threat of losing both. Almost 85% of orphans in the Abdul
Hamid II period were taken into the care of American missionaries, and
around 80% of them became Protestant. None of the children who were
taken into orphanages after the Adana Massacre learned Armenian, and
it is doubtful whether they received religious education. After 1915,
a great number of children to which it is impossible to put a figure
to, were adopted and Islamicized. And also, from what we know from the
memoirs of orphans of these massacres, they displayed a will we would
not expect from a child with our contemporary perception. Even when
they were adopted, they escaped the moment they saw an opportunity.

Today we see children that cannot take the ferry alone, but in those
days, we read of children who went from Adana to Sivas alone to find
their families.

Did the orphanages implement a mission to re-establish the ties of
these children with their roots, to combat the policy of severing
their ties with their roots?

In the debate over state policies, it is said that, especially in
the 20th century, that orphanages were the entirely wrong method. The
method used in orphanages is described as very unhealthy, and adoption
is perceived as the correct method. Nevertheless, institutional
solutions are perceived as more progressive. The impact of orphanages
on identity is also a matter of debate. American orphanages, within a
policy of strict indoctrination, successfully carry out their duty of
raising the children as Protestants. That is why complaints poured in
to the Patriarchate throughout the 1890s; stating that missionaries
were not bringing the children to Church, or made fun of children
that crossed themselves. The Ayn Tura Orphanage, founded in the
aftermath of 1915 by Cemal ***** and Halide Edip, although it did
not have the same resources as the Americans, tried to do a similar
thing and Turkify the children.

In the context of ethnic engineering, was leaving orphans seen as an
active method to be implemented?

In the context of the idea of the nation-state and the Fourteen Points
of Wilson, we are talking about a period when forming a majority was
important, and population represented a real source of wealth. The
potential to transform children acquires significance in this context.

Therefore, to reduce the number of Armenians and increase the number
of Muslims, is an idea that may seem reasonable. Not killing the
children does not mean letting them remain Armenians. However, we do
not know how much of this was calculated; because the orders issued
do not include any provision to not kill children. The orders include
directives such as, place them in orphanages, or distribute them to
households, but there is no clear order that states that they are
not to be killed.

Headmistress Halide Edip and the teaching staff are in the centre,
surrounded by boy and girl orphans (1918) © AGBU Ayn Tura Orphanage

"It wasn't that easy to adopt a child and then claim the property of
the child's family"

There is also a narrative of heroism based on saving orphans during the
Genocide. However, seizing the inheritance of the family by adopting
these orphans was a method used especially in 1915. To what extent
is this narrative of heroism related to the practice of adopting
children for economic reasons?

In fact, adoption was quite a widespread practice during that period,
because these children served a purpose in labour oriented work.

Adopting children for economic reasons is of course one thread of
thought in explaining the process. However, we are talking about
properties often seized by the State itself. Therefore, it wasn't
that easy to adopt the child and seize these properties. I saw such
an example in Mardin. The neighbour adopted the child, and seized the
house that belonged to the child's family. However, I don't know how
valid such an explanation would be in the more general sense. There
are many examples in which people adopted orphaned children for purely
humane reasons.

http://www.agos.com.tr/en/article/8457/three-great-massacres-and-the-heritage-that-could-not-be-shared-armenian-orphans