Has anyone read this book?........

[EZ]

http://www.gomidas.org/books/kaiser.htm :

 

Hilmar Kaiser, Imperialism, Racism, and Development Theories: The Construction of a Dominant Paradigm on Ottoman Armenians

 

Kaiser's careful and thorough survey . . . is useful and fair. . . . An important addition to the literature."

--Resat Kasaba and Çaglar Keyder, New Perspectives on Turkey

 

In this slim volume, historian Hilmar Kaiser traces the sources of stereotypical portrayals of Armenians in various schools of Ottoman history-writing. He finds that assertedly progressive scholars, in their treatment of Armenians in the late Ottoman Empire, pander to the interests of the Turkish state.

 

Kaiser examines the work of Charles Issawi, a prominent representative of modernization theory; Dogu Ergil, Stephen Ted Rosenthal, and Feroz Ahmad, who represent dependency theory; and Resat Kasaba and Çaglar Keyder, followers of Immanuel Wallerstein's world-system theory.

 

Kaiser shows that for their portrayal of the role of Armenians in Ottoman trade, these authors have uncritically accepted and relied on early-twentieth-century material produced by the propaganda machine set up by the German Foreign Office.

 

Giving his readers an overview of the German "Orient" propaganda establishment, Kaiser discusses the works of German anti-Armenian propagandists such as Alfred Körte, Friedrich Naumann, Hugo Grothe, Paul Geister, Albrecht Wirth, Ewald Banse, Ernst Jäckh, Ernst Marré, Eugen Mittwoch, and Alphons Sussnitzki.

 

About the Author

 

Hilmar Kaiser is a historian specializing in German-Ottoman relations and the Armenian Genocide. He has done extensive archival research in Europe, the Middle East, and the United States. In 1996 he was banned from the Ottoman State Archives (Istanbul, Turkey) because of his scholarly interest in Armenian history. Currently he is working at Ruhr University (Bochum, Germany) and is a doctoral candidate at the European University Institute (Florence, Italy).

[aycemnik]

EZ!

I would like to know why there are German anti- Armenians? Why would Germans hate us?

[EZ]

Dear aycemnik,

 

I don't really understand why you are asking me this question. But maybe reading the book will give you some answers. The below forword explains what the book is about. If I understood it correctly Kaiser traces certain (contemporary) ideas back to racist and nationalist propaganda which developed in German imperialist circles as early as the 1890s. This is not about todays "German anti-Armenianism", which as far as I know doesn't exist (accept amongst German Turks and maybe German neo-nazi's; the "why"-question in this case I would simply answer by saying that these people are crazy and should be either treated or put away).

 

I haven't read the book yet, but I will do so as soon as I get hold of it.

 

Hilmar Kaiser, Imperialism, Racism, and Development Theories: The Construction of a Dominant Paradigm on Ottoman Armenians

 

Excerpt from the foreword by Stephan H. Astourian

 

Hilmar Kaiser's important essay could not be more timely, for it deconstructs some of the central statements of modern Ottoman historiography. These include the views that the economic success of the Ottoman Armenian bourgeoisie stemmed from their unscrupulous character and European privileges, that it prevented the economic development of the empire, and that it provoked the Turks into getting rid of the Armenian people.

 

Kaiser's approach reminds one of Nietzsche's "On the Genealogy of Morals" in that he traces these ideas back to their origins to unveil their ideological content and the interests they conceal. These origins he finds in the racist and nationalist propaganda which developed in German imperialist circles as early as the 1890s. In particular, Kaiser emphasizes the central role played in modern historiography by the writings of one such propagandist, Alphons Sussnitzki.

 

Kaiser shows that Turkish and Western scholars from diverse ideological horizons adopted these ideas to various degrees and adapted them to their theories. Among them, one finds Turkish nationalists of the so-called Kadro school in the 1930s, proponents of the liberal modernization theory in the 1950s and 1960s, and both Turkish and Western followers of Immanuel Wallerstein's assertedly Marxist world-system theory from the 1970s on.

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by aycemnik:

EZ!

I would like to know why there are German anti- Armenians? Why would Germans hate us?

---

Why were Germans "against" the Jews?

 

Its not quite being against Armenians though - its just accepting this concept of self-interested/counter to the majority behaviors foriegn elements (in this case Armenians being such in the context of the Turkish majority in the Ottoman Empire) that justify animosity against the minority group. Kaiser is saying that these academics have blindly accepted this (Armenians role) as fact - to a degree justifying Ottoman Turkish negative attitudes towards Armenians (as somehow some kind of bloodsuckers). And I assume he is saying that this assessment is incorrect. I haven't read Kaiser's Analysis (this particualr book) but I look foreword to it as he often has made some good points in the past.

[gamavor]

At that time there were no Anti-Armenian feelings among Germans. I'm not aware if there were any Anti-Armenian feelings within German society. The opposite is very true. There were many German pro-Armenians.

The attitude of the Germans regarding the Armenian issue was solely dependent on the different sides in the WW I. Unlike other infamous German dislikings of minorities and in general the racial ideology and doctrines developed later on, Armenians were simply enemies. On the other hand there was huge interest in building transcontinental railway, time and again for the ****ing oil. Armenians were on the way of this major project.

When we sided with Russians in the WWII, have we "loved" Germans? NO.

[THOTH]

Gamavor - you are essentially correct - however during the war (WWI) there were divergent German attitudes towards Armenians. German missionaries saw Armenians as fellow Christians and sympathized with their plight. Likewise the Berlin-Bagdad railway company - which relied on Armenian labor and management (accounting & white collar stuff) acted to protect Armenians who worked for it (even after they were taken away) and lobbied the German and Turkish Governments against the Genocide policy/enactment. The German military (and Government) was absoluty anti-Armenian - basically because the Turks were - and the Germans wanted to appease the turks in any way they could. Whether they actually believed the Armenians to be a threat is somewhat debatable. They took this position officially - but unofficial accounts seem to differ from this view.

[MJ]

I don't understand why was the German miitary anti-Armenian? What was Armenians' weight or importance for the German military to be "anti-Armenian?"

[EZ]

To get back to the book...

 

Thoth, judging from the forword it seems to me that the book suggests something that opposes what you are saying here, namely that the Germans got their ideas from the Turks. Apparently Kaiser has actually traced back 'certain' views adapted from certain ideas that came to life in German imperialist circles end 19th century. Whether the Germans were actually anti-Armenian or just "anti" I cannot judge from only reading the forword of the book, but with my simple thinking, and, to be honest, very limited knowledge on this whole subject, I can imagine that, simply put, maybe the Germans were the first to come forward with certain racist and nationalist ideas and the Turks who had a problem with the Armenians loved it, so they kind of stimulated each other back and forth until the Turks, well the Ottomans, (for whatever reasons) were first to actually get rid of their 'problem', which doesn't mean that they were the ones who 'invented' the problem.

 

However, I think I'd better read the whole book first.

[EZ]

Actually, my husband suggests that before participating in such a (this) discussion I should read up on the origines of 19th century nationalism as a main background of all kinds of conflicts that occurred in the 20th century and to, in this context, pay attention to cultural identity carrying aspects as racist ideoligies, language and religion as well as economical motives.

 

So, I guess I'll be back in 2012

[THOTH]

nationalist feeling were particualrly strong in germany in the 19th Century because Germany had only recently actually formed as a nation - and the idea of German nationality (subsuming Prussian, Bavarian, and even more local etc conections) was crucual to this. As such the germans also developed a keen interest in integrating Germanic communities outside their borders leading to some concepts that included the idea of pushing other nationalities off of their lands. These type of views were perhaps suggested to the Turks (I think some may suggest that this was certainly so). I'm not so sure that the Turks didn't come up with this concept elsewhere however - as the Russians had been practicing such (a great deal) prior to any German attempts...

 

And MJ - I think the Germans were anti-Armenian basically only to appease the Turks. Prior to WWI Turkey was by no means a clear German vassal - far from it. In fact Britian held much more sway. Germany knew that it must appease the Turks in as many ways as possible to ensure their cooperation. Being anti-Armenian was not something that would likely come back at them (particualrly when their enemies - the Russians - were seen as being so very pro-Armenian).

[gamavor]

Nationalism as political ideology (note, not nazism), has developed somewhere early 19 century. The seeds of national movements can be traces even earlier than that. Nationalism was the logical consequence of the industrial revolution in Western Europe. Later nationalistic movements spread out all over Europe and it was a positive driving force for the liberation movements on the Balkans and subsequently Armenia. We were the last ones to get our portion of nationalism.

The practices of movement of large masses of people although not uniquely Turkish/Ottoman were well practiced long before the unification of German states. Large masses of people were forcefully moved from the Balkans to Asia Minor in 16-17 centuries. If there is something that turks learned well from the Romans, it was the old maxim "Divide ad Impera".

[gamavor]

You are right. More accurate would be modern nationalism. On the other hand in order to have nationalism as an ideology you need to have a nation. Rome and Greece hardly can fit into modern understanding of a nation, or rather the political meaning of a nation.

[MJ]

Thoth,

 

Generally, I find this notion of someone (other than Azerbaijan in our days) being "anti-Armenian," "pro-Armenian," "anti-Turkish," "pro-Turkish," blah, blah, blah, most ridiculous and most meritless.

 

As far as Armenians were/are concerned, if there is anything that can characterize the attitude of the powerful countries towards Armenians, it would be indifference due to our complete irrelevance.

[THOTH]

Gamavor - good points

 

MJ - understood

[Accelerated]

I think it existed as early as the Roman Empire, Greek City States and probably even Ancient China. I guess it would depend on how one interprets 'nationalism'.

 

[ January 06, 2003, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Accelerated ]

[Accelerated]

A good example of 'nationalism' in the Ancient world could be found in the period of the Spartacist rebellion. During some crucial stages of the campaign (2 to be exact) the German slave contingent refused to fight alongside the rest (because they found themselves to be superior, somehow), and were promptly massacred by the Roman Army on their own.

 

[ January 06, 2003, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Accelerated ]

[THOTH]

Accelerated - in truth this could more accuratly be considered as tribalism versus nationalism. Nationalism is more properly considered as being feverently patriotic (& beyond) in terms of the virtues of a nation stste in the modern context - not just a more or less racial outlook based on tribal or ethnic affinity. Obviously they are related - but I don't think that they are the same phenomonon.

[THOTH]

Accelerated - your point is well made. Obviously these feelings of loyalty to others like oneself are similar phenomenon. Additionally there is the concept of infalibility and finding fault with others/those "not us". In a sense these constructs are a means of extending family loyalty to a larger group/body. There are tricks to do this - to fool people into believing that it really matters/is important. While it makes sense to a certain degree - as one to some degree buys into the nation one is living in and (usually) wants to see stability and order - and reistance to foriegn hordes bringing it down - or whatever - we can understand national loyalties/patriotism etc. However - since much is based on abstracting the ideals of the family (which is in a sense an extension of the idea of self - self-preservation/self actualization etc) - much of the tricks to make one believe that these things (ones nation) etc - are worth fighting/dieing for (and killing/degrading/harming others for etc) are based on lies/half truths. This is the seed of the coruption - and why nationalism can and ussually/often is taken too far - and is dangerous. (and besides nationalists are ussually a s e h o l e s who aren't much fun at parties...

[Accelerated]

Yes, thoth, I more or less agree with you. But I would like to add something else....

 

A few weeks ago I was watching a documentary on the French Foreign Legion, discussing its history and current status. It was very interesting to find how they are motivated to fight and die for a foreign (and distant) government. But I was quite surprised to find, that their allegiance is not to France but to the Legion itself. (ie. to each other). I am sure you are aware these guys are always in the thick of things ALL the time since French colonial times, and include people from all over the world, Asians, Africans, Europeans and even from the States. They are given French names and taught the language.

 

An interesting event took place in the 1960s: The French were fighting a guerilla war in North Africa against the independence movements. The Legion bore the brunt of the fighting (they are also currently fighting in Ivory Coast). Realising that independence was inevetable and the war unwinable, de Gaul(sp?) ordered French troops out and made a political settlement. The Legion was furious, because it had lost so many and were now being backstabbed. SO, they sent an assassin to kill de Gaul! The VERY popular President of France (Im not sure if he was still popular in the 60s, but still a very famous historical figure). The assassin didnt succeed.

 

Food for thought....not really nationalism or tribalism, but nevertheless a willingness to die for what? Pride in what?

 

[ January 07, 2003, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Accelerated ]

[Accelerated]

But also, IMO nationalism/patriotism can be very useful on the domestic front. Look at Germany 1933-1939, the economy was very much restored under Hitler. Look at Sukarno's (not Soharto) Indonesia, same deal, from a bunch of villages into a modern economy. The Soviet Union would have never stood up to the Nazi invasion without the patriotic zeal infused in the people. They werent doing it for Stalin or the Party, but for the Motherland. Many other examples....

 

I realise, that nationalism had little to do with the economics conducted by Hitler, Mussillini etc. IMO nationalism is a great aid to any economic model (economy), TRUE nationalism/patriotism not pretence like that of the current ROA government.

[nairi]

Elly, in case you're interested, NRC Handelsblad published an interview with Hilmar Kaiser on May 27, 2000 by Dirk van Delft, entitled "Tegen de Stereotypen" (Against the Stereotypes). Dennis Papazian wrote a letter to the editor "Stereotypen 3", which was published on July 2, 2000. Kaiser's reply to that follows on the same page.

 

Also, Kaiser is not anti-Armenian. He's merely critical of some Armenian genocide researchers, including Vahakn Dadrian.

[hagopn]

Generally, I find this notion of someone (other than Azerbaijan in our days) being "anti-Armenian," "pro-Armenian," "anti-Turkish," "pro-Turkish," blah, blah, blah, most ridiculous and most meritless.

 

As far as Armenians were/are concerned, if there is anything that can characterize the attitude of the powerful countries towards Armenians, it would be indifference due to our complete irrelevance.

Naturally the above quote depicts a distinct personality that has unfortunately manifested itself among Armenians: The "we are nothing" disease, that of "admitted impotence" in order to relieve any semblance of responsibility from one's self, is perhaps the most widespread in the Diaspora. It is of no surprise that this personality type, let us name it "Type N" for "Nothing," (Sgt. Schults of "Hogan's Heroes" comes to mind) thinks that he is "right" in his unproven and materialistically prejudiced assumptions.

 

Even at their weakest in history (i.e. late 19th century till 1915 and aftermath), Armenians were signficant enough to be used as revolutionary tools on both sides of the border, Russian and Ottoman. They were tools by the "foreign powers" against the respective Empires that those powers wanted to cripple, and they did indeed succeed. This is something that Armenia "establishementarians" don't like to stress, but it is a fact. Ironically, the founding "revolutionaries" themselves did not suffer the worst fate, but mostly the innocent peasantry and townspeople did, but that is another story.

 

1. Armenians were considered both as assets and as liabilities depending upon the [Armenian political] faction one judged Armenians from. Stolypin (research his name, I am in no mood to give elementar school lessons) was a Czarist official who berated the ARF and its role in Russia and considered them a worse threat than the bolsheviks!

 

2. The Amira had control of key points of the Ottoman economy, and it was only the destruction of the Ottoman sultanate and Hamid's forced abdication (led by Emanuele Carasso/Karasu), that led to the total crippling of Armenian power in the (then essentially non-existing) Ottoman Empire. I cannot but imagine the amount of power wielded by Armenians in a post-Constitutional Empire were it the case that the proposed "reforms" were carried out in earnest. In retrospect, we can safely say that the "reforms" were in fact brought about to dismantle the Empire and kill off the Armenians.

 

3. It is in fact a very strong effort on behalf of anti-Armenian elements in the "West" that gives "academic" credence to the "Nothing" personality. Armenians are systematically shut out of history by being constantly excluded from history books. One such alarming truth is that Armenians and Cilicia are not even mentioned in the entirety of the Crusades! Those who know the history will sympathize with my anger. As to those ignorant "Type N" personalities who do not, my sympathies to their souls.

Edited November 25, 2003 by hagopn

[Munzur]

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.