“No Assimilation could be achieved merely by surrendering
one’s past but ignoring the alien past. In a society on the whole hostile to
the Jews… it is possible to assimilate only by assimilating into anti-Semitism
also.”1
The Armenian Weekly Magazine
April 2012
This year, again, the Armenians of Istanbul were
confronted with theheavy duty of responding to the dominant atmosphere of
political and social hatred against them in the country where they live. The
reason was the bill intending to criminalize genocide denial in France. In
Turkey, a political campaign to generate public consensus against the bill was
successfully initiated and reached its peak with a demonstration on Feb. 26,
organized jointly by Turkey and Azerbaijan, in the center of Istanbul—and what
was nothing other than a rehearsal of the Sept. 6–7, 1955 events. Beginning in
December 2011, anti-Armenian campaigns were run in the Turkish media with the
participation of politicians, academics, and public opinion makers, both on the
local and national level.
In Turkey, a political campaign to generate public
consensus against the bill was successfully initiated and reached its peak with
a demonstration on Feb. 26, organized jointly by Turkey and Azerbaijan, in the
center of Istanbul—and what was nothing other than a rehearsal of the Sept.
6–7, 1955 events.
In crisis situations, Armenians in Turkey have been
called to represent their community. In the absolute absence of political
representation—prohibited from having a political organization as an ethnic
group—Armenians have always been requested to react politically and be representatives
of their community. The media, politicians, and public intellectuals pose this
request incessantly, all of a sudden feeling the need to “give a voice to the
voiceless.” However, the response should also meet the needs correctly: You are
not expected to be a conscious pariah in Arendt’s terms—that is, “accepting the
challenge and responsibility of being an outsider even among one’s own
people”2; rather, you are expected to assimilate into anti-Armenian campaigns,
which also entails hatred against and dehumanization of the Armenian Diaspora.
As an Armenian still living in Turkey, then, you are offered to take part in
and reproduce hatred against your sisters, brothers, uncles, or aunts living in
other parts of the world. In this way, you are expected to become an enemy of
your own past, of your own biography, and reject your own present.
“Forcing Armenians to react” in situations of crisis has
a historicity. For instance, from 1941 onwards in Turkish newspapers, news
items and articles started to appear regarding Armenians being a “fifth
column”3; accused of supporting the Germans, Armenians in Istanbul were asked
to give a necessary reaction to these accusations. Without having any
politically representative body, the community was required to respond to such
war politics, and during a time when Turkey was still selling chrome to the
Nazi government. On Jan. 5, 1946, the famous article by Zaven Biberyan, “Enough
Is Enough,”4 was published in the Nor Lur Armenian newspaper, and was in direct
defiance to these allegations as well as the Turkish public opinion makers.
Biberyan argued that these public opinion makers (specifically Asım Us in this
case) were implicitly trying to put the blame on Armenians, whereas actually a
broad segment of Turkish society—but not Armenians—had been pro-German. We can
read this of course as an attempt to shape public opinion in a way that would
rescue the image of Turkey and the consequences of Turkish-German alliance in
the international arena during the post-WWII period. Time and again, it is
impossible not to remember Biberyan, since the Armenian community in Istanbul
is in such a fragile situation, and yet is expected to be a political actor, in
order to rescue Turkey from the probable consequences of the criminalization of
genocide denial in France. The text entitled “Turkey wants to have the right to
denial,”5 with all its shortcomings, was still an important reaction given by
the handful of Armenians remaining in Turkey to the politicians and public
opinion makers. Nevertheless, neither the mentioned text, nor the open letter
of businessman Ishak Alaton calling on Turkish intellectuals to stop denial,
seem to have influenced the public intellectuals in Turkey. It was only after
the Hodjali hate rally that the public intellectuals comprehended the degree of
rising racism, and saw how denial fuels this racism, how it could all be
organized on the state level, and how easily “human resources” could be
generated for its implementation.
PROCESS OF STRUCTURAL ERADICATION
Beginning in 1840, the Armenian community had de facto
administrative institutions. In 1847, an election system was introduced for
these institutions.6 The Armenian constitution (Nizamname) of the 19th century
was a legal guarantor of these processes. During the first decade of the
republic, however, these electoral systems were abolished as a result of
systematic state politics. First, the Patriarchate could not withstand the
pressures and paved the way for the abrogation of the Civil Assembly, which was
in charge of civil affairs. Later, in 1938, a second electoral process on the
district level was abolished. The practice of electing administrative bodies
with the participation of a district’s inhabitants to administer the properties
of the given foundations was replaced with a “single trustee” appointed by the
government. The period 1938-49 was marked by difficulties created by the
“single trustee” (tek mütevelli dönemi) system within the minority communities.
Elçin Macar’s article on the issue has some very valuable information about the
period.7 State policy regarding the appointment of these representatives was
extremely arbitrary; people who had nothing to do with the communities were
appointed as trustee.8 Not being able to collect regular revenue from the
properties meant not being able to finance community organizations, such as
schools, churches, cemeteries, hospitals, and orphanages, as well as people in
need.
During the Single Party years between 1924 and 1946,
stateorchestrated intimidation policies, legal pressures of various kinds,9 and
normalized daily racism in society10 were all part of the systemic policies
that encouraged the remaining Armenians to leave. The loss of elected Civil
Assembly in the case of the Armenians, and the introduction of the single
trustee system, endangered and discouraged public participation in the
administration during those years. Although the practice of electing
representatives to administer the properties of foundations had to be
re-established in 1949, the right to have an elected council to deal with civil
issues has never been restored. As a result, a practice that was established
over one hundred years was extinguished within the first decade of the
republic. Had the Civil Assembly not been abolished, would it be enough today
to meet the needs of the community when confronted with situations loaded with
heavy politics, such as the recent French law criminalizing genocide denial?
Perhaps not, but it would have given us an organizational model with over
nearly two centuries of experience, with its pros and cons—a good reference
point to begin with.
Arendt’s remark on the price of being a Jew in Europe in
the 19th century is still relevant for Armenians in Turkey today. For, they are
not only asked to surrender their past but are expected to ignore their past,
which encompasses everything from their social, legal, cultural, and political
rights to their very existence, as well as the annihilation of their ancestors.
This is the only way offered to survive in a state of denial. Armenian
representation under these conditions is and can only be a political one,
because the hostile attitude against Armenians in Turkey has been one of the
longest lasting political attitudes in the country.
ENDNOTES
1. Hannah Arendt. Rahel Varnhagen: The Life of a Jewish
Woman. HBJ Publ. 1974, p. 224.
2. Richard Bernstein. Hannah Arendt and The Jewish
Question, MIT Press, 1996, p. 18.
3. Rifat Bali. II. Dünya Savas¸ında Gayrimüslimlerin
Askerlik Serüveni: Yirmi Kur’a Nafıa
Askerleri. (Istanbul: Kitabevi Yay. 2008), p. 31.
4. Nor Lur. Jan. 5, 1946.
5. “Türkiye inkar hakkının pes¸ inde,” Dec. 22, 2011
6. For more, see Hagop L. Barsoumian. The Armenian Amira
Class of Istanbul, American University of Armenia, Yerevan, 2007, pp. 112-119.
7. Elçin Macar. “Bas¸bakanlık Cumhuriyet Ars¸ ivi
Belgelerine Göre Tek Parti Döneminde Cemaat Vakıflarının Sorunları” (see
www.istanbulrumazınlı˘gı.com), 2007; see also Macar, Cumhuriyet Döneminde
Istanbul Rum Patrikhanesi ( stanbul: letis¸ im Yay 2003).
8. Macar. “Bas¸bakanlık…”
9. Settlement Law (1934), 20 Kura Askerlik (1941), Wealth
Tax (1942), Law prohibiting professions for non-Muslims, etc.
10. Campaigns like “Citizen speak Turkish,” hundreds of
cases filed against non-Muslims under the law “denigrating Turkishness” (for
more, see Cemil Koçak. Ayın Karanlık Yüzü in Tarih ve Toplum Yeni Yaklas¸ımlar.
No:1, 2005. pp. 147-208; and Koçak,
www.stargazete.com/yazar/cemil-kocak/gayri-muslimler-ve-turkluge-hakaretdavalari-ayin-karanlik-yuzu-haber-375966.htm.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder
Not: Yalnızca bu blogun üyesi yorum gönderebilir.