By Varak Ketsemanian / An Interview with Talin Suciyan
The forced eradication of the Armenians from their
homeland in 1915 has generated a unique scholarship that closely examines the
genocidal policies from 1915 to 1923. One aspect, however, has remained
blurred: the post-genocidal period and the repercussions of the genocide on the
remaining Armenian population in Turkey. In this interview with the Armenian
Weekly, Talin Suciyan shows the consistency of state policies and
internalization of these policies on the level of everyday life by the larger
parts of the society. According to Suciyan, the normalization of denial both by
the state and the society created a denialist habitus. She also presents
tangible examples of how the Armenians had to become part of the denial as
there was no other way of existence for them in the public sphere.
Talin Suciyan (Photo by Lara Aharonian)
Suciyan was born in Istanbul, Turkey. She attended the
Armenian elementary school in her town and the Sahakyan Nunyan Armenian High
School in Samatya. She graduated from Istanbul University’s radio, TV, and
cinema department and continued her studies in Germany, South Africa, and
India, receiving her master’s degree in social sciences. For 10 years, she
worked in the field of journalism, producing and co-directing documentaries.
From 2007-08, she reported from Armenia for Agos Weekly. In October 2008, she
began to work at Ludwig Maximilian University’s (LMU) Institute of Near and
Middle Eastern Studies as a teaching fellow, and as a doctoral student at the
university’s Chair of Turkish studies. Currently, Suciyan teaches the history
of late Ottoman Turkey, Republican Turkey, and Western Armenian. Since 2010,
she has organized lecture series at LMU aimed at bridging the gap between
Armenian and Ottoman studies. She successfully defended her Ph.D. dissertation
in June 2013.
Varak Ketsemanian: In the introduction of your
dissertation, you discuss the concept of denialist habitus. What were the
mechanisms of denial in the post-genocide Republic of Turkey?
Talin Suciyan: Perhaps it would be good to start with an
explanation of what I mean by “post-genocide habitus of denial.” This concept
encompasses all of the officially organized policies, such as the 20 Classes,
Wealth Tax, Citizen Speak Turkish Campaigns, prohibitions of professions for
non-Muslims, etc., and the social support provided to these policies. These
have mostly been against non-Muslims or others who for some reason became the
target of state. Denialist habitus constitutes our daily life with its various
forms. For instance, the Talat Pasha Elementary School, Ergenekon Avenue, and
all the streets named after CUP leaders are very ordinary part of our lives.
These examples become striking when you imagine having a school named after
Hitler in Germany. Normalized hatred in the public sphere, in the media and
press against the Kurds, Armenians, Alewites, or other non-Muslim groups are
all part of this habitus. Juridical system is also not exempt from it. The
cases of “denigrating Turkishness” and the atmosphere created through these
cases in the society—involving the confiscation of properties of non-Muslims,
kidnapping Armenians girls, systematic attacks on Armenians remaining in Asia
Minor and northern Mesopotamia, changing the names of the villages where
non-Muslims used to live, destroying their cultural heritage in the provinces,
or using their churches or monasteries as stables—are all part of the
post-genocide denialist habitus in Turkey.
The front page of the 20 July 1946 issue of Nor Lur.
With all of these practices, not only is the annihilation
of these people denied, but also their very existence and history. As a result,
the feeling of justice in the society could not be established. In this
atmosphere, racism on a daily basis becomes ordinary. This racism, both in the
provinces and in Istanbul, can easily be traced in the oral histories I’ve
conducted. Through their personal histories, we see how they experienced it
while playing on the streets, attending funerals, weddings, Sunday masses, or
gatherings in their houses—in other words, their very existence in the
provinces easily turned into a reason to be attacked. Of course, this was not
only against Armenians. For instance, Jews in Tokat also had to deal with
racist attacks on a daily basis. In Agop Aslanyan’s book, Adım Agop Memleketim
Tokat, he refers to the racist attacks against Jews on the street, where they
were equated with lice. [1]
The victims had no one, no institution to count on, they
were absolutely alone in the struggle for their very existence and the denial
of that existence. Their complaints were not heard. The assailants consequently
knew that by attacking non-Muslims, verbally and physically, there would no
punitive consequences. Official state policies during the first decades of the
republican era in Turkey and also later enabled and supported the establishment
and normalization of this habitus.
In other words, the republican state institutionalized
this habitus of denial with its official policies both on the national and
local levels, and supported its internalization on the societal level.
Therefore, societal peace, a feeling of justice and freedom, cannot be
established unless Turkey recognizes what happened between 1915 and 1923.
V.K.: On p. 4, you write, “Armenian Sources themselves
become part of the Denial.” How?
T.S.: Yes, in this habitus of denial, the Armenian press
was required to write certain things in certain ways. For instance, according
to the memoirs of Ara Koçunyan, the editor-in-chief of the “Aztarar” daily,
Manuk Aslanyan was called by the governor Muhittin Üstündağ to his office
because he failed to cover the news of the annexation of Sanjak (Hatay).
Although Aslanyan published an editorial two days after this conversation, his
newspaper was nevertheless closed. There are various other examples of
prohibiting or closing Armenian newspapers without any reason. “Nor Or” and
“Hay Gin” are just two other examples from the republican era. These newspapers
were apparently not good enough in internalizing the denialist habitus.. For
instance, the “Marmara” newspaper, in its reporting on the destruction of an
Armenian church in Sivas in the 1940’s, put the responsibility of locum tenens
on Kevork Arch. Aslanyan, although the church was dynamited by Turkish
officials.
Another example could be given in the context of
relations with the diaspora: Armenian intellectuals and the press in Istanbul
were expected to distance themselves from diaspora communities. So, they too
had to use hostile language when describing other Armenian communities in the
diaspora, denying the fact that those people in other parts of the world were
their relatives. This continues to be an issue even today. However, I should
point out that diaspora hatred is one of the oldest and deepest components of
Kemalism, which can be traced in the republican archives in Turkey. The state
prepared detailed reports on the Armenian newspapers and their editors-in-chief
in the 1930’s and 1940’s–and, most probably, in later periods as well. In these
reports, one of the most important criteria was the relation to other
communities in the diaspora. In other words, for an Armenian newspaper to be
regarded as “state friendly,” the first question was whether it was reporting
news from other communities or not, and whether it had a network with other
communities. It was in this atmosphere that the post-genocide habitus of denial
was partly internalized by some Armenian community members, public opinion
makers. The book-burning ceremony undertaken by Armenian community leaders of
The 40 Days of Musa Dagh can be read in this context, too. [2] It is also
important to emphasize that by being part of this habitus, the editors of the
newspapers were hoping to have some more bargaining power with the state on
other communal issues, such as the confiscation of properties or laws
regulating the communal life. We can trace this very clearly in the editorials.
However, this hope never turned into a reality.
The front page of the 21 July 1945 issue of Nor Or.
It is important to underline, that I am not blaming
anyone for what they did, or what they could not do, I only point out the sword
of Democles that has been hanging over their heads.
V.K.: What role did the Armenian newspapers play in the
re-construction of the community’s image in post-genocide Istanbul?
T.S.: Armenian newspapers had some very difficult tasks
to
Secondly, they had to react to anti-Armenian campaigns in
the absence of representative bodies. Turkish editors, many of whom were
parliamentarians at the same time, referred to Armenian editors and journalist
as the representatives of their community, although there was no notion of
representation. This very political task often put their existence in danger.
Armenian newspapers were translating almost all news items related to Armenians
from Turkish newspapers, and they were following the Armenian press in other
countries. Thus, reading Armenian newspapers meant both following the agenda of
Turkey and partly the agenda of Armenians in other parts of the world.
Furthermore, Armenian newspapers were following the court cases opened against
the pious foundations that mostly ended up with confiscated properties, such as
in the case of Sanasaryan Han, Yusufyan Han, the cemetery of Pangalti, and many
others. Cases of “denigrating Turkishness,” which have been filed almost
exclusively against non-Muslims, were also followed closely. One can also find
information about Armenian life in the provinces in the papers. Important
primary sources, such as official documents, decisions of the Patriarchate or
Catholicosates were all published in the newspapers. I should add that there
were tens of newspapers and journals in the first decades of the republic, and
that they all had different priorities. Therefore, Armenian newspapers and
yearbooks are very good sources of republican history, like the memoirs of the
patriarchs and public intellectuals, minutes and reports of the General
(Armenian) National Assembly, the letters of the Catholicoses, among others.
V.K.: What were the repercussions of this denialist
habitus? What was its social, political, cultural, and economic impact on the
writing of the history of the community?
T.S.: We cannot talk about a historiography on Armenians
during the republican years. Non-Muslims only appear in historical research
when it concerns attacks, such as the pogroms of Sept. 6-7 1955, the Wealth
Tax, 20 Classes, and others. Of course, the literature in these fields helps us
a lot, but these are peak moments. One should look at the practices of daily
life to understand how these tax policies, pogroms, or organized attacks
affected them. How did the circumstances enable these attacks or policies
against which there was no opposition? The denialist habitus as a concept helps
us understand everyday life, which kept the society ready for provocations and
reproductions of racism. I should perhaps add that republican elite, from 1923
onwards, was trying to “solve the problem” of the non-Muslims remaining in the
country. In the memoirs of Patriarch Zaven Der Yeghiayan, we can see the
process of negotiations with Refet Pasha [Bele] on this issue. This was also
discussed during the deliberations prior to the signing of the Lausanne Treaty.
In the minutes of secret parliament hearings we read how the presence of
non-Muslims has been problematized. [3] Consequently, through the absolute
prohibition of opening Armenian schools, the kidnapping Armenian girls
throughout the republican period, the raiding of homes, the dynamiting or
confiscation of cultural monuments, republican governments wanted to push the
remaining Armenians out of Asia Minor and northern Mesopotamia, while at the
same time, imagining Istanbul as a panopticon, a strict zone of control where
all non-Muslims should be concentrated. A similar policy was implemented on the
island of Imroz, where Greeks were allowed to remain after 1923. First, in the
1960s, an open-air prison was established there: criminals were brought to the
island with their families. Consequently, the crime rate increased considerably.
Then, Muslim settlers from the Black Sea region were brought to the island.
Constant demographic engineering attempts were made in order to push the
remaining Greeks out of the island. The consequences of these policies were
disastrous. Both in Imroz and in the provinces republican governments pursued
the same aim: Creating a society without non-Muslims, breaking the link between
the people and the geography they lived in, and in the long run, eradicating
the memory of their existence.
Suciyan working in the archives of the Sourp Prgich
Armenian Hospital in Istanbul.
V.K.: How did the first post-genocide generation of
intellectuals reflect on the image of the Armenian community of Istanbul in the
1930’s and 1940’s?
T.S.: It is difficult to talk about one image. However,
there was one very important characteristic about the “Nor Or” generation: They
were the first generation of intellectuals who were born right after 1915 and
were mostly active in leftist politics in Turkey. Why did they feel the need to
publish an Armenian language newspaper? I think this is an important question
to ask. It is quite clear that they had no other place to bring up the issues
that were related to the community. They were urging for a more democratic
community administration, with more participation and, on the other hand, they
were very expressive about the anti-Armenian state policies and anti-Armenian
campaigns reproduced by the public opinion-makers. Avedis Aliksanyan, Aram
Pehlivanyan, Zaven Biberyan, Vartan and Jak Ihmalyan brothers, and others were
pointing out the changing conjuncture after World War II and the need for
equality for non-Muslims, in particular for Armenians in Turkey. “Nor Or” was
one of the most outspoken and courageous newspapers in the republican history
of Turkey. For instance, Zaven Biberyan advocated the right to immigrate to
Soviet Armenia for Armenians in Turkey, which was quite dangerous; or he drew
parallels between Jews and Armenians while responding to the anti-Armenian
campaigns in the Turkish press. Most likely, these were the reasons behind the
prohibition of “Nor Or” in December 1946, by Martial Law. Although there were
other newspapers that were banned for a certain period, “Nor Or” was the only
Armenian newspaper that was prohibited for good. The editors were imprisoned,
and later left the country. Zaven Biberyan returned in the mid-1950’s, but all
the others lost their contact with the society they were born and raised in.
V.K.: In your dissertation, you write that “Another international
crisis parallel to the issue of Patriarchal election crisis was the territorial
claim of the Armenian political
organizations at the San Francisco Conference. This claim was pushed further by
the USSR government.” How did Turkey deal with the territorial claims presented
by the Armenian political organizations?
T.S.: This was one of the most challenging issues for the
Armenian community in Turkey. Turkey had sent a group of editors to San
Francisco, and they remained there for quite long, around three months. Their
task was to lobby for Turkey. The territorial claims presented by the Armenian
organizations in the San Francisco Conference had a shocking impact on the
Turkish delegation, especially when this claim was coupled with the call for
immigration to Soviet Armenia by Stalin. With the call for immigration to
Soviet Armenia, it was quite easy to blame all Armenians for being communists,
especially the ones in Turkey, since they were queued in front of the USSR
Embassy in Istanbul to register for immigration. At the end, Armenians from
Turkey only waved to the ships passing through the Bosporus, and none of them
were able to go to Soviet Armenia in 1946. The reason is not yet clear to me,
there was always a question mark in the minds of Soviet officials regarding the
Armenians in Turkey. After World War II, hatred against communism in Turkey was
heightened to a great extent as a result of the territorial claims and
immigration call for Armenians.
Suciyan with Varujan Köseyan.
The anti-Armenian campaign in Turkey was launched by the
editors who reported from San Francisco. The newspapers “Yeni Sabah,” [4] “Gece
Postası,” [5] “Vatan,” [6] “Cumhuriyet,” [7] “Akşam,” [8] “Tasvir,” [9] the
abovementioned daily from Adana, “Keloğlan,” [10] “Son Telgraf,” [11] and
“Tanin” all used quite a bit of racist language against Armenians. Asım Us, for
instance, in his editorial for “Vakıt” asked Armenian intellectuals “to be
conscientious and fulfill their duties.” [12] However, this was not typical to
that period only. Throughout the year, after the San Francisco numerous
conference articles were published along the same lines. In September 1945,
Peyami Safa called the Armenians of Turkey to duty with an article entitled,
“Armenians of Turkey, where are you?” published in “Tasvir” in September 1945.
[13] The editors of the Armenian newspapers tried to respond to all these
attacks. Aram Pehlivanyan, who penned a Turkish editorial published in “Nor
Or,” in order to be heard by Turkish public opinion makers, thus explained the
situation: “We are witnessing attacks of some of the Turkish newspapers against
Armenians. The Armenian press is trying to respond to these attacks as much as
it can. However, we have to admit that Armenian newspapers can have only a
little impact on Turkish public opinion. Therefore, this self-defense is as
ridiculous as fighting with a pin as opposed to a sword.” [14]
V.K.: How did the Patriarchal Election Crisis of
1944-1950 discuss the changing power relations on the post-World War II international
scene?
T.S.: With the sudden death of Patriarch Mesrob Naroyan
in 1944, Kevork Arch. Arslanyan was appointed as locum tenens. First, this was
the period when a conflict turned into a court case between Arch. Arslanyan and
the Armenian Hospital Sourp Prgich over the inheritance of Patriarch Naroyan.
Second, the Turkish government was hindering the gatherings of the General
(Armenian) National Assembly (GNA) and this was paralyzing the whole community
administration, for the patriarchal elections could only take place with the
GNA meeting. This had already been a problem starting in the 1930’s, when the
whole community administration, (i.e., Nizamname of Armenian millet) had
started to be undermined systematically. Kemalist secularism of the new Turkish
state had targeted the administrations of non-Muslim communities, since they
had the right to administer their communities based on Nizamnames, and the
republican state had nothing to offer instead of these communal rights. In the
last analysis, this policy was enabling the state to create de facto
regulations according to its own will and interest. Coming back to the topic of
patriarchal elections, not being able to organize the elections resulted in a
split in the community: those who were for and those who were against Arch.
Arslanyan. Almost every week, attacks and quarrels between the two groups took
place in various churches.
Thirdly, the Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin, which was
becoming active in the diaspora with Stalin’s immigration call, was also involved
in this crisis, as well as the Catholicosate of Cilicia in Antelias, Lebanon,
and other communities in the diaspora. This was the first communal crisis that
turned into an international one during the republican years, leaving the
Armenian community in Turkey in a very fragile position, since there were no
mechanisms of representation and no real mechanisms of solving the problem. In
other words, this crisis was a result of the eradication of the community’s
legal basis, which had continued after 1915 and taken a systematic character
with the republican policies. If the Ottoman state until 1915 had some kind of
responsibility towards its non-Muslim millets, citizens or subjects, there was
a complete evaporation of this responsibility during the republican period.
Communities were told to no longer be communities, but equal citizens of the
republic, like any other citizen of Turkey, which in reality did not apply and,
more importantly, meant that Armenians no longer had the rights stemming from
Nizamname. Thus, the legal basis of the communities, gained during the 19th
century, was first problematized by the republican governments and then
systematically eradicated, leaving the communities alone with the problems
created as a result of this eradication.
Armenian newspapers, public opinion-makers, and the
reports prepared by the GNA, eventually gathered by December 1950, are very
rich sources to understand this very problematic period. The following comment
was made in the report prepared by the investigative committee:
“This is not a history of a period, since it does not
include all the incidents with their reasons and results. This is not a
biographical account of someone. This is only 1 page of the overall crisis that
our community has been going through for the last 30 years.” [15]
Last but not least, it is important to emphasize that
this is not only the history of the Armenian community, but the history of
Turkey during the first decades of the republican period. Single-party years
and also decades that followed should be re-read in light of these sources,
which would eventually radically change the historiography.
V.K.: Why did you dedicate your dissertation to the
memory of Varujan Köseyan?
T.S.: Most of the Armenian newspapers that I referenced
in my dissertation (“Nor Lur,” “Aysor,” “Tebi Luys,” “Marmara,” “Ngar,”
“Panper,” and others) were located in the archives of the Sourp Prgich Armenian
Hospital in Istanbul. This archive was put together by the late Varujan Köseyan
(1920-2011), who rescued hundreds of volumes of Armenian newspapers from
recycling. I spent quite a bit of time with him during the last two years of
his life conducting interviews, and I was honored to enjoy his friendship. The
room that I was working in, was like a storage room. Thanks to the efforts of
the hospital administration, especially of Arsen Yarman and Zakarya Mildanoğlu,
the archive room has been recently renovated and is now waiting for its
researchers. Unfortunately, Köseyan could not see it. Yet, without his efforts,
this research could not have been done by using such a wide range of sources,
nor could the archive have been established. We owe our history to Köseyan.
About Varak Ketsemanian
Varak Ketsemanian recently received his Bachelor of Arts
in Philosophy (with a minor in History) from the American University of Beirut
(AUB). His articles have appeared in the Lebanese Armenian Aztag Daily and
AUB’s Outlook. He is currently interning at the Armenian Weekly offices in
Boston.
Notes
[1] “Yahudi illeti, yutar bütün milleti–Yahudi yaka biti,
bizim sokağın iti.” See Agop Aslanyan, Adım Agop Memleketim Tokat (Istanbul:
Aras Publ.), 88.
[2] See Erbal and Suciyan, “One Hundred Year of
Abandonment,” The Armenian Weekly, April 2011.
[3] See TBMM-Gizli Celse Zabıtları, 1934: vol. 4. 7-8
[4] Yeni Sabah, quoted in Marmara Dec. 18, 1945, no.
1133.
[5] Gece Postası, quoted in Marmara Dec. 17, 1945, no.
1132. The editor-in-chief of Gece Postası, Ethem İzzet Benice, a former
representative of Kars, wrote an article on the issue entitled, “Armenians of
Turkey and the Invitation of Soviets.” In that article, he said that the ones
who would like to go, should go, and “good bye.”
[6] Vatan, quoted in Marmara, Dec. 18, 1945, no. 1133.
The editor-in-chief of Vatan, Ahmet Emin Yalman, wrote that any decision that
went against the honor and the interests of Turkey should take people’s
opposition into consideration. His statement referred to the issue of the
eastern borders.
[7] Cumhuriyet, quoted in Marmara, Dec. 18, 1945, no.
1133. According to the translation in Marmara, Cumhuriyet described the crowd
in front of the Soviet Embassy in Istanbul, trying to make a social analysis of
the applicants regarding their ages—whether they seemed to be unemployed or
not, or whether their existence was purposeful at all, etc. In Marmara (Dec.
26, 1945, no. 1141), Suren Şamlıyan mentioned an article written by Ahmed Halil
in Cumhuriyet the day before, entitled “İkinci Dünya Harbinde Ermeni Meselesi”
(The Armenian Question During the Second World War). Aram Pehlivanyan responded
to this same article with a Turkish editorial in Nor Or on Jan. 26, 1946.
[8] Akşam, quoted in Marmara, Dec. 18, 1945, no. 1133.
The editor-in-chief of Akşam, Necmeddin Sadak, who was at the same time a
representative of Sivas, wrote: “Whoever would like to go, should go, and
whoever would like to stay, should stay.” He wrote his column under the
penname, “Democrat.” Sadak stated that Armenians preferred to remain as
minorities, speaking their own language, and attending their own schools, and
thus, they chose to be foreigners.
[9] Tasvir, quoted in Marmara, Dec. 24, 1945, no. 1139,
where the translation was: “We have a right to be suspicious of the entire
Armenian community… Armenians stabbed the Turkish Army in the back, which found
its most legitimate response.”
[10] Keloğlan, quoted in Marmara, June 24, 1945, no. 700
(written in Armeno-Turkish). According to Marmara, Keloğlan published this
piece on Dec. 20, 1945: “Bazı kopuk Ermeniler İstanbul’daki Moskof elçiliğine
başvurup, Moskof büyükelçiliğine gitmek istediklerini bildirmişler. Bu haber
bizleri mutlu etti. İster oynayarak, ister gülerek gitsinler, yeter ki
gitsinler.” Keloğlan, quoted in Marmara, Dec. 24, 1945, no. 1139.
[11] Son Telgraf, quoted in Marmara, Dec. 25, 1945, no.
1140. Son Telgraf had interviewed some Armenians who had reportedly said, “We
are Turks. What business do we have in Russia? It is a stupidity to go there.”
[12] Vakıt, quoted in Marmara, Dec. 25, 1945, no. 1140.
[13] Tasvir, quoted in Marmara, Sept. 22, 1945, no. 1046.
[14] Aram Pehlivanyan, “Hakikat,” Nor Or, Jan. 26, 1946.
[15] Deghegakir Ĕnthanur Zhoghovo K‘nnich‘
Hantsnazhoghovi (Istanbul: Foti Basımevi, 1951), 94.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder
Not: Yalnızca bu blogun üyesi yorum gönderebilir.