Tweet
Armenian genocide column inconsistent
By Cihan Baran
Monday, April 18, 2005
Stanford Daily
April 18 2005
In her op-ed, Ani Kardashian rightly speaks of the lack of awareness
of past atrocities in today's community ("Armenian genocide must not
be forgotten," April 15). Yet her deliberate attempts to distort the
past and represent on side of what has been going on as a historical
discussion is a terrible blow to intellectual integrity. The question
of the so-called "Armenian genocide" is an open one. People who are
unaware of this issue should bear in mind that there is no foregone
conclusion about this matter, as in the case of Holocaust.
Let's view the issue in the framework that Kardashian has set up for
us. I claim that it is plausible to establish the inconsistencies
analytically in her message. She claims that the "Young Turk regime
emerged, consisting of radical young military officers who were
troubled by the . . . the numerous minority groups inhabiting the
empire . . . " So it is said that the Young Turks were troubled by
more than one minority.
The point then becomes obvious. Any serious student of history knows
that the Ottoman Empire was a vast mosaic of ethnic diversity. The
Empire tolerated and treated with respect throughout its history
Arabs, Bulgarians, Greeks, Slavs, Armenians and peoples of many
other ethnicities. If these Young Turks were keen on their radical
nationalism, why did they try to only exterminate the Armenians of all
the different ethnicities? Why would they pick on a particular race
as opposed to all the others? Of course, Kardashian, while speaking
of many ethnicities in the Ottoman Empire, isn't able to speak of
genocides that relate to other people.
But then, let's raise our heads above Kardashian's politicking and
biased ways and at least try to put things in a better perspective.
The end of 19th century was completely transforming for the Ottoman
Empire. With the advent of such ideas as democracy and nationalism,
many groups within the Ottoman Empire claimed their independence -
Balkan nations are such examples. Armenians, however, had not yet
formed such an independent state. As the Ottoman Empire weakened, the
Armenians saw World War I as an opportunity for independence. They have
allied with Russia, who was battling the Ottoman Empire, to back-stab
the Ottoman Nation from the inside. In their zeal against the Ottoman
Nation, many villages were burned, innocent Turks killed, tortured and
raped. As a result of these evil deeds, the Ottoman Government forcibly
deported them to other regions (such as south-eastern Anatolia).
Even more disgraceful statements follow from Kardishian. Identifying
taking position in a historical and open debate as "denial," she
writes, "This denial has arguably contributed to future genocides,
including the Holocaust and more recent genocides in Rwanda and
Darfur." I dare Kardashian to prove and show evidence for this
statement. Where can we find reference in Hitler's "Mein Kampf" to
Ottoman Empire and what allegedly happened to the Armenians? How does
the right of a nation to defend itself spouse such huge atrocities
as Holocaust?
Even if this alleged "genocide" did happen, why is Turkey being held
responsible for what happened? There are sufficient differences for
us to think of as the Ottoman Empire and the modern Turkey as two
different entities. Ottoman Empire was a monarchy under the rule of a
dynasty. Turkey is a democracy. Ottoman Empire's official religion was
Islam. Modern Turkey is secular. Those who ruled the Ottoman Empire
didn't save Turkey from its enemies in the War of Independence at the
end of World War I - but at least proposed Turkey to be a mandate of a
"superior" nation such as the US or Britain. The founders of modern
Turkey and the great savior of the Turkish nation, Ataturk, fought
these enemies. I believe these differences are sufficient to hold the
Ottoman Empire and the modern Turkey as different entities. Maintaining
that they are the same, holding one responsible for the other, would
be to assert that two sculptures of different form but of same material
are identical.
If historical evidence is presented, I am willing to re-evaluate my
claims. But at least, the unaware reader should bear in mind that
this is an ongoing historical debate, without an established truth.
Cihan Behran is an undeclared freshman. E-mail him at
[email protected].
By Cihan Baran
Monday, April 18, 2005
Stanford Daily
April 18 2005
In her op-ed, Ani Kardashian rightly speaks of the lack of awareness
of past atrocities in today's community ("Armenian genocide must not
be forgotten," April 15). Yet her deliberate attempts to distort the
past and represent on side of what has been going on as a historical
discussion is a terrible blow to intellectual integrity. The question
of the so-called "Armenian genocide" is an open one. People who are
unaware of this issue should bear in mind that there is no foregone
conclusion about this matter, as in the case of Holocaust.
Let's view the issue in the framework that Kardashian has set up for
us. I claim that it is plausible to establish the inconsistencies
analytically in her message. She claims that the "Young Turk regime
emerged, consisting of radical young military officers who were
troubled by the . . . the numerous minority groups inhabiting the
empire . . . " So it is said that the Young Turks were troubled by
more than one minority.
The point then becomes obvious. Any serious student of history knows
that the Ottoman Empire was a vast mosaic of ethnic diversity. The
Empire tolerated and treated with respect throughout its history
Arabs, Bulgarians, Greeks, Slavs, Armenians and peoples of many
other ethnicities. If these Young Turks were keen on their radical
nationalism, why did they try to only exterminate the Armenians of all
the different ethnicities? Why would they pick on a particular race
as opposed to all the others? Of course, Kardashian, while speaking
of many ethnicities in the Ottoman Empire, isn't able to speak of
genocides that relate to other people.
But then, let's raise our heads above Kardashian's politicking and
biased ways and at least try to put things in a better perspective.
The end of 19th century was completely transforming for the Ottoman
Empire. With the advent of such ideas as democracy and nationalism,
many groups within the Ottoman Empire claimed their independence -
Balkan nations are such examples. Armenians, however, had not yet
formed such an independent state. As the Ottoman Empire weakened, the
Armenians saw World War I as an opportunity for independence. They have
allied with Russia, who was battling the Ottoman Empire, to back-stab
the Ottoman Nation from the inside. In their zeal against the Ottoman
Nation, many villages were burned, innocent Turks killed, tortured and
raped. As a result of these evil deeds, the Ottoman Government forcibly
deported them to other regions (such as south-eastern Anatolia).
Even more disgraceful statements follow from Kardishian. Identifying
taking position in a historical and open debate as "denial," she
writes, "This denial has arguably contributed to future genocides,
including the Holocaust and more recent genocides in Rwanda and
Darfur." I dare Kardashian to prove and show evidence for this
statement. Where can we find reference in Hitler's "Mein Kampf" to
Ottoman Empire and what allegedly happened to the Armenians? How does
the right of a nation to defend itself spouse such huge atrocities
as Holocaust?
Even if this alleged "genocide" did happen, why is Turkey being held
responsible for what happened? There are sufficient differences for
us to think of as the Ottoman Empire and the modern Turkey as two
different entities. Ottoman Empire was a monarchy under the rule of a
dynasty. Turkey is a democracy. Ottoman Empire's official religion was
Islam. Modern Turkey is secular. Those who ruled the Ottoman Empire
didn't save Turkey from its enemies in the War of Independence at the
end of World War I - but at least proposed Turkey to be a mandate of a
"superior" nation such as the US or Britain. The founders of modern
Turkey and the great savior of the Turkish nation, Ataturk, fought
these enemies. I believe these differences are sufficient to hold the
Ottoman Empire and the modern Turkey as different entities. Maintaining
that they are the same, holding one responsible for the other, would
be to assert that two sculptures of different form but of same material
are identical.
If historical evidence is presented, I am willing to re-evaluate my
claims. But at least, the unaware reader should bear in mind that
this is an ongoing historical debate, without an established truth.
Cihan Behran is an undeclared freshman. E-mail him at
[email protected].