Tweet
EXAMINING 'THE DENIALIST HABITUS IN POST-GENOCIDAL TURKEY'
By Varak Ketsemanian // November 11, 2013
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 Kocunyan, the editor-in-chief of the "Aztarar" daily,
Manuk Aslanyan was called by the governor Muhittin Ustundag 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 accomplish.
In the absence of Armenian history classes and an atmosphere of
absolute prohibition of all books related to Armenian history, the
newspapers were trying to provide historical knowledge by publishing
biographies, and series on Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the
history of Armenian Church, etc.
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] "AkÅ~_am," [8]
"Tasvir," [9] the abovementioned daily from Adana, "Keloglan," [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
Mildanoglu, 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.
Notes
[1] "Yahudi illeti, yutar butun milleti-Yahudi yaka biti, bizim
sokagın 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 Å~^amlıyan mentioned
an article written by Ahmed Halil in Cumhuriyet the day before,
entitled "Ä°kinci Dunya 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] AkÅ~_am, quoted in Marmara, Dec. 18, 1945, no. 1133. The
editor-in-chief of AkÅ~_am, 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] Keloglan, quoted in Marmara, June 24, 1945, no. 700 (written
in Armeno-Turkish). According to Marmara, Keloglan published this
piece on Dec. 20, 1945: "Bazı kopuk Ermeniler İstanbul'daki Moskof
elciligine baÅ~_vurup, Moskof buyukelciligine gitmek istediklerini
bildirmiÅ~_ler. Bu haber bizleri mutlu etti. Ä°ster oynayarak, ister
gulerek gitsinler, yeter ki gitsinler." Keloglan, 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 Ä"nthanur Zhoghovo K'nnich' Hantsnazhoghovi (Istanbul:
Foti Basımevi, 1951), 94.
By Varak Ketsemanian // November 11, 2013
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 Kocunyan, the editor-in-chief of the "Aztarar" daily,
Manuk Aslanyan was called by the governor Muhittin Ustundag 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 accomplish.
In the absence of Armenian history classes and an atmosphere of
absolute prohibition of all books related to Armenian history, the
newspapers were trying to provide historical knowledge by publishing
biographies, and series on Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the
history of Armenian Church, etc.
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] "AkÅ~_am," [8]
"Tasvir," [9] the abovementioned daily from Adana, "Keloglan," [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
Mildanoglu, 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.
Notes
[1] "Yahudi illeti, yutar butun milleti-Yahudi yaka biti, bizim
sokagın 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 Å~^amlıyan mentioned
an article written by Ahmed Halil in Cumhuriyet the day before,
entitled "Ä°kinci Dunya 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] AkÅ~_am, quoted in Marmara, Dec. 18, 1945, no. 1133. The
editor-in-chief of AkÅ~_am, 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] Keloglan, quoted in Marmara, June 24, 1945, no. 700 (written
in Armeno-Turkish). According to Marmara, Keloglan published this
piece on Dec. 20, 1945: "Bazı kopuk Ermeniler İstanbul'daki Moskof
elciligine baÅ~_vurup, Moskof buyukelciligine gitmek istediklerini
bildirmiÅ~_ler. Bu haber bizleri mutlu etti. Ä°ster oynayarak, ister
gulerek gitsinler, yeter ki gitsinler." Keloglan, 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 Ä"nthanur Zhoghovo K'nnich' Hantsnazhoghovi (Istanbul:
Foti Basımevi, 1951), 94.