Christopher Sisserian: Understanding the Importance of a Shared Turkish-Armenian History
[Christopher Sisserian is a freelance journalist living in London, and currently a graduate student of International Politics at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS).]
The separation of Armenians and Turks in 1915 is a comparatively recent phenomenon. Both communities often choose to ignore their shared history, to the detriment of efforts at reestablishing ties, the most recent of which appear to have failed. Although the issue has received much attention following the assassination of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink and the failure of the protocols aimed at normalizing the relations between the two states, it still remains misunderstood. Both outside observers and Armenians and Turks themselves are often unaware of the shared history between the two peoples, whose grievances cannot be understood without a greater knowledge of the past.
On Saturday, 20th of November 2010 the Times featured a DVD and an article on the life and works of the famous Ottoman architect Sinan. Unfortunately there was no mention of Sinan being Armenian, neither on the DVD nor in the accompanying article. In failing to mention this an opportunity was missed. Rather than neglecting or avoiding Sinan’s Armenian heritage, such facts should be emphasized in order to reflect the truly diverse nature of the Ottoman Empire. In this empire of many languages, religions, cultures and ethnicities, Armenians were often referred to as the millet-i sadıka, or the loyal millet, reflecting their loyalty and commitment to the Ottoman state. Armenians participated in all aspects of Ottoman life and as faithful supporters of the state occupied positions across the social spectrum.
Celebrating such interaction and the inseparable history between Armenians and Turks would do great service to the recent attempts of re-establishing relations between the two states through ‘football diplomacy.’ This necessary endeavor faces many obstacles, of which history is not only the most crucial but also the most difficult to overcome. In order for an understanding to be reached between the two nations regarding the genocide of 1915, it is first necessary to re-discover the history of two peoples living side by side harmoniously for hundreds of years. Sinan’s contributions to the empire must be viewed as a part of this shared history.
An understanding of this is the first step in re-humanising the relations between the two nations and promoting reconciliation. Armenians and Turks have dehumanized each other, often understandably, in the process of maintaining their separate cultural identities. Armenians learning about the genocide are led to believe all Turks were (and by extension still are) inherently evil, ignoring the many Turks that endeavored to save Armenian lives. Correspondingly, Turks alive today who bear no responsibility for the events of 1915 are incensed by accusations that they are guilty of a crime not committed by them. This ‘othering’ is a somewhat natural process in the formation of a national identity. However, it is also a major obstacle to progress....
Read entire article at openDemocracy
The separation of Armenians and Turks in 1915 is a comparatively recent phenomenon. Both communities often choose to ignore their shared history, to the detriment of efforts at reestablishing ties, the most recent of which appear to have failed. Although the issue has received much attention following the assassination of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink and the failure of the protocols aimed at normalizing the relations between the two states, it still remains misunderstood. Both outside observers and Armenians and Turks themselves are often unaware of the shared history between the two peoples, whose grievances cannot be understood without a greater knowledge of the past.
On Saturday, 20th of November 2010 the Times featured a DVD and an article on the life and works of the famous Ottoman architect Sinan. Unfortunately there was no mention of Sinan being Armenian, neither on the DVD nor in the accompanying article. In failing to mention this an opportunity was missed. Rather than neglecting or avoiding Sinan’s Armenian heritage, such facts should be emphasized in order to reflect the truly diverse nature of the Ottoman Empire. In this empire of many languages, religions, cultures and ethnicities, Armenians were often referred to as the millet-i sadıka, or the loyal millet, reflecting their loyalty and commitment to the Ottoman state. Armenians participated in all aspects of Ottoman life and as faithful supporters of the state occupied positions across the social spectrum.
Celebrating such interaction and the inseparable history between Armenians and Turks would do great service to the recent attempts of re-establishing relations between the two states through ‘football diplomacy.’ This necessary endeavor faces many obstacles, of which history is not only the most crucial but also the most difficult to overcome. In order for an understanding to be reached between the two nations regarding the genocide of 1915, it is first necessary to re-discover the history of two peoples living side by side harmoniously for hundreds of years. Sinan’s contributions to the empire must be viewed as a part of this shared history.
An understanding of this is the first step in re-humanising the relations between the two nations and promoting reconciliation. Armenians and Turks have dehumanized each other, often understandably, in the process of maintaining their separate cultural identities. Armenians learning about the genocide are led to believe all Turks were (and by extension still are) inherently evil, ignoring the many Turks that endeavored to save Armenian lives. Correspondingly, Turks alive today who bear no responsibility for the events of 1915 are incensed by accusations that they are guilty of a crime not committed by them. This ‘othering’ is a somewhat natural process in the formation of a national identity. However, it is also a major obstacle to progress....