Professor Leons Taivans: Now the "history" in people's heads dictates the rules

April 24 is a Remembrance Day for the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire. This year the day was marked by US President Joe Biden recognizing the tragedy as genocide. For the Armenian people, this is a historic moment, because so far the US presidents have dodged this issue in various ways, and not wanting to damage relations with a major NATO partner, Turkey, they did not recognize the targeted destruction of these Armenians as genocide. Now it has happened.

What is the symbolic meaning of the recognition of this genocide and why it has happened right now, I asked Leons Taivans, a professor at the University of Latvia and expert in Oriental studies. As always, the conversation with the professor not only touches on a narrowly specific topic but also touches on the broader global cultural and political context.

Why is it so important that the United States recognized the Armenian genocide? What is the symbolic meaning of this recognition?

The same is sometimes asked about the recognition of the Jewish Holocaust, or as they call it - the Shoah. So that it would never happen again. That is one aspect. Secondly, like the Jewish people, the Armenians want to remind people of their existence. Their history has not been easy and, like all ancient peoples, they have been persecuted in various ways throughout their history. They do not want this to happen again.

So it Is clear why Armenians and Jewish people need recognition of this genocide but why is it important for the rest of the world to recognize it? Why did it have to be recognized by the US? Our Defense Minister Artis Pabriks even said that this move from Biden would damage NATO's internal relations with Turkey. What is the global context for this recognition?

The global context is quite simple. There is a global trend towards tolerance. The fact that it is not necessary to kill another person, often for imaginary reasons. For Armenians, this applies 100%. To the Jewish people as well. There is also an element of ethnoculture to be found here. Here you can see the European Christian tradition - if you have done something wrong, then it is your duty to regret what you have done and try not to do it again. It is a Christian maxim. But such an approach is not in place everywhere. Elsewhere you hear about losing your face. It is usually said by the Chinese, Japanese or Vietnamese. It is necessary to show your strength and in no case give in to such and similar issues, because it will be proof of your powerlessness and incapability. These two value systems, which have very old and deep roots, clash very clearly here. As for Biden, let us remember that he emphasized values ​​in his pre-election platform. Human rights and similar matters. Recognition of the Armenian genocide is part of this system of values. The previous presidents allowed Congress to pass resolutions on recognizing the Armenian genocide but did not themselves want to annoy their ally, Turkey. Biden has now gone a step further and acknowledged this genocide at the presidential level. I think that last year's events in the United States, when the reevaluation of historical processes took place, also played a role here.

As a historian, I see that we are experiencing quite surprising things. In the past, we saw history [as unchangeable] as the Bible. It is the first history book to describe events and draw conclusions. From such and such actions follow this and that, but from other actions follow other consequences. That's about it. Historical books have been written in a similar spirit, and historians have tried as much as they can to reflect objective, documented truth, and have drawn biblical conclusions from it. Both moral conclusions and simple patterns. Now we are experiencing a completely different type of exploration of history. A history that is formed in one's own head. We know that some have studied history well at school, but others have not learned anything. But they have opinions about history. And these "historical" opinions have begun to dominate. Russian immigrants to the United States do not understand why they should be held responsible for US slavery if their own ancestors were serfs (practically in the same status as US slaves) in Russia at the time. However, it turns out that white skin is enough to be considered a slave owner. Or how recently, in a Russian TV show, someone complained, “Why are those Latvians so ungrateful. We taught them to read, but now they're blaming us." The fact that Latvians learned to read en masse 150 years before Russia reached such a level of literacy is ignored because they have a completely different history in their heads. Now this history, which is in people's heads, dictates the rules, and from a political point of view, history is being rewritten. Putin's tendency to glorify World War II and rewrite other things fits into this stream. From this point of view, a new era has started. Given that the United States has a relatively strong community of Armenian descendants, which has its own specific view on the issue of genocide, Biden's recognition of the genocide is also in line with this trend. But by no means do I want to call into question the objective existence of the genocide.

Although there has been talk of the Armenian genocide, it may be worth recalling what exactly happened.

The Armenian genocide erupted during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire began to form in the 13th century and lasted until the beginning of the 20th century, but already in the second half of the 18th century, there were signs of the collapse of the empire. The empire was established under Muslim flags, but as endless wars expanded it, more and more Christian-inhabited lands in the Balkans were included in the territory of the empire until it turned out that Christians were in the majority. Muslims had to rule large areas where the majority of the population was non-Muslim. This could not continue for long, and in the 1920s the Greek struggle for independence was followed by other Balkan peoples. One thing was in the Balkans, but the rulers of the Ottoman Empire were concerned about the situation in Asia Minor, where there were large Armenian areas.

The confrontation began with several side factors. During the struggle for independence in the Balkans, the Turks had to flee and sought new homes inland in Asia Minor. But it turned out that no one wanted them there. Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians already lived there. Conflicts and the exodus of the former inhabitants of these lands began with all sorts of pretexts. At that time there were about 3000 Armenian towns and villages. The expulsion of the Armenians took place as if unofficially, with the ones in power looking the other way. For example, prisoners were released from prisons, from which groups were organized that engaged in robberies under patriotic or religious pretexts, but the authorities pretended not to see anything. It is generally believed that this process took on a systemic character in 1876 when Sultan Abdulhamid II came to power. He began to confiscate Armenian lands and return them to Muslims. First the Kurds, but when the great departure of Circassians from Russia begins, then the Circassians. There was a great battle for these lands, but the authorities were always on the Muslim side. Later, when the modernization of the empire began, and the Turks came to power in 1909, an attempt was made to establish equality among all the inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire, including the Armenians, but this fell apart very quickly. Young Turks also continued their previous discriminatory treatment of Armenians.

The issue of Armenia was in the spotlight of all European powers in the second half of the 19th century and in the early 20th century until the beginning of World War I. They recorded, expressed their dissatisfaction with the various cases of persecution and set up a special commission to deal with the Armenian question. In 1912, European countries offered to establish Armenian autonomy, controlled by European inspectors. The Ottoman Empire seemed to accept these rules, but in 1914, when the war broke out, the project was immediately canceled, and a very brutal Armenian genocide soon began. The genocide was covered up by the fact that Armenians lived on the border with Russia, which was in a state of war, and enemy troops formed from Russian Armenians will enter the Ottoman Empire through these Armenian-populated areas and the locals will help them. For this reason, all Armenians were being deported from their homelands to the Syrian desert in a hugely brutal way.

When Turkey talks about the Armenian genocide, it keeps referring to the conditions of war. It is said that not only Armenians were killed, but also a large number of Turks, including Kurds, Assyrians, Jewish people and others. Consequently, we cannot talk about genocide, because genocide is a very legal concept today - the systemic destruction of one nation, which creates certain consequences even today. Including material, because the question arises not only about moral regret, but also about purely financial compensation.

History shows that the genocide began much earlier and continued after the war, when the Republic of Turkey was established. I do not want to mention Ataturk's name, because then all the Turks will get angry, but historians say that he also knew about the Armenian genocide, which continued in a more hidden form even after that. So the story of genocide is not just about war. It is a purposeful, long-term policy and ideology for the extermination of Armenians.

Are Armenians still living in Turkey today?

Turkey is a very nationalist country in a bad sense of the word. Turkey, for example, is home to many Kurds, but by law, they are all called Mountain Turks. They may not use their ethnonym at all. This is even more so with the Armenians, including the Greeks. In fact, the whole of Asia Minor, where the territory of today's Turkey is located, was once Greece. The Greeks lived there. The Turks are newcomers there.

So now there are no Armenians there and the Armenian language is not used.

Yes, there are none, because today's Turkey is a very mononational country. At least formally. Another thing that is believed is that for every tenth Turk, one of the grandparents is an Armenian. Unfortunately, this Turkification took place in a rather cruel way. There was even a whole movement that abducted Armenian girls, making them Turkish wives, converting them to Islam and forcing them to speak Turkish. Genocide means not only physical destruction but also violently reforging nationality.

Latvia's position on this issue is relatively neutral, as there is no desire to offend Turkey and Azerbaijan. Minister of Defense Pabriks has also been critical of Biden's move to recognize the genocide. What should be Latvia's position on this issue?

In my opinion, such a position is a bit rich. For example, Pabriks. You don't have to pretend to be a bigger Catholic than the Pope of Rome. If Biden has already admitted, then why should Latvia be afraid? Seriously, there are things that need to be judged from a moral point of view. We can fully afford to do that. There is no need to be afraid that someone at the embassy in Azerbaijan or Turkey will start sneering. No need to be so subservient. For Latvians, this serfdom gene runs so deep that they need to bow to the right and left. Why can't we have our own opinion, and why can't we have our own position? The slaughter of an entire nation is a huge crime. About a million people died. No less. Larger numbers are also mentioned, but at least a million people were killed. Are we forbidden to say that? Do we have to pretend we don't see it? It would be the same as when we are told that there has been no occupation, and everyone knows who taught us both to read and to live on the ground, not in the trees.

*****

Be the first to read interesting news from Latvia and the world by joining our Telegram and Signal channels.