learntoquestion ltq discussions

Armenians in the Ottoman empire had been a minority and discriminated against for centuries. They were the first Christian nation, which caused tensions with the predominantly Muslim population and government around them. They had also become a rich, well-educated population despite their treatment by the rest of the Ottoman empire, which led to further mistrust and jealousy, even. Human behavior theories prove that people naturally fear and alienate the ¨other¨, those who are different to them. While it is bad for society, there is little you can do to change this human behavior other than be educated and make the decision yourself to not fall into society´s sway of alienating certain groups.

The world was aware of what was happening to Armenians, but they were too preoccupied with WWI to really attempt to do anything whether or not they wanted to. There were many reports of outsiders, including diplomats and missionaries that reported on the horrors of the genocide. Even if countries could do something, there are many issues in how they deal with country relations, and keeping up good relations with Turkey. Even in very recent years, many countries have chosen to keep away from Turkey´s ire by not recognizing the genocide. It is very difficult for world powers to navigate between keeping peace between nations and also working to keep people safe and protect human rights. Aside from that, WWI left many countries without the ability to protect other nations, as they were too busy rebuilding themselves first.

It is very important to use the word genocide carefully, and sparingly. Otherwise, it loses its importance, and any murder or atrocity is called a genocide, and there is no distinction at all. According to the UN, the legal definition of genocide is ¨any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.¨ It is very important to distinguish that this is happening before blaming and accusing a nation, both so that there are no unnecessary tensions as talked about before, ruining the delicate peaceful balance, and also so that the UN can correctly bring those responsible to court. A genocide is a very specific, horrible destruction of human rights, and blaming when it is not occurring makes it all the harder to prove what it really is occurring in the world. It is important to note that even when a genocide is not what is happening, the UN still has many systems in place to bring people to justice. According to the UN, ¨Where there has not been a legal determination of genocide under the Genocide Convention by an appropriate court of law, different terms have been used to refer to events that have been particularly traumatic and devastating for populations and that have involved serious violations of international human rights.¨ When talking about human rights, and the destruction or violation of them, we must always use the correct terminology. I do not think that the current method of response to genocide is strong enough, because honestly from what I can tell It is very hard to really bring people to justice, and so many people get off free in the midst of everything. I think the treaty has the right idea of who is punished and why, but there is not yet a way to properly bring justice to those deserving it without causing destruction of country alliances and only causing more external strife. I will say I very much like the fact that there is a member of the attacked group who serves in determining the punishment, but overall I think the process needs to be better, and there have to be consequences that stop these issues from occurring in the first place not just retribution afterwards.

Armenians have a 2000-year-long history in the Balkans, throughout these 2000 years they have created their language, alphabet, and religious leg of Christianity. This created an isolated culture which heightened the divide between them and other cultures. They were a minority in the Muslim-controlled Ottoman Empire and were given no political rights but suffered a tax twice that of a Muslim in the Ottoman Empire. It is differences like these that contribute to the us vs. them ideas between them and Ottoman-Muslims. In the late 19th century the Hamidian Massacre occurred, where 200,000 Armenians were killed for demanding equal rights, which extended the separation between Armenians and the rest of the Ottoman Empire. In the early 20th century, before WWI, the young Turks overthrew the Ottoman sultan. The Young Turks were a highly nationalist group in the Ottoman Empire and were the ones who carried out the Armenian genocide. At the beginning of WWI the Young Turks were quick to join the side of the Germans, hoping to gain control of Russian land if they were defeated. As discussed in our class notes, one of the leaders of the Young Turks said that Armenians were fighting for the Russians in the battle of Sarikamish, and they were the reason that The Ottomans lost this battle. He used this information to convict all Armenians of treason which motivated the Armenian genocide. While there were American and German reports of the Genocide at this time, the rest of the world was too occupied with the war to truly understand what was going on in the Ottoman Empire. While the Ottoman Empire was once a world power, World War 1 was occurring during their collapse, so the attention was not on them anymore which allowed the Armenian Genocide to go unnoticed.

The United Nation's definition of Genocide is "A crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part". While I do think this definition is correct, I don't think that it completely expresses the extent of Genocide. If we use the word genocide for every racially motivated crime, the word would completely lose its meaning. There are many situations where the word genocide is used, but in reality, it is just a war or some other form of hate crime. I am not trying to take away from the seriousness of these crimes, I think it is important to identify the difference. The punishments for genocide would not stop any group from committing this crime. In cases like that of the Armenian genocide, Turkey has faced no punishment for their crime because it is simply too hard to prove. While many countries have recognized this as a genocide, Turkey still has not so they can't face their penalties. If a group is motivated enough to try and eliminate a group of people, the punishment will not stop them from doing so. I think globally there should be a severe punishment for genocide. For example, if the United States were to commit genocide, I think they should lawfully be excluded from any international allyships, like the United Nations.

The Armenian population is located in a predominantly Muslim area of the world leading to the creation of a theoretical distance within the two populations. These indifferences sparked massive conflicts that have repeatedly killed Armenian civilians leading up to the Armenian Genocide. At the time of the genocide, the Ottoman Empire was in the late stages of its existence and a rebellious group called the Young Turks began to introduce radical plans to restore the Empire’s previous power. Armenians in the eyes of the Young Turks were barriers to Turkish development and soon a genocide targeted after their culture began to take place. Many nations had an understanding of what was happening to the Armenians however no government ever lifted a finger to advocate for Armenians. Specifically in America, various charitable organizations were raising funds to support Armenians in their path away from death. The federal government “Aware that their nation was rapidly emerging as the world’s leading industrial nation, and that Congress had recently appropriated funds for new, modern warships that would transform the U.S. Navy, many Americans now urged their representatives to use this power to address the greatest humanitarian atrocity of the age” (Laderman 2). Instead of advocating in the present, the American government allocated their resources to become an authority in the future which is commendable but does not rid them from being responsible in some way for the genocide’s extensive numbers. It is important to note however that this was occurring during WWI meaning that most countries were preoccupied with their own battles leaving little to no room for any experimentation especially being the sole force attempting to aid. Even in the case of the United States, war is an imminent aspect in their response to genocide demonstrating a correlation between the two. It does not mean that genocide is a by product of war but rather in order to combat genocide there must be some type of war effort.

It is understood that genocide is a horrific part of human history that unfortunately has happened more than a couple of times. Just like there are repercussions for war there must be a legal code against any form of genocide. This legislature must be precise and it must create a clear and concise line between a genocide and something that might be considered a massacre or a mass murder. According to the United Nations “the determination to whether a situation constitutes genocide is thus factually and legally complex and should only be made following a careful and detailed examination of the facts against relevant legislation” (UN Article 2). Making it difficult for a genocide to be considered a genocide is definitely important because this term should not be use lightly but it should also not be impossible to prove because if something is indeed a genocide, it should be acknowledged as so. When it comes to punishment, whether it is genocide or apparent that someone has done a mass murder there should extensive punishment. However genocide should be an offense that includes different levels of punishment based on the roles of those involved. It is a sticky situation however it is important to acknowledge a genocide in order to prevent one from happening in the future.

War is a weapon of destruction and has caused irreparable damage for many nations in the world. For the Armenians, it played into one of the reasons why they would be the targets of persecution and violence along with their “otherness”, the rising Nationalist movement in the Ottoman Empire, and the progressing violence and instability within the empire. Armenans consistsed of one of many minority groups in the Ottoman Empire. Because they were the only Christian group in a largely Muslim empire, this set them off as different and as a result they were given less rights within the empire. As the years progressed, they and other minority groups soon started to gain more political power which enraged the Ottomans. Not only this, but the buildup of their decline also set up a foundation for the Armenians to become the victims of the genocide. The Ottoman Empire, otherwise known as the “sick man of Europe”, lost control of many lands which was a huge blow to their pride and power, invoking a sense of humiliation which soon escalated into violence.as seen in the massacres that occured prior to the genocide. In addition to the “otherness” of the Armenians and the decline of the empire, rising Nationalist powers in the Ottoman Empire ultimately all together set up Armenians to be the targets of persecution. The Young Turks were a nationalist party who soon came into power in a revolution to overthrow the current ruler. Under their rule, they were called the CUP and praised for making “an empire that would unite all Turkish peoples and stretch from Constantinople to central Asia”, as stated in “The Armenian Genocide” packet. Human behavior theories that explain their persecution is in-group bias and groupthink. The Ottomans saw themselves as the “us” and the Armenians as “others” who perceived to be a threat to their stability and dream of being an empire that united all Turkish people. It made them be seen as outcasts and further supported their reason for persecution. Prevention coudln’t have occurred because of groupthink. Once one person thinks a certain way in a group, ultimately everyone else will seem like they aren’t different from the group and in some cases most people in the group think the same way as well. These types of behaviors are bound to happen because we are human and humans have a natural tendency to categorize one another. One of the most important things to retain in categorizing people is cognitivie dissonance, where you are able to recognize when you are doing something wrong and fix it.

Even though there are multiple reasons that factor into the Armenian Genocide and many witness accounts of these mass deportations and killings occurrings, Turkey still denies that this was a genocide. Turkey backs up their claims and uses war as an excuse that it wasn’t a genocide, and in fact, people of the Ottoman Empire also died. As stated in“The Armenian Genocide” packet, “There is no reason to accept these explanations at face value, but also no reason to discount the war’s role in facilitating the extermination of two thirds of Ottoman Armenians.” War played a huge part in the Armenian Genocide and many witnessed this genocide as well. The nations that were involved in World War I were familiar with what was happening in the Ottoman Empire, even in our very own nation America there were alarms raised about the Armenian Genocide. The lack of action that these nations took allowed the genocide to take place and continue to occur. If one genocide is excused and another is condemned, that doesn’t make a difference if no action is put in place to prevent it. In Charlie Laderman’s “Humanitarian Intervention or Humanitarian Imperialism? America and the Armenian Genocide” article, he states “”The Armenian massacre was the greatest crime of the war, and failure to act against Turkey is to condone it.” Roosevelt believed the United States was fighting in a common cause with Britain and France, and not declaring war on all the Central Powers was a show of “bad faith towards our allies.”” In not recognizing the Armenian Genocide as a genocide, it brings accountability to Turkey to recompensate those who had lost their homes, their culture, and their families. It ensures accountability and recognition years later to future genocides that may happen. Something that may be lost by recognizing the Armenian Genocide as a genocide is possible support from Turkey as Turkey is one of the biggest military powers that is vital to western powers. In addition to that, many nations are afraid of Turkish backlash as well which is one of the reasons why some have not recognized the Armenian Genocide as an official genocide.

More than a 100 years following the genocide, the United States had recognized its damage and the fact that it was a genocide, yet Turkey could not and has not. In schools, whenever we reach the unit about World War I and World War II, the only genocide we discuss thouroughly is the Holocaust. Why not the Armenian Genocide? Why do we not discuss these within our curriculum?

In a predominantly Muslim Ottoman Empire, the Armenians had managed to remain a significant minority group. Despite practicing a different religion (Christianity) and having their own language and unique culture, they were still able to keep prominent positions within society. Though overtime, their isolation and prosperity contributed to their “otherness” as viewed by the Turks. Armenians were viewed as outsiders simply because they didn’t follow the dominant culture and faith. Due to their apparent social and cultural differences, they found themselves to be an easy target of discrimination and later, genocide. In understanding what causes genocides can be explained through human behavior theories such as the idea of “Us vs. Them” and groupthink. In this circumstance, the Armenians were viewed as part of “out-group”. The mentality of “Us vs. Them” leads to dehumanization of those part of the “Them” group. By subconsciously creating groups in society based on societal differences, there becomes a greater distance between those in the in vs. out group, leading to a lack of connection between the two. This allows for “othering”to occur as the minority group becomes viewed as inferior and in the Ottoman empire, laws were enacted to suppress the “independence” of the Armenians, but this eventually led to the alienation of the Armenians.There is a tendency to have in-group bias where we often exaggerate the differences between those in the in vs. outgroup. In-group bias plays a prominent role here because despite differences between the Armenians and the Turks, they are inevitably still humans, which is all that should’ve mattered. They believed that their own survival relied on the extermination of other existing minority groups who posed a “threat” to their people and Empire. Groupthink is one of the main reasons why genocide is able to occur and escalate. This is due to a lack of concerns raised about methods taken by government leaders attempting to eliminate other ethnic groups to maintain power. Humans have a natural tendency to conform to the thoughts and opinions of those around them, even if it goes against their prevailing beliefs. Groupthink is especially common when there are consequences for going against the majority, a fear tactic used by many leaders to assert control over their people. Critical thinking and moral/ethical questions are ignored because a group becomes too infixed on the idea of coherence.

It is crucial to recognize that what happened to the Armenian people is genocide because according to the Genocide Convention, “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” (United Nations, 1948). The Turks had clear intent of destroying the Armenian population through the enforcement of laws meant to isolate them from the majority Turks and strip them of their rights. The majority of the population were deported to Syria and died along the journey due to exhaustion, starvation, or beatings by the officials, and these journeys later became known as “death marches”. The term “genocide” has a stronger negative connotation with it as well. By debating over proper terminology, it shifts away from the reality of the situation: the inhumane treatments and unbelievable amount of lives lost. Some nations may not be willing to recognize this genocide because they have close ties with Turkey and don’t want that to be at stake as Turkey is very opposed to labeling it as a genocide. By many nations failing to recognize to this as a genocide, it invalidates the surviving Armenians’s experiences by making it seem as if it wasn’t that big of a situation. Many Armenians want their stories to be heard in order to spread awareness and prevent the lives lost during the genocide from being forgotten. Genocide is not something that should be ignored or brushed away because by ignoring what really happened, it allows for a possibility for it to happen again. Though talking about it won’t bring back those who died, it is at least a step to ensure future genocides and mass deaths don’t happen again. People shouldn’t be targeted and killed for having different traditions as diversity of culture is ultimately what makes the human race unique. By recognizing the massacre of the Armenians, the suffering and pain the families endured are able to be properly acknowleged and respected. Overtime the term “genocide” has been used loosely to describe any sort of crime and “the inevitable consequences of such misuse of language are a loss of meaning and a distortion of value” (Destexhe, 1995). By expressing that there is “evil in the world” to shift attention away from horrific crimes, it is harder for guilty individuals to be accussed. Powerful leaders have found it easy to dismiss their acts of genocide by blaming it on the current state of the world, which is an argument the Turkish government continues to use, and does not excuse their actions at all. The lack of coverage and other crimes against humanity on global media outlets raisesthe question of why humanity chooses to highlight specific events of genocide, like the Jews in Nazi Germany, but not the Armenian, Rwandan, and several other genocides occurring in the world.

The Armenians were an ancient Christian people with a unique language and culture, who lived in Eastern Anatolia and Caucasus region for 2000 years. They were a minority group in the predominantly muslim Ottoman Empire, and their isolation, as well as their different appearance, culture and religion meant that the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire gave the Armenians less rights compared to those of the Muslims which also resided in the empire. After hundreds of years living as 'infidels' with second class citizenship, in 1894, the Armenians began to protest, advocating for more rights. To the Sultan, Abdul Hamid II, it was an act of rebellion, which he punished in what was later known as the Hamidan Massacre. The violent suppression of their protest lead to the deaths of over 200,000 Armenians between 1894 and 1896. The violence only worsened, when the Sultan was overthrown by the hyper nationalist Young Turks in 1908. It began an era of Nationalism, in which there was no room for any non-Turkish Muslim, which meant the exclusion of Armenians. "Turkey for the Turks".

At the beginning of the first world war, the young Turk government sided with Germany in hopes to regain their lost territory in Russia. Although many Armenian men joined the Turk army to demonstrate their loyalty to their country, a smaller group of Armenians joined the ar my of the Russian soldiers. Upon losing their battle against the Russians at Sarikamish, the Young Turks blamed their loss on the 'treasonous Armenians', a wrath which did not escape the loyal Armenians. They were othered, and deemed a threat, and were soon thrown into labor betallions, segregated from the Turks, then murdered en masse. Violence was soon perpetuated by the ottoman empire as a last ditch attempt to maintain power, the constant use of which became 'justified' as a means to hold onto their weakening empire, as well as its frequency. The fear of losing their beloved empire, paired with rising feelings of extreme exclusionary nationalism meant that the Armenians became a victim to the complexes of us vs. them, which became more and more apparent as tensions continued to rise within the Turks in the empire. Education on the lives and cultures of different groups from an early age could work against the effects of 'us. vs them', because as people learn about those who seem different from themselves, they begin to realize that being different is not something to be feared, but treasured and valued as a strength.

At the time of the rising and later genocide of the Armenian people, the rest of the world was un aware of the violence which was suffered at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, because the world was largely concerned with the war, and due to the disproportionate amount of attention on the war compared to the Armenians, the genocide was allowed to go on uncharted for years in a row.