Hye Sharzhoom Armenian Action
Dr. Ohannes Kılıçdağı
Special to Hye Sharzhoom
Photo: ASP Archive
Armenians who survived the Genocide and continued to live in Turkey have not attracted much attention from diaspora communities until recently. Only in the last decade or so have some young academics such as Hrag Papazian and Christopher Sheklian conducted some research on the Armenian community of Turkey. The reasons for this neglect are various. Genocide was perceived as the ultimate end after which nothing and no one could survive. Talking about the remaining portion of the Armenians may have created doubts about the genocidal characteristics of the Armenian Genocide, lessening its severity and ferocity. In a nutshell, it may have made it look “less genocide.”
The loss was so huge that it was not worth talking about what remained—it does not console anyone. On the contrary, a comparison between what once had been there and what survived may have deepened the agony and trauma by focusing on the insurmountably enormous loss. Moreover, those Armenians in Turkey were considered as being left in “enemy’s territory,” which made them already a “lost case.” Politically and culturally they were dead Armenians walking. Their statements and self-expressions were ignored because they were talking under “the Turkish yoke.” Therefore, what they say was not dependable as their sincere opinions.
None of these is completely incorrect. It is true that Armenians living in the Turkish nation-state have been left vulnerable and defenseless as much as they had never been before under the Ottoman rule. They were devoid of almost all possibilities and instruments of opposition and resistance. However, the approach I described above has destructively homogenized the experience of Armenians in Turkey and erased their existence completely. Some Armenians indeed survived the Genocide, remained in Turkey and built up the third way of being Armenian, besides those living in the Republic of Armenia, Soviet or not, and living in the diaspora. (Undoubtedly, the diaspora experience of Armenians cannot be homogenized either. There is not just a single case or way of being diaspora. But this is a separate issue.)
In fact, when one talks about Armenians who survived the Genocide and remained in Turkey, it may and should refer to two groups. The first one is those who live with their Armenian identity publicly and at least as nominal Christians. In other words, they are “official Armenians.” Since the questions pertaining to the mother tongue and religious affiliations were removed from Turkish censuses in the mid-1980s, it is difficult to tell the exact number of these “official Armenians.” However, the most optimistic estimate does not exceed 60,000.
The second group is Islamized Armenians who converted to Islam during or after the Genocide. Descendants of those Islamized Armenians became Muslim too, most of the time without knowing their Armenianness. Their number is even beyond any educated guess although some mention hundreds of thousands. Their existence is a new issue even for the rest of the Armenian community in Turkey. Only in the last two decades or so have some of them emerged and made their presence known. A portion of them basically do not care about their Armenian ancestry, and even react angrily to their relatives who bring up this issue. Relatively few of them have preferred turning back to their “original/ancestral” identity and religion and taking action for its sake such as being baptized. There are some others who claim their Armenianness but continue to keep and practice their Islamic faith. In other words, they both accept Armenianness and the Muslim religion. This last case has created confusion in the mind of Armenians as their existence and claim challenge perennially assumed bond between Armenianness and Christianity, according to which these two have been molded together inseparably. Could there be Muslim Armenians by definition? This debate still has a long way to go.
The Armenian community in Turkey should be approached as a distinct case of the Armenian nation-state and diaspora. Although, obviously, there are many common points there are some definitional and existential differences. For instance, as very well established, the Armenian identity in diasporan communities is based on remembrance of the past/genocide whereas Armenians in Turkey have developed a collective and strategic amnesia to be able to survive. This survival strategy has not made them less Armenian. Social and cultural deterioration and regression were undeniable. However, the Armenian heritage in that land is so deep and entrenched that it continues to resist and exist. There are still dozens of institutions that carry this heritage and raise it up. The Armenian community is still alive and despite all difficulties, continue to generate academics, intellectuals, artists, authors, journalists who are also influential in Turkish public opinion.
Since they are socio-politically alive, they have their internal divisions and fractions. Roughly, one group adopts a more conformist attitude with the policies of the government. Another group, on the other hand, tries to defend civil liberties of the community members more openly and courageously. They try to raise their voice against violations of these liberties as happened during the last election of the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul. However, their job is not easy as they struggle with a coalition of state circles and their agents in the Armenian community.
The trajectory of the Armenian community of Turkey is a part of the global history of the Armenians. It is an excellent case to observe and study the complex, multi-faceted character of the Armenian identity. It is also an example of endurance and survival for generations in a hostile environment. Therefore, it deserves both academic and political interest.