Happy Friday everyone!
Thanks Casey for a great “blog duty” the past rotation. Our genocide classes have been so enriching and thought-provoking these past few weeks, I always look forward to this class to get me through the rest of the week.
Our assignment last night was to read the first 8 pages of Rouben Paul Adalian’s “Armenian Genocide” summary from "A Century of Genocide," in order to give those of who are not as familiar with this less-publicized genocide a quick synopsis of the Whos, Hows, and Whys of this atrocity. One thing that surprised and interested me, among other things, was the earlier history on the early origins of this genocide. The Young Turks, described to be Enver, Talaat and Jemel, had the opportunity to reform and recreate the declining situation of their country because of their governmental positions and instruments of power. Adalian said that “…the Young Turks originally advocated a platform of constitutionalism, egalitarianism, and liberalism” (54). And then gradually, the Ottoman Empire became influenced and “brainwashed” by Germany, and soon, “by 1913, the advocates of liberalism had lost out to radicals in the party who promoted a program of forcible Turkification” (54), using German-made weapons and military education.
It is so fascinating to me that the evil Young Turk dictators started their reign with an intent on having a democracy, and became so easily swayed by the pressure of a greater European country. How would circumstances have been different if Germany had not stepped into the picture? Would the CUP still have made its plan to extinguish the entire Armenian race, using “deportation, execution and starvation”?
This also brings to mind whether or not other genocides or cruel acts by the government started out as good intentions? Why do countries feel the need to mimic the other (as the Turkish government mimicked the German government)? Can one prevent such cruel events from happening if these problems are addressed from the beginning? What current day events relate to this problem of minority and more powerful governments?
If there any other comments about the reading, I know I only focused on one aspect that stood out the most to me. Please respond to any part of the reading. Did the reading help clarify any confusions or misunderstandings about the beginning of the genocide? Are there still any other questions?
Looking forward to another good week!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Ting raises some really interesting points. Is it a possibility that the "platform of constitutionalism, egalitarianism, and liberalism” that the Young Turks originally advocated was a marketing tool of sorts so that they could be helped into power by the very people they planned on oppressing? It just seems like too much of a turnaround to make in your own set of morals, from egalitarianism for all to this concept of "forcible Turkification." I think that the Young Turks never really wanted egalitarianism in the first place, or that they had a very skewed idea of egalitarianism.
On a separate note, I was wondering what you meant by your description of the Young Turk dictators as "evil". Do you mean that they have an evil nature, or that their actions were evil, or another definition? I'm not trying to disprove your statement, I'm just still trying to figure out what "evil" really means and am curious about other people's interpretations.
I think I sort of subconciously put in the word "evil" to describe the Young Turks, due to my own reactions and opinions of these dictators from our reading. To me, the things that they did to the Armenian people was incredibly cruel and evil, essentially. Therefore, when I made that statement, I think that I was describing their actions and intentions as evil, regardless if their actual hearts were evil or not.
However, I found your point about the Young Turks using their original platform as a "marketing tool" to gain support and then start a more powerful movement of genocide, very interesting. I am not totally sure if I agree that it was all planned that, or whether their original intentions were genuine or not. I was somewhat convinced in the reading that they were genuine in their initial plans, looking at the actions and support for liberators. However I agree that is a bit odd that such a change could have occured so fast from good to "evil." Thinking about other times in history, I am sure that there have been many points in history when insecure rulers are easily persuaded into something because of their lust and attraction to power. I think that either cases are highly possible.
Post a Comment