Nation State Formation and Genocide: The Armenian Case
by The Nation State was, is, and will perhaps remain the most important political representation of National aspirations. The negative side is that Nation State Nationalism is inclusive and is built on the principle of excluding “others”, who don’t fit into the ethnic-national configuration of a given nation state. This phenomenon has been debated as the precursor of many of the maladies of humanity since the concept of nation state was established. In this lecture we delve into Turkish nationalism and how it lead to the Armenian Genocide of 1915.
Signed in 1648, the Treaty of Westphalia ushered in the age of the Nation State in Europe. This phenomenon, i.e. the Nation State is yet present with us until today, despite the urging forces of Globalization, which tries to end it and usher in a new age of International amalgamation and cooperation to the detriment of the Nation State.
Why the Nation State does so stubbornly persist in the face of and despite the multi-facetted efforts to replace it with a more open, transparent and international system such as globalization?
The answer to this question lies in the fact that despite numerous philosophical and ideological endeavors that came forth during the last two centuries, such as Anarchism, Socialism, Communism, and even capitalism [yes, as of 2008], which faded and are fading nowadays, the Nation State system endures for the mare fact that it has shown its endurance and resilience in the face of more holistic systems that the human mind has produced.
Toward a Homogeneous Turkish Nation State
This introductory statement was made to simply underline the fact that the issue of our discussion today, and you may call it the way you want, such as Mass Killing, massacre, genocide, Holocaust, or even Ethnic Cleansing, as modern vocabulary defines it, were all events that occurred, are accruing, and will definitely occur as long as the system of Nation State persists.
Why is this so? Because, by definition, the Nation State implies a monolithic ethnic identity that is associated with the State it presents and excludes all minority ethnic elements that are not defined within the context of the ‘National Identity” of the Nation State.
This is true in the case of the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1918, since the dominant State system of the time, the Ottoman State, was morphing from an imperial to a state model. This process had started in the beginning of the 20th century. While the Ottoman Empire was losing more and more lands in its European section, the mood within the new leadership of the ruling Union and Progress (Ittihad ve Terakki) Party was that only through the passage to a Nation State system, would the Turkish republic face the challenges of an antagonistic Allied Powers, and to keep a territorial package that would be homogeneous enough to sustain the continuation of the Turkish element of what was once known as the Ottoman Empire.
And since the process of the disintegration of the empire had started in the 1830’s with:
- The secession of Greece
- The further secession of Bulgaria and other Balkan territories as a consequence of the Russo-Ottoman war of 1876-78
- The further secession of Macedonia and Rumelia during the Balkan war of 1911-1912
There remained no other option for the ruling elite but to conserve what had remained, knowing quite well that even the Arab territories were destined to be lost in the near future.
Liked it
-
-
-
-
Post Commentjedilost
On July 29, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Has it ever occured to you that Armenians might have tried to do what Greeks and Bulagrians did, ie forming their own national state? Do you actually suggest that Armenians were immune from the nationalism trend?
Please dont twist my words as it tends to happen more than often. Im not saying anything like “they were backstabbers.” or “they deserved it.” No. I am nowhere near that notion. But I see no fairness in putting all the evil on the Turks and almost angelizing Armenians. What is your stand against the Moslem victims? Do you think they were not important or do you simply deny that?
Garabet Moumdjian
On December 18, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Unfortunately dear jedilost, independence has never occurred in the thinking of Armenians under Ottoman dominion. The most that Armenian political parties advocated for was equality and some self rule…
garabet moumdjian
On October 17, 2010 at 6:21 am
Also dear friend, I don’t deny the agony of Turks. However, one must weigh the balance of calamities on both sides. all calamities are abhorred…however, to be wiped out of your ancestral homeland and to be dispersed and become a “citizen of the world” is not commensurate to somehow continue to exist on your ancestral homeland…We Armenians after all, are an “Ottoman Armenian Diaspora.” and not a n Armenian Diaspora of what is today known as the republic of Armenia…
I myself hail from a family from Marash in Cilicia (Chukurova)…
jedilost
On April 4, 2011 at 4:53 pm
I am sorry for this very late reply. Triond doesn’t have a proper follow-up system (actually, none at all) so it really took too long for me to realize that you have answered me.
first of all, i should thank you for acknowledging the agony of the Turks, which is actually a very rare thing. in most of the debates i find myself in, i sadly saw that Armenians are too reluctant to accept this notion.
and about your claim that Armenians never wanted an independent state, i guess this Huncakian site at http://www.hunchak.org.au/aboutus/historical_nalbandian.html (i don’t know if it is an offical site or not but its content pretty much matches with what i know) says quite the opposite. the second item in official Huncakian program says:
“The immediate objective of the party was the political and national independence of Turkish Armenia. ”
and this is an excerpt from the 3rd item:
“The Hunchak program advocated revolution as the only means of reaching the immediate objective. The arena of revolutionary activity was designated as Turkish Armenia. The Hunchaks said that the existing social organization in Turkish Armenia could be changed by violence against the Turkish government and described the following methods: Propaganda, Agitation, Terror, Organization, and Peasant and Worker Activities.”.
and this is the year 1886.
so i am really not making this up, but only showing you what Armenians have written.
actually, it would be wrong to assume that Armanians didn’t want what most of the other nations have already got: independence. this was the main trend back then.
now again, please let me emphasize that i am definitely not trying to say anything like “Armanians got what they deserved.” No, not at all. All i am trying to say that there was an ongoing conflict between the Ottoman authority and Armenians and it ended in a way i can never approve. i am deeply sorry for every lost soul, just for sake that they were human beings regardless of their nationality, and i would really appreciate if i start to receive the same kind of treatment from Armenians who mostly feel nothnig but hatred against Turks.