565

 WHICH ARMENIANNESS?
THE ARMENIAN YOUTH OF TURKEY AND THEIR SENSE OF
IDENTITY AND BELONGING

The purpose of this thesis is to explore what it means to be a young Armenian
in Turkey. In order to surface the experiences of young Armenians, it examines
the impact of a wide range of tools and methods on the process of “becoming” an
Armenian utilized by the Turkish government, Turkish society, and the Armenian
community. This study claims that the way that Armenianness is perceived and
performed by Armenians of Turkey is changing and young Armenians are the bearers
of this transformation as they become more comfortable to publicly affirm their
Armenian heritage and more integrated into Turkish society. They did not only
become aware of their Armenianness but also want to be noticed by the Turkish
society. The most significant event that defined as ‘milestone’ or ‘breaking point’
by several interviewees and had far-reaching effects such as the revival of the transgenerational
memory and created a rupture in the lives of young Armenians is the
assassination of Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. Interviews revealed that young
Armenians are increasingly prefer to emphases the cultural aspects of the Armenian
culture instead of the 1915 and the ensuing events. It should be underlined that the
goal of young Armenians is not to minimize the importance of 1915, but to adapt
to the realities of living in Turkey and the desire to create an alternative future.
In other words, rather of focusing on a topic which the Turkish state and society
prevent them from acting, young Armenians are attempting to forge an alternative
Armenianness by emphasizing other components of the Armenian culture.
iv
ÖZET
HANGI ERMENILIK? TÜRKIYELI GENÇ ERMENILERIN KIMLIK VE
AIDIYET DUYGULARI
RUDI SAYAT PULATYAN
KÜLTÜREL ÇALISMALAR YÜKSEK LISANS TEZI, TEMMUZ 2021
Tez Danısmanı: Prof. Dr. Leyla Neyzi
Anahtar Kelimeler: Türkiyeli Genç Ermeniler, Hrant Dink, Postbellek, Türkiye,
Gençlik, Etnisite
Bu tezin amacı, Türkiye’de genç bir Ermeni olmanın ne anlama geldigini arastırmaktır.
Bu çalısma, genç Ermenilerin deneyimlerini gün yüzüne çıkarırken; Türk
hükümeti, Türkiye toplumu ve Ermeni toplumu tarafından kullanılan çesitli araç
ve yöntemlerin Ermeni “olma” süreci üzerindeki etkisini incelemektedir. Bu
arastırma, Ermeniligin Türkiye Ermenileri tarafından algılanma ve uygulanma biçiminin
degismekte oldugunu ve genç Ermenilerin, Ermeni miraslarını kamusal alanlarda
temsil edilmesi konusunda daha rahat hale geldikleri ve Türk toplumuyla daha
fazla bütünlestikleri için bu dönüsümün tasıyıcıları olduklarını iddia etmektedir.
Genç Ermeniler, yalnızca Ermeniliklerinin farkına varmakla kalmayıp Türk toplumu
tarafından fark edilmek de istiyorlar. Görüsülen birçok kisi tarafından ’dönüm noktası’
olarak tanımlanan ve kusaklar arası hafızanın canlanması gibi genis kapsamlı
etkileri olan ve özellikle genç Ermenilerin hayatında bir kırılma yaratan en önemli
olay Ermeni gazeteci Hrant Dink’in öldürülmesidir. Mülakatlar, genç Ermenilerin
1915 ve sonrasındaki olaylar yerine Ermeni kültürünün kültürel yönlerini vurgulamayı
giderek daha fazla tercih ettiklerini ortaya koydu. Burada genç Ermenilerin
amacının 1915’in önemini küçümsemek degil, Türkiye’de yasamanın gerçekliklerine
uyum saglamak ve alternatif bir gelecek yaratma arzusu oldugunun altı çizilmelidir.
Bir baska deyisle, genç Ermeniler, Türk devleti ve toplumunun hareket alanlarını
kısıtladıgı bir konuya odaklanmak yerine, Ermeni kültürünün diger bilesenlerini öne
çıkararak alternatif bir Ermenilik olusturuyorlar.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I can’t explain how grateful I am to so many individuals in my life, without whom
my thesis would be a dream. First and foremost, I’d want to thank Leyla Neyzi, my
thesis advisor. I would never have been able to finish my thesis without her patient
guidance. I owe her a debt of gratitude for her unwavering support, constructive
criticism, and regular editing. I was able to establish a more nuanced method of
examining the realities of young Armenians as a result of her incisive criticisms.
I’d like to express my gratitude to Hülya Adak for her enthusiasm for the research
and for sharing her insightful suggestions and critiques. I’m also grateful to Nazan
Maksudyan, who graciously accepted to participate on my jury and generously provided
her insightful thoughts and remarks.
I’d want to thank the young Armenians who have generously opened their hearts
and shared their stories with me. Their voices, experiences, and willingness to share
them with me were instrumental in the development of this thesis.
I would like to mention the names of my high school teachers and express my gratitude
to Ani Paylan, Armen Saruhanyan and to the principal of the high school,
Silva Kuyumyucan, who inspired me to think critically and encouraged me to follow
my dreams. I would like to thank Eyüp Ensar Dal, who supported me with
all means throughout the process give me strength with her presence; Pınar Ensari,
who shared her valuable feedbacks and encouraged me to start writing; Deniz Özkor,
who motivated me to apply to this master’s program; Emircan Saç, who helped me
to overcome the technical problems and Atom Saskal, who supported me during my
difficult period by taking additional responsibitlies. I owe a huge gratitude to Narod
Avcı for sharing even the most painful aspects of my journey with, as well as for her
wonderful friendship and invaluable support.
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Ezgi Kan for always believing in my journey
more than I do. Without her and Latte’s love, moral support, and encouragement,
I would not be able to write this thesis. Seyma Özkan has been the one who helped
me overcome my inexhaustible procrastination, encouraged me to begin writing my
thesis, and expanded my research with inspiring conversations.
Talin Süzme spent a lot of time and effort proofreading my thesis and provided me
with a lot of helpful feedback. I owe her a huge debt of gratitude for her unwavering
support.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1. Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.1. Identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.2. National Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1.3. Subjectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.1.4. Post-memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.1.5. Armenian Identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2.1. Oral History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2.2. Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.2.3. Notes on the research process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.3. Thesis Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2. Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1. The Transition Period: From Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic 23
2.2. Discursive Changes over Armenian Genocide through the Turkish Republic
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3. Concise History of Turkification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3. Thresholds of Armenianness: Construction of the Armenian Identity
and its Manifestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.1. Encounters with non-Armenians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.2. Speaking Armenian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.3. Having an Armenian name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.4. Gender and Subjectivization of Young Armenians. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.5. The Impact of Generational Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.6. Educational Institutions and Perceptions of Young Armenians. . . . . . . . 58
3.7. Outside of the Armenian Schools: Dershanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
vii
4. Identity in Transformation: The Sense of Armenianness among
Young Armenians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.1. Getting to Know the Armenian Genocide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.2. Young Armenians’ Perception of the Genocide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.3. The Day of the Assassination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.4. The Perception of Hrant Dink in the Armenian Community . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.5. The Impact of the Assassination on young Armenians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.6. The Issue of Belonging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
APPENDIX A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
viii
1. INTRODUCTION
It’s very hot outside. I have never been a fan of hot weather. But it’s not that
I hate summer. Especially with the sun shining in the sky and plums starting to
appear on the trees. I love plums! Particularly the ones that grow in the garden of
our apartment. I’m going to the balcony to take a look at the tree. Nope, they are
not there yet. Meanwhile, someone, a boy around my age, is reaching out from the
balcony and looking at me. I’m feeling anxious and trying to avert my gaze. It’s not
working, he is still looking at me. Then, he is starting to talk. He is inviting me to
go out and play some football. I love playing football, but. . . Hadn’t they moved a
couple of days ago, how did he make friends so quickly? Oh, he is asking again, I
have to answer. But no, I can’t. It is not allowed.
This autofictional story1 dates back to the very first years of my childhood and
it marks the first instance in my life when I got in touch with a non-Armenian
individual. To avoid the risks that communicating with that person might entail, I
responded to the situation by running to my room, leaving the question unanswered.
The little boy, not aware of the significant distinction between us, invites me to go
outside to play football with him. What he does not and could not know is, to be
on the outside has dangerous connotations for me, as I was constantly cautioned by
my parents to be careful. Those warnings inevitably result in an awareness, along
with a sense of unease, toward the symbols of the Armenian culture particularly on
the outside.
The most prominent reflection of those feelings in my daily life is related to the
difficulties that I experienced in communicating with non-Armenians. Although the
story I mentioned above was the first encounter I had, it was not an easy process for
1Jason de León, in his book entitled The Land of Open Graves, investigates the consequences of US immigration
policy by focusing on the lives and deaths of the thousands of migrants who cross the US-Mexico
border every day. The most interesting of the research methodologies he used from many subfields of
anthropology is semifictionalized ethnography, which is the combination of different stories of migrants
into a single narrative to describe their experiences holistically.
1
me to go out and make new Turkish friends for most of my adolescence. I have always
socialized and met with almost all of my friends in Armenian schools I attended,
and my friends were exclusively Armenians for many years. The possibilities and
the boundaries of my socialization have always been very clearly determined by my
parents. Besides my parents’ attitude, I also neither had a desire nor a capacity to
envision the possibility of going beyond these limits.
When reflecting on those years, the most prominent reason for this sense of unease
can be explained by the discomfort that my Armenianness evokes in my perception
of myself. The reason why it evokes such negative feelings could be traced back to my
childhood, as the very first memories of my childhood are related to the differences
between the home and the outside. I was taught, for example, that I should not
use the language I speak at home while outside. Even back then, I was aware that
something was constraining my movements, even if I did not know what the cause
was. During the period I attend dershane, which marks the first structured encounter
that I had with non-Armenians, it was my main goal to blend in with the crowd
by concealing all the features that might imply my Armenianness. For instance, I
introduced myself not by my Armenian name but with a Turkish pseudonym that
I fabricated or did not wear my cross around my neck when going to dershane. My
endeavor to live in the shadows continued without any significant change until the
assassination of Hrant Dink. That incident deeply affected me because it made me
realize that someone could be murdered just for being an Armenian. The impact of
the incident did not emerge immediately after the assassination, but it marked the
beginning of a transformation. This transformation eventually steered me to develop
an interest in my Armenianness which resulted in reevaluating my relationship with
my Armenian identity and changing my perception of it.
As years passed, this interest eventually developed into a curiosity to examine the
extent of the impact of Hrant Dink’s assassination on myself, on society and finally
on Armenians. I observed that it was not only me who was describing the assassination
as a significant event that impacted their perception of Armenianness. How an
assassination could have such transformative outcomes was the main question that
was keeping my curiosity alive. This research is the most significant outcome of my
curiosity as it examines the stories of 12 young Armenians of Turkey concerning
their perception of Armenianness and the evolution of their perception throughout
their lives.
The interest and accordingly the number of scholarly and popular works focusing on
the past and the present of Armenians of Turkey are increasing in recent years. As
Hülya Adak (2016) argues, many conferences and workshops have permitted research
2
on the Armenian genocide in the last few years, various panels have been arranged
to promote awareness of the genocide, and plenty of testimony has been published.
Particularly after the assassination of Hrant Dink, which, as Talin Suciyan (2015a)
argues, shattered the habitus of denial, discussions, and publications concerning the
fates of Armenians in and after 1915 have been proliferated. Lerna Ekmekcioglu’s
Recovering Armenia: The Limits of Belonging in Post-Genocide Turkey (2016) and
Talin Suciyan’s The Armenians In Modern Turkey: Post-Genocide Society, Politics
and History (2015a) books are among the most prominent examples that examine
the lives and coping mechanisms of Armenians of Turkey after the Armenian
Genocide. In this regard, Hratch Tchilingirian’s article entitled “The ‘Other’ Citizens:
Armenians In Turkey Between Isolation And (Dis)Integration” (2017) where
he examines the impact of denialist state policies on the Armenian community is
also worth mentioning which, he argues results in the emergence of two schools
of thought as isolationists and integrationists. Melissa Bilal’s (2006) endeavor to
examine the lives of Armenians in Turkey after the Genocide through lullabies is
significant as it illustrates how stories of 1915 are transmitted through generations.
Despite the increasing number of scholarly works focusing on Armenians of Turkey,
the stories of young Armenians have been overlooked up until this date. Although
various works mention a changing attitude among young Armenians, the source of
this transformation is not thoroughly examined. While underlining the impact of the
assassination of Hrant Dink on young Armenians’ transformation, those works fell
short of conceptualizing the source of the transformation. Nevertheless, one could
mention Hrag Papazian’s article “Between Gezi Park and Kamp Armen: the intersectional
activism of leftist Armenian youths in Istanbul” (2017), and the article of
Fırat et al., “Remembering the Genocide: A Comparative Study on the Postmemory
of Armenian Youth: (Armenia, Turkey, Lebanon, France)” (2021) among significant
examples. Furthermore, the interest can also be seen in dissertations or MA theses
as they are increasing in numbers (Baykal 2011; Kopsa 2008; Koç Gabrielsen 2015;
Tataryan 2011).
This research, on the other hand, intends to portray an answer to the question of
what it means to be a young Armenian in Turkey. It particularly examines the
impact of various practices implemented by the Turkish state, by Turkish society
and finally by the Armenian community on the process of ‘becoming’ an Armenian
in a comprehensive way. In the first chapter, the emphasis is on the processes
through which young Armenians discover the possibilities and limitations that their
Armenianness brings about. Following Lerna Ekmekcioglu’s conceptualization of
encounters taking place in-side, mid-side, and out-side, this paper will attempt to
pinpoint the implications of those spaces on the formation of young Armenians’
3
subjectivities. In the second chapter, the emphasis is on the processes that transform
young Armenians’ perception of their Armenianness. Particularly the impact of the
assassination of Hrant Dink will be examined as it constitutes a crucial event on
the lives of young Armenians. Furthermore, the chapter will also explore the young
Armenians’ sense of belonging and whether they can see a future for themselves in
Turkey or not.
1.1 Theoretical Background
1.1.1 Identity
The constructivist approach to the concept of identity argues that starting from
childhood, actively (learning to speak, walk, making choices) or passively (nurtured
by parents, siblings or exposed to society, media, or state) individuals got influenced
by various forces and the outcome of the influence forms one’s identity (Tölölyan
2021). In other words, it rejects the existence of an ever-existing substance that
determines the subjectivity of an individual. What is worth mentioning in this
process is, the forces of socialization mentioned above do not affect everyone in an
identical way (Tölölyan 2021, 21). This means that two individuals who are equally
subjected to a particular national identity do not experience the same outcomes as
they experience subjectivization processes in different extents depending on their
gender, sexual orientation, or skin tone, etc. It is also important to underline that
in addition to the aspects that are not preferential and inscribed on individuals
by birth, such as skin tone or gender, the given name of an individual could also
significantly affect the subjectivization process, particularly if it does not belong to
the codes of the dominant ethnic group of a specific entity.
Even though the constructivist approach acknowledges the complex subjectivization
processes, it still assumes a presence of a ‘completed’ entity and accordingly is
criticized by various scholars. Among those, Stuart Hall describes the concept of
identity as “never being unified and in late modern times increasingly fragmented
and fractured; never singular but multiple, constructed across different often in-
4
tersecting and antagonistic discourses, practices, and positions.” (1996, 4) In other
words, identity, or ‘identities,’ as Hall (1990, 222) calls it, is a fluid concept that
never receives a final formation and always in the process of continously evolving.
Despite the complex and multilayered definitions of identity, scholars did not avoid
employing the term in their works and it has been widely used in analyzing diverse
topics such as race, gender, ethnicity, age, etc. While there are various possibilities
to conceptualize identity, Khacig Tölölyan underlines two distinct aspects that are
extensively utilized by scholars, namely, memory and difference.
According to Tölölyan, memory is significant because physical changes happening
on the body are not deemed enough to underpin consciousness and thus identity.
Particularly, when the topic is not individuals but collectives, such as family, tribe
or nation, the importance of memory becomes evident as belonging to a particular
community sustained by forms of memory (Tölölyan 2021, 19). Although these forms
of memories could appear in various ways, one could mention historical incidents,
songs or poetry among the prominent examples that create bonds between groups
of people. In addition to the forms, it is equally important to mention how those
memories are transmitted through generations.
Collective memory, coined by Maurice Halbwachs, examines the ways that individuals
recollect the past and argues that “the collective frameworks of memory are
not constructed after the fact by the combination of individual recollections,” but
they are developed by alteration and manipulation, depending on the context they
are recalled (1992, 40). Furthermore, he argues that the memory, and accordingly
remembering, is always relational to others’ perceptions of the past. The effect of
the present concerns on ways of remembering holds a significant place in the formation
of national identities. As collective memory is “the cultural fabric of a society
and its stock of significant stories and events,” it is possible to argue that all groups
whether they are sexual, ethnic, religious, or cultural, have some form of collective
memory that separate themselves from the others (Azarian-Ceccato 2010, 12). The
collective memories of these groups, in other words, are the sum of significant events
in one’s story which separates ‘my story’ from ‘your story’.
In Myths and Memories of the Nation, Anthony Smith underlines the importance
of the role of the past in the creation of the present, particularly concerning nationalism
and national identity (1999, 180). In this sense, collective memory is one
of, and arguably the most important foundational feature of national identity and
nationalism. Following these discussions, it is possible to argue that the perception
of the past and ways of narrating it has a substantial impact on the formation of
identities. What is significant in the process of recalling the past is the extent of
5
it which heavily depends on forgetting and to some extent lying as Renan argues:
“The act of forgetting, I would even say, historical error, is an essential factor in the
creation of a nation, which is why progress in historical studies often constitutes a
danger for nationality.” (2018, 251). Similarly, Tölölyan claims that the perception
of time and its narration has been underestimated by many scholars as they were
attributed as derivative components of identity. However, he states that narrative
identity is the product of “a person’s internalized and evolving life story, integrating
the reconstructed past, and imagined future to provide life with some degree of unity
and purpose” (Tölölyan 2021, 25).
Difference is another but equally important aspect of identity and has a powerful
role in the formation of various identities. The significance of difference is also evident
in the etymological roots of identity as it can be traced back to the Latin
word idem which means, “the same”. To be the same or similar with some other
individual or a group of people takes place at the expense of differing from someone
else. Following Charles Taylor, who claims recognition, non-recognition, and misrecognition
are the foundational features of identity, identities develop in relation
to the ‘other’ and always appear through differentiation (1994, 25). To have any
kind of similarities with anyone, such as religious, racial, or sexual, brings about an
imaginary expectation that those people also share at least some basic values with
you. Those imaginary expectations were constructed, as argued by Gabrielsen, “on
the basis of perceived and/or real differences based on cultural, social, sexual, and
ethnic characteristics of an individual and related to her membership to a group,
not in isolation but the relation to and based on contact with other identities in
society” (2015, 27-8).
1.1.2 National Identity
Even though identities are constructed over differences as mentioned by Gabrielsen
and there are various ways to formulate this process as discussed above, within the
scope of this research I would like to focus on national identity as the research particularly
examines the dimensions of Armenian identities. As discussed above, what
has been told about identity is closely related to the concept of the nation as it is
people who make the nation. Ronald Suny, for example, in the book entitled Looking
Toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History, where he examines the cultural
and social transformations of Armenian nationality in modern times, argues that
6
“nationality formation is an open-ended process” (1993, 11). Similarly, Anthony D.
Smith, in the book entitled The Ethnic Origins of Nations, where he traces the evolution
of nations and nationhood over time, argues that nation-building is more about
endless “reinterpretations, rediscoveries and reconstructions,” than establishing the
appropriate institutions and necessary infrastructure (1988, 296). Accordingly, in
his article entitled “The Past as Nation: Three Dimensions of Armenian Identity”,
Razmik Panossian argues that even the changes that take place in the very foundations
of belonging within the same nation, do not necessitate the undermining of
the group’s sense of nationhood and people can still feel they belong to the same
national collective (2002, 123). Nevertheless, Panossian argues that the creation
and maintenance of national identity has three sets of factors: (1) Myths and symbols,
(2) imagining themselves within the same national community, (3) structural
realities which impact ideological processes (2002, 123-4).
The importance of myths, symbols and traditions are often conceptualized in opposing
and even contradictory forms. Anthony Smith, for example, highlights the
importance of ‘myths of origin’ and ‘myths of ethnic election’ as primary definers
of the distinct existence and character of certain ethnic identities (1999, 15-16).
Smith’s examination of how different nations are attributing a sense of uniqueness
to their presence through myths and symbols is significant as it shows the parallels of
different national identities in their claims of superiority. However, although Smith
illustrates the similarities among various national identities, he does not articulate
the artificiality of the foundational elements of those identities but rather examines
historical processes that led to their emergence. Eric Hobsbawm, on the other hand,
while accepting the importance of myths and symbols in the configuration of national
identities, put a strong emphasis on the artificiality of such traditions. In his
article, he quotes several studies based on the transformation of national traditions
over time and argues that existing customs or traditions are exclusively modern
constructs as they were “modified, ritualized and institutionalized” in accordance
with the needs of national purposes (Hobsbawm 1983, 6-7). As George M. Enteen
mentions, a wide range of cultural attributes that are paired with particular nations,
such as tribal identities for Africans or the imposition of kilts on Scots, occurred in
modern times (1986, 310).
7
1.1.3 Subjectivity
So far, this paper has mentioned that the concept of identity has a fluid structure,
that it is constantly constructed and deconstructed in active or passive ways since
childhood, and that it is a never-ending process. While doing so, I have pointed
out that in this endless process, symbols and myths, and the traditions built upon
them, have had a significant impact, although they are also largely artificial. In the
next part, on the other hand, I will talk about how the above processes transform
individuals into subjects and how Armenians of Turkey, especially young Armenians,
are affected by this process.
The symbols and myths that I discussed above based on Smith and Hobsbawm’s
arguments are very important for the perpetuation of the nationalist ideology.
Through these symbols and myths, a bond is aimed to be created between people
from very different backgrounds and characteristics, thus enabling these people
to see themselves as parts of a whole, for example, a nation. Althusser analyzes
the above-mentioned process using a conceptual framework he calls interpellation,
which he utilizes to describe the processes that transform individuals into subjects
(1994, 265). He argues that ’proper citizens’ are created through subjectivization
processes, which have multiple dimensions and are closely regulated by ’Ideological
State Apparatuses,’ in order to reproduce the conditions of production, thus the
capitalist ideology.
It is possible to argue that the process of interpellation aims to remind individuals
that they are part of an ‘imagined community,’ the well-known notion conceptualized
by Benedict Anderson, and in order to belong to this community, they have to
become subjects. Anderson utilizes the term ‘imagined communities’ to describe the
artificiality of the foundational element of the nationalist ideology, that is the nation,
by proposing that “it is an imagined political community - and imagined as both
inherently limited and sovereign” (2006, 5-6). Anderson emphasizes the importance
of print-capitalism, which results in the proliferation of books, newspapers, etc.
printed in vernacular languages, and argues that it is the print-capitalism that laid
the bases for national consciousness and enabled people to imagine themselves within
a national identity (2006, 44). The imagination of an ever-existing political entity
led to the emergence of a sense of immortal national identity, “with which otherwise
anonymous individuals can identify” (Smith 1988, 10). In other words, as a result of
these processes, individuals with diverse backgrounds are enabled to come together
on an imaginary sameness and begin to define their existence through this very
perception of sameness.
8
To be a part of an ‘imagined community’, and therefore a nation is not a laborless
process and the most prominent condition for membership is not challenging the
state and its ideology. However, even not challenging the state and its ideology is
not deemed to be sufficient as subjects are necessitated to participate in the process
of reproduction of the conditions. Accordingly, various state apparatuses constantly
‘encourage’ individuals to imitate the “unique and central other Subject” in their
process of interpellation and instruct them (Althusser 1994, 267). At this point, it
should be noted that the identity that Althusser defines as ’unique and central other
Subject’ actually has a rather exclusionary structure. In other words, an imagined
community is not a structure that everyone can be a part of, and there must be
some identities that should be kept outside in order for nations to exist.
The necessity to leave some groups or subjects outside for the formulation of a
nation has also examined by Judith Butler in her book entitled Bodies That Matter:
On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” where she argues that theories of gender need
to employ ‘the body’ as its main tool. In the introduction section, Butler argues
that subjectivization processes are marked by an exclusionary matrix which requires
not only the domain of subjects but also the domain of abject being, “those who
are not yet “subjects,” but who form the constitutive outside to the domain of the
subject” (2011, xiii). In other words, some people must exist in what Butler calls
“constitutive outside” to affirm the existence and limits of the subject’s domain.
Furthermore, she emphasizes an important aspect of the subjectivization process by
underlining the importance of the “constitutive outside,” which does not only belong
to the domain of abject beings, but it is also a founding element of the domain of
subjects (Butler 2011, xiii).
1.1.4 Post-memory
Following Butler’s conceptualization, Melissa Bilal argues that the Armenian Genocide,
which results in the eradication of the non-Turkish elements from Anatolia is
the “constitutive outside” of Turkey’s sovereignty, and the possibility to imagine a
homogenous Turkish national identity could only become possible through the forgetting
of stories of violence experienced by Armenians (2006, 83). In other words,
she claims that the denialist attitude of the Turkish state is among the essential
components of Turkish subjectivity as it continues to repress the memories of the
violence of Armenians to this date. Furthermore, she states that these policies do
9
not only define the Turkish subjectivity, but it also marks the very definition of
Armenianness in Turkey by restricting the visibility of Armenian identity in public
spheres as it is “still determined by the fear and the obsession of the “specter” of
the Armenian Genocide” (Bilal 2006, 83).
While Bilal mentions the impact of the Armenian Genocide on both Turkish and Armenian
subjectivities, the haunting effects of the process should be examined within
the conceptual framework of postmemory. Coined by Marianne Hirsch, postmemory
describes “the relationship that the ‘generation after’ bears to the personal, collective,
and cultural trauma of those who came before” (2012, 4). In brief terms, postmemory
suggests that individuals can inherit “the secret psychic substance of their
ancestors’ lives” (Schwab 2004, 185). The history of the Turkish Republic, which is
substantially based on silences and denials could be regarded as a great example to
illustrate how collective silences are resulting in further traumatic occurrences. The
denial of numerous traumatic incidents did not only reduce the non-Muslim communities
in numbers but, as the Turkish state remained silent and preferred to protect
the perpetrators and organizers, the guilt and shame that stuck to perpetrators and
bystanders “migrated into the psyche and the cultural unconscious” (Schwab 2004,
180). The collective guilt, in return, has been transferred through different generations
and led both children of victims and perpetrators of traumatic events to live
the “ghostly legacies and secrets of their parents and parental generation” (Schwab
2004, 184). For Armenians of Turkey, those ghostly legacies necessitate them to
interiorize fear in their everyday lives and perform their identity accordingly, by
concealing the elements of their Armenianness, particularly in public spaces. The
most striking portrayal of this feeling was made by Hrant Dink, in his last article
before the assassination, where he described his sense of fear by comparing himself
to the uneasiness of a pigeon as he was as obsessed as a pigeon about what is
happening around him.
1.1.5 Armenian Identity
For Armenians, the impact of the Armenian Genocide and ensuing events did not
only remain on the “psyche and cultural unconscious” but constitutes one of the
significant events in the formation of Armenian national identity. Panossian, in his
article names three moments that constitute the foundational elements of Armenian
national identity. These are (1) Armenians being the first Christian nation, (2)
10
Armenians being a pre-Christian nation, and finally, (3) Armenians as a nation in
exile (2002, 121). While the first two myths are related to the ethnogenesis of the
Armenians, the last one is related to the elimination and expulsion of Armenians
from their homeland. The Armenian Genocide is particularly important as it binds
Armenians that spread over various countries and continents from Anatolia. Additionally,
as the topic is constantly featured in media outlets especially during the
anniversaries because of the Turkish state’s denialist policies, it constitutes one of
the most common knowledge regarding Armenians.
Gerard Libardian, for example, describes the Armenian Genocide as an “equalizer”
for all Armenian communities around the world as it directly affected and continues
to affect the lives of Armenians. Similarly, Panossian argues that the post-Genocide
Armenian identity is associated with the ‘lost homeland’ and utmost priority is
given to get the Genocide recognized by the Turkish state and the rest of the world
(2002, 137). However, the way that Panossian defines the post-Genocide Armenian
identity could not be applicable for Armenians of Turkey as it is almost impossible
for them to struggle for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide when they are
living under the shadow of denialist policies in Turkey. While Panossian does not
hint at how Armenian identity is developed in Turkey, it is possible to argue that it
is very different from the way that it was experienced in Armenia or abroad. It is
predominantly based on silences and an urgency to conceal the elements of Armenian
culture from public spaces. Nevertheless, the way that Armenianness is perceived
and performed by Armenians of Turkey is changing and the bearers of this change are
young Armenians. Leyla Neyzi argues that the younger generation does not becomes
more comfortably publicly affirm their Armenian heritage but has also become more
integrated into Turkish society (2010, 19). The transformation that is taking place
in young Armenians’ perceptions was also revealed during the interviews as young
Armenians mentioned the ways they embrace elements of Armenian culture.
1.2 Methodology
The significance of utilizing oral sources in unearthing the silenced stories of disadvantaged
groups has been mentioned by various scholars (Chamberlain 2006; Neyzi
2010; Portelli 2009). Within this context, conducting research with a focus on young
Armenians of Turkey, Turkey did not offer many alternatives to researchers. Among
11
these, the importance of oral history methodology in accessing the silenced recollections
of disadvantaged groups that have been expunged from official historiography
as well as public spaces prompted me to use it. Through life story interviews, I
intended to reveal how young Armenians of Turkey make sense of their presence,
their perception of traumatic incidents, and the impact of those incidents on their
lives. The fact that I am working on the transgenerational memory of young Armenians,
in particular, has increased the importance of oral history as the stories of
young Armenians could only be meaningful within the broader perspective of their
ancestors’ stories. However, sharing the same ethnic identity with interviewees complicated
the process as my position significantly impacted the process. To reflect on
these processes, in this part, in addition to the discussions regarding the emergence
and evolution of oral history methodology, I would like to reflect on the merits and
shortcomings of my position as a young Armenian throughout the research process.
1.2.1 Oral History
The emergence of oral history methodology frequently dated back to 1948, when
Allan Nevins launched “the oral history project” at Columbia University. Nevins’
decision to follow oral history methodology was based on his belief that it is the
most convenient way of gathering knowledge “from the lips and papers” of living
Americans who have contributed significantly to the nation’s political, economic,
and cultural concerns (Benison 1965, 72). According to Daniel R. Kerr, attributing
the field’s origin to Alan Nevins neglects the historical roots of the method.
As Nevins emphasizes oral history’s evidentiary value and prioritizes the stories of
elites, following such historicization will be a misinterpretation of the field’s evolution
through time (Kerr 2016, 369). While Kerr follows an alternative genealogy, Alistair
Thomson (2007), in his article, examines the evolution of oral history methodology
thoroughly and describes four paradigm shifts that are crucial in both theory and
practice.
According to Thomson, the first paradigm shift dates back to the period after the
Second World War, where researchers have initially begun to accept the validity
of oral testimonies despite their subjectivity. The Voice of the Past: Oral History,
a seminary book by Paul Thompson, has played a crucial role in this movement
since it challenged the Rankean tradition of using archival research and documented
sources as primary tools while marginalizing oral evidence (Thomson 2007, 51). In
12
opposition to the traditional scholars who insisted on the unreliability of memory as
a historical source, Thompson traces the roots of oral history back to ancient times
and mentions the significance of historians like Herodotus and Bede who prepared
their works by relying on eyewitness accounts (Thompson 2000, 31). Following
a discussion of the historicity of oral sources, Thompson argued that oral history
methodology has a transformative effect on both the content and process of history
writing, because, on the one hand, it shifted the focus and opened new areas of
inquiry by challenging some of the historians’ assumptions and accepted judgments,
and on the other hand, by bringing recognition to large groups of people who had
previously been ignored (Thompson 2000, 8-12).
The second paradigm shift, closely related to the first one, took place against traditional
documentary historians. The main criticism against oral history was the
assertion that “memory was distorted by physical deterioration and nostalgia in old
age, by the personal bias of both interviewer and interviewee, and by the influence
of collective and retrospective versions of the past” (Thompson 2000, 53). Oral
historians developed guidelines and adopted methodologies from other disciplines
such as sociology and anthropology to respond to these critiques. Yet, the most
significant transformation took place during the 1970s, when oral historians claimed
that the subjectivity of the interviewee and the fallibility of their memory, which
was attributed as the most significant weakness, is the most prominent strength of
the methodology as different ways of narrating past occurrences reveal how interviewees
are making sense of it. Accordingly, Luissa Passerini, in her influential article,
argues that oral testimony’s relevance may rest not in its fidelity to fact, but in its
divergence from it, because even ’wrong’ narrations are psychologically ’true,’ and
this truth may be just as essential as factually reliable testimonies (1979, 84). In
other words, oral history is concerned not just with what happened, but also with
what people thought about and how they perceived what had happened.
In reflecting on his own experience, Ronald J. Grele claims that testimonies reveal
not only how interviewees internalized and processed what they have witnessed,
but also how their personalities and social forces rebuild memory by facilitating or
preventing the development of specific ways of interpreting the past (1991, 245). As
political and social forces are directly interfering in what can be remembered and
what should be forgotten in Turkey, Grele’s experience reflected on the interviews
conducted with young Armenians of Turkey for this thesis. A particular incident
worthy of mention here occurred while interviewing Zabel. Because it is perilous and
difficult to discuss the Armenian Genocide, when asked about her family’s account,
Zabel hesitated to talk about her grandparents’ survival story because she was not
sure if those memories could be shared. Even though she eventually decided to tell
13
her grandparents’ story, she might not have mentioned the incidents has it been
another young Armenian asking the questions.
Thomson defines the third paradigm shift in oral history as having taken place
when practitioners increasingly became aware of the impact interviews brought on
themselves which influenced their analysis. In addition to the impact on analysis,
one of the major debates was concerning the researcher’s positionality in an interview
setting which affects the interviewee’s self. In a similar vein, Lynn Abrams defines
oral history as a “catch-all term,” which, on the one hand, refers to conducting
interviews to surface the significant incidents of the interviewee’s lifespan, and on
the other hand, is the very outcome of the interview (2010, 2). Regarding the
discussion of selves, Abrams emphasizes the influence of the post-structuralist school
which encouraged oral historians to conceptualize the self as an unstable entity
and underlines the importance of considering self as a fluctuating entity, developed
through the dialogic relationship between the interviewer and the interviewee (2010,
45). Therefore, it is not only about the stories narrated by the interviewee but also
about the process itself which directly impacts what is narrated during the interview.
Thomson argues that the fourth paradigm shift is currently taking place as a result of
technological advancements that provide new instruments for recording, preserving,
cataloging, interpreting, sharing, and presenting oral histories (Thompson 2000,
68). While it was the supplementary aspects of the technological developments
that Thomson was mentioning in his article, with the outbreak of the COVID-19
pandemic, the significance of technological tools greatly increased. Completing oral
history research when sociability was prohibited, physical distance became more
important and obligatory mask-wearing presented a number of challenges.
One of the most significant among those challenges was the inability to conduct
face-to-face interviews as it entails significant risks for both the interviewer’s and interviewee’s
wellbeing. The presence of such risks forced me to conduct the interviews
to be conducted through online platforms and none of the interviews were conducted
in a physical setting within the scope of this research. As it was the beginning of the
pandemic when I started to conduct interviews, people were recently started to look
for alternatives to their everyday routines and adapt to the changing conditions.
The adaptation process was easier for younger people as they are already used to
and more comfortable using technological tools. Conducting research focused on
young people, on the other hand, benefited the research process as neither I nor
interviewees experienced any problems during online interviews. The only problem
that I can mention is the breaks in internet connection that occurred only during
two interviews which complicated both the interviewing and transcription processes.
14
The second significant challenge is related to the impact of virtual interviews on the
interview dynamics. Abrams, along with other practitioners, emphasize that oral
history methodology is strongly tied not just to the testimony but also to the way
it is delivered (2010, 22). In other words, deviations in the respondents’ nonverbal
communication skills, such as changes in body movements or pitch of the voice,
reveal a lot of information that the researcher can use to analyze the interview.
Accordingly, as it was not clear if the virtual setting would allow utilization of those
aspects of interview dynamics, initially this caused some discomfort. However, after
conducting several interviews, far from imposing limitations, the virtual interviews
offer significant benefits to both interviewer and interviewee and eventually it is
not very different from the traditional way of having interviews face-to-face with
different merits and shortcomings.
Virtual interviews, for example, provides a focused environment to take notes to
the interviewer as they do not lose eye contact with the interviewee throughout the
interview. Then, following those notes, it becomes much easier to read between the
lines and ask questions that might be unnoticed in face-to-face interviews. For the
interviewee, on the other hand, as they join to interview from their safe spaces, such
as from their homes or workspaces, it becomes easier for them to talk about their
stories and feelings. Nevertheless, along with its merits, having an online interview
has its set of shortcomings too. In addition to the impossibility of taking a glimpse
of their private spaces, the control of the interviewer over the interviews is limited.
In the interview with Rita, for example, when talking about the mixed relationship
she is having and problems related to it, her mother jumped in the conversation and
said that she would prefer her daughter to have a relationship with an Armenian.
1.2.2 Ethics
When beginning interviews, I was well aware that his position as a young Armenian
studying other young Armenians would impact the outcome of the research.
Starting from the first moment of finding suitable interviewees, there were various
incidents that enabled this position. Preparing a list of young Armenians with diverse
backgrounds for interviews, for example, as member of the very community
being studied, was completed with ease. Furthermore, possibilities brought by having
a common background with the interviewees were not limited to the phase of
determining the interviewees. Being interviewed by someone who knows Armenian
15
gave interviewees a greater floor to act on, as it enabled them to utter some words
and phrases in Armenian during the interviews. It is important to mention that
this situation should not be reduced to the use of only some words in Armenian,
and in a broader perspective, it should be evaluated within the context that being
interviewed by a young Armenian also affects the extent of the stories that might
be told. Arden, for example, did not hesitate to tell a story that might bring harm
to their family, yet he asked if those stories will ever spread over.
Arden: (. . . ) I’m talking like that, but they’re not going to spread
around, right
Rudi: No, it’s just me. You can be relaxed.
Arden: [laughs] Let’s not destroy our family.2
In another example, when Verjin talks about her experience during the primary
schools years, she states in a cynical tone that primary schools are the places where
students have been taught to have great respect for Atatürk. Immediately after
sharing her observation, she felt the need to correct her tone by mentioning that we
are recording the interview and mentions her respect for Atatürk.
Verjin: Umm, by the way, we’re on record, don’t get me wrong. Of
course, I respect Atatürk, up to a point, you know.
Rudi: Only I will listen the interview, so you can relax.
Verjin: Huh, are you just going to listen, okay then. Maybe in case you
do something somewhere...
Rudi: No, no.
Verjin: I’m a little nervous as it is on record.
Rudi: No, no, only I will listen. You can be comfortable with it. I’m
going to use a different name anyway.3
2Arden: (. . . ) bunlar bir yerde yayılmayacak dimi, ben böyle konusuyorum ama.
Rudi: Yok yok, bende sadece. Rahat olabilirsin.
Arden: [gülüyor] Bizim ailemiz yıkılmasın.
3Verjin: Umm, bu arada kayıt alıyoruz yanlıs anlasılmasın tabi ki de Atatürk’ü saygı duyuyorum, bir yere
kadar, hani.
Rudi: Ben dinliyicem sadece, rahat olabilirsin.
Verjin: Ha sen mi dinliyiceksin, tamam. Belki bir yerde sey yaparsın diye.
Rudi: Yok yok.
Verjin: Kayıt olayı olunca biraz gerildim.
Rudi: Yok yok sadece ben dinliyicem. Ondan olabilirsin. Ismini de farklı kullanıcam zaten.
16
Nevertheless, the merits of my positionality which enabled reaching out to interviewees
with relative ease and to hear some stories that might not be told to someone
else brought some limitations with itself. In his article, Antonius Robben (1996)
critiques the notion of a “productive” interview based on a good rapport between
the interviewer and the interviewee. He argues that establishing good rapport may
lead ethnographers to overlook specific narrations that may negatively impact their
assessment of the respondent. In other cases, he claims, it may ‘seduce’ the ethnographer
by removing the “critical stance for an illusion of congeniality with the
research subject” and making it difficult for the ethnographer to “maintain a degree
of independence.” In other words, while the researcher may suppose that they have
“entered into the skin of the interviewee,” what has happened is that the researcher
has “introjected the informant’s created projection” and has become nothing more
than a mere listener (1996, 81-83). Although the cases are different and he was
working on a community that he was not a part of and because of that he was being
manipulated by the powerful people in that society, I had an experience that can
be related to Robben’s discussion. For instance, when interviewees talked about
how the assassination of Hrant Dink impacted their lives or discussed the issue of
belonging and the possibility of having a future in Turkey, I found their testimonies
to be quite similar, and while working on the transcription, I noticed the missed opportunities
to ask follow-up questions. In other words, the rapport that I established
with the interviewees, although Kathryn Anderson underlines the importance, hindered
me to hear the things that they implied or suggested but not explicitly uttered
(2015, 163).
Another dimension of the dialogic relationship between the interviewer and interviewee
that should be mentioned here was discussed by Alexander Freund. In his
article, Freund compares and contrasts the practices of interviewing and confessing
and evaluates how closely these acts resemble one another. He specifically challenges
if oral historians should be seen as “creators” rather than “revealers” of interviewees’
selves (Freund 2014, 1-26). Following in the footsteps of Freund, Erin Jessee expands
on this idea, claiming that “the interview itself can be another form of violence” due
to the “interview’s roots in Western confessional culture.” She uses an example from
oral historian Amy Tooth Murphy, in which she discusses how her efforts to adhere
to a chrononormative life history interview generated a narrative rupture between
the lives of women and the heteronormative society in which they lived. Inspired
by the discussions of Freund and Jessee, when conducting interviews, there were
two principles that were adhered to; not forcing interviewees to tell their stories
chronologically and asking open-ended questions as much as possible (Reeves and
Tyler-Richards 2014, 318-9). Accordingly, instead of asking a question from child-
17
hood, which might force interviewees to follow a chronological order, they were that
they could start from any point or event to tell their stories. It is remarkable that
even in the absence of any instruction most of the interviewees started to tell their
stories from childhood. Although this preference might have its roots in chrononormativity,
it also demonstrates the importance of the childhood period in young
Armenians lives, during which they realize their possession of a different identity
from others.
1.2.3 Notes on the research process
Before reaching out to possible interviewees and starting to conduct interviews, I reflected
on whom to conduct interviews with. My initial intention was to reach young
Armenians with diverse occupational, social, and economic backgrounds which were
including young Armenians who differ from the majority of their peers. For instance,
I did not only try to reach out to Armenians living in different neighborhoods but
also to the ones who did not attend an Armenian school, have Islamized Armenians
in their family lineages, or have a non-Armenian parent. Accordingly, during
August 2020 and November 2020, I have interviewed 12 young Armenians. Most of
the time, I have reached out to young Armenians that I know which enabled me to
complete the process in a short period. In this process, I avoid interviewing people
that I have a close relationship and with the ones who already shared their intimate
stories with me in different settings. While reaching out to possible interviewees,
gender and age also played an important role. Accordingly, half of the interviews
were conducted with the le respondents. Age-wise, the youngest interviewee was
21 and the oldest one was 35 years old, while the average age was 24. In addition
to reaching out to interviewees, I have prepared a list of keywords and themes to
follow during the interviews with a special focus on being a young Armenian living
in Turkey. During the interviews, in order to provide the “space and the permission
to explore some of the deeper, more conflicted parts” of their stories, I left the flow
of the interview to the interviewee and only asked questions when I believe it was
necessary (Anderson and Jack 2015, 159). However, in some interviews, I had to ask
unrelated questions to hear what the interviewee is thinking about specific topics,
primarily about the interviewee’s perception of Armenia or the Armenian diaspora.
18
1.3 Thesis Outline
The introduction chapter explains the study’s objective and primary points, placing
them in the context of existing literature on identity, nationalism, post-memory,
memory, subjectivity, and Armenian studies conducted in Turkey and abroad.
Throughout the thesis, I want to emphasize the many facets of young Armenians’
subjectivization processes, their relationship with Armenian identity and culture,
and the shift in their perception of Armenianness. In the second chapter, I intend
to present a historical background to the thesis which make it possible for the reader
to follow and make sense of the discussions. Starting with a theoretical discussion
regarding the factuality of the facts, which is frequently mentioned in the discussions
regarding the Armenian Genocide, the chapter will particularly examine several significant
events that impacted the lives and presence of non-Muslim communities in
Turkey. Through these discussions, the chapter aims to portray the transition from
multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire to Turkish nation state which is highlighted by the
policies implemented to Turkify the population and create a homogenous Turkish
nation.
In the third chapter, I focus on the subjectivization process of young Armenians
and the consequences of this process. Before dwelling on young Armenians, the
chapter discusses the position of the Armenian community of Turkey within the
broader society and the changes that were occurred in the last several decades. The
chapter claims that official policies surrounding the Armenian Genocide, as well as
subsequent events aimed at eliminating Armenian traces from public spaces, led
to gaps in family history transmission. Due to the risks it harbor, parents have
avoided discussing the Armenian Genocide with their children but their intentional
avoidance hinted young Armenians about those differences. Not being able to speak
Armenian in the street and constant warnings young Armenians receive when they
socialize with non-Armenians, among the most prominent examples that hinted the
difference. In addition to those, having an Armenian name make it inevitable for
young Armenians to face with discriminations and they adapted defense mechanisms
to cope with the dangers entailed to having an Armenian name. Accordingly, the
chapter particularly examines the encounters of young Armenians with Armenian
and non-Armenian individuals starting from their childhood with stories from various
periods of their lives. The chapter examines the impact of those encounters
on the perception of Armenianness of young Armenians with special emphasize on
gender, generational differences, and educational institutions.
19
In the last chapter, the emphasis is put on the impact of the assassination of Hrant
Dink on the young Armenians and how did it transform young Armenians perception
regarding the Armenian culture and identity. The chapter claims that it is possible to
explain the impact of Hrant Dink’s assassination on young Armenians as perceive the
assassination as a continuation of the Armenian Genocide. The Armenian Genocide
was a mainly abstract catastrophe that young Armenians only learned about through
family stories or textbook. After the assassination of Hrant Dink, however, the
Genocide becomes a palpable reality to which they could relate. As a result of the
transformation, young Armenians began to expand outside of the designated zones
they had been told to keep in and to embrace elements of Armenian culture. The
chapter examines the extent of this transformation and the impact of these processes
particularly on young Armenians’ sense of belonging.
20
2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Derrida begins his investigation of historical truth by tracing the archive’s etymological
foundations. He attributes the concept’s origins to the Greek word arkh¯e, which
means both commencement and commandment. The modern meaning of the word
‘archive’ originates from the Greek arkheion, which refers to the abode of senior
magistrates: those who have the authority to command. This, according to Derrida,
is a definite correlation because it emphasizes the often-overlooked relationship
between the archive and the political authority that hides behind it. He accurately
states that “the citizens who thus held and signified political power were considered
to possess the right to make or to represent the law. [. . . ] It is thus, in this
domiciliation, in this house arrest, that archives take place” (1995, 9-10). Citizens
with control over the archive not only maintain the security of the information they
safeguard, but also have the power to administer what is and is not archivable. To
put it another way, they have the authority to interpret the archive and, as a result,
the authority to enforce the law based on their understanding of the archive (1995,
10).
Derrida engages in a lengthy discussion focusing on the archive, mostly employing a
psychoanalytical notion, death drive, after looking at the etymological foundations
of the concept. The death drive theory, first postulated by Sabina Spielrein and later
expanded by Sigmund Freud, states that life begins with a lack and that everyone
shares a shared desire to overcome that lack. It is a longing that can only be satisfied
by returning to the commencement, which is the point at which one has not yet been
separated from their mother. It is evident, however, that once the separation occurs,
it is impossible to return to the mother’s womb. The desire to return to the time of
commencement, as Derrida argues in the article, is not very different for the archive
which claims to contain the knowledge of historical truth.
In psychoanalytic terms, material truth refers to the very moment when an event
occurred, whereas historical truth refers to how that event has been remembered.
21
They are fundamentally different things, and the death drive in the archive is tied
to this distinction. As the memory of a particular event is not identical for people
who witnessed it, the possibility to reach the material truth does not exist. However,
archives, which are full of historical truths, are always on the lookout for the
material truth. Nevertheless, this is an unattainable desire, and Derrida claims that
the archive has always been haunted by the material truth as a result of this impossibility.
By definition, an archive stores knowledge of what actually happened
in the past, knowledge of the material truth. But the only truth that archive holds
is truth “of the delusion, of the illusion, of the hallucination, of the hauntedness”
(1995, 55), because the moment something has been designated as archival, some
other thing has been left out.
Moving on from Derrida’s archive fever, it is plausible to argue that history is more
about “what is said to have happened” than “what happened.” The archive is filled
with manipulations, and as Trouillot points out, source collecting has never been
a natural process, but rather it is based on unequal historical power that favors
some events over others (1997, 48). In other words, only “selected” events have
the potential to become “facts” and have the right to be archived. There is no
archive “without a place of consignation, without a technique of repetition, and
without a certain exteriority. No archive without outside” (Derrida 1995, 14). The
ability to mandate a specific way of interpreting a historical event to its potential
analyzer is the power of the archive: the ability to record some occurrences while
removing others. If archives were created through power relations, then the notion
of objectivity that has dominated discourse about the Armenian Genocide is nothing
more than a delusion. It is impossible to depict any historical event objectively since
power dynamics do not cease to exist at any point during the creation of archives.
As a result, all narratives based on archival material unavoidably construct, shape,
and distort their objects (LaCapra 2014, 10). The impression or illusion of the
material truth is the best one can hope for from archival research. What I’d like
to emphasize at this point is that during events motivated by genocidal will, the
distortion of archival material becomes most desperate since these events structure
themselves directly on the rejection of facts and of factuality.
Nichanian provokingly argues that “genocide is not a fact” but “it is the very destruction
of the fact, of the notion of fact, of the factuality of fact” (Nichanian
2009, 1). Nichanian highlights a crucial distinction between the symbolic name (i.e.,
Auschwitz) and the generic name (i.e., genocide) of catastrophic events aimed at
the extermination of a specific group of people while explaining how genocidal will
works. Then he claims that calling the survivors by their generic names is a realist
insult since it homogenizes and standardizes their experiences. By attributing a
22
more or less a unified survival story, it becomes possible to negate the historical
presence of experiences. Nichanian claims that genocidal will successfully abolish
the fact by the very act of establishing the fact itself (2009, 1). Derrida describes
a similar process that he refers to as the “system of mythological violence.” This
system organizes the archive in such a way that it maintains track of its own destruction.
This allows archives to reject and even obliterate victims’ testimonies as
well as perpetrators’ crimes (2002, 296).
This is what Nichanian refers to as historiographic perversion, and it is via this
perversion that any allusion to catastrophic occurrences is forced to conform to the
executioner’s logic; there is no way around it (2009, 95). Every attempt to portray
the destiny of Armenians by focusing on a specific time period must fail because the
genocidal will can and will falsify any narrative that claims to represent survivors’
experiences. Historical perversion has already determined every possible form of
representation from the moment of annihilation. This is the power of the genocidal
will. It conceals its negationist intentions through the promotion of the very concept
of genocide. As noted by Nichanian, “we are talking, after all, about nonexistent
archives, about a nothingness of the archive” (2002, 13). By endorsing the generic
name, it successfully sustains the invisibility of the emblematic aspect of the events
(2009, 99). In other words, every attempt that focuses on the generic meaning will
fail the represent the cumulative dreadfulness of the process which neither starts at
a particular place and time nor has ever ended.
2.1 The Transition Period: From Ottoman Empire to the Turkish
Republic
As it is discussed by Derrida and other scholars, archive instructs the future from the
present about how a particular event should be analyzed and, in that sense, it is more
related to the present and future than the past. The utilization of archives as a source
for legitimation is not a new concept emerged with the nation-states. One prominent
example dates back to the 16th century where Suleiman I have wittily altered the
way his father was perceived as it was damaging the sultanate. As mentioned by
Christine Woodhead, Selim I had a reputation for brutality and ruthlessness that
could not be reconciled with the Muslim ideal of a righteous and generous ruler,
despite defeating Shah Ismail and conquering Syria, Egypt, and the holy cities of
23
Mecca and Medina. To improve his father’s image, Sultan Suleiman promoted the
writing of a series of historical writings known as Selimnâmes, which portrayed Selim
I in a more favorable light and, for the most part, exonerated him of the heinous
crimes that had earned him the epithet Yavuz, ’evil, ruthless.’ These works were
so successful that by the end of the century, Selim I had gained a reputation as a
hero, and the term Yavuz had taken on the more honorable connotation of ‘harsh
on justice’.(Woodhead 1983, 172)
Despite the fact that archives have always been a source of rivalry and legitimacy
among many parties throughout history, the deliberate use of archives has taken on
new dimensions with the establishment of nation-states. It is through the crafted
ways of recalling the archival information that national myths and symbols emerge.
The process was distinguished by forgetting or purposely not recalling some events
while emphasizing others. Trouillot argues that remembering is not always about
summoning representation of what one has witnessed (1997, 14). Correspondingly,
nationalist ideology has vehemently opposed ethnic and cultural elements that could
not be permitted within the new political framework. Accordingly, the historical
knowledge has been shaped in accordance with official narratives that would serve
the best interests of nation-states. As a result, deliberate efforts were made to
erase or suppress these elements’ physical and socio-cultural presence from collective
memory and public spaces.
The Turkish nation-state was not immune to the aforementioned processes. As
Çaglar Keyder argues, a shift in the legitimizing discourse of state power occurred,
particularly during the transitional era from the multiethnic Ottoman Empire to
the Turkish Republic (1997, 41). As mentioned by various scholars, the newly established
Turkish nation-state has inevitably necessitated a ‘Turkish’ nation and
various policies were implemented to create a homogenous nation (Baer 2007; Bozdogan
and Kasaba 1997; Türköz 2017; Zurcher 2017). This homogenous “ethnicity”,
as argued by Rogers Brubaker, was based on exclusionary ethnocultural and ethnolinguistic
grounds (1996, 86). Turkey, on the other hand, was far from being
a homogeneous state. The census of 1935 provides complete information about
this. In that year, the country’s population was 16,157,450, with 15,838,673 Muslims.
125,046 Greek Orthodox, 78,730 Jews, 44,526 Gregorian Armenians, 32,155
Catholics, 8,486 Protestants, 4,725 Christians, and 12,965 others made up the rest
of the population. On the other hand, while Turkish was the most widely spoken
language in the country, with 13,899,073 people speaking it, Kurdish was the second
most widely spoken language, with 1,480,246 people. In addition to Turkish and
Kurdish, it has been noted in the survey that 153,687 Arabic, 108,725 Greek, 91,972
Circassian, 63,253 Laze, 57,599 Armenian, 57,325 Georgian, 42,607 Judeo-Spanish,
24
32,661 Pomak, 29,065 Bosnian (of whom 4,452 spoke the Serbian and Croatian variants),
22,754 Albanian, 18,245 Bulgarian, 15,615 (Crimean) Tatar, 12,424 Spanish,
10,099 Abkhaz speakers,7,855 Romani speakers, and 5,381 French speakers were also
present.(Cagaptay 2004, 93)
Although the presence and impact of nationalist policies on the Early Turkish Republic’s
multiculturalism are undeniable, especially when compared to current demographics,
it is difficult to identify a starting point to describe the Turkification
processes. While laws aimed at eliminating non-Turkish components of the society
were multiplied with the establishment of the Turkish Republic, there were already
practices of violence dating back to the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian Genocide1,
as argued by Taner Akçam, was the most significant step toward the Turkification
and homogeneity of Anatolia, which eradicated the Armenian presence in Anatolia
due to massacres committed during the expulsion of Armenians from Anatolia to
the Syrian deserts (2004, 149). Furthermore, because of the link between the Armenian
Genocide and the founding of the Republic, as the members of the Committee
of Union and Progress (CUP), who were responsible for the systematic expulsion
and killings of Armenians in Anatolia played a crucial role in the formation of the
Republic the Genocide was considered a taboo subject right after the Republic was
established (2004, 8). However, the Armenian Genocide has not become the only
incident that inflicted a significant blow on the non-Muslim presence of Turkey.
Among those, one could mention the expulsion of Greek and Turkish citizens from
respectively Turkey and Greece which occurred first during The Greco-Turkish War
of 1919-1922 and secondly, due to the Lausanne Treaty. The examples of mass
violence did not end with the formation of the Turkish Republic and there were
many more examples throughout its history which result in the depletion of the
non-Muslim population in Turkey. Even though those incidents targeted the predominately
non-Muslim population of Turkey, as the case of genocidal policies in
Dersim in 1938 shows, the extent of the incident was not limited to non-Muslims
but all identities outside the ’imagined community’. Although one could multiply
the examples particularly with the stories of Kurdish people, as it would fall beyond
the intention of this research to address all those incidents, within the scope of this
chapter, the paper will examine incidents that affected the lives of, particularly non-
Muslim communities. Nevertheless, before discussing the stories of those incidents,
it would be prudent to examine the denialist policies of the Turkish state and the
changes that took place in the state discourse, as it was the ‘haunting’ legacy of the
Armenian Genocide that led to the emergence of other traumatic incidents.
1Various scholars have examined and constituted a detailed account of what have happened in 1915 and
afterwards which makes it difficult to properly examine the incident within the scope of this reserach. Yet,
one could mention Kévorkian (2011), Akçam (2012), Suny (1993) among prominent works.
25
2.2 Discursive Changes over Armenian Genocide through the Turkish
Republic
The denialist policies regarding the Armenian Genocide were inherent in the formation
of the new Turkish state and they acted as one of the main pillars of the
state to this date. However, the scope of those policies has never been stable and
subjected to changes throughout the span of more than a century. One significant
change regarding the extent of those policies has taken place with the beginning
of the assassinations of Turkish diplomats by ASALA in the 1970s. Prior to this
date, the state’s discourse was predominantly based on suppressing all information
regarding the Armenian Genocide. Ugur Ümit Üngör illustrates the extent of the
suppression by the prohibition of various publications, particularly prepared by the
survivors. It was ordered by the state to confiscate and destroy all existing copies of
Garabed Kapikian’s, Marrie Sarrafian Banker’s, or Armen Anoosh’s memoirs as they
are ‘harmful texts’ (Üngör 2014, 152). The state policies were not only restricted to
memoirs, but several history books were also prohibited during the period. Nevertheless,
it is important to underline that those policies were limited to the borders of
the Turkish Republic, and no effort was paid to prevent the preparation and circulation
of such publications outside of Turkey. The most significant exception in this
regard took place when Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer announced that they will produce a
film based on Franz Werfel’s novel, The Forty Days of Musa Dagh (1934). As the
book was related to the Armenian Genocide, the state interfered with the process,
and through strong diplomatic pressure, the idea was abandoned, and the project
was canceled (Bloxham 2005, 204).
The state policies and its discourse underwent a significant change after the acts
of ASALA as they introduced the topic of the Armenian Genocide both in Turkey
and abroad. As Hülya Adak argues, the goal of the militants was to get Turkey
to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, and from 1975 through 1985, their acts
resulted in killing forty-six persons and wounding hundreds more (2015, 329). The
Turkish state, to counter the claims of the organization, the impact of which reached
the international arena but also became an issue of public attention in Turkey, had
utilized various tools and methods. Consequently, as Dogan Gürpınar argues, the
‘passive denialism’ which was adopted until the 1970s, started to be reformulated
and left its place to ‘aggressive denialism” (2016, 218). Priority is given to the preparation
of an official narrative, known as ‘Turkish thesis’, which could be utilized to
‘defend Turkey’, as Emre Can Daglıoglu argues, in the eyes of the world (Tölölyan
2021, 164). The responsibility was particularly given to Milli Istihbarat Teskilatı,
26
National Intelligence Organization, the General Directorate of Intelligence and Research
(Istihbarat ve Arastırma Genel Müdürlügü), and National Security Council
(Millî Güvenlik Kurulu, MGK). Gürpınar analyzes the extent of the Turkish thesis
by examining different variations of it, namely, the right-wing, left-wing, and a centrist
version of the ’Turkish thesis’. According to Gürpınar, the right-wing version
underlines the treachery of the Armenians while the left-wing version emphasizes the
separatism and terror caused by Armenians as they were deceived by the imperialist
Great Powers. The centrist version, on the other hand, is sponsored and promoted
by the state itself and accordingly, has different aspects following changing state
policies.(Gürpınar 2016, 221)
One of the most prominent policies implemented by the state particularly after the
1980s, as the Genocide was brought to the international agenda, was to circulate
official historiography through as many mediums as possible. To this end, state
television was utilized, and programs were produced where the ‘mass graves’ of
Muslims, murdered by Armenian militants during 1915, were excavated. The excavation
was accompanied by the testimonies of the elders of the region who told
about the atrocities that Armenians committed when they were a child. Furthermore,
the Armenian history which was not deliberately mentioned in the textbooks
until this period started to be included in the mid-1980s through a sub-chapter entitled
‘Armenian problem’ where the claims of Armenians regarding the Genocide was
confronted within the broader theme of the Eastern Question (Gürpınar 2016, 234).
By the 1990s, the Turkish state started to utilize archival sources to confront the
Armenian claims. The mobilization of archival sources coincides with the modernization
of the Ottoman archives which was restrictively accessible to the researchers
in the past. As Gürpınar argues, numerous research was conducted and dozens of
books were published without a critical approach which took the Ottoman official
documents as the sheer truth (Gürpınar 2016, 235). Furthermore, in this period
scholars were encouraged to prepare academic publications and those works were
published in state-sponsored outlets.
The dominance of the official historiography began to shutter during the 2000s as
liberal and left-wing scholars began to produce critical works regarding the Armenian
Genocide. The relative democratic political atmosphere in Turkey during this
period was among the reasons that enabled scholars to publish their researches. Nevertheless,
despite the proliferation of scholarly works, the denialist policies of the
Turkish state did not undergo any significant change. The most prominent change
in the state discourse is the emergence of a more flexible language based on the
discourse of ‘reciprocal pains’. Before this period, despite the changes in the extent
of the discourse, official historiography was attributing sole responsibility for the
27
incidents of 1915 to Armenians. In 2014, the Turkish Prime Minister, for the first
time, shared his condolences for the atrocities that took place in 1915 by sharing his
hope and belief for a future where Turkish and Armenian people will be able to talk
about their past with maturity and commemorate their losses together2. Despite
this significant divergence from the official historiography, because of the backlashes
and reactions along with the increasingly nationalist sentiment of the ruling party,
the official historiography was restored and denialist policies started to be employed
again in the following years.
2.3 Concise History of Turkification
The Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922, as well as the population exchange between
Greece and Turkey following the Lausanne Treaty, were two of the most notable
examples that impacted the demographics of the Turkish State. As mentioned by
Ali Tuna Kuyucu, during the Greco-Turkish war, thousands of Rum subjects of the
empire were slaughtered or forced to relocate to Greece and other countries (2005,
369). With the signing of the Lausanne Treaty, on the other hand, as Ayhan Aktar
stated, nearly 1.2 million Greeks were forced to leave Turkey and around 400,000
Muslims expulsed from Greece to Turkey as a result of an agreement between the
Greek government and the Turkish delegation (2000, 7). Population exchanges,
according to Michael Barutciski, generally emerge as a political alternative during
times of crisis, and decisions to carry them out are taken fast, without full knowledge
of the long-term repercussions they may have on the ‘targeted minorities’ (2003, 24-
5). In the case of Turkey, it is conceivable to argue that the demographic changes
that occurred at the turn of the twentieth century caused significant human suffering
and resulted in decades of distrust towards non-Muslim communities of Turkey.
The policies that aimed to Turkify society initiated during the last years of the Ottoman
Empire did not lessen with the establishment of the Turkish Republic. Even
though the Turkish Republic’s demographic structure was mostly purged of Armenians
and Greeks through deportations, killings, and population exchanges, Istanbul
managed to retain its diversity. The presence of such heterogeneity in Istanbul was
not tolerable and to eradicate the non-Muslim presence in Istanbul, various mea-
2”Erdogan’dan 24 Nisan mesajı,” Deutsche Welle Türkçe, accessed August 2, 2021,
https://p.dw.com/p/1BnJq.
28
sures have been taken at governmental and societal levels. Those measures aimed
to alter the economic, political, and demographic structure of the society and thus,
create a homogenous nation-state. During this process, the repressive tools that
had been adopted by the Ottoman Government were slightly transformed and accompanied
by the ideological tools with the formation of the Turkish Republic. In
other words, instead of solely applying brute force, numerous legislations were accepted
by the parliament and several campaigns initiated by the public to eliminate
the ‘dangerous’ elements of the society. Although there are various examples both
at societal and governmental levels, the most prominent is the campaign which is
remembered with its motto Vatandas Türkçe Konus (Citizen, Speak Turkish), the
“Surname Legislation,” Wealth Tax, and Istanbul Pogroms of 6-7 September.
The campaign Vatandas Türkçe Konus (1928) which was initiated by the Law Faculty
Students’ Association of Istanbul University and supported by the Turkish
state aimed to eradicate the public visibility of non-Turkish languages (Aslan 2007,
246). The society of Turkey, during the first decades of the Republic, was very
heterogeneous. According to the national census of 1927, 28 percent of Istanbul’s
population did not regard Turkish as their native language which validates the existence
of a multicultural Istanbul (Cagaptay 2004, 93). The existence of such a
large number of non-Turkish presence in Istanbul could not be permitted in the
context of a nation-state, and accordingly, the city had to be Turkified. As a result,
law students, supported by teachers and journalists, declared that speaking in a
language other than Turkish meant disobeying Turkish law, and launched a campaign
to discourage the use of non-Turkish languages (Cagaptay 2004, 251). Several
mottos were hung on the walls and repeated on public transit by students during
the campaign, including “Citizen, Speak Turkish,” “Speaking Turkish is a national
duty,” and “a Turk speaks Turkish,” which ultimately led to public harassment of
many non-Turkish speaking citizens (Türköz 2017, 159). Throughout the campaign,
argued by Rıfat Bali, it became extremely difficult to use a language other than
Turkish in public settings due to the significant risk of verbal and physical attack
(2015, 136-7). This campaign was one of the most prominent initiatives carried out
by Turkish society to remove the public visibility of non-Turkish languages. Even
though the campaign was abandoned in the middle of the 1940s, its impact of the
campaign had far-reaching effects on the perceptions of non-Muslim communities as
they increasingly withdraw the reflections of their languages and cultures from the
public spheres.
Surname Legislation, unlike the “Citizen Speak Turkish” campaign, was organized
and enacted by the Turkish parliament in 1934, and it was the enforcement of “hereditary
surname adaptation and registration in Turkish,” as explained by Meltem
29
Türköz (2007, 893). Even though the legislation was not specifically geared for non-
Muslims and addressed administrative as well as nationalist objectives, the 7th article
prohibited the use of the Armenian patronymic -ian and the Greek patronymic
-pulos as surname endings (Türköz 2017, 148). Furthermore, despite the 4th article,
which implies that surnames taken prior to this legislation may be preserved, ethnic
minorities felt compelled to neutralize ethnic traits and Turkify their surnames,
arguably due to the fear and anxiety that surrounded them (Türköz 2017, 149).
In addition to those policies, the Turkish state supported and encouraged scholars
to ‘prove’ the omnipotence of the Turkish nation in various academic fields. The
Turkish Review of Anthropology, published between 1925 and 1939, for example,
was utilized as the “official outlet of political power” to support the Turkish state’s
claims on the supremacy of the Turkish race as mentioned by Nazan Maksudyan
(2005, 299). Similarly, the Sun Language Theory, developed in the 1930s, declared
that all major world languages descended from Turkish which together with the
‘History Thesis’ was supporting the Kemalist claim to trace all major cultures in
the world to the Turks (Cagaptay 2004, 91-2). Through these cultural and ideological
endeavors, Turkishness has been produced as the principal racial category
of the Turkish Republic, and institutionalization of the inferiority of non-Muslim
communities inevitably led to the formation of a racialized worldview (Baker 1998,
1-13).
The Turkish government’s policies were not only directed against non-Muslim communities’
cultural components, but they also had financial consequences. Just as
the newly formed Turkish state requires a nation, it also required that this nation
become the sole proprietor of the country. This endeavor could only be realized if
the Turkish nation established its dominance not only in the socio-cultural but also
in the economic spheres. To this end, various policies have been implemented particularly
until the 1960s to undermine the non-Muslim financial strength. Among
those are the law mandating that Turkish be the only language used in corporate
dealings, enacted in 1926 and another law enacted in 1932, restricted some vocations
to Turkish citizens alone, effectively eliminating non-Muslims from these positions
(Aktar 2000, 59-60). The main purpose of both laws, which resulted in around 9000
non-Muslims losing their jobs, was not to encourage non-Muslims living in Turkey
to learn Turkish, but as Ayhan Aktar argues, to put pressure on foreign companies
to employ Muslim Turks at an increasing rate (2000, 117). These legal actions were
among the major steps in the nationalization of the economy and dealt significant
damage to non-Muslim groups’ financial capacity. However, these were only the
initial steps of the nationalization of the economy and the most significant blow was
inflicted through the Wealth Tax and 6-7 September Pogroms.
30
In 1939, with the outbreak of the Second World War, almost a million people were
mobilized in Turkey which resulted in the withdrawal of five percent of the population
from economic activities. The Turkish state found the initial solution as printing
money but soon it led to an inflation crisis and forced the state to find alternative
solutions. In 1942, with Sükrü Saraçoglu becoming the new prime minister, the
government decided to levy a ‘Capital Tax’ to overcome the difficulties caused by
the war. In its outlook, the legislation respected equality. However, prior to the legislation,
newspapers and comics were being circulated in Istanbul which associate
minorities, mainly Jews, with theft, black marketing, extortion, profiteering, and
speculation (Aktar 2000, 141-3). These publications could be assessed as examples
that indicate that an equal process would not be applied in the application of the
Capital Tax. Accordingly, even though the law was introduced on an egalitarian basis
and targeted anyone who took advantage of the exceptional wartime conditions
to acquire money through black marketing, as Kuyucu argues, in practice, it turned
into a discriminatory practice targeting primarily the non-Muslim minorities (2005,
370). On the day of the 18th of December, lists were hung on notice boards at tax
offices in Istanbul to announce the necessary amount every individual should pay.
What was striking in the lists, as Içduygu argues, is that non-Muslims were levied
amounts of five to ten times higher than their Muslim counterparts (2008, 367).
To cover the necessary expenses, non-Muslims were obliged to sell their property,
and according to Aktar, 98 percent of non-Muslim real estate was either bought by
Muslim people or confiscated by the state at this time (2000, 204). Nevertheless,
even the sale of properties did not suffice for some people to cover the assessed
amount. It was decided for those individuals to be deported to camps for physical
labor, where they were to work for the government until they paid off their debts.
It is striking that since the obligation to work only applied to non-Muslims, all of
the deceased in Askale were non-Muslims, arriving in Askale from Istanbul (Aktar
2000, 151). It is evident that the unjust application of Capital Tax was deliberate
to shackle the non-Muslims’ significance over the Turkish economy and as a result
of it, 30,000 Jewish and 20,000 Orthodox Christian citizens of Turkey had to flee
from the country (Kuyucu 2005, 371).
A decade after the Capital Tax, another significant incident occurred in Istanbul
which holds an important place in the collective memory of non-Muslim communities.
Known as ‘Istanbul Pogroms of 6-7 September, the incident was initiated
on the night of 6 September 1955, when the pro-government newspaper Istanbul
Ekspress released the news stating that Atatürk’s house was bombed by Greeks in
Salonica. Four hours after the release of this news, thousands of shops and houses of
non-Muslim minorities were destroyed or damaged and physical harm was inflicted
31
on thousands of people. According to official numbers, seventy-three churches were
burned down, two Rum cemeteries were destroyed, and three people were murdered
including a priest who was burnt alive (Kuyucu 2005, 362). The events affected the
Greeks in Istanbul the most and between 1955 and 1960, about 20,000 Rums decided
to leave Turkey permanently after being physically, psychologically, and materially
harmed during and after the riots (Kuyucu 2005, 376).
2.4 Conclusion
The state policies aiming to homogenize society through demographic engineering
as well as the restrictions and pressures placed on non-Muslims to speak in their
native tongues, engage in financial activities, perform their culture in public spaces
created an environment where minorities felt like ‘outsiders.’ As a result of numerous
policies and related incidents that took place during the relatively short history of
the Turkish Republic, the non-Muslim population of Turkey significantly diminished
and restricted almost exclusively to Istanbul. As stated by Ahmet Içduygu, while
non-Muslims made up close to 3% of the population in the 1920s, they now make up
less than 2% of the population (2008, 358). Despite the presence of official data, the
non-Muslim population of Istanbul is estimated to be less than a hundred thousand.
The Armenian population of Turkey, on the other hand, is estimated to be around
sixty thousand people with almost all of them living in Istanbul apart from some
living in Anatolian cities. The community has various publications, schools, newspapers,
and cultural institutions concentrated in several neighborhoods. Silva Kuyumcuyan,
the principal of Getronagan Armenian High School in Istanbul since 1980,
draws a detailed picture of the Armenian educational institutions in Turkey. Accordingly,
in 1965, there were 32 schools with 9,200 students. The number of schools
remained the same in the 1970s, but the number of students dropped to roughly
7,300. Thirty years after, the number of the schools fell to 18 and the number of
students to 3,786. The last statistic dates to 2017, and at this date, there were a
total of 16 Armenian schools with almost 3,000 students, including immigrant Armenians
from Armenia and Syria, as well as a few Iraqi guest students (Panossian
et al. 2021, 304).
The decreasing numbers of schools and students illustrate the weakening presence
32
of Armenians in Turkey and Armenian example could also be applied to other non-
Muslim communities. One of the most crucial reasons for the decline in the non-
Muslim population is that to this day the Turkish state has never confronted the
atrocities it either planned or failed to prevent.
33
3. THRESHOLDS OF ARMENIANNESS: CONSTRUCTION OF
THE ARMENIAN IDENTITY AND ITS MANIFESTATIONS
Young Armenians are not exempt from what elder generations experienced in the
Turkish Republic for over close to one hundred years. The discriminatory policies
and practices initiated by the Turkish state, paramilitary groups, and the public at
large continue to interfere with the daily lives of Armenians and other non-Muslim
communities in Turkey. It is arguable that the scope and the intensity of those
practices are changing as the non-Muslim population is reduced. As Fatma Müge
Göçek argues, with the decrease in the Armenian population, the annihilation of the
community evolved into symbolic violence to remove what was left in the cultural
fabric (2014, 21). Accordingly, policies that once directly affected the lives of those
communities, such as the Capital Tax or the 6-7 September pogroms, reverted to
more subtle and symbolic domains. Churches and examples of civil architecture in
Anatolia are either demolished by the state or targeted by treasure hunters. Additionally,
the names of prominent figures from the Ottoman and early Republican
periods are Turkified or not mentioned in the narration of particular periods.
Ekmekcioglu conceptualizes the experiences of Armenians within the broader society
in the early Turkish Republic by transforming the term dhimmi into ‘secular
dhimmitude.’ The term dhimmi was used in the Ottoman context to define the non-
Muslim elements of the society. Since the Ottoman Empire was regulated by a millet
system based on Islamic law, sharia, it was not possible for non-Muslims to enjoy
the same privileges as Muslims. In this system, every non-Muslim community was
defined by their religion, and in exchange for protection, they had to pay the poll
tax and remain loyal to the Ottoman state. As Ekmekcioglu indicates, the millet
system was not based on equality but justice and if the Muslim ruler decided that
dhimma have broken the contract by being disloyal or by trespassing their rights,
he could terminate the contract unilaterally and revoke their rights. (Ekmekcioglu
2016, 109)
34
The existence of a system that situates different communities hierarchically inevitably
brought tension between Muslims and non-Muslims. This tension, despite
the collapse of the Ottoman state and the establishment of the Turkish Republic,
did not cease as most of the policies that were once based on the supremacy of Islam
started to be based on the supremacy of the Turks. Ekmekcioglu argues that the
Bolsahay opinion-makers who remained in Turkey perceived the newly established
state as yet another Turkish state and believed that the way to sustain their lives
was closely dependent on the cooperation that they would successfully establish
with the new state. In this modified version of dhimmitude, secular dhimmitude as
Ekmekcioglu calls it, loyalty to the new rulers and dis-identification with the past
compose the two main pillars of cooperation. (Ekmekcioglu 2016, 109)
The absence of egalitarian policies, coupled with events that inflict physical and
psychological harm to non-Muslims led those communities to withdraw from the
broader society and public spaces and to perform their cultural practices and traditions
within closed environments. As Tchilingirian argues, the policies pursued for
almost over a century are exclusively based on the demonization of the “other.” These
policies reflect on the daily lives of non-Muslims as hate speeches, rumors, and misrepresentations
in political and public spaces at best and physical violence in some
instances. In his article, Tchilingirian examines the thought schools that emerge in
response to those policies and made a valuable distinction between the ones who advocate
isolationism and integrationism. He states that Armenian institutions such
as the Armenian patriarchate, community church, school, and charitable trusts, as
well as newspapers such as Marmara and Jamanak, are proponents of ‘isolationism’.
Left-leaning, progressive, or liberal intellectuals such as Agos, Nor Zartonk circles,
or the only present-day Armenian MP Garo Paylan, on the other hand, constitute
the integrationist side. Integrationists state that the rights of non-Muslims should
be based on the notion of egalitarianism and equal citizenship rather than the Treaty
of Lausanne. The main issue that they raise is the representativity of the Armenian
community which is currently attributed to the Patriarch or the clergy. While
Tchilingirian mentions the changing attitude of the new generation of Armenians
who are exclusively in favor of integration and support full participation in broader
society.
Tchilingirian states that the last 50 years have witnessed a struggle in the Armenian
community to move from an isolated inner circle to an outer circle that necessitates
integration. In this struggle, the boundaries and limitations imposed through state
policies had a vital impact on shaping the Armenian identity as “the concern for
physical, psychological and material security takes precedent over all other issues”
35
(Tchilingirian 2017, 133). The constant changes in state policies in the last couple
of years did not bring a significant change in the position of the Armenian community
against the larger society and the state. It is important to note that various
measures were taken by the newly elected Justice and Development Party (Adalet
ve Kalkınma Partisi) government for the democratization of Turkey within the context
of negotiations for the accession to the European Union starting from 2002. In
this period, through several policies, they aimed at the normalization of the Turkish
and Armenian relationship, and improvements of the conditions and rights of nonminorities
were aimed through several policies. Among those, the most significant
one was returning some of the seized community properties through the notorious
1936 Declaration. Nevertheless, those progressive acts gradually ceased as the AKP
government started to employ more conservative and Turkish nationalist policies in
the following years. In 2014, for example, the Prime Minister and the leader of AKP,
Recep Tayyip Erdogan shared his disappointment that people claimed he has Georgian,
even Armenian, roots in an interview on NTV: “I am originally from Rize, I
was born and raised in Istanbul. But with ill intent, they called me Georgian. Even
with uglier intents, they have called me Armenian. But as far as I learned from my
grandfather and father, I am Turkish.”1
Despite the changes in state policies, it is possible to argue that a culture of fear
is persistent within the Armenian community which also has a significant effect, as
Tchilingirian argues, on “the isolationist perception of collective Armenian identity
in Turkey” (2017, 131). Another outcome of those policies is the emergence of an
‘everyday ecology of fear, mistrust, and anxiety,’ in everyday encounters of Armenians
(Das and Kleinman 2000, 6). It is important to note that, those encounters
are experienced differently in different spaces. Ekmekcioglu makes an illuminating
distinction by conceptualizing them as in-side, mid-side, and out-side of the Armenian
institutions. While ‘in-side’ was the familial circle immune to state authority
to some extent, the mid-side is the place where negotiation with the state took
place. Despite the presence of state surveillance in those spaces, such as Armenian
schools, churches, or cemeteries, the community still has some authority over their
acts. The out-side, on the other hand, is the public or private spaces where Armenians
could easily become targets of violence. While Ekmekcioglu argues that
“this enclave-like existence did not negate or exclude intercommunal interaction between
Armenians and other ethnic and religious groups in Turkey,” it is possible to
argue that the perceptions of young Armenians in Turkey are significantly affected
by the negotiations that took place while moving from one space to another (2016,
1”‘Bana Gürcü, affedersin çok daha çirkin seylerle Ermeni diyenler oldu’,” Diken, accessed August 2, 2021,
https://www.diken.com.tr/afedersin-cok-daha-cirkin-seylerle-ermeni-diyen-oldu/
36
13). Accordingly, following Lerna Ekmekcioglu’s conceptualization of Armenianness
in Turkey as “ever-precarious,” young Armenians are defining their experience and
daily lives with fear and uneasiness (2016, 15). Masis, for example, claims that the
biggest problem is the inability to reveal one’s Armenian identity. This is caused
mainly by the education system.
First and foremost, I would describe living as an Armenian in Turkey as
difficult. I’m not sure it qualifies as a life. For example, being unable
to express your Armenian identity in public... This is the most serious
issue. Being Armenian is not a crime, but it causes many regrets and
takes a lot of time to explain. This is especially significant given that
Armenians, like Assyrians, have a history of genocide. A provocative
attitude is taken against Armenians as a result of the indoctrination of
distorted historical consciousness through our education system, which
is already crooked due to serious problems with official history. When
it is said or you say that there was a genocide, you are told, “No, you
actually committed genocide”.2
He adds that events that take place elsewhere also affect the lives of the Armenians
in Turkey. He defines the social and political atmosphere of the country as very
conducive to discrimination and massacres and gives the example of a discriminatory
incident that took place during the Nagorno-Karabakh War in the second half of
2020.
For example, the atmosphere of the country is very conducive to discrimination
and massacre. In other words, not only the events in Turkey, but
also the events related to the Armenians abroad affect the Armenians of
Turkey. Unfortunately, there is an extreme nationalist and racist vein in
Turkey. In order to keep the power, these wounds are constantly bled,
and provocations are made. For example, in Kumkapı, an Armenian
family was beaten by the Azerbaijani people. And accordingly, living in
Turkey or living in Turkey as an Armenian is another name for hell, at
least politically.3
2Türkiye’de Ermeni olarak yasamak, öncelikle olarak zor diye tanımlarım. Yasam denir mi bilmiyorum.
Kamusal alanda mesela kendini ifade edememek Ermeni kimliginle. . . En büyük problem bu mesela. Bir
Ermeni olmak, suç degil ama bunu anlatmak için büyük diller dökülüyor, büyük pismanlıklar ve büyük
zaman kayıpları yasanıyor. Ermeniligin bir soykırım geçmisi oldugu için, Süryaniler gibi vs. Ve iste tarih
bilinci de çarpık oldugu için söyledigim gibi. Bir yalan tarih yazıldıgı için, resmi tarihin ciddi problemleri
yüzünden ve bunun asılanması yüzünden egitim sistemimiz de zaten çarpık. Bu yüzden iste Ermenilere
karsı özellikle daha sey, kıskırtıcı bir tavır alınıyor. Soykırım oldu dendigi zaman, dediginiz zaman, hayır
asıl siz soykırım yaptınız vs. deniyor.
3Mesela ülkenin atmosferi çok elverisli ayrımcılıga ve katliama. yani sadece Türkiye’de yasayan olaylardan
da degil, yurtdısında yasanan Ermenilerle ilgili olaylar da Türkiye’deki Ermenileri etkiliyor. Zaten
Türkiye’de asırı bir milliyetçi, ırkçı damar da var maalesef. Sürekli de iste iktidarı elde tutmak için bu
37
In the following pages, I will examine various institutions and spaces that have an
impact on the Armenian identity. Ekmekcioglu’s conceptualization of those spaces
as in-side, mid-side, and out-side will be followed in situating those instances and
institutions in the lives of young Armenians.
3.1 Encounters with non-Armenians
In the Ottoman period, the responsibility to maintain order and public morality of
neighborhoods had been entrusted collectively to the residents of each neighborhood.
As Wishnitzer argues, such collective responsibility inevitably created a personal and
collective identification of locals with the neighborhood and brought a sense of acquaintance
as everyone knows who the members of their neighborhood are and who
are not (2014, 516). Despite the changes in the regulations of the neighborhoods
with the formation of the new Turkish Republic modern mechanisms of administration
have been brought. Nevertheless, households continued to be regarded as
private spaces and were exempt from state surveillance. As Lerna Ekmekcioglu argues,
the regulatory energies of the state mechanisms were halted at the threshold
of the household and the state has a limited power on the family structures, such as
marriageability rules and kinship networks (2016, 121). Due to the relative autonomy
that Armenians enjoyed in their private spheres, the family continued to be one
of the main enablers of the reproduction and continuity of Armenianness. However,
it should be underlined that this autonomy is very limited and case-specific. For example,
while it is possible to inform the children for the sociability rules, traditions,
or religious holidays, most of the time, it is not preferred by parents to talk about
how they have survived the Armenian Genocide and inform their children not to talk
about those issues when it is asked. In other words, the family did not only act as a
ground where Armenian culture and traditions are transferred from one generation
to other but also introduced the limits of the performability of the Armenianness
to the following generations. Children grew up by learning the necessary knowledge
regarding the acceptable conducts that are expected and should performed beyond
the relatively safe and autonomous borders of the household. This exemplifies the
limited nature of the autonomy that is mentioned above, and as young Armenians
yaralar da tekrar kanatılıyor vs. Kıskırtmalar yapılıyor. Örnegin Kumkapı’da bir Ermenistanlı aileyi Azerbeycanlılar
sıkıstırıp dövdü. Hal böyleyken Türkiye’de yasamak da, Türkiye’de bir Ermeni olarak yasamak
da cehennemin diger adı da diyebiliriz en azından, politik olarak.
38
are being taught from little ages about how to deal with the state in the home and
they are not being told about the past in the home.
Throughout interviews, it becomes visible that the most frequent interventions that
Armenian children face in their familial circle is with whom they can be friends,
what they can or more precisely, what they cannot talk about with their friends,
and how they should behave outside the home. Interviews are revealing in this
regard as they shed light on the ways that parents intervene in their movements
and behaviors either straightforwardly, by giving direct warnings regarding how to
behave on the ‘outside’ or indirectly, which are conveyed to the children without
direct notice. Sarven, for example, recounts that on the street he exclusively played
with Armenian children and when Muslim children came out, he would generally
return home. He even remembers an unnamed tension with Muslim children even
though there were no incidents of conflict or a problem. Yet, in some rare instances
when they played with Muslim children, he remembers how his or one of his friends’
mothers immediately started to watch over from the window.
Because we always think that why they don’t include us in their game.
Why don’t they invite us? Or why didn’t they come when we invited
them? Or why did one of our mothers always feel the need to look out
the window when we said let’s play with them? But I also remember this
thing. Sometimes, when other groups, Muslims went out on the street,
we either went home or felt the need to go home, or we continue playing
among ourselves without intervening in them.4
In a more straightforward example, Zepour remarks on the changing attitude of her
parents toward Armenian and non-Armenian friends. She questions why her parents
were advising her to be easygoing and kind when playing with Turkish children while
there were no instructions when she was playing with Armenian children. She also
notes that her parents’ attitude had ever-lasting effects as it shaped her character.
As I previously stated, when I went out on the street, I was given advice
such as “Don’t argue too much” or “I don’t know much.” And because
they did it that way, I’m curious why it’s that way for them. Why do
you get that warning when you go out on the street if you don’t get
it when you are with a boy from your own school? There, you notice
4Çünkü biz hep sunu düsünüyoruz ya onlar niye bizi oyununa dahil etmiyor. Onlar niye bizi çagırmıyor?
Ya da biz çıkardıgımızda onlar niye gelmedi? Veya biz onlarla bir sekilde hadi oynayalım dedigimizde niye
sürekli birimizin maması camdan bakma ihtiyacı hissediyordu? Ama hani seyi de hatırlıyorum. Bazen
iste diger gruplar da Müslüman kesimlere sokaga çıktıgında biz ya eve çıkıyorduk, ya eve çıkma ihtiyacı
hissediyorduk ya da onlara müdahil olmadan, biz kendi aramızda, Rupen, Sevag, Kamer, ben oynuyorduk.
39
that something is different. Then you think, “I should keep quiet,” “I
shouldn’t get into arguments,” or, I don’t know, “I shouldn’t reveal my
identity too much.” And it’s something that makes you passive.5
She further states that it is because of the parents’ attitude that children learn prejudices
and correspondingly approaching one another with negative feelings. She also
finds it difficult to understand and strongly questions why her family ignores whom
she can get along with in choosing friends and wants her to befriend Armenians
only.
For example, your family may say, “Don’t befriend them” or “Only befriend
Armenians,” but I get along better with others. In other words,
the family constantly forces you to stay in your own community (...),
but they don’t care whether or not you get along with them. They claim
that even the worst Armenians are preferable. There is nothing to discriminate
against, but children develop prejudices as a result of their
family’s taboos. Because this is something that is taught. So, regardless
of how friendly you are, your family may support you more if you have
a friendship with an Armenian rather than a Muslim.6
3.2 Speaking Armenian
The way that Armenian children should behave outside the safe space provided by
the household is another significant area that should be mentioned. The dangers
posed when experiencing and performing Armenian culture outside the officially defined
areas, in addition to past examples that parents have in their mind whether
witnessed directly or passed on their elders, are reflected on the children in the form
5Iste dedigim gibi sokaga da çıktıgımda bana, "Çok tartısma," veya "Bilmiyorum de," gibi ögütler verilirdi.
Hani onu o sekilde yaptıkları için de, niye onlara öyle? Kendi okulundan tanıdıgın çocuga o uyarıyı
almıyorsun da sokaga çıkarken niye alıyorsun? Orada anlıyorsun ki bir seyler farklı. E bu sefer de sana
öyle dendigi için, “ben az susmalıyım”, “ben kavga etmemeliyim”, “ben, ne bileyim, kimligimizi çok açık
etmemeliyim,” diye düsünüyorsun. E bu da seni sürekli pasiflestiren bir sey.
6Mesela ailen yeri geliyor "Onlarla samimi olma," ya da "Ermenilerle samimi ol," diyor ama ben digerleriyle
daha iyi anlasıyorum. Yani aile sürekli seni kendi cemaatinde kalmaya zorluyor (. . . ) ama hiç umursamıyorlar
ki, hani onlarla anlasabiliyor musun, anlasamıyor musun. Yani kötüsü bile iyidir diyorlar. Ayrımcılık
yapacak bir sey yok ama ailelerin tabuları oldugu için çocukların önyargıları oluyor. Çünkü bu durum biraz
da ögretilen bir sey. Yani sen ne kadar arkadas canlısı olsan da ailen Müslüman biriyle iliskilenmendense,
yani arkadas olarak, Ermeni biriyle iliskilenmeni belki daha çok destekler.
40
of various control mechanisms. The most direct outcome of these mechanisms on the
daily life of young Armenians could be summarized as living in two distinct spheres,
regulated by the very existence of the door that separates the home from the outside.
Many interviewees mentioned how their way of living their identity is transformed
when they leave their home and walk on the street. In many instances, parents prohibit
their children from speaking Armenian with them, call them “mama” (mother),
or even deny the existence of the Armenian language. Sarven brilliantly illustrates
the existence of the mutually exclusive Turkish and Armenian spheres which, in his
instance, are not separated by a door but a window.
My grandmother spoke Armenian very well. At that time, you are going
to school. You are just trying to learn Armenian. I remember, for
example, my grandmother is sitting on the semi-ground floor, we are
talking through the window. We speak Turkish when we speak through
the window, but the moment you enter the apartment and pass through
the doorway, you turn to Armenian. You know that window is a border,
and it is forbidden to speak Armenian behind the border, but inside it,
you can speak Armenian as you wish.7
Awareness of the vulnerabilities that being Armenian entails leads young Armenians
to be more conscious about their identity, especially in the public sphere. This
consciousness led to the frequently used Armenian words like yaya or mama not
being used in everyday life.
So, for example, when we went out on the street, when we walked together
in those times, there is no such thing as mama, and you are only
allowed to call your mother anne. There is no yaya, but anneanne. Or, I
don’t know, you’re trying to be extra sensitive and avoid using Armenian
words when you are on the street.8
It is also important to note that these precautions were not only taking place where
Armenians are in minority but even in places where Armenians constitute the ma-
7Benim yayam çok iyi Ermenice konusurdu. O zamanlar iste böyle okula gidiyorsun. Ermeniceyi yeni yeni
ögrenmeye çalısıyorsun. Seyi hatırlıyorum mesela yayam bodrum katta oturuyor, camdan konusuyoruz.
Camdan konustugumuzda Türkçe konusuyorsun ama apartmandan içeri girip kapı dairesinden geçtigin an
Ermeniceye dönüyorsun. Hani o cam bir sınır ve sınırın arkasında Ermenice konusmak yasak ama içinde
diledigin gibi Ermenice konusabilirsin. Bu aslında bütün sokaga degil, aslında bütün bulundugun lokasyona
da yayılmıs diyebilirsin.
8Yani mesela sey, sokaga çıktıgımızda, o dönemler beraber yürüdügümüz de filan böyle ’mama’ demek yok,
sadece anne demek var. ’Yaya’ yok, anneanne var iste. Ya da ne bileyim sokaktayken Ermenice kelime
kullanmamaya ekstra hassasiyet ve özen göstermeye çalısıyorsun.
41
jority of the population, Armenians still prefer to conceal their identity. A very
accurate example reflecting this manner took place in the life of Tatul, born and
raised in one of the most densely populated localities by Armenians, Kurtulus. What
is particularly striking in this example is his mother’s denial of the very existence
of the Armenian language because of not knowing how another person will react.
I remember my mama once told me to not to call her mama in front
of a dacig. In fact, there was an incident that she lived with my sister,
not with me. Our apartment consisted of four flats and a sibling lived in
each flat. One day, my sister said something in Armenian to one of those
brothers. The man said to my mama, “What did he say?” and my mom
replied, “I don’t understand either”. However, my sister was speaking
Armenian and as she didn’t know how the other person would react, she
felt the need to hide it back then. Something like that happened in the
past. Even if it was small, there were cases where my mother told me
“Oh, be careful”. Of course, since I was a child, I couldn’t understand
everything, so when she said to me, “Don’t call me mama, and call me
anne,” I couldn’t understand the reason. But why? The question of why
was in my head. But as I said, since I was a child, I was only thinking
about why, I was questioning so little. Later on, we somehow learned
the answer of it.9
Although Tatul could not make sense of his mother’s decision to deny a language she
knows back then, there are several examples that emerged during interviews that
interviewees mention as the first instance where they realized how different they are
from ‘others’. Zabel mentions an incident where she was trying to push the spider
off from her friend’s foot and describes it as ‘one of the first traumatic incidents’ of
her life.
We wouldn’t go out anyway in Bakırköy, but in Kınalı Ada, we were
always outside because the street was already full of Armenians, we
were among our own friends. I never forget one day; it is one of the little
traumatic memories from my own childhood. I am such an extroverted
person, and I was like that when I was little. I don’t know how right it
9Mamamın bir daçigin yanında bana mama deme dedigini hatırlıyorum. Hatta benimle degil de aslında
kuyrigimle yasadıgı bir olay vardı. Kuyrigim çocukken Hayren tek tük duydugu seyleri söylemeye baslamıs.
Bizim yan komsumuz da seydi, 4 daireydi ve her dairede bir kardes oturuyordu. Bir gün iste o kardeslerden
birine kuyrigim Hayren bi seyler söylemis. Adam da ne diyo falan demis. Mamam da ben de anlamıyorum
demis. Halbuki Hayren konusuyormus. Karsı tarafın ne tepki verecegini bilmediginden onu gizleme ihtiyacı
duymus o zamanlar. Öyle bi sey yasanmıs eskiden. Ufak tefek oluyordu yani o “Aman dikkatli ol,” deme
hadiseleri. Tabii çocuk oldugum için her seyi idrak edemedigimden dolayı bana “Mama deme, anne de,”
dedigi zaman pek anlam veremiyodum. Yani niye? Bir soru, niye sorusu kafamda oluyodu. Ama dedigim
gibi, çocuk oldugum için sadece niye ile kalıyordu. Sorguluyordum yani ufaktan. Daha ileride onun cevabını
bir sekilde ögrendik.
42
is to say this, I won’t tell the name of the girl, of course, but I had an
incident like this when I was playing on the street in Kınalı, maybe when
I was in the first or second grade. (. . . ) Of course, we also had Muslim
friends there. While we were all sitting together, a spider climbed the
foot of a Muslim friend of mine. As a favor, I said, “Oh, you have a spider
on your foot.” Then I made a move to push the spider off my friend’s
foot. She got very angry with me and shouted, “How could you do such
a thing to a sacred animal like a spider,” in front of everyone. I just
wanted to show goodwill there. It was one of my first traumatic events
where I realized that there is a distinction between people, it was that
moment. Then, of course, we experience different things as we grow up,
but you realize that your identities are different. Even if you are friends,
eat the same meals every day, play the same marbles every day, even if
you are on the same team while playing, you understand one thing, there
is a difference, and this is somehow implied to you. Maybe she didn’t do
it on purpose, maybe it was something she saw or heard something from
her family. I don’t know and at this age I don’t want to think about it
anymore.10
So far, the interventions initiated within the Armenian community were taken into
consideration which, as the interviewees mentioned, held an important role in the
formation of their identity. Yet, along with the interventions coming from the ‘inside’,
there are various incidents that are taking place on the ‘outside’. Despite all
the warnings and precautions conveyed to or taken by the individuals to conceal
their identity, some elements are impossible to conceal, such as names or slight accent.
Armenians, during their encounters with non-Armenians, which could either
be in a friendly, bureaucratic, or a daily setting where you just take a taxi, are
faced with the imminent question that asks them their memleket, their birthplace.
Accordingly, the following part will discuss how young Armenians’ daily lives are
affected by having a non-acceptable identity, how they negotiate and what kind of
mechanisms they employ to cope with the dangers that their identity possesses, and
how this process affects the identity construction of young Armenians. In doing so,
names, as the most visible and integral part of their identity will be examined.
10Bakırköy’de zaten dısarı çıkmazdık ama Kınalı Ada’da sokak zaten Ermeni kaynadıgı için her zaman
dısarıdaydık, kendi arkadaslarımızın içindeydik. Hatta bir gün hiç unutmuyorum kendi çocukluguma dair
küçük travmatik anılardan bir tanesi. Ben böyle çok dısa dönük bir insanım, küçükken de öyleydim.
Bunu söylemek ne kadar dogru, kızın adını söylemeyecegim tabi de sokakta oynarken Kınalı’da daha
böyle belki birinci ikinci sınıftayım. (. . . ) Orada tabii Müslüman arkadaslarımız da vardı. Hep birlikte
otururken Müslüman bir arkadasımın ayagına örümcek tırmanmıstı. Ben de iyilik olsun diye, “aa ayagında
örümcek var,” dedim. Sonra dur itiyim diyerek bir hamle yaptım ona. O da herkesin içinde bana çok
kızmıstı iste sen nasıl örümcek gibi bir kutsal hayvana böyle bir sey yapabilirsin diye. Halbuki orada
iyi niyet göstermek istemistim ben. Bu benim ilk travmatik, ilk böyle insanların insanlardan ayrıldıgını
anladıgım noktalardan bir tanesiydi, o andı yani. Sonra tabii daha farklı seyler de yasıyoruz büyüdükçe
ama anlıyorsunuz ki kimlikleriniz farklı. Arkadas bile olsanız, her gün aynı yemekleri de yeseniz, her gün
aynı misketi de oynasanız, oyun oynarken aynı takımda bile olsanız anlıyorsunuz bir sey var, bir farklılık
var. Ve bu size bir sekilde sezdiriliyor. Belki o da kasten yapmadı, belki o da gördügü bir seydi ya da
ailesinden bir sey duymustu geldi onu söyledi bana bagırdı, etti. Bilmiyorum artık. Bu yasımda bunu
düsünmek istemiyorum geriye dönüp.
43
3.3 Having an Armenian name
I woke up early today. Last week my grandmother had a heart attack, and we are
going to visit her today. My mother had been staying with my grandmother for a
while, but she had not taken me with her. I’m a little sorry we had to wait until
the weekend to visit my grandmother. I wish I could have visited sooner. Anyway,
we’re going, even if it’s late. We leave the house and take a bus. It is the same
bus we take to go to my grandparents, I guess the hospital is close to their house.
We manage to find a seat in the back of the bus. I don’t like to go standing as the
road takes a little longer. I hope the bus doesn’t get more crowded, so I don’t have to
sit on my mom’s lap. As the bus is slowly moving, my mother calls out to me and
warns me that there are other patients in my grandmother’s room so that I should
only speak Turkish to her. I already know that I shouldn’t speak Armenian outside,
I’ve heard it many times before. Thinking that the conversation is over, I continue
to watch the road, but my mother continues. She says that she introduced me to the
other patients in the room as ’Serhat’ and she wants me to respond with this name
if they ask my name. This is the first time my mother has requested such a thing; I
just say okay. When we get to the hospital, I decided it would be better not to talk
at all. After staying in the room for a short while, we go out and I did not speak at
all, without even saying goodbye to my grandmother.
Jenny B. White makes a remarkable comparison between Istanbul’s landscape and
the Braille script and argues one could read the notions that characterize the city as
a code for the different forces and interests, and negotiations among them (2003, 14).
Like the Braille script, social distinctions in the city, one of the most prominent areas
that negotiations took place in the city, are encoded and decoded through introductions
as Marcy Brink-Danan claims (2011, 63). Every individual who doesn’t have
a Turkish first name and belongs to one of the non-Muslim communities in Turkey,
at some point in their life, is faced with an inquiry that questions the ‘foreignness’
of their name. It is possible to argue that in the context of Turkey, asking one’s
memleket, appears as a frequently used medium in negotiating social distinctions in
society. While the question might seem harmless at first sight, it could be regarded
as a ‘polite’ way of asking someone’s ethnic origin. Accordingly, ‘Nerelisin?’ is a
very common question that Istanbulite Armenians constantly hear in their daily
lives. While the question emerges because of the unfamiliarity toward non-Turkish
members of society, the consequences of such unfamiliarity result in instances of
discrimination.
44
Some Jewish families, for example, opt to register their children with a Turkish
name, but they also give their children a Ladino or Hebrew name that is not listed
on their ID and is only used among friends and family. Interestingly, the rabbinate’s
marriage applications ask not just for the “legal” name on the ID, but also for the
Ladino or Hebrew names that will be used in the ceremony. The practice of double
naming in the Armenian community, on the other hand, is just the opposite of the
Jewish example and interviews revealed that most of the discriminatory attitudes
that Armenians experience are closely related to having an Armenian name. While
it is possible to hide the cross one wears or be careful not to speak Armenian, there
is almost nothing to do when the name of the person is asked. Zepour vividly
illustrates how her parents’ efforts to conceal her Armenianness are futile as her
name and accent manifest the difference without the need for a further sign.
So, if someone says something bad to you don’t say we are Armenian.
But either my accent or my name, Zepour, make it abundantly clear.
That’s why you prefer not to answer when asked why your name is
different or something. But the child also knows that you are different.11
Nevertheless, as parents are well-aware of the dangers of having an Armenian name,
despite the difficulties to conceal one’s name, they warn their children to not use
their Armenian name in public spaces. Sarven’s parents, for example, warn their
child to not utter his Armenian name in the street if someone asks but rather use a
Turkified version. Although Sarven states that this situation did not mean anything
to him at that time, he states that he started to grasp that something was different
in his identity.
In fact, I think we begin to understand things as we ask them. How do
we feel in turn, we feel bad. I don’t know, I mean, my name is Sarven,
but why did my mother tell me to say Salih or Sercan when someone
asked what my name was back then? I have a name, but two other names
are being tried to be derived from it. You didn’t really understand much
back then.12
Despite all the precautions and efforts, once someone understands that the name
11Yani birisi sana kötü bir sey derse-yani Ermeniyiz deme. Ama zaten ya aksanımdan ya da adımızdan zaten
çok net anlasılıyor yani, Zepour. O yüzden, ismin neden degisik falan dendiginde cevap vermemeyi tercih
ediyorsun. Ama çocuk da biliyor farklı oldugunu.
12Aslında bunları sordukça anlamaya baslıyoruz bir seyleri bence. Ha nasıl hissediyoruz, kötü hissediyoruz.
Ne bileyim, yani benim ismim Sarven ama annem niye o zamanlar biri sana ismini sordugunda Salih veya
Sercan de diyordu. Benim bir ismim var ama bu bir isimden iki tane alternatif isim çıkartılmaya çalısılıyor.
O zamanlar aslında çok bir sey anlamıyorsun.
45
belongs to a different origin, the immediate question that comes is “Nerelisin?”.
This could happen in either a setting where you meet with new people or during
everyday encounters such as when you take a taxi or go to a governmental office
for some paperwork. To respond to this question, one could either prefer to avoid
it by mentioning the complicatedness of their origin which does not have a singular
answer or can directly mention their homeland. Talar prefers the first option.
So, I don’t know, when meeting someone, for example, something always
happens, my name is very obvious anyway, and when you say Verjin
Ardasaryan, they don’t perceive it first, and they ask, “Where are you
from?” Sometimes it happens in taxis. When they ask what my name is,
it changes every time. I mean, I make it up all the time because I still
lack confidence. You’re in the guy’s taxi and something could happen,
or he can do something to me.13
However, if someone prefers the latter case, then the conversation becomes much
complicated as the person who asks the question at the first hand hears a city located
in Turkey. Expecting a country or a city abroad, it becomes surprising for them
that someone whose name has no Turkish connotation has their roots in the same
country with them. Eventually, when the person comprehends that the person with
a non-Turkish name has their roots in Turkey but is not a Turk but an Armenian,
the immediate response that Armenians receive is a discriminatory one.
You know, the first question asked after meeting with someone is, where
is your hometown? We are from Sivas, but when I say that I was born
and raised in Istanbul, they say, “Oh, are there Armenians in Sivas?” I
encounter such things. Yes, there is. You know that too, we know that
too, so you don’t have to ask. But a long silence and then the question
“Are there Armenians in Sivas?” Or, I don’t know, the question “Did you
come from Armenia?” They can come from one name to those questions.
How is it that the meaning of a name can bring the subject to Armenians
in Sivas?14
13Yani ne bileyim, tanısırken mesela hep sey oluyor; benim adım bagırıyor zaten Verjin Ardasaryan dedigin
zaman insan bir sey oluyor (gülme) ”nerelisin”, zaten bir algılayamıyorlar önce bir. Taksilerde oluyor
bazen. Adını soruyorlar ya her seferinde degisiyor iste. Bazen Melike oluyorum bazen Mehlika oluyorum,
Meliha falan. Yani sallıyorum böyle çünkü güvenim hala yok. Adamın taksisindesin bir sey çıkabilir ve bir
sey yapabilir bana.
14Tanıstıktan sonra sorulan ilk soru seydir ya, memleket neresi. Söylüyorum. Sivaslıyız ama dogma büyüme
Istanbulluyuz biz dedigim zaman “Aa Sivas’ta Ermeni mi varmıs?” diyor. Böyle seylerle karsılasıyorum.
Evet varmıs yani. Bunu siz de biliyorsunuz, biz de biliyoruz yani bunu sormanıza gerek yok. Ama uzun bir
sessizlik ve ardından “Sivas’ta Ermeni mi varmıs.” olayı, ya da ne bileyim Ermenistan’dan mı geldin sorusu.
Isimden buralara kadar geliyor olay. Isminin anlamı neden Sivas’ta Ermeni mi varmısa kadar geliyor?
46
In addition to the ignorance toward the existence of Armenians in Turkey, as Anoush
pointed out, one of the most frequent reactions that Armenians receive when they
declare their Armenian identity is “Olsun,” which could be translated to English as
“No problem.” Even though the response may seem innocuous, it signifies the social
hierarchy between Muslim and non-Muslim communities. The phrase ‘no problem’
connotes that being a non-Muslim is a flaw that should be tolerated by those who
are in the upper ranks of the hierarchy which drives young Armenians to adopt a
Turkish name to utilize during everyday encounters.
Anoush’s questioning of the absurdity of the encounter she experienced which started
at the moment she told her name and led to a conversation about the existence of
Armenians in Sivas is in parallel with Michael Herzfeld’s conceptualization of naming
as “a vocabulary of inclusion and exclusion” (1982, 299). Accordingly, to cope with
the great power that names possess, young Armenians are adopting a strategy that
may be dubbed ‘double naming’, either imposed by their parents or voluntarily
themselves. It is the practice of adopting of a Turkish ‘safe’ name along with their
authentic real name. Although it is not directly forced by legislation, individuals
prefer to keep a Turkish name in their back-pocket to avoid conversations that might
cause them discomfort.
In Ideology, and Ideological State Apparatuses (1994), Louis Althusser coins the
term interpellation to describe the process which transforms individuals into subjects.
Through social and political institutions, which Althusser calls ‘ideological
state apparatuses,’ ‘proper’ citizens are created to reproduce the conditions of production
and ensure the continuation of the capitalist ideology. Butler’s discussions
in Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative (1997) adds a new dimension to
the concept of interpellation and demonstrates its connection with the practice of
naming. She argues that it is through names that “a certain social existence of the
body first becomes possible” (Butler 1997, 5). In other words, it is the name that
performs nationality, race, and gender which interpellates a person into a particular
social existence (Stevens 1999, 165). Through naming interpellation transforms
unique individuals into socially intelligible subjects. After being named with an
Armenian name, young Armenians become interpellated not only as a subject but
also as an Armenian subject which in turn, expects them to carry out particular
sort of performances. As Butler puts it, “the mark interpellation makes is not descriptive,
but inaugurative”; it seeks to “introduce a reality rather than report on an
existing one” (1997, 33). What I argue moving from Butler’s discussion is, adoption
of Turkish names by young Armenians should be regarded as one of the dimensions
of the performances that possessing a non-Turkish name necessitates which
has far-reaching implications on the behaviors of Armenians.
47
Owning a non-Turkish name in the context of Turkey could result in political, social,
and economic exclusion and in that sense, possesses great dangers. However, being
named with another name complicates the process of the subjectivization of young
Armenians. From the moment when they start to possess a Turkish name, except for
performing the necessities of an Armenian name, they had to fulfill the requirements
of their Turkish name too. The Turkish name, for instance, does not allow them to
speak Armenian or obliges them to hide the cross that they wear, as Turkishness
is exclusively based on being ethnically Turk and Muslim. Correspondingly, hiding
any physical object that might signify Armenianness takes an important place in
the narratives of the interviewees. Particularly, hiding the cross is one of the most
recurring themes that emerged during the interviews. Karin, for example, recounts
the processes that she went through in her everyday encounters which almost made
her give up even saying her Armenian name. Even though she “enlightened” at
some point that this is who she is, and it does not need to be veiled, she shares her
disappointment toward inequalities that she experiences in living her traditions in
comparison with other communities.
But then an enlightenment came, and I said, for God’s sake, if your
name is Karin, you will say Karin, it’s that simple, no matter what they
write [on a Starbucks glass]. There was a time when I gave up. It’s
not just about Starbucks, by the way, in general, I thought I could keep
some things to myself. (. . . ) People can easily wear something that
reveals their religion, or something related to their culture, but I always
thought that if I wore a cross, it would attract attention. I mean, these
little incidents brought me to a brief period of giving up, but I did not
experience such a big event. (. . . ) I had such a breaking point at that
time, but I don’t have anything to complain at the moment. But I still
do not easily wear anything that betrays and shows that I am Armenian
and Christian. Or I don’t wear a cross when I go to college. I have a
cross on my wrist, a tiny cross. That’s it.15
Similar concerns and disappointments regarding the inability to freely use the psychical
signifiers of Armenianness were also mentioned by Sarven. He identified the
presence of various control mechanisms which constantly regulate the performative
15Ama sonra bir aydınlanma geldi ben de dedim ki ya bırak allah askına Karin adın senin Karin’se Karin
diyeceksin, bu kadar basit, ne yazarlarsa yazsınlar [strubucks bardagına] yani. Bir ara böyle kırıldım,
pes ettigim dönem oldu. Bu sadece Starbucks mevzusu degil bu arada genel olarak, bazı seyleri kendime
saklayabilecegimi düsündüm böyle. (. . . ) Insanlar onu bunu takıyor kendi dinini gösteren veya ne bileyim
kendi gelenegiyle ilgili olan bir seyi rahat rahat takıp gezebiliyor ama ben iste bir haç taksam dikkat çeker,
hep bunu düsünmüstüm. Bunlar yani, bu ufak tefek olaylar beni küçük bir pes etme dönemine getirmisti
ama öyle büyük bir olay yasamadım. (. . . ) O açıdan hani o ara böyle bir kırılma noktası olmustu ama
su anda herhangi bir seyim yok yani. Ama hala bagıra bagıra Ermeni oldugumu ve Hristiyan oldugumu
ele veren, gösteren bir seyi haçtır bir seydir rahatlıkla takmam yani. Ya da üniversiteye giderken haç filan
takmam. Bilegimde bir haç vardır, minik bir haç. Öyle söyliyim.
48
aspects of the Armenian culture and complained about the mechanisms that are
forcing him to go through those processes. It is worthwhile mentioning that while
describing the process, the tone of his voice raised, and he experienced some difficulties
in forming sentences.
But no matter what, even if you don’t realize it, you are going through
a difficult time. Because there is a constant pressure, a constant control
mechanism on you. You won’t say mama when you go out on the street.
While playing ball with them, one of ours’s mama will look out the
window. (. . . ) You want to wear a cross, for example, you cannot wear
a cross. They don’t make you wear it when you go out. Because your
family won’t let you. In some places you need to change your name.
They don’t allow [to use your name] either. You know, you can’t say
Sarven comfortably, you have put a code name for yourself in a job or
you have to say the name you have given yourself. At the end, you know,
you say, “Why am I living all this?”16
In the last example, while mentioning his contentment of being a member of a
‘different’ group, Arden illustrates the anxiety that forces him to hide the cross
tattoo he has on his arm while using public transportation or his inability to take
his shirt off as his friends while celebrating the victory of his favorite football club
because of the presence of a cross on his neck. While reflecting on the reasons
that force him to conceal the possible signifiers of his identity, he initially mentions
the ignorance of the people that they live with but also relates it to the possible
outcomes of his parent’s attitude starting from childhood.
I like being in a different part of the society, it’s a good thing. Of course,
we cannot live comfortably. For example, I can’t take off my t-shirt
because I have a cross on my neck, while everyone takes off their tops
to celebrate the goal. Or because I have a cross tattoo, I try to hide
it on public transport. Because there are many people in our country
who might misunderstand, who, as we say, are bigots. So eventually
we try to hide them. (. . . ) There is a saying, “Either seem as you are
or be as you seem,” don’t look at the fanciness of the dress they are
wearing. Likewise, why would I feel the need to hide my religion and
race in some places? But we have to. Maybe we want that ourselves, I
16Ama ne olursa olsun farkında olmasan bile zor bir süreçten geçiyorsun. Çünkü üzerinde sürekli bir baskı
var, sürekli bir kontrol mekanizması var. Iste sokaga çıktıgında mama demeyeceksin. Iste onlarla top
oynarken birimizin maması camdan bakacak. (. . . ) Haç takmak istiyorsun atıyorum, haçını takamazsın.
Sokaga çıktıgında, tak tak taktırmıyorlar sana. Çünkü sana-onu izin vermiyor ailen. Bazı yerlerde adını
degistirmen gerekiyor. Ona da müsaade etmiyorlar. Hani rahat bir sekilde Sarven diyemiyorsun, baska bir
iste kod adı koymussun kendine veya isim koymussun onu söylemek zorunda kalıyorsun. Hani sey diyorsun
ya ben niye bunları yasıyorum ki?
49
don’t know. Maybe that’s how we got used to it, that’s our habit. “Let’s
not reveal.” You know, when I enter the tram, I take care to not show
off my cross, but I don’t know whether it is because of fear or because
we have been used to it since we were little. Although I do not face with
discrimination, I try to hide it. I haven’t done my military service yet; I
don’t know what I will encounter there.17
At this point, it is important to note that the subjectivization processes of young
Armenians are experienced differently depending on their gender. While it is the
compulsory military service that has the most significant impact on the subjectivization
process of young men, women are experiencing the complications of being both
women and Armenian in a multifaceted way. As already mentioned in the previous
part, even the way that Armenian parents interfere with their child’s friends changes
depending on the gender of their children. This does not mean that Armenian men
are not reminded to marry an Armenian woman and are independent in their choice,
but the intervention does not necessitate direct involvement of the parents and remains
on the advisory level. The following part will examine the impact of gender
on young Armenians.
3.4 Gender and Subjectivization of Young Armenians
As is revealing in the previous excerpt from Arden’s interview, military conscription
remains an important and fearful stage for most young male Armenians as the
stories of discrimination or even physical violence are frequently told within the
Armenian community. In addition to the stories heard from elders, it is evident
that the murder of Sevag Balıkçı on the 24th of April while doing the compulsory
military service, at the exact date commemorating the anniversary of the Armenian
genocide, intensified the anxiety of male interviewees.
17Ayrı bir kesimde olmak benim çok hosuma gidiyor, güzel bir sey. Tabi rahat yasayamıyoruz. Ben mesela
maçta gol sevincinde herkes üstünü çıkarırken ben boynumda haç oldugu için tshirtümü çıkaramıyorum.
Veya haç dövmem oldugu için bunu toplu tasımalarda saklamaya çalısıyorum. Çünkü yanlıs anlayan,
hani bizim deyisimizle yobaz olan çok kisi var ülkemizde. Bunları saklamaya çalısıyoruz açıkçası. (. . . ) Ya
göründügün gibi ol ya da oldugun gibi görün diye bir laf var hani üstündeki elbiseye bakma, ne kadar süslü.
Ben de neden dinimi, ırkımı bazı yerlerde saklama gereksinimini duyayım. Ama mecbur kalıyoruz. Belki
de kendimiz öyle istiyoruz, onu da bilemiyorum. Belki de öyle alıstık, alısılmısımız bu. Belli etmeyelim.
Kalıplasmısız belki de bilemiyorsun ki. Hani ben tramvayda içeri girerken haçımın gözükmemesi için özen
gösteriyorum. Bu korkudan mı baska bir seyden mi yoksa küçüklügümüzden beri böyle alıstırıldıgımız için
mi onu bilemiyorum su anda. Ben de ayrımcılık görmememe ragmen saklıyorum bunları. Daha askerlik
yapmadım orada neyle karsılasacagım bilmiyorum.
50
During the interviews, the topic of conscription came out naturally without necessitating
a question about the topic and was always discussed relative to the murder
of Sevag Balıkçı, Hrant Dink, and the Armenian Genocide. It is important to note
that at the date of the interview, apart from Tatul, all of the interviewees had not
yet completed their compulsory military service and half of them mentioned Sevag
when talking about their anxiety. The anxiety caused by the military service is
mainly based not on the stories that they have been told or somehow heard about
the problems of being an Armenian in the army but rather based on events that
they witnessed, especially the murder of Sevag Balıkçı and the role of the military
in the assassination of Hrant Dink. For example, Arden, while basing his unease
on the aforementioned incidents, also worries about the possible long-term effects of
any exclusion he might encounter in the army on his psychological health.
When I say uneasiness, maybe we will come across such people with a
one in a million chance. But after Sevag’s death or after seeing those
who took a stand against Hrant Dink, you start to wonder what will
happen if such people come across to us, will they exclude us, or will I
be harmed? Or, after all, these are events that will affect psychology.
Even an exclusion there can affect or harm my life.18
He also shares his belief and disappointment that if he is ever going to experience
discrimination, it would not be coming from his peers but from the high-ranking
officials of the army. Additionally, the possibility of coming across as a ‘fascist’ and
inability to stay silent in a conflict is among the possibilities that worry him.
I don’t even feel like serving the armed forces. If something happens,
we are all willing to act for the country, but military service is both
mandatory and unnecessary. And someone who thinks badly of you,
like the commander or someone else there- In my opinion, the question
that will be asked to me the most about this Armenianness will be these
high-ranking people, not my friend who served in the military with me.
That’s what’s frustrating, I think. (. . . ) Or will we be able to hold our
mouths on certain things? For example, I came across a dissident, a
fascist, will we be able to keep quiet or will we open our mouths and be
labeled as terrorist there? These are things that could happen.19
18Ya tedirginlik derken belki bir milyonda bir ihtimal o tarz insanlara denk gelicez ama iste Sevag’ın ölümünden
sonra veya Hrant Dink karsıtı savunma yapanları gördükten sonra bize denk gelirse ne olur, bizi
dıslarlar mı ben bir zarar görür müyüm. Veya sonuçta bunlar psikolojiyi etkileyecek olaylar sonuçta bunlar.
Orada bir dıslanma bile benim hayatımı etkileyebilir veya bana zarar verebilirler.
19Bu silahlı kuvvetlere hizmet etmek bile içimden gelmiyor. Ha sonuna kadar bir sey oldugunda ülke için
bir sey yapmaya hepimiz razıyız ama hem zorunlu, bene gereksiz bir olay askerlik. Bir de senin hakkında
51
Tatul, the only interviewee that completed his military service, mentions a particular
instance in which one of his peers threatened him with circumcision. Even though
he mentions the singularity of the event which did not evolve into a bigger problem,
while describing the event his tone of voice rose and his words became stronger.
Lieutenant of our unit knows me. I mean, he knows I’m Hay, he knows
everything about me, even teases me. I mean, I don’t mean it in terms
of anything, he’s just joking or something. He was that type. In the military,
a couple of people came. If you don’t mind, I’ll call say two idiots
came and said, “Lieutenant Mahmut doesn’t like this kind of incidents,
you get circumcised.” They tried to intimidate me like that, but I didn’t
care, I said “Ha ha,” so I glossed over. Am I going to act on your words?
Also, it was not the period when I had just enlisted in the army and my
military service was almost over. It was a small thing; I can say in a
negative sense. But as I said, I didn’t care too much. I did not dwell on
it, and frankly, I did not find it worth dwelling on.20
In comparison to Armenian men, it is possible to argue that the extent and intensity
that gender plays in the lives of women is multi-faceted. In addition to the difficulties
that young women encounter in Turkey regardless of their ethnic, sexual, or religious
identities, Armenianness adds a new dimension to the subjectivization process of
Armenian women. Despite the absence of a specific period that women point out
during the interviews, like conscription in the men’s example, women are constantly
reminded of their gender and accordingly being asked to restrain their movements.
Almost all of the woman interviewees recounted that they were advised not to have
Turkish friends while none of the male interviewees mentioned such remarks. Zabel
recounts how her parents did not allow her to go out in Bakırköy but would allow
her out in Kınalıada as there are Armenians there. Then, she relates the problems
that she encountered during the first years of her university life in socializing to
grow in a tight-knit community.
kötü düsünen, atıyorum orada komutan olur, bilmem ne olur- Bence en çok sorguyu, suali bu Ermenilik
hakkında bana sorulacak askerde bu büyük rütbeli insanlar soracak. Yanımda askerlik yapan arkadasım
degil de. Sinir bozucu olan sey de o bence. (. . . ) Veya bazı seylerde agzımızı tutabilecek miyiz? Atıyorum
karsıt görüslü birine denk geldim, fasist birine denk geldim, susup oturabilecek miyiz yoksa biz de agzımızı
açıp orada terörist damgası mı yiyicez. Bunlar olabilecek seyler, olabilir bunlar.
20Askeriyede, hani sinek ufak mide bulandırır hesabı. Bir iki kisi gelmisti, bizim birligin üsttegmeni, ki
beni biliyor. Yani Hay oldugumu biliyor, her seyimi biliyor. O zaman hatta adam bana takılıyor yani sey
anlamında söylemiyorum normal sakalasıyor ediyor falan. Öyle bir tipti. Iki, yani sakınca görmüyorsan çok
afedersin gerizekalı dicem, iste Mahmut üsttegmen bu tarz olaylardan hoslanmaz sen sünnet ol gibilerinden
sey yapıyorlar. Böyle gözdagı vermeye çalısmıslardı da ben takmadım, ha ha dedim geçistirdim yani. Sizin
lafınızla mı hareket edicem ben. Bir de yani o zaman yeni gittigimiz zamanlar da degildi ki, neredeyse
askerligim bitecekti orada. Ufak bir seydi olumsuz anlamda diyebilecegim ama dedigim gibi takılmadım
çok fazla. Üstünde de durmadım, durmaya da deger bulmadım açıkcası.
52
As a girl, you know, maybe my parents were more protective. First of all,
there is no such thing around me, so I have never witnessed it. My mama
didn’t let me out on the street anyway when I was in Bakırköy and she
only gives permission in Kinaliada because there are Armenians there.
It took a long time for me to adapt. And it was because I stayed away
from them, not because of someone else’s prejudice against me. This
happened because we were brought up a little bit secluded by hearing
things like “Oh my girl, stay away from that” or “Oh my girl, this will
make you sad” or “Oh my girl, don’t go to that, don’t do that.”21
Furthermore, the regulations that are imposed on children in making friends have
further connotations, particularly for women as it reminds them with whom they
can have romantic relationships. It is worthwhile to mention that, while the advice
toward befriending only Armenians stays only on the symbolic level and parents
do not directly force their children to end the friendship, in the case of romantic
relationships they could intervene and generate pressure until their demands are
met. Zepour describes the pressures her family put on her which inevitably forced
her to break up with her partner.
To give an example, I had a two-year relationship at the university, but
I broke up because of the constant pressures my parents put on me. But
I was happy too. So that distances me a lot. Everything is always tied
to religion. So, it doesn’t matter if you agree with that person or if they
are the right person for you. Come on, is it better if I get divorced?
Especially parents look at it that way. They say such nonsense as “It is
enough to be a Hay”, “An evil Hay is better than a good Muslim.”22
Rita, on the other hand, a young woman struggling to sustain a romantic relationship
with a Kurdish boy, vividly describes the pressures that her father put on her and
her disappointment toward his father as she has never done anything to embarrass
him.
21Bir kız olarak belki iste ailem daha fazla korumacı davrandı. Önce çevremde öyle bir sey yok benim yani
hiç sahit olmamısım. Mamam zaten sokaga salmıyordu Bakırköy’deyken. Yani Kınalı’da da salıyor, haylar
var. Çok uzun sürmüstü benim adapte olmam. Halbuki benim iste uzak durmamdan kaynaklıydı yoksa
baskasının bana olan bir önyargısından degildi. Böyle birazcıkta sey aileden de dısa kapalı büyüdügümü
için aman iste aman kızım sundan uzak dur aman kızım bu seni üzer aman kızım suna gitme buna gitme
falan diye büyütüldügümüz için, yetistirildigimiz için herhalde öyle de bir sey kalmıs.
22Hatta örnek vereyim üniversitede iki yıllık bir iliskim vardı ama sürekli annemlerin bana yaptıgı baskılar
yüzünden ayrıldım. Ama mutluydum da. Yani bu beni çok sogutuyor. Her seyin sürekli dine baglanması.
Yani senin o kisiyle anlasman, senin için dogru insan olması önemli degil. Hay olsun ama bosansam daha
mı iyi? Özellikle ebeveynler böyle bakıyor. “Hay olsun nasıl olursa olsun”, “Hayın kötüsü, Müslüman’ın
iyisinden iyidir.” gibi saçma salak...
53
I mean, I’ve been dating for over a year and a half now, and it’s my first
relationship. It’s my first boyfriend and it makes me so sad to see such
a reaction. It’s like I’ve done a lot by now - I’m still doing nothing. I’ve
never embarrassed them, I’ve done nothing disgraceful; I didn’t come
home drunk; I didn’t stay up late, I always came on time. Since I have
one dacig lover, we became enemies about this, really.23
The term ‘intersectionality’ was first introduced by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989) to
describe the extent of race and gender that affect the lives of black women in the
US. Some later studies extended the scope of Crenshaw’s study by adding other
dimensions such as class, nation, and ethnicity. In their works, those scholars accurately
pointed out that each of those categories has distinctive impacts yet affects
the everyday lives of individuals cumulatively. In other words, as Yuval-Davis emphasizes,
in concrete experiences of oppression, being oppressed, for example, as ‘a
Black person’ is always constructed intermeshed in other social divisions” (2016,
195). In Rita’s case, it is possible to argue that although she fulfilled all the gender
roles imposed on her, as she failed to fulfill the roles expected from an ‘Armenian’
woman, she was pressured by her father. The imagery of crossroads and traffic,
developed by Crenshaw’s as quoted in Yuval-Davis (2016, 196), would make a great
fit to the experience of Talar.
Intersectionality is what occurs when a woman from a minority group
(. . . ) tries to navigate the main crossing in the city. (. . . ) The main
highway is ‘racism road’. One cross street can be Colonialism, then
Patriarchy Street. (. . . ) She has to deal not only with one form of
oppression but with all forms, those named as road signs, which link
together to make a double, a triple, multiple, many-layered blankets of
oppression.”
Nevertheless, the extent of the gender-based intervention that young Armenian
women experience is not limited to their parents and extended family. Various
examples are told during interviews that stress the gendered implications of being
an Armenian woman living in Turkey. Among those examples, I would like to focus
on two particular and relatively similar instances narrated by Zabel and Verjin,
where their peers found the necessity to intervene on the Armenianness of their
friend.
23Yani bir buçuk seneden uzun süredir çıkıyorum, ve ilk sevgilim yani. Benim ilk erkek arkadasım ve bu
kadar tepki olması beni çok üzüyor yani. Bu zamana kadar sanki çok bir sey yaptım- hala yapmıyorum. Hiç
yüzünü kızartmadım, rezil bir sey yapmadım; eve alkollü gelmedim; geç saate kadar kalmadım etmedim,
hep saatinde geldim ettim. Bir tane dacig sevgilim oldugu için düsman olduk gerçekten yani bu konuda.
54
Zabel: Anyway, my close friends told me, “If he asks the meaning of
your name or something, don’t tell him you’re Armenian.” It broke my
heart a lot when they said that. I think they said it out of fear, that the
child will get angry, he will lose his temper in the friend environment or
something.24
Verjin: This is the classic at Istanbul University. There is always something,
we know. Was it October, I don’t remember exactly the month. I
don’t know what a day. Sala.. Do they bring salawat, that is, they walk
with prayers. “So now your name is Melike, we will call you like that,”
something like this happened. I said “Berkay, calm down, nothing will
happen.”25
3.5 The Impact of Generational Differences
One another issue that is worth mentioning at this point is the changing attitudes
of Armenians among different generations. It has been revealed during interviews
that young Armenians are finding their attitude different from the older generations.
Sarven relates differences in experiencing Armenianness among different generations
to the Armenian Genocide and particularly to the way of experiencing the outcomes
of it in their lives. His grandfather, for example, experienced and performed the
Armenian culture in Malatya for the most of his life whereas his father born in
Malatya but had to migrate to Istanbul at some point with his parents and had
their son born and grew up in Istanbul. According to Sarven, the changing political
atmosphere along with the different ways of experiencing Armenianness depending
on the city one lives in are among the reasons of the generational differences. Nevertheless,
he defines the younger generations politically active in comparison with
the older generations.
I try to compare myself with my father. Or, when we took my grand-
24Neyse, benim çok yakın oldugum arkadaslarım sey demislerdi bana, sen adının anlamını falan sorarsa
Ermeni oldugunu söyleme söylemislerdi. O benim çok kalbimi kırmıstı, bunu söylemeleri. Yani herhâlde
çocuk yükselir iste arkadas ortamında bir taskınlık yapar falan filan diye, korkularından söylediler diye
düsünüyorum.
25Istanbul Üniversitesi’nde klasik böyle. Sürekli olay olur hani biliyoruz. Ekim zamanı mıydı, tam hatırlamıyorum
ayını. Bilmem ne bir sey günü. Sala.. Salavat mı getiriyorlar, yani dualarla yürüyorlar. “Yani
su an senin adın Melike, böyle seslenecegiz sana,” falan oldu böyle. Berkay dedim sakin ol bir sey olmaz.
55
father and father and myself into our hands for three generations, the
Armenianness that my grandfather lived in is very different. I think what
he experienced regarding the Armenian culture is very different because
my grandfather lived the Armenianness in Malatya. My father’s life is
very different. My father lived half of his life in Malatya and the other
half in Istanbul. But I only lived in Istanbul. When we look at the
basis of all of these, or when we take 1915 as the basis, it turns out that
my grandfather somehow grew up with memories and stories [about the
Genocide]. And maybe he couldn’t predict or know what to do and after
a while he had to come to Istanbul. My father, on the other hand, grew
up with those stories in the same way, but there is a difference because at
the time he grew up, he could not do anything due to political problems
in Turkey or there is an urgency to do something. But when we look at
this last generation of Armenians born in 1990s and 2000s, I do think
that this last generation of Armenians has a slightly different mentality
and even if not all of them, a certain part is struggling for something a
little more. Besides all that, put 1915 aside. How do these three generations
live the Armenian culture? How does he live in Istanbul or Turkey?
Even these are actually experienced in very different ways when we look
at them. I think that the holiday story my father told 20 years ago, and
the holidays we celebrate today are probably not the same, I can even
directly say that they are different. Or I don’t know, religious rituals,
weddings. It seems to me that everything has become a little different.
For example, I remember my grandmother’s sensitivity at that feast table,
her care that day, it was necessary to go to church together like that.
Not only on the day of the feast, if there are fasts to be fulfilled on the
previous days of the feast, they are held, if you need to go to church, you
go to the church, etc.26
Various respondents stated a shift in attitudes, notably toward religious rituals, as
well as a lack of enthusiasm among the younger generation in these rituals. One
of the reasons for the change, according to Zabel, is the age we live in, which has
caused the younger generation to break with tradition as a result of digitization and
technological advancements.
26Babamla kendimi kıyaslamaya çalısıyorum. Veya iste dedemle babamı ve kendimi, üç kusaga elimize
aldıgımızda, dedemin yasadıgı Ermenilik seyi çok farklı. Bence Ermeni kültürü üzerine yasadıgı seyler
çok farklı çünkü dedem Ermeniligi Malatya’da yasadı. Babamın yasadıgı çok farklı. Babam biraz
Malatya’da, biraz Istanbul yasadı. Ama ben tamamen Istanbul’da yasadım. Bunların hepsinin temeline
baktıgımızda veya temeline 1915’i aldıgımızda; dedem bir sekilde o anılarla, o hikayelerle büyümüs
ve iste belki ne yapacagını tahmin edemedi, kestiremedi ve bir sekilde bir süre sonunda Istanbul’a gelmek
zorunda kaldı. Babam yine aynı sekilde o hikayelerle büyümüs ama onun büyüdügü dönemde, bir anlamda
iste Türkiye’deki siyasi sorunlar, politik sorunlardan kaynaklı bir sey yapamama halleri veya bir sey yapma
ihtiyacı oldugundan bir farklılık var. Ama su son dönemeçte, bu 90 ve 2000 dogumlu Ermeni kusagına
baktıgımızda, ben bu son kusak Ermenilerin biraz daha farklı kafa yapısında oldugunu, farklı düsündügünü
hepsinin olmasa da tabii ki, belli bir kısmın biraz daha sosyal bilimlere ilgi duyan kısmının biraz daha ilgili
oldugunu, biraz daha bir seyler için mücadele ettigini filan düsünmüyorum. Bunların hepsini yanında,
1915’i bir kenara koy. Bu üç kusak Ermeni kültürünü nasıl yasıyor? Istanbul’da veya Türkiye’de nasıl
yasıyor? Bunlar bile aslında birbirine çok farklı sekilde yasanıyor baktıgımız zaman. Bunun- bundan bir
20 yıl önce babamın anlattıgı bayram hikayesiyle bence bugün bizim kutladıgımız bayramlar aynı degildir,
aynı degil hatta, gibi degil aynı degil yani. Veya ne bielyim, kilise törenleri, dügünler. Her sey biraz daha
farklılastı gibi geliyor bana.
56
I don’t even question the difference between the two generations. There
is a very, very sharp, very obvious difference, so definitely. Of course, this
is also about traditions, as we break away from traditions, we also break
away from other things. (...) Our generation was born into technology,
now I think what happens to us is happening to them too. I mean, they
don’t have much to do with religion either, at least I’m speaking for all
my Turkish friends I know. I mean, I think it has something to do with
the era, it has something to do with the era we live in. We were born
into technology; our previous generation was not like that. I think it has
nothing to do with national identity. Being born into technology also
made us more questioning and eventually we broke away from traditions
or questioned the necessity of traditions.27
Similar to Zabel, Yervant underlines that it is not only the Armenians of Turkey, but
the Turkish community is also witnessing a change and this change led the younger
Turkish generation to dissociate themselves from their older generation’s attitude
particularly regarding the Armenian Genocide as they simply ‘forget’. Comparing
the younger Turkish generation with younger Armenian generation, on the other
hand, Yervant states that nothing has changed for Armenians as they still grow up
with stories of the Genocide.
I think there is necessarily a difference because there is a dimension
of witnessing. In other words, just as the event changes over time in
the word-of-mouth game, there is a similar situation in the transfer of
things from generation to generation. For example, while someone in the
previous generation directly witnessed the events, the next generation
only grew up with what they heard from their own mother and father,
or maybe they witnessed when they were little. The next generation, on
the other hand, has only heard of the events and increasingly I think,
it becomes a story. I mean it will be like medieval stories, maybe a few
generations from now. Because inevitably, people forget or may not care
about what they have not experienced. (...) For example, when I said
that from generation to generation the stories are forgotten a bit, I said
it not for our generation, but for the other side. Even though they are
brought up with denialist policies, the tendency to deny decreases a little
as generations are passed. In our generation, however, nothing much has
changed since we always grew up with the same stories. Since we are a
27Iki kusak arasındaki farkı hiç sorgulamıyorum bile yani. Çok çok sivri çok belli bariz bir fark var yani
kesinlikle. Bu biraz geleneklere baglı olmakla da alakalı tabi, geleneklerden koptukça baska seylerden
de kopmusuz. (...) Bizim çagımız daha teknolojini içinde dogdu, simdi bize olan sey bence onlara da
oluyor. Yani onların da dinle çok alakaları yok en azından benim çevremin, benim tanıdıgım bütün Türk
arkadaslarım için konusuyorum. Yani bu bence biraz çagla alakası var bunun yasadıgımız dönemle alakası
var. Biz teknolojinin içinde dogduk o bizim üst kusagımız öyle degildi vs. vs. bunun seyle alakası yok
yani milli kimlikle hiç alakası yok diye düsünüyorum. Teknoloji içinde dogmak da bizi daha sorgular hale
getirdi hem birincisi geleneklerden koptuk, geleneklerin gerekliligini sorgular olduk biz istemeden yani bunu
bilinçli olarak yapmıyor olduk.
57
minority, that information is still fresh and that’s why we don’t forget it
easily. That’s the reason why I said they forget because they only saw it
in primary school, maybe only in the books, like Armenians who did us
this and that. They grew up that way, but it’s a thing of the past and
it doesn’t matter much anymore.28
As it is mentioned by Yervant, the education plays a significant role for young people
in Turkey where they get to know the Armenians or other minority groups however
with negative connotations. In the next section, I would like to examine the impact
of the educational institutions on the perceptions of youth in Turkey, with a special
emphasize on young Armenians.
3.6 Educational Institutions and Perceptions of Young Armenians
Until the adoption of the Unification of Education Act in 1924, Armenian schools
were under the regulation of the patriarchate. However, with the adoption of the act,
all schools operating in Turkey were put under the control of the Ministry of National
Education. As the name of the ministry suggests, a ‘national’ education started to be
given in schools which, naturally, has additional implications for minority schools.
Before moving to describe the outcomes of nationalized education on Armenian
schools and the effects of such an education on young Armenians, the importance
of educational institutions in the subjectivization processes of individuals should be
discussed. It is important to note that educational institutions are not restricted to
Armenian schools. Some interviewees went to non-Armenian schools and most of
them attended tutoring schools, known as dershane. As those institutions coincide
both mid- and out-side it is important to situate the impact of those institutions on
young Armenian subjectivity separately.
28Bence ister istemez fark var çünkü tanıklık olayı da var. Yani olaylara tanıklık vs. nasıl kulaktan kulaga
oyununda gittikçe olay degisiyorsa tanıklık ettikçe. Hani birisi mesela bir önceki nesil direkt olaylara sahit
olmustur. Öbür nesilde kendi mamasının, babasının duyduguna ondan ondaki nesil artık dinlemis hatta
belki küçükken yasamıs. Ondan sonraki nesil duymus, gittikçe hani bir hikâye olarak görüyorum. Yani
sallıyorum orta çagdaki hikâyeler gibi olacak belki birkaç nesil sonra. Çünkü ister istemez insan unutur ya
da hani umursamayabilir birebir yasamadıgı seyi. (...) Ben mesela o dedim ya nesilden nesile gidince biraz
unutuluyor gibi. Onu daha çok hani bizim nesil için degil de karsı taraf için söyledim. Çünkü niye onlar
inkâr politikası üzerine ı büyütüldükleri için hani nesilden nesile gidince inkâr biraz azalıyor. Bizim nesil
çünkü hep aynı hikayeler ile biz büyüdügümüz için biz de degisen bir sey yok. Azınlık oldugumuz için de
hala bilgiler taze. O yüzden de biz hani kolay kolay unutmayız. Onlar unutuyor dedigimin sebebi o. Onlar
sadece ilkokulda belki su an kitapta görmüstür, iste bize kötülükler yapan Ermeniler falan gibisinden. Öyle
büyümüs geçmis gitmis.
58
Bernstein, Elvin, Peters, & Huxley (1966) underlines the importance of educational
institutions in the formation of modern society as they are designed to transmit two
cultures: an instrumental and expressive culture. While instrumental culture enables
children to develop necessary skills, particularly vocationally skills, to sustain
their lives, the expressive culture, transmits necessary norms and values to legitimize
the dominant system by homogenizing and unifying the society (Bernstein
et al. 1966, 429). In a similar vein, Althusser underlines the importance of the
schools in the reproduction of the dominant ideology as they provide children with
the necessary knowledge (1994, 250-52). The term “hidden curriculum,” coined by
Philip W. Jackson (1990) and then elaborated by various scholars, particularly by
Paulo Freire (2018), opens a significant perspective in understanding the role of the
educational institutions in the transmission of the ideology. It is possible to define
the “hidden curriculum” as a subtle and selective educational guide that transmits
the ideology of the world that students live in and shape their subjectivity per that
particular ideology to sustain the social order (Luykx 1999, xxxiii-xliii). As Meseci
Giorgetti argues, textbooks, curriculums, national or religious festivals, and pledges
occupy great socio-political importance in the hidden curriculum as they remind students
of their role and position within society (2019, 82). When it comes to Turkey,
there are multiple examples in the Turkish education system that aim to create of
unified Turkish identity and legitimization of the state ideology. It is possible to
argue the extent and density of those examples are more frequently encountered
during the primary school years. Despite their discriminatory nature, Karin states
that she participated in those events with great enthusiasm.
For example, I noticed in Feriköy, I was conscious of [being an Armenian]
when I was studying in Feriköy, but unfortunately, there is a system of
the state and, let’s say, you to go to the choir and you are made to be sung
songs, but these are necessarily Armenian songs, for fests or something,
songs of these occasions and it is sung obligatory. For example, the
National Anthem competition. My Turkish teacher pushed me hard and
I was very enthusiastic about it back then. I thought it was a very great
virtue for me, a very big, very beautiful event. I will memorize and recite
ten stanzas of the Turkish National Anthem; I will go on stage and so
on. If my teacher also liked my performance, I said it was excellent and
I didn’t go into that questioning in that respect. It seemed to me that I
was doing something very nice.29
29Feriköy’de mesela fark etmistim, Feriköy’de okurken [Ermeni olma] bilinç gelmisti bana ama ne yazık ki iste
iste devletin bir sistemi var ve atıyorum koroya gidiyorsun okulda ve koroda sana sarkılar söyletiyorlar ama
bunlar genelde Ermenice sarkılardan ziyade iste bayramdır, seyrandır o tarz seylerin sarkıları ve zorunlu
olarak söyletiliyor. Istiklal Marsı okuma yarısması mesela. Türkçe hocam çok zorlamıstı beni ve ben de
o zamanlar hani çok asırı bir sekilde heves etmistim buna. Bunun benim için çok büyük bir erdem, çok
büyük, çok güzel bir olay oldugunu düsünmüstüm. Istiklal Marsı’nın on kıta ezberleyip okuyacagım, iste
59
One of the most prominent mediums that are utilized by the state, is the “Student’s
Pledge” (Andımız), which was obligated by the Ministry of National Education in
1933 and continued to be chanted every morning in primary schools. Even though
the pledge was full of militarist statements and has a celebratory tone about being
a Turk, minority schools were not exempted from the pledge and every morning
young Armenians committed their existence to Turks. The Student’s Pledge read
in full as follows:
I am a Turk, I am righteous, I am hardworking. My principle is to
protect my juniors, to respect my elders, and to love my country and
my nation more than my own self. My motto is to rise, progress, and go
forward. I commit my being to the existence of the Turks. (as cited in
Ekmekcioglu 2016, 108)
In addition to the ‘Student’s Pledge’, young Armenians are obliged to participate
in a flag-raising ceremony at school where they sing the Turkish national anthem
every Monday morning and Friday evening. The anthem which mainly depicts
the heroic acts of Turks during the War of Independence, memorized and sung
by young Armenians who in some instances are even encouraged to participate in
recitation competitions of the anthem. There was one significant incident related to
this issue that took place in 2006 in which a student from Private Feriköy Armenian
Primary School memorized the anthem and won the competition in Sisli locality. At
that time, the incident found a wide space in various media outlets and interviews
conducted were with her. In one of those interviews, after stating how proud she
felt to have won the competition, Katya mentioned her teachers’ efforts to teach
the anthem from a very little age which eventually enabled her to memorize the ten
verses without any difficulty and succeed in the competition.
It was not difficult at all to memorize the ten stanzas as our teachers
taught us the National Anthem since primary school. I was the last one
on the stage in the competition. This helped me overcome my excitement.
The National Anthem is already a beautiful poem, and I read it
with emotion. When I learned that I was the first, I was both happy
and proud. Our teachers and school have a big role in my success.30
sahneye çıkacagım falan. Hocam da performansımı begeniyorsa süper demistim ve o açıdan o sorgulamaya
girmemistim. Çok güzel bir sey yapıyormusum geliyordu bana.
30Ilkokuldan beri ögretmenlerimiz bize Istiklal Marsı’nı ögrettigi için on kıtayı ezberlemek hiç de zor olmadı.
Yarısmada ben en son çıktım sahneye. Bu da heyecanımı yenmemi sagladı. Istiklal Marsı zaten güzel bir
siir, ben de ona duygu katarak okudum. Birinci oldugumu ögrendigim zaman da hem sevindim, hem de
gurur duydum. Benim basarımda ögretmenlerimizin ve okulumuzun büyük rolü var.
60
A similar incident, yet with a discriminatory outcome, was experienced by Karin
during her primary school years. It is important to note that she told this discriminatory
incident after being asked about any moment or period in which she realized
her Armenianness. Recounting the competition, she says;
Moreover, I was treated unfairly in that competition, and I still cannot
forget that. Maybe because I’m Armenian, I don’t know. (. . . ) According
to what my teacher said, I read it much better; I was better prepared,
but they put a Muslim first. They didn’t even take me into consideration.
I don’t know exactly, but my teacher told me something, “You
were treated unfairly. When I participated in this competition before,
with another student from a different [Armenian] school, he was treated
unfairly as well. I will not participate again,” he said.31
The ideological state apparatuses utilized by the Turkish state are not limited to the
spatiality of the school buildings. The celebration of national holidays, particularly
Commemoration of Atatürk, Youth and Sports Day, and National Sovereignty and
Children’s Day, are obligatory, and as well as decorating classrooms, schools are
expected to participate in official ceremonies held at various stadiums. While the
importance of these events in the construction of the national Turkish identity is
evident, they have further implications for Armenian students as they might face
discrimination in those settings. Zabel relates the first instance of discrimination
that she encountered in her life to one of those events.
Anyway, when we were at fifth grade, we were going to that thing, there
are May 19 ceremonies. Where was it, I guess it was in a big stadium,
we were going to walk in the cortege too. All the schools in Fatih were
gathered there. They weren’t clapping as we passed, I remember that.
We were in the fifth grade, that was the first time I witnessed such a
thing.32
On a more structural level, the Ministry of National Education necessitates that the
vice-principal of Armenian schools should be ethnically Turk, and Turkish literature,
31Üstelik o yarısmada da bana haksızlık yapılmıstı, onu da hala unutamam. Belki de Ermeni oldugum için,
bilmiyorum yani. (. . . ) Hocamın dedigine göre, ben çok daha iyi söylemisim; daha iyi hazırlanmısım ama
Müslüman birisini birinci yapmıslar. Beni hiç kaale bile almamıslar falan. Tam bilmiyorum ama hocam
bana sey demisti, sana haksızlık yapıldı. Ben daha önce bu yarısmaya katıldıgımda farklı bir [Ermeni]
okulundan baska bir ögrencimle, ona da haksızlık yapılmıstı. “Ben bir daha katılmayacagım,” demisti.
32Her neyse besinci sınıfta seye gidecegiz, 19 Mayıs törenleri var. Neredeydi, büyük bir staddaydı galiba, biz
de yürüyecegiz. Fatih’teki bütün okullar toplanmıs orada. Biz geçerken alkıslamıyorlardı, onu hatırlıyorum.
Besinci sınıftaydık ilk kez orada hani birebir böyle bir seye sahit oldugum o andı.
61
geography, and history courses have to be taught by a Turk teacher (Vahapoglu
2005, 151-52). The urge to regulate what is taught in these courses is related to
the Turkish state’s nationalist ideology which leaves no room for the information
about geography, history, or literature of other ethnic communities living in Turkey.
Furthermore, it is possible to argue that in Armenian schools, the implementation of
the “hidden curriculum” is entrusted particularly to those teachers who, as Mehmet
Deri states, possess “national consciousness” and “national sentiments,” a competence
that could not be fulfilled by their Armenian counterparts (2009, 152-53). In
addition to the teachers, history, literature, and geography books, prepared specifically
by the Ministry of National Education, are also among significant tools to shape
Armenian students as “particularly positioned social beings” (Luykx 1999, 125). It
is in those books that the stories of Armenians or other non-Muslim communities
are either not mentioned or mentioned within the framework of treachery. In most
instances, Armenians and Greeks are depicted as enemies of the Turks and traitors
who are tricked by foreign powers and stab the Turks from behind (Ekmekcioglu
2016, xii).
In response to the discriminatory policies that are imposed on children to teach
them “the ’rules of good behavior,” they developed some tools and methods both
in subtler and direct forms. It is through these mechanisms that young Armenians
respond and resist the injustices and constraints that schools are imposing on them.
The most recurrent form of resistance particularly in high schools is simply not
participating in acts or performing the roles that are expected from students. In
either case, silences are the inherent component of tools and methods developed by
students. Nevertheless, those silences are not related to, as Walsh states, “a lack of
voice, identity, or an inability to express (. . . ) but should be evaluated as an active,
momentary (and safe) response to oppressive conditions within the classroom or
school, or a conscious and/or unconscious decision not to risk self-disclosure” (1990,
114-41). At this point, it is worth mentioning a personal incident which occurred
during the author’s high school years which would make a great fit for this discussion.
It is related to the ceremonies that took place every Monday morning and Friday
evening which necessitates singing the Turkish national anthem. Students were
passively resisting this form of oppression by simply withdrawing from the ceremony
by not singing the national anthem. It was almost exclusively the voices of teachers,
Turkish and Armenian alike, that was heard in the room.
Another instance that I would like to mention is told by Anoush where she describes
her reaction against the parts of the history books about the Armenian Genocide.
Giroux argues that resistance is not solemnly about countering oppressive mechanisms
and practices imposed on students but also they are “rooted in the need
62
to dignify and affirm those experiences that make up their lives outside of school”
(McLaren 1999, xii). It is possible to situate Anoush’s experience within this framework
as she relates her actions to being an Armenian in Turkey.
I scribbled and tore the pages about the Armenian genocide in the tenthgrade
history book. In front of the teacher. And I said that “I won’t
read these pages. I will not learn these pages.” So, I scribbled and tore
those pages up by saying that will not read. I scribbled them all line
by line. Either way I was not going to use those pages. I already know
they’re lies. I think it’s something that anger made me do it. I mean,
it’s not just about 1915, but, um, it was about the anger that I lived in
this country for having this identity.33
Despite the presence of oppressive mechanisms in the educational system, Armenian
schools hold a significant position for young Armenians to discover their Armenianness.
As “a legal and traditionally accepted way of maintaining the identity
and recovering Armenianness,” schools are succeeded to sustain their autonomy to
some extent, as Armenian literature, language, and music are allowed to be taught
(Ekmekcioglu 2016, 143). However, the relative autonomy enjoyed by Armenian
schools, like that of Armenian families, is limited and varies widely between schools
and grades. For instance, while Armenian primary schools are more likely to support
the official narrative, students in Armenian high schools, particularly in some
of them, are finding it easier to raise their voices and actively resist state policy. Accordingly,
when talking about the Armenian schools, interviewees underlined their
impact on the formation of their Armenianness.
As a preparation for this, I think the Naregyan Armenian High School
is a high school that has a more political and culturally protective attitude
than other Armenian high schools in Istanbul, culturally and politically.
I also graduated from there. Through the teachers there, including
the teachers appointed from the national education, who have political
awareness; they were people who had at least some historical consciousness.
This helped me a lot. Compared to other Armenian high schools, it
was a school where Armenian was used more widely. For example, mathematics
lessons were taught in Armenian. Likewise, biology lessons were
given by Armenians and taught in Armenian. That’s how most science
33Onuncu sınıftaki tarih kitabındaki Ermeni soykırımıyla ilgili sayfaları ben karalamıstım hep ve yırtmıstım.
Hocanın gözü önünde. Ve demistim ki ben bu sayfaları okumiyicam. Ben bu sayfaları islemiyicem. Yani
okumayacagım, kullanmayacagım bu sayfaları ve yırtıp atmıstım. Hepsini satır satır karalamıstım önce.
Nasıl olsa yalan olduklarını biliyorum zaten diye. Bu-bu bana- yani bu öfkenin yaptırdıgı bir sey diye
düsünüyorum. Yani hem- 1915 ile ilgili degil sadece ama, umm, yani, bu kimlige sahip oldugum için bu
ülkede yasadıgım seylerin bende yarattıgı öfkeyle ilgili bir seydi bu.
63
classes were taught. Such a consciousness has also emerged, obviously
with the contributions of teachers. I think the principal of the school is
also a very sensitive woman. Her contribution cannot be ignored.34
Although the impact of schools on the consciousness of young Armenians is imminent,
it would be erroneous to assume that all Armenian schools are equally significant
in the formation of Aremniannes in student’s lives. It is important to note
that during interviews the names of two schools and their importance on generating
a consciousness were frequently mentioned by the interviewees. As the names and
significance of the principals of these schools are mentioned by interviewees, it might
be accurate to emphasize the importance of principals in Armenian schools.
Our teacher was someone who liked to talk, who like to talk about our
religion and race. Frankly, he opened our minds. It aroused curiosity. We
had good conversations. We shared with him everything that should not
be talked about outside. It taught us our identity. I was a person who did
not have any job in these works, did not research. I started researching.
For example, I learned theWealth Tax from him. I learned aboutWealth
Tax from him, it was very interesting to me. There is even a movie
starring Hülya Avsar, I watched it immediately after recommending it.
“Ms. Gülsüm’s grains” or such a name. It was thanks to that baron,
she. It aroused my interest.35
Despite the importance that students attribute to Armenian schools, there are
also some instances where students criticize their schools’ protective attitude which
caused fear and unease while socializing outside of the Armenian institutions. In
other words, as Young Armenians exclusively socialized in closed and protective environments
within the borders of household or Armenian institutions struggled to
socialize outside of the defined circle. Verjin’s example is illuminating at this point.
Even though she reflects on the influence of the school she attended in discovering
her Armenian identity with affirmative overtones, she mentions the attitude of some
34Buna da bir ön hazırlık olarak Naregyan Ermeni Lisesi de bence kültürel ve politik olarak istanbuldaki
diger Ermeni liselerine nazaran daha politik bir tavrı olan, daha kültürel korumacı bir tavrı olan bir lise
bence. Ben de oradan mezunum. Oradaki ögretmenler vasıtasıyla, hem- yani milli egitimden atanan
ögretmenler dahil, politik bilinci olan; tarihsel bilinci en azından bir nebze olan insanlardı. Bu bana çok
yardımcı oldu. Diger Ermeni liselerine nazaran, Ermenice’nin daha yaygın kullanıldıgı bir okuldu. Mesela
matematik dersleri Ermenice isleniyordu. Aynı sekilde biyoloji dersleri de Ermeniler tarafından verilip,
Ermenice isleniyordu. Fen derslerinin çogu öyle isleniyordu. Öyle bir bilinç de olustu açıkası ögretmenlerin
de katkılarıyla. Bence okulun müdürü da çok hassas bir kadın. Onun da katkısı görmezden gelinemez.
35Baronumuz, biraz konusmayı; dinimizi, ırkımızı anlatmayı seven bir baronumuzdu. Açıkçası beynimizi
o açtı. Merak uyandırdı. Güzel sohbetler ettik. Dısarıda konusulmaması gereken her seyi biz onunla
paylastık. Bize kimligimizi ögretti. Ben bu islerde hiç isi olmayan, arastırmayan biriydim. Arastırmaya
basladım. Mesela Varlık Vergisi’ni ondan ögrendim. Varlık Vergisi olayını ondan ögrendim, çok ilgincime
gitti. Hatta Hülya Avsar’ın oynadıgı bir film var, hemen tavsiye ettikten sonra onu izledim. Gülsüm
Hanım’ın taneleri mi ne öyle bir adı vardı. O baron sayesinde oldu. Bende ilgi uyandırdı.
64
teachers who portrayed Muslims as the enemies of Armenians, and one should keep
them at bay brought powerful anxiety toward socializing with non-Armenians.
Of course, teachers should teach this to a certain extent, but after a
while, in high school, my teachers planted those little seeds in our heads,
like little criticisms about Atatürk and so on. I’ve been something since
then, I can say that I had an enlightenment about it. (. . . ) In this way,
by making us question, by asking us questions, umm, they led to an
enlightenment. For example, I have always praised Naregyan until now,
but it is also a fact that we were often reminded of this at Naregyan:
Dac, here, “Muslims are our enemies.” We were not told this directly,
but Muslims are enemies to us, we have to keep a distance with them.
There were also things like turning us against them in Naregyan. I will
never forget those. Although they enlightened us, some of the teachers
there had such statements. And even then, I questioned him, back then
I did not have the courage, of course, but I went to the teacher and
said, “Teacher, why did you say such a thing?” as. But the subtext is
the Muslim thing, “University is not like this place, be careful with your
friendships, you will miss here.” Okay, but why? The beneath is always
empty. These are the words we have always been told in vain. Later,
after seeing the university environment, I learned that everything was
not as we were told in primary and high school.36
3.7 Outside of the Armenian Schools: Dershanes
It’s almost been a month since dershane started and I still do not have any friends
that I hang out with. There are other Armenians, but we are not in the same class,
and we rarely coincide with each other. The dershane that I’m attending has a very
36Tabi ki ögretmenler bunu da ögretmeli bir yere kadar ama iste bir yerden sonra, lisede, ögretmenlerim ufak
ufak Atatürk ile ilgili de böyle elestiriler olsun, o ufak tohumları ekmislerdi bizim kafamıza. Oradan beridir
bir seyim zaten, o konuda bir aydınlanma yasadım diyebilirim. (. . . ) Bu sekilde hep bizi sorgulata sorgulata
iste, bize sorular sora sora, umm, bir aydınlanmaya yol açtı. Ben mesela simdiye kadar Naregyan’ı hep
överek konustum ama su da bir gerçek ki Naregyan’da bize çogunlukla su da kafamıza sokuldu: Dac- iste
Müslümanlar bize düs-man-dır tarzı. Direk bu denmedi bize ama iste Müslümanlar bize düsmandır, iste
onlarla bir mesafemiz olması lazım. Bizi onlara karsı doldurusa getirme tarzı seyler de oldu Naregyan’da.
Ben hani bunları asla unutmam. Her ne kadar bizi aydınlatmıs olsalar da oradaki bazı ögretmenlerin
böyle söylemleri de olmustu. Ve o zaman bile sorgulamıstım ama o zaman o cesaret yok tabi gidip hocaya
“Hocam iste sen neden böyle bir sey dedin.” gibi. Ama alttan alta Müslüman seyi, “Üniversite burası gibi
olmaz, arkadaslıklarınıza dikkat edin burayı arayacaksınız. Tamam ama neden? Altı hep bos. Bizlere
hep öylesine söylenmis cümleler bunlar. Daha sonra üniversite ortamını da gördükten sonra her seyin bize
ilkokulda ve lisede anlatıldıgı gibi olmadıgını ögrendim.
65
conservative attitude. Classes are mixed but most of the time boys and girls are
hanging out separately. Maybe that’s why I exclusively chat with boys up until now.
Tonight, we are going to have dinner with the study group that I’m a member of but
honestly, it freaks me out to spend a whole dinner time with those people and I will
probably find an excuse to avoid the event. Despite everything, I have a crush on
someone from our class. We are having these moments where we catch each other’s
eyes but never talked. I don’t dare to take the first step. I can’t even envision that
moment. What would I answer to her if she asks why my name is Sayat, what is the
meaning of it or where I’m coming from? It’s best to stay away and stop thinking
about this possibility. This is the final bell ringing and it’s the end of the day. I’m
leaving the building and we are having eye contact again. Wait. . . Is she walking
towards me? Oh my God! And here comes the question. “What is the meaning of
my name?” I’m blushing. I’m talking gibberish. What is happening! I can’t even
look at her face. It’s so desperate. Just say bye and leave, you can at least do this.
Despite the efforts initiated by family or school, as the lives of young Armenians
are not limited to the Armenian institutions, it is impossible to prevent them from
having encounters with the outer world. The moment young Armenians step out
from their homes or schools, or any kind of an Armenian institution, they inevitably
encounter the broader society. While the control mechanisms limit the possibilities
and variety of such encounters, education offers one of the most unavoidable spaces
where young Armenians meet with individuals from different backgrounds. Tutoring
schools, dershanes, have frequently been mentioned by interviewees as a place where
they have their first long-term encounters with non-Armenians. Sarven, for example,
pictures the way that the dershane makes him feel, like a fish out of water.
The dershane was something for me, like fish out of water. Because for
the first time in my life, well, umm, I was going to meet Turkish friends
for the first time with my thoughts settled, and I even met some.37
In a similar vein, being in a non-Armenian environment for the first time in her
life makes Karin feel anxious. Attending a dershane known for its connection with
the Gulenist movement and accordingly strong religious undertones, intensified this
anxiety.
37Ya dershane benim için seydi, sudan çıkmıs balıktı. Çünkü hayatımda ilk defa, sey, umm, düsüncelerim
oturmus bir sekilde ilk defa Türk arkadaslar edinecektim ve edindim hatta.
66
Ermm.. The environment - it wasn’t a very religious environment, but
I felt that “Everyone here, the majority here is Muslim, I’m Christian
and I can draw attention here.” You know, this made my head a little
bit like that. Because for the first time, think about it, I always went
to Hay schools, and in a flash, Fatih Dershanesi. So I just fell into right
place [laughs]. It was a little tense—well. I was figuring it out in my
own head, but then I saw that what I had set up was also correct.38
As they are told to be refrain from making friends with Turkish students throughout
their lives, along with the incidents of discrimination that they experience or hear
of from their friends who are attending dershanes, young Armenians acted more
carefully when choosing friends. This precaution, in the case of Sarven, resulted in
feeling lonely.
But the thing was very difficult, I felt very lonely around me because
there was no one out of me. Someone that I can talk to always or something
in Armenian whenever something happens. You are in a different
world, you have no protection mechanisms, you have nothing. It required
a feeling of loneliness, something, a period of adjustment. Here’s
a month and two months like this.39
While the absence of the protective mechanisms hindered Sarven for a while from
adapting to his new life in dershane, as he luckily found another Armenian that he
was acquainted with in the dershane the process of socialization was easier. The way
he describes the process of adapting his subjectivity to the new environment is substantial
to understanding the sense of insecurity that young Armenians experience
when they first step out from their safe ‘Armenian’ space.
Then we stumbled upon something. You are in the same classroom with
another Armenian I know by chance. The first person I tried to be friends
with was that other Armenian person. Then you start to make friends
with other children, together with him. Of his own class or his class.
Here - if there’s anyone I trust, it’s from the Turks, in my class, so I’m
38Umm ve ortam- çok dinci bir ortam yoktu ama sunu hissettim, buradaki herkes, buradaki çogunluk Müslüman,
ben Hristiyan’ım ve ben burada dikkat çek-çekebilirim. Hani bu biraz kafamı böyle sey yaptı bir
anda. Çünkü ilk defa. Düsün hani o kadar Hay okullarında okumusum ve pat diye bir anda Fatih Dershanesi.
Tam yerine düsmüsüm yani [gülüyor]. Biraz gergin- yani seydi. Ben kendi kafamda kuruyordum
ama sonra kurdugumun da dogru oldugunu gördüm.
39Ama sey çok zordu hani etrafımda çok yalnız hissetmistim kendimi çünkü benden biri yoktu. Sürekli konustugum
birileri veya bir sey oldugunda Ermenice konusabilecegin biri. Bambaska bir dünyadasın, bütün
koruma mekanizmalarının yok, hiçbir seyin yok. Bir yalnızlık hissi, bir sey, bir alısma evresi gerekiyordu.
Iste böyle bir ay iki ay böyle.
67
saying, here I say “Sayat, here, Ahmet is a good boy.” I’m introducing
you. You say that “Mehmet is a good boy,” etc. Friendship started to
develop a little like this in the dershane, but I don’t remember being
able to make friends with a Turkish person at one time. Because I went
there with a reservation anyway.40
Even though young Armenians found new ways to navigate their Armenianness in
dershanes, the absence of defensive mechanisms that they were used to, significantly
impacted the subjectivization process of young Armenians. Masis recounts the reaction
of other students at dershane when they discovered the cross he was already
hiding beneath his shirt.
But I remember the first time I met this discrimination at that thing, I
was going to the Sınav Dershanesi in Bakırköy in the eighth grade, when
I was going to high school. At that time, I was wearing a cross, I was
a Christian. And those who saw my cross, they saw it under my shirt,
there was a lot of gossip. I felt a lot of discrimination. For example, they
were asking, “Are you a Christian? How did you become a Christian?”
etc. They came to me with such questions.41
While dershanes constitute one of the most significant life stages of young Armenians
when they meet with individuals outside of the Armenian spaces, it was not the
only instance. For the ones who did not attend dershane or register to a non-
Armenian school, these encounters took place in other venues. What is significant
at this point is the impossibility to escape from such encounters. For example,
the first discriminatory incidence that Zepour encountered, dates back to her high
school years where she stepped out from the ‘Armenian’ spaces. After attending an
Armenian primary school, she went to a private vocational high school that had an
Armenian principal. She mentions the influence of the Armenian principal in her
father’s decision to register her child to a ‘non-Armenian’ educational institution.
Zepour highlights a defense mechanism that she developed in response to being one
of the few Armenians in an environment predominantly Turkish.
40Daha sonra seye denk gelmistik iste. Sans eseri tanıdıgım baska bir Ermeni ile aynı dershanedesin. Ilk
arkadas olmaya çalıstıgım kisi o diger Ermeni kisisiydi. Daha sonra onunla beraber arkadaslık kurmaya
baslıyorsun diger çocuklarla. Kendi sınıfından veya onun sınıfından. Iste benim- benim güvendigim biri
olduysa Türklerden, benim sınıfımdaki. Yani diyorum ki. Isteatıyorum Sayat diyorum, iste, Ahmet iyi
çocuk. Seninle tanıstırıyorum. Sen diyorsun ki iste Mehmet iyi çocuk, falan. Arkadaslık biraz böyle
gelismeye baslamıstı dershane içerisinde ama böyle hani tek seferde Türk biriyle arkadaslık yapabildigimi
hatırlamıyorum. Çünkü nolursa olsun bir çekince ile gitmistim oraya zaten.
41Ama bu ayrımcılıkla ilk defa seyde tanısmıstım diye hatırlyorum. Bakırköy’de Sınav Dershanesi’ne gidiyordum
sekizinci sınıfta, liseye giderken. O zaman haç takıyordum, Hristiyandım. Ve haçımı görenler,
tisörtümün altından görmüsler, bayagı bir dedikodu olmustu. Çok ayrımcılık hissetmistim. Mesela soruyorlardı
sen Hristiyan mısın? Nasıl Hristiyan oldun? vs. gibi sorularla üstüme geliyorlardı.
68
I studied at the Armenian school until secondary school, but I encountered
these a lot in high school. Because again I didn’t know much because
again you didn’t go out much from the [Armenian] environment.
But for example, I went to a vocational high school. It was a private vocational
high school. The manager was Armenian. That’s why my father
chose it. But for example, we were still four Armenians in the classroom,
but of course we had a lot of Muslim friends. They can’t stand it and
asks you this question: “Have you ever thought of becoming a Muslim?”
Now, if I give a harsh answer, we will fight each other. At that moment,
I said, I said automatically. . . What could I say, I can make him agree
with me, but I can also teach him not to ask these questions again. You
know that moment, it was a 1-2 seconds thing. And I asked him the
question: “And have you ever thought of becoming a Christian?” He
said “Tövbe.” And so I said “Me, as well.” I wasn’t even thinking about
it, because that didn’t come to my mind. I said, “I’m very happy with
my religion” and he never asked again. I mean, I learned a lot about
being very smart, that is, [laughs] (. . . ) without fighting, doing that
thing, whether he likes you or not, but before anything goes wrong there
[silence] I learned a lot to close that event. My brain has always worked
like that.42
It would be important to mention the impacts of coming from a higher class in an
educational setting. Rita mentions that she was never discriminated in a school
setting, even though like Zepour, she did not have her education in an Armenian
school.
I have never experienced discrimination because I have always studied in
private schools. Since Jews, Armenians and Turks—that is, Muslims—
we all studied together in private schools, there was no such distinction.43
For other Armenians who went to Armenian schools but not to dershanes, the
venue for such an encounter became universities. Zabel describes various steps and
42Ben ortaokula kadar, ortaokulu da Ermeni okulunda okudum ama lisede bunlarla çok karsılastım. Çünkü
yine [Ermeni] çevresinden çok çıkmadıgın için çok bilmiyordum. Ama mesela, müs- meslek lisesine gittim.
Özel bir meslek lisesiydi. Müdür Ermeni’ydi. Zaten o yüzden tercih etti babam. Ama mesela sınıfta yine
de dört Ermeni’ydik ama tabi ki bir sürü Müslüman arkadasımız vardı. Dayanamıyor ve sana su soruyu
soruyor: Hiç Müslüman olmayı düsündün mü? Simdi ben sert bir cevap versem birbirimize giricez. O an
dedim ki, otomatikman dedim ki. Ne diyebilirim ki hem bana hak vermesini saglayabilirim ama hem de
bir daha bu soruları sormaması gerektigini ögretebilirim. Hani o an, 1-2 saniyelik sey. Ve ona su soruyu
sordum: “Peki sen hiç Hristiyan olmayı düsündün mü?” Tövbe dedi. Iste ben de aynı sekilde dedim.
Ben de hiç düsünmedim aklıma gelmedi çünkü çok mutluyum dinimle dedim ve bir daha soramadı. Yani
seni çok zeki olmaya, yani [gülüyor] (. . . ) hani kavga etmeden, o seyi yapmadan, hani sevmeyecekse de
sevmesin ama orada bir terslik çıkmadan [küçük sessizlik] o olayı kapatmayı çok ögrendim. Hep beynim
öyle çalıstı bu konuda.
43Ayrımcılık hiç yasamadım çünkü hep özel okullarda okudum. Özel okullarda Yahudiler, Ermeniler ve
Türkler- yani Müslümanlar hep beraber okudugumuz için öyle bir ayrım olmadı.
69
difficulties that she experienced in her university life until she felt confident enough
to take part in the public spaces.
We have been aware that we are different, because of the fact that we are
in a very closed environment since high school, we were aware of it, that
is, at that age, they were 16, 17 years old. But we talk about it among
ourselves, we say “Ah, we are not open to anything,” but of course, there
is living it in practice, there is living the practice of it. When you go
to university, you are alone, you will meet someone at work for the first
time. When you need to ask for anything, like from your desk mate, your
teacher, you will ask for something from the front seat. . . Yes, maybe
it’s easy to say now, but I think it’s a bit more challenging for people like
us who are more introverted, whose family and friends have always been
the same for a long time, and who have never experienced novelty (. . . )
The first year of university was difficult for me, it was very difficult, I can
even say it was the hardest few months of my life because I had a hard
time adapting. I don’t know anyone, I go to school five days a week, I
don’t know any of these people. In fact, I’m a very sympathetic person,
but nobody knows me, I don’t know them. I want to do something to
meet them, but I’m embarrassed, it’s been such a tough few months.
(. . . ) They were literally like aliens to me, so they were like aliens to me.
That’s why I was so confused. I always have those people around me. It
was a time when I had a hard time thinking what I will talk about, how
I will go into [the talk] and what they will think about me.44
3.8 Conclusion
The subjectivization process of young Armenians starts at very early ages, as they
are constantly being reminded in their familial circle that they should only befriend
44Çünkü çok kapalı bir çevrede oldugumuzu aslında liseden beri farkındayız, farkındaydık yani o yaslarda 16,
17 yaslarında. Ama bunu aramızda konusuyoruz yani aa diyoruz bir hiçbir seye açık degiliz ama tabi bunu
pratikte yasamak var, pratigini yasamak var bunun. Üniversiteye geçince yalnızsınız, ilk kez iste birileriyle
tanısacaksınız. Sıra arkadasınız ne biliyim ögretmeniniz, önden bir sey isteyeceksiniz. Bunlar evet belki
simdi çok kolay söylemesi ama bizim gibi daha içe kapalı iste hem ailesi hem arkadasları çok uzun süreler
hep aynı olmus, hiç yenilik yasamamıs insanlar için bence bir tık daha zorlayıcı. (. . . ) Üniversitenin ilk
yılı benim için zordu çok zordu hatta hayatımın en zor birkaç ayıydı diyebilirim çünkü adapte olmakta çok
zorlandım. Tanıdıgım hiç kimse yok, haftanın bes günü okula gidiyorum bu insanların hiçbirini tanımıyorum.
Aslında çok sempatik biriyim ama kimse beni tanımıyor, ben onları tanımıyorum. Tanısmak için
bir sey yapmak istiyorum ama utanıyorum da böyle zorlu birkaç aydı. (...) Resmen bana uzaylı gibiydi
yani benim için onlar uzaylı gibilerdi. O yüzden çok garipsemistim. Sürekli o insanlar var etrafımda. Ne
konusacagım, nasıl girecegim, acaba benim için ne düsünecekler bilmem ne derken çok zorlandıgım bir
dönemdi.
70
Armenians and refrain from establishing friendships with Turks. Interestingly, none
of the interviewees mentioned if they had ever been told by or asked for clarification
from their elders regarding the reasons for such restrictions. This might be related to
the silent transmission of traumatic incidents as will be elaborated in the following
chapter. It would be reasonable to presume that the transmission of the traumatic
stories about to younger generations enabled young Armenians to associate the
events and grasp the necessary behavior without questioning them in the first place.
Following Ekmekicoglu’s conceptualization, for most of the interviewees, the very
first control mechanisms were introduced to Armenian children at very little age inside
the familial circles. As young Armenians grow up and started their education
life, they started to discover various aspects of their identity and made sense of some
incidents they experienced as they spend time in the mid-side. Finally, they have
been constantly reminded of the roles and performances that Armenians should follow
at the ¬out¬-side. Although it appears that everyday life incidences that took
place out¬-side were concluded with minor inconveniences, the existence of a mindset
that entails possessing a non-Turkish identity could only be tolerated, generate
more subtle results, including social, political, and economic exclusion. Because of
those incidences, as Arus Yumul stated, for decades, Armenians have embraced the
role of “silent outsider” and have chosen to live practically silently, making it possible
for the rest of society to talk about them in the way they choose (2011, 151).
Yet, as Tchilingirian argues, young Armenians are becoming more confident to show
up in public spaces and perform their cultural practices. Following Tchilingirian’s
observation, one of the most significant similarities that emerged during interviews
is the way that young Armenians are embracing their culture. These shifts can be
ascribed to the emergence of global youth culture as well as the opportunities provided
by digitization. As in the case of Arden, who shared his anxiety regarding his
cross tattoo and cross necklace and his urge to hide those symbols in public spaces in
previous pages, it is important to note that the very decision to carry those symbols
on his body is taken consciously and could be regarded as an act of resistance to
the assimilation policies of the Turkish state. Nevertheless, this does not mean that
young Armenians see a future in Turkey where they live their Armeniannes freely.
Sarven related the difficulties being Armenian entails in Turkey to almost a physical
pain, as he used the word sancı, twinge.
But when we look at the whole. . . the summary, it is also difficult. It is
actually difficult and painful. But it makes you feel the pain later. You
can’t feel the pain at the age of ten, but at the age of 21, when you turn
22, you start to feel the pain. Here, this pain is that you can’t express
71
yourself with your whole being. You know, you start to hide yourself at
the age of 10 or you start to hide when you are younger. But you turned
25 today. In some places, maybe you still feel the need to hide yourself.
The pain is actually this, that is, this pain is starting to come to you as
(. . . ) They don’t understand that you are a citizen of Turkey with all
your identity, all your rights, and that you can benefit from everything
in Turkey. In fact, I met a group of people who thought that you were
constantly coming and going from Armenia. (. . . ) It still makes you
feel that here, here, Turkey does not accept us, that your existence does
not recognize us, that you do not recognize your existence with this-this
identity, and maybe one day I will have to leave from here. Because of
these reasons. We still feel it.45
Anthropologist Sharika Thiranagama claims that “the relationship to what was once
‘home’ is not just one about the past, but about the possibilities of belonging in
the future, the possibilities of finding a future in which one can flourish personally
and collectively” (2007, 32). It would be accurate to argue that the absence of
the fundamental rights, acknowledgment of Armenian culture, and the existence
of a constant expectation that put on the shoulders of Armenians to ‘prove’ their
existence result with frustration and impossibility to imagine a future in Turkey.
45Ama bütün cüm-özetine baktıgımız zaman da zor geçiyor. Zor ve sancılı geçiyor aslında. Ama sancıyı
sana daha sonra hissettiriyor. On yasında acıyı hissedemiyorsun ama 21 yasında 22 yasına geldiginde
o sancıyı hissetmeye baslıyorsun yani. Ya bu sancı aslında bütün varlıgınla kendini ifade edememen.
Hani, 10 yasında kendini saklamaya baslıyorsun veya daha ufakken saklamaya baslıyorsun. Ama bugün
25 yasına gelmissin. Bazı yerde belki hala kendini saklama ihtiyacı hissediyorsun. Sana sancı aslında
bunu yani bu- sancı sana burada sy gelmeye baslıyor. (. . . ) Senin bütün kimliginle, iste bütün haklarına,
bir Türkiye vatandası oldugunu ve Türkiye’deki her seyden yararlanabilecegini anlamıyorlar. Hatta senin
Ermenistan’dan sürekli gelip gittigini filan düsünen bir kitleyle karsılasmıstım. (. . . ) Hala burası-burasıburanın,
Türkiye’nin iste bizi kabul etmedigini, senin varlıgının tanımadıgını, bu-bu kimligimle varlıgını
tanımadıgını, sana hala hissettiriyor ve günün birinde belki ben de buradan gitmek zorunda kalacagım.
Bu sebeplerden dolayı. Bunu hala hissediyoruz.
72
4. IDENTITY IN TRANSFORMATION: THE SENSE OF
ARMENIANNESS AMONG YOUNG ARMENIANS
According to Tchilingirian, the Armenian Genocide, which has been discussed in
the shadows for many years, gradually ceased being a taboo during the Istanbul
patriarchal elections in 1990 and 1998, as well as following the foundation of the
Agos newspaper, which began publication in 1996 (2017, 146). These events, particularly
the writing of Hrant Dink in Agos and his public role marked the beginning
of a process of transformation. The most significant transformation, on the other
hand, occurred in 2007, with the assassination of Hrant Dink. The assassination
not only caused the Armenian Genocide to be discussed in public spheres but also
significantly affected the subjectivization process of young Armenians. Some of the
interviewees who refer to the assassination as a ’breaking point’ or a ’milestone’ in
their own lives indicate the importance of the incidents. Furthermore, all of the
interviewees mentioned that the assassination caused a serious transformation both
in making sense of their Armenianness and in the way they live their Armenianness,
especially in the public sphere. This chapter will examine the perceptions of
young Armenians regarding two significant events that were frequently mentioned
by the interviewees and that have impacted their subjectivization process, namely
the Armenian Genocide and the assassination of Hrant Dink. In addition to the
perception of the interviewees regarding these events, the chapter will discuss the
impact of those events on young Armenians’ sense of belonging.
73
4.1 Getting to Know the Armenian Genocide
State policies regarding the Armenian Genocide, coupled with consequent events
that aim to erase the traces of Armenians from public spaces, result in breaks in the
transmission of family stories. The denialist state policies are particularly important
at this point as it constitutes one of the founding pillars of the Turkish states
and it constantly reminds Armenians of their fragility. Following Talin Suciyan, for
Armenian families “who live under the shadow of the habitus of denial,” the transmission
of the stories of the Armenian Genocide to the younger generation is not an
easy process (2015a, 133). In addition to the restrictions imposed by the state, the
risks that the topic shelter in itself as it might result in mental or physical harm,
force parents to not talk about what they or their ancestors went through during
and after 1915 to protect their children. Nina Fischer, in her study on the postgenocide
families, argues that “the parental wish to shield children from destructive
knowledge” further complicates the communication of the traumatic event, which
was already difficult in the first place for the survivor (2015, 5). Therefore, as Nazan
Maksudyan states, Armenians of Turkey have been sustaining their lives “behind
a wall of absolute silence” which hinders them from talking about the Armenian
Genocide (2009, 636).
The fact that the Genocide was not discussed openly in the family circles also came
forth during the interviews. For example, Sarven’s parents pointed to the risks and
fears that the topic entails as the reason for not sharing family stories with him:
“Let’s not talk about this. It’s over. No need to fall for them again. If we talk, it’s
not good for us, it’s bad.”1 It is also possible to argue that the reflections of those
constraints and dangers are not limited to parents’ attitudes and also influence the
discourses of the young Armenians. Rita, for example, states that whenever the
topic arises, the atmosphere of the country becomes tenser. In a more striking
example, when asked about her family’s story, the dangers, and risks to talk about
the Armenian Genocide result in an interruption of Zabel’s narration.
Rudi: You described this family as people who are more conservative at
work and give importance to their national and religious identity. Would
you like to tell their story a little bit? Where are they from?
Zabel: We are from Bitlis. I wish I had a yaya here, I wish I had my
grandmother here. They suffered a lot, especially when they were coming
1Bunları konusmayalım iste. Oldu bitti iste. Tekrar onlara düsmeye gerek yok. Konusursak bizim için iyi
olmuyor, kötü oluyor.
74
from Bitlis- Shall I tell you about these places, Rudi?
Rudi: Tell, tell. So if you are afraid of something, there is no need
because on the one hand only I will be listening, on the other hand, as I
said, it will be passing through your filter while putting things. So I’m
going to say I put them.
Zabel: I don’t, not because I’m afraid of something myself. . . You already
have the video; you can cut it if you want. I don’t know, if these
could be told. Well, okay, let me explain. Yayam always tells like this...2
Nevertheless, the restrictions enforced from the outside and cautiousness imposed
on young Armenians from the inside do not necessarily mean that no transmission
has ever happened within the family. It has happened indirectly and most of the
time through silences. Fırat, Gürpınar, Muti, and Sannan (2021) defines the extent
of such transmission, quoting from Agamben, as a “‘wordless’ experience which precedes
in time and logic the constitution of the subject within and through language”
(84). Therefore, silences within the household do not divert children to grasp what
was not told to them. As argued by Fischer, “indirect transmission in an undercurrent
of nonverbal communication and in the unspoken but powerful presence of
secrets and taboos is also found in families characterized by minimal direct communication”
(2015, 5). Correspondingly, the silent transmission of the traumatic stories
was revealed in the interviews. The difficulty that interviewees experienced when
designating a moment that they hear the Armenian Genocide for the first time, is
telling in this regard. It is important to note that, even though parents abstain
from talk about the Armenian Genocide, they still feel the necessity to urge their
children to be careful. Zepour, for instance, recounts that the knowledge of being
different was explicitly transmitted to her as their parents remind her that she is
different from the ‘others’.
I never hid it that much but I didn’t stand out because your parents
teach you that. Because already it is not explained much when you
are little. Just because the child is not clear where to say what. But
they always teach you that you are different, that you are not one of
2Rudi: Bu ailenin iste daha muhafazakâr iste kendi milli ve dini kimligine önem veren insanlar olarak
anlattın. Onların hikayesini anlatmak ister misin biraz? Nerelilermis?
Zabel: Biz Bitlisliyiz. Benim keske yayam olsaydı burada keske anneannem olsaydı keske. Onlar,
yayamlar epey çekmisler Bitlis’ten gelirken özellikle- Buraları anlatayım mı Rudi ya?
Rudi: Anlat anlat. Yani bir seyden çekiniyorsan gerek yok çünkü zaten sadece ben dinliyor olacagım
bir taraftan, diger taraftan da dedigim gibi seyleri koyarken senin süzgecinden geçiyor olacak. Yani ben
bunları koydum diyecegim.
Zabel: Ben yok ben kendim çekindigimden degil de. . . Sen zaten evet video sende kalacak istersen
kesersin de. Ne bileyim buralar anlatılır mı diye sey oldum. Neyse tamam anlatayım. Yayam hep anlatır
böyle...
75
them, even without telling you much. And, I mean, you can’t keep your
shoulders straight.3
Even though parents paid great attention to conceal any kind of information regarding
their children’s Armenianness, it is almost impossible to succeed in this endeavor
as the lives of Armenians are surrounded by various incidents that remind them of
the ‘dangerous’ aspects of their identity. In Sarven’s case, for example, despite the
conservative attitude of his father regarding the Armenian Genocide, an unexpected
letter received from a possible lost relative from Lebanon, broke the silence.
My father is harsh about talking about this, does not like to mention the
story in the family. But we have a story like this. My yaya is my father’s
mother. She had Alzheimer’s disease, like that in 2011-2012. Just at the
beginning of this disease, when she started to forget something new, very
strangely, a letter came to us from Lebanon. That’s how the letter is at
my yaya’s house, we didn’t understand it much then. We don’t know
what’s what. I’m roughly 10-12 years old at work. I remember such a
thing, within the family there is constantly “Yeah the letter has come
but should we open it or not? Who did it come from? Okay, never mind,
let’s hide it, let’s remove it.” I’ll never forget the thing, that scene, my
father and my yaya stayed at the kitchen for a long time. They talked
about that letter for a long time, and she made them hide the letter in
some place, and the letter remained there. It’s been quite some time. My
yaya passed away in 2015. That’s how I was now, umm, that was when
I started getting interested in these subjects. I asked my father about,
“Where is that letter, what was that letter, from whom did it come?”
He didn’t say anything. After My yaya died, I searched the house a lot,
it was dispersed like this. We couldn’t find the letter. But maybe he
was a relative, maybe someone who was searching for us or someone we
called in the past but could not reach. I still don’t know exactly what it
was.4
3Hiç o kadar gizlemedim ama atılmadım çünkü ailen sana onu ögretiyor. Çünkü çok da anlatılmıyor
küçükken zaten bir seyler. Nerede ne diyecegi çocugun belli olmaz diye. Ama hep senin farklı oldugunu,
onlardan olmadıgını sana çok bir sey söylemeden bile sana onu ögretiyor. Ve, yani omuzlarını dik tutamıyorsun.
4Babam çok sert bu konuda asla konusmayı, anlatmayı bir aile içindeki hikâyeyi de dillendirmeyi sevmez.
Ama bizde söyle bir hikâye var. Benim yayam, babamın maması. Alzaymır hastalıgına yakalanmıstı,
2011-2012 yıllarında falan böyle. Tam bu hastalıgın basladıgı dönemlerde daha böyle yeni yeni bir seyleri
unutmaya basladıgı dönemde çok garip bir sekilde Lübnan’dan bize bir mektup gelmisti. Mektup böyle
iste yayamın evinde, o zamanlar çok da anlamıyoruz. Neyin ne oldugunu bilmiyoruz. Ben de asagı yukarı
iste 10-12 yasında filanım. Böyle seyi hatırlıyorum, aile içinde sürekli o mektubu iste geldi ama açılım
açmayalım mı, bakalım mı bakmayalım mı? Kimden gelmis? Tamam bos verin, saklayalım, kaldıralım.
Seyi hiç unutmuyorum, o sahneyi babamla yayam çok uzun süre mutfakta kaldı. Uzun süre o mektubun
üzerine konustular ve mektubu yayam bir yere saklattı ve mektup orada kaldı. Üzerinden bayagı zaman
geçti. 2015’te yayam vefat etti. Artık ben de böyle, umm, bu konuya ilgi duymaya basladıgım dönemlerdi.
Babama seyi sormustum. Ya o mektup nerde, o mektup neydi, kimden geldi filan diye. Hiçbir sey
söylemedi. Yayam iste vefat ettikten sonra evi bayagı bir talan ettim, dagıtıldı filan böyle. Mektubu
bulamadık. Ama hani belki iste o bir akraba idi, belki bir iste bizi arayan ya da bizim zamanında aradıgımız
ama ulasamadıgımız biriydi. Tam olarak neydi hala bilmiyorum.
76
While interviewees mentioned that they grasped some kind of delicate knowledge
through silences during their childhood about the Armenian Genocide, most of them
dated their first structured encounter with the topic to their high school years. As
the history books contain a specific section where the Genocide is described in line
with the official historiography, it became inescapable for children to learn about the
topic. As the books are prepared by the Ministry of National Education, the knowledge
given is in accordance with the state’s official narrative. Although the historical
narrative of 1915 changes conjunctionally, it always stays within the boundaries of
the official history, which is based on the rejection of the ‘Armenian claims’ (100.
Yılında Soykırımı Hatırlamak 2017). Furthermore, as Aybak illustrates, it is instructed
in the teachers’ manual for grade 7 teachers of social studies to pass ‘the
state’s defensive discourse’ to the students. The instruction is following:
State to your students that the Russians also made some Armenians
revolt on this front and murder many of our civilian citizens. Explain
that the Ottoman State took certain measures following these developments,
and in May 1915 implemented the ‘Tehcir Kanunu’ [Displacement
Law] regarding the migration and settlement of Armenians in the battleground.
Explain that care was taken to ensure that the land in which
the Armenians who had to migrate were to settle was fertile, that police
stations were established for their security, and that measures were
taken to ensure they could practice their previous jobs and professions.
(as cited in Aybak 2016, 138)
It is important to mention that, as the stories that are heard in the familial circles
are in contradiction with what students read in the compulsory textbooks, it leads
to the emergence of a conflicting socialization process among young Armenians.
Anoush describes her reaction to the section of the history book about the Armenian
Genocide that defies the anticipated public behavior of Armenians since she knows
the narratives are based on lies, and Anoush describes her reaction to the section of
the history book about the Armenian Genocide that defies the anticipated public
behavior of Armenians since she knows the narratives are based on lies, and she
relates her fury as the reason of her reaction.
About going out, you learn some things because of the lessons you take,
how it is. You learn not only from the lessons that the school gives us,
but also from the history lessons, for example, and then you can realize
how things are different from what actually happened and what is taught
in the lessons. Because these subjects are introduced at that time, during
77
high school. I scribbled and tore the pages about the Armenian genocide
in the tenth-grade history book. In front of the teacher. And I said that
“I won’t read these pages. I will not learn these pages.” So, I scribbled
and tore those pages up by saying that will not read. I scribbled them
all line by line. Either way I was not going to use those pages. I already
know they’re lies. I think this is something that the anger that I have, I
mean, it’s not just about 1915, but, umm, I mean, it was about the anger
that living some things in this country because of having this identity.5
While interviews reveal that most of the young Armenians have learned the details
of the Armenian Genocide during their high school years, it did not exclusively
take place within the school buildings. There were also some instances where young
Armenians confront the topic during encounters that took place outside. As it was
not only the Armenian students who learned about the ‘Armenian question’ from
history textbooks, it drove non-Armenian students to ask about the topic to their
peers. It is worthwhile to mention that those questions were perceived by young
Armenians as ill-intended, and they believe the aim was not to learn what they
genuinely think about but rather to discomfort them and challenge their opinions
about the topic. Zepour describes the ones who ask such questions as sivri tipler,
pointy people, and states that they are either a fanatic Muslim or a Turk who
wittingly asks the question.
Some pointy people ask, “Do you think it happened?” and I say, “Yes,
I think it happened because my grandparents experienced and I still see
the effects of it in my life.” This is my answer. He doesn’t say anything
about it. Because, for example, I say everyone’s experience is different.
I know what happened to us. That person already knows when asking.
Do you understand? He is a fanatic Turk. He is a devout Muslim. He
asks on purpose. And my answer is, “Yes, I believe it is.” So, I know
because my grandparents experienced the effects of it most closely. I
say we are living even though we are the third generation. “I know it
happened and I believe it, but I also respect everyone’s opinion” I say
and close the subject in a very political way.6
5Dısarı çıkmak konusunda, aldıgın dersler nedeniyle bazı seyleri ögreniyorsun nasıl oldugunu falan. Sadece
okulun bize verdigi derslerden degil tarih derslerinden de ögreniyorsun mesela nasıl seyler oldugunu Ve
aslında olanla derslerde okutulanın nasıl farklı oldugunu o zaman idrak edebiliyorsun. Çünkü bu konulara o
zaman giriliyor, lise zamanı giriliyor. Onuncu sınıftaki tarih kitabındaki Ermeni soykırımıyla ilgili sayfaları
ben karalamıstım hep ve yırtmıstım. Hocanın gözü önünde. Ve demistim ki ben bu sayfaları okumiyicam.
Ben bu sayfaları islemiyicem. Hepsini satır satır karalamıstım önce. Nasıl olsa yalan olduklarını biliyorum
zaten diye. Bu-bu bana- yani bu öfkenin yaptırdıgı bir sey diye düsünüyorum. Yani hem- 1915 ile ilgili
degil sadece ama, umm, yani, bu kimlige sahip oldugum için bu ülkede yasadıgım seylerin bende yarattıgı
öfkeyle ilgili bir seydi bu
6Bazı böyle sivri tipler “Sence oldu mu?” diye soruyor. Ben de diyorum ki evet bence oldu çünkü benim
dedelerim yasamıs ve bunun etkilerini hala hayatımda görüyorum diyorum. Benim cevabım bu oluyor.
Üstüne de bir sey diyemiyor. Çünkü mesela ne olmus diyorum herkesin deneyimi farklı diyorum. Bizim
basımıza gelenleri ben biliyorum. Soran kisi zaten bilerek soruyor. Hani, anlıyor musun? Hani koyu bir
78
What is striking in those encounters is the obligation expected from young Armenians
to know and discuss the Genocide, in a careful way, whenever it is requested. The
necessity to know about the Armenian Genocide and not refrain from participating
in a discussion are among the performances that are expected from Armenians in
Turkey to fulfill. This obligation could be evaluated within the context of the ‘Turkishness
contract’. Barıs Ünlü (2016), in his influential article, examines the question
of ethnicity in Turkey and states that the vast majority of the Turks are actively
choosing to ‘not know’ in order to escape from ethical responsibilities that ‘knowing’
entails. Conceptualized as the ‘Turkishness contract’, he states that to avoid such
responsibilities, Turks are living “in a state of impenetrable ignorance in relation to
the non-Turkish population of Turkey” (2016, 4). Then, following Melissa Steyn,
he argues that part of the privilege of being Turk is the very ability not to know,
not to see, and not to hear. According to Ünlü, “only the ones who belong to the
dominant racial or ethnic group have the power not to see, not to hear and not to
know” (2016, 4). Moving from this analysis, I argue that the unprivileged position
of the Istanbulite Armenians obliges them to know, to see, to hear, and most importantly,
to answer and satisfy the needs of the dominant ethnic group of Turkey. The
reflections of this necessity could be found in Arden’s description of what it means
to be an Armenian in Turkey.
We are always looking to prove something. We are constantly trying to
express ourselves. It’s a nice thing. I like being from a different part of
the society. Of course, we cannot live at ease.7
In another example, Rita describes an incident that took place at dershane where
she was asked about the Armenian Genocide. Given they both attended the same
dershane and at similar ages, it is possible to assume that their knowledge regarding
the topic is the same or that Rita knows more about it. Yet, Rita’s anxiety is
noteworthy as she fears her ‘ignorance’ could result in giving wrong information,
and to avoid any misinformation, she urges herself to “Shut up!”.
“So we killed you?” he said. “Maybe you didn’t kill us, but we experienced
something in that time. But it stayed at that time, it remained
Türk oluyor. Koyu bir Müslüman oluyor. Bilerek soruyor. Benim de cevabım “Evet, olduguna inanıyorum.”
Yani biliyorum çünkü benim dedelerim bunun etkilerini en yakından yasamıs. Biz bile kaçıncı kusak,
yasıyoruz diyorum. Ben oldugunu biliyorum ve inanıyorum diyorum ama herkesin düsüncesine de saygı
duyuyorum diyip çok politik kapıyorum.
7Hep bir seyleri kanıtlama pesindeyiz. Kendimizi ifade etmeye çalısıyoruz sürekli. Güzel bir sey. Ayrı bir
kesimde olmak benim çok hosuma gidiyor. Tabi rahat yasayamıyoruz.
79
there. Today, it is not considered as a genocide here. But such thing
happened. We cannot say that it didn’t happen” I said. “It didn’t happen!”
he said. “Well, let it be so, let it not be lived according to you” I
said. I cut it there because if it gets longer, I’m ignorant and - I don’t
know much. So ok, I know some processes. I know from my own family,
but I do not know how it happened like this or that or how it happened
politically. I can’t argue with him there because of my ignorance. Oh,
what if I say something wrong, shut up Rita. You become hesitant. No
matter how much I say I am Armenian, there is a fear. That instinct is
what was given in our childhood. That’s why I kept quiet.8
Illustrated by the aforementioned examples, although the efforts of parents to conceal
any information from young Armenians regarding the Armenian Genocide is
evident, as the knowledge about the topic is infused to different segments of the
society, it becomes inevitably for young Armenians to confront the topic. Either
at schools, dershanes, or during encounters, they are expected to know and answer
the questions of their peers. However, the information expected from them to know
might differ from the way that young Armenians perceive the topic itself. In the
following part, I will examine what young Armenians know and think about the
Armenian Genocide.
4.2 Young Armenians’ Perception of the Genocide
Even though it is expected from young Armenians to know and put significant
importance on the Armenian Genocide, as mentioned in previous parts, the way that
young Armenians perceive the topic slightly differs from the expectations of both
the Armenian and Turkish communities. Interviews revealed that young Armenians
of Turkey are different as they prefer to put an emphasis not on the Armenian
Genocide and the ensuing events but rather on the cultural aspects of the Armenian
culture. Several interviewees mentioned that they are not interested at all in the
8“Biz seni öldürdük mü yani?” diyo. Sen bizi öldürmedin ama belki zamanında bir sey yasadık. Ama
o zamanında kalmıs. Orada kalmıs. Sadece bu soykırım olarak kabul edilmiyor burada dedim. Ama
böyle bir sey yasandı ama yasanmadı diyemeyiz. Yasanmadı! dedi. E hadi öyle olsun, yasanmadı senin
gözünle dedim. Orada kestim çünkü uzarsa ben, bilgisizligimden ve-ben çok bilmiyorum. Yani tamam,
bazı süreçleri biliyorum. Ben kendi aileminkinden biliyorum ama bu olmus, söyle olmus, siyasi olarak bu
olmus su olmus bilmiyorum. Ben orada cahilligimle çocukla atısamam. Yanlıs bir sey derim falan aman
Rita sus. Öyle bir tereddütte kalıyorsun. Ne kadar çok ben Ermeniyim desem bile, bir korku oluyor. O
içgüdü, çocuklugumuzda verilen sey oluyor o. O yüzden sustum ben de o sekilde.
80
incidents that took place in 1915 and argued that they should be left behind. Zepour,
for example, states that she has no interest in her family story of the Armenian
Genocide. She describes her family’s story as “always a tragedy”. Additionally, she
claims that most of the time, Armenians in Turkey have been negatively affected
by the issues related to the Genocide. It is particularly important to mention that
while describing the drawbacks of the incident, she does not mention the ones that
are coming from the Turkish society but the patriarchal structure of the Armenians
of Turkey.
I don’t remember much actually. I guess I don’t care at all because it’s
always tragedy. I guess that’s how it affects me. You know, doesn’t a
person know his essence, his thing? But I mean, we are so exposed to
its influence even today. You say that it has already passed, but with
the effect of it- as I said, an introverted family structure; patriarchy. I
really don’t want to be in it. That’s how these events affect me. Because
I live in Turkey and of course the neighborhood I live in is Yesilköy, but
my friends- I have Armenian friends as well as Muslim friends, Turkish
friends.9
Zepour attributes her indifference towards the Armenian Genocide to the fact that
she lives in Turkey and has Turkish as much as Armenian friends around her. It
is important to note that Zepour was not the only young Armenian who stated
that the issues related to the Armenian Genocide were not among their priorities.
The presence of such an attitude among young Armenians could be explained by
generational differences. In a study conducted by Sigel and Weinfeld (1989), it
was argued that the effects of the traumatic incident that was experienced by the
first generation are started to lose their grasp in future generations. According
to them, this circumstance is particularly prominent for the individuals from the
third generation, as they while having a higher level of psychological well-being, also
establish a stronger bond with the first generation. The reason for the establishment
of a stronger bond was explained by the researchers as grandchildren felt more secure
in their own sense of self. The psychological well-being could be observed in Rita’s
example, who approaches the often-referenced ’scar’ metaphor for the Armenian
Genocide. While the phrase “Some wounds never heal,” implies the state’s denialist
policies which hindered Armenians to heal their ‘wound’ to this date, she approaches
9Benim aklımda çok kalmıyor çünkü aslında sanırım hiç ilgilenmiyorum çünkü hep trajedi. Hani sanırım
beni bu sekilde etkiliyor. Hani-hani insan özünü bilmez mi, seyini? ama yani o kadar etkisine maruz
kalıyoruz ki su günde bile geçti gitti diyorsun ama onun etkisiyle- iste dedim ya, iste içe dönük bir aile
yapısı; ataerkillik. Gerçekten çok ben içinde olmak istemiyorum. Beni o sekilde etkiliyor bu olaylar. Çünkü
Türkiye’de yasıyorum ve tabii ki de yasadıgım çevre Yesilköy ama arkadaslarım- Ermeni arkadaslarım
oldugu kadar Müslüman arkadaslarım var, Türk arkadaslarım.
81
the metaphor in a distinct way and claims that the wound is already healed and
expelled from the body.
For example, I haven’t read any books. I read, but I read the memoirs,
and when I read the memoirs, I couldn’t stand and closed them. That’s
why I can’t tell you if you want me to do now. (. . . ) I fully accept what
happened. But, um, we shouldn’t bring this issue to the present day.
Okay, the pain has crusted over and gone from the body. So, bringing
this up. . . Why should we experience the pain once again? Maybe, I
don’t know, we don’t know if we will live again after a long time. Maybe
we will do something or they will do something to us or something will
happen in the world. We don’t know.10
Zepour and Rita were the two interviewees that did not enroll in an Armenian but
rather in a private Turkish high school. As the importance of Armenian schools
was underlined in the previous chapter, the absence of the socialization provided
by the Armenian schools might have impacted the way these two young Armenians
perceive the Armenian Genocide. Nevertheless, the lack of interest in family stories
does not entail the lack of interest in the Armenian culture. Rita, for example,
does not consider her ’indifference’ to the genocide or family history as forgetting or
trivializing the past. She says that the past should stay in the past, and we should
look ahead as we live in Turkey.
But my only logic... Sometimes people also think wrong: “Oh, why do
you forget your past?” I don’t forget my past! I just- it’s the past, as the
name suggests. The event is happened and over, now we have to look
to the future. We are not experiencing that right now. I should never
have had a friend then. Let me live in the church, not leave Kurtulus,
do nothing, always live under the same roof. But it can’t happen! We
live in Turkey.11
Similarly, in another instance, Zepour mentions her desire and even her struggle
10Ben hiçbir kitap okumadım mesela. Okudum ama anı okudum, anıları okuyunca da içim dayanmadı
kapattım. Onun için, bana simdi anlat desen anlatamam. (. . . ) Olanları tamamen kabul ediyorum. Ama,
umm, bu meseleyi günümüze getirmemek gerekir. Acı tamam kabuk bagladı, ve yani vücuttan gitti. Yani
bunu gündeme getirmek. . . Niye acıyı bir kez daha yasayalım? Belki de bilmiyorum uzun süre sorna
yeniden yasayacak mıyız, onu da bilmiyoruz. Belki biz bir sey yapıcaz ya da onlar bize bir sey yapacak,
ya da dünyada bir sey olacak. Bilmiyoruz.
11Ama benim tek mantıgım, bazen insanlar yanlıs da düsünüyor: “Aa, niye geçmisini unutuyorsun?”
Geçmisimi unutmuyorum! Ben sadece, o geçmis, adı üstünde. Olay yasanmıs bitmis, biz simdi gelecege
bakmamız lazım. Biz su anda o seyi yasamıyoruz. Benim o zaman hiçbir zaman arkadasımın olmaması
gerekir. Ben kilisede yasayayım, Kurtulus’tan dısarı atmayayım, hiçbir sey yapmayayım, hep aynı çatı
altında kalayım. Ama olmuyor ki! Biz Türkiye’de yasıyoruz.
82
against her parents to put a cross on her neck. She underlines that her attitude is
not related to nationalism, but she just is not ashamed of who she is.
I feel more like an individual now. As a result, as you get older, the
family doesn’t have that much pressure on you. They tell me “Keep
your cross in” or “Don’t wear a cross” or “Wear it only when you’re on
the Island.” I take my huge cross and walk the streets. They say, “Keep
it in,” and I say “I don’t want to keep it in!” So, I love it. I’m not such
a nationalist, but why should I hide my cross? Do you understand? It
seems very stupid to me. I’m not ashamed of myself. I don’t feel the
need to hide. Oh, I can get reaction because of this. I don’t know if
something might happen to me one day, but I don’t want to live with
this fear or this instinct.12
Reflecting on the testimonies of Zepour and Rita, I argue that the aim of young
Armenians is not to trivialize the stories of the Armenian Genocide and the past
but is related to the realities of living in Turkey and the desire to establish a different
future. Instead of focusing on a topic that the Turkish state and society do not allow
them to act on, they are trying to build a different future by prioritizing various
aspects of the Armenian culture. Participating in cultural activities, working for
the survival of the Armenian language, and embracing the cultural elements in their
daily lives could be counted among this new sense of Armenianness. In other words,
being aware of the fact that they come into contact with Turks more often than
Armenians and that the Turkish state will not recognize the Armenian Genocide,
young Armenians are trying to create new spaces to act on. To reiterate, this does
not mean that young Armenians neglect or ignore the impact and importance of
the Armenian Genocide. In a clear example, although Rita states that focusing on
the issues revolving around the Genocide creates a tenser and troubled environment
for Armenians, she still underlines the responsibility of the Turkish society and her
expectation for an apology.
I think it is important that this is accepted in our country. But if it
won’t be accepted, whatever. We can’t fight for this. How many years
have passed now? And when the situation is too much - that is to say,
when it’s on the surface, there is a more tense environment. It gets more
12Ben daha simdi bir birey oldugum hissediyorum. Hani sonuç olarak büyüdükçe ailenin o kadar baskısı
kalmıyor. Bana “Haçını içeri sok” veya “Haç takma” hani bir tek adada tak diyorlar. Ben kocaman haçımı
alıp sokaklarda geziyorum. Bana içine sok diyorlar, “Sokmak istemiyorum!” diyorum. Seviyorum yani.
Seviyorum hani. Öyle milliyetçi degilim ama niye haçımı saklayayım? Hani, anladın mı? Bana çok aptalca
geliyor. Böyle olmaktan utanmıyorum. Gizleme gereksinimi de duymuyorum. Ha böyle tepki çekebilirim,
bir gün basıma bir sey gelebilir bilemem ama onun korkusuyla veya bu içgüdüyle yasamak istemiyorum.
83
troublesome. There is tension between families. But still, they have
a responsibility like this, I think they should know how to apologize.
Those who accept are already apologizing, but these people need to raise
awareness of those who don’t. Look bro, look, I’m apologizing. Even if
I didn’t do it, I apologize on their behalf, so let’s apologize too. In other
words, they should do it by raising awareness, not by force. Just as we
raise awareness of them, they must do this among themselves.13
All the young Armenians interviewed mentioned very similar expectations as Rita’s,
namely, to receive an apology. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that young
Armenians do not consider their peers guilty of the Armenian Genocide, as it would
be wrong to blame the grandchildren for the crimes their grandfather committed.
Zabel states that it would be sufficient for her to hear, “I share your pain.”
I do not think such a thing, the crime does not descend from father to
son. I say this with a very cold heart right now, but I mean, why should
they take responsibility for this, why should they bear the burden of
it after three generations? The younger generation is already conscious
when you talk. When you sit down and talk to someone, they said, “yes,
something like this happened, you suffered a lot back then, as Armenians,
as Greeks.” (. . . ) I think it’s enough for me to say, “I share your pain,
brother.” I don’t expect more anyway, I can say that I don’t think he
needs to do more.14
However, even though young Armenians think that the grandchildren of the perpetrators
cannot be held accountable for the crimes they did not commit, they still
expect an apology. One of the most repetitive themes that emerged during the interviews
was the expectation from Turkish society to take an initiative to confront
the Genocide. Nevertheless, for some interviewees, it was not only an apology that
is expected from Turkish society but also to struggle to make others apologize as
well. Anoush, for example, even though she states that the people of this era could
13Kendi ülkemizde bunun kabul edilmesinin mühim bir sey oldugunu düsünüyorum. Ama edilmeyecekse de
edilmeyecek yani. Biz bunun savasını veremeyiz, kaç sene geçti artık yani. Ve durum ne zaman çok- yani
yüz üstüne çıktıgında daha gergin bir ortam oluyor. Daha sıkıntılı oluyor. Aileler arasında da gerginlik
oluyor. Ama yine de su sekilde sorumlulukları var bence, özür dilemeyi bilmeleri gerekiyor. Kabul edenler
zaten özür diliyor ama bu insanların Kabul etmeyenleri bilinçlendirmesi gerekiyor. Bak abi bak ben özür
diliyorum. Ben yapmamıssam bile ben onlar adına özür diliyorum, hadi sen de özür dile. Yani zorla degil,
bilinçlendirerek yapmaları lazım. Biz onları nasıl bilinçendireceksek onların da kendi aralarında bunu
yapmaları lazım.
14Böyle bir sey düsünmüyorum yani, suç babadan ogula geçmez. Su an bunu çok soguk bir yürekle söylüyorum
ama yani bunun sorumlulugunu niye alsınlar, bunun yükünü niye üç kusak altı çeksin ki? Asagısı
zaten oturup konustugun zaman, bilinçli. Biriyle oturup konustugun zaman her zaman sey söylüyor, evet
ya böyle bir sey olmus dönemde çok çekmissiniz Ermeniler olarak iste Rumlar olarak sunlar olarak bunlar
olarak. (. . . ) Ben senin acını paylasıyorum kardesim demesi bence yeterli benim için zaten fazlasını da
beklemiyorum, fazlasını yapmasına gerek oldugunu da düsünmüyorum diyebilirim.
84
not be held responsible for an event that happened 100 years ago, she still held them
accountable as they failed to stand with Armenians and confront an event that took
place 100 years ago.
I don’t think we can hold people of this period responsible for something
that happened 100 years ago. This is my logical thinking. That’s
what I’d say if I thought logically. But we tend to be emotional about
it, so they are responsible. They are still responsible for not revealing
something that happened in the past and not being able to make everyone
accept that it exists, and they are responsible because they are still
not there for us when such issues arise. They are still responsible for
continuing this mentality.15
In addition to an apology on the personal, and a struggle for confrontation on the
societal level, the sincerity of the apology also has significance for young Armenians.
Karin, for example, mentions that an apology to save the day without any
authenticity would have no meaning for her. She particularly recounts an incident
where one of her peers apologized with a mocking tone and her frustration for such
an attitude.
I think it was April 25. We left school; we were sitting somewhere.
There is a boy named Halil and he said to me, “I didn’t see you at
school yesterday, I’m sorry,” I said why. “So, it was April 24th,” he said.
I was petrified. He said this, but he is such a person that I know he
didn’t say it with good intentions at that moment. And he did this next
to Utku Hoca, an instructor. “Yesterday was April 24, I’m sorry,” so
it’s not like that. You can’t confront the Genocide with an apology at
a coffee break. There is no such thing. This is kind of foolishness. He
apologizes as if he is kidding. That’s not what I want, that’s not what I
expect.16
Zepour, on the other hand, points a significant obstacle for the confrontation of the
15Bu dönemdeki insanları, 100 yıl önce yasanmıs bir sey için sorumlu tutamayız bence. Bu mantıklı
düsüncem. Mantıklı düsünsem böyle derdim. Ama duygusal bakmaya meyilliyiz bu konuda, o yüzden
sorumlular. Yani geçmiste olan bir seyi ortaya çıkarmayıp, bunun var oldugunu kabul ettiremedikleri
için ve böyle bir konu oldugunda bizim yanımızda hala olmadıkları için bence hala sorumlular. Hala bu
zihniyeti devam ettirdikleri için sorumlular.
1624 Nisan’dan 25 Nisan’dı sanırım. Okuldan çıktık oturuyoruz. Halil diye bir çocuk var. Bana sey dedi,
“Dün seni okulda göremedim, özür dilerim,” Niye dedim. “24 Nisan’dı ya o yüzden,” diyor. Böyle bir
kaldım. Öyle bir söylüyor ki, öyle bir insan ki o yani bunu iyi niyetli söylemedigini biliyorum mesela o
an. Ve bunu sey ögretim görelisi Utku Hocanın yanında yaptı. “Dün 24 Nisandı ya özür dilerim,” yani
bu sekilde de olmaz. Bir soykırımla kahve arası söylenen bir özürle yüzlesemezsin. Böyle bir sey yok yani.
Böyle bir dangalaklık olamaz. Dalga geçermis gibi özür dilerim. Istedigim sey bu da degil yani istedigim,
bekledigim sey bu da degil.
85
Genocide, that is, the oppressive political atmosphere of the country. Because of
the oppressive environment in Turkey, which does not allow anyone to talk or act
freely, she does not think they have any responsibility.
I don’t think they have any responsibilities, but an Armenian is looking
for his right and I don’t know if a Muslim would worry about it. In
Turkey because you do not have the right to free speech. I do not
know. I wish we could speak freely. But I don’t think anyone can
talk about anything, especially now. So, I don’t think they have any
responsibilities.17
As Zepour already illustrated, the disbelief for the possibility of the Turkish state’s
confrontation with the Armenian Genocide was common among all of the interviewees.
The denialist policies pursued by the Turkish state for more than a century,
along with the recent increase in nationalist sentiment were mentioned as the source
of their disbelief. Nevertheless, while it might be assumed that this situation would
upset young Armenians, interviews revealed that their attitude is quite opposite. As
I already mentioned previously, most of the interviewees stated that confronting the
Genocide was not a priority for them. Two different perspectives could be counted
among young Armenians while approaching the topic of confronting the Genocide.
First, young Armenians claim that the Genocide was a tragic incident that belongs
to the past and instead of focusing on the past, it is more important to build a future
in this country. The second perspective, on the other hand, is that the recognition
of the Genocide by the state will have a very limited or no effect in their own lives
as the topic has already become highly politicized. Zabel, for example, states that
the state’s recognition of the genocide means nothing to her, as no decision taken
by the state would bring back the people, she lost in 1915.
So, history is a science. I say this as someone who loves history very
much. But Rudi, there has been some pain. I mean, it seems very meaningless
to me that people’s feelings are ignored so much and everything
is reduced to a science. So, what happens if the state accepts this, what
happens if it doesn’t? If you stand up and go out to the street right
now, can you relieve my yaya’s pain? What will bring back the feelings,
the grief, the losses experienced by my ancestors or those before
them? What can we do? If I go out and stand like this now, “we will
17Bir sorumluluklarının oldugunu düsünmüyorum ama bir Ermeni hakkını arıyor ve bir Müslüman da bunun
derdine düser mi bilmiyorum. Türkiye’de çünkü özgür konusma hakkın yok. Bilmiyorum. Keske özgürce
konusulabilseydi. Ama özellikle su anda hiçkimse hiçbir konu hakkında hiçbir sey konusamıyor bence. O
yüzden bir sorumluluklarının oldugunu düsünmüyorum
86
attend these commemorations, you cannot postpone them, it will be like
this, it will be like that.” Well, those people won’t come back. Will the
pain of my yaya sooth? So, it doesn’t make any sense. Now, someone
has lived those lines you are reading shakingly, and that someone is my
yaya. Maybe your grandfather, maybe someone else’s aunt. So, what
will happen if we face it or the state accepts it? What will happen?18
Despite their disbelief and the presence of a desperate environment that exists both
in the state and the society, young Armenians still mentioned a transformation that
is taking place in Turkish society. Verjin, for example, illustrates the transformation
of society at large through an incident that one of her friends experienced.
In fact, when they used to write “Die Armenian” on Twitter, I saw
that there is a large number of people defending Armenians now. For
example, a death threat was made to a friend of mine. There were a lot of
comments under it, most of them were Turk. There are many "Armenian
lovers" in front of those who say "die now". I say this [Armenian lovers]
in quotation marks. I’m not saying that. It is good to know that there
are also Turks who react to these and say “No, these are not stories, they
are not fictitious, what is told is true.” Good to see these.19
As a trigger of such transformation, most of the interviewees pointed out the assassination
of Hrant Dink and the following commemorative events. They argued that
the impact of the assassination has reached far beyond the Armenians of Turkey
and brought awareness to the society at large. Tatul, for example, even though he
was not precise about the significance of the impact, argues that the assassination
changed the perception of society regarding the Armenian Genocide.
18Yani tarih bilimdir. Ben tarihi çok seven biri olarak bunu söylüyorum. Ama Rudi bazı acılar yasanmıs ya.
Yani insanların duygularının bu kadar görmezden gelinip, her seyin bir bilime indirgeniyor olması bana
çok yavan geliyor. O yüzden bunu devlet kabul etse ne olur, etmese ne olur? Su an sen ayaklansan, sokaga
çıksan benim yayamın yasadıgı acıyı dindirebilir misin? Benim atalarımın ya da ondan öncekilerin yasadıgı
duyguları, o kederi, o kayıpları ne geri getirecek ki? Ne yapabiliriz ki? Ben simdi çıkıp böyle diklensem
desem ki, iste bu anmalara katılacagız, hayır bunlar erteleyemezsiniz, söyle olacak böyle olacak. Eee, o
insanlar geri gelmeyecek ki. Benim yayamın yasadıgı acı ne dinecek mi? O yüzden hiçbir anlamı yok.
Simdi senin titreyerek okudugunu satırları birileri bir gün yasadı ve o birileri benim yayam. Belki senin
deden, belki baskasının halası, teyzesi neyse yani. O yüzden yani bununla yüzlessek ne olur, devlet bunu
kabul etse ne olur. Artık ne olur yani.
19Aslında eskiden twitter ortamında ”Geber Ermeni” yazarken su an Ermenileri savunan büyük bir kitlenin
de oldugunu gördüm. Bir arkadasıma ölüm tehdidinde bulunulnustu örnegin. Onun altında mesela bir
sürü yorum vardı, çogu da Türk. Artık geber diyenlerin karsısında hani ‘Ermeni seviciler’ de çok. Hani
bunu tırnak içinde söylüyorum. Ben öyle demiyorum. Bunlara tepkilerin verilmesi, “Hayır, bunlar hikâye
degil, hayal ürünü degil, anlatılanlar gerçek” diyen Türklerin de oldugunu bilmek güzel. Bunları görmek
güzel seyler.
87
I believe that the murder of Hrant Dink had a certain effect on a large
part of Dacik society. But considering the percentage, I’m not sure. But
I think it convinced a certain group of people about the genocide or to
change some things.20
The assassination of Hrant Dink brought an impact to Turkish society as commemorative
events increased the visibility of not only the Armenians of Turkey but also
hinted at the Armenian Genocide. Yet, the impact of the assassination was more
significant for the Armenians of Turkey and particularly for young Armenians. The
following pages will examine the impact of the assassination on young Armenians’
subjectivity and how did the assassination transform the lives of Armenians particularly
concerning their Armenianness. Before elaborating on its impact, I would
like to describe how young Armenians recounted the day of the assassination.
4.3 The Day of the Assassination
On 19th January 2007, most of the interviewees were attending a primary school and
were at a very young age. Nevertheless, they described the day of Hrant Dink’s assassination
with great clarity. Even though the young Armenians that I interviewed
were continuing their education in different schools at the time of the assassination,
there are striking overlaps in their narratives. The most prominent themes that
emerged during the interviews could be separated into three groups: the time that
they spent after the assassination at the school until they were sent to homes, the
mourning environment they witnessed in their homes, and finally, the commemoration
held four days after the assassination. It is important to note that what
is recurring in the narratives of interviewees is not limited to what they have witnessed
on that day but also the words that they use to define their feelings as they
mentioned fear, anxiety, and insecurity.
20Hrant Dink’in öldürülmesinin Daçik toplumunun büyük bir kesiminde, nasıl diyim, belli bir etkisi olduguna
inanıyorum. Ama yüzdeye vuracak olursa yüzde kaç iste ondan emin degilim. Ama belli bir kesimi bence
ikna etmistir diye düsünüyorum soykırım konusunda. Veyahut da bazı seylerin degistirilmesinde.
88
Yervant: I remember, even our school closed early that day. (. . . ) Our
shuttle driver was also such a warm person, but that day he was very
worried. I came home, I remember, the TV was on until midnight.
Everyone was watching anxiously.21
Sarven: I remember that day very well. On Friday, the last lesson of the
class was our painting lesson. We were trying to draw a picture. Oyrort
was constantly wandering around, like, oh my daughter does this, oh
my son does that. All of a sudden, the principal of the school, digin,
came to the classroom. “Will you come to the dining hall, Oyrort,” she
said. There was news on TV. And Oyrort did not come to class again.
The whole lesson was wasted. Oyrort was crying, a few minutes before
the end of the lesson. Such extreme, abnormally swollen eyes. They
immediately took us out of the school and put us on the bus.22
Anoush: I remember that moment very well because we got the news
after school. It was when we were leaving school. I even remember how
shocked one of my oyrorts was. She was right next to me, and we already
knew from her facial expression that something bad had happened. Until
then, let me say this, since I was already a child until then, I didn’t know
Hrant Dink either - actually I didn’t know him. But the murder of a Hay
-an Armenian- in public like that... So, it was difficult for me because I
felt in danger.23
Most of the interviewees, as they were very young at that time, told that they did
not know who Hrant Dink was and only learned about him after the assassination.
However, their young age was not the only reason as Zabel mentioned the closed
structure of the Armenian community among the reasons for not knowing Hrant
Dink. After an explanation, she describes the first sight she saw when she came home
and recounted how sad her whole family was. Furthermore, as the threats aimed at
Armenian institutions were circulating at that period even after the assassination,
the feelings that Zabel mentioned were not restricted to sadness but includes fear,
distrust, and anxiety.
21Hatırlıyorum hatta iste bizim okul erkenden kapandı o gün hani. (. . . ) Bir tane bizim servis soförümüz
de hani çok sey böyle candan bir insandı ama o gün çok kuskulu sey böyle kork... Tedirginlik falan vardı.
Hatta eve geldim, hatırlıyorum, gece yarılarına kadar televizyon açıktı. Herkes kusku ile izliyordu.
22O günü çok iyi hatırlıyorum. Cuma günü sınıfın son dersi ve resim dersimizdi. Resim çizmeye çalısıyorduk.
Iste oyrort böyle sürekli aralarda geziniyor, aman kızım söyle, aman oglum böyle yap. Birden okul müdürü,
iste digin, sınıfa geldi. Oyrort dedi, bir yemekhaneye gelir misiniz? Televizyonda bir haber var. Ve bir
daha gelmedi oyrort sınıfa. Ve bütün ders bos geçti. Ve dersin bitimine son bir iki dakika kala, oyrort böyle
aglıyor, böyle asırı anormal derecede gözleri sismis, yaslı. Apar topar hemen zaten bizi okuldan çıkartıp
servise bindirdiler.
23O anı çok iyi hatırlıyorum çünkü okul çıkısında almıstık haberi. Okuldan çıkacagımız zamandı. Hatta bir
oyrortumun nasıl sok oldugunu hatırlıyorum. Tam yanımdaydı oyrortum ve yüz ifadesinden falan kötü bir
sey oldugunu zaten anlamıstık. O zamana kadar ben sunu da söyliyim yani. O zamana kadar ben zaten
çocuk oldugum için Hrant Dink’ten de benim- Hrant Dink’i de tanımıyordum aslında. Ama bir Hay’ın
öyle- bir Ermeni’nin öyle ortalıkta öldürülmesi. . . Yani benim için zor olmustu çünkü kendimi tehlikede
hissetmistim.
89
I was in the seventh grade. One day oyrort came through the door crying,
saying, “We’re not going to do our lecture.” The woman was crying her
eyes out. We ask what happened, and she tells us that Hrant Dink was
killed. We didn’t know who Hrant Dink is, I didn’t know, I was little, I
wasl relatively little. And as I said, we were very closed to everything.
I was even closed to reading anything outside of class. We all were, the
whole school. I’m sure it’s the same in most schools. Maybe if I had been
a little older, if I had been in high school or something, I would have been
smarter. But I think I was too young to know Hrant Dink. Anyway. I
came home, my mama was crying. My mama and Hrant Agparik used
to meet from the camp. Hrant Agbarik also spent his childhood in the
camp, so I guess in the summers. My mama says he was an outspoken
person back then, too. So when he was going to do something, when
he was going to defend someone, he would always defend, she said. My
yaya used to cook. I told you before, they were the janitors of the camp
for a while. My yaya, my grandfather, and their 5 children. He was very
fair, my yaya says, he was such a child, such a man. My yaya cried a
lot, she was very upset. So does my mama. We were very upset. My
father always cuts his beard, I have never seen him grow a long beard.
He has never trimmed his beard for two months, and it was his kind of
mourning. I remember I was very scared afterwards because, as you may
have heard, threatening letters were sent to schools. “We will come to
you too, we will do this, we will do that” etc. At that time, there was
even the police at the school door, but we didn’t trust them either. In
other words, the police are not one of us, not an Armenian either. We
were always talking about these. We were going to school, but we, as
children, were also nervous. Then we grew up and we started going on
marches. Now we know, of course. We absorbed it years later that more
precisely, one of us was killed but we don’t know him.24
One other theme that should be mentioned is the way that young Armenians were
affected by their parents’ attitude, even though they did not know who Hrant Dink
was. Rita, for example, mentioned that as their parents were responding with pow-
24Ben yedinci sınıftaydım. Bir gün oyrort girdi kapıdan aglayarak dedi ki ders yapmayacagız, Kadın aglıyor
iki göz iki çesme. Ne oldu falan diyoruz, bize diyor ki Hrant Dink öldürüldü. Bilmiyoruz Hrant Dink kim,
haberim yok ufagım, nispeten ufagım. Bir de dedigim gibi çok her seye kapalıyız biz, bir sey okumaya
bile kapalıyım ders dısında. Hepimiz öyleyiz, bütün okul tayfası. Ben eminim çogu okulda da durum
aynıdır. Belki bir tık daha büyük olsaydım, lise döneminde falan olsaydım daha bir akıllı olurdum. Ama
ufaktım bence Hrant Dink’i bilmek için. Her neyse. Eve geliyorum iste mamam aglıyor, mamamla da
Hrant agparik kamptan tanısırlarmıs zaten. Hrant agparik de kampta geçmis çocuklugu, yazları falan
galiba. Mamam, o zaman da lafını sakınmazdı diyor. Yani bir sey yapacagı zaman, birini savunacagı
zaman, her zaman savunurdu, söylerdi diyor. Yayam yemek yaparmıs, dedim ya hani kampın bir dönem
kapıcılıgını yapmıslar yayamlar. Yayam, dedem, bir de 5 tane çocugu, mamamlar yani. Çok adaletliydi
diyor yayam, öyle bir çocukmus, öyle bir adammıs. Yayam çok aglamıstı çok üzülmüstü, mamam da aynı
sekilde. Epey bir üzülmüstük. Babam sakallarını her zaman keser, ben hiç sakal bıraktıgını görmedim
yani uzun böyle. Epey 2 ay hiç kesmedi sakalını, o da onun tutabilecegi türde bir yastı. Sonrasında çok
korktugumu hatırlıyorum çünkü belki duymussundur sen de, okullara tehdit mektupları çıkıyordu. Size de
gelecegiz, iste söyle yapacagız, böyle yapacagız, bilmemne bilmemne. O dönemler hatta polis molis vardı
kapıda ama onlara da güvenmiyorduk. Yani polis dedigin sey de sonuçta bizden degil, Ermeni degil o
adam da. Hep bunları konusuyorduk, okula geliyoruz falan ama biz çocuklar olarak da tedirgindik. Sonra
büyüdük, artık yürüyüslere biz de gitmeye basladık, artık ögrendik tabi. Seneler sonra sindirdik. Daha
dogrusu evet bizden biri öldürülmüs. Onu bilmiyoruz ama.
90
erful emotions to the assassination, they grasped the importance of the assassination
which caused intense sorrow.
That day, everyone learned that Hrant Dink was killed. I was little, I
was in the fifth grade in 2007. I must have been ten years old. Maybe
I can be even older. My father cried sobbingly. I saw my father cry for
the first time. I said “Dad, why are you crying?” He said, “They did it
again,” and cried. He said, “A part of us is gone,” and I thought, “Oh,
he must have been very important to us,” and I was upset. When we
got older, we understood why, but at that moment, I was upset thinking
that he was an important person to my father. I never thought about
that event politically. Or I didn’t think about anything. I was upset
because my family was upset. So, I was upset because he was one of
us.25
It is also important to underline that now knowing Hrant Dink did not hinder young
Armenians from feeling a strong connection with him. Arden, for example, states
that he was strongly affected by the news and felt an intense sorrow for someone he
had no information about.
Frankly, I didn’t know him very well. I didn’t know about his life when
he was killed. I was in the seventh grade if I remember correctly. But I
was very affected by the news that day. As someone who likes to watch
and listen to news, I was listening to a lot of news on TV at that time.
I truly felt sorry for someone I had never met. I really wanted to go to
his funeral, but they didn’t let us to leave the school. I remember him.
After that, after this critical death, I started researching. Why, why?
What would he do? After that, I think I have quite a bit of knowledge.26
What is striking in the testimonies of interviewees, when their age is taken into
consideration, is the clarity of their narration. None of the interviewees have ex-
25O gün de Hrant Dink’in öldürüldügünü ögrendi bütün herkes. Ben küçügüm yani, 2007’de besinci sınıftaydım.
On yasındaydım herhalde. Belki daha da büyük olabilrim. Babam hüngür hüngür agladı. Ben ilk
defa babamın agladıgını gördüm. Baba niye aglıyorsun dedim? Yine yaptılar yapcaklarını.” dedi ve agladı
yani. Bir parçamız gitti dedi ve ben de “Aa, herhalde bizim için çok önemliymis.” dedim ve üzüldüm.
Ama büyüdügümüz zaman anladık niye oldugunu ama o anda babam için önemli bir kisi oldugu için ben
üzüldüm. O politik olayını ben hiç düsünmedim. Ya da herhangi bir sey düsünmedim. Ailem üzüldügü
için ben üzüldüm. Yani bizim-bizden biri oldugu için üzüldüm.
26Açıkçası fazla iyi tanımıyordum. Hayatını bilmiyordum o öldürüldügünde. Yedinci sınıftaydım ben yanlıs
hatırlamıyorsam. Ama o günü haberlerden çok etkilenmistim. Haber izlemeyi, dinlemeyi seven biri olarak.
Bayagı haber dinliyordum o sıralar televizyonda. Hiç tanımadıgım birine gerçekten yürekten üzüldüm.
Cenazesine gitmeyi çok istemistim fakat okuldan bırakmamıslardı. Onu hatırlıyorum. Ondan sonra, bu
olaylı ölümün ardından arastırmaya basladım. Hani neden, niçin? Ne yapar ne ederdi? Onun ardından
bayagı bir bilgiye sahip oldugumu düsünüyorum.
91
perienced any difficulty remembering and narrate the incidents that took place on
the day of the assassination. It is important to underline that they remembered
the assassination of someone that they did not know. While this aspect of young
Armenians’ narration already says a lot about the impact of the assassination, the
following part will further examine the ways that they make sense of the assassination.
4.4 The Perception of Hrant Dink in the Armenian Community
It is possible to argue that Hrant Dink is the most-known Armenian in Turkey,
particularly after the assassination. Nevertheless, he was not the first Armenian
that catches the attention of the Turkish public. Tchilingirian, for example, gives
a chronological and detailed description of such instances which was frequented after
the 1980s. Bishop Mesrob Mutafyan, for example, when he was the outspoken
young Chancellor of the Patriarchate, was accused of “terrorist acts against Turks”
and in 1987, he was appeared in a Turkish Criminal court to face charges. Tchilingirian
states that the arrest of Mutafyan soon after the 1980 military coup, “caused
a heart attack to the Armenian community collectively” (2017, 144). Additionally,
the arrests of Manuel Yergatian, who was sentenced to 15 years without a significant
accusation, and Hrant Güzelyan, pastor of the Armenian Protestant Church in
Gedikpasa who was accused of training militants in the Camp Armen, were among
other incidents that are circulated in various media outlets. In addition to those
clergymen, some civilians also received the interest of the Turkish state and the
media. Among those, Levon Ekmekciyan, who organized the Esenboga attack, and
Artin Penik, who set himself on fire in Taksim, to protest this attack were prominent.
Those incidents, as Emre Can Daglıoglu argues, were made use of by the
military regime that was in power during that period as a propaganda tool by basically
making a distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Armenians (Tölölyan 2021, 182).
Through this distinction, they aimed to improve the perception of Turkey abroad
which was affected significantly due to the acts of ASALA, and in the meantime,
remind the Armenian community in Turkey of their fragility.
Despite the wide extent of incidents that encompass both the civil and religious lives
of the Armenian community after the Republic, none of those incidents affected the
Armenian community as did the assassination of Hrant Dink. What makes the case
92
of Hrant Dink different could be found in the ways that Hrant Dink separated from
the rest of the the mentioned figures. Even though the Turkish state made a distinction
between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Armenians, those categories had no meaning for
the Armenian community aside from reminding them of their unprivileged position
within the Turkish society. Furthermore, apart from Levon Ekmekciyan, who was
originally born in Lebanon, no one was involved in any kind of violent act and the
accusations were exclusively conjectural. All of the aforementioned allegations could
be evaluated within the context of the state’s responses towards acts of ASALA. It
is important to note that those individuals who had not spoken a word or taken any
action against the Turkish state yet, could not escape from being detained, tried, or
arrested. In addition to these individuals, institutions that claimed to represent the
Armenian community including the Armenian Patriarchate, Armenian foundations,
or press organs such as Jamanak and Marmara, constantly release statements in
support of state policies whenever it seems necessary and lived within the framework
drawn by the state. These were the very people and institutions that Lerna
Ekmekcioglu conceptualized as secular dhimmis (2016, 108) and Tchilingirian put
in the ‘isolationist school’ (2017, 127). These individuals and institutions followed
state policies, supported the official historical narrative, shelved the genocide as a
topic that should not be talked about, and tried to continue their lives as isolated
as possible.
Hrant Dink, and therefore the Agos newspaper, of which he was one of the founders,
on the other hand, differed from institutions that had claim to representing the Armenians
of Turkey. In opposition to those institutions and individuals, as Yasemin
Koç Gabrielsen (2015, 123) argues, Hrant Dink was actively questioning and criticizing
state policies, the Turkish society, and even the Armenians of Turkey. In
other words, he was advocating that Armenians were more than dhimmis with the
rights limited to the Lausanne Treaty, but citizens with equal rights like everyone
else living in Turkey. In this regard, he became the most prominent person who
raised his voice to point out the problems of the Armenians of Turkey and successfully
made his voice heard both by Armenians and non-Armenians in the Turkish
Republic.
Hrant Dink’s singularity led to the emergence of some debates that have not been
held for nearly a century in Turkey, particularly in Turkish society. The impact
of speaking about the Genocide in public had far-reaching effects not only for the
Armenians of Turkey but also the society at large. The Armenians of Turkey, who
grew up learning that the Armenian Genocide should be discussed behind closed
doors and in silence, were introduced to a new alternative through Dink’s articles
and the words he uttered in the television programs. This was also a time when the
93
Armenian Genocide, a specter that had haunted Turkish society for nearly a century,
began to be discussed in public for the first time. Dink’s statements, which went
beyond what was allowed for Armenians were not welcomed both by the Armenian
community and the Turkish state. As he was an authentic example of Armenians,
whom the state defamed as ‘bad’, he was accused of being the enemy of the Turkish
state and society and faced with various charges based primarily on two articles
he wrote. One of those articles was focusing on Sabiha Gökçen, an Armenian orphan
named Hatun Sebilciyan adopted by Mustafa Kemal, and pointing out the
Islamized Armenians living in Turkey. The other article, on the other hand, which
was deliberately misinterpreted, was addressing all Armenians around the world to
unshackle themselves from the heavy burden of 1915. Even though the path that
led to the assassination of Hrant Dink was paved through these two articles, the
biggest threat he was posing was his ability to shackle the foundational bases of the
Turkish Republic. It should also be mentioned that it was not only the Turkish state
that was disturbed by Dink’s presence. Some people from the Armenian community
also accused him of talking too much, disturbing the peace, and endangering the
security of the Armenians of Turkey. The dispute between him and the Armenian
Patriarchate, and even with the Patriarch himself was among the known incidents,
which resulted in the Patriarchate banning the publication of obituaries in Agos,
which constitute one of the main sources of income for the newspaper.
The perception of Hrant Dink among the Armenian community went through a substantial
change with the assassination of Hrant Dink in 2007. As different segments
of the society came together to demand justice, it also brought a remarkable effect
on the relationship between Turkish and Armenian communities. As the Armenianness
was not used pejoratively in public spaces and attributed some dignity to it,
encouraged Armenians to step up and talk about their stories. This transformation,
as Leyla Neyzi argues, enabled Armenians to discuss 1915, to talk about their family
stories, and to mention the responsibility of the state in the event (2010, 19).
14 years since the incident, various academic articles, books, and theses have been
prepared on the effects of Hrant Dink’s assassination. In addition to its effects on
both Turkish and Armenian communities, these studies claimed that the group most
affected by the assassination was the young Armenians (Bilal 2006; Fırat et al. 2021;
Neyzi 2010). The interviews conducted for this research have also resulted in similar
outcomes. Despite their young age, the assassination brought a significant impact
on young Armenians’ subjectivization process. The fact that Dink’s assassination
was described as a “breaking point” or a “milestone” in their lives by different
interviewees supports this claim.
94
Karin: Now let me tell you this. It was such a change for me, as if
a fairy tale turning into a reality. Until then, okay, okay, we are a
minority here, but everything is going well, you know, I didn’t encounter
anything. But someone is killed. That’s ruthless. Someone gets killed,
and that – and maybe that is - that I said I’m worthless in Turkey. (. . . )
So, in this country, such a person is killed in a planned manner and
[weak connection] another genocide can be committed. That’s what I
thought. Why not? Or, how should I put it, I mean, I don’t know—that’s
something, the breaking point for me. But I am also very happy to
see this. . . The support of people, Muslims and the intelligentsia and
their rebellion, their revolt against this event, their being with us, in
the marches, here and there. You know, feeling the support of that
intelligentsia is something that makes me very happy, but of course - of
course, I wish such a thing had not happened. But this event is also
perceived as we understand it by at least a part of the society.27
Masis: Let’s say that Armenians were more depoliticized in Turkey. Understandably,
they still had to hide their identities. After that, with the
efforts of Hrant Dink and his circle, especially Hrant Dink, the genocide
began to be discussed on television all night long. (. . . ) The murder
of Hrant Dink can be said to be a milestone for me, for Armenians in
Turkey. Seeing the crowd at that protest. I remember I was so impressed.
It was a turning point for me. I positioned myself politically as
well, and I tried to engage in politics a little bit.28
It is noteworthy to mention that both of the interviewees who talked about the
assassination as a breaking point in their lives, attribute great significance to the
commemoration that was organized after that assassination and continues to this
day. Those events result in the emergence of a sense of hope and optimism among
young Armenians.
Masis: When Hrant Dink was killed, hundreds of thousands of people
gathered in memory of him. He was buried with a magnificent, very
27Simdi söyle söyleyeyim, peri masalından gerçeklige geçiyormussun gibi olur ya öyle bir degisimdi benim
için. O zamana kadar tamam, tamam biz burada azınlıgız ama her sey yolunda gidiyor, hani bir seyle
karsılasmadım. Ama biri öldürülüyor. Canice yani. Biri öldürülüyor ve bu- ve bu belki de- bu iste seydi
benim için yani dedim ki ben Türkiye’de degersizim. (. . . ) Yani bu ülkede böyle birisi, planlı bir sekilde
öldürülüyor ve [baglantı zayıf] bir soykırım daha yapılabilir. Bunu düsünmüstüm yani. Neden olmasın?
Ya da, nasıl diyeyim, yani, bilmiyorum yani- o bir sey noktası, kırılma noktası benim için. Ama sunu da
hep görünce çok da seviniyorum. . . Insanların, Müslümanların, aydın kesimin verdigi destek ve onların da
o isyanı, bu olaya karsı isyanı, bizim yanımızda olması, yürüyüslerde, orada burada. Hani o aydın kesimin
de destegini hissetmek çok mutlu eden bir sey ama tabii ki- tabii ki böyle bir sey keske olmasaydı. Ama
en azından bir kesim tarafından da bu olay bizim anladıgımız sekilde algılanıyor.
28Türkiye’de Ermeniler daha depolitize edilmisti diyelim. Daha kimliklerini saklamak zorundalardı anlasılabilir
olarak. Ondan sonra Hrant Dink’in ve çevresinin çabalarıyla, özellikle Hrant Dink’in çabasıyla
soykırım televizyonlarda geceler boyunca tartısılmaya baslanmıs. (. . . ) Hrant Dink’in öldürülmesi benim
için bir milattı denilebilir, Türkiye’deki Ermeniler için. O eylemdeki kalabalıgı falan da bir görünce. Hani
çok fena etkilenmilstim onu hatırlıyorum. O benim için bir dönüm noktasıydı. Kendimi de politik olarak
öyle konumlandırdım ve iste biraz da siyasetle ugrasma gayertinde bulundum.
95
crowded, mostly non-Armenian protest. This actually showed me the
hope in Turkey. In this despair, in this loneliness, it showed the importance
of fighting together.29
Rita: I think it’s a very strong bond. Because the participants are not
only Armenians. We can say we are not alone when we see them. I am
showing my father as an example, look, we are not alone. Look, not only
Armenians are there, but these people are also there. A kind of hope, a
kind of strength, I say. There are those who accept the genocide in this
country, and those who accept the genocide are also there. Those who
want equality are also there. They are there thinking that they feel close
themselves. I feel like it’s actually a place as it should be.30
Arden: Even after many years, thousands of people still gather there.
The news still covers what happened at that time. I am actually very
proud. People take free buses to join a rally for a political party, the
subways become free, and then many people attend. There is no such
call here and there is no free buses here. However, every year, thousands
of people attend that ceremony to commemorate him. I think it’s
something to be proud of.31
While the presence of non-Armenians in commemorations, as it filled them with hope
and optimism, was celebrated by young Armenians, the absence of such reaction
after the murder of Sevag Balıkçı during his military service, was questioned by
young Armenian men. Sarven critically asks, “Do we have to be both political and
Armenian for them to take care of us?”
So let me say this. I don’t know how accurate it would be to compare
this with Sevag, but Sevag was an Armenian, and Hrant was also an Armenian.
The only difference between them was that Hrant was political.
Sevag was not a political person and was killed in the military. Why
was this crowd absent in Sevag? So, do we have to be both political and
Armenian for them to take care of us? So why didn’t many people from
the crowd support any other Armenian? Then you realize that you are
29Hrant Dink öldürüldügünde yüz binlerce insan onun anısında toplandı. Görkemli, çok kalabalık, çogunun
Ermeni olmadıgı bir eylemle cenazesi defnedildi. Bu da bana Türkiye’deki umudu gösterdi aslında. Iste
bu umutsuzluk içinde, bu yalnız kalmıslıgın içinde birlikte mücadelenin önemini göstermisti.
30Ben çok güçlü bir bag oldugunu düsünüyorum. Sadece orada Ermeniler katılmıyor çünkü. Asırı derecede
biz yalnız degiliz diyebiliyoruz onu gördügümü zaman. Babama örnek gösteriyorum, bak biz yalnız degiliz.
Bak sadece Ermeniler orada degil, bu insanlar da orada. Bir tür umut, bir tür güç diyorum. Bu ülkede
soykırımı kabul edenler de var ve soykırımı kabul edenler de orada. Esitlik isteyenler de orada. Kendini
yakın hissettigini düsünerek orada oluyorlar. Orası aslında tamamen olması gereken bir ortammıs gibi
hissediyorum.
31Even after many years, thousands of people still gather there. The news still covers what happened at
that time. I am actually very proud. People take free buses to join a rally for a political party, the
subways become free, and then many people attend. There is no such call here and there is no free buses
here. However, every year, thousands of people attend that ceremony to commemorate him. I think it’s
something to be proud of.
96
actually alone in some places and that you can’t be more than a post on
the internet.32
Although commemorations arouse positive feelings, the assassination brought a substantial
fear among young Armenians. The assassination revealed that even after
almost 100 years of the Armenian Genocide, Armenians can still be easily murdered
in the middle of the street. Sarven, for example, underlines that after the assassination,
he realized Armenians might still get killed in Turkey and describes his initial
feelings as being in the wrong place and inability to trust anyone.
Do I tell you how I felt at first? I had a feeling that we were in the
wrong place and that I couldn’t trust anyone. At that time, it was built
on grudge and hatred, maybe because of the childhood. Because the
period when I learned about these coincides with the murder of Hrant
Dink and the murder of Sevag. It traumatized me. They can still kill us
here then. I’m going to join the military service. I could be killed there.
I felt like I could be killed anywhere. And I still feel it. You know, it
still exists as it was on the first day, nothing has changed.33
The issue of how young Armenians realized that they were Armenians, which was
examined in the previous chapter, is also affected by the assassination of Hrant
Dink. For example, Verjin mentions that as a child, she was unaware of the existence
of a distinction between different identities, but she became aware of both her
Armenianness and the distinction between Armenians and non-Armenians after the
assassination.
Before that, like every child, I was unaware of the fact that someone is
different from your society, you are from a different society. . . Here is
the Armenian society, the Turkish society or whatever society is. When
I was a kid, I wasn’t aware of this distinction. (. . . ) At that time, of
32Yani söyle söyleyeyim, Sevag’la bunu kıyaslamak ne kadar dogru olur bilmiyorum da Sevag da bir Ermeni’ydi,
Hrant da bir Ermeni’ydi. Ikisinin tek farkı Hrant’ın politik olmasıydı. Sevag politik biri degildi
ve askerde öldürüldü. Bu kalabalık neden Sevag’da yoktu. Yani illa hem politik hem de Ermeni mi olmak
gerekiyor bize sahip çıkmaları için. Yani herhangi bir Ermeni’ye oradaki kalabalıktan birçok kisi
neden sahip çıkmadı. O zaman da iste aslında bazı yerlerde yalnız oldugunu, sadece iste internette bir
paylasımdan öteye gidemeyecegini anlıyorsun.
33Ilk basta ne hissettigimi söyleyim mi? Sey hissetmistim ya, yanlıs yerde oldugumuzu ve hani böyle kimseye
güvenemeyecegimi. Iste o zaman çocuklugun verdigi bir seyle belki kin, nefret üzerine de kurulmustu.
Çünkü benim bunları ögrenme dönemim biraz da se denk geliyor aslında iste Hrant Dink’in öldürülmesine
ve Sevag’ın öldürülmesine denk geliyor. O bir travma yaratmıstı bende. Bizi hala burada öldürebilirler
o zaman. Iste askere gidicem. Orada öldürülebilirim. Hani herhangi bir yerde öldürülebilme ihtimalim
hissetmistim. Ve hala bunu hissediyorum. Hani bu- hala ilk günkü gibi varlıgını koruyor, hiçbir sey
degismis degil
97
course, I didn’t say that this is my identity, but I realized that I am
Armenian and that friend is Turkish. Otherwise, I am not even aware of
these, for example, when I was a child. I was Armenian but he is not, I
was not aware of that.34
I argue that the significance of the impact of Hrant Dink’s assassination could be
explained by the young Armenians’ perception of the assassination as an extension of
the Armenian Genocide. As highlighted in Sarven’s narrative where he emphasizes
the word still, young Armenians perceived the assassination as the continuation
of the Armenian Genocide. I argue that before the assassination, the Armenian
Genocide was rather an abstract event that young Armenians encountered only in
their family stories or in textbooks. Yet, after the assassination of Hrant Dink, as
they witnessed to some extent of it in their own lives, the Genocide is transformed
into a perceptible incident that is possible to refer to.
The term “crucial event” coined by Alessandro Cavalli (2004) provides an explanation
for events that has a significant impact on the lives of individuals, groups,
or societies. Following Cavalli, Fırat et al. argue that the Armenian Genocide is
“marked, monumentalized and commemorated as a turning point in the history of
the Armenian people” (2021, 79). While the Armenian Genocide was the most
significant event that shaped the perception of the first-generation Armenians, the
assassination of Hrant Dink has become a “crucial event” for young Armenians as
it disrupted the course of time for young Armenians and dividing their lives into a
“before” and “after.”
Reflecting on the interviews, Hrant Dink’s assassination created a significant rupture
in the perceptions of young Armenians. Although they did not know Hrant
Dink at the time of the assassination, because of the initial reaction of their parents,
commemorative events that organized afterward or discussions regarding the
Armenian Genocide that started to be held publicly, have fundamentally affected,
and transformed the way that young Armenians make sense of their Armenianness.
In the following part, I would like to examine the extent of such transformation.
34Onun öncesinde her çocuk gibi ben seyin farkında degildim yani. Birinin senin toplumundan farklı
oldugunu. Senin farklı bir toplumdan oldugunu. . . Iste Ermeni toplumu, Türk toplumu ya da ne bileyim
bilmem ne toplumu her neyse. Bunun ayrımının oldugunun ben farkında degildim çocukken. (. . . )
Hani o zaman da bu benim kimligim demiyordum tabi ama hani ben Ermeniyim o arkadasım Türk, bunun
farkına vardım. Yoksa ben farkında bile degilim bunların mesela çocukken. Ben Ermeniymisim o degilmis,
bunların farkında degildim.
98
4.5 The Impact of the Assassination on young Armenians
The assassination of Hrant Dink created a rupture in the lives of young Armenians.
For young Armenians, establishing a connection between their presence and the
Armenian Genocide was discouraged by their families and tried to be prevented
through state policies. Nevertheless, after the assassination of Hrant Dink, a link was
inevitably established between the assassination and the Armenian Genocide which
had far-reaching effects such as the revival of the transgenerational memory. As the
habitus of denial (Suciyan 2015b, 133) had been shuttered, a sense of awakening
emerges among young Armenians, which led them to attribute different meanings
to their identities.
Before the assassination, there were various control mechanisms utilized by the Turkish
state, the Armenian community, and the society at large to regulate young Armenians
and keep them in the designated areas. For instance, they were taught not
to stand out, embrace a low profile, and not to talk about their Armenianness, and
particularly about the Armenian Genocide. But after the assassination, a significant
transformation took place in the lives of young Armenians regarding the way
they perceive their Armenianness and reflect it on public spaces. With the transformation,
young Armenians stepped out from the designated area they were taught
to stay in and started to embrace the elements of the Armenian culture and strive
to keep it alive. In accordance with those arguments, Sarven claims that young
Armenians are affected the most by this transformation.
Furthermore, it must be noted that the transformation did not take place over
the night. Yervant describes a period of fear and anxiety that prevailed in the
Armenian community after the assassination. Nevertheless, with the positive steps
taken afterward, the fear was replaced by self-confidence which enabled Armenians
to speak Armenian from the outside.
A well-known person, of course, an important person. But after his
death, I think a lot of things have changed. Processes have also changed.
The path of processes has also changed. More positively, of course.
People are more comfortable on the street in terms of speaking Armenian
or having a comfortable time. A self-confidence came. When I said that
self-confidence came, of course, it didn’t, because on the contrary, people
started to fear after this happened to him. Afterwards, maybe people
became more comfortable with the steps taken. I don’t know, maybe I
couldn’t speak Armenian on the street because I was younger, but I can
99
speak it now, for example. It might be because I’m older but I think
Hrant Dink’s death had a huge impact on the country.35
The steps that were taken after the assassination were also mentioned by Zabel.
Yet, she claimed that those steps did not result in any change in the society and
stated that the people who did not like Armenians are still not liking them. Even
though the perception of Armenians in the society did not go through a significant
change, the way that young Armenians perform their culture changed a lot. The
traditional definition of being an Armenian which was limited to the safe spaces like
households, familial circles, or Armenian schools or churches is replaced by a kind of
Armenianness that can be performed in public spaces. The most prominent novelty
that this new sense of Armenianness brought, as mentioned by many interviewees,
is related to the public visibility of the Armenian language. The scope of the transformation
is not limited to the young Armenians’ changing perception toward their
Armenianness, but it also extends toward the society at large. Verjin, for example,
stated that Armenians did not only become aware of their Armenianness but also
wanted it to be noticed by the society at large after the assassination.
Pretty much has changed, actually. Because normally when we can’t
speak Hayeren even outside, we can’t speak Armenian, for example, now
we can speak. Because we are aware of our identity, now we want it to
be noticed. How can I say... We are now aware that this is an identity
rather than hiding it. Maybe I can’t say this is our self, because having a
race cannot be a self, it can be a part of the self. Armenianness is not my
identity at least, so Armenianness is only a part of Verjin. (. . . ) Now,
as I said, we can speak Hayeren. You don’t have to call your “mama” by
“anne” out there, or “yaya” by “anneanne.” You can speak in your own
language; I can summarize it like this. Or I don’t know, I don’t hesitate
when I say I am Armenian to someone. Because I know that he can’t
do anything. Because the fact that such things happen discourages the
other side. They think that if I approach with something like this, I will
get a reaction.36
35Tabi hani bilindik bir insan tabii, önemli bir insan ama ölümden sonra bence çogu sey degisti yani. Süreçler
de degisti yani. Gidisatı da degisti süreçlerin. Daha çok pozitif yönde tabi. Insanlar daha rahat belki de
sokakta yani Ermenice konusabilmek ya da uyduruyorum rahat rahat vakit geçirebilmek, bir özgüven geldi.
Özgüven geldi dedigim tabi ki de gelmedi de ileriki süreçte çünkü tam tersi insanlar korkmaya basladı onun
basına böyle bir sey gelince. Sonrasında hani atılan adımlarla belki daha rahat oldu. Ne bileyim belki de
küçüktüm de diye daha rahat- sokakta Ermenice konusamazdım ama su an konusabilirim mesela. Yasım
büyüdügü için de olabilir ama bence çok büyük bir etki yarattı ülkede Hrant Dink’in ölümü.
36Baya degisti aslında. Çünkü normalde biz dısarda bile Hayeren konusamıyorken, su an mesela Ermenice
konusabiliyoruz. Çünkü kimligimizin farkındayız, artık fark edilsin de istiyoruz. Nasıl diyeyim gizlenmektense
artık bunun bir kimlik oldugunu farkındayız ve bu hani benligimiz diyemem belki çünkü bir ırka
sahip olmak bir benlik olamaz benliginin bir parçası olabilir. Ben en azından Ermenilik benim benligim
degil yani Verjin’in bir parçası Ermenilik. (. . . ) Artık dedigim gibi Hayeren konusabiliyoruz. Dısarda
mamana anne demek zorunda degilsin, ya da ne bileyim yayana anneanne falan. Kendi dilinde konusa-
100
In a similar vein, Masis underlines a growing tendency among young Armenians
that is marked by the embracement of the Armenian culture and its elements. He
implicates that the extent of this tendency encompasses Istanbulite Armenians, Armenians
of Turkey, as well as Islamized Armenians.
Frankly, I think there is an increasing cultural awareness. We can see this
when we compare the times before and after 2007. If we take Hrant’s
murder as a milestone, it is possible to say that Armenian youth began
to claim more, speak more and do more research from the point of
view of the Armenians of Istanbul, Armenians in Turkey, the Islamized
Armenians, etc.37
It should be mentioned that what this transformation brought extends beyond performing
the elements of Armenian culture in public spaces. One another dimension
of as illustrated by Arden is related to the preservation of the dignity of Armenian
identity. The incident takes place after a member of a football fan group posts a
photo of policies from Hrant Dink’s commemoration, by commenting “our pride.”
In the photo, police were wearing white berets which was the color of the beret that
the assassin was wearing on the day assassination. As Arden is also a member of
the same group, he decides to confront the person who shared the photo with one
of his friends.
Arden: On the second anniversary of Hrant Dink’s death, the police
officers at that protest wore white berets, if I remember correctly. That
was in the news. Someone from my Galatasaray circle shared a photo of
the people, the police, wearing white berets and said, "Our honor, our
pride." There was a fight in our group. Of course, our elders intervened
and made peace, but I can’t forget. If they call me “my brother” in that
group, then you can’t share it, even if you see it that way.
Rudi: What was your fight like? Who intervened, how did that process
take place?
Arden: It was shared on Facebook. I saw it but didn’t comment. Then
there was a group meeting in Mecidiyeköy. Everyone was speaking there.
biliyorsun, bunla özetleyebilirim. Ya da ne bileyim birine ben Ermeni’yim derken çekinmiyorum mesela.
Çünkü biliyorum ki yapamaz böyle seyleri. Çünkü böyle seylerin olması karsı tarafın birazcık yapabilirim
cesaretini de kırıyor. Çünkü sey oluyor, ben böyle bir seyle yaklasırsam tepki alacagım.
37Ben daha artıs gösteren bir kültürel bilincin oldugunu düsünüyorum açıkcası. Bunu, iste, 2007 öncesi ve
sonrası kıyasladıgında da görebiliyoruz. Hrant’ın öldürülmesini milat alırsak. Iste ondan sonra daha
bir sahip çıkan, daha konusan, daha arastıran bir Ermeni gençliginin, Istanbul Ermenileri açısından,
Türkiye’deki Ermeniler açısından, Müslümanlastırılmıs Ermenileri vs. de sayarsak daha bir artıs gösterdigini
söylemek mümkün.
101
Only me and a friend were Armenian. We both went to the meeting
after discussing it among ourselves. We said that we are Armenians
too, should we die too, should those who killed us be commemorated?
Our group heads and representatives warned the person who shared it
to support us, they got angry. Then they reconciled us before the event
escalated more.38
One another impact of the assassination could be observed on the politicization
process of young Armenians. Two interviewees, Sarven and Masis, dated the assassination
as the initiation point of their politicization process.
Sarven: Hrant had such an effect on me. I became politicized after Hrant
Dink was killed. My process and Hrant’s effect on me were somewhat
like that. And when Sevag’s death happened on top of that... Umm,
Sevag’s murder triggered something a little more. It had come to the
point that you were either going to speak up more, or you were going
to leave here as a man before you became a soldier. Then I said, why
should I leave this place? This is my place. I’m not leaving this place. It
coincided with the period when I said I would start speaking up more.39
Masis: For example, I went to my first protest in high school, the Hrant
Dink protest on January 19. I think it was in 2013. So, my political
activism and stance become much more apparent. I went with my friends
from Naregyan in such an excited way and I’m glad I went that day. It
can be said that the murder of Hrant Dink is a milestone for me, for
Armenians in Turkey. Seeing the crowd at that protest. I remember I
was so impressed. It was a turning point for me. I positioned myself
politically, and I tried to engage in politics.40
38Arden: Hrant Dink’in ikinci ölüm yıldönümünde o mitingde görevli olan polisler beyaz bere takmıslardı
yanlıs hatırlamıyorsam. Bu da haber olmustu. Galatasaray çevremden biri bu beyaz bere takan insanların,
polislerin fotografını paylasıp “Onurumuz, gururumuz,” diye paylastıgında, bizim grubumuz içinde öyle bir
kavga olmustu. Tabi büyüklerimizi araya girip barıs saglamıslardı ama unutmam hani. Eger o grupta
bana kardesim deniliyorsa- onu, yani öyle görsen bile paylasamazsın.
Rudi: Kavga dedigin nasıl bir sey olmustu? Kimler araya girdi, o süreç nasıl gelisti?
Arden: Facebook üzerinden paylasım yapılmıstı. Ben de gördüm yorum atmamıstım. Sonra bir grup
toplantısı olmustu Mecidiyeköy’de. Orada iste herkes söz alıyordu. Tek Ermeni ben ve arkadasım vardık.
Ikimiz de konusup gitmistik zaten toplantıya. Ikimiz söz hakkı alıp, biz de Ermeni’yiz, bizim de mi ölmemiz
gerekiyor, bizi öldürenlerin anılması mı gerekiyor gibi bir konusma yaptıktan sonra, grup baskanlarımız
ve temsilcilerimiz bize destek amaçlı onu paylasan kisiyi uyardılar, kızdılar. Sonra da bizi barıstırmıslardı
olay büyümeden.
39Hrant’ın bende söyle bir etkisi oldu. Ben Hrant Dink öldürüldükten sonra politize olmaya basladım. Benim
sürecim ve Hrant’ın bendeki etkisi biraz öyle olmustu. Bunun üstüne Sevag’ın ölümü, umm, o Sevag’ın
ölümü biraz daha böyle bir seyleri hırçınladı. Ya daha fazla artık sesini çıkartacaksın, ya da sen de o
duruma gelmeden, bir erkek olarak askerlik durumuna gelmeden buraya terk edeceksin durumuna gelmisti.
Sonra dedim ben niye terk edeyim ya burayı. Burası benim yerim. Burayı terk etmiyorum. Ben daha fazla
ses çıkarmaya baslayacagım dedigim döneme denk gelmisti.
40Mesela ben ilk eylemime lise 1, Hrant Dink eylemine gitmistim, 19 Ocak. 2013’dü sanırım. Yani politik
eylemliligim ve politik çizgimiz orada biraz belli olmustu. Naregyan!dan arkadaslarımla gitmistim böyle
asırı heyecanlı bir sekilde ve iyi ki gitmisim o gün. Hrant Dink’in öldürülmesi benim için bir milatdı
denilebilir, Türkiye’deki Ermeniler için. O eylemdeki kalabalıgı falan da bir görünce. Hani çok fena
etkilenmilstim onu hatırlıyorum. O benim için bir dönüm noktasıydı. Kendimi de politik olarak öyle
102
The politicization of young Armenians after the assassination of Hrant Dink can
be explained by the possibility of a new political outlet that developed after the
assassination. Before the assassination, it was very difficult for young Armenians to
claim political space as their Armenian identity was based on fear and silences. The
presence of such feelings was hindering young Armenians to participate in political
spaces, as it would necessitate them at some point to talk about the Armenian
Genocide. However, those obstacles began to lose their grasp, as the Armenian
Genocide began to be discussed after and most importantly in relation to Dink’s
assassination. In other words, while it was not acceptable to discuss the Armenian
Genocide in relation to the events that took place in 1915, it became possible to
talk about the Genocide in relation to the assassination of Hrant Dink. This change
enabled young Armenians to actively participate in politics and even form their own
organization, Nor Zartonk, which will be examined in the following pages.
The transformation that took place after the assassination has also its reflections on
the institutional level. While it is possible to mention various institutions and initiatives
that are proliferated after the assassination, two of those, Hrant Dink Foundation
and Nor Zartonk, are prominent. Hrant Dink Foundation was established right
after the murder of Hrant Dink in 2007 to work towards the establishment of the
society that Hrant Dink envisioned. Since 2007, the Foundation supports dialogue
among the peoples of Turkey, Armenia, and Europe; aids Turkey’s democratization
process, and contributes to the promotion and protection of human and minority
rights while encouraging academic studies on these issues and combats to hate speech
through documentation and awareness-raising activities. Through various publications,
oral history works, conferences, and reports, The Hrant Dink Foundation
made up for the deficiency in this area, especially by working on minorities.
In addition to the Hrant Dink Foundation, Nor Zartonk, which defines itself as the
“self-organization of the Armenian people” and struggles for “the equal, free and
fraternal life of the peoples of Turkey and the world” can be cited as an activist group
that developed after the assassination41. While Nor Zartonk was initially formed
as a mail group, it turned into a political organization after the assassination. It
is important to mention that organization does not only focus on the problems of
the Armenians of Turkey but also on the problems of other disadvantaged groups.
Hrag Papazian, in his article, illustrates the intersectional extent of the organization
through the activities held in Kamp Armen during the Kamp Armen protests. The
topics of those activities were including issues like Women’s Rights, LGBT rights,
konumlandırdım ve iste biraz da siyasetle ugrasma gayertinde bulundum.
41”Nor Zartonk Nedir?,” Nor Zartonk, accessed August 2, 2021, https://www.norzartonk.org/nor-zartonk/.
103
the protection of the environment, and issues of other ethnic/religious minorities
(Papazian 2017, 10). Similarly, the intersectional extent of the organization was
mentioned by Masis who, as a member of the organization, described the process
that led to the emergence of the Nor Zartonk and particularly the effects of the
Kamp Armen protest on his political subjectivity.
When Nor Zartonk was a mail group in 2004, after Hrant was killed, they
made an effort to open up an area for struggle. I think it was a successful
effort. For example, Hrant had a dream for Armenian radio, and they
realized it as Nor Radyo. I started going to the association when I was
in the 10th-11th grade. There were many good things in the association,
there were articles in Hayeren, there were radio broadcasts, there were
books to research. There were also forums on genocide. It was not just
about the genocide, for example, there were forums about Armenian
feminist women or the Armenian LGBTI+ movement in Armenia. After
that, this Kamp Armen resistance began. When that resistance started,
the Kamp Armen resistance, I started going there on the weekends. So,
as a 15-year-old boy, I used to go to Kamp Armen. The political practice
there was very high for me and it was an amazing experience.42
In addition to the Hrant Dink Foundation and Nor Zartonk, it is important to mention
Gezi Park protests, which functioned as a political ground for young Armenians
where they meet with other groups. During Gezi Park protests, young Armenians,
particularly through Nor Zartonk, claimed a public space for the first time without
concealing their Armenian identity and for political reasons. Additionally, as
they meet other disadvantaged groups during protests, they realized it was not only
Armenianness oppressed by state policies but there are others too, such as women,
LGBTI, Kurds, etc. While talking about the Gezi Park protests, Anoush mentions
that she met people from different backgrounds there for the first time.
I was going to Gezi every day after school, I was there every day. Yes,
maybe I was too scared to be there at the time of the police intervention,
but other than that, I was there. I was with the people there and I
422004’de Nor Zartonk bir mail grubuyken, Hrant öldürüldükten sonra ete kemige bürünüp bir mücadele
alanı açma gayretinde bulundu. Bence basarılı da bir gayret. Mesela Hrant’ın Ermenice radyo istegi,
hayali vardı ve onu Nor Radyo olarak gerçeklestirdiler. 10-11. sınıf gibi dernege gidip gelmeye basladım
ben. Iste dernekte çok güzel seyler var, Hayeren yazılar var, radyo yayını falan yapılıyor, arastırmak için
kitaplar falan var. Aynı zamanda forumlar falan oluyordu soykırıma dair. Sadece soykırımla ilgili de
degil. Mesela Ermeni feminist kadınlarla ilgili forumlar oluyordu. Veya iste Ermeni-LGBTI+ hareketi
Ermenistan’daki. Ondan sonra zaten bu Kamp Armen direnisi basladı. Oralara gitmeye baslamıstım
haftasonları o direnis de baslayınca, Kamp Armen direnisi. Yani 15 yasında bir çocuk olarak oraya gider
gelir olmustum Kamp Armen’e. Oranın seyi, pratigi, politik olarak çok yüksekti benim için ve muhtesem
bir deneyimdi.
104
actually got to know those identities there. And it was, you know, a
very different environment. Because it was a different place where people
from all segments were there.43
The protests did not only increase the visibility of the Armenian community, but
also it became a venue to talk about the silenced history of Gezi Park which was a
former Armenian cemetery. During the Gezi Park protests, Nor Zartonk placed a
representative tombstone with the inscription “You have taken our cemetery, you will
not be able to take our park”. In this way, it revived the memory of the Armenian
past of the park, and therefore of Istanbul, which was intended to be erased for
decades. The study, which was published in 2015 with the title of ’Remembering
the Genocide in 100th Years’ (2017), claims that Gezi Park, which was originally
seized as an Armenian Cemetery and later rebuilt as a park area, holds an important
place in the Armenian memory in Istanbul. The impact of Gezi Park protests on
young Armenians is also revealed in the interviews. Verjin, for example, mentions
the Gezi Park protests among the three moments in her life that made her realize
the existence of the Armenian Genocide.
I was in 9th grade during the Gezi. At that time, something began to
happen to me. I began to realize something. While I was starting to
think about identity, this time, I also started to think about the state.
The association may also have had an effect on my awareness of the
genocide. Or, I don’t know, in my research on it. I think we probably
talked with my yaya during high school, when these were happening.44
So far, I have argued that the murder of Hrant Dink has caused a rupture in the
subjectivization process of young Armenians and examined its reflections. Yet, I
would also like to mention how young Armenians’ sense of belonging was affected
by this rupture. Therefore, in the next section, I will examine how the sense of
belonging is affected by the processes experienced and what it means for young
Armenians.
43Okul çıkısı her gün geziye gidiyordum, her gün oradaydım. Evet belki müdahale zamanı orada olamayacak
kadar korkaktım ama onun ısında, o zamanların dısında oradaydım. Oradaki insanlarla beraberdim ve
oradaki kimlikleri de orada tanıdım ben aslında. Ve çok sey bir ortamdı, biliyorsun çok degisik bir ortamdı
orası. Çünkü her, umm, kesimden insanın orada oldugu degisik bir yerdi.
44Ben Gezi zamanında 9. sınıftaydım. O zamanlarda da ben de bir seyler olmaya basladı, bir seylerin
farkına varmaya basladım. Bu seferde kimlik üzerinden düsünmeye baslarken, bu seferde devlet üzerinden
düsünmeye basladım bir seylere iste. Dernegin de yani etkisi olmus olabilir bu soykırımın farkına varmama.
Ya da ne bileyim onun üzerine arastırma yapma. Yayamla da muhtemelen lise zamanında yani bunların
oldugu zamanda konusmusuzdur diye düsünüyorum
105
4.6 The Issue of Belonging
Throughout this chapter, I examined the major break in the subjectivity of young
people after the murder of Hrant Dink and the reflections of the transformation
effected by this event in different areas. Before closing the chapter, I would like to
touch upon the sense of belonging of young people, which I think will be complementary
to this chapter, as the ‘today’s of young Armenians would be missing. At
this point, I would like to underline that I do not want to specifically examine how
the murder of Hrant Dink affected the sense of belonging, but rather how young
Armenians, who underwent such a complicated subjectivization process, establish
a connection with the country that they grow up. It is possible to mention four
different themes that came to the fore in the interviews. Firstly, the relationship
of young Armenians with their ancestral homeland; secondly, in connection with
the first, their relationship with Istanbul, the city where they were born and raised;
thirdly, their relationship with Armenia and lastly, their relationship with the place
they want to have a future.
The perceptions of the interviewees on the cities where their parents or ancestors
were born or grew up show a diversity that even contradicts each other in some
cases. For example, while some of the interviewees emphasized that their homeland
is very important to them, most of the interviewees stated that they only have
general information and were not very interested. Another group, which is less in
number, stated that they do not have any affiliation with those ancestral cities, and
define themselves as Istanbulite. This diversity among the interviewees reveals a
complicatedness of the issue of belonging among young Armenians.
There are several factors that I think have an effect on this diversity among the
interviewees. One of the main factors is whether young Armenians could relate
themselves in any way with the region referred to as ‘homeland’. For example,
Masis mentions that he has an ’organic’ bond with Dersim, since his grandfather’s
grave is there, and his uncle regularly visits Dersim.
[Dersim] has a special place for me. Since there are always people from
Dersim around me and we carry the Dersim traditions in the family, I feel
closer to that place, maybe even a little bit. (. . . ) My mama hasn’t been
there for a long time, but my dayday goes there every year, my middle
dayday. We had the intention to go this year as well, it was planned
from last year, but unfortunately, we couldn’t due to the pandemic. But
106
we really want to go. I feel like I have a more organic connection with
Dersim. My grandfather’s grave is also there.45
Similar to Masis, Sarven says that the thing that connects him to Malatya is the
grave of the grandfather of his father in the cemetery there. However, the fact that
there is nothing in Erzincan, to evoke this feeling causes him to do not think of
going there.
Frankly, I didn’t go to Malatya or Erzincan. But I really want to go to
Malatya. I’m wondering about it. Because there is one more thing that
connects me to Malatya. My father’s grandfather lies in the cemetery in
Malatya. That’s why I want to go to Malatya more, but frankly, I never
thought of going to Erzincan.46
It is important to underline the transgenerational dimension of Sarven’s testimony,
which is strongly influenced by one of his grandmother’s sayings.
My yaya had a saying. I guess I can’t leave Turkey because of this saying.
When I was planning to go to America last year, I would go but come
back. I thought I’d never build a life in there. Then, when I couldn’t
go, my grandmother said, "In whichever land there is death, that is your
homeland." I wonder if it’s because of this saying, I don’t want to leave
Turkey. I don’t know. Because when I look back, Malatya is the place
where my ancestor is buried. The next ones are in Istanbul. But at for
a moment, I want to give up everything and go somewhere to America,
France or Sydney.47
45[Dersim’in] benim için özel bir yeri var. Etrafımda sürekli Dersimliler oldugu için ve ailede de Dersim
geleneklerini tasıdıgımız için belki bir nebze de olsa, oraya daha yakın hissediyorum kendimi. (. . . ) Mamam
uzun süredir gidemiyor ama daydayım gider mesela her yıl, ortanca daydayım. Bu yıl da gitme seyimiz
vardı, niyetimiz vardı geçen yıldan planlanmıs ama iste pandemi süreciyle maalesef gidemedik. Ama çok
istiyoruz gitmeyi. Dersimle daha organik bir bagım varmıs gibi geliyor. Dedemin mezarı falan da orada
çünkü.
46Ben Malatya’ya da Erzincan’a gitmedim açıkçası. Ama Malatya’ya gitmeyi çok istiyorum. Orayı merak
ediyorum. Çünkü Malatya’da beni baglayan bir sey daha var aslında. Malatya’daki mezarlıkta babamın
dedesi yatıyor. O yüzden biraz daha belki Malta’ya gitmek istiyorum aslında ama Erzincan’a gitmeyi hiç
düsünmedim açıkçası.
47Benim yayamın bir sözü vardı. Ben galiba bu söz yüzünden Türkiye’yi terk edemiyorum. Geçen sene
Amerika’ya gidecegim zaman seydi, gidicem ama geri gelecegim. Iste orada asla bir hayat kurmayacagım
kafasındaydım. Sonra gidemeyince yayam, “Nerde, hangi toprakta ölüm varsa orası vatanındır,” demisti.
Ben galiba bu sözden kaynaklı mı acaba Türkiye’yi biraz terk etmek istemiyorum. Bilmiyorum hani.
Çünkü dönüp baktıgımda atamın gömülü oldugu yer Malatya. Ondan sonrakiler Istanbul. Ama ben böyle
bir anda her seyi bırakıp iste Amerika’ya, Fransa’ya veya iste Sidney’e bir yerlere gitmek istiyorum.
107
The genocide stories told by grandparents also have an importance in the bond
established with the homeland. This is particularly evident in the narrative of
Zabel. She mentions the story of her grandmother who was visiting Bitlis until a
few years ago but stopped visiting because of the changes that are taking place in
Bitlis. After describing the importance of Bitlis for herself, as it is a place where
her beloved ones have strong connections, she told how her heart was broken for a
place that she never saw when her grandmother talked about the negative changes
happening in Bitlis.
So, everything has an origin, everything has a starting point. I also
want to look at my own history as much as I can, through and through,
from a bird’s-eye view. I want to look at where my ancestor, my yaya,
was born, where she drank water, where she rolled up her pants and
gathered things from which field. I want to look at where we missed my
aunt, where did my grandfather take my aunt, and her family. (. . . ) I
also feel a connection. Why shouldn’t I? My yaya said that now there
are dacigs all over the place and they messed the fountains up etc. It
was enough to break my heart about Bitlis which I have never seen. The
fact that the people I love so much have a bond with it makes me love
it too, it makes me love somewhere I have never seen before. 48
When they do not have someone they know, a place they can visit, or something
they can relate themselves to, most of the interviewees are unable to establish a
connection with their homeland. For example, Arden states that Sivas, which he
has never visited, does not mean anything to him. On the other hand, Armenia, to
which he has no ties, is of greater importance to him.
It doesn’t make me feel anything. Am I from Sivas? I am so-called
from Sivas, but it doesn’t make me feel anything. For example, we have
no ties to Armenia, but Armenia makes me feel a lot of things. I get
emotional, and I want to go there. I’ve never been there either. But I
don’t feel anything like that for Sivas. Maybe I would have felt if my
parents had been born there, I don’t know.49
48Yani her seyin bir orijin’i var her seyin bir baslangıç noktası var. Ben de bir bakabildigim kadarıyla kendi
eskilerime bakmak istiyorum söyle bir tepeden tırnaga, kus bakısı. Ben benim atam benim yayam nerede
dogmus, nerede görmüs, nereden su içmis, paçalarını sıvayıp hangi tarladan bir seyler toplamıs ona bir
bakmak istiyorum. Biz nereden halamı kaçırmısız, dedem nereden halamı almıs götürmüs, ailesini almıs
götürmüs bir bakmak istiyorum. (. . . ) Bir bag da hissediyorum ya niye hissetmeyeyim. Sadece yayamın
iste simdi bu her taraf dacig kaynıyor, çesmelerin agzına sıçmıslar falan filan demis olması hiç görmedigim
o Bitlis’in, benim kalbimi kırmasına yetti gerçekten. Çünkü, çok sevdigim insanların bir bagı var ya orayla
o benim de onu sevmemi saglıyor, hiç görmemis oldugum bir seyi sevmemi saglıyor yani.
49Bana hiçbir sey hissettirmiyor. Lafta Sivaslı mıyım Sivaslıyım ama hiçbir sey hissettirmiyor bana. Mesela
Ermenistan’la bir bagımız yok ama Ermenistan bana çok sey hissettiriyor. Hani duygulanıyorum, gitmek
108
From this point, I will move on to the discussion of what Armenia means to young
Armenians. The topic of Armenia, which was brought up naturally in Arden’s
example, did not mention by all interviews in the natural flow of the interview. In
some interviews, I had to specifically ask a question about the topic. Although
this might indicate that Armenia is not of great importance for young Armenians,
it is also very valuable that all the interviewees have something to say about this
issue. In only during one interview, when I asked what Armenia meant to Zabel,
she reacted to this question.
Rudi: Have you ever been to Hayastan? Have you ever visited there?
Zabel: I’ve never been to Hayastan. I am not at all eager to go to
Hayastan. I’m not curious abot Hayastan. Yes, I’m not curious about
Hayastan.
Rudi: The reason you say you’re not curious is because Armenia is a
place of curiosity? I mean, you’re saying it such directly, why did you
say that?
Zabel: I felt like you will introduce there to me as such a place. I got
that feeling. That’s why I wanted to explain in advance. I’m not curious
about Hayastan. I don’t care what’s in there. Usually, it is expected
that Armenians have already visited Armenia. How was Armenia, etc.
The answer is always that: There was nothing, it was very old, there was
this, there was that. . . So, what will I see in Hayastan? I’m not curious
at all, I don’t aspire at all. It’s something like that. 50
The interviewees, whom I asked if they had visited Armenia, gave different answers
on this matter, as they did when talking about their homeland. Some of them
visited Armenia, some wanted to visit, and some did not have a priority to visit,
as in Zabel’s example. The fact that Armenia is a place where Armenian culture
is kept alive in the public sphere is important for young Armenians. For example,
Tatul states that although he has not been to Armenia, speaking Armenian on the
street will probably exciting. Yet, it will not be enough to establish a bond for him.
istiyorum. Oraya da hiç gitmedim. Ama Sivas için öyle bir sey hissettigim yok. Belki annem babam orada
dogmus olsaydı hissederdim, bilmiyorum.
50Rudi: Hiç Hayastan’ı Hayastan’a gittin mi, hiç orayı ziyaret ettin mi?
Zabel: Hayastan’a hiç gitmedim. Hayastan’a gitmeye de hiç hevesli degilim, Hayastan’ı merak da
etmiyorum. Evet Hayastan’ı merak etmiyorum.
Rudi: Merak etmiyorum demenin sebebi, Ermenistan’ın merak edilen bir yer mi olması? Yani direk onu
diyor olman, niye öyle dedin?
Zabel: Sanki sen öyleymis gibi lanse edecektin bana, öyle bir his aldım. O yüzden açıklamayı, pesinen
yapmak istedim. Hayastan’ı merak etmiyorum ne var ne yok merak etmiyorum. Genellikle öyledir ya iste
Ermenilerin Ermenistan’a gitmis olması beklenir ya da iste nasıldı Ermenistan falan filan. Hep verilen
cevap sudur: Hiçbir sey yoktu, söyle çok eskiydi, surada su vardı, surada bu vardı. . . Ee ee yani neyini
görecegim ki ben Hayastan’ın? Hiç de merak etmiyorum hiç de özenmiyorum da. Öyle bir sey yani.
109
Of course, things like speaking Armenian cause me to have positive or
good thoughts when I go there. But I won’t go and live there. So, I
don’t think there will be a connection either. If I go to Hayastan, it will
be only for visiting the places. Okay, I will also learn about the life and
culture there, but that’s it. It’s superficial and I won’t look too deep
into it. I would like to say that I am happy here.51
It is not only Tatul among the interviewees who has a positive opinion about Armenian
even though he has never been there. Similarly, Arden states that he has a
strong interest and even feels a kind of responsibility for Armenia.
So, I feel very sincere with there. I have researched quite a bit of history.
Let me show that. The Etchmiadzin church is the first cathedral in the
world, and I carved it into this ring, this stone. I worked on this for
eight months. Just to build that church. I would love to go and see the
church up close. I couldn’t understand what I’m doing right or wrong
just by looking at the picture. I looked at the picture and did this as a
result. I also want to go there and make a comparison with this bracelet.
I want to see how similar my work is and whether it is the same or not. I
want to visit that monument, the genocide memorial. In addition, there
are villages in Indonesia that are starving, and they are constantly being
helped. You know, I learned that there are also such villages in Armenia
that when you bring even a chocolate, they become so thrilled. I want
to make those people happy. I hope I will make soon.52
Some interviewees who have visited Armenia point to the differences between the
two communities as the reason for the lack of their sense of belonging to Armenia.
In addition, they feel uncomfortable when the Armenians of Armenia perceive them
as Turks and not Armenians. For example, Zepour argues that there is a substantial
difference between Armenians of Armenia and Armenians of Turkey, and therefore
it is not possible for her to feel she belonged to Armenia.
51Gittigin yerde tabii ki Hayren konusulması falan, bunlar çok gittigim zaman olumlu veya güzel düsüncelere
gark edecek sey o. Ama gitmem, gidip de yasamam. O yüzden de çok fazla bir bagın olacagını da
düsünmüyorum. Hayastan’a gidersem yer görmek için giderim. Iste tamam oradaki yasantıyı kültürü de
ögrenirim ama bu kadar yani yüzeysel. Çok derinlemesine inmem. Ben burda mutluyum diyim.
52Yani çok içten hissediyorum. Bayagı tarihini arastırmıslıgım var. Hatta söyle göstereyim, Eçmiadzin
kilisesi dünyadaki ilk katedraldır. Onu da su yüzügün, tasın için oydum. Sekiz ay ugrastım suna. Sadece o
kiliseyi yapabilmek için. Gidip kiliseyi yakından görmeyi çok istiyorum. Resimden neyi dogru neyi yanlıs
yaptıgımı anlayamıyorum. Resme bakıp yaptım sonuç olarak. Bir de bu yaptıgım bileklikle birlikte oraya
gidip orada bir karsılastırma yapmak istiyorum. Yaptıgım isin ne kadar dogru oldugunu; benzetebilmis
miyim, aynısı olmus mu olmamıs mı onu görmek istiyorum. O anıtı ziyaret etmek istiyorum, soykırım
anıtını. Bir de bu Endonezya’da falan çok aç olan köyler var sürekli destekler gidiyor. Hani ögrendim ki
Ermenistan’da öyle bir köyler var ki bir çikolata götürdügün zaman dünya onların oluyormus. Hani orada
insanları mutlu etmek istiyorum. En yakın zamanda da insallah edicem.
110
For example, I say "Oh, this is Armenia. Is this our root now?" [laughs]
No! For example, there is no one from Armenia in my family. Armenian
you learned at the school isn’t understood there. The food you eat is
not the same. So it is another culture. We are Armenians, but we have
acquired the culture of Istanbul Armenians. I don’t know, the food is
not the same food we eat in Turkey. The language you speak is not
exactly the same. You understand it, but they do not try to understand
you and say I don’t understand. In fact, you don’t say anything that is
very difficult to understand. When I got there, I realized that I didn’t
actually belong there either. I think we are not because they are looking
at you as if you are not Armenian.53
It should be underlined that the bond established by young Armenians with Armenia
is not fixed and can change over time. For example, Anoush recounts that although
she had very negative thoughts when she first went, she became increasingly attached
during her following visits and she made her last visit to get Armenian citizenship.
I went four or five times. I think I went four times. I was in tenth grade
when I first went. We went for a performing where we were going to
exhibit Armenian clothes. It didn’t mean anything to me when I first
went. In fact, maybe because of childhood, I thought that what kind of
country is this. Well, I don’t know, it was winter, the weather was really
bad. After 2-3 years, we went again for the same purpose. But this time
I looked at there from a different perspective. I actually liked there more
on my second visit because I had matured a little more and started to
look at it from a slightly different angle. The last time I went, I was
really attached to there. Let’s go again, let’s go again. Let’s go as soon
as possible. I felt a little more connected to there. I’ve seen most, if not
all, of them. It’s like a different world in my eyes. After all, the purpose
of our last visit was to get citizenship, to get Armenian citizenship.54
53Ya mesela nasıl biliyor musun “Aaa Ermenistan burasıymıs. Simdi aa bizim kökümüz burası mı?” diyorum
mesela. [gülüyor] Hayır! Mesela benim ailemde Ermenistanlı olan biri yok. Sonra okulda ögrendigin
Ermenice orada ise yaramıyor. Sonra bakıyorsun ki yedigin yemek oranın yemegi degil. Sonra o da baska
bir kültür diyorsun. Biz Ermeniyiz ama Istanbul Ermenisi’nin kültürünü aldık. Yani bilmiyorum dönüp
baktıgında o yedigin yemek bizim Türkiye’de yedigimiz yemek degil. Iste, dönüp baktıgında konustugun
dil de birebir aynı degil ve sen onu anlıyorsun ama o seni anlamaya çalısmıyor ve ben anlamıyorum diyor.
Ki sen aslında sen çok zor bir sey söylemiyorsun. Oraya gidince aslında oraya da ait olmadıgımı anladım.
Olmadıgımızı çünkü onlar da sana bunlar da Ermeni degil ki diye bakıyor bence
54Dört bes kere gittim. Sanırım dört kere gittim. Ilk gittigimde onuncu sınıftaydım. Ermeni kıyafetlerini
sergileyecegimiz bir gösteri için gitmistik. Ilk gittigimde bana hiçbir sey ifade etmedi orası. Hatta belki
çocuklugun verdigi bir sey diye düsünüyorum bu nasıl ülke, iste ne bileyim zaten kıstı, igrenç bir hava
vardı. 2-3 sene sonra bir daha gittik yine aynı amaç için. Ama bu sefer daha farklı bir bakıs açısıyla
baktım ben oraya. Daha çok sevdim aslında ikinci gidisimde çünkü biraz daha olgunlasmıstım ve biraz
daha farklı açılardan bakmaya baslamıstım oraya. Son gidisimde ise oraya gerçekten baglanmıstım artık.
Bir daha gidelim, bir daha gidelim. Iste ilk fırsatta gidelim falan. Biraz daha oraya baglı hissetmistim
kendimi. Her yerini olmasa da çogunu gördüm. Orası bambaska bir dünya gibi benim gözümde. Zaten
son gidisimizin amacı da vatandaslık almaktı, Ermenistan vatandaslıgı almaktı ona basvuracaktık falan.
111
The last point I would like to mention regarding the relationship of young Armenians
with Armenia is that they see Armenia as an alternative to which they can take
refuge in a possible crisis, even though they do not feel any bond with Armenia.
For example, Sarven talks about the worsening conditions in Turkey and says that
he may consider going to Armenia if the conditions get worse, but he is not sure
whether he will maintain his life there or not.
Under which conditions would I go to Armenia? When things get out of
hand, I would seek refuge in Armenia but, for example, I am not sure
if I will continue to live in Armenia. So let me put it this way, I don’t
know how much I feel belonged or connected there. I don’t feel very
belonged to there, I don’t feel very connected either. However, in the
most difficult situation, when everything is over, I would say Armenia is
my refuge.55
As I mentioned before, the relationship of young Armenians with Armenia varies
considerably among interviewees. Nevertheless, most of the interviewees felt that
they belonged to the city where they were born and raised. Even the interviewees
who mentioned that they have a strong connection with their homelands stated that
they have no desire to build a life in these cities. For example, Yervant, although he
felt a deep connection to Vakıflı Village, stated that he could only spend a certain
period of a year there and would not want to settle there.
For example, if you ask that if I would live in there in the current situation,
I won’t live for all 12 months. But for example, it is a place to
go to spend your time for 3 weeks of the year. Even if not the whole
summer, I can spend maybe a month or so without getting bored.56
After stating her perception of Vakıflı Köy, Yervant makes a similar comparison with
Armenia and points Anatolia as where he belongs, and then Istanbul.
55Hani hangi sartlarda Ermenistan’a giderim? Artık böyle bir seylerin iyice ipin ucunun kaçması, zıvanadan
çıkması durumunda Ermenistan’a sıgınırım. Ama orada Ermenistan’da yasamaya devam eder miyim ondan
da emin degilim mesela.Yani söyle söyleyeyim, ne kadar oraya kendimi ait hissediyorum veya baglantılı
hissediyorum, bilmiyorum. Çok ait- çok oraya ait hissetmiyorum, çok da baglantılı da hissetmiyorum. Ama
sey, en zor durumda, en artık her seyin bittigi yerde sıgınacagım yer deyip Ermenistan’ı kullanabilirim.
56Mesela simdiki sonuçta yasar mısın desen 12 ay boyunca yasamam ama örnegin senenin haftası 3 haftası
tam gidilmelik bir yer yani, vakit geçirmek için. Bütün yaz olmasa da en azından belki 1 ay falan geçiririm
hani seve seve hiç sıkılmadan
112
Okay, that’s our country, we’re lucky to have a country. Everyone speaks
Armenian in there. But for example, if you ask where you want to live,
I still prefer Istanbul. Because it is where I was born and raised, or in
terms of mentality, it seems closer to me. Because Armenia is also a
different culture. How can I say... I have been here already, so I feel
more like I’m from Turkey. Not like I’m a Turk but from Turkey. I am
from Anatolia, I am a man of this land, so I do not feel like a citizen of
Armenia.57
In another example, Verjin states that a person cannot feel a sense of belonging to
a place they do not know, so they belong to Istanbul, where they were born and
raised.
Istanbul, this is where I grew up. I know this place better. You can’t
feel like you belong to a place that you don’t know. I don’t know Sinop
at all, for example, how can I feel that I belong there? I was born and
raised in Istanbul. I feel that I belong to Istanbul when I think of my
experiences and the time period I lived here.58
It is possible to see in Masis’s narrative that Hrant Dink’s assassination has an
impact on belonging. When I ask him if he has ever thought of leaving Turkey,
he answers by quoting Hrant Dink and thinks that although he will lead a more
comfortable life abroad, he will have difficulties in living his culture.
No, I didn’t think of. I never thought of going to Armenia or going to the
Diaspora. I did not even think of living outside of Istanbul in Turkey.
Because my life is established here and I love it. And frankly, I have
hope. Hrant also didn’t go, and you know his saying, "We stayed and
we resisted." That school of thought fits me too. I think that I should
preserve my culture. For example, if we leave here, there will be no
trace of us. Frankly, I might be more comfortable economically, but not
as much in terms of culture or language.59
57Tamam, orası da bizim ülkemiz, sanslıyız ki bir tane ülkemiz var yani. Herkes Ermenice konusuyor
falan gibisinden ama mesela gene de nerede yasarsın dersen ben Istanbul’u tercih ederim. Çünkü dogup
büyüdügüm ya da mantalite olarak, kafa yapım olarak bura bana daha yakın geliyor. Çünkü orası da
farklı bir kültür. Nasıl diyeyim yani ben zaten buradaydım yani kendimi daha çok Türkiyeli hissediyorum.
Yani Türk gibi degil. Türkiyeli gibi hissediyorum kendimi. Ben Anadoluluyum, bu topragın adamıyım
yani Ermenistan vatandası gibi hissetmiyorum.
58Istanbul yani büyüdügüm yer burası. Burayı daha iyi bildigim için de yani bilmedigin bir yere ait hissedemezsin
kendini. Sinop’u hiç bilmiyorum mesela oraya nasıl ait hissedebilirim kendimi? Istanbul’da dogup
büyüdüm, burada yasadıgım deneyimlere, burada yasadıgım zaman sürecine bakarak kendimi Istanbul’a
ait hissediyorum.
59Yok düsünmedim ya. Ne Ermenistan’a gitmeyi ne de Diaspora’ya falan gitmeyi hiç düsünmedim. Hatta
113
Sarven, on the other hand, prefers to explain his sense of belonging by emphasizing
the cultural dimension of his relationship with Turkey as he wants to express his
happiness or sadness in Turkish or Armenian and not in English, as it would not be
possible for him to describe his feelings in other languages or, in another example,
listen to Ahmet Kaya when he feels emotional. In addition to those cultural dimensions,
his grandmother’s saying takes an important place regarding his desire to live
here.
I don’t know, when I’m sad, I want to listen to songs in Turkish and
Armenian, or I want to tell my problem in Turkish or Armenian. I
want to experience my joy in these languages. I don’t want to explain
in English. Or there are some words that express an event very well
in Armenian or Turkish. But when you go there, you will not be able
to experience the same feeling or share the same feeling. Or even if
you are going to love someone, you want to live your love in Armenian
and Turkish because you have always grown up with this, as a part
of this culture. You know, when I’m sad, I want to listen to Ahmet
Kaya, I don’t want to listen to anything else. Actually, maybe it’s a very
simple cultural attachment. However, is it worth staying here for all of
these? Sometimes I question that too, but I don’t know. I guess that’s
why I can’t leave. Sometimes my yaya’s saying comes to my mind. In
whichever land there is death, that is your homeland. Our dead are here.
They’ve been here since 1915.60
Although the majority of the interviewees stated that they felt they belonged to
Istanbul and Turkey, Anoush does not think that she has a future in Turkey and
wants to leave the country as soon as possible.
I mean, if I live here right now, it’s out of necessity. If I get a chance,
I’d rather leave here. You know, I have such hatred. Because I can’t
Türkiye’de de Istanbul dısında yasamayı düsünmedim. Çünkü kurulu bir düzen var ve ben seviyorum. Ve
benim umudum da var açıkcası. Hrant nasıl gitmediyse, hani sözü var ya “Biz kaldık ve direndik.” diye.
O ekol bana da uyuyor. Kültürümü korumam gerektigini düsünerek, iste biz buradan gidersek mesela,
bizden iz kalmayacak. Ben açıkcası ekonomik olarak daha rahat ederim ama kültür olarak veya dil olarak
o kadar rahat edemem.
60Ne bileyim ben üzüldügümde Türkçe ve Ermenice sarkı dinlemek istiyorum veya derdimi Türkçe veya
Ermenice anlatmak istiyorum. Sevincimi bu dillerde yasamak istiyorum hani. Ingilizce anlatmak istemiyorum
veya iste hani bazı kelimeler vardır o kelime sey, Ermenice bir olayı çok güzel ifade eder veya Türkçe
çok güzel ifade eder ama oraya gittiginde aynı duyguyu yasayamayacagız, aynı hissiyatı paylasamayacagız.
Veya ne bileyim birini seveceksen bile Ermenice ve Türkçe sevmek istiyorsun çünkü hep bunla büyümüssün,
bu kültürün bir parçası olarak çıkmıssın. Hani ben üzüldügümde Ahmet Kaya dinlemek istiyorum, baska
bir sey dinlemek istemiyorum. Aslında belki çok basit bir kültürel baglılık ama hani bunların temelinde,
hepsi için de burada kalmaya deger mi? Bazen bunu da sorguluyorum ama bilmiyorum. Ben biraz galiba
bu yüzden ayrılamıyor ve yayamın o dönüp dolasıp bazen böyle sözü aklıma geliyor. Nerede bir- hangi
toprakta bir ölüm varsa orası senin vatanındır diye. Bizim ölülerimiz burada, yani 1915’ten beri burada.
114
take it anymore. I can’t even stand to walk on the street with people
like that. I don’t want to be beneficial to this country. Because as an
Armenian, I don’t want to do this. Because I know that this will neither
work nor change anything. I prefer to be beneficial to another country.
I don’t know, I have such anger. Any other country will be okay, but
I don’t want to be beneficial to here. What else can I say. [a little
silence] Because they don’t deserve it. This country does not deserve
any recovery. Because I know it won’t get better.61
4.7 Conclusion
In this chapter, I have examined two important dimensions of Armenian identity,
the Armenian Genocide, and the assassination of Hrant Dink, which have a significant
impact on the subjectivization process of young Armenians of Turkey. After
examining those dimensions and illustrating their impacts, I discussed what young
Armenians think about their sense of belonging. Interviews revealed that the assassination
of Hrant Dink created a rupture in the lives of young Armenians as their
perception regarding the Armenian identity has evolved after the assassination.
Before the assassination, young Armenians’ subjectivization process was overwhelmingly
formed by the encounters they had in the family circles. They were warned to
stay silent and to keep a low profile during their encounters with non-Armenians.
In addition to instructions coming from the family, Armenians were constantly reminded
by state apparatuses to not raise their voices as they “are surrounded by
countless official and unofficial mechanisms of repression” (Maksudyan 2009, 636).
Although young Armenians were tried to be protected by their parents or reminded
by state mechanisms regarding dangerous possibilities that talking about Armenianness
and particularly the Armenian Genocide might entail, the inescapability of
those issues becomes prevalent during high school as history textbooks were examining
the topic. Being exposed to denialist Genocide narratives through history
books, which were contradictory to what they heard in their families, led to the
61Yani su anda burada yasıyorsam mecburiyetten yani. Eger bir fırsat elime geçerse buradan gitmek daha
çok isterim. Hani öyle bir nefret bendeki. Çünkü artık katlanamıyorum. Sokakta yürümeye bile katlanamıyorum
o tarz insanlarla. Bu ülkeye hiçbir yararım olmasını istemiyorum. Çünkü bunu, bir Ermeni
olarak ben yapmak istemiyorum. Çünkü biliyorum ki ne ise yarayacak, ne bir sey degisecek. Ben baska
bir ülkeye yararlı olmayı tercih ediyorum. Yani bilmiyorum böyle bir öfke olustu bende. Herhangi bir ülke
olur ama buraya bir yararım dokunsun istemiyorum. Ne diyeyim baska. [küçük sessizlik] Hak etmiyorlar
çünkü. Bu ülke hak etmiyor düzelmeyi. Çünkü biliyorum düzelmeyecek.
115
emergence of a conflicting socialization process for young Armenians. This process
has been complicated further by the questioning of young Armenians about their
views on the Armenian Genocide. It became complicated because young Armenians
were forced to express their views on the Armenian Genocide, despite what they
had been taught during their subjectivization process, such as remaining silent or
keeping a low profile. What these contradictory expectations mean for young Armenians
is that they have to be silent as much as possible but if somehow, they are
exposed, then they should have the necessary skills and information to confront the
questions.
The implications of such a complicated process, as discussed in the previous chapter,
led young Armenians to develop various defense mechanisms such as hiding their
names, not speaking Armenian in the street, or responding to controversial questions
in political ways. However, with the assassination of Hrant Dink, those mechanisms
started to be abandoned as young Armenians began to develop a distinctive approach
to their Armenianness. This new approach was mainly based on the embracement
of the Armenian culture and brought the desire to openly live their culture in the
public sphere. The source for such a significant transformation could be found in
the changes that take place after the assassination of Hrant Dink, as it “revived the
memory of the Genocide, strengthened the transmission, and reshaped the patterns
of remembrance” (Fırat et al. 2021, 90). Apart from reviving the memory of the
Genocide, the connections established between the assassination and the Armenian
Genocide enabled young Armenians to determine a reference point from which they
can define their subjectivity.
The assassination did not only shatter the silence for Armenians of Turkey, but
also impacted the society at large. Most prominently, the option of ignorance was
removed from Turkish society, and they forced to confront the incidents that took
place in 1915. Even though it would be a bold claim to argue that this confrontation
led to an identity crisis for Turkish society, as argued by Ünlü, it resulted in
increasing awareness toward the presence of the Armenians of Turkey (2016, 5).
The only incident that increases the visibility of the Armenian community was not
the assassination of Hrant Dink. Gezi protests and the Kamp Armen struggle were
among prominent incidents that enabled the society at large to meet with the Armenian
existence in Istanbul. Nevertheless, it is important to mention that increasing
awareness does not necessitate a positive impact on the lives of Armenians and as
argued by various interviewees, their lives did not undergo a significant change.
One of the most important findings in this chapter is that despite the presence of a
significant change in the lives of young Armenians of Turkey, only a very few of them
116
imagine a future outside of Turkey. Most of the interviewees, as they were born and
raised in Istanbul, mentioned that they feel a special connection with the city, and
it would be very difficult for them to leave. As the reason for such connection, Zabel
remarks on all the labor that she put throughout her life. Nevertheless, because of
the increasing oppression in Turkey, she mentions her desire to leave the country
which is, she underlines, not because of her ethnic identity.
I really love Istanbul because my past is here, all my loved ones are here,
I know this place, I have worked for here, and I believe that people really
love what they work for. I have worked for Istanbul and Istanbul has
also worked for me. I was born and raised here. My everything and
everyone I know are here. I worked for the university, for high school,
for improving myself. The fact that those who govern us make a fool
of me so easily really bothers me. I can’t stand this, so that’s why I’m
thinking of leaving. Other than that, I will say it again, it has nothing
to do with the national identity.62
62Ben çünkü Istanbul’u gerçekten çok seviyorum hem geçmisim burada oldugu için hem bütün sevdiklerim
burada oldugu için hem bildigim için hem buraya emek verdigim için ki insanların emek verdikleri seyi
gerçekten sevdiklerine de inanırım. Ben Istanbul’a emek verdim, Istanbul’da bana emek verdi. Ben burada
dogdum, büyüdüm. Her seyim herkesim burada. Üniversiteye emek vermek liseye emek verdim, kendimi
gelistirmeye emek verdim basımızdaki insanların karsıma geçip bu kadar rahat beni aptal yerine koyması
benim canımı sıkıyor. Buna dayanamıyorum zaten bu yüzden gitmeyi düsünüyorum yoksa bunu yine
söylüyorum milli kimlikle bir alakası yok.
117
5. CONCLUSION
Discriminatory policies and practices implemented by the Turkish state, paramilitary
organizations, and the society at large continue to disrupt Armenians’ and
other non-Muslim communities’ daily life in Turkey. Due to a lack of democratic
legislation non-Muslim communities have isolated themselves from public spaces
and forced them to perform their cultural rituals and traditions in confined environments.
As a result, the Armenian community has struggled for decades to transition
from an isolated inner circle to a shared outer circle.
The isolationist behavior of the Armenian community started to change with the
patriarchal elections and the establishment of the Agos newspaper in the 1990s. It
was during this period that the Armenian Genocide started to catch the public’s
attention, but the most significant transformation took place in 2007, with the assassination
of Hrant Dink. Until this date, the Armenian Genocide is not something
that is openly discussed in the Armenian community. Changes in state policies have
not resulted in a major change in the status of the Armenians of Turkey and the
culture of fear among Armenians persists. Moreover, this persistent fear is felt by
Armenians differently depending on the context. Ekmekcioglu contextualizes these
contexts by distinguishing them as in-side, mid-side, and out-side.
To elaborate, while the family circle on the ‘inside’ is somewhat impervious to official
power, the mid-side is where negotiations with the state takes place. On the other
hand, the outside refers to public or private locations where Armenians interact with
the society at large, which also constitutes the space where most of the discriminatory
practices take place. The way that interviewees narrated their life stories was
fitting with Ekmekcioglu’s conceptualization. Young Armenians mentioned that despite
silences, they learned what it meant to be an Armenian in Turkey in their
familial circles, through the warnings of their parents. In Armenian schools, they
learned details regarding their Armenian identity and on the outside, they were
exposed to discriminatory behaviors. Interviews also revealed the significance of
118
gender in this process, as outcomes for male and female interviewees were different.
State policies surrounding the Armenian Genocide, together with subsequent events
are aimed at eradicating Armenian traces from public spaces, resulting in gaps in
family story transmission. Due to anxiety, parents have avoided discussing the
Armenian Genocide with their children, yet this avoidance has made young Armenians
aware of their differences. Despite this, the majority of interviewees said
their first structured experience with the topic occurred when they were in high
school. Because history books include a chapter in which the Genocide is presented
in accordance with official historiography under the title of the Armenian question,
it has become unavoidable for young Armenians to learn about the subject. This
results in inconsistencies between family stories and history textbooks, which form
a contradictory zone in the socialization of young Armenians and influence their
attitudes. Apart from schools, the Armenian Genocide has been a topic of inquiry
for Turkish youth, and young Armenians have often been challenged by their peers.
This is linked to the Istanbulite Armenians’ disadvantaged situation, which requires
them to know, see, hear, and most importantly, respond to and serve the needs of
Turkey’s majority ethnic community.
Regarding the perceptions of young Armenians on the Armenian Genocide, interviews
indicated a wide range of perspectives, some of which were even conflicting.
Several interviewees stated that they are uninterested in the events of 1915 and believe
that they should be buried. They explain their lack of interest in the subject
based on the fact that they live in Turkey and have both Turkish and Armenian
acquaintances. This approach is understandable in light of generational disparities.
However, the purpose of the young Armenians is not to dismiss the Armenian Genocide
or the past, but rather to confront the realities of life in Turkey and the desire to
create a new future. Rather than emphasizing the Armenian Genocide on which the
Turkish state and society prevent them from engaging in social and political lives,
they are attempting to establish a new future by emphasizing other components of
Armenian culture. This new sense of Armenianness could be defined as participation
in cultural activities, working for the survival of the Armenian language, and
incorporating cultural components into daily life. To be clear, this does not imply
that young Armenians are unaware of the Armenian Genocide’s consequences and
significance. Despite their conviction that the perpetrators’ grandchildren cannot
be held liable for acts they did not commit, all of the interviewees stated that they
would still want to receive an apology.
When it comes to the possibility to receive an apology, all interviewees were hopeless.
Nonetheless, while they all mention that the denialist policies of the Turkish state
119
will continue for another hundred years, they still observed a transformation in
Turkish society. They claimed that society at large became aware of the presence
of Armenians and the Armenian Genocide after the assassination of Hrant Dink.
Although the assassination has had a modest influence on Turkish society, it has
marked the start of a vital transition for Armenians in Turkey. Several interviewees
described the assassination as a watershed moment in their lives which caused a
dramatic shift in young Armenians’ perceptions. Although they did not know Hrant
Dink at the time of his assassination, the subsequent remembrance gatherings and
public conversations about the Armenian Genocide have radically altered the way
that young Armenians make sense of their Armenianness.
The impact of Hrant Dink’s assassination may be explained by young Armenians’
understanding of the assassination as a continuation of the Armenian Genocide.
Prior to the assassination, the Armenian Genocide was a largely abstract event that
young Armenians only learned about through family stories or textbooks. However,
following the assassination of Hrant Dink, the Genocide is transformed into a tangible
event to which they can refer. To put it another way, before the assassination,
the Turkish state, the Armenian community, and society at large used a wide range
of control mechanisms measures to regulate young Armenians. They were taught,
for example, not to stand out, to keep a low profile, and to avoid discussing their
Armenian roots, particularly the Armenian Genocide. However, following the assassination,
a dramatic shift occurred in the lives of young Armenians in terms of how
they define their Armenianness and how it is reflected in public areas. With the
shift, young Armenians began to venture outside of the defined zones they had been
instructed to stay in and began to embrace components of Armenian culture. According
to many interviewees, the most notable novelty offered by this new sense of
Armenianness is related to the public visibility of the Armenian language. Another
effect was seen in the process of young Armenians becoming politicized. It was impossible
for young Armenians to claim political space before the assassination since
their Armenian identity was founded on fear and silence. The presence of such feelings
was preventing young Armenians from participating in political settings, as it
would force them to discuss the Armenian Genocide at some point. However, as the
Armenian Genocide was debated following Dink’s assassination, those restrictions
began to unravel, which led to the foundation of a new political outlet. In other
words, whereas discussing the Armenian Genocide in regard to the events of 1915
was not allowed, discussing the Genocide in relation to the assassination became
acceptable. This shift allowed young Armenians to become more involved in politics
and, in the case of Nor Zartonk, even start their own organization.
Young Armenians’ sense of belonging was inevitably impacted by these experiences
120
and processes. There were four distinct topics that came forth during the interviews.
First, young Armenians’ relationships with their homelands; second, their
relationships with Istanbul, the city where they were born and nurtured; third, their
relationships with Armenia; and finally, their relationships with the region where
they hope to have a future. The most crucial concern raised during interviews is
that, despite substantial changes in the lives of young Armenians in Turkey, only a
small percentage of them envision a future outside of Turkey. As they were born and
raised in Istanbul, the majority of the interviewees expressed a strong attachment to
the city, saying it would be difficult for them to leave. Nonetheless, due to increased
authoritarianism in Turkey, the majority of young Armenians express a wish to flee
the country.
The goal of this thesis is to provide a response to the question of what it means to be
a young Armenian in Turkey. It looks in depth at the impact of numerous methods
undertaken by the Turkish state, Turkish society, and the Armenian community
on the process of ‘becoming’ an Armenian. The thesis pinpointed the significance
of various spaces on the formation of young Armenians’ subjectivities by following
Lerna Ekmekcioglu’s conceptualization. One of the most significant outcomes of
this research is situating the experiences of young Armenians within Ekmekcioglu’s
conceptualization which revealed the differentiating extents of young Armenians’
perceptions. However, there are points that need improvement in the thesis. The
most prominent of these is related to how Armenianness is represented in different
geographies. Although I have tried to uncover the stories of young Armenians in
Turkey, this groups only constitutes one part of the bigger story. Accordingly, it will
be very valuable and complementary to reveal how Armenianness is experienced and
how young Armenians perceive it in societies living in different cities of the world
and forming the Armenian diaspora.
121
BIBLIOGRAPHY
100. Yılında Soykırımı Hatırlamak. 2017. Bellek ve Kültür Sosyolojisi Çalısmaları
Dernegi.
Abrams, Lynn. 2010. Oral History Theory. 1st edition ed. London ; New York, NY:
Routledge.
Adak, Hülya. 2015. “Gendering denial narratives of the decade of terror (1975–85):
the case of Sâmiha Ayverdi/Neside Kerem Demir and Hatun Sebilciyan/Sabiha
Gökçen.” Journal of Genocide Research 17(July): 327–343.
Adak, Hülya. 2016. “Teaching the Armenian Genocide in Turkey: Curriculum,
Methods, and Sources.” PMLA 131(October): 1515–1518.
Akçam, Taner. 2012. The Young Turks’ Crime against Humanity. Princeton University
Press.
Aktar, Ayhan. 2000. Varlık Vergisi ve "Türklestirme" Politikaları. Istanbul: Iletisim
Yayınları.
Akçam, Taner. 2004. From Empire to Republic: Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian
Genocide. Zed Books.
Althusser, Louis. 1994. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” In Mapping
ideology, ed. Slavoj Zizek. Mapping London; New York: Verso.
Anderson, Benedict. 2006. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and
Spread of Nationalism. Verso.
Anderson, Kathryn, and Dana C. Jack. 2015. “Learning to listen: interview techniques
and analyses.” In The Oral History Reader, ed. Robert Perks, and Alistair
Thomson. 3 ed. London; New York: Routledge pp. 157–172.
Aslan, Senem. 2007. ““Citizen, Speak Turkish!”: A Nation in the Making.” Nationalism
and Ethnic Politics 13(2): 245–272.
Aybak, Tunç. 2016. “Geopolitics of Denial: Turkish State’s ‘Armenian Problem’.”
Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 18(March): 125–144.
Azarian-Ceccato, Natasha. 2010. “Reverberations of the Armenian Genocide: Narrative’s
intergenerational transmission and the task of not forgetting.” Narrative
Inquiry 20(January): 106–123.
Baer, Marc. 2007. “Globalization, Cosmopolitanism, and the Dönme in Ottoman
Salonica and Turkish Istanbul.” Journal of World History 18(2): 141–170.
Baker, Lee D. 1998. From Savage to Negro: Anthropology and the Construction of
Race, 1896-1954. 1 ed. University of California Press.
122
Bali, Rıfat N. 2015. Bir Türklestirme Serüveni 1923-1945: Cumhuriyet Yıllarında
Türkiye Yahudileri. Istanbul: Iletisim Yayınları.
Barutciski, Michael. 2003. “Lausanne Revisited: Population Exchanges in International
Law and Policy.” In Crossing the Aegean: An Appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory
Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey, ed. Renée Hirschon. New
York, NY: Berghahn Books.
Baykal, Zeynep. 2011. Construction of Armenian Identity in Istanbul: The Case of
Yesilköy. Master’s thesis Middle East Technical University Ankara: .
Benison, Saul. 1965. “Reflections on Oral History.” The American Archivist 28(1):
71–77.
Bernstein, B., H. L. Elvin, R. S. Peters, and Julian Sorell Huxley. 1966. “Ritual in
education.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B,
Biological Sciences 251(December): 429–436.
Bilal, Melissa. 2006. “The Lost Lullaby and Other Stories about Being an Armenian
in Turkey.” New Perspectives on Turkey 34: 67–92.
Bloxham, Donald. 2005. The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism,
and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians. Oxfor: Oxford University Press.
Bozdogan, Sibel, and Resat Kasaba, eds. 1997. Kemalist Certainties and Modern
Ambiguities. University of Washington Press.
Brink-Danan, Marcy. 2011. Jewish Life in Twenty-First-Century Turkey: The Other
Side of Tolerance. Indiana, US: Indiana University Press.
Brubaker, Rogers. 1996. Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question
in the New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butler, Judith. 1997. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York:
Routledge.
Butler, Judith. 2011. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. 1st
edition ed. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.
Cagaptay, Soner. 2004. “Race, Assimilation and Kemalism: Turkish Nationalism
and the Minorities in the 1930s.” Middle Eastern Studies 40(3): 86–101.
Cavalli, Alessandro. 2004. “La mémoire comme projet: les mémoires des communautés
après une catastrophe.” Maurice Halbwachs. Espaces, Mémoires et Psychologie
Collective. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne pp. 115–124.
Chamberlain, Mary. 2006. Family Love in the Diaspora: Migration and the Anglo-
Caribbean Experience. London ; New York: Routledge.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex:
A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and
Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989(Article 8).
123
Das, Veena, and Arthur Kleinman. 2000. “Introduction.” In Violence and Subjectivity,
ed. Mamphela Ramphele, Pamela Reynolds, Veena Das, and Arthur Veena.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Deri, Mehmet. 2009. Türkiye’de Azınlıklar ve Azınlık Okulları: Rum Yahudi ve
Ermeni Cemaatleri. Istanbul: IQ Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık.
Derrida, Jacques. 1995. “Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression.” Diacritics 25(2):
9–63.
Derrida, Jacques. 2002. Acts of Religion. New York: Routledge.
Ekmekcioglu, Lerna. 2016. Recovering Armenia: The Limits of Belonging in Post-
Genocide Turkey. 1st edition ed. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Enteen, George M. 1986. “Historiography And Nationalism.” Russian History 13(4):
309–311.
Fischer, Nina. 2015. Memory Work: The Second Generation. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Freire, Paulo. 2018. Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 50th Anniversary Edition. 4th
edition ed. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Freund, Alexander. 2014. ““Confessing Animals”: Toward a Longue Durée History
of the Oral History Interview.” The Oral History Review 41(January): 1–26.
Fırat, Derya, Öykü Gürpınar, Öndercan Muti, and Barıs Sannan. 2021. “Remembering
the Genocide: A comparative Study on the Postmemory of Armenian
Youth (Armenia, Turkey, Lebanon, France).” In Critical Approaches to Armenian
Identity in the 21st Century: Vulnerability, Resilience and Transformation, ed. Altug
Yılmaz, and Hrag Papazian. Istanbul: Hrant Dink Foundation Publications
pp. 78–90.
Giorgetti, Filiz Meseci. 2019. “An Evaluation on the Changing Educational Policies
and Sociopolitical Rituals in Turkey.” JSSE - Journal of Social Science Education
18(February).
Gocek, Fatma Muge. 2014. Denial of Violence: Ottoman Past, Turkish Present, and
Collective Violence against the Armenians, 1789-2009. Oxford University Press.
Grele, Ronald J. 1991. Envelopes of Sound: The Art of Oral History. 2nd edition
ed. New York: Praeger.
Gürpınar, Dogan. 2016. “The manufacturing of denial: the making of the Turkish
‘official thesis’ on the Armenian Genocide between 1974 and 1990.” Journal of
Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 18(May): 217–240.
Halbwachs, Maurice. 1992. On Collective Memory. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Hall, Stuart. 1990. “Cultural Identity and Diaspora.” In Identity: Community,
Culture, Difference, ed. Jonathan Rutherford. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
124
Hall, Stuart. 1996. “Introduction: Who Needs ‘Identity’?” In Questions of Cultural
Identity, ed. Stuart Hall, and Paul du Gay. London: SAGE Publications Ltd
pp. 1–17.
Herzfeld, Michael. 1982. “When Exceptions Define the Rules: Greek Baptismal
Names and the Negotiation of Identity.” Journal of Anthropological Research 38(3):
288–302.
Hirsch, Marianne. 2012. The Generation of Postmemory: Writing and Visual Culture
After the Holocaust. London ; New York: Columbia University Press.
Hobsbawm, Eric. 1983. “Introduction: Inventing Traditions.” In The Invention of
Tradition, ed. Eric Hobsbawm, and Terence Ranger. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Içduygu, Ahmet, Sule Toktas, and B. Ali Soner. 2008. “The politics of population in
a nation-building process: emigration of non-Muslims from Turkey.” Ethnic and
Racial Studies 31(February): 358–389.
Jackson, Philip W. 1990. Life in Classrooms. Revised ed. edition ed. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Kerr, Daniel R. 2016. “Allan Nevins Is Not My Grandfather: The Roots of Radical
Oral History Practice in the United States.” Oral History Review 43(2): 367–391.
Kévorkian, Raymond. 2011. The Armenian genocide: A complete history. Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Keyder, Çaglar. 1997. “Whither the Project of Modernity? Turkey in the 1990s.” In
Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey, ed. Sibel Bozdogan, and
Resat Kasaba. University of Washington Press.
Kopsa, Arzum. 2008. The Assassination Of Hrant Dink From The Perspective Of
Armenian Youth In Turkey: A Time Of Trauma Or Solidarity? Master’s thesis
Sabanci Univeristy Istanbul: .
Koç Gabrielsen, Yasemin. 2015. Agos And Armenian Community: An Inquiry On
The Reformulation Of Armenian Identity In Turkey Phd Middle East Technical
University Ankara: .
Kuyucu, Ali. 2005. “Ethno-religious ‘unmixing’ of ‘Turkey’: 6–7 September riots as
a case in Turkish nationalism.” Nations and Nationalism 11(June): 361–380.
LaCapra, Dominick. 2014. Writing History, Writing Trauma. JHU Press.
Luykx, Aurolyn. 1999. The Citizen Factory: Schooling and Cultural Production in
Bolivia. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Maksudyan, Nazan. 2005. “The Turkish Review of Anthropology and the Racist
Face of Turkish Nationalism.” Cultural Dynamics 17(November): 291–322.
Maksudyan, Nazan. 2009. “Walls of Silence: Translating the Armenian Genocide
into Turkish and Self-Censorship.” Critique 37(November): 635–649.
125
McLaren, Peter. 1999. “Foreword.” In Schooling as a Ritual Performance: Towards
a Political Economy of Educational Symbols and Gestures. 3 ed. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Neyzi, Leyla. 2010. “Wish they hadn’t left.” In Speaking to One Another: Personal
Memories of the Past in Armenia and Turkey, ed. Liz Erçevik Amado. Istanbul:
DVV International.
Nichanian, Marc. 2002. Writers of Disaster: Armenian Literature in the Twentieth
Century. Princeton, NJ: Taderon Pr.
Nichanian, Marc. 2009. The Historiographic Perversion. Columbia University Press.
Panossian, R. 2002. “The Past as Nation: Three Dimensions of Armenian Identity.”
Geopolitics 7(September): 121–146.
Panossian, Razmik, Silva Kuyumcuyan, Arus Yumul, and Vatche Papazian. 2021.
“Closing Forum.” In Critical Approaches to Armenian Identity in the 21st Century:
Vulnerability, Resilience and Transformation, ed. Altug Yılmaz, and Hrag
Papazian. Istanbul: Hrant Dink Foundation Publications.
Papazian, Hrag. 2017. “Between Gezi Park and Kamp Armen: the intersectional
activism of leftist Armenian youths in Istanbul.” Turkish Studies 18(January):
56–76.
Passerini, Luisa. 1979. “Work Ideology and Consensus under Italian Fascism.” History
Workshop Journal 8(October): 82–108.
Portelli, Alessandro. 2009. What Makes Oral History Different. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan pp. 21–30.
Reeves, Troy, and Caitlin Tyler-Richards. 2014. ““Confessing Animals,” Redux:
A Conversation between Alexander Freund and Erin Jessee.” The Oral History
Review 41(September): 314–324.
Renan, Ernest. 2018. 9. WHAT IS A NATION? (QU’EST-CE QU’UNE NATION?,
1882). Columbia University Press pp. 247–263.
Robben, Antonius C. G. M. 1996. “Ethnographic Seduction, Transference, and
Resistance in Dialogues about Terror and Violence in Argentina.” Ethos 24(1):
71–106.
Schwab, Gabriele. 2004. “Haunting legacies: trauma in children of perpetrators.”
Postcolonial Studies 7(July): 177–195.
Sigal, John J., and Morton Weinfeld. 1989. Trauma and Rebirth: Intergenerational
Effects of the Holocaust. New York: Praeger.
Smith, Anthony D. 1988. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Smith, Anthony D. 1999. Myths and Memories of the Nation. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
126
Stevens, Jacqueline. 1999. Reproducing the State. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University
Press.
Suciyan, Talin. 2015a. The Armenians in Modern Turkey: Post-Genocide Society,
Politics and History. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Suciyan, Talin. 2015b. “Dört Nesil: Kurtarılamayan Son.” Toplum ve Bilim (132):
132–149.
Suny, Ronald Grigor. 1993. Looking toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Tataryan, Nora. 2011. Armenians Living In Turkey And The Assassination Of
Hrant Dink: Loss, Mourning And Melancholia. Master’s thesis Sabanci Univeristy
Istanbul: .
Taylor, Charles. 1994. “The Politics of Recognition.” In Multiculturalism: Examining
the Politics of Recognition, ed. Amy Gutmann, Kwame Anthony Appiah,
Stephen C. Rockefeller, Michael Walzer, Susan Wolf, and Jürgen Habermas.
Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
Tchilingirian, H. 2017. “The ‘Other’ Citizens: Armenians in Turkey between isolation
and (dis)integration.” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 25(4).
Thiranagama, Sharika. 2007. “A new morning? Reoccupying home in the aftermath
of violence in Sri Lanka.” Focaal 2007(June): 31–44.
Thompson, Paul. 2000. The Voice of the Past: Oral History. 3rd edition ed. Oxford
England ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Thomson, Alistair. 2007. “Four Paradigm Transformations in Oral History.” The
Oral History Review 34(1): 49–70.
Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. 1997. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of
History. Beacon Press.
Tölölyan, Khacig. 2021. “The Dilemma of Identity in Contemporary Dıscourse.”
In Critical Approaches to Armenian Identity in the 21st Century: Vulnerability,
Resilience and Transformation, ed. Altug Yılmaz, and Hrag Papazian. Istanbul:
Hrant Dink Foundation Publications pp. 17–28.
Türköz, Meltem. 2007. “Surname Narratives and the State—Society Boundary:
Memories of Turkey’s Family Name Law of 1934.” Middle Eastern Studies 43(6):
893–908.
Türköz, Meltem. 2017. Naming and Nation-building in Turkey: The 1934 Surname
Law. Springer.
Vahapoglu, Hidayet M. 2005. Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Azınlık ve Yabancı Okullar:
Yönetimleri Açısından. Istanbul: Millî Egitim Bakanlıgı Yayınları.
Walsh, Catherine. 1990. Pedagogy and the Struggle for Voice: Issues of Language,
Power, and Schooling for Puerto Ricans. 0 edition ed. New York: Praeger.
127
Werfel, Franz. 1934. The Forty Days of Musa Dagh. New York: Viking.
White, Jenny B. 2003. Islamist Mobilization in Turkey: A Study in Vernacular
Politics. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Wishnitzer, Avner. 2014. “Into The Dark: Power, Light, And Nocturnal Life In
18th-century Istanbul.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 46(August):
513–531.
Woodhead, Christine. 1983. “An Experiment In Official Historiography: The Post
Of Sehn¯ameci In The Ottoman Empire, C. 1555-1605.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die
Kunde des Morgenlandes 75: 157–182.
Yumul, Arus. 2011. “Tarihi Hikâyelerden Ögrenmek.” In Sessizligin Sesi Türkiye
Ermenileri Konusuyor, ed. Mehmet Ferda Balancar. Istanbul: TESEV Yayınları.
Yuval-Davis, Nira. 2016. “Intersectionality and Feminist Politics.” European Journal
of Women’s Studies (July).
Zurcher, Erik J. 2017. Turkey: A Modern History. London ; New York: I.B.Tauris.
Üngör, Ugur Ümit. 2014. “Lost in commemoration: the Armenian genocide in
memory and identity.” Patterns of Prejudice 48(March): 147–166.
Ünlü, Barıs. 2016. “The Kurdish struggle and the crisis of the Turkishness Contract.”
Philosophy & Social Criticism 42(May): 397–405.
128
APPENDIX A
Table of interviewees’ demographics
pseudonym age place of birth gender
Anoush 21 Sisli F
Karin 21 Sisli F
Zepour 21 Yesilköy F
Sarven 22 Bakırköy M
Verjin 22 Beyoglu F
Rita 22 Canada F
Masis 22 Sisli M
Yervant 24 Yesilköy M
Toros 27 Beyoglu M
Arden 27 Merter M
Zabel 27 Yesilköy F
Tatul 35 Sisli M
129