Armenian national awakening
 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
The Armenian national awakening paralleled the rise of nationalism among other non-Turkish ethnic groups during the late Ottoman Empire. Ottoman statesmen sought to counter Armenian nationalism during the Tanzimat era, initially through the promotion of Ottomanism and later by transforming the empire into a constitutional monarchy during the First Constitutional Era. However, the reorganization of the millets—the legal courts for confessional communities—exacerbated the issue of dualism within the Ottoman state.
During the Armenian national awakening, Sultan Abdul Aziz sanctioned the promulgation of a basic law for the Gregorian Armenian Millet, protecting Armenian rights and privileges. This corresponded with the opening of an Armenian National Assembly, which took over responsibility of temporal matters from the Armenian Patriarchate. Armenian Ottomans operated their own courts of law, collected their own taxes, and maintained their own prisons, hospitals, and schools. As a result, some observers noted that the Armenian community functioned in many ways like a state within a state. Over the course of Ottoman Armenia, the Armenian elite grew more favorable for republicanism than allegiance to the Ottoman Dynasty, with some being interested in an autonomous region for themselves. During the Second Constitutional Era, parties like the Social Democrat Hunchakian Party (Hunchak), Armenian Democratic Liberal Party (Ramgavar Party or Armenakan), and Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnak) were the main representatives of Armenian interests in the Ottoman government, while sometimes also using violence to defend their constituents. After World War I and the Armenian genocide, the First Armenian Republic declared independence from the Ottoman Empire.
Origins
[edit]Prehistoric-Historic Era
[edit]The discovery of Urartu has come to play a significant role in 19th and 20th-century Armenian nationalism.[1]
Beyond the mostly accepted terms of the Armenian nationalism as given in the above paragraphs, the concept has come to include a range of interpretations of Prehistoric Armenia, including the link to the Iron Age kingdom of Urartu. The Armenians are the original inhabitants of the territory of what is named as historic Armenia. Identification with the distant glories of Urartu and its prehistoric forerunners, together with Mount Ararat has come to be a powerful symbol of Armenian ethnicity especially among the diaspora.[2]
The idea which claims people living under Urartu were consciously Armenian, essentialist interpretations of Armenian ethnicity over the ages abound in Armenian historiography, and flourished particularly during the Soviet era, with examples such as S. A. Sardarian's Pervobytnoye obshchestvo v Amenii of 1967 which besides "numerous plagiarisms and mistakes" goes as far as to postulate a separate Armenian race native to the Armenian plateau, and attributes the invention of metallurgy to the Armenians (Kohl and Tsetskhladze 1995). Heavily slanted depictions of Urartu are common in this literature. Armenian historical view must explain why Urartian epigraphy is in the non-Indo-European Urartian language. While there are reasonable scholarly scenarios that there was a Proto-Armenian component in Urartu, and that the early Armenians were the bona fide cultural heirs to Urartu, but the essentialist view of Armenian nationhood that simply equates Urartu with Armenia cannot be sustained (Kohl and Tsetskhladze 1995).[3]
Armenian Classic Era
[edit]In the Ottoman Empire, the social structure of Armenian Ottomans before the 18th century was based on the Millet system.
| Rise of nationalism in the Balkans Nationalism under the Ottoman Empire |
|---|
The Armenian millet was a confessional community in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman millet specifically referred to the separate legal courts pertaining to personal law under which sections of the society were allowed to rule themselves with fairly little interference from the central system. Each millet was under the supervision of an Ethnarch ('national' leader), most often a religious hierarch. Armenian millet was under the Armenian Apostolic Church. The Millets had a great deal of power - they set their own laws and collected and distributed their own taxes. As People of The Book Armenians were able to maintain their houses of worship, obtain religious literature, and employ clergy of their faith for their congregations. These were rights given in the local level. These rights become limited with the economic and technological developments of the 18th century. Armenian Ottoman citizens wanted representation in national level. They wanted to have participation more than the local level.
Armenian Renaissance
[edit]
Enlightenment among Armenians, sometimes called as renaissance of the Armenian people, came from two sources; The first being the Armenian monks belonging to the Mekhitarist Order. The second one being the socio-political developments of the 19th century, mainly the French Revolution and the Russian nihilist movement.
The 18th century generated new schools and libraries and a chance to study in the universities of Western Europe for well-connected Christians of the Ottoman Empire.
In addition, Protestant missionaries soon became involved evangelizing among the Apostolic Armenians. From the first day when Rev. William Goodell settled in Constantinople in 1831 to the end of World War I, the missionaries made considerable contributions to the education of Armenians. They not only stressed elementary education, but established colleges and other institutions of learning. The notable institutions included Central College of Antep, Euphrates College of Harpout, Anatolia College at Marsovan, Central Girls' College at Marash, and St. Paul's Institute at Tarsus. There were also colleges, such as International College at Smyrna; American College for Girls, Syrian Protestant College at Beirut and Robert College, in which institutions many Armenian students received their education. Here they came into contact with the radical ideas of the Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Educated and influential members of the large diaspora tried to transmit these ideas back to their own, with the double aim of raising their educational level and simultaneously strengthening their national identity. The European intellectual currents such as ideas of French Revolution were transmitted through the 23,000 Armenian students within 127 Protestant congregations with 13,000 communicants, and 400 schools.[4]
Mekhitarist Order had exclusive devotion to all persons and things Armenian. Mekhitar, was born at Sebastia in 1676. He entered a monastery but was concerned about the level of culture and education in Armenia at that period and sought to do something about it. Contacts with Western missionaries led him to become interested in translating material from the West into Armenian and setting up an order to facilitate education. Amongst their countrymen the influence of the Mekhitarist Order not only connected Armenians closer to God but facilitated an early sense of national ambition.
Father Ghevont Alishan was a member of the Mkhitarist Congregation in Venice. In 1885, the Armenian Patriotic Society of Europe appealed to him to create the first modern Armenian flag. Alishan designed a flag inspired by the national Flag of France, identified today as the "Nationalist Armenian Flag." Its colors were red, green, and blue respectively, representing the band of colors that Noah saw after landing on Mount Ararat.
In 1863, Ottoman Armenians were introduced to major reforms as an extension of Tanzimat. Attempting to stem the tide of nationalist movements within the Ottoman Empire, the Tanzimât period emerged from the minds of reformist sultans like Mahmud II and Abdul Majid as well as prominent reformers who were European-educated bureaucrats. The Armenian National Constitution (150 articles drafted by Nahabet Rusinian, Servichen, Nigoghos Balian, Krikor Odian and Krikor Margosian) defined the condition of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, but also introduced regulations defining the authority of the Patriarch.[5] The "Armenian Constitution" and Armenian National Assembly was seen as a milestone by progressive Armenians. Khrimian Hayrik worked to increase the influence of sub-councils of Armenian National Assembly. The Armenian National Assembly had a general assembly in Constantinople and sub-councils in the provincial centers. The general assembly consisted of 120 Armenian Nobles and 20 ecclesiastical members. The assembly in the capital meet very seldom. Local assemblies were often deaf to the complaints of the poorer members of the community. In 1880, the wealthy and influential Armenians signed an address of loyalty and devotion to the Sultan, condemning nationalist agitation as the work of misguided persons who have no authority or influence. This alienation from the center was highlighted by the work of bishop Mkrtich Khrimian. He worked to increase the influence of sub-councils of the towns of eastern Anatolia in the capital. The Armenian National Assembly's policies aligned with Anatolia with the increased influence of sub-councils. 1892 Khrimyan was unanimously elected Catholicos of All Armenians. These two Ottoman reforms, which were theoretically examples of social change by law, brought serious stress over Ottoman political and administrative structure. Armenian Nobles (Amira) were not happy, and they were the owners of the economic system.
National Revival
[edit].jpg)
The Armenian national ideology developed long after the Greek movement, however the factors contributing to the emergence of Armenian nationalism made the movement far more similar to that of the Greeks than those of other ethnic groups.[6] Unresolved social issues in the Empire began to feed Armenian national politics, along the other ethnic groups. As the Millets system degraded, Armenians begin to rethink their position in the world. The Armenian subjects of the Empire were influenced by the Armenian Diaspora and the network of congregations and schools of the Protestant missionaries throughout the Empire. After the 1877-1878 Russo-Turkish War, the Russian-Ottoman border region brought on new the political and military structure. Many Circassian and Laz muhacir from the Russian Empire were forcefully deported to Ottoman Empire. These emigrations brought tensions and changed the population distribution and balance of power within the local communities in eastern Anatolia. Russia proclaimed itself protector of Christian Armenians and this created a relatively more hostile environment to the Muslims, mostly Kurdish, who were left under Russian control. Kurdish-Armenian relations come to another turn. The newly established relations were complex. The change did not only affected the Armenian Millet but also the local non-tribal Kurds as well. The Kurdish tribal leaders that fled during the war began to express their power along the countryside. The region's social structure, coexistence of the communities was broken. The broken social structure required implementation of new reforms.
Kagik Ozanyan claims that the Tanzimat spurred the formation of an Armenian political strata and incited the Armenian national spirit, which was aligned with the nation building through revolution.[7][unreliable source?] General Mayewski, who was the Russian Consul General to Ottoman Empire recorded the following[8]
The rebellion of Armenians resulted from the following three causes:
(1). Their known evolution in political matters (Issue of Civilizations),
(2). Development of ideas of nationalism, salvation and independence in Armenian opinion (Revolution Perspective),
(3). Supporting of these ideas by Western governments and publication through the inspiration and efforts of Armenian clerical men (Humanitarian intervention).[8]— Russian General Counsel Mayewski
Civilization Perspective
[edit]According to one essentialist position, the breakdown of the "coexistence of the communities within the Ottoman Empire" was the direct result of the Christian Armenians and Muslims Turks and Kurds not being able to live together. Armenian Patriarch Nerses Varjabedyan expresses his position to British Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lord Salisbury on April 13, 1878.[9]
It is no longer possible for the Armenians and the Turks to live together. Only a Christian administration can provide the equality, justice and the freedom of conscience. A Christian administration should replace the Muslim administration. Armenia (Eastern Anatolia) and Kilikya, are the regions, where the Christian administration should be founded... The Turkish Armenians want this... That is, a Christian administration is demanded in Turkish Armenia, as in Lebanon.[9]
Most of the Ottoman sources do not give credit to these claims. They present the argument that the system of "Millet" and State and Religion preserved the Empire for centuries. A strong argument behind rejecting the "clash of civilizations" originated from the analysis of the activity timetable. The clashes collected in distinct events. Each event had high density with distinct beginning and an end. There was no single period that a thousand deaths were spread over a long period of time. This fact supports the "revolutionary view" instead of clash of civilizations, which showed the European powers the true nature of Ottoman rule. European powers needed to do something about these events through the international agreements. Assuredly Europe would do nothing if those thousand deaths were spread over years.[citation needed]
Armenian Question Perspective
[edit]The Greeks were thus the first of the Ottoman Empire's subject peoples to secure recognition as an independent sovereign power. After a long and bloody struggle, and with the aid of the Great Powers, the Greek Revolution won independence for Greece from the Ottoman Empire granted by the Treaty of Constantinople in July 1832. The National awakening of Bulgaria and consequently liberation of Bulgaria originate after the events of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 that led to the re-establishment of a Bulgarian Sovereign state with the Treaty of San Stefano. There had been no considerable movement in behalf of Armenian independence before Abdul Hamid II's reign. 1878 marked the first down turn of relations between Armenians and Ottoman Empire.
The stipulation in favor of Armenian autonomy in the Treaty of Berlin produced an immediate change. Unfortunately there were special difficulties for the realization of the so-called Ottoman liberal political program. For one thing not all the Armenians were under the Ottoman Empire. There was Armenians in the Russian Empire approaching to 900,000 at the nineteenth century. Ottoman subjects amounted to perhaps 1,200,000, and were mainly distributed through the six vilayets of Sivas, Bitlis, Erzerum, Harput, Diyarbekir, and Van. In some of these districts they formed pluralities. Besides other difficulties, Armenians perceived the stipulations of the treaty (Article LXI) of Berlin as an early realization of their autonomy. In 1879, one year of after the agreements, the only thing missing was the practical events to enable the articles for the demand of an Armenian state.[citation needed]
After the Armenian Massacres of 1894-1896 the Armenian population in the six vilayets, which overlapped with some Kurdish regions, declined between 80,000 and 300,000.[10] These massacres were perpetuated by the Hamidiye regiments and the European powers were asked to intervene. Instead of Armenian autonomy in these regions, Kurds (Kurdish tribal chiefs) retained much of their autonomy and power.[11] Abdulhamid made little attempt to alter the traditional power structure of “segmented, agrarian Kurish societies”.[11] The Sultan trusted the Kurds in safeguarding the southern and eastern fringe of the empire and mountainous topography, and limited transportation and communication system.[11] The state had little access to these provinces and were forced to make informal agreements with tribal chiefs, for instance the Ottoman qadi and mufti did not have jurisdiction over religious law which bolstered Kurdish authority and autonomy.[11] The Armenian national movement had discovered through their revolutionary movement that neither Tsar Alexander II with his idealism nor Gladstone's Liberalism were dependable allies.
The first effective intervention had come by Woodrow Wilson who agreed to transfer what will be named as "Wilsonian Armenia" back to the Armenians in the Treaty of Sèvres.
Revolution Perspective
[edit]Ottoman Armenians educated with the European Way began to make attempts in forming organizations – secret societies, local groups, such as the 'Protectors of the Fatherland' (1881) which was established in Erzurum. Protectors of the Fatherland was almost certainly affected by the ideas of French Revolution and Greek Revolution as 'Freedom or Death' was their motto.[12]
The Armenian national liberation movement gathered momentum with the establishment of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, Social Democrat Hunchakian Party and Armenakan (later named as Ramgavar).[13] The Social Democrat Hunchakian Party (Hentchaks) had the goal to gain Armenia's independence from the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) originally aimed for autonomy of the Armenian-populated areas, which changed to the establishment of an Armenian state with the coming years. The ARF adopted a decentralized modus operandi according to which the various chapters in different countries were allowed to plan and implement policies in tune with their local political atmosphere.
During 1880-1890 the local communication channels were developed. The organizations were fully functional in Ankara, Amasya, Çorum, Diyarbakır, Yozgat, and Tokat. In 1893 they began to publish propaganda toward the non Armenian subjects. The main theme of these materials were people should take control of their own life against the oppressors.[14] The propaganda did not have any effect on the Muslims. These activities ended with clashes between the Armenian revolutionaries and Ottoman police. Most revolutionaries received jail time. The Ottoman Empire and Britain would then negotiate the release of the activists. Some British observers concluded that Armenian revolutionaries were the responsible party.[15] Local authorities took initiative against the revolutionaries as they were cutting telegraph wires and bombing government buildings. Britain or European powers concluded that further intervention would end with sectarian conflict.[16]
Armenians mainly lived in the intersection of three empires, Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire and Persian Empire. The Armenian diaspora, which lived in Europe mainly, was composed of the elite whom were being educated in European Universities or performing the trade. The Armenians in Europe (Armenian diaspora) began to hold meetings about their oppressed status leading to the foundation of parties that would formalize "national politics" under Armenakans, Hnchakians, and Dashnaks with the coming years. These secret societies (or parties for some) which developed "National Policies" stated goals as "freeing the Armenians from the Ottoman Empire by any means possible".[17] H. K. Vartanian wrote that the Armenian revolutionary movement was a direct and necessary response to the increasingly intolerable social, economic and political conditions of the 19th century decaying and declining Ottoman Empire.[18]
The Armenian national movement was an international movement. However, the practical center of gravity for Armenian revolutionaries was within the Armenians in the Russian Empire, where Armenians could meet, organize funds, and send materials to their comrades in the Ottoman Empire easily. The organization that was founded in Geneva (Europe), mostly by active Russian Armenians, took the idea of nationalism and gave it a clear imprint of Caucasian revolutionary thought in 1887.[19] Caucasian revolutionary thought was directed at the Ottoman Empire, which the diaspora saw as its homeland. The Young Armenia Society was founded in 1889 by Kristapor Mikayelian which organized Fedayee campaigns into Ottoman territory.[20] The Tsarist regime cracked down on any attempt by Russian Armenians to engage in action across the border, a leading example being the Gugunian Expedition of 1890.[21]
The Bashkaleh Resistance was the first recorded bloody encounter between the Armenians and the Ottoman Empire in May 1889.
External links
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Redgate, Anne Elizabeth (2000). The Armenians. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-631-22037-4., p. 276.
- ^ Anne Elizabeth Redgate, The Armenians, Cambridge University Press, 1995, ISBN 978-0-521-48065-9, p. 276.
- ^ Philip L. Kohl and Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, 'Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology in the Caucasus' in: Philip L. Kohl, Clare P. Fawcett (eds.), Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology, Cambridge University Press, 1995, ISBN 978-0-521-48065-9, p. 157 f.
- ^ G. Warneck, Outline of a History of Protestant Missions (Edinburgh and London, 1901), p. 241.
- ^ Richard G. (EDT) Hovannisian "The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times", page 198
- ^ The Armenian Genocide: History, Politics, Ethics By Richard G. Hovannisian p.129
- ^ Esat Uras, Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, İstanbul 1976, 5. 463;
- ^ a b General MAYEWSKI; Statistique des Provinces de Van et de Bitlis, pp. 11-13
- ^ a b F.O. 424/70, No. 134/I zikr., Bilal N. ªimsir, British Documents On Ottoman Armenians 1856-1880), Vol. I, Ankara 19R2, pp.173. Document No. 69
- ^ Akcam, Taner. A Shameful Act. 2006, page 42.
- ^ a b c d Denise Natali. The Kurds and the State. (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2005)
- ^ The Times, 10 January 1883, p. 5; ibid., 8 June 1883, p. 5
- ^ "Chapter VIII: WESTERN ARMENIA (FROM 1820 TO 1913)". Armenianhistory.info. Archived from the original on 2003-05-24. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
- ^ Sir Robert W. Graves, Storm Centres of the Near East: personal memories, 1879-1929
- ^ Graves, Storm Centres, p. 138
- ^ Graves, Storm Centres, pp. 132-139
- ^ Eddie Arnavoudian; In defence of the Armenian National Liberation Movement, 2002
- ^ Vartanian; The Western Armenian Liberation Struggle, Yerevan, 1967
- ^ Nalbandian, Armenian Revolutionary Movement, p. 115.
- ^ Nalbandian, Armenian Revolutionary Movement, pp. 145–7.
- ^ Suny. Looking Toward Ararat, p. 46
| Ideology | |
|---|---|
| Organizations |
|
| People | |
| History |
|
| Political entities | |
