Contemporary Armenian historians interpret this Turkish conquest of Anatolia to have constituted their liberation from the long centuries of Byzantine misrule and oppression. The Armenian historian Asoghik thus reports that "Because of the Armenians' enmity toward Byzantium, they welcomed the Turkish entry into Anatolia and even helped them." The Armenian historian Mathias of Edessa likewise relates that the Armenians rejoiced and celebrated publicly when the Turks conquered his city, Edessa (today's Urfa).
When eastern Anatolia was conquered by Fatih Mehmet II and Yavuz Sultan Selim I, it was taken from the White Sheep Turkomans and from the Safavids of Iran, who had occupied it after the Byzantines had retired; while Yavuz Selim took Cilicia from the Mamluks. In no case, therefore, did the Ottoman Turks conquer or occupy an existing Armenian state or principality. In every case, these Armenians had previously been conquered by peoples other than the Turks.
Source: ARMENIAN CLAIMS AND HISTORICAL FACTS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, Center for Strategic Research, Ankara, 2007
https://www.1915.gov.tr/images/uploads/documents/Ermeni_ingilizce_Soru_CevapKitapcigi.pdf
Prof. McCarthy:
"Under the Seljuk Turks and later the Ottomans, the Armenians lived as a Christian religious group whose separate existence was guaranteed by the rules of Islam. Armenian dedication to their religion, their geographic situation in Eastern Anatolia, and Ottoman religious toleration guaranteed their continuation as a people." (p.7)
"The claim of Armenian nationalists to a homeland in Eastern Anatolia would be considerably bolstered if there had been an Armenian majority, or even an Armenian plurality, in the East. Such was not the case." (p. 9)
"By the 1700s, there was no large area in which Armenians made up enough of the population to be the majority in an Armenian state. No province of the Ottoman, Persian, or Russian Empires had enough Armenians to make up an Armenia. For example, even much later, in the late 1800s, after Armenians migrated and concentrated their population, in no province of the Ottoman Empire was more than one-third of the population Armenian. The majority were in fact Muslims -Turks, Kurds, and many other ethnic groups who identified themselves primarily by religion, as Muslims, just as Armenians identified themselves religiously as Armenians." (p. 11)
"The rebellions of 1894-6 have often been cited as "Armenian Massacres," or the slaughter of innocent Armenians by Turks. Leaving aside the fact that such judgements ignore the murder of Turks and Kurds, there is a matter of common sense to consider. Because some wish to never admit that Armenians had a part in the creation of their own history of suffering, they are forced to ignore all Armenian actions against Turks. This leaves them with some difficult explanations. Why would the Turks, who had lived in relative peace with the Armenians for centuries, suddenly start to attack them? Is it just an incredible coincidence that the trouble in the East began as soon as Armenian revolutionaries began to organize there? Apologists for the Armenian Cause have resorted to the Devil Theory of History to explain what they allege were Turkish actions - a dormant evil tendency in the Turks awakened, stimulated by evil politicians. Such explanations can only seem believable if at least half the facts are ignored and one is willing to accept the absurdities of the Devil Theory. The antidote to this type of history is common sense."
Source: Justin McCarthy and Carolyn McCarthy, Turks and Armenians, Washington DC, 1989.
"In life, questions outnumber answers. Case in point: If they (The Turks) are bloodthirsty savages, why did they wait for 600 years to slaughter us?"
Ara Baliozian (Armenian author, translator, and critic).
Prof. McCarthy:
"Under the Seljuk Turks and later the Ottomans, the Armenians lived as a Christian religious group whose separate existence was guaranteed by the rules of Islam. Armenian dedication to their religion, their geographic situation in Eastern Anatolia, and Ottoman religious toleration guaranteed their continuation as a people." (p.7)
"The claim of Armenian nationalists to a homeland in Eastern Anatolia would be considerably bolstered if there had been an Armenian majority, or even an Armenian plurality, in the East. Such was not the case." (p. 9)
"By the 1700s, there was no large area in which Armenians made up enough of the population to be the majority in an Armenian state. No province of the Ottoman, Persian, or Russian Empires had enough Armenians to make up an Armenia. For example, even much later, in the late 1800s, after Armenians migrated and concentrated their population, in no province of the Ottoman Empire was more than one-third of the population Armenian. The majority were in fact Muslims -Turks, Kurds, and many other ethnic groups who identified themselves primarily by religion, as Muslims, just as Armenians identified themselves religiously as Armenians." (p. 11)
"The rebellions of 1894-6 have often been cited as "Armenian Massacres," or the slaughter of innocent Armenians by Turks. Leaving aside the fact that such judgements ignore the murder of Turks and Kurds, there is a matter of common sense to consider. Because some wish to never admit that Armenians had a part in the creation of their own history of suffering, they are forced to ignore all Armenian actions against Turks. This leaves them with some difficult explanations. Why would the Turks, who had lived in relative peace with the Armenians for centuries, suddenly start to attack them? Is it just an incredible coincidence that the trouble in the East began as soon as Armenian revolutionaries began to organize there? Apologists for the Armenian Cause have resorted to the Devil Theory of History to explain what they allege were Turkish actions - a dormant evil tendency in the Turks awakened, stimulated by evil politicians. Such explanations can only seem believable if at least half the facts are ignored and one is willing to accept the absurdities of the Devil Theory. The antidote to this type of history is common sense."
Source: Justin McCarthy and Carolyn McCarthy, Turks and Armenians, Washington DC, 1989.
"In life, questions outnumber answers. Case in point: If they (The Turks) are bloodthirsty savages, why did they wait for 600 years to slaughter us?"
Ara Baliozian (Armenian author, translator, and critic).
No comments:
Post a Comment