The documentary shown in class concerning the Armenian genocide was both moving and very informative. Aside from discussing facts about the genocide (with which I was already familiar because of assigned readings and previous knowlege), the film spent a lot of time focusing on why the Turkish government is so adamant about denying it. One of the major possible reasons that I thought was very interesting, was that the Turks want to avoid the bad press. Initially, this seems like a fairly simple and petty explanation as to why an entire government would deny the systematic extermination of an entire people. After some careful consideration, however, that seems like a perfectly legitimate reason for denial. A close parallel can be drawn to the early European immigrants to America (who eventually became the early Americans) systematically murdering and relocating the Native Americans into special reservations. Because a good deal of time has passed and the United States has built itself into a major global power, Americans can openly discuss the Native American Genocide, because even though it may not look so good on a track record, what can anyone really do to America for it. Turkey is not yet established as a major world power, and is still working to modernize and work its way into the Western World. If they admit to the Genocide at this pivitol point, it could severely damage their image.

All this being said, however, the issue of Genocide is still a touchy subject in lands where it has been admitted. Although Americans have the ability to discuss the Native American's plight, they rarely do, prefering to leave the issue alone. Just the word "genocide" seems reserved for extremely successful cases of mass murder and There are many atrocities that are carried out on large groups of people by individuals and governments all the time that are not considered genocide. Take the American Eugenics movement, for example. The United States government may not have murdered people they found to be of inferior intelligence or mental capacity, but it systematically took away their right and ability to reproduce, hoping that they could evetually exterminate an entire population of "socially inferior" people. There are still places within the United States that will only provide sterilization services to certain racial groups seeking birth control methods, limiting that group's reproductive capacity. How similar is that to "systematic removal?"

The Bastard of Istanbul

Today in class we discussed Elif Shakak's novel, The Bastard of Istanbul. The class discussion was very insightful and went very well--as is proved by the fact that we have an entire week to complete our midterms. It is unfortunate, however, that because we have such a large class and everyone must be given a chance to speak in order to recieve credit, not all ideas can be explored thoroughly by every student.

Something that I thought was very interesting and important in the novel that wasn't mentioned in class was the importance of the city of Istanbul to the collective identity of both Turks and Armenians. Somone mentioned that because of the genocide, Armenians had a very scattered sense of identity. I thought that this was very significant and deserved to be explored further. Although there is a country called "Armenia" that is home to many Armenians, it was a Soviet Territory at the time of the genocide in Turkey. Because of this, most Armenians forced out of Turkey were also shut out of Armenia and were consequently forced to seek refuge in other countries.

Not once in the novel did the Turkish or Armenian families even mention Armenia. The Armenians do not identify with Armenia because it was never their home. Shafak is clearly making a statement that just because a country houses members of a certain race, it does not necessarily mean that all people of that race will feel at home in that country. Asya, for instance, is a Turk and feels so disenfranchised and nihilistic that she does not feel at home anywhere--certainly not in her home country of Turkey. Istanbul is very important to the novel because it doesn't only work as the setting for most of the novel's action (in both real time and flashback), but because it is the hometown of both families, thus making it central to their identities.

The Armenian-Americans displaced because of the genocide cling to this concept of victimhood because they can not feel at home in their new location. Because of their inability to reconcile with where they were forced to live, they cling to a romanticized notion of the past. Conversely, the Armenians living in Istanbul--Zehliah's boyfriend, for example--have made peace with the past because they have been able to grow and adapt with their home city of Istanbul.

Reading the Gulhane Proclamation has made me realize that the Ottoman Empire was a living, breathing entity, effecting and affected by many people. Because it was lead by a Sultan, I kind of assumed that he was the only one who had any real say in matters. This document proves, however, that the Sultan had to work to find ways to keep his people happy and supportive. We learned that it was in the Sultan's best interest to keep his soldiers content, because without their support he would have no way of enforcing laws or expanding the empire. The documents suggest that rule in the Ottoman Empire was based not on the despotic whims of a single leader, but instead upon public opinion and set laws.

I think it is probably important to note the dates in which the two proclamations were issued. It is interesting that they were not enacted at the same time; there was actually a gap of almost twenty years between the two. Both documents, although related, are very different. The first talks about reforms that the Empire plans to undertake in order to modernize their entire political system. The second is more narrow and concerns only citizens. It grants equal rights to all people living within the Empire. The dates come into play because they both indicate times in which the Ottoman Empire faced strong military pressure and had to make changes in order to maintain power. As the Ottomans slowly began losing territory to European powers, they were forced to first modernize their government, and then later ensure that everyone living in the Empire was given a fair chance to participate in that government.

To Die in Jerusalem

I found it very touching how often children were interviewed for the documentary. All the children spoken to (siblings, classmates, etc. ) were exceptionally well-versed and seemed to have (at least a minimal) understanding of the violent conflict that dictates their everyday lives. It seemed very sad to me that a young girl felt the need to defend to cameras that she and her fellow Palestinians were not necessarily terrorists. I grew up in the United States and feel that I was constantly sheltered from violence--movies and television that featured violent content were turned off when I entered a room, and I certainly never witnessed death. Not only did the children in the documentary understand death, but they were also capable of maturly discussing it's causes and implications.

On another note, I was fairly distrubed by the prison scene in which Rachel's mother visits the woman who attempted a suicide bombing. Consistent with what I have already written in the Blackboard Discussion Board, I feel that the citizens of both countries suffer for what should be a diplomatic conflict over land rights. It is appaling to me that the three women can discuss suicide bombing in such a way that they empathize with the pain it causes, but still feel that they are necessary and justified. The attempted suicide bomber even notes that "regardless of religion a mother is a mother." This comment alone ties into several, equally alarming themes. First of all, it indicates that both sides equate religous differences with what is strictly a political conflict. Secondly, it suggests that people are learning to hate other peope because of political differences.

I am not surprised that some historians believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be a "clash of civilizations." The documentary does not try to mask the fact that Israelis lead more modern, Western lives than Palestinians--Ayat's family does not speak English to the cameras and dress much more conservatively. Additionally, Rachel's family is clearly less educated and are consequently depicted as pushy and abrasive. Because of these factors, I can't help but think that the whole documentary (although touching) is little more than a ploy to tap into the pathos of Western audiences. Both sides are romanticized and oversimplified into what Westerners do not expect to see.