1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
rusak2 [61]
3 years ago
7

Why did the Ottoman rulers begin to view Armenians as a threat?

History
1 answer:
Minchanka [31]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

Suny: That is the central question of my forthcoming book. There is a tendency on the part of some scholars - particularly Armenians - not to try to explain the genocide because – “why do you need to explain it? These are Turks, this is what they do, and this is the kind of regime it was.” Or, slightly more sophisticated – “oh, it's Christians and Muslims – they are inevitably in conflict.” Or — “it's clashes of nationalism.” Now for me, religion, nationalism, the nature of Turkish culture, Ottoman society, the state - all of these are the questionsto be asked, not the answers. That is, they need to be investigated. The way I would explain this genocide, and I think it has relevance for other kinds of ethnic cleansings and mass killings, is that the regime developed what I call an “affective disposition” - that is, an emotional understanding of who the enemy was. They constructed the Armenians as an existential threat to the Ottoman Empire and to the Turkish nation, what they conceived as the Turkish nation at that time. I try to explain the origins of this affective disposition - this mental universe - in which emotion, fear, anger, and resentment combined to create an image of Armenians. Armenians originally had been thought of as a loyal millet, but after 1878 the Armenians became an instrument of certain foreign powers to intervene in the Ottoman regime and internal policy — the Ottomans began to see them as a threat.

Remind us what happened in 1878.

This was the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878. The Russians beat the Turks, and they were going to impose reforms on the Ottoman Empire, and that was the beginning of the new “Armenian question” that continued right up to the war. Now, some people would say "well, you don't need to go into emotions - it was a perfectly strategic, rational choice. The Armenians were actually a threat in World War I, and the Turks decided to get rid of them for national security reasons.” My view is that's an insufficient explanation. Why did they see them as a threat? A threat is always a perception. It's about emotion, it's about understanding, feeling, sentiment, and construction - both cognitive and emotional construction. I'm taking a step backwards to see how they got into the position that they could imagine people this way and then carry out the worst possible kinds of things. I’m bringing emotion into it.

By some accounts, Armenians sided with Russia at the beginning of World War I —was that something the Ottomans could point to that the Armenians were a threat?

This is the problem. You can't say the Armenians sided with Russia. That is what the Ottomans would say, and they perceived that. So there are people who try to justify what the Ottomans did to the Armenians by saying they were with the enemy. What I try to show in the book is that the overwhelming majority of Ottoman Armenians wanted to stay in the Empire, but they also wanted reforms to protect them and allow them to prosper. They wanted Kurdish predations against Armenians to be contained, for example. The Ottoman government was opposed to these reforms, but ultimately had to agree to them in February 1914. When the war came, though, they used the first opportunity to get rid of them. I’ll give you an example. As the Ottomans are going to war, they mobilize the population. Hundreds and thousands of young Armenian men are drafted and join the Ottoman army. A few desert and go over to the Russian side. Some prominent leaders go over to the Russian side. The Russians form Armenian voluntary units on the Caucasian side against the Ottomans, but the Turks see this as treachery and demobilize hundreds of thousands of Armenian soldiers, take their weapons and uniforms away, turn them into labor battalions, and eventually murder them. So it's a very different thing. It's not that there wasn't sympathy among some for Russia, but there was also no particular love for Russia. Russians didn't like the Armenian nationalist revolutionaries any more than the Turks did so they were persecuting them as well. The Armenians were in an unfortunate position - in Persia, in Russia, and in Turkey. They were like the Kurds today.

You might be interested in
After Charles I’s execution what form of government was established in England
kompoz [17]

Answer:

Protectorate, the English government from 1653 to 1659. After the execution of King Charles I, England was declared a commonwealth (1649) under the rule of Parliament.

Explanation:

The king was a man who was made to executed. Tea.

4 0
3 years ago
Islam is a religion that proselytizes (attempt to convert followers). What are some other
max2010maxim [7]

Answer:

Another proselytizing religion is Christianity (both Catholicism and Protestantism are proselytizing). Islam and Christianity are both monotheistic and claim to be the true religion. Some sources include Sikhism among the proselytizing religions, though another sources say Sikhs teach by example and don´t necessarily proselytize.

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
30 POINTS AND BRAINIEST! I need a few examples of how the U.S. helped Iraq in World War 1. Ill give brainiest if you name at lea
d1i1m1o1n [39]
Sorry but, Iraq was never involved in World War 1. Don’t know if you mean the Iran-Iraq war...but Iraq was never in WW1.
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How has Judaism evolved into a culture?
Marina86 [1]
The answer is C.


Judaism evolved into a culture because of its followers that are born into faith. This happened in the beginning during the time of Moses in Mt. Sinai where he was with newly freed Hebrews. This was the time when the 613 statutes were tailored for tribes who were trekking in search for nationhood. They were ancient people who were lost and needed a sense of understanding about how the world should work. Eventually, their beliefs were rooted to an existence where love, fairness, and goodness rules during their lifetime.
6 0
3 years ago
government or control of a country by its own members rather than by members of a different country? write your answer
Hunter-Best [27]

Answer:

its called a self government

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • In a survey the US bureau of labor statics found the Americans watch an adventure of 2.7 hours of television per day which best
    15·1 answer
  • How did the constitution overcome the weaknesses of the articles of confederation
    12·1 answer
  • Which of the following improved the relationship between English settlers and the Powhatan American Indian tribe during the 1600
    7·1 answer
  • _______ served as a representative from Georgia from 1979-1998 and was an advocate of the contract with america ?
    15·1 answer
  • Why did Haynes favor states’ rights?
    10·1 answer
  • List 3 things that shape ones public opinion? Which is most important?
    13·1 answer
  • When did canada leave the british commonwealth?
    5·1 answer
  • What was the driving force behind the highlighted country's
    9·1 answer
  • One of the main reasons Islam became a major religion in Africa was that:
    13·2 answers
  • Can someone help me with this I don’t understand it due today it about Amanda Gorman
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!