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
What made many of the Southern colonies wealthy?
GarryVolchara [31]

The correct answer is - c. exportation of tobacco.

The Southern colonies got very wealthy because of the production and exportation of tobacco. These colonies were situated on a place where the tobacco was flourishing and they used it to the maximum. The tobacco itself became very popular in Europe after it was introduced, and the demand for it was enormous, which gave the Southern colonies reliable and sure market with high demand that made them a lot of profit.

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What observation about primitive man in primitive society did Joseph Ephraim Casely Hayford make? In what way does he compare pr
ahrayia [7]

<span>Joseph Ephraim Casely Hayford observed that it is basically the instinct of the primitive man that works in the society, no matter what the scope of their bragged civilized nation. Based from Hayford, the civilized nations of our world are now comparable to primitive man, different universal courts of negotiation will be more regularly be seeing in one capital in Europe, and the not so strong country will have slight peacetime, if not slight fairness.</span>

7 0
3 years ago
The English Civil War led to the rise of
Rus_ich [418]
    The English civil war led to the rise of parliament. Hope this helps!
6 0
3 years ago
what did article 231 of the treaty of versailles demand regarding german reparations after world war 1
ankoles [38]
<span>It was Article 231 that came to be called the War Guilt clause that held Germany responsible for causing the war.  It humiliated the Germans and they were very angry about it.  It also forced the Germans to pay for damages caused by the war.  This bitter resentment among the Germans would later be used by Adolf Hitler to rally the German people under his leadership and led to the rise of Nazism in Germany.  When Hitler assumed power, he began invading one country after another which led to World War II.</span>
7 0
3 years ago
The example of a precedent washington set by surrounding himself with experts in various fields to make the best decisions possi
vaieri [72.5K]
A is the correct answer.
6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Muslims and Persians stressed perfect __________ in their architectural designs so that each side of a building would look exact
    9·1 answer
  • Helpppp plz fast I want the answers to the 3 questions
    7·1 answer
  • Who succeeded gandhi as head of the indian national congress?
    14·1 answer
  • What's the answer to this question
    15·1 answer
  • The probability of drawing two white cards without replacement is 14/95, and the probability of drawing one white card is 2/5. W
    9·1 answer
  • How might supporters of the slave trade react to the ideas of the Enlightenment?
    7·1 answer
  • Which former slave helped other slaves escape to freedom on the Underground Railroad?
    7·2 answers
  • Which of the following has a nonvoting delegate in the house of representatives
    14·1 answer
  • What can we learn from the story of a single tree that was wounded on that tragic day
    15·1 answer
  • Based on the chart above, which of the following statements is true?
    8·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!