Can Nationalism Make Room for Ethnic Minorities? The Armenian Genocide

In the early 20th century, the Ottoman Empire was a dominant empire residing in three different continents, Europe, Asia and Africa, and had 29 provinces. This empire was an agricultural society controlled by a Sultan. It comprised diverse ethnic and religious individuals whose identity was mainly based on religious beliefs. It was dominated by the Turks and included other ethnicities such as the Arabs, Kurds, Greeks, Armenians and other ethnic minorities (Üngör n.d., p.47). The Ottoman Armenians, on whom this essay focuses, were a population of Christians with a mixed community of class status, residing mainly in the eastern provinces alongside other ethnic groups. Before World War I, the Ottoman Empire had around two million Christian Armenians. Nevertheless, in 1915, a group of Turkish nationalists planned to banish and exterminate Armenian citizens residing in the empire. At the end of World War I, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were recorded dead or deported from Turkey, specifically from the region of Anatolia (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum 2015). This essay critically discusses why nationalism does not make room for ethnic minorities, focusing on the Armenian Genocide and how Turkish nationalists were able to rationalise violence against this ethnic minority.

Definitions. According to the United Nations Genocide Convention as cited in Hovannison (1999, p.14), "genocide means to destroy with intent, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group; causing serious bodily or mental harm; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life and to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." Ethnic minorities are a group of people endowed with ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics which differ from the majority of the population, as they often constitute the numerical minority of the state (Deschenes 1985, p.31 as cited in Alia & Bull 2005, p.2). Nationalism, according to Smith (2013, p.4), can be defined as an "ideological movement for maintaining autonomy, unity and identity for a population which some of its members deem to constitute a potential nation."

Brief: the Armenian Genocide. During the Ottoman Empire, Armenians resided in north-eastern Turkey. They were a distinct ethnic group that originated in the Caucasus, an area which surrounds Turkey and Russia. They had their own language, culture and religion. Christianity was the main religion of the Armenians, as the earliest Armenian Christian churches date back as far as the first century CE (Freedman 2009, p.7). The Armenian Genocide, often referred to as the first genocide of the twentieth century, involved the physical annihilation of Armenian Christian citizens who resided in the Ottoman Empire (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum 2015). It was carried out during World War I between 1915 and 1918 by Turkish nationalists also known as the 'Young Turks'. According to Junkin (2014), the Young Turks were a group of nationalists who gained massive support amongst Ottoman citizens and eventually succeeded in overthrowing the Sultan in 1908. They reinstated the Ottoman parliament and promised greater reform. What they did not advertise was their plan to create a Pan-Turkic and Islamic empire, which eventually led to the forceful removal of Armenians from Anatolia to Syria, where they were sent into the desert to die of thirst and hunger (Armenian National Institute n.d.). An estimated one million Armenians lost their lives, as many were subjected to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre and starvation (Hovannison 1999, p.15).

Turkish nationalism. "Turkey's last century has been shaped by the ideology of a social, cultural and economic policy of aggressive and at times racist and ethnic nationalism" (Oktem 2003, p.4). This nationalism came into existence during the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th century and was derived from Western Europe. Before the 19th century it was almost non-existent, many Turks did not have a sense of belonging to a ruling ethnic group, nor did members of the political and intellectual elite care to be called Turks (Azarian 2011, p.72). Bloxham (2002, p.39) explains that Turkish nationalism came into existence as the Turks sought to preserve their heritage and land, particularly Anatolia, where a large Armenian population resided. The trigger for the policy of destruction was multiple: the idea of creating a homogenous Turkish state, alongside religion and class.

Creating a homogenous Turkish state. According to Gol (2005, p.121), "national identity can hardly be imagined without a narrative of myths, and the Turkish nation is no exception." The homogeneity of a nation can be considered a myth which is the root of many nationalist ideas. The Turkish nation was imagined as a modern state with territorial sovereignty after the erosion of the traditional 'Ottoman umma' identity (Gol 2005, p.122). In this process, the Armenians became the first ethnic group whose claims over eastern Anatolia were perceived as a real threat to Turkish territoriality and identity. By the 19th century, several radical Armenian political groups had formed and pushed for equality, giving rise to an Armenian nationalism that became a threat to the Ottoman Empire and especially the Turks (Junkin 2014). Armenians had also participated in all aspects of society and made significant contributions to commerce, industry, construction and music (Armenian National Institute n.d.). The Young Turks therefore attempted to exterminate most of the ethnic Armenian population as they sought to build a more ethnic and religious homogeneous Turkish state (Menendian n.d.).

Religion. Religion was one of the main elements that instigated the genocide. According to Bartov & Mack (2001, p.1), violence and religion can be closely linked in a variety of ways, since the earliest period of human civilisation. "Despite the widespread trend of secularisation in the twentieth century, religion has played an important role in several outbreaks of genocide since World War I." In the Ottoman Empire, collective identity in this Muslim-dominated society was defined by religious affiliation rather than ethnic or modern national criteria. Although Christian Armenians could rise to a certain position of relative economic and political status, Islam was still the preferred religion. Over time, Armenians began to define themselves more as a people than a Christian minority. The Turkish leadership then began thinking of the empire in exclusionary nationalist terms. Religious fanaticism increased precisely at a time when religion was being replaced by strident nationalism as the focus of collective identity; in the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire, this process generated the genocidal policies against the Armenians (Bartov & Mack 2001, p.4). Junkin (2014) explains that the Young Turks formulated a plan to cleanse the empire of its Christian Armenian minorities to protect the integrity of an Islamic Empire.

Class factors. The success of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was itself a threat to the Turks. Religious minorities were governed under the millet system: they were given the right to rule themselves according to religious laws so long as they paid special taxes (Junkin 2014). In theory, the system worked; in practice, Armenians and other ethnic minorities received fewer rights than their Muslim counterparts. Over time, Armenians who had generally been poor farmers left Anatolia to study in prestigious universities abroad. When they returned, they brought with them wealth, education and a yearning for rights, becoming more respected and influential in society. The Turks saw this as a threat: as an ethnic majority, they believed they had to be the most influential and wealthiest in society. This feeling of threat was one of the factors that contributed to the genocide.

Disadvantages of Turkish nationalism. Although the rise of Turkish nationalism developed the idea of autonomy, unity and identity between the Turks, it also led to negative consequences for other ethnic minorities. It bred contempt within the empire and led to war and hostility directed at other ethnic minorities, the kind of modern fanaticism which breeds jealousy, hatred and suspicion rather than building national integrity (Farooq 2016). It also led to gender and child exploitation: during the genocide, children were often separated from their parents; some were forcefully converted to Islam and joined Muslim families, while others were killed if they refused to convert. Women were also compelled to convert, and nationalist action led to systemic abuse and sexual violence against Armenian women (Facing History and Ourselves 2017; Strom 2016). Ultimately, this amounted to a wholesale negligence of human rights: as the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights (2015, p.3) notes, the United Nations condemned the crime of genocide as "a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups that shocks the conscience of mankind."

Smith's theory of ethno-symbolism. The theory of ethno-symbolism was coined by Anthony Smith and emerged as a theoretical critique of modernism. It refers to an "approach that emphasises the role of myths, symbols, memories, values and traditions in the formation, persistence and change of ethnicity and nationalism" (Bašić n.d., p.1). Central to it is the study of 'ethnies', human populations with common ancestry, myths, histories and cultures, associated with a specific territory and a sense of solidarity (Smith 1986, p.32 as cited in Guibernau 2004, p.126). Smith argues that nationalism is founded on the idea of favouring dominant ethnicities in existing nation states, whilst disregarding the many submerged ethnic minorities incorporated within the society, visible in how Turkish nationalism favoured the Turks while disregarding the Armenian ethnic minority (Guibernau 2004, p.126). Smith further contends that the ethno-symbolist approach helps explain which populations are likely to start a nationalist movement under certain conditions, and views nationalism as an ideology that involves the pursuit of symbolic goals.

Why nationalism does not make room for ethnic minorities. As seen in the examples of Turkish nationalism, nationalism often provides an ideological framework for the manipulation and social control of groups of people. Although it provides a sense of collective belonging and unity of purpose, it simultaneously helps to justify the massive application of state violence towards perceived others, as in the case of the Turkish nationalists towards the Armenians. As Miller (2015) explains, the "belief that one ethnic group is better than another affects many aspects of the quality of life for everyone." Nationalism often leads to discrimination and to the belief that one ethnic or national group is better than another. In the case of the Ottoman Empire, Turkish nationalism did not make room for other ethnic minorities; instead, it led to violence, hostility, exploitation and the negligence of human rights.

Conclusion. This essay has critically discussed why nationalism does not make room for ethnic minorities by using the case study of the Armenian Genocide, and how the Turks rationalised violence against this ethnic minority during the genocidal war. It has applied Anthony Smith's ethno-symbolism to that reading. Although nationalism tends to make one feel more patriotic about one's country, it disregards the existence of other minority groups in society and cultivates the belief that one ethnic group is superior to another. Ultimately, actions from nationalists tend to lead to systemic abuse and exploitation of others in the society they claim to defend.