Which
view of the Turkish nation will prevail in the histories still
to be written?
Will
Ambassador Henry Morgenthau be right in his assessment of Turkish
culture?
He
wrote "Such graces of civilization as the Turk has acquired
in five centuries have practically all been taken from the subject
peoples whom he so greatly despises. His religion comes from the
Arabs; his language has acquired a certain literary value by borrowing
certain Arabic and Persian elements; and his writing is Arabic.
Constantinople's finest architectural monument, the Mosque of
St. Sophia, was originally a Christian church, and all so-called
Turkish architecture is derived from the Byzantine. The mechanism
of business and industry has always rested in the hands of the
subject peoples, Greeks, Jews, Armenians, and Arabs. The Turks
have learned little of European art or science, they have established
very few educational institutions, and illiteracy is the prevailing
rule," he wrote early in the 20th Century.
Yet
Mehmet, born in 1433 and the third son of the Sultan Murad, and
who was to eventually conquer Constantinople, is said to have
been fluent in Turkish, Arabic, Greek, Latin, Persian and Hebrew,
and at the age of 19 organized the building of the castle of Rumeli
Hisar, which still stands.
Which
view of the Turkish nation will prevail? Will the Turks of history
be seen as scholars and builders, or a nation of murderers?
As
this century closes Turkey has developed a nation which is strong
in political and military terms. Its largely-borrowed culture
has taken on distinctive Turkish aspects, just as the United States
takes in elements of the world's cultures and makes them uniquely
its own.
But
in failing to admit, other than individually, their responsibility
for the Armenian genocide of the late 1800s and the killing which
began again in 1915, the Turks reveal a cultural failing which
even the Germans have overcome.
What
would be the implications of admitting to what they have done?
Would Armenia immediately demand a return of stolen lands? Would
legal actions to recover financial losses be inititated? Would
shame attach itself to the Turkish nation even more than the shame
and indignity that exists now with the world knowing of the Armenian
genocide?
I don't
understand all of the ramifications. But for some reason or reasons,
the strategy of Turkey is denial, even in the face of written
and photographic evidence. Just as unrepentant Nazis deny the
Holocaust, and just as many Americans deny the genocidal policies
of their government in eradicating Native Americans, the Turks
deny the Armenian genocide. All suffer a cultural failing, an
inability to face realities, an inability to accept responsibility.
From
my limited view, although a view based largely on studying racism
for decades, unless Turkey can come to terms with its actions
and admit its guilt, it will remain a nation with a severe cultural
flaw. And until Turkey can admit its responsibility, Armenia and
the Armenians will not be able to begin the process of healing.
Richard
Smith
Richmond, Virginia, USA
July 1999
Back
to the History page
