Sorry if I have mixed together some of the weeks, I am not sure if my last blog was supposed to be part of this one. Anyway, I found the class very helpful in understanding current issues in the Middle East, most of the novels were suitable works that addressed different issues. I really wish there could have been more class discussions and that they had been more in depth, but I guess that just depends on class size. My favorite novel was The Bastard Of Istanbul because it discussed the Armenian genocide while tying in the creation of the Turkish national identity, which I think helped us to understand the significance of Ataturk’s reforms. I enjoyed reading Smith’s book on the Arab Israeli crisis, but think it would have been better discussing it in sections in class because he covered so much history I am afraid I got lost in some of the details. The documentaries were helpful tools, but I have become increasingly suspicious of them as it seems every professor finds inaccuracies in them, I might lose my faith in the History Channel.
I think the organization of the course allowed us to understand the historical events that led to the current situation in the Middle East, now embarrassed that I didn’t learn more about the Ottoman Empire which was so important and expansive.
Monday, May 4, 2009
We reviewed the circumstances of the Iranian revolution’s particular success, the religious tradition filling the vacuum as other ideologies failed. Right after we watched the documentary on Khomeini the controversial Iranian president Ahmadinejad popped up in the news again. In a anti-racism conference the president attacked the state of Israel and the west saying that after World War II they "resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless, on the pretext of Jewish sufferings and the ambiguous and dubious question of Holocaust". Anti- Western feeling in Iran is still apparently prevalent and the president seems to keep making inflammatory remarks against Israel that simply make the situation worse, only supporting anti-Semitic stereotype of the Middle East.
We discussed the novel Gate of the Gold Sun which I personally detested reading, though it made some good points overall. I better understood the reason for the writing style after the tradition he was following was mentioned in class. The novel gave the perspective of young Palestinian men fighting for a country they had never lived in, dealing with the failure of their ‘revolution’ from outside. The author seems to embrace victimhood for Palestinians, a topic that seems to come up a lot, while writing a political piece about resistance (sorry to repeat my comment from class, but I though it was important/odd part of the book). It was definitely helpful in understanding Palestinian perspective, but I think perhaps one novel with some Israeli perspective would be helpful, even though we are bombarded by it in the media.
We discussed the novel Gate of the Gold Sun which I personally detested reading, though it made some good points overall. I better understood the reason for the writing style after the tradition he was following was mentioned in class. The novel gave the perspective of young Palestinian men fighting for a country they had never lived in, dealing with the failure of their ‘revolution’ from outside. The author seems to embrace victimhood for Palestinians, a topic that seems to come up a lot, while writing a political piece about resistance (sorry to repeat my comment from class, but I though it was important/odd part of the book). It was definitely helpful in understanding Palestinian perspective, but I think perhaps one novel with some Israeli perspective would be helpful, even though we are bombarded by it in the media.
We discussed the involvement of other Arab nations over the Palestinian-Israeli issue, Nasser’s need to lead the Arabs in order to remain in a prominent position among the Arab nations.
The prominence of the U.S. in the in conflict is important to Israeli’s historical advantage, and that is why the Obama administration’s reaction to the new prime minister’s negative attitude to peace talks could possibly give a bit of hope to the situation. Though minister Netanyahu is not for a two state solution, saying a Palestinian state would be a threat to Israeli security, pressure from the United State could be an important factor for the future. Obama has made it clear that the current situation is not acceptable, and American support is important for Israel. This is discussed in this BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7963503.stm. Foreign influence has proven to be an important part of the developments in this conflict, starting with the British at the beginning of the twentieth century and eventually transferring to the U.S., and now we seem to be changing our stance on the issue (from what I understand). I wish we could spend more time on this topic, though we have read so much about it, the conflict is so controversial and complicated it would be helpful as an American citizen for more information.
We watched and later finished the documentary on the rise of Khomeini and the Islamic revolution that put him in power, to the shock of the U.S. I was surprised to find that so many groups could support this figure, communists and religious clerics, mostly because he was against U.S. influence and the shah. It is difficult to discuss Khomeini objectively, since take over of the U.S. embassy and holding hostages has always been a hot topic in my family. Even now that I understand the angry response to American influence and the harboring of the hated shah it is hard to understand the violence towards ambassadors and diplomats.
The prominence of the U.S. in the in conflict is important to Israeli’s historical advantage, and that is why the Obama administration’s reaction to the new prime minister’s negative attitude to peace talks could possibly give a bit of hope to the situation. Though minister Netanyahu is not for a two state solution, saying a Palestinian state would be a threat to Israeli security, pressure from the United State could be an important factor for the future. Obama has made it clear that the current situation is not acceptable, and American support is important for Israel. This is discussed in this BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7963503.stm. Foreign influence has proven to be an important part of the developments in this conflict, starting with the British at the beginning of the twentieth century and eventually transferring to the U.S., and now we seem to be changing our stance on the issue (from what I understand). I wish we could spend more time on this topic, though we have read so much about it, the conflict is so controversial and complicated it would be helpful as an American citizen for more information.
We watched and later finished the documentary on the rise of Khomeini and the Islamic revolution that put him in power, to the shock of the U.S. I was surprised to find that so many groups could support this figure, communists and religious clerics, mostly because he was against U.S. influence and the shah. It is difficult to discuss Khomeini objectively, since take over of the U.S. embassy and holding hostages has always been a hot topic in my family. Even now that I understand the angry response to American influence and the harboring of the hated shah it is hard to understand the violence towards ambassadors and diplomats.
We continued discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict this week, covering important events that led to the current situation, the leadership of Nasser in Arab nationalism. The documentary that showed Smith’s lecture was helpful, repeating what we have been talking about and what was in his book.
I looked at the DeirYassin.org site, remembering a massacre of the village of Deir Yassin by Jerusalem, part of the nakba. This site wants the Palestinians experience as victims to be acknowledged, a familiar topic in this class by now. The perspective is obviously slanted, but it is useful because it preserves memory of the people not the (Israeli) state history that typically dominates. The documentary uses space, the Deir Yassin cemetery that is no longer maintained, to show the oblivious feeling toward the village’s history and the deaths of civilians. The silenced group’s experience is important for the proper portrayal of history.
I have been paying attention to the BBC’s news website, and they have been discussing the denial of war crimes by the Israeli state in Gaza and the new prime minister’s conservative anti-negotiation attitude. After watching the documentary and reading Smith’s book it seems terrible that the violence continues, that Israelis fear attacks and Palestinians still live in camps not their homes. The building of Jewish settlements and the fear of Palestinians that the state will never truly dedicate itself to the two state solution, that will end the fragmentation of their communities, as addressed here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7919832.stm.
I personally did not enjoy reading Touba though it was an interesting attempt at showing societal change over 80 years in Iran and the situation of women.
I looked at the DeirYassin.org site, remembering a massacre of the village of Deir Yassin by Jerusalem, part of the nakba. This site wants the Palestinians experience as victims to be acknowledged, a familiar topic in this class by now. The perspective is obviously slanted, but it is useful because it preserves memory of the people not the (Israeli) state history that typically dominates. The documentary uses space, the Deir Yassin cemetery that is no longer maintained, to show the oblivious feeling toward the village’s history and the deaths of civilians. The silenced group’s experience is important for the proper portrayal of history.
I have been paying attention to the BBC’s news website, and they have been discussing the denial of war crimes by the Israeli state in Gaza and the new prime minister’s conservative anti-negotiation attitude. After watching the documentary and reading Smith’s book it seems terrible that the violence continues, that Israelis fear attacks and Palestinians still live in camps not their homes. The building of Jewish settlements and the fear of Palestinians that the state will never truly dedicate itself to the two state solution, that will end the fragmentation of their communities, as addressed here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7919832.stm.
I personally did not enjoy reading Touba though it was an interesting attempt at showing societal change over 80 years in Iran and the situation of women.
The comparison of Ataturk and Reza Shah was helpful in understanding the difficulties facing emerging nations that were struggling to recover from the ‘failure’ of their societal structures. The creation of nation state and identity has been mentioned in other history class as a long process that is not necessarily successful since an all encompassing image may fail to meet the needs of traditionally marginalized groups. For Turkey the denial of the Armenian genocide was part of the new positive image. Ataturk and Reza Shah’s programs of modernization and secularization were based upon the idea that their countries had failed and that Western ‘civilization’ succeeded. The creation of nation state identity is not natural and in these two countries was part of the reforms of these individuals and then pushed by the state. The comparison helped to show the possible failure of such an attempt, as Ataturk’s program led to the fundamental ideals of modern Turkey but Reza Shah’s Iran experience political upheavals during the twentieth century.
I really enjoyed Smith’s book on the Arab Israeli conflict, even if I was the only one. I already mentioned in class that the strong leadership and resources of the Israelis greatly disadvantaged the Palestinians, eventually leading to their lack of free agency in the future of their own country. The systematic displacement of Palestinians through force and land sales coupled with the settlement of Jews resulted in the majority of the population losing their homes and rights. As for the issue that arose in class about the objectivity of historians I highly doubt that any writer is ever truly objective, but I believe he does present all issues involved while favoring the Palestinian experience with the support of important documents. The belief that text books or any historical source can be objective, seems, ridiculous because everyone has an agenda.
I really enjoyed Smith’s book on the Arab Israeli conflict, even if I was the only one. I already mentioned in class that the strong leadership and resources of the Israelis greatly disadvantaged the Palestinians, eventually leading to their lack of free agency in the future of their own country. The systematic displacement of Palestinians through force and land sales coupled with the settlement of Jews resulted in the majority of the population losing their homes and rights. As for the issue that arose in class about the objectivity of historians I highly doubt that any writer is ever truly objective, but I believe he does present all issues involved while favoring the Palestinian experience with the support of important documents. The belief that text books or any historical source can be objective, seems, ridiculous because everyone has an agenda.
Beginnings of the Arab Israeli conflict (week 10)
I never learned about the history and formation of Zionism before, it was always presented to me as coming from a united group and so I was somewhat surprised to learn about the factionalized history of Zionists. The evolution of Zionism, the original objectives of Herzl are different from our understanding of Zionism today since he wanted practically any place where Jews could simply have security, not specifically based on heritage. The initial tolerant attitude of the Ottomans to Jewish immigrants (expect in Palestine) contrasts sharply with the Arabs’ later fear of the rise of Jewish influence. The sudden change in atmosphere in the 1920s and 1930s, as Arabs and the British begin to react to the high number of Jewish immigrants, marks the outward discomfort with their presence. The change in social and cultural understanding of the two groups is useful when watching the news on the conflict, as the issue came up in class that some people are given the impression by the media that this conflict is centuries old. The movement of Palestinians and Israelis was forced, as land in the Middle East was negotiated over by Europeans and Zionists pursued their objective of moving in Jewish settlers. The Palestinians first turned to the British for help, trying to get restrictions on immigration and land sales, but eventually turned to revolting. I thought it was interesting how foreign influence was important in the formation of Israel, since the support of the United States and Americans Jews was important to the success of Zionists while Palestinians did not equal support from another nation.
Divvying up the Ottoman Empire (week 9)
We discussed the shady secret treaties of the early twentieth century in which European countries followed imperialistic agenda in the Middle East, and Zionism in politics. A long list of treaties and promises were mentioned, but mostly involved Europeans maneuvering for more land and unfortunately leaving Arab leaders, such as Sherif Husayn, with vague promises that were never fulfilled. They used a language of prejudice and superiority, European nations promising to assist emerging Arab nations in the formation of their governments.
The documentary about the Armenian genocide helped me to further understand the issue, giving faces to the large number murdered and displaced. The circumstances of the deportation were brutal- people went on six day forced marches designed to exhaust and eventually kill them. The tactics used are chillingly familiar- are similar to what the Nazis would later use during the Holocaust, they even used box cars to transport some people.
I thought it was really interesting how politicians in the documentary were arguing over whether it was a genocide because there supposedly was no Ottoman intent to destroy the group and because Armenians were not ‘innocent’ victims, because they resisted. It is incredible that people can still argue over whether these civilians were deserving or undeserving of pity. The Turkish government’s official denial of the genocide is really interesting, though terrible, it is institutionalized and taught to children in school. They mentioned that the genocide was practically forgotten in Europe because it recognized ‘new’ Turkey, the formation of statehood involved rejecting Armenian experience and memory.
The documentary about the Armenian genocide helped me to further understand the issue, giving faces to the large number murdered and displaced. The circumstances of the deportation were brutal- people went on six day forced marches designed to exhaust and eventually kill them. The tactics used are chillingly familiar- are similar to what the Nazis would later use during the Holocaust, they even used box cars to transport some people.
I thought it was really interesting how politicians in the documentary were arguing over whether it was a genocide because there supposedly was no Ottoman intent to destroy the group and because Armenians were not ‘innocent’ victims, because they resisted. It is incredible that people can still argue over whether these civilians were deserving or undeserving of pity. The Turkish government’s official denial of the genocide is really interesting, though terrible, it is institutionalized and taught to children in school. They mentioned that the genocide was practically forgotten in Europe because it recognized ‘new’ Turkey, the formation of statehood involved rejecting Armenian experience and memory.
Week After Spring Break (8)
This week I was interested in the increased influence in the Middle East and the rejection of independence and sovereignty in their own nations. We learned about British influence in Egypt after Ali Pasha’s death, and how it became a protectorate not a ‘colony’, etc. I always find hypocrisy of ‘Western’ countries fascinating, when such nations are presented as ‘modern’ but because of their own political and economic agenda stop progress- the International Debt Commission (French and British control over Egyptian finances) stopped the Western style constitution of 1879 because it called for the country’s financial autonomy. They then pushed for a leader more easily manipulated then Khedie Ismail in Egypt. Ottoman laws restricting land sales to Europeans and the policy of welcoming Jews fleeing Europe in anywhere but Palestine were ignored.
I really enjoyed reading the Bastard of Istanbul since it addressed some pretty interesting issues, and led to some good comments during the class discussion. Not to repeat myself, but I found the portrayal of the two different communities (Turkish and American Armenian) was useful, Armenian victimhood vs. Turkey’s denial of a historic event. The creation of a new national identity by Ataturk, which changing the script, names and traditions of the people, was based on the rejection of negative aspects of the Ottoman past. The new state could not afford the Armenian genocide to be connected to it, a sort of beautification process was underway. Characters in the novel show this, since they present Ottoman history as unrelated to their experience and culture and have accepted propaganda undermining Armenian experience. The discussion of the labeling genocide and our lack of knowledge of this particular example revealed a lot about Americans’ understanding of history and politics, when compared against prominent representation of Holocaust survivors’ suffering in our textbooks and media.
Essay:
The Bastard Of Istanbul
In The Bastard Of Istanbul Elif Shafak addresses the issues of memory and identity for twenty-first century Turks and Armenians concerning to the 1915 Armenian genocide. Approaching this subject through a fictional novel, Shafak questions the two groups’ understanding of the genocide and each other. Shafak suggests that the Turks and Armenians’ relationships with history have been problematic and very different. Armenians choose to remember and associate themselves with the past while Turks live in the present and do not recognize their Ottoman heritage as relevant to their current lives. A silencing and ignorance of history is typical of Turks in The Bastard Of Istanbul on both a national and a personal level, for example Zelthia consciously forgets the trauma of being raped. Shafak explores two worlds in which her characters actively put themselves in the place of the victims or are the oblivious citizens of a country that has committed crimes against humanity unpunished. Shafak compares and contrasts Armenians and Turks using two young female characters, Armanoush and Asya, to display the ignorance between the two communities since their separation. She also questions the position of Turkey in the modern day world, as some Turks fear being seen as Middle Eastern by the ‘West’ and conservatives wish to cling to their Islamic roots. Shafak examines the importance of memory and the Armenian genocide in the formation of identity and nation for Armenians, and the impact Ottoman history and heritage in almost European Turkey, she complicates identity in order to bring the two groups closer together.
The Turks and Armenian Americans in The Bastard of Istanbul have to deal with the evolution of identity in Turkey since the genocide. Armanoush, an Armenian American college student, has been brought up with the collective memory that Ottoman oppression is ongoing in present day Turkey. Other characters she interacts with, Armenian, Greek and other former Ottoman minorities, fear for her safety among the Turks before she travels to present day Istanbul. They warn her, in the anti- Turk chat she joined, that the police will stop her because of her ethnic name and call her their “war reporter,” following the idea that she will be witnessing the conflict on the ground in Istanbul. Their experience and understanding is based on their memory as victims of the Ottoman Empire. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the Ottoman Empire went through a complicated process that questioned its Ottomanist identity as all encompassing of its many minorities against the growing Arab or Islamic feeling. The Young Turks involved some minorities in deposing the sultan in 1909 with feelings of Ottomanism. Unfortunately this all encompassing identity did not survive as different communities wanted autonomy, and the state came to see Armenians as part of the World War I Russian threat within their population. The deportation and murder of Armenians ensued in 1915 and Armanoush’s family, the Tchakmakhchians, moved to the United States with bitter memories and pain that had not been given closure due to the denial of the Turkish government.
Though the majority of the novel takes place in the twentieth century, the Armenian experience seems to revolve around the genocide and ultimately looks toward the past not the future. At this point, Shakah examines the permanent image of Turks that the frightened victims have and disputes the claims of a continuation of the struggle. The heritage Armanoush seems to inherit is that of surviving victims. Her Armenian family in the United States keeps a collective memory of the massacre but still fears some aspects of life, such as standing out intellectually because the Ottomans went after “the brains” of their society. These are valid memories, but the Tchakmakhchian family cling to each other and make outsiders not as concerned with the struggle uncomfortable or unwelcome. In the United States the family makes Armanoush’s mother feel like an outside, “odar,” and the young girl talks about remembering the genocide when on a date with an American. Though they champion the “collective spirit” that allowed them to survive, as victims or not, Turks are aware that Armenian Americans trumpet the image of the oppressive Turk and this affects the identity of the Turks.
In the novel, characters in Turkey suffer from a variety of identity problems related to their position as an Islamic country on the edges of European ‘Western’ society. While the Armenians struggle to keep the memories of the early twentieth century alive, Shafak portrays Turks as having systematically forgotten their Ottoman history through laws and personal choice. In the 1920s the government pushed the new national identity and more reforms that were more like the ‘Western’ world. The reforms portrayed the Ottoman Empire as something that socially ended with the official change transition to the Turkish Republic. Asya is deeply involved in this problem as represents the youth of Turkey, the representation of Istanbul when Armanoush arrives, and the symbolic representation of forgetting. Asya and her young Turkish friends discuss the influence of former Ottoman minorities in the United States in damaging the image of Turkey as a modern secular state. Before the novel confronts the disputed subject with the interaction of Armanoush and Asya, this idea of Turkey on the edge of Europe is often emphasized. Whereas the Armenians have a strong identity supported by history, in Shafak’s novel Turks struggle for an identity while often forgetting or ignoring the past and only looking toward the future.
The two groups are personified in the characters of Armanoush and Asya, who deal with identity and forgetting or remembering directly. As Armanoush travels to Istanbul to better understand the conflict and stays with Asya’s unknowing family the Kazancis, she adjusts her preconceived notions of Turks and tries to understand the average Turkish experience. There is a literal fight when the Armenian genocide is mentioned to Asya’s friends, portraying part of the society that is nationalist and accepts the official story, personified by a character that is called “The Nonnationalist Scenarist of Ultra-nationalist Movies.” This character previously feigned disinterest in history and nationalism, but violently reacts and argues that the genocide was a product of ‘The premodern era and its premodern tragedies.” She addresses an attitude of Turks that ignores the experience of the Ottoman minorities, distancing themselves from the problem by saying it happened in a different time, or even country.
In an interview Shafak explained that her novel contrasts the collectivity of Armenian experience against the “collective amnesias” of the Turks. This is shown in most of the Turks’ lack of knowledge and interest in the masses, and symbolically through Asya’s experience and relationship to forgetting. Shafak gradually unfolds the mystery surrounding Asya’s heritage as the ‘bastard’ of the novel, and it appears that she is the product of the traumatic rape of Zelthia by her brother Mustafa. Zelthia censors herself and does not talk about Asya’s father while Mustafa flees Istanbul for the United States, one of the earlier conversations Armanoush has with him reveals that he is isolated from and is not curious about history. This is the epitome of forgetting in Turkish society, and Asya suffers from not knowing her personal history and heritage, her identity as an individual is weak like all Turks that are unaware of their heritage. Identity in the novel is further confused and tangled by Shafak as it is revealed that the Bazancis are descended from Armanoush’s Armenian grandmother who fled to America to embrace her identity as a survivor. The Bazancis have grown as people without any awareness of Armenians in their family or their society, results of the genocide and the official treatment of the event. Armanoush’s grandmother left her first husband, a Turk, who would not speak of the event to his family members afterward. The separation of the two groups from each other in the novel is complicated. Their relationship to history and each other is portrayed as much closer and more important than Turks believe.
The Bastard of Istanbul is a beautiful piece that addresses issues of identity in both the Armenian American and Turkish communities. Shafak tries to pick away at the relationships between the two groups, weaving their ‘separate’ stories into a complicated history that demands more understanding and direct confrontation. The characters’ are directly affected by the Armenian genocide in 1915 and the subsequent attempt to break away from Ottoman identity. Shafak addresses the Turkish stance towards history, which ignores Ottoman heritage as useless to the present. She questions this detachment symbolically through Asya who has tried to move on without knowing her heritage, which involves the Armenians and trauma, but cannot form her identity fully and suffers. Turks, in Shafak’s novel, have detached themselves from the Ottomans and tried to choose either European culture or Islamic traditional culture. Armanoush portrays Armenians who have developed a collective memory of the genocide, but cannot progress either as they live in the past and seem to live as victims ninety years later. Shafak seems to suggest a much more complicated situation for both groups that involves each other and is not a simplistic choice between remembering or forgetting the past and choosing between ‘Western’ and Islamic. Shafak develops the novel as a quest to understand identity and history, as the characters struggle with the separation of the Ottoman heritage and modern Turkey.
I really enjoyed reading the Bastard of Istanbul since it addressed some pretty interesting issues, and led to some good comments during the class discussion. Not to repeat myself, but I found the portrayal of the two different communities (Turkish and American Armenian) was useful, Armenian victimhood vs. Turkey’s denial of a historic event. The creation of a new national identity by Ataturk, which changing the script, names and traditions of the people, was based on the rejection of negative aspects of the Ottoman past. The new state could not afford the Armenian genocide to be connected to it, a sort of beautification process was underway. Characters in the novel show this, since they present Ottoman history as unrelated to their experience and culture and have accepted propaganda undermining Armenian experience. The discussion of the labeling genocide and our lack of knowledge of this particular example revealed a lot about Americans’ understanding of history and politics, when compared against prominent representation of Holocaust survivors’ suffering in our textbooks and media.
Essay:
The Bastard Of Istanbul
In The Bastard Of Istanbul Elif Shafak addresses the issues of memory and identity for twenty-first century Turks and Armenians concerning to the 1915 Armenian genocide. Approaching this subject through a fictional novel, Shafak questions the two groups’ understanding of the genocide and each other. Shafak suggests that the Turks and Armenians’ relationships with history have been problematic and very different. Armenians choose to remember and associate themselves with the past while Turks live in the present and do not recognize their Ottoman heritage as relevant to their current lives. A silencing and ignorance of history is typical of Turks in The Bastard Of Istanbul on both a national and a personal level, for example Zelthia consciously forgets the trauma of being raped. Shafak explores two worlds in which her characters actively put themselves in the place of the victims or are the oblivious citizens of a country that has committed crimes against humanity unpunished. Shafak compares and contrasts Armenians and Turks using two young female characters, Armanoush and Asya, to display the ignorance between the two communities since their separation. She also questions the position of Turkey in the modern day world, as some Turks fear being seen as Middle Eastern by the ‘West’ and conservatives wish to cling to their Islamic roots. Shafak examines the importance of memory and the Armenian genocide in the formation of identity and nation for Armenians, and the impact Ottoman history and heritage in almost European Turkey, she complicates identity in order to bring the two groups closer together.
The Turks and Armenian Americans in The Bastard of Istanbul have to deal with the evolution of identity in Turkey since the genocide. Armanoush, an Armenian American college student, has been brought up with the collective memory that Ottoman oppression is ongoing in present day Turkey. Other characters she interacts with, Armenian, Greek and other former Ottoman minorities, fear for her safety among the Turks before she travels to present day Istanbul. They warn her, in the anti- Turk chat she joined, that the police will stop her because of her ethnic name and call her their “war reporter,” following the idea that she will be witnessing the conflict on the ground in Istanbul. Their experience and understanding is based on their memory as victims of the Ottoman Empire. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the Ottoman Empire went through a complicated process that questioned its Ottomanist identity as all encompassing of its many minorities against the growing Arab or Islamic feeling. The Young Turks involved some minorities in deposing the sultan in 1909 with feelings of Ottomanism. Unfortunately this all encompassing identity did not survive as different communities wanted autonomy, and the state came to see Armenians as part of the World War I Russian threat within their population. The deportation and murder of Armenians ensued in 1915 and Armanoush’s family, the Tchakmakhchians, moved to the United States with bitter memories and pain that had not been given closure due to the denial of the Turkish government.
Though the majority of the novel takes place in the twentieth century, the Armenian experience seems to revolve around the genocide and ultimately looks toward the past not the future. At this point, Shakah examines the permanent image of Turks that the frightened victims have and disputes the claims of a continuation of the struggle. The heritage Armanoush seems to inherit is that of surviving victims. Her Armenian family in the United States keeps a collective memory of the massacre but still fears some aspects of life, such as standing out intellectually because the Ottomans went after “the brains” of their society. These are valid memories, but the Tchakmakhchian family cling to each other and make outsiders not as concerned with the struggle uncomfortable or unwelcome. In the United States the family makes Armanoush’s mother feel like an outside, “odar,” and the young girl talks about remembering the genocide when on a date with an American. Though they champion the “collective spirit” that allowed them to survive, as victims or not, Turks are aware that Armenian Americans trumpet the image of the oppressive Turk and this affects the identity of the Turks.
In the novel, characters in Turkey suffer from a variety of identity problems related to their position as an Islamic country on the edges of European ‘Western’ society. While the Armenians struggle to keep the memories of the early twentieth century alive, Shafak portrays Turks as having systematically forgotten their Ottoman history through laws and personal choice. In the 1920s the government pushed the new national identity and more reforms that were more like the ‘Western’ world. The reforms portrayed the Ottoman Empire as something that socially ended with the official change transition to the Turkish Republic. Asya is deeply involved in this problem as represents the youth of Turkey, the representation of Istanbul when Armanoush arrives, and the symbolic representation of forgetting. Asya and her young Turkish friends discuss the influence of former Ottoman minorities in the United States in damaging the image of Turkey as a modern secular state. Before the novel confronts the disputed subject with the interaction of Armanoush and Asya, this idea of Turkey on the edge of Europe is often emphasized. Whereas the Armenians have a strong identity supported by history, in Shafak’s novel Turks struggle for an identity while often forgetting or ignoring the past and only looking toward the future.
The two groups are personified in the characters of Armanoush and Asya, who deal with identity and forgetting or remembering directly. As Armanoush travels to Istanbul to better understand the conflict and stays with Asya’s unknowing family the Kazancis, she adjusts her preconceived notions of Turks and tries to understand the average Turkish experience. There is a literal fight when the Armenian genocide is mentioned to Asya’s friends, portraying part of the society that is nationalist and accepts the official story, personified by a character that is called “The Nonnationalist Scenarist of Ultra-nationalist Movies.” This character previously feigned disinterest in history and nationalism, but violently reacts and argues that the genocide was a product of ‘The premodern era and its premodern tragedies.” She addresses an attitude of Turks that ignores the experience of the Ottoman minorities, distancing themselves from the problem by saying it happened in a different time, or even country.
In an interview Shafak explained that her novel contrasts the collectivity of Armenian experience against the “collective amnesias” of the Turks. This is shown in most of the Turks’ lack of knowledge and interest in the masses, and symbolically through Asya’s experience and relationship to forgetting. Shafak gradually unfolds the mystery surrounding Asya’s heritage as the ‘bastard’ of the novel, and it appears that she is the product of the traumatic rape of Zelthia by her brother Mustafa. Zelthia censors herself and does not talk about Asya’s father while Mustafa flees Istanbul for the United States, one of the earlier conversations Armanoush has with him reveals that he is isolated from and is not curious about history. This is the epitome of forgetting in Turkish society, and Asya suffers from not knowing her personal history and heritage, her identity as an individual is weak like all Turks that are unaware of their heritage. Identity in the novel is further confused and tangled by Shafak as it is revealed that the Bazancis are descended from Armanoush’s Armenian grandmother who fled to America to embrace her identity as a survivor. The Bazancis have grown as people without any awareness of Armenians in their family or their society, results of the genocide and the official treatment of the event. Armanoush’s grandmother left her first husband, a Turk, who would not speak of the event to his family members afterward. The separation of the two groups from each other in the novel is complicated. Their relationship to history and each other is portrayed as much closer and more important than Turks believe.
The Bastard of Istanbul is a beautiful piece that addresses issues of identity in both the Armenian American and Turkish communities. Shafak tries to pick away at the relationships between the two groups, weaving their ‘separate’ stories into a complicated history that demands more understanding and direct confrontation. The characters’ are directly affected by the Armenian genocide in 1915 and the subsequent attempt to break away from Ottoman identity. Shafak addresses the Turkish stance towards history, which ignores Ottoman heritage as useless to the present. She questions this detachment symbolically through Asya who has tried to move on without knowing her heritage, which involves the Armenians and trauma, but cannot form her identity fully and suffers. Turks, in Shafak’s novel, have detached themselves from the Ottomans and tried to choose either European culture or Islamic traditional culture. Armanoush portrays Armenians who have developed a collective memory of the genocide, but cannot progress either as they live in the past and seem to live as victims ninety years later. Shafak seems to suggest a much more complicated situation for both groups that involves each other and is not a simplistic choice between remembering or forgetting the past and choosing between ‘Western’ and Islamic. Shafak develops the novel as a quest to understand identity and history, as the characters struggle with the separation of the Ottoman heritage and modern Turkey.
Extra Credit:
The discussion between the representatives of Israel and Palestine (Saeb Erakat, Chief Negotiator for Palestine, and Avi Gil, former Director-General of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Israel's Ministry of Regional Cooperation) was extremely interesting, I was a bit surprised that they so readily agreed on the need for a two state solution considering the often conflicting feelings of the two groups. Though it was certainly refreshing to hear such an open minded discussion, it seemed too nice and now a little idealistic considering the outcome of the Israeli election, which put in place (from what I understand) Benjamin Netanyahu’s conservative administration that is not open to ‘land for peace’ deals and the two state solution.
Either way, the two men presented the conflict over land as something that both sides sought an ‘historic’ end to because of the violence experienced by both. Avi Gil emphasized Israeli vulnerability because of the continuation of attacks on Israel even after the withdrawal from the Gaza strip and the Iranian’s president’s negative comments towards the state. Saeb Erakat emphasized Palestinian vulnerability saying that he had ‘no army, no borders, no power’ while Israel had the options with the strongest army in the Middle East. He also appealed to us as Americans saying that we are everywhere but we ‘cannot defend ideas with marines,’ and tried to make it clear that bias against Arab perspective and the belief that they are not for peace but violence is racist. Erakat’ speech directly attacked racism of the ‘West’ and Israel, mentioning the settlements in Gaza.
Both men agreed to negotiation based on equality which does seem to be possible now with new Israeli prime minister. The U.S.’s involvement, which we learned the history of in Smith’s book, was mentioned and is clearly sour issue from the Arab point of view. Overall the talk was educational but was too diplomatic.
Either way, the two men presented the conflict over land as something that both sides sought an ‘historic’ end to because of the violence experienced by both. Avi Gil emphasized Israeli vulnerability because of the continuation of attacks on Israel even after the withdrawal from the Gaza strip and the Iranian’s president’s negative comments towards the state. Saeb Erakat emphasized Palestinian vulnerability saying that he had ‘no army, no borders, no power’ while Israel had the options with the strongest army in the Middle East. He also appealed to us as Americans saying that we are everywhere but we ‘cannot defend ideas with marines,’ and tried to make it clear that bias against Arab perspective and the belief that they are not for peace but violence is racist. Erakat’ speech directly attacked racism of the ‘West’ and Israel, mentioning the settlements in Gaza.
Both men agreed to negotiation based on equality which does seem to be possible now with new Israeli prime minister. The U.S.’s involvement, which we learned the history of in Smith’s book, was mentioned and is clearly sour issue from the Arab point of view. Overall the talk was educational but was too diplomatic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)