Speaking to One Another - The International Raoul Wallenberg ...

1915 tends to be represented by interviewees as a distinct rupture. They described the relationship betweenChristians and Muslims prior to 1915 as one of peaceful coexistence. Narrators emphasized theshared culture and intertwined lives of Muslims and Christians with vivid anecdotes from everyday life.Muslims told detailed stories about individual Armenians their families had known. Often, these wereneighbors or employers, such as master craftsmen [usta].The language used to describe the events that led to the destruction of the Armenian population of Anatoliais particularly revealing. The many terms used by interviewees include mobilization [seferberlik],war [savaş], conflict [çatışma], 1915, the events of 1915 [1915 olayları], deportation [tehcir, kafle], to leave ordie [gitmek], massacre [katliam, kıyım, kırım, kesim], genocide [soykırım]. The terms used give an indicationof how interviewees choose to represent this event. As an Armenian narrator put it when using the termseferberlik in speaking to a Muslim interviewer, “Let’s use softer terms not to cause ourselves more pain.”Although each story is unique, comparing the narratives of individuals belonging to different communitiesmakes it possible to delineate some underlying themes. Our interviews with Armenians suggestthat the murder of Hrant Dink was a significant milestone which transformed relations within the Armeniancommunity, as well as between the community and Turkish society. The murder of Hrant Dinkand the ensuing public reaction encouraged Armenians to speak publicly about 1915. This included narratingfamily histories as well as speaking about the responsibility of the Ottoman state. Armenian intervieweesunderscored the shared culture, attachment to the land and close relationship of Muslims andArmenians, the protection of Armenians by local Muslims during 1915, and the need to acknowledge thepast in order to live together as equal citizens in a democratic society.Armenian interviewees also described what it meant to be raised within a mostly destroyed minoritycommunity whose instincts are largely defensive. They spoke of their lack of knowledge on family historydue to the destruction and fragmentation of families and to the fact that 1915 was sometimes silencedwithin families to protect the next generation. They discussed how living as a fearful minority in Turkish/Muslimsociety affects the perception, representation and public performance of Armenian identity.They reflected bitterly on the fact that they are viewed as outsiders by Muslims, who themselves are oftenof immigrant descent. Many spoke of the symbolic role of names, discrimination in the military andcivil service, and the deleterious effects of international political conflicts on Armenians living in Turkey.While Armenians reproduce their community through in-marriage and education in the Armenianlanguage in community schools, fewer and fewer young people attend community schools, use theirown language, or marry Armenians, and many immigrate abroad. It is possible that the definition of beingan Armenian in Turkey is changing, as the younger generation is increasingly more comfortable publiclyaffirming their Armenian heritage while becoming more integrated into Turkish society.The fact that the Kurdish political leadership has acknowledged the role of the Kurds in 1915 has had animportant effect on the public discourse of Kurds, particularly among the younger generation. Many intervieweesopenly discussed the responsibility of Kurds in the violence unleashed against Armenians in19