Genocide: not as simple as it should be

I am in Kars, a city founded over a thousand years ago by Armenians. They called it ''Kari.'' Those Armenians are gone now, and almost no traces of them remain. I have spent much of the past few weeks (and the past two months, really), asking questions about this, and I have heard some strange things.

Turks call this ''The Armenian Question.'' Like there is a question. Starting in the late 19th century, Armenians were periodically massacred by the Ottomans, who employed both imperial troops and the local Kurds to do their dirty work. (There's a special irony to the role of the Kurds in all this, as they now find themselves under the thumb of the Turks, but I'll get to that in a couple weeks.) These massacres culminated with a near-total genocide of Armenians living in Ottoman lands during World War One: somewhere between one and two million were killed. Modern Turkey's eastern provinces--many of which had Armenians majorities prior to the genocide--were systematically emptied of a people who had lived for millenia.

And what do the Turks say about all this? Roughly, ''Ermenistan yok.'' There is no Armenia, at least historically speaking. According to them, those eastern provinces I mentioned never had more than small numbers of Armenians, which logically leads one to conclude that no genocide could have occurred, because it's impossible to kill people who never existed. The Turkish government, military, and most Turks deny the genocide, despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary.

See, the Ottomans were not exactly quiet about this business of genocide. Mass graves were dug within sight of foreign cameras, international observers roamed about, journalists saw starving children in the streets, ambassadors wrote dispatches to Paris, London, and Washington. There were Armenian Aid Societies set up all over the world, even in Seattle. A decade later, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk aknowledged the genocide, saying that Turkey should expect some sort of international censure for its actions. (That quote sure isn't one Turkish students must memorize.) The evidence is overwhelming. There was a genocide.

I have met a few brave Turks who say just this, but they're rare. (I have spoken with many who admit what happened, but stop just short of calling it ''genocide.'') Almost no public figures are honest about what happened: newspapers wouldn't print those columns, televisions stations wouldn't air those interviews. This national denial has been going strong for over 70 years; it's reached the point that insisting ''there was no genocide!'' is as Turkish as tea houses and barber shops.

I have a hard time discussing this topic with Turks. My role in Turkey is to listen: I ask questions and try to avoid giving my opinion. But how can I stay silent in the face of such an awesome lie? I have heard, on multiple occasions, that it was actually the Armenians who perpetrated a genocide on the Turks, and that western powers created this ''story'' to weaken and divide Turkey. Would I listen voicelessly to someone saying this about the Holocaust?

I try not to respond, but I occasionally fail. One of my most memorable conversations in Turkey started when I was told that Turks could not have committed genocide because they are ''gentle people.'' And those Armenians? Well, they're ''bloodthirsty,'' which proves that they actually committed genocide. I lost it at that point, and started yelling about Turkish denial and insecurity, the evils of nationalism, and the politicization of history. I left that town that night.

I was in Armenia for a few days last week. It is a strange country, but you'll have to wait until my next post to hear why. I spent much of my time with Vahram Ter-Matevosyan, a professor of Turkish history at Yerevan State University. (I contacted him a couple of months ago to ask if he'd be able to help with my project, and he certainly did.) He was kind enough to turn over one of his classes to me for a day, so I was able to talk about the genocide and modern Turkey and Armenia with a group of 15 young Armenians for almost two hours.

It would be difficult for me to wrap all I learned into one post, so I'll try to summarize the key points. I opened by asking what they had known about Turkey before they took Vahram's class, and the answer was ''not much.''

In Armenia, the press only covers Turkey when there's something negative to report, if even then. The schools teach little beyond ''they did terrible things to us.'' The situation is similar in Turkey, where people know little about Armenia aside from the obvious fact that no genocide occurred. This lack of understanding on both sides encourages stereotyping and does nothing to combat hatred: one student told me about meeting a three-year-old Turk who told her, ''I must kill you because you are Armenian.'' (I'm not sure I believe that, but it's possible.) On the other side, the Armenian press is full of Turkophobia, occasionally violent. The average Turk and Armenian have learned nothing about the other, and thus believe what they're told by extremists on either side.

This was a surprisingly non-absolutist group. Everyone favored normalization of relations with Turkey, even if the Turks didn't immediately recognize the genocide. (This contrasts with the general position of the Armenian diaspora, which I'll get to momentarily.) Of course, this was a university class composed of students who had chosen to learn more about Turkey, so one could question whether their views reflect those of society as a whole. I did just that, and they said that while the political and media mainstream constantly trumpet ''no room for compromise!'' Armenians are considerably more flexible. This is particularly true of the post-Soviet youth: a significant majority of them favor improved relations with Turkey.

Now, this business of the diaspora. I had been convinced that Armenians were dead-set against reconciliation with Turkey until Turks recognize the genocide, but found that not to be the case in Armenia. If I were to have a similar conversation with Armenians living abroad, the result might be the opposite. This difference can be explained in two separate ways: first, those Armenians living abroad are almost all descendants of those who fled the Ottomans. Many have relatives who were killed by the Ottomans. Armenians in Armenia suffered as well, but not to the same degree: their ancestors were mostly safe behind Russian lines.

More importantly, Armenians in Armenia suffer because of poor relations with Turkey. The border between the two countries is closed, but Armenia still relies on Turkey for most of its imported goods, which are shipped via Georgia or Iran. Life would be much easier if the border were open. Diaspora Armenians are not hurt by their absolutism while those living in Armenia are.

I will watch this situation with interest for the next 20 or 30 years. (It's not going to end over night.) The youth of both countries seem tired of a conflict they have nothing to do with and hardly understand. Both sides have been programmed by their governments with lines like ''You killed my ancestors'' and ''you are a lying imperialist pawn.'' There are more people every day who question these lines: that makes me hope for progress.

Forget staying silent: my new message, for both Armenians and Turks, is ''don't believe your government or the media, go find out for yourself.''