A Silent March for the Armenian Genocide’s Recognition
It is a sad truth that many young Armenians today have inherited a natural hate for the Turks, an urge for revenge against a people who had no involvement in the act that has caused the said hate. For some, such emotions fuel their opposition to Turkey in what are animated protest marches in the Armenian Diaspora. Although hate should never be condoned, it is an understandable sentiment towards years of denial and it is only a natural reaction to the Ottoman Empire’s unimaginable contempt that originally led to the Genocide. Nonetheless, this is a dislike that absolutely must be curbed by the Armenians, who must focus on peaceful means to recognition and improving relations with our neighbour.
Anger towards modern-day Turks is not only pointless but also illogical, as they had nothing to do with the Genocide, and they simply cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their ancestors a century ago. While it is frustrating to encounter a Turk who appears oblivious to the Genocide or even claims that it did not happen, we must consider that Turkey does not tolerate any hint of anti-Turk expressions; the infamous article 301 makes sure of that. The fault lies with the Turkish Government, who we rightly condemn for their stubborn denial. If we are ever to share peaceful relations with Turkey, Armenians have to consider this and free themselves of any misplaced prejudice towards Turks, treating them no differently to our own people. Unfortunately, we seem to be some distance away from this equality, with the general mentality amongst some Armenians being geared towards resistance to Turks, and this is a mind-set that manifests itself in the annual marches that protest against the denial.
It goes without saying that these marches are an important way of spreading awareness and the sheer number of people present ensures that there is a great deal of attention placed on us, which makes it all the more important for us to act as peacefully as possible. This has not always been the case. In London, the crowd is traditionally led by a speaker with a megaphone in a series of chants, most of which convey a disillusion with the continued lack of acknowledgment and regret, but some highlight the aforementioned anti-Turk mentality. Examples include ‘Dirty Turkey try to hide’, and ‘Turkey is a fascist state’. It must be said that the former is more often pronounced as ‘Turkey Turkey try to hide’.Nevertheless, this creates the impression that the purpose of the march is to insult the perpetrators and to unite in a universal ‘dislike’ for the Turks, rather than gathering to commemorate the Genocide and spread awareness in the hope of gaining recognition through legal means, which is really what it should all be about. Moreover, this sense of ‘Anti-Turkey’ influences the more impressionable youth, hence accentuating friction in relations. Again, coming back to the example of London, the marches used to take a route that would happen to pass by Turkish Airlines, where there would usually be a modest number of Turks countering the message of the march. In passing, an equally small number of young Armenians would react to this display of defiance with abusive words of such a nature that I cannot repeat them in print. Being part of the Armenian youth myself, I have seen this behaviour first-hand. As much of a minority these children are, the fact that even one has chosen to behave in this manner is evidence enough that something must be done to prevent this anti-Turk mentality. It is a most unfortunate act and only reflects badly on us.
In addition to the chanting, some of the placards on show produce the same anti-Turk effect. Like the chants, most of the placards are harmless, but there are a small number that must be changed. Most notably, one placard has an image that demands Turkey’s rejection from entering the European Union. While it would be more than plausible to argue that their denial of the Genocide should prevent their admittance into the European Union, this placard has taken this claim out of context and simply stated a wish for Turkey’s rejection; again, this distracts from the main purpose of the march. Away from the march, some images that have been made for the remembrance of the Armenian Genocide involve highly anti-Turkish evocations, the most aggressive of which alters the Turkish flag in a way of emphasising their denial, which also insults Islam as its symbol is the focus of the Turkish flag.
As a solution to these problems with the march, I would suggest changing to a silent protest, with no megaphones and no chanting. This would not just avoid suggesting an anti-Turk attitude, but I believe that it would also be more effective in attracting attention and, therefore, spreading awareness. The layout of the march tends to follow the structure of: the Scouts at the front, who are neatly lined up in uniform, holding reefs and musical instruments, with the high Priest and other senior members of the Armenian community behind them, followed by the rest of those in the march. Given that the scouts lead the procession to instil discipline in the advance, this seems in vain as a high percentage of the gathering do not take part in the chanting and rather hold their own conversations in an unorganised rabble. If the march was in silence, it would ensure a consistent discipline that would be a fitting way of commemorating our ancestors who were forced to march into the desert. We must not preach or encourage a hatred for the Turks. This point is supported by relatively recent actions taken by a Turkish Nationalist, Ogun Samast, whose anti-Armenian disposition led him to assassinate Turkish-Armenian editor of Agos, Hrant Dink.
Samast erred spectacularly in killing Dink. This was an act that could be utterly condemned as an immoral act alone, but it also had wider reaching implications. Dink’s death made a martyr of him and a powerful symbol for the Armenians in the struggle for recognition, while the murder reflects poorly on the Turkish defence. Dink’s death drew every Armenian’s attention to his life and his views on the ‘Armenian Problem’. While he condemned the Turkish denial, he was also critical of Armenian diaspora’s efforts to press Western governments into recognising the genocide. Instead, highlighting the importance of peace, and repairing relations with Turkey directly through dialogue.
His is a message that should be adhered to, and one that this article takes much of its inspiration from. As a nation that prides itself on its Christian heritage, being the first nation to adopt it as its religion in 301 AD, it would be contradictory to act in any way other than peaceful in any situation. So, let’s listen to Hrant Dink’s message, let’s be peaceful, and let’s do it quietly.
Narbeh has just finished his second year of a three year course in English Literature at Queen Mary University of London.
