Ermeni Soykırımı İddiası; Ermeni Diasporasının Rolü Ve Stratejisi

Abstract

Başta sosyoloji, tarih, siyaset bilimi olmak üzere hemen hemen bütün sosyal bilimlerle ilişkisi olan Ermeni meselesi karmaşık ve çok faktörlü sosyolojik bir olgudur. Osmanlı devletinin gerilemesini/dağılmasını takip eden süreçte etnik çatışmaya dahil olan unsurlar, ulus-devlet inşası, ulusal kimliğinin yeniden tanımlanması ve çoğunluk/azınlık ilişkilerinin niteliğinin belirlenmesini talep etmişlerdir. Türk-Ermeni çatışmasında Ermenilerin sosyal ve kültürel mirası, dili ve dini belirleyici unsurlar olmuştur. Osmanlı Devletinin çok etnikli yapısının bir öğesi olan Ermeniler, tarihsel ve kültürel varlık karakterlerinin eski ve yeni yorumu üzerinden tartışma ve çatışmaya devam etmektedirler. Ermeni meselesine yönelik tartışmaların ABD ve Avrupa merkezli olması, hem dünyada mevcut egemen gücün bu merkezlere kaymış olmasına hem de Ermeni diasporasının söz konusu merkezlerde güçlü olmasına dayandırılabilir. Bu nedenle 1915 olaylarına ilişkin yapılan tartışmalar, Türkiye'de hem dış hem de iç toplumsal dinamikler açısından önemli hale gelmektedir. Bu bağlamda Batı dünyasında Ermeni meselesinin nasıl tanımlandığı sosyolojik bir konu olmaktadır. Çalışma da bu amaca yönelik bir girişim olarak düşünülebilir.

The Hunchakian Revolutionary Party and the Assassination Attempts Against Patriarch Khoren Ashekian and Maksudzade Simon Bey in 1894

“…For Avedis Nazarbekian, the person who, according to an Ottoman report, instructed and "indoctrinated" (telkin edip) Mazlumian, the patriarch's assassination may have been meaningful in terms of the Marxist theories he elaborated and supported. 74 For Mazlumian, who was probably an Armenian seasonal worker in Constantinople, the attack on the patriarch may have been nothing more than revenge for the patriarch's ineffective policies.…”

“…89 Another Ottoman document identified the two arrested men as Takavor, a baker from Sivas, and his friend Stepan. 90 A report prepared for Sultan Abdülhamid in 1896 stated that Takavor and Stepan, both reportedly Hunchakian partisans, were sentenced to death, but this is contradicted by Hunchak, whose reporter from Constantinople claimed that they were sentenced to 101 years in prison. 91 The Hunchak reporter also mentioned the name of another Hunchakian partisan, a certain Levon-Zareh coming from Athens, who he said organized the attack on Maksudzade Simon.…”

“…In other words, rather than seeing such attempts as a serious quest for change grounded in the special socio-economic dynamics of the empire, the Ottoman State described them as manifestations of anarchism. 93 As Noemi Levy-Aksu argues, during the Hamidian period criticism of the violence of urban masses continued to be made on social grounds, with stigmatization of the perpetrators of violent acts contrasting with praise for "honest" citizens within the members of the urban lower classes. 94 Such bifurcation-"honest" servants and stigmatized lower classes-of the community occurred during the Armenian massacres of 1896 in Constantinople, in which most of the massacre's victims were not the urban notables, but rather the Armenian seasonal workers and porters of the capital.…”

“…As for Abdülhamid, the party leadership claimed that the sultan's inability to arrest more than four people and his eventual consent to Ashekian's resignation demonstrated the Hunchakian party's strength. 99 The party leadership interpreted this as a triumph for socialism, because the oppressive bourgeoisie had been removed from the path to progress, and for nationalism, because those deemed as alien to the "nation" were no longer part of it. As far as provincial Armenians were concerned, they were the ones who actually perpetrated the attack and thus saw the matter as particularly relevant to the improvement of their socio-economic situation.…”

“…Stepan and Takavor were sentenced to death based on Article 54 of the Ottoman Penal Code, while Hampartsum and the other Stepan were sentenced to imprisonment for six and eight years respectively. 103 Hunchak also reported on the publication of a letter drafted by the Hunchakian Central Committee in Constantinople. 104 Using a language reminiscent of the opprobrium previously directed at Ashekian, this memorandum justified both attacks.…”