Recently
I came across the Armenian-Turkish historical emotional relationship and, as
with any emotionally charged relationship, I am learning that this one is also
made of ups and downs, peaceful times of neighborhood followed by fights among
enemies, moments of deception and distrust until eventually sides reconcile.
However, 100 years have past, the page hasn't flipped yet, and sides are still
with their back turned.
This
year many events are remembering the violent acts committed against the
Armenians by the Ottoman Empire (the land that now belongs to Turkey) during
the First World War and that contributed to the death of more than one million
Armenians. Each side has its own narrative as to what exactly happened during
war times (when decisions are followed blindly and little or no accountability
is promoted up the chain of command). Nevertheless, we no longer live in such
period, the dust has settled and we should now be able to look back and assess
what could have been done differently. More importantly, it is time to learn
what this lesson tells us about our species, and about the narratives that we
tell to ourselves.
We
cannot blame one group or the other. The way History is taught in every nation
is constructed in a way that two opposite narratives are imprinted in people's
minds and that it is all that people believe in. Despite the Armenian banners
that "We will never forget" and the defensive official position of
Turkish's government, this year a new message emerged from both sides: on the
Turkish side the social media campaign for the "I Apologize" supports
a collective apology, and the willingness to forgive by the Armenian side.
The
first point that I would like to make is that one doesn't need to know much
about history or geography to understand the dynamics at the nation level. In
fact, all it takes is to look inside and ask oneself "What would I feel if
I were an Armenian and why?", "What would I feel if I were a Turkish
and why?" and "How can we all participate in the reconciliation
process in solidarity with both nations that are going through this"?
These same questions make as much sense today as they did 100 years ago. Not
only in this region of the world but in any intergroup conflict that stains the
History of humanity - for example, the same is happening to the American
Indians in the USA whereby many are destroying themselves with resentment while
others try to move on and do what is best for all.
Whenever
one group (defined by its own identity) is threatened by the existence of
another, emotions will play out, specifically the emotion of fear that is based
on the automated response of our brain (the "fight-or-flight"
survival mechanism). An emotional fear becomes an existential fear and the
opposite group is believed to be the root of the threat. So what happens? One
group tries to vanish the other out of the face of the earth in order to stop
the experience of fear and insecurity. But the other thing that happens is that
new emotions will erupt on the perpetrators side, and these are of shame, fear
of retaliation, stress, guilt and denial. Few people come forth post battle to
speak about this experience because none of these emotions match the apparent
glory that victory represents and that combatants are congratulated for.
Let's
say: on one side group A is suppressed as a victim, on the other side group B
is suppressed as the perpetrator and, in both cases, the potential progress for
society and Humanity gets jeopardised. It goes without saying that these are
two faces of the same coin of conflict and that one exists for as long as there
is the other. There will always be victims for as long as there are
perpetrators and the other way around. This coin becomes a medal that each
party adopts to identify themselves as the victims and the perpetrators, the
perceived inferior and superior, the losers and the winners. Over 100 years the
two sides have grown apart, defining themselves by the differences in their
identities instead of what brings them together besides the territorial
proximity. Now the status quo is no longer acceptable - the medal has swollen
and it will eventually become a sphere without sides.
In
international relations, and according to the 1948 UN Convention, when abusive
acts are committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnic, racial or religious group it defined as genocide. In regards to the
"G word", if evidence really shows that there has been acts of
genocide, calling things by its name is the first step to be treated as it - in
this case, victims become officially protected from further suffering or
insults, and perpetrators are recalled to never again commit the crime or feed
the anti-Armenian discourse. Both sides are equals before the law and a new
relationship becomes possible - a new relationship where parties listen to each
other, understand the other, communicate with the other and cooperate. These
nations have always been linked by land, now they must connect from their
people's hearts and minds.
When
I first heard about this story I personally did not fully grasp the importance
of the legal and official recognition of what happened so long ago. However,
traces of this unequal relationship between the victim and perpetrator are
still affecting people's lives today whereby Armenians living in Turkey still
live in fear and being "an Armenian" is an expression with pejorative
mean in Turkey, that is used as an insult.
Group
A demands respect, dignity and closure. Why is there resistance on group B to
accept a version of the World history that is different from the book and that
questions the foundation of the winning side? Well, no none likes to feel lied
or misunderstood and any change faces resistance at first. There are however
two scenarios to consider:
Scenario One: If I bring this point to
myself, I experience cognitive dissonance as the story that I am hearing does
not match the narrative that I have been told; my ego gets hurt because my
history is questioned; I try to close the eyes to not leave the comfort zone
taught by the history books; I fear the change of the status quo. My proud gets
damaged and so does the rest of the group, and I fear that a new cycle of the
conflict begins, whereby the dynamic is inverted and I become the inferior/the
judged/the victim.
Scenario Two: If I bring this point to
myself, I experience cognitive dissonance as the story that I am hearing does
not match the narrative; I start to sympathise with the other group because I
can now see through their experience; I recognise that there was suffering done
in the name of my nation and that this same discourse does not make sense
anymore. I am humble enough to offer my help to begin the healing process of
another of my own.
In
self-honesty, for 100 years that none of the sides has lived in peace.
Honestly, no one has. Humanity has never existed in peace and justice since its
parts have never existed as one. We all have blood in our hands as we are a
continuation of the past. Only by stopping repeating the errors of the past we
are showing that we are not the same as those that committed the crimes before
us. With or without the G word, respect,
dignity and equality must be guaranteed to Armenians and to any other group
that is psychologically or physically being suppressed by another. Perceptions
of power are not worthy because they blind common sense and responsibility.
Perceptions of victimized are not valid either because they disempower people
and suppress change.
In a discussion with friends about this subject there were many
interesting points that came up and we agreed on the following:
On
the Armenian side, it is time to forgive the past, let the resentment go and
focus on creating a future as equals. On the Turkish side this can be an
opportunity to stand as an example of compassion and responsibility. As we all
know, the past cannot be changed, we can only focus
on preventing this from happening again in the future, and the Turks, Armenians
and everyone in the international community is responsible for what happens
from now on. With or without the recognition of genocide, until there is common
vocabulary and a shared historical memory there is no peace in any society,
only an absence of an open war. Additionally, more importantly and fundamental
at this stage is not so much a symbolic gesture but rather giving to all Armenian
effective living conditions to stop feeding separation and discrimination even
further.
Finally,
this is NOT about one nation, group or individual. It is not about taking
conflict personally either on one side or the other. It is about everyone of us
that is sharing this moment in time. It is about leaving our perceived comfort
zones and seeing that we can be better outside of it; seeing that we can
understand the other side even when the history imprinted in our minds tells us
to do the opposite; and that changing the status quo can truly benefit all.
Further
reading:
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, United Nations General Assembly, 9 December 1948 http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html Accessed on 24 April
2015
Image; Artwork by pupils from the Rose & Alex Pilibos Armenian school in Los Angeles commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Photograph: Frederic J Brown/AFP/Getty Images
0 comentários:
Post a Comment