Scan barcode
eldaaurora97's review
dark
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.25
"The argument in this book begins, not with the primordial nations inevitably confronting one another and contesting sovereignty over a disputed land, but with an accelerating construction of different ethnoreligious communities within the complex context of an empire with its possibilities of multiple and hybrid identities and coexistence" (356)
The event which triggered the use of the word "genocide", "They can Live in the Desert but Nowhere else" focuses not only in the genocide, but why it occurred in such a tumultuous political context. Starting with the steadily declining Ottoman empire, Suny analyzes the relationship between the polity and the Armenians themselves, on which they tangle on each other and sometimes conflict. When the Great War broke out, Suny argues, this provided the tragic fuse to commit such a genocide, which would have consequences for everyone involved.
One thing which stood out in particular with this book is he focuses on the political aspects of the Ottoman empire. According to Suny, "empires in the modern age were caught between maintaining the privileges and distinctions that kept the traditional elites in reform along liberal lines that potentially could undermine the old ruling classes and the existing social order" (27) . In the Ottoman empire's case, it was a question of how to balance competing pieces between the different ethnic groups. While reforms began, it withered over time, thanks to preferential laws for Muslims and the elevation of the word "Turk" to a significance not seen before. It reminded me of "Adriatic", in how Kaplan mentioned how empires had a better hold on multiculturalism than in nation-states. Despite the reforms, was there another way to handle it all?
I also was curious about Armenian national identity in this context, especially with how today, there are more Armenians outside the country than inside it. The first Christian kingdom in the world, Armenia had been conquered multiple times and its people scattered. "Most Armenians were poor peasants who knew little about their past, except fragments passed down in the oral traditions and the religious messages of the clergy" (39). They had their own identity, but the development of a nationalism. One thing I learned was how despite popular history, Armenians integrated well into Ottoman society--"Many of them spoke Turkish, Kurdish, or Arabic along with or rather than Armenian: many, perhaps most, were bi- or tri-lingual" (45). Some of them managed to garner higher roles in urban centers, to the point where the Muslim majority resented them. While it didn't provide a good excuse to kill them all, I could see where the fault-lines occurred as Armenians became more divorced from Ottoman society.
One curious thing was how much the Great Powers took eye to the Armenian question, but didn't know how to approach it. They had an early history of supporting Christians in the Balkans, and wanted to support the Armenians in different ways. However, "sympathy for the plight of the Armenians was widespread in the international public sphere, but humanitarian sentiments rarely led to meaningful action" (137). When the war began and the Armenian condition got worse, there were some more attempts to get help, but were drowned out. I'm honestly surprised how much the German government was complicit in the Armenian genocide, from collaborating with the Ottomans to hiding notable Young Turks after the war. How much did that impact their approach to the Holocaust?
Suny builds this story up to the climax of the deportations and genocide, then lets it down with the conclusion. "By the end of the war 90 percent of Ottoman Armenians were gone, killed, deported to the deserts of Syria, or refugees in the Caucasus or Middle east" (347). The flow of his information points to this sad conclusion, even though there were moments which could've prevented the genocide. This approach, combined with his research, makes up for a compelling book, albeit a bit dry at times.
The event which triggered the use of the word "genocide", "They can Live in the Desert but Nowhere else" focuses not only in the genocide, but why it occurred in such a tumultuous political context. Starting with the steadily declining Ottoman empire, Suny analyzes the relationship between the polity and the Armenians themselves, on which they tangle on each other and sometimes conflict. When the Great War broke out, Suny argues, this provided the tragic fuse to commit such a genocide, which would have consequences for everyone involved.
One thing which stood out in particular with this book is he focuses on the political aspects of the Ottoman empire. According to Suny, "empires in the modern age were caught between maintaining the privileges and distinctions that kept the traditional elites in reform along liberal lines that potentially could undermine the old ruling classes and the existing social order" (27) . In the Ottoman empire's case, it was a question of how to balance competing pieces between the different ethnic groups. While reforms began, it withered over time, thanks to preferential laws for Muslims and the elevation of the word "Turk" to a significance not seen before. It reminded me of "Adriatic", in how Kaplan mentioned how empires had a better hold on multiculturalism than in nation-states. Despite the reforms, was there another way to handle it all?
I also was curious about Armenian national identity in this context, especially with how today, there are more Armenians outside the country than inside it. The first Christian kingdom in the world, Armenia had been conquered multiple times and its people scattered. "Most Armenians were poor peasants who knew little about their past, except fragments passed down in the oral traditions and the religious messages of the clergy" (39). They had their own identity, but the development of a nationalism. One thing I learned was how despite popular history, Armenians integrated well into Ottoman society--"Many of them spoke Turkish, Kurdish, or Arabic along with or rather than Armenian: many, perhaps most, were bi- or tri-lingual" (45). Some of them managed to garner higher roles in urban centers, to the point where the Muslim majority resented them. While it didn't provide a good excuse to kill them all, I could see where the fault-lines occurred as Armenians became more divorced from Ottoman society.
One curious thing was how much the Great Powers took eye to the Armenian question, but didn't know how to approach it. They had an early history of supporting Christians in the Balkans, and wanted to support the Armenians in different ways. However, "sympathy for the plight of the Armenians was widespread in the international public sphere, but humanitarian sentiments rarely led to meaningful action" (137). When the war began and the Armenian condition got worse, there were some more attempts to get help, but were drowned out. I'm honestly surprised how much the German government was complicit in the Armenian genocide, from collaborating with the Ottomans to hiding notable Young Turks after the war. How much did that impact their approach to the Holocaust?
Suny builds this story up to the climax of the deportations and genocide, then lets it down with the conclusion. "By the end of the war 90 percent of Ottoman Armenians were gone, killed, deported to the deserts of Syria, or refugees in the Caucasus or Middle east" (347). The flow of his information points to this sad conclusion, even though there were moments which could've prevented the genocide. This approach, combined with his research, makes up for a compelling book, albeit a bit dry at times.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Genocide, Hate crime, Violence, and War
Moderate: Sexual violence
radiofreekitmo's review against another edition
3.0
A very dense but thoroughly researched account of the Armenian genocide. I especially liked the fascinating discussion of nation-states and empires and how the book begins in the 1800's to show how different Ottoman governments interacted with the empire's Armenian population. In fact, the book actually spends most of its pages building up what happened before the genocide.
The book argues that policies of genocide originated at the top with Young Turk officials and evolved over time as the intervention of foreign powers and eventually WWI radicalized many in the government and caused them to view a mostly loyal Armenian population as a disloyal fifth column for foreign powers (especially Russia).
I had an issue with occasional odd non-sequitur statements within paragraphs and some general repetition. I also didn't like how some of the questions about motivation were discussed. Some of the usual reasons for participation were mentioned: following orders, fear, profit, and such. But I would have preferred a more nuanced approach that discussed potential motivations of the different actors involved, starting with the Kurds. The book makes a big deal of the contested relationship between the Ottoman government and the Kurds but never discusses why they played such a large part in the genocide later. The book is very much a story of elites, from top Ottoman officials to foreign diplomats to prominent Armenians.
They Can Live in the Desert But Nowhere Else has excellent notes and citations and a few well used pictures. It's not a bad introductory text but probably isn't meant for the causal reader.
The book argues that policies of genocide originated at the top with Young Turk officials and evolved over time as the intervention of foreign powers and eventually WWI radicalized many in the government and caused them to view a mostly loyal Armenian population as a disloyal fifth column for foreign powers (especially Russia).
I had an issue with occasional odd non-sequitur statements within paragraphs and some general repetition. I also didn't like how some of the questions about motivation were discussed. Some of the usual reasons for participation were mentioned: following orders, fear, profit, and such. But I would have preferred a more nuanced approach that discussed potential motivations of the different actors involved, starting with the Kurds. The book makes a big deal of the contested relationship between the Ottoman government and the Kurds but never discusses why they played such a large part in the genocide later. The book is very much a story of elites, from top Ottoman officials to foreign diplomats to prominent Armenians.
They Can Live in the Desert But Nowhere Else has excellent notes and citations and a few well used pictures. It's not a bad introductory text but probably isn't meant for the causal reader.
marlfox24's review against another edition
dark
emotional
informative
sad
tense
medium-paced
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Genocide
Moderate: Child abuse, Child death, and Rape
beejai's review
4.0
This was definitely not an easy read but it is definitely a book that needed to be written. From cover to cover, the reader is bombarded by detail, statistics and documented fact after fact after fact. This is definitely the most meticulously researched book I have read on the subject of the Armenian genocide. Sometimes the sheer level of research presented gets in the way of an easy flowing narrative to bog the reader down. This isn't a good book for the casual reader on the subject. For that, I would recommend The Burning Tigris.
Like I said, however, this book is one that needed to be written. It came out on the centennial of the forgotten Armenian genocide and since I live here in Turkey, I understand how pervasive the denial of what happened here still is at every level in society. This mountain of irrefutable facts flies in the face of the lies the Turkish government to this day continues to shovel out to a public that doesn't care to know the truth of what their grandparents and great-grandparents did.
Ronald Grigor Suny wraps up his book with a few conclusions that left me scratching my head. He claims that this genocide was carried out by only a few masterminds and villains and that the public at large was not complicit. He also says that these killings were politically and not religiously motivated.
While there are certainly a few villains that deserve a higher level of ignominy, it is clear that hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Turks participated in the atrocities that happened around the turning of the twentieth century. They were the ones who occupied the homes, looted the shops, raped and married young women and adopted the children ripped from their parents' arms. While I understand that certain cultural-political situations like in 1930's Germany and in the American Jim Crow South can lead otherwise good decent people to do heinous acts, that does not let them off for the acts they have committed (or even their knowing silence in the face of evil).
There was also a very strong religious motivation for the crimes that were committed. While it was not the only motivation, nearly every single eyewitness account he quotes time and time again point to the Muslim hatred of Christians so present on the Anatolian peninsula at this time period. Just because there were other factors at work here does not in any way make the religious motivation less of a factor. A fatwa was declared, jihad was called, and in cities throughout the Anatolian peninsula men answered the call by killing their neighbors. There is no getting around this tragic truth.
Like I said, however, this book is one that needed to be written. It came out on the centennial of the forgotten Armenian genocide and since I live here in Turkey, I understand how pervasive the denial of what happened here still is at every level in society. This mountain of irrefutable facts flies in the face of the lies the Turkish government to this day continues to shovel out to a public that doesn't care to know the truth of what their grandparents and great-grandparents did.
Ronald Grigor Suny wraps up his book with a few conclusions that left me scratching my head. He claims that this genocide was carried out by only a few masterminds and villains and that the public at large was not complicit. He also says that these killings were politically and not religiously motivated.
While there are certainly a few villains that deserve a higher level of ignominy, it is clear that hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Turks participated in the atrocities that happened around the turning of the twentieth century. They were the ones who occupied the homes, looted the shops, raped and married young women and adopted the children ripped from their parents' arms. While I understand that certain cultural-political situations like in 1930's Germany and in the American Jim Crow South can lead otherwise good decent people to do heinous acts, that does not let them off for the acts they have committed (or even their knowing silence in the face of evil).
There was also a very strong religious motivation for the crimes that were committed. While it was not the only motivation, nearly every single eyewitness account he quotes time and time again point to the Muslim hatred of Christians so present on the Anatolian peninsula at this time period. Just because there were other factors at work here does not in any way make the religious motivation less of a factor. A fatwa was declared, jihad was called, and in cities throughout the Anatolian peninsula men answered the call by killing their neighbors. There is no getting around this tragic truth.
raesreads's review against another edition
I got about 75 pages in but it was just too slow for my liking.
More...