A review by eldaaurora97
They Can Live in the Desert But Nowhere Else: A History of the Armenian Genocide by Ronald Grigor Suny
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, Violence, Genocide, War, and Hate crime
Moderate: Sexual violence