Chapter IV

We shall better understand the question of these massacres, if we first study the Armenian character, at the same time noticing the aptitude and fitness of the race for self-government.

The Pro-Armenian societies in this country would have us believe that the native Armenians are as a race poor, gentle, honest, agricultural folk, persecuted by wicked officials, robbed of their hard-earned savings by the wild Kurds and cruel Circassians, and periodically martyred for their Christian faith; and to give vividness to this pleasant picture one or two europeanized, highly-veneered Armenians are usually produced on our public platforms as living specimens of this “harmless, inoffensive” people. In this manner Lord Bryce, speaking recently at Manchester, pictured the life of mingled simplicity and refinement lived by this Christian race in Moslem Turkey, and went on to say that the Armenians were amongst the most orderly subjects of the Turks, well educated and accustomed to the refinements of civilization as much as ourselves. If this were true it would imply that civilization, as we understand the word, must have made tremendous progress in Kurdistan within recent years under Turkish rule, but this Lord Bryce will probably not admit.

Lord Bryce proceeded to add that for the past sixteen centuries the Armenians had been a Christian people, clinging to their religion in spite of constant persecution, while all the time they might have secured complete immunity from such by renouncing their Christian faith.

It is fair to presume that Lord Bryce struck this anti-Moslem note in order to command sympathy by appealing to the religious prejudices of his audience, for the observation was not only inopportune but entirely unnecessary, in as much as later in the same speech he stated that “there was no fanaticism about the massacres and no outbreak of Moslem fury on the part of the people.”

How utterly false is his estimate of the character of the native Armenian will be shown by the testimony of competent and observant travellers and orientalists, who have studied this people in their own homes. Let us see first what Sir Charles Wilson, the great traveller and Orientalist, author of the article on Armenia in the Encyclopædia Britannica, says:

The Armenians are essentially an Oriental people, preserving
like the Jews whom they resemble in their exclusiveness and
widespread dispersion, a remarkable tenacity of race and
faculty of adaptation to circumstances. They are frugal, sober,
industrious and intelligent, and their sturdiness of character
has enabled them to preserve their nationality and religion
under the sorest trials. They are strongly attached to old
manners and customs, but have also a real desire for progress
which is full of promise. On the other hand they are greedy of
gain, quarrelsome in small matters, self-seeking and wanting in
stability, and they are gifted with a tendency to exaggeration
and a love of intrigue, which has had an unfortunate influence
on their history.

They are deeply separated by religious differences, and their
mutual jealousies, their inordinate vanity, their versatility
and their cosmopolitan character must always be an obstacle to
the realization of the dreams of the nationalists.

LORD SALISBURY, in a letter to Sir Henry Layard, British Ambassador at Constantinople, dated May 30th, 1878, gives expression to the following opinion:

Asiatic Turkey contains a population of many different races
and creeds, possessing no capacity for self-government and no
aspiration for independence, but owing their tranquillity and
whatever prospect of political well-being they possess entirely
to the rule of the Sultan.

This letter confirms the contention that at that time there was no real demand for independence.

MR. GRATTAN GEARY, in “Through Asiatic Turkey,” says:

A few of the more educated Armenians hope to secure in some
way the autonomy of the country in which they by no means
form the majority of the population. Whether they could keep
the Mussulman majority of the population in order we need
not inquire; granting that a flock of doves could, if well
organized and assured of diplomatic support from distant
eagles, keep a much larger number of hawks in subjection, the
fact remains that even _the Armenians_, by far the most capable
and the most numerous of the Christian races in Asiatic Turkey,
_have no aspiration for anything further than a provisional
autonomy_. They do not regard themselves as the heirs of the
Empire, and never in their wildest flights think of superseding
the Osmanlis, and themselves welding the Empire together for
the common good. _The only race among them all which has any
real desire to govern, is the Turkish._ The others either
desire, like the Kurds and the Arabs, to be simply freed
from the shackles of government altogether, so that they may
pillage in peace; or, like the Christians, to be protected from
without, or at most to acquire a local predominance. If we
want to find an Oriental equivalent for patriotism or love of
country, in Asiatic Turkey, we need look for it in the Turkish
section of the population alone ...

The autonomy of the Asiatic provinces is out of the question.
How could Mesopotamia or Kurdistan become autonomous? The Arabs
and the Kurds are too “autonomous” already, and the first
thing to be done with them is to place them under a regime of
well-armed police. _Asia Minor is Turkish and does not ask
for Autonomy._ The elements of self-government do not exist
in Armenia. The Armenian Christians are the minority of the
population and are deficient in the military virtues; they
could not hold their own against the warlike Kurds.

These words of Mr. Geary are the more interesting as they so closely resemble the opinion expressed by Lord Salisbury in his letter quoted above.

‘ODYSSEUS,’ in his “Turkey in Europe,” says:

The characteristics of the Armenians would seem to be somewhat
as follows: They are a race with little political aptitude or
genius for kingdom building. This want of capacity was not due
to the Turkish conquest—even before that event they had proved
their inability to hold their own. The Armenians are a people
of great commercial and financial talents, supple and flexible
as those must be who wish to make others part with their money:
stubborn to heroism in preserving certain characteristics, but
wanting withal in the more attractive qualities, in an artistic
sense, kindliness, and some (though not all) forms of courage.

To this testimony may be added the observations of COL. FRED BURNABY (“On horseback through Asia Minor”):

One thing which seemed to be the unanimous opinion of all
classes in Erzeroum was, that should the Armenians ever get the
upper hand in Anatolia, their government would be much more
corrupt than the actual administration. It was corroborated by
the Armenians themselves. The stories which they told me of
several of their fellow-countrymen thoroughly bore out the idea.

SIR MARK SYKES, who has travelled far and often into Kurdistan, certainly formed a very unsatisfactory opinion of the Armenians as a whole, especially of the town Armenians, who are quite a distinct race from the villagers, with whom they seldom intermarry. He has noticed, however, the same regrettable characteristics in the villagers as in the townsmen, though with the former he believes they are not innate, but rather imposed by the upper clergy and bishops, who are nearly all recruited from the town-folk. His remarks are deserving of careful attention. The following passage, which we venture to quote in extenso from his recently published book, “The Caliph’s Last Heritage,” throws into relief the principal characteristics of the Armenian people:

The expression of the generality of town Armenian young men
is one which undoubtedly inspires a feeling of distrust, and
their bearing is compounded of a peculiar covert insolence and
a strange suggestion of suspicion and craft. They have a way
of answering an ordinary question as if the person to whom
they are speaking were endeavouring to treat them dishonestly,
and as if they felt themselves more than a match for him.
Their manners are not by any means fawning or cringing, as
many people suggest; on the contrary, they are generally
somewhat brusque, but at the same time uneasy—indeed one might
well say their manners were decidedly unhappy. It is very
difficult to account for this ill-bred behaviour and tone, and
I myself can only attribute it to the fact that the keynote of
the town Armenian’s character is a profound distrust of his
co-religionists and neighbours. Whether this fear arises from
long and sad experience, or from a perverted business instinct,
it is hard to tell; but to say that it is not without cause may
sound a harsh, but perhaps not unjust judgment.

In common with many others of the Christians of Turkey, the
town Armenians have an extraordinarily high opinion of their
own capacities; but in their case this is combined with a
strangely unbalanced judgment, which permits them to proceed
to lengths that invariably bring trouble on their heads. They
will undertake the most desperate political crimes without the
least forethought or preparation; they will bring ruin and
disaster on themselves and others without any hesitation; they
will sacrifice their own brothers and most valuable citizens to
a wayward caprice; they will enter largely into conspiracies
with men in whom they repose not the slightest confidence; they
will overthrow their own national cause to vent some petty
spite on a private individual; they will at the very moment
of danger grossly insult and provoke one who might be their
protector but may at any moment become their destroyer; by some
stinging aggravation or injury they will alienate the sympathy
of a stranger whose assistance they expect; they will suddenly
abandon all hope when their plans are nearing fruition; they
will betray the very person who might serve their cause; and,
finally, they will bully and prey on one another at the very
moment that the enemy is at their gates. And this strange and
unfortunate method of procedure is not confined only to their
political methods, their dealings are equally preposterous and
fatal.

To add to this curious fatuousness of conduct, the town
Armenians are at once yielding and aggressive. They will
willingly harbour revolutionaries, arrange for their
entertainment and the furthering of their ends; yet at the
same time they can be massacred without raising a finger in
their own defence. He is as fanatical as any Moslem.... That
the Armenians are doomed to be for ever unhappy as a nation
seems to me unavoidable.... In a time of famine at Van the
merchants tried to corner the available grain!... The Armenian
revolutionaries prefer to plunder their co-religionists
to giving battle to their enemies; the anarchists of
Constantinople threw bombs with the intention of provoking a
massacre of their fellow-countrymen. The Armenian villages are
divided against themselves; the revolutionary societies are
leagued against one another; the priests connive at the murder
of a bishop; the church is divided at its very foundations....

If the object of English philanthropists and the roving
brigands (who are the active agents of revolution) is to
subject the bulk of the Eastern provinces to the tender mercies
of an Armenian oligarchy, then I cannot entirely condemn the
fanatical outbreaks of the Moslems or the repressive measures
of the Turkish government. On the other hand, if the object
of Armenians is to secure equality before the law, and the
establishment of security and peace in the countries partly
inhabited by Armenians, then I can only say that their methods
are not those to achieve success.

His description of the Armenians of the Mush Plain is instructive and interesting:

The Armenians of the Mush Plain are at present an extremely
difficult people to manage. They are very avaricious and
would object to pay the most moderate taxes; they are also
exceedingly treacherous to one another, and often join the
revolutionaries to wipe off scores on their fellow villagers.
As for the tactics of the revolutionaries, anything more
fiendish one could not imagine—the assassination of Moslems
in order to bring about the punishment of innocent men, the
midnight extortion of money from villages which have just paid
taxes by day, the murder of persons who refuse to contribute
to their collection-boxes, are only some of the crimes of
which Moslems, Catholics, and Gregorians accuse them with no
uncertain voice.

The following pen picture of the young Armenian who wept over the punishment of his great nation is a study in itself:

We were saluted by a brisk young Armenian, who said (it
afterwards proved false) that he was employed as a tutor to
the Shaykh’s sons. He accused Prof. Rendel Harris of having
promised him assistance, and then breaking his word. He longed
to embrace Mr. Bryce (I should have experienced some pleasure
in seeing him accomplish this wish); he had a great admiration
for Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman; he said he was studying to be
an ethnologist, psychologist, hypnotist and poet; he admired
Renan, Kant, Herbert Spencer, Gladstone, Spurgeon, Nietzsche
and Shakespeare. It afterwards appeared that his library
consisted of an advertisement of Eno’s Fruit Salt, from which
he quoted freely. He wept over what he called the “Punishment
of our great Nation,” and desired to be informed how in
existing circumstances he could elevate himself to greatness
and power.

It would be unfair to suggest that these very unfavourable descriptions are intended otherwise than as generally characteristic of the Armenian race. The experience of every traveller is that there are both good and bad people to be found in all races, but unfortunately in some races the good are few and the bad are many.

Armenians, as we know, have risen to the highest positions as soldiers, statesmen and financiers both in Turkey and Russia, and have proved themselves good and devoted subjects of their respective governments. Armenian soldiers fought bravely and loyally on the Turkish side in the Balkan war at the very time when their compatriots were pillaging the shops of their Moslem fellow-citizens in Adrianople. The near East is full of these strange contradictions. In Kurdistan Armenians have risked their own lives in protecting Moslems from assassination.