[103] Tracy, “The Historical Sketch of the Missions in Asiatic Turkey,” page 16.
XI
THE ARMENIAN QUESTION
The previous brief history of this people, especially since the introduction of Christianity into Armenia, has furnished the reader with sufficient facts to show him that the real trouble of this nation began from the time of its conversion to Christianity, and has come down to the present time.
What the Armenians have been suffering now is just a little more intensified than what they have suffered in the past by the hands of the fire-worshiping Persians. Had they received Zoroastrianism, forced upon them in the fifth century, they might have changed the entire aspect of the history of Western Asia. Or, had they embraced Mohammedanism in the seventh century, when fanatic missionary soldiers of Mohammed fell upon them, sword in hand, and massacred thousands upon thousands in cold blood, because they refused to accept the sensual religion of a sensual and bloody man, again the history of Western Asia might have been differently written.
When their infant sons were torn away from their parental bosom by the Ottoman rulers, and reared in Islamism and inured to the profession of arms, whose skill, vigor, and courage shook the foundations of the then civilized world, then, we say, had the Armenians renounced their religion and professed the Mohammedan faith and entered the army, they would have brought “to bear on the problems of the battlefield all the subtlety of intellect developed by ages of mental activity,” unquestionably would they have saved the Turkish Empire from the inevitable dissolution into which she has plunged herself. This also would have undoubtedly given a different feature to the Ottoman history.
Why have the Armenians been so cruelly persecuted, oppressed, tortured and butchered? Why were their beautiful daughters abducted, their wives ravished, they themselves massacred by the Kurds, Circassians, and Turks? Not because they belong to a different nationality—though they do—but because they belong to a different religion—they are Christians. So I beg the reader to bear in mind that the real trouble or the Armenian question, at the bottom, is the old conflict, first between Christianity and Paganism, then between Christianity and Mohammedanism, and now with Pagan-Mohammedanism.
The Turkish government found a convenient excuse for persecuting Christian Armenians under the garb of suppressing a revolutionary movement. But this movement was of a very recent origin, and altogether “harmless as to any effective force.” The Turkish misrule in Armenia, and in all parts of the Ottoman empire, persecutions, confiscations of property, forcible conversions to Islam, imprisonments, exiles, and massacres, have begun since the entrance of the Turks into Western Asia; at times they have been intensified; they are now at their height.
“Tears of Armenia” was the title of a little book which contained the report of Vartabed Paul Nathanian, who was appointed in 1878 by Bishop Nerses, the patriarch, and the civic and ecclesiastical councils of Constantinople, to take charge of the diocese of Palu in Armenia. While there, this noble prelate, following the example of the Good Shepherd, traveled through the country, visited his flock, and reported the condition of the people. His report was published. With great propriety he begins the preface in the following manner: “Tears and misery, behold, these two painful words are chosen for the theme of this present work, of which with an aching heart will I speak, and still more painful it is, that the esteemed reader will hear undeniable truths.”
The facts recorded in this pamphlet are too painful to be translated into the English language. The crimes of the Kurds and the injustice and cruelty of the government’s officers perpetrated upon the Christian Armenians run from the simplest forms of robbery and cruelty to the vilest forms of abduction, assault, outrage, torture, and murder.
The report of this venerable Vartabed Nathanian was only the confirmation and verification of the oppressed condition of the Armenians in the interior, more or less known before. For, when, in the autumn of 1876, the European powers sent their representatives to meet at Constantinople to consider the cruelties of the Turkish government, the massacre of the Bulgarians and other disturbances in the empire, Bishop Nerses attempted then to draw attention to the condition of the Armenians. But his efforts were fruitless, as the conference itself was futile; a peaceful adjustment of the differences was not agreed upon. The Russo-Turkish war consequently broke out. Again Armenia had to furnish the battle-field for these two formidable combatant nations in Asia.