Hasan Kayalı, Imperial Resilience: The Great War’s End, Ottoman Longevity, and Incidental Nations. Oakland: University of California Press, 2021, 249 pages.

IF 1.7 2区 社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES
N. L. Basaran Lotz
{"title":"Hasan Kayalı, Imperial Resilience: The Great War’s End, Ottoman Longevity, and Incidental Nations. Oakland: University of California Press, 2021, 249 pages.","authors":"N. L. Basaran Lotz","doi":"10.1017/npt.2022.25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"which the newly becoming Turkish Republic and the other signatories to the Treaty of Lausanne engaged, and how surviving Armenians lost any hopes about returning home and reclaiming the properties they were forced to abandon. It was not only the result of a “complex legislative framework” (p. 167) from Ankara but also the desertion by France. In the meantime, Aintab’s newly wealthy “Turkish-Muslim class : : : consolidated its economic status by seizing” (p. 167) Armenian properties. Through a series of legal and diplomatic maneuvers, these earlier liquidation laws the CUP put forth in 1915 were reenacted in a different guise and allowed to let stand because France had turned its attention elsewhere. Kurt closes his study of the genocide in Aintab by examining two things: the first is how perpetrators of the violence (including those who goaded authorities into extending deportation orders to Aintab) had “their own pecuniary motives” (p. 213). But this was only part of it. As Kurt notes, “Viewing the entirety of the process, the function of appropriation was as important as the individual purposes; huge numbers of people were bound together in a circle of profit that was at the same time a circle of complicity” (p. 213). This work rejects the idea that local actors were passive agents of the Ottoman center. Instead, it shows the interplay between the center and local points in the empire. It highlights the class component, and ultimately shows how the dispossession of Armenians served to create and strengthen a “national” bourgeoisie in Aintab. Readers may ponder what would Turkey be like today if it had not been constructed on the appropriation of wealth and death of so many of its people. Although Muslims in places like Aintab took over Armenian properties and businesses (and in some cases became – upon taking that wealth – big industrialists), Turkey really suffered from its lack of precisely those people who had made its economic base diverse. Kurt doesn’t say this, but his account makes us wonder – did the nationalist Turks shoot themselves in the foot when it came to rebuilding and constructing an economically viable republic? This beautifully crafted, richly researched book tells a powerful story that is sure to interest a wide audience of specialists and nonspecialists alike.","PeriodicalId":45032,"journal":{"name":"New Perspectives on Turkey","volume":"67 1","pages":"143 - 146"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Perspectives on Turkey","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/npt.2022.25","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

which the newly becoming Turkish Republic and the other signatories to the Treaty of Lausanne engaged, and how surviving Armenians lost any hopes about returning home and reclaiming the properties they were forced to abandon. It was not only the result of a “complex legislative framework” (p. 167) from Ankara but also the desertion by France. In the meantime, Aintab’s newly wealthy “Turkish-Muslim class : : : consolidated its economic status by seizing” (p. 167) Armenian properties. Through a series of legal and diplomatic maneuvers, these earlier liquidation laws the CUP put forth in 1915 were reenacted in a different guise and allowed to let stand because France had turned its attention elsewhere. Kurt closes his study of the genocide in Aintab by examining two things: the first is how perpetrators of the violence (including those who goaded authorities into extending deportation orders to Aintab) had “their own pecuniary motives” (p. 213). But this was only part of it. As Kurt notes, “Viewing the entirety of the process, the function of appropriation was as important as the individual purposes; huge numbers of people were bound together in a circle of profit that was at the same time a circle of complicity” (p. 213). This work rejects the idea that local actors were passive agents of the Ottoman center. Instead, it shows the interplay between the center and local points in the empire. It highlights the class component, and ultimately shows how the dispossession of Armenians served to create and strengthen a “national” bourgeoisie in Aintab. Readers may ponder what would Turkey be like today if it had not been constructed on the appropriation of wealth and death of so many of its people. Although Muslims in places like Aintab took over Armenian properties and businesses (and in some cases became – upon taking that wealth – big industrialists), Turkey really suffered from its lack of precisely those people who had made its economic base diverse. Kurt doesn’t say this, but his account makes us wonder – did the nationalist Turks shoot themselves in the foot when it came to rebuilding and constructing an economically viable republic? This beautifully crafted, richly researched book tells a powerful story that is sure to interest a wide audience of specialists and nonspecialists alike.
《帝国的恢复力:大战的结束、奥斯曼帝国的长寿和偶然的国家》。奥克兰:加州大学出版社,2021年,249页。
新成立的土耳其共和国和《洛桑条约》的其他签署国所参与的战争,以及幸存的亚美尼亚人如何失去了返回家园和收回他们被迫放弃的财产的希望。这不仅是安卡拉“复杂的立法框架”(第167页)的结果,也是法国抛弃的结果。与此同时,Aintab新富的“土耳其-穆斯林阶级通过夺取亚美尼亚财产巩固了其经济地位”(第167页)。通过一系列的法律和外交手段,统一统一党在1915年提出的这些早期的清算法在另一种伪装下重新制定,并被允许保留下来,因为法国已经把注意力转移到了其他地方。库尔特通过检查两件事来结束他对安因塔布种族灭绝的研究:首先是暴力的肇事者(包括那些促使当局将驱逐令延长到安因塔布的人)如何有“自己的金钱动机”(第213页)。但这只是其中的一部分。正如库尔特所指出的,“纵观整个过程,挪用的功能与个人目的一样重要;大量的人被捆绑在一个利润圈中,同时也是一个同谋圈”(第213页)。这项工作驳斥了当地演员是奥斯曼帝国中心的被动代理人的观点。相反,它显示了帝国中心和局部点之间的相互作用。它突出了阶级成分,并最终展示了对亚美尼亚人的剥夺如何在Aintab创造和加强了一个“民族”资产阶级。读者们可能会思考,如果土耳其不是建立在财富的侵占和如此多人民的死亡之上,今天的土耳其会是什么样子?尽管在像Aintab这样的地方,穆斯林接管了亚美尼亚人的财产和企业(在某些情况下,在获得这些财富后,他们成为了大实业家),但土耳其确实因为缺乏那些使其经济基础多样化的人而受苦。库尔特并没有这么说,但他的描述让我们想知道——在重建和建设一个经济上可行的共和国时,民族主义的土耳其人是否搬起石头砸自己的脚?这本制作精美,研究丰富的书讲述了一个强有力的故事,一定会引起广泛的专家和非专业观众的兴趣。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
New Perspectives on Turkey
New Perspectives on Turkey SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
26
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信