Wife Training

The high point of the year for North Americans has passed with the celebration of Christmas on December 25th, 2016. The same is also true for Armenians with the Feast of the Theophany on January 6th, 2017. Along with special events at churches commemorating Jesus’ birth as described in God’s Word, the Bible, families gather in their homes to share time together and enjoy special foods.

In my own family, those seasonal treats include steamed pudding with brown sauce and fruitcake, standards for a family that immigrated to North America several generations ago from England and Scotland. As the only daughter in my immediate family, the baking fell to me. In recent years, my father and my brothers have consistently handed me their emptied loaf pan post-Christmas as a very broad hint that they would like a refill. I usually laugh, put the pans away, dig them out the following December, and stuff my electric mixer with the ingredients necessary for ten pounds of fruitcake. Of course, that much cake fills more than my father’s and brothers’ loaf pans. The extra cakes I give to friends and neighbors as Christmas gifts.

This year as I made my cakes, I thought about how I learned to make them. Most women in North America learn to cook from their mothers and grandmothers. I didn’t. My own mother became too ill during my early teens to teach me anything. My family lived too far away from my grandmothers for me to learn anything at their elbows. All of a sudden at the age of fourteen, I became my family’s ‘chief cook and bottle washer,’ as the saying goes. And I didn’t even know how to ‘boil water.’ Oh, boy. My brothers, poor souls, put up with a lot of burnt food before I mastered any amount of culinary skills. So, then, how did I learn? By reading and following written recipes. My mother had gobs of clippings in a drawer in the kitchen and a couple of cookbooks. My maternal grandmother also sent me recipes. In fact, the one I use to make fruitcake at Christmas is the same one grandma sent me decades ago.

Knowing the list of ingredients and specific quantities is one thing. Developing the best methodology is quite another. The latter I learned by trial and much error.

Armenian girls of the Ottoman Empire weren’t given such short shift in the area of training to be homemakers and the family’s cook. An Armenian girl received training from her mother on how to clean a house and take care of a husband. Some of that training came from direct instruction and some from demonstration and example.

In fact, when the girl reached marriageable age (usually twelve) and the men in her family had selected a groom for her, a woman from the prospective groom’s family came over to the girl’s home to inspect her housekeeping skills. A white glove test, if there ever was one.

The young lady, however, was not expected to know how to cook. That she was to learn from her mother-in-law after the girl had married the boy. The young couple usually lived with the groom’s parents the first year or two. That way the bride could learn from the groom’s mother just how he liked his food to be prepared (1977. The Bride’s Escape).

Hmm. Yes, that would provide plenty of guidance to a neophyte cook. And it probably resulted in a happier young husband. This method of wife training should have worked well enough, if mother-in-law and daughter-in-law got along well. At least, it would have been easier on the Armenian girl than the way it was with teenage me.

Chaotic Consequences: Now & Then

Islamic State militias rampage through parts of Syria and Iraq in recent months, staking claims to this section of land or that town. The militias say they act in God’s name.

Chaos ensues. The refugees run or paddle to places where families can live without the constant threat of rape, starvation, or death. Hordes of Syrians and others caught in the conflict have attempted to flee through Turkey or across the Mediterranean Sea. Many have drowned in their attempt to escape. Meanwhile, smugglers squeeze profit off the desperate and destitute.

But remember all this suffering was caused in God’s name. Really? Does God have anything to do with the actions of the Islamic State? Maybe the chaos is the consequence of efforts to line the pockets of the proponents of a particular segment of the followers of Islam.

We, in North America, recognize this motivation. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with mankind’s prominent sin, greed.

Chaos as a consequence of misaligned motivations is nothing new. In the late fall of 1914, Enver Pasha, the Minister of War of the Ottoman Empire, chose to pick a fight with Russia in the Caucasus Mountains. Since the proposed line of battle was hundreds of miles from a rail line, adequate roads, or completed bridges, Enver conscripted thousands of Armenians from all over the Empire to function as porters, transporting supplies for his army (See my February 22, 2013 posting, Dreams of an Empire Lost in Snow: Armenians the Scape Goats.). Enver re-conscripted Armenian men who had previously served in the army. Enver stripped Armenian colleges and universities of their young men, effectively closing them.

Lugging huge loads, the Armenian ‘donkeys’ were treated worse than the Turkish officers’ mounts. Some never reached the ultimate destination, dying en route. Bivouacked in the open, without winter clothing or adequate food supplies, many of the Armenian porters froze, starved, or died from typhus.

In early December of 1914, snow buried the Caucasus Mountains. Yet Enver chose to engage the Russian army. He claimed that a victory would return the Ottoman Empire to its former glory. Hmm. Greed again? Misaligned nationalism? In any case the result was that Enver lost the battle and 85% of his army. Consequence? Chaos. It was every man, soldier, or porter, for himself. No organized retreat. One by one those who survived trickled home. For some, it took a month to get there.

Yet Enver survived–and who did he blame for the lost battle and ensuing chaos? Himself? Oh, no. His Armenian porters, insisting he and Talaat, the Minister of the Interior, had adequate excuse for the 1915 genocide of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire that he and Talaat had been planning for over a year.

 

Fatal Rationale

Masses of people are fleeing the onslaught of the Islamic State. The news in Europe and North America reverberate with the plight of these hordes. People (who believe they are better Muslims than any other group) harass, attack, and murder (often in grizzly ways) people the Islamic State leaders view as unworthy.

In essence, the Islamic State is simply repeating the actions of the Ottoman Empire of a century ago.

As I continue to turn over numerous pebbles on the beach of history, I run across historical records that astound me with their similarity with current events. Mankind seems to learn little as the decades and centuries pass.

In a book I discovered last summer, I ran across the English translation of the “1915 Ottoman Fatwa” or Muslim cleric’s edict issued in early 1915. This Fatwa used the word “war” thirty-five times and  some version of “massacre/kill/slay/exterminate” twelve times. Followers of Islam were told to kill ‘unbelievers’ (anyone not Muslim).

What interested me most was the reason for doing so. “The slaying of one unbeliever [non-Muslim]…in public or private shall be called an additional life for Islamism, and will be well recompensed by God. Let every Mussulman know that his reward for so doing shall be doubled by our God who created heaven and earth. It will be accounted him as a great precept, and his recompense will be greater than fasting on ‘Ramadan’.” (p. 221, The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic holy war and the fate of non-Muslims.)

Hmm. The cleric appears to be promising one sinner (a Muslim), God’s forgiveness for sin if that sinner kills another sinner (a non-Muslim). How is that even logical? God is righteous and His heaven has no room for sin. This cleric’s promise sounds more like a rationale for war and plunder.

More to the point, the 1915 Ottoman Fatwa urged the Turks to conduct an all-out war against their Christian population, the Armenians. Armed Turks and Kurds descended on their unarmed neighbors the spring and summer of 1915, killing 1.5 million of them.

Since Muslim clerics have and still do demand the extermination of non-Muslims, how in the world can Muslims call their religion peaceful?

Integrity: Character Requirement for Leadership

“The ability to own mistakes is a key component of integrity” (from “The Least and the Greatest,” December,2014/January,2015, Thriving Family). One basic model for leadership, that has been rightly established, can be found at times in a family. When parents “keep up a front of perfection” because they think “admitting mistakes would diminish them” in the eyes of their family, those parents miss the opportunity to lead. “In reality, when we say to our kids, ‘I was wrong, please forgive me,’ their respect for us increases” (Dec.,2014/Jan.2015, Thriving Family).

Integrity is as necessary for leadership in a nation or for the leadership of a nation among nations. The governments of the countries of North America are aware of the need for integrity.

Among the national parks in the United States, for example, there are “places of historical significance like Sand Creek in Colorado, where U.S. troops massacred a village of Cheyenne and Arapaho” (“The National Park System,” May 31, 2015, Parade). (Cheyenne and Arapaho are two of the many First Nations that were in North America before Europeans came.)

The article about the national parks continues. “We [citizens of the U.S.] have been unafraid of not only sharing with the world the glories of our natural wonders and our inspiring past, but also culpability for some things which have not gone particularly well.” Burns says, “That’s how a great nation goes forward” (05/31/2015, Parade). Integrity requires a willingness to admit mistakes.

The opposite attitude, however, has been Turkey’s choice. Although Turkey had desired for centuries to be a leader among nations, that much-coveted position has eluded her because she lacks the necessary character quality for leadership–integrity.

A recent article in a local newspaper registered Turkey’s current prime minister’s objection to “descriptions of the Ottoman-era killings of Armenians as genocide” (04/16/2015, Associated Press).

The article further states that Turkey continues to insist that the Armenians killed “were victims of civil war and unrest, not genocide” (04/16/2015, Associated Press).

As I read the newspaper article, memories of photos I had seen flashed through my mind. It took me a while to revisit the sources of the research I did in 2010. When I viewed the photos again, those photos taken in 1915 and 1916 plainly told a very different story. They showed Armenian men being marched out-of-town under armed guard. Who had the guns? The Turks. What were the Armenians carrying? Shovels (2003, The Burning Tigris). What were the shovels for? Those men were never seen again. The photos showed Armenian men being hung from tripods in a public square of an Ottoman Empire town (2003, The Burning Tigris). Again, may I ask–who had the guns? Who had the power? The photos also showed numerous skeletal corpses of naked Armenian women and children and orphaned children dressed in rags and obviously starving to death (2003, The Burning Tigris). Who took these photos? A German on business in a central Ottoman Empire town, a second-lieutenant in the German Army stationed in the Ottoman Empire, and a number of Near East Relief workers. The photos testify that the Turks are denying the truth.

Modern day Turks continue to grip with all their might “… a brittle identity unable to risk questioning the story it clung to” (2014, There Was and there Was Not). When a people refuses to own up to a wrong they have done, their lack of integrity paints them with shame and sham. Without integrity, Turkey’s dream of being a leader among nations will remain in the dust.

Whose Responsibility? The Perpetrator or the Victim?

Let’s say a man forces a donkey to carry him up a treacherous mountain slope. When the man falls off and plummets down, as he surely will, is the man right to blame the donkey? The man was the one who chose the path.

A woman in India is raped and brutalized by a gang of men. The men have the gall to refuse to take responsibility for their crime. Society insists that someone take responsibility. Society doesn’t much care who does. So the society assigns the responsibility to the victim, the woman.

Huh? Say what? Is the human race a colossal bunch of idiots?

Yet this ignoramus mind-set perpetuates itself down through the centuries.

In December of 1914, the Ottoman Empire’s Minister of War, Enver, set the scene for a major disaster. He sent his army up the slopes of the Caucasus Mountains, in summer uniforms, without tents, to bivouac in snow, and fight against the Russian army at the beginning of World War I. The encounter proved to be an enormous mistake. Enver lost 86% of his army (1989, A Peace to End All Peace). Did he take responsibility? Oh, no. He had the gall to blame his ‘donkey’, the Armenians that Enver himself had conscripted ( i.e., forced) to serve as porters for the Ottoman Empire’s army. It was the Turkish saying all over again: “It is not only the fault of the axe, but of the tree as well.”

Yep. Ottoman Turks, in general, and Enver and his counterpart Talaat, the Minister of the Interior, proved to be a special band of idiots.

Just goes to show you that if a lie is repeated often enough, society as a whole will eventually view the lie as the truth.

Perpetuating the lie about who was responsible for the disaster, the Ottoman Empire Turks rounded up their able-bodied Armenian men, escorted them under armed guards away from towns, had the Armenians dig their own graves, and then knifed them, burying the dead Armenians under shallow covers of dirt in the spring of 1915 (2006, Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility.) [ See my posting for March 11, 2013, “The March Madness of 1915.] Yet the Ottoman Turkish government had the gall to cast the responsibility for the crime on the Armenians. And Turks still do.

Huh? Say what? Is the human race still a bunch of idiots an entire century later?

Lavash: What Armenians ate if they could get it (excerpt #12)

Annie’s friend Nazli is in a unique position. As the daughter of the government-appointed mayor of their small town, Nazli has ready access to the political intrigue flowing from Constantinople.

The weekly interruption of the constant activity in her baba’s office provides Nazli with substantial opportunity to satisfy her curiosity. Every Friday, all the Turkish men in town go to the masjid for prayers. It is the one time each week the mayor’s office is devoid of men. Nazli’s main chore each week, then, is to clean the office when no one else is around. She takes advantage of this and invites Annie to come over every Friday at noon. Since Annie is perfectly willing to help Nazli with her weekly chore, Nazli looks forward to Annie’s visits. While the two girls work together, they snoop through the telegrams on the mayor’s desk.

Nazli’s baba knows that she is no star pupil. So he doesn’t expect her to be able to decipher any of the messages scattered around his office.

What the mayor hasn’t reckoned with is Annie and her ability to read anything and everything in two languages–Armenian and Turkish. Nazli capitalizes on her friend’s abilities and willingness to help out.

There is an even more readily available source of information that can satisfy Nazli’s curiosity. Her baba has a steady stream of visitors to the reception hall in their home. Since Nazli is often called upon to serve food and drink to the visitors, she makes the most of any opportunity to eavesdrop. There is a saying in English: Curiosity killed the cat. Hopefully, Nazli’s curiosity doesn’t contribute to her demise.

In one of her diary entries, Nazli writes about something she overhears.

“16 November, 1914

Baba and my older brother Yunus had some strange visitors….The visitors spoke a heavily-accented Turkish and talked of Constantinople–and militias. The men were the Rumelians who disappeared from town a month ago.

One growled loud enough for me to hear. ‘Now we can pay back the Christians for murdering us Rumelians and kicking us off our land on the other side of the Bosporus.”

Reader, do keep in mind that in 1915 the Ottoman government aimed its militias, even those formed from Rumelian refugees, against a Christian population who  1) were the original inhabitants of the Anatolian Plains and  2) had NOTHING to do with the displacement of the Rumelians from their territory.

“Here Comes the Bride”

Announcements of engagements and weddings come through fairly predictable forms in North America these days. The engagement proclamation in a local of newspaper includes the names of the man and woman and their parents, as well as a general description of both the man’s and the woman’s education, current jobs, and their wedding month and year. The notice sometimes states the couple’s plans for their future home. Above the announcement, there is usually a photo of the happy-looking pair. Sometimes they announce their intentions to their church community. In Anglican and Episcopalian churches, such notifications are called “the reading of the bans.”

A fancy card in a mailed envelope is a common method of inviting family, relatives, and friends to a wedding. Nowadays these seem to arrive with either directions to the location(s) of the ceremony and reception or a slip of paper that has a map on it.

While none of these methods for announcements existed in the Ottoman Empire in 1914, customs for announcing a wedding existed. On the day of the wedding, a man from the groom’s family went to the home of the bride. After blindfolding her, he and other male members of the groom’s family led the girl, often no older than twelve years of age, from her parents’ house through the streets of the town to the church for the wedding ceremony (1971. Everyday Life in Ottoman Turkey). According to tradition, the bride was to look sad (1991. Turkish Reflections.) Keep in mind that the bride may not have even seen the face of the groom before her wedding day.

Traditional expectations were also influenced by the fact that Armenian girls were often the victims of a kidnapping by the men from the groom’s family. So an escorted bride was supposed to wail during her circuit through the town’s streets because the men were ‘stealing’ her away from her parents’ home.

Hmm. A very different method for a public announcement of a wedding, wouldn’t you agree?

But all these traditions were exterminated the summer of 1915.