The following pages were first read as a paper before the “Société d’Etudes Ethnographiques.” They have since been amplified and are now being published at the request of a number of friends, who believe that the public should have an opportunity of judging whether or not “the Armenian Question” has another side than that which has been recently so assiduously promulgated throughout the Western World. Though the championship of Greek, Bulgarian and other similar “Christian, civilized methods of

Burnaby , Captain Fred: On Horseback through Asia Minor (Sampson, Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington, London 1877). Geary , Grattan: Through Asiatic Turkey (Sampson, M. S. & R., London, 1878). ‘Odysseus’ : Turkey in Europe (Edw. Arnold, London 1900). Pears , Sir Edwin: Forty Years in Constantinople (Herbert Jenkins, 1915). Sykes , Sir Mark: Dar-ul-Islam (Bickers & Son, London 1904). ” ” : The Caliph’s Last Heritage (Macmillan & Co., London 1915). Whitman , Sidney: T

The earliest history of Armenia, as Kurdistan was called previous to its conquest by the Osmanli Turks, is lost in the mists of mythology. But even in the pre-Persian era we find Armenia existing as a separate state, populated by a number of fierce and diverse tribes who were continually contending amongst themselves, the victor for the time being imposing its own chieftain as suzerain over the remainder. These tribes differed greatly in their racial characteristics, the main divisions being the

The physical features of Kurdistan have an important bearing on the political history of the country. It is a high tableland 6,000 feet or so above the sea level. On the north it descends somewhat abruptly to the Black Sea, on the south it exhibits a series of rugged terraces ending in the lowlands of Mesopotamia, while on the east and west it slopes more gradually, until it reaches the low plateaux of Persia and Asia Minor. The general appearance of this tableland is uninteresting and monotonou

Having thus sketched as briefly as possible the early history, ethnology and physical features of the country, we shall be better able to understand what is commonly known as the “Armenian Question.” When the Ottoman rule was established, the plain-dwellers and the pastoral tribes of the mountain slopes still preserved their national customs, language and vices, and they have retained these to this day. The waves of conquest had swept over the cold, inhospitable plateau into the richer and warme

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

It is important to notice that the so-called Armenian Atrocities have a remarkable family likeness to the “Bulgarian Atrocities,” over which a large number of sentimental people in England developed a frenzy of indignation. A comparison of Sir Henry Layard’s despatch to Lord Derby on the “Bulgarian Atrocities,” dated 1877, with Sir Mark Sykes’ account of the happenings which commenced with the disturbances at Zeitun in 1895, show exactly how both these events originated and were grossly exaggera

And now within the last two months we find once more the same influences at work, and many of the same men who promulgated the Bulgarian atrocities exploiting fresh massacres of Armenians. There is absolutely no reason why we should implicitly believe the reports which have been so assiduously circulated in the Press and on the platform, simply because, owing to the unfortunate war with Turkey, we are unable to ascertain what has really happened. The exploiters of these stories are under the sam

Unfortunately the Turk never deigns to explain his own case, and thus the pro-Armenians always manage to hold the field, appalling the public by incessant reiteration and exaggeration as to the number of victims, and apparently valuing to its full extent the wisdom of the old Eastern proverb: Give a lie twenty-four hours’ start, and it will take a hundred years to overtake it. Later on, when the true figures become available, only a very few inquisitive people realize the falsity of the earlier

The stories that have been so assiduously circulated about wholesale “massacres” of Armenians have a distinct object in view, viz: to influence the future policy of the British Government and to prepare the public mind for the desired settlement—the incorporation of Armenia in the Russian Empire. The advocates of this arrangement naturally uphold the correlative policy of Great Britain annexing Mesopotamia. Superficially considered the idea looks attractive, however opposed it may be to the proc

Some people, perhaps, will say that whether these stories of massacres be true or false, it is inopportune to defend the reputation of a nation with whom we are at war. If this argument were true, it would apply with equal force as a criticism of the officers and men who have written home from Gallipoli, giving spontaneously such wholehearted and generous testimony to the bravery and chivalry of the Turks. Truth can never be inopportune so long as our conscience is clear, which it would not be i