← New Books Network
New Books Network
Vartan Matiossian, "The Color of Choice: The Armenians and the Politics of Race in the United States and Germany (1890-1945)" (Brill, 2025)
01:19:09
Loading summary
Transcript62 lines
- [00:01]
A
This episode is brought to you by Jack Daniels. Jack Daniels and music are made for each other. They share a rhythm in the craft of making something timeless while being a part of legendary nights.
- [00:11]
B
From backyard jams to sold out arenas.
- [00:14]
A
There'S a song in every toast. Please drink responsibly. Responsibility.org, jack Daniels and Old Number 7 are registered trademarks. Tennessee Whiskey, 40% alcohol by volume. Jack Daniel Distillery, Lynchburg, Tennessee hello everybody.
- [00:26]
C
This is Marshall Poe. I'm the founder and editor of the New Books Network. And if you're listening to this, you know that the NBN is the large, largest academic podcast network in the world. We reach a worldwide audience of 2 million people. You may have a podcast or you may be thinking about starting a podcast. As you probably know, there are challenges basically of two kinds. One is technical. There are things you have to know in order to get your podcast produced and distributed. And the second is, and this is the biggest problem, you need to get an audience. Building an audience in podcasting is the hardest thing to do today. With this in mind, we at the NBM have started a service called NBM Productions. What we do is help you create a podcast, produce your podcast, distribute your podcast, and we host your podcast. Most importantly, what we do is we distribute your podcast to the NBN audience. We've done this many times with many academic podcasts and we would like to help you. If you would be interested in talking to us about how we can help you with your podcast, please contact us. Just go to the front page of the New Books Network and you will see a link to NBN Productions. Click that, fill out the form and we can talk. Welcome to the New Books Network.
- [01:32]
A
Hello.
- [01:33]
B
Welcome to the New Books in History channel of the New Books Network Podcast. I am your host, Ari Barbalat. Today I'm honored to engage in dialogue with Vartan Matiasian. He is a Diasporan Armenian translator, editor and historian. He is currently Executive Director of the Eastern Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church in New York and Brook Review Editor of the Armenian Review. Today we will discuss his newly published book, the Color of the Armenians and the Politics of Race in the United States and Germany, 1890-1945. Published in Paderborn, Germany by Brill Skonig 2025. Vartan. It's an honor to be in dialogue with you.
- [02:19]
A
Thank you. Ari. Good afternoon and it's an honor for me to have this conversation.
- [02:26]
B
To begin, please tell us about yourself. Where did you grow up? What formative events in your life? Catalyze the scholar you would later become.
- [02:37]
A
I was born in Montepego, Uruguay and I grew up in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where I studied graduating from the University of Buenos Aires and then I lived there until the year 2000 and entered the United States. Although my initial formation was in economics, I mean I studied accounting at the university at the same time, from the age I was interested in involving Armenia because of my heritage. And this led me to embracing Armenian studies as a field of research besides my daily world. And what started as a sort of hobby, it became a professional, professional world until today. Later on, after I moved in the United States, I obtained doctorate for the Institute of History of the Armenian Sciences of Armenia with a dissertation about the Armenian community of Argentina. But of course my interests, or not only about that particular community, but extend to Armenian history itself and also on a sometimes secondary, sometimes primary basis, history of literature. So I am shifting back and forth between history and literature all the time and doing different kind of research in both fields about different periods and different issues. So by midst of publications in several just make me want to help kind of eclectic research and newspaper, but always of course as possible in water.
- [05:03]
B
What inspired you to prepare this book? What message do you hope to convey to readers?
- [05:10]
A
This question came when I settled in the United States and I had my, what I call my first encounter with American paperwork and invasive way that Grace was mentioned all over the place. Every form I filmed had some room to ask him for what face I was, which was something that I had never seen before, because in South America, either England or Argentina, they only asked me for the nationality, citizenship or bus, place or country of birth. So this question of race was so pervasive that in a sense it forced me to rethink, okay, what race I should write what race I am in the sense, because it was a mix of skin colors and ethnicities and something else and a mix of both. So this led me to start studying. I mean, I had a basic idea about the issue, but it forced me, or it interested me to the point of starting to engage in some depth with the issue and learn a lot about American history over the past centuries or 1/2 centuries especially. And little by little this led me also to the idea of writing this book, which was an issue that hadn't been tackled before. There were only partial studies about some of the issues I engaged with in the book, but there was no dual account of the whole story. And because this was not only the American part, but there was also the German part, and both parts were related to each Other with certain sense because of issue of race. One it was about white race in America and the other one was about the so called Aryan race in Germany and Europe. So I decided to bring them together and present a book about this subject and try of course to offer not an exhaustive book because I wasn't able to look into so many archives that morning foundation but at least to offer a guideline for future mission.
- [08:12]
B
What are the primary themes in your book? What story and stories does your book tell?
- [08:18]
A
There's a basic story which is a kind of red line or red thread going through it is that that is that Armenians have kind of forgotten that his story or have overlooked that his story around how they were subject to discrimination and or related issues wherever they were in the past centuries. Not only in their homeland when it was subject to particularly to the Persian and Ottoman Malbourn, but also when they started migrating to other countries, particularly in some places in Europe, the Montebest and later in America. And this is a kind of pattern that we see everywhere. And when we start reading sources and testimonies, especially from non armed sources, you see that but the same words or the same arguments being brought everywhere. And this is a subject of discrimination that of course it had its name and manifestations in the way that Armenians were dealt with in the US but also in Germany before and during the Nazi regime and as a result also in Europe, particularly during World War II, those countries which were under Nazi occupation or were Nazi sultanates. So this is a story that on the 12 10.
- [10:16]
B
How does your research recontextualize the history of anti Armenism?
- [10:24]
A
I think that that's something that I started seeing everywhere when I was reading for this book. I was searching for this book and the world is difficult. I had a hard time to pinpoint the word. I'm not sure that I came up with the best solution, but one of the most approximate to how to poll this phenomenon. Because I believe that of course without reaching the heights of antisemitism, I do believe that there was a clear pattern of anti Armonism as an ideological, as a geological matter and not just a matter of someone taking a position against Armenians, but this was more a matter of establishing certain preconcepts or preconceived ideas against Arminius which were repeated all over the place. They went from one source to the other, from one author to the other, from one country to the other. So they. They looked as a sort of general pattern and not kind of isolated cases in isolated premises. So I Believe that I have been able to show that pattern and to give a context to why Armenians were considered in different ways. I mean, there was certain number of keywords and concepts of dehumanizing them or just diminishing them in the eyes of others. And you can find pages and pages and even book after book written, if not against Armenians alone, but where there are chapters, entire chapters about Armenians and with a clear dreaming purpose. So I believe I have been able to show that pattern, which is of course thought as oriented by sense. It's connected with the general phenomena of racism as it came up in the past few centuries, especially in Western society.
- [13:09]
B
What is your book's contribution to Armenian intellectual history in the 20th century?
- [13:16]
A
I think that if there is a contribution, is that this is a subject that hasn't been Armenian scholarship hasn't touched upon it. I'm talking specifically about Armenian scholarship in Armenia. Except from a few articles I published in Armenia before this book. When I was working on some of the chapters, I wrote articles or basically I translated my drafts of certain chapters into Armenian and I published them. Other than my articles, unfortunately, there has been no. No research on this issue. Very little mentions here or they are very isolated, without an action context. And I believe, and probably because Armenian scholars tend to think of this subject as something that was outside Armenian setting in a sense. But I do believe that like other issues, this is an issue that belongs for that history. And in a sense I am trying to insert or to insert in reality the issue within the context of Armenian sojobo. There have been a few scholars, Armenian scholars who have touched upon some of the issues in this book. But again, it hasn't been something systematic. So I hope the book will help people more engaged on this issue.
- [15:09]
B
Can you comment on the tendency to assume that Armenians had Jewish characteristics or were Jewish? Like where did this come from? How widespread was this?
- [15:24]
A
I think it was quite widespread. It was a matter of making or creating certain similarities, physical similarities between both people, even though not necessarily. And of course I worked this belief that to certain nation or to certain ethnicity corresponding a certain physical characteristic, which is not necessarily true, of course. We all know that we can find people of different color of hair, different tonalities of skin, different eye color within the same population. That applies either to Jews and Armenians. So there is no such thing as a single physical characteristic. So this supposed similarity let us imply that if there are physical similarities there, then there should be psychological or quote unquote spiritual similarities. So this created this kind of confusion between Armenians and Juice to the point that I have found in several cases from the 17th century on mentions of Armenian Jews, or sometimes more frequently than Jewish Armenians and so on and so forth until easily the 1930s. And possibly there could be. I mean, there are a few even from World War II or so, but not further than World War II. I believe that such spool of thought has decreased intensity after World War II. But again, I do believe that this is the result of totally misplaced understanding of how people are either physically or otherwise. And that's the result.
- [17:54]
B
How does your study shed new light on the history of Armenian Jewish relationship?
- [18:00]
A
I think that at least it establishes some more points of contact. I mean, if there is, there are episodes where both people have been closely related, be them throughout history or in other manifestations, I think that this may help see under different light in a different way these contacts, because I have tried to put together. It's not a final collection of similarities between both people, but at least a good sample of examples. And of course I had to cut short because of obvious editorials to cut short on how much material I presented. There was more than I could have written about, but the subject was wide enough and it wasn't a matter. I mean, I had a limit the number of pages I produced, so I had to make good limits to myself. But I believe that this information that it's condensed in the book, it will give some more food for thought regarding the relations between Armenia subjects.
- [19:41]
B
What were the distinct features of British anti Armenianism in the 19th century and the early 20th century?
- [19:51]
A
Well, it was the basis was, I believe, a sort of pro Turkish, understandably pro Turkish attitude in Great Britain which was part of British political interests Near East. And in that context the pro Turkish attitude of the British government was also reflective in their Biden del Gamzia in their publications sometimes following the line of the government and very few cases trying to challenge them that current of opinion. So the Armenians as quite close, confused. This was something that was underlying one time, one time after time and also trying to put them together with other peoples in this like in the same bag. So they share, they share the same characteristics of being into money, lending and giving, exploiting the other peoples around them. And because they were the merchants, the merchant class in the Ottoman Empire, then they were the ones who were exploiting the poor Turks who were not merchants and they were not many members because the Quran prohibited them from doing so. So Armenians and Jews and Greeks, the three non Turkish, non Muslim bigger communities in the Ottoman Empire were the bad guys. While The Turks were the good guys. So this was a basic. And the basic model over which British thought built up all sorts of negative ideas about the negative people.
- [22:18]
B
What stereotypes about Armenians circulated in Germany and the United States? How were American and German stereotypes about Armenians similar and different?
- [22:33]
A
Those stereotypes are more frequently found if we put a comparison country, this country, well, most usually found in Germany than in the US in the US it was mostly derived from whatever literature it was read by an intellectual, particularly on the east coast. So it wasn't as pervasive and widespread as in Germany. In the case of Germany, this was coming from at least from the 17th, 18th century. That pattern existed from that time, but it was more developed in the 19th century, especially after unification of Germany in 1871 and even more after Germany, 1880s started being interested in the Ottoman Empire. So the German interest in the Ottoman Empire and the pro Turkish policy of Germany, and you see here sort of similarity with Great Britain brought forward again a kind of official policy or official thought about Armenians which was very widely spread in the press and not only in the political and the political levels. And later on we see this in the German military which is serving in the Ottoman army during World War I and during the Armenian Genocide, we see this dismissive thought about Armenians repeating the old patterns of being money lenders, deceivers, cheaters, etc. Etc. And this is something that is going to be inherited during the Weimar Republic. And then during the last version, this kind of thoughts are all over the place. One can say from the Second Reich of 1871 until the end of the Third Reich in 1945, regardless of the government, so over three different governments, the German Empire, the Weimar Republic and the Nazi regime, the same, the same kind of thought is there. So the difference, the main difference with the United States was that this was much more expanded in Germany than the U.S. the U.S. you find some, not many racist or internationalist authors who write in this recent way about Armenians. But it's not something very widespread generally speaking, but it's present there during the period from 1924, meaning period where there is the great wave of immigration from Eastern Europe, Southeastern Europe and Western Asia, where the Armenians were also involved.
- [26:06]
B
To what degree did the Nazis perceive Armenians as being Semites?
- [26:14]
A
To be said that they identified them with the Jews because of their physical characteristics. This was before that system ever existed. This was part of that heritage that I mentioned before. So it wasn't heritage of both physical and psychological characteristics. So because of their misconception about the divisions, division of languages that then became identified with race. We should recall that when we talk about Aryans and Semites. First of all, Aryan was one alternative long name for the Indo European languages. And Semite is also a name for languages and not for the construction of race. So they were not of course from early on it was demonstrated that Armenia was in the European language. So the matter was not about language but was about faith since they were considered to be physically similar to Jews. And we have here an association of Jewishness with faith which of course it was another distortion. So this led to the belief that Armenians should be Semite. But of course until 1933, after 1933, when Armenians lobbied and were able in circumstances that are not 100% clear yet, to have the Interior Minister of the Third Reich issue a decree that recognized that Armenians belong with quote unquote Ariel Wales. After that, Armenians were more or less secure. But in the case of Nazi regime, as in the case of authoritarian totalitarian regime, it's hard to say when a law will be changed or will be broken. Even if the law is there, it could be broken at any moment. So the Armenians had to live with that. Germany and the occupied territories in World War II until the end of the Nazi regime.
- [28:52]
B
How did Germans who believed in Arianism perceive Armenians? What racial characteristics did they ascribe to Armenians?
- [29:04]
A
Of course, Germans knew that Armenians were not blue eyed and with yellow hair like they talked in the Aryan, the Aryan model, so to speak. But of course in Germany or German countries itself, a good part of the population didn't share those characteristics. You know, but there was a certain circle in certain circles of the Nazi regime and in the military. There was this belief, well entrenched belief that Armenians were self. And this belief existed until the end of World War II. And there were cases when it was put in writing even despite the existence of that decree of 1943 that you know, Armenians were Semite and there should be some kind of policy prohibiting marriages with Armenians etc. There was some kind of policy about that, especially around 1940.
- [30:18]
B
State how did Armenians of different identities and backgrounds view Aryanism? Can you comment on the spectrum of opinion among Armenians toward Aryan theories and Aryanist ideologies?
- [30:36]
A
That's. That's an interesting subject which has not been well explored because there is not that much written about it. I mean there were some. Some kind. Some writings about it not in a systematic way. There were. Armenians would simply repeated or replicated the thinking that would going forward in Europe. Let's say Armenians also use the world race as seen an inclination roughly from 1880 and well past 1945, I have seen writing of using the Armenian race in the sense of the Armenian nation, even in 1980s. So that on one side, on the other hand there was some discussion of the Aryan race and mentions of it. But I have even contained and these of textbooks and manuals of Armenian geography or anthropology or ethnology, better to say in Armenia, published between 1850 and 1915. And there was not a single Armenian anthropology set of time. And most of those books were simply translations or adaptations from European manuals into Armenian. And they added a few lines about Armenians belonging to the white race or speaking Indo European or Aryan language, but nothing necessarily on a deep level, just after World War I is where there is some kind of amateurish anthropological research and anthropology as such among Armenians itself. Navy but the discussions about Armenians being Aryans and that kind of thing, other than very few books or articles on the subject that have mentioned couple of weeks, it wasn't there. It wasn't that important subject.
- [33:28]
B
How does your research assess allegations, claims and accusations pertaining to Nazi Armenian collaboration during World War II?
- [33:42]
A
It wasn't my. It wasn't my subject per se, but because it was related into a subject of the Nazi perception of armingness and what Armenians did to counteract that perception, I had to touch up on it. I tried to show that the minority of Armenians who were engaged in Axis in Germany and outside Germany, they were mostly moved by the need to do something to protect their own people, rather than an interest into Nazism itself or for people who didn't become Nazis from day one. Especially because those people were not even German citizens in most of cases. And they were just people who collaborated because they were interested especially in the possibility of a German victory in the war. And what would be the consequence of that victory for Armenia, which was at the time a Soviet republic. So in case of the mice of the Soviet Union, what could have been the consequences and what they could do would have done to protect Armenians in Armenia in case of Nazi victory? Or on the other hand, if they could contribute to the liberation of Armenia from Soviet region. There were big risks there because the Nazis were not that easy to copy. Okay, let's liberate Armenian Pole without them and it can be free or even to have an independent republic under German jurisdiction or German sovereignty or something like that. That's a different story. But the idea that collaboration and collaborations with Nazis stemmed from an ideological standpoint, in my opinion, doesn't.
- [36:14]
B
Can you comment on Armenian experiences in France under the German occupation Vichy regime.
- [36:24]
A
That was a relatively short period of time. France France fell before Germany in 1940 and sold the Shinjin. Lastly, five years roughly. And of course Armenians had tried to do their best to avoid any kind of troubles either in the area or the so called clean zone or under German occupation Paris. There were cases when they had to engage with again with the conflation between Armenians and Jews or to demonstrate that they were not Jewish. But most of the time they came up okay, so to speak. Of course there were circumstances where the French bureaucracy couldn't deal in the right way with what Armenians were. But of course there were not extreme situations. And Armenians part of them were just stayed their own course throughout the German occupation. Of course there is also the case of conservation where part of the French resistors even fought against Nazis. But that wasn't. It was a significant number, but it wasn't the majority of the community. After the community remained in its place. And then try to it more, you know, will shift from the in line of obedience to the state, so to speak.
- [38:31]
B
Can you comment on the perceptions and experiences of Armenians under Benito Mussolini? Can you comment on their treatment? Can you comment on stereotypes pertaining to Armenians in fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini?
- [38:56]
A
The Armenian community in Italy was a very small one. It has been historically a very small one. The same happened for instance with the community Austria. So you mentioned. I mean, other than France and the Balkans, the numbers of the number of Armenians were major. Even in Germany, there were no more than 500 in the 1930s. In Italy there were roughly thousand those Armenians who are the majority, who are not even cyclicians. That was one issue that Armenians were at the beginning of World War II. They were endangered because of a good number of them not being Italians, not having dominion citizenship. So in the case of those who had French citizenship, they were. They belonged to enemy power. So they could. They were even some of them were imprisoned. But then the community worked unloved until they could have trade. So Armenians were not that kind of big of a problem for Italians or for the Italian regime until 1938, when so many started under it. German pressure passed Russia law Italy and for at some point, at the beginning, Armenians were under some risk of being cataloged as more areas. But on one hand we made publications and they lobbied to make sure that they were aryans. And by 1940 that danger. The danger had passed after the government passed a decree where they recognized that Armenians belonged to the area between Hungarian belts. Though the issue was mostly with the end of the pre War period and the beginning of the world.
- [41:11]
B
Our fascist Italian views of Armenians similar to and different from German, Nazi and Aryanist views.
- [41:23]
A
There was not a consistent view of Armenians among. Among Italians there was this kind of belief that in salvi circumstance that Armenians and Jews were on the same boat, Russianly speaking. But that wasn't very consistent with safety because the Russian issue in Italy was kind of artificial. There was not an issue of space before 1938. At Kurt Musev, even the Italian Encyclopedia published in 1935 clear statement that there was no area race. So this is something that came up later, as I said, under German pressure. And we have to remember that was a very assimilated Jewish community assimilating to the point that they had, you know, lost. They are Jewish names, they are to this day, their names and their surnames are Italian. So that that community was not, quote, unquote, a danger for the state. But it was again German pressure that brought Mussolini to the point of, you know, having Russian laws and later on going to the deportation of nation, etc. Etc.
- [43:09]
B
Can you say something about Croatian attitudes and perceptions of Armenians? How did the Ustasha treat Armenians? What status did Armenians have under Ante Pavelic? How were these similar to and different from German and Italian conceptions and constructions toward Armenians? How are these similar to and different from German and Italian policies toward and treatment of Armenians?
- [43:47]
A
I smile because a case of questions of the case. I I came across Croatian Armenian case by reading as many sources are available, which are mostly two or three authors about Internet village. So there are two interesting things. First of all, the Kindle there was a very small community in the syndrome of Yugoslavia and was called at the time until the war there was more or less 500 Armenians in Yugoslavia, but none was counted in Croatia. But there was no Armenian then. The cognition of the King of Yugoslavia was mostly in Serbia and in northern Barcelona, not in Croatia at least. I have made the census. We take census for a few cities of Yugoslavia, but in southern Ireland there's no mention of any Croatian city. So there were no armies in Croatia. But there was a Croatian anti Armenian policy which was that ideologues considered Armenians and other Balkan people as a sort of, I don't know, refused a group of people who were, because of their nature as merchants and their physical characteristics, they were kind of second class and they be known to sort of refuse among people. And this was part of the sort of policy to put them as a foil against the Serbias. Because as you know, the main issue that Croatians had in the world us with Serbia's countries. They mentioned the Armenians in the context of whatever negative they could say about service. And this was part again of the same anti animalist pattern, but in different circumstances. I don't have systematic information about what was the evolution of Croatian thinking about Armenians, the Indians before the war. They have a few references, but not. But not complete set because of course most of that forces are in Croatian and they should be probably in the press. But the fact is that when the World War, the second war comes up and Axis occupies and there is the transition of the kingdom and independent state of Croatia is proclaimed. So roughly a month after the state is proclaimed there is a no pass which is more or less copied from the Arian Rose German. But the interesting thing is that at least a number of races and peoples who are declared non Aryans and Armenians are among them. And Armenians remain non Aryans until the end of the war. But even. And there are articles written in those years against Armenians or not necessarily against Armenians. But Armenians are mentioned negatively again because they are doing their anti Serbian even though there are no Armenians who deal with the first time. So it's a very curious story because it's the only case where the German model and the Italian model doesn't work because it's Germans and Italians they recognize Armenians and Iris. Croatians didn't.
- [48:20]
B
Can you comment on Armenian experiences in Romania during World War II and the.
- [48:26]
A
Holocaust Avenue in Romania were quite an important number compared with other communities except the one in France. But of course in proportion to the population of the country they were less than 1% of the population. But they had a very old tradition of the country. They were well regarded. They had been in Romania since the Middle Ages. Even though that Romanian Romanian population had been assimilated all the time. But the new community that came after the genocide, they were mostly people without citizenship because they are. They had been deprived of their Ottoman citizenship due to a law of the Republic of 32 laws in 1926 and 1938. So they were apartheid. They didn't have a homeland that recognized them. So they lived with what was created by the Norwegian humanist feature of Nelson, which was called Nelson passport. So those NASA passports allowed them to travel and they served as a kind of documentation for them. But they didn't have the possibility to become in that case Romanian citizens. So they were. That population of so called apartheid population was being surprised because since they didn't have a country, they were assimilated. To the case of the Jews who were also seen as people who did not have a country. And because Armenians, like Jews, were also engaged in commerce and they were very successful in their commercial activities, some sectors of the population, especially right wing Romanians, they saw them as a danger to the spiritual integrity of the country. And then of course there were problems with them, especially in World War II when Romania took the more side of Germany and Germany tried to pressure Romania to support Jewish population. There were some, apparently there were some incidents where also involved. But most of the time they were able to make it through until the end of the war.
- [51:15]
B
Can you comment on Armenian experiences of segregation in the United States?
- [51:22]
A
In the United States, even though there were isolated cases where Armenians were discriminated, especially in the east coast, the most great case of we can call it segregation happened in Fresno, California, where there was an important, not by number, but by its importance in the economy of town under San Joaquin Valley. So that community was subject to discrimination and dissemination due to the policy of the application of the racial covenants. And this needs to be explained in some detail because this is something that happened most importantly in Fresno. But it was in paper, it was in several other states, Even in Washington D.C. so the racial covenant or the restrictive racial covenant was exact. It was a clause that was appended to the deeds of housings where the buyer was committed to not selling or renting the house at once he was purchasing to people belonging to this or that race or ethnicity. Let's say the covenant could buy that he was not going to sell the house to even any African American, to any Jew, any Armenian, any inhabitant of the former Ottoman Empire, which was our way of mentioning Armenians. But sometimes it also involved Filipinos and other ethnicities. And this same policy also existed in other places, whether there was an important Armenian population like in Detroit, or much less lumber in Washington, but also in places where there was not, for instance, Seattle, Portland and in some other locations. But the most important and must be our case was in Fresno. Because this policy was in the States established a red line that Armenians couldn't cross. So they were limited to living in a certain sector of the city without being able to buy houses in more prosperous parts of the city. This happened of course, until 1948, when the Supreme Court of the United States in a ruling declared anti constitutional racial covenants. But of course, those covenants which were in the papers, they could still be used. There was a loophole there. And that loophole lasted for another 20 years. But in the meantime, after 1948, the application of Russian Covenant started in the third year either in Sveno or in the other areas too. So that policy of segregation against Sardinians was mostly gone by the time of civil rights movements.
- [55:04]
B
60S in what ways did Armenians and Jews face similar forms of discrimination, bigotry and racism in the United States? In what ways did they experience different forms of exclusion?
- [55:19]
A
The racial covenants was the most significant case for Armenians. On the other hand, one difference was that it wasn't the case of Jews, but Armenians Twice were questioned by the US government regarding their whiteness. And twice, in 1909 and 1924-25 they had to go to federal courts and demonstrate that they belong to the white race. Because that demonstration was capital for to be citizens to acquire citizenship of the United States. Since the acquisition of citizenship was contingent with the whiteness of the person, you need to be a free white person to be able to acquire citizenship. There was an exception in 1866 for African Americans after the initial slavery. So there were a couple of other exceptions for Indians later to Native Americans after 1944 and for Hispanics in 1940. But in the meantime Armenians had to do that demonstration because otherwise they could be considered second class residents. Like it happened to the Japanese and to the Indians from India who in 192122 were ruled to be non white by the Nakhtar Supreme Court. And the Indians were even stripped of their citizenship. And of course this created a situation that lasted until this was changed in 1952 residential days. So the Sujib issue was changed in 15.
- [57:27]
B
How were Armenians impacted by the Immigration act of 1924 in the United States?
- [57:36]
A
Basically, the immigration of Armenians to the United States became a sort of trip because the quotas that were established in that year reduced their numbers. The potters of the countries that someday where they came from, where they had citizenship or the origin like Turkey or Russia. So in the following 20 years there were just 7,000 Armenians immigrating to the United States. When in the previous two decades there had been tens of thousands. And especially in 1920s was a period of most important immigration from Europe toward the West. And Armenians in Europe and Western Asia were unable to come to us because the photos were very easily filled. So they were unable to get through any Zyland. And most of that both of those Armenians who tried to come, they were. They. They had to go to South America. They went to. This is for instance, how my family ended up in South America. And either Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, but also Cuba and Mexico. They went to Cuba and Mexico, even though very small numbers, just with the hope of one way or another trying to get to the United States. So to make it clear, between 1924 and 1865, Armenians were practically forbidden, despite the small numbers that were able to enter. Forbidden from entering the United States. With many other nationalities, especially those coming from Eastern Europe, Southeastern Europe, Western Asia and also of course, Asia itself. I mean, Chinese were already forbidden. But also that was the case for Japanese and others.
- [59:59]
B
And you comment the legal case United States versus Tatos Cartosion. Why was it notable? What specifically transpired?
- [60:14]
A
As I mentioned before, this was the third in a series of test cases that the US Government, especially the Department of Labor, which was the one that at the time directed immigration, the Bureau of Immigration Materialization. This was a third in cases where different nationalities were taken to court and taken up the Supreme Court to have a clear ruling about them being white or not. In the first two cases, the Japanese and the Indians went up all the way to the Supreme Court, only to be defeated there. In the Armenian case, the most important thing is that this person, Tatos Kratosia, who was married in Cortland, Oregon, she went in 1923 to the court to have citizenship. The court reluctantly gave him citizenship, even though it wasn't 100%. The judge wasn't 100% sure. And almost immediately the federal government challenged him. And the understanding was that this was a test case and this case would be. Would not endear there. The government and the Armenian community came to the understanding that after this ruling, the case would be appealed and the appeal would go the Supreme Court to have a final decision on the Supreme Court. What happened was that after the trial in 1924, in May 1924, even though some part of the trial was depositions that were presented before the the days of proceedings itself, the testimonies of the Armenians were convincing enough to be judged. Who actually gave his ruling in June 1925. Because of different problems of the judge and the timing and too many cases, a big load of cases, so practically 14 months later. But the judge ruled that Armenians all the proofs that they had brought, they proved that they were locked in white race. They were easily assimilable to the American population. And there was no issue about granting them citizenship. What happened was that the arguments presented by the Armenians were so convincing that the General attorney of the United States decided that it wasn't feasible. And appeal and going to the Supreme Court. There was no chance that this trial would prosper in case of going to the Supreme Court. And this is how they decided not to move forward with an appeal. There was never declaration, formal declaration from the government that we lost, but there was a declaration from general attorney that they were not going to pursue Napier. So this is how the case ended. And the interesting thing is that this strategy of test cases ended with the Armenians. There was no test case layer, despite being continued. And on the other hand, it's my contention that even though the federal government, in the person of the Secretary of Labor, had promised the Armenians that this is a friendly case, et cetera, et cetera, but I am not so sure that their ultimate case was to somehow to have the Supreme Court coming up with a decision that was unfavorable to Armenians with some kind of hooked up.
- [64:39]
B
Can you comment on the Halagian 1909? Why was it significant?
- [64:45]
A
The Halogian case was the first significant part of it was that this was a different time when the head of the Immigration Naturalization Service by himself decided he became a sort of legal authority. And he decided that population coming from Western Asia, especially seniors, Armenians and Turks, were not white people. And he decided that because the Turks were polygamous and they belong to the Mongol race. So Armenians and Syrians also belong to the Mongol race because they were Turks. So in this case, because there was a false equivalence between nationality and citizenship, Amirs were Ottoman citizens, they were not Turks. The Ottoman Empire was a multi ethnic political organization and there were different ethnicities within the empire. So the Armenians were taken to their applications for citizenship were challenged, they were taken to court. The same happened in the Syrians. In the Armenian cases, various judges simply approve the applications. But in the case of the Halladjian and three other people who went together, there were four people. That's fine. That's why I called Haladjian Evali, to shorten for the other names. So in this case, which was in the federal court in Boston, the judge, you know, one day, one day tryout, the judge gathered some evidence, got a few amicus briefs and his brief, friendly brief for Armenians. And the judge in his ruling decided that Armenians were white. And on the other hand, by the meantime, the interesting thing is that because of the pressure that Sidious had put on the government and they had gone all the way up to the State Department and the Secretary of Commerce, which at the time the Immigration Service depended on the Antonio's Secretary of Commerce. So the Secretary of Commerce had already intervened to tell Richard Campbell, who was the head of the Innovation Service, that he should not deal with these kind of things. He should take up to his own duties. And he shouldn't deal with these issues, especially whether ceas, Armenians or else. And Campbell was forced to back up. But in the meantime, for some reason, even though he backed up in November 1909, the Armenian case went went on and it was held in court in December 2019 oh, particularly the last case in this series of cases against Ottoman ethnicities in 1909. And because of this case, Armenians were okay for the next 15 years or so until the Carpalian came up. Argos and Peace came up in late 1932.
- [68:37]
B
Can you compare and contrast the Hallagion and Cartosian cases? How were they similar and different to one another?
- [68:46]
A
The similarity is that in both cases it was the whiteness of Armenians was questioned. I would say that the main difference is that even though in the Hallagian case there was some. There were several articles written in the Armenian press about these issues and there was quite a bit of agitation also in the many countries. But the community didn't react. Even Halajian and the others didn't have knowing they went to the court by themselves. They didn't have a lot. The community wasn't backing them up. There was no community mobilization, back them up, support them. And the contrary happened in the Carpeian case. The Cartosian case happened in Oregon, but the community formed committees in Boston and in New York which took up fundraising. They took up hiring the best possible lawyers in New York and Oregon. They hired the best anthropologists, Franz Voss and Roland Dixon from Columbia University in Harvard University respectively. So they collected and spent a lot of money, $36,000 at the time, which is several hundred thousand dollars to them, to support the case. Because they came to the conclusion that if they lost the case, especially in that atmosphere in the 1920s, that would be very bad for Armenians everywhere. On one side, when the Carthosian proceedings went on in April 1924, it was in those days that the act, the quota act of 1924 was passed. So on one side with the country being close to immigration and on the other side, if Armenian roused UK becoming second class citizens, their prospects were very, very, very bad. So the community mobilized in 1924 and they were able to indicate what if.
- [71:13]
B
Anything is and was unique about the Armenians experience and experiences in American legal and immigration history. If we compare and contrast Armenians experiences with other groups in American legal history and immigration history, what if anything stands out about the Armenia experience?
- [71:39]
A
Well, the Armenian experience wasn't totally unique given that in the matter of indignation, in the end they shared the fate of other. Of other administratives which were barred to enter the country for 40 years between 1924 and it is 65. And this is something that it's kind of forgotten that there was a racist, clearly racist component in this prohibition of immigration to certain groups. And I believe that this makes the entire subject and bespoke relevant to the present day. But on the other hand, on the other side, I would say that it's important that they share that experience, that it's not unique because there is no question that even though they were able to overcome the challenge of against their right to citizenship, it is not less true that the fact that they were challenged also speaks volumes about policies that were in place over decades and policies that tended to discriminate and dehumanize people. And I'm not talking about Armenians only, so it's good to know and it's good to reflect on the fact that Armenians also share that share to say even if I share in those policies which were not of course directed only against them, but at a time in the present where these kind of policies are not as a rule directed against Arimians, but they are directly against others, it's good to remember what happened in the past and in order to take some lessons for the present. And this is I believe, the main take that we can have from that past. From this book, which is a book of history that may resonate in the present.
- [74:07]
B
As we end our dialogue today, can you kindly tell us about where your time and attention have gone since completing this work? As we bring our dialogue today to a close, can you tell us about where your time and attention have gone since completing this research?
- [74:29]
A
Well, I'm trying to get into other projects that have been there for long time. As I said at the beginning, my interest in history and literature applied are quite eclectic and although they cover various areas. So now I'm trying to complete a couple of projects. I have a project in Armenia about articles, combination of articles about the first Republic of Armenia book in English, about the relations making Armenia in Spain and several other projects. So those are growing needle by needle and there are also articles onwards in the bank, et cetera, et cetera. So I have been busy and I always took myself busy with different projects that come up one after we added.
- [75:28]
B
In a sense sounds extraordinary. As we enter dialogue today, I'd like to emphasize how thankful I am for your generous and erudite answers throughout the course of our dialogue. I'm overwhelmed with gratitude for your eloquence.
- [75:45]
A
Thanks to you, Ari. Again for this opportunity to dialogue about this book and I'm always ready if in the future something that comes up.
- [75:56]
B
Thank you. I would be humbled. As we end our dialogue today, I'm signing off as Ari Barbalat, your host on the New Books in History channel of the New Books Network podcast. Today I've been grateful to engage in a dialogue with Vartan Matiasian regarding his newly published book the Color of the Armenians and the Politics of Race in the United States and Germany, 1890-1945, published in Paderborn, Germany, by Brill Skonig, 2025. Vartan Matiasian is a Diasporan Armenian translator, historian, and editor. He is currently the Executive Director of the Eastern Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church in New York and Book Review Editor of the Armenian Review.