Migration and Identity

This assignment is meant to have you analyze, synthesize, and respond to course material.
Prompt:
Write a brief essay focusing on one chapter from Monument Culture: International Perspectives on the Future of Monuments on a Changing World: Section Four: Monument Culture: Migration and Identity. Feel free to pull from the other chapters in the section if needed to create a well-developed analysis.
The essay should highly revolve around a discussion of the theme of migration and identity and the ways in which content codified in monument culture travels across networks, changing shape with each geographic site. Taken together, all four essays remind readers that migration -whether of object, idea, or people- is a platform for the reshaping of identities and that monument culture plays a role in that work, for both the migrant and the memory- making work around the migration.
This essay should include:
*a clear title that states the chosen chapter
*a brief summary of the chosen chapter
*a brief discussion of the key themes and points
*key questions to consider while forming the chapter summary:
How can the migration of a statue be seen as a final act of iconoclasm against the monument? How can the location of the statue play a role in potential controversy? Why does the author of chapter ten feel that it is important for the removal of a monument to be apolitical? In chapter eleven, what does the monuments location reinforce? How do certain monuments serve as markers of identity? Can transnational memory and contemporary events lead to an interpretative reframing of national memorials? What is Memorial Activism (reference chapter 12)? What is the multidimensional / transcultural nature of monuments discussed in chapter thirteen? What are the concepts of collective and transcultural memory; How is cultural memory and the role of monuments connected? Why did historian David Blight feel it is important to avoid a “rush to judgment about what we hate and what we love and what we despise and what we’re offended by?” How/why does historical analysis play such a vital role in discussing monuments? What is experiential knowledge? How can history be viewed as a sort of fourth dimension when studying a monument?

---

Content:
MLA
2 Full Pages (If more pages are needed, please feel free to go past two pages.)
12 pt font
Double-spaced
Title Page (not included in the page count).
Reference page (not included in the page count).

---

Things to note:
Direct quotes need to have in-text citations.
No block quotations (quotes longer than 40 words (MLA).
Reference Page Example :
Macaluso, Laura A. Monument Culture: International Perspectives on the Future of Monuments in a Changing World. Rowman & Littlefield, 2019.

Grading Rubric
Content and Analysis
25 pts
Organization and Structure
25 pts
Clarity and Conciseness
25 pts
Engagement in Course Material
25 pts

I HAVE CHOSEN CHAPTER 11
Title: Pain, Unity, and Belonging in Three Monuments of Cappadocian Greeks

Book: Macaluso, Laura A. Monument Culture: International Perspectives on the Future of Monuments in a Changing World (American Association for State and Local History) (pp. 121-130). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Please chose a title for this essay.

Section 4 – Chapter 11: Monuments of Refugee Identity Pain, Unity, and Belonging in Three Monuments of Cappadocian Greeks
ZELIHA NILÜFER NAHYA AND SAIM ÖRNEK
DURING THE CONFERENCE OF LAUSANNE (1922–1923), TURKEY AND GREECE signed the Agreement on the Exchange of Populations. Nearly 1,500,000 Greeks and 500,000 Muslims left their homelands. While Muslims settled in different parts of Turkey, Greeks mostly settled into different parts of Northern Greece. Many of these Greeks and Muslims built new villages and houses in their new countries.1 In other words, they created new lives.2 Today, immigrant Greeks are called refugees (πρόσφυγες) in Greece. They constitute a refugee identity constructed among the regions from which they migrated, including the Greeks of Eastern Thrace, called Thracians, and the Pontiacs of the Black Sea region, a coastal and inner region of Asia Minor.3 One of these refugee groups calls themselves “Cappadocian Greeks/Rums” (Ρωμιοί της Καππαδοκίας) and are known as Karamanlı or Karamanlides in literature.4 Like other refugees, they sometimes shared their new settlements with local Greeks or established new villages with other refugee groups. The focus of this paper is on three monuments in three Cappadocian Greek villages. Multiple meanings of the monuments representing their Cappadocian and refugee identity are evaluated. Some interviews and observations were also used in monument descriptions. Indeed, this paper is based on research conducted in two fieldworks between August 13 and September 10, 2016, and later, from July 20 to September 5, 2017, in some of the Cappadocian Greek villages. Since the broader aim of the research was the identity construction and belonging among Cappadocian Greeks, their monuments were included in the research.5 THE MONUMENT OF THE SAINT: RELIGION, NATIONALISM, AND REFUGEES Vounena (Βούναινα) is a Cappadocian Greek village in Larrisa in Northern Greece. These refugees migrated from Sulucaova, Niğde, to this small area and established their own village. The monument of St. Chrysostomos Kalafatis was erected by Vounena villagers in 2015.6 St. Chrysostomos Kalafatis, the Archbishop of Izmir, was killed during “the fire of Izmir/Smyrna” in 1922. He was named a saint in 1993. The monument displays the front half of the saint’s sculpture in front of a wall. Both figures are made of white marble. Since the top of the back wall appears broken, the monument looks like a piece carved out from a larger monument telling a bigger story. This gives the impression of a missing piece of history of the refugees. Holding his crosier referring to his religious rank and authority, the monument of St. Chrysostomos Kalafatis stands alone on a stone base. Only his name is inscribed near his statue on the wall behind him. Similar to the following two monuments, the monument of St. Chrysostomos Kalafatis stands in the middle of Greek and Patriarchal flags at the intersection of Larissas Karditsas highway and the road to Vounena Village. Roadside monuments are common in Greece but mostly as memorials to fatal automobile accidents, with votive offerings for a life miraculously saved in a fatal accident and shrines in an annex of the church.7 It seems that both monuments of Vounena and Neos Milοtopos near the highway reflect the religious roadside monument tradition of the Greeks. Although Vounena is the village of the Cappodocian Greeks, their monument represents “the fire of Izmir/Smyrna.”8 But the meaning of the monument reveals the message of the villagers in the scope of their self-identification. This monument is not only a sculpture of a saint but also symbolizes the connection of the Cappodocian Greeks with Greek Orthodox and their involvement in “the Asia Minor Catastrophe,” a discourse on Greece, and their participation in the pain of Population Exchange. The refugees who originated from Izmir “consider Chrysostomos Kalafatis a saint because purportedly he refused to leave the city the day before when the Greek army left, choosing to remain alongside his flock and becoming a martyr.”9 At the same time “the fire of Izmir/Smyrna” is a part of Greek nationalism, which unites its citizens in a common history. But in an interview about the monument, a participant told us about the connection of the village with the fire. He said that some people from their home village (Sulucaova) were in Izmir at that time and lost their lives during the fire. Therefore, for the refuges, honoring their memory is one of the reasons for building that monument. However, the monument still did not depict the fire; instead, one of the figures of Greek Asia Minor policy and of the church in Izmir was portrayed on the monument.10 On the other hand, after the loss of the lands of Asia Minor at the end of the Independence War of Turks, the destruction of the Megali Idea (Μεγάλη Ιδέα) policy and the Population Exchange enabled Greece to develop political discourses, especially against Turkey. And this feeling of loss and trauma became a central element of Greek nationalism after the settlement of refugees to Greece.11 In addition, refugees were not embraced by the local Greeks, who sometimes called them “Turks” (τουρκόσποροι). Greek Orthodoxy is still the strongest common point between the refugees and the locals who survived under the Ottoman millet system. During the Ottoman era, the millet system was the framework in which the Ottoman state ruled its non-Muslim people. This system was based on membership in a religious and denominational group, not on an ethnic or a linguistic group.12 Millet-i Rum or Greek millet contained Serbs, Rumanians, Bulgarians, Vlachs, Orthodox Albanians, and Arabs.13 Thus, the Greek Orthodoxy continued until the Independence of Greece (1821). After the establishment of the Kingdom of Greece (Hellas) in 1830, in order to “protect state sovereignty from foreign intervention,” the Church of Greece was established in 1833. Although it was a kind of schism, the autocephaly of the Church of Greece was recognized by the Greek patriarchate in Istanbul.14 This attempt to establish “a national church” also created a state religion and positioned the Church of Greece as an actor in Greece, making it a critical element in nation building, education, and social relations.15 THE MONUMENT OF PAIN: MEMORY AND IDENTITY Neos Milotopos (Νέος Μυλότοπος) is a village in Giannitsa in Northern Greece. Its population is composed of Cappadocian Greek refugees who migrated from Gürümze, a village located today in Adana, Turkey. When they arrived in their new country, they first settled close to the current village, but later, due to wetlands causing illnesses such as malaria, the Cappadocian Greeks preferred to move to the present village, Neos Milotopos. Every refugee community has its own unique story about the Population Exchange and its settlement in Greece.16 According to Neos Milotopos villagers, unlike the other Cappadocian refugees, their ancestors did not peacefully leave their homeland (πατρίδα). In their story, a fatal fire attack against their church while many people were inside was organized by “Kurdish” or “Turkish” gangs. They ran away, taking with them few objects, including clothes, Bibles, icons, and a chalice. This traumatic narrative has a significant place in their collective memory and self-identification; hence, it can also be seen in their monument. The location of the monument reinforces the power of the story; villagers want to make this narrative visible through their monument to all who visit the village. The monument of Neos Milotopos is on the road to the village at the corner of the Aravissu Explanatu provincial road (figure 11.1). It comprises several components, including a bronze bas relief set off on a white marble wall standing on a rectangular surface. The flags of Greece and the patriarchate are on both sides of the monument. The top of the back wall appears broken, like the monument in Vounena. The sculpture in relief illustrates the fire at the church in their home village while they were fleeing. The villagers relate that the text on the lower front side of the monument is quoted from poet George Seferis (1900–1971), also a refugee from Asia Minor.17 (We could not find the original poem.) Finally, the symbol of the patriarchate, the double-headed eagle, placed next to the quotation, emphasizes their survival in their new lands and confirms their fidelity to their faith. The monument was built in 2010 by the association of the village with financial support from its members; the purpose was to commemorate their ancestors who experienced the fire attack and the forced migration. Neos Milotopos villagers consider this monument the most symbolic debt of gratitude owed to the memory of their ancestors. The monument was officially opened on September 14, 2011, on “The Day of Remembrance and Commemoration of the Genocide of the Greeks of Asia Minor.”18 By choosing this date, Cappadocian Greeks of Neos Milotopos created a link with other Asia Minor refugees and joined in a common pain. This common pain connects Neos Milotopos villagers with “the Asia Minor Catastrophe” and “the fire of Smyrna/Izmir.” The year 2011 was chosen for the opening ceremony of the monument because of the Gavustima Festival of the Cappadocian Greeks. Gavustima means “come together” in the Greek Misti dialect, which originates from Cappadocia. Since 1997, this traveling festival has been organized every year in a different Cappadocian village in Greece, and thousands of Cappadocian refugees from all over the country (and the world) attend the event. This meaningful monument was finished before the Gavustima Festival of Neos Milotopos, according to a leading member of the community, so it could be seen by festival participants. Figure 11.1. Untitled Monument, Giorgos Kikotis, Neos Miletopos Village, Giannitsa, Greece, 2011. Photograph by Saim Örnek, 2016. The monument is not only a message to the visitors of the village but also a marker that helps the villagers remember their past and envision their story. Duffy and Waitt argue that communities utilize the “markers of identity,” such as flags, posters, and banners, during the festivals for regulating and reinforcing their notions.19 In our case, this monument turned into a marker of identity to preserve memory, especially for the young members, by seeing it nearly every day. They see and learn the story of their ancestors and construct their identity upon it. Since the first generation who experienced this painful event are dead, the story of the fire and migration are now part of collective memory. Today, this story is neither a narrative told only at the village nor belongs only to them. The villagers express explicitly “the pain” their ancestors experienced and unite with others in a refugee identity. And this monument as a marker of identity reveals their story to the travelers passing by on the highway, to the visitors of the village, and to the future generations of the villagers. THE MONUMENT OF UNITY: DIFFERENT TRADITIONS AND COMMEMORATION Bafra (Μπάφρα) village is located ten minutes away from the city center of Ioannina in the region of Epirus. Bafra is neighbor to another Cappadocian refugee village called Neokaisareia (Νεοκαισάρεια); unlike this village, the population of Bafra consists of mostly Cappadocians and Pontiacs and also Sarikatsani and Vlach people. The Cappadocians of the village migrated from Çat (Sivas) and Taşlık villages (Kayseri). Pontiac people who first settled in the village migrated from Bafra (Samsun) before the Population Exchange, and they named the village Bafra, the name of their previous village in Turkey. When Pontiac people arrived at Bafra, they faced many diseases because the place was a wetland. Some of them left for a better place and abandoned their houses. For this reason, when Cappadocian people arrived at Ioannina, they found the empty houses in Bafra and temporarily settled there, hoping not to stay long. However, they established their new lives in the village together with Pontiac people. Villagers were from different regions of Asia Minor and had different cultures. Consequently, it was likely that this coexistence would raise some problems. Coexisting for a very long time, these two refugee groups kept their differences apart until recently. Finally, in 2006 the descendants of the first generation of refugees constructed a monument in the square of the village to commemorate their ancestors and their unity. This monument also indicates the union of the people of different cultures as citizens of Greece. Even though they have different cultures, they found a common ground: they are both refugee communities, which is also a path to unite with other refugees. In their monument, a Pontiac and a Cappadocian man stand side by side on a marble base in their traditional dress. Similar to the other monuments, the flags of Greece and the patriarchate are planted to the sides of the monument. “The monument of the memorable homelands of Pontiacs and Cappadocians” is written on the front side of the base.20 Under this line, a black rectangle panel pictures a monk holding a cross and many people following him. This example of picturing their migration journey on the leadership of a holy man symbolizes the villagers’ fidelity to their religion and to their new country. However, in this monument, the difference between the two groups was pictured only by traditional dress. In an era of global fashion, traditional “folk” or “national” dress is not only worn for the performances but also function as a way to represent the past and keep it in the collective memory. As Welters revealed in her study, people remember their mothers and grandparents in their traditional dresses.21 For this reason, we see these dresses in the performances, in the museums, and in the monuments. CONCLUSION Nearly one hundred years after the Population Exchange, refugees in Greece (and Turkey) integrated and developed new identities in their new country. Like the three monuments examined in this article, refugees built their own monuments expressing and transmitting their past to new generations. These monuments represent their loyalty to their nation and their state. But they always profess their Christian faith with different symbols. Therefore, the monuments highlighted here represent the various meanings of being a refugee, a Cappadocian and a Greek, with many symbols. In these three cases, Cappadocian Greeks combine the history of their ancestors and their migration and pain in their monument and identity constructions. They picture their will and hope of uniting with other refugees on migration, conflict, pains, and difficulties of establishing a new life in Greece. They combine their stories with other refugees and with the national discourses and symbols, including religious symbols. All three monuments are centered between the flags of Greece and the patriarchate, which are the symbols of national identity and religion. In this way, the monuments along with the flags, landscape, and the roads constitute monument spaces aiming to help visualize identity and belonging. Opening ceremonies, memorial days, and visits as social activities keep these monuments and their message alive. Although other monuments in the villages commemorating the victims of War World II and the Greek Civil War are not mentioned in this article, they can also be considered symbols of their Greek identity—part of the monument culture of contemporary Greece with its long and layered past. NOTES 1. For more about the Population Exchange of Turkey and Greece, see Yıldırım, Diplomacy and Displacement, and Pentzopoulos, The Balkan Exchange. 2. In her study, Heirs of the Greek Catastrophe, Hirschon examines the daily life of the Kokkinia people in Greece and the developments in the two sides after the Population Exchange was reviewed in different articles in her editorial book, Crossing the Aegean. 3. Even though Greeks are called and considered refugees (πρόσφυγες) in Greece, Muslims who migrated from Greece to Turkey are called immigrants (göçmen or mübadil) in Turkey. 4. Evangelia Balta’s many books and articles are the information source about the Karamanli people. Her new editorial work, Cries and Whispers in Karamanlidika Books, contains articles about the Karamanli people in English. In addition, see Balta, Gerçi Rum İsek de Rumca Bilmez Türkçe Söyleriz, and Clogg, “A Millet within a Millet.” 5. This paper was based on a research project, named “Identity and Belonging in Karamanli People” (and numbered 5827), and was supported by the Erciyes University Scientific Research Coordination Unit. A part of this fieldwork information was used in this paper. 6. Μνημείο Άγιου Χρυσοστόμου Σμύρνης στα Βούναινα, accessed February 20, 2018, http://www.larissanet.gr/2015/09/14/mnimeio-agiou-chrysostomou-smyrnis-sta-vounaina/. 7. Saccopoulos, “Roadside Monuments in Greece,” 144. 8. “The great fire of Smyrna,” started on September 13, 1922, is a controversial historical event between Greece and Turkey. According to the Greeks, the Turks are responsible for the fire, but Turkey claims that Greeks burned the city while they were leaving. For an oral history narrative of this issue, see Neyzi, “Remembering Smyrna/Izmir.” 9. Kirtsoglou, “Dreaming the Self,” 326. 10. Chrysostomos Kalafatis was born in Triglia/Tirilye in Bursa in 1867; he was appointed as metropolitan of Drama in 1902 and became the Archbishop of Smyrna in 1910. For more, see ορθόδοξος συναξαριστής, accessed February 20, 2018, http://www.saint.gr/2408/saint.aspx. 11. Özkırımlı and Sofos, Tormented by History, 118. 12. Ortaylı, Ottoman Studies, 20. 13. Karpat, “Millets and Nationality,” 145; and Clogg, “The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire,” 185. 14. Grigoriadis, Instilling Religion in Greek and Turkish Nationalism, 24–25. For a more detailed example, Roudomet’s article, “Greek Orthodoxy, Territoriality, and Globality,” begins with a historical review and later analyzes the relations of the Church of Greece and the patriarchate in consideration of social and political changes until 2003. 15. As a recent example, Fokas, in “Greece: Religion, Nation and Membership in the European Union,” explains the power of the Church of Greece on public opinion in the case of the European Union. 16. For more about these migration stories, see Pekin, Yeniden Kurulan Yaşamlar, and Hirschon, Crossing the Aegean. 17. ΚΑΙ ΓΊΝΑΝΕ ΔΕΝΤΡΑ ΜΕΓΑΛΑ / ΞΑΝΑΒΓΑΛΑΝ ΚΛΑΡΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΦΥΛΛΑ / ΤΗΣ ΕΛΠΙΔΑΣ ΠΡΑΣΙΝΑ (and they became big trees / put forth and leafed of hope again). 18. Although it’s not accepted as “genocide” in Turkey, September 14 is accepted as “Asia Minor genocide day” in Greece with the decision made by the Greek Parliament on September 13, 1998. For “genocide” allegations, see https://nomoi.info/ΦΕΚ-Α-234-1998-σελ-1.html. 19. Duffy and Waitt, “Rural Festivals and Processes of Belonging,” 47. 20. ΜΝΗΜΕΙΟ ΑΛΗΣΜΟΝΗΤΩΝ ΠΑΤΡΙΔΩΝ ΠΟΝΤΙΩΝ – ΚΑΠΠΑΔΟΚΩΝ. 21. Welters, “The Transition from Folk to Fashionable Dress in Attica, Greece,” 48. BIBLIOGRAPHY Balta, Evangelia. Gerçi Rum İsek de Rumca Bilmez Türkçe Söyleriz. Istanbul: Türkiye Iş Bankası Yayınları, 2014. Balta, Evangelia, and Matthias Kappler, eds. Cries and Whispers in Karamanlidika Books. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2010. Clogg, Richard. “The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire.” In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society. Vol. 1, The Central Lands, edited by B. Braude and B. Lewis, 185–207. London: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982. ———. “A Millet within a Millet: The Karmanlides.” In Ottoman Greeks in the Age on Nationalism: Politics, Economy and Society in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Dimitri Gondicas and Charles Issawi, 115–42. Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1999. Duffy M., and G. Waitt. “Rural Festivals and Processes of Belonging.” In Festival Places: Revitalizing Rural Australia, edited by Chris Gibson and John Connell, 44–57. Bristol: Channel View Publications, 2011. Fokas, Effie. “Greece: Religion, Nation and Membership in the European Union.” In Citizenship and Ethnic Conflict: Challenging the Nation-State, edited by Haldun Gülalp, 39–59. New York: Routledge, 2006. Grigoriadis, Ioannis N. Instilling Religion in Greek and Turkish Nationalism: A “Sacred Synthesis.” New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Hirschon, Renée, ed. Crossing the Aegean: An Appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey. New York: Berghahn Books, 2008. ———. Heirs of the Greek Catastrophe: The Social Life of Asia Minor Refugees in Piraeus. New York: Berghahn Books, 1998. Karpat, Kemal H. “Millets and Nationality: The Roots of the Incongruity of Nation and State in the Post-Ottoman Era.” In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society. Vol. 1, The Central Lands, edited by B. Braude and B. Lewis, 141–69. London: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982. Kirtsoglou, Elisabeth. “Dreaming the Self: A Unified Approach towards Dreams, Subjectivity and the Radical Imagination.” History and Anthropology 21, no. 3 (2010): 321–35. Neyzi, Leyla. “Remembering Smyrna/Izmir: Shared History, Shared Trauma.” History and Memory, Special Issue: Remembering and Forgetting on Europe’s Southern Periphery 20, no. 2 (2008): 106–27. Ortaylı, İlber. Ottoman Studies. Istanbul: Bilgi University Press, 2004. Özkırımlı, Umut, and Spyros A. Sofos. Tormented by History: Nationalism in Greece and Turkey. Columbia: Columbia University Press, 2008. Pekin, Müfide. Yeniden Kurulan Yaşamlar: 1923 Türk-Yunan Zorunlu Nüfus Mübadelesi. Istanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2005. Pentzopoulos, Dimitri. The Balkan Exchange of Minorities and Its Impact on Greece. London: Hurst & Company, 2002. Roudometof, Victor. “Greek Orthodoxy, Territoriality, and Globality: Religious Responses and Institutional Disputes.” Sociology of Religion 69, no. 1 (2008): 67–91. Saccopoulos, Christos A. “Roadside Monuments in Greece.” Ekistics, The Mediterranean—III and IV: Response to Problems within the Local Cultural Contexts 53, nos. 318/319 (1986): 144–48. Welters, Linda. “The Transition from Folk to Fashionable Dress in Attica, Greece.” Dress 11, no. 1 (1985): 57–68. Yıldırım, Onur. Diplomacy and Displacement Reconsidering the Turco-Greek Exchange of Populations, 1922−1934. New York: Routledge, 2006.