The Armenian Gregorian or Orthodox Church

Armenia is an example of the evil that can happen when church and state act as one. The evidence is clear that from the beginning of the Ottoman Empire, the government was conciliatory toward Christians as well as to other religions. In the early days of Ottoman rule, Christian peasants appreciated the conquests that placed them under Muslim control. The peasants were liberated from the exaction and abuses of Christian feudal overlords. The Ottomans brought law and order into their lives, and also gave them freedom of religion.

The official web site of the Armenian Church states: "Throughout its history, the Armenian Church has paralleled so closely the history of the Armenian nation that it is difficult to explain one without touching upon the other. The two, nation and church, are so closely meshed the phrase `national church` seems specifically coined for the Armenians". It goes on to add, "Consequently, since its inception and to this very day, the church has been the center of political and social controversies. The problems of the nation have always deeply affected the church”.

"In 1536 the Ottoman government entered into an agreement with the French that permitted them to trade throughout Ottoman lands. Total religious liberty was also given to the French. They were granted the right to maintain the guard of the Holy Places, which created a French protectorate over all the Catholics in the Ottoman Empire.

There has been much written about how the Ottoman Empire forced Christians to embrace Islam. This is nothing more than fiction. The granting of religious freedom within the Ottoman Empire, in fact, is what ultimately contributed to its downfall. The Russians learned from this Ottoman mistake and acted accordingly as they expanded their own imperial empire. The Russians were the first to play the Christian versus Muslim ethnic/religion card. As the Ottoman Empire began to decline, Russia, Austria, Italy, and others began to take Ottoman lands. Wars were fought and treaties were signed. In 1774 the Ottomans and Russians entered into one such treaty. In it, the Russians were given the right to intervene on behalf of Christians living within the Ottoman Empire. This right opened the doors to increased European influence regarding Ottoman internal affairs.

This was the beginning of Christians within the Ottoman Empire establishing closer friendships with the Western world. This was the birth of nationalist movements within minority populations living within the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottomans captured Christian Constantinople in 1453. Thereafter, the name of this great city became Istanbul. The Ottoman sultan had already recognized Orthodox Christians and in 1461 appointed Hovakim (Ovakim), the Armenian bishop of Bursa, to be the patriarch of all Armenians within the Ottoman Empire. There would be friendly relations between the Muslims and Armenian Christians that would last for more than three hundred years. This was a time of no European agitation of the Christian populations.

After the sultan helped establish the Armenian Church, he saved more than seventy thousand Armenians from the Crimeans. These Christians had been sent to Crimea in exile by the Byzantine government. He resettled the Armenian Christians along the coast of the Marmara Sea, which is located just south of Istanbul (1).

These Armenians were so trustworthy within the Ottoman Empire, they became known as loyal communities of the sultan. The sultan recognized their Christian religion and gave them rights and liberties. However, as the Ottoman Empire began to decline, some Armenian leaders ignored all the sultans had done for their people throughout the Ottoman period. These newly disloyal Armenians began intrigues with Europeans in the attempt to take Ottoman lands for free while being under the protection of European powers. Russia was the first major power with which these few Armenian leaders began to deal. These same Armenians leaders pretended to be loyal to the sultans while they aided in taking Ottoman lands.

Czar Peter the Great (1689-1725) made good use of the Armenian disloyalty to invade the Caucasus. The Armenians continued to help the Russians under Catherine II (1762 - 1796). Both Peter and Catherine failed to keep their promises to the Armenians, who nevertheless continued their disloyalty to the Ottomans and continued their help to the Russians, dreaming of free lands and a state of their own. Both the secular and religious Armenian leaders supported the Russian invasion of Muslim lands in the Caucasus.

The Russians laid siege to the city of Derkend in 1796. The Armenian residents, pretending to be loyal to the Ottomans, sent information about the town’s water supply, which allowed the Russians to win the battle. The Armenian archbishop, Argutinskii Dolgorukov, made a public statement in the 1790s that he hoped and believed the Russians would "free the Armenians from Muslim rule» (2) There are many more stunning examples of Armenian Church support for Russians and its involvement and cooperation with the Russians in the early 1800s, which continues to this very day.

In 1808 Czar Alexander I (1801 - 1825) presented Daniel, the Catholicos of the Armenian Church with the order of St. Anne, first class, for his espionage work helping the Russians. In the years that followed, the Russians pushed ever westward into Ottoman lands, always with the help of the Armenian Church, which repeatedly called on the Russians to save them from so-called “Muslim oppression”. (3)

The hatred that developed between the Christian Armenians and the Muslim Ottomans had its roots in the work and efforts of the Armenian Church. After all, once the Russians captured Ottoman lands they removed the Muslim population with no compensation, and working with the Church, moved Armenian Christians into the former Muslim owned homes and lands. Much is written today about the unprovoked attack the Armenians, with a billion dollars` worth of Russian military arms and supplies, made in 1992 upon Karabagh, which is a part of neighboring Azerbaijan. In the early 1800s this land was populated by a large number of Muslims. After the Russians took this land from the Ottomans, Armenians moved into Muslim homes. Today, the Armenians claim Karabagh as a part of their "ancient" homeland. The Armenian definition of "ancient" in this case is barely two hundred years old.

The Armenians sought to establish an independent homeland by acts of rebellion just as the Greeks did in 1821. There was one basic difference, however, as well as a practical problem for the Armenians. The Greeks were a majority population in the lands they sought to obtain whereas the Armenians were always a minority population. The Armenians quickly realized that for them to establish an independent government, dictatorial or otherwise, they had to have foreign intervention to help and protect them(4).

It was during the Russian - Persian (modern - day Iran) and the Russian - Ottoman wars of 1827 - 1829 when the Armenian leaders, including their Christian priests, felt the time had come to establish their own independent state. During these wars, Armenians living within the Russian empire joined with Armenian citizens of Persia and the Ottoman Empire to help the Russians fight against their friends and neighbors.

In this war, and those to come, the Russians first would invade Muslim lands and the Armenians would take the side of Russians. The large majority of Muslim populations living where the Russians invaded would be forced out of their homes, always with great loss of lives, and Armenian Christians would move right in behind them. This is how a majority Armenian population was created in what is known today as the Republic of Armenia, a majority created by the military power of the Russians.

When Russia occupied the northern provinces of Muslim Persia, the Etchmiadzin monastery was included in these lands. This was the primate (an archbishop or the highest - ranking bishop in a province) of all the Armenians, the Catholicos. The Russians were able to revive the declining authority of the Catholicos, who had been eclipsed by the Armenian patriarch of Istanbul. This group of Christians became loyal servants of the czars.

Czar Nicholas I (1825 - 1855) is the individual who first said that the Ottoman Empire was the "sick man of Europe». He claimed to be the supreme protector of all Christians living within the Ottoman Empire. It was the Russians who invaded and captured Erivan province from the Persians, where today’s capital of Armenia is located. Before 1827, the date of Russian occupation, more than 80 percent of the population was Muslim as was all Trans - Caucasian at that time. The entire region was both Muslim and anti-Russian. It was the Russians, together with the Armenians they brought in, who ruthlessly suppressed the majority population.

During the Crimean War (1853 - 1856) the Ottomans joined forces with the Western governments against the Russians. There were Armenian leaders in the eastern provinces of Anatolia (modern - day Turkey) who actively supported Russia by becoming spies. In March 1854, several Armenians were arrested in Kars.

When the czars needed help, they recruited Armenians, making promises and showering them with compliments. When the czars no longer needed the Armenians, they never fulfilled their promises. However, Armenian Christians continued to support the Russians. Catholicos Nerses Asdarakes received only a letter of thanks from Czar Nicholas I for all he had done against the Ottomans. In spite of all the Russian broken promises the Catholicos at Etchmiadzin, the church continued its loyalty to Russia.

Christian Missionaries in Anatolia

Beginning in the mid - 1850s within Anatolia, new voices began to be heard: European and American missionaries. These Christian missionaries created many problems for the Ottoman government. (5) The Armenian author A.P.Vartoogian wrote that the missionaries` introduction of Catholicism and Protestantism among the Armenians "had a more ruinous effect on the nation than anything else ever had» (6)

The basic problem was the infighting that took place among the different missionaries from the various nations. France and Austria protected the Catholics. The Protestants were funded from England and the United States. The Russians supported the Orthodox Church. Each of these major powers was hard at work to increase their influence in the Ottoman Empire, "the sick man of Europe," whom the powers thought would soon die. The powers claimed to protect the religious missionaries coming from their nations, but in reality, they were promoting their individual national interests.

Russia was using the Armenians in its quest to reach the warm waters of the Mediterranean so it could cut off England’s route to India. Britain was attempting to use Protestant Armenians to protect its lifeline to India by holding back both Russian and France. The French made use of Catholic Armenians for its own interests in the Near East. Only the Americans didn’t have a clear - cut national objective.

All the powers used Christian religion to intervene in the internal business of the Ottoman government. These powers used the excuse that they were merely protecting the religious rights of their own missionaries and their work with Christian minorities. The actual truth is that each European nation was eager for an opportunity to take a piece of Ottoman lands for free when it ceased to exist. In other words these European countries wanted to be ready like vultures so they could sweep in and pick the bones of the dead Ottoman Empire. The historical record clearly shows each of the powers often injected itself in the Ottoman government affairs, claiming the right to do so to protect Christians. This ongoing interference was a major reason for the increased rebellious activities of the Armenians. This was the historical period when there were increasing Armenian acts of insurrection and terrorism. By these stepped - up terrorist acts, the Armenians themselves created what became known as the "Armenian question" within the governments of the powers.

In June 16, 1880, Lieutenant - Colonel C.W.Wilson, British Consul General for Anatolia, reported to his government his experience with the Armenians. He described them as "being greedy of gain, mostly entirely without education. Immoral, fanatic, bigoted, and completely under the influence of an illiterate, ignorant and sensual priesthood who opposed all education and advancement» (7).

Colonel Wilson goes on to add in his experience with Armenians that "truth and honesty are sadly deficient, but one of the most hopeful signs is the effect of the teaching of American missionaries, who impress upon the people, the necessity of these virtues». The colonel concludes his memo by stating: "The tendency of the Armenian movement is towards opposition to the established authority; the Armenians wish to take the place of the Turks; nothing else will satisfy the men who manage the movements at Istanbul» (8).

Harold Armstrong described the Armenians as a "most vigorous and pushing people; envied and ill - spoken of». He says they have men of good business ability, who are thrifty and able to negotiate a hard bargain. However, they "are also argumentative, quarrelsome, and great know - it - alls». Armstrong concludes his evaluation of Armenians by saying they are "crafty, grasping, secretive, acquisitive, and dishonest, making a great pretence of religion, but using it as a cloak for treachery and greed» (9).

In 1876, just before the Ottoman - Russian war of 1877 - 1878 the Armenian Patriarch, Nerses Varjabotyan met with British Ambassador Elliot to ask that the Armenians be giveu the same privilege that was given to the minorities who had staged a rebellion against the Ottomans in the Balkans. As the twentieth century approached, the Ottoman Empire declined more rapidly. European powers sensed the end was near for the "sick man of Europe", increasing their activity throughout the Ottoman lands to benefit from the death of the Empire. The Armenians, especially their church, also sought benefits.

Armenian Patriarch Nerses Varjabotyan met witb the British ambassador before a series of meetings were held in Istanbul between December 12, 1876, and January 20, 1S77. These meetings were held to discuss the Balkans. The patriarch wanted Armenians to receive the same benefits as those granted in the Balkans. The patriarch indicated the Armenians were very aroused and that if "necessary to rise in insurrection" to gain the sympathy and support of the European Powers, there would be "no difficulty in getting up such a movement» (10)

The patriarch met with the Russian army commander in chief, Grand Duke Nicholas to ask for support to establish an independent state for Armenia. Later the patriarch sent delegation headed by Migirditch Khrimian, a former bishop of Van, to deliver a personal appeal to the grand duke. Th»e patriarch complained that the Ottoman government was persecuting Armenian Christians and asked that the Russians establish an independent Armenian state in the six eastern pro winces of the Ottoman Empire. The grand duke was polite to the Armenians and encouraged their disloyalty to the Ottomans. Of course, the Russian had no intent to help establish an independent Armenia.

In January 1882 British Consul Major William Everett submitted a confidential report to Lord Dufferin, British ambassador in Istanbul. In the report Everett enclosed a document that was widely circulated among the Armenians in Erzurum (in northeastern Turkey) and throughout the province. The document was an enlistment form to join a secret army. Every Armenian who enlisted swore that his objective was to fight for the freedom of the country. (11)

Everett reported in the early spring of that year that the Armenian insurrectionary movement was becoming stronger. He also believed the power behind the movement originated from Russian Armenia and was secretly supported by Russia. The Russian consul in Van was a Russian army major (of Armenian origin) who worked to spread the idea if the Armenians wanted to be delivered from oppression from the Ottoman Muslims, they must look to Russia alone for assistance and help. In addition to the major, there were many Russian agents who were always moving throughout the region stirring and encouraging the Armenians to revolt.

Shortly thereafter, Everett returned and advised the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Granville, that Russia was taking action to occupy the Ottoman lands as quickly as the opportunity presented itself. Everett added that the Russians were working to build more and more discontent among the Armenian Christians so they could be ready to step in and take control of the lands as the supporter of the "oppressed races» (12)

Needless to say the Christian (Orthodox) Russians had no intent of allowing their new Armenian subjects even as much religious freedoms as the Ottomans allowed. In May 1883, the Czar was beginning a policy of repression and Russification of the Armenians. Russians now subjected the Armenians – who supported the Russians based on freedom from "oppression" by the Muslims – to many kinds of persecution.

In 1887, Armenian Avetis Nazarbekian founded a new political movement in Geneva called Hunchak (Bell). This organization was based on Marxist - Socialist principles. In 1890 the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaksutyan) was organized in Tiflis on national Socialist principles. The founders were Kristapor Mikealim, Stepan Zartan, and Simon Zavarian. Each of these individuals was educated in Russian universities. Both of these groups wanted an independent Turkish Armenia in the six eastern provinces so it would become a national socialist state.

Avedis Nazarbekian directed the Hunchak efforts to create an independent Armenia from first Geneva then from Paris and then later from London. His thoughts were always on the end result. He was never concerned about the typical Armenian or Muslim Ottoman so long as his political organization achieved its objectives.

Nazarbekian became one of the most ruthless and militant Armenian leaders. It was his objective to so stir the Christian Armenians and to inflame the Muslim Turks to react, so Christian European powers would become involved and establish an Armenian state. Armenian terrorists would provoke Muslims by ongoing acts of violence. Where the Muslims would respond, Nazarbekian and other Armenians would cry out that "the barbarous Muslim Turks were massacring the innocent Christian Armenians» (13).

Nothing could have been further from the truth.

The Hunchak leaders ordered loyal Armenian followers to exterminate whom they thought were "the most dangerous" of both Armenian and Ottoman Turks who could create problems in local villages and cities. These terrorists never hesitated to commit cold - blooded murder of Muslim Turks. They also killed wealthy Armenians they could not black mail and who refused to give them money. In other words, these thugs killed their own people just because they were not willing to cooperate and become part of their evil acts.

They established what could be called "Murder Incorporated" to carry out their evil deeds. A special exclusive branch of Hunchak movement was created and the destiny of Turkish Armenians was put into the hands of a few Russian Armenian anarchists; this was a turning point in Armenian history. The Armenian church would be used as an instrument in the bloody efforts that would span many years. (14)

This time period would witness Armenian terror as a tool to achieve an independent state. This time period would also witness the Armenian use of propaganda and their ongoing campaigns of lies and deception as their primary weapons, through their constant clamoring to convince the Christian West that they were being persecuted and massacred by the terrible Muslim Turk because of their religion. They clamored that these Christian nations must come and save their brother Armenian Christians. In August 1889 Colonel Chermside, the British consul in Erzurum, reported to William White, the British ambassador in Istanbul, that "statements as to deliberate attempts to exterminate the Armenians and the wholesale recruiting of harems with kidnapped girls, are exaggerations so gross as to be ridiculous” (15).

At the same time, Armenian Thomas Boyadjian, British vice consul in Diyarbakir, reported to Ambassador White in response to British requests for facts about allegations that the Ottoman sultan had ordered a massacre of Armenians Christians. The Armenian stated that he could "most positively state" no such orders had ever been given. (16) Boyadjian also reported that he knew of a number of occasions where Armenians had settled their personal difference by exterminating each other and then placing the blame on the Muslims.

In the fall of 1889, the British vice consul reported to the consul that Armenians had created violence between Christians and Muslims in places where Armenians were a very small minority. The Armenian terrorists killed several Muslims and stirred up those who remained alive. The purpose of such acts was to provoke the Muslims into attaching the minority Christians and the terrorists would then cry out "fanatical Muslims" were massacring Armenian Christians. (17) Once the Armenian terrorists made up and told these stories, they knew it would be spread by the different Armenian organizations throughout Europe. Just one of the many examples was a story published by the London Daily News on December 11, 1889. The newspaper stated an Armenian living in the village of Zitzan had been roasted to death by Muslims. British vice consul Devey called the newspaper article "absurd» (l 8).

In 1890 the Dashnakists increased their campaigns of terror. It was their objective to create a continuous revolutionary campaign that would bring Europeans into the Ottoman Empire to support the Christian Armenian effort to overthrow the government. The Armenian terror organization ordered its followers "to shoot the Turks everywhere, under any circumstance, to kill the reactionaries those who violate their oath and Armenian spies and to take revenge» (19).

The Armenians were doing everything in their power to get a foreign government to come into the Ottoman Empire and take the lands they coveted, by force of arms, and then give the six eastern Anatolian provinces to them. The Armenians claimed these lands as their "ancient" homeland. There was first one basic problem with this tall tale the Armenians were trying to sell to anyone who listened to them. Armenians made up a small minority of population. In 1892 the Geographical Section of the British Foreign Office provided the following details of population of the lands the Armenians coveted. (20)

The Dashnak terror organization began to prepare for its revolution within these six provinces. It used Russian Armenia as the center for arms collection and campaigns of terror directed at the Turks. The Dashnaks were greatly helped by the Armenian Church. As a church, their officials crossed the Ottoman - Russian border on a regular basis. Many church officials used their positions to help the Armenian revolutionary movement; the church was an important communication link between terrorist Dashnaks in the southern Caucasus and Anatolia, and between the same terrorists and the Russian government. This active presence and participation of Armenian Church priests and bishops brought together the primary gun power ingredients for Armenians, church, and nationalism.

Church officials also provided practical help to the terrorists. One example was the monastery of Derik, which was located just across the Ottoman - Persian border in Persia. Bagrat Vartakael Tavarklian was the abbot of the monastery, which he turned it into an arsenal and infiltration center for Armenian terrorists and their activities in Ottoman lands.

They used violence as their primary weapon not only against Muslims but also on their fellow Armenians if they didn’t support or cooperate with them. These terrorists mutilated the bodies of their victims to create horror and fear. In June 1893 near the convent at Kilise, a number of Armenians were killed and accused of being “informers”. After the Armenians were killed by their own, the terrorists cut off their ears and nailed them above the entrance door of the convent. (21)

A.J.Arnold was the secretary of the Evangelical Alliance. In February 1894 he observed that the leaders of the Armenian terrorist movement were attempting to divide Turkey for their own selfish motives. The secretary noted how the Armenians were smart enough to spread stories about the persecution of Christians to influence Protestant Britain against Turkey. The missionaries were in agreement about "the wickedness of the Armenian revolutionary movement» (22).

Arnold later wrote in a Presbyterian publication: "Has this Armenian trouble been, after all, a persecution, on religious grounds, of law - abiding, God - fearing men, or has it been a civil and military prosecution of reckless, misguided men for high treason and murder?" (23). Arnold answered his own question: The Armenians were reckless, misguided men who were committing high treason and murders.

In 1894 British embassy officials assigned to Istanbul reported that the Armenian revolutionary movement did not begin in the Ottoman Empire and the leaders were Russian Armenians. The British had learned that the organizers were actually a very small group of men who came into the Ottoman Empire in 1892 and during a meeting in Kars planned their campaign of terror (24).

The Armenian terrorists were so ruthless they even made an attempt to assassinate their own church patriarch. The French ambassador in Istanbul wrote a report about the criminal act. The ambassador stated that on Sunday, April 27, 1894, Patriarch Ashikian, while returning to Istanbul after a religious ceremony at the Kumkapi church, was attacked by an eighteen - year - old Armenian boy who attempted to shoot the patriarch but his pistol failed to fire. The eighteen - year - old stated that he was a member of the Hunchak terrorist organization (25).

In February 1895 Sir Ellis Bartlett, a member of British parliament, published a pamphlet about the Armenian campaigns of terror. He stated that "most of the tales so widely circulated in connection with the Turco-Armenian incidents, were manufactured and directed by the most imaginative and malevolent spirit. The deliberate object of the agitators was not to obtain redress for the Armenian sufferings, but to excite feelings in their country (England) against Turkey and the Turks».

Bartlett went on to explain that the stories had been, in many cases, made up for the purposes of those who had invented them. "The tall tales were the wicked inventions of Armenian Revolutionary Committees" and had been "wantonly spread over Europe in the interests of these mad agitators and their paymasters, the Russian Panslavic societies». After the Turco-Bulgarian incidents of 1876, the same war game was being played with these so - called Armenian atrocities in 1894 and 1895.

Bartlett pointed out clearly the Armenian claim "that the Christian subjects of the sultan were denied all liberty, and atrociously presented was a thoroughly false one». He continued by saying "no other government had for the past four centuries shown so much toleration, or given so much religious freedom as that of the Ottoman Empire. Every form of religion – Greek, Jewish, Nestorian, Roman Catholic and all others – were allowed perfect liberty of practice and doctrine. Had the Turks been less generous in the past, they would have escaped many of their present troubles. When heretics were being burnt to death in France and Germany, and even in England, the Ottoman Government allowed its subjects entire religious freedom».

Bartlett stated that M. Ximeues, "a Spanish geographer and a man of science, a gentleman of much ability and general information," was "an eyewitness to the rebellion and that he, too, contradicted the Armenian `massacre` allegations. Ximeues was a visitor to many of the places where the Armenians "alleged outrages "had taken place. He stated in clear and simple terms that the "stories so widely circulated in such a horrible language and with such circumstantial detail, was a gigantic fraud». Ximeues stated that "the stories of thousands of Armenians being murdered, their women being raped, of scores of villages being destroyed, of tortures and outrages of many kinds being inflicted upon the priests, women and men, are simply the wildest invention of falsehood». Bartlett also quoted from Ximeues, who observed that "Armenians are, of all the oriental races, the most subtle, adroit and prone to lying».

Bartlett concluded by saying that "England and, to a certain extent, Europe, have been imposed upon by a gigantic deception. In particular proprietors and editors of the great English journals have incurred a very serious responsibility by printing, as they recklessly have done, every tale – many of them so absurd and impossible as to bear their contradiction on the face of them – which has been poured forth by the Armenian manufacturing of lies. Such specimens of manufactured atrocities all came from Armenian sources and were published in British press» (26).

Captain Charles Norman, a British artillery officer sent to the Ottoman Empire, wrote of what he witnessed in 1895. The captain observed that England had yet to learn the "disturbances in Asia Minor are the direct outcome of a widespread anarchist movement of which she has been the unconscious supporter. Nothing that so much had been written for the avowed purpose of proving the Armenians to be a model of all weakness, and the Turk a monster of cruelty». Norman believed that it was important "in the interests of peace, truth, and justice to point out the aims and objectives of the Armenian revolutionaries». Captain Norman reported that "the Hunchak committee was directly responsible for all the bloodshed in Anatolia for the past five years.` He stated that Armenian allegations that the Muslims had started the incidents were just not true.

British Captain Norman referred to an Armenian manifesto, dated November 19, 1895, addressed to the Armenians of the Adana region he had in his possession that stated: "Armenians, arm your people now for the battle. Let us draw our swords and fall on the foe». He said British journalists were "duped by Armenians». Norman added that the British press reports of what he called "the touching story of Armenian matrons throwing their children over the cliff at Antakh Dagh (Sasun), and their jumping over themselves to avoid dishonor, is an absolute myth». The captain questioned the Armenian use of population numbers and said they were "very much exaggerated as were the figures listing their victims».

In 1894 the Ottoman government established the Sasun Inquiry Commission to evaluate the allegations made by the Armenians. In addition to Muslim members, there were also British, French and Russians on the commission. The commission made a finding that Armenians and Turks were equally guilty of attacking each other. However, H. S. Shipley, the British delegate, filed a separate report. He stated that "the stories of the wholesale butchery of the Armenians by the Turkish soldiers, especially the slaughter of Armenian women in the church at Geliguzan, and the convent of Surp merapa in Talari, were without foundation» (27).

British vice consul Captain Dickson wrote a report to Ambassador Lowther on September 30, 1908: "The Armenian in subjection, such as I have seen him, is an unsympathetic, mean, cringing, unscrupulous, lying, thieving, and, given his freedom, he loses none of these bad qualities, but in addition becomes insolent, domineering, and despotic. He is endowed with a sort of sneak thief sharpness, which among ignorant people in these parts passes for intelligence» (28)

Dickson also reported that the goals and objectives of the Dashnak Society were "preposterously ambitious" and they were