The "common sufferings of the peoples", the experience of the exchange from the two sides of the Aegean, on the occasion of the book by Eleni Psaradaki

Introduction

The unprecedented in history mandatory exchange of populations, which followed the Asia Minor war, the war of independence for the Turks, the war of the end of M. Idea for the Greeks, we know that it was done with religion as a criterion, since it took place in a "pre-national" era for a large portion of the conjugal populations here and there. The questioning of refugees' national origin on both sides intensified discrimination and undermined their integration into host societies. But they created collective traumas, which were passed on to the next generations. Because memory is a "stealth passenger" of time - according to the author - and social imprints leave their traces noticeable for social science researchers.

Such memories and experiences that have been passed down to the second and third generation of the Turkoretic descendants of the exchange are investigated by E. Psaradaki in her book. It refers to Bodrum, the Halicarnassus of Asia Minor and the Bodrumians, who identify themselves even today with the name "Cretans", without ever having lived on the island themselves.

From the very first reading of the book, it is easy to point out common elements between the narratives and the characteristics of those who suffered and experienced the "disguised form of forced expatriation", the exchanged refugees from both sides of the Aegean, despite the fact that these they were not known for many years in Turkey due to the bans.

In any case, the interest of Eleni Psaradaki's book increases and illuminates similar topics, giving me the occasion for the presentation I am attempting today on the common elements in the refugee memories of Muslims and Christians:

Common Point 1: IDEALIZATION OF PLACE OF ORIGIN
The place of origin of the ancestors is idealized and presented in the personal narratives "as a heavenly place" and rich. On the contrary, Bodrum, the new place of settlement, was treated as a poor, discredited place. The point of view of the refugees who came to Greece was similar. For my father-in-law, allow me the illustrative personal reference, Kirkintzes was paradise – Crete was poor and barren. The poverty and survival difficulties of people suffering from the experience of persecution explains the phenomenon.

Common point 2 : THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NEIGHBORING POPULATIONS in the place of origin
In the memories of the people who were researched, the harmonious relationships of all the inhabitants of Crete, who lived like "brothers", are emphasized. The phrase is common and repeated in many narratives of refugees from the other side of the Aegean, wherever they lived before the exchange.
In the eyes of the historian who knows the harsh times of conflict from the era of Ottoman rule especially in Crete, with the continuous revolutionary mobilizations, even in the era of the Cretan State, the idealization seems simplistic. Is the historical past ignored or silenced?
Indeed, literature confirms the peaceful atmosphere of people's daily lives, despite confirmed historical conflicts.

Common point 3: DEATH
The graves of loved ones identify the third common theme in the refugees' plight. Many refugees could not come to terms with the fact that they would not be buried in the same land as their ancestors, so they looked for places similar to the land of their fathers for their permanent settlement. For the Turkish-Cretans of Eleni Psaradaki's research, Crete is "the island of their ancestors".

Common Point 4: THE LOSS OF OWNER'S PROPERTY
It is known that the traumatic experience of forced eviction significantly influenced the intention to destroy property, which was being lost by both owners. The historical context of the exchange process is described by Eleni Psaradaki, but it is only indicatively reflected in the research interviews, since the interviewees did not experience the exchange process themselves. Prevelakis codifies it in the phrase: "some had the vines planted, and others would drink the wines". The settlement and much more the integration – to the extent that it took place – in the host societies was a complex process, particularly painful.

Common point 5: THE SENSE OF OTHERNESS
Obviously, Turkish-speaking Christians and Greek-speaking Muslims encountered greater problems in their acceptance and settlement.All the interchangeable were stigmatized as "refugees", a denigration that is also reflected in the narratives of Eleni Psaradaki's book. Without ignoring the economic and social causes of the conflict, they were obviously seen as a threat to national uniformity, and diversity often contributed to the manifestation of a sense of superiority.

For those who came to Greece, it is probably related to their educational level. In the study of Eleni Psaradaki, however, the same phenomenon emerges: the inhabitants of Bodrum defined themselves as "civilized" in an environment that began to develop later, with a sense of higher culture, a mixture of old and new elements with references to Crete.

Common point 6 : THE WOMEN
In the Greek case, the Asia Minor women, who often lost the heads of their families during the war, were considered free and "dangerous". However, in the research we have for Bodrum, Turkish Cretans were also considered more modern, independent, freer and outgoing. All those originating from Crete were treated accordingly.

Common point 7 : THE RESTORATION
The rehabilitation of refugees from both sides of the Aegean, due to diplomatic commitments, followed a joint process: the families were distinguished into rural and urban, with the characteristics we know and the need to pay to the Greek state. However, the hostility of the locals during the installation is reflected in the interviews published by Eleni Psaradaki.

Common point 8 : INTERNAL MIGRATION IN THE NEW HOMELANDS
The internal migration of refugees after the first settlement took place in the search for a better fate.
In the Greek case, the censuses highlight the final settlement of a large number of refugees in the urban complex of the capital and Piraeus, as well as in Thessaloniki. From Bodrum they travel to Izmir and Istanbul.

Common point 9 : THE ISSUE OF MONUMENTS
The subsequent – sooner or later – destruction of the monuments of the "other" is also mutually noticeable on both sides of the Aegean. We have similar examples in Greek cities as well. In the case of Bodrum, Eleni Psaradaki refers to the church of Agios Nikolaos of 1853, which had been in ruins since the 1960s and, despite subsequent adventures, was never rebuilt. The careful rescue of her bell in the city's Museum of Underwater Archeology confirms the selective management of monuments.

CONCLUSIONS
In my personal reading in consultation with Eleni, whom I thank for the invitation to participate in this event, I chose to deal with the commons of the refugees on both sides. I didn't talk - except on occasion - about the differences, which are, after all, more often topics of search and discussion in political history. Today, without referring in detail to the differences of the refugees on the two sides of the Aegean, I focused on similarities, with the hope that the descendants of the exchanges of the two countries will contribute to the peaceful communication of the peoples in general.

Stella Aligizaki, philologist - historian

(This text is a summary of the text read at the presentation of the book "Memories of homelands. Aspects of identity among the Turkish Cretans of Bodrum", published by Radamanthus 2022, in the context of the 2nd Chania Book Festival, June 2023)