Beaucoup d’affirmations erronées, de propos alarmistes et de fantasmes sont véhiculés avec la fin des mesures transitoires imposées aux Roumains et Bulgares depuis l’entrée de leurs pays au sein de l’Union européenne. C’est pourquoi nous avons réalisé une note expliquant ce qui change, et surtout ce qui ne change pas pour les Roumains et les Bulgares à partir du 1er janvier 2014.

La fin de la période transitoire pour les Roumains et les Bulgares en France : quels changements ?

Dans les faits, quels changements à venir ? Citoyens européens depuis 2007, les Roumains et Bulgares vivant en France verront enfin levées les restrictions qui leur étaient opposées pour accéder à un travail salarié. Pendant sept ans, les gouvernements français successifs ont maintenu ces restrictions alors même que la plupart des États membres de l’Union européenne y avaient mis fin, sans que cela ait aucune incidence négative pour eux. En reconnaissant à ces citoyens européens les mêmes droits qu’aux autres, la France - qui y est obligée - ne leur fait pas une faveur, elle met fin à une discrimination qui s’appuyait sur une bien faible argumentation !
Les réalités que vivent au quotidien Roumains et Bulgares ne changeront cependant pas du tout au tout au 1er janvier 2014. La fin des mesures transitoires, qui ne concernaient que le travail salarié, ne remplace pas la nécessité de changer de politique pour qu’enfin l’ensemble de leurs droits aujourd’hui déniés soient respectés.
S’agissant en particulier de celles et ceux de ces citoyens qui vivent en situation précaire et habitent dans des bidonvilles, tout porte à craindre qu’on ne voie se poursuivre :

• les évacuations des bidonvilles, sans diagnostic des besoins ni proposition de logements dignes et pérennes, qui précarisent toujours plus les familles ;
• les expulsions du territoire souvent illégales, sans examen rigoureux des situations individuelles ;
• les dénis de droits concernant la santé, la scolarisation, l’hébergement ou le logement…

Nous serons vigilants quant à la mise en œuvre de la fin des mesures transitoires, et ne manquerons pas d’interpeller les pouvoirs publics et de dénoncer toutes les discriminations qui continueraient à peser sur nos concitoyens européens, qu’on a trop souvent du mal à considérer comme tels et à part entière.
Le 30 décembre 2013

Source:

note d’information Gisti et Romeurope

 

A 1909 Report on Armenian Emigration to the US Chris Gratien, Georgetown University

The latter half of the nineteenth century was a period of massive out-migration from Europe and Asia to the Americas. In the Ottoman Empire, Arab Christian migrants from Greater Syria, particularly Mount Lebanon, contributed significantly to this phenomenon. Armenians did too, especially those who had contact with American and European missionary schools in Anatolia. During the reign of Abdülhamid II, controlling and monitoring the movement of Armenians became an issue of state concern as Armenian political groups were among those most hounded by the secret police. Migrants played a big role in this equation, because in addition to fostering connections between Ottoman citizens and people abroad, they often sought to return from the Americas to their original homes. Keeping track of the number of Armenians in Anatolia and their locations was no simple task.
 

The photograph at right is a picture from the Ottoman archives of a Protestant Armenian family from Merzifon that migrated to Fresno, California in March of 1908. Words on the back of the photo indicated that they were issued a passport and relinquished their Ottoman citizenship (terk-i tabiiyet) in order to go to America. The father's name is Şekercioğlu (or we could say Shekerjian) Parsigh, the mother's Porab, and the son's Mihran. The accompanying documents say nothing about why they chose to emigrate.
Historians often attribute Armenian migration to the massacres of the 1890s and the general experience of persecution under Abdülhamid II. If this was the case, then the timing of the Shekerjian family's emigration was somewhat poor, since just a month later the events leading up to the 1908 Young Turk revolution and the reinstatement of the Ottoman constitution would begin to unfold. The empire's non-Muslim communities largely welcomed this change, and many Armenian intellectuals in exile chose to return as a result. 

Yet, the set of documents that I will treat in this article deals with an apparent acceleration of emigration in 1909. On September 1, 1909, a Belgian newspaper reported that Armenians were leaving the provinces of Malatya, Antep, and Mamuretülaziz. The ranks of Armenians in Aleppo and the vicinity also thinned. Meanwhile, massive numbers of Christians were leaving Mount Lebanon for the Americas. The reason given was the prevailing violence, brigandage and lack of security in the Ottoman Empire. Any avid reader of Western media outlets such as the New York Times during the early twentieth century would have likely identified the Ottoman Empire as a political entity constantly persecuting Christians. The myriad stories about slaughtered and starving Armenians were certainly not without basis, but the trope of oppressed Christendom manifested itself in sensationalized and unsophisticated portrayals. This was an issue for the post-1908 constitutional government of the Ottoman Empire, for which both the security of its subjects and its image abroad were major questions following the Adana Massacre of April 1909, in which tens of thousands of Christians and around 1,000 Muslims were killed. 

Given the prevalence of depictions of the bloodthirsty Turk, the Belgian newspaper's attribution of migration to persecution would hardly have surprised a Western audience. It did, however, seem to be news to the Ottoman authorities, and they requested an explanation of the situation on the ground from each of the governors of the provinces mentioned in the article. Just as the Western press was always quick to report the depredations of the terrible Turk, Ottoman reports frequently reflect a tendency to downplay the sectarian aspects of any such events, and so these reports must also be read with skepticism. 

Of course, no governor in his right mind would have replied that the unbridled slaughter of Christians was taking place in his district even if there was a grain of truth to such a statement, so it is not surprising that each of the reports in this file reject the notion of violence as a fabrication. However, in the case of a report issued by the deputy governor of Mamuretülaziz, Mehmed Ali, we do find some analysis suggesting other reasons for emigration. Mehmed Ali reported that he had just come from Samsun and that on every day of his two-week trip he saw five to ten carts full of Armenians headed abroad. According to a subsequent investigation with the local population ministry, just over 5,000 residents of Mamuretülaziz already lived in America. Mehmed Ali wrote that the most important cause of this migration was economic, indicating that it was easier to make a living there (burada esbab-ı maişetin darlığı ve Amerika’da kolay olmasıdır). Poor Armenian villagers, like many others throughout the world, saw the United States as a land of opportunity. In order to emphasize the economic component and de-emphasize the role of fear of violence in the equation, Mehmed Ali noted that many Muslims had also chosen to emigrate and that there were even 500 Kurds working in America at the time. Moreover, while some had delayed their return due the "event that occurred in Adana", many emigrants were already returning, he wrote. With further stability, Mehmed Ali expected some professionals and wealthy Armenians to come back, too. He also predicted that the flow of migrants would decrease once railway construction began in the area, presumably creating jobs for laborers.
In the end, we cannot say exactly why Parsigh and his family and the thousands like them finally chose to emigrate. Maybe Parsigh left because of persecution, as readers of the Western press might expect, or maybe they left for economic reasons, as Mehmed Ali seemed to believe. They also might have left after converting to Protestantism. On a population level, these factors were all intertwined in the end. Economic explanations for migration were certainly valid and probably much more plausible than the sensational reports from the Belgian press described above. Yet, in light of what had just occurred in Adana and what was to come in term of violence between Muslims and Christians in Anatolia, the dismissive tone of reports by officials like Mehmed Ali also belies a certain indifference to the plight of Armenians on the part of local government.
However, it is clear that negligent though they may have been, Ottoman officials also did not want the Armenians to leave. As a result of the rise in emigration, the Ottoman government made an emergency order to halt the issuance of passports in Mamuretülaziz to stem the flow. The reasons for this measure seem to have been practical; migration decreased the labor supply and allowed men to escape military service. Of course, not having a passport didn't mean people stopped leaving. But it might have helped Ottoman officials sleep easier at night. As Reşat Kasaba details in A Moveable Empire, the late Ottoman state invested considerable resources in stopping people from moving. It told immigrants where to settle, forced nomads to stay put, and, as in the case of many Armenians, kept villagers in their villages. Amidst all these attempts to stop people from moving, the state also reserved the right to tell its citizens to move, a right that it would come to exercise in many extreme ways during the World War I period.

                 

  Sources : http://www.docblog.ottomanhistorypodcast.com/2013/09/armenian-immigrants-united-states-california.html 

Homeless dog living in a trash pile gets rescued, and then does something amazing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1Xg2G_oINqchttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1Xg2G_oINqc

http://www.ottomanhistorypodcast.com/

http://www.docblog.ottomanhistorypodcast.com/p/about-us.html

"

Tozsuz Evrak is a primary source blog that pairs incisive commentary with original historical materials related to people, creatures, and things within and beyond the Ottoman Empire.

Like Joni Mitchell, Jay Gatsby, and Atatürk, Tozsuz Evrak was originally called something else.  Inaugurated as Tozlu Evrak (Turkish for “dusty documents”) in the summer of 2012, the site’s founders altered the name in the, well, name of avoiding false advertising.  The documents on the site, after all, weren’t dusty but dustless.

So this is what gives you Tozsuz Evrak, or “documents without dust.”  It features posts grounded in primary source analysis that zoom in on the quotidian experiences of Ottomans, post-Ottomans, and nOttomans while also zooming out to make broader claims about the nature of writing history.  On their own, the posts are at worst mildly amusing trivia.  Put together, however, the fragments of stories often elided from standard academic fare amount to a mosaic of the diversity of the everyday, bringing together, for example, hyenas, guns, and circumcision in interesting and complex ways.

We were thinking of saying something here about how the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but we’re not mathematicians.  We’re historians, generally, or at least history-curious people.  And that means our hard drives, flash drives, sky drives, and soon, we expect, outside-of-the-solar system drives (to say nothing of our hippocampi) are filled with primary sources, many of which attracted our attention due to some vivid detail or arresting twist, even if – and sometimes especially because – these newspapers, memoirs, photos, songs, or, yes, dusty documents, had no connection to our research topic.

It is these primary source documents – digitally available, and without the dust – that accompany each article on our site.  By making high-quality primary source documents accessible to anyone with a computer, Tozsuz Evrak promotes the debate of history with an eye toward open-access technologies of the future."

Sam Dolbee

Chris Gratien

Michael Talbot

Jennifer Manoukian

Reem Bailony

Samuel Dolbee  editor-in-chief and frequent contributor

Sam is a joint Ph.D.candidate in History and Middle East and Islamic Studies at New York University studying infrastructure and disease in the late Ottoman and mandate era Middle East. He currently lives in Istanbul, where in addition to his work with Tozsuz Evrak, he is a regular guest on the Ottoman History Podcast. He is an enthusiast of legumes, fiction, and watering plants.

Chris Gratien  web manager and frequent contributor (academia.edu)

Chris is completing a Ph.D. at Georgetown University's Department of history. His dissertation research examines issues of settlement, ecology, and migration in late Ottoman and early Republican Anatolia. As executive producer of Ottoman History Podcast, his main side projects involve expanding outlets for academic production to more accessible and engaging digital formats. Chris used to have a wide variety of other interests but now spends most of his time on history. He is currently based in Istanbul.

Michael Talbot  frequent contributor

Michael was awarded a Ph.D.at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London in 2013 and is currently on a year's lectureship in Ottoman history at the University of St Andrews. His main research projects include Ottoman-British relations in the 17th and 18th century, mercantile disputes and commercial networks, and the impact of and Ottoman responses to European pirates in the Eastern Mediterranean. Although an early modernist at heart, he is increasingly interested in late modern Ottoman history, with new projects forming on the relationship between urban space and political discourse Palestinian port cities, the Ottoman Hebrew press, and a cultural history of medicine at the turn of the twentieth century.

Our Authors

Jennifer Manoukian is a graduate student in the Department of Middle East, South Asian and African Studies at Columbia. She focuses on the history and literature of Ottoman and diasporan Armenian communities.

Nicholas Danforth

Nir Shafir

Reem Bailony

Zoe Griffith is a PhD candidate in History at Brown University. Her research focuses on Ottoman Egypt and political economy in the eastern Mediterranean in the long eighteenth century.

OUR FRIENDS

Tozsuz Evrak is a member of MENAlab, a constellation of independent internet destinations focused on the history, society, and culture of the Middle East and North Africa. We are dedicated to presenting open-access and advertising-free content generated by scholars and researchers from a variety of disciplines. Currently our sites include:

Ottoman History Podcast: a weekly internet radio program in English and Turkish offering interviews with scholars and researchers on emerging topics in the study of the Ottoman Empire and the modern Middle East (editors: Chris Gratien | Emrah Safa Gürkan)
Tozsuz Evrak: a close to the source document blog displaying primary sources and archival materials intended for use by researchers (editors: Samuel Dolbee | Chris Gratien)
Afternoon Map: a cartography blog dedicated to presenting quality maps with a maximum pixel-to-word ratio (editor: Nicholas Danforth)
HAZİNE: a guide to researching the middle east and beyond (editors: Nir Shafir | Christopher Markiewicz)
Stambouline: a history blog where travel and art/architecture of the Ottoman Empire meet (editor: Emily Neumeier)
tajine: an academic blog and podcast about the Maghreb, launching January 2014 (editors: Graham Cornwell | Alma Heckman | Chris Gratien)

         

Earthstone Chu, à Taipei

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1453799528180983.1073741845.1411583599069243&type=1&l=65011d2952 –