Destruction of the Armenian Cemetery at Djulfa

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Destruction of the Armenian Cemetery at Djulfa

[QUOTE=armenica]

I did not know that destruction of churches, making them to cafe, mosque or urinals was an act of "friendly feelings", but if that's what they call it in Turkey, then I guess I learned a new thing today.

The destruction in Nakhichevan fades away in comparsion to what Turkey has done to Armenian buildings, churches and monastaries within its borders

Jeezzz!! How many years ago was it, (5, 10?), in some forum I have long forgotten, when I mentioned that the Kars cathedral was being used as a urinal (and its back rooms were being used by the local youths who would go there with their favourite female dogs and xxxx them). For some reason that bit of information has been recycled and recycled to death.

The destruction in Nakhchivan is far worse than anything that has happened in Turkey. And unless you can make some constructive suggestions on the presevation of derelict churches, lay off criticising their legitimate re-use as mosques or cafes.

[armenica]

Re: Destruction of the Armenian Cemetery at Djulfa

[QUOTE=bell-the-cat]

Jeezzz!! How many years ago was it, (5, 10?), in some forum I have long forgotten, when I mentioned that the Kars cathedral was being used as a urinal (and its back rooms were being used by the local youths who would go there with their favourite female dogs and xxxx them). For some reason that bit of information has been recycled and recycled to death.

The destruction in Nakhchivan is far worse than anything that has happened in Turkey. And unless you can make some constructive suggestions on the presevation of derelict churches, lay off criticising their legitimate re-use as mosques or cafes.

??? So all archeological sites which is not important to the local people can be ignored, let to disrepair and that justifies that they do a make over to a cafe?!? That was a lame argumentation.

The destruction of the Nakhichevan was "one" grave yard, which is deeply regretable and under all critic. But there are complex monastaries and churches in Turkey which have been left in ruins or have been destroyed intentionally, monastaries and churches far older than the kharchkars of Nakhichevan. The one doesn't deminish the other's values, but it is an understatement to say that the destruction of one site can be compared to objects in a whole region or justifying their re-make to cafe and mosques.

There are no great number of Muslims in Yerevan, are they? At least the number of religious followers are in the same ratio as Christians within Turkey. So why don't they turn the Blue Mosque into a church or cafe? It's called cultural preservation...

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Destruction of the Armenian Cemetery at Djulfa

??? So all archeological sites which is not important to the local people can be ignored, let to disrepair and that justifies that they do a make over to a cafe?!? That was a lame argumentation.

The destruction of the Nakhichevan was "one" grave yard, which is deeply regretable and under all critic. But there are complex monastaries and churches in Turkey which have been left in ruins or have been destroyed intentionally, monastaries and churches far older than the kharchkars of Nakhichevan. The one doesn't deminish the other's values, but it is an understatement to say that the destruction of one site can be compared to objects in a whole region or justifying their re-make to cafe and mosques.

There are no great number of Muslims in Yerevan, are they? At least the number of religious followers are in the same ratio as Christians within Turkey. So why don't they turn the Blue Mosque into a church or cafe? It's called cultural preservation...

The destruction in Nakhchivan is not "just" one graveyard - though that alone is destruction enough. In the last decade every single Armenian church in Nakhchivan has been destroyed - amounting to several hundred major monuments (maybe more, maybe a bit less - I don't think anyone counted how many there were to start with) plus tens of thousands of minor monuments (gravestones, etc.). It is a policy is to eliminate every example, however small, that proves the former existence of an Armenian population in Nakhchivan.

No state-level policy like this exists or has ever existed in Turkey - the fact that you can moan about Armenian churches being preserved as mosques or cafes is testimony to that fact.

Your assertion that somehow every surviving unused Armenian church in Turkey (of which there may be over 1000) should somehow be repaired and maintained only as a place of worship (purchased, repaired, and maintained by whom?) minus any surviving congregation (or indeed any visitors at all) is just such a ludicrous piece of thinking that it doesn't deserve comment. Start living it the real world.

[armenica]

Re: Destruction of the Armenian Cemetery at Djulfa

Well, this is the same issue of Armenian vs Turk isn't it? Destruction of archeological sites or objects or their remake is not justifiable in any ways , at least not in the 21st century. People don't preserve cultural or religious heritage because there are cultural and religious followers; they are preserved because of the historical value. There are no followers of the ancient pharoes in Egypt, so in your meaning they could take them apart and build houses and mosques with the stones or re-make them to fancy cafes. They are historical sites with their original values. The same goes for Armenian churches in Turkey, regardless to the fact the the followers of that church were annihilated during the genocide.

But I guess that it is the lack of respect for historical values of objects which makes you think that historical sites much serve a present purporse in order to be worth preserving.

As it goes for destruction of Armenian monasteries and churches in Turkey, the destruction has been going on up to our days. Only some well known sites such as Ani, Aghtamar and others have been saved mostly thanks to their international fame. Not knowing and reporting the rest doesn't mean that nothing has been going on in Turkey. Azeri present policy is merely a replica of Turkish policy of the last 90 years.

[armenica]

Re: Destruction of the Armenian Cemetery at Djulfa

you want to make an allusion that turkey by state-level policy demolished all the armenian churches. this is wrong,especially nowadays turkey tries to preserve.and you must know that the armenian churches which were demolished or deliberately damaged was at the time of war between russians and turks.at this war armenians collaborated with russians and betrayed my nation.because of this betrayal,turks showed their rage.this can be justified.think yourself being betrayed by your so-called friend for the sake of its interest by cooperating with enemy.you can understand better

I did read your posts and did answer them in my previous post. What you are wrting doesn't make sence at all. The destruction of Armenian churches and monasteries has continued till our days. You're writing about 100 years ago and yet there are cultural alerts about destroyed Armenian churches in as late as last year.

The rest about betrayal etc. is old Turkish propaganda and nothing more. Armenians in Western Armenia did not cooperate with the Russians. It was the Eastern Armenains who served within the Tsar Army and nothing else:

http://www.armenica.org/cgi-bin/history/en/getHistory.cgi?7=1=297

The leaders of the Union and Progress Committee first prompted the Armenians to start an armed revolt in Eastern Armenia and Transcaucasia, in return for which they were promised self-governance for Eastern Armenia and the neighbouring areas in Western Armenia after the war. The leadership of the Dashnak party rejected this offer during its Erzurum Congress in August 1914, replying that, in the eventual war between Turkey and Russia, the Armenians were obliged to fight for their respective host country. As Winston Churchill remarked, “the Armenians preferred war, involving killing brothers on two fronts, to the Turkish suggestion of treason against the Russians.” 4

4) Winston Churchill, The World Crisis, vol. V, London, 1929, p. 404

The things you write are obsolete Turkish nonfounded stories which they used in order to initiate the Armenian Genocide and the Turkish government has used in order to justify the massacres. But even that can not justify genocide. By the way:

http://www.armenica.org/cgi-bin/history/en/getHistory.cgi?7==302

The existence of the Armenian battalions at the Caucasus front did in no way justify the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish government. At the same time there were Czechoslovakian battalions in the Russian army at the Austrian front, but the Austria-Hungarian government had no thought of exterminating the Czechoslovak people in its empire. Similarly, the Russian government were aware of a Polish battalion, led by the future Marshal Pilsoleski, in which a group of Poles from Russia were fighting against Russia in the Austria-Hungarian army, but would not perpetrate genocide against the Poles. Indeed, this was a hypocritical claim from the Turkish government itself. From the very beginning of the First World War, Turkey used a Georgian unit for the war against the Russians. Moreover, chronologically, it was the very act of genocide which led to the survivors of the Armenian genocide fighting alongside the enemies of Turkey. As Mazarik, founder of Czechoslovakia, said: “No action in the defence of its decency and its people can be considered as treason against its country.”

Was this answer enough for you?

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Destruction of the Armenian Cemetery at Djulfa

Well, this is the same issue of Armenian vs Turk isn't it? Destruction of archeological sites or objects or their remake is not justifiable in any ways , at least not in the 21st century. People don't preserve cultural or religious heritage because there are cultural and religious followers; they are preserved because of the historical value. There are no followers of the ancient pharoes in Egypt, so in your meaning they could take them apart and build houses and mosques with the stones or re-make them to fancy cafes. They are historical sites with their original values. The same goes for Armenian churches in Turkey, regardless to the fact the the followers of that church were annihilated during the genocide.

But I guess that it is the lack of respect for historical values of objects which makes you think that historical sites much serve a present purporse in order to be worth preserving.

As it goes for destruction of Armenian monasteries and churches in Turkey, the destruction has been going on up to our days. Only some well known sites such as Ani, Aghtamar and others have been saved mostly thanks to their international fame. Not knowing and reporting the rest doesn't mean that nothing has been going on in Turkey. Azeri present policy is merely a replica of Turkish policy of the last 90 years.

If you think that Ani and Aghtamar have been "saved" then you are misinformed about how things are. Your ignorance of the situation in Turkey is matched by your ignorance of the situation in Azerbaijan.

It is you who seems to have a lack of respect for the historical value of objects. I believe that you seek to use and abuse them for your own political and ideological aims. You certainly suggest nothing constructive to ensure their preservation. You probably secretly hold the same view that was openly expressed by another member here a couple of months ago. He was ideologically opposed to all of the legitimate means of preserving the churches and so I told him "the truth is that you would rather see them all destroyed completely", he then admitted that was indeed what he thought, saying "Destruction is preferable to desecration".

[armenica]

Re: Destruction of the Armenian Cemetery at Djulfa

If you think that Ani and Aghtamar have been "saved" then you are misinformed about how things are. Your ignorance of the situation in Turkey is matched by your ignorance of the situation in Azerbaijan.

It is you who has the lack of respect for the historical value of objects. I believe that you seek to use and abuse then for your own political and ideological aims. You certainly suggest nothing constructive to ensure their preservation. You probably secretly hold the same view that was openly expressed by another member here a couple of months ago. He was ideologically opposed to all of the legitimate means of preserving the churches and so I told him "the truth is that you would rather see them all destroyed completely", he then admitted that was indeed what he thought, saying "Destruction is preferable to desecration".

What is it exactly you want? First you say that churches were preserved in Turkey and now you say that I'm wrong about Ani and Aghtamar. Everything is relative. Ani and Aghtamar have been blessed compared with other churches in Turkey. But that doesn't mean that Ani and Aghtamar are getting the same treatment as the pyramids in Giza or Parthenon in Greece.

Are you accusing me for deep down wanting the destruction of all Armenian archeological sites?! Nothing of what you write make sense at all. So you might would put it in plain English what it is you think about all this: is it OK to remake an 1200 years old Armenian church to mosque? Does that mean heritage conservation in your world?

I'm getting this image that you're a sharp shooter who disagrees with everyone and everything, no matter which side they represent. So it will be interesting to hear what it is that you think you are representing.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Destruction of the Armenian Cemetery at Djulfa

It is difficult for me to have a proper conversation with you on this subject because it is clear to me that you are not particularly knowledgable about the subject, and I think, from experience, that your views will not be based on facts but on bigoted anti-Turkish beliefs and opinions and third-hand information.

I did not say that Armenian churches in Turkey were preserved, if by preserved you mean "being preserved". I said that they survive - in various conditions, from almost intact to a pile of ruins - and survive because they had not been subjected to a state-wide policy of destruction like in Nakhchivan.
For decade after decade the Armenian community worldwide has been completely incapable in bringing forward any workable proposals to preserve any of them. And you, it seems, are continuing in that tradition. There is nothing wrong with a disused former church being reused as a mosque or cafe or museum or concert hall or barn, etc, if that ensures its preservation. What other solution is there but that? But you, it seems, would rather they were left to be entirely destroyed rather than be preserved and used by Turks in this way.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Destruction of the Armenian Cemetery at Djulfa

Picture of the graveyard site, taken on March 10th. It has been turned into a firing-range.

[armenica]

Re: Destruction of the Armenian Cemetery at Djulfa

It is difficult for me to have a proper conversation with you on this subject because it is clear to me that you are not particularly knowledgable about the subject, and I think, from experience, that your views will not be based on facts but on bigoted anti-Turkish beliefs and opinions and third-hand information.

I did not say that Armenian churches in Turkey were preserved, if by preserved you mean "being preserved". I said that they survive - in various conditions, from almost intact to a pile of ruins - and survive because they had not been subjected to a state-wide policy of destruction like in Nakhchivan.
For decade after decade the Armenian community worldwide has been completely incapable in bringing forward any workable proposals to preserve any of them. And you, it seems, are continuing in that tradition. There is nothing wrong with a disused former church being reused as a mosque or cafe or museum or concert hall or barn, etc, if that ensures its preservation. What other solution is there but that? But you, it seems, would rather they were left to be entirely destroyed rather than be preserved and used by Turks in this way.

Well, what's clear to you is something that you stand for and I can't get into your head to make you believe otherwise about me. That's, however, irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

What I don't understand is how do you expect that the decay of the Armenian churches in Turkey is the shortcoming of the Armenian community in the world?! Who has ever allowed Armenians to allocate fund for preservation of Armenian churches in Turkey? Are you even familiar with theTurkish policy about "Armenia" and "Armenian" in eastern Turkey?! They are changing the "separastic" animal names which contains "armeniana" or "armenus"; do you really believe that Armenians would be allowed to allocate money and repare an "Armenian church"?

Furthermore: Why should the Armenians in diaspora pay for the preservation of the cultural heritage in Turkey which that country so proudly presents in the tourist brochures?!? They don't present them as "Armenian" but as "Turkish heritage"!!! Those churches are a part of Turkey, hence its government is obliged to preserve them, not a foreign source. If you talked about UNESCO or some other international cultural instance which of some magical reason was exclusively controlled by Armenians, then I could agree, but not when you demand that private citizens of foreign countries must finance the preservation of Turkey's own cultural heritage. What's next? Paying their foreign debt as well?

I'm not sure what you have been reading, but calling me ignorant about what is going on in Turkey will not make you an expert on the subject if your argumentation is suggesting what you write here.

The destruction of the Nakhichevan grave yard is sad and regretable and a great loss for not only Armenians but for the world heritage, and you might have extra affection for that issue, but it doesn't justify your argumentation.