Originally posted by 1.5 million
As you might also know the relations between Armenians and the Turks roots back as early as 6th Century as far as I recall. Thus, it could be said that the Armenians were not slaughtered in the Ottoman Empire prior to 19th Century. Thus, proliferation of Armenian population within the Ottoman Empire was evident in many cities, including the ones that did not historically belong to the Armenians. Furthermore, I am not going to go through the "Loyal Millet" issue, but I will point out the facts of integration of Ottoman Armenians as an "elite community" which were not despised by any means, but appreciated in most of the cases, even by the Sultan himself. That is why, perhaps many Armenians still speak Turkish or bear names that have Turkish meanings. There used to be Armenian papers printed with Armenian Alphabet, but articulated in Turkish. Literature, architecture, trade, and production were some of the areas Armenians were specilized and actively participated. However, changes of the political climate of the 19th and early 20th Centuries and the impact of external conflicts of the empire changed the structure of this relationship dractically. Russian invention and the inclusion of Russia as the protector of the Ottoman Armenians only made things worse since Armenians were literally existed in every part of the empire (which meant endless opportunities for Russia whenever they wish to interveine internal affairs of the empire), and the Russian policies towards the Ottoman Empire was not friendly at all.
Originally posted by 1.5 million
Was there only one genocide or were there a series of genocides? Perhaps, your prespective can not have any other outcome since it is very similar to what I think of when I think of the expulsion of the Circassians out of Caucasus. However, I dont have the luxury for only protecting the rights of Circassians or the rights of Armenians when it comes to admitting the truth behind those crimes executed. In a sense, I have to mention the existance of a broader scale tragedy that includes other ethnicites on top of the Armenians, Circassians, Tatars or Turks. In my opinion, this results from the emperialistic schemes designed for the Ottoman Empire arisen from the destructive side of the western world, just like many other contemporary notions were evolved from the constructive (productive) side of their culture. However, one can not accept the ones he/she wishes when denying the ones that might contradict his/her own status in the world, and that is what the Westerners should focus on rather than passing laws through their parliaments recognizing only the tragedy of the Armenians.
Originally posted by 1.5 million
Thanks, but I dont think so.
Originally posted by 1.5 million
PS: To be continued
Comment