Tweet
Let's agree to disagree..
-
-
Originally posted by nkirimli
If it wasn't the Turks killing the Armenians, Assyrians, Yezidis, Chaldeans, Nestorians, Arabs, Dersim Kurds and Maronites, then please tell me who it was. It certainly wasn't the Martians. But it was the Ottomans, right? And who were they? I'll answer for you, they were the Sunni Muslim majority of Turkic descent.
The Turkish defense always seems to essentially be derived from this arguement:
1. It was the Ottoman Empire that did those things.
2. The Ottoman Empire ceased to exist in 1923
3. The Ottomans then called themselves Turks and history just evaporated and they can no longer be blamed for the what happened.
Like magic.
I'll give you a hypothetical situation. Suppose I murder someone but then I change my name from Joseph to Mehmet. I can now use the Turkish defense and say that it was Joseph who committed the murder and since I'm now Mehmet, I cannot be held responsible for what Joseph has done.
Furthermore, I can supplement my arguement by saying: Joseph no longer exists so perhaps the murder never happened or what happened is in the past, people should not anger Mehmet with such triviality because he may revert to his Joseph-like ways and murder again.
Here is another bone of contention we have with the Turks:
How about blaming the CUP for getting the OE involved in WWI to begin with? Why not blame them for the Pan-Turkic dream that led to disaster? Why not blame them for the death that befell the land that was a direct result for their downright evil policies?
All empires fall, as they rightly should because they are all inherently evil. The CUP just hastend its demise. The OE never had to enter that fight but it did. If you are so insistent upon distancing yourselves from the OE, why do you still intentionally or unintentionally defend what they have done? Is it because they were Turks perhaps?
And no, we won't "shut up" about it either which is evident by the fact that our strength is growing. More people join and support our cause daily because not only do we have truth on our side, the more Turkey tries to clumsily defend their actions the easier our task becomes. In that regards, the Turks are their own worst enemy.
I hope Turkey liberalizes, I really do. But I don't have much faith it will anytime soon. We shall see I suppose.
We aspire for Genocide recognition because it is good for Armenia as well. Without recognition there is no remorse by those who have perpetrated such a crime. Armenia has absolutely no reason to trust that Turkey will never do something like that again. For Armenia, it is a security issue of the most paramount importance.
We owe it to our ancestors to stand up for their good name. The Armenians who lived in the OE were craftsmen, bankers, doctors, artisans, teachers, farmers, priests, tailors, carpenters, masons. They were relgious. They valued education. They were never warlike. They did not impose their will upon anyone. Chances are, when you look around your cities in Turkey, at the old buildings, even many of the mosques, they were built by Armenians.
I suppose this made them to focus of jealousy and easy prey. It is unfortunate for them that they were so loyal for so long a time.
It's not just the people that were killed, it's the fact that the land where Armenians became a people, where our church was born, and our language was first scripted is gone. Our families lines that have stretched back on that land for three thousand years were uprooted.
And those that did it have the audacity to call us liars.General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”Comment
-
Very short-sighted...on behalf of Turkey! It is Turkey, not Armenia that has closed the borders and cut off diplomatic relations. Armenian has repeatedly called for diplomatic relations and trade since 1993. These requests have fallen on deaf ears. If you've read the news, there was even an international conference just last week in Yerevan regarding trade relations and border issues with Turkey. Where are you getting your information from? Turkey is the one with choice to make and the power to change the situation. THERE ARE NO PRE-CONDITIONS FROM THE ARMENIAN SIDE. NOT ONE.Originally posted by hrad View Post
Its interesting that you should bring up Iran. Armenians and Persians (and even Armenians and Arabs for that matter), have good relations. Iran and Armenia have brisk trade and religion does not factor into it at all. I can sense that you are perhaps insinuating that Armenians do not like Turks because they are Muslim. That is ridiculous. As an Armenian, you should know that we have vibrant communities throughtout the Middle East and get along well with Muslims.General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”Comment
-
The ball is in Turkey's court and there have never been any pre-conditions put forth by Armenia. This issue is only confrontational because Turkey has deemed it so. They are more interested in stifling what we have to say and waging war against the far-flung diaspora. That is their prerogative. Armenia has repeatedly stood for relations with Turkey and they have been shunned not by the diaspora, but by Turkey. Furthermore, Turkey has continued to bully Armenia in the efforts to make life more miserable for them with the blockade and so forth.Originally posted by hrad View Post
I have a question for you. Do you believe it was a Genocide?General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”Comment
-
And now I've been tarred by your brush.Originally posted by hrad View Post
Though I happen to live in Washington, DC, I have a small group of Turkish friends, due to my wife having grown up mostly in Istanbul. These ladies attended the same high school as her and now live in close proximity to us. My wifes family still lives in Turkey and I've been there several times. That being said, her liberal-minded friends here in states and even a few still in Istanbul and Izmir do agree it was a genocide. And no, I did not have to coerce a confession, they volunteered this to me.
Still, amongst family members, colleagues, or anyone else just inside our earshot say in a public place such as a cafe or something, these same people would never outright admit it. It's too dangerous, causes too many problems, etc. I can understand that.
Geunine relations among people can only be built upon the foundations of truth. Relations based on trust will last.
The wise man builds his house upon the rock, the foolish man builds his house upon the sand.
I do not blame Turks at large about the denial or lack of knowledge about anything relating to Armenians and/or Armenia for that matter. I only blame the authorities that keep them ignorant. I've become aware of how they were taught (rote memorization and discouraged of independent thinking in the classroom), what the were taught in school and most Armenians should be aware the in the Turkish eduaction system, we do not really exist.
In any regard it was great to see thousands upon thousands of liberal-minded, urban Turkish citizens show up and honor Hrant Dink but there are probably millions more that are truly rejoicing his death out in the hinterlands and in the darker sections of town. But I do hope Turkey liberalizes. Everybody would benefit from that.
http://www.gazetem.net/ahmetaltan.asp
"1915-2007" by Ahmet Altan
Nothing much has changed it seems.
They were murdered in 1915 as well...
They are being murdered in 2007 too...
What was being said about that massacre at the beginning of last
century.
"They killed us, and we killed them back."
What are we going to say about the murder of Hrant then?
That "Hrant killed us, and we killed Hrant back?"
Now that is not what we say, is it?
We say "traitors killed Hrant."
We do not see the murderers of Hrant as one of "us."
Why is it that "we" are the ones who ninety years ago killed
hundreds of thousands of people, without forsaking children, women,
elderly and babies, who decimated the Armenians, but we are not the
ones who killed Hrant?
What is the difference between the two?
The difference is that this time we saw the murder, that we have an
idea about the intentions of the murderer.
This time they did not "tell us" how the murder was
committed, we personally witnessed it ourselves.
If those who in this country "write" the history of 1915 had
also written the murder of Hrant, the children in this country
would have said fifty years later that "Hrant had killed us, and
we killed Hrant back."
The truth would have changed shape in the hands of the liars.
We did not kill Hrant.
Most probably some people who have ferreted their way into the state
had Hrant killed.
Their intention was for the world to react negatively to Turkey,
which would have escalated nationalism within the country in
response, leading to a break off from Europe.
In 1915 as well, "we" did not kill the Armenians.
Those poor people were not killed by "the ones ferreted inside the
state," but directly by the state itself.
A great massacre that was organized by the Unionists in government
was actualized.
The Armenians who were killed were Ottoman subjects.
They were a part of the Ottoman nation.
A part of the nation was utterly destroyed by the state.
"We" are the nation.
The ones who were killed were a part of "us."
Since each Turk who lives in this country see themselves not as a
"part of the nation" but rather a "part of the
state," however, they also own this massacre executed by the
state.
"They killed us, we killed them," they say.
Now that is a lie.
The Ottoman state, under the government of the Unionists killed, in
an organized manner, with the planning of the intelligence unit
entitled Special Organization (TeÅ~_kilat-ı Mahsusa), a "part
of us."
The murdered Armenians are a part of "us."
It is actually our duty to ask them to account for that murdered part
of us.
"We" ought to face this state and ask them "are you a
continuation of the Ottoman state," ask them "why do you own
up to the murder committed by a state you destroyed," ask them
"why don't you yourself seek accountability for this
destruction by the state of a part of its nation and instead leave
this task to others."
Because "we" did not ask this, one of "us," Hrant
Dink, has now been murdered.
On top of it all, he, while still mourning for his ancestors, wanted
Turkey not to be trapped solely within the term "genocide,"
not to have the entire debate forced into a single word; he wanted
Turkey to be permiited to become democratized through uniting with
the world .
He was declared "an enemy of the Turks."
Hrant was no one's enemy, he was not someone who could have been
a foe.
He was a friend.
And he was a friend to everyone.
Why is it that in this country those who are "for murders and
massacres" are accepted as a Turk while "those for
friendship, peace, justice and humanity" are regarded as foe.
Why is it that those who strive to equate the word "Turk"
with "death" are regarded as a "Turk"?
Are those who try to have an entire tribe declared as
"murderers" truly the friends of the Turks?
The Turkish populace owns up to the crimes of the old and new
"state" because it cannot grasp that it is the
"nation."
As it cannot grasp that it itself is the nation, it identifies
itself with the murderers instead and says "us."
My heart could never bear to have the sorrowful deaths of those
hundreds of thousands of people, the bloody tragedy that was
experienced to be lost within the vortex created by the term
"genocide."
Yet because we have not been able to move beyond that word, people
like Hrant are still being killed.
I think that now, in order to prevent new murders, iin order to stop
this country from being dragged to a dead end, it is up to us to move
beyond that word.
The Ottoman state killed hundreds of thousands of people solely
because they were "Armenians."
And today a hidden force kills Hrant for "being an
Armenian."
What are we going to call it if a person is being killed solely
because of their race or their religion?
It is up to "us," to this nation to ask for an accounting of
those who were killed.
Hrant's death hurt you all deeply.
If you had witnessed what had happened in 1915, you would have been
likewise deeply hurt.
And you would not have said "they killed us, we kiled them."
You would have been ashamed.
Just as you wanted Hrant's murderers to be found, you would have
wanted the murderers of those Armenians found as well.
With his death, Hrant made us remember that we are a nation, that we
should not identify ourselves with the murderers.
Then let us do what befits being a nation.
Who killed Hrant?
Who killed the Armenians in 1915?
They do not have to account for their actions to "others,"
they have to account to "us."
For we are the ones who have died.
The ones who died are a part of us.General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”Comment
-
Good response Joseph,
Like you I have a variety of Turkish friends and aquiantences and I know Turks who fully accept the essential facts and culpability of Turks in the Armenian Genocide (and one who calls for a return of lands now!), I also know others who accept what was done but still have a bit of excuse mentality, and others still who just say that they ar sorry without really much discussion of the details. Of all the Turks that I personally know there are none who come right out and say it never happened. I do have one Turkish friend who says she can't understand why Armenians blame Turks for such foul things - but as I wouldn't even know where to begin with her - in terms of imparting any understanding of history - I just tell her not to worry about it and just concentrate on being a good person herself.
No one here is responsible for setting Armenian or Turkish Governmental policy in regards to borders, trade or regognition - etc. And I very much doubt that representatives of these governments are consulting here for policy guidane - so its really quite imaterial what we think about these issues and likewise what governmental policies will be concerning the Armenian Genocide itself. Likewise we cannot dictate either what other European nations have done to the natives of various places that may have resulted in death and destruction on a similar scale as a deliberate genocide miht have done nor is our main point of interest here discussing these things and the adequacy of admissions of guilt or shame etc in regards to these things. We are here to discuss the Armenian Genocide - to present information regarding the history - what occured and why and to comment on and present information regarding what is happening in the world today regarding such - including of course the issue of Turkish (lack of) recognition for such. I just wanted to remind those Turks and certain (claimed to be) Armenians of why it is we are here.
As for Dink - it is quite clear that he is just the latest victim of the Armenian Genocide - of the ongoing Turkish Government sponsored Genocide against Armenians. Of course many Turks will morne him as an advocate for free speech and such - but even this can only be properly understood within the context of the ongoing Genocide being commited by the Turks against the Armenians and the particular mental paradigm concerning minorities and the issue of so-called "Turkishness" that has sprung from the Genocide and from the CUP mindset internalized by Ataturk and the Nationalists (who as Akcam has more then proven were just CUP in Nationalist clothing). The monolithic xenophobic mentality forced upon "Turks" rejecting their own and others ethnicity in order to be "Turk" is at the root of Dink's murder - and this policy/world view comes straight out of the same mentality that spurned the Armenian genocide, its subsequant denials and is responsible for a host of other social and political problems facing Turkey today - including all of those pertaining to restrictions on free speech.Comment
-
Trabzon: Armenians still blamed in conspiracy theories
TAMING TURKISH NATIONALISM A CHALLENGE IN ACCUSED KILLER’S HOMETOWN
Nicholas*Birch 1/26/07
Print this article * Email this article
The murder last week of Turkish-Armenian editor Hrant Dink continues to make waves in Turkey, with the country’s powerful Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association joining in national and international calls for the immediate scrapping of a law that makes it a crime "to belittle Turkishness." But the increasingly aggressive nationalism that characterizes Trabzon, the port city that is home to Dink’s suspected killer, suggests that the campaign to overturn the law could face an uphill struggle.
Article 301, as the law is called, "laid the groundwork for the assassination," said Mustafa Koç, a member of the Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association (TUSIAD) and the chairman of the board of Koç Holding, Turkey’s largest and most influential business group. Those who support the law, he added, speaking at the January 25 annual meeting of the TUSIAD high council, "are trying to block transition . . . resist renewal . . . surrender themselves to the current authoritarian atmosphere."
Taken to court by the same ultra-nationalists who targeted Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk, Dink, the editor-in-chief of Agos newspaper, received a six-month suspended prison sentence under the law in October 2005. In the last article he ever published, the editor described the trial as a turning point in his life, writing that the law had prompted "a significant segment of the population . . . [to] view [me] as someone ‘insulting Turkishness.’"
Police have now detained five people in connection with Dink’s January 19 murder, including 17-year-old suspected gunman Ogun Samast, and an ultra-nationalist university student thought to be the mastermind behind the attack. [For details, see the Eurasia Insight archive].
All five detainees are from Trabzon, a fact that has convinced many inhabitants that this port town, seen as the unofficial capital of Turkey’s eastern Black Sea coastal region, is part of a sinister plot.
For those locals less inclined to conspiracy theories, it is the continuation of a nightmare that began in May 2005, when four young left-wing students narrowly avoided being beaten to death in central Trabzon by a lynch mob.
Like two smaller lynching attempts that followed it, that incident hit Turkish headlines. Then, in February 2006, Trabzon gained international notoriety after a 16-year old local boy shot and killed the Italian priest who ran the local Catholic church.
"What has happened to Trabzon?" asked the headline in the Turkish daily Radikal on January 22, a day after police, tipped off by relatives, arrested gunman Ogun Samast on a bus that would have taken him to Georgia.
Turkey was a nationalist country long before groups opposed to its European Union accession process began pumping up xenophobia. Radical nationalism of the sort that appears to have influenced Dink’s murderers has traditionally been strongest in the towns south of the 3,500-meter peaks dividing Trabzon from the bleak Anatolian interior. But it’s only recently that Trabzon has become a center for such thinking, and locals say the phenomenon is spiraling out of control.
"What you have here is a headless monster, a nursery for potential assassins," said Omer Faruk Altuntas, a lawyer and the local head of the small, left-leaning Freedom and Democracy Party.
"You may not like its policies, but at least the MHP [Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi – Nationalist Movement Party] controls its followers," agreed town councilor Mehmet Akcelep, referring to Turkey’s biggest extremist nationalist party. "But Samast and hundreds of others like him aren’t party people. They’re free operators. In part, Trabzon’s problems are Turkey’s problems. In the space of little more than a decade, the port city’s population has swollen from 150,000 to around 400,000 as farmers flee the economic deprivation of the countryside. In Pelitli, the Trabzon suburb which was home to Ogun Samast, youth unemployment is high, with only two Internet cafes in which idle youngsters can wile the time away."
Local media also play a role. When General Hilmi Ozkok, then commander-in-chief of Turkey’s armed forces, termed two Kurdish teenagers arrested for trying to burn the Turkish flag "so-called citizens," the town’s media outlets readily took up the accusation. When leftist students began distributing leaflets about prison conditions, two television stations told viewers they were separatists. Within minutes, hundreds of shopkeepers were on the street. The result was the May 2005 attempted lynching.
"Three or four times, [the local media has] pretty much invited people to take out their guns and start shooting", said Gultekin Yucesan, head of Trabzon’s Human Rights Association (IHD).
In most Anatolian towns, where people often only read local newspapers for the used car advertisements, that wouldn’t matter. But Trabzon’s ten papers and television stations are influential, for the simple reason that this is a city built around soccer.
Trabzonspor is the only non-Istanbul club ever to have won the Turkish League. Its blue and purple colors drape the city. And while everybody here supports it, some say its influence on the city is increasingly negative.
"Trabzon football has become a semi-official conduit for nationalism," said retired teacher Nuri Topal.
Locals say it’s no surprise that Ogun Samast and Yasin Hayal, the man believed to have given the teenager the gun that killed Dink, played amateur soccer for Pelitlispor.
Rumors have long circulated about the club’s links with a local mafia that got rich controlling this crucial staging post in Black Sea human trafficking networks. Just last year, the club’s best player was banned for conniving with match-fixing mafiosi.
IHD head Gultekin Yucesan describes an incident he saw at a Trabzonspor match two days after Dink’s murder.
After a couple of bad decisions by the referee, he said, one supporter shouted "Do that again and I’ll put a white hat on and blow your head off." Samast was wearing a white hat when he shot Hrant Dink.
"Trabzon must learn its lesson," proclaimed a headline in one local paper on January 22. Though for now, it is far from clear that it has.
Mehmet Samast, a distant relative of the teenager suspected of killing Dink, tells a reporter how much he regrets what has happened, how ashamed he feels. He appears to be sincere. But then, echoing the rhetoric of several nationalist parties, he goes on to say that Ogun Samast was the victim of an international plot.
"Trabzon is vital strategically," he explained. "This murder was the work of the Americans, or the Armenian Diaspora. They didn’t like [Dink] either, you know."
Writing on January 22 in the local newspaper Ilkhaber, columnist Temel Korkmaz was blunter. Since Europeans insist on calling the Kurdish separatists who kill Turkish soldiers "guerrillas," he wrote, "I’ll call the man who killed Dink a guerrilla, too."
In her January 26 column, Ece Temelkuran, a liberal columnist who writes for the national daily Milliyet, was pessimistic about Turkey’s future. Readers were evenly divided in their reactions to her earlier comments on Hrant Dink’s death, she wrote, with 50 percent supportive, 50 percent warning her to watch what she said.
But people who want to see a more open, more democratic Turkey "are not 50 percent of this country," Temelkuran wrote. "We are in a tiny minority. . . More than 200,000 people marched for Hrant Dink’s funeral. That’s good. But don’t forget that number is barely 1 percent of Istanbul’s population."
Editor’s Note: Nicholas Birch specializes in Turkey, Iran and the Middle East.
Posted January 26, 2007 © Eurasianet
General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”Comment
-
Originally posted by Joseph View Post
Wow ! You are truly ignited. You are trying to get me to support your ideals and your opinion as to how we should surmount the unsurmountable (Genocide recognition by the Turkish government)
Before I answer your question, I would like to quote nkirimli -he is talking about you here
I understand that you have too much to say. And I must admit you are very good at saying hurtfull things like they are harmless.
But I dont have that much time to answer all you saying. My sentiments
I am an Armenian like you and I will stand my ground and argue my point until the 'cows come home'. Anybody who knows me will attest to that fact. No matter how you try you will not 'ignite' me and I will not resort to putting multiple postings.
It seems it is ALL or NOTHING to you . It's either GENOCIDE recognition or the fight goes on. It disturbs me that you can not give me DEFINITIVE answers to TWO very important questions. Do you consider the Armenian diaspora (I know you don't agree with me on that) has the right to call for Genocide recognition by Turkey when our fellow Armenians living in Turkey clearly feel uneasy and unsafe. Have you put the same question (you want me to answer) to Patriarch Mutafyan? Or to ANY Turkish Armenian for that matter ? Your logic seems to suggest that , it does not matter if we put 40,000 -60,000 Turkish Armenian lives in danger as long as we get Genocide recognition.
What ,in your opinion will follow Genocide recognition? My Logic says that Armenians will claim lost territories back and compensation. If you think Turkey would be willing to go along with all this - dream on! Who is going to force Turkey to succumb ? Good old Uncle Sam ? Consider also the fact that on many occasions The government of Armenia and Robert Kocharian has stated -"We do not have territorial claims agaist Turkey"
It does not matter if you are unwilling to answer my questions. I will answer your question. A vast number of our fellow Armenians WERE MASSACRED. I know because I heard it FIRST hand from both sets of grandparents who came from Adana. I am not sure when the term Genocide came into the argument , but I clearly remember on the fiftieth Aniversary of the massacres in 1965 we marched in our thousands carrying placards and banners which said REMEMBER THE ARMENIAN MASSACRES / 1.5 MILLION ARMENIANS MASSACRED IN WW1 are two examples. YES GENOCIDE MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN THE AIM OF THE OE , BUT THANKFULLY THEY DID NOT SUCCEED.
Armenians living in Armenia and the Diaspora are living proof. We can NEVER EVER forget the 1.5 massacred Armenians . But I believe we should give more consideration to the living Armenians.
My position is : which terminology do we adopt? The number of victims is not disputed by me and you.If we get Turkey to admit that 1.5 Million Armenians were massacred during WW1 , should we accept ? You might well consider it a watered down demand against Turkey. But I believe Turkey WILL agree and most importantly the US Senate will have no problem ratifying the bill.Comment
-
So I'm guessing your answer is No.Originally posted by hrad View Post
I, and others on this website share the same passion regarding the justice and the crime of Genocide, thus the reason for the site's existence. But before your self-righteousness grows, perhaps you should consider the fact that you are the one who joined this site, a site where our purpose is to discuss the Genocide and exchange information regarding history and you have essentially proposed that we drop Genocide recognition to make your life easier. Can you not see the peculiarity in that? I'm not saying that to be cruel. But can you think about that for a moment? We have already made up our minds and you have made up yours, so what is your point in being here?
And regarding your friend, nkirimli, in his last post directed toward me, he found the time to ask some additional questions and so I dually felt obligated to answer. Yes, it is unfortunate for his own sake that he becomes more befuddled and confused with every post. But I see you are his defender. Good for him.
You are correct on one thing, the fight for recognition will continue whether I chose to participate or not and day by day we are getting more support. If Turkey chooses to react in a negative way, like I have said in prior posts, it will only show the outside world how politically immature they are. This is already happening.
I do not recall when you have asked me those questions in prior emails but I will gladly answer them for you now.
1. YES, the Armenian Diaspora has that right. And I will pose some questions back at you: Who do you blame “when our fellow Armenians living in Turkey clearly feel uneasy and unsafe”, do you blame the Diaspora? Do you blame the Diaspora for the discriminations that Armenians have experienced and continue to experience in Turkey? Do you blame the Armenians for what befell them in the past? Do you blame the Armenians for the lack of freedoms in Turkey?
2. YES, my family that lives in Turkey and other Bolsahays that are cheering us on, many silently, but cheering us on and helping us nonetheless. I fully realize that Armenians in Turkey are canaries in a cage and I feel bad for them.
3. Personally, I would one day hope to see a public apology from Turkey. Compensations would be much deserved but I agree that realistically, there would be no compensations. I clearly remember Kocharian's pronouncement in an interview with Mehmet Ali Birand; it was courageous. And how did Turkey react? They didn't.
Please also try to remember that in addition to denying the genocide and having a society built upon discrimination against Armenians…and other Christians…and Jews…and Kurds…and Alevis…and leftists…and intellectuals (see a pattern?), Turkey continues to subjugate Armenia to a blockade, refuses to have diplomatic relations without pre-conditions thus actually preventing any negotiation that might help resolve smaller issues that would perhaps pave the way for a magnanimous relationship.
As far as when the term "genocide" came into the picture, the term was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish legal scholar, in 1943, from the roots genos (Greek for family, tribe or race) and -cide (Latin - occidere or cideo - to massacre). The events he used for his definition included the Armenian annihilation in WWI, the massacre of Assyrians in Iraq in 1933, and the Jewish Holocaust. So you can see why it is a little insulting when Turks deny the genocide of Armenians when indeed the term was actually coined to describe exactly what was done to Armenians.
I do realize that one of the main reasons that Turkey will not admit the genocide is that they do not want to be put in the same category as the Nazis. Neither would I but nevertheless it was indeed a genocide. Why should it be watered down in order not to hurt their fragile feelings and egos? Why should we lie to appease the aggressor? Why should Armenians be continually victimized after having been almost entirely eradicated?
And if what befell the Armenians was not a genocide, then what shall we call what happened to the Tutsis, Bosnians, Chechens, Kurds, Gypsies, Ukranians, Cambodians, Algierians, American Indians, Sudanese in Darfur etc?
I do think you brought up an interesting question. I think many Armenians would be somewhat appreciative if Turkey made a statement along the lines of “we apologize for the 1.5 millions Armenians massacred by our forefathers”. That could certainly be perceived as something positive, at least in my estimation. It would also be a cop out though.
Achieving change in this world takes radicalism. It was radicals who brought forth the civil rights movement, women's rights, and all other worthy causes to the forefront of public consciousness. This is why I think we strive for justice.General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”Comment
-
That's the most despairing article to date, yet it seems quite accurate. :|Comment
Comment