The Assassination of Hrant Dink

[Jade]

Loss? What exactly have you "lost"? What right have you to use the sanctimonious word "we"?

He/She obviously feels it has affected their entire nation, perhaps, because they feel it collectively, it should be wise to not question it? Afterall, he/she is talking about an entire nation when they adress the issue and saying that "they" feel this way. You can question the validity of their claim by saying "do every single Armenian living in diaspora feel like you and how would you know" but wouldn't that be something along the lines of "does every Palestinian suffer in the hands of a jew" or "did every jew living in Germany suffer from racism during WWII"? It is your decision to challenge it and perhaps you have a right but I suggest you think about the fact that this has generally been the collective feeling of a majority of peoples from a common ancestry and therefore the term "we" could be applied before you object. (Afterall, if this had been the idea and feelings of a single person, we wouldn't really be having this forum right now) It is very controversial....But by all means, if you feel that you have the right to object, go ahead and perhaps you are right.

[Jade]

That is wrong. There are not "both sides". Not for this issue, not for any issue. Please do not fall for the "English disease" of thinking that everything has to have at least two sides, two viewpoints. It has made today's journalists second only to politicians as being the most contemptable of creatures. There is only truth, and finding that truth is mostly unrelated to what one "side" or another "side" says.

You misunderstand. I said "both sides" because right now neither side can decide on a single idea. I am not saying that there are "both sides" to a truth. I wouldn't want to comment on that in one way or the other. I am simply saying that there are two opposite sides that oppose each others ideas about this issue. And I feel it my duty to look at both sides before I can comment on it or develop ideas about it. Would it be fair, do you think if I were to simply take the Turkish opinion (only because I am a Turk) and ignore the Armenian opinion? This is a common past, and since two parties were involved, wouldn't it be only just if both the sides were listened to?

[bell-the-cat]

No Jade, speaking in a general terms, the Armenian genocide happened too long ago for such things as personal or collective loss to be credible emotions. It would be the same as some right-wing Turk going on and on about the Greeks invading Turkey in 1921 as a justification for some present-day emotion.

And in specific terms, that poster is not a person that even most Armenians would want to identify as being "Armenian", and (in my opinion gained from face-to face experiences with him) he is not someone who can genuinely feel the emotions he says he feels. Remember that here, as everywhere, not everything is as it appears.

[bell-the-cat]

You misunderstand. I said "both sides" because right now neither side can decide on a single idea. I am not saying that there are "both sides" to a truth. I wouldn't want to comment on that in one way or the other. I am simply saying that there are two opposite sides that oppose each others ideas about this issue. And I feel it my duty to look at both sides before I can comment on it or develop ideas about it. Would it be fair, do you think if I were to simply take the Turkish opinion (only because I am a Turk) and ignore the Armenian opinion? This is a common past, and since two parties were involved, wouldn't it be only just if both the sides were listened to?

But, Jade, what do you mean by sides?
Look at Turkey - from the viewpoint of Dink's assasin there were two sides - those for Turkey and those against it. But the tens of thousand who marched in protest at Dink's murder would not divide Turks into such simplistic divisions. Sides are for fanatics - believe what they say and you get further from the truth, not nearer it. There is not a "Turkish opinion" or an "Armenian opinion". And neither Turks nor Armenians "own" the history of the Armenian genocide.

[Jade]

Dear Bell, perhaps you are right, personally I would rather think that the Armenian Genocide didn't happen at all (afterall it puts my country into such a bad light) but my personal feelings hardly matter at all do they? I read once that the Armenian genocide was "indeed a genocide" but that no such term existed when it was committed. This may indeed be the case. As for the "poster", I can only get information through what each member posts therefore I cannot form any valid opinions about their personalities, only informations that they may reveal about themselves. I will remind everyone here, again, that I have not come to this forum with any set idea about the issue but only to gather some information where I can, and some opinions about the matter before I can decide for myself, therefore I will refrain from making any comments. Your opinions are valuable to me as now I know for a fact that not all people (except the Turks) believe that the Armenian Genocide happened for real. But wait...Maybe you are a Turk? Would it be too personal for me to ask you your nationality?

[Jade]

But, Jade, what do you mean by sides?
Look at Turkey - from the viewpoint of Dink's assasin there were two sides - those for Turkey and those against it. But the tens of thousand who marched in protest at Dink's murder would not divide Turks into such simplistic divisions. Sides are for fanatics - believe what they say and you get further from the truth, not nearer it. There is not a "Turkish opinion" or an "Armenian opinion". And neither Turks nor Armenians "own" the history of the Armenian genocide.

You know you may indeed be quite right...I will think hard about that...It is just that so far, it has always been the majority of the Turks who denied the genocide while the majority of the Armenians (from what I can gather) said it happened. That's why I had divided it into "two sides" because it seemed to me that there were "mainly" two sides that "opposed" the other side's idea. But perhaps it was wrong of me to do that. What do you suggest I should do then?

[bell-the-cat]

Dear Bell, perhaps you are right, personally I would rather think that the Armenian Genocide didn't happen at all (afterall it puts my country into such a bad light) but my personal feelings hardly matter at all do they? I read once that the Armenian genocide was "indeed a genocide" but that no such term existed when it was committed. This may indeed be the case. As for the "poster", I can only get information through what each member posts therefore I cannot form any valid opinions about their personalities, only informations that they may reveal about themselves. I will remind everyone here, again, that I have not come to this forum with any set idea about the issue but only to gather some information where I can, and some opinions about the matter before I can decide for myself, therefore I will refrain from making any comments. Your opinions are valuable to me as now I know for a fact that not all people (except the Turks) believe that the Armenian Genocide happened for real. But wait...Maybe you are a Turk? Would it be too personal for me to ask you your nationality?

I find it hard to believe that anyone can seriously say that the Armenian genocide did not happen? Saying "I have no opinion of the subject" is valid I suppose, and saying "I do not know enough to come to a conclusion" would be valid for those who know next to nothing about the subject. But you really would have to know next to nothing for the latter to be true. The evidence is so overwhelming, so in-your-face obvious, that you need very little effort to come to the conclusion that it happened. OK, some people can believe all sorts of nonsense, but there are limits for even them: those that say it did not happen mostly have ulterior motives, I think. They know it did happen, but are saying it didn't. Exploring those motives would be interesting. I think the biggest reason (for Turks in Turkey) is that they think it's not worth the trouble.

(Me? I'm just a cat, who wanders and wonders about Turkey a lot. )

[bell-the-cat]

You know you may indeed be quite right...I will think hard about that...It is just that so far, it has always been the majority of the Turks who denied the genocide while the majority of the Armenians (from what I can gather) said it happened. That's why I had divided it into "two sides" because it seemed to me that there were "mainly" two sides that "opposed" the other side's idea. But perhaps it was wrong of me to do that. What do you suggest I should do then?

I think we should all discard the concept of sides as a basis for deciding on the truth, but still all be aware that these "sides" will be supplying most of the information about the Armenian genocide. Concentrate on individual people - what they say (and don't say), and how they say it, and who they are saying it to.

Hey, it's not "the majority" of Armenians who will say the AG happened - 99.999% of Armenians will say it happened! The diagreements come from what should be done about the reality of it having happened.

[Jade]

I find it hard to believe that anyone can seriously say that the Armenian genocide did not happen? Saying "I have no opinion of the subject" is valid I suppose, and saying "I do not know enough to come to a conclusion" would be valid for those who know next to nothing about the subject. But you really would have to know next to nothing for the latter to be true. The evidence is so overwhelming, so in-your-face obvious, that you need very little effort to come to the conclusion that it happened. OK, some people can believe all sorts of nonsense, but there are limits for even them: those that say it did not happen mostly have ulterior motives, I think. They know it did happen, but are saying it didn't. Exploring those motives would be interesting. I think the biggest reason (for Turks in Turkey) is that they think it's not worth the trouble.

(Me? I'm just a cat, who wanders and wonders about Turkey a lot. )

You too would be in a hard position if all your life everyone around you, including your parents said that there was not enough evidence to call the Armenian genocide, a genocide. I could have believed them (they are only my parents and immediate family afterall) but I wanted to find out about the Armenian opinion. Simply listening to someone saying that it did not happen does not make me believe that it did not indeed happen. And I think you are wrong to say that the Turks do not think it is worth the trouble, admitting to the genocide would have an enormous impact on Turkey how can they think its not worth the trouble? It is quite possibly the most discussed issue in Turkey today. And it is true I don't know anything about the genocide except that it happened during WWI that it was the Turks who killed the Armenians and that thousands were killed and Turkey is denying it today. So I suppose it is next to nothing, are you saying that even though I know so little about it (although perhaps just knowing these would be enough for you) I should be forced to come to a conclusion? Please do not forget though, as I have written in an earlier post, I have said that because it were the Armenians who were killed, they shold be the ones to decide on what to call it. If they believe it a genocide, then perhaps it indeed is. But I am confused, just in an earlier post you said that the genocide was too long ago which gave me the impression that you did not think that it should be this much "publicized" since it was too long ago, did I get the wrong impression?

[bell-the-cat]

Sorry, I didn't make that clear - when I said "not worth the trouble" I wasn't meaning it to sound as if the issue was not unimportant. I meant that the amount of trouble that someone could find themselves in if they said in public that they recognised that there had been a genocide would be too great to make it a worthwile thing to do.
But that is pre-Dink's assassination - now maybe things have changed. Before, people would talk about anything but the things that should be being talked about. Maybe that has changed permanently, I hope it has. It's so sad though that someone has had to be killed for that to happen.