History of the Armenian Genocide

[Federate]

Re: History of the Armenian Genocide

And, (and also with due respect to Crimson Clow and his obvious good intentions), I have to agree.

Do you feel that there is important information missing from this brief summary? I'd be happy to hear suggestions on how we can make this more complete.

[hrai]

Re: History of the Armenian Genocide

Everybody on this forum should read Dadrian, Sarafian, Kaiser. With all due respect this thread is for kiddies.

Crimson's post is an excellent introduction to the AG. It claims to be nothing more. The effort put into condensing, in a comprehensible way, is highly commendable and for it to be dismissed as above actually shows no due respect!

[hipeter924]

Re: History of the Armenian Genocide

The thing is, most people will not even read a page of scholarly books because they are in reality either lazy or too dumb (dummies). That is why such a summary is necessary for the average person so that they AT LEAST know something beyond April 24, 1915 (if they even know that to begin with). This is the entire history of the genocide and the events that preceded it as short as possible.

Oh and I would recommend Akcam too in the list of people you named.

I read scholarly books, just that I am not so good on quoting them.

[Lusineharut]

Re: History of the Armenian Genocide

I would like to thank you Crimson for the short overview of the Armenian Genocide.
It is very helpful as it's concise and easy to read.
I am curious if you are Armenian or have any connections with the Armenians.
I am Armenian- Canadian, and I wonder if I can use some citations from your article during the commemoration evening in Calgary on April 24th.
Thanks again

[Crimson Glow]

Re: History of the Armenian Genocide

Thank you, LucineHarut. Yes, I am 100% Armenian by blood, but I was born in America in a non-Armenian community. And yes, you are more than welcome to use anything you want from the piece.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: History of the Armenian Genocide

Do you feel that there is important information missing from this brief summary? I'd be happy to hear suggestions on how we can make this more complete.

Honestly, I don't see any brief summary of the Armenian Genocide in this thread.

What I see is a long, rambling, mostly off-topic posting.

Would we see in an brief summary of the xxxish Holocaust, a Biblical account of the Garden of Eden, then mention of semi-mythical figures like Abraham and mythical events like the parting of the Red Sea and the arrival into the Promised Land, then accounts of some of the bad things Romans did to xxxs, and then mention of the socio-economic developement of late-Medieval and Renaissance Europe and the implications of the discovery and colonisation of the Americas, followed by a summary of the various wars and revolutions that took place in 19th century Europe, then a summary of WW1 and its aftermath, and then at the very end, a paragraph or two mentioning Hitler and railway trains and gas chambers and yellow stars and what not. No, we would not.

[Sako]

Re: History of the Armenian Genocide

Honestly, I don't see any brief summary of the Armenian Genocide in this thread.

Really? Well in that case I would simply love to read a short summary of the Armenian Genocide written by your furry grace . Let's see what a brief summary really looks like if you have something to say ...

Criticizing is easy ...

[Crimson Glow]

Re: History of the Armenian Genocide

Honestly, I don't see any brief summary of the Armenian Genocide in this thread.

What I see is a long, rambling, mostly off-topic posting.

Would we see in an brief summary of the xxxish Holocaust, a Biblical account of the Garden of Eden, then mention of semi-mythical figures like Abraham and mythical events like the parting of the Red Sea and the arrival into the Promised Land, then accounts of some of the bad things Romans did to xxxs, and then mention of the socio-economic developement of late-Medieval and Renaissance Europe and the implications of the discovery and colonisation of the Americas, followed by a summary of the various wars and revolutions that took place in 19th century Europe, then a summary of WW1 and its aftermath, and then at the very end, a paragraph or two mentioning Hitler and railway trains and gas chambers and yellow stars and what not. No, we would not.

Still missing the point, I see. No, you wouldn't see a summary in such fashion for the Holocaust. But you're comparing apples to oranges. The J E Wish Holocaust is a well known, well established event, for which only a handful of psychos argue against. Therefore, you need only explain the details of the actual Holocaust itself to educate someone on "the truth". On the other hand, the AG is a totally different story. The perpetrators of this crime deny it to this day, and for a multitude of reasons. You know as well as I do the excuses and reasons the Turks use to justify deporting the Armenians, as well as the reasoning to the claims that the deportations were peaceful, and there was never any intention of annihilation. Therefore, things are far more complex when explaining the Armenian genocide.

In the case of the Armenian genocide, the details for the chronology of what happened post 1914 are FAR less important than what led up to those events. It is critical to shoot down the claims that Armenians perpetrated genocide against the Muslims, or that we were revolting in gigantic numbers, etc. Unfortunately, the Turks have done a great job of making a mess of the history prior to the genocide, thus why you HAVE to dig back deep into the history between the Turks and Armenians, and walk people through what transpired before it, leading up to the ultimate solution. You have to establish the circumstances that would fill people with so much hate that they'd try to wipe out another peoples. The point was to lay everything out very clearly, and concisely, from who each of these people were/where they came from, to how the Ottoman Empire came to be, to how the powers repeatedly changed hands, causing a mired of consequences, to how this talk of Armenian revolts is a myth, to when/why/how genocide came to be "the ultimate solution". I clearly stated this in my intro to the essay:

I purposely designed this piece to provide preemptive explanations to the standard Turkish arguments and events raised by making sure I covered those periods of history, and what REALLY happened.

Perhaps I should have also mentioned that this piece is for EVERYone, not just Armenians. I have it plastered on every website I frequent/am a well known member of, where 99% of the members have never heard of Armenians, much less about the genocide. That's partially why I started out by giving a brief rundown of Armenian history, and how tied they are to their Christian faith. I'm an atheist myself, so such things mean nothing to me, but it is critical to establish the mood that an oppressive Islamic state would have over them, especially by a group of people who were non-Anatolian, and came out of no where to take these lands over. Most people (including many Armenians and Turks) don't realize that Turks are not Anatolian by ancestry.

Then there's the Turk's claim that we lived side by side in harmony for hundreds of years, so why would they want to suddenly commit genocide against the Armenians? I wanted to clearly point out that this was NOT the case. Just because Christians weren't slaughtered by the thousands by the Muslims everyday does NOT mean they lived together in some Utopian blissful state. We were oppressed prior to Sultan Hamid II, but things got even worse when he took over. I tried to give a quick rundown of that.

Next comes the claims of a history of mass rebellions by Armenians. We're usually blamed for instigating the Hamidian and Adana massacres, especially the Henchag and Dashnag parties. If that's the case, why were 124 Muslims found guilty for instigating/being involved in the Adana massacres? This is a fact that a lot of history buffs of that region don't even know about. And as for the HM period, I wanted to clarify that these "revolts" started with Armenians peacefully protesting their oppression, and those protests being met with violence. THEN small pockets of Armenian revolutionaries reacted violently as revenge for the way Hamid was handling the protests. And if these parties were so violent and dangerous, and committed genocide or massacres against Muslims, why was the Dashnag party part of the CUP when the initial Liberal Union wing took over in 1908? Hell, why did they HELP the CUP take over in 1908?

It is SUPER critical that people understand the number of times powers changed hands in the Ottoman Empire, and how each one of those changes impacted the minorities. It is only through realizing/being educated on this that one can understand why a genocide took place. This wasn't some random change of heart the government had. There was a long history of violence towards the Christians, and constantly building hostility and tension that, coupled with motives of greed (oil), culminated into genocide. THAT is FAAAAAR more important in the case of the Armenian genocide than details on which town got deported when, and how many were killed, etc. THAT is what I mean by a brief summary about the history of the AG (not the genocide itself). If you want details about the chronology of events post 1914, there is already a very detailed one pinned at the top of this board.

The gist of what atrocities happened during the actual deportations/genocide are easily covered in the break down of the genocide steps. Greater detail really isn't necessary to make people understand that they were uprooted from their 3000 year old ancestral lands, and either killed along the way, or left for dead. I spent the majority of the piece going over what DID need great detail. The circumstances that led up to those atrocities. I really shouldn't have to explain this to someone who is supposedly well versed on the genocide, and understands the situation and issues that surrounds it, but you seemingly keep playing dumb.

[HagopJan]

Re: History of the Armenian Genocide

The thing is, most people will not even read a page of scholarly books because they are in reality either lazy or too dumb (dummies). That is why such a summary is necessary for the average person so that they AT LEAST know something beyond April 24, 1915 (if they even know that to begin with). This is the entire history of the genocide and the events that preceded it as short as possible.

"Most people...are in reality either lazy or too dumb"? You have a high opinion of "most people" on this forum.
My point is that their are better written summaries for "the lazy or too dumb" Armenians, just google "armenian genocide summary introduction" and check the top sites. For instance wikipedia.

Oh and I would recommend Akcam too in the list of people you named.

Yes but I have mixed feelings about Taner Akcam and it has nothing to do with his work.

[HagopJan]

Re: History of the Armenian Genocide

2 things. First, you apparently missed the point of this thread, as I very clearly stated that this was designed to give a brief education on the background of this event, not to show you everything I've learned in 7 years. Most people are too lazy to read the 6 pages I typed, let alone the 60,000+ pages I've read over the course of nearly a decade.

Maybe i did not miss the point and your "summary" is you're not being objective because it's your "baby". My point is that there are much better written summaries for the "lazy" ones, and it takes less than 20 seconds to find them on the web. Why reinvent the wheel when it's a poor reproduction?
"60,000+ pages" is about 200-300 books, that's all came out of 200-300 books?

Second, if you're getting your info from the likes of Dadrian, then with all due respect, YOU'RE reading kiddie material. Dadrian insists on clinging to evidence that has been proven false/fraudulent, as well as claiming that religion was the primary reason for the genocide, which if you did your homework, you'd know is wrong. If you're going to recommend historians, or scholars to people to read, please refer them to better, or less biased sources.

Of course people are "lazy", Dadrian is "kiddie material" and you are modest.