Tweet
Re: Denial of the Genocide
Crimson, I have just read 2 interviews (in Turkish so I cannot post it here). One with people in Armenia about latest political dialogs between Turkey and Armenia. Second is with Hrant Dink's family. It sounded to me as Hrant's death made people realize some facts and opened up new windows. With that great price of losing a very unique person, people in Turkey started to understand what he really meant. I prefered to have him alive and let people understand him later, but unfortunately people do not stop to think for a second unless there is such a dramatic moment to let them free from their blind views. Briefly, his ideas were fruitful at least for people in Turkey. Not because people agreeed 100%, but since they saw the sincere attitude of brotherhood in his speeches.
That being said, I am not saying that he is the one to be followed. He had ideas, which I believe very humanistic, but as you said, still got him killed. His death news so many responses but all the time I felt like people who are protesting his death could be protesting his thoughts if he was alive. There was a question at the first tread of this topic and Hrant had some answers from his perspective. I had one response from Gavur after asking for a response (thanks by the way), and now from you. The others were usual personal bullshiet (not excluding myself). I think giving your hear to what Hrant says will make both sides smoother in their attitudes, just like Turkish side, even you don't agree with what he says.
For instance, Hrant's emphasize for the "people of Anatolia" can make you think that Armenians do not reproduce by seeds and grow up from the soil; they came to these lands before Turks and became older residents of this geography, but that does not make them the absolute owners. Kurds or Turks or others might have come earlier or later. Hrant's words make you think that a person whose is born at her/his grand-grand-...-grand parent's house also has a right to call the place as her/his motherland. Or is there a law for the treshhold of years (say, 2000 years) that one person must live somewhere to claim the land? Are you sure the land was completely unoccupied when the "first Armenian"(?) stepped on this land? Then if Turks keep Armenians away for a good deal of time, then Turks will be the owners?
Anyway, I can discuss longer, but Hrant's ideas should be discussed. If genocide recognitions' essense is to make sure such tragedies will never happen again, it will be through Hrant-like ideas emphasizing human values; Not through racist propaganda and dreaming to kick others to their original(?) land (Turks to Mongolia, others to Africa or whatever). Some people in this forum are preaching for what they are protesting. Listening to Hrant carefully will make people realize it.
Last, but not the least: You cannot categorize people that you know from secondary sources. It takes years of research to distinguish two types of tomatos; even Turks are barbaric, it will take more effort to categorize and believe me, the types will be more than 2 (assuming that such types exist)
Originally posted by Crimson Glow
View Post
That being said, I am not saying that he is the one to be followed. He had ideas, which I believe very humanistic, but as you said, still got him killed. His death news so many responses but all the time I felt like people who are protesting his death could be protesting his thoughts if he was alive. There was a question at the first tread of this topic and Hrant had some answers from his perspective. I had one response from Gavur after asking for a response (thanks by the way), and now from you. The others were usual personal bullshiet (not excluding myself). I think giving your hear to what Hrant says will make both sides smoother in their attitudes, just like Turkish side, even you don't agree with what he says.
For instance, Hrant's emphasize for the "people of Anatolia" can make you think that Armenians do not reproduce by seeds and grow up from the soil; they came to these lands before Turks and became older residents of this geography, but that does not make them the absolute owners. Kurds or Turks or others might have come earlier or later. Hrant's words make you think that a person whose is born at her/his grand-grand-...-grand parent's house also has a right to call the place as her/his motherland. Or is there a law for the treshhold of years (say, 2000 years) that one person must live somewhere to claim the land? Are you sure the land was completely unoccupied when the "first Armenian"(?) stepped on this land? Then if Turks keep Armenians away for a good deal of time, then Turks will be the owners?
Anyway, I can discuss longer, but Hrant's ideas should be discussed. If genocide recognitions' essense is to make sure such tragedies will never happen again, it will be through Hrant-like ideas emphasizing human values; Not through racist propaganda and dreaming to kick others to their original(?) land (Turks to Mongolia, others to Africa or whatever). Some people in this forum are preaching for what they are protesting. Listening to Hrant carefully will make people realize it.
Last, but not the least: You cannot categorize people that you know from secondary sources. It takes years of research to distinguish two types of tomatos; even Turks are barbaric, it will take more effort to categorize and believe me, the types will be more than 2 (assuming that such types exist)
Comment