PDA

View Full Version : Turkish genocide and the US



Gwyllgi
08-03-10, 10:47
The Turkish genocide against the Armenian people is a historical fact.

It is as well documented as the death marches of the Japanese and the shoa.

And yet if I was to write that while living in Turkey I would be arrested and jailed.

In the US a congressional committee has introduced a bill to go before US Congress intended to formally recognise what took place involving the mass slaughter by Ottoman Turks during WW1.

Now anyone would except that a historical fact would not need to have such formal recognition made by the US, a thing being done to stop the continued denial of the truth by successive Turkish governments, but sad to say such is the case because the Turks continue to try to deny what happened.

The response by Turkey to this move to force the government to come clean should have resulted in embarrassment by the Turkish government, an apology for refusal to admit the TRUTH in the past, and admission of the TRUTH today, and at least a national apology to the the Armenians still living and some form of reparation.

Should have been, but wasn’t.

Instead the Turkish ambassador to Washington has been recalled Washington and the Turkish government has said this move, let alone a passage of the bill, would “damage relations” with America and reminded the US that they were a “key NATO ally.”

Let’s put aside the future use, let alone role of NATO. Let’s put aside the little matter of what amounts to blatant blackmail. Let’s put aside the refusal to face up to what took place. Let’s even put aside the years of lying about what took place.

Instead let’s look at the response from the Obama administration right up (down?) to Obama himself.

Hilary Clinton Hillary is reported as saying that “The Obama administration will work very hard’ to prevent the genocide bill going to a full vote on Capitol Hill”

Not content with that she continued :-

“We are against this. Now we believe that the US Congress will not take any decision on this subject.’

There is one very basic question to be asked.

That question is WHY?

I’m not sure which country comes out worst in this matter, Turkey or the US.

Maybe a nation itself built on genocide feel a difficulty in condemning another nation for a crime it is itself guilty of.

^ lynx ^
05-04-10, 23:46
http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/ny_times_armenian_genocide1.jpg

http://www.jewcy.com/files/images/armenian_genocide.img_assist_custom.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QfVWU-2pVL4/Ss8Zo0nLXBI/AAAAAAAAIy4/VMg9KpcI8qw/s1600/Armenian-genocide-skulls.gif

Maciamo
07-04-10, 09:57
I think the only issue here is the definition of "genocide". Turkey does not deny the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Armenians. But this was war. Put in the context of WWI, even half a million deaths isn't much.

IMHO, a genocide is what the Nazi tried to achieve with the Jews of the Gypsies, namely 'ethnic cleansing', the avowed aim to make an entire ethnic group disappear from the Earth. I don't think the Turks ever had that intention in mind when they deported or killed Armenians. They may have wanted to separate Muslim Turks from Christian Armenians, but not to annihilate all Armenians from the face of the Earth, even if that meant pursuing them all over the world (what the Nazi would have done with the Jews if they hadn't been stopped). That's why I think it cannot be called 'genocide'. Massacre is a more appropriate term.

Gwyllgi
07-04-10, 10:33
There is a legal definition of “genocide” enshrined the UN General Assembly Resolution 260 (The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide).

Article 2 reads :-

"Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or group, as such:

Killing members of the group;

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."


What the Turks did was genocide as their actions were aimed at a particular group, it involved killing members of that group, certainly causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
And deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

Turks? Guilty as sin, and dishonorable craven cowards by not admitting what their ancestors did, let alone express regret.

.

Maciamo
07-04-10, 10:57
There is a legal definition of “genocide” enshrined the UN General Assembly Resolution 260 (The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide).

Article 2 reads :-

"Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or group, as such:

Killing members of the group;

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."


What the Turks did was genocide as their actions were aimed at a particular group, it involved killing members of that group, certainly causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
And deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

Turks? Guilty as sin, and dishonorable craven cowards by not admitting what their ancestors did, let alone express regret.

.


Is there any political pamphlet or declaration made by Turkey similar Hitler's Mein Kampf, his public speeches or the laws enacted by the Nazis against the Jews, that would prove beyond reasonable doubt that Turkey intended to destroy the Armenian ethnicity ? I don't think there is, and I don't think the term "genocide" (which derives from "genes") is appropriate simply because Turks and Armenians are almost undistinguishable genetically. Anatolia is a genetic continuum, and eastern Turks are closer to Armenians than to western Turks. This argument alone defeats the idea of a genocide. It is as ludicrous as to say that the Spaniards would try to commit a genocide against the Portuguese, or vice versa. You can either see all Iberians as a single ethnic group, or Catalans, Basques, Andalusians, Portuguese or Cantabrians as separate ethnic groups; but you can't oppose Spaniards to Portuguese genetically/ethnically. It's the same in Anatolia.

The Turks also happen to be one of the most heterogeneous ethnicity in Eurasia. They speak a language of Mongolian origin, but descend primarily from the numerous ancient people who lived in Anatolia : Proto-Indo-Europeans, Semites, Caucasians, Elamites, Greeks, Romans, Celts... Turkish language is spoken all over Central Asia (Turkmen, Uzbek, Kazakh, an so on are basically all intelligible dialects of a common Turkish language). The Kazakhs are almost pure Mongols. Some Tajiks or Kyrgyzs look like northern Europeans. You can't associate a language or culture with an ethnicity. The confrontation between Turks and Armenians was linguistic and cultural, not genetic or ethnic.

Gwyllgi
07-04-10, 11:17
Nonetheless what took place lines up with what the UN charter defines as genocide.

Marianne
07-04-10, 23:08
...the term "genocide" (which derives from "genes")

I want to add-correct that genocide is a half Greek half Latin word. It derives from the Greek word γένος (genos) that means family line and sometimes it has the same meaning as race and the Latin word cidium that means killing. The word genes also derives from the same Greek word.

Maciamo
08-04-10, 00:21
Nonetheless what took place lines up with what the UN charter defines as genocide.

Actually it does not, as long as you don't regard the Armenians as another racial or ethnic group from other Anatolians. Under the Ottoman Empire they were part of the same country and so cannot be considered a different national group either.

Unwittingly you have helped me demonstrate that the UN's definition of 'genocide' does not apply to what the Turks did to the Armenians.

Wilhelm
08-04-10, 00:24
Actually it does not, as long as you don't regard the Armenians as another racial or ethnic group from other Anatolians. Under the Ottoman Empire they were part of the same country and so cannot be considered a different national group either.

Unwittingly you have helped me demonstrate that the UN's definition of 'genocide' does not apply to what the Turks did to the Armenians.
The definition of genocide not only concerns race, but also culture, religion

Maciamo
08-04-10, 23:36
The definition of genocide not only concerns race, but also culture, religion

I don't think so. Genocide means ethnic/racial cleansing. Wars of religions aren't genocides, even if the aim is to kill all the infidels. WWI was first and foremost a war of cultural pride (and cultural misunderstanding). Millions died for the sake of nationalism and proving one's country superior to that of the neighbour, but nobody called it a genocide.

The US Congress had better watch their words next time they accuse a country of genocide. After all the US Congress and government have sponsored the deportation and elimination of Native Americans for decades, causing their numbers to drop from 12 millions around the time the first settlers arrived to 250,000 in the late 1800's. Hitler didn't come anywhere as near in eliminating the Jews in term of percentage as the USA did with the Natives. Contrarily to the Armenian massacre, American citizens were encouraged by their government to "kill Red Skins" or kill buffaloes (bisons) to starve the Indians to death. This was a state-organized genocide. Americans don't have lessons to teach others in this regard.

Wilhelm
08-04-10, 23:42
I don't think so. Genocide means ethnic/racial cleansing. Wars of religions aren't genocides, even if the aim is to kill all the infidels. WWI was first and foremost a war of cultural pride (and cultural misunderstanding). Millions died for the sake of nationalism and proving one's country superior to that of the neighbour, but nobody called it a genocide.
I just say what the dictionary says. If you want to change it , call them :

Real Academia Española :

1. m. Exterminio o eliminación sistemática de un grupo social por motivo de raza, de etnia, de religión, de política o de nacionalidad.


Wiktionary :

genocide (countable (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#countable) and uncountable (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#uncountable); plural genocides (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genocides))


The systematic killing (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/killing) of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ethnicity), religion (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion), political (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/political) opinion, social status (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/social_status), or other particularity.
Acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/national), ethnic, racial (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/race) or religious group.

Maciamo
08-04-10, 23:45
I just say what the dictionary says. If you want to change it , call them :

Real Academia Española :

1. m. Exterminio o eliminación sistemática de un grupo social por motivo de raza, de etnia, de religión, de política o de nacionalidad.


Wiktionary :

genocide (countable (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#countable) and uncountable (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#uncountable); plural genocides (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genocides))


The systematic killing (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/killing) of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ethnicity), religion (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion), political (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/political) opinion, social status (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/social_status), or other particularity.
Acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/national), ethnic, racial (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/race) or religious group.


An independent-minded thinker doesn't trust that kind of popular sources. Dictionaries aren't written by experts for each subject like some encyclopedia, just by people trying to explain simple words to even simpler people who can't understand them.

I place dictionaries in the same category as tabloid newspapers when it comes to credibility.

Wilhelm
08-04-10, 23:52
An independent-minded thinker doesn't trust that kind of popular sources. Dictionaries aren't written by experts for each subject like some encyclopedia, just by people trying to explain simple words to even simpler people who can't understand them.
So, what is the base in which you define genocide ? What makes you think a war of religion or culture is not genocide ?

Maciamo
09-04-10, 07:37
So, what is the base in which you define genocide ? What makes you think a war of religion or culture is not genocide ?

I actually agree with the United Nations definition given above. I would just specify that "national" group is only true for ethnically homogeneous countries that match a single ethnicity (e.g. Japan, Denmark, Portugal, Oman...) but not for ethnically diverse nationalities (which means most countries, e.g. Turkey, Iran, India, China...).

You can talk of Japanese nationals and ethnic Japanese, or Danish nationals and ethnic Danes, and, apart from recent naturalised immigrants it will be the same thing. But there is no such thing as a Turkish, Indian or Chinese ethnicity. There are dozens or hundreds of ethnic groups in these countries. True genetic ethnicities don't always match people's own image either. In China the Hans are officially one ethnicity, but genetics have shown that northern Hans and southern Hans were quite different, and northern Hans were actually closer to the Koreans, or even Japanese, than to the people of Guangdong or Sichuan (probably because of admixture with the Tai and Miao-Yao minorities).

Gwyllgi
09-04-10, 08:17
Under the UN definition the Turks committed genocide.

A ke bono kane kotto
27-04-10, 09:47
I agree with Maciamo. I don't think it was a genocide. The Ottomans didn't try to anihilate Armenia.

Michael Folkesson
27-04-10, 10:04
Well, it is used for the bloodshed in Pinochet's Chile as well as what happened in Rwanda. I don't think it's wrong to call it genocide. Would mass murder be better? Maybe. I don't think that semantics is the real issue. I do think that Armenia and Turkey need to reconcile. Maybe this isn't helping, but I don't see why Turkey can't just admit it's historic atrocities. Some claim that this wasn't the Turks doing it but the Ottomans, kind of like that Great Britain wouldn't be responsible for what happened in the empire. This was the doing of the Young Turks and nationalist spree. If they don't face up to it and take a stand opposed to these events, they are telling the Turkish people that it wasn't wrong. My opinion is that they need to show what Turkey stands for. I would welcome Turkey to say "It was wrong, it was genocide and we are sorry that ever happened. This is not what we stand for". I think this would be expected from a European country.

Gwyllgi
27-04-10, 10:42
Well, it is used for the bloodshed in Pinochet's Chile as well as what happened in Rwanda. I don't think it's wrong to call it genocide. Would mass murder be better? Maybe. I don't think that semantics is the real issue. I do think that Armenia and Turkey need to reconcile. Maybe this isn't helping, but I don't see why Turkey can't just admit it's historic atrocities. Some claim that this wasn't the Turks doing it but the Ottomans, kind of like that Great Britain wouldn't be responsible for what happened in the empire. This was the doing of the Young Turks and nationalist spree. If they don't face up to it and take a stand opposed to these events, they are telling the Turkish people that it wasn't wrong. My opinion is that they need to show what Turkey stands for. I would welcome Turkey to say "It was wrong, it was genocide and we are sorry that ever happened. This is not what we stand for". I think this would be expected from a European country.

Turkey is not, never was, and never will be a European country.

Michael Folkesson
27-04-10, 12:42
I know you have those sentiments. I didn't refer to Turkey there though, but what I am saying that this would be expected of a European country. Even the Russians can acknowledge and commemorate Katyn.

Maciamo
27-04-10, 13:44
Well, it is used for the bloodshed in Pinochet's Chile as well as what happened in Rwanda. I don't think it's wrong to call it genocide. Would mass murder be better? Maybe. I don't think that semantics is the real issue.

For me semantics is a major issue. I think it also is for the Turkish government. The word "genocide" has a too strong connotation with Hitler's attempt to eliminate all the Jews.

I would never call Pinochet's political assassinations a genocide. It is barely a "mass murder". It was a series of carefully selected assassinations, and it was not directed at an ethnic group but towards political opponents.

Rwanda was a genocide because it opposed two physically recognisable ethnic groups, the Tutsis and the Hutus, and one group (the Tutsi minority) tried to exterminate the other till the last one.

The fact that the Armenian massacre happened in the context of WWI, where tens of millions died, makes me want to call it a war massacre (like the Nanking Massacre of 1937) rather than a genocide.

Michael Folkesson
30-04-10, 23:20
I agree that semantics are important, and that many events that are described as genocide don't fully keep in the denotion of the word, but I don't think that the extermination or Jews during WWII constitute the criteria for the definition of it, but that role is better filled by the word Holocaust. The use of the word genocide in Pinochet's Chile is used for the reason that they and the Chicago Boys aimed to - and succeded largely - to exterminate the intelligensia and socialist culture of the country i.e. what can be seen as constituting an "ideologically ethnic" part of the country. I am not saying it's correct, but this is the reason of the use in this context.

I don't have a problem using this word in the Armenian conflict, but I don't have a problem with the word massacre either, or mass extermination. It changes nothing of the level of atrocity of it. I think Turkey should display national shame for what was done, and show they don't stand for such actions. It was long ago? Well, how hard is it to say "It was wrong, we are sorry, we don't stand for such actions." I don't see why this shouldn't be addressed.

Benkimim
21-09-11, 15:22
It was a war, in every war soldiers, civils die... For Turks both sides have killed people... everyone knows that. But a real genocide can be those of native americans killed by americans... There was no war, nothing... I think Armenians, Greeks, Turks should make peace and forget all the past...

Yes genocide is 100% a greek word, not half :)

sparkey
21-09-11, 17:34
It was a war, in every war soldiers, civils die... For Turks both sides have killed people... everyone knows that.

Systematized massacres of civilians of targeted ethnic groups is inexcusable, regardless of whether or not it is in the context of war... everyone knows that. And that's true whether or not we call it "genocide."


But a real genocide can be those of native americans killed by americans... There was no war, nothing...

Quite the opposite, the Native Americans being displaced by European-origin settlers is a much poorer example of a genocide, especially when taken as a whole and not isolating certain incidents. For one, most Native Americans who died died of disease rather than being killed. Also, there were wars, and plenty of them (Chickamauga Wars, Black Hawk War, Seminole Wars, Winnebago War...). The pattern of the wars was often: settlers or government sign treaty with Indians, bad apples among settlers break treaty, Native Americans attack haphazardly, militia or government defeats and displaces Native Americans... hardly a genocidal pattern. There were unethical incursions and forced relocations, and even some massacres that could be cited as genocidal (Sand Creek comes to mind), but the Native American-European settler relations don't as a whole amount to "genocide" under any definition.


I think Armenians, Greeks, Turks should make peace and forget all the past...

Make peace, definitely! Forget all the past, most certainly not.

barbarian
21-09-11, 20:52
Quite the opposite, the Native Americans being displaced by European-origin settlers is a much poorer example of a genocide, especially when taken as a whole and not isolating certain incidents. For one, most Native Americans who died died of disease rather than being killed. Also, there were wars, and plenty of them (Chickamauga Wars, Black Hawk War, Seminole Wars, Winnebago War...). The pattern of the wars was often: settlers or government sign treaty with Indians, bad apples among settlers break treaty, Native Americans attack haphazardly, militia or government defeats and displaces Native Americans... hardly a genocidal pattern. There were unethical incursions and forced relocations, and even some massacres that could be cited as genocidal (Sand Creek comes to mind), but the Native American-European settler relations don't as a whole amount to "genocide" under any definition.

you mean "trail of tears" happened just because of some bad apples? changing the population distribution of all continent and bringing the slaves from africa and breeding them with respect to their physical appearance and pedigree is just a genetic search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
http://ncatlasrevisited.org/population/ethncpop.html#NativePop

i agree that turkey must excuse for what happened. But, after an investigation which will be carried out by an international working group.

i can understand Armenians feelings, and i give my apologies individually. but people must understand that it was not an ethnic cleaning. Armenians welcomed in ottomans for centuries. these sad "thing" happened during the WW1 when Armenians were fighting for their own land against ottoman. in those times ottoman was so weak that they couldn't think of ethnic cleaning.

"Make peace, definitely! Forget all the past, most certainly not."----nice.

sparkey
21-09-11, 21:15
you mean "trail of tears" happened just because of some bad apples? changing the population distribution of all continent and bringing the slaves from africa and breeding them with respect to their physical appearance and pedigree is just a genetic search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
http://ncatlasrevisited.org/population/ethncpop.html#NativePop

The Trail of Tears wasn't a war, it was an unprovoked forced relocation, so it doesn't really follow the pattern. It was racist and ill-advised. A genocide though? It doesn't really fit the definition because there was no intentional -cide.

You aren't expecting me to defend the Trail of Tears and slavery, are you? They were both terrible. Also neither would be put into a textbook as examples of genocide because they are different sorts of atrocities.


i agree that turkey must excuse for what happened. But, after an investigation which will be carried out by an international working group.

I don't understand what's left to be resolved.


i can understand Armenians feelings, and i give my apologies individually. but people must understand that it was not an ethnic cleaning. Armenians welcomed in ottomans for centuries. these sad "thing" happened during the WW1 when Armenians were fighting for their own land against ottoman. in those times ottoman was so weak that they couldn't think of ethnic cleaning.

I always figured that they were weak and that's a reason why they were thinking of ethnic cleansing--they couldn't afford minority groups to become powerful antagonists and so they attempted to make their own population more homogeneous. So there was a tactical reason behind it, it wasn't just bigotry, but it still is what it is. Am I way off here?


"Make peace, definitely! Forget all the past, most certainly not."----nice.

Thanks :good_job:

barbarian
21-09-11, 21:39
The Trail of Tears wasn't a war, it was an unprovoked forced relocation, so it doesn't really follow the pattern. It was racist and ill-advised. A genocide though? It doesn't really fit the definition because there was no intentional -cide.


You aren't expecting me to defend the Trail of Tears and slavery, are you? They were both terrible. Also neither would be put into a textbook as examples of genocide because they are different sorts of atrocities.



I don't understand what's left to be resolved.



I always figured that they were weak and that's a reason why they were thinking of ethnic cleansing--they couldn't afford minority groups to become powerful antagonists and so they attempted to make their own population more homogeneous. So there was a tactical reason behind it, it wasn't just bigotry, but it still is what it is. Am I way off here?



Thanks :good_job:
i am not an expert on "armenian case" but as far as i know most of the armenians died during the " unprovoked forced relocation" also (because of freezing cold and starving).

even in this page it is not common idea that it was an genocide or war crime or whatever it was. i am sure there are lots of other details are still unsolved.

turkish population in ottoman was very little. to eliminate the ethnic differences would mean to eliminate almost all of the population of the empire. ottoman killed more turkmen than other ethnicity because they were living different kind of islam: they were escaping from army: and they were not paying tax.

armenians made a coalition with russia against ottoman during the WW1 to have their own country. that was the reason for the starting of this sad case.

Elias2
21-09-11, 22:24
i can understand Armenians feelings, and i give my apologies individually. but people must understand that it was not an ethnic cleaning. Armenians welcomed in ottomans for centuries. these sad "thing" happened during the WW1 when Armenians were fighting for their own land against ottoman. in those times ottoman was so weak that they couldn't think of ethnic cleaning.

Please barbarian, The ottomans were scared out of their wits because they knew they were going to lose WW1 along with germany and the allied powers would grant armenia (and Pontus) a chunk of anatolia.

Turkey needs to grow up over its past and stop acting so childish, the only people they are fooling are themselves, just because a political body doesn't recognise somethign doesn't mean it didn't happen.

razor
21-09-11, 23:07
Actually the Armenian genocide should not even be discussed on this forum. It is a moral and political issue, not a genetic issue. The "History" forum is a better place.

sparkey
22-09-11, 00:22
Actually the Armenian genocide should not even be discussed on this forum. It is a moral and political issue, not a genetic issue. The "History" forum is a better place.

This isn't the genetics forum, this is the "EU politics & government" forum, and Turkish recognition of the Armenian, Pontic Greek, and Assyrian genocides is relevant to EU politics.

barbarian
22-09-11, 08:45
Please barbarian, The ottomans were scared out of their wits because they knew they were going to lose WW1 along with germany and the allied powers would grant armenia (and Pontus) a chunk of anatolia.

Turkey needs to grow up over its past and stop acting so childish, the only people they are fooling are themselves, just because a political body doesn't recognise somethign doesn't mean it didn't happen.

i also think that turkey must face and apologize if there is such a shit in his history (i dont mean there was nothing happened). and i can understand armenians.

but, to be forced to apologize by western countries who;
- killed thousands of women and children by using atomic bombs,
- slaved people by taking them from their homeland,
- attacking to other countries to bring democracy (see libya and iraq),
- ...

makes me angry and sad.

Elias2
22-09-11, 13:44
i also think that turkey must face and apologize if there is such a shit in his history (i dont mean there was nothing happened). and i can understand armenians.

but, to be forced to apologize by western countries who;
- killed thousands of women and children by using atomic bombs,
- slaved people by taking them from their homeland,
- attacking to other countries to bring democracy (see libya and iraq),
- ...

makes me angry and sad.

I think the difference is if you ask an american if they droped the bomb on two japanese cities they will say yes of course we did. But again this was used for different reasons than why the Ottoman's killed the armenians. America used the bomb to help bring the war to a close, not to wipe out the inhabitants and then annex the land. WW1 was already comming to a fast close at the time of the genocide. Another thing you have to remember that it wasn't just the armenians actively helping the Russian army, even armenians serving in the Ottoman army were dismissed and sent into the Syrian desert to die. This was target killing en masse.

It is estimated that 40-60 million First Nations people lived in North America prior to the arrival of the "white man", now they have a minimal presence in amerca, though a larger one in the Canadian North and western provinces. But dispite all this loss of life and imperialism, there is no atmosphere of denial. It is recorded and accepted, and now thesse people pay no taxes in Amerca and in Canada alot of First Nations people actually have their own self-governing autonomous regions like teh Tlicho in the North West Territories.

Slavery is not really an issue because everyone practised it, even the Ottomans extensivley.

Third point is very debatable, could the Iraqies overthrow Sandam by themselves? Or would it be like Syria now when demestrators are shot down. Would there even be an Arab spring if America hadn't invaded Iraq? OR is the catalyst something totaly different. Could the Egyptians overthrow Mubarak if America hadn't had so much sway in that country? or did he do it out of the kindness of his heart? Could the Lybian rebels have won if it wasn't for NATO air support? I think this answer is obvious.

razor
22-09-11, 15:54
Sorry. My mistake. Or perhaps the fact that someone (Maciamo?) raised the issue of "genes" earlier... Which of course has nothing to do with the issue.

barbarian
22-09-11, 16:31
I think the difference is if you ask an american if they droped the bomb on two japanese cities they will say yes of course we did. But again this was used for different reasons than why the Ottoman's killed the armenians. America used the bomb to help bring the war to a close, not to wipe out the inhabitants and then annex the land. WW1 was already comming to a fast close at the time of the genocide. Another thing you have to remember that it wasn't just the armenians actively helping the Russian army, even armenians serving in the Ottoman army were dismissed and sent into the Syrian desert to die. This was target killing en masse.

It is estimated that 40-60 million First Nations people lived in North America prior to the arrival of the "white man", now they have a minimal presence in amerca, though a larger one in the Canadian North and western provinces. But dispite all this loss of life and imperialism, there is no atmosphere of denial. It is recorded and accepted, and now thesse people pay no taxes in Amerca and in Canada alot of First Nations people actually have their own self-governing autonomous regions like teh Tlicho in the North West Territories.

Slavery is not really an issue because everyone practised it, even the Ottomans extensivley.

Third point is very debatable, could the Iraqies overthrow Sandam by themselves? Or would it be like Syria now when demestrators are shot down. Would there even be an Arab spring if America hadn't invaded Iraq? OR is the catalyst something totaly different. Could the Egyptians overthrow Mubarak if America hadn't had so much sway in that country? or did he do it out of the kindness of his heart? Could the Lybian rebels have won if it wasn't for NATO air support? I think this answer is obvious.

a well educated modern country, in his prime, killed thousands of children and women. and you think that they are right because they did it for a "good reason" (ending the war).
so;
- may be ottoman had a good reason also, but who will judge the good reason.
- if you have a good reason then you can kill innocent people

i dont say that US also killed people so what ottoman did was correct. i say that a country killing and attacking, slaving people and at the end of day come and say you killed people 100 years ago and you must excuse... man,.. you are doing it everyday.

"Slavery is not really an issue because everyone practised it, even the Ottomans extensivley."---??? No it was very very seldom.

so you think that Libya, iraq and egypt benefited from "arabian spring"? we see what is happening in iraq now. and we will see libya soon. i wonder why US do not help qatar, s.arabia, etc. (hint:because they are already in their hand -the movie "syria" explains it well)

anyway, i expressed almost all of my ideas about this topic. thanks for all answers.

Reinaert
22-09-11, 20:23
Hi..
What the Turks did against the Armenians was a plain racist and ethnic cleansing war. That's why I don't want Turkey in the EU.

I don't understand why the Turks can't say sorry about what they did.

It's history. Take it, or leave it! If you want to be a part of Europe, you have to admit your bad history.
We all have done that.
We Dutch were also very bad.
But we admit it!

At least my clan hasn't had any connection with the evil deeds of the Dutch, but it's still a good thing to tell that the Dutch government is very bad!

Wilders is still an *******, and nobody in the government has the guts to kick his butt!
I hate my country for this!

Elias2
22-09-11, 20:38
a well educated modern country, in his prime, killed thousands of children and women. and you think that they are right because they did it for a "good reason" (ending the war).
so;
- may be ottoman had a good reason also, but who will judge the good reason.
- if you have a good reason then you can kill innocent people

Hmm I think you don't understand. America droped two bombs to end ww2. Ottomans killed armenians not to end ww1 (it was already comming to a close), but to make sure they won't be around for them to get theri own country. America admits this is the reason they did it, Turkey doesn't admit this is the reason they did it, and deny it, like you are doing.


i dont say that US also killed people so what ottoman did was correct. i say that a country killing and attacking, slaving people and at the end of day come and say you killed people 100 years ago and you must excuse... man,.. you are doing it everyday.you must excuse? what do you mean by this? turn a blind eye?


"Slavery is not really an issue because everyone practised it, even the Ottomans extensivley."---??? No it was very very seldom.Mamuluks, janissaries, were slave soldiers. Ottoman sultans had dozens of concubines. Civil beurocracy in istanbul was full of slaves.


so you think that Libya, iraq and egypt benefited from "arabian spring"? we see what is happening in iraq now. and we will see libya soon. i wonder why US do not help qatar, s.arabia, etc. (hint:because they are already in their hand -the movie "syria" explains it well)Yes, now they are free to take a totaly different path than the dictatorship in the past decades. The people who are trying to derail this are the islamic fundementalists who want the country to be like saudi arabia.

barbarian
23-09-11, 00:08
So, the soldiers and burocracy in ottoman were slaves. They were ruling the Empire. Which kind of social democracy is it? What is the relationship of mamuluks with ottoman?

barbarian
23-09-11, 00:19
Reinaert, it is not about excuse what I am trying to explain. It is about the double face of west. I.e. Nobody took any measurements against Serbs during the Bosnia case, but everybody try to help "Petroloid" countries. About the joining to EU: we all know that neither eu nor turkey don't care about it anymore.

Elias2
23-09-11, 03:19
So, the soldiers and burocracy in ottoman were slaves. They were ruling the Empire. Which kind of social democracy is it? What is the relationship of mamuluks with ottoman?

Mamuluks were hired throughout the Ottoman empire in all the provinces. When napolean landed in egypt at the begining of the 19th century, he didn't fight ottoman soldiers he fought the mamuluks. All of north africa wasn't really under the control per-say of Istanbul, they were more like vassels who raised the red crecent flag and in return got gold tribute, same for the arabs in the levent.

Any people who resisted ottoman authority were enslaved aswell. I'm just giving you examples of slavery which you think was non-exsistant in the Ottoman empire.

Elias2
23-09-11, 03:20
I.e. Nobody took any measurements against Serbs during the Bosnia case, but everybody try to help "Petroloid" countries.

So the NATO bombing of Belgrade were just my imagination?

barbarian
23-09-11, 08:10
So the NATO bombing of Belgrade were just my imagination?

after 200.000 bosnian was alrready death in 3 years. if there was petrol in bosnia, everything would be different.

1,5 years ago:5181

Reinaert
23-09-11, 09:57
Reinaert, it is not about excuse what I am trying to explain. It is about the double face of west. I.e. Nobody took any measurements against Serbs during the Bosnia case, but everybody try to help "Petroloid" countries. About the joining to EU: we all know that neither eu nor turkey don't care about it anymore.

I ask you to be honest!
I know that Armenians are considered as crooks and thieves by many people from the middle east.
I heard that from colleagues I had, that worked in The Netherlands and originated from your part of the world.
For instance legends that Armenians have hidden treasures in the mountains of East Turkey.
There is a racist background behind this.

Do you agree?

Just like Wilders has a racist agenda.
He is also a bad person that harms our international reputation.
I admit that, I even hate what the man does.
But at least I admit it, and why can't you and other Turks do the same.

barbarian
23-09-11, 12:36
I ask you to be honest!
I know that Armenians are considered as crooks and thieves by many people from the middle east.
I heard that from colleagues I had, that worked in The Netherlands and originated from your part of the world.
For instance legends that Armenians have hidden treasures in the mountains of East Turkey.
There is a racist background behind this.

Do you agree?

Just like Wilders has a racist agenda.
He is also a bad person that harms our international reputation.
I admit that, I even hate what the man does.
But at least I admit it, and why can't you and other Turks do the same.

i gues i can not express myself well, may be because of language problem.

1st, about excuse, i said before that i personally excuse from armenians for this shit, because i feel that such a case happened. and i believe our goverment should force to create an international work group to investigate the details and scale of this case (as i told before) and accordingly should excuse.

2nd, i try to be honest everytime. but i may say lie even to myself due to superego.

3rd, i say: even now, western countries (or countries having the power at the moment) are enough sinful for me to name them double faced.

5th: this one %100 honest-- i never heard anything about their stealing habit.
turkish people believe that armenians and romans (greeks?) are well experts especially in fishing and construction. in the past most of the people respected their handiness, but cold to them not because of racism but because they are "gavur" or christian in the house. these days, average people do not like them because of current superego.

6th, turkish people thinks that they put the goldens in the mountins or in the small rivers-- that is true. turks believe that when romans and armenians are running out from the country, they hide their golds to some secret places. even now, people are searching these golds. some greek people also come from greece and search those golds also.:smile:

7th, you hate one of your party leader. i hate my prime minister. it is not hard to admit something like this.

lastly, we have still armenians and romans in the country and some of them are very good artist. like hayko cepkin (very interesting character please watch it till end if you like brutal vocal)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ26nqyLc0M

bass guitarist ari barokas from the band duman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX3iA-QEim0

and sezen aksu- the diva of turkish pop (no link cause i dont like her)

barbarian
23-09-11, 13:03
my reply to post no:38 are not allowed yet. i dont know the reason. but, elias i advise you make a simple search about memlukes

from wiki:
"
A Mamluk (Turkish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_language): Memlük, also called Kölemen; Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): مملوك (singular), مماليك mamālīk (plural), "owned"; also transliterated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_transliteration) mamlouk, mamluq, mamluke, mameluk, mameluke, mamaluke or marmeluke) was a soldier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier) of slave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave) origin, often of Turkic ancestry[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk#cite_note-0). The "mamluk phenomenon", as David Ayalon dubbed the creation of the specific warrior class,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk#cite_note-1) was of great political importance and was extraordinarily long-lived, lasting from the 9th to the 19th century AD. Over time, mamluks became a powerful military caste (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste) in various Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim) societies. Particularly in Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt), but also in the Levant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant), Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq), and India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India), mamluks held political and military power. In some cases, they attained the rank of sultan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan), while in others they held regional power as amirs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir) or beys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bey). Most notably, mamluk factions seized the sultanate for themselves in Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt) and Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria) in a period known as the Mamluk Sultanate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk_Sultanate_%28Cairo%29) (1250–1517). The Mamluk Sultanate famously beat back the Mongols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol) at the Battle of Ain Jalut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ain_Jalut) and fought the Crusaders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades) effectively driving them out from the Levant by 1291 and officially in 1302 ending the era of the Crusades.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
They were of varied ancestry but were often Kipchak Turks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kipchaks)/Cumans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumans),[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk#cite_note-2) depending on the period and region in question. While mamluks were purchased, their status was above ordinary slaves, who were not allowed to carry weapons or perform certain tasks. In places such as Egypt from the Ayyubid dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayyubid_dynasty) to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_of_Egypt), mamluks were considered to be “true lords,” with social status above freeborn Muslims"

Elias2
23-09-11, 13:28
I know they ruled egypt I said that already, but they were slaves, Ottomans used alot of slaves in army and civil service. So don't act the way you do.

If I may be blunt, I've noticed turks think of themselves as sinnless people who do good everywhere and but are pretty facist. You fall under this catagory too trying to defend genocide as well. And this paranoia that the west has some pro-christian biases. I guess Lybia dn Iraq are christian, thats why we helped them?

I hope not every turk is like this because turkey is not an angelic country and is quiet the opposite, trying to cause problems for all turkey's neighbours including the eastern meditteranean now. Turkey is a very agreissive country and gets away with it cause America lets turkey who are in NATO. Now that turkey isn't getting into the EU, maybe NATO is in the past as well? I hope so, because turkey literally gets away with murder.

Erdogan thinks Turkey is some sort of power and this will bite turkey is the ass sooner or later.

Mzungu mchagga
23-09-11, 13:30
and sezen aksu- the diva of turkish pop (no link cause i dont like her)

I'll do the job for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egHMbVrlu7E :grin:

Hey wow, on 30th of October she will give a concert just a few minutes walk away from my home, maybe I should give her a try? :cool-v:

barbarian
23-09-11, 13:48
I know they ruled egypt I said that already, but they were slaves, Ottomans used alot of slaves in army and civil service. So don't act the way you do.

If I may be blunt, I've noticed turks think of themselves as sinnless people who do good everywhere and but are pretty facist. You fall under this catagory too trying to defend genocide as well. And this paranoia that the west has some pro-christian biases. I guess Lybia dn Iraq are christian, thats why we helped them?

I hope not every turk is like this because turkey is not an angelic country and is quiet the opposite, trying to cause problems for all turkey's neighbours including the eastern meditteranean now. Turkey is a very agreissive country and gets away with it cause America lets turkey who are in NATO. Now that turkey isn't getting into the EU, maybe NATO is in the past as well? I hope so, because turkey literally gets away with murder.

Erdogan thinks Turkey is some sort of power and this will bite turkey is the ass sooner or later.

either i am very bad in writing or you dont understand what you read. what you wrote is racist by itself. anyway, ....

barbarian
23-09-11, 16:40
I'll do the job for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egHMbVrlu7E :grin:

Hey wow, on 30th of October she will give a concert just a few minutes walk away from my home, maybe I should give her a try? :cool-v:

did you listen hayko? he is one of my favourite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ26nqyLc0M

may be this one is better version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYvpltS7Kwg&feature=related

Elias2
23-09-11, 20:54
either i am very bad in writing or you dont understand what you read. what you wrote is racist by itself. anyway, have a nice day.

I know what I wrote, I think you don't want to reply because of your "superego". Turkey has alot of skeletons in its closet.

barbarian
23-09-11, 23:32
I know what I wrote, I think you don't want to reply because of your "superego". Turkey has alot of skeletons in its closet.

no need to answer your groundless aggression better to edit my post no:46 :laughing:

Mzungu mchagga
24-09-11, 19:49
did you listen hayko? he is one of my favourite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ26nqyLc0M

may be this one is better version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYvpltS7Kwg&feature=related

Yes I really like this kind of music, especially this synthesis at the end of metal vocals combined with oriental harmonies. It is really stunning! Funny that System of a Down is also partly Armenian.

Elias2
24-09-11, 22:11
no need to answer your groundless aggression better to edit my post no:46 :laughing:

You see now matter how much back and forth the turth stands that Turks did commit genocide during WW1 :good_job: You ancoestors commited barberism and have blood on their hands of innocents, you should be ashamed.

barbarian
25-09-11, 02:01
You see now matter how much back and forth the turth stands that Turks did commit genocide during WW1 :good_job: You ancoestors commited barberism and have blood on their hands of innocents, you should be ashamed, but considering you are turk, I think you like it :thinking:
I ignore you. Please don't quote or answer me.

Reinaert
25-09-11, 14:26
You see now matter how much back and forth the turth stands that Turks did commit genocide during WW1 :good_job: You ancoestors commited barberism and have blood on their hands of innocents, you should be ashamed, but considering you are turk, I think you like it :thinking:

Hmm.. You seem to be a Canadian, and looking at what you typed, I ask myself..
Have you been drinking alcohol before you typed this?
Not very wise.

Elias2
25-09-11, 15:44
Hmm.. You seem to be a Canadian, and looking at what you typed, I ask myself..
Have you been drinking alcohol before you typed this?
Not very wise.

What does it matter what nationality I am? I would like an answer on this if this disturbs you so much.

If you have heard the stories of what happened to armenian/greek/assyrian christians and how turkey is trying to deny it and people like barbarian try to deny it I don't see what is wrong with my post.

Genocide did occur and children like Barbarian pout when the truth comes out. Of course in Turkey when people say things like this they go to jail, censorship is still high in that country, so I understand how this culture of denial sparks anger in the hearts of turks when the topic is brought up.

That and the continual suppresion of the Kurds, but this is for another discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq8IwaH3C5c

I remeber a while ago there was another Turkish person on this forum that was more straightfoward on the events and better conversation was had, he stopped posting here after that once and I wish he was here to get another unbiased turkish perspective on the matter, b/c barbarian's perspective is clouded with nationalism.

Antigone
25-09-11, 15:55
Nor very nice. Barbarian has done nothing to deserve this attack.

Elias2
25-09-11, 16:20
Nor very nice. Barbarian has done nothing to deserve this attack.

I think he did, but I need to edit my post because I directed it at all turks when I just meant to be towards him.

Ike
11-02-14, 13:15
Mİllİon natİve anatolİan are massacred by european İnvaders ...they massacred theİr master we gİve them a cİvİlİzatİon they massacred natİve anatolİans

That had nothing to do with your people being Anatolian, but because you were Muslim. And so did Muslims killed Christians in great numbers just because they were Christians, not because they were European.

BakodiP
11-02-14, 18:42
Turkey turks are ANATOLİAN people who are native to ANATOLİA. Anatolian people want to save their native country its our problem not your Your uncivilized ancestor who invade our land and killed NATİVE ANATOLİAN PEOPLE WHO ARE DESCEND OF LYDİANS,HİTİTİES ETC. YOUR PEOPLE ALSO STOLE OUR CİVİLİZATİON AİNT THEY? ROMA WAS FOUNDED BY ANATOLİAN ,MONEY İS FOUNDED BY ANATOLİAN LOT OF FOLK COME FROM ANATOLİA...NOW ANATOLİANS ARE BARBAR LOL

Are you insane? Turkic people came from Central Asia, invaded the land of the people who lived in Anatolia before, and they conquered the area from its native people. If your ancestors are true native Anatolians you can't be Turkic. Today you can be a native Anatolian, who is a Turkish citizen and part ot the Turkish nation, but ethnically not a Turkic! Although of course inter-marriages happend for hundreds of years, so I seriously doubt that anyone could be a 100% pure Anatolian... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples - for the clearer understanding of the difference between Turkish and Turkic )

I can tell you however that since the Antiquity, Anatolia (Asia Minor) was a multi-ethnic region! Greeks lived there for at least 3000 thousand years, but after WWI the Turkish expelled (if the weren't massacered) these native people of Anatolia. As you speak about Hittites, Urartu etc. They are the forefathers of Armenians whom the Turkish also killed or in a fortunate situation just expelled from their many-thousand-year-old home.

BakodiP
11-02-14, 18:58
İ am anatolİan do you undertsnad anatolİa İs my natİve land; kurds,greek and assyrİans arent natİve ....do you understand? Do you know who are anatolİan people?? Mİllİon natİve anatolİan are massacred by european İnvaders ...they massacred theİr master we gİve them a cİvİlİzatİon they massacred natİve anatolİans

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Anatolia_Ancient_Regions_base.svg

Anatolia - 500 BC

Who where massacred and when? What do you mean by Anatolian? Weren't the Perisans who conquered Anatolia as a whole first? European identity is not so old my friend! It only comes with the Middle Ages, and of course not in the mind of ordinary people, just in soe theoretists sitting in the abbeys writing their books.

BakodiP
11-02-14, 19:12
Actually it does not, as long as you don't regard the Armenians as another racial or ethnic group from other Anatolians. Under the Ottoman Empire they were part of the same country and so cannot be considered a different national group either.

Unwittingly you have helped me demonstrate that the UN's definition of 'genocide' does not apply to what the Turks did to the Armenians.

The same true for holocaust! Many emancipated Jewish people considered themselves ethnically/nationally Hungarian in the case of Hungary, but of Jewish religion. Same true for the other Central European states as well, and I seriously doubt that it won't be true for Benelux or France! So this is really a FALSE argument! Armenians considered themselves as a different ethnic and of course religious group than Turks. Self-determination is the key element of a nation or an ethnic group!

LeBrok
11-02-14, 19:34
İ am anatolİan do you undertsnad anatolİa İs my natİve land; kurds,greek and assyrİans arent natİve ....do you understand? Do you know who are anatolİan people?? Mİllİon natİve anatolİan are massacred by european İnvaders ...they massacred theİr master we gİve them a cİvİlİzatİon they massacred natİve anatolİans
Why do you care what we mongrels think? You should hide in your green eye/white skin village away from big bad world. Come back when you grow up.

LeBrok
11-02-14, 19:37
Turkey turks are ANATOLİAN people who are native to ANATOLİA. Anatolian people want to save their native country its our problem not your Your uncivilized ancestor who invade our land and killed NATİVE ANATOLİAN PEOPLE WHO ARE DESCEND OF LYDİANS,HİTİTİES ETC. YOUR PEOPLE ALSO STOLE OUR CİVİLİZATİON AİNT THEY? ROMA WAS FOUNDED BY ANATOLİAN ,MONEY İS FOUNDED BY ANATOLİAN LOT OF FOLK COME FROM ANATOLİA...NOW ANATOLİANS ARE BARBAR LOL
Post your admixture chart, let's see where you come from.

sonici
11-09-14, 11:29
It's not genocide for me, the Armenian civilians were exiled by the Ottomans(1915, relocation law), partisans and militans were killed by the Ottoman empire army.. they were using as a "pawn" by our imperial enemies(Russian empire, British empire, French empire)... I haven't ever talked about French occupy of Algeria and colonialism of Western empires.. :D

Ua'Ronain
11-10-14, 11:49
It's not genocide for me, the Armenian civilians were exiled by the Ottomans(1915, relocation law), partisans and militans were killed by the Ottoman empire army.. they were using as a "pawn" by our imperial enemies(Russian empire, British empire, French empire)... I haven't ever talked about French occupy of Algeria and colonialism of Western empires.. file:///C:\Users\Josh\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\c lip_image001.gif

If this ultra-nationalistic rhetoric that borders on academic blindness is taught in Turkish Public schools then I have little hope of Turkey in the future as a partner with the west. And I would suggest that Turkey would be more at home in the Russian Federation’s warm embrace than with the EU. Your ignorance of history is astounding and it is clear you see through rose tinted glasses. Did you happen to learn about any of these in your Turkish schools;The Istanbul pogrom, Dersim Massacre, Zilan massacre, Beyazıt massacre or the Taksim Square massacre.

The fact you think of it only as an exile is insulting and to be honest angers me. Exile does not mean death marches into the Syrian Desert, forced physical labor to the point of death, the systematic killing of able bodied men and the forced deportation of women, children and the elderly. The systematic elimination to everything non Turkish in Anatolia is indeed genocide and it is bigger than most people know. It started with the Orthodox communities and when they were removed they kept going taking time to forcibly assimilate every group of people that were not self-identified Turks.

Many people cite the genocide starting in 1915 and carrying on past the First World War into 1923 (birth year of the republic) this period of course includes The Turkish War of Independence 1919 –1923 that was fought between the Turkish nationalists and the powers backed by the allies; Greece, Armenia and France after the conclusion of World War One. I bring this up because, the Treaty of Sèvres was abandoned and the Treaty of Lausanne was signed because of the Turkish War of Independence. This is important because it voided the creation of Kurdistan and other promises made to the Greeks and Armenians that resulted in much more bloodshed.

Turkey abolished the sultanate (1922) and the caliphate (1924) which is noteworthy because it severed the only thing that bound Kurds and Turks and set the stage for more modern conflicts such as the current plight of the Kurds on both sides of the Syrian-Turkish border.

In 1923 Turkey signed the Treaty of Lausanne this established the modern borders of Turkey as we know it and over turned the previous treaty . In a nut shell it delineates minorities on the basis of religion only. It sounded good to them on paper but in practice Turkey only granted these rights to the Armenians, Jews and Rums. But if you were a non-Muslim such as the Assyrians, Bahais, Georgians, Maronite Christians, Protestants and Ezidis you were left without protections. And by 1926 it surrendered the minority rights secured for the Jewish, Armenian and Greek peoples.

But in reality I would start the clock on the Ottoman-Turkish repression/genocide of the Armenians back to 1876 when Sultan Abdülhamid II sought to find a way to resolve the reoccurring unrest in the empire by reinforcing the Islamic character of the state. His first trick was the creation of the Hamidiye Regiments which were comprised of Kurds from the eastern provinces that would be deployed in case of rebellions.

The sultan quickly used them in the Ottoman campaign against the Armenians, as Abdülhamid II feared a Armenian uprising in the eastern part of the empire.

The creation of an atmosphere that was opposed to anything non-Islamic was a torch that was carried on by no other than Mustafa Kemal himself aka Papa Turk as founder of the so called “secular turkey” in his conception of a new state, Mustafa Kemal leaves out all the non-Islamic communities of the country.

Thus, the proclamation of the Erzurum Congress of 1919 stipulates that all Islamic ethnic groups living in this area, are true brothers, imbued with the sentiment of mutual sacrifice and respectful of their racial and social circumstances.

Article 6 of the same proclamation extends this principle to all Ottoman territories within the lines of the armistice signed with the Allies in 1918 and states the Ottoman lands as “inhabited by our true brothers, of the same religion and race as ourselves, whom it is impossible to divide.”

Papa Turk used this Islamic rhetoric about the Islamic character of the peoples living on the Ottoman lands repeatedly, each time underlining the “brotherhood” between Turks and Kurds, leaving anyone not Muslim out completely.

With all of this in mind I would say it is in fact genocide that started with Abdülhamid II and was carried on by Mustafa Kemal and only ended when the republic had finished off the Greek and Armenian obstacles to Turkafying Anatolia. The republic then quickly turned on their Muslim brothers who did not self-identify as Turkish such as the Kurds. Between 1925 and 1938 thousands of Kurds and Alevis were deported to Western Turkey. Causing many Kurdish rebellions in the 1920s the first major one was the Koçgiri rebellion of 1920, made up mainly of the Kirmancis of Dersim, it was followed by another rebellion lead by Sheikh Said in 1925, made up mostly by Zazas.

Many people do not know that parts of Turkey were under continuous martial law from 1925 until 1946 because of the oppressive Turkish polices.

I argue that the Armenian Genocide is much wider in scope than many people even know about and that even today the legacy it created still carries on in the republics laws and practices with respect to ethnic and religious minorities. It is hard and painful for nations to admit they are on the wrong side of the moral fence but it can be done. Apartheid in South Africa and slavery and racism in American history are some examples of states acknowledging past wrongs and trying to atone for them.

What had worked successfully on smaller groups such as the Assyrians, Armenians and Greeks did not quite pan out when it came to the Kurds or the Alevi so after about 70 years of denial they had to admit to the existence of the latter groups. That would be in the 1990s fyi. To this very day the Turkish Republic tries to limit the political, religious, educational and linguistic rights of any group that is not a self-identified Turk.

Back in 2004 when Turkey was courting the EU for membership it was forced to do something that had to at least on paper try to address some of the minority issues. For my fellow non-European members who may read this it is called the minority protection conditionality for EU members.

In reality the reforms were still too restrictive for a modern and western nation state. In other words it granted some rights to minorities but made it so restrictive as to have no real effect. It also made a backdoor clause so that if any of the minorities enjoyed their new found freedoms to much they would reserve the ability to have unbridled authority in making ancillary legislation.

Now imagine if it was forbidden to speak French on the radio or television in Canada, or Spanish on a national televised program in my United States or use English in Ireland while televising a major sporting event because of arbitrary regulations that limit minority-language news and cultural programming to 60 minutes per day, five hours per week on radio, and 45 minutes per day, four hours per week on television. The regulations also require that non-Turkish radio programs be followed by the same program in Turkish.

I would argue that listing religious affiliation on the cards exposes people to discrimination and is very un-secular. The law restricts religious services to designated places of worship. Municipal codes mandate that only the government can designate a place of worship; if a religious group has no legal standing in the country, it may not be eligible for a designated site.

If your in a small non islamic group then you are probaly not going to be able to hold any religious services. Police occasionally prohibit Christians from holding services on private property even, and prosecutors sometimes open cases against Christians for holding unauthorized gatherings.

Supposedly proselytizing or religious conversions are not illegal but there have been cases of prosecutors and police looking at groups who do such things with suspicion and have prevented Christians from handing out religious literature in the not to distant past.

The idea of Turkey as a bastion or bulwark of secular democracy has been and always will be a farce made when we needed Turkey during the Cold War. It was a one party state till 1945 and no matter who ran the government they were strictly for Turkish nationalism.

The dismantling of the Caliphate and Sultanate severed the one tie the Kurds and Turks shared and were mere power plays to control the state because it was a threat to its nationalist aims for full control of the people residing in Anatolia and went so far as to replace Ottoman Arabic with a variant of Latin script for written Turkish. Mystical Sufi with various religious-social orders such as tarikats have been banned officially since 1925.

From an American perspective that would be like banning the Knights of Columbus, The Stone Masons and Shriners. The fact that the Turkish government has a “list” of acceptable religions that limit what you can identify with is appalling. For the sake of being thorough I am talking about the Baha’is who have no option.

To add insult to injury they state their religious affiliation on national ID cards. Imagine the uproar in America if Mormons, Scientologists, Rastafarians and other non-mainstream religions were snubbed in such a way.

Turkey even took direct control of formal Islamic institutions. In reality we could say it is more like a Theocracy then a democratic secular government. So please you are not fooling anyone with your false claims of being a modern secular government. It was genocide and it did not stop with the Armenians.

I will edit this post later to add all the sources and proper citations but I am tired right now and need to get some sleep.

gstq98
19-12-16, 07:16
What more can one expect from the turk.

XipeTotek
15-07-18, 09:10
why only Turks? kurds and circassians killed more than Turks. Turk not live on that area.

and i think some different things for that events.

when ittihat terakki coup to ottoman empire. (and i believe they are mason/sionist agents.) doing so many bad things about anatolian people. i think this is a project for that gheography.

also ittihat terakki not turks. 2 kurd 2 chirkassian, 1 albanian is main leaders of ittihat terakki.

So we dont have so much connection for that events. you can ask to kurds and mason agents

i must be say again

Turks dont live on that area. circassian, and kurdish people high population eastern anatolia with armenians for that days.

and ittihat terakki is not Turks. they are different ethnicity from ottoman like a ataturk and they have mason/sionist connection