Politics Turkish genocide and the US

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.
 
Last edited:
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 :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 (y)
 
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 (y)
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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: 124250.jpg
 

This thread has been viewed 59134 times.

Back
Top