I'm not going to call you out, Turks, but look at what your ancestors are responsible for - are you proud of it?
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
I'm not going to call you out, Turks,
but look at what your ancestors are responsible for -
are you proud of it?
What still motivates Turkey around the globe? We don’t know. but I suggest
• A suppression of guilt and shame that a warrior nation, a ‘beacon of
democracy’ as it saw itself in 190S (and since), slaughtered several ethnic
populations. Democracies, it is said, don’t commit genocide; ergo, Turkey
couldn’t and didn’t do so.
• A cultural and social ethos of honour, a compelling and compulsive need to
remove any blots on the national escutcheon.
• A chronic fear that admission will lead to massive claims for reparation and
• To overcome fears of social fragmentation in a society that is still very much
a state in transition.
• A ‘logical’ belief that because the genocide was committed with impunity,
so denial will also meet with neither opposition nor obloquy.
• An inner knowledge that the juggernaut denial industry has a momentum
of its own and can’t he stopped even if they wanted i to stop.
It may look amazing, but the reality that what happened in 1915 was a mass murder was accepted by everybody having lived in that period, and was never the object of an argument. Of course the word soykirim [genocide] (being a term belonging to the post World War II period) was not used in those days. To describe what had happened in 1915, words such as "katliam" [massacre], "taktil" [killings], "teb'id" [taking away, expulsion, expelling], "kital" [massacre] were used. Mustafa Kemal has dozens of speeches in which he defines the treatments reserved to Armenians as "cowardice", or "barbarity", and names these treatments "massacre". In September 1919, the American General Harbord, who visited Mustafa Kemal in Sivas, says "he, too, disapproved the Armenian Massacre." According to Mustafa Kemal, "the massacre and deportation of Armenians was the work of a small committee who had seized the power."
8. The fact that the genocide issue got abused by some Armenian Diaspora leaders,churches to have a sense of unity(and capita) among Armenians abroad got the current generation of Armenians to have an explosive level of anger against anything related with Turks.
there are historians in the world who doesn't agree with the term "genocide" to be used in this case and their books are more popular in Turkey(and Azerbaijan) for sure.
The term genocide didn't really exist in that era so actually even the Turks who witnessed those events and felt guilty about them didn't call it a "genocide".
And as they have seen so many deaths during first World War including their compatriots,it possibly appeared more natural to them in that era than it would appear today.
The fact that current generation of Turks think the only reason why this issue come out now is because of the domestic politics of US which they already are not very fond of and feel countries like France or US are the last ones to talk or teach on genocide issues.
I suspect that the reason for ongoing Turkish sensitivity to the Armenian Genocide is the way it dovetails with the continued war with the Armenians carried out by Ataturk during reunification. Thus the Armenian issue really does cut deep into national identity
Why should the current generation of Armenians not have anger at the Turks? How should a Jew feel about a Holocaust-denying, nationalist, German
But I would say the worst and most self destructive way of gaining a national unity is to build it upon hating "another" only and this can be observed in all societies having it that way including Armenians and Jews.
There is no ongoing sensitivity in Turkey,there is an ongoing ignorance.
Would you support a Bosniak hating Serb even after several generations just because they can't call what happened in their history the same way or would you prefer them looking forward instead?
Since I've had a go at Serbs on this forum who seek to whitewash their nation's history of ethnic cleansing and (at least according to the international community) genocide. So I think that answers your question. How can any nation really move forward without confronting its past?
Croatia has been moving on pretty well without confronting the Jasenovac genocide. Not to mention Operation Storm, which many view in a positive light (probably including you, seeing your fanatical criticism of Serbs bordering on racism).
People in Turkey are charged as criminals for trying to correct this "ignorance", like Orhan Pamuk. Or killed, like Hrant Dink
Orhan Pamuk never got charged.A criminal case was opened against him and they were dropped after a short time.
Hrant Dink was murdered by a racist individual.
"Serbian negationist"? That's new.
I don't deny that Srebrenica happened and that it wasn't terrible or that Bosniaks were ethnic cleansed out of Srpska. Serbs were ethnic cleansed out of the Bosnian-Croat federation and even more out of Croatia.
Yeah, what am I supposed to say? How is what I said at all revisionist?
The illegitimate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favourable light
Attempts by some Serbs to avoid repercussions over ethnic cleansing in Bosnia by pointing to similar acts by others states is very similar to Turks who seek to distort the image of the Armenian Genocide by pointing to incidences of armed conflict with Armenian partisans.
Almost none of these people are going to die. […]
It's an odd thing for you to say considering the […]
I could post a bunch of articles from mainstream […]
I suggested public mass demonstrations a few years[…]