Armenian Genocide (viewer discretion advised) - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The First World War (1914-1918).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13224134
I'm sick of the Turks on this board denying the Armenian Genocide and using pseudo-intellectual arguments to portray it as a few isolated massacres and skirmishes. I'm sure the Jewish members on this board would love it if the Germans here said the same thing about the Holocaust.

I'm not going to call you out, Turks, but look at what your ancestors are responsible for - are you proud of it?

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#13224164
I'm not going to call you out, Turks,

But that's exactly what you are doing.

but look at what your ancestors are responsible for -

Since some of your compatriots have implied that the civil war in Yugoslavia is some how the Turks' fault as well, I don't see much credibility in your argument. Mind you, I'm not even touching on the millions of Turks massacred and displaced from the Balkans since the 19th century... nor on Serbia's rather friendly attitudes to non-Orthodox peoples.

are you proud of it?

A silly thing to ask because war and killing others is the fundemental way in which human communities have behaved since... forever. Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that there indeed was a desired systematic destruction of all Armenians, why should anyone judge Turks when such policies have frequently been resorted to by others throughout history? They need a leg to stand on. Since you love to equate individuals with nations, you Aekos, too need a leg to stand on.

For the record, I am pleased that I don't live in an irrelevant country. On the otherhand, I don't see why I should feel pride or shame for anything the Ottoman Empire or Turkey did/is doing - afterall, I have never held any official post in the executive in either of the two.

Although I recommend you post a serious question or argument here as well. I don't subscribe to the idea that actions or pictures speak louder than words.
User avatar
By Ter
#13224239
OK, I have no beef in this.

One simple question:
This happened a hundred years ago and it seems undeniable.
Why the fuck is Turkey so adamant to keep on denying it ?
Just admit to it and turn the page of history.
Whenever anyone brings this subject up, the Turks start jumping all over the place.

Well ?

Ter
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#13224291
Well ?

It's a matter of principle.

The principle that Turkey rejects being bossed around by a bunch of people who are trying to get the international fora to pressure Turkey to give concessions to Armenia. Also, Turks value integrity and trut... haha I couldn't finish that sentence. But yeah. That's the way it is.
User avatar
By Siberian Fox
#13225152
[Moderation note: Various posts deleted. This thread is in the History section. If it is going to survive it will need to include discussion about the history of the topic. Off-topic rants about Turkish membership of the European Union or or Nazi extermination of the Jews have no place in this thread. If this thread is intended to prove the scale of genocide against Armenians then sources should be posted relevant to that.]
User avatar
By Anothroskon
#13237642
Ter, the reasons behind Turkey's inability to admit to its past crimes are many and have been discussed in depth in the book Negotiating the Sacred: Blasphemy and Sacrilege in a Multicultural Society, edited by Elizabeth Burns Coleman and Australian National University professor Kevin White.
What still motivates Turkey around the globe? We don’t know. but I suggest
the following:

• 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
restitution.

• 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 is not true that Turks will never admit it. There are plenty of Turks that do, the problem is that the fascists in the military still run much of Turkey so they tend to get shot or tried in court. Aside from that the truth of the claims of genocide in the case of the Armenians, the Assyrians and the Greeks are incontrovertible. Tu quoque fallacies, like the those employed by Doomhamer, notwithstanding.

Taner Akçam, historian and sociologist, in "1915 Legends and Realities" in the Turkish daily "Radikal" (25 May 2003) as translated by Dikran D./Anna K. Piranian
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."
User avatar
By eloweeth
#13240563
My observations:
1. For majority of Turks 1915 doesn't make more sense than conquest of Constatinople 1453.That's history.
Almost noone living today witnessed what happened or listened them from a family member,so the only thing they know are through books.And you like them or not,call them Turkish puppets or not,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.
2. 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.
3. The fact that Turkish nationalism particularly during Cold War was supported by US against the spread of Communism and that made it more and more difficult to have a discussion of that issue.
4. The fact that supported nationalism against communism in Turkey was almost always called "Kemalism" by Armenian diaspora (and many others)which wasn't the case and led a deep suspicion among Turkey's secularist Kemalists which although had some bad examples within themselves were mostly closer to leftists and far more sensible than nationalists of that era.
5. Many coups that took place have replaced several leftists from their positions and the state ideology which was ruled by hardcore nationalist or deep state factors became more and more settled,nationalist and iconic around Ataturk.
6. Asala attacking diplomats has strengthened the idea that Armenians are eternal emenies who will always try to undermine our stability.
7. PKK supporting Armenians could be the worst thing for getting Turks think about their history with Armenia.Armenian immage as eternal enemies again got stronger.
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.
9.The fact that Turkey is ruled mostly by pragmatist leaders who wouldn't want to take their own population against themselves and lose votes for appeasing Armenian Diaspora or Armenia.
10. 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.
11. Paranoia:The fact that some Turks think or feel deep inside that the west is very much involved in any seperationist claim and would support it and that is the reason why all are interested in getting Turkey accept it as genocide so they will achive to divide it into pieces.
By Aekos
#13240891
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.


Why should the current generation of Armenians not have anger at the Turks? How should a Jew feel about a Holocaust-denying, nationalist, German?
By Smilin' Dave
#13241090
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.

Popularity and accuracy in history do not always correlate.

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".

The terminology though created later, seems perfectly accurate in describing what happened. As Anothroskon noted, in the absence of a word for what had been done plenty of other negative descriptions were used, like massacre.

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.

Rounding up harmless civilians, leaving them to the brutality of their 'guards' and deporting them to places they could not possible survive in, was hardly normal for the Turks in WWI.

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.

Crimes committed by others, especially when they are more broadly recognised by those others, is not an explanation for not admitting your own errors.

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. That some are so keen to link the armed struggle of some Armenians in WWI with the 'deportations' only highlights this anxiety.
User avatar
By eloweeth
#13241240
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

There is no ongoing sensitivity in Turkey,there is an ongoing ignorance.Unlike Armenians,averageTurks don't learn those events,mostly don't care and don't believe that it was a genocide and see the reason why it is called that way is only interests of other nations.
Unlike what you said, I don't remember his name but an Armenian historian has said a few years ago Ataturk strongly opposed genocide and later even adopted an Armenian girl and always called those events as an outrage.I have read several similar documents supporting that claim too.This has led a strong opposition particularly by Armenian Americans and the other diaspora Armenians as that way the current Turkish "state" could never be seen as having any responsibility.
Why should the current generation of Armenians not have anger at the Turks? How should a Jew feel about a Holocaust-denying, nationalist, German

I don't know how to answer that honestly.I don't know why a Jew should hate Germans if they are not Nazis of WW2 and why should the Young Turks be generalized as "Turks" only.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.
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?
By Aekos
#13241243
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.


You realize how close you came to exterminating the Armenians? For God's sake, you eliminated over half the Armenian world population at the time and were pushing into Armenia proper...Armenian "national identity," the very Armenian "identity" was completely shattered. They're still trying to pick up the pieces, and it will take generations. They have every reason to be at least distrustful of Turks.
By Smilin' Dave
#13242157
There is no ongoing sensitivity in Turkey,there is an ongoing ignorance.

:roll: People in Turkey are charged as criminals for trying to correct this "ignorance", like Orhan Pamuk. Or killed, like Hrant Dink.

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?
By Aekos
#13242668
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).
By Smilin' Dave
#13243178
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).

I seem to remember Jasenovac getting a fair bit of press when Croatia was part of a unified Yugoslavia, so it's not like it is never talked about. I have never denied that the Croats engaged in ethnic cleansing of their own during the post-Yugoslav wars. I imagine if we had as many idiot Croat posters as we seem to have idiot Serb posters I would probably slam their denial too. I like to think that most Serbs don't engage in this sort of foolish evasion, so I wouldn't call my approach racist at all. My record again deniers of all types is fairly broad based.

I can't beleve a Serbian negationist would dare to pull up the Turks on their record of denial. How staggeringly hypocritical. Now, do you really want to derail your thread further?
By Aekos
#13244206
Serbian negationist


"Serbian negationist"? That's new. :lol: 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.
User avatar
By eloweeth
#13244612
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.His funeral was full of Turks carrying placards "We are all Armenian,we are all Hrant Dink."
So not that it is better to be ignorant than sensitive.It is just my observation that majority of Turks are far more ignorant than sensitive about this issue.
By Smilin' Dave
#13244894
@eloweeth
Orhan Pamuk never got charged.A criminal case was opened against him and they were dropped after a short time.

I was of the understanding charges were laid but latter withdrawn (can you have a criminal case without a brief being submitted for the charges?).

Hrant Dink was murdered by a racist individual.

I thought they were just ignorant and uninterested in what happened in the past? Would Hrant Dink have been killed if he hadn't be so publically castigated for 'attacking Turkishness'?

@Aekos
"Serbian negationist"? That's new.

That's exactly what happens when you do this:
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.

You have basically said "sure there was ethnic cleansing etc... but everyone was doing it... so it's not a big deal". That's negationism.
By Aekos
#13245409
You have basically said "sure there was ethnic cleansing etc... but everyone was doing it... so it's not a big deal". That's negationism.


Yeah, what am I supposed to say? How is what I said at all revisionist?
By Smilin' Dave
#13246388
Yeah, what am I supposed to say? How is what I said at all revisionist?

Still dancing around the issue Aekos. I never said you were denier, and I only mentioned denial in response to your absurd slander that I was being racist (try making that one stick). Now, why don't you call a spade a spade and actually respond to what I have accused you of, negationism. Here, let me get you a definition:
The illegitimate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favourable light


In fact, let me bring this thread back on track for you:
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.
By Aekos
#13246774
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.


The problem is that Croats will never have repercussions over Operation Storm and Albanians will never have repercussions for destroying hundreds of cultural treasures and ethnic cleansing thousands of Kosovo Serbs. I don't see why we have to be the only ones who pay, and if it's obvious that they won't, then my "negationism" is pragmatic. I'm sure you can understand that.

The Armenians, on the other hand, did nothing to the Turks but try to secure their rights in an increasingly oppressive state. There are no crimes Armenians need to atone for, like the Jews they did nothing sinister to spur the inhuman persecution. Your analogy doesn't hold up.
The Evolution Fraud

You should not need my help, since you are an ele[…]

@Verv , yes, most of that post is formatted as i[…]

The U.S. foreign-born population reached a record[…]

The Outrage Exchange

Also, I'm actually in Hong Kong and while I've av[…]