Fine , whether you accept them or not doesnt mean they didnt happen, what we can see from Ackams accounts and various accounts is harsh and oppressive treatment of Ottoman Armenians with reports of this going back 20 years prior to 1862, we see Armenains requesting changes from the authority, protection from Kurdish and Circassian raiding etc, we see also requests for Armenains to be able to serve in the military. We then see initial face value response from authority saying they will do something but nothing is done, this is a continuous pattern nothing or very little is done, some reforms are met but usually only after much external pressuring, and I agree in the end the external pressuring didnt help the Armenains plight only made it worse as it created a brooding bitterness and resentment amongst the Turks, but the point here is that reforms were the product of an external pressure not an internal decision similiar to recent modifications to article 301 a result of external pressure as Turkey wants in EU.
The Armenains simply asked for security , protection from attacks whether it be Kurds, Circassions, they alsio asked for many other things, right to serve in military instead of paying so high txes, secular courts, etc. Clearly these peopole felt oppressed ina society that legally favoured Muslim subjects over the tolerated Dhimmi.
The Kurds were nomadic the Armenains asked the authority for protection against them and to settle them down. Additionaly what
Taner points out is a change in political climate where there became amongst the authority a pan islamic outlook, sense of olidarity between muslim subject peoples, this implies a bias towards subjects that were Muslim rather than Christian.
well as Taner mentioned they requested to serve in the army instead of paying high taxes.
As I had mentioned earlier the relationship with Rusia was not always the same , Russia in a certain time used its Tatars to deal with Armenains, later Russia supported Armenains when it served its interest, as I have said in this era Ottoman Turkey offered very little for Armenians we have already gone over that.
Simple truth is it was n empire that favoured its Muslim subjects over the tolerated Dhimmi, eventually the Dhimmi wanted equality, this was something Ottomans were not prepared to give.
It was Islamic, Turkics were Asiatic before they went to Middleeast and became Islamised and influenced by Arabesque cultures.
Not really, Austro-Hungarian empire was quite multicultural and so was Roman.
You are the one who started using tags and labels like Eurocentric,
and culture of yours, and to the best of my knowledge I dont own a culture.
I said your approach and mentality seems in line with them and I gave the reasons why.
I dont personally know what are the official stands from all Western and Christian countries about those issues but as I have said I know Australia does much more for its indigenous population in relation to how it has affected it more than what Turkey does to hers and that is a fact.
Perhaps if Turkey itself was more democratic able to discuss the issue in the way Taner Ackam and Pomak are able to,perhaps there would be less of this, imo there was an Armenains Genocide,how else can you explain what happened to such a high percentage of a population that previously lived in Anatolia, if you yourself can recognise muslim genocide in Yugo, if you can recognise so many other genocides as you pointed to but fail to recognise Armenains genocide then that
indicates denial and inability for Turkey to reflect on its actions.
not true. you dont like it but I did.
not really, in fact you grabbed the highest possible numbers you could which were actually the top figure of a possible range not a certain figure, then on top of that figure you added millions over then centuries, when there is only 2 centuries of Euro settlementin Australai, then concluded by your own mathematical equations based on the highest figures you could find that whites killed millions without taking to account other things that caused death.I asked you to back up your very high numbers , then realising those numbers didnt fit in with general scholarly view and that there was no evidence for your exageratted claims, instead of doing what I asked and proving your claims, you tried to wriggle out of it with some crude self designed mathematical equations that actually mean nothing, then tried to wriggle out of it by finding any other critical information about Australia you could find, clutching at straws trying to paint and with much inaccuracy the picture of Australia as some type of white Nazi state with ethnic ghettoes, segregations etc etc, when I pointed out the inaccuracies and exaggerations of your claims you didnt like it and stubbornly continued to try and demonise Euro- western culture with anything you could find.
I didnt say that,but you tendency is to put words in my mouth.
It was a ridiculous invasion that I have said I dont agree with.
Your basic attempt is and has been to demonise Euro-Christian-world , mostly to divertand avoid any responsibility of Ottoman authority relating to Armenains genocide.
What I said was true there was in fact much public opposition to the invasion and also much western political opposition too, if you are not aware of that then simply you are ignorant, as I implied this was not enough to stop it, the NeoCons went ahead despite much advice and opposition within the Western world to not invade.
so far you defend Turkey or Ottoman empire on every level, you try to downplay article 301, you defend Turkish Government when it has clearly acted in a academically unethical and also hypocritical manner, that in itself was poited out by one of the Turkish academic colleagues that worked beside Professor Quateart, you do in fact have the outlook of at least bias nationalist if not ultrntionalist, whether you realise it or not.
that is an unfortunate part of Australian history, Australia does officially recognise it,has officially appologised to the aboriginals for iit, and Australia does involve itself in finacial benefits and programmes with the aim of assisiting indigenous people, and has given land grants to aborigibnal peoples, you know as well as everybody, Turkey has done nothing for the indigenous subjects of Anatolia that have been victims of Turkish Government Policy.
Australia is just one of many countries around the world that sent forces to Iraq after the invasion , actually Australian forces generally were involved in a security role that took place after the initial invasion which Australian troops as far as I know were not involved in.
But I have already stated my oppinion about Iraq., actually a top Australian retired head of national security advised teh Australian Government against sending troops to Iraq and it is a fact there was much national protest an public oppinion against it, whether you likeit or not.
For you and the way you choose/want to see things Im sure it does.
Your response to this was extremly predictable.
Taner actually uses many Turkish sources for the information he presents.
Your mention and description of what happened to Armenains as a simple "Exodus" is really where the Turkish position BS begins after all much more happened to the Armenians than simply exiting Turkey as the word simply implies. AS Quateart and Ackam and many others have stated, there is much eveidence that Authority was a aware and happy for and complicit with systematic massacres of Armenians besides being aware of the harsh conditions traversing a desert that would most likely result in death, in light of all this it is ridiculous to not account these actions as genocidal and the result as genocide, especially considering the percentage of Armenians
killed and these people were predominatly unarmed Citizens, yes I have seen you are quite happy to use the g word when describing other countries but when it comes to your beloved highly honourable and faultless Ottoman Empire you re unable to reconcile this, you pretty much are Turkish nationalist/ultranationalist and your outlook is quite predictable.