|
Post by yahadj on Oct 16, 2007 0:46:51 GMT -5
I agree that there shouldn't be any laws banning discussions regarding anybody's crimes. Actually it should be encouraged so that that they won't be repeated again. According to that our country is no better than the European counterparts adapting prohibitive legislations limiting even scientific discussions. However I remember there was a conference regarding the Armenian issue in Itsanbul a few years ago and I don't remember anybody being jailed or punished by the Turkish Laws. But I know several cases of arrested and sentenced Turks for speaking out in Europe. It is a simple game. The real creators of the problem want to hide behind a scapegoat(in this case Turkey). This is all about this genocide campaign... The masterminds behind WWI planned to reshape the world according to their needs. For that reason had to use all kind of methods. In Balkans and Middle East nationalism was the best tool to exploit. The multinational and multicultural Ottoman empire offered an excellent opportunity for provocation of national hatred. Armenians as the only populous Christian minority under Ottoman rule were the only ones left without a country and thus most eager ones to go after the unrealistic aspirations for independant country in the heart of the Ottoman lands. cla.calpoly.edu/~mriedlsp/History315/Maps/pre1914.gifDespite beign still minority even in their most populous towns and cities and also unevenly distibuted over a wide area they still couldn't stop dreaming about their "Greater Armenia". After all, the powerful West was on their side and Ottoman empire was getting weaker and weaker, not able to maintain a good life standard for any of its citizens - Turks being the worst. Armenians had higher standard because of their privilegious position as trade an business owners. They had reasons to maintain higher self-confidence and this in addition of "the unconditional brotherly" support of Western powers emboldened them to start forming rebel groups and underground organizations aiming to achieve the long awaited liberty- the Greater Armenia was calling!!! Ahh so romantic... As in the western movies... The goal justifies the means. Thus, under the blessings of their priests they started their patriotic rebellions. Well, so what?! It is still romantic... In ecstasy they enrolled in the ranks of the Ottoman enemies -Russians. Many were their spies, insiders...So what? The citizens of Ottoman empire were not required to remain loyal at all, you know. That rule only applies to the Western countries no matter if they are monarchies or democracies... Always! The only problem was that those Young Turks seemed not to understand that all of this was for good -the greal ideal called "Liberty". Instead they traslated this as treason and disloyalty... Difficult to understand... How come they came to the conclusion if they let this continue it would lead to a tremendous civil war which could end up in a real genocide? I am telling you it was ridiculous.... So that is how the idea of deportation came to the head of the well known Talat Pasa (the interior minister), who BTW was a donmeh (crypto Jew, not an ethnic Turk, if that would make any difference) with close realtions with the Western masons. Who knows may be some of his western friends gave him that idea- no body knows... No wonder why some people suggested jewish connection too... www.panarmenian.net/library/eng/?nid=146 Kind of far fetched claim though... However, here comes the part where it is not justified to fully support at all. Deportation would have saved some real troubles if it was done correctly. Poor organization of that campaing translated in terrible hunger and diseases for the most helpless -the women, elderly and the worst for the poor little children... This part is crime... But would I call it a genocide that was planned, supported and implemented by the most Turks of the time ? Definately no... I would call it an example of bad and incompetent organization by the ruling Committee of Union and Progress with Talat pasa being the most responsible in this case... It was a great tragedy that nobody can deny... The WWI, which showed everybody the evil face of the western imperialism, set the end of monarchies in Russia, AustroHungary and Ottoman empire. The new burgoisie and bankers were the only winners. Turks and Armenians lost the most... If we can only undestand this, we can understand who is behind todays political games too... Definately not those two nations that used to live peacefully for centuries until were poisoned by the human made Western ideals like capitalism, imperialism, nationalism, fascism and even the poorly understood term "liberty"... Humans didn't mind killing each other under the influence of those ideologies, which unite in a common principles- egoism and lust for more material gains... It seems that there are more criminals to blame for this tragedy except Turks. Such as - Armenian extremists, British, Russians, Germans, Zionists and so on... So we need more scientific approach to this issue. Let the historians decide first, then it will be easy to accept the blame and ask for forgiveness from each other...
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Oct 16, 2007 2:08:37 GMT -5
Yeah.. some of these laws are silly. A ban on insulting the head of state (lése-majesté, literally) is an ancient concept that just about makes sense in a democracy, and the German and Austrian laws against holocaust denial are a kind of historical road-safety measure ... telling people lies about how dangerously evil Nazism was is a bit like telling them it's safe to cross the road when a truck is coming down it. But the French and Swiss laws about the Armenian genocide devalue the concept of historical certainty. Absurdly, the French legislators rejected the amendment proposed by a UMP deputy that would have excluded the work of historians from the law's field of application – the UMP rep in question being one Patrick Devedjian. The EU commission, and nearly all French intellectuals, protested against this ridiculous law, which was passed due to the electoral opportunism of the deputies. BUT .....There's a big difference between passing a law like this about somebody else's crime and passing one to protect one's own state from charges of having committed a horrible crime. It's not illegal in France to describe what happened in Algeria as a genocide, for instance. I agree that there should not be any ban on freedom of speech. Respectfully, I must note that Article 301 does not directly ban "recognition of a genocide", but it is true that it is used as a tool by some circles promoting nationalist views on the issue. Please also note that as an ordinary citizen of Turkey, I read full size articles taken from the Western sources (supporting the idea of genocide) in Turkish newspapers everyday, and I know that nobody gets imprisoned or trailed for publishing or reading them. As Yahac also said, academic and intellectual conferences related to the Armenian Genocide issue are held in Turkish universities, and people advocating different interpretations are invited and their speech are not interrupted when they speak. Most importantly, those do not get sued for the issues that they stipulate. Thus, I see many books on the shelfs advocating the "an Armenian Genocide", and nobody gets prosecuted for printing or selling them either. Could it be the same case for a book by a Turkish scholar in France or Switzerland? Not really at all (as you also know very well). Did the Georgetown’s University recently allow the Armenian patriarch articulating his views on behalf of the Turkish Armenians? Not at all. Instead, his speech was canceled due to "invisible banning mechanisms of the Western Societies". In a sense, what Halacoglu and Perincek experienced in Switzerland, and what Bernard Lewis went through in France are only some examples of the "rigid western oppression" that targets the way people think about a certain subject.
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Oct 16, 2007 9:10:35 GMT -5
telling people lies about how dangerously evil Nazism was is a bit like telling them it's safe to cross the road when a truck is coming down it. I think I lost you here. Would you mind to further elaborate this part? What ''lies'' are being told as regards the actions of Nazism? Surely not the Holocaust and the 50.000.000 dead people. But the French and Swiss laws about the Armenian genocide devalue the concept of historical certainty. I don't think so. It bans freedom of speech towards people who have been victims of state propaganda or at the worst case ultra nationalists who propagate hate-speech by insulting historical memory. Maybe I can agree that such laws are against the concept of democracy and freedom of speech. But what are the boundaries of freedom of speech? What if one's ''freedom'' to spread lies can lead to the death of millions of people? What if the Greek State fined and censored the Greek TV channels, who until not so long ago, were stamping the word ''albanian'' next to every single crime that there was committed even if there was not a single evidence for it? Would xenophobia reach its pinnacle in Greece? What if the Weimar Republic had laws banning anti-semitism and hate speech? Let me put it otherwise. What if a teen murders a black guy because he read in some random Internet site that the black are untermensch who ''pollute'' the purity of the white race? Certainly that poor guy would still have been alive if such sites were censored. For example the murderer of Hrant Dink later confessed that he did what he did because he read in some random Internet site that he was a bad guy who wanted to destabilize Turkey etc etc. Perhaps Holocaust denial in 21st century Germany doesn't make much sense. But what if Germany gave freedom of speech to the Nazis just after the WWII? Had they done that, the Nazi party would still play a leading role in German politics today. And you do know what that means. Elevating ''freedom of speech'' as the ultimate virtue in this world by not taking into account the social impact that hate-speech can have into entire groups of people can be very dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by yahadj on Oct 16, 2007 9:33:02 GMT -5
Aha Red Brigade, so you think people should be protected by censures for the good of the whole society. I guess you would like to maintain the order and prevent hatred in a certain society. Guess what, Turkish legislators thought the same and put that law 301. Because if anybody starts cursing against Turkey inside Turkey, he/she might face a danger for his life not because of the state but because people here love their country so much so that sometimes their reaction may be extreme. By censoring those provokative actions the state takes the responsibility to maintain the order, instead of people. So the ordinary people don't need to react us much... You know, it is like a establishing a lightning rod. Then your position is for support of Turkish law -301. Interesting... But I don't agree with you...
|
|
|
Post by OghuzKhan on Oct 16, 2007 18:11:30 GMT -5
I don't think so. It bans freedom of speech towards people who have been victims of state propaganda or at the worst case ultra nationalists who propagate hate-speech by insulting historical memory. Really? So Gilles Veinstein, Bernard Lewis are the people who have been the victims of (Turkish) state propaganda according to you? And that silly laws does not ban the freedom of expression of these historians even if Bernad Lewis faced five seperate court action and finally convicted? Not long ago Gilles Veinstein refused to grant an interview to a Turkish journalist on the matter and presenting his apologies and expecting the journalist's understanding in the face of unsuitable conditions in France (guess which conditions ?). Last time I checked, The Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing's entry for Bernard Lewis stated that over a 60-year career, Lewis emerged as " the most influential scholar of Islam and the Middle East", rather than portraying him as a victim of alleged Turkish state propaganda, the idiotic claim that belongs to you. It's netiher compatible with freedom of speech nor with historical writing. The laws of this kind not only leads to absurdities and misinterpretations, but also distorts and risks the legitimate history writing. Quite irrelevant to our case both in nature and outcome. Well, Stanford J. Shaw's house has been bombed in 1970s and he might have died merely for having different opinion than those of terrorists and whomever they read. Some of those Armenian terrorists who MURDERED innocent Turkish Diplomats and CIVILIANS claimed to have been influenced by reading Morgenthau's made up story or Franz Werfell's novel and later attempted to use these works as justification in several of their trials. The logical consequence of your argument leads one to feel that such works should have been banned and collected. So to say, your attempts to magnify the extremist fraction of those who object to "Armenians Genocide" does not really fit into reality of the situation and it mainly stemms from your chronic prejudice and limited grasp of things. I clearly remember that it was you who, a while ago, claimed that a monument of Armenians in France was removed (by Turks) and showing it as a justification of that particular French law. It turned out, however, the one who did this job was not a Turkish bogeyman as you boldly put it, but an irrelevant non-Turkish thief who did it with the purpose of stealing valuable pieces on it. Correct, but the freedom of speech is not considered as the ultimate virtue in this case but as a legitimate right in an ongoing controversary. In case you failed to note, the genocide is a legal term and the legal basis for it is UN Convention, which clearly states that only an competent tribubanl/authorized court can decide what constitutes Genocide or not. And the parliaments can hardly qualify this description. In short, the Armenians bring the matter to people who negotiate it and what they will get is inevitably a negotiated truth .
|
|
|
Post by OghuzKhan on Oct 16, 2007 18:14:42 GMT -5
And hello to everybody In case you might wonder, I was OghuzKhan in the old forum if anyone still remembers me.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Oct 17, 2007 2:07:19 GMT -5
And hello to everybody In case you might wonder, I was OghuzKhan in the old forum if anyone still remembers me. Hello OghuzKhan. It is good to see you back. I agree on the points you raised about the freedom of speech. It might be danger in Europe (due to the prevailing fascist tendencies of the European culture) to deny the misdeeds of Hitler's regime. However, I agree that the Armenian issue is far from falling into such assessment. Turks never hated Armenians, Georgians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romanians, Moldavians, or Bulgarians. Some of those have been reasonably successful in terms of building their nation states with the help of external powers. It is also true that the Armenian case was more painful than the others as it coincided with WWI and the collapse of the Ottoman power. However, it was not genocide either. I can not say the same for the European psyche related to the subjected people. In a sense, the Europeans/Westerners considered the Blacks, Asians, Arabs, Jews, Native Americans, Native Australians as sub-humans who evolved after their holy white race and that is why, they did not hesitate to establish apartheid regimes in the lands they governed. If one reviews the modern history of USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, then one could see the impact of severe extremism derived from that culture. In those countries, discrimination and racism legally existed until recent decades. Was it any different for the European countries? Not really at all. For example, in Sweden and Norway, they sterilized female population of certain ethnicities, and committed genocides in the state hospitals until 1970s. In France, highly civilized French people lynched hundreds of Algerians in the middle of Paris when the Algerian demonstrated to condemn the French extremism and terrorism targeting the Algerians in Algeria. After all, the French State killed more than a million people in Algeria intentionally in 1950s (after genocide was accepted as an international crime). In the same post WWII period, the UK also executed mass killings in Kenya, Holland deliberately massacred local population in Indonesia, and the French state then again raged a war of terror in Vietnam. In the American continent, the Europeans committed the worst and the long lasted genocide in the history of mankind, and the USA emerged as the world power as a consequence of the genocides and plundering campaigns. It is important to note that yet there is not a single European/Western country which officially acknowledges the genocide of the American natives even today. Instead, they still celebrate the "Columbus Day" and make falsifying movies on this Columbus thug. As the byproduct of European colonialism, The US also did follow the same path and killed more than a million in Philippines in early 20th Century. Later, extremism campaigns of that country continued during the WWII, and reached its peak in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After the war is over, this brutal entity forced German prisoners to work for years, and hundreds thousands of those died due to poor conditions and hunger. Similarly, the USA, UK, France and Russia organized the expulsion of the ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe, and as a result of such campaign, 1.5-3 million German civilians died on their way to Germany. Later, the USA continued to show its ugly face in Vietnam and Cambodia, and now the same methods of terror are still applied in Afghanistan and in Iraq (sometimes even in the air zone of those "highly civilized" European countries). I do not think that it is directly related to the Armenians. After all, what are those genocide claims based upon? Those are based upon the archives of the UK, France, Russia Germany, and USA. In a sense, let us all be aware of one important fact: there is no such thing like "some archives are correct and some are not". In fact, what one could find in the archives is the collection of political perceptions ruling a country at a given period in time. As we should all know by now, those were all genocidal states, which exterminated tens of millions of people back then. So, I now ask, does the account of the NAZI officials count anything today? That is a very important question since we should all be aware that the accounts of some genocidal officials do not count as corroborative evidence at present. Nevertheless, unlike the myth about NAZIs and Hitler, the term final solution was used by the Anglo-Europeans for the ethnic problems arisen from the natives of America. Was it some unique situation applicable in the North America? Not really. So, let us recall how infamous British novelist Charles D.i.c.kens interpreted the Hindus of India back in 1850s: www.ultrabrown.com/posts/charles-thingyens-urged-indian-genocideLet us also recall the hatred statement by the British prime minister Lloyd George in 1914: www.smi.uib.no/publ/nereid-p.html#fn1As you might notice, the British Prime Minister also advocates a genocide on the Turks (just like in that "who remembers " statement referred to Hitler) by necessitating a final account on them just like Charles D.i.c.kens did for the Indians. In fact, the recent resolution by the American congress refers to an honorable man, namely the American ambassador Morgenthau. Was that man really an honorable one, or was he a primitive fascist agent provocateur whose statements should never have been valued. Let us recall how this American thug interpreted the Turks in the book now used as a "reference of Armenian Genocide": www.theturkishtimes.com/archive/03/0503/op-artun.htmlFinally, let us all bear in mind that the NAZI concentration camps and so called scientific racism were not evolved by the NAZIs, in fact, such methods were commonly used in remote colonies. Plantation camps are the prime examples of such mindset. Most importantly, more than ten million Ottoman Turks/Muslims (former Ottoman citizens later known as the Bosnians, Chechens, Iraqis, Algerians, Albanians, Azeris, Crimean Tatars, Bulgarian Turks) also have been the subject of such extremism between 1783-2000s. Let us recall what happened to millions of Caucasian Muslims in the 1860s as an example: www.circassianworld.com/reports.htmlSo, they want us to value such primitive men by accepting the nonsense they did come up with their little fascist minds? I can not imagine any Turkish government who could comply with such primitive nonsense at any point in time.
|
|
|
Post by benettonsenetme on Oct 17, 2007 5:42:01 GMT -5
Yahac, Jannissary,
Very informative posts. Thank you both.
Oghuz Khan,
Welcome.
Jannissary,
Which part of Kadikoy/Chalcedon, do you live in? Hehe. I was born in an hospital in Kadikoy and my granmda's house is in Kadikoy's Kosuyolu district that I visit every year. ;D
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Oct 17, 2007 6:02:31 GMT -5
Yahac, Jannissary, Very informative posts. Thank you both. Oghuz Khan, Welcome. Jannissary, Which part of Kadikoy/Chalcedon, do you live in? Hehe. I was born in an hospital in Kadikoy and my granmda's house is in Kadikoy's Kosuyolu district that I visit every year. ;D Your welcome, Benetton. I lived most of my life close to Moda, precisely in Bahariye.
|
|
|
Post by BibleRiot on Oct 17, 2007 16:54:03 GMT -5
This thread is covering enough ground for three separate ones, I think. First there's the issue of whether it is ever correct to restrict free speech. In a sense, the moment one accepts the need for libel laws of any kind, one accepts some restriction on free speech. Red is right that the laws against holocaust denial were passed as a way of ensuring that the perpetrators of those crimes, and anybody who still sympathised with them, would remain bloodstained and repulsive in the public gaze – and would thus be denied respectability and support. Potential political support for extreme racist political parties was, and still is a known danger in Europe – the oncoming truck of my analogy. All the far right racist parties are still deeply anti-semitic, even if they now focus more on hatred of blacks and Muslims because those are easier hatreds to sell to the public these days. This is a specific party political association in European history – unlike the broader issue of colonialist atrocities – and it remains important to ensure that people know what happened the last time the racist right came to power. But Oghuz is probably correct that there is no equivalent danger of a repeat event in the case of the atrocities inflicted on Armenian Ottoman citizens. Yahac's claim that 301 is there to prevent public disorder and violence by incensed patriots is unconvincing. The motivation is insulted pride plain and simple. More to the point,passing a law making it illegal to accuse the nation of genocide (only Turkey has done this) and passing a law making it illegal to deny genocidal state action are not the same thing at all. There is simply no moral equivalence between the two restrictions on freedom of speech; the purposes served by the restrictions are entirely different. Then there are issues of fact rather than principle. I think Jan is oversimplifying things, and distorting the picture seriously. Lloyd-George may have been a Welsh prat who pushed Venizelos into his mad Anatolian adventure, but he did not mean that he wanted to see the Turks physically exterminated. Nor is it fair to blame the US and Britain for the vengeance exacted on the Sudeten Germans by the citizenry of Eastern Europe. The Allies should have done more to prevent it but they did not instigate it. No officials came banging on the door of the Sudeten Germans with a document signed by the Brits or the Yanks, telling them they had to move and forcing them into a desert. It is arguably the case that the British and French empires were as brutal in their treatment of subject peoples as the Turks were – but the point is that the details of this colonial cruelty are taught in British and French universities. It is precisely because Turkish scholars and officials have been so slow to recognize the criminal nature of what the Ottoman state imposed on its unarmed, unresisting and innocent Armenian citizens that the world has focussed so much on the issue of deliberate genocide and has forgotten about the armed actions of the Dashnak and their ilk.
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Oct 18, 2007 0:34:42 GMT -5
Aha Red Brigade, so you think people should be protected by censures for the good of the whole society. I guess you would like to maintain the order and prevent hatred in a certain society. Guess what, Turkish legislators thought the same and put that law 301. Because if anybody starts cursing against Turkey inside Turkey, he/she might face a danger for his life not because of the state but because people here love their country so much so that sometimes their reaction may be extreme. By censoring those provokative actions the state takes the responsibility to maintain the order, instead of people. So the ordinary people don't need to react us much... You know, it is like a establishing a lightning rod. Then your position is for support of Turkish law -301. Interesting... But I don't agree with you... I think you got it wrong from the beginning I am not arguing that the State should defend ''order''. I hate order and uniformity. I mean that when someone's liberty to spew nonsense can harm people physically then he must be censored. Because for me the equation goes like this: human life > freedom of speech. Besides I don't think that Article 301 is there to protect those who think that it's a genocide from the nationalists. That is like telling me that USA didn't let the blacks and whites to go to the same schools because it wanted to ''protect'' the blacks from the white people's racism. Besides, if there are so many nationalists, it's their mentality that must change. They are the problem not those in danger who must not ''provoke'' their feelings.
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Oct 18, 2007 0:56:25 GMT -5
Correct, but the freedom of speech is not considered as the ultimate virtue in this case but as a legitimate right in an ongoing controversary. Not for the mainstream academia apparently. In case you failed to note, the genocide is a legal term and the legal basis for it is UN Convention, which clearly states that only an competent tribubanl/authorized court can decide what constitutes Genocide or not. And the parliaments can hardly qualify this description. The United Nations isn't something that exists in some distant realm. It is an organization and its body is funded and supported by nation-states. Subsequently, their decisions are being shaped by politics and the balance of power. If we go by your train of thought then then Suharto has never committed a genocide, because the U.N. has never had trials on it. Or the extermination of the native americans wasn't a genocide either. Politics don't necessarily coincide with historical integrity. For example if Germany was not annihilated completely in the WWII, meaning that it just lost the war but remained as an entity, much like the Ottoman Empire and Turkey at the end of WWI, I don't think there would ever be Nuremberg trials or Germany would ever had recognized that it committed a genocide. Neither would the allies pressure them to do so. But that wouldn't mean that the Holocaust would be real. Anyway, I think we can exclude historians from such laws so that we secure academic freedom.
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Oct 18, 2007 0:58:36 GMT -5
Lloyd-George may have been a Welsh prat who pushed Venizelos into his mad Anatolian adventure, but he did not mean that he wanted to see the Turks physically exterminated. I think he was a racist.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Oct 18, 2007 2:27:03 GMT -5
This thread is covering enough ground for three separate ones, I think. Then there are issues of fact rather than principle. I think Jan is oversimplifying things, and distorting the picture seriously. I do not think I do. I point out the prevailing tendencies of the Western Culture that are well witnessed by almost all nations living in this planet. Perhaps you do find my "wording" provoking a bit, in a sense, I admit that I sometimes think of myself being aggressively sarcastic in some of my statements too. Perhaps, this is due to the "muhacir" background of my family, which was not a happy one. Nonetheless, you can not kill hundreds of millions and then talk about some peaceful or civilized culture. Therefore, if there is anything distorted, then bear in mind that it is the Western interpretation of selected history, which is as enlightening as the ideas uttered by L. George or C. Di.ckens. In a sense, I must state the history of that culture is full of such fascist quotations uttered by people who are still deemed as intellectuals or "enlightening" figures. Of course L. George did intend to reduce the Turkish population down to a manageable size just like the British did anywhere else, such in India, Australia or even in Ireland. By the way, I find it strange that you could still defend that warmonger. The allies were all aware of the concentration camps and did nothing about them until the end of the war. Most importantly, those were as "aggressive" as the NAZIs. However, they were stronger economically and militarily, and after all, they won the war. If one reviews the history of Russia, USA, UK, France, in fact one sees much higher toll compared to the number of NAZI victims. Only the toll inflicted by the British Empire in India surpasses the barbarities of the NAZI Germany by large margins. Same applies to the American policies related to the Natives or the well organized massacres in late colonies like Philippines. Conversely, Russia was as a brutal as the UK and the USA as proved in the cases of Crimean Tatars, Circassians, Chechens, and Ukranians. France also did follow a similar path, particularly in Africa. After the war, there were important figures in these allied states who considered Germany as a military machine that must be reduced in size and population, and there was anger in Europe and people used to seek scapegoats for the tragedies they experienced. The Eastern European Germans were the perfect match, and those allies did nothing to prevent this vengeance campaign as expected by them. Of course they did not have to produce any documents since the Russians acted quite convincing compared to any signed document, and the allies were aware of the consequences of such emigration happening in hostile environment. Not comparable. There is no record of Ottoman cruelty like the British did in India and in Australia, or French did in Africa. Hence, the central Ottoman government never let its subjects to starve like those brutal European states did, such as the one happened in Ireland. Most importantly, the Ottomans did not intend to apply any sort of ethnic cleansing on their subjects until they were violently pushed back into Anatolia. Conversely, the Ottomans did not receive financial benefits arisen from overseas, but in fact they were forced to finance some giant withdrawal that included relocation of millions of poor refuges who were forcefully emigrated from the former Ottoman lands due to "deliberate violence" inflicted upon them. Bulk of such universities attempts to address the issues arisen from the "Jewish Genocide", and mainly focus on antisemitism rather than those "deliberate acts of aggression" executed in remote colonies. That is why, usually the 99% of the British or French population have no idea about such programs or those genocides executed by the Western Powers. On the one hand, almost every westerner I met, knew quite well about the Ottoman policies targeted the Armenian population. Similarly, I found thousands of articles on the net or in book shelves related to the subject. On the other hand, I haven't encountered "rich" western articles or books, (as an example) on the calculation of the damage that Britain did in India. No precise record of the number of subjects killed and enslaved, no calculation the economic damage caused due to the East India Company and the British rule. In Germany, the Jewish Genocide is taught in public schools, but what about the UK? Do they teach the genocides that they executed in India or Australia? Hindu scholars also interpret such Western attempts as "apologists" since western scholars usually focus on bringing the benefits of colonialism forward, which is nothing but some western distortion of history, and frankly speaking, such approach precisely aims to deny numerous genocides executed deliberately and the legal consequences that might arise in the future. For example, in Belgium, nobody mentions the extermination of 15 million Congolese in Congo, and the other highly civilized EU members say nothing about such massive crime as if it never happened. In France, the issue of Algeria is still sensitive and France still refuses to apologize whilst trying to lecture Turkey on humanity. Nevertheless, I believe the current French president Sarkozy clearly reveals the weird French (and respectively the prevailing European/Western) mindset related to the misdeeds of the past: “One cannot blame everything on colonisation — the corruption, the dictators, the genocide; that is not colonisation. The African peasant only knows the renewal of time, rhythmed by the endless repetition of the same gestures and the same words. In this imaginary world where everything starts over and over again, there is no place for human adventure or the idea of progress.”
www.businessday.co.za/articles/world.aspx?ID=BD4A528345
So, the Western scholars were fast? You are kidding right?
|
|
|
Post by OghuzKhan on Oct 18, 2007 4:06:36 GMT -5
Not for the mainstream academia apparently. . Depends on the field of those in the mainstream actually. A good many has no idea on what the issue is about eventhough they gave backing to certain views. What power does Turkey hold in her hands either in the political or economical field to shape UN decisions ? if the role Turkey plays in politics or balance of power had been so influential as you seem inclined to believe , the parliaments decisions would not take place in the first instance . If we go by my train of thought, one would not neccesserially conclude there was no genocide of Indians ( i can not judge whether it was or not with my present knowledge) but one that ought to be considered within a legal framework. Isnt it what Turkey suggested? To establish a joint commission and then publicly acknowledge its results, that could put a permanent end to the matter. The Armenian response to the invitation was a negative one. Your suggestion is to merely silence those opposing the Armenian version of events, with grotesque explanations at times, like in the case of the removed monument. Indeed, Sarkozy pushed a bill just to appeal to a large Armenian electorate and demonstrate some overt hostility to a Muslim nation for the consumption of a domestic population fed up with North Africans burning out cars. Now Pelocy is also after that. Ottoman Empire was defeated as well and it did not remain as an entity but as a puppet state on paper which would be divided into pieces and to which it readily submitted. The British held a good many of Ottoman officers as prisoners and did look up for a serious evidence for a trial in connection with this matter, but the result was not like what they hoped for. Instead there were forgeries circulating around. So one has to be a historian to object a certain version of history even if they have backing from prestigious historians (that some people would label victim of Turkish state propaganda) and some documentary evidence?
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Oct 18, 2007 7:02:46 GMT -5
Lets not forget that this takes precedent because it is officially the first genocide of the 20th century. the turks deny it ever happend but the irony of it all is that the descendents of the ppl you either murdered or deported grew up in other countries that are now pressing for the recognition of the crimes that were committed ;D Talk about poetic justice . I bet the ottomans didnt see that one coming Kind of like those movies where they kill the parents and the child waits 20 yrs then takes vengence.... You reap what you sow...its just shamefull that the turkish govt thinks that with time ppl will just forget. We along with the armenians will never forget, and it will hound you until the end of time until you learn to accept your crimes in history.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Oct 18, 2007 7:08:59 GMT -5
Oh and by the way...dont worry about the vote passing. I doubt that will happen now, but there is no doubt it will happen one day. I do have to admit one thing though...i have never seen the US backpedal the way they are now ;D For this i got to give you guys credit... You really know how to blackmail ppl ;D I kind of enjoyed it
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Oct 18, 2007 7:51:20 GMT -5
Lets not forget that this takes precedent because it is officially the first genocide of the 20th century. You are a typical supporter of the fraudulent "Western Plutocracy". Now, education time for you: Let us read the virtues of your culture once again: www.selvesandothers.org/article9315.htmlwww.tenc.net/analysis/russell.htmwww.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/belgian_congo/index.htmlThose are only two of the genocides that are executed by the Western Powers in late 19th and early 20th Century. If you want learn more about your "highly civilized" culture, then please let me know. Bla, bla, bla, first clean the blood in your hands before telling others how high morale you sustain. If you do not, then bear in mind that your written statements will remain as nothing but some meaningless signs.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Oct 18, 2007 8:05:53 GMT -5
Jan..
I agree with you on the atrocities that the colonial powers committed. If you think that Greece belongs in the same category of western countries ( england, germany ) than there is something seriously wrong with your thinking.
I see Greece more allied with Turkey ( byzantine, ottoman ) but the fact of the matter is that you guys brought this issue among yourselves...The armenia diaspora is proof of their forced displacement, you cannot hide this fact.
Even Germany was able to admit responsibility...are they better than Turkey ? Why can t you guys do the same ?
The cleansing gave birth to the modern Turkish republic, but not without a price to pay....
|
|
|
Post by ahristos on Oct 18, 2007 8:14:03 GMT -5
u lost 1-0 and u are out from eurocup we won u looosers
|
|