Armenian Genocide (?)

[Adorno]

Exactly, why it is discussed then? where is the meaning? The meaning is on political scope whether it is a genocide or not; not on historical level. We can also define 'Turkish Genocide' made my Armenians. Where do we arrive in historical level? Events have not changed, only the terminology.

Okay. Let's bring the discussion down to earth and start with genocide. You say it's a western concept that can't be adapted to other countries.
Is the word never used in Turkey (also for other events)? How do you see genocide? When is something a genocide?
Does the Armenian genocide not fall under the concept of genocide?

Genocide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Emil]

And genocide is just a term, you define it and classify it accordingly. The whole topic and actually the 'Armeanian Genocide' discussion in the world is about semantics. I dont see how it's useful to discuss it unless you are historian and literature researcher. Why would i discuss a terminology?

There's no science behind the benefits of eating food or breathing air. Those are just terms and we can forever question the semantics behind them... Unless it's international recognized by other countries or if the worldwide scientific community has agreed upon it. You're the most extreme relativist I've ever happened upon.

 

[HUMMAN]

Okay. Let's bring the discussion down to earth and start with genocide. You say it's a western concept that can't be adapted to other countries.
Is the word never used in Turkey (also for other events)? How do you see genocide? When is something a genocide?
Does the Armenian genocide not fall under the concept of genocide?

Genocide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hi, i wrote many things but deleted them realising they are same as my previous posts. I believe i am right down the earth.
genocide as a word entered in Turkish language post ww2. I dont know if my personal definition is imporant-i am not an authority-, but for me it's based on dehumanization. That sort of racism and dehumanization is only seen in Western world, while cruelty and rage are primitive stances belonging to all humans. Dehumanization is result of western civilization. It has no rage or emotion; only cold rights and power.
I am assuming both of us can follow basic logic. If we both define a word and observe an event we can tag it together. I just dont see here any controversy to discuss, assume i define it as a armenian genocide; but i know we think different about the matter. We should discuss them, not the tag; thats what i am saying. Or we will have different definitions and discuss in a confusing way, which happens a lot. Clearly the thread and people here are affected by political side of the question(that there is an action as a result of defining things) believing it is worthy to discuss it. There can not be a loss/gain between us on defining a thing unless its an ego contest. So it is better for us to discuss opinions, analyzes on events. Knowledge/links/facts are already accessible.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Yes, the West is the source of all the world's racism, which explains Antisemitism being arguably at its strongest in the Middle East, among other examples I could list.

 

[Adorno]

genocide [...] for me it's based on dehumanization. That sort of racism and dehumanization is only seen in Western world
[...] Dehumanization is result of western civilization. It has no rage or emotion; only cold rights and power.

You are saying genocide is dehumanization and it's only a Western phenomenon.
Thereby genocides can only happen in the West. Is that really how you see it?
Historically that's objectively false.
You also talk a lot about the West, which is confusing because the Amenian genocide happened in the (Middle) East.
You are constantly moving the topic away from its source, and focus on the "crimes" of the West.
Do you see a pattern here?

 

[kurczak]

The mental gymnastics people choose to go through rather than admit their nation did something ****ty 100+ years ago...

 

[HUMMAN]

I see a difference between rape of nanking and human zoos. I already said you can assume i accept your definition. If you see West is irrevelant to topic i don't know what to add. I feel like i said what i could say how the topic percived as politics, not history and people are making here politics like A and B party; which is useless.
Both body and mind kurczak . If your father had killed a man for whetever reason, and a criminal lord said you are a bad guy and pay me for it; how would you see it? Nobody can hide historical facts. You see it as admitting stuff, historical **** and modern values, objective world; because you are told to think so. You did not achieve these artifical values yourself. If you would achieve these values yourself, you would understand me even if you dont agree. Thats not how world worked and works i wrote these not to convince you but to let people see it

 

[kurczak]

Statements like "sometimes some people have an agenda", "different people have different values" or "values are influenced by environment" are not as as profound, revelatory insights as you seem to think they are.

There's no realistic scenario where anyone can force Turkey to pay anything. The world doesn't really care about Armenians enough to sanction, let alone invade Turkey over that. It's obviously not worth it to even put any real pressure on Turkey to verbally admit it. The only thing Turkey gains from the denial is cringe and embarrassment.

 

[HUMMAN]

lol who's talking about invasion? It's not about world or anything, it's basic diplomatic power. If Kongo had any lobby or some sort of power in world, or any 3rd world country really they could seek comprimises from other countries. Why it is talked in UN? Not in history channel? Why is America is talking about resolutions about it these years? This is not a conspiracy theory, it is political science 101. You should be happy i cared to put you in a steortype for your 1 sentence bull**** in the topic.

 

[Emil]

If your father had killed a man for whetever reason, and a criminal lord said you are a bad guy and pay me for it; how would you see it?

''The least I can do is recognise the fact that he did murder someone. I'll try to be a better person, and see the real victim in all of this''.

 

[kurczak]

lol who's talking about invasion? It's not about world or anything, it's basic diplomatic power. If Kongo had any lobby or some sort of power in world, or any 3rd world country really they could seek comprimises from other countries. Why it is talked in UN? Not in history channel? Why is America is talking about resolutions about it these years? This is not a conspiracy theory, it is political science 101. You should be happy i cared to put you in a steortype for your 1 sentence bull**** in the topic.

It's talked about in the UN and not on the History Channel BECAUSE Turkey refuses to admit it, thereby making it a live issue. I was talking about sanctions and invasions, because that's how you make an unwilling country comply. Nobody's going to do that, because Turkey is too important a player in a too important region, which is the same reason why nobody's sanctioning or invading Turkey over admitting it.

 

[Zombie Warrior]

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide in Turkish law since it violates article 301. In theory, if we convince HUMMAN and he publicly acknowledges that he's convinced, he could be in a for a long prison time.

EDIT: https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/kanunlar/k5237.html

 

[HUMMAN]

It's talked about in the UN and not on the History Channel BECAUSE Turkey refuses to admit it, thereby making it a live issue. I was talking about sanctions and invasions, because that's how you make an unwilling country comply. Nobody's going to do that, because Turkey is too important a player in a too important region, which is the same reason why nobody's sanctioning or invading Turkey over admitting it.

Only country accepts a genocide is Germany. If you cant comprehend your view on what UN doing is false, i cant help it.
About Turkey's political role, thats not how it works. If you can create a weak spot for your enemy or ally, you can manipulate it as you wish. It's a thing you would always want and control. And even public opinion of average citiziens like you effect Turkey. For me it's better to see us like narrow-minded, or whether you call it than playing your stupid game.

 

[Count Delinard]

Tone down the aggressiveness towards other users, buddy.

 

[Curiocaueri]

Only country accepts a genocide is Germany.

This is absolutely false, and you shouldn't have a hard time finding other examples if you actually tried. Even among non-western countries, like Cambodia for example

 

[StathisTM]

What he wants to say is that Turkey of course hasn't commited any war crimes or any other atrocities ever, they are the purest nation and behind their every action there's deep intellectual reasoning - meaning to advance human civilization. Every westerner (let's be honest, everyone that isn't Turkish) is just a barbarian unable to divert from his primitive ways. Thinking like barbarians, we are only left to label the Armenian genocide as such, a genocide, unable to see the ideal behind it. And some other Illogical nonsense

 

[HUMMAN]

This is absolutely false, and you shouldn't have a hard time finding other examples if you actually tried. Even among non-western countries, like Cambodia for example

OK my bad on that. I read somewhere Germany wants other nations to accept genocides as a policy because they are alone in it.
It's just shocking for me media/politicians etc. discuss Armenian event while their crimes are not brought up at all-just a bad history to be forgotten-; and for people it's just OK. They dont even bother to question it, since it is brought up; it is all cool- objective- just and Turkey being just nasty, people really believe a government can act like that. And oh, no need to move focus away. Turkey is some sort of dodger or liar. At the same there is calmness an even bringing justice motive in EU citizens i talked with. As if we need their help and objective humane values. Western governments have no right to talk about my heritage while carrying their bloody heritage; it's my issue and the issue of people effected from my heritage.
Here UN telling Belgium to not be nasty and end post-racist remarks in their 'African museum'. And Belgium says oh cool we will make museum more friendlier. For me it's still the same 'zoo' mentality. And they keep their king's statues almost as if they are proud of him. Even if you define the word of the event same as these events, it's never gonna be same.

 

[Quiet_Monk]

OK my bad on that. I read somewhere Germany wants other nations to accept genocides as a policy because they are alone in it.
It's just shocking for me media/politicians etc. discuss Armenian event while their crimes are not brought up at all-just a bad history to be forgotten-; and for people it's just OK. They dont even bother to question it, since it is brought up; it is all cool- objective- just and Turkey being just nasty, people really believe a government can act like that. And oh, no need to move focus away. Turkey is some sort of dodger or liar. At the same there is calmness an even bringing justice motive in EU citizens i talked with. As if we need their help and objective humane values. Western governments have no right to talk about my heritage while carrying their bloody heritage; it's my issue and the issue of people effected from my heritage.
Here UN telling Belgium to not be nasty and end post-racist remarks in their 'African museum'. And Belgium says oh cool we will make museum more friendlier. For me it's still the same 'zoo' mentality. And they keep their king's statues almost as if they are proud of him. Even if you define the word of the event same as these events, it's never gonna be same.

I think it’s a fair point that with these interpretations of past events there’s always politics involved. And also that “Western world” has its history full of its own war crimes, genocides, racism and illegal wars and should get off its moral high horse.

At the same time many western countries are coming clean (or at least trying to) with their past. I don’t think theres’ many Germans that deny the holocaust. Or many Americans that deny the war crimes in Vietnam / Middle East, or many Belgians that deny their colonialist atrocities in Africa. Of course, as in HUMMAN’s examples, the work is still very unfinished and imperfect, there’s plenty more things to deal with, official apologies to make and so on. At the same time denying foreign governments of challenging and demanding countries to admit their crimes just because they have a track record of their own… its not a good argument. All countries need to police each other. Especially those with authoritarian leaderships need to be watched. And unfortunately the perception of Turkey at the moment (don’t get me wrong, i love the country) is that it’s becoming more nationalistic, more authoritarian, shutting opposition and free press and feeding its people one truth that denies most of negative things about it’s past. This of course applies to most of countries with anti democratic movements.

I think the more all countries have their own citizens and foreign countries alike demanding fair and unbiased processing of their past, the better.

 

[HUMMAN]

I agree with what you are saying except holding each other hands and rising to sky. I see it as a diplomatic fist fight while people seeing it kind and just. Maybe it will take time to get that position, but right now i support policy of my country on the issue.
And sorry i got aggressive, i dont why I felt some sort of pressure.

 

[Adorno]

... but right now i support policy of my country on the issue.

But the official policy by Turkey, is that it didn't happen.