Armenian Genocide (?)

Do you believe?

  • Yes

    Votes: 187 62.5%
  • No

    Votes: 112 37.5%

  • Total voters
    299

Currently viewing this thread:

Doctor_Noob

Veteran
Best answers
0
Were not going to talk about the person who came up the term with Genocide used the Armenian Genocide as one of the examples. Or was that brought up already.
 

Cpt. Nemo

The Wurst
Section Moderator
M&BWB
Best answers
0
It was probably mentioned somewhere in this thread, but might as well bring it up again.
 

Lyceria

Squire
WB
Best answers
0
By now, this really does not matter anymore, does it?! They can't play the genocide card after everything they have done at Karabag...
Oh wait...

Massacring innocent people
Illegally occupying land
Probably not pay any reparations but want reparations in money and land
muH arMenYan giNocyDe

"Uh but Lyceria, that is whataboutism blablabla"
Shut it.
 

Captured Joe

Marquis
Best answers
0
"Uh but Lyceria, that is whataboutism blablabla"
Shut it.
But it is.

How about you make a thread about whatever happened at Karabag and discuss it on its own terms, rather than trying to diminish the crimes of the Ottoman state and army (for some dumb nationalistic reason)?
 

Lyceria

Squire
WB
Best answers
0
But it is.

How about you make a thread about whatever happened at Karabag and discuss it on its own terms, rather than trying to diminish the crimes of the Ottoman state and army (for some dumb nationalistic reason)?
I believe this fits perfectly to this thread tho.
See, you would think that people who say to have suffered so much would have a culture revolving around NOT being like the people they accuse of genocide.

"dumb nationalistic reason"
 

Zombie Warrior

Sergeant Knight
Best answers
0
See, you would think that people who say to have suffered so much would have a culture revolving around NOT being like the people they accuse of genocide.
This is either a fallacious or naive statement. Hate crimes may as well breed more hate crimes than lead to peace. Actually it may even be easier to become the aggressor in such a case. One book (a play's transcription) I've read, based on real life experiences in the Lebanese civil war, may help you see the light on such things. I recommend you read it if is possible for you. I took the liberty to translate a particularly relevant part of the book:

Wajdi Mouawad - Incendies - Page 43 said:
Context: Nawal is looking for her missing child with the help of her friend Sawda. They investigate the orphanage of Kfar Rayat where they meet the doctor there.

NAWAL. And the orphans who were here, where are they now?

THE DOCTOR. It happened so quickly. The refugees arrived. They took everyone. Even the newborn babies. Every single one of them. They were furious.

SAWDA. Why?

THE DOCTOR. To avenge themselves. Two days ago, the militia hanged three teenage refugees who got outside the camps. Why did the militia hang these adolescents? Because two refugees from the camp had raped and killed a girl from the village of Kfar Samira. Why did these two guys rape the girl? Because the militia stoned a refugee family. Why did the militia stone the family? Because refugees had burned a house near the hill of thymes. Why did the refugees burn that house? Because the militia destroyed one of their water wells. Why did the militia destroy the refugees' well? Because refugees burned the harvests near the river of the dog. Why did the refugees burn the harvests? There is most likely a reason, my memory stops here, I cannot recall events further down the line. But the story could go on for a long while. From anger to anger, from sorrow to sadness, from rape to murder, until the beginning of creation.
I believe this is covered under U.S. fair use, but I know citation is definitely legal in Canada, where the play was written and published. I also own a physical copy of the book. Please support the author Wajdi Mouawad by buying his book "Incendies".

While the events in the book are fictional, they are heavily based on what happens and happened in the real world and it explores how hatred creates more hatred. It's a cycle which doesn't break easily and where violence reigns supreme. By now, you would probably think that considering the nature of the atrocities we say the Ottomans committed, if that was indeed true then the Armenians would have done the same to the turks and kurds in the Ottoman Empire and yet they didn't, while they did so during the Karabakh war against the Azerbaijanis, so that would mean the Armenian Genocide actually didn't happen. Checkmate Zombie Warrior!

However, it remains a fact that all events alleged here happened. For real. To real people who suffered for real and they dealt with the situation differently. There is always a possibility that events transpire in any unexpected shape and form. Because human nature is not a thing which is entirely logical and predictable. There are things that humans do which cannot be computed. But there is more, the two events are very different. One was a 9 year long one sided slaughter which saw the death or expulsion of 1.5 million people, while the other was one of several ethnic massacres in a terrible war between two peoples fuelled by hatred for each other. The events don't compare to scale and the historical context is much different. The Azerbaijan side, by the way, was not innocent either in that war, do you want to talk about the Baku and Sumgait massacres which preceded the Khojaly massacre? To me it looks like the Armenians had enough and retaliated in anger. If the Doctor from the tale earlier could comment this war he'd say: "Why did the Armenians commit the Khojaly massacre? Because Azerbaijanis murdered these people... Why did the Azerbaijani did this? Because the Armenians did that... etc." Does that make it right? No. What happened in Khojaly was certainly unacceptable. But it is unrelated to the subject matter of this thread.

By the way, there is a ~70 year difference between the Khojaly massacre and the Armenian genocide. That's a pretty wide time gap don't you think? That leaves a lot of time for things to change for better or worst. But it doesn't mean that because a similar event happened in the past that they wouldn't do it again even if it's bad. Nor does it mean that such an event never happened in the first place since they committed one themselves.
 

Chonokhan

Recruit
Best answers
0
No, I don't think it's genocide. Many Armenians died horrible deaths of starvation, disease and raiding/criminals taking advantage of stagglers when they were exiled from Turkish territory... but this cannot be blamed on the Turkish government... as much as I dislike Ataturk and the "Young Turks" they were far less brutal than their European counterparts when it comes to dealing with enemies, especially those of a hostile faith or a differing race/culture.
 
Best answers
2
"exiling" people from their homes and then letting exposure and bad conditions do the rest of the work is probably the most common form that genocide took in that era. Even the Nazis didn't Literally shoot everyone they intended to kill, they just took away all their food and shelter.

Why does the label "genocide" bother you?
 

Weaver

Count
Best answers
0
For the same reason some people deny holocaust. I think we all know the answer and it's not pretty.