Armenian Genocide (?)

[Kleidophoros]

Where's that number from? Can't seem to find it.

Probably killed people by overfeeding them beer, chocolate and those awful flemish fries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#Humanitarian_disaster

No by cutting their hands and killing them.

 

[AWdeV]

Jesus Christ. Well, I'm an idiot. :O

 

[Corvus]

However, nowhere did Allegro say that history is important or relevant. 

It's not, that's why it's classified in the arts and not a science

Sorry to go back to this and be off topic, but this has to be one of the most retarded things in the thread in my opinion, sorry Arch. Saying the arts are unimportant and irrelevant is ridiculous. Creativity is one of the most crucial things, in my opinion, in defining our humanity.
Firstly, without the arts life would be very dull, in that we'd have no music, film, theatre, anything to do. And indeed without creativity many of the advances in the sciences would never have occurred. The skillsets involved in investigating the sciences, the natural world, are identical to those needed in humanities and arts.

 

[Kleidophoros]

Jesus Christ. Well, I'm an idiot. :O

Its interesting, not you being an idiot, you are probably not but people's view on the whole subject.
You have a man actively killing half of the population the country, death toll at 2 to 20 millions, noone denying, only disagreement is the death toll yet it's classified as a disaster and the result of a brutal forced system.
On the other hand you have 250.000 to 1,5 million deaths in times of war, everyone killing everyone, only in a region of the empire, so much debate, no solid proof and all westerners get in the line happily to call it a genocide.

 

[Dogukan]

However, nowhere did Allegro say that history is important or relevant. 

It's not, that's why it's classified in the arts and not a science

Sorry to go back to this and be off topic, but this has to be one of the most retarded things in the thread in my opinion, sorry Arch. Saying the arts are unimportant and irrelevant is ridiculous. Creativity is one of the most crucial things, in my opinion, in defining our humanity.
Firstly, without the arts life would be very dull, in that we'd have no music, film, theatre, anything to do. And indeed without creativity many of the advances in the sciences would never have occurred. The skillsets involved in investigating the sciences, the natural world, are identical to those needed in humanities and arts.

totally right....I'd place philosophy and art before sciences actually.
I know how much I have improvd myself during my art course trying to do some conceptual stuff for 2 years.

 

[Archonsod]

Saying the arts are unimportant and irrelevant is ridiculous. Creativity is one of the most crucial things, in my opinion, in defining our humanity.

Art student then?

Creativity =/= art. In fact, I think you'll find we had creativity before we had art. Tends to help when you're working out how to eat something three times larger than yourself.

Firstly, without the arts life would be very dull, in that we'd have no music, film, theatre,

I wasn't aware any of the three continued after 1995. The world seems a better place that way.

The skillsets involved in investigating the sciences, the natural world, are identical to those needed in humanities and arts.

The skillsets involved in sex are identical to those involved in rape. I wouldn't say it makes rape a good idea ....

 

[Corvus]

Saying the arts are unimportant and irrelevant is ridiculous. Creativity is one of the most crucial things, in my opinion, in defining our humanity.

Art student then?

Well, if this matters to you, both my parents are medics, my brother is currently studying for a chemistry degree, my A level choices were Maths, Biology, Chemistry and Latin, and I am currently studying an Archaeology and Ancient History degree. I was brought up in a house full of science, I was always years ahead in science classes, I won the award for biology at my 6th form. My degree is a way of approaching the history through both study of literature and through evidence, based on scientific theory and techniques. I think I have had my fair share of experience of both sides. In fact if anything I am biased in favour of pursuing sciences instead of arts.

Creativity =/= art. In fact, I think you'll find we had creativity before we had art. Tends to help when you're working out how to eat something three times larger than yourself.

I never said creativity = art, I am talking about the importance of creativity to humanity, and saying it is a feature traditionally associated with the "art" subjects. If we want to categorise life into "arts" and "sciences", would it be right to say that strict observation and logic are key themes of scientific disciplines, and creativity and theorising might be described as key skills in those "arts" subjects? These are just my opinions on what might be seen as the basic skills involved in the two, I would be intrigued to see how you would categorise them? It has been my view for a while now that all things are in fact connected: one can study the history and success of Rome, for example, by considering the situation of the city - the geology of the surrounding area, the chemical make up of the soil, the climatic factors and drainage patterns. All that is important, and can be linked to something as "arty" as examining the extent to which the Imperial cult was a factor in roman life. You cannot partition history away from geography, sociology, economics, or even chemistry and biology.

Firstly, without the arts life would be very dull, in that we'd have no music, film, theatre,

I wasn't aware any of the three continued after 1995. The world seems a better place that way.

Philistine much?

The skillsets involved in investigating the sciences, the natural world, are identical to those needed in humanities and arts.

The skillsets involved in sex are identical to those involved in rape. I wouldn't say it makes rape a good idea ....

Illogical much? 
One cannot look at the technological advances of the human race and claim that no imagination or creativity were involved. It is a dichotomy to divide life into "arts" and "sciences", but we do. It is due to their connectedness that one cannot write off one half as useless, when so many of the features of this category are crucial to the other.

 

[Archonsod]

Hmm, from the Armenian Genocide to an arts discussion. Topic much?

I am currently studying an Archaeology and Ancient History degree.

A simple yes would have sufficed

I never said creativity = art, I am talking about the importance of creativity to humanity, and saying it is a feature traditionally associated with the "art" subjects.

Not unless engineering is an art, no.

I would be intrigued to see how you would categorise them?

Someone once said science was the study of everything useful and art everything else, but personally I prefer this one:

The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing, and if nature were not worth knowing, life would not be worth living. Of course I do not here speak of that beauty that strikes the senses, the beauty of qualities and appearances; not that I undervalue such beauty, far from it, but it has nothing to do with science; I mean that profounder beauty which comes from the harmonious order of the parts, and which a pure intelligence can grasp.

- Henri Poincaré

You cannot partition history away from geography, sociology, economics, or even chemistry and biology.

You can. It just makes no sense. Although admittedly, half of it makes no sense even when you don't partition it.

One cannot look at the technological advances of the human race and claim that no imagination or creativity were involved.

No, but as you've already stated, these traits have nothing to do with art.

 

[Corvus]

The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing, and if nature were not worth knowing, life would not be worth living. Of course I do not here speak of that beauty that strikes the senses, the beauty of qualities and appearances; not that I undervalue such beauty, far from it, but it has nothing to do with science; I mean that profounder beauty which comes from the harmonious order of the parts, and which a pure intelligence can grasp.

- Henri Poincaré

That's fair enough, and I can relate to that. How would you define an art then?
And what of physical art influenced by the "harmonious order of the parts", art depicting nature, recreating it or exploring it. If we go talking about actual art, what is your opinion of photographs of deep space. They are used in astronomical and physics studies on the nature of the universe, but also can have a real effect as pieces of art on the human mind - they show the beauty of the universe, and perhaps highlight our own insignificance in it, or indeed our own good fortune in our existence? We can see the beauty of nature, both for its order and reason, but also because it effects the human mind in other ways.

Not unless engineering is an art, no.

This still rests on your definition of an art. In my mind engineering represents a great cross-over between the two subjects. Many structures are designed and created both for their purpose (carrying weight across a large gap, housing thousands of people in offices) as well as for architectural interest. By your logic "the gherkin" might have just been designed as a large concrete block, to be as efficient in its function as possible. However, do you not think things would get kinda ****ty if the world was just large concrete blocks of efficiency. I think it is fundamentally human that we do not do this, but since prehistory have made an effort to go beyond the simple functionality of an object, a tool, a house, and brought beauty and interest in as important to our lives. Clichéd I know, but we had cave paintings before we had language. The cave painting, art, serves an important purpose, or we wouldn't have done it.

these traits have nothing to do with art.

To say creativity has nothing to do with art entirely depends on your as yet missing definition of art, but I think this statement is wrong. To be creative is to produce something we did not have before. This can apply equally to thinking of a new vector by which to insert genes into human cells for gene therapy, or building a house that is more than just a concrete block, or sending a birthday card that is more than just a piece of paper with "Happy Birthday" printed in neat letters. Those last two are certainly not sciences.


(And yes this is horrendously off topic ^^ and i have an essay to write, so think i'll leave it there)

 

[Archonsod]

And what of physical art influenced by the "harmonious order of the parts", art depicting nature, recreating it or exploring it.

Pointless. If I wanted to go explore nature, I'd go explore nature. I'm not interested in someone else's interpretation of nature when I have the real thing quite literally on my doorstep.

We can see the beauty of nature, both for its order and reason, but also because it effects the human mind in other ways.

Yes, but running around shouting Ftaghn tends to get you locked up.

By your logic "the gherkin" might have just been designed as a large concrete block, to be as efficient in its function as possible. However, do you not think things would get kinda ****ty if the world was just large concrete blocks of efficiency.

Are glass cocks any improvement? As long as a building is capable of fulfilling it's function what the **** does it matter what it looks like? I generally find myself entering buildings for a specific purpose, which isn't usually to look at it.

Clichéd I know, but we had cave paintings before we had language.

No, we've had language longer than we've had hands. In fact we were probably vocalising while still tree dwelling shrews. I doubt we were painting though, unless urine based scent marking would count.

This can apply equally to thinking of a new vector by which to insert genes into human cells for gene therapy, or building a house that is more than just a concrete block, or sending a birthday card that is more than just a piece of paper with "Happy Birthday" printed in neat letters. Those last two are certainly not sciences.

Yes,  creativity causes art, not the other way around. The same creativity can be channeled to a more useful purpose, or it can be wasted on silly looking buildings and birthday cards. Like I said, science is everything which is useful, art is everything else.

And on that note, I'm off to bed so I can spend the night at work being incredibly artful

 

[KursadAltug]

Photos are from Turkish villages in Erzurum and Van. The scarf of the elderly women in the first picture is tied in a way Muslims of the region did.
2nd photo was taken on 25 April 1918 in Subatan, showing the women and childeren slaughtered by retreating Armenian militias upon the advance of Kazım Karabekir's forces.

Yet there is more;

隐藏

This photo shows the slaughtered populace of Hızır İlyas village of Diyarbakır by an Armenian gang led by some man named Hono, near Mersani creek. Mourning Muslim women can be seen in the picture.

And below are the weapons confiscated from Armenian gangs in regions from Urfa and even a western Anatolian province of Izmit. I don't think it would be an overstatment saying that purpose of Armenian gangs was to terrorize the populace, it it's pretty clear that they did so.

It was the Armenians, provoked by Russians, that started the acts of terrorizm in Anatolia in the first place. Upon the retreat of Russians, British and French took the job of provoking Armenians by arming then sending them on Turks.

Due to destructive effects of Armenian terrorizings on Eastern front of war Ottomans acted on to deport the Armenians to Syria. There was made a budget and some measurements on health care and protection were attempted to be made but they were executed poorly Ottomans being weak and unable to protect even their own soldiers from attrition. And there has been the Turkish and Kurdish raiders moved by desire of revenge, attacking the Armenian refugees. There have been lots of Ottoman casualities fighting off the raiders.

What I'm trying to explain is that there has never been any purpose of killing or wiping the Armenians as a whole. The conflicts and massacres were mutual, but I believe the chief responsible sides for these are the states like Russia, France and Britain for provoking the Armenians and making a tool of them.

The only blame to be given to Ottomans probably should be their inability to protect the Armenian refugees. It was probably all they could do, while their soldiers were fighting in 7 fronts through the empire and masses dying in Anatolia due to famine and disease.

隐藏

隐藏

隐藏

 

[Dogukan]

I mostly agree with the above post...but changing demographics of a region is also a war crime.

Forced migration was pretty much sending those people to death because of the incapabilities of Ottomans

 

[Oksbad]

My opinion on the matter: OP is an idiot.

Oh, and OP, why, if you're so proud of being turkish do you have a janissary as you're avatar? The janissaries were mainly not turkish or even islamic, but christians captured as children or teens and coerced into serving, and due to the wonders of psychology eventually would become more loyal than the regulars, who were turks.

Seriously, what the hell? Why does being a Turk automatically overide any sense of interest or fascination with soldiers of other nationalities?

 

[Kleidophoros]

My opinion on the matter: OP is an idiot.

Oh, and OP, why, if you're so proud of being turkish do you have a janissary as you're avatar? The janissaries were mainly not turkish or even islamic, but christians captured as children or teens and coerced into serving, and due to the wonders of psychology eventually would become more loyal than the regulars, who were turks.

Seriously, what the hell? Why does being a Turk automatically overide any sense of interest or fascination with soldiers of other nationalities?

Because every Turk is a camel riding, 4 wife taking, foreigner killing son of a ***** who has no artistic taste that's why. 

 

[Verbeek]

Armenian genocide? Wth. I couldn't care less.

 

[Average Joe peasant]

Armenian genocide? Wth. I couldn't care less.

Then don't post in this thread.

 

[Suspect-Device]

Armenians were asking for it, with their star spangled banners and hotdogs.

 

[Archonsod]

I think you're confusing them with Mexicans.

 

[Almalexia]

Armenian genocide? Wth. I couldn't care less.

Then don't post in this thread.

Yeah, come on. Only Llandy can pull off pointless apathy.

Speaking of which, where is Llandy, at the risk of sounding creepy? She hasn't been posting on the forums as of late.

 

[Archonsod]

Gone on hiatus as of 24/01/10 - Don't know when I'll be back.

Though she is at 666 posts, so presumably this Hiatus is some plane of Hell from which she shall lead forth an army of demonic pygmies or something.