pentagathus
Baron
No, I was taught to write at school but they thought that if you knew how to write you didn't need to read so they never bothered teaching us that.DanAngleland said:
Armenian Genocide (?)
- Thread starter Janissary1453
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Baron
A generation let down by the education system 
No, because this is about the Armenian genocide, and we don't deal in whataboutisms here.
Isn't the genocide on the Assyrians generally considered part of the Armenian genocide as well, since they happened at the same time and mostly done by the same people?
Greek genocide is a bit wider since it was also part of the Greco-Turkish war, so I think that doesn't fall under Armenian genocide.
You're right. I just had the suspicion the topic was meant to move the focus, but I could be wrong.
Why hasn't Turkey acknowledged their part in the Armenian Genocide?
Answer (1 of 30): Please check when the genoside concept appeared in the diplomacy and how does it defined. It is not about being right or not, is being about under which circumstances and atmosphere all those happened. The migration decision for Armenians was mandatory for Ottomans cause the e...
Hi, i am not a historian i dont know the details of the event. But the event is about populism(at least in Turkey) that there is no clash of research/analysis of but ideologies. It is not a historical subject while it should be. And from what i see from internet and limited foreign media, it is also not historical in other countries. Reason i see for it is:
-Relatively recent event
-Armenian government/lobby seeking for comprimise. The discussion of the subject is more of a political and diplomatic twist than a historical discussion. This way this thread has many pages and controversies without any historical discussion.
The thing i dont like about the topic is it may turn into ethics being evil/responsible etc. It's mostly because of western hypocrisy. For me it's just funny to see Belgians saying they didn't kill the people in Kongo but their king did it. And still having their post-colonial companies there. Heart of the EU, but had humans in zoo's until 1950's, post WW2. The terms racism and genocide are western terms, can never be truely adapted to other countries. The founding fathers of USA writing rights of men had plantations. And people claiming 'human rights' etc. while a mininum intelligent person can be aware there is something when a worker in EU gets 10 dollars per hour while in 3rd world a worker gets 0.1 dollars. Top 3 companies in EU are fossil fuel companies. It's blood money, at least past cruels were honest; today most are decieved.
It's just a power struggle.
-Relatively recent event
-Armenian government/lobby seeking for comprimise. The discussion of the subject is more of a political and diplomatic twist than a historical discussion. This way this thread has many pages and controversies without any historical discussion.
The thing i dont like about the topic is it may turn into ethics being evil/responsible etc. It's mostly because of western hypocrisy. For me it's just funny to see Belgians saying they didn't kill the people in Kongo but their king did it. And still having their post-colonial companies there. Heart of the EU, but had humans in zoo's until 1950's, post WW2. The terms racism and genocide are western terms, can never be truely adapted to other countries. The founding fathers of USA writing rights of men had plantations. And people claiming 'human rights' etc. while a mininum intelligent person can be aware there is something when a worker in EU gets 10 dollars per hour while in 3rd world a worker gets 0.1 dollars. Top 3 companies in EU are fossil fuel companies. It's blood money, at least past cruels were honest; today most are decieved.
It's just a power struggle.
There are so many topics in your post I don't see how they're (all) related to the genocide.
Unless it's the classical argument: others did bad things too, which makes this bad thing less bad.
The reason there are so few historical references might be because it's so well documented.
I can recommed Eugene Rogan's The Fall of the Ottomans.
Armenians trying to use the genocide for all kinds of political purposes is another matter.
Belgium's colonies, human 'zoos', early US slavery, and EU salaries/wages is unrelated.
How is the biggest companies in the EU being fossil fuel companies relevant?
(The 3 biggest companies i Russia and Africa are also oil/gas companies. In South Africa Petrobras is the biggest.)
Unless it's the classical argument: others did bad things too, which makes this bad thing less bad.
The reason there are so few historical references might be because it's so well documented.
I can recommed Eugene Rogan's The Fall of the Ottomans.
Armenians trying to use the genocide for all kinds of political purposes is another matter.
Belgium's colonies, human 'zoos', early US slavery, and EU salaries/wages is unrelated.
How is the biggest companies in the EU being fossil fuel companies relevant?
(The 3 biggest companies i Russia and Africa are also oil/gas companies. In South Africa Petrobras is the biggest.)
Hi Adorno, the reason i wrote like that is to discuss the discussion; not the topic itself. Otherwise i dont see myself eligible to discuss it, the topic itself is about historical documentation and analysis; references are more important and anyone can research them. 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? Event is there, everyone can resarch it and analyze it; discussing about labeling it into two words is very superficial and almost useless.
As i mentioned, currently the event's importance is not historical side rather it's the political nature. It's about mass opinon, view on Turkey and so. Do you sincerely believe people are interested in this event on historical perspective? You know there are resolutions about it, and there is also public opinion about how Turkey is arrogant/people are decieved/evil etcc. The topic's importance for Turkey is that. That's why i gave my opinion about skewed Western approach in general. It's the Prince 101.
All the stuff i wrote is at least as important as the topic, why do you think they are not discussed as much? Hey if Kongo had enough power they could force a compromise and we would see propaganda/discussion from both sides; do you see it? It's not about the event. It's about now. Because history is not always about history, it has other dimensions; and you should consider them too.
As i mentioned, currently the event's importance is not historical side rather it's the political nature. It's about mass opinon, view on Turkey and so. Do you sincerely believe people are interested in this event on historical perspective? You know there are resolutions about it, and there is also public opinion about how Turkey is arrogant/people are decieved/evil etcc. The topic's importance for Turkey is that. That's why i gave my opinion about skewed Western approach in general. It's the Prince 101.
All the stuff i wrote is at least as important as the topic, why do you think they are not discussed as much? Hey if Kongo had enough power they could force a compromise and we would see propaganda/discussion from both sides; do you see it? It's not about the event. It's about now. Because history is not always about history, it has other dimensions; and you should consider them too.
Your argument is to not disuss anything historical, unless being a historian?
That would leave out most people and most topics.
To me it sounds like you'd like conversation in general to be silenced.
Personally I see everything as historical. Any contemporary discussion has implicitly a history.
If you want to discuss the current political nature of the genocide, you obviously need to include its history.
If you turn history into semantics you can flit anything on its head, and move focus from facts to opinions.
Again, people using the genocide to criticise Turkey and its population is a topic on its own, but certainly important.
Saying that other issues should have more attention (like Belgium's colonial past) can be relevant.
But is that not just an excuse for moving the focus?
It's intresting how different we argue and see things. I'm Danish, so this might be the very class of cultures you're referring to
That would leave out most people and most topics.
To me it sounds like you'd like conversation in general to be silenced.
Personally I see everything as historical. Any contemporary discussion has implicitly a history.
If you want to discuss the current political nature of the genocide, you obviously need to include its history.
If you turn history into semantics you can flit anything on its head, and move focus from facts to opinions.
That is saying something, without actually saying something. Anything is a term/word that can be defined.
Again, people using the genocide to criticise Turkey and its population is a topic on its own, but certainly important.
Saying that other issues should have more attention (like Belgium's colonial past) can be relevant.
But is that not just an excuse for moving the focus?
It's intresting how different we argue and see things. I'm Danish, so this might be the very class of cultures you're referring to
I am putting emphasis on the most important part of the subject, which i believe many people are unaware of. And this thread follows my suggestion about how people discuss it, so it is an important point.
The thread's title literally suggests political nature, 'do you believe in Armenian Genocide?' It's asked like do you believe in God or do you think America is a cool country. Of course the question has the place itself in literature but i mentioned how the question is percieved. Since the topic is political, it requires some kind of professional approch yes. In short you can disscuss everyone with Agincourt battle but not political matters on Syrian War. And you wouldnt discuss if Agincourt was a good thing or not? Do you see? Discussion is little about history. Your sentence about moving focus also implies political nature of the question. In a historical literature, you can not 'move' focus away anyway. It is what it is.
Let's discuss people, countries, deaths, villages, documents, events during the period; not how to name it. Without any political or ethical imposition. Generally the question in the world is a political question, and an insult to Turkey. It's like the biggest bully of the town is saying you should say "I am sorry" because of a fight you entered. I gave the examples to show big is this bully is, this is how i percieved it both in political arena but also in abroad people i talked with.
About cultures and heritage, I respect war and inequality. But west did it differently. They do not acknowledge their heritage, yet they claim to be civilized.
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. You should agree with me since events and documents are the same, 'changing' the term can only have legal/internatitonal importance; not scientific importance. Political nature of the subject is not discussable as you claim, it's only actable. That certain parties benefit from it or loses something. It's not a discussion, it's a powerplay some parties want to play.
The thread's title literally suggests political nature, 'do you believe in Armenian Genocide?' It's asked like do you believe in God or do you think America is a cool country. Of course the question has the place itself in literature but i mentioned how the question is percieved. Since the topic is political, it requires some kind of professional approch yes. In short you can disscuss everyone with Agincourt battle but not political matters on Syrian War. And you wouldnt discuss if Agincourt was a good thing or not? Do you see? Discussion is little about history. Your sentence about moving focus also implies political nature of the question. In a historical literature, you can not 'move' focus away anyway. It is what it is.
Let's discuss people, countries, deaths, villages, documents, events during the period; not how to name it. Without any political or ethical imposition. Generally the question in the world is a political question, and an insult to Turkey. It's like the biggest bully of the town is saying you should say "I am sorry" because of a fight you entered. I gave the examples to show big is this bully is, this is how i percieved it both in political arena but also in abroad people i talked with.
About cultures and heritage, I respect war and inequality. But west did it differently. They do not acknowledge their heritage, yet they claim to be civilized.
no
That's your interpretation. Don't go sticking facts where they don't belong.
So far, everything you've posted in this thread looks like a red herring. An intentional one meant to mislead and slightly derail the thread into another direction. This is not a thread about etymology and words as human constructs or some other deep philosophical thoughts about terms, phrases, commas and every little point in a character on a computer screen which ended up being printed in an ordinary dictionary definition of one word or another to be used in the next Argumentum ad dictionarium that is going to appear on this thread.
This thread is about whether or not the event referred to as the Armenian Genocide occurred. Everything else is irrelevant to the matter at hand. So if you've got a point to make, then please give us the pleasure of doing so and stop side tracking. I'm serious, I still don't know where you stand on the matter, so I've been forced to make assumptions. And not only on what's your position on the matter but your reasoning as well. I think, you would greatly benefit from making your thoughts clear so that we may discuss the topic rather than debate your approach to semantics.
Similar threads
- Poll
