I always thought I had a relative understanding of the Armenian genocide. Or, at least, that it happened.
But there was a poster campaign at my university, presumably by Turkish students or Turkish community members, which was stating that the Armenian genocide was a “fabrication,” was “grossly exaggerated,” and that “reputable scholars” (all Turkish, by the sounds of their names) had serious doubts about what transpired.
Now, I would normally not give these sorts of claims a second thought. Obviously if you said any of these things about the Holocaust, you would be branded a bigot and an anti-semite. And rightly so. These posters would have never been allowed up by the student government of my school (despite their many failings…:rolleyes:). But I simply don’t know enough beyond a quick wikipedia reading of what happened to the Armenians from 1917 onwards. It seems the argument from Turkish scholars is that Armenians were Russian allies, and treated as enemy combatants? Is that a fair assessment?
Is there any reason to doubt the sincerity of claims of an Armenian genocide, or their severity, or anything else regarding this moment in history? I suspect there’s no clearcut answer, but I’m wondering if there’s any sort of intellectual consensus, I suppose.
Let’s put it this way: it may not have been a successful genocide. Armenians still exist, though not many, and they’ve been destroyed as a notable ethnic group. Twas was worse than (Martin van Buren’s) Trail of Tears*. It wasn’t exactly genocide in the sense that the Turks were specifically out to kill all Armenians. They were equally fine with them being destroyed in many other ways. It may not have been all that personal, either: the Turks might have eliminated many other groups had they been available. Most non-Turkish peoples in the era preferred Russian hegemony to Turkish tyranny.
The Turkish state wasn’t capable of a Nazi-style complete elimination, and it didn’t try. What it did do was make damn sure the Armenians would never, ever bother them again, and to this day has tried to eliminate the very memory of them. Whether you consider that genocide is a matter of definition. I call it evil regardless.
*Without getting into the Andrew Jackson issue, I would note that he was probably far less racist than most contemporaries, and had no problem with several other AmerIndian groups. Van Buren, on the other hand, was a complete jerk all around.
Yes, it was genocide. Or attempted. Unfortunately, the Turkish government refuses to acknowledge it. The American government sort of recognizes American Indian genocide without calling it such.
Europeans and America also recognize the Holocaust while downplaying their knowledge (and sometimes active role) of it while it was happening.
I am married to a Turk and have talked to a lot of well-educated Turks. Almost uniformly they are taught and continue to believe that what occurred in the time leading to the Turkish War of Independence and the formation of the Turkish Republic was not at all genocide. It is regarded as civil war and this statement is usually followed by mentioning the large number of Turkish civilians that died at the time. Since it is so culturally ingrained I doubt you can convince many Turks that it was anything but civil war.
I sincerely doubt the Turkish Republic will ever recognize the genocide and I am always a bit embarrassed when our Congress brings up the topic because it is utterly useless (except for votes).
I also get a bit confused because the two main instigators of this genocide were punished (Enver and Talaat Pasha) for their crimes and if the country that committed the atrocity is gone, if the leaders who ordered the atrocity are gone, then what is the benefit of continuing to discuss it?
Smiling Bandit: Do you have even the slightest shred of evidence that “to this day [the Turkish state] has tried to eliminate the very memory of them”? That statement has no basis in fact from my experience and is slightly absurd because the Ottoman Empire is not the Turkish State.
A further question: Why is it “unfortunate” that the Turkish government does not recognize the genocide? Other than weakened ties with Armenia, who cares what the Turks call it?
Indeed, I found the parallels to the Russian pograms of Jews disturbing. I’m not sure I exactly classify this as “genocide” in the technical sense. But it’s no different morally for those who carried him out.
I care. I had several relatives who were on those forced marches, but lived through them and made it to America. They’re all dead and gone now, but I’d still like to see their suffering acknowledged.
Well, to be fair the Holocaust was irrelevant to the goals of WWII. If I was FDR I wouldn’t want the Holocaust sensationalizing things because then you might have public outcry to focus military efforts on freeing people from the camps and etc. I don’t really think that would have happened, but even still the Holocaust while regrettable was irrelevant to the American war effort.
Our goal was the destruction of Germany’s ability to wage war and its complete capitulation and occupation, and that was to be followed up with the same for Japan.
They have ceased to be Ottomans. Every remnant of the Ottoman Empire is all but dead except for fantasies held by an unimportant minority. Even the Kemalism that replaced it is disappearing. Although the food is probably similar.
The numbers in Anatolia are minimized by Turks, true. This does not mean that Turks are trying to erase them. They minimize their historical numbers and have a different story than you and I share over how the Armenians disappeared when they were once everywhere. The Turkish government would still be trading with Armenia if it wasn’t for war with Azerbaijan; they have launched efforts to renew ties. Recently, an incomplete statue being built to honor Turkish/Armenian historical ties and friendship became controversial because many wanted it up while many wanted it torn down. The forces at work are between do nothing and recognize the past; there is no real modern effort to erase them.
It’s right but impractical and I would prefer that more important topics of conversation occurred between the USA and Turkey. Pretty much the only time I hear anything out of Congress regarding Turkey is this one issue. The whole freaking Middle East is changing, Turkey is playing a leadership role, Turkey is protecting Syrian civilians and the topic of the day: a nearly 100 year old genocide that if recognized by Turkey would lead to both jack AND shit. It’s just a painful reminder of how utterly lost we are in handling foreign policy in the Middle East.
I see no logical relationship between this willingness and lack of recognition of past atrocities. Also, way to ignore almost everything from 1923 until the germination of real recognition of minorities and their rights that is spreading through the Turkish political culture today. The dominance of the AKP is based partly in this political recognition of minorities.
Not really. Pretending it never happened implies that they’re ashamed of it, just like admitting it and apologizing. If they admitted it happened, and refused to apologize, that would imply they’d be willing to do it again.
That said, since most Turks are completely ignorant of the facts, I guess it doesn’t matter.
On a domestic front, we were acting as though we had some moral imperative. We had no problems sensationalizing Pearl Harbor or the effect the war had on our troops or families. Anyway, we knew about it and did nothing - not even absorb a decent amount of refugees. That was my point. I’m not sure what yours is.
edit: Our European allies were also partially responsible for tens of thousands of Jewish deaths. Thanks a lot, France.
Note, for contrast, how there never yet was any Kurdish genocide rising to the level of the Armenian (though a few good-faith attempts have been made). Map of currently Kurdish-inhabited areas. This includes southeastern Turkey, where Kurdish nationalists/secessionists have been troublesome for decades.
Compare the Six Armenian Vilayets of the Ottoman Empire – the provinces that once had a substantial Armenian population. There is some overlap with Kurdistan, plus more territory due north of it almost to the coast; and on the eastern border Ottoman Armenia is contiguous with Russian Armenia (what is now the independent state of Armenia, more or less).
Now, I suggest that if the Armenian Genocide on the Ottoman side of tbe border had not happened, Turkish Armenia would be as troublesome as Turkish Kurdistan today – the more so, as Russian Armenia is now independent and would have an obvious irredentist claim on the territory. (Plus there might be some border disputes between the Armenians and the Kurds.)
But, it isn’t. The territory is now, apparently, thoroughly Turkicized. A very effective genocide for which many Turks (and, I guess, Kurds) now living have sound reasons to be grateful. (That such a thing exists should surprise no American.)
I think the problem is, Armenians don’t control Hollywood, and feel the need to make a movie every year reminding us - again- how they were done wrong.
The thing about the HOlocaust or the Armenian Genocide is that they occurred within a larger attrocity. The sensible rules about decent human behavior went out the window a long time ago.
The Ottoman Empire was literally fighting for its existence. There were plans on the table to partition the whole of it amongst the powers. And here you had the Armenians throwing in with them. What did they think was going to happen?
This is offensive, and it’s of dubious relevance since is whether or not the Ottomans’ actions constitute genocide, not why the deaths of Armenians are less well known than the killings of the Holocaust. Please be more careful about posting something that a great many people see as an ethnic slur.
