Most other democracies are pretty good at admitting they did Bad Things nowadays.
Turkey is different. Not only does the Turkish government protest when anyone else recognizes the Armenian genocide, Turkish journalists get murdered for mentioning it.
Why? Everyone who participated is dead. Own up to it and move on.
Turkey is jerks?
Jerky?
Japan and China are still smarting from WWII actions. It was my understanding that Japan was officially quite ambivalent about this but in reading about it I find it to be quite the misconception on my part. Are there other examples?
If sufficiently in the past they are. I think only Germany has ever shown any kind of commendable timely acceptance of their Bad Behavior.
Nationalists tend to suck.
Yeah, everyone involved is dead. So who gives shit?
Why obsess over this particular genocide when all the actors are dead?
Why obsess over this particular genocide when the nation that committed these atrocities does not exist?
Why obsess over this particular genocide when the architects of it were tried, convicted and sentenced to death?
Every Turk’s education, if it mentions Armenians at all, focuses on the outcome as a consequence of a civil war where a large number of Turks died as well. People do not easily give up these ideas. They also do not give up these ideas when foreign powers try to force it down their throat. When a foreigner does this, it becomes part of your identity to deny it.
You know that acceptance of the whole Holocaust thing was mostly forced down the throats of the Germans, right? By an occupying force, no less.
Cite?
+1
In the US aren’t there still hangups about admitting mistreatment of the native Indians who lived here?
However I have no idea why Turkey is so resistant to this issue.
It’s not exclusive to Turkish people, apparently.
I stumbled across this website. It’s very unfortunate, but predictable. I went to school where approximately 30% of the students were Sikh and a minority were vocal about Khalistan, Amar Singh Chamkila and 1984. I remember one guy was quite vitriolic on that front, but he was a bully in general. Could easily see him indoctrinated into this kinda behaviour.
Edit:
Im guessing opposition is mostly from the reactionaries that want to mythologise the founding fathers as having personally discovered a lush and verdant open plain (nevermind the Italian or other foreigners). Probably the same guys claiming manifest destiny are the ones saying that one should speak English if one lives in the US and that would be saying 50 years ago that God appointed certain people to certain continents and racial admixture was contravening that.
Owning up to land and lives taken would invite the possibility of border changes, Armenia still exists as a nation near Turkey.
Admitting the Trail of Tears was a mistake costs America nothing.
If you want real atrocity denial/willful ignorance you can’t do better than the Belgians in the Congo.
*As an aside, Ottoman records are written in a script most Turkish citizens cannot read.
I think a fundamental issue is who the people were that initiated the Armenian massacres. It wasn’t just a random group of Turkish politicians. It was the founding fathers of modern Turkey.
As an American example of this, you can hear a lot about the Trail of Tears and Sand Creek and Wounded Knee. But you don’t hear so much about how George Washington ordered Indian villages to be destroyed.
Turkey jerky, or jerked Turkey?
Maybe I’m wrong, but weren’t most of these guys lead by the Pashas, who were opposed by Atatürk. He is the main center of nationalism in Turkey, and I believe had little or no involvement in it. I found this quote. Some of the Young Turks may have been in both governments but I’m not sure how high up.
My sympathy for recognition of the genocide might be higher if all these guys (both sides) didn’t troll in everything on the Internet. It gets to the point where you can view a Youtube like: “Watch me carve my Thanksgiving Turkey!” and the comments will be filled with “why doesn’t Turkey recognize the genocide” or crazier.
I didn’t know he did this, which ones?
The Turkish equivalent of George Washington is Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who had absolutely nothing to do with the planning or implementation of the Armenian Genocide.
The Iroquois; they called him “The Town Burner”.
So George Washington wiped the presence of some or all of the Iroquois from Northeast to the equivalent of the Armenian Genocide?
Or was George Washington a commander of an army at war with some of all of the Iroquois?
Can somebody please educate me on how this relates to the Armenian genocide, or any genocide, or Turkish denial of a genocide or whether the architects of the genocide are the leaders of the Young Turks or Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and if so should France be passing Iroquois Genocide bills?
Does any of this relate to reasons for Turkish denial ranging from the probable such as nationalism, desire to avoid reparations, and stubbornness to the highly improbable of Turkey having to give back Van or something?
Should we just name any general that happens to be at war with members of another ethnicity a genocidal maniac or is there some standard to go by?