Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Get over it, this ain't no 1915 it's 2001


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#41 baboyan

baboyan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
  • Location:florida
  • Interests:sports

Posted 06 September 2001 - 01:19 PM

let the Turks admit what they did then we might think of becoming friends,but until then turks stink

#42 timucin

timucin

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 07 September 2001 - 01:07 AM

Martin,

Everything is questionable, and must be questioned before taken in intellectually. I guess this has been my motto all my life, since the day I read about the French Revolution when I was I think eleven or twelve. It doesn’t matter anymore whether French Revolution was really about this principle or whether they succeeded. To me this has been one of the most important principles in my life, causing me to resist quiet many ‘we’s (Snif, sniff, I am touched; where is my handkerchief, tears are rolling down my eyes).

I have heard ‘Let the academicians deal with these issues’ quite many times. Personally, I do not understand why you even made this statement, since if you did not know or want to say anything about the subject you could simply choose not to make any comment at all. But, you chose to make a comment and you chose to make this particular comment in the name of some not very clear ‘we’. Though this ‘we’ may amount to nothing, it still somehow points out to a deep down desire or satisfaction to be part of a particular ‘we’. Anyway, just a point to keep in mind, and to remember it, when we are perhaps back to the topic of being members of our respective sick nations, which you euphemized yours as being ‘deeply wounded’. What happens to a collective consciousness, to a collectively created and shared psychological substratum, when deeply wounded, would certainly make an interesting subject, especially if this substratum has still not gotten its chance to work out and/or through this wound…The answer is simple: it stays not healthy, unhealthy, disorderly, sick, ill, and yes, very wounded.

What I may say about these subjects is actually not so much important from the perspective of my own personal interests, other than receiving a personal intellectual satisfaction of some sort: a plaque here or an interview there – perhaps a move of my own. I mean simple stuff. In fact, I thought I had made this clear by saying that I was going to skip this subject. The real beneficiary in the discussions of these issues is really are those who are actively pursuing political and long-term cultural ideals as you and perhaps the ‘we’. For if there is any weakness in this area that could not resist to a few questions then I would think that it would make sense to explore this weakness in order to remedy it before it is found by others. Closing the channels of communication to certain ideas/questions, and especially hiding behind overused and not-so-smart excuses such as ‘let us leave it to the academicians’ will only worsen this weakness. The efforts to ban or fine anti-genocidal or anti-holocaustal statements, discussions or theories in certain countries are already well known, and one can wonder how far these clearly undemocratic practices will go. After all, if the concept of genocide is a secure concept then there should be no reason to be afraid. But of course, I forgot, these are in the name of the truth. What was it?

Certainly, one may answer me back by saying that I am one among many and many believers. Perhaps, but then, there were a very few who questioned the Bible, the Quran, and God.


The modern era, and the societies that came with it, is build upon the idea of the public engagement in discussions of all sorts. This was at least the spirit of the early modern era. It is nice to have experts, but the main idea in the modern societies is that the public must get involved in discussions so the preservation of what arrives at the end of these discussions will be very much permanent and/or much more stable. Take the public away, remove it from certain discussions, do this in the name of the idea that some discussions are well beyond the capacities of the public, or are not needed by it, and then there will be other occasions from which the public will be excluded in time, and soon will come the end of democracy. Democracy is not about some rights on some paper. It is a practice by the public, before it is of and for the public. And, this practice starts from and with very small examples.

What is the power of the public? It is a simple numbers game. Academicians are humans too, and like most humans they are as easily susceptible to certain conditions I would call, because I cannot come up with a better term, social diseases such as fundamentalism, racism, extreme nationalism, conservatism (the last one is somewhat questionable). The public is not the smartest, in fact, I hate its average-ness (perhaps deep down I am one of those conceded jerks who thinks who is the gift to humankind, who knows), but the fact remains that they also represent the best means for ensuring long term stability by getting rid of some of serious problems right from the beginning. The accumulation of knowledge in certain hands must constantly be checked, and one effective method, at least one we have been able to come up with so far, is public discussions. If ten people discuss a subject they may reach an agreement on a bad idea, but if a million people argue about a subject, the chances are extremely little that the bad idea that may control small numbers easily will control everyone, that is, if they are allowed for public discussions freely, without restrictions. This is kind of elementary knowledge, since Mill presented it in detail in the 19th century, but perhaps there is need once more to bring it up.

You may perhaps find it advantageous for yourself or your ‘we’ that certain discussions are left to the academicians. I see the same kind of tendency on the Turkish side. And honestly, if I agree with your argument then I will also have to agree with the Turkish proposal that the discussion of the Armenian Genocide must be left to the historians. Furthermore, there should actually be no discussions on this subject, since we definitely have academicians, professionals and experts in the field of politics, too, and we should let them discuss for us. But, it is most ironic that we can refer to the Genocide definition of the Genocide Convention, make use of it in our arguments (somehow we do not need academics to do these), but when it comes to questioning the concepts found in this definition, especially when even a simple glance at this definition will be enough to show that anything can be classified as genocide according to this definition, and therefore something may be wrong with the definition itself, then we have to start looking for academicians, scholars, and people of that sort.

Before I quit, and I think I should since this is not the actual topic, I must remind a couple things. First of all, not every academic is an intellectual –there is actually a scary specialization and market-ization in the world of academia, and for that reason we should think twice about leaving everything to its ‘able’ hands. Moreover, not every intellectual needs to come from the academic world, either. We need intellectuals rather than academics, although we need them both.

The second thing is that I am a novice (an apprentice) academic, though not a Dadrian, and from what I understand, Ali also is, or was. So, I guess, in line with your argument, at least Ali and I are allowed to have such discussions, and you should probably just listen to it. The listening will of course also include those times when we would say something not so much in your interest, but something tells me that when you are not so comfortable with what the academics are saying you will definitely ignore your initial proposal that ‘we should leave certain things to the academia’. Otherwise, we would not have this forum and this particular discussion.

I strongly believe that genocide discussions are not only about some recognition or compensation. They represent a door, a sort of door that may open new possibilities and dimensions for us humans, and as far as the perspective is this, it belongs not only to the Armenians but also actually to the entirety of the humankind. After all, before Armenians died in 1915, humans of all sorts died. The reasons of it in all dimensions of knowledge and experience needs to be discussed without restrictions, and more importantly the ways of making these discussions both accessible to and participatory by the immediate public must be found and insisted upon. You may certainly go through with the short term and more restricted agenda of a nationalistic, as opposed to humanistic, as in covering all the humans, recognition. However, the solution is not there in my opinion, and this is what I have been arguing for all along.

Damn it, another long post, and I was trying to make it a short one too.

I will come back to other points as much as I can. I think I got myself in trouble, since I certainly was not expecting so much material to read.

t.

#43 timucin

timucin

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 07 September 2001 - 01:26 AM

Dear Ali,

First, I would like to start with some manners. Don’t worry nothing is wrong with your manners, but mine. I forgot to greet you, to say a simple hello. Well, by profession I am a sailor, and hence some bad manners. Anyway, I am pleased to meet you.

It looks like we do not have too many disagreements here, except with a few points.

(1) I did not try to say that the sufferings of the other groups were not recognized. However, these recognitions were actually done in relation with some other goals and agendas. By the way, I am aware of quite a few studies in this area. It is a very interesting topic, and it is not necessarily connected to fixing old crimes. There is also the issue of the creation of new identities and histories, and when looked closely, one will see that the genocide discussions, the so-called fixing up old crimes, coincide with the emergence of identity politics, which roughly correspond to the 80s. And, even in this limited fashion, the justice is still not done as much as one would expect it. As soon as these western nation-states get their acts together, and form new histories and identities, my guess is that we will not hear of genocide arguments anymore. In fact, if the Turkish State even agrees to a token of recognition, the whole thing will go down. But of course, if Turkish State denies it long enough the whole thing may again go down anyway, since unfortunately nobody today has the power to coerce Turkey into a recognition it does not want. And, when even the Armenian Patriarch cannot show the bravery the Armenian cause requires from him, perhaps for very good reasons, what is the Armenian cause to accomplish? Yes, the Armenian side says that the Patriarch in Turkey is under coercion, unable to talk freely. Now, let’s pause here for a second. If I was the Patriarch and felt deeply about this issue, I would not hesitate for a minute to talk even if it was to cost my life. In 70s and 80s, quite many Turkish scholars and intellectuals did not hesitate to talk about the State even though good numbers of them were gunned down, but they did not give up. So, this argument does not make sense, and the Patriarch is probably able to see certain things better than the majority of us: the fact that the Armenians and other third class countries like ours and like Armenia may be for another treat as they were before by the greater powers. .

I am not trying to establish another conspiracy theory here, but simply trying to point out some other parameters that were in existence 80 years ago and they still are. Although Dadrian makes use of this topic quiet a lot I think he does not go all the way with it. He is probably thinking deep down that this is the only chance the Armenians have. I think the opposite. I am afraid the whole thing will be thrown outside the window in a few years, and actually, I do not want this. I want to go all the way with this and expose those other parameters and perhaps start dialogues that will lead to better cultural configurations.

(2) Not every group needs to show the same reaction in case of massacres and genocides. One of the solutions is forgetting what happened and getting on with the business. Some groups go for this solution. However, even among the Caucasians and some Balkan descendants started, just recently, feelings of getting even with those guilty ones about what happened to their ancestors. I in fact have such ancestors, but personally, I feel nothing. Then again, good part of these newly emergent political attitudes has more to do with the spread of neo-nationalistic feelings almost everywhere. We are in another nationalistic phase. This forgetting of old wounds by these Muslims was also greatly helped by their chance to work their traumas and sufferings through Armenians and Greeks inhabitants of Anatolia by simply killing and stealing from them. A very strong and responsible government was needed at the time, but it was nowhere to be found. People who were mostly the migrants from Balkans and other areas the Muslims were kicked out were running the state. The Ottomans had no means of dealing with the problem. In 1860s, within a few years, 1 200 000 landed in Eastern Black sea harbors of Trabzon, Samsun and others. One account talks about 80 000 hungry, homeless and sick people in Trabzon who destroyed most of the trees and fields to find something to burn so they would keep warm, something to eat so they would stay alive, so they would feed their kids. The ones who could get out of this winter had to struggle with Malaria. Finally, they were put in the carts, not trains, sent to various places in Anatolia, where they found plenty of people they could clash with.

I am only talking here about the Circassians. Since some of those survivors I am here today, the topic is of personal interest for me. But, the exodus from Balkans was not much different either, and it did not happen only in 1923. It started more like around 1820s, and continued until the end of the Second World War. Now imagine how would the Ottoman State be able to deal with these numbers that would create nightmares even today for most governments. Try to land 1.2 million of Mexican immigrants in Los Angeles or San Diego, or in Amsterdam, or in Oslo, in a few years.

I am not trying to justify anything by the way. I am not trying to say that these people had every right to kill and steal from the Christians of Anatolia. Not at all. But, without a strong government, and especially with a nationalistic one, one that had its own leaders traumatized from the events, the things were bound to get bloody and they did. There was no United Nations to send in to go between extremely polarized groups.

I read once this account in a book by a Serbian historian in which this particular scholar quotes an Ottoman ***** telling a European statesman that he would not advise messing up the balance in Balkans, since nobody would be able to fix it for a hundred years. It has been nearly 120 or years, the problems in Balkans are still not fixed. One may go on blaming everything on the Ottomans, or see things in a larger context, while not getting apologetic or justificatory on anything, to have a healthier analysis and consequently solution to the present day problems.

(3) At any rate, there are at least two dimensions to every genocide problem in my opinion. One is the experiential/ psychological dimension and the other one is what I would call the discursive/logical dimension. Both dimensions need their own type of solutions. The discursive/logical solution is never sufficient to deal with the psychological dimension, since, because of the nature of the genocidal acts, we are actually dealing with the non-logical side of humans. Someone kills my daughter in the most brutal way, let us say, my logic will simply stop functioning there. Being unable to produce an emotional counter-response to the situation, I will most likely revert to discursive/logical ways and create justificatory or vigilante style discourses or anything of the sort. I do not really have a ready-made solution for this kind of psychological situation, and so far the scholars I went through did not either. In fact, there is really no full recovery from a trauma, the original kind. However, the generations following the original one do have a choice and ways to deal with these discourses or create their own ones. I am perhaps not making sense here, but the main point I am trying to convey here is that there are two dimensions to this subject. What I see is that the demand is for psychological healing, but the method is a discursive/logical type. In the area of psychological healing, I see, in crude terms, in not so sophisticated terms, two options: you may kill or you may meet. An apology or recognition of the institutional and very general form, the one between states, I believe, will not bring the desired psychological effect, although it may, if done carefully, prepare the groundwork for the latter option of meeting.

(4) There is also the issue of the Turkish State that needs to be resolved, and in this, in blaming the Turkish State for its denial of the Genocide, I am very much with most people. However, the subject in this area is not so easy to deal with either. And realistically, without a movement of any kind, which certainly does not exist in Turkey anymore, I do not see how feasible such a subject of going against the Turkish State is. It is hardly more than attacking windmills.

Well, I am too tired to get into this subject, but if you are interested Ali, and perhaps you too Martin, I have written quite a bit on this subject of the Turkish State in my own forum. In fact, I would like to invite you Ali, although it is nothing like this one, and perhaps even boring in some ways – definitely a slow moving forum. I am not inviting you Martin, because I suspect you already know. In case you do not, you are more than welcomed.

My forum is http://network54.com/Forum/129843

t.

#44 timucin

timucin

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 07 September 2001 - 01:34 AM

quote

 I couldn’t quite understand the alleged statement of Dadrian linking Sultan Hamid to CPU. As much as I know, he has not written anything of the kind. The argument that he has contemplated was that the massacres of Armenian committed by Sultan Hamid were the preludes of the Armenian Genocide, and the idea of the elimination of the Armenian minority of Ottoman Turkey was already in the agenda of Ottoman Turkey. The only missing thing was the opportunity, which was provided by the WWI.



Dear Martin,

I gave you the reference. It comes from the 1998 summer issue (no 2) of Armenian Forum. I am sure you know this journal by Vincent Lima, Ara Sarafian and other Armenian scholars. This was the issue about that ‘exchange’ between the Turkish and Armenian scholars of R.G. Suny, E.D. Akarli, S. Deringil, and V.N. Dadrian.

I do not think I linked Sultan Hamid to the CUP in my post, but if you are interested in such a link you should probably refer to Dadrian’s ‘The Armenian Genocide and the Pitfalls of a “Balanced” Analysis’, written in reply to Suny in the same source I just mentioned and from which I took the previous quote, and read on page 76 the section titled ‘The Consultative Relationship Between Abdulhamid and Ittihad’. I believe you will find enough information about such a link. I wish I could write the whole thing here, but I am too lazy. Unfortunately, I cannot mail the only copy I have either. However, there is nothing alleged about this statement. If you need the address of the journal it is the following:

The Gomidas Institute, PO Box 208, Princeton, New Jersey 08542-0208.

Ph: 609-883-9222.

t.

#45 MJ

MJ

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,343 posts
  • Location:New York City
  • Interests:Theology, Tennis, Jazz, Modern Art, Red Wine

Posted 07 September 2001 - 06:09 AM

Dear Timucin,


There are few things in every aspect of life, which are not questionable even before subjecting it to intellectual analysis. Such are the mutual feelings in my family, for example. But the correct formulation of “questionability” requires specification of “questionable for whom.” We (not ‘we’, btw) have no questions about the slaughter of our ancestors, the organized and systematic character of those slaughters, and we build our allegations of genocide on a very specific premise, contrary to your intellectual speculations.

The premise of your arguments sounds like we know what the genocide is, it already exists as a well defined category in our consciousness or in our intellectual strata, and we have to carefully and intellectually analyze to understand whether what is alleged to be Genocide of Armenians according to the well known now UN Resolution does indeed qualify as so or not, and if the term Genocide itself is adequately defined there. I think this is where our (not ‘our') primary discourse may originate from.

The Genocide as political category is defined in this document for the first time. So this is exactly the definition of the Genocide, and this is what we are referring to, and this is the starting point of our (not ‘our’ legal premise. It is a document signed by, perhaps, the absolute majority of the states, including Turkey. Therefore, it is the starting point of our legalistic discussions. We are not trying to analyze here neither the epistemology of our understanding of the term Genocide, nor the psychology or the psyche of the perpetrator or the victim. We are not even trying to deny that there may have or may have not been a context to it. First, we are trying to constitute the fact of the Armenian Genocide, press charges and ask Turkey, “How do you plead?” Then, there may be a long deliberation of both sides depending on how Turkey pleads. In any case, as in any judicial process, first, the alleging party is filing a complain, then the allegedly guilty party pleads guilty or not. Only when it comes to the stage of conviction, the jury considers all the circumstances of the crime, including those of mitigating character. However, it is well known judicial/parliamentary tactics to filibuster the process through endless maneuverings and argumentations, which dilute the essence of the issue. For example, I suspect those of us who think and declare even over the Internet that time is working for Turkey, and against Armenians, therefore there is no reason at this time for Turkey to make concessions to Armenians, might be tempted to exercise such tactics through endless and, by the way, academically not well laid out speculations, when at the end of the long material it is not even clear what was being said. And because it is not clear, then we would need to go to another round of such speculations, then another, and another – all this in the name of the academic integrity of the process, and the desire not to arrive to incorrect and unfair convictions. But I suspect time is not working neither for Turkey nor for Armenians, therefore, I rush to get to the point.

I suspect that long after Turkey’s acceptance of the Armenian Genocide, and the closing of its political dimension, the academicians, the psychologists and psychiatrists will continue speculating and publishing materials on the subject. I have no other expectations, knowing academia very well and having spent more time, and to a further extend (with all due respect) than you have done so far. Therefore, first, I don’t find myself in the position to be silent “when two academicians talk” and, second, I always try to see clarity in whatever is being discussed, even if it is being done for the sake of purely academic studies. Just for further clarity, I have left/hated academia and refused to pursue further my academic career because I found it to be a sick establishment, publishing papers for the sake of the mere number of them - and as a rule papers of zero content - but long ones. Spending days or more studying their work, eventually you come to an understanding that, with the exception of few in each discipline, they publish garbage, and their intent is not to make the complicated thing clearer and better understood for the rest of the world, but quite the opposite - to make even the simple things look more complicated, and build their careers publishing scores of papers - less clear better it is, and “earning” reputation of distinguished scholars. I also found, that with the exception of few, any self-respecting academician leaves academia sooner or later, finding that he/she can, first, do some more useful work in the private sector, he can make a better living and have more dignified lifestyle, and will have a more fulfilling life in general. If you would need further tips on academic endeavors and machinations, feel free to send me a private message, and I would gladly volunteer. This paragraph of mine may sound off the topic from the onset, but I think with some effort we can find some relevance to our discussion.

I am not in favor of banning the anti-genocide or anti-holocaust statements, any more or any less than banning racial, anti-Turkish, homophobic, anti-humanistic, etc, statements. But with the same token, I am not in favor of filibustering in the name of academic and other freedoms.

If the Armenian Genocide was about just recognition or compensation, believe me, I wouldn’t care to interject myself into the middle of it. On such level I wouldn’t care if Turkey would recognize it or not – it is the problem of the Turkish people and the problem of the evolution of the Turkish society. On a personal level I don’t care about compensation, even though enormous wealth has been expropriated/stolen from my paternal family. I have not a single document to prove it, nor would be able to point to the location of our family property. The only reason I am interjecting myself into the middle of this controversy is the continuing character of it. Think about it. Since Turkey has not recognized/realized and adequately assessed its past crimes, it remains too susceptible to commit new ones (btw, first of all against its own people), and its current policies leave not too much ambiguity in ones mind that given proper circumstances, it may commit them again.

Indeed the Armenian Genocide is not an Armenian property. In fact, it is more of a Turkish property. Our entire argument is about Turkey claiming its ownership. One may discuss it as long as one wants, and teach in schools about it and elsewhere – from the very early stages of the development of the personality. For this reason perhaps, some Armenians in America are pretty active in the direction of adding the Genocide teaching, in particular as it pertains to Armenians, in school curriculums. If the fact of my resentment towards the continuing genocidal policies of modern Turkey sound to you nationalistic rather than humanistic, and our attempts to have our urgent issues addressed rather than to dilute our resources (especially given the motivations of some of our opponents) in addressing the global issue on the level of the future of the humanity sounds to you nationalistic, I just would respectfully ask you to spend more time and effort on reassessing things.

About Dadrian and Suny… I don’t subscribe Armenian Forum, though am familiar with their Web site and the materials there. My only point of current contact with the Armenian world is the Hye Forum. However, due to the family friendship existed between my and Ron’s families, I know him very well – better than Dadrian. I have not read the publication you refer me to, but from personal discussions I am familiar with the points of both scholars. Thereofre, there is no need to mail the publication to me. It would suffice if you just could clearly state your own argument.

[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

#46 MJ

MJ

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,343 posts
  • Location:New York City
  • Interests:Theology, Tennis, Jazz, Modern Art, Red Wine

Posted 07 September 2001 - 06:53 AM

quote:
Originally posted by MJ:
Martin,

There are few things in every aspect of life,



LOL... Meant to address it to Timucin.

#47 aurguplu

aurguplu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • Location:istanbul, turkey
  • Interests:languages, history, archaeology, art, art history , natural history 6 nature

Posted 07 September 2001 - 07:01 AM

dear mj,

i thought you were "martin", since i read some postings that were addressed to your arguments that were addressed to "martin" - or did i get it wrong?

i would like to reply to the above posting, but have confused the identities, and don't know anymore who's who.

i would be grateful if you could clarify.
regards,

ali suat

#48 MJ

MJ

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,343 posts
  • Location:New York City
  • Interests:Theology, Tennis, Jazz, Modern Art, Red Wine

Posted 07 September 2001 - 07:06 AM

Dear Ali,

Indeed it was confusing.

Sorry, I meant to address it to Timucin, as indicated above. My name indeed is Martin.

P.S. I had pasted Timucin's text in MS Word page, and was typing my text on it, and didn't notice to delete his address to me on the top, preserving it in my text. Now it is fixed.

[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

#49 aurguplu

aurguplu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • Location:istanbul, turkey
  • Interests:languages, history, archaeology, art, art history , natural history 6 nature

Posted 07 September 2001 - 08:11 AM

dear martin,

(now that the name issue is clarified). i almost fully agree with what you say re academics. they are necessary, though, at least in certain fields. i have observed that the really good (and useful) academics tend to devote themselves fully to their work, and publish relatively little, buttheir publications tend to stand the test of time. this is especially true of "hard" subjects such as the exact sciences and - may i add - languages (not literature, though). i have always found it a bit difficult to accept that subjects such as "political science" or "semiotics" could be counted amongst the "serious" academic subjects in the first place, since 1) they - as far as i can see - are difficult to reduce to numbers or other EXACT definitions, hence a degree of ambiguity is built in, and 2) most people whom i met who were in these fields ended to have an agenda, an axe to grind, so to speak, and were using their academic credentials to twist the "truth" - whatever that is - as they willed.

history is a different matter. as a branch of the humanities, it has so far eluded most attempts at reducing it to numbers, but this is perhaps the case because the further back you get, the less numerical data you can have. i also think that historians would become a good deal more accurate and enlightened if they knew more about the rudiments of economics, and perhaps of the exact sciences.

the problem with most academicians engaged in the humanities is that the stuff they produce has little or no market value - few people are interested in it, even fewer read it, and even fewer understand it. this also results in the fact that few people check the quality of the stuff they produce. i know from my own field of historical linguistics that much of the stuff produced until very recently had very poor methodology, the holes in which could be picked up by any layman with a decent general background in the subject.

may i also add that in my field - and also in near eastern history - most of the most competent historians and linguists of earlier times were not academically trained, but government agents, amateurs with a lot of money from their parents, dilettantes, and in a few cases, people originally from a completely different academic background, such as doctors or biologists. i think that although academia as a profession has a good many merits to it, it also has paved the way to the production of quite a lot of mediocre and substandard stuff by mediocre and substandard minds. academia has, unfortunately, become the refuge of many people who cannot face "real life" outside their ivory tower.

but it is still a worthwhile experience if you happen to be in the right field in the right place at the right time. pity i wasn't.

regards,

ali suat

#50 MJ

MJ

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,343 posts
  • Location:New York City
  • Interests:Theology, Tennis, Jazz, Modern Art, Red Wine

Posted 07 September 2001 - 08:31 AM

Dear Ali,

No arguments, again. I am not the Khrushchev type to send a bulldozer to demolish the academia (did you know that he has allegedly ordered a bulldozer to be sent to demolish the Russian House of Artists, as allegedly a cradle of homosexuals. )
I have always been around some tremendous academic authorities, and I owe them a lot. I have been in the right places, but at the wrong time, though.
One of the things that attracts me in Dadrian is his training and degree in Mathematics and Philosophy.

#51 aurguplu

aurguplu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • Location:istanbul, turkey
  • Interests:languages, history, archaeology, art, art history , natural history 6 nature

Posted 07 September 2001 - 08:35 AM

dear martin,

by the way, what was your field when you were an academician, if i may ask?

dear timuçin,

i visited your forum, liked it, and have a few suggestions:

the black background kind of tires the eye, and perhaps the mateial could be visually a bit better organised. for instance, i found hye forum the best organised and visually most appealing of all forums that i have been to (not that i have been to all that many). it does not tire the eye, everything is clearly organised, so if you want to laern something about armenian painting you know where to go to, or feel too good and think you need to be depressed and insulted, you know where to find gamavor's, or, wh00t's, or paul bunyan's postings. i have not noticed them under "culture" (i may have missed).

i think if you got the background lighter (white is just fine) and organised the topics a bit more it would be just fine.

regards,

#52 MJ

MJ

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,343 posts
  • Location:New York City
  • Interests:Theology, Tennis, Jazz, Modern Art, Red Wine

Posted 07 September 2001 - 08:40 AM

It has been a torturous path from Pure Mathematics through Applied Mathematics to Applied Finance.

#53 aurguplu

aurguplu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • Location:istanbul, turkey
  • Interests:languages, history, archaeology, art, art history , natural history 6 nature

Posted 07 September 2001 - 08:48 AM

oh god

so you started off as someone who loved maths, then who figured out that he had to do something "useful" with it and ended up in the most mind-numbing subchapter of your beloved subject just do make a living, am i correct?

it's a bit like mine, i started with historical linguistics because i love languages and studying their evolution, then was made to move to translating medieval stuff because somebody had to translate them (they are usually so boring that professors dump the subject onto the shoulders of their best students who are encouragedto take it as "apprenticeship" and "your first published piece of academic work" and then ended up translating business texts when i left academia. i still do that to make ends meet in this crisis.

life is a bitch sometimes, isn't it?

#54 MJ

MJ

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,343 posts
  • Location:New York City
  • Interests:Theology, Tennis, Jazz, Modern Art, Red Wine

Posted 07 September 2001 - 08:53 AM

quote:
Originally posted by aurguplu:
oh god

so you started off as someone who loved maths, then who figured out that he had to do something "useful" with it and ended up in the most mind-numbing subchapter of your beloved subject just do make a living, am i correct?





In some ways I am a pragmatist and in other ways maximalist. I asscribe to the idea that the real life is the best test for all theories. I look at my career as one consistant line of evolution. No regrets - I enjoy what I am doing.

Life may be a btich sometimes, but one may try to extract value even from that.

[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

#55 aurguplu

aurguplu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • Location:istanbul, turkey
  • Interests:languages, history, archaeology, art, art history , natural history 6 nature

Posted 07 September 2001 - 09:04 AM

baboyan,

what do you do with those turks who admit to what they (or rather their ancestors) did, even if their government denies it?

regards,

#56 timucin

timucin

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 07 September 2001 - 02:06 PM

Dear Martin,

I am not so much becoming part of the academia either. That is why I stressed the difference between academicians and intellectuals. And, in the world of intellectuals, I did have enough experience. I hope you are not assuming that I am about to start my life just now, fresh from the college. The only reason I am even slightly considering academic life is because I can have access to some sources. That is it. I already know what it is and that I know I do not want to part of it. By the way, I thank you for offering to provide me with your experience of the academic life, but I plan to do it, if I ever, in Turkey.

With all due respect, at this point, I do not think I will go on discussing the genocide issue any further. I simply do not have the time, and owing to our different backgrounds and contextual conditions, I do not think we will really be able to get anywhere. I can discuss here for hours about the Ottomans, Turkey’s responsibility, non-political aspects of the Genocide issue, various historical approaches, and we will probably not get too far. I have observed quite a few Turks over the years in these forums, and in other dimensions of life in Turkey on this issue and I have seen many that were able to change in a positive manner. I am yet to see equal number of Armenians, perhaps with the exception of one person, okay, maybe two, to show anything in similar terms. Under these conditions, I do not think much will happen between our respective groups. I have still not seen a special discussion in a Turkish forum devoted to proving or showing the genetically messed up nature of the Armenian race. Perhaps, there is, I do not know, although I have seen quiet many Turkish forums.

Your ‘court’ example is most interesting, and thanks for giving us the right to say that we can plead guilty or not guilty. I am touched, but there are a lot of questions I can ask about this example. Of course I forgot, I am not allowed to question, but I will do it any way. Who makes up the jury for example? And, why the jury system anyway? And, what happened to the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty? Or, what about not influencing the jury, keeping our mouths shut until the case is resolved? Give me a break. The whole thing became a political struggle, a struggle in which considerations of time, interests, cornering the other side, blackmailing became important tactics. I wish this was not the case, but unfortunately it is. My personal feelings and convictions unfortunately do not count a bit in this mess. I will of course go on saying what I believe is the right thing, but I hardly think, especially in line with some of the posts Steve wrote here, I can really make even a smallest difference in this craziness.

You, I guess, still do not get it: the genocide is neither an Armenian nor a Turkish property. It belongs to us, the whole humanity. It is our failure as humans, the failure of the modern project, and the most obvious signal that we need to explore other options. The Genocide convention and various attempts to supposedly correct the wrongs based on this convention or other modern legal concepts is simply another way of not dealing with the problem, but creating excuses for it. Can you for a minute imagine yourself as a human being and see myself not as a Turk, which is not a very correct approach in my case anyway, but just as a fellow human being. Turkish state is a Turkish state in your mind. In fact, it is just another state happened to be run by people who call themselves Turks now. This means nothing. It is the ‘Devlet’ (state) as we Turks say it. You guys, my apologies for the undue generalization, make it an ethnic thing.

What am I saying here? Give up the whole thing? I guess not. There is this dimension of the whole thing which is us about not giving it up. We will continue with what we think is the right. But, there is also the other dimension of the same thing which is about us not even getting close to hiding the problem right on the target by sticking to what we think is the right approach, and because of this we will fail. There is one thing, however, you are correct about: time is not working for neither of us, if we see things in terms of two separate nations. The solution of the problem perhaps lies in opposing the Turkish state, the ‘Devlet’, but there is simply no movement that has taken this as its goal at the moment. And, without such movement, nothing is going to happen. You may bomb the enemy in the field, but eventually you need to send in the infantry. Where is the infantry? It is nowhere to be seen. You want a war to bring down the Turkish State then you make one, and if you cannot make one then the rest is simply b.s.

The simple truth is that the Armenian side is not making a war. A lot of talk, but no action. Let us go to the French parliament, let us go to the American Congress, or lobby this congressperson or that one. Good luck. Let us have a movie with Akcam and Dadrian, where Dadrian tells the whole world that he cannot do research in Turkey because he is afraid of getting killed there, yeah, as if all these things are going to accomplish anything. Perhaps more will be accomplished, if Dadrian would just go to Turkey and appeared in his hometown.

Okay, you may ask me how come I am not doing anything of this sort. Well, I simply do not care. I have realized that Turkey is the most democratic country as long as you do not mess with anything, like any other country. I do not see any reason why I should mess with anything. Perhaps, when my daughter grows up, and perhaps, like me in past, gets involved in political struggles, and perhaps gets herself in jail, tortured and even killed, then I will probably become a vigilante of some sort. Perhaps nothing of the sort will happen, my daughter will meet the world of drugs, fun and sex. Or, perhaps she will fall in love, decide to come back to the States, where she was born, live somewhere in LA happily and forever. Life is funny. Just a couple weeks ago, I was attacked on the streets of San Francisco, while doing my job; nothing serious. I could have beaten the shit out of the attacker, I am actually capable of doing it, but I did not, because I though about my job, the possibility I might have lost it if I got involved in this incident, the fact that my daughter’s life depended on my being a normal citizen, not a hero, and many other things. Twenty years ago, I would not have even thought for a second.

The simple fact is that the Turkish State will never do anything to me, unless I get myself involved in certain activities that will target its very existence. You may have the idea that the evil Turkish state is after everyone in Turkey, but that is simply not the case. As long as you do not pick up a fight with it, you can have your own life without nothing happening to you. When I go back to Turkey I may get myself into the academic life, become a teacher in a university, teach a few classes, and occasionally pretend to be a cool guy by making anti-establishment statements in the class, and in summers go down to my hometown by the Aegean Sea, Bodrum, spent some beautiful weeks, get on a boat, have a cruise, and come back to my simple existence, get paid and go on. Or, I might set up my own business in my hometown, chat with friends, do a little drinking, a few trips here and there, read a little, get on the forums, if I still find them interesting, and live happily. This is a fact, simple as that, and as long as this is the fact for quite many people nothing will change.

Well, this is it. Perhaps, there is not much coherence in what I have just written. Take it anyway you like. It is perhaps a discourse of and by an anti-hero.

By the way, I was not trying to mail you the Dadrian paper. I though I had made this clear. And, my point was that Ali might have been in surprise for what he thinks the Armenian side says about the Hamidian massacres and the genocide of 1915. There is actually a disagreement on this point as Dadrian has developed his theory that the Hamidian massacres were not simply massacres to fix a few problems in the Empire, but were preparatory exterminatory measures, testing the grounds type, the outcome of which was 1915, the final solution. And, the reason I had mentioned that Dadrian had evolved was not because I see anything wrong with this kind of behavior, but that he (Ali) should read at least all of his major works in order to be in a better position to reach conclusions. As far as I know there are three major works by him, not including the exchange between Turkish and Armenian historians. I have read all of them, and am now in the process of going over in detail the History of the Armenian Genocide.

It was interesting to read that you are friends with Suny. I have read at least one of his other works on some other ethnic stuff, not Armenian Genocide, and I admire some of his thoughts.

t.

#57 timucin

timucin

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 07 September 2001 - 02:16 PM

Ali,

Thanks for the input about my forum. It is actually a personal brain storming area for me, so I do not much care about making it a major forum.

I like hye forum too, but I do not have the forum technology they have. The Balck background coler may be a problem, you are right. I will try other options. About organizing it better, it seems that the main contributors of my place, which are not too many, sort of voted for that arrangement. Otherwise, I am also organizing it a bit better, but then I have a problem with rigid lines, tables and the like. Sometimes I enjoy chaotic arrangements more. But, then, the Hye forum is a collection of many mini-forums with a high volume of participants. I am just a mini-forum with an identity problem.

anyway, thanks for the input again

#58 MJ

MJ

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,343 posts
  • Location:New York City
  • Interests:Theology, Tennis, Jazz, Modern Art, Red Wine

Posted 07 September 2001 - 04:24 PM

Dear Timucin,


I would first like to address the issue of the Turkish vs. Armenian forum members and their dynamics of their thinking. You say:

I have observed quite a few Turks over the years in these forums, and in other dimensions of life in Turkey on this issue and I have seen many that were able to change in a positive manner. I am yet to see equal number of Armenians, perhaps with the exception of one person, okay, maybe two, to show anything in similar terms.

Perhaps you have a point or two here, which I would like to try to elaborate further. First, we have to notice that by in large, the Armenians from Armenia proper are not represented in this forum due to the very high cost of access to Internet in Armenia, their not too much fluency in English (those who have access), and perhaps due to other reasons which I didn’t have explanation for. That is about the half of the Armenian nation, to which the readers of this or other forums have not been exposed to at all. Now, there are members here, he are born in Armenia, but are grown in America, Europe, elsewhere, and they are not too much reflective of the mentality of the population of Armenia. I am born in Armenia, however, I live in the US for the last 10 years. I am a typical representative of an intellectual Armenian from Armenia (if I don’t lift my profile up who would do it, right? ). Maybe I am a little more cosmopolitan than others like me would be. I have been such prior to my arrival to America. While my heart is Made in Armenia, my mind is an American product. Most of the people in this forum are Armenians whose lives have been directly impacted by the Genocide, even though they are quite young. Professional studies conducted by high level psychiatrists under the auspices of the UN testify that the Genocide of Armenian has resulted in a very significant schizophrenia in some (perhaps vast) segments of Armenians.

This is a sad fact. While not being a psychiatrist, I think I can observe it in few Armenian online forums. It is not something to laugh at. It is another testimony on the horror of the Genocide, and its implications three generations later.
As far as the discussions of the genetic makeup of the Turks are concerned, I have to bring to your attention that there are also such discussions in these forums about the genetic makeup of Armenians, half-Armenians, quarter Aremnians, etc. As indicated by one of the members of this forum as late as yesterday, in my view to these discussions about the genetics are indeed an form of schizophrenia making me really to vomit – I have no words of justifications for it. But the sight of one thing has not to be lost – due to our realities, it has been impossible to provide adequate exposure to the Armenian cultural thought to the vast segments of Armenians. Many have grown up in ghettos, have been exposed to some “insights” by some uneducated patriarchal “uncles,” some accidental priests, etc. It is our sad reality, but our newly established statehood gives us reasons for optimism.

About my ‘court’ example. I am not in a position not to allow ‘you’ plead ‘not guilty.’ As a matter of fact, this is what ‘you’ where doing all along with rare exceptions of some honorable individuals, and presenting 'yourself' as a victim in this sense looks a little bit disingenuous, if I am to be diplomatic. You definitely are allowed also to ask a lot of questions, only I don’t see why should you get so defensive about it, and using the terminology of financial markets, I don’t see why do you want to “hedge your exposures” after each sentence. I think it is suggestive of something. What do you think?

The ‘jury’ is already made up. We are not the one who has made it up. There are two major International bodies, which can serve as ‘jury,’ and they are representative of their respective nations – EuroParliament and the UN. Both bodies have recognized Turkey guilty in genocide – the EuroParliament has done so in 1980, I think, and the HU Human Right’s Commission has done it in mid 80’s, if I am not mistaken. I hope you are not going to claim bias. Talking about blackmailing, I think one who lives in a glass house, should not cast a stone. Armenians in no way can compete with the blackmailing capacity of the Turkish state, which has vigorously and consistently exercised that ability for decades against the US, UK, France, Israel, other countries, forcing their corresponding Ministries of Foreign Affairs and the Military-Industrial establishments exert pressure on their legislative bodies. Does the interference of namely these bodies suggest something about the Turkish blackmail, you think? And I think you are very wrong about it. For example, my US Congressman has written me a formal letter in response to my appeal to him to vote for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide in the House of Representatives that while he acknowledges the fact of the Genocide, and considers it as crime against the humanity, and he thinks that it should be recognized, he had to give considerations to the arguments of the State Department, according to which the lives of the US military and other personnel on the Turkish soil would’ve been endangered. I have had no leverage on him to influence his position one or another way, have never contributed money to his campaigns, nor I believe there may be more than a handful Armenians in our districts, whose votes would be of any concern to him – he recognizes the occurrence of the Armenian Genocide based on his own judgment.

When talking about what Steve has written here, I don’t know what are you insinuating, therefore cannot address it.

With all due respect, and contrary to your allegation, I think it is you who doesn’t get what I am talking about when saying that Turkey has to step up and claim ownership of the Armenian Genocide. What I mean is that the liability of the Armenian Genocide belongs to Turkey, while understandably, the genocide being crime against the humanity, its tragedy belongs to the whole humanity. Unless we are interested in making this argument a linguistic game, and making arguments for the sake of the arguments themselves, I don’t see how this simple thing may require further deliberations.

Creating excuse for the problem, as you suggest, whereas the problem is the Genocide itself, is not in our interests. If anybody is creating or attempting to create excuses for it, I think it is you, here. In what way relaying on the document which is the defining document of Genocide in the international practice is an attempt from our side to create excuses? Why should we create excuses if the crime is created by Turkey?

I have to also indicate that I find your remarks about me “imaginingg myself for a moment as a fellow human being” quite offensive and uncalled for. What makes you to burst like this?

About the current Turkish state being another Turkish sate, and ran by other people, and consisting from other people… I find this statement to be a total absurd (forgive my French, please). It is interesting that when it comes to assuming the liabilities of the Ottoman Turkey, you want to distinguish the modern Turkey from the previous one, but when it comes to the assets, you want to keep the inheritance of the assets from the Ottomans? Does it make a lot of sense to you? If I am going to take your word for it, are you (meaning the modern Turkish state) ready to denounce the Treaties signed by the Ottoman Turkey, and to revert the history back to the pre-Republic of Turkey period? Forgive me my friend, but your argument doesn’t have legs, and I am sure the first opponent of such argument of yours would be the government of the Republic of Turkey.

I also have to tell you that I am much puzzled and almost enraged at your contemplation of us wanting war, bombing Turkey, but not willing to send our infantry. My expectations from you where much higher, I have to admit. Didn’t expect such machoism from you. Your more intellectual arguments just pail under the shadow of this one. Don’t you understand that what we are doing is exactly for the sake of preventing another war and another tragedy, because the unrepentant party is prone to strike again?

Lobbying, or whatever you call a congressman is a manifestation of democracy in action. It is a vehicle for us, the US citizens to make our voices heard by our elective representatives. How do you make your voices heard by your representatives in Turkey, or what is your recommendation? Should we just forget things?

I also find your outburst about Dadrian’s concerns of being killed in Turkey very strange. From one side you claim that “as long as you do not pick up a fight with it[meaning Turkey -MJ], you can have your own life without nothing happening to you,” but you recommend Dadrian to do the very thing that you are reluctant to do. And if you don’t care about the issue, and all you care is your daughter, why are you here, and what are you trying to accomplish? Don’t you find that you contradict yourself too frequently? If I am not mistaken you are a psychology major, right? In such case, you would be an interesting cases studies for yourself, I think.

I have to also admit that I agree that there is not much coherence in what you have written. Only it is not only about the one passage that you have pointed to, but more or less your entire material.

You say, “By the way, I was not trying to mail you the Dadrian paper. I though I had made this clear.” You were apologetic there by saying, “Unfortunately, I cannot mail the only copy I have either.” My intend was to indicate that there was no need to feel apologetic, sinse there was no need for you to mail it to me.

As far as the merits of the Hamidian massacres are concerned, I know exactly what Dadrian’s argument is, and I know exactly that Suny doesn’t agree with him on this matter. That is Dadrian, and that is Suny. What is your pint here?

By the way, for the record, I haven’t said me and Suny where personal friends, but there was friendship between our families (in the years we have resided in Ann Arbor). And indeed some of his thoughts deserve admiration.

To conclude this dialog, which I have to admit that I am not conducting with great pleasure, I would like to ask you to confirm or deny that you have posted the following material in another forum:

“I respect your argument, but...

by timucin (no login)

the Genocide argument is an already old story. In politics, you can not stick to the same slogan for too long. You create a slogan, do your thing and get your results. If the whole thing is not swift then people will get bored and go home. This is always the major dilemma in every revolutionary and political movement.

The only solution right now is a long term one; the evolutionary kind, the one that depends on education, and in this kind of struggle you try to look for long term interests.

Anyway, I am talking in fragments; I am probably not very clear. I am sleepy anyway. But, the genocide argument is done with. It is a different game now, one that is more about reconciliation and creating normalcy in relations between both nations.

End the Genocide! That end word implies swiftness. It is like let us go and end it right now right here. Well, if you cannot then it fails. You go to the American Congress and lose it. Your Patriarch falls in contradiction with you. What - two major losses. The momentum goes down. People lose interest. Time is now on the Turkish side. The crucial point here is that nobody in this world can get the Turkish state end its denial unless it does it voluntarily. It is simple as that.

Reconcilation on the other hand is about time; it implies slow and evolutionary movement. If you are careful you can see that the whole mood is slowly changing. We are going from confrontational politics to the kind based on negotiations in this conflict. Both sides tested the waters. Now they are more aware of their capabilities. There is now actually more hope for both nations. “


If it is indeed a statement that you have made in the past, please help us to understand what to make out of it and your postings in our forum.

#59 khodja

khodja

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:genocide recognition

Posted 07 September 2001 - 05:01 PM

Given your last post, I am sure that we are acquainted with some of the same Armenians.
I agree with most of that which you have stated to Timucin. Yet on other issues we are at opposite poles. So you see that two Armenians may come to quite dissimilar conclusions based on life experiences.

#60 gamavor

gamavor

    -= Nobility =-

  • Nobility
  • 5,049 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 07 September 2001 - 06:11 PM

MJ,

As you can see, more realistic (meaning not European approach) would be more rewarding when dealing with turks. As I said people like Ali Suat are kind of "mistaken" turks. The vast majority is retarded bastards whose heads are full with sick ambitions, not knowing that wherever they go outside Turkey they are the scum of the Earth.
Fake intellectuals "who question everything" because some fake turkish "intellectual" told them that being "intellectual means to question the things in life" can not produce anything positive except more questions, which at the end will lead them to the conclusion that there was not a Genocide, but some kind of mass slaughter of enraged hungry savages, which by the way was something common for the turks since their birth.
I have seen the turkish ghettos in Germany, Belgium, France. These people are irreparable.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users