[Takoush]

Agreed.

Zareh and Domino:

Thank you for your answers and for extending to me your hospitality. Therefore no heartfeelings.

However the reason that I found both your posts and some of your criticisms a bit too much for me at the time; because of the time element. It was just circumstantial as I was publicily arguing and unfortunately it became into a fight at the end with this guy Zurderer; and at the same time I was studying and preparing two papers for the following day for my school project and all of this exhausted me. Therefore when you two guys started criticizing me while you were also Armenians like me; it became too much for me. That's why I felt a bit more so hurt than perhaps I should've. Plus I felt stressed because of my preparation for the school project. I take full responsibility to have gotten myself into the argument with Zurderer; but I couldn't back off after Zurderer put some arguments that touched my sense of nationality and my sense of pride as an Armenian individual. I felt as though I had to defend for my Armenianess and for Armenians. You know what I mean?

Anyway, that's what happened. But you're right, this is a place to somewhat argue, pass judgements and discuss your issues. Again, no hearthfeelings.

All the best.

Anahid

This post has been edited by Anahid Takouhi: 24 November 2005 - 01:13 AM

[Takoush]

Do you think that Armenians in the same situation would act differently? If so, tell me how?

Now Domino though you put the question to me about two days ago but I will not leave you unanswered.

Hmmm. If Armenians were responsible for killing 1.5 million Turks how would they act and how responsible they would feel?

Frankly Domino, it's a difficult question you put forth. But I will try to answer to the best I can. I never thought of it, so I must say that you have imagination and you're trying to put me or us in their situation or in their shoes if you will. I must say that including myself in general Armenians have also a lot of pride. A lot of Armenians are also quite phanatic. This is true. I will try to be as honest as possible in my answers.

First off, Armenians are quite differenct than the Mongolian Turks. In the turn of the last century most countries; especially high minded intellectuals in Europe, have regarded us to be very civilized people. There's a saying that European intellectuals have invented as "serving Armenians would be serving civilization". With that in mind, I would say that Armenians were regarded to be highly civilized nationality. Having said that, Armenians or Armenian individuals yes were fighters when there was need to be; however they never acted barbarically, in wars they wouldn't touch women or children. That is in most respects. Armenians were regarded to be far different than the Mongolian Turks. That is why, the same could have not or would have not applied in the first place.

In the second place, if by far off chance Armenians would have done such a horrific crime to the Turks for instance; I don't know, but I would have wished that they would have redeemed themselves and acted in a just way towards the people that they have done the crimes and the unjustice acts to.

But again Domino, look back at your own history and you will see that in most most respects the Armenian 'ARIARANTS MARTE' was more gallant, more kind in nature and with higher principles than most as an Armenian man or as a human being. So what you are suggesting now it would have been quite faaaaar fetched to have been a reality and or happening at all. Not possible.

I hope I have satisfied your question with my answers.

Anahid

This post has been edited by Anahid Takouhi: 23 November 2005 - 06:50 PM

[phantom]

Has anyone here ever asked Zurderer his opinion on whether it was a Genocide or not? Z, was what happened to the Armenians during 1915 a Genocide or not? Yes or No?

[Takoush]

Has anyone here ever asked Zurderer his opinion on whether it was a Genocide or not? Z, was what happened to the Armenians during 1915 a Genocide or not? Yes or No?

phantom:

I think at one point he said that he would have not agreed to or let it happen to what Talaat did to the Armenians. He also said that if he could, he would have tried to prevent it from happening. But I don't think anyone, including myself asked him that question.

This post has been edited by Anahid Takouhi: 23 November 2005 - 07:27 PM

[DominO]

That's the the relevant part. But you forgot one thing in the equation, you would have been in the system, but here you act as if you would have been an outsider. So if you believed it did not happen, you could not have wished such a thing.

To ther other points you raised, Armenians by nature, is so vague as a concept. I do not believe Armenians have an Armenian nature, since there is no such thing as an Armenian race. Such concepts are just social constructs. I do on the other hand believe on the concept of higher civilization, or more advanced civilizations, but this has to do with culture and little or nothing to do with a nature attributed to those people.

In the second place, if by far off chance Armenians would have done such a horrific crime to the Turks for instance; I don't know, but I would have wished that they would have redeemed themselves and acted in a just way towards the people that they have done the crimes and the unjustice acts to.

[DominO]

Has anyone here ever asked Zurderer his opinion on whether it was a Genocide or not? Z, was what happened to the Armenians during 1915 a Genocide or not? Yes or No?

Hola Phantom, you could not have been more direct.

[Takoush]

So if you believed it did not happen, you could not have wished such a thing.

What do you mean "if I believed it did not happen."

Did it happen? Did we ever annihilated almost a total nationality? I don't believe so.

"I could not have wished such a thing"? Yes, I wouldn't wish such a thing.

To ther other points you raised, Armenians by nature, is so vague as a concept. I do not believe Armenians have an Armenian nature, since there is no such thing as an Armenian race. Such concepts are just social constructs. I do on the other hand believe on the concept of higher civilization, or more advanced civilizations, but this has to do with culture and little or nothing to do with a nature attributed to those people.

What I said was Armenian man's nature was when they went to war, they acted gallanty and more with chivalry towards the weaker gender; women and children. They didn't act savagely and barbarically as the Turks have acted towards women, old people and children.

Also, I haven't used the word race. What I said was the Armenian nationality. I made sure to use nationality and not race. Read it again.

And yes, I will be part of the system. I will be included in the system, but I still wouldn't wish such a thing.

In the turn of the previous century, we have been told that we were quite civilized nationality; because we were, and of course we were civilized because of our culture and of our cultural and educational upbringing. We could have been compared with Europeans per se not Asians or the Africans. And yes our civilization throughout centuries made us to be the fabric that we were and that we are. In your own words the concept of higher civilization and advanced civilization that indeed has to do with our culture. That's exactly why we as Armenians were regarded highly of being very civilized. Yes I have implied exactly that.

Now let me ask you a question. Throughout our history of over a thousand years; surely we did not have the advanced culture and the civilization that we have had say within the past 100-200 years. How is it that we haven't acted barbarically even then? Would you say then it was the nature of our nationality or is it that our culture even then was more advanced and higher in nature? As I believe even then our men used to fight but with chivalry and not with asiatic barbarity.

This post has been edited by Anahid Takouhi: 24 November 2005 - 09:12 AM

[zurderer]

Has anyone here ever asked Zurderer his opinion on whether it was a Genocide or not? Z, was what happened to the Armenians during 1915 a Genocide or not? Yes or No?

I am not complately agree with armenian type of history,But I accept a genocide happened with order of talat or with ignorence of talat.(dont underestimate his ignorance, 60 000 Ottoman soldier died at Sarıkamış mountain because of cold. He didnt give them cloth for winter)

This post has been edited by zurderer: 24 November 2005 - 03:17 AM

[DominO]

Let me clarify, you said that you would have wished they would redeem, if Armenians were to commit a genocide. But, first for you to have wished, you should have recognized the crime yourself. If you were to not believe it happened, you could not have wished a recognition. That is the whole point, you would not be an outsider, an independent observer, you would be in the system.

As for nationality, it is true you did not use the term race, but your allusion to something natural, is as if you used it, that is an European concept(nature of people), much before the concept of race really appeared, for me there isen't much differences.

Comming to barbarity, while you make of it as Turkish nature vs Armenians nature, I make of it as barbarity, a human behavour. Armenians could have commited such crimes, much like any other people, no people are immune of this.

If Turks were such barbars, the Ottoman Empire would have found needless to liberate from prison, the worst butchers. Also, had the Turks being those barbars, the Ottoman would have found needless the need to publish in newspapers for mass consuption, theories of Armenian mass conspiration and backstabbing to alert the population. Also, the worst crimes(beside those commited by the special organization) were commited by Kurds and not Turks.

It is always easy to simplify things, and attaching a nature to the Turks is conviniant there, since them being barbars, one doesn't need to explain what went wrong.

Now about civility and how the Europeans considered the Armenians. In some works, Armenians were considered as a Christian Turk, Armenians were streotyped a lot also, as suffering of severe avarice etc. We must be very careful to not make empty generalizations.

What do you mean "if I believed it did not happen."

Did it happen? Did we ever annihilated almost a total nationality? I don't believe so.

"I could not have wished such a thing"? Yes, I wouldn't wish such a thing.
What I said was Armenian man's nature was when they went to war, they acted gallanty and more with chivalry towards the weaker gender; women and children. They didn't act savagely and barbarically as the Turks have acted towards women, old people and children.

Also, I haven't used the word race. What I said was the Armenian nationality. I made sure to use nationality and not race. Read it again.

And yes, I will be part of the system. I will be included in the system, but I still wouldn't wish such a thing.

In the turn of the previous century, we have been told that we were quite civilized nationality; because we were, and of course we were civilized because of our culture and of our cultural and educational upbringing. We could have been compared with Europeans per se not Asians or the Africans. And yes our civilization throughout centuries made us to be the fabric that we were and that we are. In your own words the concept of higher civilization and advanced civilization that indeed has to do with our culture. That's exactly why we as Armenians were regarded highly of being very civilized. Yes I have implied exactly that.

Now let me ask you a question. Throughout our history of over a thousand years; surely we did not have the advanced culture and the civilization that we have had say within the past 100-200 years. How is it that we haven't acted barbarically even then? Would you say then it was the nature of our nationality or is it that our culture even then was more advanced and higher in nature? As I believe even then our men used to fight but with chivalry and not with asiatic barbarity.

This post has been edited by QueBeceR: 24 November 2005 - 02:09 PM

[DominO]

Has anyone here ever asked Zurderer his opinion on whether it was a Genocide or not? Z, was what happened to the Armenians during 1915 a Genocide or not? Yes or No?

I am not complately agree with armenian type of history,But I accept a genocide happened with order of talat or with ignorence of talat.(dont underestimate his ignorance, 60 000 Ottoman soldier died at Sarıkamış mountain because of cold. He didnt give them cloth for winter)

Sarikamis disaster was the result of Envers obsessions.

[Takoush]

Let me clarify, you said that you would have wished they would redeem, if Armenians were to commit a genocide. But, first for you to have wished, you should have recognized the crime yourself. If you were to not believe it happened, you could not have wished a recognition. That is the whole point, you would not be an outsider, an independent observer, you would be in the system.

As for nationality, it is true you did not use the term race, but your allusion to something natural, is as if you used it, that is an European concept(nature of people), much before the concept of race really appeared, for me there isen't much differences.

Comming to barbarity, while you make of it as Turkish nature vs Armenians nature, I make of it as barbarity, a human behavour. Armenians could have commited such crimes, much like any other people, no people are immune of this.

If Turks were such barbars, the Ottoman Empire would have found needless to liberate from prison, the worst butchers. Also, had the Turks being those barbars, the Ottoman would have found needless the need to publish in newspapers for mass consuption, theories of Armenian mass conspiration and backstabbing to alert the population. Also, the worst crimes(beside those commited by the special organization) were commited by Kurds and not Turks.

It is always easy to simplify things, and attaching a nature to the Turks is conviniant there, since them being barbars, one doesn't need to explain what went wrong.

Now about civility and how the Europeans considered the Armenians. In some works, Armenians were considered as a Christian Turk, Armenians were streotyped a lot also, as suffering of severe avarice etc. We must be very careful to not make empty generalizations.

Who's simplifying things. You are dreaming. You just want to throw words at me and I don't know where in the world you are coming from? And where are you getting your negative sources from about what Europeans said about us or have regarded about us I don't know. But is it possible that you are wrong, heh?

I told you before that we have been told by highly European intellectuals that we have been regarded as the following:

"TO SERVE ARMENIANS IS TO SERVE CIVILIZATION".

For your information, do you know that Turkey has one of the worst prisons in the world?

Furthermore, around the time of the Armenian annihilations the Turkish government promised to pay good money to the Kurds to kill us and in the name of Allah. Also they have freed all the Turkish worst prisoners and killers to torture us then annihilate us. That's what happened, it seems as though you don't know that fact and I have to teach you.

And if I originally said like an outsider as you have said it now by repeating yourself again; I said Ok I am in the system; and I have included myself in the system. But I wouldn't wish such a thing. Go and read it!!!!!!!!!

And for the second time your allusion is becoming dillusion; I DID NOT USE THE WORD RACE AND I DID NOT IMPLY IT EITHER.

Comprend tu la?

This post has been edited by Anahid Takouhi: 24 November 2005 - 02:36 PM

[DominO]

No, I am not mistaken, Armenians were streotyped too. As for the term civilization, this text might seem as if the West was seing us as a superior civilization, most ignore that the term civilization in allusion to the Armenians was first drafted as "Christianity," it was then replaced because they've considered that it may be offending. The term civilization was thosefor used to replace the term Christianity and has little or nothing to do with Europeans considering us as a superior civilization.

The Europeans by supporting Armenians this way were just playing the hypocrits and were rather interested with the ressources offered by the Ottoman Empire. Where were they when they've left Armenia being taken over by the Bolshevics? Why has France done nothing when Norman commanded his army out of Cilicia? It was also the good good Europeans that had little to say when the British left Nagorno Artsax on the hand of an Azeris administration before leaving, since they were salivating on the oil they could get through the Caspian, or when the Americans haven't offered the army to secure an Armenia like promessed, and signed contracts with the republic of Turkey just three days after its declaration forgetting any requests on the behalf of the Armenians.

I only consider what happened, and not what Europe have said good about Armenians(which is contradicted with what they've has said against too), and done nothing.

Comming to the Kurds, and the rest about what you might teach me. How could I place this in a way that won't offend you. I'd better not say anything then.

PS: I think I was clear enough in my last answer, with the question of race. Also, refrain playing with words, you're bad at that., just a friendly suggestion.

Who's simplifying things. You are dreaming. You just want to throw words at me and I don't know where in the world you are coming from? And where are you getting your negative sources from about what Europeans said about us or have regarded about us I don't know. But is it possible that you are wrong, heh?

I told you before that we have been told by highly European intellectuals that we have been regarded as the following:

"TO SERVE ARMENIANS IS TO SERVE CIVILIZATION".

For your information, do you know that Turkey has one of the worst prisons in the world?

Furthermore, around the time of the Armenian annihilations the Turkish government promised to pay good money to the Kurds to kill us and in the name of Allah. Also they have freed all the Turkish worst prisoners and killers to torture us then annihilate us. That's what happened, it seems as though you don't know that fact and I have to teach you.

And if I originally said like an outsider as you have said it now by repeating yourself again; I said Ok I am in the system; and I have included myself in the system. But I wouldn't wish such a thing. Go and read it!!!!!!!!!

And for the second time your allusion is becoming dillusion; I DID NOT USE THE WORD RACE AND I DID NOT IMPLY IT EITHER.

Comprend tu la?

[yalpa]

Armenians may be quite different from the Mongolian Turks, but the Turks of Anatolia are a very mixed group and the so-called Mongolian Turks are a small percentage in this group. Studies on the genetic make-up of Anatolia have so far given a very different picture. It is true that Turkish speaking groups did enter Anatolia during the medieval times, but their contribution was very small. It seems that the ones who committed this horrific crime were mostly natives genetically speaking.

If we leave genetics and concentrate on the cultural infrastructure, I am afraid the situation does still change much. There are plenty of examples from the medieval times showing us that the Anatolian cultures and peoples were no strangers to the idea of killing others in a genocidal manner. In fact, Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians did get into many very bloody civil clashes and killings during the Byzantine times.

I also don’t think that being civilized makes one less prone to consider genocide as a feasible solution to change the existing situation. The evidence shows that the opposite is the case. The idea of genocide is actually closely related to the development of civilization in the modern era. I believe that deep down we all have this ability, but developing this into a tool to create nations or lands for nations or to make people more “civilized” is one of the achievements of civilization.

And as a closing remark, some nations did actually manage to wipe out some cultures and peoples entirely (perfect genocide). For example, many of the native cultures of Americas do not exist anymore. Were not the responsible ones from the most civilized nations of their times? Some of these nations may have redeemed themselves today, but this doesn’t change the fact that the birth of genocide as a practice to build nations or gain territories is related closely to the spread of civilization itself.

[DominO]

It seems that people have the tendency to equate "civilization" with peaceful, when history shows us the complete opposit. The so-called great civilizations in the large majority of times were recognized as having powerful armies and known as conquerors.

Armenians may be quite different from the Mongolian Turks, but the Turks of Anatolia are a very mixed group and the so-called Mongolian Turks are a small percentage in this group. Studies on the genetic make-up of Anatolia have so far given a very different picture. It is true that Turkish speaking groups did enter Anatolia during the medieval times, but their contribution was very small. It seems that the ones who committed this horrific crime were mostly natives genetically speaking.

If we leave genetics and concentrate on the cultural infrastructure, I am afraid the situation does still change much. There are plenty of examples from the medieval times showing us that the Anatolian cultures and peoples were no strangers to the idea of killing others in a genocidal manner. In fact, Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians did get into many very bloody civil clashes and killings during the Byzantine times.

I also don’t think that being civilized makes one less prone to consider genocide as a feasible solution to change the existing situation. The evidence shows that the opposite is the case. The idea of genocide is actually closely related to the development of civilization in the modern era. I believe that deep down we all have this ability, but developing this into a tool to create nations or lands for nations or to make people more “civilized” is one of the achievements of civilization.

And as a closing remark, some nations did actually manage to wipe out some cultures and peoples entirely (perfect genocide). For example, many of the native cultures of Americas do not exist anymore. Were not the responsible ones from the most civilized nations of their times? Some of these nations may have redeemed themselves today, but this doesn’t change the fact that the birth of genocide as a practice to build nations or gain territories is related closely to the spread of civilization itself.

[phantom22]

Armenians may be quite different from the Mongolian Turks, but the Turks of Anatolia are a very mixed group and the so-called Mongolian Turks are a small percentage in this group. Studies on the genetic make-up of Anatolia have so far given a very different picture. It is true that Turkish speaking groups did enter Anatolia during the medieval times, but their contribution was very small. It seems that the ones who committed this horrific crime were mostly natives genetically speaking.

If we leave genetics and concentrate on the cultural infrastructure, I am afraid the situation does still change much. There are plenty of examples from the medieval times showing us that the Anatolian cultures and peoples were no strangers to the idea of killing others in a genocidal manner. In fact, Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians did get into many very bloody civil clashes and killings during the Byzantine times.

I also don’t think that being civilized makes one less prone to consider genocide as a feasible solution to change the existing situation. The evidence shows that the opposite is the case. The idea of genocide is actually closely related to the development of civilization in the modern era. I believe that deep down we all have this ability, but developing this into a tool to create nations or lands for nations or to make people more “civilized” is one of the achievements of civilization.

And as a closing remark, some nations did actually manage to wipe out some cultures and peoples entirely (perfect genocide). For example, many of the native cultures of Americas do not exist anymore. Were not the responsible ones from the most civilized nations of their times? Some of these nations may have redeemed themselves today, but this doesn’t change the fact that the birth of genocide as a practice to build nations or gain territories is related closely to the spread of civilization itself.

Please, let us not reiterate our Armenian myths. Our differences with the Anatolian Turks are primarily cultural, and we were there long before they arrived. As for racial/ethnic purity neither of us can claim that. Yalpa correctly states that present-day Turks are primarily Anatolian with only a small genetic strain from the Central Asian conquerers.

Armenians have a sizeable mix of Semitic strains, Indo-Aryan strains (yes, some of us look like we came from India) and a Chinese/Mongol strain from legitimate (inter-marriage with the Mamikonians and other Christianized Mongol nobility), and also by Armenian women being violated during conquests. Both Anatolian Turks and Armenians have strains of Northern and Eastern European genes via the Galicians and Armens, etc.

So stop the racial talk. It is primarily a cultural and religious divide.

This post has been edited by phantom22: 24 November 2005 - 05:34 PM

[zurderer]

Please, let us not reiterate our Armenian myths. Our differences with the Anatolian Turks are primarily cultural, and we were there long before they arrived. As for racial/ethnic purity neither of us can claim that. Yalpa correctly states that present-day Turks are primarily Anatolian with only a small genetic strain from the Central Asian conquerers.

Armenians have a sizeable mix of Semitic strains, Indo-Aryan strains (yes, some of us look like we came from India) and a Chinese/Mongol strain from legitimate (inter-marriage with the Mamikonians and other Christianized Mongol nobility), and also by Armenian women being violated during conquests. Both Anatolian Turks and Armenians have strains of Northern and Eastern European genes via the Galicians and Armens, etc.

So stop the racial talk. It is primarily a cultural and religious divide.

Sorry for not agreeing, but Infact there were not so big cultural(at that times) difference between turks, kurds or armenians. why do you think, there should be?


there were a lot armenian who was converted, I dont think they changed their tradition much.

there were a lot christian armenian, who dont know armenian langauge but turkish(or If you prefer ottoman langauge)

Most of armenians surname is turkish.

Armenians, turks and kurd lived together almost 1000 year.

So why do you think there is a big cultural difference who lead genocide?and how this big cultural difference become after 1000 year.



Sarikamis disaster was the result of Envers obsessions.

You are right but still they were young turks, ultra nationalist,fanatic, and dreamer people. that moron didnt know, they cannot rule a multinational empire with nationalist ideas.

[Takoush]

I only consider what happened, and not what Europe have said good about Armenians(which is contradicted with what they've has said against too), and done nothing.

I agree with this sentence. What I was saying though was the fact that highly European intellectuals regarded us as being highly civilized and good people in general; but that was then before the 1915 Genocide. Believe you me Domino, now we are changed a lot because our people in Armenia lived with the decadent Russians and the Russian communist regime for 70 years and the Russians are much decadent compare to us. It's unfortunate but it's very true. Also, for instance the Armenians who lived with the Arabs in the Middle East except the Egyptian Armenians as Armenians have wrote books about the Egyptian Armenians being very elite, rich yes; but maybe because of it they have remained to be the best or one of the best Diasporan Armenians per se. Because they were cultural , classy Armenians, stayed and remained very much Armenian, yet they haven't changed their face or their Armenian ways or their good ethics.
But unfortunately the rest of the middle eastern Armenians have changed a great deal and their cultures; as they have a lot of Arabic characteristics in them. I am not saying this because I am happy for this. I am only saying it with great grief in my heart; as most of the Armenians of today are 'aylaseradz'.

However the true Armenians by 1915 in Eastern part of Armenia; my father and my grandparents used to say that they were very honorable people, yes highly cultural but only with Armenian culture in them. They were the best specimen of the Armenians, they were the real and the true Armenians with dignity, with spirituality and with very high standards of ethics and of mores. And when the bloody Turks and Ittihadists committed the Genocide to us, they did much much harm; by killing a great deal of us, they not only killed 1.5 or 2 million Armenians but with it they have killed our Armenian high standards of ethics, of mores, our way of life and yes even part of our culture; not to mention our 'perkarad' lands.
Today's Armenians have changed their faces a great deal. Therefore the Armenian Genocide did much more harm to us then we can imagine. I can imagine but with great great pain in my heart and in my soul.

Therefore, when European intellectuals talked about Armenians being very civilized and with it grand in nature, they were talking then, before the 1915 Genocide. But yes, after the genocide during and even before their bitchy politics got in the way and they didn't show any respect or true likeness to us or even some minor help to our people as they have played politics amongst themselves and with the Turkish Republic. You are right in saying that they were basically useless to us and showed no mercy or help, knowing well that we were Christians like them. But they couldn't and didn't care less. Unfortunately but thruthfully I also happen to know all of this very well.



Now Domino, please let's not fight or argue incessently whether I didn't say race; yet I said nationality and yet
you insist that I implied. Anyhow, if you think I have implied well I refuse to argue with you any
further; but it doesn't matter any more. In one of William Saryoyan's sayings about Armenians meeting anywhere in the world and creating an Armenia amongst themselves; do you remember? even he did say the Armenian race. So are you also going to argue with him so much that he said race? Or are you going to argue so much with our master of poetry SIAMANTO when he said in one of his poetries the following:

"Gouze zayn chakhchakhel, garenal donelou hamar verchnagan mahatsoume mer tseghin..."

As 'tsegh' in Armenian means race.

Just forget about it, it'll be stupid to argue any further.

I thought I'll talk a little more about my views on the matter.

This post has been edited by Anahid Takouhi: 25 November 2005 - 10:47 AM

[hytga]

Sorry for not agreeing, but Infact there were not so big cultural(at that times) difference between turks, kurds or armenians. why do you think, there should be?

we can argue about whether the differences were racial, cultural or religious, but one thing is clear. THERE WERE BIG DIFFERENCES. Otherwise turks and kurds would be calling themselves GAVUR. Or they'd not be singling out armenains for killing

Armenians, turks and kurd lived together almost 1000 year.

Armenians lived under ottoman rule for about 600 years.

This post has been edited by hytga: 25 November 2005 - 10:52 AM

[yalpa]

I am not so sure about the argument of cultural divide between Armenians and Turks, either. I wouldn’t deny that there are cultural differences between Armenians and Turks, but we should also not forget that in cultural terms Turks are closest to Greeks and Armenians and Armenians are closest to Turks. Culturally they are as close as brothers and sisters would be. We may not like it, but this is a fact very difficult to deny. We may still assume that there are cultural differences between these groups, but when we decide to compare them it won’t be difficult to see that they are closer to each other than they are to any other culture.

What about the cultural differences they have? What are we talking about here? There are of course minor differences here and there (excluding the religions and the practices related to them), but when we get down to the scale that families and neighborhoods exist in and interact with each other, it will be very difficult to observe any difference. However, when we change our scale and start looking at these groups as nations we will see some differences. I believe that these differences come from three sources: religion, modernity and the secondary status that Armenians had in the Muslim/Turkish society.

Religions these groups had for centuries played an important role in molding the modern national identities they developed for themselves. I believe that both identities are not fully modern, but between modern and medieval or medieval with a modern dress. Perhaps Armenians are a bit more modern in their national identity than Turks. Second source is the process of modernization these two groups went through during the last two centuries of the Ottoman Empire. Here, too, Armenians became part of this process before Turks did, but also the Turkish experience was hindered in some areas. The fact that Armenians had their own “millet” in the Ottoman Empire may have protected them from unwanted interruptions and interferences. Finally, the fact that Armenians were given a status below the Muslims in the Ottoman society must have affected them in ways very different from what the Muslims experienced in the same society.

To sum it up, there are cultural differences between these two groups, but not in their daily, person-to-person cultural practices. In this area they are very similar. In fact Anatolian Turks are more similar to Armenians and Greeks than to those Turkish speaking groups in Central Asia. However, they are different in their invented modern identities, histories, national myths and cultural practices (which belong to the scale that is generally outside the daily practices of families and individuals; that is, we cannot learn these cultural differences unless we go through some form of mandatory modern nationalist education).

[Takoush]

we can argue about whether the differences were racial, cultural or religious, but one thing is clear. THERE WERE BIG DIFFERENCES. Otherwise turks and kurds would be calling themselves GAVUR. Or they'd not be singling out armenains for killing

Good points hytga. They danced around our mountains of beheaded Armenian heads with happiness and with laughter.

Armenians lived under ottoman rule for about 600 years.

And in the interim they were constantly raped, killed, beheaded, enormously taxed and perpetrated. Need I say more?

This post has been edited by Anahid Takouhi: 25 November 2005 - 10:51 AM