aurguplu

quebecer i have read both threads and i cannot see why 1) i am being called dishonest 2) some others (i shall refrain from giving names, it's pretty obvious in the posts anyway) aren't. i would perhaps formulate some of my answers slightly differently today (partly because i read some more), but my basic positions would remain broadly the same. upon rereading the threads, i came again to the conclusion that my positions were on the whole 1) clear 2) self-consistent, and 3) to the point. i shall not get into a re-run as i don't see any more point to it than there had been the last time. there is a difference between dishonesty and defending a position that does not agree with that of your opponent. i keep this in my mind when reading stuff that holds positions i don't agree with, and i shall expect the same when my posts are read.

hi there again 1. aubepine: apology accepted. let us all please be as sensitive to eachothers' privacy as MosJan was to MJ's a few posts (hagarag's post) ago, and let us rely on factual, verifiable information rather than urban legends. as for being careful about the websites you visit, may i humbly suggest you to adopt my attitude: all serious armies have unbelievable information gathering and processing resources and there simply is no way of avoiding them. i recall a spanish proverb by a mexican friend of mine that was uttered in an economic context but that applies equally well here: "el pejor vive mejor" (no guarantees for the spelling) i.e. "the smaller one lives better", which is to mean that if you are not that significant, and thank god i am not, the powers that be usually leave you alone, which only makes sense when you realise the sheer numbers of people who are using the internet and communicating with one another about every single topic under the sun. i first started to use the internet regularly in turkey late 1998-early 1999, and i have been to every kind of website that contains "sensitive" material, and not only on the armenian issue. i ordered copies of dadrian's history of the armenian genocide, touryan-miller's survivors, and what not, all through the internet, and not only did they all arrive in time shipshape, but also i was never persecuted or anything. when i was having my novice training in intelligence in the military we were told about the sheer impossibility to withhold publicly available information from the masses. so frankly speaking i wouldn't worry that much about the army and get on with my life. in all probability we are not talking about anything here that the army would not have us expected to do, and turkey has travelled way too long down the road to western standards of democracy for that sort of thing to cause the sort of trouble it caused fifteen or even ten years ago. so relax, if i may so. 2. vava: thanks. i felt the need to post that lengthy story about my decision to leave the forum because i felt i had to account for my absence, especially given the speculations, and that it was a necessity to post it to clear up any misunderstandings that may persist. 2. the community as a whole: i understand that that episode leading to my leaving the forum is interpreted differently by other members who were present then. i would appreciate if this topic were elaborated a bit and the members gave their account on how they saw the matter. i see it a necessity that misunderstandings are eliminated as much as possible so that meaningful discussion can take place. meanwhile i must remind forum members that i will not be able to post as frequently as i used to four years ago due to that never ending story that has to end and that soon (my PhD). i expect to be able, however, to post an entry on turkish-armenian relations and the issue of the three r's (recognition, retribution and reparation) in the near future. take care you all & see you soon, ali

dear arpa 1. i wrote the reasons of my leaving recently and currently am getting replies to it. i shall answer the replies when they are all there. 2. armenian is actually on my list of languages to be learned, but the list is a long one. i do not know when time will come to that, but at home i do have a teach yourself armenian kind of book (can't remember the author, has the picture of a carpet on the front page). 3. with all due respect, armenian is in all probability not the mother of all indo-european languages: in fact, that mother must have died long before 2000 BC and even the indo-european homeland has not been located with anything remotely approaching certainty despite more than a century of efforts (and yes, i do know about the gamkrelidze-ivanov theory. i can discuss about it if you want.). as far as i can tell from specialist literature, armenian is considered to be an independent branch of indo-european (hereafter IE), probably an originally Balkan language with ties to Thracian, Dacian and that lot (of which little else than names and the odd word survive) and it appears to have entered anatolia from the west, with the invasion of the "sea peoples" of the 12th century BC that put an end to the hittite empire. Herodotus wrote that armenians were phrygian colonists, but as classical scholars as a rule do not take Herodotus for a very reliable source, this remains just a possibility. the amount of phrygian that has survived is too small, too fragmentary and above all too formulaic to derive much information from. it also mostly reflects an ancient form of phrygian that in all probability was not what people actually spoke in the 1st millennium BC. what little we do know of phrygian make us come to the following conclusions: 1) it was not a member of the anatolian group of IE languages (Hittite, Luvian, Palaic, Lycian, Lydian, Sidetic, Karian) and 2) it appears to show some affinities to Greek within IE that would nicely agree with the theory that it was originally a Balkan language (Greek appears to have entered the southern Balkans some time after 2000 BC from what is now Romania and environs). now Armenian also shares some isoglosses with Greek (like mi/mia for "one" alues/alopis for "fox" eber/epheron for "carry" (sorry i don't have diacritics on this keyboard) and one might very tentatively conclude that the two were originally members of the same subgroup of IE after the parent language had dissolved. but tentative is the key word here: every generation of IE scholars come up with completely different theories using precisely the same pieces of evidence. i am not an IE specialist, i know a thing or two about altaic linguistics (which is even worse in this respect) and i would be very, very careful before coming up with a theory for the preliterate periods of any language. moreover armenian is a very severely distorted form of indo-european, chiefly under the influence of caucasian languages (urartian and its older cousin hurrian were in all probability northeast caucasian languages, relatives of today's chechen and ingush, amongst others. the genetic unity of the three caucasian languages is disputed). did you know that "yerkoo" is precisely the same word as "two"? both derived from something like *du- and look at what happened to yours, whereas the English one is still reasonably recognisable! as for armenian, since the earliest text is the bible translation of the 5th century, there is a huge gap between when armenian was probably first spoken in anatolia (either 12th century bc or 7th century bc, god only knows) and when it was first committed to writing. by then, of course, it had changed pretty much beyond recognition. 4. i didn't know you could read ottoman. congratulations! few turks can do that today. do you just know the script, or can you actually handle a severe text, and can you read handwriting? 5. cemeteries: "gabirlik" appears to come from "kabirlik" QBR is the Arabic root for "tomb" and you still have words like "kabir" "makber" "makbere" and also "kabirlik" in Turkish. It has got nothing to do with the Iranian "gäbr", which is, probably together with the Arabic "kafir" (blasphemer) the ancestor of the Turkish "gavur". In Turkish you would I guess not use "kabirlik" for a non-Muslim cemetery, whereas "mezarlik" is a perfectly neutral word meaning "cemetery" and can be used for all religions. it comes from the Arabic root ZWR (pronounced "zara" meaning "to visit", and means "the place to visit". It belongs to the same family of words as "ziyaret" for instance. Mezar-i Sherif does indeed mean "Tomb of the Exalted". As for your Persian dictionary giving "gabr" for tomb, i guess what it actually does is to give the Persian pronunciation of the Arabic "qabr", the one above. The Persians tend to g the q of Arabic, since the sound of the Arabic q does not really exist in Persian, and if you don't know Persian it may be a bit hard to recognise Arabic words containing q in Persian pronunciation. Also a note on the above: many central and east Anatolian Turkish dialects g their q's too, like gapmah, galmah, gacmah instead of kapmak, kalmak, kacmak in istanbul. The Turkish word "kaburga" (not kabirga, maybe this is a local pronunciation) actually means "rib cage". "Hortlak" is someone who has risen from the dead (from "hortlamak") in this world and "ghost" in this sense. it has a frightening sonund to it, and you would not refer to Lazarus as a "hortlak", it would not be nice. gotta get beack to work now. take care ali

Hi I have recently requested the update on my password from the moderators to reply to a message I had received from a forum member. Until then, I had been away from the forum for a good four years as far as I can remember, only visiting every now and then, especially to see the reactions to any developments that might affect Turkish-Armenian relations. There have been a good few of those over the intervening years (as I had predicted when I was posting here) and the reactions of the forum as a whole has been disappointing to say the least, IMHO. I see that wild speculation has been going on about my identity, my motives for visiting the forum, ranging from me being an Ottoman-closet Armenian-confused Turk-agent/spy of the Turkish Army to God knows what (I haven’t read all the posts, these are just a few that I picked up from – as far as I can see – recent ones) as well as the causes and circumstances of my “disappearance”, and it would be in order to clear these points before I proceed. I do not recall having been asked to reveal my identity to post at the forum, nor have I been informed of anyone else’s having been asked to do so, I am not asking for anyone’s identity beyond what they choose to reveal in the forum, and I expect to be treated in the same fashion. Suffice it to say based on some recent posts I have read about this particular matter that some people think they know more than they actually do, confuse at least two distinct people (they are not the only ones to do that), and obviously have been relying more on prejudices and “urban legends” than factual, verifiable information. I am particularly disappointed to see Armenians of all people doing that as they are the ones to have suffered and to continue to suffer so directly and so severely from these two evils fabricated against them in Turkey. As for my identity, I am prepared to reveal not less, and not more, than the following: Sorry to disappoint you Arpa, but I am not an Armenian, closet or otherwise. Do I have partial Armenian ancestry? Not to my knowledge, it is not impossible, but frankly speaking I do not care. Like most Turkish families, especially those that have had some standing in the Ottoman Empire and/or The Republic, mine is a very mixed bag, with individuals from most corners of the Ottoman Empire from Serbia to the Caucasus to the Crimea. This is nothing special in a society that traditionally divided people along religious and cultural rather than racial lines and that has been contracting incessantly since 1774 (Küçük Kaynardji): contraction meant that people from all former provinces of the Empire still loyal to the state (almost exclusively Muslims) moved to areas still under imperial control, and as the Empire shrunk, an ever decreasing area supported an ever more ethnically diverse population that mixed freely when the religion was the same (unlike “civilised” USA or Europe where intermarriage between white and non-white Christians is still far from being socially acceptable). I know for a fact that I have Serbian, Greek, Albanian, Ukrainian, Russian, Georgian, Circassian, Abkhazian, Crimean Tatar, Italian, and Kurdish blood. These I know because some female members of our families (I am now talking about all the four grandparents’ families) had been recorded, and others persisted in family memories, information about them being handed down as oral history. Turks trace descent paternally, and all males are naturally Turks, having been born of Turkish fathers. There are several thousand such families surviving, not necessarily all in Turkey (some have remained in the former provinces of the Empire, others migrated to four corners of the Earth). To excite some forum members even further, there was at least one (and possibly a few more) Greek lady who chose not to convert to Islam after he married one of my great-great-grandfathers, but whose son (and hence one of my great-grandfathers) grew up to be quite a mullah and did things that broke his mother’s heart (and a cross). All this I find very interesting, I may even write a novel or something about it later in life, but I have, sorry for being so dead boring, no identity problems/crises/pangs of conscience whatsoever to keep you excited. I am just a Turk. I do not even have the saving grace of being proud or ashamed of being Turkish. It’s just a fact of life as far as I am concerned. I am a Turk, no more, no less, and you are well advised to live with this fact just as easily and happily as I am doing. You cannot easily get more boring and simple than that, I guess. So much for my ancestry. I have been to school both in Turkey and in Europe, and studied mostly in Europe (England). I have a BA in Oriental Studies (Islamic World) and speak two (Turkish and Arabic) of the three (Turkish, Arabic and Persian) relevant languages. Except for a brief stint as an academician after my return to Turkey in 1990, which had ended in disillusionment, I spent most of my time in the professional world, but kept my academic and intellectual interests alive. At the time I had started posting I was making plans to return to academics. These plans have meanwhile materialised and I am now finishing a PhD at a University in Germany. At the time I was posting I was also engaged to a Turkish Christian lady (a Christian Arab originally from Antioch) which however has not been consummated in marriage for private reasons (not religious differences, sorry to disappoint yet again). In brief, I am basically a Muslim/Sunni/Hanefi Turk (like about three quarters of all ethnic Turks in Anatolia, i.e. nothing special) and happen to belong to an upper-class family (like a few thousand other families, i.e. maybe something special but nothing unique) with a decent education and – may I say – a modest degree of competence in Turkish-Armenian matters. I also happen to see the Armenian Question as a serious problem that Turks as well as the Armenians have a vested interest in solving for their own good. This last point appears to escape, or have escaped until recently, most of my fellow Turks, who have a habit of resorting to an ostrich-like attitude in the face of problems that they deem beyond their immediate powers to solve, and if there is anything special about me, it is that I have never had this attitude. Three other points about me, that might be relatively rare about Turks discussing this issue are 1) I am prepared to listen to the other side rather than impose my opinions on it, 2) I do my best to base my arguments on accurate, verifiable, and whenever possible, publicly available information and a chain of logic, and 3) I do not resort to insults, personal attacks, foul language or demagoguery to advance a point or to defend a position which has proved itself to be untenable over discussions. I think I have been able to stick to all of these points quite faithfully when I was posting here, and I should certainly appreciate hearing anything to the contrary from any forum member who read my posts. I am not a lover of Armenians, nor am I a hater of them. I am a Turkish patriot (patriot rather than nationalist, I can elaborate upon demand), but of the variety who believes in “live and let live” rather than the one who believes in “kill or you die” (there are few of us, and many of them). Also, being a student of history, I am interested in things Armenian, partly intrinsically, as I hold the Armenian culture to be a very interesting one, and partly as a part of both Anatolian and Turkish histories, since the Armenians have played an important role in both. I also happen to think that freedom from hatred is one of the fundamental human rights. I should not be obliged to hate you, and you should not be obliged to hate me, over something that had happened half a century before we both were born. As to the reasons for my being, or rather having once been, to the forum, was to 1) find out what the Armenians were all about from the Armenians themselves as opposed to the Turkish sources we have in Turkey whom we all know to be so very reliable on anything, especially the Armenians; 2) find out if there were any individuals out there with whom it was possible to agree on a set of basic principles & a code of conduct to start a dialogue that might eventually contribute positively to a normalisation of relations between the two peoples if not the states (I have a low opinion of the conciliatory capacities of both states). In both respects I must say I had been disappointed. More on this further below. My leaving the forum was – as I had posted in the relevant thread then – the result of my getting disgusted at the behaviour of some individuals (especially, but not only, Martin, posting as MJ) and not that of some secret military operation on the part of the Turkish Army as I gather has been the essence of some wild speculation here. Those of you who had been to the forum at that time will remember, others please check further below for details. It is I gather high time to reveal some “secrets” about the Turkish Army to render any further speculation unnecessary: The part of my military service after novice training took place at the Turkish Land Forces Command in the capacity of a translator and intelligence officer. The first thing all conscripts learnt was – to use a Turkish phrase – how many hairs we had in our arses. None of us had known that until then, but the Army knew. The Army knew absolutely everything about us that was there to know (including, as I had found out, some information about myself that I never knew). I was then both exposed to and conducted myself under orders some low-to-not-so-low-level intelligence work, and quickly realised that there was no way, at least not on this third planet of ours circling the Sun, to hide anything from the Army that it wanted to know. These fellows have eyes and ears in places you cannot imagine, and most of these eyes and ears don’t even know that they are working for the Army (the least suspicion-raising spy is the one who doesn’t know that he is being used as a spy). So by 2000, when, if I remember correctly, I had first joined the forum, I had done so in full confidence that the Army had probably already gathered more information about the forum and its members than the moderators themselves, and if that forum was still functioning it was only because they didn’t bother to bust it (some of the best computer hackers on earth are, incidentally, Turkish youths). The Army is doing this on so many platforms with such vast resources that I wonder at times how they get to cope with all the info they get. This may horrify some of you, but I should not be surprised if it were revealed one day that some people posting here with Armenian identities are in reality Turkish officers, trained in Armenian, working on the orders of some department of the Army that the Prime Minister doesn’t know exists (too much information is bad for a Prime Minister’s health), or just for their amusement. So I had nothing to worry about. People may wonder how, but those of you who have had any experience with combat training would know that fear is one of the first things to disappear in people in sustained combat. You just get used to it. Besides, I do not hold the Army to be my enemy, and I have no reason to think that the Army holds me to be an enemy/traitor, too (if there were one, I would have known about it by now). Now the “more on this further below”: When I had joined the forum I had made clear that I subscribed to the definition of the Armenian massacres of 1915-6 as genocide, so people did not have to “educate” me about that and the first exchanges of posts were sincere, at least that had been my impression. Various threads were exploring the issue of land reparations (where if I remember correctly I did not post anything), where Martin (MJ) was countering – or should I say telling off – people who made wild plans about conquering the whole of Anatolia etc. His arguments sounded quite reasonable and altogether I had had a positive opinion of him, even though I had found, on several occasions, his thinly-veiled insults (not always directed against me) and dismissive style a bit arrogant, with a touch of a “holier-than-thou” attitude in it. But on the whole the relationship was civilised enough for me to keep posting. Then there came a Turk who wanted to establish friendship with the Armenians and to discuss whether it was a genocide or not. He got the answers he got from the Armenian members of the forum, and I posted a reply in which I dwelt upon the undeniability of the fact of genocide in the face of the evidence and the moral obligation of the Turks to admit to it and relieve the torment of the victim to some extent at least by accepting that what happened to them was what it was. This appears to have touched MJ, and he posted a reply praising my approach. So far all was fine. Soon after that, however, he posted an entry where he invited me to discuss the “land issue”. I was shocked, not so much at the proposal itself, this place being an Armenian forum, but at the person who put it forth: this was the person who was disparaging at other threads those Armenians who had made land claims part of their agenda with sound arguments, usually a cool head, and very occasionally a language that I as a well-bred Turk would think twice before using. The essence of his argument appeared to be “You seem to be a civilised guy, we are in agreement about the fact of the genocide, so that’s out of the way, now let’s get down to business and sort out what lands we get back and what lands you get to keep.”. His (and not only his, as I discovered later) attitude was “Civilised is the Turk who agrees to cede part of Anatolia to Armenians. Barbarian is the Turk who holds that he has the same right to Anatolia as all conquering nations have to their current lands, like the Americans, for instance.”. Of living together in peace on the same soil, needless to say, there was not a word to read. So I was a barbarian for holding on to what was mine. Over time the conversation deteriorated significantly in quality, MJ resorting to personal attacks (he had a habit of doing that at the time, and not only with the Turks). His ire reached a climax with the declaration that “genocide recognition is meaningless without land reparations”, at which point I was compelled to remind him of his on postings in other threads precisely to the opposite effect. This also went on for a while, and then (I think there had been a brief pause when I was not visiting the forum) MJ somehow turned around and started to disparage me for having claimed that he had ever posted anything to the effect of claiming land. At this point I did something I should have done a good deal earlier and posted our discussion about it, having copied and pasted it from the thread where it had been running, with the heading “let me refresh your memory” (MJ had claimed not to remember about any such posting). To this MJ gave the shortest and most timid reply I ever read of him in the forum: “Yes, Ali. And I stand by what I wrote.” No explanation, no elaboration, no addressing the glaring contradiction in his past and present postings, and – how could one dare expect it from MJ, anyway – not even a hint of an apology for a style of conduct that had no moral basis whatsoever. This disgusted me. What disgusted me even more was the attitude of the crowd that was until then mostly just watching the whole thing unfurl. They started coming to the fore and I felt I was being hunted down. It was as if one predator wounds a prey and then a whole pack of them arrives at the scene to have a share of the kill (it felt like Jurassic Park). There was not one word of criticism for MJ’s attitude (I wonder whether some people present had even actually noticed the logical contradiction and moral bankruptcy of MJ’s – and their – position). All this was going at a relatively high pace (just like a hunt should) and I also had some other problems aside (some health issues, the marriage plans not working, working on a salary truncated to 18% of its former self – early in 2001 we had had the greatest financial crisis the country had had since the end of the Second World War – and frankly speaking I got quite disillusioned with the sort of experiences I was getting at the forum. After all, there were plenty of right-wing Turkish forums where I could get some really low-level crass intellectual(!) output on the Armenian issue (or most any other issue) should I so desire. I hadn’t, and I decided to leave the forum before the disillusionment got even deeper. This hasn’t turned into an attitude against the Armenians themselves or the Armenian Question, however, as I was careful to inform the forum members in my “farewell” post if it may be called that, and turned to other pursuits. I was, as stated above, checking the forum for the reactions of the Armenian community to the quite momentous developments that have been happening on this front since I left the forum, and found the recations (in many cases lack of them) quite disappointing, which reinforced my conviction that I had done the right thing by leaving the forum. About two months ago I got a message from a forum member and discovered while trying to reply that my password had been reset, so I asked the moderators to reset it, and here I am. I should like to read the comments of forum members on the above before posting further. Yours, Ali (and not Alishan, sorry)

thoth, i agree with you completely (especially ottomans being slightly different byzantines in a way). the thing that puzzles me is that the complete assimilation of the type we succumbed to in china and india did not occur in anatolia. even in iran we were more assimilated. i am not quite sure that religion was the only factor: this was the case in india, too (to some extent), and in iran, many turkish tribes were actually sunni until the safavids decided to make everyone shia to consolidate the state and their hold on the tribes. yours was a good post, but i am still looking for more answers. take care,

quote:Originally posted by nairi:Ali, your question is very clear. I'm just wondering since when Mongolians eat dolma and play (adapted) Armenian folk tunes. Perhaps we didn't conquer the Turks of Anatolia, but we sure did influence them. Or perhaps better said, the Turks allowed themselves to be influenced by us, and vice versa of course. Martin, gna banit yetevits. Oh and while you're at it, get shot! i don't know about mongolians, but central asian turks have been doing so for quite a while, as they still are (by the way, as dolma is a turkish word, could you please tell me what it is called in armenian, if it is called anything else?). as for the folk tunes, quite a few of these are widespread as far east as turfan (chinese turkestan) (i happen to have listened to some music from there). also, music is one of the first things that travels. people pick up a good tune, adopt a good instrument almost immediately. doubtlessly there are many things in turkish culture that are armenian (if you gave copperwork or some of the crafts from the east (like "bindallı" for instance) you would have given better examples. but my question was not that. let me make it clearer: by all accounts (including the turks' own accounts), the local anatolian civilisations appear to have been superior to the incoming turkish culture, at least in material culture (where it is most easily observable). also, anatolia at that time appears to have been populated by a total of some 10-12 million people, whereas the incoming turks cannot reliably be shown to have been much above 1.5-2 million people (and that over a period of a hundred years). so the autochtonous people outnumbered the turks 10 to 1, on top of that they had a superior culture. what was it that prevented them to impose their culture to these incoming turks, i.e. conquer them culturally? why don't these turks speak armenian or greek (or whatever else that was spoken then)? why weren't they culturally assimilated, like the romans were in greece, and the turks were in china, india and iran? i am not asking this question with a "hidden agenda" or anything (i sensed something suggestive of that in your reply). i am just curious about it. mj's answer was an interesting one, and if correct, a plausible explanation (i cannot judge whether it was correct or not). i think this is an interesting question, given the fact that the overwhelming majority of anatolian turks are actually the local anatolians who just adopted turkish, some as recently as 200 or even 100 years ago. it is just a very interesting cultural phenomenon.

nairi, what is not clear about my question?

munzur, by the way, if the above is the ethno-religious list, where are the ethnicities and religions (these are all later muslim sects, or rather followings (they are not like sunnism, shiism, or the judicial subbranches of these (like hanafism, hanbalism, shafiism etc) to which a sizeable part of the population always belonged, moreover, it is known that people frequently belonged (or attended) more than one of these at the same time and sometimes changed allegiance. adherence to these did not affect one's religious or even sectarian affiliation, such as muslim, sunni, and some sects, like the mevlevis, even attracted and accepted non-muslims.

munzur, şeyhülislam ürgüplü hayri, mustafa hayri ürgüplü and niğde mebusu hayri efendi are the same person (this is not specified in the list above). i am not sure, but it appears the above list contains a number of such doublets. the list does not elucidate one crucial fact, especially concerning the masons and the manner in which masons recruited people and then claimed them to be masons. i shall relate to you a dialogue (real, not made up, name changed for sake of secrecy): a (masonic recruiter) b (hapless recruit): a: hello, dear b, how are things today? b: fine, my dear a, how are things with you? a: fine. a small conversation, nothing unusual, ensues. upon leaving: a: by the way, dear b, congratulations on your decision! b: what decision, my dear a? a: oh! don't have to hide anything from me! you know, the decision to join! b: join what? a: the brotherhood of course! (those in the know would know that "the brotherhood" meant "masonic lodge"). b: but i haven't joined it, my dear a? a: oh really, i'm so sorry. but tell me, would you consider doing so, if you were asked to? the "recruit" would then usually say "yes" and be invited to a meeting, after which he was free to attend or not to attend meetings. those recruits who did not attend regularly or at all, but did not express a desire to leave the order were called "uykuda" (asleep), but were nevertheless considered masons and included in the "enrollment list" of the masonic lodge in turkey. there were many such "recruits" in various influential positions in turkey, who chose not to abandon the order outright because they were afraid to take such a clear position against it. so one has to be a bit careful about what these lists really mean. regards, [ November 22, 2002, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: aurguplu ]

a question that comes to my mind, perhaps partially related to the topic above: when the romans conquered the greeks, they were overwhelmed and overawed by the greek culture, and adopted it almost wholesale. much that survives from classical greece survives in the form of roman copies of lost originals. the romans were seen by the greeks pretty much as turks were seen by the armenians and the greeks a thousand years later: barbarians. the turks who attempted to conquer china became chinese within two-three generations. those who attempted to conquer india likewise became indian. those who conquered russia (the mongol armies had substantial numbers of turks). survived in bulk only among the tatars, bashkir and nogai. the turks who conquered iran and who ruled it for four hundred years (the azeris) and produced the safavid and kajar dynasties are iranian in all but language. why did the same thing not happen in anatolia? why have the turks not become armenians or greeks, and allow themselves to be culturally conquered by the culturally superior armenians and greeks? anyone thought about that?

rubo, i agree with your main point (that armenia has a history), but for a different reason: if armenia were to be considered as not having a history on the grounds that it wasn't an independent state for most of its history, i.e. didn't "exist", as some might put it, then the same argument could have been used for most of the states that came into being after the collapse of the ottoman empire (including, perhaps, even turkey), in fact, most of the states of today. history is not a science. it is a humanity and by the very nature of its substance and the available resources relating to it, one is bound to make value judgments, and sometimes arbitrary ones. it has been said that there is no history, only historians. might well be true.

munzur, i am anxiously waiting for your list of ittihadists' ethnic backgrounds. i know that ismail cem is a dönme, but what is your info re tansu çiller and mesut yılmaz based upon? please let me know. regards,

Sayings attributed to the Prophet: ~ "If allegiance is sworn to two caliphs, kill the other." ara, there were no caliphs at the time of the prophet (if you are talking about muhammad). caliphate means "succession" and was invented after the death of the prophet.

quote:Originally posted by bellthecat: quote:Originally posted by aurguplu:by the way, this thread was about turkey's eu membership, we seem to have lost the thread, don't we? Before we return to it, Ali, could you answer my question about where you found those "signs of improvement" showing that the plight of Armenian buildings in Turkey is improving?the "signs of improvement" did no specifically refer to armenian monuments, but to some greek churches/other monuments (in the marmara and aegean regions) that were in a gutted state when i had first seen them almost ten years ago, and that are being cleaned up today. i had thought the same could logically be applied to the armenian monuments (i may be wrong, of course). i have not travelled extensively in the eastern portions of turkey, where most armenian monuments are/were.

thanks rubo. i would like to have your comments if you read the touryan-miller book. i am compiling my own (received the book this friday and just finished reading it over the weekend). also, i am a bit disappointed with redgate's "the armenians" from blackwell's publishers, as i had said in the relevant thread. i am looking for a one volume history (preferably written by an armenian) which is more matter of factly in style, and for god's sake, has a decent chronology from centuries b.c. to the present day (otherwise it's easy to get lost in three thousand years of history, especially if you have no former exposure to it, or have a probably distorted one). i was going to try hovhannissian (the two-volume edition) but apparently 1) the first volume is not available, 2) the thing is horrendously expensive and 3) no second-hand copies are available. also, this weekend i made a rather curious discovery in a bookshop in istanbul which is now part of my library: the battle of sardarabad by kajaloff. interesting reading. i am currently building a library on things armenian, with armenian and pro-armenian, turkish and pro-turkish and apparently neutral stuff is going to be there. the only serious problem is that the things are so very expensive, especially the older stuff. cheers,

maybe a history of armenians is a better working title than a history of armenia. the notion of armenia has been subject to changes and frequent and long lasting submergations throughout history, but the notion of armenian identity has been relatively constant, if i am not mistaken: it may therefore make more sense to write a history of the people than the place. what do you think?

by the way, this thread was about turkey's eu membership, we seem to have lost the thread, don't we?

Tb, by talking about 25-30% kurds in turkey, I am referring to those who describe themselves as kurds and speak kurdish to various degrees, and the further east you go, the more this means "household language". There was a secret poll in 1991 prior to demirel's prime ministry. It emerged that there were 17 million Kurds at that time in Turkey. At the time the population of the country was 55 million, ,if I remember correctly. 17/55: 0.31 (i.e. about 1/3). How did this happen with all the assimilation campaign? Very simple: children! The Kurdish rate of increase is about 5 times that of Istanbul, for instance. This is partly the result of the economic and social realities of the region, but also partly the result of the resistance to the assimilation campaign. The Russians also had an assimilation campaign against the Muslims in the Soviet Union, it succeded to a certain extent in that language retention rates dropped to below 50%, but birth rates increased in relatiation. So in brief, one fourth to one third of our population is Kurdish. Realpolitik and "the art of the possible" are two very different things. I am beginning to believe that you are sincere in your disingenuousness. How was that Sip? You may be right, I am not a political scientist, and might be using the term not very accurately. What I mean by realpolitik is that I approach the subject as a problem that needs to be solved, and its solution will be possible by You are saying it as if I have asked you to do these things. If that is the kind of straw-man you had to come up with, my positions must have been quite valid. No I am not implying that you have. In fact, no-one has asked me to do anything, I am doing what I am doing out of my own accord. But I fully realise that if I want to do something constructive in this issue (like in any other issue) I have to look at the issue on the one hand and my powers on the other. I am personally not wounded a bit by the lack of recognition by Turkey, or apology. Many Armenians are by their own declaration, and I can only agree with and symphatise with that. Please bear in mind that I am interested in finding a solution that is acceptabe to the majority on both sides of the divide, and not specific individuals. However, I would very much love to see Turkey evolve to a level where those things would come naturally, not only for Armenians, but for the Turks as well. I have zero interest in achieving those superficial results by realpolitik. And I would expect sensible Armenians as well as sensible Turks would think along the same lines. If you are going to wait for Turkey to evolve to that level naturally, you will probably have to wait until the Turkish GNP reaches 10,000 USD in terms of purchasing power parity, until much of the country is online, until the Turks shed their old fears that everyone is trying to dismember them, until the Cyprus and Kurdish problems are solved one way or the other, and the results have sunk in and accepted by the Turkish population, i.e. for about another quarter of a century. The common ground that is worthwhile to find will be found when the Turkish population slowly but surely evolves sufficiently. If Turkey were under a quasi-colonial rule as Germany and Japan were at the end of WWII, some "acceleration" of the process would be practical, desirable, and welcome. But it is not. I agree, but as I said, that's gonna take longer than desired. Turkey is not and has not been under quasi-colonial rule in history (though our current relationship with the eu and the usa, but especially the former, is a bit reminiscent of that), and although eu pressure has rsulted in the acceleration of some processes, it also runs the risk of creating a backlash in the population as it is forced upon them by people who do not make much of an effort to conceal the fact that they would rather see turkey dismembered rather than help her improve. The prerequisite enlightenment for a true resolution simply cannot be achieved by Machiavellian negotiations. TB, are you sure we ae talking about the same thing? States are not moral creatures, people are. Your arguments are fully valid when it comes to people's approach to the question, but states just don't function like that. And it is not a question of enlightenment as far as the state is concerned, for the state knew and knows about the true nature of the question and its moral implications, anyway. The facts don't suit it so it is barring the entire population from getting to know more about it, and those who know, from expressing themselves. The state is aware of the fact that they are merely postponing and not eliminating the inveitable, but they would keep doing that until the time when they perceive that the losses incurred from such a recognition are offset by the gains made from it. I won't bite that bait. And what are you going to do? Deny it? I have previously acknowledged the difficulty of expressing truly relevant and truly enlightened viewpoints from your position. And I said I would understand it if you became silent because of it. However, there is much "sneaky" education one can do without breaking the rules. I have spoken too much to be silent about it and expect to get away unscathed. And there is no point in anything sneaky: the basic facts, the points of conflict, the hidden agendas, the ulterior motives, the this and that of this issue have been so overworked over the last century that there really is nothing else to be gained by either side in anything sneaky. It's time to speak out. Also, I am not good at sneaky things. I am blunt. Less glamorous perhaps, but the only thing that can be done. Turks need to learn the basic vocabulary of enlightened social thinking and commentary before arriving at the "common ground". I am sure there are Turks who know that, I may not be one of these as my area of expertise is historical linguistics and not sociology. However, if you are referring to basic civilised social thinking and commentary, I do not think I am particulary deficient there (and cannot say the same thing for all the members who post in this forum). After some reflection, you may become one of those "teachers", without getting entangled in the Armenian issue per se. I don't pretend to become a "teacher" in any field where I do not have the requisite formation. The Armenian issue is on my agenda because I see it as shackles on the feet of my nation that it needs to get rid of, which will not happen with the attitude that has prevailed until now. I do not deny that I also find it a moral obligation as a human being to face the issue squarely and call a spade a spade, but one person's, a thousand person's, or even a million person's doing so will not change things unless and until the state does. My anonymity has nothing to do with the subject. I am not pretending to be a hero. And when I am a coward, I am so for the benefit of others, not mine. In any case, who I am is irrelevant. I am not suggesting you to endanger your life or well-being. However, I am suggesting the "art of the possible". Tb, you have to be physically here, living here, being exposed to what I am exposed to to comment on these points. You are not. You are comfortably sitting on your armchair miles away from here and can say what you want knowing full well nothing's ever gonna happen to you.

i have just received "survivors: an oral history of the armenian genocide" by donald & lorna touryan-miller. i would like to know whether anyone has read it, and if so, what they think of it, and whether there are any other books on oral history of the ag they know about. [ November 15, 2002, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: aurguplu ]

quote:Originally posted by bellthecat: quote:Originally posted by aurguplu: To the best of my knowledge, no armenian church is being destroyed today. the bulk of the destruction took place between 1915-1923, and continued until about the 1970s. since the 1980s, actual destruction more or less stopped and as far as i know in the 1990s some reversal has begun. Ali, your knowledge is nothing to boast about on this subject. I am curious as to where you get your information. There is barely a single Armenian church that is protected from destruction and, far from diminshing, the rate of destruction is increasing. With maybe a dozen exceptions, I expect that there will be almost nothing left within a decade. Steve i live in this country, travel around, and revisit places i first visited years ago. i have not been able to do so much for the past four years, but until then, i kept seeing some signs of improvement here and there. i don't deny that some destruction may still be going on, but there is some reversal as well.

tb, i shall address all of the points you have raised in time, but shall address a few here: 1. the kurds are not 10% but about 25-30%. so if this was a successful assimilation campaign, what would it be like if it weren't? for your info: there are probably 21 million kurds in turkey today, more than at any time in history (in fact, the entire population of anatolia was never much above 24 million in preindustrial times). so much for your "successful" assimilation campaign. 2. realpolitik versus morality: why do i stick to realpolitik rather than morality? simple: i am interested in positive results for both sides of the conflict. the genocide is many things: it is a crime, it is a tragedy, it is an example of man's inhumanity to man, it is a bitter lesson, etc. etc., it is also a practical problem to be solved. i cannot undo the crime. i cannot bring back the dead. i cannot uncry the tears, i cannot erase the memories, etc. etc., but if i can find enough people on both sides i can contribute to the eventual recognition of the genocide and thus, partial healing of the wound. as many armenians have expressed, genocide recognition and apology are key to the healing of the armenian psyche. we opened the wound, we have to help heal it. here is a bit of the morality you were asking, if you know what i mean. but to get both sides to find common ground - for there will be no recognition unless and until there is common ground - you have to do some practical work, and that involves realpolitik, tb, not morality. states have always been products of heinous crimes, and the turkish one is neither the first nor the last in that respect. the winners of this world, the bosses, have not been bosses by following moral codes. and i am not a boss in my country. i have to play by the rules and flex them as much as i can without breaking them. if i break them, they can break me back. you see? i am walking a very tight rope. it's easy to post your stuff from wherever you are, but i am posting mine from here, and with my real name and not my nickname. come post from turkey with your real name if you dare and then we'll be talking, man.

quote:Originally posted by MJ:Ali, I should admit that I am touched by your concern for Armenians... you would find it easier to believe that i am curious rather than concerned, wouldn't you?

quote:Originally posted by Twilight Bark: quote:Originally posted by aurguplu:a turkish jaw drops in amazement... Why?The fact that I am often irritated by your realpolitik talk and (perhaps unintended) lack of sincerity does not mean that I wish the Turks ill. To the contrary, my position on this issue is entirely consistent with the rest of my positions. quote:turks have neither the power nor the inclination to conquer anything anymore, besides, europeans are not weak, either. it's over. I was referring to something like a "forced marriage". As for the desire to conquer, I have to disagree. Just read the colorful sheets of cellulose that pass as "newspaper" in Turkey. A soccer team doesn't just win a game in a european city, they "conquer" it. A succesful concert by a Turkish singer in a foreign city is nothing short of a "conquest". The culture of conquest is still very much embedded right under the surface.And the inclination to absorb, assimilate and grow bigger as a desirable end in itself is very much alive in the Turkish culture. In fact, that facet has been emphasized and nurtured by the Republic since its foundation. tb, 1. i stick to realpolitik because it is real, not necessarily because i like it so much. 2. i don't want to get into yet another row about my sincerity, but it must have been obvious by now. of course, having opinions that differ from yours and arriving at different conclusions from the same set of data are not to be interpreted as insincerity, i hope. 3. no, tb, your past postings and the present one are not entirely consistent with one another. but o.k., i accept the present one. 4. to quote the trash that passes for press in turkey, especially the sports and magazine pages to fathom the turkish psyche on the eu, well, really, tb, you can do better than that, can't you? And the inclination to absorb, assimilate and grow bigger as a desirable end in itself is very much alive in the Turkish culture. i think that is very much alive in many cultures. britain and (especially usa) certainly have it, as do russia and in a different fashion, germany. all nations that were once big and mighty tend to dream of the "good old days" and might have some ideas in the back of their minds to get big and mighty again. the thing is, most people are aware of practical and impractical ideas, as are we. do you really think that turks are so stupid as to seriously contemplate any "conquest" in the military fashion in europe? In fact, that facet has been emphasized and nurtured by the Republic since its foundation. you are grieviously wrong there. that facet has been crushed, erased, polished to extinction and generally made to disappear. we could have gotten some of the aegean islands after the wwii (they had been under italian rule), and we didn't bother. özal's chief of staff had resigned when he discovered that he was made to sign blank sheets of paper onto which were later typed offensive orders during the gulf war (özal was contemplating mosul and kirkuk, and the military was telling loudly that we couldn't get there). you flunked that one, tb.

the above discussion between arpa and hagarag makes me wonder. what will happen to the armenians after turkey recoognises the genocide, and does most of the things armenians want it to do, especially the diaspora?