THOTH

I wrote this critique of McCarthy several years ago. Hope it helps. In his book “Muslims and Minorities,” Justin McCarthy attempts to prove that the population of Armenians was less than that which could have supported the European and Armenian figures of approximately 1.5 million killed by the (Young) Turks in 1915, and that Armenians were clear minorities in the Eastern provinces. It might be easy to assume he is correct on both counts if one accepts McCarthy’s presentation at face value. However, under a bit of scrutiny (and by careful review of McCarthy’s own notes) it is clear that his calculations are not sufficiently supportable to dispute the popularly accepted number of Armenian deaths. On the subject of Armenian relative population in the east perhaps he is correct – but to a much lesser extent than he proposes. Certainly, the deliberate policy of settlement of Muslims into Armenian areas during the preceding centuries and the outflow of Armenians during the 19th and early part of the 20th century (to escape harassment, excessive taxation and massacre, etc.) did result in a shift from majority Armenian population to majority Muslim – and this the Ottomans further massaged by gerrymandering of political boundaries. In fact, however, there were still significant populations of Armenians in the vast majority of these areas. Its interesting that McCarthy specifically denys that the Ottomans practised settling of Muslims into the Armenian areas as this is a widely accepted fact and was certainly deliberate Ottoman policy. This denial and other McCarthy data interpretational irregularities (and omissions) point to his deliberate bias and attempt to distort the available information to support his politically motivated contentions. McCarthy attempts to cast doubt on the generally accepted number of Armenians reportedly killed (1.5 Million) by the Ottoman Turks during 1915 by claiming that the total population of Armenians in Anatolia were in fact lower then the accepted number killed. An examination of his data clearly demonstrates that he fails in this task. McCarthy seeks to discredit the population counts of the Armenian patriarchate – which are normally been considered as the most accurate Armenian population figures kept at the time. In fact, as demonstrated here, he indirectly shows them to be much more accurate than the proven inaccurate and obviously biased Ottoman population “counts.” It is particularly interesting that the Ottoman and Armenian figures were compatible in areas of western Anatolia where Ottoman control was the greatest (and there was no issue of a potentially independent Armenian state). Here the Ottoman figures were deemed most accurate (even by McCarthy) and, in fact, they nearly match the Armenian figures. Yet in the east, where the Ottomans were concerned with Armenian nationalism and possible European support for an Armenian State, the Ottoman figures for numbers of Armenians were much, much lower than the Armenian counts. First, consider that there should be no reason why the Armenian figures would be accurate in the west but inaccurate in the east. Secondly, there are plenty of reasons (deliberately and inadvertently) why the Ottomans would severely undercount Armenians in the East. The first is of course political motivation – to attempt to discredit the idea of an Armenian nation-state. Secondly, the Ottomans had very tentative administrative control over a large percentage of Armenians in the East, who for all practical purposes ruled themselves under the millet system – where religious communities were granted a certain amount of autonomy to rule themselves within the overall Ottoman system. Many of these Armenians of the east had a centuries long history of independence and they had no wish to be counted (for taxation purposes or for other reasons) and they certainly did not cooperate in such. Additionally, it is quite obvious that the Turks did not wish to count many of these Armenians either (most of whom, they had some difficulty collecting taxes from anyway). It is always difficult to count people in developing areas, where communications and infrastructure are not good. It is possible that Kurds and other nomads in the east were also significantly undercounted, but, combined with the political motivation (which McCarthy amusingly discounts without proper explanation), it is apparent that this is exactly what occurred. This becomes more obvious once one considers that the Armenian-derived figures were shown to be reasonably accurate in western Anatolia – where no Ottoman political motivation or physical difficulties prevented full counts. It is also interesting to note that the European intelligence agencies developed figures that much more closely matched the Armenian figures and not the Ottoman ones. Obviously they wanted the most accurate counts and they either independently derived figures that agreed with the Armenian counts or they used the Armenian figures, trusting them more than the Ottoman ones. Either way, the conclusion is the same, and McCarthy’s attempts to prove otherwise ring hollow and biased. The following consists of excerpts from “Muslims and Minorities” which illustrate some of the points made above: “Population registers were the basis of all Ottoman government population statistics.” “Like all population records, the Ottoman population registers contained errors.” “The Ottoman population records on the Anatolian Muslims became reliable.” (Note: even this is very much disputed and is in fact self-contradicted by McCarthy, although perhaps they were improved over prior counts – however they were certainly never entirely reliable.) “long before those on minority populations.” “The overwhelming inaccuracy of the Van data leaves no choice but to draw the correction factors used on the Van population from other sources.” “Since no major Armenian population survived in Anatolia at the time of the modern Turkish Republican censuses, it is impossible to compare the [Armenian] Patriarch’s data to more modern material.” “There were indeed Armenians killed in the troubles of 1895-6, but not even the most exaggerated count of mortality records such a loss for the entire Ottoman Empire.” (McCarthy discounts Armenian losses in earlier massacres and claims Armenian exaggeration of both their own numbers and losses without any proof or demonstrated knowledge of such.) “It is doubtful that the Ottomans, suspicious as they were of Armenian community action and publicity, would have allowed the type of massive collection and checking of data necessary for such records.” (Is McCarthy denying the existence of the millet system and minority communities being allowed to take care of their own? Additionally, the Ottoman’s were often in no position to deny such, and as the collection was done as part of the church functions this was not interfered with by the Ottomans. Once again, McCarthy’s “conclusions” are self serving and biased) “Detailed census and registration figures in a statistically underdeveloped area like the Ottoman Empire are usually somewhat incorrect due to undercounting, but the undercounts can be corrected.” (This later point is the basis for McCarthy’s figures -McCarthy’s “correction factors” – which are not in fact the actual counts as McCarthy would have us believe. By his own admission we can see that counts of Armenians were more likely to be purposefully or otherwise undercounted as compared to Muslims and were much less accurate because the degree of co-operation with and control by the Ottoman authorities was much less in Armenian areas. Additionally, as McCarthy in fact points out, there were many factors for less accurately counting Armenians versus Muslims – such as the need to more accurately count Muslims for conscription purposes, etc. In any event, it is obviously very difficult to accurately count people in areas not under full administrative control, particularly when those people may not have been interested in being counted. Furthermore it is also clear that the Ottomans were very interested in portraying the Armenians as a more minor population than they actually were to discourage Western advocacy of an independent Armenia. Thus, they had much incentive to report less Armenians than there actually were. This motivation cannot be discounted, and McCarthy does just this thing: taking two pages to justify why, in his mind, the Ottomans were not deliberately undercounting Armenians. These justifications ring hollow and at best are speculation on the part of McCarthy – biased speculation. Even many of McCarthy’s examples contradict his conclusions. “…in the two eastern vilayets the level of undercounting of Armenians was considerably greater than that of Muslims.” Certain European accounts… “give…accurate indications of the large number of Armenian churches and schools in an area such as Siirt Sancagi of Bitlis Vilayeti that officially (in the Ottoman counts) listed few Armenians, thus providing an indication that the Armenian population of Siirt was undercounted.” “A central assumption made below is that the misreporting of age and sex for Armenians was approximately the same as for Muslims. Until extensive archival research has been done, there is no way to prove this assumption.” Sivas Vilayet/Eastern Anatolia: “This was the area of poorest Ottoman administrative control, poorest statistics, and the greatest divergence between Ottoman and Patriarchate statistics. Sivas, while still fairly far removed from the seat of central Ottoman government, was clearly much advanced statistically over Bitlis, Van, or Mamuretulaziz.” “Ottoman figures for the Armenian population of Sivas were very close to those of the Armenian Patriarchate.” (Is he contradicting himself here?) The Ottoman records, as their collection methods improved, counted Armenians as a greater proportion of the Manuretullaziz population than they had previously done. (This is an indication of much room for error as we can see.) The Ottoman figures for Marmuretulaziz were considerably better than those of Cuinet, who made large-scale errors in enumerating the Armenian population of Harput Kazasi. The decision to use Ottoman statistics is based solely on their proven relative reliability, and on the proven unreliability of the Armenian statistics. (Note: his basis for this is his own conjecture regarding how each set was compiled and not direct evidence.) Intellectually and statistically, this is not a completely satisfactory approach… (At least he admits this, although it is buried in the book, which is presented with a falsely authoritative demeanour.) The undercounting of the Armenian population in Diyarbakir Vilayeti was approximately the same as that of the Diyarbakir Muslim population. (How can he claim this with any certainty at all? In fact there are many, many reasons for a greater undercount of Armenians, which he discounts on principle without evidence). Ezurum Vilayeti: McCarthy argues that the Ottomans paid closer attention to this area than others and that Armenians had been a much larger percentage but had “migrated” to Russian territory. He indicates that his “correction factor” that he uses may not be valid here, but, nevertheless, he uses it just the same (and this inconsistency, like others here, gets buried in the data). Van and Bitlis: ...neither one of which has completely reliable Ottoman published statistics. (But he does claim Armenian figures are over-counts. How could this be known if the Ottoman figures are unreliable?) He does add, however, that there will always be a great deal of uncertainty about these populations (which he adds to by publishing unverifiable, concocted figures and discounting the Armenian counts). The Ottomans knew that they had undercounted [minority] populations in Van and Bitlis and commented on this fact in published and secret documents… the registers of Muslims were improved. The registers of non-Muslim population were not significantly improved... Armenian men were also significantly undercounted (in addition to women and children – a practice which McCarthy admits was normal). There were more Armenian schoolchildren listed in Siirt than in Bitlis or Mus even though the (Ottoman census) listed much larger (Armenian) population numbers in the latter two sanjaks. (These indicate unpredictable unreliability of the figures. McCarthy then justifies the use of [his own low] estimates in these cases as he admits the reported figures are unreliable. Also note: McCarthy admits that official counts indicated a substantially less Armenian presence in these areas than what was thought to exist – so why would the counts elsewhere be any different? It is for sure that McCarthy only admits this in this case because the Ottoman figures can be proven wrong. Where they cannot be proven wrong, he uses them. Just because they cannot be proven wrong does not mean that they are correct, and every indication is of greater undercount of Armenians than that of Muslims. In every instance where this can be proven, it is the case. Thus, can it not be likely elsewhere as well?) “… other indicators also point to an undercount of Armenians and other Christians in Van.” (His rationale for this - the emigration of Armenian males [what about the rest of the family?] - the extreme measures McCarthy takes to justify why these undercounts and discrepancies are an aberration and not the norm is almost comical.) The military exemption tax paid by Van non-Muslims in 1313 indicates a greater non-Muslim population than does the population records. Ottoman statistics indicate that the Ottoman government was gradually improving its counts of Muslims in Van Vilayeti but that the enumeration of non-Muslims was improving little. The Muslim population, as recorded, would have had to be increasing three times faster than the non-Muslim population. This was impossible (note: perhaps less were being massacred). …the assumption made when beginning to analyse the Ottoman data on Van Armenians was that the undercounting of Van Armenians would be of the same magnitude as the undercounting of Muslims. By every experiment and test, this did not prove to be the case. Cilicia: While by no means completely accurate, the Ottoman figures can be corrected. (Can they really be? Who really is to know? By what methodology can this truly, accurately be done? Once you “correct” them, do they still qualify as “census” figures? Or one’s own estimates – just as the figures he critiques – in fact the Armenians Patriarchate figures may not be “estimates” but actual counts following birth, baptismal, and death records kept by the church). “It was in the provinces closest to central authority that Ottoman and Armenian estimates of Armenian population most closely coincided.” (In fact he shows that the Ottoman figures were greater than the Armenian ones in some cases. Does this not seem to indicate that the accuracy of the Armenian figures in the Eastern provinces may have been more accurate than the government figures? If they were shown to be accurate in the areas where government control and administration was strong and counts were good, could it not be possible that the Armenian figures were good in the areas of less government control – and that there were far more Armenians than the Ottomans were admitting to? This seems to make some sense, does it not?) “There can be no doubt that Ottoman figures on Armenian population in eastern Anatolia were somewhat mistaken, as were Ottoman statistics on eastern Anatolian Muslim population. It must be asserted, however, that…Ottoman statistics did not selectively discriminate against Armenians.” (It seems to me that if we look at these discrepancies closely they did just that. Thus McCarthy’s methodology, by his own, fine print admission, is flawed and biased against the Armenians in his totals. It seems that European intelligence sources agree more with the Armenian figures. Why would this be so if the Ottoman figures are the more accurate as McCarthy contends?)

OK here are a few you'll like: One day my housework-challenged husband decided to wash his sweatshirt. Seconds after he stepped into the laundry room, he shouted to me, "What setting do I use on the washing machine?" "It depends," I replied. "What does it say on your shirt?" He yelled back, "University of Oklahoma." And they say blondes are dumb... _______________________ A couple is lying in bed. The man says, "I am going to make you the happiest woman in the world" The woman says, "I'll miss you..." _______________________ "It's just too hot to wear clothes today," Jack says as he stepped out of the shower, "honey, what do you think the neighbors would think if I mowed the lawn like this?" "Probably that I married you for your money," she replied. _______________________ He said - Since I first laid eyes on you, I have wanted to make love to you really badly. She said - Well, you succeeded. ______________________ He said - Shall we try swapping positions tonight? She said - That's a good idea... you stand by the ironing board while I sit on the sofa and fart. _______________________ He said - What have you been doing with all the grocery money I gave you? She said - Turn sideways and look in the mirror ______________________ Q: What do you call an intelligent, good looking, sensitive man? A: A rumor _______________________ A man and his wife, now in their 60's, were celebrating their 40th wedding anniversary. On their special day a good fairy came to them and said that because they had been such a devoted couple she would grant each of them a very special wish. The wife wished for a trip around the world with her husband. Whoosh! Immediately she had airline/cruise tickets in her hands. The man wished for a female companion 30 years younger... Whoosh...immediately he turned ninety!!! (Tee hee!) Gotta love that fairy! __________________ AND THE BEST ONE YET... A WOMAN'S PERFECT BREAKFAST: * She's sitting at the table with her gourmet coffee. * Her son is on the cover of the Wheaties box. * Her daughter is on the cover of Business Week. * Her boyfriend is on the cover of Playgirl. * And her husband is on the back of the milk carton ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - A PRAYER.... Dear Lord, I pray for Wisdom to understand my man; Love to forgive him; And Patience for his moods. Because, Lord, if I pray for Strength, I'll beat him to death.

Not only that - you drummed him out of the forum....if not a homophobe then just what are your motivtions...jealousy?

Of course Sev-Marde - your both a thinker and someone with a heart...most young single folks I don't think can really relate to or understand what it is like to have a family of one's own - the responsibility and the love. Most young single folks (and older ones as well) tend to be very self-centered to the extreme and think only of their own immediate needs - me me me...but there is much more to life then that. I'm glad that you are different. And it was very special of your father to share those thoughts with you. ANd yes - as my children go older it may become less of a fear and turn into more of a selfish thing...as I will desire to play with grandchildren and be a super special someone to another little one/ones all over again (and this time with no diapers to change, homework to help with, breakfasts, lunches and dinners to fix, pick up after etc etc etc...)

My biggest fear is that I might not survive and be around for my family.

Yeah Sasun - vote rigging is Ok - and all sorts of other stuff...but when it comes to a fine forum member expressing their opinions...well....I think your a homophobe - thats what it is.... ..Isn't it? Admit it now...

Vegas or Atlantic City?

Don't be so sure that you have the monopoly on such!

David could you please re-phrase the question...stated as it is, well, were just wondering...you know...and BTW - has your daddy talked to you about the birds & the bees yet? ...just trying to gauge at what level our responses to your question need to be pitched...

LOL look Dan...I fit the profile dude...I'm the choice...thats just all there is too it...sorry to hurt your feelings...I like you (and aparently Extra and Skittles do too)...but really now...you've got too many issues...i mean even you should be able to admit this - no? So i'm doing whats best for the forum...I'm claiming the title....LOL

Armo77 - I would really like to see you prove that any "hatred" is involved in these postings by Stormy. Let me just say - I love my country dearly (USA) and it is the nation of my family, my children, my friends...all that I basically know...and to me that is all the more reason to strive to make it a better place - and to hope for more in regards to our foreign policy and actions - as I know we can do better then we have been. Do you really think that all that is done by the US is purely good - that there is no room for improvemetn? That mistakes haven't been and aren't being made? etc etc Please don't be so naive OK.... I don't know about you - but I find many of our actions and many of our policies (interanl and external) to be down right embarrasing...and I know that we can do much better...much like George Lucas latest Star Wars films...I watch them - in awe of the special effects....but the scripts and plot lines make me cringe - and I always think - If i had that kind of money I could certainly do better...

yeas always...and you don't do tot badly yourself if I must say so...(oh BTW - vote for me...LOL)

Great list BTW! Almost makes me wish i were a gal! LOL (well not...but Ok...no problem..) anyway though well - this has certainly convinced me the benefits of being a guy...far from being a negative...I mean this one can really make your day sometimes!

Yeah - that was my approach (but apparently not what the proff was after - at all)...and in the end my paper didn't so much advicate as present various sides and say you can judge for yourself - ro an argument can be made either way etc (anbd at the time I was dead set [sic] against the death penalty..where I have somewhat more mixed views now - thoguh still generally against)...the proff also didn't like that I used quotes/references from Monty Python in the paper either..such as one I recall having to do with the fact that the US would likely retain the death penalty for some time to come so i said: "so you better get used to the idea" (and referenced it to Monty Python) LOL I also did a paper in the class where we had to write our own obituaries - and part of this was to teach us to write in the past tense or some such - and/or to keep the tenses coinsistent - don't remember. So i took it as a challange and wrote in in multiple tenses (which was Ok since I presented myslef as a time traveller reading my obituary in the future after my death)...got an "A" on that one....anyway - always pushing the limits...just my way...

Dan - my paper was supposed to strictly be an advocacy thing...oh well...

I have always had great skeptisism regarding the death penalty. So much so that in a college writing class when i was randomly assinged to write a paper to convince people to support the death pentalty I could not do it without presenting both sides - thus i got a "D" on the paper and it ended up bringing my overall final grade down to a "B". I fully understand those who say that death should be the penalty for henious crimes - and that those who are properly convicted of such are deserving of death. Where I have a problem is with the State making this decision. If the State is wrong - there is no accountability. And there are certainly mistakes made...and everyone should be aware that there is a history of racial bias (in the US) for such...making this penalty dubious from that aspect. What i propose is that if one is convicted and senstenced to death - that a second trial is commenced where it is also determined those who have the responsibility to enact the death be chosen - this would be friends, loved ones or whomever might be able to be shown to be affected by the crimes - AND - who agrees to the responsibility of the death. This second trial would allow the parties to again be presented with evidence of guilt - and if reconvicted - by the affected parties - then they could choose death - and they would also be the ones to enact such - to push the button or what have you. And those who did such must agree also to be held responsible in case of any mistake (so they must be sure...etc)..and if later evidence or what have you surfaces to show innocence - then those who murdered the innocnet person wold be held responsible themselves and would be tried and punished. In this way there is accountability - and it is not just some faceless state entity making the decison and carrying it out. Anyway - this is how I feel.

Get plenty of sleep, know your stuff, be relaxed...and good luck...also don't worry - you know your capabilities...and your Armenian - there is no obstacle that can't be overcome - you'll do fine...don't fret it!

For most things yes - I forgive, forget etc no problem...but there are sometimes things that hit me deeply for which I never forgive - or only after a long long time. I can think of several specific instances of this. One - is even not my grudge at all per - se - but my father's...and I will hold it likely intil i die - as he did...regarding his brother - who hurt him so very deeply - that he never would talk to or about him again - after they had been very close. I've had similar as well - with cousins of mine - both whom I had been very close to - one who was (and now again is) like a brother to me. I had asked him a favor - an important think that surrounded the birth of my second child. And he refused to assist - for selfish reasons. I did not talk to him for perhaps two years - when, as I said we had been very very close. Well we re now talking again - and have even taken a vacation together and see each other quite a bit - the grudge is forgotten - but I couldn't just let it go right away. And I have another cousin - who I also was once close with and whom I like very much - that i haven't talked to in several years - stricly because of the way he treated a dear friend of mine - and that when i objected and tried to talk sense into him - he ignored me. My breaking ties with him was due to my objection to his behavior and the fact that he disrespected me...though mostly the former. So for me there are things that while perhaps they are not totally unforgivable - are deeply personal enough - and I am a person of great conviction - that I cannot just brush them off lightly...

Lots of good answers! And yes - attitude is everything...how someone holds themselves - has confidence, humor etc ...no matter what the body type etc. I've known fat gals who were dour and negative etc - and ones who were upbeat and fun - and there is no doubt that the latter can be/are sexy - but the former...well...you don't even what tobe near them...anyways... And Vayri - way cool response (of course I have come to expect no less..) - i particularly liked the "intellectual chew toy" comment - love it...I've so been there babes! (ussually on the giving end...but perhaps the recieving a time or two as well [though not so bad really...I can ussually hold my own...] - LOL)...

Armo - i too live in the US and love that i do. I think there are so very many upsides to living here. Just the same - I don't blindly buy into every position that our politico's and such attemtp to stuff down our throats. And isn't dissent and questioning of our Government and actions of such a fundemental part of what our nation is all about? It certainly is for me.

OK. And seriously _ i have actully given some thought to this before....and I'm all in favor of the idea. I know of some communities where folks live communally and share in raising children and also who are more loose in regards to sexual relations between adult members. I think this is a great way to live - really - if folks can handle it mentally and emotionally. I think this concept of community is an advanced one - and frankly has great appeal to me. I also can fully see "threesome" marraiges and the like as well. I see no reason why such could not work out - again - if the right folks were involved. I certainly don't see that such should be banned or restricted. So girls...whose ready to join in the big THOTH family? LOL

I'm all in favor of this concept! LOL And while I also think that same sex marraiges may be a bit strnage - i fully understand why folks might want to legitimize their relationship - for a variety of reasons. More power to them I say.

I'm never bored...always busy, always something to do..too much to do...(I have 2 kids...)...but regardless i have to many projects/interests and what not to ever be bored...I don't even remember what being bored feels like... But sorry for you there dan...perhaps you could use your free time to learn something useful or do something worthwhile..etc etc

I used to play drums for a pick up blues band...though I wouldn't go so far as to call myself a muscian - LOL. Funny thing is we got air time on the radio right away - easy really - I was the late night DJ and we jammed in the studio and just sent it out! LOL ...much fun...

Actually this was discussed in a thread a ways back (women driving or such - don't remember)...with dear Artur...and I think the answer that we came up with was either - other men....or sheep!