Turks Are "hospitable"?

[SanVal]

If you think the Turks are foolish or cruel for revering Ataturk, I hope you realize that they're not the only ethnic/national group in the world that reveres a historic figure who, from the perspective of other people, was a terrible human being.

 

Take the US, for example. Andrew Jackson is considered one of the great American presidents, but he was responsible for Indian Removal and the Trail of Tears of the Cherokees. I don't even need to mention Thomas Jefferson, do I? When I was in Washington, DC, I was in a group of people in which every single black person refused to visit Monticello.

 

Another example would be the Mongols. To Europeans (and to me), Genghis Khan was a barbarian, but many Mongols respect him.

 

Similarly, some Georgians are proud of Stalin.

 

Now, the Armenians. I've always thought that most Armenians are extremely hypocritical in that they don't like what the more powerful nations have done to them, but nonetheless are proud of Tigran the Great. As a human being, I don't care that he made Armenia stretch from sea to sea! He conquered foreign lands and forcefully relocated people, precisely what Armenians complain about! Let's also mention that he probably was a polygamist.

 

And, of course, some Armenians still are proud of Anastas Mikoyan. He was mostly nothing more than a yes-man, but he was a crony of one of the most evil men in modern history.

[aSoldier]

If you think the Turks are foolish or cruel for revering Ataturk, I hope you realize that they're not the only ethnic/national group in the world that reveres a historic figure who, from the perspective of other people, was a terrible human being.

 

Take the US, for example. Andrew Jackson is considered one of the great American presidents, but he was responsible for Indian Removal and the Trail of Tears of the Cherokees. I don't even need to mention Thomas Jefferson, do I? When I was in Washington, DC, I was in a group of people in which every single black person refused to visit Monticello.

 

Another example would be the Mongols. To Europeans (and to me), Genghis Khan was a barbarian, but many Mongols respect him.

 

Similarly, some Georgians are proud of Stalin.

 

Now, the Armenians. I've always thought that most Armenians are extremely hypocritical in that they don't like what the more powerful nations have done to them, but nonetheless are proud of Tigran the Great. As a human being, I don't care that he made Armenia stretch from sea to sea! He conquered foreign lands and forcefully relocated people, precisely what Armenians complain about! Let's also mention that he probably was a polygamist.

 

And, of course, some Armenians still are proud of Anastas Mikoyan. He was mostly nothing more than a yes-man, but he was a crony of one of the most evil men in modern history.

 

The only Armenian that I'm proud of is Vartan Mamigonian

[Dave]

SanVal, in many of those cases, the reverence isn't as extreme.

[Boghos]

If you think the Turks are foolish or cruel for revering Ataturk, I hope you realize that they're not the only ethnic/national group in the world that reveres a historic figure who, from the perspective of other people, was a terrible human being.

 

Take the US, for example. Andrew Jackson is considered one of the great American presidents, but he was responsible for Indian Removal and the Trail of Tears of the Cherokees. I don't even need to mention Thomas Jefferson, do I? When I was in Washington, DC, I was in a group of people in which every single black person refused to visit Monticello.

 

Another example would be the Mongols. To Europeans (and to me), Genghis Khan was a barbarian, but many Mongols respect him.

 

Similarly, some Georgians are proud of Stalin.

 

Now, the Armenians. I've always thought that most Armenians are extremely hypocritical in that they don't like what the more powerful nations have done to them, but nonetheless are proud of Tigran the Great. As a human being, I don't care that he made Armenia stretch from sea to sea! He conquered foreign lands and forcefully relocated people, precisely what Armenians complain about! Let's also mention that he probably was a polygamist.

 

And, of course, some Armenians still are proud of Anastas Mikoyan. He was mostly nothing more than a yes-man, but he was a crony of one of the most evil men in modern history.

 

I think the problem here is not "revering bad people" but rather "revering".Take Jesus, he was not just nearly perfect (maybe perfect in some eyes) but even miraculous, so easy to "revere", or Mickey Mouse, have you ever seen him doing a bad thing?So, kids love Mickey Mouse.People don´t revere reality, they revere what they wish reality was with the necessary shortcomings associated with wishful thining.The most "selfless" people tend to be the most egotistical.

[SanVal]

I think the problem here is not "revering bad people" but rather "revering".Take Jesus, he was not just nearly perfect (maybe perfect in some eyes) but even miraculous, so easy to "revere", or Mickey Mouse, have you ever seen him doing a bad thing?So, kids love Mickey Mouse.People don´t revere reality, they revere what they wish reality was with the necessary shortcomings associated with wishful thining.The most "selfless" people tend to be the most egotistical.

 

 

Good point.

 

aSoldier, I'm glad that's how you feel, but some Armenians would say differently.

[Stormig]

If you think the Turks are foolish or cruel for revering Ataturk, I hope you realize that they're not the only ethnic/national group in the world that reveres a historic figure who, from the perspective of other people, was a terrible human being.

 

Take the US, for example. Andrew Jackson is considered one of the great American presidents, but he was responsible for Indian Removal and the Trail of Tears of the Cherokees. I don't even need to mention Thomas Jefferson, do I? When I was in Washington, DC, I was in a group of people in which every single black person refused to visit Monticello.

 

Another example would be the Mongols. To Europeans (and to me), Genghis Khan was a barbarian, but many Mongols respect him.

 

Similarly, some Georgians are proud of Stalin.

 

Now, the Armenians. I've always thought that most Armenians are extremely hypocritical in that they don't like what the more powerful nations have done to them, but nonetheless are proud of Tigran the Great. As a human being, I don't care that he made Armenia stretch from sea to sea! He conquered foreign lands and forcefully relocated people, precisely what Armenians complain about! Let's also mention that he probably was a polygamist.

 

And, of course, some Armenians still are proud of Anastas Mikoyan. He was mostly nothing more than a yes-man, but he was a crony of one of the most evil men in modern history.

But then it is one thing to revere and another to revere and in fact idolise to the point where critique is not accepted and is in fact abhorred and penalised via statutes such as "offences against Ataturk" and Article 301 of the "new" Turkish penal code, which is what Quebecer mentions. Andrew Jackson may be on the $20-bill (if memory doesn't fail me), but nobody in the U.S. would get punished for criticising him or mentioning that he be removed from the bills, not even with the Patriot Act, I don't think. That is quite a difference. Actually it makes a world of difference.

[Stormig]

They are indeed very hospitable, there is no question about that.

 

They will only kick you out if you critic Ataturk, or his Turkey.

Actually, I don't see the two as relevant with each other although I share your opinion as to the knee-jerk reactions.

After all, authorities warning Madonna against wrapping herself up in a Brazilian flag in a concert or, again in Brazil, passersby - clothed in black to demonstrate their support for the impeachment of their president - booing (true story) at an unsuspecting foreigner, who didn't know what was going on and jogging in blue shorts and a green-and-yellow shirt symbolising the Brazilian flag and the supposed support for the present administration, doesn't keep Brazilians from being stereotyped as "cool," does it...?

[SanVal]

I don't think the differences between how the US government treats critics of American historic figures and how Turkey treats critics of Ataturk is indicative of fanaticism.

 

All it shows is that, in general, the US is a more democratic country. I'm sure the Turks have more severe reactions with respect to any criticisms of the government, even if they're not related to ethnic minorities.

[skhara]

Now, the Armenians. I've always thought that most Armenians are extremely hypocritical in that they don't like what the more powerful nations have done to them, but nonetheless are proud of Tigran the Great. As a human being, I don't care that he made Armenia stretch from sea to sea! He conquered foreign lands and forcefully relocated people, precisely what Armenians complain about! Let's also mention that he probably was a polygamist.

 

That's not at all hypocritical.

Edited December 11, 2006 by skhara

[SanVal]

That's not at all hypocritical.

 

 

Aside from the genocide, the reason why many Armenians resent the Turks is that they conquered our ancestors and took away their lands. Tigran the Great conquered non-Armenians, subjugated them, and forcefully relocated them to populate his capital; and many Armenians are proud of him.

 

We can also go into more detail. In those days, taking members of a conquered people captive was the norm. That was part of the loot, since conquered people were seen as no different from inanimate objects; making them slaves was thought of as normal. That's probably what Tigran the Great (or Tigran the Barbarian, the way I see it) did. My quick internet research already revealed that at least the Urartians subscribed to this practice (see usanogh.org, for example).

 

So, that's something to be proud of, but we should chastise the Turks for instituting the janissary system, for sending women to harems to serve the Sultan?

 

How is all of this not hypocritical? I'm aware that what Tigran the Great did was far from a human rights violation by the standards of the time, but why should we use the standards of savages in deciding who are national heroes are?

 

If you respond to this posting, please give reasons, and not just conclusions.

[Dave]

Aside from the genocide, the reason why many Armenians resent the Turks is that they conquered our ancestors and took away their lands.

 

If we exclude the genocide, Turkish-Armenian relations weren't any different than Persian-Armenian relations between the 16th and 19th centuries. However, nothing stops us morally to create closer relations with the Iranians.

 

How is all of this not hypocritical? I'm aware that what Tigran the Great did was far from a human rights violation by the standards of the time, but why should we use the standards of savages in deciding who are national heroes are?

 

Well, we can't really judge Tigran the Great by today's standards, because he wasn't even a Christian or a Muslim; both religions didn't exist back then. He was pagan and believed in the god of War, among many other gods. Christianity and Islam, religions of peace, are supposed to change the mentalities of people and prevent them from harming each other. This wasn't the case with the Ottoman Turks especially in the case of the Armenian genocide. So if you are to judge historic Armenian personalities, talk about those who appeared after Armenia's conversion to Christianity.

Edited December 12, 2006 by Dave

[irlandahay]

If you think the Turks are foolish or cruel for revering Ataturk, I hope you realize that they're not the only ethnic/national group in the world that reveres a historic figure who, from the perspective of other people, was a terrible human being.

 

Take the US, for example. Andrew Jackson is considered one of the great American presidents, but he was responsible for Indian Removal and the Trail of Tears of the Cherokees. I don't even need to mention Thomas Jefferson, do I? When I was in Washington, DC, I was in a group of people in which every single black person refused to visit Monticello.

 

Another example would be the Mongols. To Europeans (and to me), Genghis Khan was a barbarian, but many Mongols respect him.

 

Similarly, some Georgians are proud of Stalin.

 

Now, the Armenians. I've always thought that most Armenians are extremely hypocritical in that they don't like what the more powerful nations have done to them, but nonetheless are proud of Tigran the Great. As a human being, I don't care that he made Armenia stretch from sea to sea! He conquered foreign lands and forcefully relocated people, precisely what Armenians complain about! Let's also mention that he probably was a polygamist.

 

And, of course, some Armenians still are proud of Anastas Mikoyan. He was mostly nothing more than a yes-man, but he was a crony of one of the most evil men in modern history.

 

ataturk was responsible for slaughetring thousands of kurds, assyrians,greeks and the few armenians left in turkey. then, he tried to not only take lands that arnt his (typical turkish behaviour) but he tried to take what was left of the battered country of armenia. this man was far from a hero. sure, hitler braught germany into a world power...but at the cost of 6 million human lives.

 

i agree with you there... i dnt know much about thomas jefferson or american history for that matter and i have no interest in understanding why they got to be the way they are, so il take your word for it.

 

but for our heros: Tigran the great, he braught armenia to its first empire. sure, he moved people around, but he commited no atrocities. he moved them around because at that time it was necessary. but, he moved them to strategic areas without using pathetic excuses to send them to their deaths. wherever he went he turned destroyed cities into metropolises.

 

if you think armenians are complaining about relocation then you need to go to another april 24 protest. we complain about GENOCIDE. NOT relocation. we complain about the fact that we were used by stupid tehcir law. that our homes were destroyed, not to save us from anything, but to kill every last one of us. i dont know about you, but id rather have my house burnt and live then to be killed without compassion. even whitnessing such horrors my grandfather went through would be too much for me. can you imagine living with what you saw after?

 

Mikoyan was just following orders. you dont say "no" to the red army. communism is a weapon of mass destruction. END IT NOW!

[irlandahay]

The only Armenian that I'm proud of is Vartan Mamigonian

 

im glad you are.

 

but thats an awfully stupid comment.

 

what about monte melkonian? or william saroyan? or that boxer guy? or...

 

you really are only proud of one armenian? so why do you consider yourself armenian if your not proud of your nations accomplishments?

[Johannes]

Tigran’s Little Empire, did not last more than 25 years.

The population which he collected to settle in his Lands, turned back to their home after the battle between Tigran and Lucullus, the Roman commander.

So we had not chance to do many things, like others did.

[luhay]

There is the idea in the Western world, that Turks are a "hospitable" people. Even the pope said it after his visit to Turkey.

 

Why? Where does this idea come from?

 

 

 

 

 

Foreign tourists might be confusing hospitality with customer service. Turkish people are very hard-working and extremely customer-service oriented. I believe those visitors' experience is limited to tourist areas and resorts. Only those who have actually interacted with locals in a casual setting may be able to comment on this, but I doubt there are many tourists who choose to stay a month or so in Turkey.

[SanVal]

Well, we can't really judge Tigran the Great by today's standards, because he wasn't even a Christian or a Muslim; both religions didn't exist back then. He was pagan and believed in the god of War, among many other gods. Christianity and Islam, religions of peace, are supposed to change the mentalities of people and prevent them from harming each other. This wasn't the case with the Ottoman Turks especially in the case of the Armenian genocide. So if you are to judge historic Armenian personalities, talk about those who appeared after Armenia's conversion to Christianity.

 

 

I'm not aware of any historic facts that prove that Christianity and Islam have made people more peaceful. True, people have become more peaceful over time, but that's attributable to more experience, better communication (which has contributed to people's ability to understand and empathize with one another)higher literacy rates, and better education.

 

I don't even need to mention any examples of brutality committed in the names of Christianity and Islam because we all know they are legion (the Armenian Genocide, however, is not one of them because it was perpetrated by the secular Young Turk government). You can argue that these were committed by people who misinterpreted their religions, but there are as many interpretations of the Bible and the Qur'an as there are people.

 

There's at least one historic Armenian figure who seemed to believe that violent means justify the end: Monte Melkonian, a former ASALA member (good thing Irlandahye brought him up). I don't know enough about him to know whether he had renounced his past by the end of his life, though.

[SanVal]

Tigran’s Little Empire, did not last more than 25 years.

The population which he collected to settle in his Lands, turned back to their home after the battle between Tigran and Lucullus, the Roman commander.

So we had not chance to do many things, like others did.

 

 

Exactly. The main point that I have been trying to make (although I probably should've been clearer) is that Armenians haven't done what the Turks did NOT because Armenians are a better people, but because they couldn't. What the Turks did to Armenians and to some other people who lived under the Turkish "yoke" has less to do with any cultural idiocyncracies of the Turks and more to do with the brutal, competitive, territorial, and tribal nature of mankind. Similarly, the Republic of Armenia treats its minorities better than Turkey treats its minorities not because Armenians are nice, but because it's one of the most ethnically homogenous countries in the world and the few Yezidi Kurds and Russians who live there aren't a real threat to its political stability.

 

So, so much for Turkish, Armenian, or any other kind of hospitality. Most people of any ethnicity will be nice to you when all you are is a visitor who wants to do nothing more than bask in the sun, purchase souvenirs, and mingle with the locals. When you're perceived as a threat, on the other hand, watch your back.

[Dave]

I'm not aware of any historic facts that prove that Christianity and Islam have made people more peaceful.

 

SanVal, I didn't say that they did, I said they were supposed to.

 

You can argue that these were committed by people who misinterpreted their religions, but there are as many interpretations of the Bible and the Qur'an as there are people.

 

Doesn't matter. If the principles of a certain religion are largely based on peaceful behaviour, then that's what the followers of that religion should behave.

 

SanVal, we're not talking about what the Armenians would have or wouldn't have done if they were the most militaristic and expansionist people of the Orient. We're talking about historical facts that could not be changed regardless of any wishful thinking, "if"s and "but"s. So whether or not Armenians would have massacred Turks if they were the overlords is irrelevant to the genocide debate.

[Boghos]

True, people have become more peaceful over time, but that's attributable to more experience, better communication (which has contributed to people's ability to understand and empathize with one another)higher literacy rates, and better education.

 

Unfortunately I have to disagree. Improved material conditions have meant that Man has been able to kill his kind in an absolute unprecedented way.The XX century was the worst in history in terms of the bloodiness of wars and the number of victims.Examples abound starting with mustard gas in WW1, the nuclear bombs in WW2, napalm in Vietnam.

Europe, perceived as a very civilized place was the theater of incredible killing, and not just during the two WWars but also the Balkans about a decade ago.

 

So much for stereotypes.Some times they are based in some resemblence of veracity, in this case it is exactly the opposite.Human nature has not changed but the material conditions to exhert violence have improved dramatically.

[SanVal]

Unfortunately I have to disagree. Improved material conditions have meant that Man has been able to kill his kind in an absolute unprecedented way.The XX century was the worst in history in terms of the bloodiness of wars and the number of victims.Examples abound starting with mustard gas in WW1, the nuclear bombs in WW2, napalm in Vietnam.

Europe, perceived as a very civilized place was the theater of incredible killing, and not just during the two WWars but also the Balkans about a decade ago.

 

So much for stereotypes.Some times they are based in some resemblence of veracity, in this case it is exactly the opposite.Human nature has not changed but the material conditions to exhert violence have improved dramatically.

 

 

I somewhat agree that human nature hasn't changed. But I disagree with you that the 20th century was the worst in history in terms of violence. We know more about the 20th century because it's recent, recorded history. I'm sure that in the ancient times there was more bloodshed. Torture wasn't even considered a crime at the time. During the 1940s, what the Nazis did was at least disapproved of by most of the world.

 

Have you seen the palace stone relief sculptures of the ancient Assyrians?

 

Here's an excert from an article about their art (read it and see if you can imagine a modern government openly advocating such violence):

 

The postures and gestures of non-Assyrians in these scenes, ranging from their crouching posture to hand gestures and the disposition of their weapons, made them appear - especially to the eyes of the Assyrians viewing this art - strange, contemptible, and out of step with Assyrian values. Through the language of gesture, these images communicate the identification of intercultural difference with intracultural transgression and the subversion of Assyrian social codes. Moreover, within the context of the stories told in Assyrian narrative art, many of these strange non-Assyrian figures are shown meeting dreadful fates, ranging from capture [iLLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 2 OMITTED] to horrific mutilation [iLLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 3 OMITTED]. The internal logic of these visual stories, then, often portrays a violent death as the natural consequence of the violation of Assyrian values that these strange gestures embody. The notion of the merciless punishment of transgressions and the wisdom of conformity serves as a powerful message for the foreign visitors to Assyrian palaces, as well as the members of the Assyrian court itself.

 

I saw "Apocalypto" on its opening night (amazing movie, by the way). It reminded me of what I saw when I studied ancient art history in high school.

[Dave]

SanVal, history and historic confrontations were recorded since the advent of cuneiform scriptures. Prior to that, I don't think that humans were capable of doing anything other than hurling rocks to each other.

[Boghos]

I somewhat agree that human nature hasn't changed. But I disagree with you that the 20th century was the worst in history in terms of violence. We know more about the 20th century because it's recent, recorded history. I'm sure that in the ancient times there was more bloodshed. Torture wasn't even considered a crime at the time. During the 1940s, what the Nazis did was at least disapproved of by most of the world.

 

Have you seen the palace stone relief sculptures of the ancient Assyrians?

 

Here's an excert from an article about their art (read it and see if you can imagine a modern government openly advocating such violence):

 

The postures and gestures of non-Assyrians in these scenes, ranging from their crouching posture to hand gestures and the disposition of their weapons, made them appear - especially to the eyes of the Assyrians viewing this art - strange, contemptible, and out of step with Assyrian values. Through the language of gesture, these images communicate the identification of intercultural difference with intracultural transgression and the subversion of Assyrian social codes. Moreover, within the context of the stories told in Assyrian narrative art, many of these strange non-Assyrian figures are shown meeting dreadful fates, ranging from capture [iLLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 2 OMITTED] to horrific mutilation [iLLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 3 OMITTED]. The internal logic of these visual stories, then, often portrays a violent death as the natural consequence of the violation of Assyrian values that these strange gestures embody. The notion of the merciless punishment of transgressions and the wisdom of conformity serves as a powerful message for the foreign visitors to Assyrian palaces, as well as the members of the Assyrian court itself.

 

I saw "Apocalypto" on its opening night (amazing movie, by the way). It reminded me of what I saw when I studied ancient art history in high school.

 

As Dave pointed out recorded history is not exactly a recent phenomenon.Bear in mind that I am not arguing that the XX century was the bloodiest of all. It is a fact.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Boghos

[Takoush]

Yeah right. Turks may be hospitable to westerners when they go to Istanbul to spend their hard earned money to enjoy themselves for a few weeks and spend a great deal of money for the benefit of turkey. Then the turks are hospitable, sure; but like some people already mentioned here earlier for a short period of time only and because it is beneficial for them. But God forbid if you're there for a lengthy time or worse yet you have to stay in their prisons like "Midnight Express", or speak your mind about your rights as an Armenian like Domino already mentioned before.

 

And they are so good and hospitable that they not only annihilated several nationalities through history; but to this date they're blockading our Armenia now for almost 15 years. Yeah sure they are so hospitable it's amazing isn't it people?

Edited December 15, 2006 by Anahid Takouhi

[Stormig]

But God forbid if you're there for a lengthy time or worse yet you have to stay in their prisons like "Midnight Express", or speak your mind about your rights as an Armenian like Domino already mentioned before.

Of course, a guided tour to the Midnight Express Museum of the Republic of Turkey is a must of any visit.

[Stormig]

I think that alongside the pressing material reasons for the bloodiness, advancing technology also helps. For, aside from the 20th century, we know of the American Civil War of the previous century. Total war. It would have been even worse, in scale, if either side had the means to wreak a Hiroshima or two on the other.