Some Turkic elements in Armenian, Greek and Latin languages

[nairi]

Ali, you should know by now that Western stuff about Armenians is Turkish controlled.

 

Again, Ali jan, let me take your pain away. Armenians didn't have an alphabet before AD 401. That's why there are no inscriptions in Armenian proper. Until AD 401, Armenians used other existing alphabets, like Turks today use the Latin alphabet, which btw, an Armenian designed for you.

 

One last thing: when proto-Armenians arrived on the scene in Urartu, they integrated and ended up evolving what Urartians already had. That's why we are proud of our Urartians heritage, unlike Turks who not only do not recognize their Armenian and Greek heritage, they are doing everything to destroy it.

 

Nairi

[aurguplu]

nairi,

 

1. some western stuff is turkish controlled, but i guess not the stuff that relates to periods b.c. what turks attempt to control is mainly genocide-related stuff.

 

2. so is there armenian-language material in other alphabets before 401 ad? i didn't know that. could you please give me any reference books where i can find the stuff? (i am not challenging you, i am interested in it as a language buff).

 

3. the turkish alphabet was not designed by an armenian, if you mean the introduction of the specific turkish letters. an armenian - forgot his name - designed atatürk's signature and the calligraphy on western models (as if there could be ny other model). but the alphabet itself was the collective effort of many people, including atatürk, in which an armenian may also have played a part (there was an armenian, agop dilaçar, who did play a very important part in the language movement, for instance).

 

4. how do you know that when the armenian arrived on the scene they didn't "arrive" the way we did, and didn't do the things we did after 1071 ad? after all, your arrival suspiciously coincides with the downfall of the hittite empire (it was destroyed by the "sea peoples" of which you were one) and the elimination of urartu from the historical record. urartu was alive and well when you arrived. what happened to it that it was gone and forgotten by the christian era? and why did the language go extinct? does an entire nation give up its language out of their own accord?

 

5. you do not seem to have read much turkish stuff from after the 1970s. turks have been stressing their anatolian heritage as much as their central asian heritage, and we know full well that by genetics and culture we are more anatolian than central asian. we do not see the face of genghis khan in the mirror every morning, after all. plus we are not destroying our greek heritage at all, in fact we have been making quite a lot of money out of it since after wwii. and, what is more, the graeco-roman stuff in turkey is more in quantity, more impressive, in more places, and even better preserved than greece itself (where in greece do you have the likes of ephesus, pergamum, priene, didyma, aspendos, side etc?).

 

it is the post-byzantine greek, and armenian heritage that was really hard hit, partly by deliberate destruction and partly due to neglect. true. but that is changing too, now. and although much is destroyed, there is still enough standing to pay tribute to your past in this country.

 

and please stop referring to my "pain". i don't have one. i may have opinions that differ from yours, but that is something you must bear in a democratic forum, i guess.

 

cheers,

[nairi]

1. some western stuff is turkish controlled, but i guess not the stuff that relates to periods b.c. what turks attempt to control is mainly genocide-related stuff.

 

Ali, I think we already spoke about "academic genocide". This is part of Turkey's campaign. It's not just genocide denial. It's eradication of Armenian existence throughout history. You should know this.

 

2. so is there armenian-language material in other alphabets before 401 ad? i didn't know that. could you please give me any reference books where i can find the stuff? (i am not challenging you, i am interested in it as a language buff).

 

You may want to visit Garni in Armenia, as one example of a foreign language used by Armenians to express themselves. Matenadaran is not a bad place to start either. However, most of the proof is in your own country. Try Tigranocerta and the like.

 

3. the turkish alphabet was not designed by an armenian, if you mean the introduction of the specific turkish letters. an armenian - forgot his name - designed atatürk's signature and the calligraphy on western models (as if there could be ny other model). but the alphabet itself was the collective effort of many people, including atatürk, in which an armenian may also have played a part (there was an armenian, agop dilaçar, who did play a very important part in the language movement, for instance).

 

It was definitely designed by an Armenian named Hagop Something (I forgot. Maybe Arpa can help here). Besides, from your reasoning Turks don't exist either because they don't even have an alphabet of their own. If anyone would do archeological research in Turkiye now, they would only find Arabic and Latin writing.

 

4. how do you know that when the armenian arrived on the scene they didn't "arrive" the way we did, and didn't do the things we did after 1071 ad? after all, your arrival suspiciously coincides with the downfall of the hittite empire (it was destroyed by the "sea peoples" of which you were one) and the elimination of urartu from the historical record. urartu was alive and well when you arrived. what happened to it that it was gone and forgotten by the christian era? and why did the language go extinct? does an entire nation give up its language out of their own accord?

 

Urartu was NOT alive and well. It had considerably diminished in size and power after their endless wars with the Assyrians. The Hittite Empire fell, and Hayasas and Armens, moved East to Urartu. It has been proven that Armenians did NOT raid or colonize Urartu, because they did not have the power to do so. All this has been clearly recorded. Quit acting like your government, distorting facts just because your country is based on the culture of filthy genocidal barbarians.

 

5. you do not seem to have read much turkish stuff from after the 1970s. turks have been stressing their anatolian heritage as much as their central asian heritage, and we know full well that by genetics and culture we are more anatolian than central asian. we do not see the face of genghis khan in the mirror every morning, after all. plus we are not destroying our greek heritage at all, in fact we have been making quite a lot of money out of it since after wwii. and, what is more, the graeco-roman stuff in turkey is more in quantity, more impressive, in more places, and even better preserved than greece itself (where in greece do you have the likes of ephesus, pergamum, priene, didyma, aspendos, side etc?).

 

it is the post-byzantine greek, and armenian heritage that was really hard hit, partly by deliberate destruction and partly due to neglect. true. but that is changing too, now. and although much is destroyed, there is still enough standing to pay tribute to your past in this country.

 

Please save this propaganda for your tourists. Nobody else believes it.

 

and please stop referring to my "pain". i don't have one.

 

I can tell you're abolutely not in pain. In fact it seems to me that you're enjoying trying to convince us your distorted understanding of our history.

 

Nairi

[aurguplu]

nairi,

 

first of all please observe the general deterioration in the quality of language that you use versus my observance of a constancy in the quality of my language. i think i have the right to be addressed in the same fashion as i address other people.

 

1. so you say that turkey controls absolutely everything written about armenians everywhere on earth (save armenia, i presume)? so we control russian, british, french, german, and american scholars, universities, libraries, publishers, everyone? and so effective is our campaign that no scholar save armenian (or armenian-sponsored) ones can publish the truth? so the entire academic world on this planet regarding anatolian and armenian history is controlled from ankara? give me a break!

 

2. i have no means to visit armenia at the moment, but i would appreciate if you could direct me to internet links about the stuff in garni and matenadaran. tigranocerta i presume is dikranakert, which i recall was an armenian town near present-day diyarbakır (i i am not mistaken most of the armenian population of diyarbakır came from dikranakert. am i correct?). i didn't know that there was pre-christian armenian-language written material there. i would appreciate if you could elucidate.

 

3. i happen to be a scholar of the turkish language who had studied abroad, and unless you are going to claim that the oriental institute at oxford is run by turks, i am afraid the info i have been given on the alphabet reform is correct. mind you, i am not saying that no armenian played a part in it: agop dilaçar (very probably your hagop something) was that man. but he didn't design the whole alphabet himself.

 

also you seem to have missed the point: i don't say you didn't exist because you didn't have an alphabet of your own until 401 ad. what i said was that you were perhaps not as prominent as you think in eastern anatolia: the whole place was literate since 2000 bc, your existence has been recorded by your neighbours (who seem to have had few good words about you, but then, they had few good words for anyone, anyway, that's beside the point), but the place was run by hittites, urartians, phrygians, even greeks, romans and persians, but there is little record of an independent armenian state that controlled all or even the majority of the place called western armenia (and mind you, i know full well that that designation existed by herodotos' time and don't challenge it). it seems to me that with a few exceptions, most of armenia for the most part was ruled by other people, and we turks simply took it over from these other people. how many wars do you know of in the 11th-15th centuries between turkish and armenian armies? there are plenty between turks and greeks.

 

4. so it has been recorded that armenians did not raid or colonize urartu, they just moved in there. this must have been a rather unique event in human history, where one nation moves into another's teritory peacefully without any skirmishes, and then the other nation goes extinct, again peacefully, i presume. hmmmm... i'll check my records again.

 

5. well, tourists actually come to the place and see it with their own eyes. and we receive ten million of them every year, most of whom keep coming back. if they alone believe it, that's fine by me. it's far more reliable than the convictions of someone who hasn't even been to turkey.

 

6. i am not in pain, true, but i am also not trying to convince anyone with my distorted understanding of history. in fact, most of the time, i even don't issue grandiose statements like "it has been proven/established... no doubt" etc. i simply state all the facts that i know about a certain issue, and then challenge your position (if i disagree with it) by asking questions, which you evidently seem to have trouble answering, and therefore fly into fits of rage. i myself am perfectly calm, as you can see from the tone of my postings. i also think it is absurd to attempt to force down a version of history to people who know it not to be true. imagine me telling you that the genocide did not take place. now that's what i call distorted and absurd and shameful etc, and not my innocent postings that challenge the much-cherished but unfortunately not totally accurate positions that some of you hold.

 

i am also one of the few here who can and occasionally does (o.k. i have been a bit sloppy in this respect lately) give references, most of which (especially those relating to linguistics and archaeology) are from non-turkish sources.

 

consider.

 

[ August 15, 2002, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: aurguplu ]

[nairi]

3. i happen to be a scholar of the turkish language who had studied abroad, and unless you are going to claim that the oriental institute at oxford is run by turks, i am afraid the info i have been given on the alphabet reform is correct. mind you, i am not saying that no armenian played a part in it: agop dilaçar (very probably your hagop something) was that man. but he didn't design the whole alphabet himself.

 

Oxford is Turkish sponsored, like Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, Amsterdam and Leiden University and pretty much every other renowned Western University around the globe. Where the hell do you think the billions of dollars Turkey spends annually on propaganda goes?

 

5. well, tourists actually come to the place and see it with their own eyes. and we receive ten million of them every year, most of whom keep coming back. if they alone believe it, that's fine by me. it's far more reliable than the convictions of someone who hasn't even been to turkey.

 

My point exactly.

 

I changed my language to suit yours, as it is obvious that you are typical Turk who cannot accept the fact that your nation is the wrong-doer and in a so-called concealed fashion you pretend you do. You're not the first Turkish denier I'm having a conversation with, or as Arpa rightfully put it, a monologue with. First you learn to communicate in a civilized fashion, and then I'll go back to my initial manners.

 

Nairi

[bellthecat]

Ali, I am getting worried that as a result of being insulted by stupid comments like "your country is based on the culture of filthy genocidal barbarians" you might give up on this place as a waste of your time. Please don't!! Although you are always going to run into these morons, especially if you are upsetting their sad little pre-conceived views, there ARE people here who apreciate your words and the care and time you take to write them.

 

Refering to your comments on Urartu and Armenia, remember that:

The written language of a country may not be the same as the spoken language.

The language of the ruling elite may not be that of the majority of the people.

Language use can change over time, old ones cast aside and entirely new ones adopted.

 

For these reasons I think language is not a good method for deciding on the origin of Armenians, especially since there are clear connections between Urartu and Armenia through corresponding folk tales and customs, the retention of Urartian place names, common artistic motifs, etc. In my opinion, the very short historical time period between the end of written records refering to "Urartu" and the start of records referring to "Armenia". indicates that the majority of people within the Urartian lands were the same people being called "Armenians" less than 300 years later.

[aurguplu]

nairi,

 

1. it takes more than turkey's GNP to "sponsor" these universities, besides each of them published tons of material that confirm AG. besides as a turkish alumnus of oxfod i sadly know from personl experience that turkey does not even support turkish student organisations that organise "turkish nights" and things, let alone propaganda on any scale. all they do is pay lip service. and the "billions of dollars" that the govt spends in "propaganda", first it is not billions, second it ends up in swiss bank accounts mostly. what the govt does is restrict research facilities to academicians in turkish fields if their line opposes the turkish official line. they also occasionally hire some non-academics to produce trash. but no more than that. and no-one really gives a damn about the official turkish position in the west anyway. they all know the genocide took place (otherwise where did all this diaspora come from?) and they tolerate the turkish line just for political reasons. do not forget that neither the turks nor the armenians in themselves are of any importance either to the europeans or the americans. many of them can't even show us on a map.

 

2. no, not your point exactly: tourists travel all over the place and see 1) there is greek, roman, armenian stuff in turkey, so these people must have been here, 2) go to the east and listen to the kurds, and see more armenian stuff and obviously wonder where the people who built them are, 3) use guidebooks on turkey written by europeans, quite a few of which are on sale in turkey, and many of these refer to AG (there is even an insight guide with a full page on AG written by sevan nişanyan, a turkish armenian, who is still alive and well and working in the tourism sector). so no, not your point exactly.

 

3. your change of language to suit mine has not been succesful, i am afraid. it is obvious that you haven't actually understood my language since you tell that i don't accept my nation did wrong. and my style has always been crystal-clear about my position re the genocide: there was one, we did it, and it was wrong. how much clearer can one get?

 

i find your last line extremely impolite and end this conversation here. first you learn to read what is before you, accept opposition in a civilised manner, counter it intelligently and without insults, and apologise for your past conduct, then i can think about resuming it.if not, i can very well do without it.

[aurguplu]

tatavla,

 

1. if you don't know that your ancestors, (or that part that brought your language) came from the balkans, then you just don't know much about early anatolian history, i am sorry. and armenian being an indo-european language of the thraco-balkan type, and a relative of phrygian, is not some turkish theory but established fact which you can find in a thousand publications pertaining to the subject, none of which were written/sponsored/financed/published by anything turkish.

 

you have been given the information that you are the descendants of urartu, which is true to a certain extent, but then again, why don't you speak urartu. after all, there was a language called urartian, which was a close relative of the earlier hurrian, and probably a distant relative of georgian (kartveli) of today. it was a caucasian language. you say that you are a mixture of all these people, do you think that this mixture happened peacefully? well, we are mixture of the chinese, mongols, turks, persians, kurds, arabs, armenians, greeks, hittites, serbians, bulgarians, circassian, georgians and god knows what else, and we know full well it didn't happen peacefully. you were formed by more or less the same historical processes, only that in your case it is so long ago, and the victims of your ancestors are extinct and therefore can't speak for themselves: have you ever seen an actual urartian?

 

imagine that in three thousand years' time you go extinct, the historical record is destroyed, there is only our version of history, and there are some of your monuments still standing in anatolia, and we claim to be descendants of a mixture of central asian turks, greeks, and you armenians (which is not at all inaccuraate, actually), and own up your stuff. and there is no armenian around to tell the truth. what would that be like?

 

2. tatavla, i am afraid you have to read a bit more history. it wasn't us who called the place "turkey". it was the italians in the 12th century, in fact, even before the ottomans appeared on the scene. neither in seljukid times nor throughout the ottoman empire, the word "turk" never appears in OUR records connected with anything governmental. we never called anatolia turkey, there was no province, district, sandjak, anything that was called "turkey", "turkestan", or "turk-" anything. throughout the ottoman times the only time the word "turk" appears in any administrative context is the language. that waas called "turki" or "türkçe". that's all.

 

the europeans, on the other hand, have been calling us turks ever since we came to anatolia, and expanded. it was they who called anatolia "turkey", as you can see from the european maps dating all the way back to the 15th century (the oldest that i saw). it was they who called suleiman the magnificent "the grand turk", when suleiman himself is never recorded to have designated himself as such. it was the europeans who had thought of carving up "turkey" in the 19th century when we were trying to preserve "the ottoman empire". you know how so many "turks" learned that they were turks? when they were thrown out of the lands in europe bag and baggage on account of being "muslim turks" as opposed to christian serbs, bulgarians, greeks romanians etc. muslims, yes, but turks? they were racially european, culturally european (yes they were), nominally muslim but in most cases enormous portions of christianity had survived in a different garb, almost never spoke turkish, at least not as a household language, in many cases had no memory either of anatolia or (who did, anyway?) of central asia, called themselves " ottomans" or "muslims" and not "turks", and were still called "turks" by the christian europeans and were killed, plundered, raped, dispossessed and deported on that ground. you could see the same tragedy unfold in the balkans when yugoslavia broke up: the croats, serbs and bosnians are all slavs who speak the same language, look the same, and have more or less the same culture. when the place blew up because germany had to pay its debt to the croatian ustashe from wwii, and serbs tried to hold the place together, they justified their genocide of the bosnian muslims by appealing to the christian identity of europe and saying that "they were throwing the turk out of europe". i am sure that was the first time most bosnians ever heard that they were turks, with their slavic language, 2 metres tall stature, milky white skin, blond hair and blue eyes! but since they were being killed on account of being "turks", many of them fled to turkey, and their children who are growing up now in turkey are becoming turks, and very nati,onalist ones at that, because their parents were persecuted for being "turks", even if they themselves didn't know that they were turks!

 

this is how we are made. and this is why racial theories never really took hold in turkey. we know that most of us probably have %0.00000000001 central asian blood in our veins, and the only major aspect of culture that solidly survives from central asia is our language, but we are turks because we have been made turks by those around us, in a sense. we don't really make much of it, really, because we hae always been open. you are a german, you come to turkey, fall in love with the sun, the people (and maybe someone in particular), decide to settle, learn the language, take turkish citizenship, and there you are: you are a turk: "türk oldu". do you have something like "ermeni oldu" in armenian?

 

and the reason why we finally agreed to call the place turkey is this. what most of us have in common is that we have all been kicked out of some place else on account of being turks, and no-one is going to kick us out of here.

[nairi]

You know what I mean Steve. There's no point going into it.

 

Nairi

[bellthecat]

Nairi - I'd like to learn to speak this language called "European". Where can I get a dictionary? Or is it a language that you alone speak?

[bellthecat]

Hmmm, so it is a language you alone speak. Try to moderate your use of it, because throwing around racial insults is not going to win you any arguments - in fact, it will do the exact opposite!

[nairi]

Steve, please save your commentary for Ali. Have you seen the way he's been distorting Armenian history? Now that's what I call racial insults.

 

Secondly, Turk was and still is a derogatory term in many European languages, including English. At least I have the decency not to distort history. Not deliberately anyway. Besides, I've already apologized to Ali.

 

Nairi

[Twilight Bark]

Dear Ali Suat,

 

Here is a partial analysis of and responses to the points you raised earlier.

 

I am not sure. I already expressed my take on your motivations. No inconsistency there.

 

Your response fails by lacking logical self-consistency and moral integrity, as well as being based on an unrealistic assessment of how the dynamics of “recognition” would play out. Other than that, it is a fine response. First of all, you contradict your own thesis by implying (correctly) that there would not be a huge influx of Armenians willing to face the hardships of such a relocation, which conflicts your assertion that a genuine desire to invite the Armenians back would somehow be dangerous. Then, you wish us to believe that a public recognition and (by your admission huge) reparations by the state would not be accompanied by a wide and deep public discourse and awakening of the Turkish public, and that ordinary citizens would doggedly continue to believe the fairy tales they had been fed earlier. And yet they would go along with the “humiliation” of accepting and paying for a crime they still believe was not in fact committed. Gee Ali, are you sure you don’t want a nice bridge? It seems you are in the bridge-marketing business up to your ears.

 

The old realpolitik argument. And as usual it simply means “I really have to act like a bully and a thief; it is my nature. Sorry, it cannot be helped. So buzz off.” It wouldn’t work because the Turkish elite (not the people as you would have us believe) wouldn’t let it. Not because it cannot work for some fundamental reason. You share the same obsession with territory (and place it above all other human considerations) as the rest of the Turkish elite. Exactly what are you offering Ali? Clearing your own conscience (good for you), and some hush-money (speaking only for myself, I don’t want the money)? Is it somehow the Armenians’ duty to help you become better people (the advantages of having a less insane neighbor notwithstanding)? We have our own inept and corrupt to keep us busy for quite some time. Talk to the EU for the lessons. As for “steps that lead to ceding territory”, how much assurance do you need? After all, tolerating an independent Armenia right next to the Territories (capitalized, since it appears to be sacred in your particular brand of secular religion) is a “step” that may lead to losing those Territories one day, when Turkey is weak and preoccupied, and Armenia is strong and armed to the teeth, say in 217 years. Perhaps it is better to dissolve the source of this “risk” now? Where do you stop? As MJ repeatedly says, we are not trading territories here. We can only discuss the moral and intellectual aspects of history and cultural interactions. Let us stop pretending to be representatives of states. You are not defending “your people” here. You are defending a certain way of looking at the world; a way that I find profoundly and increasingly lacking in aesthetics, logical integrity and morality. Leave the “negotiations” to those that are authorized to do it. Or, if you want pretend negotiations, come to the table with something that Armenians would be interested in.

 

I did not say “your” crime. I said “the crime”, whose sole beneficiary is “you” (plural). You accept the crime, but do not wish to even discuss any rights whatsoever of the heirs to the stolen “property”, which you only bother remember having when someone else talks about it. Your “comparison” (and implied equating) of letting Armenians into their ancestral lands to cleansing the continents of Australia and the Americas of non-indigenous settlers is silly and disingenuous. Even if you did actually sent the small population of the relevant part of Eastern Anatola to Western Turkey, which nobody (that matters) is proposing, and gave it to Armenia as a present, which nobody (that matters) is suggesting, the country of Turkey would still be alive and well. The discussion here on this forum has never taken the tone of “you Mongols go back home”, so please stop attacking that straw-man. And the “slippery-slope” argument that you might have up your sleeve does not apply either. Greeks of Ionia were not subjected to genocide, but were rudely sent to Greece as part of a population exchange agreed by the two states. And the rest of Anatolia is largely a bunch of chameleons that have changed their identity half a dozen times; the Turkish one being the latest. Who knows, in another 1000 years they may think they are regular Vikings. Your attempt to compare Armenians to the natives of Australia and the Americas exposes more disingenuousness on your part. You do not hesitate to model your “proper” response after the behavior of aggressor peoples and states, and yet you urge us to model our response after peoples that have been solidly dumped into the “loser” category by the winners. By the time they developed enough organization, coherence and a collective “identity” the said groups had lost everything, and were at the mercy of the “winners”. That is not the case with Armenians. For all their faults, they are at a qualitatively different level of cultural development and organization (after all, they have a state that exists to represent their interests), and under no obligation to roll over and play dead. I am sure you know the Turkish proverb: “Babies that don’t cry don’t get fed”. And even the pathetic remnants of the surviving tribes in the US now have considerable sovereign rights on their tribal lands, without cleansing the whites out of the continent; not that I am advocating a “reservation” type of disgrace.

 

As for being as native as us, you are again on shaky ground. This is like devout Christians saying “We are as pagan as any pagan today; after all, all of our ancestors were pagans”. Especially for someone that defines (and is in fact obliged to define) ethnicity not by ancestry but by declaration, you appear to assign undue importance to the identity of the ancestors; an identity that you by definition betrayed and rejected. No Ali, you are not native even if your genes are 100% Anatolian. And I will not address the “Armenians are from Balkans” nonsense yet again; I already explained why it makes no sense. It is too convenient a fiction for you to listen to logic on the subject. Just stop talking from both sides of your mouth; and that will be sufficient. The Turkish identity in Anatolia antedates the Armenian one by 2500 years. That will always remain the same. In the year 100,000 AD the fractional difference will indeed be small and insignificant. Until then, resign to the significance of the 2500 years.

 

Keep your (non-existent) money, and give us the rights. The most important thing you stole from the Armenians is not their assets and properties; it is their unalienable right to live on their ancestral lands. Start with that one, and then go from there. If you cannot change your constitution, state structure, and attitudes to allow an autonomous Armenian existence in Eastern Anatolia, what exactly are you offering? Some pocket-change courtesy of the American taxpayers?

 

This is in fact a continuation and repetition of point 2 among others. Now let's assume that significant numbers of Armenians did come to Eastern Anatolia. They would certainly demand (and deserve) cultural and administrative autonomy. The current, heavy-handed, centralized Turkish state is incompatible with such needs. This is of course largely irrelevant to the utopia we are discussing, since an enlightened Turkey that wants Armenians back would in all likelihood be a decentralized state that instinctively provides plenty of local autonomy, and great cultural freedom. The point at which we actually diverge is the mechanism and timing of genocide recognition and cultural enlightenment. You seem to imply that the ruling elite would like to acknowledge the historical truth but is somehow intimidated by popular backlash. The Turkish population is quite malleable (the word “sheep” comes to mind), and it would be a matter of months for the establishment to re-educate the population, which will certainly not stage an uprising because of it. There will be a lot of shock and subsequent yelling and screaming, but that is all. After a couple of years, people would look back to the earlier state propaganda as the post-Soviet population looks at Soviet propaganda. But you in fact do not seem to wish for that to happen. The recognition and the associated awakening in Turkey are not uncoupled events, with the latter lagging behind the former by 100 years, your apparent wishes notwithstanding. As MJ tells you, Armenians will not come back to be ordinary Turkish citizens. Without cultural and administrative autonomy, the "invitation" is not sincere. And if such a state offends your "unitary" sensibilities, so be it. And if the Armenians are not treated satisfactorily on their ancestral lands, and their pleas are ignored, they might indeed express a desire for greater freedom, eventually approaching independence. You are essentially saying "We'll accept and repent for the crime, but we'll repeat it if you piss us off; so let's not get into such a situation again. Know your place, and know who's the boss." Do you really have such a dim view of your people? Do you really think they are so incorrigible? How many centuries do you need to get rid of the very arrogance that is the ultimate cause of the Genocide? As I said, if the “recognition” is not a result of a sincere and fundamental Turkish enlightenment, and is a superficial, forced gesture, it offers no benefits to Armenians. So spare yourselves the trouble, and spare the rest of the world from the deception.

 

Taking your statements at face value, you are in fact a pessimist. One that does not believe a bully state can change its ways, that the population cannot possibly be enlightened despite huge changes around them and a complete change in the ideology of their state, and only their great-grandchildren could have a hope of being tolerant of other cultures, due to being bribed and brainwashed by the new EU order. Gosh, I wonder what your thoughts are when you are actually in a pessimistic mood, Ali.

 

I certainly hope that the new Turkish generation is already capable of such evolution, given the right guidance. And with all due respect, you really do not know or understand my notions about the said concepts. However, expect them to pop into the ears of your descendants. They may even come from their own parents.

 

Twilight Bark

[THOTH]

TB -

 

You have made a very many excellent points in this latest post - points that we all should consider. I do think you are being (overly) harsh on Ali and I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the issue of Turks being 2500 years junior to Armenians in Anatolia. Yes - the fact that Armenians are no longer there is relevant (and tragic) - but the current Turkish State - comprised of the mixed enthic group of people who call themselves "Turks" is the modern state in our era that comprises the territory of Anatolia. It is the descendent of a multi ethnic (Turk led) empire that existed there (and beyond) for nearly 600 years). I (and likely you and most other Armenians here) are descended from Armenian "Ottomans" and in that regard we have a link to this culture even in addition to that of our ethnic (purely Armenian)link to the land - in fact for many of us this Ottoman background was just as or perhaps even more central to the lives of our forefathers...etc etc. What I am trying to say is that we cannot just wish the Turks away. Neither can we make the claim that the Turks of today are not Anatolians and that they do not (as well) have rights to the land. This does not obviate any claim for repatriation of (or compensation for lost) Armenian properties - but the argument that Armenians are more native then Turks in regards to Anatolia is at best an academic one IMO and of no bearing to any solution to our mutual dilemma. Otherwise of course I find your presentation impressive. Believe me though when I say that I share your tears for the abscence of Armenians from this beautiful land - where once they had reaped its fruits and basqued in its glory and made it so much more special with their contributions of art and industry and of the beauty and love of our people.

[Twilight Bark]

Dear Thoth,

If a reasoned response to his statements sounds harsh, there is not much for the conveyor of the respose to do about it.

 

It is not relevant to the "right to the land", as I indicated in earlier posts many times. You should know by now that I do not think in those terms. However, Ali is taking a "take no prisoners" approach and is trying to prove (to no useful end) that Turks are as "native" as Armenians (even though that is of no consequence, as you would agree). I am addressing his assertions on that subject in isolation from any discussion of population movements or exchanges. Self-consistency is the first test that a thought system must pass. Then would come morality. And then of course would come practicality. Ali often falls into the usual trap of bypassing the first two tests and starts celebrating the superficial appearance of "practicality" of his thoughts.

 

I hope you are not implying that such nonsense can be concluded from what I wrote.

 

Regards,

Twilight Bark

 

[ August 23, 2002, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[gamavor]

the greeks, the serbians, the bulgarians, the arabs were in the same situation as you were. they rebelled, fought, and liberated their land from our rule. have you ever heard of any turk who claimed these lands back?

 

we respect those people who can fight us the way we fought them. no matter who wins. the last byzantine emperor died sword in hand. he has my respect, even if he lost his city to me. he held on to what was his till he breathed his last. after all, none of us is immortal. he died an honourable death.

 

and look at you. your land was taken by the sword, not the pen, and you are trying to get it by the pen. what would your past heroes, those who had conquered that land from te hittites and urartians say about this? ever thought of it?

 

just as it takes money to live a life, it takes a fight to get a land. there are many people out there who are all so nice and civilised and wonderful, and work for xxxxholes, because they don't have what it takes to make money. xxxxholes do.

 

this applies to us. any reason why it shouldn't apply to you?[/QB]

 

HAAA- HAAAA- HAAAAA!

First. Turkish soldier is an oxymoron!

All of the great battles won by the Turkish army were due to large (sometimes, very large) Christian conscripts, or at best - converts. Many of the fortresses that felt to the turkish jatagan were taken by the bravery of the Serb or Other (non turkish) commanders. Armenians included.

Second. All of the above enumerated nations were not able to liberate themselves, by themselves. True, though that they tried. Neither Serbians, nor Greeks, nor Arabs, not to speak about Bulgarians whose freedom was granted by the Russians, managed to get rid of the turks. Only wide open alliances with Western help were successful, and most of the times, even if military successful the subject nations revolts were condemned by the World powers, as unfitting in their political agenda occurrences.

Third. Such alliances were impossible in the case of the Armenians. There is a song about that (Serop - chors goghm dushman). Naturally, the only way to liberate Armenia was seeking close ties with Russia. And our dignified, serious, academic-like historian Mr. Ali is crying: "But you sided with Russians, and that's why we were killing kids and women". Idiot!

[joseph]

TB,NAIRI,GAMAVOR. As i said before Ali Efendi is here with an apple in his hand,some of the Armenians in this forum beside you gays had eaten from it.I lived in JORDAN under the grand son of the Arab Hashmites that kicked the turkish army from Meka all the way to todayes Syrian northern border,i yet have to meet one Arab Muslim that have to say any thing good about the turks that rulled over them for 500 handred years,during which they tried to turkesize the arabs,jamal ***** "the butcher" that how the arabs call him hang their leaders in Damascus and Bairut exactly the way they did to our leaders on APRIL 24,If they dont want to give the lands back why then the Krabakh Armenians have to give the liberated lands back to the azaries they can compensate them say few handred years from now or when some inlightend Artsax Armenian comes to an azary forum and talk from both sides of his mouth,like our friend Ali????????.And present them an apple.