Berj Posted February 20, 2001 Report Share Posted February 20, 2001 I found it necessary to raise this issue in the light of the recent shift in the character of the Genocide topic from amateur to semi-professional level. Those of you who deal with academic researches in history or related humanities are surely familiar with the writing techniques which are being applied by historians, as well as journalists, political analysts etc. However, cosidering the free involvement and the open character of this forum, and the fact that it can be used as a propaganda machine, I would like to bring to the attention of this forum's members with natural sciences' background to some sentences in Mr.Ali Suat's postings. Shortly on the techniques applied in this kind of writings. The first and formost goal of the writer is to show neutrality on the discussed issue, so as to be able to set initial favourable conditions for the possibly or obviously antagonised (depends on the final goal of the article, study etc.) part of the readers to accept his opinion. A very powerful writing tool is the method of general or detailed elaboration applied in necessary context, which can conceal or reveal important points in the logical chain of an argument. Another writing tool is the method of "inforced" focusing on true but unimporatant large amounts of text, which are aimed at flavoring the small-false-important paragraphes of the writing. Here are some quotes from Mr.Ali Suat's postings I wanted to focus on. quoteI hold an M.A. in Oriental Studies from Pembroke College, Oxford (England). I couldn’t continue my academic career in Turkey for reasons that must be clear by now, and frankly speaking I don’t much regret it: one of the things that made me sit next to the way out was the use of “Armenian” as an insult in a political discussion about Ismet Inonu. I am not a friend of Armenians, nor I am an enemy of them, I am sure they are no different from anyone else in that they have good people and bad, dishonest and honest, cowards and heroes, and I cannot associate with people who use a nation’s name as a swearword. Here is the part saying "I'm neutral". (Obviously I don't have any arguments to claim it's falseness) quote:Now we all know that a number of Armenians who had lived with the Turks and Kurds side by side and had cordial relations with them had entrusted their children with their neighbours. One still hears in territorial disputes in eastern Anatolia, when arguments get heated “after all, your grandfather was Armenian” “so what, so was your grandmother” and so on. The second fact, never mentioned aloud in Turkey, is that an enormous number of those deported, and later pronounced dead on the grounds that they failed to show up, actually survived. Given the very delicate – and potentially explosive – nature of the subject it can never be discussed freely in Turkey at the moment, but you keep hearing such things from so many diverse places in Turkey, and in such numbers, that you come to suspect that an enormous number – probably in the realm of well over a hundred thousand – of the “dead” are alive and kicking after all. Allow me to write a few lines more on this: An enormous number of the Kurdish tribes in the east – and a similar number of Turkish settlements, notably in east Anatolia, in the Taurus mountains, in and around Adana – notably Kozan -, probably in some regions of the Black Sea – in the east, around Rize, Trabzon, Gumushhane, in the west, around Kastamonu, sporadic places in the Aegean and Marmara regions, had, until recently, a very large number of men and women in their late 80s and 90s who are of Armenian origin, who (or whose families) had converted to Islam after their return from the deportations. I myself have heard from many east Anatolian Turks (less from Kurds, they don’t like to talk about it) that their grand-grandmother-father, distant cousin, or whatever, was of Armenian origin. Quite a few villages in the east are wholly of Armenian origin but Muslim now. Usually it is impossible to physically distinguish the different ethnicities from a given region in Anatolia, but it was possible to distinguish people of whatever origin who came from diverse regions. Thus, you cannot distinguish an Armenian from Elazýg (Mamuretul Aziz in Ottoman) from a Turk or a Kurd from the same city, but if you supplant that Armenian to a Turkmen tribe in the Taurus mountains, who are physically distinct from the rest of Anatolians, the physical differences are pretty obvious. Turkmens are a very strange lot physically: middle height, white skin, Asian features (high cheekbones, slanted eyes), green eyes, and brown to blond hair. They speak a more Central-Asian sounding Turkish, but their features are an interesting mixture of the Caucasian and Mongol races, and they certainly don’t look a bit like the Armenians. They are known to have saved entire Armenian villages from the deportations, and the descendants of these are still visible. Also, I heard very interesting stories from quite a few people from the localities where the deportations and killings occurred. I shall “reconstruct” the main features of them below, personal names, and place-names and other details are mine: Ersis is a predominantly Armenian town in east Anatolia. They have good relations with their Muslim neighbours. One day news of the deportations reach the city, so they prepare for it: they sell everything they could (save the immovables), convert it into gold, which they bury in several different places in and around the town before the deportations. The entire city, of course, knows where the gold is buried. Then they get deported. When the killings start, Dikran turns tail to save his own family and tells the Turks – or Kurds – that he can give them valuable info if they let him and his family escape. The Turks – or Kurds – agree. Dikran asks that he and the male members of his family be circumcised, which is done, and receives the name “Dilaver”. “Dilaver” gives the authorities the locations of some (not all) of the hoards on a map, then makes off. With his new identity, he goes back to the village, digs up the rest, and builds himself a new life as a Turk in the newly established Republic of Turkey. He and his family don’t suffer much from the cultural shock, because Turkey then has officially rejected Islam, severed its ties with the past (to the point of changing the alphabet), the mosque is all but banned, the veil, although never actually illegal, is most strongly discouraged so his wife and daughters don’t have to wear one, he can drink, do his own trade etc, and is fully assimilated into Turkish society. His children go to University, some become doctors, some engineers, some businessmen, marry Turkish women (“Dilaver” never makes the mistake of looking for other Armenian families whom he knows did the same), and are still alive and kicking and rich, and members of the Turkish elite. Kozan is another Anatolian town, where the Armenians are a significant minority. Killings and deportations are rampant. Boghos ends up in the deportations with his family. He bribes the officials the same way to save his family & himself. He comes back after the deportations with his new identity. The goods of the Armenians, together with the land, are being distributed to the poor Anatolian peasants and to the Balkan Muslim refugees. Preference is given to those who can make good use of the land, and who have some inkling of trade. Besides, money opens all doors. Boghos then digs up his own hoard of gold that he had buried some place, not forgetting that of his neighbour Levon, who – what a pity – had perished with all his family somewhere in Syria. Boghos (now Bekir, a proper Muslim name) then starts to buy land. The land that he buys is not the best for cultivation, nor is it particularly close to town, or suitable for the latter expansion of the city, but it is the place where most of the remaining gold is buried. He sells most (not all) of the gold, then buys some land just outside the city, this time in the regions where he anticipates (a euphemism for “he knows, as he has bribed the Turkish administration beforehand”) the city will expand. When this happens, and the place is declared as the site of economic expansion, he either sells the land to would-be entrepreneurs, or gets credit from the state itself and sets up his own textile plant. Faik is a Turkish officer on duty in Adana during the deportations. He doesn’t have a personal grudge to the Armenians, and like most of the rest of the officers, has no idea what the CUP is up to. He suddenly finds himself heading a group of deportees to Syria, and has already heard of the stories of the fate of the previous deportees en route. He is given control of the caravan, and he knows that most of his men are civilised and would rather not take part in the crimes. Besides, there is an attractive young lady called Gayane and her family among the deportees, who, in addition to her looks, is also well educated, can play the piano, and appreciates painting (Faik studied painting while a cadet) and Faik enjoys his conversations with Gayane and her family, who also appreciate the young man’s civility, education and ideals. Faik, together with some of his closest colleagues, decides that they have to do something to save the deportees, and tells this to Gayane’s family. There are very few things money cannot do, and buying freedom for prisoners is not one of them. Gayane’s family trusts Faik and his colleagues, and tells them the place where their community buried the gold. Faik gets the gold. At some place en route, a Kurdish tribe blocks the way and demands that the prisoners be given as ransom for passage. They agree, give over the prisoners, who are destined to be sold, then recover them from the slave market with their own money. Had the Armenians themselves attempted to do this, their money would be taken and they would still have ended up as prisoners. Faik and her colleagues then set the prisoners free. Gayane chooses to stay and becomes Gaye (a Muslim name) of her own accord (her family mumbles and grumbles about this, but not more than that), and marries Faik. The family still lives in Turkey, but obviously with a different surname. Karekin was an Armenian from Kozan near Adana, and he had very good relations with the there resident Turkish tribe, a branch of the Afshar confederation. That branch had some quarrel with some Sultan way back, and the entire branch was deported to Cyprus, a well-known fact. What is not so well known was that the Armenians who sided with them were also deported. About fifty years later, the war erupts, the Ottoman Empire crumbles, and the new Republic emerges. Cyprus is a British protectorate, and a descendant of Karekin (the family had recently become Muslim) with a half Turkish-half Arabic name comes to Turkey, enrolls at the military school, throws the Arabic component away from his name and adopts a fully Turkic name of a past Turkish hero, has a brilliant military career, gets mixed up in one of the numerous military interventions in Turkey, and after return to democracy, enters politics and spends the rest of his life as a major right-wing figure in Turkish politics. Some of the rest of his family are still Armenian, though, a fact which surprises their various neighbours greatly, given the political persuasion of the person in question. Who are these people? In this part the author describes the cases of possible assimilation of Armenians deducting them from the alleged number of killed, without mentioning what is a Genocide. Read below:"U.N.T.S. No. 1021, vol. 78 (1951), p. 277 CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE Art. 2. In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; ( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;..." Here comes the traditional Turkish argument that "there was a War which Armenians did not survive". Then how comes that in 1871 Berlin congress the European nations were demanding Turkey to give more rights to a nation that had a enough national identity for having rights and even inner boundaries in Turkey, and which dissapeared between 1915-1923. More to come... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berj Posted February 20, 2001 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2001 Those who think the quotings are becoming out of context by being examined in this way can read Mr.Suat's original postings in the Genocide thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted February 20, 2001 Report Share Posted February 20, 2001 On the way I write Berj; As stated before, I am not a denialist, and will accept arguments provided that they are based on facts and persuasively argued. This doesn't mean that I will accept anything put in front of me. I am not an agent employed by the Turkish state, nor am I a self-styled defendant of the Turkish position. There are enough of them around, and some of them even visited your website (RAVEN). You don't need any more of this. In 1915-1916, an inner clique of the CUP cabinet, of whom Talat was chief, took a decision to liquidate the bulk of the Armenian population of the Empire, and by and large they succeeded. Genocide. No quibbling about that. Now let's get that sorted out and move further in the discussion. If I got the rest of your message correctly, you think that I am trying to put up a nice face, move your attention from genocide by arguments & topics not really relevant to it, and then perhaps deal with the genocide issue on my own ground, hoping for a victory, or let it die out in the ensuing debates about everything under the sun save genocide. No. But I do get your point that we did stray from the main subject, and I shall be back to it in my future postings. Thanks for the warning, though. No more Phrygians. They are irrelevant to the topic and difficult to spell anyway. I attended a closed-circle conference by Professor Halil Berktay in Turkey last night which I shall develop in a later contribution under Genocide. Cheers, Ali Suat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raffiaharonian Posted February 21, 2001 Report Share Posted February 21, 2001 Sometimes, people like us, the simple TV viewers, are witnessing some ‘poor’ people who were naïve enough to appeal to the TV talk shows etc. to resolve their problems and find a solution for them. The ‘poor’ accountant, dentist, doctor, cleaner, hairdresser, housewife etc are met with the representatives , big-sharks/lawyers, who would corner them in a second , because they possess the ability to talk and elaborate on the topic , without really ever touching the ‘hot-issue’. Of-course the real issue gets distorted and ‘clever’ viewers are left open-mouthed and frustrated. I suppose Mr. Ali is a very well educated and ‘informed’ person on the issue of the Genocide. For me he appears as an expert with many credentials and vast ‘data-bank’ of knowledge. He is more than welcome in this site, however I would like to point out an obvious problem and a gap!An accountant like me, a dentist like Levon, etc etc etc, are not well informed and ‘equipped’ with the historical evidences and facts to accept or refute Mr. Ali’s comments and ‘lectures’. We are mere viewers of the narrations and we rest our representation on MJ, who is not himself a Historian or political sciences professional. The problem of-course is not Mr. Ali as such, but the apparent gap of expertise knowledge and communication! The lack of equilibrium in the ‘alish-verish’ or communication will soon be apparent and the truth will be distorted. Although we have the will we lack the way to counter argue with Mr. Ali or any other scholar. I just wanted to put this forward in a move to explain and clarify our stand as tremendous interested Armenian listeners. Without direct correlation to Mr. Ali, I would like to say that most of us would not be able to repulse Gebel’s ‘professional-truths’, due to our lack of ‘same-level’ knowledge and preparation. I am more than interested to listen to Mr. Ali, but I would like to reserve my right to put a tiny little question mark on the topics discussed and I expect the others to do the same. After all a kitten cannot fight a tiger! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted February 21, 2001 Report Share Posted February 21, 2001 dear mr aharonian, 1. i am not a tiger, and you are not a kitten. you are an accountant, levon is a dentist, and i am head of research at a brokerage firm. i got a b.a. & m.a. in oriental studies from pembroke college, oxford (not cambridge, surorus, please), where the focus of my study was turkish and arabic languages & literatures, early islamic history, ottoman history, and uzbek. i came back to turkey with the aspiration to become an academician, but the academic atmosphere stifled me here, didn't want to leave the country, and hence ended up in the business world. i have not had much contact with academics save private reading and discussions with various academicians and non-academics since 1993. as my area of specialisation was not 19th century ottoman history in general and the armenian genocide in particular (my specialiation would have been linguistic history if my career were not truncated by the xxxxs in the establishment), i do not think i am much more knowledgeable in the area than and well-read lay person would be. since i had also declared from my first posting onwards that i myself suspected an inner clique in the CUP cabinet that might have masterminded the genocide, it should be obvious to anyone who reads my postings that: 1)i am not attempting to deny the genocide or convince anyone that it wasn't really a genocide.2) i am not creating a hypothetical turkish genocide of the armenians.3) i am not trying to be apologetic about it (trying to legitimise it). i am merely trying to share my opinions of it and some info that i keep hearing in turkey with you. i saw that most of you were not aware of this, and you saw that some of that must have some grain of truth in it, as some of my points were confirmed by levon (re famous crypto-armenians and the presence of a much larger hidden armenian community in turkey than previously thought). i am also striving to be as impartial as possible (i acknowledge that this is going to be as difficult for me as it is for you, since we are the two parties involved), and try to act in an honest manner. there is nothing to be gained from trying to convince you, the victims of genocide, that the genocide was not a genocide, and to imply that i am engaging in such a futile pursuit is an insult to my intelligence (no offence intended). i am merely trying to develop a discussion on various aspects of the tragedy that we both lived - and are still living psychologically - that will, i hope, enable us to have a more accurate perception of it. many people study the genocide for various reasons: some never to forget, some never to acknowledge, some to use it as a glue to hold the diaspora together, some to use it against the turks, some to make a living out, some to seek justice. i study it for the same reasons most germans do: prevention is better than cure. since i say "never again", i. e. do not want to see yet another genocide, i have to know as much as i can the hows and whys of the previous genocides so that i can be alert to any future ones as a world citizen not only in my country, my region, or anywhere in the world. and i fear that we (turks and armenians) cannot acquire that expertise and ability to act proactively with our present attitude. this is why i am here. i hope this has been clear enough. i am waiting for your (everyone's) comments on this. yours sincerely, ali suat urguplu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berj Posted February 21, 2001 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2001 quote: Berj;As stated before, I am not a denialist, and will accept arguments provided that they are based on facts and persuasively argued. This doesn't mean that I will accept anything put in front of me.Ali,Thank you for your answer. My evaluation of your postings in this forum as semi-professional is based on the FACT that there is no footnote reference (I know it sounds ridiculous to provide them in an internet forum) to each and every fact or comment you provide. In professional historic or political study it is a must. Arguments based on facts: I will reply to this in my next entry. quote: I am not an agent employed by the Turkish state, nor am I a self-styled defendant of the Turkish position. There are enough of them around, and some of them even visited your website (RAVEN). You don't need any more of this.Considering that Raven's postings in this discussions were a nightmare of illogicality, feel free to express any opinion. Your level gives you the full right to do so. quoteIn 1915-1916, an inner clique of the CUP cabinet, of whom Talat was chief, took a decision to liquidate the bulk of the Armenian population of the Empire, and by and large they succeeded. Genocide. No quibbling about that. Now let's get that sorted out and move further in the discussion.I hope that Turkish government does the same: accept that it was a genocide and then start the discussion on relating issues. I think I understand why you mentioned the inner clique of CUP as a decission maker. I suggest that we leave this aside and return to it later sometime. quote:If I got the rest of your message correctly, you think that I am trying to put up a nice face, move your attention from genocide by arguments & topics not really relevant to it, and then perhaps deal with the genocide issue on my own ground, hoping for a victory, or let it die out in the ensuing debates about everything under the sun save genocide. No. But I do get your point that we did stray from the main subject, and I shall be back to it in my future postings. Thanks for the warning, though. No more Phrygians. They are irrelevant to the topic and difficult to spell anyway. Your reply defused my suspicion. But I will keep an eye on it (sorry for this) as we are having a sensetive debate. I suggest you to do the same towards us, because some of us drift often as well. quoteI attended a closed-circle conference by Professor Halil Berktay in Turkey last night which I shall develop in a later contribution under Genocide.Will appreciate.Armen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted February 21, 2001 Report Share Posted February 21, 2001 Dear Berj, Please feel free to check anything i write. the fact that i am not a propagandist does not exclude the possibility that i may be inaccurate in details and wrong in conclusions. as for the footnotes, thank you. i write these mostly from the office at off-hours, and my library is at home (and there isn't much stuff there about the genocide). i am writing out the exposé of Prof. Berktay with my additions. i shall post it when ready. regards, ali suat (by the way, is your name berj or armen? i would like to refer to you by your name, if you permit) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surorus Posted February 21, 2001 Report Share Posted February 21, 2001 quote:Originally posted by aurguplu:i got a b.a. & m.a. in oriental studies from pembroke college, oxford (not cambridge, surorus, please), where the focus of my study was turkish and arabic languages & literatures, early islamic history, ottoman history, and uzbek. Dear Aurguplu,I went over the web site of Pembroke College of Oxford, and it also has two degrees as a part of Oriental Studies that are MPhil in Eastern Christian Studies (Armenian or Syriac with Greek)and MPhil in Byzantine Studies (Armenian, Syriac, Arabic).Oriental StudiesHave you taken any courses of either of those two studies? If yes, we would like to hear what you have learned about Armenians and their role in the region. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted February 21, 2001 Report Share Posted February 21, 2001 surorus, unfortunately nope. you are not allowed to pursue more than one undergrad degree under the oxbridge system unless you are top of the pops in academics (i was middling to goodish only), and classical arabic grammar and ottoman prose are enough to make yu repent all your past, present and future sins for four years. and since i was going to specialise in turkish historical linguistics, there was little point in me taking the courses in christian & armenian studies, since curricula at oxford are very demanding and guided by your tutor anyway (not that i find them unimportant). there was one turkish armenian lady, a graduate student from a turkish university, with whom we had occasionally talked about the genocide and present state of the armenians in turkey, so i got exposed to the fact that it wasn't all roses for the armenians in turkey at that tender age. regards, ali suat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted February 21, 2001 Report Share Posted February 21, 2001 Dear Ali, I am anxiously waiting for your posting on the subject of the seminar you have attended with Prof. Berktay. And don't feel bad about the "interrogation," please. Our people are just not used to coming across with your type of Turks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berj Posted February 21, 2001 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2001 Ali, I will move on with my "study" of your previous postings in the Genocide threat to show you the parts which triggered my suspicion about your writing technique. ARGUMENTS BASED ON FACTS quote:1.By the way, one mistake you made in one of your past contributions: you said you guys have been living in Anatolia for 2,000 years. I beg to differ: you probably were part of the Sea Peoples who destroyed the Hittite Empire at around 1200 BC. There is a region called Moesia in Thrace, and Mysia in Anatolia, referring to the same ethnonym andclearly showing the eastward migration of an Indo-European people about 1200 BC, at about the time of the Trojan War. In fact, Greek history talks about the Phrygians moving into Anatolia from the Balkans at shortly before the Trojan war. Ali, you're using the phrase "clearly showing". I do not consider myself a historian, but I studied history and what alaways amased me in the way historians "prove facts" is that they find 2 words sounding similar and claim a fact basing on this. Let me show you an example. There is a city in Colombia called "Armenia", which was founded by 20-30 Armenian immigrants. Basing on the logic of hiastorians, all Colombians are Armenians. The fact of migration of Indo-Europeans eastward from the Balcans has 1% of possibility, only because any possibility should be considered while studying history. If it proves true, it will be the only case on the Eurasian continent when an ethnic group migrated to the south-west from its original location. Only in case of conqueststhere was a movement to the east or south east (Alexander the Great's conquest of Asia Minor, Arabic conquest of Central Asia). Now compare this to the mass migration of each and every tribe from the Great Steppe to the south-west. Estimate the persentage of the possibility of the migration of Indo-Europeans from rich-soiled Balcans to Anatolia or to the landlocked Armenian plateau (not a very good place for agriculure). Now, why it rasied my suspicion? Because it says:"You guys migrated too, so you don't have a right to claim any land as historically yours". True from some point of view. Very valid for the Americans. Sorry, but your mentioning is as a "clear fact" in this kind of sensetive debate can give us a basis to question your other opinions and comments, a lot of which have possibility to br true. However, I strongly believe we didn't migrate form anywere, maybe some 10km quote: 2. The name of the Phrygians comes from “Bryg” and means “brigand”, this word in English comes ultimately from the same Indo-European root. The Phrygians were referred to as “Muski” by the Hittites, the identity of this with Mysian and Moesian is clear. Now a very interesting point: Herodotus describes Armenians as Phrygian colonists, and the Georgians call the Armenians “(Sa)mekhi”. Now Herodotus is not normally considered to be a reliable source, but the Georgian parallel is interesting. Same appies to this part. The Georgian parallel is in fact very interesting. They do call us Somekhi for the people and SomKHETTI for the country. They also call their Armenian populated povince of Javaghq (in Armenian) JavaKHETTI. And also, the other southwest province on the border with Armenia is called KaKHETTI, and people there look more like Armenians (short height, Armenoid round scull, mostly dark haired) than Georgians (tall, light haired...). Considering that KHETTI sounds very similar to HITTI, can we claim that the Hittide kingdom was an Armenian one. quote:If this were all we knew, we would be perfectly justified to pronounce the Armenians as Phrygians, but unfortunately history is not so simple: the Phrygian language has survived in writing, albeit in an ossified form and scant, formulaic remains, until the 3rd Century AD, and what little we know of the language still causes fierce debate amongst historical linguists: originally thought to be a member of the Hittite-Luwian subgroup of Indo-European, it is now commonly thought to be distantly related to the extinct Thraco-Dacian and probably Illyrian (whose only surviving member is Albanian), but the scant remains show a language very different from Armenian. This is probably for three reasons: the Phrygian that we know from the inscriptions was a dead liturgical language already by late Antiquity, and doesn’t reflect the subsequent developments of the spoken language, and Armenian was first written down by Movses of Khorene in the 5th Century AD (if I am not mistaken, I am again writing this from my office.). So there is a time-gap of about ten Centuries, during which time Armenian was very heavily influenced by Hittite, Iranian and non-Indo European Urartu and other Caucasian languages. Armenian was so heavily influenced by these languages that its affiliation to the Indo-European was long a matter of dispute. Linguists had a hard time finding the correspondence between Armenian erku and English two, to cite just one example. Ali, I believe you're familiar with the research of Boris Piotrovski. We can discuss his writings in "Urartu, or just Ararat" topic in the History thread. I also think that have read lot of books on Urartian kingdom with 99% footnote referrals to Piotrovski. That's because his study of Urartian language is the only one until now. His study gave a basis to Soviet communist historians to conclude the "Urartu history" part of the Soveit History textbook with the sentence "The fraternal nations of Armenia, Georgia and Azrebaijan are the true inherits of Urartian civilsation". But let's discuss this in the appropriate threat I mentioned. So, you see these are isolated examples from your postings, but under the Genocide topic they are "arguments" which as you have said "are mutating Genocide into something else". Regards,Armen [ February 21, 2001: Message edited by: Berj ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berj Posted February 21, 2001 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2001 quote:Originally posted by aurguplu:Dear Berj,(by the way, is your name berj or armen? i would like to refer to you by your name, if you permit)Dear Ali,My name is Armen Thanks for caring about that.Armen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted February 21, 2001 Report Share Posted February 21, 2001 Berj, I think it is OK to object to WHAT someone says (or does not say) in a posting, but I don't think it is appropriate to dissect the writing style of someone (especially if they are not native English speakers). This is not a place to post a doctoral thesis - so it is a bit pointless to criticise the construction of a posting as if it were one! Actually I found your words rather disturbing - as if you implied that it was now normal for academics (like politicians) to write their works with the active intention to deceive "amateur" people by slight of hand (or language). I hope it is NOT normal amongst academics. Bringing up the Phrygian issue is a little bit like nit-picking, considering that most Armenian books also state the same (false) thing about Armenian origin. As to the point about displaying alleged neutrality - nobody is neutral - I am not neutral to deceptions, and I hope I can always recognise them! Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted February 22, 2001 Report Share Posted February 22, 2001 ok everybody 1. i agree with the suggestion that we should move the phrygians, samekhi, urartu etc. to history rather than genocide otherwise we will drift into endless speculation about what happened in 1200 BC and lose touch with the genocide issue. i will submit a post under history as soon as possible, and my postings re genocide & related (promise) will appear here. regards, ali suat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raffiaharonian Posted February 22, 2001 Report Share Posted February 22, 2001 Thank you Mr.Suat about your precious time and devotion to share with the rest of us your thoughts , your knowldege and aspirations. My remark was only to point out the fact that lay men ,like myself, have some difficulty in digesting certain points and ideas, especially if those ideas deviate tremendously from the main topic.Enlarging the picture to include other parameters also, makes the follow up tiresome and 'dangerous' (especially if conclusions are derived based on those! ). Your are obviously a different Turk than those we have encountered and heard of. Obviously we are sceptical about your presence in this forum , but just because we know that "we have the Right with us" , we feel at ease to engage in a constructive communication with you. After all we have nothing to hide! I prefer a civilised Turkey than the 'sick man of Europe' , because through constructive and mutual agreements and communication we will be able to face the challenges of the future and find out some possible solutions in the 'blood-sealed' animosity between our nations. Obviously most of us in this Forum reserve our rights to keep the question marks ongoing! After all we have not yet arrived at a 'full stop' ! Regards, Raffi A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted February 22, 2001 Report Share Posted February 22, 2001 Actually I found your words rather disturbing - as if you implied that it was now normal for academics (like politicians) to write their works with the active intention to deceive "amateur" people by slight of hand (or language). I hope it is NOT normal amongst academics. Steve, is is of course not normal for academics to use their talents that way, but unfortunately a disturbingly large number of them end up doing it. this is i guess common to most conflict-ridden topics, not only armenian genocide. most do it with evil intentions, but there are also some, who have no evil intentions, but either cannot get rid of their almost subconscious prejudices, or get carried away with enthusiasm. as you read more and more history books, you get to recognise those who fall into the second category by their style, but those in the first category are difficult to detect without a serious foundation in the topic and are by far the most dangerous breed of intellectual around, as far as i am concerned. so you can never be too paranoid. that was a good point you raised. regards, ali suatnullActually I found your words rather disturbing - as if you implied that it was now normal for academics (like politicians) to write their works with the active intention to deceive "amateur" people by slight of hand (or language). I hope it is NOT normal amongst academics. quote [ February 22, 2001: Message edited by: aurguplu ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted February 22, 2001 Report Share Posted February 22, 2001 Dear MJ, Thanks. I am not that rare a breed, though. I was exposed to the other versions of the "official stories" of Turkey from an early age onwards, and that led me to the study of history and languages. That also put an end to my academic career in Turkey a year after it started. Which I don't regret, though, as it was full of those Turks that you are used to, and I was either going to leave the place or pose (could never become) as one of them for the rest of my life. Now people can talk more freely in Turkey. Of course, we have the occasional hiccups like the Assyrian priest who is being tried for saying that there was an Armenian Genocide, or other writers in jail, but we shall overcome. My children will grow in a better Turkey (I hope). Regards, Ali Suat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted February 22, 2001 Report Share Posted February 22, 2001 Dear Mr. Aharonian, I think you understood me correctly. I understand the initial reaction to Turks in this forum given past history and the e-diots like raven. I share your desire to see a civilised Turkey and a solution to our bloody problems, too, and I think this can only be achieved through a dialogue between individual Turks and Armenians, as nothing constructive can be expected from the politicians (ours, at least) unless people from both sides push for it. In such a dialogue, we must first try put hysteria aside and talk calmly. This will make it easier for both parties to find a common ground and develop it from there. And also please understand that the overwhelming majority of Turks harbour no ill-feelings toward Armenians as such, but as they go through an educational system that deliberately cripples the free, enquiring mind common to us humans, and as they first encounter the issue of Armenian Genocide by the time their world view has developed, they get a shock. They cannot conceive that their ancestors might have done such a thing, and they see themselves in a defensive position, in the trenches so to speak. You cannot have a constructive dialogue with someone who has this sort of mentality. Raven was one such, as far as I can see. In the final analysis, I doubt that he had a hidden agenda or anything. Apparently he was fed the official rubbish in Turkey, and really came to believe (as most ordinary Turks do) that it was the Armenians who carried out a genocide against the Turks rather than the other way round. And he also sees (like most Turks) in anyone who raises the issue an enemy of Turkey who wants to tear the country apart. In this he is not entirely wrong, but this is a dangerous generalisation that closes the door to dialogue and reconciliation. I shall develop this further as soon as my exposé of Prof. Berktay's conference is ready. Regards, Ali Suat Urguplu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted February 23, 2001 Report Share Posted February 23, 2001 Dear Ali, Sorry, I had missed your previous note addressed to me. Talking about academic career – hopefully you have ended up with a better career path. The culture of free speech doesn’t come overnight. In some ways, our nation has to learn it, too. But first, we have to establish a culture of free thinking. If this culture exists, the culture of free speech may come easier. The better Turkey will be in the best interests of both Turks and Armenians, as well as all other nations of the region. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berj Posted February 23, 2001 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2001 quote:Originally posted by bellthecat:1.Berj, I think it is OK to object to WHAT someone says (or does not say) in a posting, but I don't think it is appropriate to dissect the writing style of someone (especially if they are not native English speakers). This is not a place to post a doctoral thesis - so it is a bit pointless to criticise the construction of a posting as if it were one! 2.Actually I found your words rather disturbing - as if you implied that it was now normal for academics (like politicians) to write their works with the active intention to deceive "amateur" people by slight of hand (or language). I hope it is NOT normal amongst academics.3.Bringing up the Phrygian issue is a little bit like nit-picking, considering that most Armenian books also state the same (false) thing about Armenian origin. As to the point about displaying alleged neutrality - nobody is neutral - I am not neutral to deceptions, and I hope I can always recognise them!SteveDear Steve,1. As you can trace in my postings, I'm not a native English speaker either. Moreover, I've never been to any English speaking country and had a very limited experience with native speakers, so I think we're equal in this with Mr.Suat. Anyway, you can review Ali's posts in their original shape in the Genocide topic and see what impression you will get.But, as we agreed before this is not a place for professional discussions, so I will stop this tiresome undertaking of mine.2.Exactly. Because you later found my words rather disturbing, I found it necessary to invite your attention to the problem of writing style or technique. In general, I evaluate (surely for myself) a writing as a professional or non-professional by making sure that a constant logic chain exists in that writing. If it exists, than the author was really trying to make a point (actually, the summary of the point to be made is usually given under the headline or title, which makes possible to trace the point from the start to the end). If I don't find that chain, I'm starting to search for other things the writing was ment to"prove".How to trace a logic chain in a given writing: 1. Find the target point of the writing and try to relate every paragraph or even sentence to that point (if you don’t find the point, there is no point). 2. If the chain gets cut, find the explanation of its cutting in the following paragraph. Make sure that the following part was worthy of cutting the logic chain. And the most important! If you consider yourself an intellectual, you must get a “BRAIN ORGAZM” (man that was a hell of a phrase) after you have read a serious professional writing (on any subject). 3.Let's discuss this in the History thread.ArmenP.S. “Brain Orgazm®”-a Hye Forum phrase, All rights reserved. Copyright “Berj” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.