what about the genocide in 1895?

[armeniangirl83]

We most don't forget the genocide in 1895. There were 100.000 Armenians killed. I'm still reading a book about that and that's disgusting what happen. Also the other genocide is disgusting. But i hear nothing about the first genocide. In that book what i'm reading is all in discribe, how much are killed and how much Turkish are dead(very, very few). And what they have done and all that things. But now i most to go, so i don't have time now to write more.

[Taguhi]

Some historicians said that there was about 180 thousand or even 300 thousand killed Armenians during 1895/1896 killings. Because of it Sultan Abdulhamid was called "Red Sultan" or "Bloody Sultan". For exemple in Zeytun was killed in this time about 7 thousand people, in Sasun about 15 thousand and in Van 20 thousand.

Did you saw film "America America"? In the begining this events are showed.

[Guest Fadi]

If we take the UN definition of genocide we can call what happened in 1894-1896 a Genocide, but, if we take the more specific reduced version, the restrictive that it was used then it wasen't one, there was no plan from 1894-1896 to eradicate the entire Armenian people in Ottoman, there was massacres, Lepsius report talk about 88,000 killed, and we must add the some hundred of thousand perished for a forced starvation. So probably near 200,000 people perished and tens of thousands deported converted or made homeless. But this was a punitive mesure from the Sultan to vanish any Armenian national aspirations, and to not respect any engagements.

 

The Sultan would never tried to exterminate the Armenians, it was not of his adventage, he needed them for the taxations that was imposed to them, and and as people to Islamise, after this they were just considerated as Muslims, unlike the Young-Turks that brought "Turkishness" there was no such thing with the Sultan.

 

The young-turks were another party, the first Turkish government, the first one direcly bringing Turkishness, the first one having real nationalisation plans, and for this the Armenians were the obstacle. The Young-Turks contrary to the Sultan tried to exterminate all the Armenians in Ottoman, it was planned action, there was direct extermination places, the Red Cressents for examples were used as Orphan extermination places, physicians were used, a special organization, with an organ dedicated for the ellimination of the Armenians. Direct structures and pre-established plans to kill the men first, then send the rest in the desert, etc...

 

So for this, we can in no way compare the compleat total extermination of 1914-1923 to the ones of 1894-1896, or the massacres of 1909. The Armenian genocide of 1914-1923 is THE genocide of the Armenians if we refer to the restrictif definition of this word. But it's true that using the UN definition we could apply this word.

 

What I can say is that the action of 1894-1896 was a genocidal action but was not a genocide(taking in account the restrictif definition).

 

Toynbee will write in his autobiography five decades later.

 

"The massacre of Armenian subjects in Ottoman Empire in 1896 ... was amateur and ineffective compared with the largely successful attemp to exterminate them during the First World War in 1915 ... ."

 

A. Toynbee, Experiences (Oxford, 1969), p. 241

 

[ May 30, 2001: Message edited by: Domino ]

[bellthecat]

I don't think it really can. Like you said, it was not an attempt to exterminate or remove all Armenians.

I do not have a copy of the UN's definitions (the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) but the main definition is something like "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". The aim of the 1895 massacres were to stop the political progress and emancipation of the Empire's Armenian subjects, and so should be seen as an extreme form of political repression with strong racist undertones, but not genocide.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bellthecat:


I don't think it really can. Like you said, it was not an attempt to exterminate or remove all Armenians.

I do not have a copy of the UN's definitions (the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) but the main definition is something like "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". The aim of the 1895 massacres were to stop the political progress and emancipation of the Empire's Armenian subjects, and so should be seen as an extreme form of political repression with strong racist undertones, but not genocide.

---

Oh no !!!!
Surely not , it must of been a genocide.

Domino don't flip.

[Guest Fadi]

bellthe cat.

 

Here is the part of the convention. As you see it would apply to what happened in 1894-1896

 

"Article 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;

 

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

 

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

[bellthecat]

But the key words are "intent to destroy in whole or in part" I do not think that intent was there in 1895-96.

 

Steve

[Guest Fadi]

Yes but "or in part" was there no intent to destroy in part ?

 

If you kip only the "all" part then we would reject the Rowandian and Cambodian genocide, because they were genocide "in a part"

 

It was even extended to the Bosnians. Because the UN definition is not the same writen in many dicionnaries, that are the restrictif definition of intent to destroy, without the "in a part" etc...

[bellthecat]

There was also no attempt to destroy in part. Destroy means exactly that - to eliminate completely, I take the "in part" to mean a geographical "in part", and nowhere in the 1890s was there an attempt to entirely eliminate Armenians from any particular place.

 

Mass killing is NOT genocide, and you can commit genocide without ANY actual killing. Rwanda obviously was a genocide because there was an attempt to kill all Tutsis. The only events in former Yugoslavia that could be classed as genocide occured when the Serbian people in Kossovo and in Kriyena (I forget the correct way to spell it) were forced to leave their homelands. In Kossovo, America had the explicit intent to commit genocide long before any bombing began.

 

Steve

[Guest Fadi]

Sorry, but this is not exact, in Bosnia there was villages that praticlly every Muslims were likidated. In Stronivitsa village, ten thousands have been likidated. In 1894-1896 there was many villages were all of their Armenian populations were killed, many villages were the entire Armenian habitants were pout in churches and burned all. I can post you American eyewithneses of one in particular, were waiting one day all the population of a village has been killed.

 

There is no question that UN definition could be applyied to many events this is why, many only consider the restrictive definition, the one in the dicionnaries that are different then UN one.

 

In Rowanda, there was no total case of extermination. In Cambodjia there was no plan to exterminate every Cambodjians, it was an auto-genocide etc... so the restrictif version has it's limit.

 

Let me remind you that the UN war crime tribunal call what happened in Bosnia a genocide, by using the UN definition of the word.

 

I do not say if we should restrcit or not the word, I am just saying that what happened in 1894-1896 could be or not to be called a genocide depending of the definition we use. As opinion, I think that the restrictif version should be used.

 

As for genocide against the Serbs. I do not agree with you on this one, if we call this event a genocide I do not see how you refuse to call the Hamidian massacres worst on their intensity and planning a genocide.

 

The Serbs were victimes of Genocide in these territories but no in this decade. It was during WWII. When 600,000 have been exterminated the majority of them sent in concentration camps, specialy build for them, the 3rd biggest concentration camp in Europe.

[bellthecat]

I don't understand your reasoning when you separate "genocide", and a "genocidal action". The one cannot exist without the other. Saying the 1895 massacres could or could not be classed as a genocide is leaving it open for others to say the 1915 massacres could or could not be classed as genocide. This excuse is not possible if you believe an exact definition of genocide IS possible - I do, and I do not see the 1895/96 massacres as genocide.

 

Regarding Yugoslavia, actually you sound a bit like a Turkish propagandist - they say the Armenians killed millions of Turks in Anatolia, and seem not to notice that there are still millions of Turks in Anatolia, yet barely a single Armenian. You say the same about Serbs - yet where are the Serbs today in Sarijevo, in Kossovo, in Croatia - barely a single one is left. And the "reasons" you will post to try to explain away that fact will be exactly the same "reasons" the Turks use to explain the lack of Armenians.

 

The irony is that the history of Serbia and Armenia is almost identical. After Armenia, Serbia endured a greater percentage of dead than any other participating country (or race) in WW1, and endured the greatest percentage of dead than any other country (or race - including the Jews) during WW2.

 

In 1914, the war mongers in the Austrian war office worked for weeks to present to Serbia a document containing an ultimatum so unacceptable that the war Austria wanted would be inevitable. In 1999 the war mongers in the UN did exactly the same thing.

 

As for the "UN war crime tribunal" - what a joke, the day we see Clinton or Albright or Blair or Cook in its dock will be the day it can be treated seriously.

 

Steve

[nairakev]

Right, Taguhi!
These events are slightly shown in the film entitled "America, America!"
It one of Hollywood's biggest classic movies. His director was very famous director of that time Elia Kazan (of greek origin).
For those who have no idea about Elia Kazan, just a small brief from 'Internet Movie DataBase' (imdb.com) of his filmography, but before that I juest will give some of his most know films "Baby Doll!", "A Streetcar Named Desire"

Filmography:

Beyond the Aegean (1989)


Last Tycoon, The (1976)
Visitors, The (1972)


Arrangement, The (1969)
America, America (1963)
... aka Anatolian Smile, The (1963) (UK)
Splendor in the Grass (1961)
Wild River (1960)


Face in the Crowd, A (1957)
Baby Doll (1956)
East of Eden (1955)
On the Waterfront (1954)
Man on a Tightrope (1953)
Viva Zapata! (1952)
Streetcar Named Desire, A (1951)
Panic in the Streets (1950)


Pinky (1949)
Boomerang! (1947)
Gentleman's Agreement (1947)
Sea of Grass, The (1947)
Tree Grows in Brooklyn, A (1945)
It's Up to You (1941)
People of the Cumberland, The (1937)

-------
Here is a "message" from Amazon.com reader about "America, America!"

I've checked at that time this was the only post. Check it, it's funny:
You silly Americans! I can't believe there's so little about this film in this database! How come no one has ever seen it and post something about it? If you forget Kazan's politic past, this is just an excellent movie. And it does praise your marvelous country. You like that. Don't you?

url of "Armerica, America!" at http://us.imdb.com/Title?0056825

[nairakev]

Steve!
Looks like you like special feelings.
I'm glad you taking a doubt evrything. I take it as more often as you.

Domino,
Sorry, I see what do you mean. But I cannot agree. Genocide target groups are:
racial, national, ethnical, religious. When you talk about "islamisation" and "turkisation" you are commiting an error to interprete the text in incomplete way.

I like this convention, but I still think it is incomplet. If we Armenians are so proud for not getting tired up and fed up with the whole this mascarade of human hypocrisy about "victims" of a murder. Like we are bargaining deads. This people are gone, we are not going to count them.

Do you think one life is enough to find all of them?

I think there should be added one adjective :
"Article 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 , religious, social group

What is social group?
All possible society issues. The criminals in prisons,
gays and lesbians, poor, rich, those who will think differently. The way like have completely different, from the society ideals, thoughts. One against all.

I think all these people do not merit to dye for what they are?

[ June 02, 2001: Message edited by: naira ]

[Guest Fadi]

Steve, the fact that there was praticlly no Serbs left in Kossovo has not really something to do with NATO, the Serbians were representing barly 10 % of the population in Kossovo.

 

As for Croatia, Bosnia, well I think you are judging things with religion, here you can not justify or call what happened a genocide because in WWI and WWII there was Serbian genocide.

 

Now who tried to exterminate the Serbs in the 90's ? Be fair, you say there was no intend to destroy a group in 1894-1896, when more then a hundred villages were all exterminated from their population. Then on the other hand you call what happened to Serbs as a genocide.

 

Well yes hundreds of thousands of Serbs were deported from Croatia and Bosnia, but you are the one that want to use the restrictif definition not me. I just gave the difference between the UN definition and the restrictif one found in dicionnaries, it sound that you just answer me to contradict me, this topic is becoming an empty one.

 

Now in order to call a genocide from the restrictif definition( since you use the restrictif definition), there must be a government intent do destroy a groop. Now what government tried to destroy the Serbs ? Newly formed states ? Well they deported the serbs, but there was no extermination plan. If you do this then you have to call what happened to the Balkan Muslims just before WWI also a genocide, when the newly formed countries decided that they don,t want Muslims.

 

Now the tragedies in WWI and WWII against Serbia could not be compared with the genocide of 1915. About Servia and Armenia history near identical, but sorry this is not the case, the Serbs had adventages that Armenians never had, the Serbs also participated in many ethnic cleanising of genocidal proportions. The Serbs had their indepndences for long time, they were armed had support. Armenia was just in an ignored area, were the allies knew their existant really only in 1878. When every little crimes perpetrated against the Serbs were doing all the news of Europe, but the Armenian tragedy was largely ignored.

 

Now you say I act like denialists, and give the same reason that the Turkish government give. Well maybe, but this don,t mean that what I say is wrong. It's like someone that alleg that Armenians commited genocide against the Turks, then when an Armenian oppose the person that accuse them say that the guy use the same arguments that Irving use to deny the Holocaust. The fact is that the Serbs were the most powerfull in Yougoslavia, they were the one controling it, they were the ones controling the Army, nothing to be compared with the Armenians. It was Milosevic bloodish actions that ended up of bringing this crimes in Croatia and Bosnia, Milosevic was not wprst or less worst then other Bosnian or Croatian nationalist, he just got the power, and he used to oppress minorities. If you call this genocide then everything could be called genocide. I do not say that it can not be called genocide, but here you use the restrictif definition and say that what happened in 1894-1896 can not be called genocide, but call what happened to Serbs in Kossovo a genocide. Then I may say were the entend to destroy the Serbs was bigger then when the Ottoman decided to eradicate the Armenians in many villages to repopulate them with Muslim population. We are talking about 200,000 victimes here, more then all the Serbian victimes and their army.

 

Naira, I was just talking about the definition and not trying to interprate it. I was just differenciating the restrictif and the more extended UN definition. This was all about, that brought an empty trait.

[nairakev]

Domino,

You talk (with reasonable arguments) like those israeli researchers on Genocide issues, who affirm the 'uniqueness of Holocaust and refuse to use the word "Genocide" while talking about Armenian genocide in 1915.'

 

Can you imagine where we all human beings will come by trying to put a special pride into being a 'victim'.

 

The word victim should not be vulgarised, but it looks like it is already.

 

I'm (being armenian myself) I'm against victimization of armenians on the basis of their tragic past (extermination of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey). Victimization of one race puts lots of responsibility on the whole human race. We cannot afford total vicitmization of our race. It can destroy our human society. By recognising a victim we have absolutely no right to use the words "special", "unique", "incomparable".

 

The uniqueness is a wrong way. It devides humans in every domain of activity. Do not forget the particularity of human behaviour. We are surviving race. And the spirit of competetion is the same but with more manners than in "jungle". (Don't get caught by the word jungle, please!)

 

I think all crimes based on extermination of human beings for their appartenance to a social, national, ethnic, racial or religious group should be recognised as a Genocide. The orginisers condemned and the authours punished. We can't favorise ones and forget others. This is a union. Think what devides us.

 

It's when think that the Genocide of Armenians is more important than the genocide of Serbs by turks, or Genocide of Jews by Germans was more "unique" than the Armenian genocide.

We can't forget either that Hitler exterminated

gypsies as well and homosexuals. The Middle Aged Paris centuries ago was a witness of a horrible genocide known in human history as "Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day", this was a part of Wars of Religion. During the Wars of Religion, France did exterminate most of its protestants. It was a pure "genocide". I do not forget that. And I won't. My list is long.

 

[ June 02, 2001: Message edited by: naira ]

[Guest Fadi]

Naira, I'm not pouting any uniqueness thing, i'll lets this do denialists. What I am saying is that depending of the definition you take, you may call something genocide or not. But if you call and event genocide, you should call another event similair or worst also a genocide. Steve say that only what happened to the Serbs is a genocide. I just took his logic. Or you call every similair things genocide, or you do not call them genocide, that's were I was comming too.

 

Now about uniqueness. The Holocaust is unique Naira, as well as the Armenian genocide, like Dr. Melson stat they are the only total genocides of our century, what happened in Cambodgia was also unique, what happened in Rowanda was also unique. Uniqueness don,t mean that you deny genocide, if you consider other genocide also unique.

 

Now I also said that I have no problem to use the extended version given by the UN, but if you do this, you can not be selectif depending on what you want to call it. The UN version include the "in a part" but there was an intend to destroy in a part in 1894-1896, in Bosnia there was an entend planned by generals to destroy Bosnian Muslims in a part, villages like Stronivista, were all their habitant were killed in mass. Now Steve say you can not call this genocide, but what happened to Serbs genocide, when it's him that decided to use the restrictif version of the word genocide, and apply it by not respecting his own definition.

 

This is my point, my point is not about talking about any uniqueness, but just I remarked the two main different definition of the word genocide, the restrictif one and the extended one, I said that if we take the extended one we can call many event genocides, but you can not decided selectivly what should be called genocide or not without respecting the definition that you give to yourself. This is what I accused Steve of doing.

[nairakev]

Domino,
My message was addressed to you, but not to Steve.
I perfectly understood your point unveiled for Steve.

It is so clear, that I think one should be rather a fan of defamatory litarature or a "profan" to miss your point.

I don't want to stick any lebels on whoever or whatever.
The only point why I steped into your dialogued which you maintained in a well balance is to give a new turn to it. May be it is uselless? I don't know!

Which is:

No matter how you determine a "genocide" in your vocabulary. No matter how you accompany your definition of "genocide", with those "touching", "sensitive" adjectives like unique or special.

All crimes should be listed. Be they unique or not.
My purpose was that. To remind that in human history there were so far many genocides. And many of them are forgotten. We Armenians are trying to fight for the recogintion of our genocide. And I'm not of the one, who thinks that we should stop there. Using this movement to restore the truth, I aim first of all to bring new attitudes and philosophies for making our coexistense more balanced and meaningful.

I aim at reminding to creator of the U.N. convention, that there also social groups who will be in future more often targets of genocides. Please, have a look again at my point.

a+
J'attends tes nouvelles, Domino!


[ June 03, 2001: Message edited by: naira ]

[ June 03, 2001: Message edited by: naira ]

[Guest Fadi]

O.K, O.K tu as raison ;-)

 

I agree with this, and I know that in future the question is becoming more and more complex.

 

Here is a site about a conference, and current genocides, and new way of applying the word.

http://psych.upenn.edu/seligman/chirot.htm

 

They use the word on different way, there is a table on the middle of the page, about different "types" of genocide, the first 4 ones are the restrictif ones, the others the more general ones.

 

In fact all this page is worthy of being read, there is also a French work that I forgot the author, the title was Génocide de la société et de la culture. Something like this, maybe you know the work, talking about social "extermination" policy etc... when there is a hypocrite way of accepting cultural differences that lead to a cultural genocide, and the exclusion of a social group etc... and could leed to racism.