IDLE NOISE EMANATING FROM BITLIS

[aurguplu]

thoth,

 

thanks for the remarks. i agree with you that one shouldn't let the common turks off the hook as easily. i do believe that even many of the killers had little if any idea of the genocide, though that does not make them any more innocent: they were basically killing innocent people.

 

thanks for the congrats on my upcoming marriage. i fear we are not going to do much in the way of muslim stuff for the marriage ceremony for 1) my family, including myself, are not religious a bit (in fact my dad is not even particularly sympathetic to islam), muslim marriage ceremonies are pretty sombre things where the bride and groom (i.e. men and women) celebrate it separately, and we don't believe that celebrating separately the start of a common life is a clever thing to do, and 4) my wife (i so much got used to the word) is a christian, and a muslim marriage ceremony might well less than please her, and suit us two.

 

cheers,

[Arpa]

The Germans have had to compensate surviving Jews as far as I know - and have done so to a significant degree. I should note that the Post-War German governement is not the same as the one that existed in WWII - yet they have assumed this burden (and the shame of the acts) - things that the government of Turkey and most Turkish commentators on these forums and such - adamatly refuse to do.

===========

As much as I hate to talk about the Genocide, we are over the talking stage, it is time for action, I hate even more to talk about in reference to the Jewish saga.

There is no comparison. OK, there may be very little similarity. An attempt to totally eradicate a race. That is all. As to the dissimilarities, one was totally based on racial hate, a sense of superiority, or inferiority, a purification attempt tinged with historical prejudice and envy, and so on.

The dissimilarites; One was committed in lands where the victim had no legal or historical claim, it was committed thousands of miles away from what the victims have claimed to be their ancestral homeland. There was no territorial factor. In the Armenian case it was mainly territorial, every other aspect such as cultural, linguistic or religion may have been incidental, even if a convenient distinguishing line. The two cannot be compared. Post Nazi Germany would not hesitate to compensate and make reparations, they are still doing it, it was only money. Post Ottoman Turkey would gladly oblige if it were only a matter of money(besides, that money comes from Armenian taxpayers of America anyway). Armenians were murdered in their own ancestral homes and historical lands(OK, some were a little outside of it as in Istanbul). Recognition and reparation is not simply money and they know it. Jews don't and never had centention to the land of Germany.

Just keep those marks, dollars and now Euros coming!!!???

[aurguplu]

arpa,

 

i agree with your points to a significant degree but mine differ slightly from yours in the following respects:

 

1. post-ottoman turkey would not that gladly oblige to accept the genocide, for i) mustafa kemal had to enlist some of those murderers amongst the ranks of the fighters of the independence war, and these guys consequently became listed among the heroes of independence, and later on, the founders of the republic; ii) these very guys had swallowed armenian wealth, you would not expect to cough it up from their newly-gained position of power, would you?, iii) much of the industrial wealth (especially in terms of real estate) was based on confiscated armenian, greek, and jewish property, iv) turkey had a hard time making the world accept its existence (western countries refused to move their embassies from istanbul to ankara for nine years, counting that the new republic would not survive) and the armenians did demand territory from turkey until quite recently, and there is still doubt amongst the army and conservatives that the demands can resurface, to name a few reasons.

 

2. i don't think that territorial demands would have any future, nor are they - understandably - conducive to constructive dialogue between the two peoples. the reasons for this are, apart from the fact that no-one cedes territory willingly, are i) armenians were in a minority in most of the provinces they were inhabiting by the 19th century, and ii) turks had not conquered these lands from an armenian state, but from the byzantine empire (cilicia may be a different case), and iii) pressing the territorial issue internationally would pave the way for similar demands elsewhere, most notably the americas and australia, but also russia, china and europe, so the turks would have many allies and armenians many adversaries.

 

i hope that in a hundred years' time, when the genocide has been long recognised and the people of the world have broken the mental shackles of nationalism, there would be the right atmosphere for armenians to settle back in turkey and live with their turkish and kurdish neighbours in peace. there were such times once. why can't there be again, after the wounds of the past have healed at long last? i believe in this sincerely when i look at europe: these people have been fighting one another since time began, they slaughtered a significant portion of eachother as recently as fifty years ago, and now there are no borders to speak of between them. it can happen.

 

cheers,

[aurguplu]

hagarag,

 

i completely agree and symphatise with you. of course, someone who has gone through what your family has gone through would want to have his revenge, and one cannot blame him for that, even though revenge in my opinion is not a healthy feeling (strong vinegar damages its own jar, as we say in turkish).

 

i also agree that pre-1915 reports of armenians massacring turks can be greatly exaggerated, but there were several such instances. the turkish thesis is that these were intended 1) to incite armenians to rebel, and 2) to provoke turks to retaliate against the armenians, and thus create a pretext for the western powers and russia to intervene. i believe there is some truth in this as the same plan was implemented in the balkans and had succeeded, there was every reason to believe that it would have succeeded in eastern anatolia as well. moreover, eastern anatolia being in close proximity to the oil-rich regions of iran and southern mesopotamia, they would have the incentive to do that, too. in addition, russians have traditionally striven - and still strive - to descend to the warmer seas (their afghan invasion in 1980 was ultimately a try to get down to the indian ocean as their mediterranean prospects had largely failed).

 

so only thinking in historical terms of realpolitik, there are grounds to believe that some armenian factions carried out terrorist activities (these are actually documented and i do not know of armenians denying them, esp. those in istanbul), incited the population to rebel - with mixed success, as the bulk remained loyal to the Porte - and carried out atrocities to incite the turks to seek revenge. this is a very common pattern that can be seen in such onflicts throughout the world.

 

of course, the motives and machinations of the CUP were entirely different: they wanted to get rid of the non-muslims in the empire, and confiscate their wealth.

 

and of course, whatever some armenians may have done, there can be no justification whatsoever for what followed.

 

cheers & thanks on congrats, i'll extend them to my wife-to-be.

[Twilight Bark]

Actually, on that you and arpa apparently agree.

 

Outright territorial demands are not only unrealistic, they are also undesirable for Armenians. Administering lands that are currently inhabited by Kurds and Turks would be a ridiculous proposition. To make it managable, the areas would have to be evacuated, and the current residents compensated for the move, provided for and housed in their new location, trainded for new jobs, etc. The changes would be so inconvenient and expensive that any good will generated in aftermath of the recognition would evaporate quickly, unless truly collosal amounts of money were injected into the process by rich donor countries (fat chance). It is just plain impractical. However, if and when Turkey recognizes the genocide and apologizes for it, it should be prepared to do more than just offer a dry apology and token reparations for "proved" claims (which would form a miniscule fraction of the true loss, not counting the collosal human damage caused by the slaughter). In my view, when the Turkish nation attains the maturity to face its past, and make amends for its mistakes, it should be willing to make the Armenian ancestral homeland (Eastern Anatolia) some sort of a "cultural free enterprise zone", where those Armenians who wish can settle and form communities again on those lands. The state presence would be minimal, and the cultural autonomy for all groups would be guaranteed. This requires the state structure to be decentralized, very strong local governments, and an end to the "unitary state" dogma. I understand that these are hard to swallow for the hardliners and army types, but the ordinary Turks wouldn't care one way or the other in the abstract sense, and would benefit greatly from decentralization in general. And I think most Armenians would go along with such a "laissez-faire" arrangement.

 

This, in a way, is circular reasoning. Armenians were reduced to minority in many of these provinces precisely because of the ongoing oppression that they experienced at the hands of the dominant groups (Kurds, Turks, etc. i.e. muslims).

This is largely irrelevant. The issue has always been about human-rights and self-determination. Just because one colonial power snatched one colony from another oppressor has never been considered as grounds for forfeiting that colony's people's inherent right to self-rule.

 

True. This is one of the most important "practical" difficulties faced by idealistic solutions. The "Solidarity of the Bullies" is an omnipresent feature in the world politics. However, a truly enlightened Turkey should not have to resort to the support of the Bullies Club in order to cope with the situation. While you expressed hope that the genocide will be recognized in a decade or so (I don't remember exactly, but that was the order of magnitude you had in mind), you seem to uncouple that from the more crucial issue of Armenian cultural rights in their ancestral homeland from which they were brutally torn away. If it is going to take another century for Turks to contemplate the possibility of letting Armenians into their homeland, forget it; don't recognize anything. Trust me, you would be doing Armenians a favor by not offering an empty "recognition".

I agree. And I also think that it is up to Turkey to let that happen.

 

[ March 08, 2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[Arpa]

Ali, how do you elude http://www.mit.gov.tr/ ?

=========

2. i don't think that territorial demands would have any future,

nor are they - understandably - conducive to

constructive dialogue between the two peoples. the reasons for this are,

apart from the fact that no-one cedes territory willingly, are

i) armenians were in a minority in most of the provinces they

were inhabiting by the 19th century, and ii) turks had not

conquered these lands from an armenian state, but from the

byzantine empire (cilicia may be a different case), and iii)

===========

Forgive me for saying this but as liberated and fairminded you

may be you still cannot come all out from under the likes of

Kamuran Gurun http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupe/eg/eg08/03.htm

His main excuse is that there never was an Armenian state,

except, maybe the Cilician one that came close. Of course,

there was no France it was Gaul before the Revolution, no

Britain, Saxony, no Germany, no Italy ans so on. And neitrher was

Turkey before Kemal and his henchmen like Ismet Inonu, or Adnan

Menderes qhose ethicity is questionable judging from his surname,

Menderesas the river Meander, Greek, maybe? Is that why of all of

the he swung at the end of the noose. Why was he so summarily

executed?

============

pressing the territorial issue internationally would pave the

way for similar demands elsewhere, most notably the americas

and australia, but also russia, china and europe, so the

turks would have many allies and armenians many adversaries.[/b]

========

As TB so wisely puts it, it would foolish to demand "from to sea to sea"

as some foolish Armenians may dream. They may place their hopes on

the allies who would not dot it even then when all those lands still had the

smell of Armenians. If we could only learn to bite only as much as we

can chew... and with our oen teeth, not British, not French, not even Russian

for if those people were to occupy a land they would keep it for themselves.

Nor turn over to us, just as Turkey won't under the preavailing circumstances.

[Guest Fadi]

Ali, I am not interested to enter in the debate right now, but there is a mistake your statment... When you say most of the provinces by 19 century, the Armenians were consituing a minority, if we recognise 19 century to be from 1801 to 1900, then your clam is not really right before 1828-29 Ottomano-Russian War for the possession of "Circassia" and the depopulation and alleged exchange of population Armenians were a majority in the majority not only a majority but a large majority in these provinces, if we go further on that, at that time there was no Armenian "provinces" this broking to pieces and the calling of these territories, Armenian provinces (5 in ottoman and some in Russia and one in Persia), happened with the Treaty of Berlin in 1878. the Eastern Ottoman was called Ermenistan or Erzeroun Ermenistan before these times etc... from starting 1828 to 1896 the depopulation assimilation and the "exchange" of population ended up that with the "minoritization" of the Armenians, a deficit per population of around 50 % per area. Van, Kars etc... before these "Turkification" process was populated of more then 80 % of Armenians.

 

[ March 08, 2002, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[sen_Vahan]

Whenever somebody tries to show something knowing in advance what the result should be, it turns out to be a useless stuff. If a researcher or a scientist is doing that then it's a complete shit.(about Kamuran Gürün's historical research ) And I can see why many Armenians do not believe ANY Turk writing about Armenia's history.

 

Ali, Armenians in eastern provinces were not in a minority in the 19th century. I do not think that one should follow pseudo-scientific reports (such as above mentioned Kamuran Gürün's work) in order to find a constructive dialogue. The wise principle "devide-and-rule" might decrease the Armenian population in that provinces. We all I guess realize that but should we try to write a new history?

 

Regards,

Vahan

[aurguplu]

dear arpa, tb, Domino,

sen vahan,

 

i shall answer the points raised to the best of my ability:

 

1. i do nothing to evade the mit. i use my real name as my user name, my surname is pretty famous in this country, i myself have appeared in the press several times (in totally different contexts), and if someone wants to find my whereabouts, it would take them a day if they were morons, and less if they had an iq over 90. if they haven't got me with all that by now, the only explanation i have for this is that they are not interested in doing so.

 

2. i wasn't advocating recognising the genocide without doing anything about it. as far as i am concerned, the genocide has to be recognised, compensation has to be paid for loss of life, limb & property, and the former armenian population of anatolia, who were ottoman subjects and therefore ought to have the same rights as today's turkish population, should be restored to their ancestral lands. now i had raised that issue in a previous discussion, and the replies i got from most armenian members who cared to reply were negative on the issue of returning to these lands. as far as i can recall mj even said something to the effect of "no armenian is ever going to return to eastern anatolia even if by some crazy magic it becomes part of armenia" (sorry mj if i am misquoting), and i got the impression that the armenians on the whole were more interested in getting the genocide recognised, repented for, compensations paid etc. than an actual return to the lands (on the other hand, i myself favour their return). secondly, you will already have enough in your hands trying to get the turks recognise the genocide and agree to pay compensation for it, and it will be met with greatest resistance on the part of the reactionary and nationalist factions, and it will give a card into their hands, something which no-one favours, i guess. thirdly, there are over ten million people currently residing in these regions, both turkish and kurdish, and their displacement will be out of question as far as the turkish government and nation are concerned. fourthly, any recognition, compensation and resettlement will automatically - and rightfully - bring similar demands both from the turkish and azeri sides about the plight of the over one million internally displaced azeris in azerbaijan, both from the nagorno-karabagh region and the territory outside it that is currently being occupied by nagorno-karabagh forces, and armenian republic's attempts to distance itself from that problem will be as successful as turkey's attempts to distance itself from a similar question in cyprus has been - not very. in brief, we have to find a solution that will work for both sides, and not harm either party. added to this is the fact that most of the diaspora is by now pretty well settled in countries a good deal more prosperous than both turkey and armenia, and that most of those who returned to armenia have left the country or are still leaving, and the azeri/turkish blockade is neither the only nor the most important reason for this, as we all very well know: they are disgusted with the way the country is being run (corruption, nepotism etc).

 

3. re the percentage of armenians in the empire prior to the genocide and/or 1891: i do not know that topic in depth, obviously, the further back in time you go, the greater that percentage would be, but as things stand, by the third quarter of the 19th century, they were a minority in every province by the figures available to me.

 

4. re the right of self-determination of peoples: somehow the plight of some people in this issue gets more attention than others: you do not hear much about that in the case of the tibetans or the uighurs in china, or the bosnians in former yugoslavia (they are the only nation that did not get its own state after the break-up, they ended up in a bosnian-croat federation. could it be because they were muslims?). in the case of iraq, for instance, you hear a lot about the kurds, but a good deal less (or nothing, in fact) about the turkmens who are currently being liquidated by the kurds of talabani and barzani. you hear about the plight of the kurds everywhere, including iran, but you don't hear about the plight of azeris in iran, for instance (now there are some fifteen million turks in iran, a third of the population, and they cannot even get education in their own language. how about that?). i am not against the right of self-determination per se, but only if it is applied everywhere equally. if everyone else will get theirs and we turks are not going to get anything save by force, then we cannot be expected to respect anyone else's right of self determination, can we?

 

may i conclude by adding that the most fruitful way to approach the problems between our two peoples would be to discuss them directly without intermediaries as we are doing here. we have all seen how reliable third parties are when defending our rights.

 

regards,

[Guest Fadi]

Ali, I agree with most of your posts.

 

When I answered you it was only to correct a little think you said, even if that number thing has not really to do with the discussion in question.

[khodja]

Ali,

 

Just a comment on my part. MJ has a good perspective on Armenian repatriation. I would agree with him that few Armenians would return to thier ancestral lands EVEN if they were to become part of Armenia. 80-something years have changed most of these Armenians, who are now hybrids culturally. Even though these Armenians are now very different from one another, based on the acclimation of their new cultures, much of thier Armenian cultural base has been diluted by their new culture. They are too established in their adopted lands. Only a crisis situation would drive these Armenians back to Eastern Anatolia. For example, do you think that the Jews of Germany would have wanted to move back to their ancestral lands had it not been for the Third Reich?

[aurguplu]

arpa,

 

1. kamuran gurun is an ex-turkish diplomat, so a mouthpiece for the turkish government. it is only natural that he writes stuff to defend the turkish position. now that the official turkish position is a difficult one to defend (=there was no genocide. half a million people died by accident.) the stuff he is going to write is going to sound a bit incoherent here and there.

 

i have read his "armenian file: the myth of innocence exposed" and must say that i have seen few books so badly written and easy to trash academically. the chapter on armenian origins especially makes you puke. it sounds like 19th century racist colonialist british-american stuff about the natives.

 

so i would be less than flattered to say the least being compared to gurun, although i have to concede that he may have a few good points for the 19th century (don't have the book with me, so examples will probably follow later on).

 

2. menderes' surname has got nothing to do with non-turkish ethnic origins. the river meander (the original name is either greek or pre-greek) is called "menderes" in turkish, and his family was from there, so he was called menderes. he got hanged (which was a tragedy) ostensibly because he violated the constitution, but actually because he said things like "i can run this army with non-commissioned officers", and the famous "if i threw a piece of wood, it would be elected an mp (this one a public statement)". in turkish we have a saying: the dog about to die pisses at the mosque wall (eceli gelen köpek cami duvarına işer). two other ministers were hanged with him, with impeccably turkic origins (not that that was an issue those days. believe it or not, if you are a muslim, native turkish speaker, and declare yourself a turk, you don't get molested in this country, at least not on ethnic grounds).

 

i hope this clarifies a bit.

 

cheers,

[Arpa]

may i conclude by adding that the most fruitful way to approach the problems between our two peoples would be to discuss them directly without intermediaries as we are doing here. we have all seen how reliable third parties are when defending our rights.

 

regards,

--------------------

ali suat

 

Sevgili Ali,

Good point!

I have repeatedly stated my reluctance to discuss any Turkish Armenian relations exactly for that reason. I have been approached by Turks to talk about "history" and I have declined simply because our defintions of the subject is totally subjective and biased. Our "histories" have been a case of exaggeration at best, one one way and the other the other way. I agree with your point about "direct and official" dialogue, as stated above, simply because the more we talk, the more people talk the more damage we do as neither knows what the other is saying. One demands a simple regocnition and apology, another demands monetary reparation and still others-return of land .. and so on. In the past I had also asked the not so rhetorical question; If and when, by some magic the Turks would agree to talk, who would be our official spokesperson? Shavarsh Torigian, the international jurist states in his book that "only (sovereign)states can sue other states". Armenia has not been a "atate" for quite some time, and if we use the "Kamuran logic", never, that is, until now. And now we see that Turks are willing to sit down, however intransigent they may be.

However, when it is all said and done, again, as to noises emanating from all corner, each saying their own thing, each demanding one thing or other, in the absence of an official body, in the absence of "sovereign state" to sue, Armenians had to do what they did to keep the issue alive. It may have been a lot of noise (we call it "hayhoyank", although the word is loosely used to mean "swear/kufur", in fact it simply means what it sounds like, i.e. noise, hulaballoo, hey-hey zilgit.) As we have seen lately, all that noise aside, Armenians have shown maturity and a willingness to compromise while Turkey has not shown even a hint of it. She may still centend to speak from a position of strength, it is not so anymore. Turkey has one chair at the UN and so does Armenia, besides Armenia and Armenians have the sympathy of more people than Turkey will ever have. The lip service of support she may get from the "allies" is simply a matter of politics, not an expression of love as in many circles the word "Turk" is still a swear word. Only if Turkey is willing to get down to the level and sit down as an equal partner, stop corrupting history and stop basing their policy on race, religion and ethnic kinship, stop playing that condescending game of "we are big and strong, you are small and weak","you have occupied the lands of our ethnic brothers" etc. Armenians have not occupied anybody's land, (at this point Armenians are at aloss of 90% of their lands)they recaptured their own land that was given away as gift to appease Turkey, with blood again. Why should Armenia cede land that was her own from times immemorial when Turkley is not willing to give back even a grain of sand?! What's good for the goose(turkey) is good for the gander" as well. I have never heard anybody say or even hint that Turkey is willing to at least share Ani, the city of "1001 churches" with Armenia. It is closer than a stone's throw to Armenia, separated only by a small creek we call Akhourian and you call Arpa (read my post about Arpa and see that it is not a Turkish word to mean barley but an Armenian word to mean "from the sun"), thousands of miles away from Ankara and Istanbul. Yet they insist that Shushi be given back. Honesty? Justice?

 

As to your mention of peopls like the Tibetans, Kurds, Turkomans etc. As above, even though by difinition Armenia may have not been a state as we now know, Armenians have always been a distinct people, however amorphous they may have been at times, they have always had their distinct language and culture, they have always known what they wanted, and most importantly they have always lived on their ancestral lands. As to the others, let's take the Kurds as an example. If you think Armenians speak from many divergent mouths, let's hear what the Kurds are saying. Talabni? Barzani? or Ozal? Which homeland are they demanding? Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Syria? Which one is their historical ancestral homeland. As to Tibetans, if those idiots would stop spinning those wheels, counting those stupid beads, bowing to Buddha a million times a day and take up some arms instead...

 

Ali, do you know that poem by Mehmet Emin that goes like; "That sharp and long piece of iron you're beating, What is it that yo're making? "I am making a dagger". "Don't! Put it down quick!. Are not all these weapons enough...?"

The reason I ask is ironic. While on the one hand Armenian poets have called to arms, a Turk having written about disarmament.. Look at the outcome. Is Mehmet Emin remembered fondly or is he maligned for going against the grain?With Turkey still forging daggers and missiles.

If you find that poem you can post it next the one I intend to post, DERENIK by Daniel Varouzhan.

[aurguplu]

hagarag,

 

i agree with you to a certain extent, but the jews were not native to germany (in a sense), they never considered themselves to be, and they always wanted to go back to the holy land, and indeed zionism and extensive jewish resettlement in israel actually predates the holocaust (theodor herzl etc.). this is not the case with the armenians. they are native to the place (at least have been there for the past 2,800 years or so), and still dream of their ararat mountain. this is why i was surprised to see that most armenians who answered that question in this forum said that they wouldn't return even if it were to become part of armenia. then, i ask, why so much talk about getting back the lands, if no-one is going to go live on them? not that i see it as a viable goal, anyway, but still, why no canalise your energies on areas where you can actually get something like genocide recognition, repentance, compensation, and normalisation of relations between the three countries (incl. azerbaijan)?

 

i see it as a moral right of armenians to be able to live in eastern anatolia where they have done so for centuries (without throwing us out, for we have lived there for a good eight hundred years as well). of course, whether or not they would actually want to do so is entirely their business.

 

i can understand that people who have lived in the west for three generations would already have been assimilated to a certain extent into the surrounding population and not want to come back and start everything from scratch in eastern anatolia (which is a tough place to start anything from scratch, anyway), but i can't really see much f another reason (this, of course, provided that the rift between the two peoples have healed).

 

cheers,

[sen_Vahan]

Ali,

People living in modern Armenia (many of them)would go to Anatolia if they had the chance. Those in the US or France obviously would not.(too much trouble)

If Turkey and Armenia open the border and let people move easily then that would not be a problem. I think the best thing the Turkish state might do would be the constraction of railway to Armenia and Azerbaijan, investments to Armenia's economy and wise immigration policy.

Regards,

Vahan

[khodja]

Ali,

 

Did anyone here realize that love kills, but hate perpetuates a minority population? Here in America there are many Turks who have married Northern European descended Americans. Many Turks have converted to Christianity. Thus, in a few generations they will disappear.

 

Despite the fact that many Armenians will disagree with the DNA studies until their death-bed, many Armenian Jews assimilated into the Armenian genepool. The original Armenian Church was very Judaic in belief and liturgical practices. Books have been written on how Judaic were Armenian liturgical practices and church music. The Byzantines constantly accused the Armenians of Judaizing Christianity. In this accepting Armenian atmosphere, Jews disappeared through assimilation.

 

Had it not been for the earlier massacres of Armenians and the Genocide, Armenians in Turkey would have eventually disappeared. If Turkey ever became a truly democratic nation, the Armenans would have eventually disappeared through assimilation. Does anyone realize that the Azeris were once called Albanians and were predominantly Christian? So the Ittihadists gave the premise of the perpetuation of the Armenians a big shot in the arm. Nothing works like the ultimate alienation displayed in Genocide to perpetuate a culture.

[sen_Vahan]

" Did anyone here realize that love kills, but hate perpetuates a minority population?"

 

obviously we do not, because we are merely gravediggers from the Ararat Valley.

 

" Here in America there are many Turks who have married Northern European descended Americans. Many Turks have converted to Christianity. Thus, in a few generations they will disappear."

 

So, what's your point?

 

" Despite the fact that many Armenians will disagree with the DNA studies until their death-bed, many Armenian Jews assimilated into the Armenian genepool. "

 

Good theory. Since its supporters have arguments like "DNA studies is the-state-of-the-art ... " or a similar crap, consequently one should count on that, the theory will have no future.

 

"The original Armenian Church was very Judaic in belief and liturgical practices."

 

Well, I would not like to address third class discussion about the Armenian church, but your generalization is irrelevant.

 

" Books have been written on how Judaic were Armenian liturgical practices and church music."

 

Oh, dearest, your "vast knowledge" of church music prevents you probably to listen to it.By the way, why did you decide to write about that in this topic?

 

"The Byzantines constantly accused the Armenians of Judaizing Christianity. In this accepting Armenian atmosphere, Jews disappeared through assimilation."

 

Compare the ortodox and armenian christianity and try to find differences. Emphasize the judaic origin of theology and liturgy. maybe after that you will correct yourself.

 

" Had it not been for the earlier massacres of Armenians and the Genocide, Armenians in Turkey would have eventually disappeared. If Turkey ever became a truly democratic nation, the Armenans would have eventually disappeared through assimilation."

 

How about the Armenians in Lebanon or Georgia?

[Twilight Bark]

[ March 11, 2002, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[khodja]

Sen_Vahan,

 

Are the Armenians really loved in Lebanon or Georgia? I have read that at times in Lebanon the Armenians are still considered alien and in Georgia the same. How much intermarriage is there?Intermarriage is the key to eventual assimilation.

 

As for the present differences between the Armenian and Orthodox churches, they are not as dssimilar today as they were in the early days of Christianity. The Byzantine Emperors saw to that. They eventually brought Armenian belief closer to their beliefs.

[Twilight Bark]

Let me try to summarize in one paragraph. "Nothing happened. Well, if something happened, it wasn't that big a deal. Well, if it was a big deal, we suffered even more. Well, even if they suffered more, they deserved it. Well, even if they didn't deserve it, they couldn't have suffered much because they hardly existed to begin with. Well, even if they existed, they didn't have an official existence. Well, even if they had an official existence, it doesn't count because they hadn't had a state for a long time. Besides, are they really a nation anyway? We doubt it. Even if they are, that was a mistake. Anyway, don't get us angry, or we will do it again; not that we did anything to begin with."

 

P.S. It was more than half a million.

 

[ March 11, 2002, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[Arpa]

Excellent points TB.

I have said it before and wil say it again.

Is it Genocide you want? WE will be so glad to oblige!

Don't provoke us. Don't extend you "nose" (neck) further than you can protect. Armenians seem to have done the "right" thing at the "wrong" time, even the Artsakh saga was one such, however when it reaches here, ther is no other way.

Remember the song Sardarapat; "Yerb chi mnoum yelq ou char...". I only wish we would learn to in act advance rather than react belatedly and from a position of weakness.

And yea! Was it 300,001 or 1,499,999?

[Twilight Bark]

They existed as a distinct, coherent entity for at least 3300 years in recorded history. We don't know how much more before then. However, if the Armenian words for lullaby and milk are common with Sumerian, an important part of their ancestors must have been in the region for ~5000 years or so, without knowing that they were Armenians

 

It is true that most Armenians would have a hard time justifying the move, if it involves being dropped in the middle of a dirt road and be left to tame the place with their personal means. However, things would change somewhat if the compensation is channeled into making the place acceptable for a reasonable existence. It would also help the local Turks and Kurds immensely. A win-win situation.

 

Recognition and repentance are to the Turkish people's benefit, not the Armenians. It is an important step on the way to an enlightened existence. Compensation is meaningless for the betterment of the Armenian culture and existence, if it is to go into personal bank accounts. To make hagarag happy I do think that "proven" claims should go to the legitimate heirs. But the much larger, general compensation would be meaningful only if it were channeled to the reconstruction of Armenian communities in Eastern Anatolia (and no big loss to Turkey since the money would stay in the country and be used for something nice for a change; and this is probably the only way Turkey can afford to pay monetary damages for the Genocide). Normalization of relations are beneficial to Armenians only if Turkey becomes an enlightened country. Otherwise it simply encourages Armenian dependence on a country that is deep down hostile. And if Turkey becomes enlightened, most of the "separate" points discussed here become irrelevant (i.e. merge into the greater issue of true reconciliation).

That is very nice of you to say. Then I assume you are also in favor of making the necessary changes in the philosophy and structure of the Turkish state. Strong local autonomy, only nominal presence of the "central government" and absolute cultural freedom are the necessary (but insufficient; lots of money is the missing ingredient) conditions for such repatriation. It is also the litmus test for the sincerity of the noble viewpoints declared.

 

Absolutely. The alternative is either repugnant or impractical (in many cases both).

 

In any event, all of this is pure fantasy. I fully expect the region to keep toiling in spiritual and material misery for the forseeable future, even though the way out is in principle not so complicated, except for the inexhaustible supply of stupidity generated by chauvinism.

[khodja]

Twilight Bark,

 

Although I would not move to Turkey, I would have no problem with maintaining the endeavors of my great-grandfather and grandfather there for the benefit of all peoples of the region. My great-grandfather had set up eating places where all the poor of the region, Turks, Assyrians, Armenians could get a free meal. Most of the acreage he had in production of various foods is now barren. Why the Turks have allowed this to happen is anybody's guess. With some form of restitution, if the political and social climate of Turkey changed, I could even maintain a residence in Istambul.

 

But from what I see the Turkish authorities really do not want Armenians there. They often do not even allow established churches to make necessary repairs.

[Twilight Bark]

They don't want them here, and they don't want them there. They don't want them anywhere. Maybe they should all read "Green Eggs and Ham" .

[sen_Vahan]

"i know it was more than half a million, i was just quoting the official stuff."

 

Right. And you probably know that Armenians were in a minority according to the same official stuff. But indeed they were not. Good progress.

 

So then, Armenians were in majority in some vilayets by the 19th century, there was a massacre (with more that half million people killed), historical and religious monuments were mainly distroyed by the Government's order, the country(eastern vilayets) was "cleaned" (I mean no more Armenians). Moreover, what is perfect is that you recognise that those territories were Armenian although were taken from Byzantians. All right, then let me ask why the present Armenia does not have the chance to take back those some vilayets? I guess just because the official Turkey will not do that step - nobody would do. OK, and all that Turkish garbage in the literature about Armenia's history and Armenians in general does not make any sense.

 

Hagarag, there was always an influence of the Imperors on the Armenia in general, including the church. But those little differencies in theology beginning 5 or 6th century still remain. Monophysits (I am not sure it is the right name in English literature) - Armenians, Kopts, Ethyopians, had and have some theological differencies comparing with the Orthodoxy, but these are not judaic.

Relations with Georgians after Soviet's collapse got worse. But do not forget that even before the revolution in Russia Tiflis was one of the biggest Armenian cultural centers. And there were some inter-national merrages. Talking to ARmenians from Lebanon I do not hear anything negative. But maybe they just do not like talking about that.

 

Regards,

Vahan