Lecture by Dr. Hilmar Kaiser

[Guest]

I've seen him speak twice. He knows his stuff.

 

[This message has been edited by TigrannesIII (edited February 13, 2001).]

[Guest]

I just received this e-mail.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

 

Dear Friends,

 

On Sunday, February 18th (this Sunday) your ASA will be having a lecture by

Dr. Hilmar Kaiser.

He is a German Scholar that has been banned from the Turkish Archives due to his interest in Armenian History. He will be speaking in the Young Grand Salon that in located in the Kerckhoff building from 3:00-5:00pm. He has come all the way from Germany to speak about "Armenian Property in Turkish Hands." Don't let this great opportunity of seeing this excellent and entertaining speaker pass you by. If there are any questions please call me at 818 281-8219.

 

All My Best,

 

Ben Charchian

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

The above mentioned building is on the UCLA campus.

 

A

[Guest]

Armenian National Committee of America - Western

Region

104 North Belmont Street

Suite 200

Glendale, CA 91206

 

818.500.1918

Fax: 818.246.7353

 

ancawr@anca.org www.anca.org

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

For Immediate Release

02/15/01

 

ANCA - WR CO-SPONSORS LECTURE ON LATEST RESEARCH IN ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

STUDIES

 

Hagopian, Kaiser, Sarafian to Speak on New Publications

 

GLENDALE - The Armenian National Committee of America - Western

Region, in conjunction with the Armenian Film Foundation and the

Gomidas Institute, will co-sponsor a lecture on the most recent

research in Armenian Genocide studies, featuring three foremost

specialists - Dr. J. Michael Hagopian, Hilmar Kaiser and Ara Sarafian

- who, in addition to presenting talks on the topic, will also

introduce three new publications. The lecture is scheduled to take

place on Wednesday, February 21, 2001, at 7:30 p.m., at the Glendale

Public Library at 222 East Harvard Street, in Glendale.

 

Dr. J. Michael Hagopian (Armenian Film Foundation) will focus on the

Armenian Genocide in Kharpert. He will also introduce the diaries of

Tracy Atkinson, who witnessed the destruction of Armenians in Kharpert

in 1915. Atkinson's diaries, The German, the Turk and the Devil Made a

Triple Alliance: Harpoot Diaries, 1908-1917, has just been published

by Gomidas Institute Books, with an introduction by J. Michael

Hagopian.

 

Hilmar Kaiser (European Institute, Florence) will discuss German and

Allied wartime propaganda in the historiography of the Armenian

Genocide. His latest book, Eberhard Count Wolffskeel Von Reichenberg,

Zeitoun, Mousa Dagh, Ourfa: Letters on the Armenian Genocide, raises

interesting questions about the understanding of German complicity in

the Armenian Genocide.

 

Ara Sarafian (Gomidas Institute, UK) will give a paper on the refusal

of the British and United States governments to recognize the Armenian

Genocide in light of the historical record. His recent critically

edited volume, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire

1915-16 [uncensored Edition], shows that already in 1916, the British

and American governments had articulated the Armenian Genocide thesis.

 

`This lecture will be an extraordinary opportunity to hear three

distinguished scholars on the subject of the Armenian Genocide,' said

ANCA-WR Executive Director Alex Sardar. `Not only is the subject of

interest, but Hagopian, Kaiser and Sarafian all present the history of

the Genocide from unique and fresh perspectives, adding to the

public's overall understanding of this complex and singular event in

history.'

 

The lecture will include audience interaction in the form of questions

and answers. For more information, contact the ANCA - WR at 818.500.1918 or at ancawr@anca.org.

[nairi]

The Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies hereby invites you to

 

“The Ottoman Government and the end of the Ottoman Social Formation, 1915-1917”

 

A guest lecture by

Dr. Hilmar Kaiser

 

 

Thursday June 17 2004, 4-5:30pm

PC Hoofthuis, University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 134, room 104

 

 

World War 1 initiated the beginning of the end of the Ottoman Empire. Before and after this war, the government of the Empire orchestrated an ethnic deportation policy. Hundred of thousands of Armenians, Arabs, Turks, Assyrians, Kurds and many more were deported to far away places, where they were often left in complete isolation, if they did not surrender to the ruling classes. This has led to the end of a Christian minority in the region - contemporary Turkey. The way this deportation policy has been organized and exercised is still being researched. Documents that have been hidden for years are found in Ottoman archives and made public by researchers like dr. Hilmar Kaiser. His lecture will be based on his most recent findings.

 

The lecture will be held in English. The lecturer will be open to questions and discussion.

 

Dr. Hilmar Kaiser (1961) studied at the University of Bochum and the European University Institute in Florence. He lived in Istanbul where he intensively researched the Ottoman Archived. He is the author of various books on this subject, such as At the Crossroads of Der Zor: Death, Survival and Humanitarian Resistance in Aleppo, 1915-1917 (London: Taderon, 2002); Imperialism, Racism, and Development Theories: The Construction of a Dominant Paradigm on Ottoman Armenians (Princeton, NJ: Gomidas Institute, 1997); and “Migration, Deportation, and Nation Building: The Case of the Ottoman Empire,” in: René Leboutte (ed.), Migration and Migrants in Historical Perspective: Permanencies and Innovations (Bruxelles: Peter Lang, 2000), pp.273-292.

 

The lecture is open to the general public. Please register before June 15th with Silvia Rottenberg at s.rottenberg@niod.nl or by phone at 020-5233808.

[nairi]

One thing. In his lecture, Hilmar Kaiser clarified that he was kicked out of Turkey after asking for documentation on the result of the Kurdish deportation during WWI.

 

In NRC Handelsblad of May 27, 2000, he says in an interview: "I worked in some forty archives around the world, but nowhere is like in Turkey. Every document I got had been passed through a control commission - of which they deny the existence but I can tell you exactly who they are and where they are. They videotaped me, someone stood behind me while I was working, they sent people to hear me out, they tried to find out who was financing my research - they suspected an Armenian conspiracy. I was kicked out in 1995. That was stupid: I could have continued for another twenty years asking for documents and now I would have had time to write things down.

 

The intro to this article quotes Kaiser as saying: "I am neither denier nor believer." He seems to have changed his mind in the last ten years...

 

 

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

Het Financieele Dagblad (Dutch newspaper)

June 24, 2004

 

"Recognition of genocide will help Turkey progress"

 

Turkey is high on the Dutch agenda with a view to an EU membership. According to Turkey-expert Hilmar Kaiser openness of the past will increase the chances.

 

BY OUR EDITOR

 

AMSTERDAM - Under Dutch presidency, the European Union will decide in December whether candidate member Turkey receives a date on which negotiations can begin for accession. The case is sensitive politically because, among other factors, Turkey is a Muslim state, as written in a recent report of the Scientific Council for Government Policy. It is also notable that politicians scrupulously avoid the debate on the concealed Turkish genocide of 1915 on 1.5 million Armenians. Wrongly, finds Hilmar Kaiser, who was promoted at the European University in Florence after studying Turkish archives on this matter. Kaiser is prohibited by the Turkish authorities to carry out further archival research. Nevertheless the Turkey expert is optimistic at this moment. Recently he spoke about his research in Amsterdam.

 

- How do you estimate the chances of recognition of the genocide?

"To approach the EU Ankara has already done serious work on the Kurdish problem and the Cyprus question. Judging the capabilities of Erdogan and Gül, the current political leaders, I expect that the government will carry out very generous solutions for the Armenian question. I think, however, that they still need some time, because otherwise, in the eyes of the military leaders, there will be too much confusion. It must, however, happen before Turkey becomes an EU member. I have high hope that this will happen as well."

 

- What is the basis for your hope?

"This is the first government that in fact breaks with the kemalists, the followers of Kemal Atatürk, founder of modern Turkey, who radically enforced the separation of Church and State. Apart from the opposition, the current politicians have nothing to do with people who have the genocide on their conscience. Erdogan and Gül are ordinary Muslims. Their supporters originate from people who had then saved Armenians with danger for their own lives. This government has, as far as I know, no links with the mafia, the military elite, the secret service and the media industry."

 

- You are now referring to the car accident in Susurluk in 1996.

"Yes. A high police force officer, a member of Parliament, a mafia boss and a beauty diva were involved. Then it became clear how the Turkish establishment is interwoven with criminal gangs. This government has nothing to do with that and has strong roots in a democratic tradition. Therefore, I do not think that there are still reasons to keep Turkey outside the EU in the long run, especially if Erdogan recognizes the genocide. Because I do not see another government doing it so soon. Moreover this will help Turkey enormously."

 

- In which respect?

"Erdogan is able to push the door open for a completely new future for Turkey and also for the Caucasus Region. He will not do that primarily to please the EU, but out of personal interest. Because in the long run I see a leading role for Turkey in the whole region. I consider Erdogan able to do so. With the recognition of the Armenian genocide Turkey also provides itself with the legitimacy to develop into a real regional power. Recognition is in the Turkish interest. Problems do not get solved by blurring or by denying them."

 

- What stops Turkey then?

"Not Erdogan, because he is in fact pleading for renewal and emancipation. You still find the opponents in all parts of the state apparatus and in the current opposition party CHP. That party depicts Erdogan's party AKP as Muslim fundamentalist that tries to frustrate the reforms. CHP represents the tradition of the genocide committers, Young-Turks, who for more than eighty years had the power and up to 1950 sat in the government and owned the banks. Their ideas are also widespread under Turks in Europe. They still play the same game, but they are losing their influence."

 

- This sounds like a revolution.

"This is exactly so. At this moment a lot is happening in Turkey and that is a delicate process. AKP finds its basis among the ordinary population in Eastern Turkey. It is striking that exactly this Muslim government releases the Kurdish human rights activist Leyla Zana. A kemalist government would never do that."

 

- New York Life recently reached a millions of dollars settlement with Armenian heirs because of unpaid policies.

"This can be compared to the Jewish credit balances. There are more financial institutions with genocide money, both abroad and in Turkey itself. With the Armenian properties state ventures were established that still exist today. The Turkish government must take the initiative to blow off the lid. Transparency in companies is, in this respect, a condition for economic and democratic development in that region. This matter should not be seen in terms of what it costs, but in terms of new chances. That will also make Turkey more attractive for foreign investors."

 

- In the West too the term "genocide" concerning Armenians is sometimes avoided. How do you see that?

"That is politically motivated. It was the first modern genocide, complete with strategy and medical experiments. And also concerning the number of 1.5 million no doubt can exist. I'll spare you the details."

 

 

PHOTO: In Guzelyurt, Cappadocia, the party offices of ex-Prime Minister Ecevit and Prime Minister Erdogan are next to each other. FRISO SPOELSTRA/HH

[Stormig]

What BS. Don't know where to start.

[nairi]

Wherever you want Please...

[bellthecat]

One could start with the bullshit that the Armenian Genocide should be seen as primarily Turks killing Armenians. It was actually Muslims killing Christians, with Armenians (through the vehicle of CUP guidance) being the initial and the primary victims ov the violence.

 

And what fantasy world is he living in when he says that the CUP "up to 1950 sat in the government and owned the banks".

 

And to write that "Erdogan and Gül are ordinary Muslims. Their supporters originate from people who had then saved Armenians with danger for their own lives" is an obscenity. I would distrust the moral standards of any Armenian who would wish to associate with this obviously deeply unpleasant individual.

 

Steve

 

PS. Is Kaiser a Muslim, or perhaps being supported by funds from Islamic sources - since much of his work seems to be intended to whitewash any Muslim blame for the genocide, as well as attacking the modern Turkish state, the main opponent of any resurgence of pan-Islamisation in Turkey.

Edited June 28, 2004 by bellthecat

[nairi]

One could start with the bullshit that the Armenian Genocide should be seen as primarily Turks killing Armenians. It was actually Muslims killing Christians, with Armenians (through the vehicle of CUP guidance) being the initial and the primary victims ov the violence.

He said this. Although he didn't group everyone in one group. He was careful (as he said) to not use generalizations where the Ottoman Empire didn't either. It wasn't Muslims versus Christians. The Turks deported Muslims as well, including Turks from the Balkans and Kurds. The idea was to "turkify" the whole region, although ironically many Balkan Turks ended up kurdifying. The Young-Turks were nationalists not "religionists", although they used Islam as an excuse to slaughter the infidels, but their final goal was Turkification.

 

And what fantasy world is he living in when he says that the CUP "up to 1950 sat in the government and owned the banks".

 

And to write that "Erdogan and Gül are ordinary Muslims. Their supporters originate from people who had then saved Armenians with danger for their own lives" is an obscenity. I would distrust the moral standards of any Armenian who would wish to associate with this obviously deeply unpleasant individual.

 

No idea about this. The rest sort of sounds like it's coming from a defeated German...

 

Steve, he was pretty critical of (abusing) Islam in his lecture, but he emphasized that it was nationalism that played the bigger role.

[bellthecat]

I can't say anything about that actual lecture of course - only about the news report you posted. In it I don't see anything critical of Islam. The old "they were only using Islam" excuse seems to be the standard excuse for Islamic attrocities these days. It WAS Muslims versus Christians. The victims were exclusively Christian, the perpretrators (alleged Jewish/masonic plots aside) were exclusively Muslim.

 

In the greater scheme of things it is of no importance that Turkey admits to the Armenian Genocide if the reasons the Genocide happpened are then to be whitewashed by people like Hilmar Kaiser and his Islamist pals in AKP.

 

During the Ottoman era the Turks did not deport any Muslim groups that I know of. True, Muslim groups were moved around - but that is because they came as refugees from outside the Empire, such as Circassians who were settled in northern Syria, Bulgarian Turks from the Balkans, etc. There are also Kurds who, during WW1, were invited to settle into empty Armenian villages - but there was no compulsion and most came only for as long as it took to wreak the houses, sell the agricultural equipment, and eat the grain provide for sowing crops.

[nairi]

Steve, I agree that Islam should not be ignored when talking about the genocide, but I don't think anyone serious is doing that; neither is Kaiser, although maybe he could be more outspoken about it than he is now.

 

As for deported Muslims, as I said, Kaiser was asking for the documents that recorded the result of the Kurdish deportation when he was kicked out of Turkey. He had already studied the documents that ordered the deportation of Kurds to typhus-infected areas with the sole purpose of "naturally" destroying them. Later Balkan Turks were deported to Kurdish areas with the purpose of turkifying the Kurds. He said other things as well which I have forgotten by now. The interview is very weak and doesn't really mention what he said during his lecture.

 

Steve, I asked him about Siamanto but he hadn't read him...

[Stormig]

- What is the basis for your hope?

"This is the first government that in fact breaks with the kemalists, the followers of Kemal Atatürk, founder of modern Turkey, who radically enforced the separation of Church and State. Apart from the opposition, the current politicians have nothing to do with people who have the genocide on their conscience. Erdogan and Gül are ordinary Muslims. Their supporters originate from people who had then saved Armenians with danger for their own lives. This government has, as far as I know, no links with the mafia, the military elite, the secret service and the media industry."

 

Firstly, ironically, there are no parties that talk about “Kemalism” (whatever the heck that is, pun intended).

I don’t know how he can say “the current politicians have nothing to do with people who have the genocide on their conscience.” Where does he get his info from? How does he reach his conclusions? What does he mean, anyway? It is in one’s hands to have something on their conscience or not – like today’s Kurds know what happened (and not plenty did enough to save Armenians, rest assured) but don’t give a rat’s arse, hence they don’t have it on their conscience. Yet during the last election they about almost all (I mean that region) dropped the “pro-Kurdish” parties and voted for these guys – one of the only two parties to make it into parliament. Anyone noted that? So what does it mean to “have nothing to do with...”? Is he talking about grassroots? Party members? MP’s? Associates, affiliates? What? And what does it mean to have something to do with people that DO have the genocide on their conscience? What are the implications?

 

 

- You are now referring to the car accident in Susurluk in 1996.

"Yes. A high police force officer, a member of Parliament, a mafia boss and a beauty diva were involved. Then it became clear how the Turkish establishment is interwoven with criminal gangs. This government has nothing to do with that and has strong roots in a democratic tradition. Therefore, I do not think that there are still reasons to keep Turkey outside the EU in the long run, especially if Erdogan recognizes the genocide. Because I do not see another government doing it so soon. Moreover this will help Turkey enormously.”

 

The criminal gangs part (or lack of connections with) could be true but would be misleading. The current party has almost always been in the opposition, but that is not to say it is “less filthy.” The party in government at this time is “ruled” by an elite class of former members of the previous fundamentalist party, for the most part, with recruits from other right-wing, centre-right, etc., parties, which is what makes it marginally plausible that it be “moderate” (or should one say “diluted”). And who are these people from the other rightist parties, including the ultranationalist MHP (a.k.a. Grey Wolves now having to tame down to Grey Puppies)? Any chance that they be “pure”? And the fundamentalists have no democratic tradition but one of going around houses like Jehovah’s Witnesses, asking for votes for their party, PR exercises such as making member one Arab Christian and advertising him to the whole world, putting up illiterate washerwomen as candidates for MP’s when first confronted with the question why they didn’t have any of their own, and one of a very cunning organisation and coordination and devotion (I’ll hand them that much) so much so that when their parties are to be shut down and their properties confiscated by the state, everything down to the pen and paper on the desk is registered as someone’s private property, to turn up in the HQ of the next emerging party. Oh do I even need to mention photos of chairmen and Uzbek terrorist Tahir Yoldash? The current are in no way, shape, or form “better” or less corrupt than the previous in that now that they have complete control over everything, as the single ruling party, they are relishing in the delight of pushing limits and getting around obstacles, something they are really good at. I’d say more but that would be telling.

 

- In which respect?

"Erdogan is able to push the door open for a completely new future for Turkey and also for the Caucasus Region. He will not do that primarily to please the EU, but out of personal interest. Because in the long run I see a leading role for Turkey in the whole region. I consider Erdogan able to do so. With the recognition of the Armenian genocide Turkey also provides itself with the legitimacy to develop into a real regional power. Recognition is in the Turkish interest. Problems do not get solved by blurring or by denying them."

 

Euphemism.

 

- What stops Turkey then?

"Not Erdogan, because he is in fact pleading for renewal and emancipation. You still find the opponents in all parts of the state apparatus and in the current opposition party CHP. That party depicts Erdogan's party AKP as Muslim fundamentalist that tries to frustrate the reforms. CHP represents the tradition of the genocide committers, Young-Turks, who for more than eighty years had the power and up to 1950 sat in the government and owned the banks. Their ideas are also widespread under Turks in Europe. They still play the same game, but they are losing their influence."

 

I have yet to imagine a Muslim fundamentalist being able to accept the G-word more easily than a member of a leftist party – not to be come across often, the latter, but even less the former. And like the hell Kaiser would know about CHP or what have you. These parties change position as they like or see fit according to the call of the day, and, moreover, on the grassroots, I believe it more likely to come across an enlightened CHP than a levitating fundamentalist. Assigning CHP the role of genocide denier simply because of its originating point is gross simplification. It was the Nationalists (repeat, “nationalists”) that formed the state, yet the CHP evolved into a leftist party while the MHP, today’s “nationalists,” emerged independently. If CHP would be so close-minded, I wouldn’t want to know how much worse an MHP could be.

 

- This sounds like a revolution.

"This is exactly so. At this moment a lot is happening in Turkey and that is a delicate process. AKP finds its basis among the ordinary population in Eastern Turkey. It is striking that exactly this Muslim government releases the Kurdish human rights activist Leyla Zana. A kemalist government would never do that."

 

They are merely reaping the harvest of a process not started by them.

 

- New York Life recently reached a millions of dollars settlement with Armenian heirs because of unpaid policies.

"This can be compared to the Jewish credit balances. There are more financial institutions with genocide money, both abroad and in Turkey itself. With the Armenian properties state ventures were established that still exist today. The Turkish government must take the initiative to blow off the lid. Transparency in companies is, in this respect, a condition for economic and democratic development in that region. This matter should not be seen in terms of what it costs, but in terms of new chances. That will also make Turkey more attractive for foreign investors."

 

Yes, yes, wonderful connections.

 

Holding Islam responsible is indeed silly as the genocide was a phenomenon of that geography and not of Muslims as the ummah. Also deporting Muslims to Turkify a region is quite different from deporting Christians so they would perish. Whether the Kurds were deported for the same reasons (I’d like to know the time frames), I don’t know. It was nationalism that played the role there, although not on its own. It’s not so simple, for, as Domino so astutely put it, the genocide was not racist, although the denial is. I think at the end of the day it isn’t important which –ism did this or that, or why, but just that it happened.

Edited June 28, 2004 by Stormig

[bellthecat]

Yes but these Kurdish deportations all occured after WW1. I don't know what he means by saying it occured during WW1 - during ww1 it was just a case of Kurds resettling Armenian villages. After WW1 it was done as a repressive "scorched-earth" response to armed revolt in certain specific regions (Dersim, Ararat, ect.). There was never any plan to actually eliminate all Kurds from eastern Turkey - the fact that the whole of the east is still brimfull of Kurds should alone prove that. So they don't really compare to what was done to Armenians and other non-islamic nations within the Ottoman empire. The Balkan Turks came as refugees in the "population exchanges" - so they were not deportations in the sense that we are talking about, and, again, they are post-WW1.

[DominO123]

Steve, I do think that they only used Islam, and I am not an apologizer of Islamic crimes. Abdhul Hamid crimes were religious ones, but the genocide happened under a Turkish nationalist government.

 

As for Kaiser Nairi... he was in Montreal not so long ago... yes he is neither a denier or a believer... he's a knower. I suggest you to read his critics of Dadrian work concerning German responsability, and you'll understand what I meant by he's arrogant.

Edited June 28, 2004 by Fadix

[nairi]

I have yet to imagine a Muslim fundamentalist being able to accept the G-word more easily than a member of a leftist party – not to be come across often, the latter, but even less the former.

That rings very true. Thanks for the rest of the comments.

 

Steve, he said that there is apparently good documentation on other forced deportations right before and during WWI. But I may have misunderstood him..

 

Fadio, I haven't read that particular text and I'm not defending Kaiser in any way. I'm just clarifying some things as best I can.

[Twilight Bark]

Stormig is right in that the islamists turned out to be not much better than the secularists in Armenian matters. One needs to make a distinction between their ideologs and grass-roots, however. The "grass-roots" of any persuasion suffers from the same, rabidly anti-Armenian indoctrination as the rest, making the words of the "islamist elite" meaningless when it comes to real action, be it the treatment of minority rights in Turkey, the relations with Armenia, or dealing with the genocide.

 

What Kaiser is saying sounds both too optimistic and outdated. They could have been more justified before the islamists came to power and stayed for a while. But it is still true that the interests of long-suppressed islamists coincide with a more tolerant society, to the extent that it allows them to operate more freely. There is an opportunity in there somewhere for Turkey to make a forward move.

 

Firstly, ironically, there are no parties that talk about “Kemalism” (whatever the heck that is, pun intended).

Well, "Ataturkculuk" is the word, isn't it? And it is the "Allah-u-akbar" of the secularist "religion", shared by the "secularist" parties of the left, right, and center.

But Kaiser is sort of abusing the term, in that there is nothing particularly anti-Armenian in it per se. It is just that the term has an unwritten implication of continuing a tradition whose roots are in the Young Turks movement. The term implies a continuation of a nationalism that is not really divergent from the Young Turk ideology.

 

It’s not so simple, for, as Domino so astutely put it, the genocide was not racist, although the denial is. I think at the end of the day it isn’t important which –ism did this or that, or why, but just that it happened.

It depends on how you define "race". To the extent that "race" is "a collection of traits that are not changeable", it was a racist genocide. Armenians were viewed as culturally too alien to change and assimilate into the new, synthetic "Turk" that the Young Turks were about to create. In that sense, having a purple skin and pointy ears would have about the same effect. And at the end of the day, it is extremely important which "-ism" led to genocide. The muslim chauvinism always persecuted Armenians in a "retail" fashion, eroding their numbers and killing their spirit. But the wholesale extermination of a nation was a uniquely nationalist and yes, a racist (in the generalized sense above) act committed in the name of the new Turkism, using islamic chauvinism as an all-too-eager tool. If you don't know what caused the genocide, you don't know what to fix. Do you need to fix islam, do you need to move Turkey away from islam, or do you need to change what kind of nationalism is being shoved down Turks' throats for almost a century?

[Arpa]

Steve, I do think that they only used Islam, and I am not an apologizer of Islamic crimes.  Abdhul Hamid crimes were religious ones, but the genocide happened under a Turkish nationalist government.

The islamistic Turkey the better for us, since at the present as always, "Islamic" (sounds like a flavored vinegar )is an anathema, a swear word despite Mr. Bush's assertions that Islam is an humane and compassionate religion. As far as I can understand Islam is not even a religion, never was, it is a socio-political movement. But that is another subject. Proof? IRI=Islamic Republic of Iran, IRA=Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Did you know that it is the official name of the new Afghanistan?), next will be IRT=Islamic Republic of Turkey. In fact I very much suspect that the new Iraq will officially be renamed IRQ.

As above, no matter what Mr. Bush and other bushys may say, Islam is far from being benevolent, compassionate even humane and it will always be viewed by the so-called Christian west with suspicion. The more islamistic Turkey becomes the better for us as eventually, when all this placating of the Islamic world runs its course Islam once a again will become a swear word and that may prove beneficial for Armenia. The irony is that as Islamic as Saudi Arabia may be they don't use the word in the title of their country.

It is so ridiculous that all these so-called Moslem countries are all of a sudden rediscovering the word and applying it to their countries. The oxymoron of all times is the cliche of "secular Moslem country " as applied to Turkey. Duhhh!! How can a religion become secular? Perhaps Islam IS a secular religion since, as stated above, it is not even a religion in the true sense of the word.

 

Why don't we as well make use of this new fad and rename Armenia CRA=Christian Republic of Armenia. NO!!! Religion and statehood must remain separate.

 

"Secular Moslem Country" (Turkey) smells worse than bushshit,:oop: I mean BULLSHIT, yet so many eat it up as if it were Turkish taffy.

 

See what you have done?

For the longest time Armenians, having lost their national and ethnic identity, using their religious affiliatiaton as as a pseudo-identity, now the Islamic world is emulating us and using religion as a mantle when questioned "Afghani who"?

[DominO123]

TB, this is a matter of definition. I define racism as a classification based on race. While you use the popularistic definition of the word. But still, if you were to call both racism, both racism were not the same kind of racism.

[Twilight Bark]

you use the popularistic definition of the word

I don't think so.

 

 

And to make it clearer ...

Whatever other adjectives you might attach to "my" definition, I would simply call it an "operational" or "functional" definition. That is, it distils what matters, and cuts out superfluous parts. It doesn't matter what the nature of the "unchangable" traits are. What matters is that they are unchangeable (i.e. the carrier is unassimilable in the relevant time-scale). In the time-scale that matters to the (potential) committers of a genocide, a hopelessly different culture is as bad as a different race. The distinction is ultimately meaningless.

 

To lure you in, let me call it the "grand unification theory" version of racism.

[Stormig]

In fact I very much suspect that the new Iraq will officially be renamed IRQ.

I hope they leave it alone after that, don't want more IRQ interventions.

[Stormig]

Well, "Ataturkculuk" is the word, isn't it?

Not sure if it is as popular as you put it, but what does it say, what does it do?

[Twilight Bark]

Not sure if it is as popular as you put it, but what does it say, what does it do?

I thought addressed it as much as it needed to be addressed.

[DominO123]

I don't think so.

 

 

And to make it clearer ...

Whatever other adjectives you might attach to "my" definition, I would simply call it an "operational" or "functional" definition.  That is, it distils what matters, and cuts out superfluous parts.  It doesn't matter what the nature of the "unchangable" traits are.  What matters is that they are unchangeable (i.e. the carrier is unassimilable in the relevant time-scale).  In the time-scale that matters to the (potential) committers of a genocide, a hopelessly different culture is as bad as a different race.  The distinction is ultimately meaningless.

 

To lure you in, let me call it the "grand unification theory" version of racism.

I still don't like to put all in the same bag. Because for me it seems obvious that the sort of "racism" in both cases is different. I find the type that is reponsable of the denial more disgusting and more NAZI-like.

Edited June 29, 2004 by Fadix

[Twilight Bark]

I still don't like to put all in the same bag. Because for me it seems obvious that the sort of "racism" in both cases is different. I find the type that is reponsable of the denial more disgusting and more NAZI-like.

The value of putting things in the "same bag" depends on whether the generalization is more useful than a fragmented view of the sub-classes. I cannot see why one kind of genocide is worse than the other. Some bloody-minded bullies get obsessed about one set of traits or another and decide to exterminate those carrying them. There is no good reason for the exact nature of those traits to matter.

 

And from what you wrote, you seem to think that the denial of Armenian Genocide is more disgusting than the act itself, and mainly because the nature of the latter reminds you of what happened to Jews. If this inescapable conclusion deduced from what you wrote does not look completely warped and sick to you, you have some serious soul-searching to do.

[DominO123]

The value of putting things in the "same bag" depends on whether the generalization is more useful than a fragmented view of the sub-classes.  I cannot see why one kind of genocide is worse than the other.  Some bloody-minded bullies get obsessed about one set of traits or another and decide to exterminate those carrying them.  There is no good reason for the exact nature of those traits to matter.

 

And from what you wrote, you seem to think that the denial of Armenian Genocide is more disgusting than the act itself, and mainly because the nature of the latter reminds you of what happened to Jews.  If this inescapable conclusion deduced from what you wrote does not look completely warped and sick to you, you have some serious soul-searching to do.

TB, I was talking about the type of "racism" involved and not the consequences of those "racism." It is obvious that the genocide is worst than the denial, this is even not a question.

 

I do believe that the Armenian genocide had little to do with racism still... I agree entirly here with Dadrian when he stat that the Armenian genocide was absent of a form of racism(that is because he uses the same concept of racism as I use). If you see this from my perspectif, since there was no real racism involved(as I define it), comparing this little racism, with the obvious form of racism that is responsable of the denial, I have to conclude the one responsable of the denial is more disgusting.

 

I do still believe that Armenians were destroyed because of econimical and terrirotial reasons. It happened like this, finding other big notions would be overestimating the Ittihadists(this was what I was doing before). Armenians were just the problem for their conception of a newer Ottoman empire, the nationalisation of economy being one of the main ellements, and the construction of a Turkish nationhood. As a result, they were destroyed. Kemalists mentality for me is much more racist than Ittihadist. Turkish nationalism was still young when the Young Turks were ruling the empire.

Edited June 29, 2004 by Fadix