So called genocide

[Guest Fadi]

Hagarak Jan, I know Armenian, I didn't knew you were a moderator, so the warning you made, I needed a confirmation thats why I asked what I asked... How would I have understoud SAS comment then ?

 

DO you want a prove ?

[khodja]

Domino, I am not a moderator!

[Guest Fadi]

Oups, I have mixed you with PandukhT

[SAS]

Administrator,

 

@ndunum em im "meghq@", vor ayn MEK barn avelord er,

 

bayc @st EUTYAN im pahanj@ iravaci e:

 

Mite chpetq e KANXVI amen mi PROVOKACION tema?

 

Yev der gtnvum en hayer, vor "bardzracnum en netats dzernoc@"

 

yev amenayn lrjutyamb sksum "qnnarkel" ayn...

 

Yes gtnum em, vor ANBAROYAKANUTYUN e Hayi koghmic

 

Turqi het qnnarkel,te inchqan hayer en nranq spanel...

 

Harganqnerov` SAS

[Twilight Bark]

It is not a matter of "I believe". It is not a theological matter. It is a historical fact that has had an enormous impact on the Armenian psyche.

As for the efforts of the Armenian government, they are truly modest. They are not expending that much effort on it. The diaspora is understandably leading doing most of the work in pursuit of recognition. And that is clever anyway, for diplomatic and other practical reasons.

Recognition, in itself, is actually most beneficial to the Turkish society. Being a Turkish patriot of the enlightened sort, Ali Suat understands this. I suspect he prefers to minimize the estimated extent of it and wishes that the "practical consequences" of the recognition not go beyond an apology and token reparations, but that is another sub-topic. In contrast, whether the recognition would have any actual (including psychological) benefits to the Armenians is an open question. I think it will result in a case of "now what?". A sort of pschological low after the euphoria of the recognition passes. I suspect it will result in increased assimilation. So, in a perverted way, the lack of recognition, i.e. the "hardship" is more beneficial to the Armenian Diaspora! A true "reparation" would entail a lot more than a dry apology. It would involve a fundamental change in the state ideology of Turkey, as well as its long-standing dogma of a "unitary state". That is, of course, a tall order. A true reconciliation would involve granting Armenians wide cultural and settlement rights in Eastern Anatolia, which would be some sort of a "cultural free-enterprise zone". That is also a tall order. Short of a recognition and reparation of that sort, Genocide recognition would mostly benefit Turkey, with Armenia getting some bread crumbs by having normalized diplomatic relations with Turkey and access to to its roads. In return, Armenia would be increasingly dependent on Turkey for its welfare, and become integrated into the Turkish economy.

It is important that Turks be educated and convinced, rather than arm-twisted into grudgingly accepting it. Once the intelligentsia and the elite makes the evolutionary step, it is a matter of a few short years to have the population follow.

Just some quick toughts.

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[Guest Fadi]

Twilight Bark

 

I mostly agree with you, on the distinction between believe and a historical fact.

 

But everyone can believe something, it is not because you believe a historical fact, that it is not a believe for you.

 

What I mean by this, is if a Turk and Armenian, that have no real knowledge of the event, one say it happened and the other say the contrary. What makes ones believe not a believe but a historical fact ? Someone could believe in Aliens, if one group of people find undeniable evidences on this subject, then for the one that study the evidences, for him it will not be a believe anymore, he will not believe it, but he will know it, the other that will still believe to the Aliens and that he will not find this evidence, for him the aliens will be only believes.

 

Now you can believe that you know, and in fact you don't know. For example, someone in Turkey that will study Turkish files, will believe that he know that a genocide never happened, on the other side, an Armenian studying biased documents will believe to know it happened. Only the one that will study both, and remark without any resonable dought that a genocide happened and will take conscience of it will know it happened.

 

Its like a court of justice, you must not dough that the person is guilty or not. The portion of knowing vs believing that is the highest conserning the genocide, can be found amongs the Turks that recognise the genocide, not the Armenians. In some Thorny Rose or Ali etc... being Turk generaly is harder for them to accept the genocide, when they accept it, it will be hard to call this their believe, but just tell, they know now and took conscience of it.

 

Just my two cent

[Guest Fadi]

Twilight Bark

 

Where did I assumed anything conserning you ? I just made important distinctions, generals one without pointing anyone.

 

As for Turkish sources I am not telling if these sources will admit or not anything. BUT, one should read every sources possible and use correlation in order to determine if something happened or not. It's like a car accident, and eyewithnesses, imagine there is 2 persons that saw the car accident, one accuse the driver of the red car, and the other the driver of the blue car. But both recognise that one of the two cars didn't stoped to red light. Now there is believe, from the angle or the presuposed judgement of both. For example one of the two eyewithnesses dosen't like the driver of the blue car, and accuse him even if it was the other that drived on red light. The fact that one drived on red light is not a question of believe it was an observed reality, not we can try to find a kind of correlation between the car driven on red light and the accident, because other then this, the accusations of both eyewithnesses are based on believes from the perspective they saw the event, but still there is more then just this believe there is the FACT that one of the two car didn't stoped to red light. Now we can say that it was because there was an urgence and he had to continue to drive his car. But is this justify the accident ? Is that makes the other guilty ?

 

The same goes with the Armenian question, the Turks believe it wasen't a genocide, the Armenians believe it was. Why both people are so exterm in their judgement ? Because of their believes...

 

But in the case of the Armenian genocide, some things are facts, and these facts can not be discredited by believes... one of the biggest fact, is the fact that people were sent in the desert, even if their men were already separeted from them... that can be even observed from the Turkish ministry of foreign affair publication of alleged Ottoman archives... not believes and allegations given by the Turkish side can not justify the action that is not denied by both side. Because the allegation of self defense could not be a justification. This is what the Turkish historian Avioglu(quoting his name by memory) recognise. Vengence against Armenians and self defense can not justify sending women and children in the desert by blocking them food and water supply, and answering to the Red Cross and Relief organisations, when they asked to lets them feed the Armenians: "We wish nothing to be done that could prolong their lives."

 

These are things that are observable, and there is no clam anything that could justify this action, since women and children are unoffensive people, so claming to isolate them in order to protect the empire do not hold on water...

 

Now there is the premiditation also... the Armenians say it was premedited and denialist publications say it wasnt. Now who to believe ? Is it only a question of believe ? Observations that could be made are the following.

 

After that the first reports comming to Djemal bureau's that the majority of Armenians that were sent in the desert died, have they done anything to change this situation ? You take a gun for the first time the shut someone... you alleg that it was the first time you saw a gun in your life, and didn't knew that the gun could kill someone, then you give a justification that people could believe. Thats a believe, they don't know your intention, some believe you are innocent others believe you are guilty, no one could clam to know if what you said was true or not.

 

Now you know this gun could kill, the next time you take this gun and shut again on people, again and again. Can we say you know now that a gun could kill, and you are doing it in a premeditated way ? The first series of killings you do you know that continuing shuting will kill others, but you continue.

 

The same goes for the Armenian question. The first series of refugies sent in the desert constitues of 150,000, more then 85,000 of them died and others were dying, the report came about this situation just after another series of this time 250,000 Armenians were sent, and this time in a more savage way, this time not only they were sent without being feed, but even the government send 2 or tree times more bands of the special organization on them... we can remark this from Refik reports on the training of the sepcial organisation.

 

The Germans then asked to the Turkish generals in the East to at least feed the other 250,000 next deporties, the answer was no...

 

Continuing and continuing untill all the region was umpties of the Armenian population.

 

Now was the government aware that the majority of the Armenians would not live ? Yes, since after the first series of deporties they saw what happened. Is that stoped them ? Nope.

 

Now any evidences that could be brough could not justify this, because it is not a believe but a fact, that can even be remarked from the Turkish official files. When nothing could justify an action, this action become an undeniable historical fact.

 

Now were there any Armenian band killing Muslim ? Probably, were there any Armenian revolutionary group acting to build an Armenian homeland ? Probably. Is that justify that women and children were deported, when their men were already separated from them ? No... can we now call the action premedited ? Yes.

 

This is the kind of proves used during the Nuremberg tribunal to judge Nazi criminals, it was the fact that Jews were lets to starve in the concentration camps, was it justified that the Germans were not feeding the Jews when they knew that they will starve ?

 

These are things that you can read from both side and find no justification... this is when the event become undeniable.

 

As for you judgement on Thorny, its rubbish... Thorny is not an idealist I knew her for more then 2 year. She was a fervent denialist before... then slowly started to recognised when finaly she took conscience of it... you remember me Turkish mileu's that accuse Akcam of being an idealist that will talk only to say the contrary of what the system say.

 

As for Ali, I don't know him much, so I can't judge him.

 

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Arpa]

Ayo SAS@ meghanchets, kopit lezou gordazets.
Even if it may not be forgivable it is undersatandable.
My intention is that this be my first and my last comment about the subject as it is my conviction that there is nothing to talk about any more. My position is clear. Everything has been said, better yet, everything has been recorded by the world's most reliable souces and they are in the world's most prestigious institutions. My position is clear, there is quwstion, we will not get into arguments abbout "it happerneed, it did not happen", or even what it was that happened. It is a fact. What some of us may define "dialogue" is nothing but engaging one another in long drawn arguments where words and senetences may be taken out of context and dilute the debate. Every trick has been tried. There has been much argument about the G word. Was it a genocide by this or that definition? Was it a massacre? Was it war? Now that all these have been exhausted it has come to quality v quatity. Now we are arguing about numbers. How many Armenians in today's Turkey? How many in the Province of Yerevan at the present? How many in the US? How many were there during the turn of the century? Even with the latest technology, if one asks ten people one will get twenty different answers. What kind of statistics were there during those days? How did the authorities count? How were the church records kept? By baptisms? By church membership? How many Armenians in the US today? How many are members of the Armenian church? 1oo thousand? 200 thousand?

Here we are talking about quntity.
Who won WWII?
There were about 5 million German and axis casualties. More than 25 million allied killed. Did Germany, since they only lost less than one fifth of the allied win the war?
Does the number of murdered Armenians during those days make or make not a Genocide? Does the fact that the Ottomans, followed by the YTs and the Ataturks were using all the instruments of the state to murder an unarmed, untrained, unorganized peasant qualify it as such? Once again, let us not play with words or numbers. The fact that a highly militarized state messacred its helpless citizens, the fact that a highly organized state cleansed every soul from their ancestral homeland of several millenia, the fact that of all the minorities of the empire the Armenin was viewed the highest liability with undeniable right to the land were systematically exterminated (almost) make it a Genocide?
Call it what you want. Play with numbers from here to that hot place, it does not change the facts.
If Turkey knew what was good for her she would stop playing with words and numbers and own up to its past and present sins and try and live in peace with her neighbors instead of looking to countries 5000 miles away and other pariah states in their neighborhood as allies she would be much better off. She should try and feed its citizens instead of spending 80% of their GDP on war machines.
Armenians have seen much worse, they are not going away, they are not leaving those lands, so Turkey better reconcile with the reality at hand and stop playing with words and numbers.
How convenient that now they have Azerbaijan as an excuse to blockade Armenia, how lucky can they get? A dream come true? How would they otherwise find a way to punish Armenia and the Armenians and possibly finished the job once and for all?

I will not respond to any comments.
To me there is no question of neither quality or qauntity and no argument about words.

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight Bark:


Thorny is an idealistic, hot-headed individual who enjoys being a contrarian. Her contrarian-ness in this case is well-thought and appropriate. Ali Suat is basically an enlightened patriot with a more sophisticated understanding of what is good for his nation than the garden-variety patriot. He is driven more by improving the condition of his country than by his conscience. Make no mistake, he is still in the "opponent" (note that I am not using the word "enemy") camp; but one that you can fully respect.

---

TB -

I have really liked your posts of late...but I don't think you have hit the mark at all on Thorny...additionally I do not view Ali Suat in any way as an adversary...in fact he is a better ally (in the cause of genocide recognition & related...Turkish/Armenian friendship etc) then most Armenians - particualrly those whose posts (and views) reflect ignorance & intolerance - etc. IMO - both Ali & Thorny represent the great hope for Turks & Armenians. Sure we will always see things differently...but isn't accepting this part of an understandable (and necessary) Armenian consession? Turks such as Ali & Thorny shoudl be applauded and encouraged by Armenians. If we cannot do so then their is no hope for us or our cause of Genocide recognition. (IMO)

[THOTH]

Arpa - agreed...though i fail to see how Turkey has suffred whatsover regarding its stance on the Genocide.Their strategy has largely succeeded (in the macro sense) and any negative effects are perhaps to subtle to distinguish from overall/general Turkish mouth foaming nationalism...

[Twilight Bark]

It is true that humans have to operate with assumptions and beliefs. And I also agree that "knowledge" is a fancier form of belief in the most general sense. Now a few words about the specific subject. Please don't assume that I have not read Turkish sources. As for the "primary" material, lack of a stupid, self-incriminating sentence saying "Yeah, let's murder them all. They are innocent, and we know it, but let's commit a genocide" does not in any way contribute to finding the facts. It simply shows what we all know: that the Turks were not nearly as self-confident and arrogant when commiting their deeds as the Germans were. Germans basically thought they were doing humanity a favor, as gruesome and stupid that sounds. Turks were aware of how repugnant and gruesome their scheme was, and did not feel the need to proudly document it.

quote

Its like a court of justice, you must not dough that the person is guilty or not. The portion of knowing vs believing that is the highest conserning the genocide, can be found amongs the Turks that recognise the genocide, not the Armenians.

Everybody agrees that if we asked for the presence of a "letter of intent" to convince ourselves of a murderer's guilt in the courts, society would be in big trouble.

An overwhelming amount of documentation by third parties is available to draw a reliable conclusion about the nature of the Genocide. It is true that the average Armenian "believes" and does not "know" in the formal sense. However, being a practical lot, they know that if their case did not have the merit of being true, it would have been discarded long ago by the non-Armenian historians, as there is no "penalty" in doing so. In some cases the opposite is true.
To make a fiction live on, you need the complicity of the establishment, of which Armenians are not a part anywhere in the world except Armenia.

quote

In some Thorny Rose or Ali etc... being Turk generaly is harder for them to accept the genocide, when they accept it, it will be hard to call this their believe, but just tell, they know now and took conscience of it.

Thorny is an idealistic, hot-headed individual who enjoys being a contrarian. Her contrarian-ness in this case is well-thought and appropriate. Ali Suat is basically an enlightened patriot with a more sophisticated understanding of what is good for his nation than the garden-variety patriot. He is driven more by improving the condition of his country than by his conscience. Make no mistake, he is still in the "opponent" (note that I am not using the word "enemy") camp; but one that you can fully respect.

[Juggernaut]

I'm sorry (I realise this doesnt have anything to do with the debate), but your WW2 numbers are off

 

German casualties ALONE: 6 million

 

Other Axis countries suffered heavilly, escpessially Japan

 

Soviet casualties ALONE: estimates range from 20 to 40 million!

 

Polands casualties over 3 million. US and Britain 1/2 million each.

[bellthecat]

The Armenian population according to H.F.B. Lynch (from "Armenia, Travels and Studies" published in 1901).

 

Lynch is very dismissive of the exaggerated population figures put forward by the Armenian delegation at the Berlin congress of 1878, and there is every reason to believe that his (Lynch's) population statistics are reasonably accurate.

 

Lunch gives the total population of the Armenian Tableland in Turkey (Vilayets of Van, Bitlis, Harput and Erzurum, plus the Palu region of Diarbekir) at about the year 1890 as 387,746.

 

Lynch says that a figure should be added to the above to cover the incomplete registration of females in the more remote regions. He suggests an extra 10 percent for Van, excluding Van city. (an extra 2,866), 13 percent for Bitlis (an extra 12,600), 7 percent for Erzurum (an extra 7,473).

 

The total for this extra percentage is 22,939 - which gives a grand total of 410,685 Armenians in the Armenian tableland.

 

He gives a figure for the rest of Asiatic Turkey as 751,500 (this including places like Sivas, Malatya, Diarbekir) and for Turkey in Europe as 186,000.

 

There would have been a natural population increase between 1890 and 1915. There are also the massacres before 1915 to consider. (some Turkish sources, with no sense of irony, actually deduct several 100,000 as a result of the massacres of 1895 and 1909 yet still deny that these massacres actually took place!) To simplify things lets assume changes due to massacres and population growth cancel each other out. This seems to gives a grand total of 1,348,185 Armenians that could have been massacred by the Turks during the Armenian genocide.

 

But it is not that simple -

 

In 1915 Iranian Azerbaijan was under Turkish occupation, and massacres were inflicted on the Armenians living there. Lynch says 28,890 Armenian lived here in 1890. Let us say there were 35,000 by 1915. He gives no figure for Armenians in Syria and Palestine.

 

In 1918 Turkish armies cut a swathe of destruction through Russian Armenia to reach Baku. Lynch gives the population of the Armenian tableland under Russia rule as 519,238. There would have been substantial population growth by 1915 - let us say it had increased to 750,000. Lynch gives the Armenian population for the rest of the Caucasus as 450,000 - say 650,000 by 1915. This includes places like Karabagh or Baku - both having substantial Armenian populations - at least 10,000 Armenians were massacred after Baku’s capture by the Turks in 1918. Let us say 300,000 out of those 650,000 Armenians lived in areas directly affected by the Turkish invasions of 1918 and 1920.

 

Adding all this together we get a maximum of about 2,400,000 Armenians that COULD have been murdered by the Turks between 1915 and 192 (i.e. that were accessible to the Turks). Obviously not all were killed. A figure of 2 million Armenians murdered is an entirely impossible claim to justify - a figure of one million victims is easily possible. Given the numbers of refugee survivors, 1.2 to 1.3 million victims seems realistic.

 

The total Armenian population in the Ottoman empire, and in the parts of Russian Armenia that are now part of Turkey (Kars, Igdir, Ardahan) seems to have been around 1,500,000 before 1915, based on Lynch’s statistics. Today it is about 40,000.

[soulsongera]

Humankind gravitates toward domination because of our focus on "What's best for me?" This SELF focus causes competition, jealousy, suspicion, and hatred toward others. To "protect" ourselves, individually, and collectively, we gravitate (as in irresistible pull) toward a power that injures and destroys others. When this power reaches the ability to use the option of making others comply with selfish desires, then it is used. The Turkish go'vt has been based on this domination model. It filters from the top down, to the police, village chief, to the father in the home. But human nature compels us to think for ourselves, to follow our own desires, to pursue our lives as we see best. So domination always produces resistence. To keep their people's natural desire for more self-determination in check the Turkish go'vt manipulates public opinion through the press they control, and re-directs their peoples discontent to other ethnic groups and blame, scapegoats for their problems. One example is blaming the Armenians, at least in part, because they have not been allowed in the EC.

They have also bought the silence of some Turks by making them crime partners in their own violence and cruelties. Moral guilt arises from within when they have engaged in state sanctioned and encouraged acts of petty bullying, harrassment, and vicious attacks on smaller ethnic groups. One example is the threatening grafitti around the Armenian and Greek churches in Istanbul, or the human urine thrown into the church services of the few remaining Christian churches. For this moral guilt the Turks see the Government as their shield and protector as they sing in unison, "I'm not guilty, the victims are to blame," etc.

The Armenian people have been historically, a Christian people. In a world where push always comes to shove, how are we different? Remember Christ standing before the court of Pilate. He described His kingdom as one in which His followers refused to use physical force to prevent his arrest or advance His cause. The Kingdom of God advances with a power that heals and restores as it brings an invitation to join. This power changed the world.

The example I would ask Armenians to research is the fall of the communist governments of Eastern Europe. In Poland the Catholics marched around the government buildings every week, shouting, "We forgive you." They continued even after their priest was found floating in the river with his eyes gouged out and his fingernails pulled off. In East Germany Christians lit candles and prayed, and marched in the streets praying, until one day the Berlin Wall collapsed like a rotten dam.

What if Christians used that approach? What if we really loved our enemies? If the world despises in it's never ending struggle for power, we love. If the world uses shame, criticism, and personal attacks, we offer reconciliation. If the world seeks profit and self-fulfillment, we seek sacrifice and service.

Forgiveness is not "forgive and forget." It speaks the truth. It continues to call the other side to repentance. It is not saying it is okay, or even forgiveable. But we forgive, because, if we are Christ's followers, we know what it is to be forgiven. What if each time we talked to a Turk we dispensed God's love?

What if we marched in front of the Turkish Embassy this April 24 with placards that read, "We forgive you"?Would this reverberate in their soul more than our other approaches? How long can hatred stand in the face of an assault of grace?

[Guest Fadi]

Bellthecat.

 

I didn't really studied Lynch numbers(other then taking a look at them from professor Panzac statistical compilation). But correct me if I am wrong, but his numbers are very close to the ones of Cuinet.

 

Now I studied Cuinet enough in order to tell that his calculations were not accurate, and even Cuinet himself admit it, by saying that the Ottoman with a party ligne refused any investigation.

 

Now some other points must be noted, Lynch appears to provide corrective values, but these values are not very well justified. Why an undercounting of 10 % of the womens ? Is he suggesting that Ottoman only undercounted of 10 % ? And what about then conserning the undercounting of the male population, that was well ignored and even recognised by McCarthy himself ? He affirm that the number of Armenian children do not match with the number of Armenian men. He gave the example of the city of Rize, where, when using the population stable tables, would have taken two times more men to match with the number of children(we see here, that even if the number of children are under counted, it would have taken two times more men to match the number, proving that there was a lots more men then what statistics shows, adding to this, the undercounted children, the Ottoman figures are very far from reality).

 

This has been explained by demographic calculations with an underregistration of under 15 % for the Muslims, since they were polygamic, and that could have explanned much of this numbers. But not the Armenians, when McCarthy and others also just used the same kind of corrector values. I do not know about Lynch, but others have done it.

 

There is also contradictions of what is the actual total Armenian population. This contradiction is found from authors such as McCarthy.

 

This is what McCarthy say:

 

“There were 1,456 million Armenians in Ottoman Anatolia in 1912, before the wars began. (this does not include the 28,000 Armenian residents of Southern Haleb Provinces, which became part of Syria after the world war nor the Armenians of Istanbul Province and Ottoman Europe, who were neither killed nor deported during World War I, although some were conscripted.) At wars’ end, 881,000 remained alive, a loss of 584,000, or 41%. Most of these victims were victims of the war fought between the Muslims and Armenians between 1915 and 1920, directly or indirectly through starvation and disease.”

 

Now he don't include many of the Armenians here... population of Armenians ignored, pass well above 350,000.

 

Lynch also pout the total of the Armenian losses to be under 400,000.

 

Another fact is that the Armenian population in the Caucasus based on Lynch numbers are well under the official Russian statistics found in McCarthy's work.

 

The question, is how Lynch came to these numbers ? Is he used numbers that were providen to Cuinet by the Ottoman ? In that case his numbers would be as biased as the ones provided by Cuinet, but Cuinet himself admit his numbers are not compleat and tha Ottoman didn't permited him to do a full investigation, and they choosed to provide him what to study.

 

In the the Vilayet of Alep (sandjak of Marash) for example the Armenian population for the year 1892. The number is 4,300 an impossible number, only the church numbers per population would contradict this, another thing that proof that this number is not only wrong but even impossible(the true number was four time higher) is that only in the city of Marash the Catholic and Protestant Armenians were numbering 6008, and this without including the Gregorian’s(Cuinet p. 237). This number is based on the church registry and is also supported from Catholic and Protestant missionaries, when the populations of Catholic and Protestants that the missionaries were basing on was similar to a census, since it was not only based on the birth and death certificate kipped by the churches, but were verified by the Catholic and Protestant missionaries more particularly in Cilicia, were their missions were based on these precise numbers, and the numbers were nearly a direct counting of population.

 

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Twilight Bark]

Actually, we agree basically on all points. It's the terminology that is getting in the way of clarifiying positions and thoughts.

About Ali Suat:
I already expressd my appreciation for his rational and enlightened positions numerous times. When I classify him as an "opponent", I mean it in the gentlemanly sense. He is, first of all, a Turkish patriot looking for ways to improve the condition of his country. Being at peace with their history is one important step in that direction. Ali Suat is an ally not because he supports Armenian positions, but because he is a "rational player". I fully agree with you that one would rather have a rational "opponent" than a foolish friend making a mess of things. And Armenians do have their share of fools among them. In the final analysis however, it is more useful to view Ali Suat and Turks like him as good, gentlemanly "opponents" in a strategic game. Ali Suat, for example, realizes that it is foolish to view the game as zero-sum. It is clear to rational thinkers that it is much better to look for win-win solutions. The importance of viewing rational, pleasant Turks such as Ali Suat as "opponents" is that at the point where the relative sizes of the "win"s are decided they will try to maximize Turkey's benefits, often at the expense of Armenians', even though they let Armenians win something as well. In an ideal world, both Turks and Armenians would negotiate an optimal solution to the whole genocide mess by employing negotiators of Ali Suat's kind: simultaneously rational, modern and patriotic.

About Thorny Rose:
I don't know what you disagree on. Please elaborate.

[Twilight Bark]

Well it sounded like that
Sorry, it must have been one of my crankier moments
That's what happens when you are in a hurry.



In the virtual world of the web, we judge each other by what each of us writes. Being a frequent contributor to this forum, Ali Suat is in a good position to be characterized and "judged". In my opinion, the overall "judgement" is positive.

[SAS]

Arpa,

 

BOZ = GREY = moxraguyn( translated from turkish(?!))

 

BOZi tgherq = BOZkurt = Grey wolf = Moxraguyn gayl - profashistakan kazmakerputyun

 

Inch vor tegh "BOZkurt"-n u "BOZturk"-@ homanishner en yev hamahunch

 

( "kurt"-@ "turk"-i hayelayin artapatkern e "ur"-i nkatmamb):

 

Inch e, iravunq chunenq baraherdzmamb zbaghvelu?

 

Lezvi voch mi "koptutyun", @ndhakarak@`... &kunutyun:

 

____

 

SAS

[Twilight Bark]

Not being able to confront their history properly keeps the Turkish nation in a perpetual state of identity crisis. It hinders the general societal development. The powers-that-be have the awkward task of making Turkey a "modern" nation, while preventing them from analyzing themselves and the world properly. It is obviously impossible, and it is an impediment to Turkey's true progress. That is the "negative effect". Otherwise, you are absolutely correct that Turkey has been superficially "successful" (brilliantly, in fact) in its Orwellian sleight of hand.

[bellthecat]

Domino, I wasn't claiming that Lynch's figures were unquestioningly correct, and they are based on 1890s figures, but Lynch had no vested interest to either underestimate or overestimate the Armenian population, so his figures are worth examining.

 

As for Cuinet's figures - I don't have them to compare with Lynch's. But, in his book, on several occasions Lynch is strongly critical of Cuinet's population figures, so he would hardly have used them unquestioningly, if at all. I guess Lynch used his common sense and on the spot observations together with oficial statistics (be they Ottoman or Armenian patriarchate) to arive at his figures.

 

Regarding the overly large number of children compared to men, I don't know how McCarthy explains this - but surely it must partly be due to the large number of Armenian men that migrated to the big cities for work, leaving wives and children behind. Many travellers during this period comment on that reality.

 

I don't understand your "Vilayet of Alep (sandjak of Marash)" comment. Marash was not in the Aleppo/Syria vilayet. Lynch would have put its population in with the 751,000 for the rest of Anatolia.

 

[Guest Fadi]

Bellthecat.

 

I am not telling that Lynch would have underestimated the numbers of the Armenian population because he was biased... but simply because of the way the Ottoman was hidding any evidences etc... that could have shown that the actual numbers of the population was higher then what shown. I do not see how Lynch would have been better placed then Cuinet that has done everything to draw population statistics and failed miserably, asking for documents without any results, trying to be in area's and asking for the church records and wondering why these churchs doe not fit with the Armenian population that was allegadly there etc...

 

As for the men migrating, yes you are right, the migration of men was a well known thing in the Armenian community. But still it dosen't explain many of the undercountings and birth rates per years.

 

Now the Sandjak of Marash, you you are right, but that was the way most of the Cilician Armenians were counting the population in the pre-1900 years, starting to northern Marash to Alepo, in short it was "their" Armenian part of Alepo... thats how Cuinet pouts the figure, when he tries to include them, and that the figures choosen would have been impossible only by taking a closer look at the Churchs and schools inscriptions amongs children etc...

 

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Domino ]

[THOTH]

TB - I disagree with your assertion that Thorny is meerly being contentious on this and or other forums. Sure - she has tusseled with some folks here - folks that IMHO have deserved being put into their place (don't you think?). But you ignore her very many purely positive and informative posts - ranging from descriptions (& sometimes pictures) of trips she has taken (to Ani and such) to commentary concerning her family and its roots, social/political commentary from inside Turkey, comments on movies, TV programs, lectures, newspaper articles and the like relevent to Armenian & Genocide issues. Please consider all of these before you jump to conclusions regarding her motivations and contributions.

 

You are correct however in your ascribing to her as being courageous. In fact, I beleive that her stand on (and actions concerning)the Armenian Genocide (and elements of Turkish history & current politics) goes beyond even this. I take some amount of pride to being a catalyst (along with Domino)for her enlightenment on this issue. She does more - in intelligently confronting other Turks - then most any Armenian has done. Her pointed commentary was the reason for ATAA shutting down their guestbook - she embarrased them into such - a real achievement (no Armenian was able to pull off) IMO.

 

And regarding her confrontation with (some of) the moderators of this forum. I am glad that you mentioned it. I still think she is owed an apology and (an offer of) re-instatement on this forum. I am embarrased and angered at the behaviors of our moderators in regards to this issue. She was treated unfairly initially - and may have responded a bit emotionally (but understandably), then was again treated unfairly by being banned when far worse was being allowed for other posters. That the moderators have continued to remain silent on this injustice galls me to no end - particulalry since it was done unjustly, and as a consequence we have lost a valuable poster.

 

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: THOTH ]

[Twilight Bark]

I did not say that she is "merely" being a contrarian. Obviously there are myriad different ways of being a contrarian, and she chose a noble one. However, it is hard not to observe that she enjoys contradicting the "establishment". And "establishment"s usually fully deserve to be contradicted, so it's a perfectly good activity. Of course it would take a Turk to change other Turks' behavior; no surprise in that. That is why it is important to help Turks educate themselves about their history, their identity, and their neighbors. But it is they that will effect the change, not Armenians. I hope you realize that we basically agree on Thorny Rose. To quote (or paraphrase) another Turkish guest, Ali Suat, "people on this forum agree on more things than they realize".

quote

And regarding her confrontation with (some of) the moderators of this forum. I am glad that you mentioned it. I still think she is owed an apology and (an offer of) re-instatement on this forum. I am embarrased and angered at the behaviors of our moderators in regards to this issue. She was treated unfairly initially - and may have responded a bit emotionally (but understandably), then was again treated unfairly by being banned when far worse was being allowed for other posters. That the moderators have continued to remain silent on this injustice galls me to no end - particulalry since it was done unjustly, and as a consequence we have lost a valuable poster.]

I agree that banning Thorny Rose was uncalled for, and betrays a certain degree of chauvinism. I did not agree with what was going on at the time, but felt that I was too new in the forum to intervene with any consequence. For what it's worth, I do think that she should be welcomed to this forum.

[elovna]

Can someone explain to me why Thorny Rose was banned from this Forum? To me her contribution to the Forum always seemed a very valuable one. I am astonished to read that she's not around anymore.

[bellthecat]

Ask PandukhT/Movses - he was responsible and he has been revealingly silent about it ever since.