I am a Turk phobic

[THOTH]

OK Domino - i understand...though I cannot accept that destruction of the Armenians was necessary - it was percieved to be necessary...though obviously - the Turks had to know that if they lost the war 9and it certainly looked that way not much into it0 - that the Armenians would have their day - as it were - and Sevres is an example of course of what the Turks could expect. But after all - they did enter into the war (agressively) - they did lose, they did prove that they were not competent to govern the minorities - so they should have lost these areas (even with Armenians not being the majority in these areas....). But it was the CUPs decision to go to war - if Turkey could have stayed out of the war 9not been greedy for Pan-Tukestan) then perhaps they - in the spirit of the original CUP) could have transformed the Empire and included the Armenians. But we are viewinfg all of this in hindsight, So much bad blood had built up (due to Balkan and Crimean events etc0 - that reconcilliation was a very difficult proposition)....still - Armenians - the vast majority of them were loyal and apolitical - they just wanted to be left alone to live their lives. And many - such as part of my family - were fully integrated into Turkish life (almost dual citizens),,,so many were just unintersted in any kind of revolution...reforms yes, certainly....

 

And i do think that intellectual/educated Turks are able to see all of this just as we are - mor edifficult to admit the (essentailly/effectively) one-sidedness of course (outside of minor agitation no greater then variosu Kurdish inserections or other such common) happenings...with only the added element of a distinct religious and ethnic community and interest (noble perhaps and otherwise0 from outside powers...). But I do think that if we were to talk this out in these sort of terms that many more Turks could 8nderstand and yes ultimatly lisiten...but I myself have tired of these pissing contests...though, of course I wish you sucess/victory...particualrly over the racist nationalistic hatful Turks...

[DominO123]

Thoth, for the Turks the destruction was a necessity, the plan they had in their head of an Turkish nation didn't included the Armenians, that being the cases, the destruction was a necessity. On the cases of the Holocaust, the necessity was ideological, but for the Turks, it was more about "homeland"(even if it is not their homeland but rather their fatherland).

 

Thoth, it is easy to bring evidences that I am right, with all those Turks you have discussed with, how many, beside those that at the beggining were open to change their views, actually really recognised it. Ceyhun was open from the beggining, Piggetti was open from the beggining, others that I have known from the other boards, like Artun, Amir, Tulin, Fulya etc... were already open of that possibility from the start. Only one person really passed from denial to recognition, and we both know who she is, but that is very very very rare, you can not use one person as reference in order to make a conclusion.

 

The Turks that live outside of Turkey are free, yet they deny, even more than those that are inside Turkey. I am just being realist here.

[Nikephoros_Phokas]

There is a huge problem in modern Turkish society due to its development. I think many of the anaylsis's are shallow based on the premise that most people are decent and that it is the Turkish state that is indecent and not the Turkish society. It is both that are indecent.

 

Turkish society from the battle of Manzikert, to the founding of modern Turkey to their most recent military invasion of Cyprus in 1974 is built on invasions and destruction. The Greek American historian Speros Vryonis says that when the Turks invaded Anatolia the pastoral nomads created vast destruction to the sedentary peoples, so much that even the Seljuk rulers had to spend much time fighting Turkmen nomads as the sedentary peoples were useful economically while the Turkmens were useless economically, their only use was for conquering and creating a no-mans land so the Byzantines would have trouble reconquering areas lost. This vast destruction caused much trauma in the sedentary Christian societies their institutions were destroyed, their church leadership destroyed which made it easy for Islamic dervishes to Islamize these people after such trauma occured to their society.

 

Today do you see Armenians to ride horses and move around from place to place in urts? It is clear who was conquered militarily and who was conquered culturally. Domino is right that the educated Turks are even worse, because they will not tend to use their intellect to seek the truth but to help whitewash the Turkish state's crimes with more elaborate psuedo-babble. The Turks who try to say that Armenians and Turks have so much in common culturally are pretty sly chauvinists in my opinion, but I suppose most will think they are reasonable Turks. The Turks essentially every group they have conquered they have destroyed almost completely their formal culture so that a few economic elites like the Greek Phanariots and the various Christian clergies are all that are left to carry the formal culture, which they could not do until near the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, formal culture being abandoned for popular culture, a folk culture, the formal cultures that were more advanced than that of the Seljuks(who stole so much Persian formal culture the Byzantines considered them as Persians), many subject peoples during the collapse found themselves in the same situation, with a more powerful formal culture than the Turks. It creates an inferiority complex in Turkish society that they have more military power and the Ottoman Empire, its premise was that the Christians were conquered so the muslims were therefore superior, but to be economically and culturally backward and knowing it while thinking they are superior. I think this explains the development of Turkish nationalism why such sayings as "One Turk is worth the whole world," have emerged. These sayings are clear evidences of an inferiority complex that characterizes Turkish society. Their nationalism was built on being proud to be Turkish, without being proud of achievements, even if they did develop their nationalism as being proud of their "achievements" they would probably have stolen the achievements of nations they conquered. Robert Melson in "Revolution and Genocide" mentions that the Turks compensated for their economic inferiority vis a vis Armenians with their military superiority and their governmental superiority, rounding them up, killing them and seizing their wealth.

 

A few examples of the cultural situation:

 

From Traditional Turkish Cuisine

 

...."Onion and tomato paste are two indispensable elements in Turkish Cuisine." ....

 

The Liutprand of Cremona (c.922-c.972) makes much mention of onions used in the cuisine upon his visit to Contantinople. Besides does it make much sense for nomads to have eaten the cuisine of modern Turks who are sedentary or to assimilate the cuisine of the people they conquered? I have a book about Genghis Khan that mentions the diet of the pastoral nomadic Mongol tribes that included many Turkic tribes and it does not sound anything like Greek cuisine.

 

Marco Polo also mentions that the Greeks and Armenians of Asia Minor made beautiful carpets during his travels there, so this shows which Anatolians are responsible for the Turkish carpets.

 

Back to the fascist sayings of the Turkish state, if you go to this photo album you can see one of them "Ne Mutlu Turkum Diyene"(according to Lemonde Diplomatique: Happy is he who considers himself a Turk) hugely emblazoned on a mountain.

 

This brings me to my conclusion do you expect this Turkish society to admit to an honest historiography? This is a huge case of congnitive dissonance. The Turkish historians in their majority just make what they write up, distort, take things out of context and the more intelligent they are the better they usually are at it. There is intelligence and then there is integrity like Taner Akcam have and Ismail Besicki many Turkish historians are intelligence but they use it whitewash the Turkish state. The Turkish historians feed the population with lies and they want to believe them because the truth is the Turks their society is built on destruction of other peoples and claiming their culture, their land as Turkish after enfeebling or even destroying these groups. What nation will want to admit that their accepted history is a monsterous lie, that their civilization is built on banditry, conquest, lying and that all their historians that are not in jail, have not been in jail or are not forced into exile are by necessity liars because the Turkish state does not consider them as enemies? The Turks to accept their history honestly would have to come up with a new saying: "How ashamed I am to be Turk" and "How much I must apologize".

[THOTH]

Domino -

 

I can't agree with you here - on all fronts. Admittedly - I haven't had the oppurtunity to attempt to convince denying Turks of late - and it is an incredible effort to do so...but I must say - as thoughough with the facts as you are - your ability to make the proper type of argument/presentation is somewhat lacking - and this is not just your problem - it is very difficult to know how to pitch/present these issues in a manner whwre they will be acpeted. In general i think you are too confrontational to be convincing to those who are predetermined to reject your message. I, on the other hand can be very pursuasive - I know how to communicate in a manner that allows this to be. If I could spare the time & energy (which I can't at this moment...but perhaps you are convincing me to join your phantoim on t.com etc to prove myself...LOL - w'ell see)...but at present I will accept that my contentions here are unproven.

 

On the matter of weather it was necessary for the Armenians to be eliminated in order for the emergence of a Turkish State - or for a continuance of some sort of Ottoman State (as CUP was still Ottoman)...again - I say this is perception - and I dispute the contention that this perception in fact much pre-dated the Genocide at all (as official policy - thopugh certainly it was in the minds of some). Remember in 1908 Armenians and Turks celebrated together the CUP ascendency. Even as late as December 1914 Armenian troops battled on the side of the Ottomans and were praised by Enver. Even Dashnaks pledged loyalty. And there was no uprising of Armenians - aside from some battleing against (initially) Kurds in VAn province and such. The vast majority of Armenians had no thought of a future other then within the Ottoman Empire - and this is fact. I believe that it was only a faction of the CUP who were highly paraniod and looking for scapgoatism in face of a loosing war, failing economic policies and to satisfy a refuge issue that remooving and stealing from the Armenians became a convieninet way to solve these pressures. Obviously sone were/may have been thinking (cynically) longer term - but in fact there was no real need to eliminate Armenians. For ,ost all intensive purposes Armenians were "good Turks...or at least good Ottomans". It was only the paranioa and the oppurtunity (sahort term) for relief from other pressures that frove the CUP to their radical "solution". I think it was really only with Kemal and the Nationlists that this idea of complete elimination of the Armenians become a necessity. They realized the need for Turkish identity to solidify their hold/claim on Anatolia (remember CUP was Pan-Turkick...and rally only after 1912...) - and the Nationlists realized that any Armenains left around meant real problems for them down the road....I really think that prior to thehard ined pan-Turanist triumvarate taking power there was no reason at all that the Armenians couldn't have been integrated into a "modern" democratic Turkey...thuis the necessity was a problem/issue of their own making because of ideology, oppurtunity, paranoia and circumstance...

[THOTH]

Nik while you have some good points about the nomadic/conquering background of the Turks (and the depridations of such upon the sedentary peoples) - and the relative lack of sedentaty skills etc - i think you overstate some of this a bit. First - yes - it is clear that the turks of today have greatly changed and adopted Anatolian culture...but they have also brought their own influences as well. And in fact the Ottoman Government and the Millet system was very inovative for its time really...and in fact allowed the Christian people to pretty much continue to prosper - really unitl modern times (19th Centurey) there wasn't so much of an issue in many respects - sure the ottomans were overlords - an how good can that ever be - but pretty much Armenian culture was saved from the Bizantines and to some extent the Western Europeans who wouldlikely have conquered and slaughtered everyone (as they did when given the chance). Al I'm trying to say is that there are really two sides to this and the Turks were not (always0 all bad. Obvioulsy their Empire model was built on conquest and expansion - and whrn this ceased around 1500 or so things started to go gradually downhill and the rule eventually became harsher - particulalry when in the 18th - 19th centurys the Otoman concept of (very conservative) government had outlived its usefulness and the Turks became a shackel to the conquered peoples. Otherwise I find your discussion of carpets and food somewhat immaterial to this discussion...and the Turks of today really is more Anatolian then Mongolian or Turkmen per se - and Armenains and Greeks - like it or not - lived amoung and assimilated Turksih clture just as well as the opposite - so in fact we are very much alike...

[THOTH]

Nik - I don't disagreee with you about Turkish historians in general per se - they generally suck. And the society accepts - is based on such myths...and this is a problem - one that the Turks desperatly need to overcome. Seems like you have read Ackam - so you should appreciate some of this - why - for the Turks on good - they need to break out of this - and "admitting" the Genocide is a major part of this...

[gamavor]

I don't understand why you are so much concerned about turks. The Hell with them. Who cares. Why should I care if Mehmet knows his history. Why? Let him live happy under his generals, let him do what he is eternally supposed to do (Slavonic "G" pose). Let all “thoughtful” Armenians go and spend their “hard” earned money in Turkey, let them eat the delicious “turkish” dolma, let them visit “turkish” churches, buy “turkish” carpets and let them finally come to terms with their original being, i.e. Christian turks.

[America-Hye]

Why would any Armenian even spend one red cent in Turkey? When my cousin went back to the area our family came from and told them who she was, the Turks spit on her. It is so foolish to support them in any way at all or to even communicate with them. As Gamavor says-to hell with the Turks. But Armenians should not be spending money in Turkey at all.

[DominO123]

Thoth, you can claim anything when you never really tried hard, go ask Phantom that is even less confrontational than you and even give more share of responsability to the Armenians, go ask him if he has any results?

 

As for confrontational, when an idiot shout you trashes copied from the web, you can't be other than confrontational, it is not "No that is not really accurate, the Armenians bla...bla...bla.." It is destroying it. When you have been answered as your enncestors were taitors, you don't say "thank you" I always start politily without being confrontational, and I became that way later, at the end, when there is no much hope to take off the blinders from the eyes of the idiot, I just laugh at his sources and destroy them, you can not do otherwise.

 

As for the arguments, yeh ! But, everytime your arguments have been answered, if my arguments are lacking so much, ask Phantom why the Turks don't even try to answer them, I bring few poinst, ask them to answer, they don't want, they don't want, you can do anything they won't want.

 

I know that you won't believe before trying, than go at Turkey.com, and try your chances, they will copy past trashes, and here arguments does not count much, but who discredited the sources of the other most, if you want to fight on a certain type of wring, you must fight the way this fight has been designed, maybe you don't like the idea, but like I said, you are always open to go there and try to be persuasive, but you'could just not claim having been persuasive before trying it.

 

Another thing, the only thing the Turks would want from you, is that you tell them you don't agree with ASALA, recognise the massacres done by the Armenians, the second they will hear that from you, they will close their ears and won't "record"anything else, and if you don't believe me go ask that to Phantom. They will come up with "admit what happened to the Turks was a genocide, and I will tell it was a genocide" kind of trash.

 

And how you will be persuasive? "Oh the Armenians and the Turks were friendly, the CUP took power by the help of the Armenians, Armenians were loyal, both Armenians and Turks are similar, friendly, I loved my vaccations in Turkey." Those kind of bull.s have been tried, and I tell you, they DON'T work, go search in any Turkish forums, you will always have such Armenians, and pay attention to the answer they recieve, of course they will be answered in a better tone, but that won't change the mentality of the denier, so the only thing you can do, is bringing him on the wring, and challenge his speudo arguments by bringing him sources after sources, and destroying his. Even if he would refuse to accept the facts, in this cases at least you mark points, in this cases at least you will win something, some gratitude, something in return.

 

Everything has been tried for more then 80 years, we gave the Turks their chance, they don't want to learn, why would they change now? Yes ! There is some that recognise it, like in the past there were some that were recognising it, even in the 70s when the denial machine was on one of its highest picks, you still had specialists such as Avioglu that were calling what happened a genocide, and on those years, the ASALA started to commit its terrorist actions.

 

Since every way fails, the only that bring any gratitude is the confrontational style, destroy the sources and arguments one by one, and tell the idiot you face, how an idiot he is to bring you such easy destroyable sources and tell him to try better next time, you will brake his nationalist pride and his mentality that he will corner an Armenian.

 

The rest of the world must know, and Turkey should never join the EU, because they will never recognise the genocide, I am against ANY CONCESSIONS, they are wrong on every front, this is not a thing that you go on the table and say, if you accept that I accept that, if you do this, I will do that, braking it in order that both parties win something, Turkey took everything without making any concessions, and the Armenians have no concession to make, they have been playing with the death of my encestors, I won't give them presents for that, they are the enemy and I will consider them enemy, I will not treat them like friends, I've been doing that for long when them were treating me like an enemy, they want to treat you as an enemy, than you are their enemies.

 

This is reality, and if you try hard and do what I told you to do, you will realise it by yourself.

 

 

 

EDITED: Go at that place, read the most recent arguments by Phantom that have destroyed their claims, they stoped answering him there, but that won't stop them posting new trashes and trashes, this is the point, they won't believe even if you had a time machine and you were to go in the past and show them what happened, they will always find reasons and justifications.

Edited July 15, 2003 by Fadix

[phantom]

Hi guys,

 

I have been following your discussion from yesterday and today, and it is a very interesting topic. First, let me say thanks to THOTH and Pyr for your kinds words. Second, I want to thank Domino for providing me with facts when I need it so that I don't have to go searching through books for hours.

 

Here are my thoughts on why we have so much difficulty changing the minds of Turks in these Internet forums. First of all, most of us are on the attack, and this makes them extremely defensive, and consequently closes their minds to anything we have to say. Second, even when we are not on the attack, most of them have had little experience with Armenians except for the Armenians of the Armenian diaspora. As you all know, we, the Armenian diaspora, are constantly in attack mode against Turks on all issues, not just the genocide issue. It appears to me that we oppose them in every way and on every issue. So they perceive us as pure enemies. And that is the platform from which our discussions with them arise. They cannot trust us even when we are being respectful and reasonable, because they think we are the enemy and that we have an agenda. That agenda being the acquisition of Turkish land and reparations. If I were a Turk, I wouldn't trust us either, given how vehemently we lobby against everything they try to do, even when it has nothing to do with the Genocide. And we use their denial of the Genocide as an excuse.

 

Domino knows more about the facts and details than anyone I have encountered in any of these forums. But at this point, he is so bitter against Turks because of his experiences at Turkey.com, that he cannot discuss the Genocide with Turks without being abrasive or even insulting. And with Turks, the slightest hint of disrespect, antagonism, chauvinism, prejudice, etc. sets them off and they completely shut down. The only way to discuss the Genocide with Turks is to really put yourself in their shoes, and even that doesn't often work. By the way, I did not figure this out over night, I am slowly figuring this out as I interact with Turks at Turkey.com. I think it will be a long process, and the process will involve detached and respectful discussion without resort to name calling, which I know is difficult to do given the hot-blooded nature of both groups of people, and I am guilty of going over the deep end on many occasions. But anyway, my plan is to respond to each and every allegation and alleged fact and point posed by Turks at Turkey.com with facts that contradict their facts. I think that most of the people that I interact with at Turkey.com are intelligent and educated, and they are smart enough to see that their side of the story has more holes in it than they may have originally thought. I think that introducing them to facts that they did not know about will poke further holes in their belief system until one by one the doubts they have overwhelm them.

 

For example, they say that there were only 1.25 million Armenians in Ottoman Turkey. We have sufficient proof that the number was probably over 2 million, and that the number that they believe is less credible than the figure of 2 million. Another example: they believe that Armenians are artificially inflating the number of Armenians that died during the Genocide, from an original figure of 600,000 to 1.5 million. We can also show them that this is false, and that it is in fact the opposite that is true; in other words, the original numbers were 1.5. million, and they were eventually whittled down by Turkish denialists to 600,00 and more presently to the ridiculous figure of 300,000. They also argue that Armenians in Istanbul and Izmir were left alone, which proves there was no genocidal intent. We know that isn't true either, and we have sufficient facts to show otherwise. The German archives show that about 30,000 Armenians from Constantinople were in fact killed, and that Izmir was next on the chopping block and was saved by German general Limon Von Sanders who threatened military action if the Armenians were harmed. They refuse to apologize or acknowledge because they say that Armenians were killing them too and that we would have done the same thing to them if given the chance. This must be refuted with careful explanation as to timelines, and as to the actual number and extent of Armenian insurgencies.

 

I think that by utilizing this reasoned and respectful approach, even if they don't outwardly admit that they have changed their minds, and even if we don't actually change their minds, I think we can at least raise doubts in their minds about the accuracy of their assertions. And in my view, that is significant.

 

When I first heard about the Genocide, I thought exactly the way most Turks do; that it was a tragic period in history during which many Armenians and Turks died in intercommunal fighting and a botched attempt by the Ottoman government to move Armenians away from the battle lines. It was only after reading and reading and reading that I began to realize that this was an actual Genocide, and not intercommunal warfare. Nonetheless, I still recognize the fact that Armenians took several opportunities to massacre civilian Turkish populations, and anyone that denies that is just as much in denial as a Turk who denies the Genocide. But we must show Turks that although our ancestors were also guilty of massacres, that does not affect the quality and charactertistic of what the Ittihadists did to the Armenians, especially because most of the Armenian massacres were committed after the Genocide and during the Turkish war of independence.

 

Anyway, my point is that no matter how nationalistic Turks can be, they can be equally rational, even if their actions don't show it. The first step is to get them to see that there are too many holes and inconsistencies in their view of history. This may cause them to let down their gaurd a little bit and to start to accept our view of history.

 

I wish more of you would post at Turkey.com, but not if you are going to perpetuate the stereotype of the rabid Armenian in the minds of Turks there. In other words, don't post if all that you intend to do is "prove" how wrong the "denialists Turks" are, because with that approach you will do more damage than good.

[DominO123]

I would want to have your optimisim Phantom, at least if there were signs of progress I would believe, I don't see those signs, I just don't see them.

[Boghos]

If Armenians did not exist Turks would have invented them. The whole mythology of Armenians being the traitors and ultimately those that led to the demise of the benevolent and oh-so-tolerant Ottoman Empire is just an other ridiculous explanation for their repeat failure behaviour in the last 80 years or so. That is something that we have to understand. We are more important to them than they should be to us, if we are not able to extricate ourselves from this bad dream we´ll be forever sleepwalking and repeating the truth that will never reach the audience. It doesn´t exist.

[DominO123]

If Armenians did not exist Turks would have invented them. The whole mythology of Armenians being the traitors and ultimately those that led to the demise of the benevolent and oh-so-tolerant Ottoman Empire is just an other ridiculous explanation for their repeat failure behaviour in the last 80 years or so. That is something that we have to understand. We are more important to them than they should be to us, if we are not able to extricate ourselves from this bad dream we´ll be forever sleepwalking and repeating the truth that will never reach the audience. It doesn´t exist.

You were right all along, only recently I see that. We are like in a conference, where the audience is just not there.

Edited July 16, 2003 by Fadix

[Sasun]

Nonetheless, I still recognize the fact that Armenians took several opportunities to massacre civilian Turkish populations, and anyone that denies that is just as much in denial as a Turk who denies the Genocide.

 

What is this about? I am totally in the dark. Are there independent sources on this?

[DominO123]

Sasun, now you see how Phantom is ready to take share of responsabilities, more than it should, and EVEN HIM has no success.

 

As for Armenians having killed Turks, of course, there were Armenians killing Turks, but if you study the common Anatolian villages, killing more than few thousands would be technically impossible, I have already developped those things in one forum(my replies have been deleted), if I find out that I have saved it, I will repost it.

 

Berktay is one of the first Turkish historians to point out this impossibility by refering to the typical Anatolian villages population, he don't even advance the thousand as number.

 

Erzincan massacre for example, is one of the most refered massacres that have been commited by Armenians.

 

http://armenians.com/forum/index.php?act=S...=ST&f=10&t=6728

 

The presented sources are never first direct references, they all pratically all found as footnotes to said orginal documents that are impossible to locate, unlike those that Dadrian uses, where Zoryan has reproduction of them(Akcam already researched there, and Weems missed one of the major Armenian documental collection center, at the same time he refer to the Editor place of Kachadouni said memoirs as archieve center. ).

 

More and more you search, more and more you read denialist materials, more and more you try to find the origine of the footnotes, and more and more you discover that the Armenians were more innocent than though before. The Ottoman Empire had fears, those fears could have become true if the Armenians were not destroyed, but those fears never came true. The Ottoman took the decision even before the Armenians even tried to revolt and the massacres against the Turks were done under vengence when some returned under Russian or allied occupation, and found out what happened to the rest of his family, the revolt of the Ghettos in NAZI Germany, and the plan of some Jewish organisations to avenge are nothing different than those of the Armenians.

[Boghos]

Dear Domino,

 

Documenting and discussing the genocide, in other words making sure that history is not falsified is very comendable. Believing that it will have any impact in Turkey or Turks is wishful thinking. However there should be no link between them, in other words first class scholarship should not be abandoned just because the "intended" audience doesn´t care. Doesn´t the government of Turkey say that the AG is an issue better left for historians ? Let´s call their bluff at the right table when the right time comes.

 

Our audience today is anything but Turkey. And even to this broader one we have to present our case in an intelligent manner, not with the usual flavour that we have been used too, but in a much more subtle and persuasive way. In fact this has been going on all along. Perhaps not at the strength we would have liked for a variety of reasons, and certainly not with the desired effect. More on this later.

[DominO123]

Dear Domino,

 

Documenting and discussing the genocide, in other words making sure that history is not falsified is very comendable. Believing that it will have any impact in Turkey or Turks is wishful thinking. However there should be no link between them, in other words first class scholarship should not be abandoned just because the "intended" audience doesn´t care. Doesn´t the government of Turkey say that the AG is an issue better left for historians ? Let´s call their bluff at the right table when the right time comes.

 

Our audience today is anything but Turkey. And even to this broader one we have to present our case in an intelligent manner, not with the usual flavour that we have been used too, but in a much more subtle and persuasive way. In fact this has been going on all along. Perhaps not at the strength we would have liked for a variety of reasons, and certainly not with the desired effect. More on this later.

What I meant by audience, it was the Turkish audience, I am not writting them anymore to convince them, but for the pleasure to destroy their claims, that brings one thing, it prepares us to study the denialist theses and be prepared to confront it. The rest of the world, in such confrontation between two theses, will see which part has the strongest arguments.