Boghos Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 Part of the thread "My sister dating outside race", from Love and Romance, was moved here. [ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: Boghos ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 aurguplu Member Member # 245 posted January 17, 2002 08:31 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by Edward Demiraiakian:Since I,m half Armenian, 1/4 Austrian, 1/4 Romanian; I'm probably prejudiced. I grew up being chided and devastated by my Romanian neighbors and my Armenian family as being a "mongrol". Howver I now revel in my diversity. My grandparents who were "pure blooded" Armenians did not speak Armenian. Yet I compensated by learning both dialects and to read and write. I also took the time to learm german so now I'm multicultural.I do consider myself Armenian and I must admit that I love the most, the nationality that accepts me the least.having gotten this off my chest, I would like to challenge you with the folowing observation. have you noticed when you go to the armenian church how different we look from one another? In fact Armenians tend to look more like their neighboring populations than themselves.But what is the armenian Genotype?Surely the Irish sort of look alike, the germans share common traits, But the Armenians don't have a common look about them. Surely the blond blue eyed vanetzi looks nothing like the Semmitic looking ones from the Arab conquest areas. The Giligiatzi with their light skin, blue eyes and medium stature lok more like the central European Crusaders that they mingled with. I see Monglian features, Tall slender semitic features, Hindu features, Nordic(keltic) features etc. For centuries the Armenian married the Kurd, the Persian, the Arab, the Slav, the Georgian, the Roman, the Greek, the Mongol, the Hun and (ugh) the Turk. Lets not forget the doctrine of "prima nocte" For those of you who are not history buffs: The local prince allways could invoke the right to have any subjects bride in his harem her first wedding night.Historians are very clear when describing the origins of the Armenian people. we are a mixture of many peoples.So today, we are faced with 50% intermarriage rate. After mixing with Kurds and Turks, etc., what's wrong with a little Irish, Scotch, French, English or German blood? We should accept "Odars" in our race with open arms, and induce them in wanting to be part of us rather than shunning and fingerpointing. If we intermarry and retain our culture, then we are a success story. If we marry Armenians and loose the language and the culture, what good is dying out a "pure race"?The reason a small tribe of no more than 100,000 strong, that came to our realm with no music, no alfabet,copulating and defacating on their horsebacks, could grow into 60 million is their willingness to accept all. We should immitate what works.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- edward, i suspect the last lines refer to turks. i have seen the same refrain elsewhere on the forum. the first wave of turks who came were not 100,000 strong. that was about the strength of the army that defeated romanos diogenes. the first wave, together with the women, children, and other civilians was about 1.5 million strong. the second wave that came about a century later was smaller but still above 100,000. and then, there was a more-or-less steady flow of turks into anatolia that probably resulted in a total of about 3 million or more. we had not one, but at least two alphabets when we came to anatolia: the runic one, by then on its way out, and the uighur one, which, although mostly used by eastern turks, was also known among the western ones (oghuz). we acquired a third one, the arabic one, in central asia as well, but our proximity to the central islamic lands no doubt contributed to its increased use. our musical tradition that went far back into antiquity is amply recorded in chinese, tibetan and other asian sources as well as achaeology, in fact, given the facts that music probably dates back to the time of the neanderthals, and that the turks belong to homo sapiens, and that so far no human population has been found that has no musical tradition, you can rest assured that we did indeed have music, you can also rest assured (although it might disturb you a bit) that some melodies and motifs, not to mention instruments, that the armenian traditional music uses derives from central asian prototypes. as for defecating and copulating on horseback, given the fact that we share the same anatomy with the rest of humanity, i am at a loss to figure out how either one of them could ever be performed without either serious physical harm to oneself or a serious mess. perhaps you can give us some insight (also, nomadic turkish tribes still exist, both in anatolia and in central asia, and they copulate and defacate the way the rest of humanity does). it is quite true that we accepted all. after all, we are the nation that produced yunus emre, mevlana celaleddin-i rumi, and we are the ones who took spanish jews to the ottoman empire when they were being roasted by the civilised catholic inquisitors. "anger is easy. anyone can get angry. but to get angry at the right person, for the right reason, to the right degree, and in the right manner. that is not easy. Aristotle" -------------------- ali suat --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posts: 332 | From: istanbul, turkey | Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 Boghos Member Member # 67 posted January 17, 2002 10:28 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hello Ali,I think that by dissecting Edward's post you are missing his main point: that Armenians are to gain if they become a more open society. But in any case that is not the case, it is perhaps valid on a micro level, but Armenians have in fact been quite open even if not by choice, but by virtue of migration. There is no choice. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posts: 519 | From: Brazil | Registered: Aug 2000 | IP: Logged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 aurguplu Member Member # 245 posted January 17, 2002 11:45 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------hello boghos,no i had not missed his main point. in fact, if his main point was that in armenians would gain if they became an open society, i am in agreement with him. in fact the same goes for all societies. what i had resented was this stereotype of turk - which i see prevalent among armenians - that came from central asia as a subhuman (don't deny, this is what it ultimately boils down to) and ascended to humanity only by contact with the "superior" armenians and greeks and persians and arabs. apart from being historically inaccurate, it is also blatant racism. i invite the armenian readership to consider my quote from aristotle (which is from memory and probably slightly shorter than the original) and reevaluate their stance toward us in this light. there is plenty of that we can be accused of, condemned for, and ridiculed at that is true. but the above are not part of them. think. regards, -------------------- ali suat --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posts: 332 | From: istanbul, turkey | Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 aurguplu Member Member # 245 posted January 18, 2002 12:05 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------one more thing which i find relevant re open society: you cannot be prejudiced about your neighbour and be open to him at the same time. demonising your neighbour will not endera him to you, or you to him, and hence will contribute nothing either to an open society or to mixing and surviving in a cosmopolitan environment. of course, prejudice can be both positive and negative. a given society tends to project negative prejudice (they are awful) toward the "other" and reserve the positive prejudice (we are wonderful) for itself. neither are they awful nor are you wonderful. you are all made of the same stuff, even though you may be better or less able at certain specifics. my race of demons figured that out long ago, and for all our alleged barbarity and lack of civilisation etc., we never doubted for a moment that other humans were just as human as us. in this, western civilisations have a long way to go and a lot to learn from us. -------------------- ali suat --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posts: 332 | From: istanbul, turkey | Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 Boghos Member Member # 67 posted January 18, 2002 02:16 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by aurguplu:my race of demons figured that out long ago, and for all our alleged barbarity and lack of civilisation etc., we never doubted for a moment that other humans were just as human as us. in this, western civilisations have a long way to go and a lot to learn from us.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Ali, I don't think that Western civilizations have anything to learn from "you". If you are referring to the Ottoman tolerance of minorities by giving them second class status, it was just an example of the shwredness of governants, nothing else. Or the example of Rome escapes you ? Now, you should ask the Kurds or even the Alevis, what they think about your assertion. I obviously shy away from any stereotipification of peoples. I couldn't care less about how the average Armenian portrays the Turk (and mind you this is the very same stereotype that Europeans have of Turks, so don't blame us only) or how the average Armenian portrays a Cambodian. These cannot be remedied, only foolish romantics think that Armenians will ever be "best pals" with Turks. We are looking for a civilized interaction on the basis of regional dictates. On an individual basis it is quite different, one can have a Turkish close friend and vice-versa. But let me propose a challenge: go to Armenia and see how you'll be treated. I assure you, from experience that Turks get much better treatment in Armenia, than Armenians get in Turkey. So much for your enlightened treatment of minorities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posts: 519 | From: Brazil | Registered: Aug 2000 | IP: Logged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 aurguplu Member Member # 245 posted January 18, 2002 07:53 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by Boghos: Oh Ali, Oh Boghos, I don't think that Western civilizations have anything to learn from "you". if you are referring to the turkish republic and its treatment of its minorities, yes, i fully agree with you. If you are referring to the Ottoman tolerance of minorities by giving them second class status, it was just an example of the shwredness of governants, nothing else. Or the example of Rome escapes you ? i was indeed referring to that, comparing the status of the conquered peoples in the ottoman empire to that of those in america, africa and australia. i was also referring to racism. i do not consider myself knowledgeable enough to compare roman and ottoman cases. Now, you should ask the Kurds or even the Alevis, what they think about your assertion. i refer you back to the first sentence. I obviously shy away from any stereotipification of peoples. I couldn't care less about how the average Armenian portrays the Turk (and mind you this is the very same stereotype that Europeans have of Turks, so don't blame us only) or how the average Armenian portrays a Cambodian. These cannot be remedied, only foolish romantics think that Armenians will ever be "best pals" with Turks. i do not recall having suggested that the armenians and turks will be best pals, at least in the foreseeable future. if they manage to coexist side by side without getting at eachother's throats, that will be fine enough for the time being. We are looking for a civilized interaction on the basis of regional dictates. so am i. On an individual basis it is quite different, one can have a Turkish close friend and vice-versa. i agree. But let me propose a challenge: go to Armenia and see how you'll be treated. several turks have already been to armenia, some even set up small businesses there, and they seem to be fine. i don't think there is a problem there. I assure you, from experience that Turks get much better treatment in Armenia, than Armenians get in Turkey. is this the reason why the small minority (azeri turks) that was living in armenia almost totally left the place after the independence? besides, how are the azeri turks in nagorno-karabagh and the adjacent territories are treated? one million internally dispaced people in azerbaijan! So much for your enlightened treatment of minorities. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- so much for you enlightened response to my posting. now, the word duel aside, think of it: the europeans conquered half of the world during the past five hundred years, they are responsible for the near-total extinction of at least two entire branches of humanity (the native americans and the australian aborigines), the near-total enslavement of a third one (the africans) and the notion that their race is superior to all others by dint of genetics, and that others are not "fully human". and they seriously believed in that for centuries, too! we have been here for almost a millennium, and bar the second half of the 19th century, all the races that were there when we first came were still there, speaking their languages, practicing their faiths, and having their own internal systems of governance that reported to the sultan. and the genocide occured, surprise surprise, not during the seven hundred years when our backward, barbaric, oriental system prevailed, but under the leadership of a westernised and westernising elite that was largely trained by the civilised germans and espoused german and european ideas and practices then prevalent in europe (the role of the germans in the armenian genocide is slowly coming into light, i can't wait to see the final picture which will emerge). boghos, what would have happened if you happened not to be christian but of another faith, and then conquered by the europeans and not us, have you ever thought of that? think about it. regards, -------------------- ali suat --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posts: 332 | From: istanbul, turkey | Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 Boghos Member Member # 67 posted January 18, 2002 09:05 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by aurguplu: so much for you enlightened response to my posting. now, the word duel aside, think of it: the europeans conquered half of the world during the past five hundred years, they are responsible for the near-total extinction of at least two entire branches of humanity (the native americans and the australian aborigines), the near-total enslavement of a third one (the africans) and the notion that their race is superior to all others by dint of genetics, and that others are not "fully human". and they seriously believed in that for centuries, too! we have been here for almost a millennium, and bar the second half of the 19th century, all the races that were there when we first came were still there, speaking their languages, practicing their faiths, and having their own internal systems of governance that reported to the sultan. and the genocide occured, surprise surprise, not during the seven hundred years when our backward, barbaric, oriental system prevailed, but under the leadership of a westernised and westernising elite that was largely trained by the civilised germans and espoused german and european ideas and practices then prevalent in europe (the role of the germans in the armenian genocide is slowly coming into light, i can't wait to see the final picture which will emerge). boghos, what would have happened if you happened not to be christian but of another faith, and then conquered by the europeans and not us, have you ever thought of that? think about it. regards, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rome was very tolerant of all its minorities. An Oxford trained historian such as you should not have much difficulty in learning that. That was the essence of the expansion and for many centuries the stability of the Roman Empire. It has nothing to do with the pretense "kind heartedness" of Romans or Ottomans. It has much more to do with a practical view of things: extract as much wealth but let them live. You seem to say that the Ottoman Empire was an example to the world that was undone because of Western influence. Armenians should be thankful for Turks for taking them over, that's another good one. Ali, you could easily find a job at the Foreign Affairs maintainning they web sites. And before you say anything about Azeris and Armenians go and learn something about it. Or else just join the Turkish squads intented on destyroying any and every evidence of Armenian presence in Anatolia, and of course Karabagh (as to Nakhichevan it is already late). Sorry, that I had to come to that, but I think your pompous and arrogant style merits it. [ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: Boghos ] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posts: 519 | From: Brazil | Registered: Aug 2000 | IP: Logged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 Boghos Member Member # 67 posted January 18, 2002 09:20 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Me: I assure you, from experience that Turks get much better treatment in Armenia, than Armenians get in Turkey. Ali: is this the reason why the small minority (azeri turks) that was living in armenia almost totally left the place after the independence? besides, how are the azeri turks in nagorno-karabagh and the adjacent territories are treated? one million internally dispaced people in azerbaijan! Me: Ali get used to answer the questions, not writing whatever you feel like. Azerbaijan last time I checked is not Turkey. In any case this is a whole different subject matter that you seem to know very little about. We don't need an anti-Armenian in sheep's clothing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posts: 519 | From: Brazil | Registered: Aug 2000 | IP: Logged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 aurguplu Member Member # 245 posted January 18, 2002 10:49 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------boghos,1. when i said that i did not consider myself knowledgeable enough about the roman treatment of minorities, i meant that i could not cite enough evidence supporting or defeating any argument off the top of my head. i did not mean to say i didn't know a thing about it. now that you ask, here it goes: "they make a wilderness and call it empire, they make a desert and call it peace (desertam faciunt, imperiam appellant, solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant)" in the immortal words of a celtic (or was it carthaginian?) chieftain. there are ample reports of how the celts, germans, carthaginians and others felt about the romans, documented by the roman authors themselves. since these are all published in english, may i humbly (not arrogantly) refer you to the loeb classical library editions, which have parallel texts. i think that the ottoman empire was in many ways behind the west (i do not expect to be challenged on that), but yes, i do think that its treatment of its minorities was a good deal better than contemporary western civilisation. and we all know that it was undone by the west, which used its better treatment of these subject peoples against the ottomans and caused the empire to fall apart. in the words of hardliners whom i abhor: "if we had turned all these people muslim and had forbidden their languages long ago, they would have assimilated into the turkish culture, there would have been no minorities, and with no minorities, there would have been no problem. so stupid of us for having allowed them to be what they were for so long. it's like keeping snakes alive on your bosom. after all, this is what the europeans have done and they are teaching us civilisation now." now i hate that line of thought, but i cannot fail to see the cold truth in it, and had found no words to reply. how would you answer that if you were in my shoes? no, i do not think that the armenians should thank us for taking them over (boghos, really!). i rather think that they should take a cold hard look at the history of the world and see the plight of other conquered peoples and compare it to theirs up to the 1890s. maybe you don't even have to go that far. how were the armenians treated by the greeks, the romans, and the byzantines? maybe the root of the problem of the armenian self-image regarding their history (yes, i do think there is a problem here) is that they compare their past to that of those nations who were either never subjected to foreign domination, or were a long time ago and have grown out of the psychological traumas emanating therefrom. for sheer sake of logic, they should really compare it to that of the other subject peoples, and at the same historical periods, such as the american, african, and australian natives. when you look at it this way, these people were subjects for a much shorter time and have suffered far more than you did up to the 1890s, and i shall dare say that even 1915 was not quite as destructive as what happened to the americans and the australians at least: these people have mostly lost their language, culture, and to this day they have no political independence whatsoever. and they are on their way to extinction: once the language and religion go, then goes most of the culture, and you get assimilated into the dominant group, and within a few generations, you are history. this is not the case with the armenians, nor is there any visible danger that it will be. as for what's going on with the azeris, i am trying to learn about it, but i am trying to put equal weight to both azeri and armenian versions of the story, and the resulting picture does differ significantly from that portrayed in the armenian sources. it also differs quite a bit from the azeri and turkish sources, i concede readily. and do not forget: the fact that you have suffered wrong does not exclude the possibility that you can do wrong, in fact it can even reinforce it. in the words of william auden: i and the general public knowwhat all schoolchildren learnthose to whom evil is donedo evil in return (he composed these verses in new york on the eve of ww2, and see how accurately they describe israel's treatment of the palestinians) and you cannot put ALL the blame on azerbaijan when it is nagorno-karabagh armenians backed by the armenian republic and the diaspora occupying territory OUTSIDE nagorno-karabagh and causing one million people to be internally displaced within the country. SOME of the blame is bound to reside with the armenians. this is tantamount to putting ALL the blame of the armenian genocide on the armenians, something not even the turkish hardliners do (for my part, i put the largest part of that onto turkish shoulders, a comparable part onto germans, a slightly smaller part on the great powers, and only tiny bits to those armenian terrorists who had started the insurgences in the empire, if you are curious). as for your suggestion that i should work for the foreign office or join the right-wing turkish websites or join a grey wolf gang and smash up what's left of the armenian heritage in turkey, in deference to our dialogue up to now, i shall consider them never written. regards, -------------------- ali suat --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posts: 332 | From: istanbul, turkey | Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 aurguplu Member Member # 245 posted January 18, 2002 11:09 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by Boghos:Me: I assure you, from experience that Turks get much better treatment in Armenia, than Armenians get in Turkey. Ali: is this the reason why the small minority (azeri turks) that was living in armenia almost totally left the place after the independence? besides, how are the azeri turks in nagorno-karabagh and the adjacent territories are treated? one million internally dispaced people in azerbaijan! Me: Ali get used to answer the questions, not writing whatever you feel like. Azerbaijan last time I checked is not Turkey. In any case this is a whole different subject matter that you seem to know very little about. We don't need an anti-Armenian in sheep's clothing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. i do my best to answer questions, and so far i think i have succeeded reasonably well. of course when doing so, i write whatever i feel like, trying (admittedly not always successfully) not to stray from the topic. of course whatever i feel like writing may not be whatever you feel like reading, but then again, i read quite a lot of stuff here that i do not particularly enjoy reading (and to the moderators: i thought this forum banned foul language and blatant racism, insults etc. would i not be banned if i had used the same language about the armenians that some forum members use about turks?) 2. azerbaijan is not turkey, granted, but azeris are turks. precisely the same way as nagorno-karabagh is not armenia but nagorno-karabagh armenians are armenians. so as far as i can tell there is no case of not answering the question here. besides, i recall having posted the examples of turks going to armenia and setting up businesses there and not complaining about their treatment by the armenians. so i think i had fully addresssed that question. 3. in the above posting i confessed openly that i do not know that much about azerbaijan, but quite a bit already. our difference of opinion perhaps lies in the fact that we put different weight to different sources. you on armenian ones, me on azeri/turkish ones. but i do not blind my eyes to the armenian sources, can you say the same about yourself? in addition, i see a disturbing parallel in some of these armenian versions (not necessarily found on this forum) with the turkish versions on the kurdish issue, or worse still, very occasionally i found statements startlingly parallel to those made by genocide denialists/apologists. 4. i am not an anti-armenian, nor am i in any other clothing than mine own. but not being anti-armenian does not mean being pro-armenian, either: there is a middle-ground called impartiality which i strive not to sway from to the best of my ability. can you say the same about yourself? regards, -------------------- ali suat --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posts: 332 | From: istanbul, turkey | Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 Twilight Bark Member Member # 555 posted January 18, 2002 11:13 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by aurguplu:what i had resented was this stereotype of turk - which i see prevalent among armenians - that came from central asia as a subhuman (don't deny, this is what it ultimately boils down to) and ascended to humanity only by contact with the "superior" armenians and greeks and persians and arabs. apart from being historically inaccurate, it is also blatant racism. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry to barge in, but the stereotype you are referring to is spearheaded by the Greeks, and then copycatted by angry Armenians. While the "subhuman mongolian" view is almost mainstream among Greeks, I do not believe it is so among Armenians. In any case, needless to say, it is silly. What is more sinister than silly is the glorification, by a state, of a warlike tribe above all the other elements of the "Turkish" population. It is a shrewd, and less bloody, form of racism. But it is racism in all its intellectual and moral ugliness nonetheless. As you say elsewhere, modern Turkish chauvinism is largely learned from the Europeans. But the theory of Turkish chauvinism comes from the French, not the Germans. For a long time, if you were a French citizen, your ancestors were Gauls (or some such fabrication), period. The presence of other tongues such as the language of Provence was not acknowledged. Sounds familiar? Turkey simply took the French version and synthesized a much more virulent version of it and imposed it on a much more diverse population. The result is probably the most successful assimilation-by-intimidation program in modern history. There is nothing enlightened or exemplary about it. As for the Ottoman times, the official policy was a general, religious chauvinism with a social order of some kind in mind. I can best describe it as an animal story. To put it simply, there were sheep and the owners of the sheep. A good number of sheep were kept at any given time because they were yummy to eat, and they provided wool. The owners of the herd remember it as jolly good times. The remnants of the herd has a different collective memory, and has a hard time feeling thankful for "being allowed to live". Don't expect to find sympathetic ears to your romantic view of Turks as "enlightened administrators" among Armenians. Granted, Turks perfected the art of bullying, and molded the indigenous population of Anatolia and the Balkan immigrants in their own image. But you see, individual bullies among them notwithstanding, Armenians collectively don't like bullies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posts: 116 | From: Earth | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 Twilight Bark Member Member # 555 posted January 18, 2002 11:56 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------i do think that its treatment of its minorities was a good deal better than contemporary western civilisation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree that early Ottoman treatment of minorities was better than by the European savages that were their contemporaries. But of course that's not saying much. quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------and we all know that it was undone by the west, which used its better treatment of these subject peoples against the ottomans and caused the empire to fall apart. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is wishful fantasy. By the time Ottomans were being "undone", their treatment of minorities had turned from semi-rational to downright vicious. Ottomans gave ample reason to the minorities to feel resentful. Europeans simply took advantage of that huge mistake. quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------in the words of hardliners whom i abhor: "if we had turned all these people muslim and had forbidden their languages long ago, they would have assimilated into the turkish culture, there would have been no minorities, and with no minorities, there would have been no problem. so stupid of us for having allowed them to be what they were for so long. it's like keeping snakes alive on your bosom. after all, this is what the europeans have done and they are teaching us civilisation now." now i hate that line of thought, but i cannot fail to see the cold truth in it, and had found no words to reply. how would you answer that if you were in my shoes? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would say that the reason for keeping minority communities "somewhat" intact was a rational choice, much like keeping a herd of sheep, using them for food and clothing. The policy was to give minorities enough breathing room to survive as entities, but erode them (by various methods of assimilation) and keep them "in their place" at the same time, much like a herd of sheep. It worked fine for a long time. It would keep working if the empire reformed itself into a truly multicultural, enlightened confederation. Instead, it kept saying "how dare you" to any demand by "minorities" (which were actually a majority until the last days of the empire) for semi-dignified existence. Happy minorities don't rebel because somebody from Europe told them so. But if the question is "How could we keep the empire in its entirety and its original form, and the Turkish domination within it?", my answer is that you probably couldn't. One way would be to adopt the exploitive style of the British Empire. But that didn't survive, did it? The alternative of bulldozing the minorities out of existence would lead to a quick collapse of the Ottoman economy as established at the time. If you want an example of what would happen, look no farther than Eastern Turkey. In any case, the only decent answer is that empires are nothing but self-legitimized, institutionalized violence and robbery; they are not worthy of preserving. quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------how were the armenians treated by the greeks, the romans, and the byzantines? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rather horribly. But that is like one bully telling his victim that another bully also beat him up, and that the reason he stabbed him to near-death was because he was upset to hear the victim's cries for help when being beaten. Don't expect to make much sense to Armenians with that line of thought. quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------maybe the root of the problem of the armenian self-image regarding their history (yes, i do think there is a problem here) is that they compare their past to that of those nations who were either never subjected to foreign domination, or were a long time ago and have grown out of the psychological traumas emanating therefrom. for sheer sake of logic, they should really compare it to that of the other subject peoples, and at the same historical periods, such as the american, african, and australian natives. when you look at it this way, these people were subjects for a much shorter time and have suffered far more than you did up to the 1890s, and i shall dare say that even 1915 was not quite as destructive as what happened to the americans and the australians at least: these people have mostly lost their language, culture, and to this day they have no political independence whatsoever. and they are on their way to extinction: once the language and religion go, then goes most of the culture, and you get assimilated into the dominant group, and within a few generations, you are history. this is not the case with the armenians, nor is there any visible danger that it will be.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now this is like a bully saying to his victim "You're still complaining? What's the big deal? Everybody was doing it. So that's OK, right? No hard feelings?" To the victim, it doesn't matter if there are many bullies in the schoolyard or just one. He hates the bully that's beating him up just the same. Armenians do not consider the uncivilized and inhuman behavior of the Europeans as relevant to their inexcusably horrible treatment by the Turks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posts: 116 | From: Earth | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 Boghos Member Member # 67 posted January 18, 2002 02:07 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by aurguplu:boghos,1. when i said that i did not consider myself knowledgeable enough about the roman treatment of minorities, i meant that i could not cite enough evidence supporting or defeating any argument off the top of my head. i did not mean to say i didn't know a thing about it. now that you ask, here it goes: "they make a wilderness and call it empire, they make a desert and call it peace (desertam faciunt, imperiam appellant, solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant)" in the immortal words of a celtic (or was it carthaginian?) chieftain. there are ample reports of how the celts, germans, carthaginians and others felt about the romans, documented by the roman authors themselves. since these are all published in english, may i humbly (not arrogantly) refer you to the loeb classical library editions, which have parallel texts. i think that the ottoman empire was in many ways behind the west (i do not expect to be challenged on that), but yes, i do think that its treatment of its minorities was a good deal better than contemporary western civilisation. and we all know that it was undone by the west, which used its better treatment of these subject peoples against the ottomans and caused the empire to fall apart. in the words of hardliners whom i abhor: "if we had turned all these people muslim and had forbidden their languages long ago, they would have assimilated into the turkish culture, there would have been no minorities, and with no minorities, there would have been no problem. so stupid of us for having allowed them to be what they were for so long. it's like keeping snakes alive on your bosom. after all, this is what the europeans have done and they are teaching us civilisation now." now i hate that line of thought, but i cannot fail to see the cold truth in it, and had found no words to reply. how would you answer that if you were in my shoes? no, i do not think that the armenians should thank us for taking them over (boghos, really!). i rather think that they should take a cold hard look at the history of the world and see the plight of other conquered peoples and compare it to theirs up to the 1890s. maybe you don't even have to go that far. how were the armenians treated by the greeks, the romans, and the byzantines? maybe the root of the problem of the armenian self-image regarding their history (yes, i do think there is a problem here) is that they compare their past to that of those nations who were either never subjected to foreign domination, or were a long time ago and have grown out of the psychological traumas emanating therefrom. for sheer sake of logic, they should really compare it to that of the other subject peoples, and at the same historical periods, such as the american, african, and australian natives. when you look at it this way, these people were subjects for a much shorter time and have suffered far more than you did up to the 1890s, and i shall dare say that even 1915 was not quite as destructive as what happened to the americans and the australians at least: these people have mostly lost their language, culture, and to this day they have no political independence whatsoever. and they are on their way to extinction: once the language and religion go, then goes most of the culture, and you get assimilated into the dominant group, and within a few generations, you are history. this is not the case with the armenians, nor is there any visible danger that it will be. as for what's going on with the azeris, i am trying to learn about it, but i am trying to put equal weight to both azeri and armenian versions of the story, and the resulting picture does differ significantly from that portrayed in the armenian sources. it also differs quite a bit from the azeri and turkish sources, i concede readily. and do not forget: the fact that you have suffered wrong does not exclude the possibility that you can do wrong, in fact it can even reinforce it. in the words of william auden: i and the general public knowwhat all schoolchildren learnthose to whom evil is donedo evil in return (he composed these verses in new york on the eve of ww2, and see how accurately they describe israel's treatment of the palestinians) and you cannot put ALL the blame on azerbaijan when it is nagorno-karabagh armenians backed by the armenian republic and the diaspora occupying territory OUTSIDE nagorno-karabagh and causing one million people to be internally displaced within the country. SOME of the blame is bound to reside with the armenians. this is tantamount to putting ALL the blame of the armenian genocide on the armenians, something not even the turkish hardliners do (for my part, i put the largest part of that onto turkish shoulders, a comparable part onto germans, a slightly smaller part on the great powers, and only tiny bits to those armenian terrorists who had started the insurgences in the empire, if you are curious). as for your suggestion that i should work for the foreign office or join the right-wing turkish websites or join a grey wolf gang and smash up what's left of the armenian heritage in turkey, in deference to our dialogue up to now, i shall consider them never written. regards, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello Ali, Spiced up conversation, eh ? I agree with most what you say, except for the lesser evil theory, and the fact that we should be thankful for that. I could turnaround and argue that the Ottoman Empire could have crumbled much earlier were it not for the Armenians, Greeks and Jews that took a disproportionately large (euphemism..) part in running the affairs of state. Of course they were at the service of the Turks... I also call for impartiality in the analysis of Armenian, Azeri and Turkish events, or any other. But it was you who, to my factual assertion that Turks are better treated in Armenia, than vice-versa, that raised the Azeri story (btw, Azeris being Turks is not by far a clear cut fact, and in any case they do not really fell as such, unlike the MHP would like to see...). That is a fact.Of course Armenians are not holier than anybody and excesses were committed. But look first at the Sumgait events and see how the rest unfolds... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posts: 519 | From: Brazil | Registered: Aug 2000 | IP: Logged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 THOTH Member Member # 369 posted January 18, 2002 03:25 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by Boghos:[QB] Ali, ...I think your pompous and arrogant style merits it. QB] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOL - perhaps he is Armenian and just doesn't know it.... On a serious note guys - please show some respect (and restraint) - I think you both make excellent posts in general and have much to teach all of us (concerning your individual knowledges and perspectives).... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posts: 280 | From: USA | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 Boghos Member Member # 67 posted January 19, 2002 03:28 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by aurguplu:boghos,1. when i said that i did not consider myself knowledgeable enough about the roman treatment of minorities, i meant that i could not cite enough evidence supporting or defeating any argument off the top of my head. i did not mean to say i didn't know a thing about it. now that you ask, here it goes: "they make a wilderness and call it empire, they make a desert and call it peace (desertam faciunt, imperiam appellant, solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant)" in the immortal words of a celtic (or was it carthaginian?) chieftain. there are ample reports of how the celts, germans, carthaginians and others felt about the romans, documented by the roman authors themselves. since these are all published in english, may i humbly (not arrogantly) refer you to the loeb classical library editions, which have parallel texts. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Ali, Of course no people likes to be subjugated...Ask the Bulgars, Serbs, Hungarians, Greeks, Albanians etc how they enjoyed life under the tolerant and compassionate Ottomans... My point is that this approach is not particular to the "more advanced" Turkic civilization as you implied. It is just a result of historical realities and wise political decisions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posts: 519 | From: Brazil | Registered: Aug 2000 | IP: Logged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khodja Posted January 21, 2002 Report Share Posted January 21, 2002 I see that the dialogue here has deteriorated to insults. All the Turkish government has to do is to come to terms with the Ottoman past regarding the Armenians, and to face up to the lesser crimes of the Republic of Turkey toward it's religious minorities, including Jews, who were saddled with high taxes assessed on religious minorities and then sent to forced labor camps along with Armenians and Greeks. Jews died there as did these other minorities. We see massive coverups by Turkish authorities. When the Turkish government "comes clean", then friendships could develop between Armenians and sensitive Turks such as Ali. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted January 21, 2002 Report Share Posted January 21, 2002 to all, 1. yes, it was a spiced-up conversation, but given the sensitivity of the issue we were discussing, and given the fact that we both are parties to it, it is inevitable that conversation gets spiced up at times. i am not offended that it does so (though i agree with thoth that we could show some restraint), i hope no-one gets offended by me, either. 2. i think i have been misunderstood as maintaining that "armenians should be thankful to us for not having been treated quite as badly as the subjects of the europeans everywhere else". no, i do not think that they should, and i can perfectly understand - and agree with - that no-one likes their conqueror, oppressor, bully, whatever you call it - which we were. we had also been bullied in our history by a number of other peoples, and we didn't like that, either. why should we expect that of others? (but i do concede that my postings might have been read a bit to that effect, yes. 3. i do think that up to the 19th century ottoman subject peoples were treated better than european subject peoples, although i readily concede that by today's standards that leaves a lot to be desired. i also would not deny that it was just as much realpolitik as a beacon of civilised conduct on the part of the ottomans. but i think that the notion that the ottomans kept the people the way they were "just because they needed them and wanted to make use of their skills" is, while not totally inaccurate, is an over-simplification of the issue and and over-estimation of the dependence of the ottoman government on non-muslims. the ottomans were old-style imperialists: they wanted complete obedience, and would stop at nothing to get it, but once they got that, they were content: there was no notion of wanton murder unless "needed" (of course that last sentence is a hotbed of debate), and there was also no notion of the necessity to completely exterminate people because they were different. as far as the ottoman dependence on non-muslims for government purposes is concerned, the realities behind it were entirely different and had nothing to do for the alleged "inability of turks in statecraft on account of their nomadic background", as has been asserted many times. we can have an interesting discussion on such issues as the logic behind the janissary institution, the ethnicity-based labour division in the empire etc. regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 21, 2002 Report Share Posted January 21, 2002 quote:Originally posted by hagarag:When the Turkish government "comes clean", then friendships could develop between Armenians and sensitive Turks such as Ali.I don't disagree with your points - except that I don't believe that friendships between people are ever obviated by anything a government might do...at least not by definition. I have many Turkish friends and see it as no big deal - at least it should not be - either way really... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted January 22, 2002 Report Share Posted January 22, 2002 dear hagarag, dear thoth, 1) i do not think that the conversation has degraded into insults (at least not my contribution, i hope). rather it has been one of "strong words". given the sensitivity of the topics under discussion, and the fact that we, by the nature of things, cannot be -and cannot be expected to be - totally impartial about them, such outbreaks of passion are inevitable. i see no danger in them as long as we both can show restraint and stay above a certain level, below which it would be insults. the fact that we are agreed on a number of fundamental points (like the genocide) and that we are quoting references (well, frequently, at least), i hope, will preserve us from such deterioration. 2. turkey will eventually accept the genocide, but it cannot be expected to take place overnight. as a rule, weak nations, like weak people, are not inclined to admit to their faults, for the very practical concern that such an admission could later be used against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted January 22, 2002 Report Share Posted January 22, 2002 quote:Originally posted by aurguplu:dear hagarag, dear thoth,1) i do not think that the conversation has degraded into insults (at least not my contribution, i hope). rather it has been one of "strong words". given the sensitivity of the topics under discussion, and the fact that we, by the nature of things, cannot be -and cannot be expected to be - totally impartial about them, such outbreaks of passion are inevitable. i see no danger in them as long as we both can show restraint and stay above a certain level, below which it would be insults. the fact that we are agreed on a number of fundamental points (like the genocide) and that we are quoting references (well, frequently, at least), i hope, will preserve us from such deterioration. 2. turkey will eventually accept the genocide, but it cannot be expected to take place overnight. as a rule, weak nations, like weak people, are not inclined to admit to their faults, for the very practical concern that such an admission could later be used against them. now turkey is not particularly strong and stable, and has in its short history suffered from an almost 30-year long one party rule, three military coups, a hanged prime minister and two ministers, a decade long left-right civil war, the aegean and cyprus disputes with greece, an ethnic-based fifteen year long civil war in which it lost 30,000 people, yet another military intervention, a war in iraq that cost it 10% of its export revenues, and a surge in islamic fundamentalism. plus the area we live in is not a shining example of neither democracy, nor human rights, nor peace, nor political stability, nor economic prosperity. we also do not boast the most enviable set of neighbours, at least to the east (iran, iraq syria). add to this the genuine (and not unfounded) concern that her territorial integrity is not universally accepted (the eu still refuses to accept the pkk as a terrorist organisation), and turkey's rather aggressive (or defensive) behaviour would come as no surprise. we are simply never left in peace. turkey has genuine concerns that the admission of the genocide today would pave way to the reemergence of armenian territorial claims on turkish soil. the fact that we have demanded the armenian government several times to express their stance on this issue clearly, to no avail (they have declined to express cut and clear that the armenian republic had no claims on turkish territory, they rather munched their words like "how can you expect such a small nation as ours to have claims on the territory of such a big nation like yours (kocharian), which does not mean "no, we don't"). these things have to be sorted out before the genocide recognition. once this is done, there won't be any serious problem with the genocide recognition. 3. the "property tax" and the 6-7 september 1955 events are universally (well, almost) regarded as black pages in turkish history by turks. in fact, if my memory does not fail me, the 6-7 september incidents were the only case when the government officially apologised to the minorities. we think little better of the property tax horror. true, the government has not yet officially apologised to the minorities for that, but a number of non-official statements were made by high-ranking individuals to the point that it is commonly accepted as a source of shame by those turks who know it. also, the one minority community that was most seriously hurt by the property tax was the jewish one, and the jews themselves do not want the issue to surface at the moment (a most prominent member of that community, mr. ishak alaton, had said in a television programme two years ago (or was it last year?) that "its time would also come" (the programme was about the (apologies: "so-called") armenian genocide. turkey and israel are serious allies at the moment, and will likely be so for a very long time, and neither side wants to rekindle some bad old memory stuff. the time will come when it's time.4. i do not think that liking the country's government to strike a genuine friendship with a citizen of that country is a prerequisite. otherwise, we would find it a bit hard to have chilean, argentine, chinese, russian, nigerian, israeli, iraqi, iranian, and (ugh) afghan friends, wouldn't we? if you don't like my government, well, then, that makes two of us (and i have much more valid reasons, believe me, i am living in the country they are xxxxing up). i don't expect anyone to like my govt, as i don't myself, just evaluate me as a person, for i do the same re you. regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted January 22, 2002 Report Share Posted January 22, 2002 mj i messed it up again. my computer had had a failure and only the first half of my posting had appeared in the first post, then i clicked "reply w/ quote" and retyped the rest, it appears as another post, all in black . it is the same as the truncated one above. apologies. regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boghos Posted January 22, 2002 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2002 quote:Originally posted by aurguplu:dear hagarag, dear thoth,1) i do not think that the conversation has degraded into insults (at least not my contribution, i hope). rather it has been one of "strong words". given the sensitivity of the topics under discussion, and the fact that we, by the nature of things, cannot be -and cannot be expected to be - totally impartial about them, such outbreaks of passion are inevitable. i see no danger in them as long as we both can show restraint and stay above a certain level, below which it would be insults. the fact that we are agreed on a number of fundamental points (like the genocide) and that we are quoting references (well, frequently, at least), i hope, will preserve us from such deterioration. 2. turkey will eventually accept the genocide, but it cannot be expected to take place overnight. as a rule, weak nations, like weak people, are not inclined to admit to their faults, for the very practical concern that such an admission could later be used against them.Indeed, as it befits two UWC alumni... ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward demian Posted April 16, 2002 Report Share Posted April 16, 2002 I'm glad to get a response from my comments. However, My comments were addressed to a srictly Aarmenian audiece. You all missed the point. I was refering to the white genocide. The red one we know about. I was trying to make a point that as Armenians we need to accept mixed marriages between Armenians and Americans of various white nationalities. I care less about the Turks and other Muslims and their nitpicking about who persecuted whom more than they. Yes I can get along with Turks, and others. But when the battle lines are drawn, as they will be one day, we will have to choose sides. I would like to see the Armenian minorities throughout the world numbering twenty million, not 200,000.For that to happen, we need an attitude of inclusion not seclusion. If we intermarry with the Western European, we should embrace the offsprings of those unions, so they will grow up with the Armenian feelings that I have, and join us in the final battle against the Invaders. To point to the Roman way 2000 years ago, has no relevance to today. The Romans conquered, but after conquest, the vanquished had an opportunity to become a Roman cityzen, and still keep his religion and language and nationality.As to the Europeans conquering others, those others conquered Europe whenever they could. Beside, I think that the European culture is superior to the Asiatic, Amerindian, Aboriginee, African, New Zeland, South Seas Cannibals, and others. I know this is not politically correct. I don't care. It's true. All these other cultures have interesting features, amusing customs, etc. But so do the monkeys and the chimps if you watch them long enough. Sure, with enough bananas, you can tech a monkey to drive a car, but can you teach it to do a good tuneup? I hope I insulted all the Turkish sponsored groups, who disect the comments we Armenians make on this forum. How else can one explain the fact that I got a reaction months after I made the posing. I also noticed that you latched onto my real last name, long after everyone else forgot it since I only mentioned it once. Is that supposed to intimidate me? Surely, you must realize that I won't be intimidated by Turks, keeping lists of the panellists real names. I was warned not to use my real last name, and that person was right. I prefer that we stop wasting our efforts in idle useless banter with the enemy and redirect our comments and efforts toward our goal. Victory over Turkey. What have you done for Armenia in the last six months. I donated $200 towards the Armenian Roads in Karabagh, and I sought out an Armenian Foundry with the ability to manufacture one product for me here in the US. I once said that, if every Armenian business man in the diaspora buys one Armenian item from Armenia, Armenia would have 10 times the present economic grouth. The Turks are smart enough to fear our economic potential and ability. We should be smart enough to act upon that ability.Ghetze Hayutyuna, Miayn Zenkov e Hayotz pargutyuna. Anmahatsan Vartananz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khodja Posted April 16, 2002 Report Share Posted April 16, 2002 How interesting that the the 1/2 Armenian Edward Demian posts again soon after the Armenian racists are banished. Bravo, Mosjan and moderators. This forum will grow again and not die lie the Armenian Cafe did. You banished the freak show just in time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.