The stolen heritage

[Guest]

When the first Turks came to Caucasus and The Asia Minor peninsula around 10th century, they had the looks of Mongoloid people. Much like now days Tatars, and people of Central Asia, Turkmens, Kazakhs, etc.. However, if you look at Turks now they have predominantly European(Caucasian)looks.

 

Turks not only have brought destruction, devastation and depression to the people of Caucasus, Eastern Anatoliya, Asia minor, and Balkans, but they have also stolen the heritage of those people.

[Guest]

This is an excellent topic. The "Turks" in Turkey need to look in a mirror, then they will see their Armenian, Kurdish, Greek, Georgian, Assyrian, Albanian, Serbian, etc. heritage stolen from them. It is a big joke that they claim they are Ural Altaic. Do they look anything like Koreans, Manchus, Tungus or Mongolians? How many Turks are born with the famous Mongol blue spot common among Far East Asians and American Indians (My uncle had it!). I have always said that I am more closely related to the real Turks of Central Asia, with my Indigenous blood!

[Guest]

LOL, exactly you said what I'said when Ararat and MJ banned me from their Forums. I said Turks are Turkicspaeking Byzantine Greeks, with a false identity, with an identity crisis, love to be European, but they think they are Mongolian, and don't respect and accept what they are.

 

BTW. Uzbeks and Turkmens are not 100% Mongolian, they are mixed Causcasian with Mongoloid race, kazakh and Kyrgyz are mor Mongolian.

[Guest]

Turks were people living in the Ural mountains, in Asia. they came down to southeast Europe around 10th century.

Of course during the centuries they sksin nmanvel mez, ev vopshe kovkazi mardkant kam hyinerin nyinpes.

Tykeri patmytiyn@ vor naek, iarnk miain 2 bannen arel, spanel mardkant ev irants hoxer@ goxanal. Menk orinak, ev basti mezanits mi moratsek Hyineri genotsidner@, kurderi genotsidner@, balgarneri. ev et bolorits irank hoxer@ goxatselen. Let's not forget about Assyrians, ym hima asxarov mangak 10 hogiel chek karana gtnel, vortev tyrker@ irants saxin asxari eresits makrelen. Irank nyin@ mez hetein yzym da anein, darer sharynak, baits de menk yzexenk exel, ev irants "plann@" chi irakanatsvel.

Dramarem asym vor Tyrkerin piti atel!

[Guest]

Among Turks there are many people who are other nationality but they keep it in secret or don't know about it.

Than Turks are very mix for exemple I know one man and he has Armenian,Turk,Georgian, Albanian blood.

[khodja]

hyecory,

 

There is nothing to gain by making foolish comments as you have done. I am sure you are just a punk kid. Yes, we have issues with the Turkish government and power structure. Most Turks on the street don't have the power to resolve these issues. so don't be a big baby and make these foolish comment, OK?

[aurguplu]

the turks did not acquire their caucasian type by mixing with the anatolians. the place where they come from in central asia, originally the foothills of the altai mountains, lyes at the boundary of the natural distribution of the caucasian and mongol races. there have been caucasians in that region (and in sinkiang in chinese turkestan) since at least the 2nd millennium b.c.

 

from their first mention in historical sources, the people we know to have been turkic-speakers have always been mentioned either as mongoliod or caucasian in appearance, so much so that some ethnonyms, such as "cuman" meant fair-haired, as did the name given them by the russians (polovtsy) and the germans (falben). chinese sources frequently mention turks as "red-haired barbarians", hardly the description of a mongol.

 

this was partly due to the early presence of tokharians in sinkiang, who spoke a western form of indo-european (like english and german) and were culturally quite close to the celts and germans, judging by the material remains they left behind.

 

according to legend, the oghuz (the branch of turks who moved into anatolia, and who are also the ancestors of the anatolian turks, the azeris, and the turkmen) were composed of 24 tribes, at least two of which have names that rae known to be non-turkic. these are the döger (

 

the turks themselves see themselves as a linguistic group: he is a turk who speaks turkic. so all this rubbish about the racial attributes of turks is just that - rubbish.

[aurguplu]

the american whites, for example. three-quarters of the native american languages, together with the peoples who spoke them, are extinct today.

the australian whites, for example. same as above.

the germans in africa, for example (they all but killed off the herero).

(isn't it funny, these are all germanic-speaking northern europeans, they are responsible for the extinctin of about a quarter of humanity. they have a much better chance of being nominated for the "barbarian of the past millennium" award than we are, not a single nation went extinct under our rule of almost a millennium.)

the chinese in tibet and sinkiang, for example (the chinese are deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the death of entire populations, such as man-made famine in tibet and above-ground nuclear detonations in sinkiang.

by the way, turks did not totally exterminate the armenians, otherwise you would not have been there to talk to me. the criminality of the armenian genocide is second to none, but we are in distinguished (!) company here.

at least we do not try to give others a lesson in civilisation. the nation that droped two bombs on japanese cities has the audacity to do that. and, by the way, they still have not apologised officially.

khodja, i understand you are an american-armenian 8if i am correct) . here is a humble suggestion: you want to do some clean-up, start home. i want to do some clean-up, and i have started home with the armenian genocide.

[aurguplu]

in case anyone thought that by "clean-up" i meant a re-run of the genocide. NO. i meant, if you want to do some spiritual clean-up, some reconciliation, repentance and compensation with the past, start home. i, and many people like me, have started home by digging up the armenian genocide issue. everybody has some issue to dig up, don't they?

[Paul bunyan]

the only reason the turks did not succeed in their genocidal plan, which inspired the nazis, the indonesians,

and of late, the khimehr rouge, was that the russian military and communists, struck a deal with their fellow communist, kemal ataturk, to stop their genocide plans Armenian lands would given over to tartary subsequently, renamed by the communists "Azeribaijans" after the province in Iran which they wanted to take over. today happily, the lands that were once theirs for many, many, many years are theirs again!!

[Harut]

let's say another century passes. and Armenia and Turkey grow to be in higher levels of civilization, each on their own side of the boarder.

are we going to talk about Armenia and Turkey as we do now?????

[khodja]

Ali,

 

I spent years of my work career documenting Native American sites and peoples, and their progeny as assimilated into the American common culture. My former wife and I spent almost every vacation frequenting Native American communities and business establishments and our home was filled with crafts which were designed and sold by these peoples. We Americans even have reservations where Native Americans conduct business as independent nations. No part Native American celbrity will ever conceal this, but displays this heritage as a badge of honor. When an American engineering firm offered my father a lucrative position in Turkey, since he spoke excellent Turkish plus 8 other languages, he refused. This was in the 1950's and the Turkish Government was still tormenting Armenians and Greeks. ICOMOS has clearly condemned Turkey for allowing Armenian sites to crumble into dust.

[aurguplu]

by the way, re stolen heritage:

 

the indigenous people of anatolia do not exist anymore. they were called the khatti, and their language was already extinct by the early second millennium b.c., replaced by the indo-european hittite (who took over their name) and its relative luvian. luvian was also widely spoken in greece prior to the arrival of greeks in about 1600 b.c. the armenians are thought to have arrived much later, about 1200-1100 b.c., from moesia in northern greece, whither they had come from present-day romania or thereabouts. and they were very probably part of the group of "sea peoples" who were responsible for the destruction of the hittite empire, and later, that of the urartu kingdom.

 

now the armenians talk of being the inheritors of urartu culture, while two of the vital components of their heritage - their language and ethnic name - have nothing to do with the urartu (the urartu language is known from inscriptions, and is a close relative of the latter hurrian, and both of them probably belong to the same family as present-day georgian and circassian etc, so these people, who are still in the region, probably have a better case in caliming urartu than the armenians do).

 

the "mingling" of the incoming armenians and the indigenous urartu was nothing peaceful if the distinctly warlike nature of the relics of indo-european incursions that are being dug up today are anything to go by. so the "arrival" of the armenians into anatolia and their subsequent development was very much along the same lines as those of the latter-day turks.

 

so what makes the heritage of the armenians not "stolen" and that of the turks "stolen"? what gives you - and not us - the right to claim urartu heritage and land? that you carry their genes? that you have been there longer than we have? that whatever you did, you did it so long ago? and that your victims are extinct, so that they cannot incriminate you with anything, and they are only the romantic subjects of study of some archaeologists?

 

you were formed by pretty much the same "historical processes" (read: invasion, plunder, rape and murder) as we were. do not forget.

[khodja]

Ali,

 

Nations of our era attempt to project civility. Other than your nation which nation in the last 200 years has totally exterminated the nationals of lands they wish to possess? The Holocaust was different because the Nazis only coveted the assets of the Jews, not their ancestral lands.

[khodja]

Many nations conquer other peoples. Few lately have totally exterminated the inhabitants. Armenian sites within Turkey are allowed to deteriorate into dust, as if to wish that any memory is permanently deleted.

[bellthecat]

Ali, the spoken language of the Uruatians is not known, only their written language. Since the written language was used by the ruling elite it is possible that the ordinary people spoke a completely different language. Indeed, since the Uratian empire was large it likely that there were several languages other than "Uratian" spoken anyway. And remember also that races can change their spoken language in remarkably short time periods, three or four generations is all it needs.

[khodja]

As a historian, I can state that historical methods and linguistic methods of determining origins of peoples will be soon obsolete. The tried and true methods are being usurped by the advancements of science. Yes, languages and cultures can change over a few generations. Genes, however, change much more slowly. The Human Genome Diversity Project is now mapping the peoples of the world. When the results are in there will be little to disagree upon. The initial results are astounding. It will blow the chauvinistic Armenians among us right out of the water. These "emperors" will have NO clothes.

[aurguplu]

harut,

 

this is what i was going to post sometime in the future. i completely agree with you. the most serious burning issue between the turks and the armenians is the denial of the genocide, and the days of this attitude are numbered. when we get this out of the way, all the other problems will be solved a good deal more easily.

 

khodja,

 

here is a hardliner's comment (this is not my opinion (at least the moral part of it) but is basically what many hardliners think in turkey:

 

the west, after centuries of oppressing the natives in america, africa and australia, is now repenting and doing things for them. the reasons why they have been doing this now and have not done it until about the end of the last century are the following:

 

1. at that time the subjugation of the natives was not complete (native americans fought the usa until the end of the 19th century, and there were programs in the usa designed to strip them off their culture well until the first quarter of this century). they can talk about it today because the natives as a separate entity linguistically, culturally, and even racially are on their way to extinction. there is nothing more that the usa has to do actively because the natural processes of assimilation and extinction have gone too far to reverse the trend. so today you can give them human zoos called reservations (in most cases a fraction of their original land, in a few, even not their original land but some other area), call these a state, have them draft constitutions in their languages (which are dying out, anyway), and not worry a bit, because they will be nothing more than a curiosity in the great melting pot of america. there has never been an independent indian state that has been a member of the united nations, and there never will be one. there is only one (as far as i know) native language in the whole of americas that enjoys co-official status with spanish, and that is guarani of paraguay. to the best of my knowledge, neither nahuatl, nor any one of the mayan languages (not even yucatec, huastec, or quiche, spoken by quite a few million people between them) are co-official in any of the states where they are spoken, because they still constitute a danger (remember the zapatistas, the killings in guatemala).

2. north american indians did not have either the degree of cultural sophistication, or cultural/linguistic unity, or sheer numbers to constitute a genuine threat either to the usa or to canada. therefore the americans and canadians can afford to be far more obliging in giving them the rights they give, because they do not have to fear any separatist action (perhaps the mohawks in canada are an exception).

 

our situation is in stark contrast to them: we did not kill off the earlier inhabitants of anatolia when we conquered it, in fact, until the arrival of nationalism on ottoman soil in the 19th century, the armenians constituted a good ten per cent of anatolian population, and the greeks probably double that figure (the percentage of kurds was a good deal lower, actually, but this is a topic on its own). the people we conquered were for the most part left to speak their language, practise their religion (church building continued in turkey under the ottomans, a fact rarely admitted by either the greeks or the armenians), call themselves whatever they wanted, and were organised into millets and were pretty much autonomous in their internal affairs, only the top being responsible to the sultan!

 

in hindsight, this attitude, while to the credit of the ottomans, was perhaps the greatest mistake they made: they conquered peoples, and chose not to eliminate or assimilate them: they were allowed to exist, fully preserving their separate identity. of course, they betrayed the empire that had treated them so much better than the civilised west treated its own conquered peoples, at the first opportunity.

 

another difference was that while the west conqured peoples in most cases markedly inferior to them in terms of cultural sophistication, technology and sheer numbers, the turks conquered the greeks and the armenians, both literate civilisations with a very strong sense of identity, a high level of civilisation, a formalised world religion (with adherents all over), a high degree of technological expertise and not negligible numbers. these peoples posed a far greater potential threat to a weakening empire than the natives of america, africa and austalia ever could, yet they were treated with ha good deal more dignity than these latter were.

 

and today we are more reviled by the so-called "civilised world" than that "civilised world" itself. it is true that the armenian genocide, the armenian massacres of sultan abdulhamid, the massacre at chios in greece in the 19th century, and quite a few more are blots in turkish history and human history in general. but our record still stands far better than that of the west, which, as pointed out, is responsible for the disappearance of a quarter of humanity. we had the power to completely eliminate both the greeks and the armenians for almost a millennium, we did not do it. we do deserve credit for that, first and foremost from the greeks and the armenians themselves, just as we do deserve condemnation for the genocide and other crimes.

 

you say you come from a noble family of cilicia. you know you are an armenian. you speak armenian. your culture is armenian, and it is alive and well. you know that your culture will pass onto your children with no hindrance. and your people have been the subjects of barbarian turks for almost a millennium!

 

now replace you, armenian and barbarian turk with he, she (for people you know about) the natives, civilised west, and five hundred years, and see with your own eyes how much of it applies.

 

many hardliners in my country think that if we had converted the greeks and armenians to islam, and forced turkish upon them, we would not have had any one of these problems in the first place. i am disgusted by such an idea, but i have seen the ugly truth in so many of such ideas that i don't know what to say to them.

 

could you offer me an idea?

[khodja]

Ali,

 

I understand your argument. The Western countries can now attempt to make amends because the indigenous people are usually no longer a threat to them. Putting aside hindsight, the Turks have a different problem to deal with. Both the Armenians and Greeks have nations which now abut present-day Turkey. If Turkey is to work with these nations regionally, it will have to come to terms with the past. The Armenians are closely allied with the Russians, the Greeks with the EU. The Armenians also have better relations with Iran than do the Turks or the Azeris. For the Turks this issue of reconciliation with it's immediate neighbors is more critical for it's economic well-being than the reconciliation the Western nations now attempt with their indigenous peoples.

 

Your argument about extermination or assimilation mentioned only the Greeks and Armenians. What about the peoples of the Balkans and the Arab world? With the exception of a limited number of the peoples of the Balkans who converted to Islam, the Balkans peoples retained both their national identity and Christian religion under Ottoman rule. As for the Arab world, I doubt that any Arabs took on a Turkish identity during these years.

 

I think that Turkish fears about an Armenian "aliyah" are unfounded. Most Armenians are well established in the nations of the West. Many are less Armenian than they are assimilates of their adopted nations. The mass influx into Israel was instigated by the Holocaust. Few Armenians now live non-Christian lands. Only an Islamic Jihad directed at Armenians and other Christians in the Arab lands and Iran would instigate a wish to return to their ancestral lands in Eastern Anatolia.

 

As for my own family in Ottoman Turkey, they were essentially Christian Turks, speaking Turkish and having taken on Turkish names in public. They used their Armenian names only with their wives and family. It is the story of these assimilated Armenians which is the strongest argument that what transpired was a Genocide. The only factor which made them not Turks was their Catholic religion. When they were brought before the Triumvirate, they were offered their lives if they would convert to Islam. I believe that few were given this option. If their loyalty was in question this option would not have been offered. Therefore the leaders of the Young Turks before whom they were brought executed them solely for their religious beliefs. Ergo, soykirim!

[aurguplu]

khodja,

 

1. i agree with the points you raised.

2. i do not recall either in my recent or earlier postings to have questioned the fact of genocide, nor its inherent criminality and the impossibility to find a moral justification for a genocide, any genocide. therefore, you do not have to try to convince me that there was an armenian genocide, and that it was a crime against humanity, because i know that, i knew it long before i joined this forum, and i have been taking some serious risks trying to expose the rest of my countrymen to the grim reality, even with my commanders during my 16-month military service (i was a tank 2nd lt (non-commissioned officer), and commissioned tank people are not noted for their brains nor their tolerance! (to think of it, it was quite rash of me to have told one of the captains whom i was teaching english that it had occurred and that it was a crime (in fact he conceded that it had occured and that it was a crime, but that such things did happen when a empire was about to break up, he then pointed out the collapse of yugoslavia and the inaction of europe during the bosnian genocide, at which point i could not argue back)).

 

what i am saying is that the separatist actions of some armenian factions that started during the reign of sultan abdulhamid ii (who treated the turks only marginally better than the armenians) with a view to inciting the turks to retailate with atrocities so that the christian west would intervene as it did in the balkans to save those christians from the hands of the muslim turks and give them their state (this is not a theory but the printed programme of many of the armenian secret societies of the time, unless all these books i read on te subject written by turks armenians and other non-turks are lying), eventually brought disaster upon the armenian nation in the form of the genocide, because a secret clique inside the committee of the union and progress had already decided to get rid of the armenians in order to create a purely turkic (or, more realistically, muslim) empire that would stretch from anatolia into central asia, and they were already looking for a pretext to carry out that grisly deed. so my earlier posting regarding the remarks of a cypriot remains standing. the armenian revolutionaries took a calculated risk with the lives of their own people, thinking that they would liberate the majority by sacrificing a minority. this would probably have worked if it were sultan abdulhamid that they were dealing with, because for all his unspeakable cruelty, he was a classical ottoman type sultan in these matters: what he wanted was absolute obedience, he would do anything to get it, but once you gave that to him, you were safe: he did not harbour such lunatic ideas as killing off all non-muslims in order to create a purely muslim, far less a purely turkic, state: he even used non-muslims in his state administration at the highest levels. he was an empreror who wanted absolute obedience, that was all.

 

the young turks, on the other hand, were nationalist, purist, and racist, and wanted to create a nationally, culturally and racially pure state.

 

you see, the motives of those who masterminded the genocide were quite different from those who actually carried out the killings. the populace that was engaged in the killings were genuinely fearing that the armenians did pose a real threat to their existence (and they had reason to think so), a significant number of them were also former victims of the muslim massacres in the balkans, russia, and elsewhere, so they acted in revenge. there were also quite a few who joined the killings for material gain: booty (the kurds for the most part). they unwittingly served the "grand design" of the triumvirate (we call this the triumvirate, but i personally believe that the idea was originally that of

one man, talat, rather than enver, cemal, and the others, and that in all probability it was the germans, or at least his exposure to german culture and military, that planted the idea in his mind. the germans are currently de-classifying the relevant archives, i bet it will prove to be very interesting reading).

 

i think that the armenians have always made the mistake of comparing the armenian genocide to the jewish holocaust, and this was the main reason it was usually rejected in so many countries: there are several reasons for this:

 

1. in the jewish case, there was no provocation at all, and germany was not facing imminent military defeat and eventual collapse in which the jews were a fifth column in collaboration with the enemy,

 

2. even though the young turks were racist and nationalistic, or better put "purist", theirs was not one of genetic (biological) purity, but rather cultural and political purity. it appears (to me at least) that they were not against the existence of people with different genetics, but people with different cultures and hence with a potential for future separatist demands. tey wanted a state in which everybody was unanimous in their desire to keep it in one peace. this is in stark contrast with the nazi case, where they attempted to "kill the genes" of the so-called non-aryans, regardless of their fidelity to the german state or not (and to the best of my knowledge the jews were never asking for a separate state within the confines of germany.), and

 

3. the jews are understandably very much against the classification of their trauma with other cases, however horrible they may be, because theirs is really without equal in human history. not even the armenian genocide comes close to what the jews went through. i can understand that.

 

in view of the above, i have been advocating for the past few years that the armenian genocide is far more comparable to the bosnian one than the jewish holocaust. i see a very significant difference between racism based on perceived genetic differences and ethnic hatred based on perceived hostile stance between two peoples: one is about something that you are born with and can do nothing about (and, more significantly, does not shape your personality unless your culture dictates to you that you are different from the rest of humanity on account of your genes and should base your attitudes about yourself and the others on your genetic makeup rather than your and their personal qualities), the other is a conscious stance that you acquire over the span of your life through culture. and the fact that members of your family were offered conversion to save their lives strengthens my position: if it were the armenian genes that were under attack, they would not have been offered that. (i know that there were cases where the jews were offered conversion to catholicism, but as far as i can see, most of those who converted were butchered anyway. this is a topic i know a good deal less about, and would welcome comments/corrections/information).

 

this topic is so broad and deep that it might requiree a separate heading.

 

i apologise for my convoluted prose, i wrote this off without re-reading it, and i realise the sentences are overly long and may contain grammatical mistakes.

 

i a m waiting for comments.

 

(i will address "aliyah" in another posting).

 

regards,

 

[ October 12, 2001: Message edited by: aurguplu ]

[aurguplu]

i agree with what you say. perhaps i was forced to bring up the issue and adopt this position in face of some recent attacks concerning our right to be in anatolia. it is possible, though i doubt it for linguistic reasons, that the ancestors of the armenians were amongst the constituent peoples of te urartu state.

i doubt it for the following reasons: armenian is an indo-european language, probably belonging to the same group as phrygian, which itself appears to have been closely related to the ancient illyrian and thracian languages, and only slightly more distantly to greek. it is generally accepted that the indo-european homeland was in what is now southern russia and ukraine. there is archaeological evidence that there were at least three major incursions into anatolia: ca. 2000 bc (or earlier), which brought the hittites and the anatolian subgroup of indo-european, ca. 1600? bc. that brought the greeks who wrote in linear b, and some were in anatolia i understand, and ca. 1200-1100 bc that brought the "sea peoples", the phrygians etc. (i do realise that i overlook here the earliest surviving pieces of indo-aryan (sanskrit to the common reader) in hittite sources from the early 2nd millennium bc (especially regarding equestrian stuff), and the later cimmerian invasions) it is most likely that the anestor of the armenian language was closely related to phrygian, and came to anatolia at the same time. if i can remember my dates correctly (i am writing from the office and my books are at home), the chronology makes it more likely that they were the destroyers of urartian culture than one of the constituent parties of it). their relation to urartu is perhaps more comparable to the relation of the turks to the armenians: they put an end to their political existence, and took over much of their culture save their language, in exactly trhe same fashion as we did centuries later.

i understand that this theory may be very unpalatable to most armenians, who see in themselves a continuation of the urartu, but perhaps as a non-armenian and non-turk you are better able to offer an unbiased criticism of my position.

p.s.: i am familiar with the works of the russian and georgian scholars gamkrelidze and ivanov, and that of colin renfrew, who put the indo-european homeland in eastern anatolia and ascribe the spread of farming into europe to the expansion of the chariot-riding indo-europeans. it is a powerfully argued theory, but it fails to answer a few very important nagging questions, which we can explore later if you feel so inclined (i myself would be glad to do so).

and, although it is entirely possible thatthe elite of urartu spoke a caucasian language while the populace spoke an indo-european one, it is also entirely possible thatthey both spoke the same language! linguists generally consider examining thefirst possibility when there is some evidence pointing in that direction. is there one?

regards,

[gamavor]

The question about Indo-

European homeland is not something that historians agree upon. Many scholars believe that Asia Minor (Anatolia) is the original birthplace of the Indo-Europeans. Even if we agree that the homeland of Indo-Europeans is Southern Russia and Ukraine, geographically speaking these regions are much closer to Armenia (at present and in the past). In that sense the only "foreign body" in the picture are the turks. They don't belong there and they knew that.

Any comparisons with white settlers and past (ancient) invasions of Indo-Europeans into their native lands are simply ridiculous. To me, they sound like a very naïve excuse. Kind of “you see, we are not the only curst nation in this world.” This attitude leads to nowhere.

[khodja]

Ali,

 

I agree that there are definite differences between the Jewish and Armenian Genocides, one being racial (genetic) the other religious and cultural. I also agree that Armenian mercenaries gave Talaat a excuse to eliminate the Armenians en masse. However, near the end of the period of extermination of Armenians the Triumvirate changed the rules and ordered that Armenians could save themselves by embracing Islam only after they had reached their destinations. The "destinations" planned for Armenians were not on this earth, therefore even this option to save themselves was denied them.

[gamavor]

Hey Mehmet,

 

Who do you call Armenian mercenaries? Those who gave their lives for the liberation of the Armenian nation?

Of all nations enslaved by the filthy turks, Armenians were the only ones who fought without home front. That's why we were not too successful of getting rid of the turks. Anybody else in our shoes would have the same fate.

I don't know what kind of historian you are, but it would be good to know what kind of pseudo Academic institution you graduated from so that other people won't waste their time and money attending such miserable schools.

 

PS: Dikran Kuioumdjian is the father of Michael Arlen.

[aurguplu]

khodja,

i wasn't defending the triumvirate. near the end of the period of the extermination they had the blood of a million innocent people in their hands, a fact which does not affect one's psychological balance positively, i presume. the bastards lied to their closest friends, including the rest of the ittihad and terakki. i can't wait until some more of the memoirs of the prominent people of the time is published, and we will all see the past in a new light.

more on this later

regards,