Armenians inside Turkey have a different opinion on the Armenian Genocide propaganda that the Republic of Armenia PM Kocharian stated in 1998, who said: "The Armenians will never forget the genocide and always try to remind the rest of the world of this tragedy ... The Genocide remains unpunished and the international recognition and reproach are inadequate and insufficient”.
To this, Dikran Kevorkian, Kandilli Armenian Church Pastor, said the following on 7th October 2000 in a television programme named “Nutshell”:
'Genocide and replacement denote two different concepts. The imperialist schemes and the Armenian apolitical dream leaders (media, churches and the clergy) are the causes of this situation. The Patriarch is a spiritual leader and a blunder is committed when his opinions are sought about political matters. What could ASALA and PKK do if there were no political support behind them? There was a German pressure on the Sublime Porte for the replacement, in an attempt to shake the existing order and to secure itself economic benefits through the Berlin-Baghdad railroad.'
For the assimilation claims, Kevorkian stated the following words:
'Today, it is only in Turkey among all countries of the world that the Armenians manage to maintain their own identity. The Armenians in the Diaspora abroad continue their struggle for existence by changing their names because there are efforts there to assimilate the Armenians. The Diaspora knows very well that the Sunday rites in all major American churches are in English and the Armenians are gradually forgetting their own language. When we say these we are criticised. It is for these reasons that we, as the Armenians living in Turkey declare our regrets against these efforts, because an injustice is being committed to the concept of “National Forces” entrusted to us by Atatürk. All this is a stratagem conducted from abroad, including the ASALA, PKK and Kocharian’s declaration. We, as the citizens of Turkey believe that an injustice is perpetrated here. If Armenians are intelligent enough, they should not allow themselves to be used for the interests of others.'
In short, Kevorkian means that Kocharian's declaration is propaganda designed to make the world feel for Armenians what they felt for the Jews as their story of genocide became known in the post-war period.
Later propaganda by parties sympathetic to the Jews led to a reactionary rise of neo-Nazi sentiment that was quickly suppressed until today, where the younger generation in the West pick which side to be behind based on whether the coolness of being a Nazi or backing the underdog is important to them.
Sadly, both sides of that political battle use the either you are for me or against me fallacy to bully disinterested third parties into choosing between Nazism and Zionism.
In the case of the Armenian Genocide, it becomes a case of choosing between Armenia and Turkey with the same type of bullying of third parties.
However, that choice is also based on the same kind of fallacy.
Both sides of the Armenia versus Turkey political propaganda think of themselves as being right. The Turkish side puts up great arguments to refrain from listening to the propaganda.
So I politely refuse to endorse either side, just as I refuse to endorse either side of the Nazism versus Zionism debacle.
My reason for remaining neutral and not choose sides is because if I pick one side, then the other side might have arguments that I may not consider. I present the Turkish side because despite its propaganda (implying that support for Armenia means Turkey fall into a civil war over the Armenian Genocide), it presents a view that I have not read.
I am neutral about Nazism versus Zionism because it is a case of fascism versus reactionary socialism. Neither side is worth defending because both of them are chauvinistic, promoting their political ideology at the expense of the other side.
In both cases, the "us versus them" mentality makes me feel less inclined to pick sides. Even the propaganda from the Turkish side quoted at the beginning of this blog entry makes me wary of the political motive behind it, which was to refute the Armenian diaspora's call for justice.
Please note that I present the Turkish side not because I believe them but because out of all fairness, it needs to be examined too.
Introduction to Armenian Issue: CURRENT SITUATION: http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/current.html
Armenian Genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
Showing posts with label Armenia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Armenia. Show all posts
20150120
Armenia and Azeribaijan: A Commentary (satire)
Armenia today consists of the Persian-Armenian "faction". Thanks to the collapse of the Soviet Union, they fought the Azerbaijani over a region of Azerbaijan that contains a lot of Armenians, who were being targeted by Azerbaijani extremists, and "liberated" it for the good of Armenians there. This conflict was due to both sides declaring themselves republics in a frenzy of nationalism that spread throughout the Soviet Union in the late 1980s.
It makes me wonder if the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh thought out what would happen in their bid for independence in 1988. The resulting war lasted for 4 years and led to massive killings on both sides - which leads me to suspect both sides, being suppressed by Moscow during the Soviet years, got a little giddy with the prospect of freedom and decided on scorched earth policies against each other due to each side as their fervent nationalism led to war.
Perhaps Armenians and Azeri were in conflict because the Armenians have been there since 1500 BCE and the Azeri only since 1064 CE when the Seljuk Turks moved into Asia Minor. From the Armenians' point of view, perhaps they were just keeping the invaders at bay as they have been doing since 1064 CE.
Today the Armenians outside of Armenia proper are fighting to preserve their traditions, but on both sides there were a lot of raids for booty before and after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Obviously, the Azeri versus Armenia enmity could not be ended overnight because neither side is willing to forgive and forget without UN intervention.
However, it is the Persian-Armenians who form the majority in Armenia. Almost everywhere else, it is the Greco-Armenians who originally lived in Cilicia since the days of the Parthian Empire circa 300s BCE. Cilicia was later resettled by Greco-Armenians around 1090 CE due to the Seljuk Turk incursion into Anatolia. It is they who form the majority of the Armenian diaspora outside of Asia Minor. Half of Cilicia was conquered by the Seljuks between 1064 and 1090s.
A few members of the Armenian diaspora are so well-learned that in order to convey the full meaning of deeply emotional and/or intellectual concepts, they will switch from Armenian to French, Greek or Persian and back again.
Additionally, the Armenians never formed an empire of their own, due to the rugged mountainous region in which they dwelled in what became eastern Turkey today. It was easier to make alliances with whoever subjugated them in the past, be it Sassanid Persians making incursions into Byzantium and Parthian Greeks ruling under satrapies prior to 190 BCE, along with Turks since 1000 CE.
Nationalism is a new phenomenon for both Azeri and Armenians, and is not a peaceful struggle for people who originally based their allegiance on the clan / tribal system.
There may be struggles in the future, thanks to the rise of jihadi cultism and the horrible violence it can cause in the world today. If it takes hold in Azeribaijan, then it could lead to a renewal of conflict between both nations.
At the moment, though, the uneasy peace in the region has left the West to consider more pressing matters elsewhere.
Nagorno-Karabakh War:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_War
DID THE TURKS INVADE AND CONFISCATE ARMENIAN LANDS:
http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/answers/invade.html
Armenians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians
Cilicia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cilicia
It makes me wonder if the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh thought out what would happen in their bid for independence in 1988. The resulting war lasted for 4 years and led to massive killings on both sides - which leads me to suspect both sides, being suppressed by Moscow during the Soviet years, got a little giddy with the prospect of freedom and decided on scorched earth policies against each other due to each side as their fervent nationalism led to war.
Perhaps Armenians and Azeri were in conflict because the Armenians have been there since 1500 BCE and the Azeri only since 1064 CE when the Seljuk Turks moved into Asia Minor. From the Armenians' point of view, perhaps they were just keeping the invaders at bay as they have been doing since 1064 CE.
Today the Armenians outside of Armenia proper are fighting to preserve their traditions, but on both sides there were a lot of raids for booty before and after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Obviously, the Azeri versus Armenia enmity could not be ended overnight because neither side is willing to forgive and forget without UN intervention.
However, it is the Persian-Armenians who form the majority in Armenia. Almost everywhere else, it is the Greco-Armenians who originally lived in Cilicia since the days of the Parthian Empire circa 300s BCE. Cilicia was later resettled by Greco-Armenians around 1090 CE due to the Seljuk Turk incursion into Anatolia. It is they who form the majority of the Armenian diaspora outside of Asia Minor. Half of Cilicia was conquered by the Seljuks between 1064 and 1090s.
A few members of the Armenian diaspora are so well-learned that in order to convey the full meaning of deeply emotional and/or intellectual concepts, they will switch from Armenian to French, Greek or Persian and back again.
Additionally, the Armenians never formed an empire of their own, due to the rugged mountainous region in which they dwelled in what became eastern Turkey today. It was easier to make alliances with whoever subjugated them in the past, be it Sassanid Persians making incursions into Byzantium and Parthian Greeks ruling under satrapies prior to 190 BCE, along with Turks since 1000 CE.
Nationalism is a new phenomenon for both Azeri and Armenians, and is not a peaceful struggle for people who originally based their allegiance on the clan / tribal system.
There may be struggles in the future, thanks to the rise of jihadi cultism and the horrible violence it can cause in the world today. If it takes hold in Azeribaijan, then it could lead to a renewal of conflict between both nations.
At the moment, though, the uneasy peace in the region has left the West to consider more pressing matters elsewhere.
Nagorno-Karabakh War:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_War
DID THE TURKS INVADE AND CONFISCATE ARMENIAN LANDS:
http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/answers/invade.html
Armenians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians
Cilicia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cilicia
20070322
The Armenian Genocide Revisited (quote)
No person of Turkish heritage would accept what the Turkish Government has to say about this issue, as the final word. Just like no person of Armenian heritage should care about what the Armenian side has to say. What every person needs to do is look at the facts. If there were REAL proof of government-sponsored evil planned against the Armenians, a people who peacefully lived with and prospered beside the Turks for over five centuries, it would be Turks crying out against such horrors before most everyone else... one's humanity and integrity should ideally supersede loyalty to one's ethnic tribe.
It turns out that the Russians trained Armenians to fight for national identity in Anatolia (Turkey).
Much of what is Armenian Genocide happened to the Armenians who were guerrillas terrorizing the Turks.
And the Turks had to kick out the Armenians out of Turkey to prevent a civil war.
Certainly, Armenians got killed as a result of massacres... often by their Muslim neighbors, in reprisal for the murderous acts committed by the Armenians (when they sided with the Russian enemy in hopes of carving out their own independence); but anybody who calls acts of massacres a "genocide" doesn't know the meaning of the word. (At least the way most of us perceive the meaning, as with what Hitler did to the Jews; the legal definition of genocide is essentially meaningless, and can be applied to almost any conflict.) If a genocide is how you like to describe what happened to the Armenians, then you need to refer to what American soldiers committed in My Lai as a "genocide."
Ironically, if anyone acted genocidally, with the intention of systematically wiping out people because of their ethnic or religious identity, it was the people who are traditionally accepted as the victims of this conflict. Another irony is that while Armenians have been doing their utmost to portray Turks as Nazis (in an effort to equate themselves with Holocaust victims, the one group best known to have fallen prey to genocide), Turks did their best to save Jews during World War II... while Armenians actively supported the Nazi cause.
For prior to the "Genocides" of 1914-1915, many Armenians were well established in the Ottoman Empire.
The only reason for this "genocide" was to prevent Turkish people from being slaughtered by Armenian militants in their villages.
It appears obvious that the Turkish authorities, anxious for the safety of their lines of communication, had no other alternative than to order the removal of their rebellious subjects to some place distant from the seat of hostilities, and their internment there.
The enforcement of this absolutely necessary precaution led to further risings on the part of the Armenians. The remaining Muslims were almost defenceless, because the regular garrisons were at the front as well as the greater part of the police and able-bodied men. Already infuriated at the reports of the atrocities committed at Van by the insurgents, in fear for their lives and those of their relatives, they were at last driven by the cumulative effect of these events into panic and retaliation and, as invariably happens in such cases, the innocent suffered with the guilty.
C.F. Dixon-Johnson, British author of the 1916 book, "The Armenians."
It turns out that the Russians trained Armenians to fight for national identity in Anatolia (Turkey).
Much of what is Armenian Genocide happened to the Armenians who were guerrillas terrorizing the Turks.
And the Turks had to kick out the Armenians out of Turkey to prevent a civil war.
Certainly, Armenians got killed as a result of massacres... often by their Muslim neighbors, in reprisal for the murderous acts committed by the Armenians (when they sided with the Russian enemy in hopes of carving out their own independence); but anybody who calls acts of massacres a "genocide" doesn't know the meaning of the word. (At least the way most of us perceive the meaning, as with what Hitler did to the Jews; the legal definition of genocide is essentially meaningless, and can be applied to almost any conflict.) If a genocide is how you like to describe what happened to the Armenians, then you need to refer to what American soldiers committed in My Lai as a "genocide."
Ironically, if anyone acted genocidally, with the intention of systematically wiping out people because of their ethnic or religious identity, it was the people who are traditionally accepted as the victims of this conflict. Another irony is that while Armenians have been doing their utmost to portray Turks as Nazis (in an effort to equate themselves with Holocaust victims, the one group best known to have fallen prey to genocide), Turks did their best to save Jews during World War II... while Armenians actively supported the Nazi cause.
For prior to the "Genocides" of 1914-1915, many Armenians were well established in the Ottoman Empire.
The only reason for this "genocide" was to prevent Turkish people from being slaughtered by Armenian militants in their villages.
It appears obvious that the Turkish authorities, anxious for the safety of their lines of communication, had no other alternative than to order the removal of their rebellious subjects to some place distant from the seat of hostilities, and their internment there.
The enforcement of this absolutely necessary precaution led to further risings on the part of the Armenians. The remaining Muslims were almost defenceless, because the regular garrisons were at the front as well as the greater part of the police and able-bodied men. Already infuriated at the reports of the atrocities committed at Van by the insurgents, in fear for their lives and those of their relatives, they were at last driven by the cumulative effect of these events into panic and retaliation and, as invariably happens in such cases, the innocent suffered with the guilty.
C.F. Dixon-Johnson, British author of the 1916 book, "The Armenians."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)