Armenian Genocide

Forbes, I know it was not your attention to insult, but merely to approach the issue with as much objectivity as possible.  I can appreciate that.  You make some very good points, and are indeed correct that my personal attachment to the issue has cemented by beliefs, and leaves me far from unbiased on the topic.  Still, I have done my best to debate this issue intelligently, and to have relied on historical facts rather than conjecture.  I have had a great many personal accounts of tragedies and horrors of the Armenian Genocide recounted to me, but have chosen not to focus on them, knowing that for the purposes of this debate they are little more than hearsay.  I would not focus on this issue except for the fact that the Turkish government still denies these events.  I do not normally dwell on the topic, and it really has very little affect, if any, on my day-to-day life.  As I mentioned before, ethnically I'm only 25% Armenian.  However, whenever I hear mention of Turkey, I can't help but think of the Armenian Genocide and that the Turkish government still tries to cover it up to this day.  I truly believe that circumstances would be different if they just acknowledged it.  By continually denying the genocide, it's as if the Turkish government continues to perpetuate the crime.

I don't know in how many ways I can say it, but the Armenian Genocide is really not debated seriously anywhere outside of Turkey.  With every objective bone in my body I can muster, I tell you that it is historical fact.  I can't deny that I want that to be true, but seeing as you come off as a reasonably objective person, I guarantee you that were you to do independent research, you would arrive at the same conclusion.  Seriously, take a look in your encyclopedia.  The evidence is truly as undeniable as that of the Holocaust, which is why I so frequently reference it.  The only difference is ignorance and indifference towards the issue by most.  The Holocaust itself is often seen as an indirect result of the Armenian Genocide and the fact that the Turks pretty much got away with it.  The vast, vast majority of scholars knowledgeable of the issue, and with no ties to Turks or Armenians, agree that the genocide took place.  The simple fact that most people have never heard of the Armenian Genocide is enough to convince me that the topic must not be laid to rest.  I don't hold modern Turks responsible, nor do I bear them any ill-will.  But I cannot keep as open a mind regarding their whole state as I would be able to were they able to face their past.  In all the parallel examples you've given, there is little debate on the part of the descendants of both the victims and the perpetrators that those events took place.  Such is not the case with the Armenian Genocide.  I agree we should not allow such tragedies to be an obstacle towards a progressive future, but simply forgetting or denying those events is not the same as overcoming them.

If your point is that no person or organization is ever wholly objective, then I will concede that you are correct, Janissary.  However, that doesn't mean that all information sources are inherently equal in terms of validity.   When I've used the word objective, I meant as objective as humanly possible.  Any group is, of course, subject to political pressure and personal bias, as every intelligent person is aware.  That doesn't mean that every source of information must be disregarded because of that fact. 

I think your choice of UNESCO censorship as an example of bias is a poor one.  The primary reason I say that is because the United Nations as a whole is only in a position to judge an event like the Armenian Genocide, not provide evidence of it.  Furthermore, UNESCO is not a commission dedicated to studying history, rather it is a commission designed for promoting cooperation and understanding among member states.  So, while I personally do not support censorship in any form, it is a bit more understandable that UNESCO would seek not to display documents they deem as an obstacle to international peace and understanding.  They never even pretended that their primary aim was to discern the truth of past events.  The branch of the United Nations that I previously referenced (and, coincidentally, only as an example of an international organization recognizing the genocide, not as a source of information) was United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (which, upon further research, I realize is now called the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights) which is a commission that actually studies history.  Their primary aim is to research incidents of discrimation and the denial of human rights, not to promote friendly relations between states. 

As for your comments regarding the comparison between the Holocaust and other examples of historic brutality, I do not deny that you have a point.  Comparisons to what is universally seen as one of the worst human atrocities of all time, are indeed a powerful tool.  That said, the connections and parallels between the Holocaust and Armenian Genocide are great and unique (assuming of course, you accept the Armenian Genocide as fact).  Both were examples of state-sponsored genocide on a religious minority.  Both religious minorities were more affluent than the general population and consituted a large portion of their societies' business class, making them visible targets.  Both religous minorities were blamed for military failures, the Jews for Germany's loss of World War I, the Armenians for Turkey's loss of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877.  Both oppressive governments accused the minorites of  consorting with an enemy state (ironically, both times with the Russians), and used that as an excuse to "relocate" their populations.  Both genocides were committed under the cover of a World War.  Both genocides were committed with the intent of creating a great ethnically unified empire.  Both genocides were instigated by secular governments who had recently risen to power.  Of course, I think we all know the major difference lies in how the two governments treated the respective incidents after the wars...

YoungCalifornian wrote:

I think your choice of UNESCO censorship as an example of bias is a poor one.  The primary reason I say that is because the United Nations as a whole is only in a position to judge an event like the Armenian Genocide, not provide evidence of it.  Furthermore, UNESCO is not a commission dedicated to studying history, rather it is a commission designed for promoting cooperation and understanding among member states.  So, while I personally do not support censorship in any form, it is a bit more understandable that UNESCO would seek not to display documents they deem as an obstacle to international peace and understanding.  They never even pretended that their primary aim was to discern the truth of past events.  The branch of the United Nations that I previously referenced (and, coincidentally, only as an example of an international organization recognizing the genocide, not as a source of information) was United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (which, upon further research, I realize is now called the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights) which is a commission that actually studies history.  Their primary aim is to research incidents of discrimation and the denial of human rights, not to promote friendly relations between states.

Actually, it is a better example to fathom the situation, Young Californian. Because, UNESCO is a non-political organization,as you said. If any organization such as Sub-Comission ..... had done it , it would be acceptable because of the political content it contains.Ans it is more understandable. However, even such a non-political organization which has nothing to do with politics (at least,it should not have to do anything with politics) can give decisions in a biased mind and be swayed into a direction due to politics and armenian diaspora. But , because you dont wanna see it , you can not see it YC.

Anyway,it started to seem obvious to me it is impossible to change anything in your biased mind. You like to get stuck and revolve around the same things. Do it. But please dont try to elicit pity in people by narrating off-topic things.

I wont give up,reiterating what we are discussing (at least I am) and what is the matter all about. Turkish government has never denied the death of Armenians(how can it be denied, they were both in war with each other) However, the denial is whether the initial aim of Turks was ethnic cleansing or to purify the Turkish nation by massacring Armenians or not. And it is still obvious to me the ambigious Armenian genocide is rotten,rather than a fact.

Regards

Tell me about it...

You seem to have missed my point entirely, because what I was pointing out was essentially that the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization  is very much a political organization.  Heck, the United Nations itself is a political organization.  How can you honestly believe that either has nothing to do with politics?  UNESCO's official website states that their goal is "to build peace in the minds of men".  That's a very political goal.  While I would never deny that the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights is also a political organization, its aims are less so, as it's an organization whose primary aim is not cooperation, but ascertaining truth.  In contrast to UNESCO, it states that its goal is "To undertake studies, particulary in the light of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to make recommendations to the Commission [on Human Rights] concerning the prevention of discrimination of any kind relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms and the protection of racial, national, religious and linguistic minorities." Also, I just want to make it clear that I do not support UNESCO censoring the documents mentioned.  I thought I made that clear, but just in case I want to reiterate that I do not support censorship in any form.  I'm simply pointing out that one has to keep these organizations' objectives in mind when discussing their actions.

I resent that.  Please tell me how I am of any more "biased mind" than you?  Has it ever crossed your mind that the reason you have been unable to convince me of your point-of-view is because your arguments have not been strong enough?  Your holier-than-thou attitude is very frustrating, especially when you chastise me for the very same things you are doing.  Off-topic things?  Who brought up this whole UNESCO discussion?  How am I trying to elicit pity?  If that's what I wanted, I would go into graphic detail about all the individual instances of torture by the Turks towards the Armenians.  However, I don't want this debate to devolve into an emotional argument.  I've simply tried to respond intelligently to all your points.

Fine, but why is it obvious to you?  I think I've made it abundantly clear that your opinion is not the one held by the majority of the academic world.  Now, I want to shift the burden of proof to you.  On what to base your notion that there was a civil war in Turkey, and no genocide took place?  Do you have any sources other than nationalistic Turkish websites?

YoungCalifornian wrote:

I resent that.  Please tell me how I am of any more "biased mind" than you?  Has it ever crossed your mind that the reason you have been unable to convince me of your point-of-view is because your arguments have not been strong enough?  Your holier-than-thou attitude is very frustrating, especially when you chastise me for the very same things you are doing.  Off-topic things?  Who brought up this whole UNESCO discussion?  How am I trying to elicit pity?  If that's what I wanted, I would go into graphic detail about all the individual instances of torture by the Turks towards the Armenians.  However, I don't want this debate to devolve into an emotional argument.  I've simply tried to respond intelligently to all your points.

Did i say i am not biased? Quite the contrary. But i am trying to find the true way.

Who brought up this whole UNESCO discussion? Oh dont say this.It was you who had brought several so-called  objective sources. I only responded to show you there cannot be any objectivity in such a historical matter. Get it?

And you compared it with *** while we should have been discussing if it was a gencoide or not in terms of the initial aim of Turks. And worst than all, it is a very common and rotten method which is used by everyone to elicit pity in people,that is to say comparing whatever at hand with Nazi torture.And about torture against armenians you also started it by sending a source contains photos but i didnt want to respond it by sources that show massacred Turks because i think it is not what we should discuss here and nor does it help us to come to an agreement. I dont think it is good way for an efficient discussion to show photos in order to elicit pity in people.Now is it me who is off topic?