Sins of Our Fathers

Eklavya, good to see you here at Chowk. been a while. :) All I meant was that some of the explanations here of what happened tend to favor the Turkish side, hence a denial of the genocide, and it is somewhat reminiscent of Lewis' favoring the Turkish side of events.

"Some of what I am reading here sounds like Bernard Lewis."

Ana, can you please explain that. What in Bernard Lewis sounded like the arguments advanced here (and vice versa)? Thanks.

when one says "no genocide should go uncondemned but. . ." that sounds very much like a justification rather than a condemnation. Some of what I am reading here sounds like Bernard Lewis. Even if the Armenians were not "completely innocent" there is no justification for the death marches and the expulsion from their homes. And the official accusation of genocide was brought forth a long time ago, not 100 years later. If a Chancellor of Germany can express his shame and acknowledgment for what happened to the Jews, what stops Turkey from doing the same? To describe what happened to the Armenians as genocide is punishable by law in Turkey. How messed up is that?

Evidently, when Hitler asked who remembers the Armenians in planning the extermination of the Jews, he thought he knew what he was talking about. Because it was remembered differently. And it still is. As are other genocides. Look at what happened in Rwanda. The State Department at the time fudged and fumbled about what defines genocide while people were being massacred, and then Clinton decides to go to Rwanda and mention the word "genocide" multiple times in a five to ten minute speech.

So we can all sit at our keyboards and discuss whether this is a genocide or not, and the obvious assertion that history does not happen in a vacuum. It obviously teaches us little to nothing either.

mZehra -- Salim is right -- no genocide should go uncondemned -- but that was the overboard reaction of the harried and hapless Turks under assault by surrounding Europeans armies helping Greeks to capture Turkish territory who were using the Armeninans as rearguard fifth column for the occupying Greek forces -- the Armenians rightwing extremists in Greek occupied Turkish territories went crazy they indulged in large scale ethnic cleansing of the Turks from Armenian Turkish mixed neighborhoods -- killing and displacing thousands of Turks from their ancestral homes.

An Armenian friend of mine Ohanian told me this -- that "we Armenians are not as innocent as the radical Armenians would like the world to believe" -- he said what the Turk did was to overreact on a massvie scale after Ataturk recaptured those Turkish terriitories -- under the seige and revenge-taking mentality -- the Turks went berserk and killed almost a million Armenians for thousands of dead Turks.

Before the Armenian ethnic cleansing of the Turkish neighborhood the Turks and Armenians were living side by side for centuries as good neighbors.

mzehra #34 {"The Turkish population had a lot of resentment towards the Armenians due to their losses and the plundering of Muslim lands, but revenge is not a justification nor an honorable motive.

Every action has a reason, even murder, but it does in no way justify it. "}

Mahvish,
I agree with your sentiment and, of course, there is no justification for manslaughter or murder. But officially accusing a deceased empire almost 100 years later with a formal charge of "genocide," is even less sensible than trying Harry Truman for the "murder" of a quarter million Japanese civilians in 1945 or George Bush Jr. and Sr. for the "murder" of half a million Iraqis, or LBJ and Nixon for the slaughter of two million Vietnamese.

Re: # 33
Salim Chauhan,

As you say no action occurs in a vacuum, when the Ottoman Turks made such a huge decision to drive the Armenians out of their lands by a method that would insure maximum numbers of casualties, they must have been provoked in some manner.

Because the Armenians supported the Russians in the war against Turkey in hopes of gaining their own independence, the punishment they got in return was highly disproportionate. The Turkish population had a lot of resentment towards the Armenians due to their losses and the plundering of Muslim lands, but revenge is not a justification nor an honorable motive.

Every action has a reason, even murder, but it does in no way justify it.

Dear Mahvish Zehra,

You have every right to shed light on a subject that preoccupies the US Congress almost perennially. Of course, if massacres in history are given importance based on the voting clout of their survivors' descendants in Southern California, then we need to question this persistence.

The carnage of Armenians did not occur in a vacuum. The events of 1915 must be seen as sequels to the disasters of 1878, 1911, 1912, and of course the then ongoing WW I of 1914-1918.

The Russo-Turkish War of 1878 saw a calamitous defeat of the Ottomans at the hands of the Romanoffs resulting in the loss of Muslim Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Romania, and Serbia. This was in addition to the loss of Muslim Crimea, Azov, and eastern Black Sea areas earlier in the 18th century. Each of these defeats was followed by wide-scale massacre and uprooting of the Muslim populations, sometimes a majority, of these territories.

The Balkan Wars of 1911-1912, followed by the Italian invasion of Libya were major disasters with additional loss of territory in Albania, Macedonia, Kosova, Rumelia, and Western Thrace not to mention Libya and all of the Dodecanese Islands of the Aegean Sea. In each case there were widespread rapes, looting, expulsions, and massacres of Muslims residing in the lost territories. The Turkish heartland was filled with arriving refugees full of stories of inhumane treatment, lost relatives, raped daughters, and looted homes.

In this compounding of suffering, Turkey entered WWI on the side of the Central Powers (Germany and Austria) against the Allies (UK, France, Serbia, Russia, and later the US). The Russians were counting on support from their fellow Christian Armenians in the east, while the British invaded in Europe. The Armenians took up arms and supported the invading Russians. Many Turkish lives were lost in defeat after defeat on the eastern front against Russia. A decision was made to move the entire Armenian population from the east to the south in Syria. The result of this forced migration was hunger, disease, deprivation, and yes, cruel treatment at the hands of Ottoman soldiers, including many Kurds.

As a result of this harsh policy, Turkey was able to defeat the Russians in the east and thus cause Russia's exit from WW I after the second Russian Revolution that ended Romanoff rule.

While the huge loss of life is a black mark on Turkish history and pride, the fact that there were sizable and intact Armenian populations in Istanbul, Bursa, and elsewhere in Anatolia, after the "Holocaust of 1915," negates the charge that there was a premeditated, deliberate, and thorough genocide committed by the Ottoman Turks.

Sometimes it makes sense to consider both sides of a conflict before we judge, with perfect 20/20 hindsight, one side as aggressor and the other as pure victim. All death and all suffering are horrible and should not be tolerated. All we need to do is to exercise fairness before we play the blame game based on our self-righteous sense of selective morality.

Salim Chauhan

As recent as last week, a case against Jamat Islami has been filed with the highest court in Bangladesh in reference to Bangladeshi Genocide of 71, and how Jamat Islami was involved in mass killing. No wonder the Bangladeshi Mullas don’t like the title Genocide and describe the events of 71 as ‘civil war’. To answer the earlier question that Ana posed, yes there are repercussion as to what to call (ranging from economic to political). Who would have thought that Jamat Islami was used by the Pak Army (surprise surprise) in 1971 to mass kill civilians. That’s what Mullahs do.

Here’s a list of most significant conflicts and how they are described by the UN - Afghanistan (Coups: 1973-1978), Angola (War with UNITA: 1975-1992), Argentina (Dirty War: 1976-1983), Bosnia (Civil War & Genocide: 1992-1995), Cambodia (Genocide:1970s), Chad (Civil War: 1965-1979), El Salvador (Civil War: 1970s-1980s), Ethiopia (War & Civil War: 1974-1999), Guatemala (Civil War: 1975-1979), Guyana (Ethnic Conflict: 1970s-1980s), Haiti (Civil War: 1990s), East Timor (Indonesian invasion & Genocide: 1974-1999), Iran (Iran-Iraq War: 1980-1989), Lebanon (Civil War: 1975-1990), Liberia (Civil War: 1989-1997), Libya (War with Chad: 1980-1987), Mozambique (Renamo War: 1970s-1992), Nicaragua (Contra War: 1980s), Pakistan (Balochistan Insurgency: 1973-1977), Palestine (1st Intifada: 1987-1992), Peru (Shining Path War: 1980s), Russia (Chechen Uprising: 1994-1996), Rwanda (Civil War and Genocide: 1991-1996), Sierra Leone (Civil War: 1990-2002), Somalia (Civil War: 1977-78, 1986-1990), South Africa (Anti-Apartheid Struggle: 1948-1994), Sri Lanka (Tamil Civil War: 1983-2002), Sudan (Civil War: 1980s-1990s), Uganda (War In The Bush: 1980-1985), and Yemen (Civil War: 1990-1994).

The titles must be used with utmost care.

Re: # 30
At the moment, the term "holocaust" in my view seems more appropriate for mass killings of a certain tribe or people in a planned and calculated manner. The number of resulting deaths making up of a large proportion of the target population.
The Bangladeshi killings which are regarded as a form of genocide by some parts of the international community, was not in effect carried out to exterminate the whole of the Bangladeshi community.

#12 So, the term "holocaust" for writer would be applicable to the heinous crimes perpetrated (so recently) by West (Pakistan) on East Pakistanis (Bangladesh). Once we get that cleared, it is truly just a question of semantics, isn't it?

Ana, whether the Congress passes the resolution calling Armenian massacre a Genocide or not, does not change what it was. Meanwhile, Qatar (yep, that little piece of shyt country in the middle of nowhere) while a rotating member of the UNSC didn’t let the resolution for sanctioning Sudan get thru to the GA. This was followed by Pakistan’s outright support of Sudanese government, on the premise, it “being” the internal matter of Sudan. Yes, there might be consequences to how the issues are resolved, but let’s be realistic about who is creating the obstacles. Yes, it is the Ummah, but these morons with blinders like MNI, are more interested in arguing over how the terms are defined, purely to deflect attention from the nonsense being carried out in places like Darfur. No matter what happens, the anti-Semitism among muslims is despicable, and no story goes without bringing in the Holocaust and Jewish suffering, while being completely oblivious to what is going on in their own lands.

The comments at Chowk are interesting as always. . .

If someone believes that this article implies something about Hitler, it was Hitler afterall who said, "Who (afterall) remembers the Armenians?" The Armenian Genocide is connected to the Holocaust in that Hitler thought he could get away with mass extermination just as the Young Turks did.

And the Turks are still getting away with it.

What I read here, not in the article, but in the comments, is a lot of minimizing. Whether the Armenian genocide is called a Holocaust or a Genocide, is not as crucial I believe as our reaction to it, our denial or our minimizing it. And Kulharee, I am in full agreement that the focus should be on Darfur, but here's the thing: When a government supported by other governments is still able to quash any reference to what happened in 1915 as a genocide, don't you think it has any effect whatsoever on how horrific events like Rwanda or Darfur are viewed?

MNI, perhaps unlike you, I don’t come to Chowk to be considered smart or enlightened.

Bhatti.. can you read up the definition of shufuckashafook in the dictionary? Are you that dumb? Holocaust means murder on a mass scale.. where the fuk does Iraq come into that? And what exactly are you suggesting? Saddam killed more Marsh Arab Shias than Iraqis killed by the coalition forces. Are you accusing Saddam of committing a Holocaust?

Kulharee,

Here is the meaning of holocaust in oxford dictionary:
"
holocaust
/hollkawst/

• noun 1 destruction or slaughter on a mass scale. 2 (the Holocaust) the mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime in World War II.

— ORIGIN from Greek kaustos ‘burnt’.

Now tell me one thing. Is the blood of Iraqis too cheap to be included in this term........

Kulharee,

Here is the meaning of holocaust in oxford dictionary:
"
holocaust
/hollkawst/

• noun 1 destruction or slaughter on a mass scale. 2 (the Holocaust) the mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime in World War II.

— ORIGIN from Greek kaustos ‘burnt’.

Now tell me one thing. Is the blood of Iraqis too cheap to be included in this term........

Kulharee goes off on another tangential rant. Kulharee sahib, just a gratuitious spray of profanities at Arabs does ot make you either smart or enlightened. I did not give out a ranking list for genocides. I do not see the article equating the Armenian genocide to the Holocaust. All that the author did was to draw a parallel, at which you started getting bent out of shape. This is not a rational reaction; it is the reaction of someone with an agenda, like ADL office-bearers.
No one mentioned anything about the raid of Badr (your reference to the 300 whacked). Going off on tangents about Arabs and Islam is not going to serve a purpose here. Please leave that aside. (By the way, people thump their chest at the 72 killed in Karbala, not the 300 killed in Badr.)

Your mendacious accusation that I belittled the Holocaust does not deserve the dignity of a response. It'd suffice to say that all you have is a ghissa piTa dried out brush, with which you paint everyone who disagrees with you. It shows the shallowness of your intellect.

Finally, "holocaust" was a common noun before it became a proper one. So no, the word "holocaust" is not DEFINED as the genocide of the Jewish people by Nazis. The fact that "Holocaust" as a proper noun is used to refer to the largest genocide (deliberate, systematic destruction of a particular race) in recorded history, does not vitiate the use of "holocaust" in its pre-Holocaust context.