On Armenian “deportation!”
April 2021
E.A; I believe that taking the Armenian Issue as "deportation" misleads the question. "Genocide" and "deportation" are two different things; one refers to "relocation" other refers to "elimination" of an ethnic group. What happened in Kirimia is "deportation" with justification and taken every precaution for their safety, health and resettlement, whereas what happened in Turkey is "genocide" which cannot have any justification- cannot be justified.
D.T; Genocide and deportation indeed are utterly different things. But this translation claims to be from the Ottoman language original. Therefore if the best translation is "deportation" that is the correct word for the translator to use, because it puts the correct nuance on the way in which the activities were viewed by the original author.
E.A; That may be the case. I do not have anything against any research that brings out new data on any given subject. I am not criticizing the article.
I just wanted to point out that the term "deportation" - as far as the the Armenian question is concerned- is misleading because the "deportation" was a part of the "ethnic cleansing" plan (or as some says; expectation). Most of them, including women and children "deported!!" on foot for a long journey on a road that crowded with gangs (Bashi Bozuks), Hamidiye Brigades (Made up of Kurdish Mercenaries), Bedevines (Arab Gangs). That, only after surviving the attacks of Feudal Landlords, Soldiers and criminal civilians at the early stages of their journey to "genocide".
"Massacres" may be committed -although unlikely- by criminals independent of rulers -State . But "genocides" are committed only by the direct plan and order of the "rulers" - call it government, state or whatever it may be. There are sufficient proof that the Armenian genocide was planned and put into action by the Ottoman Government -then a puppet of Germany - before the eyes of all -US, French, Italian governments.
E.K; Nobody without prejudice ignores the tragic events that the Ottoman Armenians were subjected to. However, the Muslims in Eastern Anatolia experienced the same events that you have described. Muslims also have the same bloody stories.
E.A; Every incident is a fact by itself which cannot be denied by “secondary facts”. There are some primary facts such as massacre, genocide that cannot be denied, justified and ratified by “secondary facts”. Trying to justify and ratify such primary facts can only be made by those who have the same mentality that committed such heinous crimes.
Individuals' approach to events such as massacre and genocide is a dialectically related problem with the mentality they have, which extends to the events of "cruelty and killing of living beings" and their attitudes towards such issues.
For example, the practical habit of investigating secondary and indirect "facts" in such an "incident" before accepting the factual primary reality of the event in itself - suggests that that individual is biased. And the essence of his mentality is that he will accept the primary truth, the acceptance of the concrete event, only as long as it is "in line with his mentality" depending on the secondary and other facts.
The claim of such people that they "have humane thinking" cannot go beyond the fact that they are in the practice of deliberately or unconsciously deceiving themselves and others.
As the massacres of the European countries - especially Belgium in Congo, the British in India, the Japanese in China, the USA's massacres against the Indians and the Jewish genocide in Hitler's Germany - are the “primary” facts, so the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman lands, especially in Anatolia, is an “undeniable” primary fact.
First of all, trying to deny this fact for one reason or another can only be made based on not objective but subjective reasons, that is, denial is based on the mentality of the individual that ratifies the massacres.
In this context, Turkey's particular received similar attitude to the Armenian Genocide; denying the primary fact by relying on the secondary and indirect facts for the justification of the massacre. This is a clear indication of the “inhuman” and “ready to commit massacres ” mentality” of such individuals.
While it is understandable for the "individuals with such Ottoman mentality "- which is widespread today - justifying and ratifying the genocide of the Ottomans, it is oxymoron for those who claim to be the “Children of Republic” which toppled the Ottoman Dynasty, to chase after “secondary” and other “facts” to justify the genocide while, at the same time, accepting the “primary fact”.
Calling himself as the “Children of Republic” who destroyed the “Ottoman dynasty” and denying the Armenian genocide, clearly means not being able to get rid of “Ottomanness” and still maintaining its genocidal “mentality”. Or, as the practical conclusion, is it not to say that the mentality of "Ottoman dynasty" and "Republic" is the same? If the “children of republic” embrace Ottomans’ murderous mindset, how can they define themselves as "humanitarian" and "against massacres"?
Accepting this or that massacre, genocide, which has been proven in an undeniable way, as the primary truth within itself, is the first step that every individual who calls himself "human" and regards himself as a "democrat" should take.
First of all, it is this primary truth , the committed genocide, that must be condemned. All related "facts" or "justifications" outside of the primary truth, cannot be "factors" for the denial and condemnation of this “primary truth”. Trying to seek a justification in order to deny the primary fact is an indication of the individual's own mentality is essentially the same as the Ottomans.
Such a mentality has the same mindset that seeks to "justify" the heinous incident with secondary, or tertiary facts, for example in the “primary fact” that a girl was raped by a gang and then killed, cut to pieces and thrown into the garbage bag, justifying with secondary “facts” that the girl was in a mini skirt, she was flirting etc.,
In Turkey - undoubtedly "the most common waning outside of Ottomanists", "the nuances of rejection of genocide” is based on such tertiary and quaternary “ fact justifications”.
No individual who sees himself as “humanitarian", "democrat" will seek "justification" for any massacre, genocide that has been unjustly, inhumanly and disgustingly committed.
The injustice, disgusting inhumanity of the event itself, that is, the "primary truth," should be taken up, condemned, and opposed so that the same things could not happen again.
Secondary or tertiary facts put forward - even if they are indeed true - cannot justify the primary truth, that is, the injustice, the inhuman attitude.
Unfortunately Turkey has become a country where the illiterates, people with such Ottoman and/or Cihadist “genocidal mentality” become journalist, academician even “deans of universities”. That’s why it is not surprising that the Armenian Genocide, the undeniable fact by itself has been widely denied and justified.
E.K; …….we must look to the future. We must focus on good examples and try our luck living together again. Otherwise, those who are against each other will continue to win and we will be losers.
E.A; E.K, that is correct, we must look to the future . However if we want to look to a healthy future we have to draw lessons from, face it sincerely, condemn the inhumane activities and thus rid off the "mentality" of the past. We should never try to justify the wrongs of the past - especially of a puppet feudal Ottoman system which was destroyed and replaced by a republic. One is either for the replaced system -for the old, or for the replacing system - for the new, can not be for both, with the mixed mentality of both.
It is true that the hatred and animosity among people is the best dream and the fraternity among them is the worse nightmare of imperialism. That is why - while covering up their past and continuing vicious crimes - they focus on such ugly incidents of others in order to keep the hate and animosity live. However, this does not mean that we should not deal with the past . On the contrary, we should clearly show that we are against such atrocities and condemn it in order to set the foundation for a healthy future and start building a united front against imperialism and against those who carry the "genocidal mentality" of the old. Without this step there cannot be a look to a healthy future.
M.L.B; Successive Turkish Governments and their academics have blown up Muslim casualties as well as Armenian Resistance out of all proportion to reality as a justification for the genocide. This has resulted in the victims being regarded as objects of hate.
E.A; Accepting an act of genocide "with justification" is in essence not different than "denying the act of genocide". It all comes down to the same "mentality"; either denies it or justifies. Children, women, old age people were not "resisting" arms in hand yet either massacred or let to die. It is the same mentality that justifies dropping nuclear bomb, carpet bombing the residential areas , raping teenagers and burning the entire family etc., and calling it as "collateral damage".
U.G; ……….. The 1915 war-time decision on the relocation was a self defense to head off the Armenian uprising against the Ottoman state with volunteer troops on the battlefield and gangs behind military lines, during the Russian occupation of Eastern Anatolia.
E.A; As I have noted previously, to deny or justify any "primary fact" is a question of "mentality" one has, which always is driven from his ideology to rewrite it. Engels once said ; "The bourgeoisie turns everything into a commodity, hence also the writing of history. It is part of its being, of its condition for existence, to falsify all goods: it falsified the writing of history. And the best - paid historiography is that which is best falsified for the purposes of the bourgeoisie."
The claim that "the deportation was a self defence" measurement and consciously confuse the events that happened after the "deportation!" is a demagogy in order to justify the "genocide". It is an "Ottoman mentality" that remained and penetrated into the mentality of "Children of Republic" which later reflected itself in "bloody Sunday", "Sivas", "Maras" and similar massacres of people and carried it to the current "Seriat" mentality .
The mentality clearly indicates itself with the "supporting" comment from " Bernard Lewis". Bernard Lewis, together with Laurent Murawiec set the foundation for "the Clash of Civilization" theory of Samuel P. Huntington. The theory of US-British-Israel imperialist axes that the new world strategy has been formulated after the collapse of Soviet Union. They are the master of the theories of "Balkanization", "Lebanization" which was put in practice since then; Balkans, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and now Syria, Myanmar.
Is it ironic that someone from islamic culture uses Bernard Lewis as a supporting reference, a man who says" Islam has nothing good and the bitterness it causes among Muslims turns into a rage against the West. Nevertheless, victory is guaranteed, as well as the “Lebanization” of the Middle East and the strengthening of Israel" ?
No it is not ironic. It is the inevitable result of the same "ideology" and "mentality".
It was Huntington in collaboration with Bernard Lewis who draw the map and conceived the need to first dominate the oil areas through destabilization and "Lebanization " before attacking the next enemy - China.
At what cost? Millions of people -including women and children - massacred, maimed, forced to migrate - yet another life of continuing suffering...
Trying to justify massacres, genocides is nothing but an "ideological" , "mentality" related approach. As long as this mentality exists, those who justify the massacres and genocides can become the victims of same.
E.K; This is your perception and you are not to be blamed for this. The Armenian and allied propaganda (Morgetnhau, Bryce, Toynbee, Lepsisus, Missionaries, New York Times, and many other sources) pounded on this for 106 years. The defamation and demonization of Turkey, Turks, the Ottoman Empire and the Muslims were the goals of these books, articles, reports, films, etc. Ask yourself this: How come the Turkish side of the story never heard?
A.W; It seems to me quite preposterous to attribute the purported goals of defamation and demonisation of Turkey, Turks etc. to such authors and eyewitnesses as Morgenthau, Bryce and Toynbee. Morgenthau, for example, reported from first hand the atrocities suffered by an innocent, civilian minority. He had no a priori hatred of Turkey and the Turks.
E.A; As long as the "event itself", by itself is not denied, I would agree with the statement that the issue has been used -abused for "the defamation and demonization of Turks, muslims in general” as part of West's political interests, especially align with their Balkanization, Lebanization strategy and tactics.
Genocides are carried out in an organized way that requires authority, structure, power and means. People do not have those but the governments do - that does not mean they are absolved from any sins of action by taking fewer or no action.
West's manipulation of the subject concentrated on ethnicity and religion isolated from the "authority", the government of then, and in most cases presented as a "clash" between Armenian and Turkish population that resulted in the genocide of Armenian population by the Turkish population -including the low ranking military - thus, keeping the hatred and animosity alive for centuries to come. That actually fits perfectly to the new strategy based on the "Clash of Civilization" theory.
As far as the question of "How come the Turkish side of the story never heard?" is concerned; it is because the Turkish side's story has been a "nationalist reaction” of rejecting and trying to justify a factual event that is impossible to do so. In some cases the blame has been shifted to Kurds - through the -official and unofficial military forces like Hamidiye Brigades, Bashibozuks, and greedy Landlords of Feudal structure in the eastern part.
The mixture of "ethnic-nationalist and Ottomanist" approach to the question in particular and in general presents itself clearly in the policy and practice of the current government and their followers who labels the "liberation war" and the "declaration of Republic" as counter evolutionary. This is expected from those with Ottoman mentality. There are those who defend "Republic " against Ottoman monarchy, yet cannot differentiate Turkey before 1919 and after 1919 and follow the same "ethnic-nationalist and Ottomanist" approach to the subject. It is ironic that a staunch defender of "Republic" embraces the events before 1919 rather than denying the responsibility and condemning them. A year of turning point that later has given birth to to young republic.
The response to the question of ""How come the Turkish side of the story never heard?" lies in the fact that "the story" told does not make any sense either historically or politically. The "stories" are told mostly out of its historical and political context in order to deny and justify an undeniable genocide committed by the last Ottoman Rulers as a puppet of Germany. This act of genocide should be condemned sincerely by anyone who calls himself democrat in order to be one.
U.G; Rear Admiral Mark Bristol served as U. S. High Commissioner in the defeated Ottoman Empire between late 1919 and 1923 after Morgenthau.
E.A; It is amazing that people make such absurd comments and rewrite the history in the service of the current religious Fascist Power in Turkey.
The war between 1919-1923 was an Anti-Imperialist, national Liberation war of Turkey " that brought about the Republic of Turkey". Ottoman rulers and bureaucracy was a puppet of British imperialists caged in Istanbul and its remaining army participated in the last fight and defeat against the Nationalists right before the Chanak affairs. It is an insidious tactic to blur the 1914-1918 Ottoman genocide by mixing it with the war of independence between 1919-1923.
With all these strive to rewrite the history with blant absurdity, they have the face to complain and say "how come the Turkish side of story never heard" . What they actually mean by the Turkish side is in most cases "the side of Ottomanist, reactionary, religious fanatics and by those who claim to be Muslim first".
T.S; President Biden's recognition of the Armenian Genocide says it all. If Germany can accept the Jewish holocaust, what makes Turkey so special. It's time for the deniers to crawl back into their holes. End of story. Enough is enough.
E.A; Biden's recognition of genocide is as much hypocritical as those who deny it. It is very much like a serial-killer recognizing the murder of other killers without recognizing his own kills and killing fields.
E.K; The correct term is Tereset (TEmporary RESETtlement) If one reads the May 27, 1915 Tehcir order and the massive number of telegrams in the following 9 months, one can easily see that the intent was far form systematic extermination of Armenians. The intent was to mitigate the serious threat posed to the Ottoman war effort during a wartime of survival by the Armenian revolutionaries, gangs, and a very wide network of logistic supporters.
E.A; I think that the most ridiculous and at the same time outrageous claim is the claim of "temporary resettlement " within the same country..temporarily resettling them in out-of-war zones of the same empire."
1914 was the year of British-Indian invasion of Mesopotamia, so called "Mesopotamian Campaign". Meaning that the final destination(s) were not within the "out-of-war zones, contrary they were war-zones where Basra, Iraq was already occupied by the british.
If it was temporary "within the same country" does that mean that they were "dangerous" only at certain parts of the country ? If so why the "temporary!! resettlement " applied to Anatolia as a whole?
Those who try to justify the genocide with ridiculous, outrageous, out of historical and political context usually find themselves deeper in the mud that they are already in. Very sad..
Hiç yorum yok