- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Asking this question because recently one of my favorite bands System of a Down is starting a tour, and they are doing it in commemoration of 100th anniversary of "The Great Crime" (the Armenian Genocide) System of a Down to Commemorate Armenian Genocide | Al Jazeera America . This sparked my interest to see what DP's opinion on the manner is.
Many countries have not recognized the Armenian Genocide. Its a topic of heated debate. The US government has not recognized it, but 44 states have.
My question to you is: Did the Ottoman Empire Commit Genocide Against the Armenians?
It happened, all right...but as so often the case (like Japan with the Rape of Nanking, what Britain did to India, and our own genocide of Native Americans),the ones who did it don't want to own up to it.
Asking this question because recently one of my favorite bands System of a Down is starting a tour, and they are doing it in commemoration of 100th anniversary of "The Great Crime" (the Armenian Genocide) System of a Down to Commemorate Armenian Genocide | Al Jazeera America . This sparked my interest to see what DP's opinion on the manner is.
Many countries have not recognized the Armenian Genocide. Its a topic of heated debate. The USk government has not recognized it, but 44 states have.
My question to you is: Did the Ottoman Empire Commit Genocide Against the Armenians?
The general definition is "systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group"
Oxford English Dictionary said:The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
Merriam-Webster said:The deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group.
That's one definition.
Whether or not it's the "general" definition is completely subjective.
Since there's no authoritative regulatory body that oversees the inclusion and/or definition of words in the English language the best we can do is turn to what are widely considered the "good" dictionaries.
The OED defines genocide as:
And the M-W defines genocide as:
By either of these definitions the Ottoman government's deliberate and systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects is certainly genocide.
It is a tricky question because the definition of genocide is some what tricky.
The general definition is "systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group"
The problem here is "significant" and what is significant.
While I am inclined to agree with you, given the history here and intention I am having a hard time looking at this as other than genocide (even if the Ottoman Empire was not as successful at ridding themselves of the Armenians, in various means, as the definition needs it to be.)
I dont disagree, but I think we have to be careful on using certain definitions like genocide because it could end up as "terrorism" or worse "liberalism".. actually meaning nothing and can be thrown against anyone someone disagrees with. Genocide to me is like the Jewish Holocaust and using the term in conjunction with say the Bonsnian war or even the Iraqi war (nr 2.) is just wrong, but some people have done so. Even today in the Syrian conflict, the word genocide is being used again and again... and frankly that is a bit iffy to say the least.
That is why I like the term ethnic cleansing better in this case (and others), because it can be used in small geographic areas and does not need to include killing all people.. driving them out for example is also ethnic cleansing. And ethnic cleansing has happened far more and more often during history that we dare admit.
The problem is also that the age old animosity towards Turks/Ottomans have been driving a lot of the "Armenian Genocide" bid, and not the facts. Yes it was mass organised ethnic cleansing/forced deportation with mass murder there is no doubt about that.. the Turks dont even dispute this fact. But labelling it a genocide changes the whole picture, both legally and morally. Genocide is a very very powerful word.. just like Terrorism once was.
It is a tricky question because the definition of genocide is some what tricky.
The general definition is "systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group"
The problem here is "significant" and what is significant.
For example, 6 million Jews out of about 15 million world wide. That is not all, but it certainly meets the significant part by any logical standards, especially when we only count European Jews.
Another is the American Indian. Now the tricky part here is that we dont have numbers or even reliable estimates of the native American Indian population during the US expansion west. So the question is, was there enough Indians slaughtered in this expansion west to justify the genocide claim? Personally I would say yes, but US history books I learned history from never mentioned genocide of the American Indian. But we do know that quite a few Indian tribes were wiped out, which meets the "all" criteria.
The final example is the so called Bosnian Genocide. Now here we have portions of the population targeted because of their religious or ethnic build. Were all killed? Nope. Were a "significant" portion killed? not really, if we use the Jewish holocaust as a guide. Considering the population of Bosnia is in the millions and that "genocide" part was under 10000 people, then no this certainly does not meet the basic criteria. Of course politically the UN and west had to paint it as genocide or ethnic cleansing, but in reality it was just war and **** happens so to say. For example, in Iraq during the US occupation there was far more killed in an ethnic cleansing campaign by the various sides but that is not called a genocide or even ethnic cleansing by most.. so...
Now the Armenian question. Like in the American Indian example, accurate numbers are hard to come by. On top of that you have a hell of a lot of allied propaganda during a time of war to muddle through for truth and what is basic disinformation and propaganda. The estimates of deaths go from under 500k to 1.5 million. The problem comes to the estimation of the Armenian population at the time and frankly after. It is here it gets really strange.
According to the Armenian religious scholars, in 1912 there were just over 1 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.. so considering that there were still Armenians after the so called genocide, then the 1.5 million deaths is impossible. Others state there was more likely 1.6 to 2 million, which makes the 1.5 million possible. The Ottoman census of 1914 stated there was 1.2 million, also making the 1.5 million deaths impossible. Other figures from the late 1800s stated around 1.2 million down to 800k.
Now lets say that it was the high number of 2 million, then killing off 500k to 1.5 million would be significant and it would trigger the genocide accusation.
Problem comes from a 1922 US State Department estimations, that state there was 817873 Armenian refugees. Other sources state there was 281k Armenians left in Anatolia, 150k in Constantinople and 131k in Asia Minor in 1921. Now that is 562k Armenians.. but the Armenians them selves stated that there was 1 million of them before the genocide, so how can there be 1.5 million killed which is what most pro-Armenian genocide people quote..
So the math simply does not add up, which is why the genocide claim is a bit iffy. Mass murder and ethnic cleansning.. sure, but out right genocide of a population of up to 2 million when the US states there are 817k refugees and 562k still in what was left of the Ottoman Empire?
So to the question.. no, not genocide since there is not enough factual information. But yes to mass organized murder and ethnic cleansing.
It may become tedious to go this route then. Just with your examples. There is plenty listed for Bosnian War as involving Genocide as a description of the activity as to show intent, including ultimately charges against Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić for several counts of Genocide. I'll concede I am unsure of the disposition of that case. To make matters worse the 109th US Congress marked a 10 year anniversary as "recognition of Genocide" as a showing of remembrance.
With the Iraqi War that may be another matter I agree, but one could argue that Saddam did have the intention to commit Genocide against the Kurds (ref, Halabja chemical attack.) That took time to play out as Genocide as many lived for years with complications before their demise.
But I can see your point on the line between ethnic cleansing and Genocide, it is just one that does not appear to have much merit when it comes to after the fact branding (for lack of a better word) for some event. For example, the ICC by result has muddied the waters on the difference between the two.
If I'm getting your post right, you're saying that it's tricky to call it a genocide because some scholars disagree on the numbers, and because there are many refugees in the US?
Those aren't exactly arguments to be made against calling a particular action a genocide. A genocide implies a plan to destroy a certain group. This plan involves the destruction of that group's culture, religion and institutions.
There is very little doubt that this is what the Ottoman Empire intended by wiping out hundreds of thousands of Armenians.
We have little evidence to the contrary, there is too much that tells us the Ottoman Empire did commit genocide against the Armenians even going so far as to leave behind the reasons for doing so. The Armenians not only thrived, but they aligned with Christians and that upset those in charge. Deportations, confiscation of property and wealth, and/or mass killings became the answer. It is still illegal to talk about this in Turkey, if that tells you anything about the will to keep this conversation closed.
no it is never illegal here .but in switzerland if you deny it they will put you into jail.very democratic.if you dont believe in me Google it
Turkey Deports German Photojournalist Who was to Cover Armenian Genocide Article
Turkey Deports German Photojournalist Who was to Cover Armenian Genocide Article - Armenian News By MassisPost
Article 301 (Turkish Penal Code) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes but the problem here, is this was clearly a political move against the Serbs and Russians. Saying that the killing of 10k people was an organised genocide of a whole people is a bit rich. Was it ethnic cleansing in geographic areas? yes. Mass murder? yes. but genocide... sorry but is stretching it.
Then he did a piss poor job of it. Targeting one little town and killing 5000s or so out of millions... sorry but not genocide. Mass murder yes, but not genocide.
I agree, and that is a problem. The term has become political and that is a problem. The problem is the ICC is an organisation set up by the major powers and they have been using it as a proxy to go after political enemies across the globe.
no it is never illegal here .but in switzerland if you deny it they will put you into jail.very democratic.if you dont believe in me Google it
Probably ...Asking this question because recently one of my favorite bands System of a Down is starting a tour, and they are doing it in commemoration of 100th anniversary of "The Great Crime" (the Armenian Genocide) System of a Down to Commemorate Armenian Genocide | Al Jazeera America . This sparked my interest to see what DP's opinion on the manner is.
Many countries have not recognized the Armenian Genocide. Its a topic of heated debate. The US government has not recognized it, but 44 states have.
My question to you is: Did the Ottoman Empire Commit Genocide Against the Armenians?
Sad , but all too true .. When man begins to be honest and live up to his humanity .. we will all be better off .. however sad...It happened, all right...but as so often the case (like Japan with the Rape of Nanking, what Britain did to India, and our own genocide of Native Americans), the ones who did it don't want to own up to it.
Well, best of luck getting some sort of standard adhered to with this. And given the conversation to date it still seems to me that intention means more than results, which speaks well to the historical implication level of getting an event recorded a certain way. Just the way I see it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?