Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
We are a very carnivourus people probably more so than any other mediterranean nation.
Interesting. Nkuler, what do you attribute this to? Scout have a safe trip
My guess would be that we have had more interaction with the middle eastern cuisine. Other than that I have no idea it was just an observation, and not one that I thoght was particularly interesting. 🙂Why do you think it's interesting?
That is a tough one. I would have to say that I like Greek food the best if you are talking national cooking styles. I like Gyro's/Doner's the best. I think it is amusing that Greeks and Turks have different words for the exact same thing. The Greeks and Turks I know personally tell me that they are two entirely different dishes though.
By Greek food you mean Turkish foor of course ;D Just kidding. The greek cuisine is the same as the Aegean part of our cuisine, I think it's safe to say that the dishes prepared with olive oil and the fish dishes are probably originally greek and the dough and meat related dishes are originally Turkish. We are a very carnivourus people probably more so than any other mediterranean nation. The greek and Turkish dishes are not exactly the same but there are only subtle differences. So I can see how you would say they are the same.
I have to say the best/funniest/most disgusting thing I saw in Iraq food-wise were the ice cubes with flys frozen into them. They would actually use these ice cubes too.
This reminds me of an old joke:An arab, an israeli, a chinese, a scot and an american were sitting at a cafe and having drinks. When they were served they saw that each of their glasses except the arabs had a fly in it. The chinese guy drinks the coke, and then eats the fly.The scot, drinks the coke down to its last drop then complains about the fly to get another drink free.The american takes the fly out, sells it to the chinese guy sells the rest of the coke to the scot for a redused price, buys a new coke with the money and makes a little profit.There was also an arab-israeli angle but I forgot exactly how it was.
I highly reccomend "Der Untergang" it's English title is "Downfall". It is a movie about Hitler's last days in the Fuehrerbunker. It is only available in German with English subtitles but I know it is available in the States.
I second scout's sentiments about Der Untergang. For anyone interested in histor, it's as "must see" as any movie ever made.The wind that shakes the Barley was also a good one. I wouldn't call it a historical movie but Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds" was a fun alternate history movie.
The killing in Rwanda in 1994 have also been termed a genocide and some have called the Sudanese governments actions against their Christian minority a genocide although I htink the jury is still out on the second case. I seem to recall that some Bosnian Serbs were indicted for genocide by the UN court in the Hague as well.
You're right I forgot about Rwanda. I'm not sure about the Serbs though. I know some were indicted for war crimes but I don't think the civil war in Bosnia has been classifed as Genocide. I don't know enough about the situation in Sudan to comment.
So if I kill or drive out (insert ethnic group) in one county of the three I control but not the other two that is Genocide? Is that the point you are getting at?
Yes.UN Res 260, Article 2
Art. 2. In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
I don't see anything in that definition that it has to be the entire ethnic population of a country or countries you control (notice the bold)
I think the definition is open to interpertation. Intent is the key element here, I don't believe the intent to "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;" was there. I believe the intent was to get the rebelious population out of the area. Granted, while doing this a great many people regrettably died. But if you take your arguement to the next level, you would be saying that if the Ottoman Government treated the Armenians as a belligerent entity, and declared war on them and effectively actively kill them (which in effect is what the Armenians were doing but because they lacked a state they did it under Russian and French flags) instead of trying to get them out of the area to a place where they could not cause more problems, is better?I'm trying to keep an open mind and view the events as impartially as possible, but I just don't understand why this period is always argued as if there was only one side just killing the other almost for fun. The term genocide is very powerful and I can't just say "oh what the hell it was almost a century ago what does it matter what it's called now." As far as I'm aware the term genocide has only been accepted for the Nazi's actions against the Jews. Therefore it's the only precedent that's why I keep going back to it for examples. But another fundemental difference was what I referred to above; it was one of the Nazi's ultimate goals to rid the German race of Jews. I'm not aware of any Jewish fifth column activity, the only anti nazi activity by the Jews was within the different resistance movements. And by nature these acts were reactionary to the actions of the Nazis. On the other hand the Ottoman governments actions were reactionary to the Armenian insurrection. No one said out of the blue "ok let's kill Armenians this year" never mind that we have lived together for almost a millenium. Am I the only one that finds this idea absurd?I'm all for apoligising for the deaths and other suffering of the Armenian people however I do not believe that the Ottoman actions should be condemned as genocide.
Then let's use German-occupied France as an example.
Wasn't there trains full of Jews bound for concentration kamps that left France? And they also had to wear the star of David? Am I missing something? I really don't understand how you can say it's the same? The Armenians living in the western parts of the country were not killed, singled out, driven out of their homes, boycotted or anything. There were only isolated incidents, which happened between all nationalities of the empire.
Did the Nazis kill Jews in America or in England? No they did not, yet what they did is still considered genocide, right?I'm not judging anything or anybody, I'm just saying use historical FACT and call it what it is because it fits IN EVERY WAY the international/UN/Geneva definition of genocide.
I never knew England and America was under German occupation in WW2. Since that never took place my question still stands; if the intent to kill Armenians was there why not kill the Armenians living in Istanbul or İzmir or Ankara or any other western part of the country?
The terrain of Northern Iraq and Northern Syria is very similar. Ny analysis of terrain factors still holds.I call BS on the genocide label. Genocide is in fact a label that was coined after WWII. Here is the definition from the US Holocaust Museum: WHAT IS GENOCIDE?. What happened in Armenia is not genocide because the Turks had no intention of Destroying the Armenians as a groupd. The turks did not intend to exterminate the Armenians, they wanted them out of Eastern Anatolia and were indifferent to their fate. Dead or elsewhere was just fine with them. I am not saying mass killings did not happen, they undoubtedly did, but mass killings along with inhumane deportation do not a genocide make. Relocation for the purpose of killing and mass killings are genocide. Indifference is NOT the same as activley trying to eliminate them. We will probably not agree and I would say we have to agree to differ.You think it walks and quacks like a duck, I do not. I am more concerned with gaining a greater understanding of what happened than labeling it and then condemning someone or group.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Ski, one question; if the Ottoman government was intent on killing Armenians as a whole, why is there no report of any killings in the west of the Empire. Remember the largest consentration of Armenians were living in Istanbul. Did the Nazi's kill Jews in Aushwitz but not in Hamburg? It's self evident that the Ottoman government did not do its utmost to keep the Armenian refugees alive. But you have to ask yourself would any other nation act differntly? Would you or anyone allocate rare resources that it needs to fight on multiple fronts against enemies much stronger then itself to keeping alive a population that it percieves as a threat to itself? If you consider what happened genocide you have to be able to answer yes to that question.
Not accusing, just saying:1) What are the possibilities of census corruption by the Turkish government for whatever reason?2) What if they didn't have control of or very minimal authority over the further provinces? How could they then get an accurate census?
1) Not likely when you consider the time. In 1914 the Ottoman rulers were still trying to hold the Empire together by pan-ottomanism. And one of the greatest threats to them was the nationalist turks. So It was actually them who were being suppressed at the time. For example I'm a big fan of the team Galatasaray. It was founded in 1905 by high school students who played under christian psudnyms because it was illegal for muslims to congragate. (BTW the ottomans seperated their subjects not according to their nationality but religion. So turk was muslim, arab was also muslim. Turks were actually looked down upon as ignorant masses the ruling class favoured the Christian minorities as can be seen by the number of Vezirs and Sadrazams to come out of them.)I digress..So in 1914 there I can see no reason to falsify the number of Armenians or other minorities.2) Quiet possible and probable. But again, even if the Ottomans didn't have full control over some of the territorries, they still had more control than any other entity. So for any other entitiy to have accurate information just seems against the nature of things. To me anyway. I'm not saying the abovementioned census is 100% accurate. But I'd guess it's closer to truth than anything else.
Not trying to be a wise guy here (well, maybe a little), but why can't I say that is an unreliable source?
You can. But then I'd ask you who would be a more reliable source? No one else had the means to conduct a census in Ottoman lands.Sure it was a chaotic time of upheaval, but I believe the Ottoman State records should be more reliable than others if only because these people were Ottoman citizens.
Population seems controversial.The German Herman Wambery puts it at 1.3 mill and American Samual Cox puts it at 2.4.Is your chart from a Turkish census?
It refers to official census and is concurrant with the Official Turkish records but I'm not sure where it was published.
Population question, nkuler, you keep saying it cannot possibly be 1.5 mill. but some sources say the Armenian population in the whole Empire was something like 2 mill. IF (note I say if) 2/3 of the population were killed wouldn't that put it near the 1.5 number?
I found another good document, it's in french but very understandable
