As a rule, I have I always been pretty quick to write people off when they piss me off. I just can't help it. My relationships with co-workers, family, boyfriends, neighbors - you name it - piss me off and they are dead to me. I realize at this age that it is a highly immature approach to life and relationships, but I continue to do it anyway.
I don't know if it's because I am Turkish or because "you can't take the girl outta Brooklyn". I don't tolerate those who lie to me or betray me. There are no second chances. Once I see what I see that doesn't go over well with me, I bolt and never look back. My parents are this way as well. Is it genetic? Is it learned behavior? I don't know. But the strange thing is that I sometimes have a high tolerance for crap thrown my way. I allow some people to test me and test me until I lose it. And then it is OVER.
The question is, "can I change?" or, rather, "should I change?". I am still good friends with people from way back when, but it's difficult for me to establish close relationships with anyone these days. I am not a very trusting person by nature. I'm sure that this plays into all of this. I simply don't have patience to deal with any one's bullshit. Soooo, I may not come right out and tell people to go screw themselves, but my actions clearly say "you suck, get away from me".
Here's an example: I have a cousin with 2 small kids. Every time she would call me she just start talking to her kids as if I weren't on the phone with her. And, it was always petty and stupid shit. It was as though the kids were in harms way or was something important. I got sick and tired of her rude behavior and wrote her off because talking to her became a painfully boring and annoying experience to me. This went on for months before I decided that enough was enough. I emailed her and told that I didn't want to speak with her anymore and she knew exactly why. She semi-apologized by saying "I'm sorry YOU feel this way" - NOT "sorry for my being rude to you every single freaking time I talk to you". She took no ownership for HER actions.
How many chance should we give people to treat us the right way? Should we confront people every time they piss us of or should we just cut them off?
Friday, May 16, 2008
Friday, May 2, 2008
Armenians...are you listening??
No Evidence of Ottoman Intent to Destroy Armenian CommunitybySelcuk Gultasli
Brussels (ZAMAN)- Gunter Lewy, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, argues in his latest book ‘The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey:
A Disputed Genocide’ that what happened in 1915-16 was a huge tragedy but was not genocide as the Ottomans had no intention of exterminating the Armenian race. The Armenian lobby in the US tried hard to prevent the publication of the book, but Prof. Lewy does not want to go into details about the Diaspora’s efforts to block his book. Though Prof. Lewy gives the details of the massacres and accuses some Turkish authorities of distort history by denying significant massacres, Prof. Lewy has been attacked by Armenian hardliners as a “denier.” Here are the excerpts from Prof. Lewy’s interview with ZAMAN:
Though you reach a figure of 642,000 Armenians killed in 1915-16, you argue that there was no intention to wipe out the Armenian race. Is lack of intention on its own sufficient not to call the incidents genocide?
According to Article II of the Genocide Convention of 1948, “intent to destroy” is a precondition of genocide. A large number of dead alone is not sufficient. Thus, for example, collateral casualties of an aerial bombing do not constitute genocide, no matter how large the number of victims. There exists no evidence that the Ottoman regime had intent to destroy the Armenian community.
The Armenian Diaspora claims that you wrote this book with the help of the Turkish government, implying that you are serving Turkey’s interests. What is your reaction?
I am a retired professor of Political Science, the author of 10 other books published by prestigious publishing houses such as Oxford University Press. I wrote this book as I wrote all of my previous books – with the help of American foundations such as the American Council of Learned Societies. I also had a travel grant from the German Academic Exchange Service. I did not receive financial support from the Turkish government or any other government. I have not seen the allegation you refer to but it is part of the campaign of vilification Armenians wage against anyone who questions their version of the tragic events of 1915.
Armenian “genocidier” scholars argue that ‘you are not even an expert; you do not even speak Turkish’. They also accuse Jewish origin American scholars of distorting history by denying the so-called genocide.
I came to this topic as part of a planned comparative study of genocide. I am not a Middle East expert (even though I lived 8 years in the Middle East) and I do not read Ottoman Turkish. However, the archival materials and other original sources in Western languages are more than adequate to research this topic. The reports of American, German, Austrian consular officials who were on the spot in Anatolia, as well as the accounts of foreign missionaries who witnessed the deportations are richer and better sources than what is contained in the Turkish archives. A requirement that only persons fluent in the Turkish language be considered competent to write about this topic would, disqualify most Armenians who also do not know Turkish. The argument that Jewish scholars deny the genocide because they are Jewish and want to defend the uniqueness of the Holocaust is indecent as well as irrelevant. A book has to be judged by its content and not by the motive of its author.
The West was not at all concerned about the Muslim cleansing of the Balkans, but charities exist to help Ottoman Armenians all over the Western world. How do you explain the West’s astonishingly different reaction to the Muslim atrocities in the Balkans in 1912-1913 and the Armenian atrocities of 1915?
Obviously, all human life should be of equal worth. The West took its time in reacting to the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, but it did eventually react forcefully and halted these atrocities. Armenian misdeeds during World War I were often ignored because Armenian propaganda was well orchestrated and the Western world did not expect Christians to behave this way. The horrendous events of World War II have since taught us that no nationality, no matter what its religion or cultural achievements, is immune to outrageous criminal conduct in war.
You quote in your book (pg. 246) that “massacre, outrage and devastation have always been congenial to Turks.” Do you think this prejudice was pivotal in the Western attitude to Armenian massacres?
The allegation often made by Armenians that Turks love massacres and devastation because of their national character was indeed shared by many in the West who likewise condemned the “terrible Turk.”
Can you compare and contrast Shoah and the Armenian massacres?
Hitler’s Final Solution of the Jewish Question – the Holocaust or Shoah – aimed at the total destruction of the Jewish people. The Armenian massacres of World War I were not committed at the behest of the Ottoman government, and that fact alone makes a crucial difference. The fact that the large Armenian communities of Istanbul, Izmir and Aleppo were exempted from the deportation is another important indication that the Young Turks had no genocidal designs against the Armenian minority of their country.
You argue that Salahi Sonyel put the number of Armenians deported at 800,000, Kevorkian at 870,000, Bogos Nubar Pasha at 600,000-700,000. How is it possible that Armenian scholars reach a figure of 1,500,000 killed (not even deported) and that the West seems to agree with this number?
Unfortunately many Western scholars and parliamentary bodies simply repeat the Armenian allegations without critical examination as to their veracity.
Why do you think Armenians waited until 1965 to call what happened in 1915 genocide?
I am not sure why the Armenians waited until 1965 before they alleged genocide. It is said that the impact of the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 was deeply demoralizing. Also, the early 1960s brought a lot of scholarship on the Jewish Holocaust of World War II, and the Armenians may have sensed an opportunity to cash in on this aroused humanitarian conscience.
What is the West and Russia’s share of the responsibility in the massacres?
Western governments and Russia had often made promises of Armenian autonomy or even independence. These promises undoubtedly encouraged Armenian revolutionaries to go on the attack, cause large casualties among the innocent, and thus provoke Western or Russian intervention on their behalf. By making promises that were not kept the West probably shares some of the responsibility for the events of 1915-16.
In more than several pages you accuse Dadrian, a renowned scholar on the Armenian ‘genocide,’ of either of exaggerating the facts or excluding documents. How widespread and ingrained is this attitude among Armenian origin scholars in terms of being selective?
Many Armenian scholars use selective evidence or otherwise distort the historical record, but V.N. Dadrian is in a class by himself. His violations of scholarly ethics, which I document in my book, are so numerous as to destroy his scholarly credentials.
Do you think the Armenian Diaspora’s tactics i.e. making as many countries as possible recognize the 1915 incidents as genocide, will have any affect on Turkey to recognize it as a“genocide” without a court ruling?
It is the business of legislatures to legislate and not to decide contested historical questions. Turkey should insist on this principle and not give in to outside pressure with regard to the alleged Armenian genocide.
What is the way out? You argue that there are some Armenians who will be satisfied “with an official statement by the Turkish government that it deeply regrets the great suffering of the Armenians during World War I” (pg 269) How plausible is this argument?
Since writing the book and expressing in it some optimism about Turkish-Armenian reconciliation I have been to Turkey, and I am now more pessimistic in this regard. European pressure has caused a nationalistic backlash among many Turkish intellectuals, and I think it extremely unlikely that the Turkish government will be willing to make a statement of regret of the kind that has been proposed. The Armenian Diaspora, too, appears to be getting more demanding and extreme.
How shall Turkey approach the issue? Should Turkey do more, other than offer to establish a joint commission, which was immediately refused by the Armenians?
The idea of a joint historical commission is a good one. In order to be credible, it will be important for the Turkish historical scholars to do better than the work of the Turkish Historical Society has done so far. The fact that the president of this society, Yusuf Halacoglu, is a person who does not even read English is a scandal
Brussels (ZAMAN)- Gunter Lewy, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, argues in his latest book ‘The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey:
A Disputed Genocide’ that what happened in 1915-16 was a huge tragedy but was not genocide as the Ottomans had no intention of exterminating the Armenian race. The Armenian lobby in the US tried hard to prevent the publication of the book, but Prof. Lewy does not want to go into details about the Diaspora’s efforts to block his book. Though Prof. Lewy gives the details of the massacres and accuses some Turkish authorities of distort history by denying significant massacres, Prof. Lewy has been attacked by Armenian hardliners as a “denier.” Here are the excerpts from Prof. Lewy’s interview with ZAMAN:
Though you reach a figure of 642,000 Armenians killed in 1915-16, you argue that there was no intention to wipe out the Armenian race. Is lack of intention on its own sufficient not to call the incidents genocide?
According to Article II of the Genocide Convention of 1948, “intent to destroy” is a precondition of genocide. A large number of dead alone is not sufficient. Thus, for example, collateral casualties of an aerial bombing do not constitute genocide, no matter how large the number of victims. There exists no evidence that the Ottoman regime had intent to destroy the Armenian community.
The Armenian Diaspora claims that you wrote this book with the help of the Turkish government, implying that you are serving Turkey’s interests. What is your reaction?
I am a retired professor of Political Science, the author of 10 other books published by prestigious publishing houses such as Oxford University Press. I wrote this book as I wrote all of my previous books – with the help of American foundations such as the American Council of Learned Societies. I also had a travel grant from the German Academic Exchange Service. I did not receive financial support from the Turkish government or any other government. I have not seen the allegation you refer to but it is part of the campaign of vilification Armenians wage against anyone who questions their version of the tragic events of 1915.
Armenian “genocidier” scholars argue that ‘you are not even an expert; you do not even speak Turkish’. They also accuse Jewish origin American scholars of distorting history by denying the so-called genocide.
I came to this topic as part of a planned comparative study of genocide. I am not a Middle East expert (even though I lived 8 years in the Middle East) and I do not read Ottoman Turkish. However, the archival materials and other original sources in Western languages are more than adequate to research this topic. The reports of American, German, Austrian consular officials who were on the spot in Anatolia, as well as the accounts of foreign missionaries who witnessed the deportations are richer and better sources than what is contained in the Turkish archives. A requirement that only persons fluent in the Turkish language be considered competent to write about this topic would, disqualify most Armenians who also do not know Turkish. The argument that Jewish scholars deny the genocide because they are Jewish and want to defend the uniqueness of the Holocaust is indecent as well as irrelevant. A book has to be judged by its content and not by the motive of its author.
The West was not at all concerned about the Muslim cleansing of the Balkans, but charities exist to help Ottoman Armenians all over the Western world. How do you explain the West’s astonishingly different reaction to the Muslim atrocities in the Balkans in 1912-1913 and the Armenian atrocities of 1915?
Obviously, all human life should be of equal worth. The West took its time in reacting to the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, but it did eventually react forcefully and halted these atrocities. Armenian misdeeds during World War I were often ignored because Armenian propaganda was well orchestrated and the Western world did not expect Christians to behave this way. The horrendous events of World War II have since taught us that no nationality, no matter what its religion or cultural achievements, is immune to outrageous criminal conduct in war.
You quote in your book (pg. 246) that “massacre, outrage and devastation have always been congenial to Turks.” Do you think this prejudice was pivotal in the Western attitude to Armenian massacres?
The allegation often made by Armenians that Turks love massacres and devastation because of their national character was indeed shared by many in the West who likewise condemned the “terrible Turk.”
Can you compare and contrast Shoah and the Armenian massacres?
Hitler’s Final Solution of the Jewish Question – the Holocaust or Shoah – aimed at the total destruction of the Jewish people. The Armenian massacres of World War I were not committed at the behest of the Ottoman government, and that fact alone makes a crucial difference. The fact that the large Armenian communities of Istanbul, Izmir and Aleppo were exempted from the deportation is another important indication that the Young Turks had no genocidal designs against the Armenian minority of their country.
You argue that Salahi Sonyel put the number of Armenians deported at 800,000, Kevorkian at 870,000, Bogos Nubar Pasha at 600,000-700,000. How is it possible that Armenian scholars reach a figure of 1,500,000 killed (not even deported) and that the West seems to agree with this number?
Unfortunately many Western scholars and parliamentary bodies simply repeat the Armenian allegations without critical examination as to their veracity.
Why do you think Armenians waited until 1965 to call what happened in 1915 genocide?
I am not sure why the Armenians waited until 1965 before they alleged genocide. It is said that the impact of the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 was deeply demoralizing. Also, the early 1960s brought a lot of scholarship on the Jewish Holocaust of World War II, and the Armenians may have sensed an opportunity to cash in on this aroused humanitarian conscience.
What is the West and Russia’s share of the responsibility in the massacres?
Western governments and Russia had often made promises of Armenian autonomy or even independence. These promises undoubtedly encouraged Armenian revolutionaries to go on the attack, cause large casualties among the innocent, and thus provoke Western or Russian intervention on their behalf. By making promises that were not kept the West probably shares some of the responsibility for the events of 1915-16.
In more than several pages you accuse Dadrian, a renowned scholar on the Armenian ‘genocide,’ of either of exaggerating the facts or excluding documents. How widespread and ingrained is this attitude among Armenian origin scholars in terms of being selective?
Many Armenian scholars use selective evidence or otherwise distort the historical record, but V.N. Dadrian is in a class by himself. His violations of scholarly ethics, which I document in my book, are so numerous as to destroy his scholarly credentials.
Do you think the Armenian Diaspora’s tactics i.e. making as many countries as possible recognize the 1915 incidents as genocide, will have any affect on Turkey to recognize it as a“genocide” without a court ruling?
It is the business of legislatures to legislate and not to decide contested historical questions. Turkey should insist on this principle and not give in to outside pressure with regard to the alleged Armenian genocide.
What is the way out? You argue that there are some Armenians who will be satisfied “with an official statement by the Turkish government that it deeply regrets the great suffering of the Armenians during World War I” (pg 269) How plausible is this argument?
Since writing the book and expressing in it some optimism about Turkish-Armenian reconciliation I have been to Turkey, and I am now more pessimistic in this regard. European pressure has caused a nationalistic backlash among many Turkish intellectuals, and I think it extremely unlikely that the Turkish government will be willing to make a statement of regret of the kind that has been proposed. The Armenian Diaspora, too, appears to be getting more demanding and extreme.
How shall Turkey approach the issue? Should Turkey do more, other than offer to establish a joint commission, which was immediately refused by the Armenians?
The idea of a joint historical commission is a good one. In order to be credible, it will be important for the Turkish historical scholars to do better than the work of the Turkish Historical Society has done so far. The fact that the president of this society, Yusuf Halacoglu, is a person who does not even read English is a scandal
Monday, April 14, 2008
Reunions
How were your days back in high school? For me, it was 4 years of a hellish experience. I grew up in a small town where everyone knew everyone else's business. I couldn't wait to bust out of that small town. As far as I was concerned, I was going to leave my small town and go out see the rest of the world without ever looking back. I disliked virtually everyone I knew. I never felt that I really fit into any particular click. And "clickish" it was.
For some odd reason I recently joined Classmates.com where you can find and contact old high school friends. I don't have any clue as to why I suddenly cared to be in contact with the very people that I was in a hurry to get away from back in high school. Anyway, several people contacted me and wanted to know what I had been up over the years. I was also strangely curious about their lives as well. Where had life taken them?
What I found was that I was comforted in emailing them or talking to them over the phone. I have to say, however, I couldn't help but feel some the same adolescent insecurities that I had back in the day. Was anyone interested in knowing where I was or what I have been up to? Would they just ignore me? Did they ever really like me?
Do we ever really get over what we experienced during our formative years? I'm still not sure. What was interesting was that the folks that reached to me were not the same people that I did hang out with. Nevertheless, I was happy to hear from them. There are those that I still wish not to have contact any longer because I can't get past the way that they treated others. But had they grown up? Are they the same?
I'd like to think that I have changed. In some ways, I feel that I am the same person. In some ways I feel that I don't even know or remember the person that I was. In any case, I do enjoy being in contact with those that I grew up with but I still can't bring myself to attend any reunions. I guess I feel that that would somehow be too traumatic. Why I would feel this way is beyond me.
For some odd reason I recently joined Classmates.com where you can find and contact old high school friends. I don't have any clue as to why I suddenly cared to be in contact with the very people that I was in a hurry to get away from back in high school. Anyway, several people contacted me and wanted to know what I had been up over the years. I was also strangely curious about their lives as well. Where had life taken them?
What I found was that I was comforted in emailing them or talking to them over the phone. I have to say, however, I couldn't help but feel some the same adolescent insecurities that I had back in the day. Was anyone interested in knowing where I was or what I have been up to? Would they just ignore me? Did they ever really like me?
Do we ever really get over what we experienced during our formative years? I'm still not sure. What was interesting was that the folks that reached to me were not the same people that I did hang out with. Nevertheless, I was happy to hear from them. There are those that I still wish not to have contact any longer because I can't get past the way that they treated others. But had they grown up? Are they the same?
I'd like to think that I have changed. In some ways, I feel that I am the same person. In some ways I feel that I don't even know or remember the person that I was. In any case, I do enjoy being in contact with those that I grew up with but I still can't bring myself to attend any reunions. I guess I feel that that would somehow be too traumatic. Why I would feel this way is beyond me.
Friday, March 21, 2008
How NOT to quit your job
The mere thought of going to my job each day literally made me sick to my stomach. My bosses have a tendency to select an employee of the month to harass, and this time it was my turn to be on the receiving end of their unjustifiable wrath. NO JOB is worth being abused on a daily basis. I just could not take it anymore.
I was pushed to my limit when they wanted to call for a meeting to discuss the alleged complaints they had about me. However, I - at no time - had anyone complain about my work until this fat, lazy and incompetent person was assigned to work with me. I had enough.
I went to my office an broke down, wondering if I could finish out the day. A switch went off in my head and there was turning back. I made the decision to quit - without giving notice. I took my ID and pager and went to the Directors office and slapped it on her desk and as I turned away, I said, "I'm quitting". I didn't have another job lined up so it was probably not the best way to exit. ALWAYS have a job lined up when you essentially tell your employer to go screw themselves. But God it felt good at the time.
The good news is that I was offered another position elsewhere.
Why is it that bosses enjoy making peoples lives hell? Here we are trying to the best job possible and these idiots just want to beat us down? What's with these people?
I was pushed to my limit when they wanted to call for a meeting to discuss the alleged complaints they had about me. However, I - at no time - had anyone complain about my work until this fat, lazy and incompetent person was assigned to work with me. I had enough.
I went to my office an broke down, wondering if I could finish out the day. A switch went off in my head and there was turning back. I made the decision to quit - without giving notice. I took my ID and pager and went to the Directors office and slapped it on her desk and as I turned away, I said, "I'm quitting". I didn't have another job lined up so it was probably not the best way to exit. ALWAYS have a job lined up when you essentially tell your employer to go screw themselves. But God it felt good at the time.
The good news is that I was offered another position elsewhere.
Why is it that bosses enjoy making peoples lives hell? Here we are trying to the best job possible and these idiots just want to beat us down? What's with these people?
Monday, November 12, 2007
Time to Meet the Mom
Well, the time has come for my boyfriend to meet my mother (the week after Thanksgiving). So far my mother seems to be receptive or she is, at least, acting like she's looking forward to the meeting. I should add that my mother never really takes such meetings seriously since I tend to bore quickly and move on to the next guy. Plus, she knows that I met him online. So "just how serious can this relationship be", she must be thinking. I can't say that I would blame her.
Jeff (the boyfriend) and I have been together since the day we met. He is practically living with me. I believe that couples should maintain separate residences for the relationship to work. One never really knows how things are going to work out, after all. I have a greater sense of security knowing that I have my own apartment. Jeff and I have talked about living together but I am not sure that I am totally on board with that yet. I have lived with an ex in the past and when that relationship ended, it was a messy break-up. Had we not have been living together, it would have been a clean and easy break up.
Man, these relationships are difficult to figure out. In the mean time, we'll let Mom have her say - that's always interesting.
Jeff (the boyfriend) and I have been together since the day we met. He is practically living with me. I believe that couples should maintain separate residences for the relationship to work. One never really knows how things are going to work out, after all. I have a greater sense of security knowing that I have my own apartment. Jeff and I have talked about living together but I am not sure that I am totally on board with that yet. I have lived with an ex in the past and when that relationship ended, it was a messy break-up. Had we not have been living together, it would have been a clean and easy break up.
Man, these relationships are difficult to figure out. In the mean time, we'll let Mom have her say - that's always interesting.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Just How Honest Should We Be?
As many of you already know, I have been in a relationship with someone I really care for. It's been almost 3 months and we are still getting to know each other. When people are in the process of getting to know each other in a romantic relationships, we have a tendency to ask questions about the other persons past. It's a dangerous territory to get into because you never really know how the other person is going to react to what you have to say. You also don't know how you are going to react to what they have to say.
So just how honest should we be about our past relationships? Should we even dare to talk about them? I personally had some relationships that ended acrimoniously and I would prefer not to talk about those disastrous relationships. Jeff (my boyfriend) had asked me about my ex-husband (a real asshole) and I don't really see the point in talking about him or anyone else I have had a relationship with. But naturally, when he asks me about my ex-boyfriends, I then ask about his ex-girlfriends and all it does is get on my nerves to hear about how beautiful, smart or funny some of them are.
Before you know it, you start to compare yourself to all the people they have dated. I start to make myself insecure by making those comparisons. Am I as pretty, smart or funny as the people he used to be with? What are my deficiencies? Am I adequate, average or better than those other women? It goes on and on in my head. So long as these other people don't come up in conversation, I am okay. But when they do...oh, how pathetic I become!
Maybe because it's early in the relationship that I don't feel completely secure with what we have. I will admit that he has said that he never felt quite as connected to any of them as he does with me. But still, I wonder. Is honesty about our past really the best policy??
So just how honest should we be about our past relationships? Should we even dare to talk about them? I personally had some relationships that ended acrimoniously and I would prefer not to talk about those disastrous relationships. Jeff (my boyfriend) had asked me about my ex-husband (a real asshole) and I don't really see the point in talking about him or anyone else I have had a relationship with. But naturally, when he asks me about my ex-boyfriends, I then ask about his ex-girlfriends and all it does is get on my nerves to hear about how beautiful, smart or funny some of them are.
Before you know it, you start to compare yourself to all the people they have dated. I start to make myself insecure by making those comparisons. Am I as pretty, smart or funny as the people he used to be with? What are my deficiencies? Am I adequate, average or better than those other women? It goes on and on in my head. So long as these other people don't come up in conversation, I am okay. But when they do...oh, how pathetic I become!
Maybe because it's early in the relationship that I don't feel completely secure with what we have. I will admit that he has said that he never felt quite as connected to any of them as he does with me. But still, I wonder. Is honesty about our past really the best policy??
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Armenian Story Has Another SIde
Armenian story has another side
By Norman Stone, a historian and the author of "World War I: A Short History"
October 16, 2007
All the world knows what the end of an empire looks like: hundreds of thousands of people fleeing down dusty paths, taking what was left of their possessions; crammed refugee trains puffing their way across arid plains; and many, many people dying. For the Ottoman Empire that process began in the Balkans, the Crimea and the Caucasus as Russia and her satellites expanded. Seven million people -- we would now call them Turks -- had to settle in Anatolia, the territory of modern Turkey.
In 1914, when World War I began in earnest, Armenians living in what is now Turkey attempted to set up a national state. Armenians revolted against the Ottoman government, began what we would now call "ethnic cleansing" of the local Turks. Their effort failed and caused the government to deport most Armenians from the area of the revolt for security reasons. Their sufferings en route are well-known.
Today, Armenian interests in America and abroad are well-organized. What keeps them united is the collective memory of their historic grievance. What happened was not in any way their fault, they believe. If the drive to carve out an ethnically pure Armenian state was a failure, they reason, it was only because the Turks exterminated them.
For years, Armenians have urged the U.S. Congress to recognize their fate as genocide. Many U.S. leaders -- including former secretaries of state and defense and current high-ranking Bush administration officials -- have urged Congress either not to consider or to vote down the current genocide resolution primarily for strategic purposes: Turkey is a critical ally to the U.S. in both Iraq and Afghanistan and adoption of such a resolution would anger and offend the Turkish population and jeopardize U.S.-Turkish relations.
Given this strong opposition, why would Congress, upon the advice of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, make itself arbiter of this controversy? What makes the Armenians' dreadful fate so much worse than the dreadful fates that come with every end of empire? It is here that historians must come in.
First, allegedly critical evidence of the crime consists of forgeries. The British were in occupation of Istanbul for four years after the war and examined all of the files of the Ottoman government. They found nothing, and therefore could not try the 100-odd supposed Turkish war criminals that they were holding. Then, documents turned up, allegedly telegrams from the interior ministry to the effect that all Armenians should be wiped out. The signatures turned out to be wrong, there were no back-up copies in the archives and the dating system was misunderstood.
There are many other arguments against a supposed genocide of the Armenians. Their leader was offered a post in the Turkish Cabinet in 1914, and turned it down. When the deportations were under way, the populations of the big cities were exempted -- Istanbul, Izmir, Aleppo, where there were huge concentrations of Armenians. There were indeed well-documented and horrible massacres of the deportee columns, and the Turks themselves tried more than 1,300 men for these crimes in 1916, convicted many and executed several. None of this squares with genocide, as we classically understand it. Finally, it is just not true that historians as a whole support the genocide thesis. The people who know the background and the language (Ottoman Turkish is terribly difficult) are divided, and those who do not accept the genocide thesis are weightier. The Armenian lobby contends that these independent and highly esteemed historians are simply "Ottomanists" -- a ridiculously arrogant dismissal.
Unfortunately, the issue has never reached a properly constituted court. If the Armenians were convinced of their own case, they would have taken it to one. Instead, they lobby bewildered or bored parliamentary assemblies to "recognize the genocide."
Congress should not take a position, one way or the other, on this affair. Let historians decide. The Turkish government has been saying this for years. It is the Armenians who refuse to take part in a joint historical review, even when organized by impeccably neutral academics. This review is the logical and most sensible path forward. Passage of the resolution by the full House of Representatives would constitute an act of legislative vengeance and would shame well-meaning scholars who want to explore this history from any vantage point other than the one foisted upon the world by ultranationalist Armenians.
By Norman Stone, a historian and the author of "World War I: A Short History"
October 16, 2007
All the world knows what the end of an empire looks like: hundreds of thousands of people fleeing down dusty paths, taking what was left of their possessions; crammed refugee trains puffing their way across arid plains; and many, many people dying. For the Ottoman Empire that process began in the Balkans, the Crimea and the Caucasus as Russia and her satellites expanded. Seven million people -- we would now call them Turks -- had to settle in Anatolia, the territory of modern Turkey.
In 1914, when World War I began in earnest, Armenians living in what is now Turkey attempted to set up a national state. Armenians revolted against the Ottoman government, began what we would now call "ethnic cleansing" of the local Turks. Their effort failed and caused the government to deport most Armenians from the area of the revolt for security reasons. Their sufferings en route are well-known.
Today, Armenian interests in America and abroad are well-organized. What keeps them united is the collective memory of their historic grievance. What happened was not in any way their fault, they believe. If the drive to carve out an ethnically pure Armenian state was a failure, they reason, it was only because the Turks exterminated them.
For years, Armenians have urged the U.S. Congress to recognize their fate as genocide. Many U.S. leaders -- including former secretaries of state and defense and current high-ranking Bush administration officials -- have urged Congress either not to consider or to vote down the current genocide resolution primarily for strategic purposes: Turkey is a critical ally to the U.S. in both Iraq and Afghanistan and adoption of such a resolution would anger and offend the Turkish population and jeopardize U.S.-Turkish relations.
Given this strong opposition, why would Congress, upon the advice of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, make itself arbiter of this controversy? What makes the Armenians' dreadful fate so much worse than the dreadful fates that come with every end of empire? It is here that historians must come in.
First, allegedly critical evidence of the crime consists of forgeries. The British were in occupation of Istanbul for four years after the war and examined all of the files of the Ottoman government. They found nothing, and therefore could not try the 100-odd supposed Turkish war criminals that they were holding. Then, documents turned up, allegedly telegrams from the interior ministry to the effect that all Armenians should be wiped out. The signatures turned out to be wrong, there were no back-up copies in the archives and the dating system was misunderstood.
There are many other arguments against a supposed genocide of the Armenians. Their leader was offered a post in the Turkish Cabinet in 1914, and turned it down. When the deportations were under way, the populations of the big cities were exempted -- Istanbul, Izmir, Aleppo, where there were huge concentrations of Armenians. There were indeed well-documented and horrible massacres of the deportee columns, and the Turks themselves tried more than 1,300 men for these crimes in 1916, convicted many and executed several. None of this squares with genocide, as we classically understand it. Finally, it is just not true that historians as a whole support the genocide thesis. The people who know the background and the language (Ottoman Turkish is terribly difficult) are divided, and those who do not accept the genocide thesis are weightier. The Armenian lobby contends that these independent and highly esteemed historians are simply "Ottomanists" -- a ridiculously arrogant dismissal.
Unfortunately, the issue has never reached a properly constituted court. If the Armenians were convinced of their own case, they would have taken it to one. Instead, they lobby bewildered or bored parliamentary assemblies to "recognize the genocide."
Congress should not take a position, one way or the other, on this affair. Let historians decide. The Turkish government has been saying this for years. It is the Armenians who refuse to take part in a joint historical review, even when organized by impeccably neutral academics. This review is the logical and most sensible path forward. Passage of the resolution by the full House of Representatives would constitute an act of legislative vengeance and would shame well-meaning scholars who want to explore this history from any vantage point other than the one foisted upon the world by ultranationalist Armenians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
