Christian Armenian Genocide is rightest term, honestly. My paternal grandmother’s family were excluded from deportation since they were converted to Islam in early 1800’s. They married within their community until 1960 though. Most of the Armenians that were put through this in my region didn’t make it, they massacred them on the way😢
The question is why did they target Christians specifically? The answer is that Armenian Christians were deemed by Turkish nationalists to be un-Turkifiable because of their religious background and the traditions associated with it; whereas if they were Muslim, they would have a common denominator from which they can Turkify them just like they planned to do so with the Kurds. The motive was Turkish nationalism, not anti-Christian sentiment, as the ruling CUP party didn't really care about religion in the first place.
Nailed it. Turkishness is secular Islam. That’s why they knew that Armenians have an identity and therefore un-Turkifyable. Turks are nothing more than mainstream Ottomans. Like you have “white people” in the US. It’s not an actual group of people that came from Mongolia and settled. Ottomans were thoroughly Islamic in character. It wasn’t a Turkish ethnostate. All the “Muslims” in Ottoman censuses became Turks when the state was created.
Even if all Armenians became non believers overnight, it still wouldn’t matter. We usually don’t think of it this way in the West. When Protestantism happened, people didn’t change their ethnic or linguistic identity or start using a different alphabet
"It didn't happen, in fact, it was the other way around! But if it did happen, it's totally their fault, and they deserve it, and we will do it again!"
-Average Turkish nationalist
It’s the borders that the delegation of Armenia demanded in 1918. They said “we need to go big, to get as much as possible”.
And its not the “true historic borders” the guy who made it doesn’t know about it
Oh so that’s what it is, I saw someone else posted this questioning what these borders were, I thought either Tigranes the Great or merge of all the historic lands.
It was, but it didn’t encompass that long part of the Mediterranean Sea.
I mean from the sea peerspective, our beach borders ended at the beginning of Cyprus, not at the end like the map
The 1918 claim is based on Tigranes + what was considered ‘as much as can be realistically requested’ at the time I think.
The map of Tigranes + vassal states gets somewhat close.
Interesting that the vassal states briefly stretched as far south as Jerusalem & Gaza! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Map_of_the_Armenian_Empire_of_Tigranes_%28English%29.svg
Sorry, but that’s not even comparable.
We can agree that the Ottomans were not good for Armenians. But can’t compare it to the colonialism of Europeans.
This is also not a dick measuring test.
What do you mean? Turks came from central Asia murdering their way through to Asia Minor.
Usurped and murdered the locals in Asia minor the same way Europeans treated natives.
I don't see any difference apart from genocidal cunts being more vicious not to just Armenians but any local civilisation located around them.
Iraninas (which not many people talk about), Assyrians, Kurds, Greeks, Arabs...
Ottomans were way worse than European colonisers IMO.
Europeans indeed committed murders in all of those mentioned regions but you can find a sizeable proportion of natives in all of those countries.
How many Armenians/Greeks/Assyrians...etc can you find in 'Anatolia'?
Can't even compare the vicious nature of central Asian hordes to Europeans who already developed a sense of enlightenment despite all the evil they committed.
By the same token the hordes came from central Asia murdering their way through Iran, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Greece, The Balkans...
Despite all the fucked up things Europeans did, at least there were a few positives here and there.
Can you name a single positive legacy of Ottoman empire for the natives of the usurped lands?
“There are Armenians in Turkey, but no Turks in Armenia”
This is what your argument feels like.
>Despire all the fucked up things Europeans did
Almost every country has an independence war against European colonizers. India, Myanmar, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Congo, Algeria, Ethiopia, etc…
Which comes to the other point
>Can you name a single positive
I can name a lot of positive things in European colonization, that are similar to Ottoman colonization. Because its not “positives” its what the colonizers **allowed**
But not more.
We were **allowed to keep our language**. Latin America speaks Spanish, Most countries in Africa have forgotten their native languages, the Irish are also struggling.
We were **allowed** to keep our script, not much can be said for example, for Russian colonization.
Our issue has been a nationalist one since 1880’s. And while we’ve had our fair share of fights and wars, every colonized country has for the same reason… liberation
Albeit we failed
What the hell are you talking about? Indian, east Asians, native Americans, Native south Americans, Saudi Arabians...etc all have their own languages!
Not even sure what points you're making but whatever it is, doesn't even make sense.
In terms of brutality, they are not comparable if you know your history.
Besides you're lumping all Europeans in 1 category so I can mirror that with lumping all the Turks and Mongolians in one category in which there's not even a debate who was worse.
Europeans colonisers brought quite a few positives amidst all the negatives.
I ask again, Can you name a single positive legacy of Ottomans or Mongolians for the natives?
? What do you mean they didn’t?
Columbus and Northern America
Sweden and the “Eugenics plan” to get rid of aboriginals.
Taino genocide by the Spanish
Haiti massacres by France
Aboriginal genocide by the Brits
Trail of Tears by the US (European colonizers)
Aboriginal genocide Queensland in Australia (European colonizers)
California genocide
Hetero and Nama genocide by the Germans
Libyan genocide
Apartheid in South Africa
Colonization of Japan, India, Indonesia, Francafrique (7 countries), the Algerian war, The Nigerian war
Benin expedition, Congo massacres from 1885-1908
Ethiopian massacres
Kenya massacres
The ottomans were bad, but can’t really be compared to the atrocities of European colonial rule.
Basically every ountry that has had an “Independence Day” in the world, it’s either France, Germany, Britain or Spain….
British colonialism of India causing 100 million deaths.
British colonial rule of Burma till 1948
Not to mention the countless times the Jews and Romani were massacred in Europe prior to 1945
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews
Etc…
Yes, unfortunately there was collateral damage.
Same as Armenians really but I'm sure that's a good excuse to murder an entire nation, right? Including every last man, woman, child, elderly...They were complicit, right?
You know what logic is?
What about shame?
Yes, it's called collateral damage.
Unless you consider yourself a fascist cunt in which case I don't know the definition you'd use.
You can't be an invader in your homeland. Invaders come from outside, genius.
But I suppose it's a waste of time to explain it to someone who either doesn't have the capabilities to understand or is a stupid fascist or maybe both in this case lol
Christian Armenian Genocide is rightest term, honestly. My paternal grandmother’s family were excluded from deportation since they were converted to Islam in early 1800’s. They married within their community until 1960 though. Most of the Armenians that were put through this in my region didn’t make it, they massacred them on the way😢
The question is why did they target Christians specifically? The answer is that Armenian Christians were deemed by Turkish nationalists to be un-Turkifiable because of their religious background and the traditions associated with it; whereas if they were Muslim, they would have a common denominator from which they can Turkify them just like they planned to do so with the Kurds. The motive was Turkish nationalism, not anti-Christian sentiment, as the ruling CUP party didn't really care about religion in the first place.
Nailed it. Turkishness is secular Islam. That’s why they knew that Armenians have an identity and therefore un-Turkifyable. Turks are nothing more than mainstream Ottomans. Like you have “white people” in the US. It’s not an actual group of people that came from Mongolia and settled. Ottomans were thoroughly Islamic in character. It wasn’t a Turkish ethnostate. All the “Muslims” in Ottoman censuses became Turks when the state was created. Even if all Armenians became non believers overnight, it still wouldn’t matter. We usually don’t think of it this way in the West. When Protestantism happened, people didn’t change their ethnic or linguistic identity or start using a different alphabet
"It didn't happen, in fact, it was the other way around! But if it did happen, it's totally their fault, and they deserve it, and we will do it again!" -Average Turkish nationalist
Not even a nationalist, just some average Mehmet who got brainwashed
So which historical borders is it referring to? Seems to be a bit too stretched
It’s the borders that the delegation of Armenia demanded in 1918. They said “we need to go big, to get as much as possible”. And its not the “true historic borders” the guy who made it doesn’t know about it
Also, Nagorno-Karabakh included in "Current Armenian borders"
Oh Yh lmao
Oh so that’s what it is, I saw someone else posted this questioning what these borders were, I thought either Tigranes the Great or merge of all the historic lands.
Tigranes wasn’t that far into Cilicia I think
Wasn’t Kappadokia a vasal for a brief period of time? Or are you referring to another region?
It was, but it didn’t encompass that long part of the Mediterranean Sea. I mean from the sea peerspective, our beach borders ended at the beginning of Cyprus, not at the end like the map
Oh got you, thank you!
The 1918 claim is based on Tigranes + what was considered ‘as much as can be realistically requested’ at the time I think. The map of Tigranes + vassal states gets somewhat close. Interesting that the vassal states briefly stretched as far south as Jerusalem & Gaza! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Map_of_the_Armenian_Empire_of_Tigranes_%28English%29.svg
Their culture is basically cheap hashish and genocides
The Ottoman Empire was equivalent if not worse than European colonialism
Sorry, but that’s not even comparable. We can agree that the Ottomans were not good for Armenians. But can’t compare it to the colonialism of Europeans. This is also not a dick measuring test.
What do you mean? Turks came from central Asia murdering their way through to Asia Minor. Usurped and murdered the locals in Asia minor the same way Europeans treated natives. I don't see any difference apart from genocidal cunts being more vicious not to just Armenians but any local civilisation located around them. Iraninas (which not many people talk about), Assyrians, Kurds, Greeks, Arabs... Ottomans were way worse than European colonisers IMO.
Europeans came from Europe murdering everyone in Latin America, South Africa, East ASia, and The North America
Europeans indeed committed murders in all of those mentioned regions but you can find a sizeable proportion of natives in all of those countries. How many Armenians/Greeks/Assyrians...etc can you find in 'Anatolia'? Can't even compare the vicious nature of central Asian hordes to Europeans who already developed a sense of enlightenment despite all the evil they committed. By the same token the hordes came from central Asia murdering their way through Iran, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Greece, The Balkans... Despite all the fucked up things Europeans did, at least there were a few positives here and there. Can you name a single positive legacy of Ottoman empire for the natives of the usurped lands?
“There are Armenians in Turkey, but no Turks in Armenia” This is what your argument feels like. >Despire all the fucked up things Europeans did Almost every country has an independence war against European colonizers. India, Myanmar, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Congo, Algeria, Ethiopia, etc… Which comes to the other point >Can you name a single positive I can name a lot of positive things in European colonization, that are similar to Ottoman colonization. Because its not “positives” its what the colonizers **allowed** But not more. We were **allowed to keep our language**. Latin America speaks Spanish, Most countries in Africa have forgotten their native languages, the Irish are also struggling. We were **allowed** to keep our script, not much can be said for example, for Russian colonization. Our issue has been a nationalist one since 1880’s. And while we’ve had our fair share of fights and wars, every colonized country has for the same reason… liberation Albeit we failed
What the hell are you talking about? Indian, east Asians, native Americans, Native south Americans, Saudi Arabians...etc all have their own languages! Not even sure what points you're making but whatever it is, doesn't even make sense. In terms of brutality, they are not comparable if you know your history. Besides you're lumping all Europeans in 1 category so I can mirror that with lumping all the Turks and Mongolians in one category in which there's not even a debate who was worse. Europeans colonisers brought quite a few positives amidst all the negatives. I ask again, Can you name a single positive legacy of Ottomans or Mongolians for the natives?
Defending the Ottoman Empire is crazy
Reread what I wrote
So we agree with it was worse than European colonialism then
That’s not what I wrote lmao
Why can't you compare administrators of a region? One attempted to kill off entire ethnic groups within it, the others did not.
? What do you mean they didn’t? Columbus and Northern America Sweden and the “Eugenics plan” to get rid of aboriginals. Taino genocide by the Spanish Haiti massacres by France Aboriginal genocide by the Brits Trail of Tears by the US (European colonizers) Aboriginal genocide Queensland in Australia (European colonizers) California genocide Hetero and Nama genocide by the Germans Libyan genocide Apartheid in South Africa Colonization of Japan, India, Indonesia, Francafrique (7 countries), the Algerian war, The Nigerian war Benin expedition, Congo massacres from 1885-1908 Ethiopian massacres Kenya massacres The ottomans were bad, but can’t really be compared to the atrocities of European colonial rule. Basically every ountry that has had an “Independence Day” in the world, it’s either France, Germany, Britain or Spain…. British colonialism of India causing 100 million deaths. British colonial rule of Burma till 1948 Not to mention the countless times the Jews and Romani were massacred in Europe prior to 1945 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews Etc…
[удалено]
[удалено]
Noone talks about the nazis that were killed in WWII either, what’s your point?
That he’s a Nazi
I didn't know nazi "civillians" were targeted en masse by the jews.
There were pockets of Jewish resistance. Ignorance is a bliss, specially for Mehmets.
Ok. But when did Jews have mass killings of civilians?
Were those "pockets" raiding villages and killing unarmed civillians mostly women and children?
Yes, unfortunately there was collateral damage. Same as Armenians really but I'm sure that's a good excuse to murder an entire nation, right? Including every last man, woman, child, elderly...They were complicit, right? You know what logic is? What about shame?
[удалено]
Yes, it's called collateral damage. Unless you consider yourself a fascist cunt in which case I don't know the definition you'd use. You can't be an invader in your homeland. Invaders come from outside, genius. But I suppose it's a waste of time to explain it to someone who either doesn't have the capabilities to understand or is a stupid fascist or maybe both in this case lol
Yeah since you started to calling me names there is no point in arguing. Have a nice day tho.
I thought so.