0
What else can I help you with?
Unique thing about the Armenian genocide is?
It was the first genocide of the 20th century, and what the Turks did served as an example to many other criminals. To encourage his accomplices, Hitler once said "after all, who still remembers the Armenian genocide?".
How many people died in the Armenian genocide?
It has been estimated that anywhere from 600,000 to 1.5 million Armenians died during the 1st world war.___The usual figure is about 1.2-1.5 million in the Turkish genocide of the Armenians. The above answer is deliberately misleading. For some reason, successive Turkish governments, Turkish nationalists and their friends just haven't got what it takes - even now, over eighty years after the event to face up to their past. They could learn a thing or two from the Germans and Austrians and earn respect by doing so. Instead they lie, lie and lie. Shameful!----The correct number can not be given yet as the genocide is not finished, a lot of Armenians still have to die to get the job done!
How is genocide related to political science?
The first thing you will have to ask yourself is 'what is genocide'? Now, a definition isn't really necessary, but you must know that genocide simply relates to mass murdering a group of people [the victim] on purpose. And it is usually done by the government [the perpetrator], in our case a dictatorial regime perhaps.As you can see from the aforementioned, cases on genocice immediately related to politics and thus the science of politics (i.e political science).To understand more of its relation, I suggest you do some further reading by studying cases of genocide (like the Armenian Question/Genocide).
Why did the Turkish dehuminized the Armenians?
One reason was that Turky felt that they were a threat to them. Turkey thought that they would join up with Russia and fight against them in the war. Also, it was a culture that the Turkish thought would threaten their own.Also because Turkey was jealous of Armenia. After the genocide, they took our land, our foods, and the deaths of many people in Armenia.Also, the Turks were/are a Muslim country, while Armenia was/is a Christian country. If you look up Armenian Genocide, you will get to learn more about it all. It is a terrible story.
Why after 101 years the Turkish government is still resisting the Armenians call to recognise The Armenian Massacres as a genocide?
None of the reasons that underlie the Turkish government's refusal to recognize the genocide has abated, so there is no change in policy.Rationale for Denying the Genocide1) Young Turk Nationalism: The Armenian, Pontic Greek, and Assyrian Genocides (1.8 million people, 500,000 people, and 280,000 people, respectively) are glowing indictments of the ethnocentrist racism and xenophobia of the Young Turk ideology. While there were some Young Turks like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who kept away from strictly racist and xenophobic rhetoric and instead focused on modernizing Turkey and the Turkish citizenry, most of the leaders of the Young Turk group were actively affiliated with or took no stand against these genocides. It was these Young Turks who became part and parcel of the Kemalist administration in the Interwar period of the Republic of Turkey. These are the "Founding Fathers" of Turkey, so to speak. It would be very painful for the Turkish people to admit that most of the founders of their country were blood-soaked genocide-perpetrators. This is really the issue; it is an emotional desire not to rightly defame the founders of the modern Turkish State and its focus on the "Turkish" ethnic identity. This is a very emotional reason for denying the Armenian, Pontic Greek, and Assyrian Genocides: their love of country and the desire not to indict their founders.2) Reparation Payments: The Turkish people are also making a modern calculation. They expect that Armenians, Pontic Greeks, and Assyrians who survived the genocide and their descendants will demand money or land in compensation for their suffering in much the same way that the Jews and other victims of the Nazi Holocaust have demanded that the German government compensate them. Even though most Armenian organizations have said that they are not interested in money, just simple recognition of historical wrongdoing, the Turkish government remains suspicious.3) Analogy to the Turkish-Kurdish Issue: If the genocides are admitted, the cause of them, the exultation of the Turkish national identity and repression and murder of those who cannot participate in the Turkish national identity, would recast the current Turkish violence and aggression against its Kurdish minority. The arguments used to justify the genocide of the Armenians, Pontic Greeks, and Assyrians are completely analogous to the current arguments against Kurdish autonomy, the murder of Kurdish politicians, and the Turkification of Kurds and Kurdish-majority cities. It would force Turkey to re-examine the past century of Anti-Kurdish activities and come to terms with the Human Rights abuses that the Turkish Kurds face on a daily basis.4) Cypriot Dispute: The Turkish Occupation of Northern Cyprus is a continuation of the strong distrust of Christian Ottoman subjects that was symbolized by the genocide of the Armenians, Pontic Greeks, and Assyrians. The Occupation of Cyprus is based on the same grounds, fears of what the Christian Ex-Ottomans, the Greek Cypriots, will do to Muslims. If the fears of Christian Ex-Ottomans in the first context (Armenians, Assyrians, and the descendants of the Pontic Greeks who fled) are shown to be fatuous, then there is a strong indication that the fears of the Christian Ex-Ottomans in the second context is equally without merit.Turkish Legal ArgumentTurkish PerspectiveSuccessive Turkish governments have also jailed those who press for recognition of the Armenian, Pontic Greek, and Assyrian genocides as well as making declaring the Armenian Genocide to be a genocide to be economically disadvantageous to any nation which openly states it. This has prevented many nations from coming out against it. Regardless, most Turks try to make a historical claim that the genocide did not take place and the Turkish government will often make sizable grants to universities and professors who can put forward a legitimate argument in defense of the genocide denial. The Turkish position, and the position of those who believe similarly has two components: (1) that the Armenians and others were subversive to the Ottoman Empire and (2) that the legal definition of genocide is not met by the events that took place in the Ottoman Empire.(1) Armenians Were SubversiveThis argument is that the Armenians and the Russians had a historic relationship and that the Armenians were likely to mobilize on the Russians' behalf in World War I. This would open the Ottoman Empire to a fourth front (in addition to Gallipolil, Egypt, and Arabia) and deplete Ottoman resources. As a result, it would be necessary to remove them. The Pontic Greeks were seen to locked with independent Greece in order to create a pincer attack in future Balkans Wars. The Assyrians were subject to suspicion on the idea that they would follow the Armenians. As a result, it was necessary to target these groups to remove any possible collaborators. The Turks simply became overzealous in this act.Turks point to how the Jews, Kurds, and Alevis, who were other minorities in roughly the same regions as where the Armenians, Pontic Greeks, and Assyrians lived, were not subject to the same types of attacks because there was no evidence that these Non-Turkish groups would be subversive.(2) Not a GenocideTurks hold (correctly) that a genocide has two components.The first necessary component of a genocide is the singling out of one or more races for worse treatment than the remainder of the population. This worse treatment must be harsh enough to be considered repressive or oppressive and not merely having fewer rights. Most Turks acknowledge that the Armenians, Pontic Greeks, and Assyrians faced incredible hardship during their forced relocations and evictions that would satisfy this requirement.The second necessary component of a genocide is the intent and execution of a plan to eliminate the singled out race from the planet or, barring that, from any territory claimed by the genocidal power. This is where Turks often say that the Armenian case falls short. While Turkish soldiers were unconscionably brutish, belligerent, and murderous, there was never a top-down order or insinuation that the Armenians should be exterminated. The fact that many died was due to the appalling conditions under which the forced relocations and exodus were performed.This view does not acquit Turkey of its actions, but puts it in the same ballpark as the Trail of Tears in the 1820s in the United States: an atrocity that is not quite a genocide.Commentary on the Turkish PerspectiveMost people around the world do consider the Armenian genocide to be a genocide and the Turkish view is a minority view in academic circles.(1) Armenians Were SubversiveThis argument is littered with holes. The first is that the Armenian-Russian relationship was always cultural and never military. The Ottoman Empire went to war with Russia eight times in the prior two centuries and the Armenians never fought alongside the Russians. When the Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians, and other Balkan minorities rose up against the Ottomans, the Armenians were consistently called "the Loyal Minority" because they remained loyal to the Ottoman leadership and never demanded an independent state. There was no evidence of Armenian-Russian collaboration. It is also well-known that Ismail Enver Pasha, one of the leaders of the Genocide, blamed his failure in the Battle of Sarikamish on his Armenian soldiers, even though an Armenian named Hovannes had saved his life during a battle by carrying Enver through battle lines on his back. It was ironically being saved by an Armenian that allowed Enver Pasha to spin lies and commit atrocities against the people who saved his life.The second major hole is that there was absolutely no reason to think that Assyrians would help Armenians in declaring independence, were the Armenians to want such a thing. Armenian independence would reduce Assyrian land-claims.The third major hole is that Greeks in Greece had never relied on Anatolian or Pontic Greeks in the various Balkans Wars, so there was no reason to suspect that Greeks would do so this time.The fourth major hold is to discuss the non-targeted minorities. The Jews were not large enough to stage a rebellion, the Kurds were actively fighting in militias in the mountains where they were harder to target, and the Alevis were considered Turks - keeping them within the acceptable definition of "Turkishness" and not subject to the genocide. The Christian Ex-Ottomans, the Armenians, Pontic Greeks, and Assyrians were (1) large enough to rebel, (2) not actually fighting, and (3) clearly not Turks. This is why they were targeted.However, the largest hole is the persistent organization of the genocide. The first group attacked and murdered were the Armenian intellectuals in Istanbul, which were the very people who would be most attached to the Ottoman State and willing to argue against independence in their communities. It makes sense to kill intellectuals if you are trying to destroy an ethnic group, not if you are trying to pacify internal disquiet. Next, entire villages were expunged of the majority-Armenian, majority-Greek, and majority-Assyrian inhabitants and the names of the cities completely altered to create "theoretical" Turkish names in a process called Turkification. Again it would not make sense to target a civilian population if the threat is a military one, but it makes perfect sense to target a civilian population if genocide is the goal. The Armenians were marched to Deir ez-Zur in the Syrian desert without food and water (the Pontic Greeks and the Assyrians were marched to other places). There were numerous massacres and concentration camps along the route to Deir ez-Zur. That genocide was the goal is basically assured. This is not to mention the courageous work of Gregoris Balakian who detailed how the system was organized.(2) Not a GenocideWhile the Turks are correct that there are two parts to a genocide claim, most historians hold that there is sufficient documentation to establish that the Ottoman Empire intended to exterminate the Armenian people and thus fulfill the second necessary component of a genocide. The massacres that followed were in accordance with those orders. The actions and orders of Ismail Enver Pasha, Mehmed Talaat Pasha, and Ahmed Djemal Pasha are well-documented. The evidence is incredibly strong that they engineered the systematic murder of roughly 2.5 million people.
Why does the Turkish government deny that a genocide took place?
"Because it is Armenian propoganda and did not really happen!" says the initial poster of this question. There real answer is because of people like this person. Over the last century the Turkish government has done everything in its power to promote forgetting the genocide and to rational the great crime. There were no nuremberg trials which is why it was less known of and not as globally recognized as the Jewish Holocaust. Its was hidden under the cloak of war and is slowly getting the recognition it deserves (Twenty-one countries including Sweden, Argentina and Canada and forty-three states of the United States of America have recognized the Armenian Genocide, with and overwhelming majority of historians in support).
What will it take for Turkish government to stop resisting the Armenians call to recognise The Armenian Massacres as a genocide and also admit to their part in it?
Unfortunately, many countries have a dominant narrative, and they pass it down through the generations. Dominant narratives can be altered, but it takes dramatic events and courageous leaders to change something that people in a country have believed for so long. For example, America used to have slavery, and millions of white people defended holding black people in bondage, saying it was an economic necessity, in order for the southern states to prosper. Today, however, few if any white people, even in the south, would praise slavery. And as a result of the Civil War, along with the decision of President Abraham Lincoln to emancipate the slaves, great changes occurred throughout the entire country. Still, while slavery has fallen out of favor, attitudes about racial equality have taken much longer to change, and some would say that the struggle for racial justice in the US in still ongoing.Turkey has long told the story that the Armenian genocide did not happen-- Armenians died from disease or other problems, but Turkey was not to blame for any of it. No matter how many times the Turkish government has been confronted with facts that show a genocide did occur, there is great resistance to admitting it; it's a point of national pride in Turkey that the Turkish people are humane, and would never have done such a thing. While I would love to predict that this attitude of denial will change in the near future, I don't see much chance of it. The current leader of Turkey seems to be quite nationalistic and autocratic, so it's doubtful that he will be the one to ask his fellow Turks to think differently about their historical narratives or tell the truth about what happened to the Armenians.
Is there really such thing as pink Turkish turquoise?
no.
What bad thing the Anglo Saxons did?
alot of genocide
What major thing happened in Rwanda?
The genocide in 1994
Why did the Ottoman Empire feel the need to commit genocide against the Armenians?
because they were jealous about how good and smart the armenians were (and still are) so they made a plan to try and exterminate the armenians but couldn't do it. On April 24, 1915, the Turks got all of armenia's intellectuals and put them in a line and shot every single one of them. And, they took them through a desert on a death march and told the village people they were being taken to another place but really they were killing them slowly; if they asked for shoes because there feet were hot on the desert sand, they wood nail horse shoes onto there feet. If all this doesnt point straight to genocide and being straight up cruel, then i don't know what does. Im not saying the armenians didnt kill here and there, but the Turks are the ones who began the genocide on the Armenian people. And whats even worse is that their are proven facts that clearly show the genocide happening and the Turks still wont own up to there ancestors actions. That's just sad.
What did the Turks want from Armenians during Armenian genocide?
Turkish PerspectiveThe Turkish position is that the Armenians and others were subversive to the Ottoman Empire. This argument is that the Armenians and the Russians had a historic relationship and that the Armenians were likely to mobilize on the Russians' behalf in World War I. This would open the Ottoman Empire to a fourth front (in addition to Gallipolil, Egypt, and Arabia) and deplete Ottoman resources. As a result, it would be necessary to remove them. The Pontic Greeks were seen to locked with independent Greece in order to create a pincer attack in future Balkans Wars. The Assyrians were subject to suspicion on the idea that they would follow the Armenians. As a result, it was necessary to target these groups to remove any possible collaborators. The Turks simply became overzealous in this act.Turks point to how the Jews, Kurds, and Alevis, who were other minorities in roughly the same regions as where the Armenians, Pontic Greeks, and Assyrians lived, were not subject to the same types of attacks because there was no evidence that these Non-Turkish groups would be subversive.Commentary on the Turkish PerspectiveMost people around the world do consider the Armenian genocide to be a genocide and the Turkish view is a minority view in academic circles.(1) Armenians Were SubversiveThis argument is littered with holes. The first is that the Armenian-Russian relationship was always cultural and never military. The Ottoman Empire went to war with Russia eight times in the prior two centuries and the Armenians never fought alongside the Russians. When the Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians, and other Balkan minorities rose up against the Ottomans, the Armenians were consistently called "the Loyal Minority" because they remained loyal to the Ottoman leadership and never demanded an independent state. There was no evidence of Armenian-Russian collaboration. It is also well-known that Ismail Enver Pasha, one of the leaders of the Genocide, blamed his failure in the Battle of Sarikamish on his Armenian soldiers, even though an Armenian named Hovannes had saved his life during a battle by carrying Enver through battle lines on his back. It was ironically being saved by an Armenian that allowed Enver Pasha to spin lies and commit atrocities against the people who saved his life.The second major hole is that there was absolutely no reason to think that Assyrians would help Armenians in declaring independence, were the Armenians to want such a thing. Armenian independence would reduce Assyrian land-claims.The third major hole is that Greeks in Greece had never relied on Anatolian or Pontic Greeks in the various Balkans Wars, so there was no reason to suspect that Greeks would do so this time.The fourth major hold is to discuss the non-targeted minorities. The Jews were not large enough to stage a rebellion, the Kurds were actively fighting in militias in the mountains where they were harder to target, and the Alevis were considered Turks - keeping them within the acceptable definition of "Turkishness" and not subject to the genocide. The Christian Ex-Ottomans, the Armenians, Pontic Greeks, and Assyrians were (1) large enough to rebel, (2) not actually fighting, and (3) clearly not Turks. This is why they were targeted,However, the largest hole is the persistent organization of the genocide. The first group attacked and murdered were the Armenian intellectuals in Istanbul, which were the very people who would be most attached to the Ottoman State and willing to argue against independence in their communities. It makes sense to kill intellectuals if you are trying to destroy an ethnic group, not if you are trying to pacify internal disquiet. Next, entire villages were expunged of the majority-Armenian, majority-Greek, and majority-Assyrian inhabitants and the names of the cities completely altered to create "theoretical" Turkish names in a process called Turkification. Again it would not make sense to target a civilian population if the threat is a military one, but it makes perfect sense to target a civilian population if genocide is the goal. The Armenians were marched to Deir ez-Zur in the Syrian desert without food and water (the Pontic Greeks and the Assyrians were marched to other places). There were numerous massacres and concentration camps along the route to Deir ez-Zur. That genocide was the goal is basically assured. This is not to mention the courageous work of Gregoris Balakian who detailed how the system was organized.
