learntoquestion ltq discussions

To start, it should be clear that I consider what happened to the Armenians to constitute genocide. To be honest, I'm concerned for anyone who objects or disagrees. There is ample evidence of the crimes that took place in images, firsthand reports, and actual grave sites. The fact that the Turkish government won't even acknowledge the suffering it has inflicted and won't acknowledge how this denial is causing further suffering breaks my heart. Personally, I'm still reflecting on the required "turkification." Obviously, I will never forget the beating, starvation, rape, and murder of these victims, but I find it repugnant that they had to give up such a significant portion of who they were in order to fit in with the group that was killing them. As far as a real history and a "real" history goes- the facts lie in the photographs and the statistics- and the eye-witness accounts. The stories of victims who having nothing more to lose- not the ones of the Turks who have everything. It is impossible to imagine myself attempting to engage in a civil debate with Turkey about the truth of this genocide, as their denial and lies are beyond infuriating for everyone who understand their forgery.

• What do you unequivocally believe is true about these events? Is there anything that you question or doubt? Please be specific.

I 1000% believe that the Armenian GENOCIDE happened. The dictionary has the definition of genocide as "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." Being the minority in a primarily Muslim area, the Armenians not only were a racial minority but also a religious minority. There are photos, the fact that Hitler acknowledged it, and many other sources that have shown that the genocide did in fact happen. In the documentary, we watched in class, in a sacred area where you could literally see little kids playing area, you could easily find bones that count as evidence. Despite this and many other pieces of evidence, Turkey has continued to deny what happened but also deny the use of the word genocide. Of course, no country would want to be the cause of such a horrific event, but not even claiming it happened is concerning.

• How do you identify what “real history” is and what isn’t “real”? How can you tell? Please cite specifics.

As far as real history, a way to identify would-be primary sources and bias. Biases must be taken into account while deciding whether or not something is false. Even primary sources, like those from Turkish leaders, might be misrepresented. You must take into account who held a strong position and who did not. The genocide of the Armenians was carried out in this case by the Turkish, who had a definite ruler and government but not by the Armenians. The most convincing proof to date that the Turkish were the oppressors is shown by real testimonies of those who survived—those who documented their experiences through photographs, biographies, and oral histories. A book written by Turkey about the Armenian 'issue' as they may call it, would have a Turkish bias and paint the Armenians in a negative light. Despite not taking accountability for their actions, they have continued to publish media (like the book shown in class that the student brought to the library) that shows the Armenians as violent.

• How would YOU respond to the Turkish government’s position on these events, based on the exchange of correspondence with St. John? Explain your reasoning with some detail.

I would respond to them by calling them out, simply put. It's one thing to call them out but in a response to them, I would also educate and present evidence of the genocide and how it is one. I would use evidence from other genocides to prove it as well such as showing them evidence of the holocaust or explaining the similarities between the genocides. To add as a side note, comparing genocides as far as what was worse is not okay, at the end of the day, they were all bad. I would pose questions such as "what exactly do you think happened?" Not that I would really allow them to change my opinion, but just to point out exactly where they went wrong in the sense. It was sickening to hear the current leader of Turkey deny and say that what happened was a kidnapping and deportation issue and when presented with bones as evidence, he completely disregarded it.

Originally posted by autumn_ on February 09, 2023 20:36

First of all, I obviously believe that what happened to the Armenians is genocide. Frankly, I’m worried for anyone who questions or disagrees. The overwhelming amount of photographs, real life accounts, and physical burial sites proves the atrocities that happened. It hurts my heart that the Turkish government can’t even own up to the pain that has been caused, and can’t see the pain being perpetuated by this denial. I personally am still thinking about the forced “turkification”. Obviously, the beating, starving, raping, and killing of these victims lives in my heart, but the fact that these people were forced to give up such a huge piece of their identity to assimilate into the group of people that were murdering them disgusts me. There is honestly nothing I question, nor doubt. If anything, I would love to have my own conversation with a Turkish official, where an abundance of evidence is brought up. In the documentary we watched in class today (February 9th) where the researcher was questioning a government official, I couldnt help but laugh at the ridiculous, BS responses being given. The utter denial of the events that have *direct* evidence to them is preposterous.

WHen identifying real history, you have to make sure your facts are actually facts. This can be done on the basis of citing sources, reading about the people/organization who produced this research, and seeing how it overlaps with other *credible* sources. I use this when comparing the book shown to us in class to the real life accounts of those present during the genocide. I remember reading a passage in the book that went something along the lines of “the blood they willingly shed for their people” as if this was *consentual(?)* genocide. I read that piece of propoganda and turned it over in my head. I know this is propoganda because I was able to compare it to the multitide of accounts that show that it was not “willing” pain and suffering. That example is very straightforward, but can be applied even when the line becomes more blurred.

I would respond to the Turkish government’s position by asking: “What about the multitde of accounts that discuss brutal bloodshed? Was it all made up? What about the images of mutilated corpses or starving children? DId they do that to themself? Truly, how did this come to be?” I cannot possibly think of an answer that can just explain it. Looking at those photographs really made it stick with me too. I’d probably bring some in with me, and make them stare at it, and really soak in the pain behind the eyes of those present in it.

I really love all the questions you would pose to them. I also mentioned a few questions I would ask but I'm really curious as to what they would say. Personally, I think they definitely have the answers to these questions and how to avoid it and are just hoping that no one asks. I think also the interview and interviews on the genocide would bring so much attention to the issue that other countries would begin to pressure them, hence the lack of interviews on the subject. Also, it's like when celebrities train their kids on what to say just in case they ask the child something in particular, I would assume the country has prepared similarly.

Originally posted by Freight Farm Enjoyer on February 09, 2023 21:51

It feels almost impossible to deny that the Armenian genocide took place. Between historical documentation, first-hand accounts by victims, and quotes about it from people alive in other parts of the world at that time, no reasonable person should be able to deny that the Armenian genocide happened and most likely paved the way for the Holocaust to occur a few years later. I have yet to see any real evidence that any part of this genocide deserves to be "questioned". Obviously with something that happened about a century ago we can't be sure that every single detail is one hundred percent accurate, but there is a pretty overwhelming amount of evidence from many different sides of this story which makes it nearly impossible to say that there are any major aspects of the genocide which I am inclined to question the legitimacy of.

Something mentioned in the video that we watched in class was that the debate over the Armenian genocide wasn't just a disagreement between Armenia and Turkey with logic to both sides of the argument. The video pointed out that almost all historians agreed that the Armenian genocide happened, and the only major dissent to this came from the Turkish government itself, not from any scholarly source or legitimate research. I think it's pretty fair to say that if the people in power are adamantly insisting that history went down a certain way but the actual historians say it was the opposite, particularly if the historians' narrative paints the history of a certain government in a negative light, then it's pretty logical to side more with the historians. Historians aren't always going to be correct, but it's always important to make sure that what they are saying is being given more weight than what anybody else is saying, because whether or not they are able to alter public opinion on matters like the Armenian genocide, they would most likely not have as many reasons to lie as a government.

I think most people in the Turkish government know that they're lying about the Armenian genocide. There is simply too much evidence to the contrary to make any strong case for it not having happened. Seeing as a large portion of the Turkish people also do not believe in it, I think that can be attributed more to them just not wanting to believe it. It's always easier to believe that you live in a perfect country that has done nothing wrong than to face atrocities which you have committed (which is also probably a major reason why things like the Trail of Tears and Japanese internment camps are so seldom taught in American classrooms), and if the government is insisting that no crime was committed, then a lot of people are just naturally going to be drawn to agreeing with that side.

Reading through the Turkish embassy's response to St. John is really fascinating because of how many completely illogical points are made. They repeatedly insist that people who died in the genocide did so as a result of the chaos of World War I and that while some people did die from reasons outside the war, it wasn't a genocide. They claim that the word "genocide" isn't applicable because when the Ottoman empire was relocating these people, most of them died "due, in most part, to the war and the difficulty of providing the necessary conditions for those moving". Even if this was remotely true, wouldn't that still constitute a genocide? According to the embassy, they were forcing people to be relocated into living conditions inadequate for supporting human life, resulting in a number of deaths. Seeing as these people were all part of one ethnic group, that definitely seems like a genocide to me. They claim, without citing any sources that "Many would agree that Morgenthau's book was wartime propaganda to get US public interest in the war so that the US could intervene", as if Morgenthau was the sole source of information on the Armenian genocide. They conclude the letter by refuting the point that what happened to the Armenians was comparable to the Holocaust by saying "Firstly, the Jews of Germany never took up arms against the German Government. Secondly, Germany was not at war when it decided to destroy the Jews and the Jews never conspired with an invading power to dismantle Germany. Thirdly, Hitler had a openly stated goal of exterminating all Jews and had for this purpose set up death camps." None of these three points are even remotely capable of responding to what St. John had said. Disregarding whether or not it's fair to accuse the Armenian people of doing these things, if the Jews had taken up arms against the German government, and if Germany had been at war, that still would not have justified six million of them being killed, and whether or not Hitler openly stated that he wished to destroy the Jews, he still would have committed a genocide with his actions. At a certain point the context doesn't matter; mass killing of people because of their ethnicity or race is the literal definition of genocide.

I really love your response to Turkey. I feel like you would definitely make them a little worried about what they may say next. As far as your first point, I 100% agree with you. I don't really understand how they could deny photos that their government took, etc.

The Armenian genocide undoubtedly happened throughout the Ottoman Empire, as there is more than ample evidence proving the inhumane massacre the Turks enforced. There is tons of documentation from survivor testimonies and missionaries. However, as it seems that is not enough there is also photographic evidence and reliable governmental documentation from many diplomats, ambassadors, and military officials. The deliberately attempted extermination of the Armenian people by the German, Austrian, and Turkish governments acted almost as a precursor to the atrocities that soon took place during the holocaust and undoubtedly, therefore, is to be defined as genocide. It is a literal example of the dictionary definition of genocide. The only thing I question is how the Turkish government has still yet even to acknowledge the fact that the genocide happened and the fact that they continue to lie and act as if it were an act of self-defense.

To differentiate “real history” from what is not “real” is extremely important, and the only way to confirm “real history” is to consider multiple sources consisting of reliable primary or secondary sources to ensure the accuracy of the information and timeline. Historical situations and context must be included in understanding history as perspectives and opinions differ; For example, reading of accounts about the Armenian genocide produced by the Turkish or German government as they were the prosecutors who lied and dismissed the massacre even happened. Credible sources must be evaluated upon the significance they should entail derived from their credibility, and matching or mismatching stories must be considered to define “real history.”

The Turkish government was quite harsh with their response to St. John entailed difficulty in bringing upon this accusation. I spoke to a few Turkish friends, and I felt pretty bad for them as they all explained that as they grew up, they were taught that the Armenian people revolted first against the Turks. Since they were sharing land, the pushing out of the Armenian people was simply a defensive move. The part I felt terrible about is that, for the most part, at least, they all know and understand that what they were taught was untrue; one of them was even told by their parents to deny it happened and was in their right of self-defense. I think the best course of action is to confront the Turkish government with a court case supported by overwhelmingly undeniable evidence and place the Turkish government on trial. From there, we must prosecute all war crimes that took place and enforce reparations to be paid of some sort to the Armenian people.

Originally posted by autumn_ on February 09, 2023 20:36

First of all, I obviously believe that what happened to the Armenians is genocide. Frankly, I’m worried for anyone who questions or disagrees. The overwhelming amount of photographs, real life accounts, and physical burial sites proves the atrocities that happened. It hurts my heart that the Turkish government can’t even own up to the pain that has been caused, and can’t see the pain being perpetuated by this denial. I personally am still thinking about the forced “turkification”. Obviously, the beating, starving, raping, and killing of these victims lives in my heart, but the fact that these people were forced to give up such a huge piece of their identity to assimilate into the group of people that were murdering them disgusts me. There is honestly nothing I question, nor doubt. If anything, I would love to have my own conversation with a Turkish official, where an abundance of evidence is brought up. In the documentary we watched in class today (February 9th) where the researcher was questioning a government official, I couldnt help but laugh at the ridiculous, BS responses being given. The utter denial of the events that have *direct* evidence to them is preposterous.

WHen identifying real history, you have to make sure your facts are actually facts. This can be done on the basis of citing sources, reading about the people/organization who produced this research, and seeing how it overlaps with other *credible* sources. I use this when comparing the book shown to us in class to the real life accounts of those present during the genocide. I remember reading a passage in the book that went something along the lines of “the blood they willingly shed for their people” as if this was *consentual(?)* genocide. I read that piece of propoganda and turned it over in my head. I know this is propoganda because I was able to compare it to the multitide of accounts that show that it was not “willing” pain and suffering. That example is very straightforward, but can be applied even when the line becomes more blurred.

I would respond to the Turkish government’s position by asking: “What about the multitde of accounts that discuss brutal bloodshed? Was it all made up? What about the images of mutilated corpses or starving children? DId they do that to themself? Truly, how did this come to be?” I cannot possibly think of an answer that can just explain it. Looking at those photographs really made it stick with me too. I’d probably bring some in with me, and make them stare at it, and really soak in the pain behind the eyes of those present in it.

I completely agree. I was also stuck on the turkification of these people. It is crazy how they not only had to take things that they need to survive but something but to strip them away of the only thing they have to their name is so cruel

Originally posted by Freight Farm Enjoyer on February 09, 2023 21:51

It feels almost impossible to deny that the Armenian genocide took place. Between historical documentation, first-hand accounts by victims, and quotes about it from people alive in other parts of the world at that time, no reasonable person should be able to deny that the Armenian genocide happened and most likely paved the way for the Holocaust to occur a few years later. I have yet to see any real evidence that any part of this genocide deserves to be "questioned". Obviously with something that happened about a century ago we can't be sure that every single detail is one hundred percent accurate, but there is a pretty overwhelming amount of evidence from many different sides of this story which makes it nearly impossible to say that there are any major aspects of the genocide which I am inclined to question the legitimacy of.

Something mentioned in the video that we watched in class was that the debate over the Armenian genocide wasn't just a disagreement between Armenia and Turkey with logic to both sides of the argument. The video pointed out that almost all historians agreed that the Armenian genocide happened, and the only major dissent to this came from the Turkish government itself, not from any scholarly source or legitimate research. I think it's pretty fair to say that if the people in power are adamantly insisting that history went down a certain way but the actual historians say it was the opposite, particularly if the historians' narrative paints the history of a certain government in a negative light, then it's pretty logical to side more with the historians. Historians aren't always going to be correct, but it's always important to make sure that what they are saying is being given more weight than what anybody else is saying, because whether or not they are able to alter public opinion on matters like the Armenian genocide, they would most likely not have as many reasons to lie as a government.

I think most people in the Turkish government know that they're lying about the Armenian genocide. There is simply too much evidence to the contrary to make any strong case for it not having happened. Seeing as a large portion of the Turkish people also do not believe in it, I think that can be attributed more to them just not wanting to believe it. It's always easier to believe that you live in a perfect country that has done nothing wrong than to face atrocities which you have committed (which is also probably a major reason why things like the Trail of Tears and Japanese internment camps are so seldom taught in American classrooms), and if the government is insisting that no crime was committed, then a lot of people are just naturally going to be drawn to agreeing with that side.

Reading through the Turkish embassy's response to St. John is really fascinating because of how many completely illogical points are made. They repeatedly insist that people who died in the genocide did so as a result of the chaos of World War I and that while some people did die from reasons outside the war, it wasn't a genocide. They claim that the word "genocide" isn't applicable because when the Ottoman empire was relocating these people, most of them died "due, in most part, to the war and the difficulty of providing the necessary conditions for those moving". Even if this was remotely true, wouldn't that still constitute a genocide? According to the embassy, they were forcing people to be relocated into living conditions inadequate for supporting human life, resulting in a number of deaths. Seeing as these people were all part of one ethnic group, that definitely seems like a genocide to me. They claim, without citing any sources that "Many would agree that Morgenthau's book was wartime propaganda to get US public interest in the war so that the US could intervene", as if Morgenthau was the sole source of information on the Armenian genocide. They conclude the letter by refuting the point that what happened to the Armenians was comparable to the Holocaust by saying "Firstly, the Jews of Germany never took up arms against the German Government. Secondly, Germany was not at war when it decided to destroy the Jews and the Jews never conspired with an invading power to dismantle Germany. Thirdly, Hitler had a openly stated goal of exterminating all Jews and had for this purpose set up death camps." None of these three points are even remotely capable of responding to what St. John had said. Disregarding whether or not it's fair to accuse the Armenian people of doing these things, if the Jews had taken up arms against the German government, and if Germany had been at war, that still would not have justified six million of them being killed, and whether or not Hitler openly stated that he wished to destroy the Jews, he still would have committed a genocide with his actions. At a certain point the context doesn't matter; mass killing of people because of their ethnicity or race is the literal definition of genocide.

Honestly reading through the reasoning as to why Turkey claims that it isn't a genocide is infuriating. It almost seems like they are jumping through hoops to try and plead their innocence and in turn they are seen as very rediculous.

I unequivocally believe that what happened to the Armenians was a crime against humanity. It was a genocide. Anybody who refuses to see this is, must be delusional. There is so much photographic evidence of starving Armenians, dead Armenians, and Armenian children suffering. It is not possible to fake evidence like that. There are so many eyewitness accounts and so many first-hand experience testimonies. So how can anyone deny it? The mass killings, raping, and looting of Armenians. The mass arrests of Armenians who were never heard from again. Shutting down their news sources, arresting their teachers and intellectuals, forbidding diplomatic messages to ask for aid, forcing deportations and displacements of Armenians, and so much more.

Real history is hard to identify because I believe that our history, especially in the U.S., is not entirely correct. The history we learn in schools, they’re not entirely accurate. A lot of history doesn't accurately represent what happened to the victims. When the government begins to get involved in how history is told, then I think the history isn’t real. For example, in the U.S. the banning of critical race theory in schools in the south, whatever history is being taught in those schools about African Americans is definitely real. Similarly, the Turkish government banned the teaching of the Armenian genocide in their schools and just controlled how the history of WW1 is told, that history isn’t real. History isn’t real when it silences a side of the story. It isn’t real when it is only told from the side of the winners, not the victims.

I honestly don’t think any response to the Turkish government would make them change their stance on what happened, because they’re intentionally deluding themselves about what really happened during the war. However, my response to the Turkish embassy’s email to St. John would be first addressing the last paragraph where they say “when all we need to do is move on, cognizant of our history and the obligation it imposes on us to make sure it never repeats itself”. Are you serious? How is it possible for anyone, especially the Armenians to move on, when over a million of their population were killed and the perpetrators won’t take accountability? How is it possible to move on when the journalists speaking out about the genocide that happened are being killed? How is it possible to make sure history never repeats itself again, if you won’t admit to what actually happened? How are you cognizant of history, if you’re not even teaching it in your schools? They say that no serious scholar would compare what happened to the Armenians to any other genocide because there was no spoken intent and the people affected in the genocide didn’t take up arms against their government. This confuses me because Talaat was very precise in his instructions about what he wanted to happen to the Armenians who were being “relocated”. He didn’t need to say I want all the Armenian people dead, his actions spoke louder, the mass killings, and the spreading of propaganda encouraging your citizens to kill Armenian people, and destroy their businesses, spoke louder. I would also ask, how many of the women and children who were killed and “Turkified” took up arms against your government? It is true that many innocent people die in wars, and that is the reality of wars, but the Armenian people that died, didn’t need to die. If the Turkish government didn’t forcefully relocate them, without food and water in the desert, then many of them would still be alive.

1. I for one believe that the Turks committed genocide on the Armenians. I believe that there were mass deportations on which people were beaten to death, made to suffer during forced marches through the Syrian deserts from both the elements and Turkish military officers. I believe that in addition to the deportations, there were massacres where thousands of Armenians were killed at a time. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence in various different forms. We have access to so many photographs of dead Armenians littering the streets while Turkish officials mill about around them as if they're not there, other countries saw firsthand what was happening and alerted the world of "crimes against humanity," and we even have countless testimonies from Armenians seeking refuge in other countries. To deny that this happens is impossible. Only delusion could prevent someone from seeing what is illustrated very clearly before their eyes.

2. I would say, yes, we need substantial amounts of evidence to determine if something actually happened or not. However, we cannot afford to find sources and not fact check them by comparing them to others that came about at the same time. We cannot look at letters, photos, media, or even books that come about a certain topic without considering potential biases in them, or discrepancies such as mistranslations when there are language differences between groups. We saw in class a book depicting the Armenians as a dangerous, violent group whose goal was to destroy the Ottomans. Who was it written by? None other than the Turks. When looking at history, it's very difficult to find an unbiased account of something, in particular an atrocity of this magnitude, but it is up to us to be able to realize and acknowledge that what we read might be biased.

3. I would find it extremely difficult to respond to the email response to St. John with respect. We've all seen people lie about things that are blatantly obviously not true, but I have never ever seen it happen on this level. What makes matters worse for me, is that the Turkish government isn't lying to save their own skin. I would ask them why they're doing it. It might be easier to understand if they were the ones who commited the genocide and were trying to declare themselves. But it was an entirely different generation who committed this crime, and yet the current government is defending their actions. It does not make sense to me. I would also like to point out all the flaws in their argument. There was no unharmed Armenian in this genocide. Men and women, adults and children alike. The pictures we saw showed them in groups, clinging together in their final moments. There was one I believe of a woman holding her child, their skeletons remaining in the exact same positions after their death. My final question is: how does the Turkish government think that denying the validity of the genocide will end? I hope they don't think that the world will eventually forget and move on. Someone will always remember what happened, and fight for the story to be told worldwide, and until Turkey comes forward and acknowledges the dark past of the country, no progress will ever be made.

Originally posted by griffin.lally on February 09, 2023 21:07

To state the obvious, the Armenian genocide undeniably happened—whether one likes to admit it or not. The countless photos and witness reports explicitly prove its existence and those who deny it are ignorant to confronting their pasts. Taking a look at the hundreds of photos outlining the genocide, it is clear that you can see the lifelessness and inhumanity brought upon by the Turks. What I truly believe in is the fact that these people were starved, beaten, and murdered as it becomes obvious when you look into their deprived facial expressions. Additionally, looking at the photos from class, these facts are proven through the images of children’s heads on poles, people with so little fat that you can see their bones protruding out, and so many of the countless ones portraying violence amongst the Armenian people. What I do question is the Turkish intent behind their actions. They claim that the Armenians were revolting against the Turkish government, which—first of all—isn’t even true, and second of all, doesn’t justify slaughtering over 1.5 million people in the most brutal and inhumane ways possible. I also question whether there were any ulterior motives for the other European countries to essentially ignore this genocide. Yes, I completely understand that WWI was beginning to ensue at the time, but I just wonder if that was the only reason as to why nobody intervened.

I feel as though with modern technology and social media, it is becoming extremely hard to differentiate between what is “real” and “fake” these days. The most important thing used to identify “real history” are primary sources. This can take the form of photographs, accounts, videos, and direct words from victims or witnesses—all of which must come from the “history” itself; it cannot be an overview from someone else later on. When analyzing these sources, it is useful to recognize the different perspectives in order to learn both sides of the story, but it is equally as important to acknowledge which facts appear throughout all the sources to identify what is a universal fact. “Fake” history is substantially easier to spread and this becomes evident by the widespread misinformation spewed out by the Turkish government who only gives the watered-down and humane version of things—if they even admit it at all. By doing so, spreaders of misinformation deprive people of the truth and prevent them from confronting their past in order to learn from it.

In response to the Turkish government’s position on these events, I was extremely bothered as to why they denied any systemic murders and—for lack of a better description—blamed the Armenians for its existence. They seemed to reaffirm that it was self defense in a sense because the Armenians were making an attempt to revolt against the Turkish government. It’s important to note that only about 50,000 Armenians were conspired to be involved in the revolt; what about the other 1.45+ million people who you slaughtered? Were they just guilty by association and had to face the punishment of sheer execution? In addition to that, I would want to understand why they still choose to deny that this was a genocide. It’s pretty evident they are just ignorant to all the evidence presented about the event, but I find it odd how they are still yet to admit it was a genocide. Practically every other nation is aware of it and accepts the event as a genocide and finally admitting this be largely appreciated by the Armenian population. To be fair, it is the very least they can do at this point. Apart from the Turkish government itself, I would try my best to get in contact with US governmental officials in hopes that they have the power to make change. Overall, I was very disappointed with the response by the Turkish government and it infuriated me that they still continue to deny the existence of the Armenian genocide and justify their actions despite the countless photos and first hand reports that prove its existence.

You mentioned getting the U.S government officials involved with making change. My question to that is, what could they do? As you also mentioned, practically every other nation is aware of the genocide and acknowledges it as such. Turkey knows this, and knows that so many people and nations have no respect to that aspect of Turkey, and that the only reason most countries don't speak out is because of its military might. I don't know if there is anything that we can do that can change their minds into acknowledging this. I think that really the only way that the Turkish government will ever acknowledge their history is if new people come into power who are educated on this topic and wish to try and make things better between Turks, Armenians, and the world. That being said, I don't see how new people can be educated on this topic, because it's illegal to talk about the genocide in Turkey.

Originally posted by Freight Farm Enjoyer on February 09, 2023 21:51

It feels almost impossible to deny that the Armenian genocide took place. Between historical documentation, first-hand accounts by victims, and quotes about it from people alive in other parts of the world at that time, no reasonable person should be able to deny that the Armenian genocide happened and most likely paved the way for the Holocaust to occur a few years later. I have yet to see any real evidence that any part of this genocide deserves to be "questioned". Obviously with something that happened about a century ago we can't be sure that every single detail is one hundred percent accurate, but there is a pretty overwhelming amount of evidence from many different sides of this story which makes it nearly impossible to say that there are any major aspects of the genocide which I am inclined to question the legitimacy of.

Something mentioned in the video that we watched in class was that the debate over the Armenian genocide wasn't just a disagreement between Armenia and Turkey with logic to both sides of the argument. The video pointed out that almost all historians agreed that the Armenian genocide happened, and the only major dissent to this came from the Turkish government itself, not from any scholarly source or legitimate research. I think it's pretty fair to say that if the people in power are adamantly insisting that history went down a certain way but the actual historians say it was the opposite, particularly if the historians' narrative paints the history of a certain government in a negative light, then it's pretty logical to side more with the historians. Historians aren't always going to be correct, but it's always important to make sure that what they are saying is being given more weight than what anybody else is saying, because whether or not they are able to alter public opinion on matters like the Armenian genocide, they would most likely not have as many reasons to lie as a government.

I think most people in the Turkish government know that they're lying about the Armenian genocide. There is simply too much evidence to the contrary to make any strong case for it not having happened. Seeing as a large portion of the Turkish people also do not believe in it, I think that can be attributed more to them just not wanting to believe it. It's always easier to believe that you live in a perfect country that has done nothing wrong than to face atrocities which you have committed (which is also probably a major reason why things like the Trail of Tears and Japanese internment camps are so seldom taught in American classrooms), and if the government is insisting that no crime was committed, then a lot of people are just naturally going to be drawn to agreeing with that side.

Reading through the Turkish embassy's response to St. John is really fascinating because of how many completely illogical points are made. They repeatedly insist that people who died in the genocide did so as a result of the chaos of World War I and that while some people did die from reasons outside the war, it wasn't a genocide. They claim that the word "genocide" isn't applicable because when the Ottoman empire was relocating these people, most of them died "due, in most part, to the war and the difficulty of providing the necessary conditions for those moving". Even if this was remotely true, wouldn't that still constitute a genocide? According to the embassy, they were forcing people to be relocated into living conditions inadequate for supporting human life, resulting in a number of deaths. Seeing as these people were all part of one ethnic group, that definitely seems like a genocide to me. They claim, without citing any sources that "Many would agree that Morgenthau's book was wartime propaganda to get US public interest in the war so that the US could intervene", as if Morgenthau was the sole source of information on the Armenian genocide. They conclude the letter by refuting the point that what happened to the Armenians was comparable to the Holocaust by saying "Firstly, the Jews of Germany never took up arms against the German Government. Secondly, Germany was not at war when it decided to destroy the Jews and the Jews never conspired with an invading power to dismantle Germany. Thirdly, Hitler had a openly stated goal of exterminating all Jews and had for this purpose set up death camps." None of these three points are even remotely capable of responding to what St. John had said. Disregarding whether or not it's fair to accuse the Armenian people of doing these things, if the Jews had taken up arms against the German government, and if Germany had been at war, that still would not have justified six million of them being killed, and whether or not Hitler openly stated that he wished to destroy the Jews, he still would have committed a genocide with his actions. At a certain point the context doesn't matter; mass killing of people because of their ethnicity or race is the literal definition of genocide.

I love that you brought up the Turkish embassy's statement comparing the Holocaust to the Armenian genocide, as if Hitler didn't get his inspiration from this genocide. I would ask them why they found it acceptable to compare the two genocides, deny one of them, and then justify it in a span of three sentences. I honestly don't even think that they realize how absurd they sound. I also really wonder what they were trying to accomplish by saying that. They spent an entire email denying that any evidence was substantial or that they wanted it to happen, yet right after say that the Armenians deserved it. I also completely agree with you that even if the Jews were a threat to the government, their extermination was never necessary. It's absurd to me how people think that if dressed up in pretty words or disguised as precaustionary measures, a genocide is not a genocide.

What do you unequivocally believe is true about these events? Is there anything that you question or doubt? Please be specific.

• There is no doubt in my bind that this is a genocide. I just can't think of any reason that would adequately prove that point otherwise. I think the reason why the Turkish embassy doesn't want to take responsibility is because they would have to own up to a really dark time in their history. They would be compared to countries like the US and Germany where genocides have been recognized. This opens up the question of why won't they admit it?
• To be more specific in class I watched videos of people who lived through that time explaining what their life was like at that time. It is scary that by denying that such an event wasn't a genocide is denying all those people of a horrible time in their lives.

How do you identify what “real history” is and what isn’t “real”? How can you tell? Please cite specifics.

• The main way you can identify 'real history' is through primary sources. Referring back to the survivors of the Armenian Genocide they are primary sources proving that such an event took place. You can't deny an experience as serious as this one especially if it is a shared memory. Another way you can tell if a source is real is by picture/video documentation.http://www.genocide1915.org/bildgalleri_armenian_n... there are countless amounts of pictures archived on this website that are impossible to fake. The very first one I saw was of a starving child Kharbert (Kharpout) 1915 as well as a child with holes in his had when he got crucified? This genocide was too documented to be questioned on if it was real or not.

How would YOU respond to the Turkish government’s position on these events, based on the exchange of correspondence with St. John? Explain your reasoning with some detail.

I would respond in a very passive aggressive email. Reading the email they seemed to have said the same thing multiple times in different ways and somehow found a way to dance around the obvious. They finished off their email with "when all we need to do is move on, cognizant of our history and the obligation it imposes on us to make sure it never repeats itself". How do you expect the Armenians to move on when you are denying the obvioius. There is so much evidence from the Turkishization, pushing them into inhabitable land, not allowing them to send mail etc. these are all evidence of genocide so why deny it? You tried to strip these people of their culture, the only thing that you couldn't physically take you still found a way to interfere with it. It's cruel and you shouldn't expect anyone to move on from such a horrific event that left their people picking up the pieces while you deny what happened. Trying to lessen the significance of what happened by using other events like WW1 and the Holocaust doesn't lessen the load. It is a terrible time in history and it has come a time where the only way moving on, but not forgetting, is by acknowledging the past for what it was, a genocide.

I unequivocally believe that simply the genocide happened, and the events that occurred are indeed classified as genocide. From the video that we watched in class on Wednesday, I don’t think anyone can justify or fully conceal the massacre of 24 thousand people in 4 days, which occurred in Van. The video footage and also witness testimonials also are obvious pieces of evidence of the genocide happening. The Turkish government’s response to the letter sent by France, Great Britain, and Russia urging there be charges against these crimes against humanity also makes the story even more realistic. The fact that they were denying such atrocities so early on after committing the crimes, in my opinion, makes them even more guilty.

For me what makes “real history” real to me is the first-hand experiences. I believe that these are the people most knowledgeable on the historical event, not historians, even though it’s their job to learn about these incidents and become well versed in them. There’s no denying in the stories of the survivors, in my opinion. “Armenians were killed like sheep.” seems like such a simple sentence, but says a lot as to how the genocide happened as a whole. I see this analogy just like how sheep are common animals, so this sentence explains how Armenians were killed without much regard and frequently. I think photojournalism also helps describe “real history” since it requires to be captured in the moment.

When I first read the Turkish government’s response I honestly laughed, because the response seemed so ignorant, especially when there is video evidence against some of the specifics they responded to St. John with. Specifically, I would like to ask the Turkish government about the 24 thousand people killed at Van, and how they would respond to that. How do you justify and hide the fact that 24 thousand people were killed? I would also ask them to define what they believe wartime propaganda is because it is the term that they describe Morgantheau’s accounts. I would also ask how do they not know the number of people killed during World War I, especially as history textbooks of modern society, are able to give specific numbers.

Originally posted by ilovefroyo on February 10, 2023 13:10

• What do you unequivocally believe is true about these events? Is there anything that you question or doubt? Please be specific.

I 1000% believe that the Armenian GENOCIDE happened. The dictionary has the definition of genocide as "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." Being the minority in a primarily Muslim area, the Armenians not only were a racial minority but also a religious minority. There are photos, the fact that Hitler acknowledged it, and many other sources that have shown that the genocide did in fact happen. In the documentary, we watched in class, in a sacred area where you could literally see little kids playing area, you could easily find bones that count as evidence. Despite this and many other pieces of evidence, Turkey has continued to deny what happened but also deny the use of the word genocide. Of course, no country would want to be the cause of such a horrific event, but not even claiming it happened is concerning.

• How do you identify what “real history” is and what isn’t “real”? How can you tell? Please cite specifics.

As far as real history, a way to identify would-be primary sources and bias. Biases must be taken into account while deciding whether or not something is false. Even primary sources, like those from Turkish leaders, might be misrepresented. You must take into account who held a strong position and who did not. The genocide of the Armenians was carried out in this case by the Turkish, who had a definite ruler and government but not by the Armenians. The most convincing proof to date that the Turkish were the oppressors is shown by real testimonies of those who survived—those who documented their experiences through photographs, biographies, and oral histories. A book written by Turkey about the Armenian 'issue' as they may call it, would have a Turkish bias and paint the Armenians in a negative light. Despite not taking accountability for their actions, they have continued to publish media (like the book shown in class that the student brought to the library) that shows the Armenians as violent.

• How would YOU respond to the Turkish government’s position on these events, based on the exchange of correspondence with St. John? Explain your reasoning with some detail.

I would respond to them by calling them out, simply put. It's one thing to call them out but in a response to them, I would also educate and present evidence of the genocide and how it is one. I would use evidence from other genocides to prove it as well such as showing them evidence of the holocaust or explaining the similarities between the genocides. To add as a side note, comparing genocides as far as what was worse is not okay, at the end of the day, they were all bad. I would pose questions such as "what exactly do you think happened?" Not that I would really allow them to change my opinion, but just to point out exactly where they went wrong in the sense. It was sickening to hear the current leader of Turkey deny and say that what happened was a kidnapping and deportation issue and when presented with bones as evidence, he completely disregarded it.

I really like how you used the dictionary definition for "genocide". It makes the reasoning for the Armenian genocide actually happen more prevalent. I also like your idea of educating the Turkish government in your response. I think that one of the most powerful things we can do for each other is the educate each other, especially on the case of history and human rights. Together we are bettering how we act as humans.

Originally posted by legoninjagofan67 on February 10, 2023 00:07

- I unequivocally believe that a genocide on the armenian race occured during WW1. I simply think that there is too much evidence that proves not only its occurance, but also its cruelty and its devistation. The amount of photographs, videos, letters, statements from survivors, etc. is just overwhelming when it comes to the amount actually needed for proof. There were still human bones left in the sand from a historically accurate site for crying out loud! I find it very difficult to deny such an event and i question why Turkish officials will still continue to deny it. I dont doubt that any of the tretcherous and torturous tactics and events by the turks happened. Humans can be awful people.

- You can tell what is "real history" by gathering proof/evidence from reliable resources. When it comes to older events like this that are now multiple generations away, its getting harder and harder to find real witnesses and real survivors. However, those are probably the best bet. Written statements as well as letters and testimonies from these people would be great. Photographs are a touchy subject, simply just due to the fact that our technology is so advanced these days, that anything can be made up. Photoshop and picture editors can create some annoying confusion. As long as photographs are real and proved to be real, they can be one of the absolute best ways to identify real history. Sometimes pictures speak louder than words. Actually seeing real photos from real events is undoubtedly one of the most impacful things someone can do. Lastly, if numerous countries are saying that something happened, while only one country (who happens t be the perpatrator) denies that it happened, i feel like we should trust the majority there.

- I would probably respond very passive-aggressively. Its honestly just so disheartening that they can deny something like that. It makes me lose a little bit of faith in humanity. In interviews and in responses to qustions, they admit that many armenians were deported and may have died along the way, so why cant they just admit that the turks/ottomans took it too far? Its already much too late to actually do anything about it, so its not like the world is expecting them to figure out how to reverse their actions... I think everyone just wants the country to step up and admit that what happened was wrong. Maybe a bit of an apology. Any form of reperations would be fantastic too. The fact that they straight up deny it and wont do a single thing about it at all is so pathetic to be honest. i would respond and tell them all of this. I would tell them that they easily have the power to relieve tension between nations and that the power to make some humans happy again. I would ask them many questions about photographs and statements. As mean as it sounds, I really just hope that they will eventually feel embarrased and ashamed for their actions recently. My email would be very

I like the idea of responding passive-aggressively. I feel like it's the correct tone to use in this case, when I feel that the Turkish government used a very tone deaf voice in their response to St. John.