learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by drakefan02 on February 10, 2023 07:04

I unequivocally believe that the Turkish government went out of its way to rid itself of “the Armenian problem” in a brutal and violent way. I find that the great lengths the nation is taking to cover up this part of history only makes it more believable. I find the first hand accounts to be very valid evidence. Those stories are so horrifying and so abundant. I can question or doubt the number of deaths, but I cannot doubt that they were too many. I cannot doubt that there was a huge number of needless Armenian deaths, huge enough to call it a genocide. I cannot doubt that the “Young Turks” intended to get rid of the Armenians, and that they used their position to try and do that. Whether they want to call it a deportation or a genocide, they wanted to get rid of a people and they didn’t really care what happened to that people in the process. And that's a colossal understatement.

Real history has valid evidence and a sufficient amount of valid evidence. Like I said, I find the first hand accounts to be valid. There is more than a sufficient amount of these accounts. Photographs are some of the most valid pieces of evidence. We can be 100% certain that during WW1, Armenian bodies were being piled up. We can be very certain that during WW1, Turkish soldiers maltreated and did disgusting things to the Armenians that they were “deporting”. We can be 100% certain that there was “race murder” going on.

I’m just going to criticize a couple of quotes in the response to St. John.

“How many people perished during WWI is not known nor has it been properly documented to date. The figures you allude to are highly contested.” First of all, it is far more likely that the number of deaths are more than what was documented than the other way around. Secondly, just because something is highly contested doesn’t mean it’s less valid. You could say the moon landing is highly contested. You could say the earth’s roundness is highly contested. Anyone can contest something, the hard part is sufficiently backing up that contestation. I believe Turkey’s contestation isn’t sufficiently backed up.

“Sadly, the relocation (not deportation since they were not sent outside of the Empire) did result in the loss of many lives, due, in most part, to the war and the difficulty of providing the necessary conditions for those moving.” The “difficulty of providing the necessary conditions for those moving” should have been accounted for. They are admitting to having sent the Armenians into a desert without being able to provide them enough to survive. That is what I’d call a “death march”. Even that (which is enough to use the word genocide) is severely downplaying what had been done to the Armenians.

I think the comparison you make to people calling moon-landings fake is apt. The way that the Turkish government doesn't deny killing thousands of Armenians but only stops at using the word "genocide" is disgusting. Like the moon-landings, they do not have much evidence to deny the killings so when the Turkish official was questioned he conceded the fact many Armenians died. The fact that they have so little remorse for mass killings even if they do not think they're genocide (they were) makes me sure that they were capable of such acts.

Originally posted by BigGulpFrom711 on February 08, 2023 08:20

I unequivocally believe that the Armenian genocide was caused purely by religious differences and religious prejudice / discrimination. Differences in belief and ideas led to the mass killing of a group of people. The only thing I doubt is the reasoning that the Ottoman Empire used to justify the mass killing, pillaging, and deportation of the Armenians. It’s extremely ridiculous, but it’s also not surprising that the Young Turks blamed the Armenians for supposedly conspiring with foreign powers to push for Armenian reforms in the territory of the Ottoman Empire. The Armenians were simply viewed and used as another scapegoat for the failure of the Young Turks party, as well as a way of freely displaying their religious prejudice.

I think it is difficult to identify what “real history” is and what isn’t “real”. However, I think the best way to identify what is “real” history is through primary sources from many different sources. I think this is really important, because it provides different perspectives from opposing sides of history. This can range from official documents and transcripts to diaries and letters of common soldiers and people. However, I still think that these documents and letters must have similar details within them to prove that a specific event existed. On a related note, I think this can be correlated with the denial of an event, like the Rape of Nanjing or the Armenian genocide. The Rape of Nanjing is heavily denied to have existed by the Japanese, with this being backed up by the lack of evidence — destroyed evidence — that the Japanese never committed such atrocities. With the Armenian genocide, it is illegal to recognize the genocide or to even discuss it. Despite this, international communities have recognized both the Rape of Nanjing and the Armenian genocide as atrocities that deserve reparations and formal apologies, but there has been little to no response from the nations responsible.

Recognizing what is “real” and “fake” history can also be extremely difficult due to several factors: destroying evidence, “rewriting” history, and changing the views of the people. Events that violate human rights and morality in general, typically genocides, have evidence destroyed. Bodies are burned rather than buried and documents that carry out the deaths or deportation of thousands are also destroyed. Due to this, there are extremely rough estimates of casualties, which always tend to have a wide range. “Rewriting” history and changing the views of the people correlate with each other, typically focused on how these events are learned and viewed. Within the slides, it stated that Armenian orphans were sent to Turkish households to be “Turkified”, which is similar to what Americans had done to “assimilate” Native American children. Children are extremely susceptible to the environment they are in, both physically and psychologically. With these actions, the culture and identity of the child is changed to someone they were not originally. This reduces the population of the targeted population and effectively “converts” the children. Aside from cultural assimilation, people are led to believe specific things about a targeted population or event, which involves dehumanizing or a necessary requirement to do something about the population. However, I think this aspect is really based on the perspective of people. It could be the people’s truth, but it is not the truth. To a different group of people, it might not be a righteous or necessary cause, but to them, it might be. This is what leads to the conflict of one side having history of specific events and people, but another side having zero context of a situation or completely writing a different narrative to justify what occurred.

The Turkish government’s response to the Armenian genocide is borderline delusional. The first point made was that “How many people perished during WWI is not known nor has it been properly documented to date” (Paragraph 2), which basically stated that “war is war, people die, it’s a product of war”. Even if PoW (Prisoner of War) laws were not in place at the time of WWI, the comparison of state of being between an enemy soldier in a country’s captivity and a victim of the Armenian genocide would be day and night. Children, even babies, are clearly seen in pictures to be close to the state of a skeleton, with bodies piled on top of each other. The claim that the Armenians were “conspiring” with Russians is another case of pure paranoia, scapegoating, and blatant hatred. The supposed “[R]elocation (not deportation since they were not sent outside of the Empire)” (Paragraph 3) is also pushing terminology to the nitty gritty. The Armenians were not pushed out of the Ottoman Empire, yes, but they were pushed out of the place they called home for centuries and into the Syrian Desert with the intent of killing Armenians through pure exhaustion, lack of resources, or execution.

What makes this even more ridiculous is that the letter claimed “[M]ost young Armenians are filled with hate from a young age in the diaspora of this issue and some even resort to violence with the misplaced anger planted in their hearts” (Paragraph 5). They are shifting away from the idea that the Ottoman Empire was responsible, and that it is simply a case of Armenians being aggressive, which backs up a previous point of dehumanizing a certain group. There is a constant back and forth of stating that there were deaths of many Armenians, but not to the extent of it being deemed a “genocide”, even if there are multiple pieces of evidence showing that it was carried out with the intention of wiping out the Armenian population.

The comparison between "Turkifying" Armenians and Native American's being placed in white households is thought provoking. It makes me believe that we have committed Genocide here in the United States by targeting every native population and decimating their populations as well as forcefully assimilating their culture. I know that calling what the US and colonists did as genocide is not particularly new, however I wonder what prominent figures like Joe Biden (who finally officially recognized the Armenian Genocide) think about the characterization.

Originally posted by Him on February 13, 2023 13:19

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

I think the sheer amount of photographs should be enough evidence to prove that this did in fact happen. All these photos, from the starving children, to the guards standing with the piles of skulls as if they were some kind of prize, is more than enough to disprove any questioning. That in combination with the numerous firsthand eyewitness accounts shows that the Armenian Genocide did happen. I can completely understand that one student's outrage when he was taught this lesson, as we are not taught this at all. The first I heard of the Armenian Genocide was from my Armenian friend, and when I did further research, barely anything turned up.

Continuing, there is nothing that I really question or doubt. The Turkish government's justification of "stuff just happens in the heat of war" is true but it does not pertain to this genocide. This was a genocide through and through, and not amount of denying changes that. The evidence is there, and it's shocking that people would deny it still. Their denying isn't even a denial, as they recognized that the "horrible casualties" happened, it's just that they refuse to mark it up as a genocide. Even if this was an "unfortunate consequence" of war, it still does not make it right in the slightest. This is not an unfortunate consequence, this was a conscientious decision to murder millions of innocent Armenian civilians.

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

Usually, I am left to my own devices to make the determination of what's real and what isn't real. I have to be real cautious of what I hear on social media and the news, as no source is truly unbiased. If there is a surplus of hard evidence (as there was with this unit), then that is enough for me to make my own determination. For example, I could tell that the Armenian Genocide happened when I heard to plethora of eyewitness accounts and photographs, all of which are pieces of hard evidence.

Also, the Turkish government's constant denying, even when faced with undeniable evidence just proves this theory further. Everybody can see that they are scared to admit that their ancestors committed these atrocious crimes and are they are just okay with acting in ignorance. Their denying ironically works against their favor.

• 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.

The first thing I noticed with St. John's correspondence with the Turkish Government and their response was that the Turkish government didn't even deny that the genocide happened, just that they would rather not call it a "genocide." So okay, it happened. The beating, rape, torture, and murder of these millions of innocent civilians happened, based on their status as Armenian. That sounds like a genocide to me. Bottom line, it happened and you need to recognize that it did. Don't add insult to injury by denying the undeniable and show some form of progression, as we are talking about the murder of millions of innocents.

I think the constant denying in and of itself is evidence that the Armenian Genocide happened. Governments like the Turks need to inherit some form of progressiveness in order to move on from the past, because their current form of dealing with the past and "forgetting" just makes these problems linger longer. Its pathetic to see the measures that they go to in order to continue this constant denial.

I very much agree with the point that the Turkish government's attempts to suppress the truth actually work against them and make them more suspicious. After all, if the government is so sure that no genocide occurred, then why was all documentation of those events suddenly concealed or destroyed? I also like how you pointed out that trying to sweep such monumental issues under the rug will not make the lasting effects go away, but will make resentment grow over time.

Originally posted by sue denym on February 10, 2023 21:51

These events are unmistakably a genocide targetting Armenians. The photographs, the victim’s accounts, the physical evidence is all so overwhelming and makes the facts even more clearcut when it’s been compiled in videos to spread awareness. It’s indisputably humbling and disturbing to learn about this event and the amount of unnecessary deaths that occurred, even if the death tally may not be 100% accurate. It’s clear this was primarily fueled by difference in religious differences due to the many examples of the Pope condemning them to death and other actions discriminating against them on that basis. I think that the Turkish government going to so much length really just confirms how guilty they are of this crime and I think they need to accept it and make reparations. The main question I have is why did no countries help because I’m sure they knew. One thing that stuck with me was how Hitler had been quoted being inspired by the Armenian genocide so it’s clear that countries knew.

Real history is unfiltered, unedited facts and perspectives. History is not influenced and told to make a particular group or country appear better. It’s everything that happened regardless of how it could influence public image, reinforced by proof and evidence that includes but is not limited to photographs, written records, and accounts by the victims. What’s not real is propaganda spread to rally unjustified hatred for a group and paint them to be the antagonists. What’s not real is “history” with outtakes and things omitted intentionally to twist things in a certain way. A distinct example is the Turkish government attempting to omit and erase the Armenian genocide from their history due to it jeopardizing their image. Furthermore they’ve released their own propaganda against the Armenian people. It can be difficult to distinguish whats real and what’s not but I think the biggest indicators are tangible evidence and listening to the victims.

I think what would be the most effective course of action is being able to disprove them directly on the spot and poke holes in their fabricated responses. To point out the flaws in their perspective and “logic” and continue to use concrete evidence to support this. How isolating them was deliberate, how disarming them and subsequently taking them as as prisoner was deliberate. It’s imperative that it is continued to be brought up and provoke them into having to address it further so it can be debunked little by little until the Turkish government have nothing to hide behind and be forced to face the consequences. This process has to be hastened not delayed to swiftly bring justice to the victims of the Armenian genocide, and it has to be done publicly to continue to enforce pressure from the outside.

glass, I think you articulated the horror of the photographs and experiences that occurred in the genocide perfectly in ways that I neglected to mention before I had read your response.

BigGulp, I think pointing out the Rape of Nanjing and it’s similarities to the Armenian genocide was a great thing to include in your response, I remember learning about it last year in AP World History. However, that just makes me think about why didn’t we learn about the Armenian genocide in AP World History.

Your description of real history is a very crucial thing for everyone to understand. Identifying the differences between history being told in a genuine way and history being told to favor status is very important in the topics of this course and the study of history altogether. We must be cognizant of who exactly is telling history and what their motivations are when forming opinions.

Originally posted by soccermom1800 on February 09, 2023 13:17

“Real” history is history that makes people feel better, the teaching U.S. history is a great example of this, a lot of it happened, but there is so much history ignored, and discredited due to white supremisit values that are so deeply ingrained in our society. It can be difficult to know when history is real sometimes, due to the way that “real” history can be presented. The best way to know what truly happened is to diversify your education, find everything you can on that topic and make sure that they line up, if they don’t something isn’t real.

I agree that its important to diversity your education, to an extent in the sense that obviously this doesn't include like hearing and believing fascist and racist propaganda. But I just have a question what do you mean by "Real history is history that makes people feel better" Like what does that mean... I don't think real history is history that makes people feel better. History should be taught so it doesn't repeat itself and sothat atrocities can be acknowledged. But, for example teaching the history of slavery in the US years later doesn't make black people "feel better" it should just be the case. And what do feelings have to do with the entire truth? Just curious.

Originally posted by renaissance on February 09, 2023 20:14

If one has to manipulate the wording or you need to cherry-pick evidence to support a cause or to ensure that one won’t be humiliated or held accountable, it is already a violation of truth.

I just wanted to highlight this quote you said... because YES! I do agree, if you can't share the truth and nothing but the whole truth... than it's truly not the truth. It reminds me of what is said in courts when someone is sworn in to testify: "do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

I think, to start, the things about these events that I believe to be unequivocally true are these events themselves: a statement and fact that some in this world today would continuously deny, and discredit. To that point, to even start to make the argument that these events never occurred, given sheer amount of compelling, and powerful evidence for their existence, becomes a preposterous statement in and of itself. Whether this evidence be the hundreds upon thousands of photos depicting Armenians dead, malnourished, and stripped of their humanity - so, when looking at this history in its raw form, I find it very hard to imagine, picture or even start to doubt/question the existence of this genocide and the struggles that were unjustly placed upon this group. Injustices rooted in bigotry, discrimination, hate, and fear.

When going about identifying the truth, and determining what the "real" history is one must take into account all available sources and all perspectives. This means identifying the 1) victims 2) perpetrators/enablers 3) bystanders and 4) up-standers. For me, the most compelling pieces that revealed what was "real" about this history was the Turkish Government's response to St. John and his questions. "Deny, deny, deny" was my major takeaway from their response. I think that the Turkish Government needs a serious reality check on the proof of this genocide, basically all of which they supply themselves. And, to me, the only thing that this can indicate is that these are the words and the thoughts of people who continue to uphold the legacy and ideologies of bigotry and hatred that led to these heinous, and terrible events in the first place. It ironic in the cruelest, and most compelling way. We can look at the same scenario with other genocides and see how that compares as well; i.e. deniers of the Holocaust. Equally non-sensical, and by not facing the truth of this history and instead choosing to suppress and ignore it, one enables and paves the way for such actions to occur again.

Originally posted by soccermom1800 on February 09, 2023 13:17

These events are all unequivocally true, there is no denying that the genocide, displacement, and overall attempt to ethnically cleanse the Armenian people was carried out by the Ottoman-Turkish government. We have photo evidence, written evidence, and physical evidence. There are still areas in Turkey that have masses of bones ready to be collected with just the placement of the hand on the soil. There is nothing I doubt that these survivors say, they are risking their lives to tell their stories and to do anything but believe them is evil.

Real history can be determined by evidence, although there are many things in history people like to deny, discredit, or ignore. There are many parts of history that we have evidence of, and that we know happened. “Real” history is history that makes people feel better, the teaching U.S. history is a great example of this, a lot of it happened, but there is so much history ignored, and discredited due to white supremisit values that are so deeply ingrained in our society. It can be difficult to know when history is real sometimes, due to the way that “real” history can be presented. The best way to know what truly happened is to diversify your education, find everything you can on that topic and make sure that they line up, if they don’t something isn’t real.

Although I would like to say I’m surprised that the Turkish government is denying this, frankly, I’m not. Governments all over the world do things just to make themselves look better, and this is no exception, they refuse to believe they did anything wrong and will not let anyone see a weakness in them. To go back on their word now is to show a sign of not only holding a corrupt and inhumane past, but to give in, to become weak. Turkey is a very useful country for others to ally themselves with, and if they project a weak image that could ruin a lot of their reputation. At the end of the day, the government is putting themselves first, because even today, they truely do not care about the Armenian people, or the genocide that they created.

Post your response here.

I very much agree with how you're talking about determining how history needs to be faced and the way that this can be compared to how U.S. history is taught in our own schooling systems. Our government, and this country has committed atrocities as well against many, many peoples, and much of this is ignored and left out of a U.S. history curriculum. I would argue that the inability to call out these wrongdoings is what allows similar systems of oppression to continue to exist and continue to manage to marginalize certain groups to this day. However I do not think that real history is history that makes people feel better. That kind of confuses me, because that doesn't really make any sense...

Originally posted by BigGulpFrom711 on February 08, 2023 08:20

I unequivocally believe that the Armenian genocide was caused purely by religious differences and religious prejudice / discrimination. Differences in belief and ideas led to the mass killing of a group of people. The only thing I doubt is the reasoning that the Ottoman Empire used to justify the mass killing, pillaging, and deportation of the Armenians. It’s extremely ridiculous, but it’s also not surprising that the Young Turks blamed the Armenians for supposedly conspiring with foreign powers to push for Armenian reforms in the territory of the Ottoman Empire. The Armenians were simply viewed and used as another scapegoat for the failure of the Young Turks party, as well as a way of freely displaying their religious prejudice.

I think it is difficult to identify what “real history” is and what isn’t “real”. However, I think the best way to identify what is “real” history is through primary sources from many different sources. I think this is really important, because it provides different perspectives from opposing sides of history. This can range from official documents and transcripts to diaries and letters of common soldiers and people. However, I still think that these documents and letters must have similar details within them to prove that a specific event existed. On a related note, I think this can be correlated with the denial of an event, like the Rape of Nanjing or the Armenian genocide. The Rape of Nanjing is heavily denied to have existed by the Japanese, with this being backed up by the lack of evidence — destroyed evidence — that the Japanese never committed such atrocities. With the Armenian genocide, it is illegal to recognize the genocide or to even discuss it. Despite this, international communities have recognized both the Rape of Nanjing and the Armenian genocide as atrocities that deserve reparations and formal apologies, but there has been little to no response from the nations responsible.

Recognizing what is “real” and “fake” history can also be extremely difficult due to several factors: destroying evidence, “rewriting” history, and changing the views of the people. Events that violate human rights and morality in general, typically genocides, have evidence destroyed. Bodies are burned rather than buried and documents that carry out the deaths or deportation of thousands are also destroyed. Due to this, there are extremely rough estimates of casualties, which always tend to have a wide range. “Rewriting” history and changing the views of the people correlate with each other, typically focused on how these events are learned and viewed. Within the slides, it stated that Armenian orphans were sent to Turkish households to be “Turkified”, which is similar to what Americans had done to “assimilate” Native American children. Children are extremely susceptible to the environment they are in, both physically and psychologically. With these actions, the culture and identity of the child is changed to someone they were not originally. This reduces the population of the targeted population and effectively “converts” the children. Aside from cultural assimilation, people are led to believe specific things about a targeted population or event, which involves dehumanizing or a necessary requirement to do something about the population. However, I think this aspect is really based on the perspective of people. It could be the people’s truth, but it is not the truth. To a different group of people, it might not be a righteous or necessary cause, but to them, it might be. This is what leads to the conflict of one side having history of specific events and people, but another side having zero context of a situation or completely writing a different narrative to justify what occurred.

The Turkish government’s response to the Armenian genocide is borderline delusional. The first point made was that “How many people perished during WWI is not known nor has it been properly documented to date” (Paragraph 2), which basically stated that “war is war, people die, it’s a product of war”. Even if PoW (Prisoner of War) laws were not in place at the time of WWI, the comparison of state of being between an enemy soldier in a country’s captivity and a victim of the Armenian genocide would be day and night. Children, even babies, are clearly seen in pictures to be close to the state of a skeleton, with bodies piled on top of each other. The claim that the Armenians were “conspiring” with Russians is another case of pure paranoia, scapegoating, and blatant hatred. The supposed “[R]elocation (not deportation since they were not sent outside of the Empire)” (Paragraph 3) is also pushing terminology to the nitty gritty. The Armenians were not pushed out of the Ottoman Empire, yes, but they were pushed out of the place they called home for centuries and into the Syrian Desert with the intent of killing Armenians through pure exhaustion, lack of resources, or execution.

What makes this even more ridiculous is that the letter claimed “[M]ost young Armenians are filled with hate from a young age in the diaspora of this issue and some even resort to violence with the misplaced anger planted in their hearts” (Paragraph 5). They are shifting away from the idea that the Ottoman Empire was responsible, and that it is simply a case of Armenians being aggressive, which backs up a previous point of dehumanizing a certain group. There is a constant back and forth of stating that there were deaths of many Armenians, but not to the extent of it being deemed a “genocide”, even if there are multiple pieces of evidence showing that it was carried out with the intention of wiping out the Armenian population.

Post your response here.

I also think that the delusion of the Turkish government is something that needs to be called out. It also makes me think about how here in America some who are in power also have a skewed understanding of "real" history and carry the same delusion around as the Turkish government on the Armenian Genocide. It makes me notice how that delusion that you speak off is really applicable outside of this narrative, and how important it is to call out this insanity.