“I wish,” Talaat now said, “that you would get the American life-insurance companies to send us a complete list of their Armenian policy holders. They are practically all dead now and have left no heirs to collect the money. It of course all escheats to the state. The government is the beneficiary now. Will you do so?”
If anybody else is wondering what happened with some of those life insurance policies, The New York Life Insurance Company attempted to pay out 2,200 unclaimed policies in 2004[1]. That's only after avoiding it for almost a century, and it's still unclear how many were actually claimed in the end.
Disturbing, isn't it? Turks might have collected their possessions and even went after the life insurances but Turks lost so much more.
The Armenians were part of the Ottoman society and their contributions were invaluable.
Today in Turkey, you can still see their legacy all over the place. The best neighbourhoods to live in Istanbul are those who used to have a large Armenian population. Neighbourhoods with concentration of cultural heritage that is still alive often have an Armenian church somewhere. A civilian building with a great architecture? It was probably built by Armenians or Greeks who were uprooted during the collapse of the Ottoman empire. You can see the pattern al over Istanbul and Turkey. When you visit Turkey, pay attention of the writings on old and beautiful apartments or houses and more often than not you will see that those writings are not in Turkish or Arabic but Armenian, Greek or Hebrew. In the context of the Ottoman Empire, Turks were the warriors and the rulers and the local minorities were the artisans, the scientists, businesspeople.
If Turkey managed to preserve its Armenian or Greek minorities, the country would have been much much nicer and sane place. I hope that one day the country will make peace with its past and have its minorities back again.
That's really something! I mean, the state already got all their possessions, that's par for the course, same as the Nazis did with the Jews, but I don't think the Nazis thought about also collecting the life insurance...
Objection to an ethnicity. Key indicator of genocide for any action taken based on such an objection.
>on three distinct grounds. In the first place, they have enriched themselves at the expense of the Turks. In the second place, they are determined to domineer over us and to establish a separate state. In the third place, they have openly encouraged our enemies. They have assisted the Russians in the Caucasus, and our failure there is largely explained by their actions.
Reads almost verbatim just like Nazi Germany on Jews back then or Nazi Russia on Ukrainians today.
> We have therefore come to the irrevocable decision that we shall make them powerless before this war is ended.”
Again very similar to the perception of themselves as the master race (Nazi Germany) or the master nation (Nazi Russia) and thus perceiving themselves as having the right to act in such a way.
> so that I can explain our position on the whole Armenian subject.
Also very similar is the use of the phrase "the <ethnicity> subject|question|issue" to plant the seed in the mind of the listener that there is indeed a problem that needs to be "solved".
Nazism = totalitarian fascist state plus political nationalism. Fascist Italy and Spain weren't nazist for example, while Germany was and Russia today is.
Informally that specific flavor of the Russian Nazi ideology is called "rashism".
Russia is coincindentally heading right the way of Ottoman empire, seemingly step, by step.
Decades of futile attempts to retake Balkans after Greek revolt lit the fire in Europe, and caused a chain reaction of support for Ottoman dismantlement.
For Russia to survive as a state in coming decades, it will not need a "Russian Washington," but rather somebody more like a Russian Ataturk.
It's also very similar to the sort of talk I hear about Muslim immigrants in the United States: "In the first place they take jobs from Americans, in the second they want to impose Sharia law, and in the third place they support terrorism." There's always an 'other' who will be blamed, and we have to guard our minds against plausible talk like this.
Huh... Bing and DDG both seem to avoid autocomplete for "Armenian Genocide" - requiring one to type it out almost completely. Google suggests it early on, as one would expect.
DDG does bring the completion after typing "Armenian" for me, however Bing even after typing the whole phrase "Armenian Genocide" brings totally unrelated completions while also suggesting "armenian genocide museum dc" as No. 3. This is so strange!
As a Turk with very little interest to History, would like to share my guesses about viewpoints of these characters have.
First of all I am very impressed about how modern the ambassador is for 192X. He is Liberal exactly like someone from USA would be today.
Now! Liberalism is not a idea that is easily accessible back then. Let alone find a any group of people that will backup you in this way. Even in current Turkey's politics: only 2-3 parties are viable in election and they are all about deciding whether country should go Muslim-National (Auth-Right but Muslim Traders Only) or National-National (Auth-Left)
Considering that Ottoman Empire was multi-cultural gaint and considering that literacy of people of Ottoman Empire were about low as %10. People from same culture/race/religion lived near together and even tho there have been problems here and there, they were probably doing fine like humanity of today.
But when once-in-a-life-time event occurs and you find yourself survived a war but your old government is colepsed; and the New authority (politicly) doesn't look anything different from a group of revolters/rioters from at your standpoint. Who can you trust in the middle of all this chaos other than people of your race/culture/religion.
Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Muslims Cults/Sheiks, Old Ottoman Government's supporters, all rioted and tried to overthrown the new authority of TBMM (team Ataturk/Republic) within very near time spans.
At that point it must have been normal to react to these 'issues' with this much aggression.
Calling it 'Ptsd of an authority' would sum it maybe.
Still the whole event is presumably a overkill/genocide when we take a look at from the current perspective.
"Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Muslims Cults/Sheiks, Old Ottoman Government's supporters, all rioted and tried to overthrown the new authority of TBMM (team Ataturk/Republic) within very near time spans.
At that point it must have been normal to react to these 'issues' with this much aggression."
Your timeline is off, The new parliament (TBMM) was established in 1920 and new republic in 1923. The events described in the article happened in 1915. Ambassador's letter was written in 1916.
> At that point it must have been normal to react to these 'issues' with this much aggression.
Not really, all empires were multicultural, e.g. russia, but while the Bolsheviks went to war, they did not genocide them. The modern state of turkey otoh is the result of 3-5 genocides, not one. Britain did not go on to genocide indians because it wanted their land
The modern Russian state is the product of several genocides too, so this particular example is probably not correct.
From 1915 to 1945, probably over one million Russian Germans perished from unnatural causes under three successive Russian governments—those of Tsar Nicholas II, Lenin, and Stalin—chiefly by means of mass executions, forced labor, deliberate starvation, and brutal deportations.
The Holodomor in the Ukraine took place in the 1930.
In addition there was large scale deportation of ethnic groups, which effectively also amounted to genocide due to harsh living conditions forced on the deported.
A similar case could be made against Britain, with the difference that they were (mostly) done with genociding by 1930.
“In Leningrad, the NKVD reviewed local telephone books and arrested almost 7,000 citizens with Polish-sounding name with the vast majority of such nominal "suspects" were executed within 10 days of arrest”
> Talaat’s first objection was merely an admission that the Armenians were more industrious and more able than the dull-witted and lazy Turks
Right. I wonder, precisely how bias is this great ambassador against the Turks?
Do you know what the truth behind it all is? Nations are violent. They tend to overreact in terrible murderous ways. What’s worse, their will always be enough support in the hardliners in their population. Look at world history: the Americans committed genocide against the Natives with the support of the majority (heck more than half today pretend like nothing wrong happened). The British and French and Japanese committed genocide (all over the world) with the support of a population pretending like they are spreading civilization. The British were literally smuggling opium into China despite a ban by the Chinese. The Germans murdered millions in an attempt to ethnically cleanse with the support of their people. The Israelis are currently ethnically cleansing Palestine — and it is the Israeli people themselves who are doing this.
States are violent. Savage. Terrible in their overreactions and they tend to overreact. If the Armenians did indeed sabotage the Turks during the war with Russia then they should have fled or taken up arms right against the Turks when their sabotage failed to lead to a complete defeat of the Turks. In any country west or east — rebelling against the government and aiding foreign adversaries is going to lead to violence and that violence is going to be supported by the people.
Terrible world we live in where those that rise to power are savage in their pursuit of increasing/maintaining power.
> If the Armenians did indeed sabotage the Turks during the war with Russia then they should have fled or taken up arms right against the Turks
You speak as if nations are some monolithic hive minds with a single will.. the reality is that most people who were murdered weren’t active combatants or were not even related to active combatants. Also many other Christian people were targeted like the Assyrians, Coptic Greeks etc..
But the reality is: every community has leaders — business and political and intellectual — and sometimes those leaders pick sides and whether we like it or not their people will be judged.
We can still recognize that horrible injustices have been made and attempt to do better. Past injustices doesn't justify the ongoing ones in Yemen, Palestine, Ukraine, China (Uyghurs), etc.
Of course they don’t! I didn’t mean to slightly suggest anything like that is justified. My remarks were purely to point out a truth that this ambassador is not sincerely interested in the well being of the Armenians. He is using them just like the Russians were but in a different way.
> “You are making a terrible mistake,” I said, and I repeated the statement three times.
> “Yes, we may make mistakes,” he replied, “but”—and he firmly closed his lips and shook his head—“we never regret.”
And they never did. They don’t even acknowledge it. Interesting to contrast the response of the German state to its genocide and that of Turkey’s.
> We base our objections to the Armenians on three distinct grounds. In the first place, they have enriched themselves at the expense of the Turks.
Similar reasoning and calls for genocide are routine by the ideologues in power in Tamil Nadu, India: https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/national/south/dmk-spokespe...
Thankfully no large scale violence so far though, they have just stuck to the rhetoric.
Not that it's okay, but the Tamil Nadu situation seems (to an outsider) to be a class/caste based call to violence more than a racial genocide. Sort of like "eat the rich", where there's no specific call to ethnically cleanse anyone, "just" for class warfare.
Definitely possible I'm missing something, and it's a touchy subject, but one I'm increasingly interested in these times. So feel free to correct if I'm wrong, or just chime in.
In Tamil Nadu, there are racial overtones to this call for violence. It’s targeted specifically at Tamil Brahmins, regarded as “outsider Aryans”.
There are other wealthy landed castes, but they are not the target of this rhetoric (and they are the ones in power). So it’s not just “eat the rich”.
Along side this, there’s actual physical violence between other caste groups. The ones targeting Brahmins is interesting because of the language used (example above) and how normative it has become (Tamil mainstream media will not call it out, pop culture acceptance and tropes), their complete lack of political power in the state and the absence of much physical violence. There’s some very fascinating history behind this. In case you are interested in how the current moment came about, two books:
Castes are largely endogamous, so eliminationist rhetoric directed against a particular caste is genocidal in character.
Caste, class, and ethnicity, are not tightly-defined concepts (with the exception of caste in India, I'm referring to extensions of the idea outside of its origin), the genocide of the Tutsi has aspects of all three.
And with all that genocide talk, Turkey is a NATO member and was(technically is?) an EU candidate. Moreover, rumors are, Finland and Sweden will submit to Turkish demands regarding Kurds. Turkey has also led a military campaign against Armenia together with their satellite just recently. Maybe it really doesn’t bother western liberal democracies whether genocide happened. And it’s only used as a tool.
> Turkey has also led a military campaign against Armenia together with their satellite just recently
That is not true, in 2020 Azerbaijan successfully liberated a region that was under Armenian occupation since 1994. I say liberated because that land was and is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Also, Azerbaijan suffered atrocities conducted by the Armenians, for example the Khojaly massacre[0]. Yes Turkey helped Azerbaijan, Russia helped Armenia. It was the first showcase of the Turkish drone technology in a war between regular armies but the Turkish help was not only in providing weapons, it was much deeper.
When it comes to the Kurds, IMHO the Turks deserve most of the blame for the feud BUT what Turkey demands has nothing to do with Kurds but with internationally recognized terrorist organisations that operate in Turkey.
Think of it like this, if you are sympathetic of the people of Iraq for the horrible things that the USA did there would you also support ISIS? If your answer is NO then you don't have a case for supporting PKK against Turkey because PKK is a terrorist organisation that blows up public buses or kills teachers. If you are not familiar with their activities, there's ample amount of information online.
What happened in 2020 is that Turkey and Azerbaijan with the direct political support from Israel and UK attacked a small Armenian population on a disputed land, whereas the rest of the world was just silently watching because most of the western politicians were simply bribed by Azerbaijanis government. There are numerous fact about the story, just google it.
> That is not true, in 2020 Azerbaijan successfully liberated a region that was under Armenian occupation since 1994.
What I’ve been hearing from my well-educated colleagues from February was “No matter the reason, I’m against war, war is always bad, mmmkay?” But they turned a blind eye when it came to Artsakh.
Anyway, no matter the reason, people were dying where they haven’t been for a long time(at least not in high numbers). Would you say national pride justifies the means?
What you just said does not dispute the fact that turkey led the campaign against Armenia alongside Azerbaijan
You are giving context, which I guess is welcome, but that's not a refutation, because a refutation is not possible given that indeed Turkey fought against Armenia alongside Azerbaijan
The PKK aren't great (as a Kurd, I hate them), but to compare them to ISIS is just the Turkish narrative. It can be argued that Turkey as a state is way worse than the PKK. But of course, international politics always sides with governments.
I assume you mean those same teachers that were telling Kurdish kids: "Kurdish is bad", "Do not speak Kurdish", "Ne mutlu Türküm diyene!" (English: "How happy is the one who says I am a Turk!"). (PS. I still think it is wrong to kill teachers, no matter how hateful and racist they may be).
The PKK exists because of Turkish actions against the Kurds. Period.
Turks would say: "Nah, that was in the past, we love Kurds, I have Kurdish friends", but it is mostly lies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhXCNuXiJZU (some Turks might do of course, but in general, Turks hate Kurds)
Don't get me wrong. A Kurd can be happy in Turkey. If he basically acts Turkish, lets go of his Kurdish culture and customs, and loves Ataturk (who forced Turkish surnames on all citizens of the "modern Turkey" and changed the names of thousands of Kurdish towns and villages from Kurdish to Turkish).
There are many Kurds in Turkey that are happy. However, these don't speak Kurdish. They speak Turkish in the family, they speak Turkish with their kids. To other Kurds, they are basically Turk.
In my opinion, one reason Turkey is invading North Syria (the Kurdish region - aka Rojava) is because the Kurds in North Syria are Kurmancî speakers. This is the same dialect of Kurdish that is spoken by the Kurds in Turkey.
Kurds in North Syria speak Kurdish at home, they watch Kurdish TV, they go about their daily lives in Kurdish. They watch Kurdish plays and listen to Kurdish music and since The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) has been a thing, the Kurds in Syria are studying Kurdish from year one all the way to college. This revival in Kurdish literature is really scary to Turkey because it lights a fire in the Kurmancî speakers in its territory. It shows the Kurds in Turkey that being a Kurd isn't bad, it shows them that Kurds are a people with a rich culture and it is a shame to let that go.
Turks would argue that no, we invade the Kurdish regions in Syria (see Efrîn/Afrin) because the people of The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) are the other side of the coin of PKK. Personally, I think that is bullshit. Turkey moved 1000s of ISIS members through its borders and helped them attack the Kurds when the Kurds were fighting ISIS.
Basically, Turkey has and is making a demographic change in Efrîn/Afrin, they are driving Kurds away and putting Arabs there. Then they'll say "come and look, there are hardly any Kurds here". They now want to do the same to the rest of North Syria.
Nothing scares Turkey more than Kurdish nationalism, which only gets stronger by Turkish aggression. You'd think they'd learn this by now, but no.
If in Turkey, Kurds are allowed to study from nursery to university in Kurdish, and if they truly get considered as Kurdish citizens of Turkey with no racism or oppression, then Kurdish national sentiment would die out.
What was held by the Karabakh Armenians until last year was a region consisting of two parts. The former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and a region which is de jure part of Azerbaijan.
While the remainder of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast is indeed internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, it is not in fact part of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan seceded from the Soviet Union in accordance with the Soviet secession law. This law can be found on the homepage of Michigan State University, here:https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/shevarnadze-resigns/she...
The law is from April 3, 1990 and the relevant part is article 3 which reads as follows:
``Article 3. In a Union republic which includes within its structure autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, or autonomous okrugs, the referendum is held separately for each autonomous formation. The people of autonomous republics and autonomous formations retain the right to decide independently the question of remaining within the USSR or within the seceding Union republic, and also to raise the question of their own state-legal status.´´
That is, for the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast to secede with Azerbaijan there'd have to be a vote in the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and the 'join the Azerbaijani SSR in seceding' option would have to win. Otherwise the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast would remain in the Soviet Union, or raise the question of its own secession.
The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast became independent only with the final dissolution of the USSR. Azerbaijan's invasion of the NKAO was at first the invasion of the Soviet Union and then later on, an invasion of the now unrecognized successor state-ification of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. In their attack on the Soviet NKAO and later the statified, independent NKAO Azerbaijan then lost, to the degree that parts that are de jure part of Azerbaijan were occupied the Karabakh Armenians. These parts were indeed retaken by Azerbaijan, but parts of the NKAO were also taken, and Azerbaijan's claim to these is invalid.
Furthermore, with regard to the Wikipedia article you link, it contains the line:
en "a large column of residents, accompanied by a few dozen retreating fighters, fled the city as it fell to Armenian forces. It is reported that as they approached the border with Azerbaijan, they came across an Armenian military post and were cruelly fired upon".
Such an attack, as described-- i.e. firing on a mixed column advancing on an outpost is permissible according to the laws of war. Thus the so-called Khojaly Massacre, while regrettable, was perfectly legal. This is presumably why Azerbaijan has not pursued the Khojaly Massacre as a war crime in international courts, despite its important role in its internal historiography. Indeed,
If it were only the burden of acknowledging the past, I might disagree with you. The survivors are long gone, and while their descendants deserve closure, and some compensation, I wouldn't hold the whole nation hostage to this debt.
Turkey continues to treat the Kurds awfully, and in recent times. Allowing Turkey into the EU without this ending completely would be an insult to the ideals of that organization.
Readit News
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/12/us/insurer-to-pay-armenia...
The Armenians were part of the Ottoman society and their contributions were invaluable.
Today in Turkey, you can still see their legacy all over the place. The best neighbourhoods to live in Istanbul are those who used to have a large Armenian population. Neighbourhoods with concentration of cultural heritage that is still alive often have an Armenian church somewhere. A civilian building with a great architecture? It was probably built by Armenians or Greeks who were uprooted during the collapse of the Ottoman empire. You can see the pattern al over Istanbul and Turkey. When you visit Turkey, pay attention of the writings on old and beautiful apartments or houses and more often than not you will see that those writings are not in Turkish or Arabic but Armenian, Greek or Hebrew. In the context of the Ottoman Empire, Turks were the warriors and the rulers and the local minorities were the artisans, the scientists, businesspeople.
If Turkey managed to preserve its Armenian or Greek minorities, the country would have been much much nicer and sane place. I hope that one day the country will make peace with its past and have its minorities back again.
Objection to an ethnicity. Key indicator of genocide for any action taken based on such an objection.
>on three distinct grounds. In the first place, they have enriched themselves at the expense of the Turks. In the second place, they are determined to domineer over us and to establish a separate state. In the third place, they have openly encouraged our enemies. They have assisted the Russians in the Caucasus, and our failure there is largely explained by their actions.
Reads almost verbatim just like Nazi Germany on Jews back then or Nazi Russia on Ukrainians today.
> We have therefore come to the irrevocable decision that we shall make them powerless before this war is ended.”
Again very similar to the perception of themselves as the master race (Nazi Germany) or the master nation (Nazi Russia) and thus perceiving themselves as having the right to act in such a way.
Also very similar is the use of the phrase "the <ethnicity> subject|question|issue" to plant the seed in the mind of the listener that there is indeed a problem that needs to be "solved".
Informally that specific flavor of the Russian Nazi ideology is called "rashism".
Decades of futile attempts to retake Balkans after Greek revolt lit the fire in Europe, and caused a chain reaction of support for Ottoman dismantlement.
For Russia to survive as a state in coming decades, it will not need a "Russian Washington," but rather somebody more like a Russian Ataturk.
Be honest, you came here just to write this.
First of all I am very impressed about how modern the ambassador is for 192X. He is Liberal exactly like someone from USA would be today.
Now! Liberalism is not a idea that is easily accessible back then. Let alone find a any group of people that will backup you in this way. Even in current Turkey's politics: only 2-3 parties are viable in election and they are all about deciding whether country should go Muslim-National (Auth-Right but Muslim Traders Only) or National-National (Auth-Left)
Considering that Ottoman Empire was multi-cultural gaint and considering that literacy of people of Ottoman Empire were about low as %10. People from same culture/race/religion lived near together and even tho there have been problems here and there, they were probably doing fine like humanity of today.
But when once-in-a-life-time event occurs and you find yourself survived a war but your old government is colepsed; and the New authority (politicly) doesn't look anything different from a group of revolters/rioters from at your standpoint. Who can you trust in the middle of all this chaos other than people of your race/culture/religion.
Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Muslims Cults/Sheiks, Old Ottoman Government's supporters, all rioted and tried to overthrown the new authority of TBMM (team Ataturk/Republic) within very near time spans.
At that point it must have been normal to react to these 'issues' with this much aggression.
Calling it 'Ptsd of an authority' would sum it maybe.
Still the whole event is presumably a overkill/genocide when we take a look at from the current perspective.
Your timeline is off, The new parliament (TBMM) was established in 1920 and new republic in 1923. The events described in the article happened in 1915. Ambassador's letter was written in 1916.
Deleted Comment
Not really, all empires were multicultural, e.g. russia, but while the Bolsheviks went to war, they did not genocide them. The modern state of turkey otoh is the result of 3-5 genocides, not one. Britain did not go on to genocide indians because it wanted their land
From 1915 to 1945, probably over one million Russian Germans perished from unnatural causes under three successive Russian governments—those of Tsar Nicholas II, Lenin, and Stalin—chiefly by means of mass executions, forced labor, deliberate starvation, and brutal deportations.
The Holodomor in the Ukraine took place in the 1930.
In addition there was large scale deportation of ethnic groups, which effectively also amounted to genocide due to harsh living conditions forced on the deported.
A similar case could be made against Britain, with the difference that they were (mostly) done with genociding by 1930.
Also the population exchanges, by 1923 over 10% of the Turkish population was Christian and most of them moved to Greece.
And if we’re talking about the USSR, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD seems awfully close to genocide
“In Leningrad, the NKVD reviewed local telephone books and arrested almost 7,000 citizens with Polish-sounding name with the vast majority of such nominal "suspects" were executed within 10 days of arrest”
Right. I wonder, precisely how bias is this great ambassador against the Turks?
Do you know what the truth behind it all is? Nations are violent. They tend to overreact in terrible murderous ways. What’s worse, their will always be enough support in the hardliners in their population. Look at world history: the Americans committed genocide against the Natives with the support of the majority (heck more than half today pretend like nothing wrong happened). The British and French and Japanese committed genocide (all over the world) with the support of a population pretending like they are spreading civilization. The British were literally smuggling opium into China despite a ban by the Chinese. The Germans murdered millions in an attempt to ethnically cleanse with the support of their people. The Israelis are currently ethnically cleansing Palestine — and it is the Israeli people themselves who are doing this.
States are violent. Savage. Terrible in their overreactions and they tend to overreact. If the Armenians did indeed sabotage the Turks during the war with Russia then they should have fled or taken up arms right against the Turks when their sabotage failed to lead to a complete defeat of the Turks. In any country west or east — rebelling against the government and aiding foreign adversaries is going to lead to violence and that violence is going to be supported by the people.
Terrible world we live in where those that rise to power are savage in their pursuit of increasing/maintaining power.
You speak as if nations are some monolithic hive minds with a single will.. the reality is that most people who were murdered weren’t active combatants or were not even related to active combatants. Also many other Christian people were targeted like the Assyrians, Coptic Greeks etc..
But the reality is: every community has leaders — business and political and intellectual — and sometimes those leaders pick sides and whether we like it or not their people will be judged.
> “Yes, we may make mistakes,” he replied, “but”—and he firmly closed his lips and shook his head—“we never regret.”
And they never did. They don’t even acknowledge it. Interesting to contrast the response of the German state to its genocide and that of Turkey’s.
> We base our objections to the Armenians on three distinct grounds. In the first place, they have enriched themselves at the expense of the Turks.
Similar reasoning and calls for genocide are routine by the ideologues in power in Tamil Nadu, India: https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/national/south/dmk-spokespe... Thankfully no large scale violence so far though, they have just stuck to the rhetoric.
This is exactly how it looked in Rwanda and other places before some spark lit large-scale violence.
Definitely possible I'm missing something, and it's a touchy subject, but one I'm increasingly interested in these times. So feel free to correct if I'm wrong, or just chime in.
Along side this, there’s actual physical violence between other caste groups. The ones targeting Brahmins is interesting because of the language used (example above) and how normative it has become (Tamil mainstream media will not call it out, pop culture acceptance and tropes), their complete lack of political power in the state and the absence of much physical violence. There’s some very fascinating history behind this. In case you are interested in how the current moment came about, two books:
1. The Emergence of Provincial Politics, DA Washbrook - https://www.amazon.com/Emergence-Provincial-Politics-Preside...
2. The politics of south India, CJ Baker - https://www.amazon.com/Politics-South-1920-1937-Cambridge-St...
Caste, class, and ethnicity, are not tightly-defined concepts (with the exception of caste in India, I'm referring to extensions of the idea outside of its origin), the genocide of the Tutsi has aspects of all three.
That is not true, in 2020 Azerbaijan successfully liberated a region that was under Armenian occupation since 1994. I say liberated because that land was and is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Also, Azerbaijan suffered atrocities conducted by the Armenians, for example the Khojaly massacre[0]. Yes Turkey helped Azerbaijan, Russia helped Armenia. It was the first showcase of the Turkish drone technology in a war between regular armies but the Turkish help was not only in providing weapons, it was much deeper.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khojaly_massacre
When it comes to the Kurds, IMHO the Turks deserve most of the blame for the feud BUT what Turkey demands has nothing to do with Kurds but with internationally recognized terrorist organisations that operate in Turkey.
Think of it like this, if you are sympathetic of the people of Iraq for the horrible things that the USA did there would you also support ISIS? If your answer is NO then you don't have a case for supporting PKK against Turkey because PKK is a terrorist organisation that blows up public buses or kills teachers. If you are not familiar with their activities, there's ample amount of information online.
What I’ve been hearing from my well-educated colleagues from February was “No matter the reason, I’m against war, war is always bad, mmmkay?” But they turned a blind eye when it came to Artsakh.
Anyway, no matter the reason, people were dying where they haven’t been for a long time(at least not in high numbers). Would you say national pride justifies the means?
What you just said does not dispute the fact that turkey led the campaign against Armenia alongside Azerbaijan
You are giving context, which I guess is welcome, but that's not a refutation, because a refutation is not possible given that indeed Turkey fought against Armenia alongside Azerbaijan
The PKK aren't great (as a Kurd, I hate them), but to compare them to ISIS is just the Turkish narrative. It can be argued that Turkey as a state is way worse than the PKK. But of course, international politics always sides with governments.
I assume you mean those same teachers that were telling Kurdish kids: "Kurdish is bad", "Do not speak Kurdish", "Ne mutlu Türküm diyene!" (English: "How happy is the one who says I am a Turk!"). (PS. I still think it is wrong to kill teachers, no matter how hateful and racist they may be).
The PKK exists because of Turkish actions against the Kurds. Period.
Turks would say: "Nah, that was in the past, we love Kurds, I have Kurdish friends", but it is mostly lies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhXCNuXiJZU (some Turks might do of course, but in general, Turks hate Kurds)
Don't get me wrong. A Kurd can be happy in Turkey. If he basically acts Turkish, lets go of his Kurdish culture and customs, and loves Ataturk (who forced Turkish surnames on all citizens of the "modern Turkey" and changed the names of thousands of Kurdish towns and villages from Kurdish to Turkish).
There are many Kurds in Turkey that are happy. However, these don't speak Kurdish. They speak Turkish in the family, they speak Turkish with their kids. To other Kurds, they are basically Turk.
In my opinion, one reason Turkey is invading North Syria (the Kurdish region - aka Rojava) is because the Kurds in North Syria are Kurmancî speakers. This is the same dialect of Kurdish that is spoken by the Kurds in Turkey.
Kurds in North Syria speak Kurdish at home, they watch Kurdish TV, they go about their daily lives in Kurdish. They watch Kurdish plays and listen to Kurdish music and since The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) has been a thing, the Kurds in Syria are studying Kurdish from year one all the way to college. This revival in Kurdish literature is really scary to Turkey because it lights a fire in the Kurmancî speakers in its territory. It shows the Kurds in Turkey that being a Kurd isn't bad, it shows them that Kurds are a people with a rich culture and it is a shame to let that go.
Turks would argue that no, we invade the Kurdish regions in Syria (see Efrîn/Afrin) because the people of The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) are the other side of the coin of PKK. Personally, I think that is bullshit. Turkey moved 1000s of ISIS members through its borders and helped them attack the Kurds when the Kurds were fighting ISIS.
Plus, now that Turkey is in control of Efrîn/Afrin, 1000s of Kurds were forced to flee, their homes and belongings have been given to former ISIS members (they no longer call themselves ISIS of course: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/how-...). Efrîn/Afrin is/was a Kurdish majority region (https://www.ceasefire.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/CFR_Syr...), yet the new schools that are opened by Turkey in Efrîn/Afrin don't teach Kurdish. Only Arabic and Turkish.
Basically, Turkey has and is making a demographic change in Efrîn/Afrin, they are driving Kurds away and putting Arabs there. Then they'll say "come and look, there are hardly any Kurds here". They now want to do the same to the rest of North Syria.
Nothing scares Turkey more than Kurdish nationalism, which only gets stronger by Turkish aggression. You'd think they'd learn this by now, but no.
If in Turkey, Kurds are allowed to study from nursery to university in Kurdish, and if they truly get considered as Kurdish citizens of Turkey with no racism or oppression, then Kurdish national sentiment would die out.
What was held by the Karabakh Armenians until last year was a region consisting of two parts. The former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and a region which is de jure part of Azerbaijan.
While the remainder of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast is indeed internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, it is not in fact part of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan seceded from the Soviet Union in accordance with the Soviet secession law. This law can be found on the homepage of Michigan State University, here:https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/shevarnadze-resigns/she...
The law is from April 3, 1990 and the relevant part is article 3 which reads as follows:
``Article 3. In a Union republic which includes within its structure autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, or autonomous okrugs, the referendum is held separately for each autonomous formation. The people of autonomous republics and autonomous formations retain the right to decide independently the question of remaining within the USSR or within the seceding Union republic, and also to raise the question of their own state-legal status.´´
That is, for the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast to secede with Azerbaijan there'd have to be a vote in the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and the 'join the Azerbaijani SSR in seceding' option would have to win. Otherwise the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast would remain in the Soviet Union, or raise the question of its own secession.
The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast became independent only with the final dissolution of the USSR. Azerbaijan's invasion of the NKAO was at first the invasion of the Soviet Union and then later on, an invasion of the now unrecognized successor state-ification of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. In their attack on the Soviet NKAO and later the statified, independent NKAO Azerbaijan then lost, to the degree that parts that are de jure part of Azerbaijan were occupied the Karabakh Armenians. These parts were indeed retaken by Azerbaijan, but parts of the NKAO were also taken, and Azerbaijan's claim to these is invalid.
Furthermore, with regard to the Wikipedia article you link, it contains the line:
en "a large column of residents, accompanied by a few dozen retreating fighters, fled the city as it fell to Armenian forces. It is reported that as they approached the border with Azerbaijan, they came across an Armenian military post and were cruelly fired upon".
Such an attack, as described-- i.e. firing on a mixed column advancing on an outpost is permissible according to the laws of war. Thus the so-called Khojaly Massacre, while regrettable, was perfectly legal. This is presumably why Azerbaijan has not pursued the Khojaly Massacre as a war crime in international courts, despite its important role in its internal historiography. Indeed,
Turkey continues to treat the Kurds awfully, and in recent times. Allowing Turkey into the EU without this ending completely would be an insult to the ideals of that organization.
Care to elaborate?