ANCA Challenges Genocide Denial at ‘Institute of Turkish Studies’ Event

WASHINGTON—Institute of Turkish Studies (ITS) Treasurer Edward Erickson responded angrily on Feb. 5 to Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) questions about his position on the Armenian Genocide and his organization’s ties to the Turkish government, threatening to have ANCA Government Affairs Director Kate Nahapetian removed from his lecture at Georgetown University.

ANCA Government Affairs Director Kate Nahapetian challenges ITS Treasurer Dr. Edward Erickson on ITS ties to the Turkish government at his Feb. 5 lecture at Georgetown University.
ANCA Government Affairs Director Kate Nahapetian challenges ITS Treasurer Dr. Edward Erickson on ITS ties to the Turkish government at his Feb. 5 lecture at Georgetown University.

“Can we get her out of here?” was Dr. Erickson’s response to Nahapetian’s inquiry about whether he believed the murder of 1.5 million Armenians constituted genocide. “This is not Turkey,” retorted Nahapetian, noting that those holding positions not shared by the lecturer cannot simply be silenced in the U.S.

The ITS had arranged for Erickson to lecture at the Georgetown University Center for Contemporary Arab Studies Boardroom on his latest book. Referencing Erickson’s opening assertion that history has an agenda, that “resources drive policy” and “resources determine policy,” ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian asked Erickson to clarify the Institute of Turkish Studies’ ties to the Turkish government and its policy of genocide denial. Dr. Erickson acknowledged that the ITS was founded by a grant by the Turkish government, but claimed that “the ITS has no strings attached, is not a puppet or an organ of the Turkish government. It operates as a separate entity. It makes its own decisions and its agenda has nothing to do with anything Armenian or the denial of the genocide.”

Nahapetian challenged that assertion, reminding Erickson and attendees that former ITS Chairman Donald Quataert felt compelled to relinquish his position with the organization following a meeting with then-Turkish Ambassador to the U.S. Nabi Sensoy, precipitated by an article Quataert had written acknowledging the genocide.

In a 2008 “Inside Higher Ed” article, Quataert told reporter Scott Jaschik that the ambassador “made it clear that if I did not separate myself as chairman of the board, that funding for the institute would be withdrawn by the Turkish government and the institute would be destroyed.” Jaschik’s complete article on the topic, titled “Is Turkey Muzzling U.S. Scholars?”, is available here.

ITS’s ties with the Turkish government were explored extensively in the spring 1995 “Holocaust and Genocide Studies” Journal article titled, “Professional Ethics and the Denial of Armenian Genocide,” by Dr. Roger W. Smith, Dr. Eric Markusen, and Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, the full text of which is available here.

Voice of America reporter Arsen Kharatyan and other attendees, including Lee Jundanian and Dikran Dourian, asked other questions and expressed their concerns about Erickson’s flawed scholarship and his ties to Turkey’s international campaign of genocide denial. In what was perhaps the most puzzling moment of the talk, when questioned a second time on his position regarding the Armenian Genocide, this time by Kharatyan, Erickson replied, “There are days I wake up and I think, ‘It’s probably genocide.’ There are days I wake up and I think ‘probably not.'”

Following the lecture, Hamparian commented, “We saw today yet another angry attempt by an Ankara-funded organization, this time the Institute of Turkish Studies, to enforce—right here in America—Turkey’s shameful gag-rule on the Armenian Genocide.”

Guest Contributor

Guest Contributor

Guest contributions to the Armenian Weekly are informative articles or press releases written and submitted by members of the community.

50 Comments

  1. What a puppet! “Sometimes he wake ups and thinks it’s is a genocide and sometimes he doesn’t?
    I say, WAKE UP! That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard!

  2. Dear Erickson-bey,

    We here at ITS were initially thrilled that a real “American American” looking guy with a Marine Corps background was willing to lend his name to our little area of, uh “scholarship” if you know what I mean, and I think you do. I mean hey! we love that Semper Fi stuff, especially if you will semper be fidelis to dear old Turkey.

    I mean, before you we had to rely for real Americans on Sam Weems [no matter how many times we call him “Judge” he still came off as Bill Clinton’s drunk pimp daddy], and Mean Jeanne Schmidt, with help from Gephardt [“Genocide, Shmenocide, – The Gephardts want to expand the deck on their wine country home”] and Denny Hastert, who seems to be in training for a hot dog eating and Lira-pocket stuffing competition.

    Let me tell you – before you we had to refer people to Ergun Kirlikovali, who looks like Tim Conway and sounds like Minnie Mouse channeling Count Chocula. We even tried to convince Native Americans and Mexicans they were Turks, but all that did was give the Armenians, Greeks and Kurds laughing fits.

    So you were our golden boy – as we say in Turkish – “bizim abtal Americalilar”

    Until last week. First, you insult the ANCA woman on camera, and thereby help them raise money. Never do anything on camera – got it? Threaten them all you like – it’s a fine Turkish tradition – but do it secretly, one on one, no cameras, please. Kill them for all we care, that too is a very fine old Turkish tradition, but make it look like you know nothing about it – hey! we’ve been saying since 1915 the Kurds and other Armenians killed themselves. Some morons in Congress even say that today for us.

    In a serious breach of our understanding, you at the ITS Conference said that some mornings you wake up and think it was genocide. Look, Erickson, when we put you on ITS, we did not expect you to play the good cop that strong. You’re going down Don Quataert’s path, and Ankara no likee.

    So, if you want that nice timeshare on the Bosphorus as we discussed, stfu about your morning thoughts. Remember what we discussed- there was no Genocide, there was only an unfortunate camping problem in 1915 with our roads and Kurdish Hells Angels members, and Armenians never lived in our lands, they come from Iran. We can all agree we hate Iranians. You’re still sure you hate Iranians, are should we start looking elsewhere for an American?

  3. Kudos to Kate for not only not backing down when the Turkophile shill threatened her, but going on the offensive.
    She is one tough cookie with a razor-sharp mind.

    Kate elegantly trapped the denialist in his own web of intellectual illogic: the pathetic denialist sore-loser got himself all tangled up, and in utter desperation trying to stop his own meltdown and his public humiliation – reverted to the typical nomadic behaviour of resorting to force and violence.

    It must have hurt like the Dickens for the senile Ph.D. suffering from advanced Denialitis to get totally owned by this young woman.
    An Armenian-American woman at that: his Turk paymasters must be having a seizure by now.

  4. well turkey is still coming back and wasting money on trying to deny the ARMENIAN GENOCIDE, MR. ERICKSON THOUGHT HE COULD GIVE HIS LECTURE WITHOUT BEING CHALLENGED ABOUT HIS OBVIOUS DENIALIST ATTITUDE, , NO ONE BELIEVES THAT A SO CALLED INTELLECTUAL HAS NOT SOLD HIS HONOR TO TURKISH LIRAS.SO CALLED SCHOLARS SHOULD ALWAYS KNOW THAT ARMENIANS AND DECENT HUMAN BEINGS WILL ALWAYS CHALLENGE THE LIARS THAT WOULD ATTEMPT TO DENY FACT OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE.THE MR ERIKSONS WILL NOT ONLY FACE THE BRAVE CHALLENGE OF WONDERFUL KATE, BUT ALSO THE MILLIONS OF ARMENIANS WHICH THEIR INNOCENT ANCESTORS WERE BRUTALLY AND SAVAGELY MURDERED. WE WILL NEVER FORGOT THE INNOCENT BLOOD OF OUR MARTYRS

  5. It’s a shame that Dr. Edward Erikson has been used by the ITS in spreading false Turkish propaganda against the well documented Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923 whereby up to 2 million Armenians were massacred in that 1st Genocide and another one million were either forced to become moslems or fled to other lands. The world well knows how the Seljuk Turks, the Mongol Turks,& the Ottoman Turks devastated not only Asia Minor, but also European Nations as well as in the Middle East & Northern Africa. All these are well recorded, not only by Amb. Henry Morgenthau, but by numerous Missionaires, as well as Turkeys ally during WWI. We thank the ANCA for standing up to the false propaganda that the Turks have fed to Dr. Erikson. We believe he is well paid by the Turkish Government on these false accusations.

    • No such thing as Mongol Turks. Armenian Genocide was not the first genocide of the 20th century. Its a shame you don’t use facts.

    • I condemn these idiotic attacks on Turks for several reasons. First, they are irrelevant. Germans were also once our enemies, yet we do not focus on their barbarian beginnings. Our problems exist today, and are not with the original Turkic speakers. Second, these derisive terms understate the ability of our enemies. Third, they mean nothing. Turks are a language group with a ridiculous national mythology. Their nationalists use the same imagery of barbaric horsemen, just as Hitler loved images of barbarity.

      And leave RGDV alone. He affirms the AG, and thinks for himself.

  6. RVDV, fake scholar “foulmouthed” Mr. Erickson has been fed enough with Turkish delights, that his brain stop functioning properly…AG stated from the day, when “Mongol Turks” from Central Asian steps put their unholy foot toward Armenian Highlands until 1923, so consider AG, for as long as few centuries long.. and when Ossmani Khalifat collapsed, Europeans, especially creative Italians, gave new title to inhabitants of Ottomans, as Turks. Unmarried Ataturk accepted this honor and call himself the father of Mongol Turks!!

  7. GB: The first time the word “Turk” appears in literature is the 6th century, in a Chinese text. They were referencing the Gokturks- “the celestial Turks”. The Gokturk Empire was actually bigger than the Ottoman Empire ever was. The Ottoman Empire collapsing had nothing to do with the term “Turk” being created. Are you sure you’re not secretly a Turkish nationalist? You seem to share their disregard for factual evidence. Also, what’s wrong with Ataturk being unmarried for much of his life? People on these pages have called him a crypto-Jew, an alcoholic, and gay. What’s wrong with being Jewish? Why look down upon someone for having an alcohol problem? We all have our demons. What’s wrong with being gay? Who are you or me to judge them? What joy do you get from making snide jibes at Ataturk?

    Voskanapat: Do you know the difference between “Turk” and “Turkic”? Turk = Turkic. Turkic DOES NOT = Turk. There are between 150-200 million Turkic peoples. There are 60 million or so Turks. What accounts for the other 90+ million? Other. Turkic. Peoples. You have to be an idiot to think the Dukha in Mongolia are Turks. And given your track record on these pages, I’m not surprised that you DO think they are Turks. Just to clarify on your Turkish source- There is no word for “Turkic” in Turkish. Turk and Turkic have the same name= Turk. When Turks write in English this idea of one word for two different things transfers over.

  8. RVDV,
    You are off the topics again, as usual. Those forcefully Turkified and Islamized Christians of Eastern Roman Empire, Armenians, Greeks, Serbians, Arabs, Kurds, Persians….. are not part of vicious Seljuk Mongolian Turks or Alp Arslan race… even Persians history books call them vicious barbarian animals, uncivilized nomadic people…My question is this, “why you people proudly call your forcefully brainwashed people of Turkey as turks?”

    • I am curious. What about the Seljuks made them so vicious and barbaric? They committed no genocide. Let me repeat that. They committed no genocide. The genocide did not start “with the arrival of the Seljuks till 1923”. The Armenian genocide was a horrible, horrible thing. The darkest chapter in Ottoman history, Turkish history, and a stain on humanity as a whole. A stain that grows and deepens every day the Turkish government denies it. A stain so deep no amount of apology and reparation can remove it. It will always be there. Just beneath the surface. You don’t need to try and sensationalize it , it’s already about as bad as it can get.

      “My question is this, “why you people proudly call your forcefully brainwashed people of Turkey as turks?””

      Because that’s what we are. Turks. Not ashamed of it, never have been, never will be. There is no contradiction to what I have just said above. The Armenian genocide does not define us as a people. Denial of the Armenian genocide does. I can’t speak for other Turks or change their minds, all I can do is refuse to be part of the system of lies and deceit.

      So there go you, off topic once more. I just saw no point in debating history when you clearly put no emphasis on facts.

  9. RVDV,
    You said,

    “Because that’s what we are. Turks.”

    So finally you accept That Turkish people are forcefully brain washed fake nation.

    This is what I want to hear from a liberal Turk like you!

  10. RVDV,
    You’re accusing the others of not using facts, but yet, it is you who’s the one not using facts. Who are you trying to fool by suggesting that the Armenian Genocide was not the first genocide of the 20th century? All of the world genocide scholars know for a fact that the Armenian Genocide was indeed the very first genocide of the 20th century. Even Taner Akcam, who happens to be one of the few “honest” and knowledgeable Turk historians, knows that the Armenian Genocide happened to be the first genocide of the 20th century.

    In terms of the Seljuks, nobody said they committed genocide. However, they still constituted the meaning of being “barbaric”. The extremely savage manner of the Seljuk Turks’ arrival in Anatolia in 1064, was totally unwelcome. They burned villages, looted people’s homes, raped young girls, and committed murder whenever they felt like it. Don’t even try to downplay the extreme barbarism of the Seljuk Turks. They are the ones, who began the formation of Turkey’s barbaric terrorist legacy.

    • The first genocide of the 20th century was the genocide of the Herero and Nama in German SW Africa. It began in 1904.

  11. Although it is true that the Herero and Nana atrocities took place before the Armenian Genocide, it’s still disputed as to whether the numbers killed (24,000-100,000 Herero),(10,000 Nama), constituted a genocide or a massacre. On Wikipedia, it’s considered a genocide, so over there, it’s therefore classified as the first genocide of the 20th century. However, many other sources classify the Armenian Genocide, as being the first genocide of the 20th century, such as this one, http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/armenians.htm

    Anyway, what’s of greater importance than all this, is the fact that the Armenian Genocide happens to be the “first modern genocide”, as described on the back cover of Peter Balakian’s New York Times bestseller book, The Burning Tigris.

  12. (In 2000, 100 leading Holocaust scholars signed a petition in The New York Times affirming the events of 1915 were genocide and urging worldwide recognition. An Open Letter from the IAGS to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, in June, 2005, enjoined the Turkish government to own up to “the unambiguous historical record on the Armenian genocide.” The only three histories of genocide in the 20th century that genocide-studies theorists (such as William Schabas) agree on are the cases of the Armenians in Turkey, in 1915; the Jews in Europe, in 1940–45; and the Tutsis in Rwanda, in 1994. The destruction of the Armenians was central to Raphael Lemkin’s creation of the concept of genocide as a crime in international law, and it was Lemkin who coined and first used the term Armenian Genocide in 1944.) “Herero and Nama Rebellions” 1904-1907 where around 60,000 people were sadly killed cannot be compared with the Armenian Genocide. Before and after the 20th century well over 2 million Armenians were murdered by the Tur-kill/Turkish government whom still in denial and criminally is occupying Western Armenia.

    • Don’t downplay one groups suffering because it causes you to not be able to claim the “first genocide of the 20th century.” Also, who is to say there were no genocides prior to the 20th century? The “first genocide of the 20th century” thing is just a tool to get attention to the Armenian genocide cause. Which I would be fine with, but 1904 is earlier than 1915. Of course you could argue the Armenian genocide began in 1894, but 1915 is the conventional date.

      “The Herero nation must now leave the country. If it refuses, I shall compel it to do so with the ‘long tube’ (cannon). Any Herero found inside the German frontier, with or without a gun or cattle, will be executed. I shall spare neither women nor children. I shall give the order to drive them away and fire on them. Such are my words to the Herero people”

      General von Trotha’s orders to the military.

      UN Whitaker report in 1985 called it a genocide, the German government recognized it in 2004- and pay 14 million in reparations a year.

      The Nazis looked the Herero and Nama case when setting up their death camps.

      Yes, 1.5 million (or 2, or “more than 2” as you claim- just making up numbers now? is it going to be 4 million next week?) is greater than 60 thousand, but 6 million (11 million total for Holocaust) is greater than 1.5 million. Does this give me a reason to shrug off the Armenian genocide because the Holocaust had a heavier death toll? No. Why? Because what’s important is the percentage of the population that perished. 50-75% of the Herero population died, depending on which number you take to be the real death toll.

      As far as the 3 cases: yes, for the most part, those are the only 3 that are more or less universally agreed upon by genocide scholars. Some scholars have stricter definitions of genocide so as to not overuse the word, others are more inclusive. So…. first major genocide of the 20th century? Again, it’s a meaningless phrase considering pre-20th century genocidal violence.

  13. Something which makes absolutely no sense, is the fact that the 1894-1896 Hamidian Massacres, in which two hundred thousand Armenians were murdered, has never been classified as a genocide. So, in that case, there’s no possible way that the Herero and Nama atrocities (24,000-100,000 Herero murders),(10,000 Nama murders) can be classified as a genocide. This therefore means that the first genocide of the 20th century was the 1915-1922 Armenian Genocide.

  14. RVDV,
    Who ever said there were no genocides prior to the 20th century? There certainly were genocides prior to the 20th century, such as the genocide committed against the original Americans (Native American Indians) by the United States government.

    That UN Whitaker report, labeling the Herero-Nama atrocities as a genocide, represents nothing. Have you already forgotten that this very same UN organization has failed this whole entire time to recognize the Armenian Genocide, which is so enormously greater in significance than the Herero-Nama atrocities. Truthfully speaking, the United Nations is a crooked organization dominated by the deceitful and hypocritical superpower countries.

    Apart from Wikipedia, which considers the Herero-Nama atrocities to be the first genocide of the 20th century, there are so many sources out there, which classify the Armenian Genocide as being the first genocide of the 20th century. As I mentioned earlier, the Herero-Nama atrocities (24,000-100,000 Hereros murdered),(10,000 Namas murdered), cannot possibly be classified as a genocide if the 1894-1896 Hamidian massacres, in which two hundred thousand Armenians were murdered, is not classified as a genocide.

  15. First, I have not denied nor downplayed the suffering of any people in respect to claim the “1st Genocide of the 20th century”; As an Armenian I know better. Your interpretation is fallacious. Secondly,I clearly stated that “Before and after the 20th century well over 2 Million Armenians were murdered by the Tur-kill/Turkish government…” Your misinterpretation is apathetic and appalling. Thirdly, About the Armenian Genocide, 100 leading honorable Holocaust scholars affirming the events of 1915, The First Genocide of the 20th Century. Finally, I agree that violence at any century no matter how big or small is detrimental to humanity.

    • Zaven,

      I side with RVDV here. Oppression, theft, rape, murder and exile happened to our peoples, and our Brothers and Sisters in Africa.

      They died just as our ancestors did. Their lands were as precious to them as ours are to us. There is no meaningful rank ordering of Genocide. Ours may have been on a larger scale, but that is merely because there were more Armenians than Herero people. In both cases, governments decreed the total annihilation of a people and their culture.

      I suppose one of the benefits of Genocide is that it brings us closer to universal sympathy for all defenseless civilians, not just Armenians. I sympathize today for Muslim civilians murdered and exiled from Central Africa, and so should we all.

    • Sorry Zave but calling the Herero genocide a rebellion, then insisting on calling the Armenian genocide the first genocide of the 20th century despite the fact that the Herero genocide was first is downplaying the suffering of the Herero and Nana people. Its outright denial. Wouldn’t you call a Turk that says “I don’t deny the killings, I just don’t think the events of 1915 constituted genocide” a denialist?

      There are Jewish scholars who put forth the “uniqueness” of the Holocaust, saying no genocide can compare to it. You sound like them.

      Selective justice is not justice.

  16. I have written three posts for this particular article over the last week, which were never put up by the administration. There were no insults directed at any particular poster, nor use of vulgar language in any of those three posts. I somehow get the impression that the administration on this site happens to be rather biased in the posters they allow and don’t allow to post. As a matter of fact, in one of the comments posted for this very same article, one of the posters, RVDV, referred to another poster as being an idiot, but yet, this particular comment happened to be posted. How’s that possible? Isn’t that the definition of insulting another poster? Could it possibly be that poster, RVDV, might actually be a member of the administration? Anyway, there is something very wrong with the Armenian Weekly administration’s policy in regard to the comments they allow and don’t allow. I’m sure this particular post of mine, will not be posted.

  17. {“Could it possibly be that poster, RVDV, might actually be a member of the administration?”}

    Yerevanian:

    RVDV has been fair and balanced overall when it comes to AG and AG related issues.
    But he is unabashedly and openly pro-Turkish, pro-Turk (his chosen ethnos), and his country of birth, Turkey: why would AW employ an openly pro-Turkish individual ? For what purpose ? All they have to do is open the floodgates and dozens of Turk , Turkish, and Turkbaijani posters would fill the comment pages with pro-Turkic propaganda every day. (many Turk posters complain that their comments are being ‘censored’, as if AW owes them anything)

    As to the comments:

    ArmenianWeekly is a private enterprise: they are not obligated to post _any_ of my, your, or anybody else’s comments.
    Whatever gets published is a bonus.
    AW is providing a widely read forum for random people to freely publicize their viewpoints: why complain ?
    I have seen quite a number of your published comments, some pretty long (like most of mine). Glad you started posting: have learned some new things from your comments.
    And most of my comments get posted by AW, but lots don’t.

    You got to give AW people a break.
    They are not robots: sometimes people get tired; maybe moderator had a bad day, or didn’t feel like reading through yet another comment from the same person on the same subject and chose to discard it.
    It’s 100% their call.
    They are undoubtedly understaffed and overworked.
    They don’t have dozens and dozens of employees doing nothing but sit all day and sift through comments that come in.
    I imagine people working @AW have to wear many hats: do whatever you have to do to keep the operation going regardless of title.

    They have a very small staff.
    Here is the list:
    http://armenianweekly.com/staff/

    I personally know some people who run their own private blogs: it takes a tremendous amount of effort to do the background research and preparation for the articles they publish. And those blogs are nothing compared to AW. So when you read AW, imagine the amount of work they put in to find/generate content, present it in a readable manner, make things interesting, etc.
    Their tiny staff has to do that, and also moderate the flood of comments that come in every day from all over the world.

    For the record: I don’t work for AW, and don’t know the people working there.
    I have seen Editor Mouradian at several community events when he travels to California to make presentations, but have never spoken to him.

    • I thought that RVDV confessed to us that his country of birth is Georgia. RVDV, please correct me if I’m wrong.

      As far as I remember, islamized Georgians headed by PM Erdoganishvilli are at the forefront of the Turkish anti-Armenian campaign.

      By the way, it’s useless to try to prove anything to these Erdoganoids about the genocides and I was hoping that people wouldn’t bate that cheap trick he pulled with “the first genocide of the 20th century.”

      We are talking to people who look straight in the eye of the International community and say that AG could not be classified as genocide because Rafael Lemkin has not invented that word until 1940s. Than they turn around and say that there was a genocide in Africa in 1908. And, mind you, according to Batono Erdoganidze, deaths of 2 Uyghur men in China in 2009 who were killed by Chinese co-workers after being accused of participating in a gang rape of 2 Chinese women was a genocide!

  18. Some of my posts went unpublished this week too. I made some frank discussions regarding “the first genocide” in Africa and the so-called “uniqueness” of the holocaust and how politics is more important to certain “scholars” than the crime, etc. I guess they considered it too “radical” or did not want to attract attention. Avery is right that it is the AWs right to publish whatever they want, however, it is discouraging when they act, or try to act, like other media outlets in the USA and carefully avoid certain posts, but then again I guess they have their reasons.

  19. First (real) genocide was that of Circassions in the middle of 19th century. Their last stand against the brutal invasion by the Czar’s troops was where we now call Sochi. Over 1.5M were slaughtered in a decade or so and that many were forced to escape into Ottman Turkey and beyond. Russian records are pretty extensive and clear and the whole bloody affair is well documented. Even Tolstoy, who witnessed the genocide as a young officer wrote about it in disgust. Olympic skiers, including Turkish ones are literally carving snow over mass graves today. You will not hear about it too much, after all they were not a Christian nation.

    • The Circassian Genocide was not the first “real” genocide. There have been other genocides before and since which includes genocides of Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontic Greeks in Asia Minor. What befell the Circassians was genocide but it’s a shame that many Circassians and other mujahirs from the Balkans chose the enact their revenge on the native Christian population. If you want to make this a Christian versus Muslim struggle, we can discuss what happened to the Jewish, Christian and animist population with the rise of Mohammed.

    • Actually, No.

      The first, very first (real, real) Genocide was when your Seljuk Turk ancestors left their homelands in and around Uyguristan and murdered their way, all the way, to the gates of Vienna.
      That started about 1000 years ago.
      Forcibly – forcibly – Turkifing and Islamizing indigenous peoples on their bloody way.
      Those who did not want to be forcibly Turkified and convert, were massacred en mass.
      Look up the definition of Genocide.
      The proof is that Asia Minor which had no Turkic people – none, zero, zilch – is now devoid of its indigenous Christian peoples and is occupied by a country that is called Turkiye. An Islamic country.
      It is presently inhabited by people who call themselves Turks. (Kurds did not ‘exist’, until recently: they were, you know, ‘Mountain Turks’.)

      Yes, there have been invasions and conquests throughout human history.
      Mongols invaded and dominated Russia for about 300 years.
      They extracted their tribute, wiped out and massacred the occasional town that did not submit or pay up.
      But they eventually went home. They certainly left their mark on the Russian people, but Russian people are still there to this day.
      Alexander the Great left his impact on his conquered lands, but he did not murder the indigenous peoples wholesale and did not force them to become Greeks on pain of death.
      Same with Persian Empire, Roman Empire, etc.

      Your Seljuk Turk ancestors and their descendants committed the first Genocide on a scale and duration not know to humanity before that.

      btw: Denialist, about Circassians (The Adyghe people).
      You claim that the Armenian Genocide is a ‘myth’, and facts and figures about the Armenian Genocide are ‘manufactured’: how do we know your ‘fact and figures’ about Circassians are not manufactured ?

  20. RVDV,
    It is actually you, who has clearly shown a lack of understanding as to what a genocide is. This whole entire time, you have refused to acknowledge that the 1894-1896 Hamidian Massacres, in which two hundred thousand Armenians were slaughtered, constituted a genocide. Instead, you’re attempting to minimize the 1915-1922 Armenian Genocide, by placing stronger emphasis on the Herero-Nama atrocities. It was actually you, who began the discussion on the Herero-Nama atrocities, which had absolutely nothing to do with the above article.

    What I was specifically trying to say in my earlier posts, is that if the Hamidian massacres is not classified as being a genocide, then there is therefore no possible way that the Herero-Nama atrocities can be classified as a genocide. However, I do agree that the Herero-Nama atrocities was indeed a genocide. And you too, must also agree that the 1894-1896 Hamidian Massacres, in which so many more Armenians were murdered than Hereros and Namas, also constituted a genocide.

    • “What I was specifically trying to say in my earlier posts, is that if the Hamidian massacres is not classified as being a genocide, then there is therefore no possible way that the Herero-Nama atrocities can be classified as a genocide”

      Yeah, I know that’s what you were trying to say. But you’re wrong- that was my point.

      “Their ferocity reflected the sultan’s determination to dissuade the Armenians from entertaining any notions of seeing reforms introduced under Western pressure. They were also designed to strike a severe blow to Armenian efforts to organize politically by undermining their expectations and the sense of self-reliance they hoped to develop in order to cope with the aggravated disorder and misrule in the eastern provinces of the empire.”

      This quote is from http://www.armenian-genocide.org/hamidian.html
      Armenian site, written by an Armenian. As you can see, these are the reasons for the Hamidian massacres.

      The Akayesu case during the ICTR and the subsequent rulings during the ICTY backed up a notion of dolus specialis- special intent. This “special intent” is defined as:

      “‘the specific intention, required as a constitutive element of the crime, which demands that the perpetrator clearly seeks to produce the act charged’ or, in other words, has ‘the clear intent to cause the offence'”.

      This would mean that for the Hamidian massacres to be a separate genocide by itself, Sultan Abdulhamid needed to have the specific, and clear intent, from the beginning, to destroy the Armenian nation. I refer you back to the earlier quote which highlights WHY the massacres took place. It was basically to prevent Armenian self-determination and send a clear reminder who was in charge in the Ottoman Empire. Clearly, he had no regard for the lives and well-being of his Armenian subjects, but the issue becomes if his goal was to destroy the Armenian nation. If it was, then why did he stop at 100-300k? Why didn’t he go as far as the CUP did if he wanted to destroy the Armenian nation? To me, he wanted to send his message, and didn’t care how many had to die to make sure that message sunk in. That would place his intent as dolus generalis- general intent. Dolus generalis does not meet the threshold for genocide.

      If you look back at my Herero genocide post, I posted quotes directly from von Trotha himself and the German general staff, which showed that their intent was, in fact, to totally destroy the Herero nation. They had won the war and then just wanted to wipe them off the face of the earth. That’s why the Herero case, with a lower death toll, is a genocide. You were arguing, if I didn’t misinterpret, that since more people died in the Hamidian massacres, if that wasn’t a genocide, then the Herero case couldn’t be either. That is where you are mistaken.

  21. Sorry RVDV and Jda, I take Zave’s side on this one. No one is downplaying other people’s suffering, but there are several issues here. First, using the word ‘genocide’ means that there are legal implications, which is why Turkey spends millions every year to shamelessly deny its crimes of Genocide. If we all accepted to call the Genocide as ‘massacres’, Turkey would probably accept its crimes and apologize overnight. Second, the word itself came to fruition to describe what happened to Armenians. Thus, the Armenian Genocide by default is at the “starting point” of crimes against humanity which must have legal implications. This is not to say that genocides did not take place before, only that they were never at the same scale of meticulous planning, to justify a special category with legal implications.

    I also feel that the term “the first genocide of the 20th century” is nonsensical, because this statement implies genocides took place before with legal implications, which they didn’t, they are not accepted… how you define genocide also comes into play here. If the Herero case is enough to proclaim genocide, then hundreds, if not thousands of genocides have taken place, and practically none are being recognized. Thus the Armenian Genocide was not “the first of the century”, but more correctly “the first ever” and that is in a legal sense combined with its inherent definition, not necessarily a practical sense.

    I feel as though when RVDV is coming here and using technical points like this, there are political motivations behind it, and the message being conveyed is: “you Armenians shouldn’t think that your genocide was anything different or special, because others exist and even before you”. Then tell me, except for the WWI and WWII Genocides, was there another instance where there was meticulous planning of race extermination by a government against its citizens? I don’t see it, the genocide in Africa arose as a result of conflict during a time of imperialism, not premeditated planning of extermination of another race. It is wrong to equate all these and lump them all together.

    In fact, with the ‘crime against humanity’ which started it all, the Armenian Genocide, having not even been recognized by the ‘free’ west, frankly I find it laughable that I as an Armenian need to “accept on an equal scale” incidents in Africa which some “scholars” wish to be ‘genocide’ when it is clear that they have an axe to grind against one country, but leave other countries off the hook which are arguably in the same category. Is that fair? (More about that below). And I also find it laughable that several hundred thousand Armenians killed in 1894 constitutes a “massacre”.

    Notice how the victors of WWI and II are invariably NEVER targeted as genocide perpetrators – by the same “scholars”. Take for example the UK. In the case of the supposed “first genocide of the 20th century”, Germany is charged as perpetrating genocide. Considering the holocaust, that was an easy one to understand. Yes Germany was an imperialistic nation at that time… but don’t go too far, a few miles away in the same region the Brits were also busy massacring Dutch and Africans, complete with concentration camps, brutality and all. That was in 1900 in the “second Boer war”, where 150,000 Dutch and Africans were thrown in concentration camps and about 30,000 Dutch women and children died there alone. Look up for example, “Lizzie van Zyl”. Now where are those above “scholars” who are “concerned about humanity” and “genocide studies”? I rest my case.

    • “First, using the word ‘genocide’ means that there are legal implications…”

      Which is why Germany pays 14 million in reparations a year to Namibia.

      In the Herero case, the German military did 2 main things. They drove the Herero into the desert with no food or water, circled the Herero, and shot anyone who tried to escape. Virtually none made it out. Secondly, they set up “labor camps” which in reality were death camps- including a 80+% death rate on Shark Island.

      “This bold enterprise shows up in the most brilliant light the ruthless energy of the German command in pursuing their beaten enemy. No pains, no sacrifices were spared in eliminating the last remnants of enemy resistance. Like a wounded beast the enemy was tracked down from one water-hole to the next, until finally he became the victim of his own environment. The arid Omaheke [desert] was to complete what the German army had begun: the extermination of the Herero nation”

      – the German general staff, fully aware of what was going on.

      It was most certainly premeditated. It was not just another imperial conflict. Government sanctioned, carried out by the military, with von Trotha only ever having one goal: the complete destruction of the Herero nation.

      “Notice how the victors of WWI and II are invariably NEVER targeted as genocide perpetrators – by the same “scholars””

      Yeah.. but Germany willingly recognized, apologized, and agreed on reparations for the Hereros. But you’re right about the relationship to genocide recognition and loss in a world war. It’s all subjective really when you get down to it. Which is why there’s only 3 genocides that nearly all scholars accept- Armenian, Holocaust, and Rwandan. 3 genocides where you can’t possibly make any credible case to discredit them. To me, that’s what makes the Armenian genocide special. Among those 3, it was first. Among those 3 it is the only one with virtually no recognition, no justice. That’s what makes it different. The Herero genocide is insignificant next to the Armenian genocide- but it DID come before it. I don’t know how that’s a political point.

      “…when it is clear that they have an axe to grind against one country, but leave other countries off the hook which are arguably in the same category. Is that fair?”

      To reiterate here, no it’s not fair. But doesn’t this apply to Turkey as well? I still don’t think these big European nations care very much about the suffering of the Armenian people. They have an axe to grind with Turkey. They still hate us. Still can’t get over the fact that some Muslims came literally to the gates of their civilized world and threatened them. And we’ve proven that nothing gets us more angry than the words “Armenian genocide”, so that’s what they go with. Sure, there are certainly states that do recognize it for the right reasons (Canada, Germany), but all I’m saying is that France isn’t one of them.

      ” Then tell me, except for the WWI and WWII Genocides, was there another instance where there was meticulous planning of race extermination by a government against its citizens? ”

      Rwanda, Guatemala.

  22. Hagop,

    What case exactly did you rest?

    Turks try to distinguish the AG from the JG by pointing out the ideological differences. The fallacy in their argument is that the alleged ideological differences are not relevant to whether the crime occurred under Lemkin’s definition.

    You do the same thing by claiming there must be similar scale or “meticulous planning.” There must only be some intention to destroy the victim race or a part of the race, irrespective of detailed planning. Who is to say that there was insufficient planning of the Herero Genocide?

    As to scale: we count 8,000 Muslims killed by Serbs in prison as G victims, far less than the Herero.

    As to planning: in Rwanda, leaders went on radio to urge the killings of the victim group. Not meticulous planning. Genocide all the same.

    And do you approve Zaven’s insults too?

  23. Jda,
    What do you mean what case did I rest?

    I clearly stated the UK committed no lesser atrocities than Germany a few years earlier and in the same region. That is but ONE example. If those atrocities are not genocide then neither is the Herero. If the Hamidian atrocities are “massacres”, then so is the Herero. End of story.

    I was hoping that you and others would be more careful than to fall into these politically motivated tricks meant to lessen the magnitude and impact of the importance of the FIRST Genocide committed by the Ottomans and Young Turks: that is by definition.

  24. RVDV,
    I did not read enough about the herero genocide and war and German relations and am unaware of Germany paying reparations, but the amount sounds too little to qualify for genocide reparations. Was this legal by orders of a court? It seems it isn’t, which is what I meant with the term ‘legal implications’. Perhaps this is ‘aid’ without legal liability for a past wrong which Germany has accepted. Many nations do this for causing suffering during war. The USA does this even with American Indian tribes.

    To be clear here, I am not denying genocides took place previous to the Armenian, merely that if we want to go further back in time from the Armenian Genocide by which a legality was established, then it would be like opening a Pandora’s box in which nearly every nation on Earth would need to be charged with crimes of genocide during every war or conflict. In essence, I am against exploiting the idea of genocide for the purpose of political gain. If those ‘scholars’ are concerned for humanity, then let them not cherry pick ‘genocides’.

    But thank you for acknowledging the Armenian Genocide in a sincere way, even though we disagree about the reparations part of it. And I do agree when you said the European nations do not really care for the plight of Armenians, I hate to say it and hope it isn’t true, but the Armenian Genocide issue seems to have become like a weapon or tool for them to hold over Turkey every time they need to. Perhaps they do hate Turks, but Armenians for them are probably not that far behind.

  25. RVDV,
    For all intents and purposes, your evidence for the Herero “genocide” is not very convincing. Especially combined with the claim that the Hamidian “massacre” was not a genocide (because some Armenian wrote it as such).

    Not having any hard copy (unbiased) books to investigate, even reading through wikipedia gives clues and contradictions. The quote you provided for “premeditation” is not the complete picture and it does not “prove” genocide. The massacre came about as a result of German civilian settlers being massacred by the Herero in a revolt while a brutal general was assigned who decided on his own to commit war crimes. Essentially, the Herero made the mistake of “declaring war” on German colonial rule, because the man assigned by the Germans decided to use brutality to crush the rebellion, and in no way was acting on the orders of the German government.

    Example: After von Trotha ordered the massacre of the Herero: “As soon as the news of this order reached Germany it was repealed, but by this time the rest of the native population was in full-scale revolt”.

    And: “Von Trotha’s methods caused a public outcry which led the Imperial Chancellor Bernhard von Bülow to ask William II, German Emperor, to relieve von Trotha of his command.”

    So again I ask, was it the policy of Germany to massacre the Herero, or one commander acting on his own behalf as he saw fit? These quotes suggest the latter. It may not mean Germany was not responsible, because the general was representing Germany, but to suggest that it was a genocide with premeditated intent by the German government like the Herero Genocide page is trying to insinuate is fallacious.

    In short, the Herero took up arms against the imperialist, vastly underestimating them, and got crushed as a result by brutal methods. Was it a massacre, atrocity, brutality? Yes. Was von Trotha a war criminal? Yes. Was it a genocide perpetrated by Germany? The evidence suggests, no.

    True, Germany apologized for these incidents, but did they have much of a choice not to as a rich and successful country who now uphold human rights? One government official even said that the massacres were ‘equivalent’ to genocide – I have not seen any evidence that Germany accepts that it committed a full scale genocide. And as a result Germany sends aid to Nambia today, which you call reparations.

    Now contrasting this to the “Hamidian Massacres”, again I say, if those are massacres, then the Herero atrocity has no choice BUT be a massacre. This is not to downplay another culture’s suffering, but the fact remains crimes of genocide came about as a result of what happened to Armenians.

    And as I said before, until the world accepts what happened to Armenians as Genocide, and full justice is brought about, other genocides, whether real or claimed, cannot be expected to be accepted as “first”, “before”, “the original” etc. As it stands in my view the first Genocide was the Armenian Genocide, and retroactively finding other genocides necessitates the recognition and justice for the Armenian Genocide first and foremost. I know some of my compatriots would disagree on this, though, with the not incorrect “genocide is genocide” idea. Still, my idea here is for the purpose of moving forward.

    My other post to you did not get published yet, but if it doesn’t, again I expressed gratitude to you for at least recognizing the Armenian Genocide, and being fair and genuine about it, though we disagree on the reparations portion. Until next time.

    • The German government was indifferent about what was happening, but they were the ones who sent in von Trotha. The old governor before von Trotha was against what was happening. It is what it is. There have probably been many more genocides than the ones we are discussing, so at a certain level this discussion doesn’t take us too far. It doesn’t matter to me if the Armenian genocide was the first or Second or 100th genocide of the 20th century. It is,after the holocaust, the worst ever. Possibly worse when you consider the aftermath of both. And there’s really No need for any sort of gratitude though. Its sad that we live in a world where the simple affirmation of an undeniable historical truth is something out of the ordinary.

  26. And, my point to you, RVDV, is that you’re extremely wrong for desperately attempting to downplay the Hamidian Massacres by not acknowledging it as a genocide, but instead acknowledging the Herero-Nama atrocities as a genocide, in which so many fewer people were murdered than in the Hamidian Massacres. This just comes to show that you’re a denialist. As for the reasons that you provide for the Hamidian Massacres, they have absolutely nothing to do with these atrocities not fitting the description of a genocide. Once again, you are clearly showing a lack of understanding as to what a genocide is. For your own education, a genocide is the deliberate destruction in part or whole of a racial, ethnic, religious, or national group. This is exactly what transpired within the Hamidian Massacres. The only thing you’re trying to do, is defend the terrorist Turkish sultan for his slaughter of two hundred thousand Armenians. Your excuse in which the Hamidian Massacres could not possibly have been a genocide since the Turks stopped after slaughtering two hundred thousand Armenians, is rather absurd just like all your other excuses in defending the extreme criminal history of the Turkish nation. It’s just like saying that the 1915-1922 atrocities against the Armenian people cannot possibly be classified as a genocide, due to the reason that the Turks stopped after slaughtering 1.5 million Armenians, as opposed to slaughtering the whole entire population of 2.1 million Armenians which existed in the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the April 24, 1915 events.

  27. Hagop,
    Why is it necessary for you to express gratitude to a Turk for at least recognizing the Armenian Genocide? You don’t owe him/her anything. It’s her/his criminal culture, who owes you and our Armenian people. Always remember that!

    In that “Hamidian Massacres” article, I wanted to point out to you, that nowhere does it say that the Hamidian Massacres did not constitute a genocide. As a matter of fact, in the very first paragraph of that article, it actually says that “The Armenian Massacres in 1894-1896 were the first near-genocidal series of atrocities committed against the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire”. Furthermore, in the last paragraph of that very same article, it states “In retrospect, it (Hamidian Massacres) had set a precedent, all of whose elements, short of organized deportation, would be reproduced during the Armenian Genocide”. There it is! Bingo! In other words, everything that was done in the 1894-1896 Hamidian Massacres, was reproduced in the 1915-1922 Armenian Genocide, only with much more organization, the addition of deportation, and many more victims. So, translating all this into simpler language, there’s the 1915-1922 Armenian Genocide, and then there’s the overall genocide against Armenians, beginning in 1894, and going until 1922.

    Hagop, out of curiosity, what do you find genuine about that particular Turkish poster who so cunningly attempts to reduce the magnitude of his/her country’s extreme criminal history? He/she accuses some of the Armenian posters as being denialists for not acknowledging the Herero-Nama atrocities as a genocide, when in fact, it is he/she who’s been the bigger denialist for not acknowledging the more extreme Hamidian Massacres as a genocide. Every single point that he/she has tried to make against the Hamidian Massacres has been preposterous, and defines the meaning of being a denialist.

  28. Yerevanian,
    When RVDV says stuff like:
    “To me, that’s what makes the Armenian genocide special. Among those 3, it was first. Among those 3 it is the only one with virtually no recognition, no justice.”
    and
    “It is,after the holocaust, the worst ever. Possibly worse when you consider the aftermath of both. And there’s really No need for any sort of gratitude though.”

    What do you propose, that I bash him? Unlike someone else I can name, he does not seem to be here “on a mission” from what I can tell. Him and I have not exactly been on friendly terms, we have had our run ins before, but I don’t like to get into personal conflicts on these pages, it is a waste of time and energy, so I suggest you try not to take things personally either, it is a lot easier that way. If I feel that someone has misguided ideas, I’d rather present facts to make them understand better, and I don’t mind being shown I’m wrong either if I somehow step over the line, but sometimes feelings will get hurt, it can’t be avoided.

    Gratitude or not, my point was, at least I appreciate that a Turk will go out of their way to side with truth, given their countries opposite narrative and brainwashing of its citizens. And the Armenian Weekly has Turks writing for Armenian issues too, should we not show them gratitude for something they do, but don’t need to?

    And as you say about posters trying to reduce Turkey’s extent of criminality, I did express this concern in my posts above. We are in an unfortunate position, because we do not have a unique title for the Armenian Genocide. Consequently, small and also questionable genocides can be presented within the same context of our Genocide, which reduces the severity/importance/impact of the Armenian Genocide. But my position is clear: without recognition and justice of the Armenian Genocide, we cannot move forward for studying other claimed genocides that came before, in fact, by definition it may not even be possible.

  29. Hagop,
    I must say that RVDV is a lucky person to have you defending him/her.
    You seem to be really convinced that he/she is genuinely sympathetic to our cause. However, many of RVDV’s comments from the past, certainly do not convey that message. In many of his/her comments from the past, he/she has consistently denied that Turkey ever stole Armenian lands, and therefore according to him/her, the Armenian people are not entitled to receive anything in regard to lands, with the only exception of Mount Ararat. What about in one of his/her earlier posts, where he/she was stating that “the first genocide of the 20th century thing is just a tool to get attention to the Armenian Genocide case”. You don’t find that to be insulting? What about in one of the earlier posts, where he/she was accusing Zave of inflating the number of Armenian Genocide victims by saying “yes 1.5 million or 2 or more than 2 as you claim-just making up numbers now? Is it going to be 4 million next week”? He/she has also shown quite a bit of fondness for Kemal Ataturk. Anyway, by doing all these things, he/she is contradicting himself/herself by pretending to condemn Turkey for its atrocities against Armenians. It is certainly true that he/she is much less of a denialist than the vast majority of Turks, however, he/she still attempts to reduce the enormous criminal history of the Turkish nation.

    How can you possibly suggest that I’m proposing for you to bash him/her? I would never propose such a thing. Truthfully speaking, I’m not proposing for you to do anything. If you wish to defend him/her, that is your absolute right. I find it rather amusing that you would imply that I’m engaged in a personal conflict with RVDV. How’s that possible? We’ve never even met each other. What we’re engaged in, is nothing more than a civilized discussion. Trust me, if I happen to be involved in a personal conflict with a particular person out there, then somebody will most definitely end up in the hospital, or maybe even worse.

    I was actually aware that the Armenian Weekly also has Turks, who happen to write about Armenian issues, such as madam Gunaysu. Unlike all of the Turkish posters on this site, madam Gunaysu has been one hundred percent accurate in her depiction of Turkey’s horrendous criminal history, as well as its extreme human rights abuse of its Armenian inhabitants. And because of that, she certainly deserves a great deal of gratitude.

    It’s nice to know that when you make a mistake, you don’t mind being shown that you’re wrong, because you were actually wrong in declining to acknowledge the Herero-Nama atrocities as a genocide. Recognizing the Herero-Nama Genocide, does not in any way reduce the significance of the much greater Armenian Genocide, which will always hold the title as history’s “first modern genocide”.

  30. Yerevanian // February 17, 2014 at 11:20 pm: “Hamidian Massacres… has never been classified as a genocide. So, in that case, there’s no possible way that the Herero and Nama atrocities (24,000-100,000 Herero murders),(10,000 Nama murders) can be classified as a genocide.”

    Yerevanian // February 17, 2014 at 12:07 am //: “Although it is true that the Herero and Nana atrocities took place before the Armenian Genocide, it’s still disputed as to whether the numbers killed (24,000-100,000 Herero),(10,000 Nama), constituted a genocide or a massacre.”

    Yerevanian // March 1, 2014 at 8:11 am to Hagop: “you were actually wrong in declining to acknowledge the Herero-Nama atrocities as a genocide.”

    Yerevanian, while you’re accusing others, do you confuse yourself much?

    I made my position very clear in my posts. If it was not clear, I will say again, I neither acknowledge nor deny the Herero Genocide until full recognition of Armenian Genocide is completed FIRST because that is how genocide is DEFINED. In addition I presented contradictory evidence as well as other crimes which can be classified as genocide but are not.

    Incidentally, “The first genocide” and “The first modern genocide” is not meant to show the time lapse between 1904 and 1915, but for going back more into antiquity, which means that you don’t understand this term very well, as it would be absurd to call 1915 modern and 1904 “non-modern”.

    As far as RVDV, I am thankful that he is on AW offering a different perspective as well as acknowledging the Genocide, because he is not here for spreading Turkish state propaganda like some lunatics that show up. I don’t agree with RVDV more often than agree, and your remark that “I’m supporting him” is strange and to be quite frank, plain weird.

    There is something ‘off’ about your posts which I can’t put my finger on, but judging from your last post above it seems you are here more to rant than to offer constructive dialogue.

  31. Hagop,
    Exactly how am I confusing myself? Going back to the first paragraph of your previous post, I was explaining that since the Hamidian Massacres have never been classified (internationally) as a genocide, then there is therefore no possible way that the Herero-Nama atrocities can be classified as a genocide for the reason that so many fewer people were murdered in those particular atrocities, as compared to the number of people murdered in the Hamidian Massacres. From the above, I was pointing out that it is hypocritical for others to classify the Herero-Nama atrocities as a genocide, but yet to classify the Hamidian Massacres as not being a genocide. I personally acknowledge the Herero-Nama atrocities as being a genocide, the same way I acknowledge the Hamidian Massacres as being a genocide. What’s confusing about that?

    Going back to the second paragraph of your previous post, I was correct in saying that although the Herero-Nama atrocities took place before the Armenian Genocide, it’s still disputed as to whether the numbers killed, constituted a genocide or massacre. The combined numbers slaughtered is actually a lot less than one hundred thousand. It’s probably no more than sixty thousand. However, even though the numbers are less than a hundred thousand, and therefore a bit low for it to be a genocide, I still recognize the Herero-Nama atrocities as being a genocide for the reason that 50-75 percent of the population of these two groups were wiped out. That’s a huge percentage of the Herero-Nama peoples which got wiped out, and therefore constitutes the definition of a genocide.

    Going back to the third paragraph of your previous post, I was again correct in saying that you were wrong in declining to acknowledge the Herero-Nama atrocities as a genocide. As a matter of fact, it’s quite absurd that you’re not capable of recognizing the Herero-Nama Genocide, Native American Indian Genocide, or any other pre-Armenian genocide, just because of the fact that the Armenian Genocide is not internationally recognized. This once again comes to show that you’re a denialist, as well a person who’s unsympathetic to the suffering of various groups of people in past history.

    On the topic of history’s “first modern genocide”, you clearly have no understanding of this term. The reason why this term applies to the Armenian Genocide, is because up to the 1915 events, no government in history had ever previously organized and planned a genocide with such intense precision and effort. The amount of research that the Ottoman Turkish government put in before its execution of the Armenian Genocide was enormous. Truthfully speaking, the organizers of the Armenian Genocide were extremely advanced for their time period. The organization and planning in the other pre-Armenian genocides, were minuscule in comparison to the Armenian Genocide. It is for this reason that the Armenian Genocide holds the title for history’s “first modern genocide”.

    As for RVDV, I’m also glad that he/she is on Armenian Weekly. I’ve really been enjoying the discussions I’ve had with him/her. However, unlike you, I’m not sympathetic to his/her contradictory views on the various Armenian related issues.

    Hey Hagop, you’re criticizing my posts for being “off”, but yet, you state that you can’t put your finger on exactly what it is that’s “off”. That doesn’t make very much sense. If you feel turned off by my posts, then what explains the reason why you keep returning back to me for more?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*