h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

According to an international historical journal I read last year. Wasn't one of the most reputable, but having never studied history in a Japanese school it's the best information I had access to. I could be wrong, and if I am I apologise to whoever sets out the Japanese national curriculum.

I wasn't just making it up though, I have read it somewhere! If I remember where, I'll try and dig up the article.

<>

I don't mean to seem like I'm picking on you Psycorp, but I wanted to ask about this statement as well.

It has no great historical or cultural significance *to whom*?

I would think that any clear-thinking intelligent Turk (as with Germans) would be quite willing to accept that what happened in their country was an atrocity. Okay, something they don't (and shouldn't) feel personally responsible for now in 2007, but it *is* a part of their history that should be recognised and acknowledged. If they pretend it never happened then how will they ever learn from past mistakes made?

az

I may have been a bit ambiguous. I'm not saying that no-one in Turkey gives it any thought and any that give it a fleeting glance deny it was genocide, I'm saying (in a very ineloquent way) that it's not as fundamental to understanding Turkish culture. Try imagining Germany in 1990 without the Holocaust, or India and Pakistan in 1950 without the Raj, or the USA at any point in the past 200 years with large native nations on their border (historically, possibly the most important genocide in the history of the US was the Spanish destroying the Aztecs, but that's another story). It's nearly impossible. Now think about what you know about modern Turkish culture and society. Is the Armenian Genocide prevalent in your head?

In mine it isn't. At least not in the same way that the other events I mentioned are when I consider those countries. Admittedly I'm not an expert, and your view might be closer to the truth, but I can only put my take across.

Plus, it's not helped by the fact that the only things I've seen about the genocide written by Turks have been things trying to sweep it under the carpet.

There's one country that has no sympathy for the Armenians and that's Azerbaijan. They are still at war over Nagorna-Karabakh.

<>

Well, it actually is, Psycorp. But unless I'd read about it elsewhere I'd have also been convinced that it never existed. Simply because it has never been acknowledged and accepted as such, unlike the German holocaust has been.

az

"Simply because it has never been acknowledged and accepted as such, unlike the German holocaust has been."

Which brings us back to the question of why has it never been acknowledged and accepted? I think we could dance round in circles all day with this Az...

Yeah, probably quite true, Psycorp.

And probably the reason it has never been ackowledged or accepted is because the US doesn't give a flying flick about dead Armenians. Meanwhile, where would the US be today without its thriving Jewish sector?

az

Hi Psycorp 603

Took your davice, stopped 'work' and Googled a bit....

Horrifying story of the destruction of the Indian nations and the theft of their lands. I cannot describe my feelings

Novo

to sad to spell advice correctly

Novo

I'm not sure I understand the argument. It appears to be: lets tell a lie to cover up for our friend the bully.

Ugh.

I never did like tact.

Also very keen to see what British MPs do with this.

Just as an aside as I lurk here, a number of years ago the Jewish population of New York was reputed to be larger than the Jewish population of Israel. I have no data to back that statement up but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true. It would also help to explain the intense interest the US has in that portion of the Middle East.

How many people are familiar with the Second Reich's genocide in Namibia? Where some of the key figures of the later atrocities began applying their ideas.

Novo, did you read the link?

Az, I have to take serious issue with your statement that the US doesn't give a flying flick. If that's the case, how did it come up in Congress? And why are you extrapolating from what Bush said to the whole country?

I find it disconcerting that what raised this issue was that President Bush urged Congress to not recognize this event. Why is it more important to criticize the behaviour of the US in this matter than any of the groups principally involved?

Very good points.

I agree that this is a disgraceful move by the President Bush. The Armenian genocide is recognised as such by numerous European countries but the USA has always refused to acknowledge it in what strikes me as a blatant move to appease their most important Middle East ally alongside Israel.

What is our own (the UK's) take on this? Does anyone know?

>On the one hand, one is forced to wonder why it's an issue for the Turks. It's like, 90 years ago. Nobody who took part is alive, much less in public life or positions of influence. So why not just go "Wow, yeah, it was a genocide, it was terrible, gee folks we're sorry, let's move on.". Worked for the Germans.

Countries are obsessed with the "greatness" or "goodness" of their own history. It's a tribal, cultural thing and it's very hard for conservative elements within a country to confront wrongs their tribal group has done in the past. The Germans did so because they had to. The Japanese have never really confronted their own past and most countries with ugly histories tend to do the same. How long ago something happened doesn't tend to matter one iota. You only have to look at the discussion pages Wikipedia, for example, has for any remotely controversial historical event (some going back centuries) to see how important these are for people. What was done to the Armenians was a stain on the Turkish nation and conservative Turks (which pretty-much includes the Turkish establishment) would rather pretend it wasn't as bad as people say, that it was all some necessity of war. That's disgraceful but not remotely surprising and, despite what I suspect you'd like to believe, not exclusive to Turks.

>On the other, there are laws in Turkey which prevent free speech and criminalise criticism of the country. On that basis, who gives a monkey's what a backward, repressive nation of barbarians calls an historical event?

You know, if you want to be taken seriously then I suggest you avoid any of this sort of borderline-racist tripe in future.

"What is our own (the UK's) take on this? Does anyone know?"

See the second post.

>"What is our own (the UK's) take on this? Does anyone know?"

>See the second post.

Cheers. My first post in this thread was a response to Post 1 so I didn't see the post below. Apparently Wales alone of the UK constituent countries has recognised the genocide, as have 22 nations and 40 US states. Refusal to recognise the genocide appears to be largely due to appeasement.

Skipping the second post, in your haste to reply. That is truly priceless.

Bravo! Bravo!

<>

Okay. And you're right, Arnie. But if it eventually passes Congress then it will be seen internationally as the US viewpoint, not just Bush's and his cronies.

<>

It isn't, and nobody said it was.


az