One thing we know is true for sure, both sides have strong arguments, and both sides have facts. It is the interpretation of those facts, that lead us to a conclusion of genocide or just another ethnic warfare during the heat of World War I.
If you meet Armenians, they will most likely, though not always, agree with the Armenian Genocide, because they were taught to believe that their people were targeted without provocation just like the Jews during World War II. If you meet Turks, they will most likely, though not always, disagree with the Armenian Genocide, because they believe that the Ottoman Empire was a tolerant empire that tried its best simply to keep order and the Armenians through nationalism began an organized rebellion to create a Free Armenia.
Turks argue that since the rebellion failed, ending in relocations of a majority of Armenians to another Ottoman territory, the Armenians have begun a hate campaign to blame the Turks for genocide because they could not accept defeat.
Armenians argue that the extermination failed, and many Armenians were able to escape in order to tell the world about how they were all almost killed.
Then there are independent historians/scholars, but it's difficult to figure out who you should trust, because both sides have them, and both sides blame the other for being paid agents of organizations or governments which take sides on the issue. The reality? There is no independent organization/person/government that can judge this dark and clouded history.
Armenians want you to assume their facts as truth and to accept their conclusion because genocide has occurred in the past and it should be spoken out against always. They even point to the denial of the genocide as evidence of the crime of genocide, which is a logical fallacy, as both the innocent and the guilty will deny their crime.
As an individual, one should look at facts, evidence, and motives to judge what happened, and to keep an open-mind. One should not conclude on either side, because there will always be new research, to show there was or was not an Armenian Genocide.
Emotions such as nationalism, solidarity with your side, and stereotypes about Armenians or Turks or their religion, should be put aside. After all, the Ottoman leaders who were alleged to have planned this crime, were murdered without trial and without proof and so the closure that Armenians speak of, has already occurred, and they should have moved on back in the 1930s.
To claim that the denial of the genocide is a crime, opens old wounds, or is something negative, is disrespect to the scientific method and historians who will always discover new facts about historical events whatever the conclusion may be.
The problem is the issue has become politicized, with campaigns on both sides to make others accept their conclusion, one should ignore these. Politicians should definitely be ignored on topics such as this. Historians and scholars should be encouraged to research the issue regardless of their conclusion. The facts should be discussed rather than the blame, hate, and punishment.
If you want to learn the truth about whether the Armenian Genocide was a reality or not, you must look through the evidence, the archives, the many books on both sides, and learn the facts and then interpret them appropriately using motive. Some will have you believe that a genocide can happen anywhere because genocide is irrational--genocide is never irrational, it is carefully planned, created with a specific purpose, and executed carefully.
Though current research is insufficient to prove that the Armenian Genocide is real, this conclusion can change at any moment, and until clear solid evidence is provided, the Ottoman government should be assumed innocent until guilty. Excuses about how evidence might has been covered up or hidden is not how one judges history.
0 comments:
Post a Comment