EU's "Exit from History" - a new meaning to the term "Old Europe"

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson
I doubt Ottoman census can be treated seriously. Ottomans had no intention in showing real number of Armenians, if it was big.
Also, 20% is when it comes to which year and what territory exactly? It seems unreasonably low. I assume it may be, if it is close to reality, a percentage of Armenians in a much wider area than Wilsonian Armenia for example. In entire eastern Turkey perhaps.
If they were so scarce in the region, nobody would treat their pleas for independance seriously. And they did. Also, then, it is even less probable that Armenians could attempt an ethnical cleansing.
Can You imagine a 1/5 minority in a under hostile administration to attempt to murder out 4/5 of population? This is absurd.
Either one of these claims has to be droppen, or it has to be balanced.

Ottoman census data are not considered inaccurate or unreliable. I would have more reasons to disbelieve the Armenian Patriarchate's bloated numbers, as it was essential to create the illusion of majority if a claim was to be made. The %20 figure is indeed for the 6 vilayets claimed by Armenians. Absence of a solid Armenian majority in those areas were also noted by international contemporaries, and this is also the reason behind the acts of ethnic cleansing by Armenian nationalists.

That the Armenian nationalists tried despite such demographic odds show what kind of a madness they were in the grasp of. They thought the imminent demise of the Ottoman Army was an opportunity of a thousand years. They gambled real high, and so lost real bad.

I do not agree. Armenians asked for autonomy several times, and they weren't granted any.
Why didn't the empire even try?

The Empire was going through the convulsions of its disintegration. Armenians never constituted such a majority in the region as to make not giving autonomy to them an impossible proposition. Eastern Anatolia was considered part of Turkey proper, unlike, say Serbia. Your main contention rests on the idea that Armenians dominated the region, which is quite dubious or not definitive at best.

In any case, the Ottomans didn't give autonomy even to peoples with indisputable majorities in their respective regions anyway. This was the result of the dilemma that they were not sure if autonomy would slow down or accelerate the seperatist movements. The highly charged nationalism of the time would not allow subject peoples to settle for autonomy under no circumstances.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Heresson
All humanitarism comes from Christian values

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson
Greeks were still a majority in some coastal regions. They should've kept it, according to your opinion, in which only ethnography counts.
Now tell me: if the Turks will become a majority in Berlin, can Turkey claim it?

On the contrary, I was meaning that the connection of a region to the ancient past of a people does not automatically grant a free ticket to irredentism. Particularly if those people are in overall minority in the region in question.

Turkey is actually reponsible for that. It didn't stop "relocations", when foreign countries protested, and later on in tried to prove nothing's happened

On the contrary, the people responsible for what happened were tried and punished, by death in some cases.

Of course Turkish account should be listened too, but many, if not most, Turks are so biased that You can have doubts even when it comes to things that sound reasonable.

Fair enough, but you can almost as sure say the same thing about Armenians. The difference is that for Armenians brandishing their suffering as genocide is a defining part of being Armenian, it's almost theological, it's in everyday life. For Turks, its an emotional issue only when brought up. That makes Armenians in general more irreconcible and unreasonable. Diaspora, especially in the USA and Australia, is usually particularly fanatical.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ancyrean


Ottoman census data are not considered inaccurate or unreliable. I would have more reasons to disbelieve the Armenian Patriarchate's bloated numbers, as it was essential to create the illusion of majority if a claim was to be made. The %20 figure is indeed for the 6 vilayets claimed by Armenians. Absence of a solid Armenian majority in those areas were also noted by international contemporaries, and this is also the reason behind the acts of ethnic cleansing by Armenian nationalists.

That the Armenian nationalists tried despite such demographic odds show what kind of a madness they were in the grasp of. They thought the imminent demise of the Ottoman Army was an opportunity of a thousand years. They gambled real high, and so lost real bad.

Oh c-mon... A 1/5 minority attempting an ethnical cleansing of 4/5 majority, being surrounded by even less Armenian lands, and in still a Turkish state? It's absurd... And You're trying to prove it by claiming a madness of Armenian politicians.
If You don't want the Turkish gouverment to be treaten as blood-thirsty lunatics, You shouldn't treat the opposite side as even more mad.
The ethnical cleansing of Armenians if a fact, of which lack of Armenians on these lands is a proof.
The attempted ethnical cleansings by Armenians is doubtful, and the lower your estimates of Armenian population are, the more doubtful it gets. You can easily think of it as an excuse for what has happened.
Again, this doesn't mean that Armenians had to be completely peaceful.
But again, either You can say that Armenians were a definite minority there, and had no ethnical rights to any region,
which however makes the accusement of attempted ethnical cleansing silly,
or You can claim they were a majority or at least a slight minority that attempted a cleansing, but then, You can't say they had no ethnical right to this land.
You can't claim both that they were a 20% minority there, and that they planned an ethnical cleansing. That's silly.

The Empire was going through the convulsions of its disintegration. Armenians never constituted such a majority in the region as to make not giving autonomy to them an impossible proposition. Eastern Anatolia was considered part of Turkey proper, unlike, say Serbia. Your main contention rests on the idea that Armenians dominated the region, which is quite dubious or not definitive at best.

What was the number general number of inhabitants of that parts of modern-day Turkey that were supposed to form Armenia according to Wilson?

Also, do You think anyone would treat Armenian claims to that region if they didn't constitute a large minority if not majority at least?
I doubt Turkey of that time considered western Armenia (eastern Anatolia is You like) more Turkish than any other region it owned.

[DanS]

The tales of European demise are greatly exagerated. That said, we can already see very unfavorable population trends, such as depopulation in some Italian rural areas, for instance. I don't see this turning around any time soon, but you never know. We get lots of articles on this side of the pond about that. Maybe France will offset rural Italy.

One thing to note is that having an anti-immigrant political block with significant support is typical in all countries -- even those with very high levels of immigration and those who have been able to assimilate/integrate their immigrants well. Consider Pat Buchanan's strong showing in the '92 Republican primary here in the US. Increasing immigration doesn't necessarily mean increased power for these groups, however.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You might try not being to bound to the loaf of bread under the arm image of a Frenchman.

This is the direction the French society is slowly (way too slowly) taking. The Republic's assimilation model was to have everybody share a common set of values, language, knowledge and experiences (with public school and conscription).

We have an expression here: "I want to see only one face!" (said by the sarge as the soldiers are forming a rank, which should be so perfectly aligned that only one face can be seen). This idea describes what the Rpeublic's idea of assimilation was, and what our legacy is.

However, the integration problem is not merely a French one, but a European one. The racist far-right has great success in several other European countries where the election system allows their presence. And in other European countries, racist opinions are galore too, even though they're not institutionally relayed.

Heck, this very day, the Swiss unsurprisingly rejected the easing of immigration law, by referendum (see copypasted article at the end of the post). Yet Switzerland is a country that is used to have 4 official languages and to host two very different culture groups (Germanic and Latin ones)

With its policy of assimilation, and with its official willingness to turn immigrant's children into "nice little French people", France is actually among the European countries where the integration problem is smallest. The problems that are appearing right now (of separate communities that organize and don't recognize the French lifestyle and the French values as theirs) are something completely ordinary in many other countries.

You could relax and welcome other peoples and cultures, and not try to ban them based on a 200 year old national fulcrum.

The problem is far deeper than a 200 year old national fulcrum. The problem is that, unlike Canada, European countries have a very long history and tradition, whose remains die hard. To a great extent, people who vote for the far-right, don't feel "at home" because the skin colour or the general lifestyle of the neighbourhood is different.
I've personaly heard people complain that France has now completely become Algeria, (despite the fact we were sitting in their comfortable home in a rich suburbia, with no Arabs in sight, and no Arabic shop in the neighbourhood at all).

I would imagine you'd react like "What are you waiting for then? Embrace a new model of integration, that emphasizes and applauds diversity." Something akin to what Canada does.

I admire Canada's model of integration through diversity, but I don't think it can be applied in Europe. At least, definitely not overnight. When we learn our history at school, we learn about millenia of white people, mostly Christian. When we learn about the great artists that shape our common identity, we learn about white people, who spoke and mastered our national language.

The school doesn't emphasize the racial or ethnical aspect of our history (at least nowhere in my sight). But you simply can't miss it: an ordinary Frenchman is a white man who speaks French. An ordinary German is a white man who speaks German... Other ethnicities, other cultures... haven't been instrumental in creating and developing our countries, save for the last century where they have been marginally present.

For the Europeans to accept that their lifestyle is not necessarily the only "right" one in their country, it will take at least one generation IMHO. The younger generation will become increasingly acceptative of alternative lifestyles (i.e more than simply tolerant: not only will they tolerate such lifestyles to happen on their territory, but they'll also accept these are legitimate cultures playing their part in the big societal picture).



Attached artcile, from Euronews

Swiss vote against easing immigration law

Swiss voters have rejected a series of proposals which would have made it easier for youngsters and people born in the country to gain citizenship. The referendum saw a majority of cantons deliver a firm 'No' to the changes.

The French-speaking Swiss backed a relaxation of the rules, but the German-speaking regions dug in their heels.

The suggestions included speeding up the naturalisation process for those aged 14 to 24, and granting automatic citizenship to the children and grandchildren of immigrants.

Max Binder from the right wing populist SVP said, "Its not a vote against naturalisation. In the future foreigners can expect to be naturalised normally."

But his party successfully stoked fears of a wave of immigrants, in one advert even making a mock-Swiss passport for Osama bin Laden.

Roberto Rodrigues campaigned for the change, "It's xenophobia, fear of foreigners," he said. "They don't want people to take part in Swiss life, they want them to integrate more, to change their names and call themselves Mueller or Meier, then they'll accept them when they've been here for 15 generations."

Many of the second or third generation residents are descendents of Turkish, Italian, Portuguese and Balkan immigrants who came to Switzerland in the 1960s.

Around 20 per cent of the Swiss population are foreigners.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson
Oh c-mon... A 1/5 minority attempting an ethnical cleansing of 4/5 majority, being surrounded by even less Armenian lands, and in still a Turkish state? It's absurd... And You're trying to prove it by claiming a madness of Armenian politicians.
If You don't want the Turkish gouverment to be treaten as blood-thirsty lunatics, You shouldn't treat the opposite side as even more mad.
The ethnical cleansing of Armenians is a fact, of which lack of Armenians on these lands is a proof.
The attempted ethnical cleansings by Armenians is doubtful, and the lower your estimates of Armenian population are, the more doubtful it gets. You can easily think of it as an excuse for what has happened.
Again, this doesn't mean that Armenians had to be completely peaceful.
But again, either You can say that Armenians were a definite minority there, and had no ethnical rights to any region,
which however makes the accusement of attempted ethnical cleansing silly,
or You can claim they were a majority or at least a slight minority that attempted a cleansing, but then, You can't say they had no ethnical right to this land.
You can't claim both that they were a 20% minority there, and that they planned an ethnical cleansing. That's silly.

You are seriously overlooking the spirit of Armenian nationalism as it emerged in 1890s. It was seriously bitter about the fact that on the one hand they were devoutly devoted to the idea that 6 vilayets had to belong to a future of Armenia but on the other they were no longer in a dominant majority. They thought this (having to become a minority there) to be a great injustice. This was a central theme in their perspective towards "Western Armenia". Therefore, in all their dealings with the Western powers they tried to picture an Eastern Turkey with a majority of Armenians. Their initial lack of coordination caused them embarrasment when wildly different numbers were presented by different Armenian groups. The Armenian nationalism developed that bitterness into not only a determination to reverse the situation on the ground, but an intense hatred towards Turks.

Their initial attempts in the 1890s to stage local upisings where they were in a local majority were put down, but when the WWI arrived with the very real possibility of Ottoman collapse, they staged a better organised and more focused uprising, precisely with the aim of "Armenianising" the area. Their organised and atrocious attacks on Turkish villages are well documented and remembered in Turkey. They were in the frenzy of a nationalist zeal, and they really thougt they had a good chance of achieving it. After all, the Allied propoganda machinery were fully behind them, epitomised by Arnold Toynbee's service in the Royal propoganda office and its "Blue Books". [/QUOTE]

What was the number general number of inhabitants of that parts of modern-day Turkey that were supposed to form Armenia according to Wilson?

Also, do You think anyone would treat Armenian claims to that region if they didn't constitute a large minority if not majority at least?
I doubt Turkey of that time considered western Armenia (eastern Anatolia is You like) more Turkish than any other region it owned.

The overall number, according to the Ottoman census (which you dismiss because you accept it as part of the Ottoman plan to eliminate Armenians, for which there is no proof), the overall population in the region is around 3 million, of which 600.000 were Armenians. As a side note, the Census Bureau was headed by an American in those times.

As for your second question, carving a greater Armenia out of eastern Turkey was one of the well known designs of the Allies during the war as a Western-dependant bulwark against the Russian colossus. They had every reason to at least give moral support to the cause of the Armenian nationalists, highlight their sufferings and suppress their wrongdoings.

You should also not doubt about Turkish consideration of Eastern Turkey. There was never any doubt on the part of Turks about eastern Turkey being part of the motherland as there was for example about Northern Roumelia. Turkish people did indeed consider it as part of motherland.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ancyrean

You are seriously overlooking the spirit of Armenian nationalism as it emerged in 1890s. It was seriously bitter about the fact that on the one hand they were devoutly devoted to the idea that 6 vilayets had to belong to a future of Armenia but on the other they were no longer in a dominant majority.

Still, You do not explain how come a 1/5 minority could terrorise and attempt to cleanse a vast 80% majority.
Also, in the 1890's massacres of Armenians by Kurds and Turks took place in different parts of Ottoman world, not the other way round

Their organised and atrocious attacks on Turkish villages are well documented and remembered in Turkey. They were in the frenzy of a nationalist zeal, and they really thougt they had a good chance of achieving it. After all, the Allied propoganda machinery were fully behind them, epitomised by Arnold Toynbee's service in the Royal propoganda office and its "Blue Books".

The same You could claim nationalist frenzy of the Turkish gouverment and have more proof for that. Again, You do not reply to my point that 20% minority, of whom just a part could take part in alleged attempt of ethnical cleansing, could not only believe in a success, but how could be even temporary successful.
Also, not only Allied witnesses support Armenian version...
And treating foreign accounts as a part of grand Armenian conspiracy is silly as well
From what I know, Armenians could make just one massacre - in Van (which is not sure even), and it seems it was an excuse both for accusing them of attempt of ethnical cleansing and for resettlements. And definitely it is not enough

The overall number, according to the Ottoman census (which you dismiss because you accept it as part of the Ottoman plan to eliminate Armenians, for which there is no proof), the overall population in the region is around 3 million, of which 600.000 were Armenians. As a side note, the Census Bureau was headed by an American in those times.

Which is irrelevant - He was an official of Turkish state, no matter what his nationality was. Also, I do not dismiss Ottoman census because "it's a part of a plan to eliminate Armenians", but simply because Ottoman empire had the same iinterest in depicting Armenian numbers the lowest as they could as Armenians had the interest in depicting them as the highest as they could.
3 mln and 0,6 mln, I find these numbers silly.
0,6 mln is less than the lowest estimated number of victims of the "resettlements" in the area and less than lived on tiny territory of modern-day Armenia
Even Turkish gouverment admits 0,3-0,5 mln dead during resettlements... And again, it has the same interest in depicting these numbers the lowest it can, as Armenians - the highest tey can. And when You take both these numbers into consideration, it'd mean 50-80% Armenians of these lands were killed... And it's doubtful, right?
Even that proves the census numbers were not true.
Also, Syrians claim that Turks massacred 0,2 mln of them by the way of dealing with Armenians - did they attempt ethnical cleansing too?
Seriously, I find accusing Armenians of ethnical cleansing an poor excuse for what's happened, or rather a reaction: they accuse us of ethnical cleansing - lets accuse them too!.
There is absolutely no proof of attempted for an ethnical cleansing by Armenians, while the reality is the proof of ethnical cleansing on Armenians.

As for your second question, carving a greater Armenia out of eastern Turkey was one of the well known designs of the Allies during the war as a Western-dependant bulwark against the Russian colossus. They had every reason to at least give moral support to the cause of the Armenian nationalists, highlight their sufferings and suppress their wrongdoings.

Sorry, but if Armenia has been created by USA and UK, we can be sure it'd be a democratic state. It would make no sense if Armenians were such a small minority even if it wouldn't be democratic.

[tomcat ha]

actually the armenian church said there were 2 million armenians before the removal of which how funny an american investigation found 2 million back.

In fact by the same research it has been determined that of the total muslim population after WW1 only 25% remained. I forgot the name of the investigation but i can look it up.

Like i said before: russia made it possible. When the russians advanced the armenians massacred. when the russians retreated the armenians retreated with them.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by tomcat ha
actually the armenian church said there were 2 million armenians before the removal of which how funny an american investigation found 2 million back.

Really? Where? The Armenian church claimed 2mln inside Turkish empire. If there were 2 mlns outside Ottoman empire, it doesn't mean these were the same Armenians.

In fact by the same research it has been determined that of the total muslim population after WW1 only 25% remained. I forgot the name of the investigation but i can look it up.

1) Probably Turkish "investigation"
2) I would explain it this way: Ottoman census lowered the number of Armenians in the population, claiming larger Muslim population than in reality. After resettlement/massacring Armenians, the loss of population was therefore counted as loss of Muslim population, though it was not.

Like i said before: russia made it possible. When the russians advanced the armenians massacred. when the russians retreated the armenians retreated with them.

here we go again...
Somehow no-one heard about these alleged massacres but Turks...
Somehow it seems they were made up to clear the Turks of guilt...
Somehow its hard to believe entire Armenian population just escaped of their own free will grounds they were inhabiting for 2 500 years...
It's disgusting propaganda. "no, we did not massacre Armenians. They massacred us and escaped. because they feared punishment"
oh c-mon.... it's completely silly.
Like if entire Armenian population felt guilty for alleged crimes commited by some of them
Like if Russians had nothing else to do but suppoort ethnical cleansings (they did not support them in Azerbeycan or Central Asia, did they)
Like if all foreign and Armenian accounts of what's ahppened were just imagination...
Like if pathethic propaganda of a nationalist state that's claimed there is no Kurd nation for 80 years was a reality...

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson
Still, You do not explain how come a 1/5 minority could terrorise and attempt to cleanse a vast 80% majority.
Also, in the 1890's massacres of Armenians by Kurds and Turks took place in different parts of Ottoman world, not the other way round

On the contrary, I have tried to explain it on the assumption that it goes without saying that if you have enough guns and enough determination, you can rise up and terorise and do whatever else to a far larger majority. Is this not self evident? I was trying to say that not only did have enough guns and preparation, carefully and metioculously conducted over years, they also had active and immediate support from the outside, Tsarist Russia. Add to that the complete absence of security forces in the region, you have the perfect scene for such an enterprise.

And treating foreign accounts as a part of grand Armenian conspiracy is silly as well
From what I know, Armenians could make just one massacre - in Van (which is not sure even), and it seems it was an excuse both for accusing them of attempt of ethnical cleansing and for resettlements. And definitely it is not enough

Mass graves of Turks all over Eastern Anatolia and folk memory in the region disagrees with your assumption.

Also, I do not dismiss Ottoman census because "it's a part of a plan to eliminate Armenians", but simply because Ottoman empire had the same iinterest in depicting Armenian numbers the lowest as they could as Armenians had the interest in depicting them as the highest as they could.
3 mln and 0,6 mln, I find these numbers silly.
0,6 mln is less than the lowest estimated number of victims of the "resettlements" in the area and less than lived on tiny territory of modern-day Armenia
Even Turkish gouverment admits 0,3-0,5 mln dead during resettlements... And again, it has the same interest in depicting these numbers the lowest it can, as Armenians - the highest tey can. And when You take both these numbers into consideration, it'd mean 50-80% Armenians of these lands were killed... And it's doubtful, right?
Even that proves the census numbers were not true.
Also, Syrians claim that Turks massacred 0,2 mln of them by the way of dealing with Armenians - did they attempt ethnical cleansing too?
Seriously, I find accusing Armenians of ethnical cleansing an poor excuse for what's happened, or rather a reaction: they accuse us of ethnical cleansing - lets accuse them too!.
There is absolutely no proof of attempted for an ethnical cleansing by Armenians, while the reality is the proof of ethnical cleansing on Armenians.

Heresson your assumptions are not only false, but fly wildly against even what Armenians have. Consider the following, as I give you the available numbers for Armenians in the 6 vilayets:

According to:
-the Ottoman census (1893): 564,774
-Armenian patriarch (1895-6): 1,053,992

There are other sources as well. One is Frenchmen Vital Cuinet, who toured the area in the name of the Debt Commision of European Powers, and gathered statistic notes about the population.The other, English scholar H.F.B. Lynch who actually lived in the region for two years to compile a study, and the study of British Consul Clifford Lloyd. Their numbers do not fluctuate dramatically, but if vilayet by vilayet you take whoevers' number is higher, the highest number you get from the composite of these three is:

668,917.

If you take vilayet by vilayet whoevers' number is lowest, (to get the lowermost estimate): 601.573

As for overall numbers of Armenians in Turkey, there are 14 sources that I know that are quoted by both sides, including Armenian sources (the Patriarch, Pastermadjian, Hovanissian, Vahan Vardapet). Of this 14, apart from the Ottoman data (1.3 million), all the others are independent sources. Of these, 8 give a number equal or smaller than 1.5 million. Two give a bracket of 1.5-2 million. Only Patriarch gives 1.78 million, one 2.1 million, one 2.38 million.

Therefore, an average number of 1.5 million would be a reliable enough estimate. But you know what, Armenian activists claim that 1.5 million Armenians were killed in the 6 vilayets only!!!! This alone should hint to you the zeal with which they view the issue.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ancyrean

On the contrary, I have tried to explain it on the assumption that it goes without saying that if you have enough guns and enough determination, you can rise up and terorise and do whatever else to a far larger majority. Is this not self evident? I was trying to say that not only did have enough guns and preparation, carefully and metioculously conducted over years, they also had active and immediate support from the outside, Tsarist Russia. Add to that the complete absence of security forces in the region, you have the perfect scene for such an enterprise.

The region was not free from any forces.
Kurdish tribes are not peaceful armless peasants.
Also, it is doubtful that Armenians could prepare enough weapons, while still being under Turkish rule.
Van fortress, taken by Armenian rebels, was besieged by Turkish army. The same for other points. No matter were these attempts of uprising, or self-defence against attempted resettlement/slaughter,
this can hardly prove attempted ethnical clearing on a population lacking any means of defending themselves.
So much for the claim of "complete absence of security forces in the region"

Mass graves of Turks all over Eastern Anatolia and folk memory in the region disagrees with your assumption.

If those people were taught by their state for 90 years that Armenians did harm to them, they could start believing it.
While I can't say for sure if Armenians didn't do anything like it,
I dare to claim most of these "mass graves of Turks" are mass graves of Armenians actually.

Look: Armenians been massacred several times earlier, You claim they were an insignificant minority, eventually they were all kicked out, and someone is supposed to believe that it was them who attempted ethnical cleansing under Turkish administration, next to Turkish army?

Heresson your assumptions are not only false, but fly wildly against even what Armenians have.

In which part?

Therefore, an average number of 1.5 million would be a reliable enough estimate. But you know what, Armenian activists claim that 1.5 million Armenians were killed in the 6 vilayets only!!!! This alone should hint to you the zeal with which they view the issue.

Of course, but Turks view this issue with similar zeal, don't they.
I can't judge the number You've given myself - I'm no specialist on the subject.
I can believe Armenians were a minority even in six vilayets.
I can believe they sttempted an uprising which was an excuse for resettlement
But not in that this minority - especially if it's only 20% according to You = planned an ethnical cleansing,

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson
The region was not free from any forces.
Kurdish tribes are not peaceful armless peasants.
Also, it is doubtful that Armenians could prepare enough weapons, while still being under Turkish rule.
Van fortress, taken by Armenian rebels, was besieged by Turkish army. The same for other points. No matter were these attempts of uprising, or self-defence against attempted resettlement/slaughter,
this can hardly prove attempted ethnical clearing on a population lacking any means of defending themselves.
So much for the claim of "complete absence of security forces in the region"

What I meant was government forces to provide necessary security for the relocees. Kurdish tribes were more often than not themselves were raiding the relocees, killing and stealing taking advantage of the absence of authority.

It is not as doubtful about weapons. Ottomans managed to intercept some of the many shipments through the border. But the border itself was not watertight and the Armenian activists had a good chain of supporters to accumulate arms over an extended period of time.

As to Van, at what time was the siege of Van by Turkish forces? Can you remind me the date?

If those people were taught by their state for 90 years that Armenians did harm to them, they could start believing it.
While I can't say for sure if Armenians didn't do anything like it,
I dare to claim most of these "mass graves of Turks" are mass graves of Armenians actually.

I was specifically mentioning folk memory, word of mouth from father to son to grandson, not state propganda as you ascribe to it.

Look: Armenians been massacred several times earlier, You claim they were an insignificant minority, eventually they were all kicked out, and someone is supposed to believe that it was them who attempted ethnical cleansing under Turkish administration, next to Turkish army?

Well what diverges our emphasis is that my point is the Turkish army was not next to it but away at the front.

In which part?

Sorry, I was meaning the ratio 0.6 / 3 million is close to what many other sources say, and the latter statistical breakdown was to point out to this.

Of course, but Turks view this issue with similar zeal, don't they.
I can't judge the number You've given myself - I'm no specialist on the subject.
I can believe Armenians were a minority even in six vilayets.
I can believe they sttempted an uprising which was an excuse for resettlement
But not in that this minority - especially if it's only 20% according to You = planned an ethnical cleansing,

Zealwise, I would say Turks are in general more reactive, and not always as tenacious and successful on this issue. Armenians are almost without exception hard-working, talented and intelligent people and they always contribute to the societies in which they live if they live abroad, and this gives them a tremendous edge in addition to the initiative advantage they have in making a case for their perspective.

On the minority actions: If they had the weaponry and an accompanying absence of government security forces to stop them, the fact that they are in a minority would not stop them. Armenian activists were sufficiently motivated and sufficiently believed the rightness of their cause not to be deterred by it to try to achieve the dream of generations in an opportunity of a thousand years.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Heresson
C-mon, Germans are being racist about Polish car thefts, but it's not that there weren't many Polish car stealers indeed once

They're still here in the same amount, but nobody talks about them anymore, because

a) it's fookin pointless
b) they have been outnumbered by the Russians

Note: Only Germans are allowed to steal German cars.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
Can anybody tell me what they mean by 'assimilation' or 'fitting in'? What's the European conception of how should a good immigrant behave when they arrive in Europe??

Stop worshipping strange idols and learn to love a dead guy strung up on a cross.

Only eat the local national food which in Britain is curry and Big Macs.

Only speak the local language, which in Glasgow means some unintelligable form of "English" (Avoid places like Belgium where the locals can't decide which language to speak).

Get electric shock treatment to wipe out all previous cultural memories.

Never complain about the weather even when it's cold, drizzling rain/snow and the streets are filled with slush.

Stop doing things that the locals think are obnoxious, and start doing the obnoxious things the locals do.

Stop watching real sports and learn to love soccer.

Change your name.

Change the colour of your skin.

See it is quite simple to be a good immigrant.