4 ms·

Guilt over past crimes is mainly a western thing. There is for example, no such thing in modern Turkey over the extermination of the native peoples of Anatolia

by eruci 6y ago

Guilt over past crimes is mainly a western thing. There is for example, no such thing in modern Turkey over the extermination of the native peoples of Anatolia which led to the formation of the Turkish state with a uniform religious/ethnic composition. On the contrary, that is a source of national pride these days. Other examples abound (India, Pakistan, China, etc)

mercer 6y ago
What are you arguing for, exactly? It sounds like you're somehow trying to justify extermination?
- mengibar10 6y ago
  I am not sure if this question directed to my comment above since you did not ask it under that thread. But if it were a mistake I am happy to answer and it is a big NO. Please read my comment again.
- eruci 6y ago
  I'm not. I'm just stating the sad fact that acknowledgement of past crimes is mostly done in western democracies. I've never seen, for example, a similar speech by a Turkish, Chinese or Pakistani politician about the crimes committed in the name of their nation state and the collective myths used to keep it all together.
  - chadlavi 6y ago
    Those nations also haven't lost a war in which the rest of the world told them, "hey, stop, you're being really evil and you're wrong." There's probably nothing special about Western Europeans/Germany in this regard except for the fact that they were forced to come to terms with their crimes.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > Those nations also haven't lost a war in which the rest of the world told them, "hey, stop, you're being really evil and you're wrong." The Ottoman Empire did, they were allied with Germany in WW1, lost and Turkey was all that remained of the empire. It hasn't change the tune, though. Japan did as well, and they're also ahead of the world average, but I believe it's still quite a way off from the Western approach. They have become more pacifist than Western countries though. > There's probably nothing special about Western Europeans/Germany in this regard except for the fact that they were forced to come to terms with their crimes. I don't think that's accurate. The US, France or the UK did not lose a war either, yet they very much did look at their past atrocities. Not enough, I'm sure some will argue, but still a lot more than the world average.
mengibar10 6y ago
That's how it looks if you oversimplify history and do it with only one sentence. Turks started to migrate into Anatolia about 600 AD. However, the most defining moment and the most known turning point is the Battle of Menzikert in 1071. This puts at least 1000 years of slow demographic change. We can argue a lot of details about how it happened. But it is better to stick to your main argument that the guilt over past crimes is mainly a Western thing. That could not be further than the truth. That's where I object mainly. Such demographic changes happened much faster and more brutal in the West by the Western people. Both North and South American continents that are tens of times larger areas than Anatolia has seen genocidal change for a much shorter period of time for much bigger population. It is estimated that the populate in North America was comparable to that of Europe when "discoveries" started. I do not see such guilt proportional to what happened. You may think that those are a bit in the past. How about French and Belgian colonialism. The crimes committed by Belgian in Kongo pales even that of Germans. The most conservative figure is that Belgians killed 10 Million people. The upper estimate is about 40M. Why we do not hear about those crimes as much as about what Germans did ? Kongolese are not human? or this much emphasis serve a political agenda?
- luckylion 6y ago
  > But it is better to stick to your main argument that the guilt over past crimes is mainly a Western thing. That could not be further than the truth. That's where I object mainly. Well.. I mean, Turkey has a few more recent genocidal episodes that regularly lead to diplomatic issues because it's taboo to mention. I'd agree with "mainly Western" though certainly not "only Western". > You may think that those are a bit in the past. How about French and Belgian colonialism. That's pretty text book What-Aboutism, but I from all I hear from French friends, French colonialism is very much public knowledge and is taught in schools. Not quite as focused as in Germany where the Nazi era is the main focus of history in schools, but certainly not anywhere close to unheard of.
- eruci 6y ago
  Regardless of when the first Turk appeared in Anatolia, it does not change the fact that the native populations were completely wiped out mostly in recent history. Is the state organized extermination of Armenians taught to Turkish schools like the crimes of colonialism are in major western former colonial powers? How about the current treatment of Kurds in Turkey and even in neighboring countries? It is you oversimplifying and throwing around numbers to over-justify. I stand by my main claim the revisiting past crimes of nationhood, is mainly a western thing.
mcguire 6y ago
Take care, you may summon the ghost of Serdar Argic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serdar_Argic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serdar_Argic).

by eruci 6y ago

mercer 6y ago

What are you arguing for, exactly? It sounds like you're somehow trying to justify extermination?

mengibar10 6y ago
I am not sure if this question directed to my comment above since you did not ask it under that thread. But if it were a mistake I am happy to answer and it is a big NO. Please read my comment again.
eruci 6y ago
I'm not. I'm just stating the sad fact that acknowledgement of past crimes is mostly done in western democracies. I've never seen, for example, a similar speech by a Turkish, Chinese or Pakistani politician about the crimes committed in the name of their nation state and the collective myths used to keep it all together.
- chadlavi 6y ago
  Those nations also haven't lost a war in which the rest of the world told them, "hey, stop, you're being really evil and you're wrong." There's probably nothing special about Western Europeans/Germany in this regard except for the fact that they were forced to come to terms with their crimes.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Those nations also haven't lost a war in which the rest of the world told them, "hey, stop, you're being really evil and you're wrong." The Ottoman Empire did, they were allied with Germany in WW1, lost and Turkey was all that remained of the empire. It hasn't change the tune, though. Japan did as well, and they're also ahead of the world average, but I believe it's still quite a way off from the Western approach. They have become more pacifist than Western countries though. > There's probably nothing special about Western Europeans/Germany in this regard except for the fact that they were forced to come to terms with their crimes. I don't think that's accurate. The US, France or the UK did not lose a war either, yet they very much did look at their past atrocities. Not enough, I'm sure some will argue, but still a lot more than the world average.

mengibar10 6y ago

That's how it looks if you oversimplify history and do it with only one sentence. Turks started to migrate into Anatolia about 600 AD. However, the most defining moment and the most known turning point is the Battle of Menzikert in 1071. This puts at least 1000 years of slow demographic change. We can argue a lot of details about how it happened. But it is better to stick to your main argument that the guilt over past crimes is mainly a Western thing. That could not be further than the truth. That's where I object mainly. Such demographic changes happened much faster and more brutal in the West by the Western people. Both North and South American continents that are tens of times larger areas than Anatolia has seen genocidal change for a much shorter period of time for much bigger population. It is estimated that the populate in North America was comparable to that of Europe when "discoveries" started. I do not see such guilt proportional to what happened. You may think that those are a bit in the past. How about French and Belgian colonialism. The crimes committed by Belgian in Kongo pales even that of Germans. The most conservative figure is that Belgians killed 10 Million people. The upper estimate is about 40M. Why we do not hear about those crimes as much as about what Germans did ? Kongolese are not human? or this much emphasis serve a political agenda?

luckylion 6y ago
> But it is better to stick to your main argument that the guilt over past crimes is mainly a Western thing. That could not be further than the truth. That's where I object mainly. Well.. I mean, Turkey has a few more recent genocidal episodes that regularly lead to diplomatic issues because it's taboo to mention. I'd agree with "mainly Western" though certainly not "only Western". > You may think that those are a bit in the past. How about French and Belgian colonialism. That's pretty text book What-Aboutism, but I from all I hear from French friends, French colonialism is very much public knowledge and is taught in schools. Not quite as focused as in Germany where the Nazi era is the main focus of history in schools, but certainly not anywhere close to unheard of.
eruci 6y ago
Regardless of when the first Turk appeared in Anatolia, it does not change the fact that the native populations were completely wiped out mostly in recent history. Is the state organized extermination of Armenians taught to Turkish schools like the crimes of colonialism are in major western former colonial powers? How about the current treatment of Kurds in Turkey and even in neighboring countries? It is you oversimplifying and throwing around numbers to over-justify. I stand by my main claim the revisiting past crimes of nationhood, is mainly a western thing.

mcguire 6y ago

Take care, you may summon the ghost of Serdar Argic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serdar_Argic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serdar_Argic).