>I watched "The Armenian Genocide" program on PBS last week. Here in Chicago >the additional half hour of discussion was also shown, with Justin McCarthy >giving his explanation of the actions of those days. Obviously, heated >feelings and perspectives still apply, and I doubt that any neutral >observer, if there is such a person, would have felt the Turkish position >carries much weight. > >I am curious to hear of comments from our group. > >Carol Kocan, T-8 ===================================== Hi Carol, The same program was shown on TVO (the counterpart of PBS in the province of Ontario, Canada) about the same time and it was repeated the following week. As Catherine Meckes had mentioned earlier, our program did not have the same half-hour discussion. Instead, it was reviewed on TVO's "Diplomatic Immunity" talk show the same day by three panelists. We can look at this program in a number of ways: * The movie itself, its content, its accuracy and so on. * Why did PBS and TVO air this particular movie (with its prejudgemental title "Armenian Genocide") at this time? The same documentary was also aired by SBS TV in Melbourne, Australia on April 22 despite prior warnings by the Turks. Now, the Turks took the TV station to court. An interesting development! * Why do Armenians living in western societies steadfastly work on the promotion of their "genocide" claims? * What does "genocide" mean to Turks, Armenians and others? Everyone on this forum is familiar with Turkish history and has lived in Turkey for a while. There is willingness and fairness to hear both sides with careful scrutiny. But such critical attitude is rare in general public because of programs of this kind. The movie has one purpose: To convince its audience that Turks committed genocide against Armenians. To that end many proven techniques of persuasion are employed throughout the program. It is full of distortions, misrepresentations and falsehoods. To deal with them all will require a lot of time and space, but let me deal with one: * At one point in the movie, a claimant mentions mass killings of Armenians and in the background a pile of skulls are displayed as "proof" for linking the concept of "mass killings" to "reality" and to the Turks as the villains. Inserting the so-called "skull picture" in the background may prove effective but it is a falsehood: In reality, it is a photograph of a painting entitled "The Apotheosis of War" by a Russian artist in 1872. It hangs today in the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow. The Armenians used this photograph on the cover of a book (with Talat Pasa's picture inserted on the top left corner) for the same purpose. This photograph is used in many other Armenian publications and extremely convincing. A falsehood that is twisted into reality. The Ottoman Turks knew what they had done to the Armenians. The Ottomans set up special courts in 1916 to look into the massacres. The courts punished hundreds of officials for neglect of duty, even issued death sentences to some. These courts worked until 1924. The courts knew then that the Ottoman officials could have done better in protecting the innocent. Turks are labelled as "genocide deniers": Turks reject and resent the use of the word "genocide" for labeling the events in question because they cannot accept (actually become indignant) such a charge supported by false and fabricated accusations. To bring the Holocaust into conversation and draw a parallel to the claims of Armenians is indeed a heavy insult. If there ever was "vengeance" (as the way it was portrayed in the movie), I think it is on the side of the Armenians. Why assassinate in the 1970s and 80s many (over 44) innocent Turkish diplomats? I think TV stations such as PBS, TVO and SBS should allow both sides to tell their story, if they are really interested (or capable of) in "serving" and "informing" the public. Orhan Pamuk supports dialogue on this subject (the Armenian "genocide") and as we all know he had made statements last year that upset many Turks and got him in court. I've been defending Orhan Pamuk (and people like him) for having the freedom of expression, although I do not agree with everything that he said. Selamlar, Muharrem Subject: Re: [Arkadaslar] The "Armenian Genocide" program Hi, all, I saw the PBS version. It did contain a few pro-Armenian conceits, but was more balanced than any video presentation that I had previously seen ... from any source. Muharrem's points are apt, but the documentary does not absolve Armenians from blame; it just notes that the Armenian revolutionary acts and disloyalty during wartime, including atrocities, do not justify genocide. Those who are interested may wish to read Donald Bloxham's The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Although this serious history suffers from an "orientalist" bias (Christian refugees are "refugees;" Moslem refugees are "muhajir", etc.) He asserts that the fact of "genocide" is totally established, but his account opens the door for Turks [though he does not walk through this door] (who is, are, the relevant heirs to the CUP, anyway?) might claim genocide to their countrymen, either by Christian nationalities in the Balkans or by Armenians spearhading the Russiasn advance after the disaster at Sarikamis and later in Caucasian terrorism. After all, the Intl Criminal Court for Yugo recently ruled that the murder of 8000 Moslem men and boys at Srebenica was an act of genocide. (http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/TrialC1/judgement/krs-tj010802e.pdf -- I'm no lawyer, so check my interpretation ;) Possibly more important was the recent conference in Sivas on (title something like) 'Armenians and Turks living together.' News accounts gave coverage only to the Metropolitan, who predictably uttered bland but conciliatory statements. What else happened? What didn't happen is very important. Recall the arson of Hotel Madimak in Sivas in 1993? No violence this time at a funtion of potentially greater controversy. jim bennett