Welcome
Login:   Pass:     Register - Forgot Password - Resend Activation

Turkish Class Forums / Turkish Politics

Turkish Politics

Add reply to this discussion
LAPPS IN SWEDEN
(29 Messages in 3 pages - View all)
1 2 3
1.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 03 Apr 2010 Sat 02:41 am

Sweeden Parliment has recently voted and passed a legislation, accepting Armenians in Anatolia sufferded genocide by the Ottoman Empire.

 

What Ottomans did in 1915 was what any sovereign state would have done to handle part of her uprising citizens, while the country was at war with others.  Amenians rebelled, some in fact joined French and Russian Armies and tried to carve a large piece out of the Empire 1n 1915, exactly while the Turkish Army was facing British-French-Anzac Naval and land forces in Gallipoli. Anatolia was in total despair, but rebelling Armenians (not all Armenians) nevertheless were handled exactly as rebels deserved.

 

What exactly Sweeden and Norway doing between 1900-1940, before they decided to become human rights champions, is another story. In cold blood, they took their time to cleance the lives and culture of an other totally innocent etnic group.

 

Google is full of references to Sweeden´s own massacre of Lapps (SAMIs), but those interested to learn more about the issue can start by reading up 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people



Edited (4/3/2010) by AlphaF
Edited (4/3/2010) by AlphaF
Edited (4/3/2010) by AlphaF
Edited (4/3/2010) by catwoman [removed blank space]

2.       alameda
3499 posts
 03 Apr 2010 Sat 03:56 am

I agree with you Alpha...mostly anyway....it just shows how history is recorded by the ones with the pens and the network to distribute it.

 

I hate all wars, and think they are all some type of genocide. Until all wars are recognized as such....nobody has anything to say about it.  IMHO

 

Some cultures have war ethics, some do not. I think the disparity between different ethics of warfare is the issue.

 

Too often the noncombatants are the most harmed by war.

3.       catwoman
8933 posts
 03 Apr 2010 Sat 10:46 am

So what is your point Alfa? That because Sweden did something bad in their past they are not allowed to say that Ottomans committed a genocide? {#emotions_dlg.unsure}

4.       si++
3785 posts
 03 Apr 2010 Sat 11:40 am

 

Quoting catwoman

So what is your point Alfa? That because Sweden did something bad in their past they are not allowed to say that Ottomans committed a genocide? {#emotions_dlg.unsure}

 

So you think Ottomans committed genocide? What do you mean by"genocide"? Do you use the UN´s 1948 definition or do you have another definition of your own? In the latter case can you share your definition with us and how can what Ottomans did be qualified as "genocide" according to your own definition? Do you know what Ottomans did in the first place? And why did they do it? Can you share what you know with us?

5.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 03 Apr 2010 Sat 01:30 pm

 

Quoting catwoman

So what is your point Alfa? That because Sweden did something bad in their past they are not allowed to say that Ottomans committed a genocide? {#emotions_dlg.unsure}

 

Basically, yes...

 

History records an era where all sovereign cultures tried to supress minorities to achieve a uniform culture within their state.....Almost all, except the Ottomans; Ottomans fought against rebels..it would have made little difference if the rebels were of Turkish etnic origin.

 

Now there is no more the old Empire. The young Turkish Republic is trying to mend the relations with her smaller and much poorer neighbor Armenia...Such buggers as Sweedes, with fresh Lapp blood on their hands are trying to teach the Turks humanity and human rights...That is hypocracy.

 

Do you ever ask yourself why American Senate does not pass a legislation recognizing Swede massacre of Lapps, or Sweeds never talk about American genocide of American natives?

 



Edited (4/3/2010) by AlphaF

6.       catwoman
8933 posts
 03 Apr 2010 Sat 03:16 pm

 

Quoting AlphaF

 

Do you ever ask yourself why American Senate does not pass a legislation recognizing Swede massacre of Lapps, or Sweeds never talk about American genocide of American natives?

 

Yes, I am guessing that the reason is that these countries are not denying those shameful events.. of course another reason is that Native Americans are exterminated, so they can´t go and lobby for their cause! I don´t know about Sweden, but I know that the US is hypocritical talking about other countries´ genocides while actively commiting their own.. it´s despicable.. but makes other countries´ genocides no less despicable.

 

Alfa, you know what is the worst part of nationalism, is that it makes people care more about their imaginary ideas then about real people that could be you and your family.

 

It is a good thing that Turkey is working on improving his relationships with neighboring countries, very positive development.

7.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 04 Apr 2010 Sun 04:06 am

Catwoman,

You are talking in subjects you have no clue about. This has nothing to do with nationalism. Turks and Armenians were subjects of the same Empire. There were Armenian ministers in the Ottoman Cabinet in 1915, and some Armenian boys were fighting agains the allied Navy in Gallipoli, along with their Turkish, Bosnian or Kurdish fellow Ottomans.

 

Another part of the Armenian community however, felt it was a good time for an uprising against the weakened Empire  (not specifically against Turks, Bosnians or Kurds...the Empire). It was the fashion of the time and well prepared Greeks and Bulgarians had previous success against the Ottomans. But Armenian were neither well prepared nor did they have the full control of the area they claimed to be theirs. They were encouraged by French clowns at first, then dismally abandoned to the mercy of the Empire,when things got rough. In short they lost a mismanaged rebellion and got what they deserved. The Empire would have been no more tolerant, had the rebels been of Turkish origin. Still the Ottomans tried the state officials involved, and many were punished for overzealousy, some with capital punisment.More officials were later tried by the Brits in the island of Malta with alleged war crimes ; theyall had to be aquited, with no exception - even in that circus court.

 

What eventually happened to the Empire? In 1919 another rebellion, this time led by Turks started. The Empire showed exactly the same reflexes; Ottoman armies were sent to hunt down the rebellious Turks, including Ataturk the founder of modern Turkia. But the young Turks not only kicked out the invading allies, but also the Ottoman Sultan from the country and set up a Republic.(There were some Armenians who fought along with the Turks, in this war of independence).

 

Empire is no more and citizens of Turkish and Armenian origin enjoy equal right and priviledges of being the citizens of the young republic. Republic of Armenia is a small relatvely poor  neighbor country. Both Turkia and Armenia need friendly relations, but Armenia is the party that needs this cooperation more. If it was not for  stupid acts of Western powers, such a cooperation may have been possible... as it is, it is not very likely in near future. 

 

Natives of America could not manage to survive a 100 years against Western brutality. Armenians and Turks lived in the same Empire for over 800 years together. Had Turks wanted to clean up the Armenian population and culture, who do you think stopped them at the peaks of Ottoman power?

 

You can now tell me what you think my imaginary ideas are....

 

 

 

 



Edited (4/4/2010) by AlphaF
Edited (4/4/2010) by AlphaF
Edited (4/4/2010) by AlphaF
Edited (4/4/2010) by AlphaF
Edited (4/4/2010) by AlphaF

8.       barba_mama
1629 posts
 04 Apr 2010 Sun 06:09 pm

 

Quoting AlphaF

 

 

Basically, yes...

 

History records an era where all sovereign cultures tried to supress minorities to achieve a uniform culture within their state.....Almost all, except the Ottomans; Ottomans fought against rebels..it would have made little difference if the rebels were of Turkish etnic origin.

 

Now there is no more the old Empire. The young Turkish Republic is trying to mend the relations with her smaller and much poorer neighbor Armenia...Such buggers as Sweedes, with fresh Lapp blood on their hands are trying to teach the Turks humanity and human rights...That is hypocracy.

 

Do you ever ask yourself why American Senate does not pass a legislation recognizing Swede massacre of Lapps, or Sweeds never talk about American genocide of American natives?

 

 

 

You are all wrong ofcourse... I think the latest Turkish official position is that yes, they killed a bunch of people then, a lot of them being Armenians. But ofcourse most Armenians died of sickness, the flu and stuff...

 

The American Senate has already acknowledged that the states of America commited genocide. THAT is why there is no discussion about it, because they don´t pretend that it never happened. They admit for example, that Native Americans were even made sick on purpose. They admit their horrible acts, whereas Turkey didn´t. That is why Sweden doesn´t have to say anything to the U.S., and it does make a statement towards Turkey (who wants to join Sweden in the E.U.).

 

And the Sami people have been repressed by Sweden in the past, but not systematically whiped out and killed like they were in Norway. A repression of culture is not genocide... Killing people is genocide. If you want to accuse Sweden of something, then make sure you accuse them of something that you have prove of. You are even linking to something that says that Sweden didn´t systematically kill Sami people. The point you tried to make is totally void.

9.       catwoman
8933 posts
 04 Apr 2010 Sun 06:43 pm

Alfa, you didn´t understand my point.. I meant that your blind defense of the "image" of Turkey, by denying the genocide at all cost stems out of your nationalism, not that the murder of Armenians was a result of nationalism.. and you´re doing this at the cost of your humanity, which is really disgusting.

10.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 04 Apr 2010 Sun 11:38 pm

 

Quoting catwoman

Alfa, you didn´t understand my point.. I meant that your blind defense of the "image" of Turkey, by denying the genocide at all cost stems out of your nationalism, not that the murder of Armenians was a result of nationalism.. and you´re doing this at the cost of your humanity, which is really disgusting.

The history is very simple. The Ottomans killed some Armenians and caused some to die of sickness and possibly hunger ...yes !

 

But this did not happen when Turks first arrived at Anatolia ( like Europeans butchered American natives within 100 years of their arrival) or (like Germans when Jews started dominating their economy) or like (Italians in Algeria and French in Eithopia simply to continue their tyrany) or like (Sweeds,. simply because they were bored and wanted pure blood citizens in their country) In none of these cases the supressors ever shared sovereignity of the land with the people they massacred.

 

In Ottoman Empire. Turks and Armenians lived together for 800 years, in peace. There were times Armenians could have been cleaned out overnight. if that had been the Imperial intention. What you dont want to understand (possibly  because you have Armenian origins, and have a personal grief over the issue) is that the problem started when a part of the Armenian population rebelled against the Empire ( for welfare of which they were equally responsible. like any other ethnic group that made up the Empire), donned French and Russian Army uniforms and betrayed their own country. The rest of the Empire was fighting for its life in Gallipoli, at the time of this Armenian betrayal, for god´s sake  !

 

Rebelling Armenians definitely got what they deserved; they were not the first losing rebels in history...but they definitely are the only crying one.

 

The Russian records are open to verify my statement, and France is full of Armenian Memorials listing names of soldiers who lost their lives in Anatolia, in French uniform. Most of the names listed in those memorials have birthplaces in what was the Ottoman Empire, then.

 

I am telling you that Empire later court martialled some officers of the Empire - not for for killing rebellious Armenian gunmen, but causing perhaps unnecessary misery to some of the civilian  Armenians who lived in the area - some of those officers were found guilty and some even were punished with capital punisment. No Armenians other than those living in the area of rebellion or on critical supply routes to that area, suffered.

 

The next rebellion against the Empire was by Turks...which eventually ended up the Empire. The young Turkish Republic  does not carry any hatred or grudge towards the previous rebels, but has no intention of apologizing for what previous losing rebels suffered in the hands of a (now) non existent Empire either.

 

The choice for Republics of Turkia and Armenia, the two neighbor countries, now is to understand and acccept the history as it really was, forget past griefs and cooperate towards mutual welfare...or take advice from cold blooded murderers of the West and carry on with a totaly meaningles vendetta...

 

Turkia does not need me to protect her image - but I, as an intellectual, have every right to question the integrity and the credibility of those faceless accusers of Turkia...

 

 

 

 

 

 



Edited (4/5/2010) by AlphaF
Edited (4/5/2010) by AlphaF
Edited (4/5/2010) by AlphaF

11.       catwoman
8933 posts
 05 Apr 2010 Mon 12:49 am

 

Quoting AlphaF

 

The choice for Republics of Turkia and Armenia, the two neighbor countries,now is to understand and acccept the history as it really was, forget past griefs and cooperate towards mutual welfare...

 

And what griefs exactly do you or Turkey has to forget from Armenia? lol Why dont you google "Armenian genocide" to get a more objective story, even wikipedia will do.

 

"The denial of the Armenian Genocide is often identified by genocide scholars and historians as a crucial symbolic and ideological process which follows every genocide and which is intended to desensitize and to make possible the emergence of new forms of genocidal violence in the future." wiki

12.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 05 Apr 2010 Mon 02:10 am

 

Quoting catwoman

So what is your point Alfa? That because Sweden did something bad in their past they are not allowed to say that Ottomans committed a genocide? {#emotions_dlg.unsure}

 

Do you know saying "There was no Armenian genocide" is subject to legal punuisment in some countries? Does that look equally ridiculus to you?

 

I bet, not ! {#emotions_dlg.lol_fast}

13.       Daydreamer
3743 posts
 05 Apr 2010 Mon 02:23 am

 

Quoting AlphaF

 

 

Do you know saying "There was no Armenian genocide" is subject to legal punuisment in some countries? Does that look equally ridiculus to you?

 

I bet, not ! {#emotions_dlg.lol_fast}

 

It looks ridiculous to me. The matter is controversial, not really proven and/or not really fitting into the dictionary definition of genocide. Prosecuting somebody for daring to be of a different opinion is wrong and should not take place in countries which claim to support freedom of speech.



Edited (4/5/2010) by Daydreamer [I won´t tell ya!]

14.       catwoman
8933 posts
 05 Apr 2010 Mon 04:50 am

 

Quoting AlphaF

 

 

Do you know saying "There was no Armenian genocide" is subject to legal punuisment in some countries? Does that look equally ridiculus to you?

 

I bet, not ! {#emotions_dlg.lol_fast}

 

Yes, it is ridiculous!

 

DD - contrary to what you may hear, it is not a controversial matter.

15.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 05 Apr 2010 Mon 08:40 am

 

Quoting catwoman

 

 

Yes, it is ridiculous!

 

DD - contrary to what you may hear, it is not a controversial matter.

 

Forget being hysterical about the issue catwoman...I have written enough for you to present a counter discussion, if you want any pragmatic results.

 

 

16.       si++
3785 posts
 05 Apr 2010 Mon 10:04 am

Blaming a nation with genocide is such a strong statement and it needs strong proofs. Gonecide has been defined by UN in 1948 and what happened in 1915 cannot be qualifed as such according to that definition. Armenians know it, otherwise they would have acted in that direction by now but they didn´t, you know. Instead they are lobbying everywhere to pass resolutions in some countries. Passing that resolutions doesn´t proove anything. As for those who vote for yes, I don´t think they know much about what happened in 1915. I don´t think they know where "Van" is and what Armenians did there before 1915 for example. But they know that the Armenian voters in their countries (US, France, Sweden etc.) will vote them during elections as a pay-back. And some posters in this thread refer to those votings as if they proove something. Get outta here...

 

And by the way Catwoman, you didn´t answer my question in this thread. It´s not very kind of you. You´re simply ignoring me. It´s not nice.

17.       barba_mama
1629 posts
 05 Apr 2010 Mon 11:24 am

The amount of Armenian voters is so limited in Sweden, that the decision of the Swedish government has nothing to do with an Armenian pressure in their country.

 

It´s nice to quote a wikipedia source that says the Sweeds DIDN´T systematically kill Sami people (stop calling them Lapps) and then say that the Sweeds killed them in a genocide. How about looking at other sources for what happened to the Armenians? I think it´s very easy to recite what you have been dictated in a Turkish school. But how about informing yourself in every way possible first, then forming your own opinion. What I hear now is just a paste and copy from a school´s textbook.

18.       si++
3785 posts
 05 Apr 2010 Mon 11:32 am

 

Quoting barba_mama

The amount of Armenian voters is so limited in Sweden, that the decision of the Swedish government has nothing to do with an Armenian pressure in their country.

 

 

 

So? You mean they voted yes because they know very well what happened back then and they had strong prooves that that was indeed and absolutely "genocide"? Nothing else, huh?

And it should proove something. Now we can say "look even Swedes accepted it there must be a genocide then, no way."?



Edited (4/5/2010) by si++

19.       alameda
3499 posts
 07 Apr 2010 Wed 09:08 pm

 

Quoting barba_mama

 

It´s nice to quote a wikipedia source that says the Sweeds DIDN´T systematically kill Sami people (stop calling them Lapps) and then say that the Sweeds killed them in a genocide. How about looking at other sources for what happened to the Armenians? I think it´s very easy to recite what you have been dictated in a Turkish school. But how about informing yourself in every way possible first, then forming your own opinion. What I hear now is just a paste and copy from a school´s textbook.

 

Barba Mama....or whatever....although I love Wikipedia, it is only good as a source for information. That information needs to be verified. Each article has links,

 

As you suggested a little research will show Wikipedia articles change depending on who did the last entry. The Armenians have been very active, particularly in English versions of Wikipedia.

 

There are historic facts that even the most simple minded should able to follow, if they choose. 

 

Fact number one is the powers of France, England and Russia had plans for the Ottoman Empire,  and a big part of the strategy was to turn the citizens to revolt against their country. This is clearly shown with the Arab Revolt....aka Lawrence of Arabia....The Armenians were just another vulnerable group ripe to be exploited to revolt. They were a large Christian group who were cultivated by the other "Christian" countries.

 

That my dear is a fact. They did join Russian forces and fight against their counrtymen. When the Bolshevik Revolution took place they were abandoned by their Russian "friends". Did you forget the Great Influenza epidemic of 1918, where at least 20 million people died?

 

The issue of what happened during those years when the "Armenian Genocide" is to have taken place needs to be looked at without a jaundiced eye.

20.       barba_mama
1629 posts
 07 Apr 2010 Wed 09:46 pm

I am just saying... if you want to use wikipedia as a source to make your point, then at least have wikipedia STATE your point. If you want to say "the world is flat, look at wikipedia!" and wikipedia says "the world is round"...then why are you quoting wikipedia?

 

21.       alameda
3499 posts
 08 Apr 2010 Thu 12:55 am

 

Quoting catwoman

 

 

Yes, it is ridiculous!

 

DD - contrary to what you may hear, it is not a controversial matter.

 

Actually, it is controversial.  This constant haranging on the "AG" issue reminds me of a technique I read about in a book on different ways to get what you want....one of the most primitive, but effective methods was the ram rod technique.  That is...you keep on pressing your point until the other party gives in. If you keep banging a wall, sooner or later if will fall......unless counter measures are taken.

 

Did you ever consider why all these Kurdish/Armenian claims are coming up now? Take a look at a few maps....after the "Genocide" is determined....compensation is next.....and just what do they claim as their lost territories?...........ah....look at the beachfront property!

 

greater armenia

 

kurdistan

 

 

The bottom line....it´s about territory and assets....and as water has been seen to be a serious source of conflict....look at what is there!



Edited (4/8/2010) by alameda [resize graphic]

22.       lemon
1374 posts
 08 Apr 2010 Thu 12:55 am

 

Quoting alameda

 

 

Barba Mama....or whatever....although I love Wikipedia, it is only good as a source for information. That information needs to be verified. Each article has links,

 

As you suggested a little research will show Wikipedia articles change depending on who did the last entry. The Armenians have been very active, particularly in English versions of Wikipedia.

 

There are historic facts that even the most simple minded should able to follow, if they choose. 

 

Fact number one is the powers of France, England and Russia had plans for the Ottoman Empire,  and a big part of the strategy was to turn the citizens to revolt against their country. This is clearly shown with the Arab Revolt....aka Lawrence of Arabia....The Armenians were just another vulnerable group ripe to be exploited to revolt. They were a large Christian group who were cultivated by the other "Christian" countries.

 

That my dear is a fact. They did join Russian forces and fight against their counrtymen. When the Bolshevik Revolution took place they were abandoned by their Russian "friends". Did you forget the Great Influenza epidemic of 1918, where at least 20 million people died?

 

The issue of what happened during those years when the "Armenian Genocide" is to have taken place needs to be looked at without a jaundiced eye.

 

I do agree with you regarding the wiki. It is not a stable source of information. I personally witnessed the manipulations, thus I changed my mind as for its reliability. However, it is still a great source of information.

 

I also do agree with you on the Armenian lobby. Having now said that, you cant deny that it can also be vice versa. Turks arent stupid or weak to simply not push their own campaigns.

 

Yes, the world powers long before and after WW1 tried to crush and divide the Ottoman empire between themselves, successfully.

 

Great Influenza. What has it to do with the subject? {#emotions_dlg.think}

Although, the old good wiki states the mortality could have reached globally 50-100 million.

 

 

 

23.       alameda
3499 posts
 08 Apr 2010 Thu 01:25 am

 

Quoting lemon

 

 

I do agree with you regarding the wiki. It is not a stable source of information. I personally witnessed the manipulations, thus I changed my mind as for its reliability. However, it is still a great source of information.

 

I also do agree with you on the Armenian lobby. Having now said that, you cant deny that it can also be vice versa. Turks arent stupid or weak to simply not push their own campaigns.

 

Yes, the world powers long before and after WW1 tried to crush and divide the Ottoman empire between themselves, successfully.

 

Great Influenza. What has it to do with the subject? {#emotions_dlg.think}

Although, the old good wiki states the mortality could have reached globally 50-100 million.

 

 

 

 

The great Influenza Epidemic has a lot to do with the death tolls of the time in question.  It was the first international epidemic that spread so fast as to almost cover the whole world simultaneously. It is estimated between 20 to 40 million people died because of it. (a lower number, not from Wikipedia)

 

Trench warfare during WWI and the airplane helped spread the disease around the world.

 

The difference between the Armenian lobby and the Turkish one is the fact that there are many more Armenians living in comfort in the US who have mastered how to communicate and express themselves here. I was reading an interesting article on racisim and it mentioned the influx of the Armenians during the early part of the 20th Century. They just barely were able to slide by as "White European", instead of Asian giving them access to property and citizenship rights.

 

Living in a place, learning the cultural nuances, as well as language, helps of knowing how to promote one´s agenda.  One is more able to integrate into the society one wants to influence. I actually doubt if many of the second, and third generation Armenians know much about the historic facts of the early part of the 20th Century themselves. They only know what grandma or great grandmother or uncles told them. It feeds hate, and that is never good. As I have said before, IMHO....all war is a type of genocide. It was a war.....and until that is dealt with it is just another case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

"During a revealing moment in the history of American citizenship, the line between white and non-white blurred briefly. Fleeing from genocide in their homelands, 50,000 Armenians had come to America in the early twentieth century. In 1909 federal authorities classified Armenians as ´Asiatics´ and denied naturalized citizenship to Armenian immigrants. But shortly afterward, in the Halladjian decision, a U.S. circuit court of appeals ruled that Armenians were Caucasian because of their ethnography, history, and appearance. Four years later California passed its alien land law, but the restriction did not apply to Armenians. By 1930, some 18,000 Armenians lived in the state; their access to land ownership enabled many Armenians to become farmers in Fresno County. They became wealthy farmers-owners of vast acreage and leading producers of raisins. ´The Armenians, they like the Japanese,´ recalled a Japanese farmer of Fresno. ´Lots speak only Armenian-just like Issei immigrant Japanese. They came about the same time too. But I think they learned a little bit more English than the Japanese did and they looked more American and I think it helped them a lot.´ The experience of the Armenians illustrated the immense difference it made to be Caucasian and not ´Asiatic.´"-R. Takaki, Strangers From a Different Shore



Edited (4/8/2010) by alameda [add]
Edited (4/8/2010) by alameda [sp]

24.       barba_mama
1629 posts
 08 Apr 2010 Thu 09:43 am

To say that the Kurdish issue is simply about assets is a very limited view. Did you forget that Kurds in Turkey weren´t even allowed to write or speak the Kurdish language in public for many years? Was that an asset-thing too?

 

 

Since this isn´t only about Armenians anymore, an interesting outcome from a questionairre:

"Political dissociation between the Turks and the Kurds becomes most concrete on the matter of whether Kurds want a separate state. A full 64.4 percent of respondents hold that Kurds want a separate state whereas only 24.6 percent do not agree with this statement. This perception becomes even more obvious in terms of ethnic background. A total of 71.3 percent of Turks hold that the Kurds want a separate state whereas only 17.9 percent do not agree with this statement. On the other hand, 59 percent of Kurds indicate that they do not seek a separate state. The figures show that there is a visible perception suggesting that the Kurds want their own independent state."

 

Source: http://pollmark.com.tr/Haberler.aspx?ID=76



Edited (4/8/2010) by barba_mama

25.       alameda
3499 posts
 08 Apr 2010 Thu 08:26 pm

 

Quoting barba_mama

To say that the Kurdish issue is simply about assets is a very limited view. Did you forget that Kurds in Turkey weren´t even allowed to write or speak the Kurdish language in public for many years? Was that an asset-thing too?

 

 

 

Well Barba, I certainly hope you are not so naive as to notrealize the fact that it is ALWAYS about assets! Always....weather those assets are tangible or intangible, it is about territory, space personal, physical, metaphysical.....and how those are shared...or not...

26.       barba_mama
1629 posts
 08 Apr 2010 Thu 09:28 pm

 

Quoting alameda

 

 

Well Barba, I certainly hope you are not so naive as to notrealize the fact that it is ALWAYS about assets! Always....weather those assets are tangible or intangible, it is about territory, space personal, physical, metaphysical.....and how those are shared...or not...

 

It seems you and I define the word asset differently. For you, speaking a language or being able to express you culture is an asset. Since I have a business background, I see assets as things like money, land, and such. I do know there is such a thing as an intangible asset (like a trademarkt or goodwill). However, it seems your vague description of assets would simply cover everything in the entire universe. So yes, in that case, it is always about assets since everything is assets. But if you use this word, it makes the issues discussed here sound like they are about some form of greed.

 

By the way... why no remark on the part about Turkish perception and Kurdish opinions?

27.       alameda
3499 posts
 08 Apr 2010 Thu 11:40 pm

 

Quoting barba_mama

 

 

It seems you and I define the word asset differently. For you, speaking a language or being able to express you culture is an asset.

 

Well of course those are assets! Have you ever made or read a resume?

 

Since I have a business background, I see assets as things like money, land, and such. I do know there is such a thing as an intangible asset (like a trademarkt or goodwill).

 

I define asset as it is...not as I would like it.  Word meanings go through metamorphisis, but the actual meaning remains. You are right, in today´s popular culture an asset is mostly defined as a tangible property that can be traded.  If, however if you analyze just what property is, it´s something held to be of value that can be moved from place to place.  Bluebird of Happiness? Think of things we do to gain love and respect....


However, it seems your vague description of assets would simply cover everything in the entire universe. So yes, in that case, it is always about assets since everything is assets.

 

In the end, health, happiness and being loved and loving are what everyone wants.  All value is dependant on how it relates to those matters.  Have you never heard the saying, "without love there is nothing at all"?


But if you use this word, it makes the issues discussed here sound like they are about some form of greed.

 

And yes....the issue IS about some sort of greed to control very valuable assets.........water being the most obvious one.  I don´t think wanting to control valuable assets is anything new. What do you think wars are about?

 

By the way... why no remark on the part about Turkish perception and Kurdish opinions?

 

Regarding your last remark........Unlike some, I only comment on what I actually have knowledge about.....and of course....any survey can easily be manipulated....so what else is new?

 

 

28.       barba_mama
1629 posts
 09 Apr 2010 Fri 05:13 pm

I do see water as an asset yes, I´m not an idiot or something. But I don´t see having the freedom to speak the language of your parents in public as an asset, but as a basic human right. Fighting for that freedom is not a form of greed, but part of being human. That is why I say the "asset-view" is a limited one, and it ignores the human side of the story. I have grown up in a country where I have always been able to speak my parents language inside my home, and outside my home. I have always been able to express my feelings in writing, in any language that I would seem fit. Turkey has a vast group of people who can´t say the same. Luckily big steps toward progress and personal freedom are being made, where people can speak the language, sing the songs, and write the things they want to write. Polarizing views have never helped anybody. And looking into the history of Turkey from different sides, and from ethnicities that are not your own will also not hurt anybody.

 

29.       AlphaF
5677 posts
 10 Apr 2010 Sat 06:09 pm

Kurds - currently armed in the mountains - are about to be lured into the same trap rebellious Armenians were fooled into around 1915.

Guess by who ?



Edited (4/11/2010) by AlphaF
Edited (4/11/2010) by AlphaF
Edited (4/12/2010) by AlphaF

(29 Messages in 3 pages - View all)
1 2 3
Add reply to this discussion




Turkish Dictionary
Turkish Chat
Open mini chat
New in Forums
Why yer gördüm but yeri geziyorum
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much, makes perfect sense!
Etmeyi vs etmek
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much!
Görülmez vs görünmiyor
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much, very well explained!
Içeri and içeriye
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much for the detailed ...
Present continous tense
HaydiDeer: Got it, thank you!
Hic vs herhangi, degil vs yok
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much!
Rize Artvin Airport Transfer - Rize Tours
rizetours: Dear Guest; In order to make your Black Sea trip more enjoyable, our c...
What does \"kabul ettiğini\" mean?
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much for the detailed ...
Kimse vs biri (anyone)
HaydiDeer: Thank you!
Random Pictures of Turkey
Most commented