Slashdot Mirror
How Google Searches Are Promoting Genocide Denial
merbs writes: If you use Google Turkey to search for "Ermeni Krm", which means "Armenian genocide" in Turkish, the first thing you'll see is a sponsored link to a website whose purpose is to deny there was any genocide at all. If you Google "Armenia genocide" in the U.S., you'll see the same thing. FactCheckArmenia.com may reflect Turkey's longstanding position that the Ottoman Empire's systematic effort to "relocate" and exterminate its Armenian population does not qualify as a genocide, but it certainly does not reflect the facts. The sponsored link to a credible-looking website risks confusing searchers about the true nature of the event. Worse, it threatens to poison a nascent willingness among Turkish citizens to recognize and discuss the horrors of its past.
So Turkish nationalists are buying Google adwords. What's the problem with that? It's an exercise of free speech (for a position that I disagree with).
I have Armenian (and Greek) friends, so I know the basics. Armenians tell me about losing grandparents, aunts and uncles in 1915. This is of course the 100th anniversary. The personal tragedies are overwhelming, and if that wasn't enough, there is the further tragedy of destroying the Armenian and Greek communities and culture in Turkey, and the end of Ottoman tolerance.
I realize there's a debate over the word "genocide." The official Turkish position is, "Let the historians decide." I'm not sure what good that does them. The New York Times leans towards "genocide." http://www.nytimes.com/ref/tim... There is some symbolism here that I can't follow too well.
There is also a small, slowly growing movement among Turks to acknowledge the Armenian position. I don't know how long it will take. I'm not as optimistic as I used to be about world peace and reconciliation.
But Google isn't doing anything wrong.
It's legal to accept Armenian genocide in Turkey.
No it's not (even the Nobel prise winner Orhan Pamuk was prosecuted).
Recently an advisor to the â minister Etyen Mahcupyan, himself of Armenian descent wrote in his daily column that it's an undeniable fact if we accept UN definition.
He did not mentioned directly the Armenian genocide (and he was ceased as an advisor the next fucking day!).
Kurds are also able to teach their language, even the government have a Kurdish TV channel. (TRT 6)
No, they can NOT teach and broadcast their language (they do it only in nothern-easten Turkey, where they are the vast majority and the Turkish military can not force the Turkish laws - and for not "loosing face", the Turkish goverment says that it permits them to do it there experimentaly!)
I didn't read the rest of your post since it looks you need a big update on Turkey.
Your "updates" are false Sir (and i am very well updated about Turkey) - you may need to read the rest of my post, especialy the quote "... and lied like a Turk when he said it." (Mark Twain)
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
the funny thing about all this is that the term "genocide" was coined precisely to describe what the ottomans did to the Armenians. no kidding, look it up. the author of the term is known.
If anyone is wondering about the Turkish phonology, I inform you that the phrase "Ermeni Krm" is actually something like "Ermeni Kirimi", but with dotless ii. In Turkish, it is not possible a word composed of only consonants, but as you may know, /. doesn't support Unicode.
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
The official Turkish position is, "Let the historians decide." I'm not sure what good that does them.
Is that a new position? Or does Turkey like the Armenians better than the Kurds somehow?
When Noam Chomsky wrote about the treatment of Kurdish people in Turkey, the position of the Turkish government was to prosecute Noam Chomsky's Turkish publisher.
Maybe you slept during the history class? Byzantine as a term was coined by Germans in the 1500s in an attempt to revise history as the Holy Roman Empire wanted to paint itself as successor of Rome. (It seems to have worked suprisingly well) Both "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are terms created after 1453 (the fall of Constantinople).
The Empire now called as "Byzantine" was called Imperium Romanum (Latin) or Basileia Rhomaion (Greek) and it's citizens were called Romans regardless of the language they spoke. It's the very same Roman Empire with uninterrupted line of Emperors from the time of Caesar and not "Greek who pretends to be Roman" as you falsely claim. During the 600s they changed the offical language from Latin to Greek (administration and army) as it was practical to do so since that was the lingua franca in most of the areas controlled by the Empire.
Some factual errors here.
"Armenians as the name implies are Aramaic" (I've corrected your spelling too)
Wrong. Armenia is the name used by non-Armenians to refer to the country. "Hayastan" as we call it, is named after Hayk, the patriarch of Armenians. Depending on your reference, you'll find that Armenia originates in reference to Hayk's descendent Aram (your mileage will vary).
You might be confusing Armenians with the Arameans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arameans). Armenians predate (and coexisted with) the Arameans. Armenians aren't Arameans nor do they speak Aramaic. Armenian is an Indo-European language - it's predecessor is Proto-Indo-European.
"Lemkin was also a close relative of genocide victims, losing 49 relatives in the Holocaust. However, his work on defining genocide as a crime dates to 1933, and it was prompted by the Simele massacre in Iraq.[5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...