s/o common knowledge...Armenian genocide?

[mommaduck]

Of course there are. And in a course on Armenian history, the Armenian genocide it would be historically significant. I'm not sure though in a course on World history (which is the kind of wide topic which I think most "common knowledge" comes from) if it would rank as historically significant enough to be included. Because you do have to pick and choose when dealing with such a broad topic and such a broad time frame.

 

Personally, I believe it is significant and should be taught. Like I said, this topic has me decided to go over various holocausts and genocide programs with my older children.

[AHASRADA]

I believe I learned about it in SOTW a couple of years ago, or from a WTM-recommended resource. In any event no, I was not aware of it until teaching it to my dc.

 

I don't recall any mention of Armenia, or the Ottoman empire, for that matter, during my ps education. Then again, as previously mentioned, I had no world history in ps, only European history in college, so all my world history knowledge has been gained through homeschooling.

 

Oh, and I'm a certified high school teacher :). I am beginning to realize why I put so much emphasis on history for my own dc's education :tongue_smilie:.

[JessReplanted]

Ok, I have to change my vote. :blush:

I googled the armenian genocide and it was not what I was thinking of.

I have never learned about this.

 

(Unless it was mentioned in my world history class in high school and I completely forgot it...)

[Aelwydd]

I assumed the poll is asking if it is common knowledge to the average American (I voted "no").

 

It's one of many things not taught about in American history courses, but it's not surprising, given how little most of us even know about the history of our immediate neighbors, Canada and Mexico.

 

I learned about it years ago while researching Turkish culture, due to an interest in the ancient catacombs there. I kept stumbling over articles by various Europeans opposing full EU membership for Turkey, and one of them cited the Armenian genocide, which then turned into another personal research project on the Ottoman Empire.

[LNC]

Are there any other Armenians on the boards?? :).

 

I grew up hearing these stories my entire life. My grandparents were from Marash, Turkey and both orphaned in the genocide. They were brought over as teenage refugees and eventually married and settled in Watertown, Ma.

 

I don't think it is "common knowledge" and I think it is a travesty of US centric history public education. That is one of the reasons I love SOTW! Another reason it isn't common knowledge is that all US administrations (Dem and Republican) refuse to label it a genocide for fear of losing Turkey as an ally in the Middle East.

 

As far as the importance of the Armenian genocides, even Hitler was quoted to say (paraphrasing bc I'm typing on my phone)- who remembers the Armenians!

[Orthodox6]

This weblink may be of interest to those wishing to learn more about the Armenian Genocide.

 

http://www.genocideeducation.org/

[Jean in Newcastle]

Ok, I have to change my vote. :blush:

I googled the armenian genocide and it was not what I was thinking of.

I have never learned about this.

 

(Unless it was mentioned in my world history class in high school and I completely forgot it...)

 

I was one of the ones who said that I knew it. But I did not learn about it in school. I learned about it through National Geographic magazine or a magazine like that. I thought it was in the 1930's - I was 15 years off but other than that I remembered it correctly.

[LibraryLover]

For me, yes.

 

The halocaust has/had many eloquent witnesses. Anne Frank, Wiesel etc. We rely on survivors to tell their stories.

 

A Family of Shadows is a book that can help people understand what happened in Armenia.

Edited July 18, 2011 by LibraryLover

[gardenmom5]

I was wondering if the Armenian genocide is considered to be common knowledge? I know it wasn't known to me until an Armenian acquaintance told me about it when I was a teenager.

 

 

I voted no.

 

My husband's grandfather was Armenian and he and three brothers escaped the holocast, but many other relatives died in it. (and yes, the word holocast was first used by the NYT to refer to the Armenians - long before WWII.)

[gardenmom5]

It's something I know about but I'm not sure I would consider it common knowledge. I don't think it should be hidden and it is certainly a significant thing that happened in a country. I'm not sure that it has the same historical significance as the holocaust though. I'm saying that because the holocaust happened as a key event during a World War.

 

 

hmm, a significant event in WWI?

 

the NYT used the word holocast to refer to what happend to the Armenians long before WWII. a much larger percentage of armenians were murdered as measured by percentage of population numbers than Jews died at the hands of the nazi's. Because history so quickly forgot the Armenians - hitler got the idea he could do the same thing.

 

I strongly recommend The Burning Tigris by Peter Balakian. it is meticulously documented. I will offer the caveat that I tried to read it twice and couldn't. My husband couldn't. His grandfather was an armenian who escaped.

Edited July 18, 2011 by gardenmom5

[gardenmom5]

Because it was not part of a World War. I'm not saying that it should not be something that people commonly should know about. I'm just saying that I'm not sure that I would automatically expect people to know about it.

 

It was part of WWI.

[gardenmom5]

I'm curious. I don't mean this to sound snarky, but what is the other side to systematically killing off millions of people?

:iagree:

[LibraryLover]

:iagree:

About 1.5 milliion, to be not -so- exact.

[Jean in Newcastle]

It was part of WWI.

 

Like I said in another post, I had thought that it happened in 1930. I had my time off.

[Tullia]

I voted no because it was never mentioned in my history books in school, and have never heard it discussed except by Christians who have lived in the Middle East. I first learned about it from my own reading.

[Spy Car]

I'm curious. I don't mean this to sound snarky, but what is the other side to systematically killing off millions of people?

 

I can (roughly) explain the Turkish side.

 

The Ottoman Turks would absolutely deny there was a systematic attempt to kill Armenians on the part of the State.

 

They would argue that the Armenians (hoping for statehood) began hostilities against the Ottomans in collusion with Russian forces who were on the opposite sides of the Turks in WWI.

 

The Armenians, according to this version, began the violence. Ottoman forces, needing to act in self-defense, tried to round-up and move the Armenian populations out of areas where they threatened the war-effort.

 

While being re-located there were reprisal attacks on the Armenians by local Muslim combatants who were angry at the Armenian betrayal of the Ottoman Government, but these attacks were not part of any "master-plan" by the government, just local emnities spilling into violence and reprisals.

 

The Turks would claim there are no records of the government planning any sort of genocide and would point to individuals being punished for actions against Armenians. And that Armenians in the Ottoman Empire outside the war zone were not bothered.

 

They would also claim many Armenians died during the relocations due to hunger, disease, and other unfortunate fall-outs of war, in addition to conflicts with locals through whose territories the Armenians had to march. But that there was no systematic plan to committ genocide.

 

That is roughly the "Turkish side."

 

Please don't shoot the messenger, I'm just trying to explain what the "Turkish side."

 

Bill

Edited July 18, 2011 by Spy Car

[newlifemom]

I am not sure where I learned about it, however it was not part of any schooling I rcvd, and I was a European history major. :confused:

 

So I picked up info somewhere, maybe SOTW and I looked it up to discuss with a class I was tutoring and found something about declassified documents from the Soviet Union and how it was more of a civil war. Now I am really confused.

 

As for common knowledge, I made sure to discuss it with my class. So there are a few more young ones who have heard. :001_smile:

 

Of course any of you who are more knowledgeable and want to explain the brouhaha from last winter, I sure would love your opinions.

 

Unfortunately, I cannot seem to find the article I found last January.

[mommaduck]

I can (roughly) explain the Turkish side.

 

The Ottoman Turks would absolutely deny there was a systematic attempt to kill Armenians on the part of the State.

 

They would argue that the Armenians (hoping for statehood) began hostilities against the Ottomans in collusion with Russian forces who were on the opposite sides of the Turks in WWI.

 

The Armenians, according to this version, began the violence. Ottoman forces, needing to act in self-defense, tried to round-up and move the Armenian populations out of areas where they threatened the war-effort.

 

While being re-located there were reprisal attacks on the Armenians by local Muslim combatants who were angry at the Armenian betrayal of the Ottoman Government, but these attacks were not part of any "master-plan" by the government, just local emnities spilling into violence and reprisals.

 

The Turks would claim there are no records of the government planning any sort of genocide and would point to individuals being punished for actions against Armenians.

 

They would also claim many Armenians died during the relocations due to hunger, disease, and other unfortunate fall-outs of war, in addition to conflicts with locals through whose territories the Armenians had to march. But that there was no systematic plan to committ genocide.

 

That is roughly the "Turkish side."

 

Please don't shoot the messenger, I'm just trying to explain what the "Turkish side."

 

Bill

Thank you, Bill.

[Giraffe]

I can (roughly) explain the Turkish side.

 

The Ottoman Turks would absolutely deny there was a systematic attempt to kill Armenians on the part of the State.

 

They would argue that the Armenians (hoping for statehood) began hostilities against the Ottomans in collusion with Russian forces who were on the opposite sides of the Turks in WWI.

 

The Armenians, according to this version, began the violence. Ottoman forces, needing to act in self-defense, tried to round-up and move the Armenian populations out of areas where they threatened the war-effort.

 

While being re-located there were reprisal attacks on the Armenians by local Muslim combatants who were angry at the Armenian betrayal of the Ottoman Government, but these attacks were not part of any "master-plan" by the government, just local emnities spilling into violence and reprisals.

 

The Turks would claim there are no records of the government planning any sort of genocide and would point to individuals being punished for actions against Armenians. And that Armenians in the Ottoman Empire outside the war zone were not bothered.

 

They would also claim many Armenians died during the relocations due to hunger, disease, and other unfortunate fall-outs of war, in addition to conflicts with locals through whose territories the Armenians had to march. But that there was no systematic plan to committ genocide.

 

That is roughly the "Turkish side."

 

Please don't shoot the messenger, I'm just trying to explain what the "Turkish side."

 

Bill

 

Bill, thank you - you did a fabulous job. I had to log off and tend to my DD and so couldn't elaborate. Thank you for doing it for me (and doing a better job than I could have done!).

 

My Turkish relatives (from the east) recall, before the relocation/genocide, that their Armenian neighbors had manned gun turrets on top of their houses. They recall being afraid to even walk to the market because of the hostilities from Armenians. They are so upset, even now, that they have sadness mixed with fear in their eyes whenever the subject comes up (we do have living relatives from this period). It was an ugly time in the Ottoman Empire - on both sides.

 

The modern Turkish Republic now in place would like me to remind you that they are not the Ottoman Empire and should not be punished for something done by people in an empire that no longer exists and (as Bill says above) that the reprisals were not part of an organized campaign by the government.

 

DD calls again - I'll be back when I can....

Edited July 18, 2011 by Hopscotch67