(Login pigeti) Forum Owner Posted Nov 29, 2005 2:09 PM
Sorry! I forgot to specify how I define the divide between pre-modern and modern is in the Ottoman Empire. I simply assumed that everyone was familiar with this subject and the Ottomans in general. My fault. Although historians are still debating on the subject, it is generally accepted that the nineteenth century is the modern era for the Ottoman history. So, all of those massacres that took place in the nineteenth century had nothing to do with the pre-modern Ottoman period and since I do not deny the existence of massacres aimed at Armenians in this period, those counter-arguments against what I wrote means nothing as far as I am concerned. In fact, they support my point. By the way, I am afraid that none of those sources mentioned are relevant to the subject.
If I go back to the subject of when the modern era starts, it is way before 1860’s Quebecer. 1800’s is definitely the modern period and I would look for its beginning in the mid 1700’s. By the way, I am talking about the Ottoman world (with Muslims and Christians), not necessarily about the Ottoman Muslims only. The process of modernization started much earlier for the Ottoman Christians. My whole point is that the Armenian-Turkish/Muslim conflict is a modern phenomenon. It doesn’t exist in the pre-modern era. The life was perhaps not great for Armenians, but in the pre-modern period there were other groups who had it worse than Armenians. The six hundred years of brutality in the form of massacres, rapes and killings is simply a modern myth invented for nation building purposes like other nationalistic myths found in every modern nation-state. We may of course have another separation as in the form of pre-Young Turk era versus the Young Turk era or the era of Turkish nationalism, but that is a different topic.