23 April 2017

3632) “Fatal Philanthropy” – James Bryce And The Armenians by Pat Walsh

© This content Mirrored From  http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com
“Fatal Philanthropy” – James Bryce And The Armenians by Pat Walsh


To understand the point of this paper we need to revisit something that George Curzon (later Lord) said as Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the course of defending traditional British policy with regard to the Ottoman Empire, on behalf of Lord Salisbury’s Government:

“We were not prepared at any moment to go to war for the sake of Armenia. We were not prepared to plunge Europe into a Continental war for the sake of Armenia. We were not prepared to jeopardise the interests of this country and I will go further and say the interests of the Armenians themselves, in pursuit of… what might, in the last resort, have turned out to be a perilous, if not a fatal philanthropy. [Loud Cheers.]” (1).

James Bryce both personified what Curzon called “fatal philanthropy” and did much to realise such a thing in reality, in relation to the Armenians.

Firstly, in discussing this issue we should say something about the importance of James Bryce. Bryce was a tremendously gifted all-rounder: a Historian, jurist, and statesman. He was Regius Professor of civil law at Oxford University, 1870-1893. In his political career he was elected as a Liberal MP in 1880 and from 1885 to 1907 he was Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs; he was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1892); and President of the Board of Trade (1894–95). He became Chief Secretary for Ireland (1905-6), British Ambassador to the United States (1907–13) and the President of British Academy (1913-17) during the Great War. He was also involved in the estab-lishment of the League of Nations, and served at the International Court at The Hague.

He was author of a large amount of publications including most notably The Holy Roman Empire (1864), Transcaucasia and Ararat (1877), The American ...
. . .

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

3631) Justification –The Claims For An Armenia by Justin McCarthy

© This content Mirrored From  http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com

In all the emotion, the propaganda, and the declarations on genocide, the most important factor of Armenian history has been neglected: Is there any justification for the creation of an Armenian state?

Various reasons for the creation of an Armenia are given by Armenian Nationalists:

Historical Claims

It is stated that there should be an Armenia because Armenians once ruled there. Indeed, at one time or other there were parts of Eastern Anatolia and the Southern Caucasus that were ruled by Armenian kings and local lords. Map One shows what might be called the maximalist position. It is a great amount of land, but most of it was ruled by Armenians for only 20 to 25 years. Many other than Armenians ruled the territories for much longer, often centuries. The claim of Armenian national -ists to all this land because it had Armenian kings is thus unsupportable.

There were two regions in which Armenians ruled much longer (Map Two), although even in these regions Armenians often were vassals to others, such as the Mongols. Does the existence of these kingdoms mean Armenians can claim these lands? No. Armenian lords were by no means the first rulers of that land. At one time or other, Hittites, Assyrians, Phrygians, Seleucids, and others ruled. Armenian kings were only part of a long line of sovereigns. If modern-day countries were to be created on the basis of past kingship, many would have claim to the lands called ...

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

3630) Millets And Confessional Communities In The Ottoman Empire: Brief Study Of Changing Frames Of Reference And Distorted Interpretations In Relation To A Key Ottoman Institution by Rhoads Murphey

Millets And Confessional Communities In The Ottoman Empire: Brief Study Of Changing Frames Of Reference And Distorted Interpretations In Relation To A Key Ottoman Institution by Rhoads Murphey

© This content Mirrored From  http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com

The debate over what the term millet actually meant or implied in both semantic and historical terms in an Ottoman context is both long-standing and still fraught with contention and disagreement, fueled by a not inconsiderable degree of definitional confusion. Before entering into a discussion of its meaning and significance in the Ottoman era it will be best if we examine the meaning of the term in its pre-Ottoman usage. In classical and Koranic Arabic its lexical meaning is unambiguous. The triliteral root mim lam lam when used as a noun can only mean religion or belief and practice in respect of religion (1). Its meaning in any other sense is simply not attested. As defined in Lane’s lexicon the correct term for confession, denomination, creed or communion is not millet (plural millel) but nihla (plural nihal) which refers to religious practice and custom as distinct from religious belief (2). By a stretch this latter term could be applied to confessional community but, it could never encompass or be used to convey a sense of nation or people as defined by either ethnicity or linguistic preference.

In the broader sense of religious community the recognized groups who could be considered as . .
. . .

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

06 April 2017

3629) Legacies Of Pre-Modern International Law: American Interventionism And Ottoman Christians In The 1890s

“The Legacies Of Pre-Modern International Law: American Interventionism And Ottoman Christians In The 1890s”

Karl SHOEMAKER
University of Wisconsin-Madison

My remarks address the Armenian crisis from the standpoint of the United States, particularly as both American foreign policy and American public opinion were shaped in the years between 1895 and 1915. But my remarks are also set against the backdrop of a much longer history of the Western legal tradition. This backdrop necessary in order to highlight important jurisprudential developments in international law that privileged Christian identity, sought the division of the Ottoman Empire, and urged Ottoman Christian communities toward ill-advised and tragic action in the last decade of the nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth century. . . .

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

3628) Discourse Control In Genocide Studies And The Imagined Raphael Lemkin by Tal Buenos

Discourse Control In Genocide Studies And The Imagined Raphael Lemkin

Tal BUENOS
University of Utah

“We know that when Raphael Lemkin (Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, 1944) coined the term genocide, he had the massacres and deportations of 1915 in mind.” This was stated by the majority judges in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland. Their ruling was in favor of Perinçek, and yet there is something quite troubling about the confidence with which the judges thought they knew something that is not known to be true.

If careful attention is given to what kind of “knowledge” about 1915 is produced and consumed, there is plenty of room for concern that no state but Turkey would oppose the introduction of legal components to the genocide accusation regarding 1915. These judges displayed that they are informed by the controlled discourse on genocide; that history is drowned out by the genocide scholar’s ability to disseminate misleading information. This was even more the case in Switzerland. The existence of a biased and dominant field of study – genocide field of study – has demonstrably affected the perspective of these judges to the point where they think that they know something that actually is not known to be true. . .

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

3627) Legislating Genocide by Michael M. Gunter

Legislating Genocide

Michael M. Gunter
Tennessee Technological University

Why in recent decades have various Armenian groups made strenuous attempts to have numerous legislatures and various other bodies around the world pass resolutions recognizing the Armenian massacres during World War I as genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire? (1) Although most Armenians feel very strongly about these events, one might query why they have gone to such lengths to, in effect, legislate their version of history after so many years. In the main of course, the Armenians and their supporters have been reduced to using almost any tactic possible given their earlier failure to implement their policies by other means including force. Armenian terrorism, for example, was employed as recently as the 1970s and 1980s in a failed, short-sighted and violent attempt to implement their policies (2). In others words genocide resolutions are being used to try to further the Armenian cause: recognition of what they call genocide, reparations, and revenge—the three Rs (3). Another reason to have these events recognized as genocide is that it is the only bond or glue strong enough to bind the otherwise territorially, linguistically and religiously diverse Armenian Diaspora communities together (4). . .

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !