I have chosen to do my research on the Armenian Genocide. Through the research, I intend to fully understand the history and facts behind the 1-1.5 million lives lost in this genocide of the early 20th century. I want to find out the methods that the Turks used in order to annihilate so many people over such a short period of time, and what justifications they use to support their actions.
I currently have little knowledge of the subject. It is well known that Turkey refuses to admit it was genocide and denies the evidence held against them. They claim that all of the lives lost were result of civil war and unrest. Maybe the only thing that kept the world from initially giving a name to the mass killings in the Ottoman Empire was that they had no way to describe the barbarities that were taking place. The word 'genocide', after all, would not be coined for another 20 years. I initially set out with the goal to find information both in defense of Turkey and against them. Most important to me are all the neutral facts and statistics behind the extermination of the 1 million + Armenians. However, the deeper I delve in to available resources, the more I find that legitimate evidence in defense of Turkey is scarce. So, simply put, my question has evolved from "What is the primary evidence for and against calling this conflict genocide?" to "Why did the Ottoman Empire feel entitled to slaughter a race and how does Turkey justify it today?" and "How did the 'Young Turks' and others of the Ottoman Empire accomplish what they did?"
My interest in the subject is due to my Armenian heritage. The genocide is the reason for my family’s citizenship in America today and I would like to know more about the atrocities that led my great-grandfather to flee his homeland.
No comments:
Post a Comment