[mengibar10]

That's how it looks if you oversimplify history and do it with only one sentence. Turks started to migrate into Anatolia about 600 AD. However, the most defining moment and the most known turning point is the Battle of Menzikert in 1071. This puts at least 1000 years of slow demographic change.

We can argue a lot of details about how it happened. But it is better to stick to your main argument that the guilt over past crimes is mainly a Western thing. That could not be further than the truth. That's where I object mainly. Such demographic changes happened much faster and more brutal in the West by the Western people. Both North and South American continents that are tens of times larger areas than Anatolia has seen genocidal change for a much shorter period of time for much bigger population. It is estimated that the populate in North America was comparable to that of Europe when "discoveries" started. I do not see such guilt proportional to what happened.

You may think that those are a bit in the past. How about French and Belgian colonialism. The crimes committed by Belgian in Kongo pales even that of Germans. The most conservative figure is that Belgians killed 10 Million people. The upper estimate is about 40M. Why we do not hear about those crimes as much as about what Germans did ? Kongolese are not human? or this much emphasis serve a political agenda?

[eruci]

Regardless of when the first Turk appeared in Anatolia, it does not change the fact that the native populations were completely wiped out mostly in recent history. Is the state organized extermination of Armenians taught to Turkish schools like the crimes of colonialism are in major western former colonial powers? How about the current treatment of Kurds in Turkey and even in neighboring countries?

It is you oversimplifying and throwing around numbers to over-justify.

I stand by my main claim the revisiting past crimes of nationhood, is mainly a western thing.

[mengibar10]

I am deliberately avoiding the Armenian issue not to overlook it but not to lose focus. I wanted to reply to your "mainly a Western thing" argument. All my examples were only to enforce the argument and not to divert the attention. That is why I am not dignifying other threads by replying since they are doing exactly what they accuse me of.

It was probably my mistake not to make my point clear enough. I would like to restate my argument is that we only hear German war crimes at this high amplitude and frequency but almost never about the crimes committed by French or Belgian or any other Western nation. Not on the front page of HN nor on NYTimes. French and Belgian atrocities were also a nation-state crime including the one committed in the Americas.

[luckylion]

> But it is better to stick to your main argument that the guilt over past crimes is mainly a Western thing. That could not be further than the truth. That's where I object mainly.

Well.. I mean, Turkey has a few more recent genocidal episodes that regularly lead to diplomatic issues because it's taboo to mention.

I'd agree with "mainly Western" though certainly not "only Western".

> You may think that those are a bit in the past. How about French and Belgian colonialism.

That's pretty text book What-Aboutism, but I from all I hear from French friends, French colonialism is very much public knowledge and is taught in schools. Not quite as focused as in Germany where the Nazi era is the main focus of history in schools, but certainly not anywhere close to unheard of.