a group that did one of the worst genocides in the 20th century
As far as I understand the history, that's not exactly accurate. It's more like the Jacobin Magazine - yes, the Jacobins did some atrocities (and before you say killing nobles is good - the vast, vast majority of the victims were peasants and suspected political enemies of all stripes, left and right, which is what eventually got them overthrown), but it was quite a complicated time and what we remember and praise them for isn't the atrocities, it's their ideals and the forceful pursuit thereof.
The Young Turks were liberal nationalists who were trying to reform the Ottomans for years before they sniffed political power. That's when they and their name became famous and associated with "revolutionaries" of any kind - which is the definition TYT was founded under. Certain factions of theirs eventually took power and perpetrated the Armenian/Assyrian/Greek genocides, but that was one of the things they did, it wasn't a linchpin of their program. Arguably, an unreformed Ottoman government would have done the same in their place - they had already been arming paramilitary Bashi-Bazouk forces that were known for massacring disloyal minority populations.
Given that Cenk was a genocide-denier in his Republican youth, I do agree the naming is a bit fucked up in retrospect - I'd rename themselves if I were them. But the Young Turks weren't the equivalent of Nazis, they were way broader than that and did represent one of the most progressive movements in Turkish history.
Arguably, an unreformed Ottoman government would have done the same in their place
Definitely arguable given the famed tolerance of the empire for minority populations within its borders, though by the onset of WW1 you're probably right.
I've only ever gotten the western education (radlib at least--in the same class we learned about the CIA assassination of Mosaddegh) so part of me wonders about the reputation of the young turks (given that ataturk did the genocide)--are they hailed as liberal and progressive simply for being a secular/nationalist/liberal rebellion in the imperial core of a dying Islamic empire? Or were they actually an improvement from the politics in the empire itself?
the famed tolerance of the empire for minority populations within its borders
Except when it came to dealing with rebellious subjects - which, like I said, were met with harsh reprisals. And some Armenians/Christians were at least restive during WWI (which is what all genocide apologia focuses on). There was also the famous conscription of Christian boys etc. The Ottomans were more religiously tolerant than most European states (especially of Jews), but they still lived in an age when collective punishment was the standard mindset. But, yeah, definitely an arguable question.
(given that ataturk did the genocide)
AFAIK, he did not (except in that he was an officer for a government that was doing it). He was a mid-level officer when it started (1914), was busy fighting WWI battles during it, and only became a national figure in 1918, when it was basically concluded. He later fought the Turkish-Armenian War where more civilian massacres occurred, so those are on him. But he had little power when the bulk of it took place.
part of me wonders about the reputation of the young turks ... are they hailed as liberal and progressive simply for being a secular/nationalist/liberal rebellion in the imperial core of a dying Islamic empire?
Great question for someone Turkish! I can only offer a glimpse of the Soviet perspective, which was generally anti-Turkey (NATO country, long-time Russian enemy), pro-Ataturk (Lenin and Ataturk were allies against the Entente powers during the Russian Civil War).
My guess is that people who're actually trying to reform the country after it had been declining and losing wars non-stop for like a century would be appreciated.
That was super helpful, thanks! FWIW American-Armenians have a page dedicated to Ataturk's completion of the genocide, but yeah you'd have to talk to a Turk comrade and/or an Armenian comrade to get a more accurate picture of how the folks most impacted view his role.
I don't agree, but it is really fucked up that Cenk named his media company after a group that did one of the worst genocides in the 20th century.
As far as I understand the history, that's not exactly accurate. It's more like the Jacobin Magazine - yes, the Jacobins did some atrocities (and before you say killing nobles is good - the vast, vast majority of the victims were peasants and suspected political enemies of all stripes, left and right, which is what eventually got them overthrown), but it was quite a complicated time and what we remember and praise them for isn't the atrocities, it's their ideals and the forceful pursuit thereof.
The Young Turks were liberal nationalists who were trying to reform the Ottomans for years before they sniffed political power. That's when they and their name became famous and associated with "revolutionaries" of any kind - which is the definition TYT was founded under. Certain factions of theirs eventually took power and perpetrated the Armenian/Assyrian/Greek genocides, but that was one of the things they did, it wasn't a linchpin of their program. Arguably, an unreformed Ottoman government would have done the same in their place - they had already been arming paramilitary Bashi-Bazouk forces that were known for massacring disloyal minority populations.
Given that Cenk was a genocide-denier in his Republican youth, I do agree the naming is a bit fucked up in retrospect - I'd rename themselves if I were them. But the Young Turks weren't the equivalent of Nazis, they were way broader than that and did represent one of the most progressive movements in Turkish history.
Definitely arguable given the famed tolerance of the empire for minority populations within its borders, though by the onset of WW1 you're probably right.
I've only ever gotten the western education (radlib at least--in the same class we learned about the CIA assassination of Mosaddegh) so part of me wonders about the reputation of the young turks (given that ataturk did the genocide)--are they hailed as liberal and progressive simply for being a secular/nationalist/liberal rebellion in the imperial core of a dying Islamic empire? Or were they actually an improvement from the politics in the empire itself?
Except when it came to dealing with rebellious subjects - which, like I said, were met with harsh reprisals. And some Armenians/Christians were at least restive during WWI (which is what all genocide apologia focuses on). There was also the famous conscription of Christian boys etc. The Ottomans were more religiously tolerant than most European states (especially of Jews), but they still lived in an age when collective punishment was the standard mindset. But, yeah, definitely an arguable question.
AFAIK, he did not (except in that he was an officer for a government that was doing it). He was a mid-level officer when it started (1914), was busy fighting WWI battles during it, and only became a national figure in 1918, when it was basically concluded. He later fought the Turkish-Armenian War where more civilian massacres occurred, so those are on him. But he had little power when the bulk of it took place.
Great question for someone Turkish! I can only offer a glimpse of the Soviet perspective, which was generally anti-Turkey (NATO country, long-time Russian enemy), pro-Ataturk (Lenin and Ataturk were allies against the Entente powers during the Russian Civil War).
My guess is that people who're actually trying to reform the country after it had been declining and losing wars non-stop for like a century would be appreciated.
That was super helpful, thanks! FWIW American-Armenians have a page dedicated to Ataturk's completion of the genocide, but yeah you'd have to talk to a Turk comrade and/or an Armenian comrade to get a more accurate picture of how the folks most impacted view his role.