>>>You seem to imply that America has to own her history but Turkey does not? I guess you don't own any of the history then?
>>
>>I think this is about "current republic" - since 1776 or since Ataturk. What was before those were different countries; the new ones came to be as a direct expression of disagreement (and disowning) on what the previous ones did.
>
>Ataturk was 1923-1938...So, to Metin, his history that he owns is only 1923 on? So the Armenian disaster belonged to someone else?
>
>Besides, he has claimed the history in the past numerous times in fact:
>
>Re: An Arab view on Israel-Arab conflict Message #1146660
>
>It is just very interesting that he finds it acceptable to only claim periods of his history when it suits him or only specific events in periods of that history. I won't go further on that.
>
>Or, is this a case of abstract discussion versus a focused, precise discussion? If that is the case, then Metin is guilty of what you claim we Americans are and yet you assumed his previous discussion was abstract...

In this case, I was just trying to guess where did he draw the line - and to get corrected if I was wrong.

>Which would you like it to be? It seems it can be whatever you want it to be in the moment as long as it suits your view. :o)

Actually, I'd also like to hear, for once, what does modern Turkey think about what happened to Armenians and also what happened with Kurds in recent history... and then the Bulgarians as to what happened with Bulgarian Turks, then Romanians as to what happened with Germans and Serbs in Banat (and with Hungarians too, to an extent), then Hungarians about what happened with Slovaks in the south, and Serbia about what happened with pretty much anybody (to the point where refugees had more rights than we), and Croatia on what happened with Serbs, and Albanians about where are all the others... and so on and so on, could take days. That's where Europe meets Asia, you get what little geography is there, recycled over and over in lots of excess history.