>>>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.
>
>You could know better that Turkey has never 'directly expressed disagreement' with Armenian massacres. By the way, we did not talk about responsibilities. It was just about personal opinions. May one still have an opinion about event happened in the country before current constitution was adopted? By the way, your idea that new constitution/regime means different country does not look too scientific.

I was waiting for a correction from Metin - and then, even if so, to hear what is the new republic saying about that. That question was supposed to come next; I just wanted to know first whether the line between the old and the new runs where I imagined it would.

>Should I also understand that Serbia is brand new country existing since 1990 and never before?

Actually, Serbia is one of the few countries that looks better if you go deeper into history :). "On our path into the bright future, we're better off today already". Legally, current Republic is heir of the Kingdom, which was restored after the fall of Ottomans, and before that there were several centuries - opinions differ when exactly, between VI and IX century, can it be said to have taken the shape of a country. During those times, it had only once made a relatively successful excursion into the neighborhood - Dušan was even recognized as an emperor, but then his empire didn't last long after his death.