• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Armenian Women crucified

Go to CruxDreams.com
X

xyuser

Guest
Hello
Does somebody know something about the Armenian Women which were crucified in the genocide? Are there other documents (movies, pictures)?
greezings, xyuser
 

Attachments

  • Armenian Christian women crucified.JPG
    Armenian Christian women crucified.JPG
    57.6 KB · Views: 984
xyuser said:
Hello
Does somebody know something about the Armenian Women which were crucified in the genocide? Are there other documents (movies, pictures)?
greezings, xyuser
Click to expand...
It was done for a film. The photo is a still from the movie, and those are (American) actresses. It was filmed in California.
en.wikipedia.org

Ravished Armenia (film) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Totally fake in that sense. But most often this pic is shared with the context that “this really happened OMG shock horror” ..well, it makes it more interesting I guess. Don’t get me wrong, atrocities really were committed against Armenians of course (which the Turkish authorities have never acknowledged let alone apologised for)... including the death by impalement as also partially shown in the movie; it’s possible the film-makers thought crucifixion would more effectively stir up the emotions of the viewers, or it’s just meant to symbolise the suffering of the Christian Armenian people under the oppression of the Moslem Turks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The film shows young Armenian girls being "crucified" by being nailed to crosses. However, almost 70 years later Mardiganian [screenwriter and leading actress] revealed to film historian Anthony Slide that the scene was inaccurate and went on to describe what was actually an impalement. She stated that "The Turks didn't make their crosses like that. The Turks made little pointed crosses. They took the clothes off the girls. They made them bend down, and after raping them, they made them sit on the pointed wood, through the vagina. That's the way they killed – the Turks. Americans have made it a more civilized way. They can't show such terrible things."

This suggests to me that the substitution of crucifixion instead of impalement was made to lessen the shock value, not to increase it.
Nevertheless, the movie was censored in some places and outright banned in others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Where it gets weird is that some people will swear “this is an actual photo of a real event” even though you can show them the movie and all the information behind it.. it makes no difference, they keep insisting it’s REAL...
Alternative facts... :doh:
 
051D86DF-5E01-4F37-ABED-E60F2CCBFCB0.jpeg52A65E91-9C1B-4950-9FD6-D719D407E219.jpeg2AFE879C-EF67-4D4A-ABB2-C4C4C8395F6D.jpegC5A3CAE4-E68E-4DC9-9772-F3A4D3569E8B.jpegEA28BD25-D7CA-482C-A9EC-CB6CEAEF89DF.jpeg
The movie is sometimes known under the title “Auction of Souls”, sometimes as “Ravished Armenia”, but it’s the same movie. Despite the participation and starring role played by Aurora Mardiganian (who lived through the terrible atrocities of the Armenian Genocide a few years previously), the movie is semi-fictionalised and is very much a Hollywood production of its time.
 
montycrusto said:
Where it gets weird is that some people will swear “this is an actual photo of a real event” even though you can show them the movie and all the information behind it.. it makes no difference, they keep insisting it’s REAL...
Alternative facts... :doh:
Click to expand...
Be careful, Monty. Such talk may land you in a Re-Education Center...

In a sense, the caption on the photo is not a lie. The actresses were "real women" and the photo was a "real photo" (taken with a camera not created on a computer). But now we face the very real prospect of technology that would allow one to create such a "photo" totally de novo and even experts couldn't be certain. Just think of the mischief THAT could allow...
 
windar said:
Be careful, Monty. Such talk may land you in a Re-Education Center...

In a sense, the caption on the photo is not a lie. The actresses were "real women" and the photo was a "real photo" (taken with a camera not created on a computer). But now we face the very real prospect of technology that would allow one to create such a "photo" totally de novo and even experts couldn't be certain. Just think of the mischief THAT could allow...
Click to expand...
Yes, shark-infested waters, no doubt. Next you’ll be telling me that “Jaws” isn’t a documentary?? :facepalm:

I think the important thing is that this “event” never occurred, so this is not even a historical re-enactment. Just cosplay. Whether that is a fitting tribute to the victims of the real genocide, I am not qualified to judge. ;)
 
windar said:
Be careful, Monty. Such talk may land you in a Re-Education Center...

In a sense, the caption on the photo is not a lie. The actresses were "real women" and the photo was a "real photo" (taken with a camera not created on a computer). But now we face the very real prospect of technology that would allow one to create such a "photo" totally de novo and even experts couldn't be certain. Just think of the mischief THAT could allow...
Click to expand...
As far back as the invention of the printing press the possibility of manipulating the media for propaganda purposes has always existed. With the advance of technology, the possibilities have increased and our ability to separate the wheat from the chaff has become more difficult.We can only try and use our common sense, view each situation with an open mind and try to establish the facts, hard as this may be.
 
montycrusto said:
Yes, shark-infested waters, no doubt. Next you’ll be telling me that “Jaws” isn’t a documentary??
Click to expand...
No, but "Sharknado" was.:D

Even real documentaries are edited and what is left out can be as important as what was left in.

As for the crucifixion vs impalement, I don't necessarily buy the screenwriter's point. Was it done to look more "civilized" for Americans (and when have Americans ever been accused of being civilized?)? Is crucifixion more civilized than impalement (let me go into the lab and get back to you on that)? Or was it done for the religious imagery? Or because given the budget constraints of such a film, which is hardly "Star Wars" did the director feel they could more easily make a crucifixion look real than an impalement?
 
windar said:
In a sense, the caption on the photo is not a lie. The actresses were "real women" and the photo was a "real photo"
Click to expand...
Wow, I had not even read the caption! What an utter pile of wank... :doh:

“Armenian Christian women crucified 1915-17 by Muslim Turks. These are real photos of real women. We must never forget. This is Islam.”

I hope we can agree this caption is a cynical piece of fake news, designed to stir up islamophobia in the minds of credulous morons. Apart from anything else, the real atrocities of the Genocide against the Armenians are hardly best commemorated by the circulation of a still from a Hollywood film accompanied by a dishonest and cretinous caption.
 
montycrusto said:
It may be the movie’s producers thought they could get crucifixion past the censors, but not impalement. But I’m only guessing. ;)
Click to expand...
That was my guess as well, but they then mention the “game of swords” impalement in the film before they show the crosses. Maybe they’re symbolic? I would have to argue it worked, since the few surviving stills have left a tremendous impact. Either way, I find it ironic that a crucifixion fetishist’s forum comes out with the moral high ground on this one.
 
mp5stab said:
That was my guess as well, but they then mention the “game of swords” impalement in the film before they show the crosses. Maybe they’re symbolic? I would have to argue it worked, since the few surviving stills have left a tremendous impact. Either way, I find it ironic that a crucifixion fetishist’s forum comes out with the moral high ground on this one.
Click to expand...
It certainly is a powerful and unforgettable image.. more so than many of the real photos of the Genocide. And I would expect this forum to be experts on fantasy, and so be able to distinguish it from reality (and to care about the difference) ;)
 
Hard to say,really as it's such a contentious issue....when i first saw it,years back i thought "wow!!" in surprise that they did hang women upon crosses,(considering it was my favourite kink,I'm almost ashamed to say....) but i also thought it was rather too well done to be authentic.
Bearing in mind, the amount of Religious/ Racial bigotry in the world,nowadays...is anyone surprised ?!
 
Baracus said:
Hard to say,really as it's such a contentious issue....when i first saw it,years back i thought "wow!!" in surprise that they did hang women upon crosses,(considering it was my favourite kink,I'm almost ashamed to say....) but i also thought it was rather too well done to be authentic.
Bearing in mind, the amount of Religious/ Racial bigotry in the world,nowadays...is anyone surprised ?!
Click to expand...
I suppose I could (if I was a religious nut case) get a still from “Kingdom of Heaven” showing (actors dressed as) Arabs being pretend-slaughtered by (actors dressed as) crusaders.. and add the caption “Brutal slaughter of innocent Arabs 1180 AD ! This is a real photo of real people! Never Forget! This is Christianity!”

that should be equally persuasive :p it’s probably already on Facebook as we speak :facepalm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom