Genocide Bill Divides US and Turkey

[Xavier_Onassis]

This is before Congress now because there are quite a few wealthy Armenians to whom making Turkey finally admit to slaughtering their great-grandparents is a single towering issue. Many big campaign contributions may ride on this.

The Germans admitted to genocide under the Nazis. Even the Japanese have made some sorrowful gestures over Nanking and the atrocities they committed in Manchuria, Korea and other places. The Turks claim that it never happened, because one of the head honchos who had to agree to it was official National Turkish Hero Mustapha Kemal Pasha, aka Ataturk.

It's a bit like the US admitting that  George Washington may have beaten his slaves to death, or raped or boiled them alive. Except that GW never did any of these things, while Ataturk was complicent in the Armenian genocide.

Turkey would be wise to apologize. Joining the EU would be the best thing that Turkey could do. I don't think it would be all that good for the EU, but it would be a real boon to Turkey.
Ataturk died in 1938.

There can't be any Turks who participated in the Armenian Genocide. It happened in 1915, 92 years ago.

[_JS]

So the dems are pushing this to the ferefront because it is the right thing to do? Why now? Why not under the Human Rights president, Jimmy Carter.

I have no idea why the Democrats are doing this now (or even who among them is pushing it) I just know that I like it. And tell the Salvadorans that Jimmy Carter was the "human rights" President. That's only true when you compare him to who was before and who came after. Comparing a Taurus to a Chevy Monza and a Delorian doesn't necessarily make the Taurus the greatest automobile of all time.

Turkey is an "Associate Member" of the EU, since 1964. See the "Ankera Agreement", signed in 1963.

There was no European Union in 1963 or 1964. To my knowledge they have not entered into any of the exchange rate mechanisms and have not met the criteria for membership. They may have loose affiliations with the former EEC or other economic treaties, but they are not a European Union member.

Okay, but that doesn't explain why the U.S Congress is doing this. For that matter, why have state legislatures bothered with this issue? Besides giving politicians a reason to feel morally righteous, what does it accomplish?

At the state level, not much. If Congress passes it then it will likely provide heavy pressure to go along with Europe's pressure to force Turkey to admit to the genocide.

Okay. So? This all seems like the political equivalent of wearing a "F--k Bush" T-shirt in public. It makes the wearer/legislator feel like he is making a bold statement but accomplishes very little of actual use to anyone.

If Congress wants to waste time accomplishing nothing (and as a libertarian, I'm in favor of that), why don't they all just go home rather than spend more taxpayer dollars by staying in session?

That might be all it means to you, but to Armenians I can guarantee that it means a hell of a lot more than F*** Bush. If Turkey admits to committing racial extermination then it will be of huge importance to the Armenian people.

It is perhaps difficult for Americans to understand as often for us, our concept of history is 200 years or less.

Are there no examples of recent or current genocide?

There are many.

Turkey is a key member of Nato and Turkish decisions are imortant to the whole of the middle east.

Could this be creating an international problem for the purpose of domestic political advantage?

Think of it another way, the precedent you'd have set is that if you are close enough to the United States then you can do anything you like and never have to admit to it.

I find it interesting that people are willing to jump through hoops and set aside in their minds a special place for the genocide that took place as the Holocaust (typically only for the Jews and not for the Roma as well). And they willingly extend that to the modern state of Israel (for good or bad), meaning they see no problem with applying that genocide to modern politics.

Yet, other genocides can be easily ignored or chalked up as things that don't seem to matter at all.

Seriously, why is that? That seems horribly offensive to me, no matter whose getting a political point or two from it (and let's face it, no one wins an election on stuff like this anyway).

[sirs]

I find it interesting that people are willing to jump through hoops and set aside in their minds a special place for the genocide that took place as the Holocaust (typically only for the Jews and not for the Roma as well). And they willingly extend that to the modern state of Israel (for good or bad), meaning they see no problem with applying that genocide to modern politics.

The flaw in that theory however is that Israel isn't practicing genocide.  They aren't advocating the wiping out of the Palestinians, nor is their any military intervention to accomplish such.  There are harsh immigration policies (that I might add are arguably not as tough as some of the neighboring Arab nations, yet it's Israel that keeps getting singled out as the be all end all to apartheid practices), and there are military responses to terrorist attacks upon them, but I have yet to see or hear of any extermination efforts, camps, mass killings, etc., at the hands of the modern state of Israel  Perhaps our history expert could point those out vs the tweaked innuedo that the immigration policies are in fact an act of genocide. 

If Israel truely wanted to wipe out the Palestinians (genocide), they're going about it all wrong, since the Palestinian population continues to grow, and the policies themselves simply make life hard on Non-Israelis.  Hardly genocide.  My guess is that your frequent use of the term, along with aparthied, is simply an effort to apply the maximum amout of emotion to your cause, minus the actual facts/reality to it

[_JS]

*sigh*

Do shut up Sirs.

My guess is that your frequent use of the term, along with aparthied, is simply an effort to apply the maximum amout of emotion to your cause, minus the actual facts/reality to it

Your guess is wrong.

My point is not that Israel commits genocide. Which you'll note that I never said.

Read what I wrote again and try to answer intelligently and without thinking that every post is about you or about me attacking Israel! That is not at all what I was doing.

[sirs]

My guess is that your frequent use of the term, along with aparthied, is simply an effort to apply the maximum amout of emotion to your cause, minus the actual facts/reality to it

My point is not that Israel commits genocide. Which you'll note that I never said.; I find it interesting that people are willing to jump through hoops and set aside in their minds a special place for the genocide that took place as the Holocaust (typically only for the Jews and not for the Roma as well). And they willingly extend that to the modern state of Israel, meaning they see no problem with applying that genocide to modern politics.

Your guess is wrong. 

Ummm, ok, if you say so

Do shut up Sirs.

Ok.  I see where this is going to go, so I'll step away for a while

[Amianthus]

There was no European Union in 1963 or 1964. To my knowledge they have not entered into any of the exchange rate mechanisms and have not met the criteria for membership. They may have loose affiliations with the former EEC or other economic treaties, but they are not a European Union member.

With the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty in November of 1993, the European Economic Community changed its name and became the European Community. The European Community, along with the ECSC and Euratom, became known as the European Communities and, together with the two other pillars, became collectively known as the European Union which exists today.

European Economic Community

I don't think a name change and consolidation means it didn't exist before the treaty.

[_JS]

Apologies if I was harsh Sirs, but you did miss the entire point by making it into something it was not. I have never claimed that Israel commits genocide and it angers me a little that you implied such. So now I have to waste valuable time discussing the point that I'm not some anti-Semitic individual who believes that the Israelis are going around committing their own heinous crime of genocide.

Thank you for that.

I find it interesting that people are willing to jump through hoops and set aside in their minds a special place for the genocide that took place as the Holocaust (typically only for the Jews and not for the Roma as well). And they willingly extend that to the modern state of Israel (for good or bad), meaning they see no problem with applying that genocide to modern politics.

Yet, other genocides can be easily ignored or chalked up as things that don't seem to matter at all.

Seriously, why is that? That seems horribly offensive to me, no matter whose getting a political point or two from it (and let's face it, no one wins an election on stuff like this anyway).

My point here is that while the Holocaust is used to accept the existence of Israel (and that's fine, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that) it seems a little disengenuous for people to come here and say "why are we bugging Turkey with this now?"

It is as if one genocide is completely horrible and unacceptable, whereas another genocide was really no big deal and should only be discussed when the political climate is acceptable to do so.

And Plane is correct, we have a few more to deal with as well. We still have Nanking. We have a number of them from the former Yugoslavia and some of them were done by the Croats to the Serbian people and the Croatians have not been forthright with information or the perpetrators. We have a lot of massacres from the Second Congolese Civil War, perhaps a genocide there to the Ituri Pygmies. We have the situation in Darfur.

To me it seems very incongruous that we continue to work hard on the Holocaust (as we should) with a spirit of not allowing this to happen again - and yet we allow it to happen again.

One way we do that is by pretending that the Holocaust was the only Genocide that matters and all others are acceptable.

[Henny]

Apologies if I was harsh Sirs, but you did miss the entire point by making it into something it was not. I have never claimed that Israel commits genocide and it angers me a little that you implied such. So now I have to waste valuable time discussing the point that I'm not some anti-Semitic individual who believes that the Israelis are going around committing their own heinous crime of genocide.

No, JS, you've never accused Israel of committing genocide. However, I have accused Israel of running a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Sirs may have wrongly attributed that to you, as well as confusing ethnic cleansing with genocide.

Before someone jumps in and says "same thing," here are definitions:

The term ethnic cleansing refers to various policies of forcibly removing people of another ethnic group. At one end of the spectrum, it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population transfer, while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

Genocide has been defined as the deliberate killing of people based on their ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, or (sometimes) politics, as well as other deliberate action(s) leading to the physical elimination of any of the above categories. There is disagreement over whether the term genocide ought to be used for politically-motivated mass murders in general (compare "democide"), but in common use it simply refers to the deliberate mass murder of civilians. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

[BT]

Hairshirts must be coming back in fashion.

[domer]

Again let me marvel at JS's priggish conceit: he jumps on a bandwagon of righteous indignation as champion of the Armenians (this time) yet has no clue as to what the discussion was originally about. No one here is denying the horrible fate that befell the Armenians under the yoke of the Young Turks. The question as I see is this: does it make geopolitical sense to approach the matter, now, with a Congressional declaration? What's more, JS constructs a false analogy: the Holocaust has lingering significance because of its role in the creation of the State of Israel, a matter of ongoing concern, yet the current effect of the Armenian genocide has not been laid out. Is there any? Further, for the most part, Jews themselves have carried the water for their own tragedy as one of the most literate people to ever have graced the face of the earth. Have the Roma carried their burden? Have the Armenians? I'm listening, but I simply don't have the time or the interest myself to make the case for JS's cause du jour.

[Universe Prince]

If Congress passes it then it will likely provide heavy pressure to go along with Europe's pressure to force Turkey to admit to the genocide. [...] If Turkey admits to committing racial extermination then it will be of huge importance to the Armenian people.

And if Turkey admits to it, that will accomplish what? What do the Armenian people expect to happen if Turkey admits to genocide?

On the one hand, I agree that the Turkey government should admit to the massacre of Armenians. On the other hand, I believe it is not any of the U.S. government's business to decide to call it a genocide just to put pressure on Turkey. But even if it was, I do not see what an admission of guilt from the government of Turkey will accomplish.

[_JS]

JS's cause du jour

Ouch. Believe it or not, I don't simply jump from cause to cause Domer. I am not some idiot juvenile who thinks everything is worth a "cause." I don't believe that one's literacy should minimalize the historical significance of what has happened to them. Or, more to the point, make them any less human.

I concede though. As a simple technical exercise you can certainly argue that the Congress need not go through with this.

And if Turkey admits to it, that will accomplish what? What do the Armenian people expect to happen if Turkey admits to genocide?

Prince, quite clearly it will not restore any dead Armenians to life nor will Armenia gain any land. At the same time, why have Germany continue to keep places like Dachau open? Land in Europe is valuable, why not bulldoze it and make it into apartments or something that can be sold by a private developer?

[Universe Prince]

Prince, quite clearly it will not restore any dead Armenians to life nor will Armenia gain any land. At the same time, why have Germany continue to keep places like Dachau open? Land in Europe is valuable, why not bulldoze it and make it into apartments or something that can be sold by a private developer?

Good question. Oh I know, it's kept as it is so that we don't forget what happened there. But has it really done anything to stop despots or authoritarian leaders around the world from killing masses of people? Will Turkey admitting to the massacre of Armenians make tyrants in Africa pause and reconsider their actions? I don't intend to seem callous toward the Armenians (they have my sympathies certainly), but I don't believe Congress declaring the incident a genocide is really a substantive move for good. It's symbolic gesture that will do nothing but make our politicians feel good about themselves. And their egos are too large already.