In Monday Morning 10 Shirt's defense, I do believe it would be erroneous to say there was genocide against all--or possibly even against most--Indian tribes. Individual campaigns against some tribes at certain places and times, yes. But most tribes were wiped out by disease or accidental dispossession. Many of the early colonists tried coexistance as well. I don't think any English colonial actions against any Indian tribe could be considered "genocidal" in the modern sense until at least King Phillip's War, for example. In short, I wasn't arguing with his conclusions so much as his reasoning. FWIW.
I don't know with certainty about the English, but there is no doubt that the Spanish were guilty of genocide against the native Americans. It was true in the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, and it was continued by the Argentines after they declared independence from Spain. General Roca, who finally 'solved the problem of the indians' around 1880, is still venerated as a great patriot in Argentina.
Re: Resolutions Does that mean all this could be solved if the Turks just let Armenians own casinos in Istanbul?
But this really isn't new. Every US President from Gerald Ford to Bill Clinton gave a speech on it (though Clinton did not call it a genocide). I have been told that there were Congressional resolutions on this before (though I admit I cannot find them). Each living US secretary of state, Republican and Democrat) have come out against this. Part of it may be that Pelosi apparently has a large Armenian population in her district. I really wonder why this has been pushed now. That said, Turkey needs to come to come to grips with what happened.
California Representative Adam Schiff, author of the resolution, also has a large Armenian population in his constituency. Bill Maher has a joke about it tonight...That, he said, is why the Democrats were voted into office at last election, to send a strong message to the Ottoman Empire.
As an American of Armenian descent on his father's side, with a grandfather who worked most of his adult life working with the ANCA until his dying day last month... well, none of this surprises me in the very least. Plus, thanks for reminding me why I almost never come into the Politics forum.
Irrespectetive of whether the tragedies in 1915 should be recognized as a genocide or not - it is very shameful for the US to treat this as they do. The Republicans say that they oppose the Resolution - not because they dont believe that the massacres were a genocide, their reason to deny is their country alliance with Turkey The Democrats support the resolution - If the democrats really wanted to accept the genocide, they would have done it before, and actually everyone agrees that it is very stupid to make a resolution at this time. The goal of the democrats is to make the politics of the Republican government look even worse that it is - and by provoking Turkey, which thinks of intervening into the only safe part of iraq, they can reach their goal more easyly. This resolution has nothing to do with human rights - its only a one part of the democrats election campaign.
More shameful than Turkey's approach of "talk about it and we'll jail ya"? The motivations as to why this has came up should be questioned. Afterall, Pelosi isn't calling for a resolution shaming Belgium for the policies in Congo 80-100 years ago there were just as horrific. Nevertheless, at least the US is talking about it.
I know this is a bit late, but I would just like to point that my information comes from some reading, but mostly in discussions with...*gasp*...educated Turks.
I know quoting this flipflopping liar is like picking on the retarded kid in class, but it really is quite interesting. 2000 - 2007 - Hmmm. I guess 9/11 really did change everything. http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/10/george-w-bush-man-of-principle.html
Nice catch DJ. Though in the original 2000 letter, the word "diaspora" is used. No way Bush knows that word--I'm doubting he ever even SAW that letter, much less understood its contents.
Why is this our business? Judging other peoples faults/past transgressions. We as americans need to clean up our act before we can even think of condemning the actions of other groups of people. This whole "moral high ground" argument makes me sick. US foreign policy over just the past 120 years has been reprehensible! Multiple invasions of Mexico. Deposing of or helping to depose of democraticly elected govt's in Iran (some others as well but they have slipped my mind). Supporting Regimes like Saudi Arabia, and Iraq under Saddam. We don't stand up for the rights of the people unless we have a monetary reason to do so. The list of our transgressions against other nations and peoples is long and sad. Our country has turned into/has been for a long time, a childish bully nation. If we want to truly be world leaders we need to act like it. The "do as I say not as I do" line can not work. Sorry Armenians ya'll got screwed. It sucks. My people (Cherokee) got it pretty bad too. But until The US cleans up its act and leads buy GOOD example I just don't feel it is right to condemn others. Edit: sorry but this post is the reason I don't ofen post in this forum. I only type when I get mad enuf here.
If I could use a 9/11 changed everything chip here, I would like to. Turkey was not the logistically vital nation in 2000 that it is today.
DJPoopypants - As much as I like bagging on GWB, there's no contradiction there. One can speak out on a subject (and maybe he has, maybe he hasn't) but not think a Congressional resolution is the best way to go about things. And it isn't. Isn't there anything else Congress could be doing, say like stopping the Iraq War or something?
Exactly. In his second quote the President admits that the masacre did occur but he pragmatically questions the wisdom of introducing a measure at this particular time, when America needs Turkey's support. I think it's right morally to recognize the historical events that took place, but I have to wonder at the motivation of some of the democratic leaders, as they must know the importance of Turkey's help in attempting to minimize the damage in Iraq, they must know that Turkey cay potentially cause problems in Iraq, and they must know that there is a risk of alienating Turkey by passing this resolution. Also, they must be aware that chaos in Iraq is to their party's advantage politically. So, you have to wonder why they choose this particular time, at a propicious time in the election cycle, to decide to pass such a motion.
I call bs on your logic and mindset. #1 - Turkey has always been important, logistically and otherwise, now and in 2000. Because it is the only relatively progressive and secular muslim state over there. So that covers them idealistically. And real-politik wise - they have been critical logistically ever since the 1st gulf war, because our military has relied on their air bases and supply route to Iraq, especially after Saudi Arabia kicked our troops out. #2 - it sure sounds like you are implying that we should not condemn historical genocide in countries that might help us when we need their help now, but it would be OK to condemn historical genocide when we don't need their help. Which may be great real-politik, but is morally reprehensible, and reflects very poorly on your thinking and morals.
"If elected President, I would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people." Well, if the congressional representatives of the USA want to say "killing lots of armenians was bad", having the president come out and diss that statement sure sounds like he is sweeping it under the rug, and getting in the way of 'properly recognizing the tragic suffering of the Armenian people.' Hey Mr 25% with 1yr left - you ain't gonna get another chance at fulfilling the promise you made (albeit with your fingers crossed behind your back). I do wonder about the logic and rationale behind the timing of this resolution. But it is fairly far from an election cycle (ie, not October of next year). Is doing this gonna screw up Iraq even more? I can't see that. Turkey ain't exactly been helpful in Iraq ever since they told Bush to go pack sand just before we invaded (not that I blame them). And that ain't changed to today. Real-politik says we won't condemn those who help us, but will stick a knife in the back of those who obstruct us. I'd say Turkey ain't been doing us a lot of favors recently, so they are fair game (right or wrong). And if it helps take away potential support for rash, unjustified US military action against Iran... it may be a smart move. Anyway, I'm sure if we applied similar logic to south america (ie, never say bad things about argentina's past because we might need them to help us bomb Venezuala) - would you agree with that? Should we pretend to ignore the crimes of the junta in Argentina because we could use their help in starting a war against Venezuala? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be OK with that.
Read all my posts. I said that I think the resolution is the moral thing to do. Just because I don't find the president's position icontradictory as you do, and just because I understand what he's trying to say, doesn't mean that I agree with it. I do think that passing the resolution is the right thing to do. But, I am also questioning the motives of the democrats in choosing to do it at this particular time. Just because I think it is right, it doesn't necesarily mean they are doing it for the right reasons. Isn't it possible that the democrats welcome the potential problems that dissing Turkey at this time may potentially cause for America, because it may benefit them politically? Just like I thought removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right thing to do but I questioned the motives of the administration for doing it, I am doing the same thing here. What, you don't think the timing of this resolution is curious? And, to say Turkey has not helped is rationalizing, They are a US ally and America does have bases in Turkey that are very helpful in the current situation. And sure you are smart enough to realize that Turkey could cause trouble if they want to. My guess is that Turkey will perhaps talk tough but will not do something dumb like ask America to remove its bases. But, it is a risk that the democrats are willing to take, either because of principle or because stirring the pot helps them politically. Or maybe it's a little of both. Or, are you somebody who honestly believes that the Republicans are the only ones who often choose party over country?
That's fine. I'll take my chip back. And now they are even more important in all of those matters. No need to rock the boat. I'm not of the thinking that an official condemnation of historical genocide is in any way useful. We shouldn't do it for our enemies or our friends. Now current genocides are a different story as we actually can have some sort of effect on them.
I live in U.S. about 8 years now, and Im originally from Armenia. I've always said and will say that nobody in the world doesn't care about Armenia and its people, with this kind of acts they want punish to turks more rather help armenians. One of the few countries that I would say cares about Armenia more or less it would be France. Armenian bill is like a joker card in politicians hand whenever they are playing against turkey. If U.S. really cares about friendship with Turkey(which I don't think they do), they wold have not done some things in past that they did. I don't know if you remember or no, but couple of years ago, when U.S. first wanted to use turkish airspace to support U.S. troops in Iraq turks first rejected and said NO. Then ther was a gossip not huge, (but we U.S. Armenians got informed about it cause we follow it very closely) some congressmembers said lets review our position about Armenian genocide, and all of a sudden turks just went down on their knees in the position of doggy style and started beging U.S. not to that, that it was a misunderstanding and U.S. can use turkish airspace as much as they want. Europeans don't want turks in E.U. because its going to be the biggest muslim country in europe, which is going to affect to a lot of stuff, and thats why they are using Armenian genocide as an excuse. But now Armenian lobby in U.S. is working very hard and mostly its thanks to armenian lobby that this bill is now making a lot of noise, dirty politic games that only harms and brainwashes regular civilians. Sooner or later Turkey will admit the genocide, all world knows about its just will take couple of more years, and hopefully turkish people will open up their eyes and will take some "antibrainwashing" antibiotics, to see the real picture of the past.
Yes. I think the bill should pass, even though I question the motivation of some of the leaders of the democratic party for choosing this time to do it. But, it is important that Turkey is made to acknowledge its recent past. BTW: I grew up in Argentina where they have the largest population of Armenians outside Armenia. Most of those immigrants were escaping the genocide. I had some very good Armenian friends, some of whom I still stay in touch with, (in fact i'm planning to see them when I go to Argentina next week), and I heard some real horror stories from their families. So, I feel your pain. Believe me, there are people who care. This is fairly recent history. That is why I say, ******** the political implications, let America take a moral stand. we need to look at this issue the same way we look at the nazi holocaust.
I think we should denounce the Mexican enslavement of natives in California during the Mission era...even though it was really Spain. Or maybe we could find a way to explain that the Ottoman Empire and Turkey are two completely different nations despite sharing geography?
Thx for the simpathy I've always had a lot of respect for south american countires, such as Argentina, Uruguay(first country who admited genocide), Brazil, Venezuela E.T.C. Outside of Armenia the biggest population of Armenians nowdays is Russia then U.S. then France and then maybe Argentina or Australia. Maybe Argentina has a lot of genocide survivors like Lebanon does, I don't know. I hope one your firends is David Nalbandyan