I am going to be the first to suggest a genocide proclamation against the upcoming genocide of the Kurds by the Turks. Who's with me?
So Turkey, whose government and therefore government policies did not exist at the time of the genocide, should be held in the same light because it is the same land and descendants of the same people? Sorry, but I, as a Portuguese descendent, don't really think that criticisms of Salazar fall too heavily on me. I for the life of me can't figure out why Turks take such offense to this. Its not like Germans are trying to cover up Hitler's actions.
Yes, because they claim the genocide didn't happen and they teach their children at school that it didn't happen.
Again, let's worry about genocides that occured 90 years ago after we do something about the ones that are going on as we speak. Of course, Jimmy Carter disagrees. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7028267.stm
We should do something about the ones that are happening now. That should be a higher priority. But, that doesn't mean we cannot also acknowledge the ones that have already occurred, particularly when they are being denied, they happened less than a century ago, and they are still fresh in the memory of the children of the survivors.
that's very nice of you do you think that victims of that other genocide have an equally rosy view of those countries seeing as those very places were a haven for many who were responsible for the horrible suffering throughout Europe during WWII
Actually they were more of a haven for those who were escaping the horrors of Europe during WWI and WWII, as well as the era of fascism. But, it's true that we did get a few of the bad apples as well.
That still has nothing to do with their current government. Call me ignorant, but I don't really see what the Turks are getting their panties in a wad for. Yes, I think it is dumb to make this resolution at this exact time, and I think there were political warfare motives involved. That does nothing to the fact that Turks shouldn't care. It was a past government and they should denounce it and move on. Their failure to recognize it is only setting them back in foreign relations...and from the looks of it, they sure could use an ally like the US right now.
When I was in high school, we used to call the Armenian kids 'Turcos'. (Turks). It was out if ignorance, of course. It's kind of ironic, that they came escaping the Turks and we called them Turks. I used to call my friend 'Turco', but I stopped doing it after he told me his family's story. He explained to me why they didn't like being called Turks.
Marek can you be more specific in your question, what do you mean by that other genoceide?? Jewish holocaust??
Well if it has nothing to do with current government, why don't they admit that?? Maybe the regime was different, but it was the same people with same believes(mostly) tht they are nowdays.
No need to. We can hold Spain accountable for that. That aside, the Turks were the power behind the Ottoman empire. It wasn't just a matter of geography. If it was we'd be talking about the Bulgarians or the Macedonians facing this resolution.
Then why don't we? In fact, why don't we denounce our own massacre of native peoples? How long has congress been in the business of denouncing genocide? How many massacres have we left out? These are serious questions...I'm not asking them to prove a point. I really would like someone to answer them for me, and I would appreciate their time.
Carter has a recent history of sympathizing with the bad guys. It's part and parcel of his "conflict-resolution" approach to diplomacy; Carter always seeks to establish an absolute equivalence between parties in any conflict, no matter what.
Which specific attrocities are you talking about? Maybe you should open a thread to talk abou them. You are right. Certainly, if the USA has committed attrocities that they are officially denying, and their official position is that such attrocities never ocurred, and that the victims are lying about it, and they are teaching their children at school that such claims of attrocities are false, then indeed they should be denounced and the truth should be brought to light. But, as far as the massacre of the natives, what is the official position of the US. Are things that were done still being denied by the US? What do they teach the kids at school in the USA about such incidents?
Armenia? I thought we were talking about Albania? Whatever. If the Gypsy Kings came from there, then I saw it was genocide.
Too people with little brains, that appears to be the case. In reality, what you are doing with this approach is allowing both parties equivalency in terms of the right to bargain and speak. The theory is that by doing so, you take steps toward solving a problem where "truth" or "the maximum welfare" will win out. For instance, you negotiate with Iraq or Iran, not because you are making the parties equal, but because you may be able to take incremental steps toward a solution without bloodshed. The reason democracy and the court systems seem to work in this county is much the same principal. Anyone who says these are based on an absolute equivlence of the parties is sadly lacking in the ability to see that what is key is trying to make both parties feel that they have an equivalent process -- not position.
A massacre in itself does not constitute genocide. Nor does enslavement. As for US, what acts of genocide has it committed? Maybe something like the Trail of Tears. Most things like that there has at least been legislation introduced proposing to apologize for it. Nevertheless, it's overall a good point. One has to wonder why Turkey is being singled out for this while the Italians, Belgians, French, Rwandans, and others are not. Heck, there's probably been some gnarly shit that's gone down during the last decade or two between Armenia and Azerbaijan that would qualify as being so.
I agree that congressional pronouncements about genocide don't really help us from repeating the past. Why don't we just grant a couple of history fellowships with the money we save from not debating this and try to work on an actual bill that might be good for the economy or good for foreign relations.
That's the ideal. In many situations, this is the wisest or most prudent course of action. The problem is, there are exceptions where the point of no return has been passed. In Bosnia, for example, Carter operated under several false premises: 1) The Bosnian Serb military and government were a legitimate actor with morally negotiable demands; 2) Karadzic was negotiating in good faith; 3) The Bosnian War was purely a civil war; 4) There was a potentially fruitful peace process underway; 5) To say nothing of the fact that he clearly ignored events in the former Yugoslavia prior to his involvement. I don't know if you've read his account of his diplomacy in December 1994, but it is riddled with deceit, disingenuous asides, and selective omissions. If his mission had been as honorable as you seem to believe it was, he what not have needed to write such a revisionist whitewash of events. And for the record, he didn't go to bring the two parties to the negotiating table. Read his own account--he was working on behalf of the Bosnian Serbs, using his clout as an ex-President to strongarm the government into accepting a cease-fire the Bosnian military desperately wanted in order to solidify its gains. This wasn't Sadat and Begin at Camp David--he was whoring his prestige out to a bargain-basement fascist regime. You don't have to know much about the Bosnian war to see through his version, either--his claim that Karadzic became the "Bosnian Serb Adminstrator" after the country became independent is the crudest sort of propaganda. You're comparing apples and bran muffins. There's simply no comparison between either of those situations and the one I'm describing above. It takes a tough, tough man to beat a strawman that badly.