Octopus Overlords

I know this has been discussed in here before, but it continues. It seems it doesn't matter which president is in office, the genocide of the Armenian people by the Turks during WW1 is still not going to be labeled a genocide by the US if the President has his way.

The Obama administration has called on a Congressional panel not to describe the killing of Armenians by Turkish forces during World War I as genocide.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to hold off a vote on the issue, the White House said.
She said the non-binding resolution would harm talks between Turkey and Armenia.
The resolution is fiercely opposed by Turkey, a key ally of the US.
In 2007, a similar resolution passed the committee stage, but was shelved before a House vote after pressure from the George W Bush administration.
Turkey has warned of consequences for US-Turkey ties if the latest resolution is passed.
During his election campaign President Barack Obama promised to brand the mass killings genocide.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8549117.stm

I understand the implications of it make it difficult to pass and difficult for the president to support, but why do they campaign promising to call it what it is? I guess anything to get into office.

Sacrificing political capital with an allied government today to make a hollow statement about injustices against people that died 90 years ago is not a decision any sitting politician is going to make.

Yes, words have power, but what effect would labelling it a genocide bring to the descedants of the victims? Is Turkey going to all of a sudden pay reparations because we label it a genocide? It's a non-binding resolution. Translation: feel-good wankery by a Congressional panel. There are limited resources and political capital to spread around. Aggravating an ally over something that long ago does not make sense.

But then I (usually) think it's rather silly that particular words have soch connotative power to stir visceral reactions. Whatever we call it doesn't change the reality of what it is.

Just like most other jobs, the realities of what you can and will be actually doing once you're in the chair are usually different than what you wanted to be doing.

I hear the collective cry of thousand in Glendale rising.

What is truth?

Mr. Fed wrote:What is truth?

What ever the winners say it is.

Arcanis wrote:

Mr. Fed wrote:What is truth?

What ever the winners say it is.

What if there are more players than just the winners and losers?

Isgrimnur wrote:Sacrificing political capital with an allied government today to make a hollow statement about injustices against people that died 90 years ago is not a decision any sitting politician is going to make.

Yes, words have power, but what effect would labelling it a genocide bring to the descedants of the victims? Is Turkey going to all of a sudden pay reparations because we label it a genocide? It's a non-binding resolution. Translation: feel-good wankery by a Congressional panel. There are limited resources and political capital to spread around. Aggravating an ally over something that long ago does not make sense.

But then I (usually) think it's rather silly that particular words have soch connotative power to stir visceral reactions. Whatever we call it doesn't change the reality of what it is.

Just like most other jobs, the realities of what you can and will be actually doing once you're in the chair are usually different than what you wanted to be doing.

Germany is a pretty important ally.

If Germany said "stop calling it the Holocaust, or we'll tell you to remove your bases," should we do it?

Instead of "genocide" they could just pass a resolution calling it "past events in which the bastard Turks slew countless helpless Armenians in an attempt to wipe them from the face of the Earth."

Everyone is happy.

Mr. Fed wrote:Germany is a pretty important ally.

If Germany said "stop calling it the Holocaust, or we'll tell you to remove your bases," should we do it?

No, but then we kicked their butts in that war and made sure that everyone knew about it. I don't recall us completely taking over Turkey. The other factors between the two are substantial.

GreenGoo wrote:

Arcanis wrote:

Mr. Fed wrote:What is truth?

What ever the winners say it is.

What if there are more players than just the winners and losers?

I was adapting a quote about how the history books are written by the victors.

This is a case of too little too late though. If they wanted to do this oh 80 years ago great, but this is ridiculous. Yes it was a horrible event but there is no reason to be so focused on it now when we have other more immediate problems to deal with, like a tanked economy an lots of fighting between the American people and political class.

After 30 minutes in an unrelated meeting, I have the answer.

They could call it "literally a genocide." Everyone would think it meant "kind of but not really a genocide." The problem would virtually be solved.




But more seriously, wasn't this the Ottoman Empire? Why can't they say the Ottoman Empire was guilty of Genocide without foisting responsibility on present day Turkey? Or is this another ethnic thing?

Arcanis wrote: I was adapting a quote about how the history books are written by the victors.

Of course.

What concerns me is Turkey's complete insistence on not taking responsibility for past atrocities. America has taken responsibility or at least acknowledged it's treatment and ownership of slaves, as well as the slaughtering of countless native americans. Sort of. Kinda. But at least they don't hide from it. And freedom of speech kind of prevents them from hiding even if they wanted to.

That Turkey refuses to acknowledge the atrocities in it's past does not speak well for it's having learned moral lessons and applying those lessons to the future.

Disturbing.

LawBeefaroni wrote:Or is this another ethnic thing?

Pretty much this, as I understand it.

Aaaaand, very predictably, despite having been in favor of calling it genocide during the campaign, Obama is now against it.

Loser.

Obama may have been against it after he was for it, but it's a genocide according to Congress.

A US congressional panel has described the killing of Armenians by Turkish forces during World War I as genocide, despite White House objections.

The resolution was narrowly approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The BBC also had this interesting article on the matter:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7042209.stm

GreenGoo wrote:

Arcanis wrote: I was adapting a quote about how the history books are written by the victors.

Of course.

What concerns me is Turkey's complete insistence on not taking responsibility for past atrocities. America has taken responsibility or at least acknowledged it's treatment and ownership of slaves, as well as the slaughtering of countless native americans. Sort of. Kinda. But at least they don't hide from it. And freedom of speech kind of prevents them from hiding even if they wanted to.

That Turkey refuses to acknowledge the atrocities in it's past does not speak well for it's having learned moral lessons and applying those lessons to the future.

Disturbing.

I believe in Turkey it is against the law to write about the massacre.

In my part of the world, central California...we have a lot of Armenians and this is considered important to them. Many of them can tell stories of relatives who didn't "make it". I agree it is now nothing but an empty gesture but in Turkey and to Armenians it is still important.

LawBeefaroni wrote:They could call it "literally a genocide." Everyone would think it meant "kind of but not really a genocide." The problem would virtually be solved.

muahahaha

Question:

Who really cares about US-Turkey relations?
Is it THAT important?

Vorret wrote:Question:

Who really cares about US-Turkey relations?
Is it THAT important?

It is if you believe the US needs to maintain stronger political and military presence around the middle east.

If you believe that we shouldn't be maintaining a high political and military presence around the middle east than as far as being the US caring about US-Turkey relations *shrug*, I guess we need all of the good relations we can get, given how adversarial we and most of the rest of the world seem to come off as with each other.

Mr. Fed wrote:Aaaaand, very predictably, despite having been in favor of calling it genocide during the campaign, Obama is now against it.

Loser.

I think Obama is really the secret identity of Aquaman. How else do you explain him flipping and flopping more than your average fish on a boat.

Why is the government passing resolutions on the semantics of an event that happened 100 years ago? Put it in history textbooks as "genocide" and it will be "genocide".

Teggy wrote:Why is the government passing resolutions on the semantics of an event that happened 100 years ago? Put it in history textbooks as "genocide" and it will be "genocide".

Well, the UN has a definition for genocide. The argument is whether Turkey slaughtering Armenians meets that definition. All we're seeing here is whether the American government will recognize it as such.

Does it matter if the Final Solution is called the holocaust? Or was it just one of the typical things that occur during war? Should we just say that War is hell and that the Jewish people suffered more than most, or do we identify and call what happened to them a special name and identify it as not just war as usual, but something evil?

I don't know history. I don't really understand the Turkish and Armenian relationship or exactly what happened when this "genocide" occurred. But I'm reading and I'm learning.

I think calling a...guess I can't use that expression any more. I think it's important that we don't shy around topics such as this. I think it's important that we be blunt and truthful. I think it's important for a country and its people to recognize the ill they have perpetrated in the past, so they will be mindful of that shameful behaviour in the future. Hopefully to help prevent anything of a similar nature from happening again.

To the Armenian population in the United States this is a big thing because they lived it. They have seen the US and the world react to the holocaust and yet, for political reasons, ignore the Turkish atrocities and the genocide of Armenians by the Turks.

When this passed the committee yesterday, 23-22, the Turkish government recalled their Ambassador to the US. The Turks deny their own history.

If we have Iraq, do we need Turkey?

GreenGoo wrote:

Teggy wrote:Why is the government passing resolutions on the semantics of an event that happened 100 years ago? Put it in history textbooks as "genocide" and it will be "genocide".

Well, the UN has a definition for genocide. The argument is whether Turkey slaughtering Armenians meets that definition. All we're seeing here is whether the American government will recognize it as such.

Does it matter if the Final Solution is called the holocaust? Or was it just one of the typical things that occur during war? Should we just say that War is hell and that the Jewish people suffered more than most, or do we identify and call what happened to them a special name and identify it as not just war as usual, but something evil?

Was there a US resolution to recognize the Holocaust? I ask this sincerely because I don't know and some quick google searches didn't lead me to one.

Was there a US resolution to recognize the Holocaust? I ask this sincerely because I don't know and some quick google searches didn't lead me to one.



I don't know. I think it was something that, because of the war and the revelations that came out of it and the Nuremburg Trials that the holocaust was accepted as fact. When you try and execute people for war crimes against civilians and humanity I think you acknowledge that the event took place.

Scuzz wrote:Was there a US resolution to recognize the Holocaust? I ask this sincerely because I don't know and some quick google searches didn't lead me to one.



I don't know. I think it was something that, because of the war and the revelations that came out of it and the Nuremburg Trials that the holocaust was accepted as fact. When you try and execute people for war crimes against civilians and humanity I think you acknowledge that the event took place.

Just don't ask Iran about that. Granted they probably weren't involved in the trials, if the country even existed at the time.

Scuzz wrote:To the Armenian population in the United States this is a big thing because they lived it. They have seen the US and the world react to the holocaust and yet, for political reasons, ignore the Turkish atrocities and the genocide of Armenians by the Turks.

My best friend in elementary school is Armenian. One day they sat me down. Whole family sitting around me and talked about the atrocities of the genocide. Needless to say I was traumatized at an early age and the things they spoke to me still stick with me to this day. The grandfather pretended to be Turkish to survive or that was what was told to me. This is something that is still fresh in the collective Armenian consciousness and this will not rest until we pass the amendment. Consider this just a minor setback.

Mr Bubbles wrote: My best friend in elementary school is Armenian. One day they sat me down. Whole family sitting around me and talked about the atrocities of the genocide. Needless to say I was traumatized at an early age and the things they spoke to me still stick with me to this day. The grandfather pretended to be Turkish to survive or that was what was told to me. This is something that is still fresh in the collective Armenian consciousness and this will not rest until we pass the amendment. Consider this just a minor setback.

By pure conincidence, I ate at an Armenian place for lunch. In hushed tones, wife made the point that it's purely wealthy/influencial Armenians in the US pushing this through.

Not that it didn't happen, but that it's being chosen to make a resolution out of.

Mr Bubbles wrote:

Scuzz wrote:To the Armenian population in the United States this is a big thing because they lived it. They have seen the US and the world react to the holocaust and yet, for political reasons, ignore the Turkish atrocities and the genocide of Armenians by the Turks.

My best friend in elementary school is Armenian. One day they sat me down. Whole family sitting around me and talked about the atrocities of the genocide. Needless to say I was traumatized at an early age and the things they spoke to me still stick with me to this day. The grandfather pretended to be Turkish to survive or that was what was told to me. This is something that is still fresh in the collective Armenian consciousness and this will not rest until we pass the amendment. Consider this just a minor setback.

I grew up surrounded by those of Armenian heritage. Fresno Indians they are called. They are hurt here because Obama said he would agree with the genocide label.


By pure conincidence, I ate at an Armenian place for lunch. In hushed tones, wife made the point that it's purely wealthy/influencial Armenians in the US pushing this through.

Some might consider that a racist and anti-armenian statement, akin to describing all jews as rich and well to do. I believe your wife doesn't know what she is talking about.

Scuzz wrote:

Mr Bubbles wrote:

Scuzz wrote:To the Armenian population in the United States this is a big thing because they lived it. They have seen the US and the world react to the holocaust and yet, for political reasons, ignore the Turkish atrocities and the genocide of Armenians by the Turks.

My best friend in elementary school is Armenian. One day they sat me down. Whole family sitting around me and talked about the atrocities of the genocide. Needless to say I was traumatized at an early age and the things they spoke to me still stick with me to this day. The grandfather pretended to be Turkish to survive or that was what was told to me. This is something that is still fresh in the collective Armenian consciousness and this will not rest until we pass the amendment. Consider this just a minor setback.

I grew up surrounded by those of Armenian heritage. Fresno Indians they are called. They are hurt here because Obama said he would agree with the genocide label.


By pure conincidence, I ate at an Armenian place for lunch. In hushed tones, wife made the point that it's purely wealthy/influencial Armenians in the US pushing this through.

Some might consider that a racist and anti-armenian statement, akin to describing all jews as rich and well to do. I believe your wife doesn't know what she is talking about.

I didn't even understand what she was basing that statement on. First, how does she know? Second, why does it matter? Third, only the rich and powerful have any ability to influence government at all, so if her statement turned out to be true I wouldn't be surprised.

Was the food rich and influential or something? How does eating in an Armenian restaurant elicit a comment of that nature?

Scuzz wrote:By pure conincidence, I ate at an Armenian place for lunch. In hushed tones, wife made the point that it's purely wealthy/influencial Armenians in the US pushing this through.

Some might consider that a racist and anti-armenian statement, akin to describing all jews as rich and well to do. I believe your wife doesn't know what she is talking about.

She said that wealthy/influential Armenians are the ones pushing it, not that all Armenians are wealthy/influential.

Scuzz wrote: I grew up surrounded by those of Armenian heritage. Fresno Indians they are called. They are hurt here because Obama said he would agree with the genocide label.


By pure conincidence, I ate at an Armenian place for lunch. In hushed tones, wife made the point that it's purely wealthy/influencial Armenians in the US pushing this through.

Some might consider that a racist and anti-armenian statement, akin to describing all jews as rich and well to do. I believe your wife doesn't know what she is talking about.

She grew up in Yugolsavia. Her Jewish dad was a Partisan in WWII and her uncle was shot by the SS. But yeah, she's racist and has no idea what she's talking about.

It's simply not possible for an organized, wealthy group to influence US policy.

[EDIT] Simply not possible. Not possible at all. Yep, not at all. I don't see how it's any different than saying that Monsanto influences ag policy. Am I a an anti-Monsantite?[/EDIT]

[or the more diplomatic response from ILB]

GreenGoo wrote: How does eating in an Armenian restaurant elicit a comment of that nature?

It brought up the topic. I was reading Armenian section of the wine list and said, "Armenia makes wine?" and we started talking about Armenia and eventually the resolution.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: How does eating in an Armenian restaurant elicit a comment of that nature?

It brought up the topic. I was reading Armenian section of the wine list and said, "Armenia makes wine?" and we started talking about Armenia and eventually the resolution.

But...what was the point of the comment? I don't get, even in a typical small talk friendly conversation, why someone would find that an interesting thing to comment on.

Not to mention that I suspect the poorer Armenians would like the same thing as the rich Armenians, but we don't hear from the poor Armenians, because, well, they're poor and have less resources to get their message out there.

Which reminds me of my thought that free speech, while a right of everyone, is basically worthless to the people who aren't rich and powerful enough to get their speech heard and paid attention to.

The Armenians I know go from lower-middle class to well off (but not rich or influential) and I can tell you to a man they all would like this to pass. In many areas this is a grass roots thing that the local congressmen understand and this comes up for vote every few years because these congressmen are trying to appease their constituents.

Also, I did not say your wife was racist. I did say it could easily be construed that way. It just seems like a very strange remark to make about a group of people trying to get justice for their dead and living relatives.

She grew up in Yugolsavia. Her Jewish dad was a Partisan in WWII and her uncle was shot by the SS. But yeah, she's racist and has no idea what she's talking about.

and that makes her an expert on how Armenians deal with the genocide.....

In Fresno, California, up until at least the 60's Armenians were not allowed to purchase homes in certain parts of town because of racism. There were legal clauses prohibiting the sale of homes to them. These are people who left a crappy situation and then were treated like dirt when they got here.

And Jewish families wish their children to marry within their religion/race because they are completely open minded after that whole holocaust thing taught them a lesson in intolerance.

I don't mean to seem to be picking on you or your wife Lawbeef, but my eyebrow definitely raised when I read what she said. Perhaps in context and in person it would have been clearer and less eyebrow raising.

Scuzz wrote: She grew up in Yugolsavia. Her Jewish dad was a Partisan in WWII and her uncle was shot by the SS. But yeah, she's racist and has no idea what she's talking about.

and that makes her an expert on how Armenians deal with the genocide.....

No, it makes her a racist, obviously.

So those Armenian PAC groups, they're fake? The Armenian Caucas?

I have no problem with Armenians. My wife doesn't either. That doesn't mean I have to be ignorant of the political process that gets that kind of resolution written and approved.

Scuzz wrote: In Fresno, California, up until at least the 60's Armenians were not allowed to purchase homes in certain parts of town because of racism. There were legal clauses prohibiting the sale of homes to them. These are people who left a crappy situation and then were treated like dirt when they got here.

In the 60's blacks faced similar racism. Some might say worse. If I state that Obama's campaign received funding from wealthy blacks am I a racist for that too?

Regardless.....the statement was at best a slap in the face to all Armenians.....at worst a possible racist remark....

also we all know how the Blacks had all the money and influence when it came to civil rights legislation..........




ps....i am already sorry I brought your wife's remark up.......