Turkey Recalls Ambassador Over Genocide Resolution

[Fragony]

Believe me, if they want to join they'll have to admit it happened.

Yeah right, the only thing that stops Turkey from joining is Turkey not doing so. Who or whatever is running the EU has already decided.

[Ja'chyra]

Does the US government actually call what happed to the native Americans genocide or do they call it exploitation and other non committal words?

[Lemur]

Does the US government actually call what happed to the native Americans genocide or do they call it exploitation and other non committal words?

Unfortunately, it's a little bit complicated. The word "genocide" wasn't an accepted term until 1948, whereas the Indian Wars were entirely over by 1895. So the legal frameworks and administrative bodies for handling the survivors were all in place well before the word "genocide" was being bandied about.

Another complicating factor is the "virgin soil epidemic" in North America. Put simply, European settlers brought some nasty pathogens with them, such as smallpox, measles, influenza, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhus, bubonic plague, cholera and scarlet fever. All of these diseases were minty-fresh to the Americas. The best estimates are that 75 to 90 percent of the deaths of Native Americans came from these pathogens. Entire tribes went extinct without any war or effort on the part of the Europeans. Does this qualify as a genocide?

And yes, there were deliberate efforts to spread disease among the natives, but the historical evidence is thin. Admittedly, people engaging in early biological warfare wouldn't be eager to document their actions, but given the morals of the time, I can't see that they would be worried about any efforts made to kill people they would have regarded as red-skinned, godless heathens, either. The only recorded incident where smallpox was deliberately spread among Native Americans was in 1763, when Sir Jeffrey Amherst ordered that blankets from the smallpox hospital be distributed among the Ohio tribes. What the British authorities did not know was that smallpox was already raging among the Ohio, so it's debatable whether Sir Jeffrey's episode of biological villainy had any effect.

Ye gods, this is a huge topic. Don't forget that the Indian Wars occurred over centuries, with many different tribes and many different Europeans battling or allying over a wide variety of causes.

I think by the 1800s, with the Europeans so entrenched and powerful, and the Native Americans so decimated and scattered, it became something very similar to genocide. A lot of politicians saw the Indians as a problem in need of solving. I can't seem to track down the exact quote, but a Civil War general was sent west to evaluate the Natives and see what could be done with them. Could they be integrated into American life? Could they be preserved? Could we co-exist or not? He wrote back a chilling letter with a line that burned itself into my brain: "If they are to survive, it will only be as a species of beggar."

That's getting close to calling for a Final Solution.

Many historians call it genocide, and the U.S. government has never disputed it. Some historians argue the accuracy of the term. Here's an example:

In the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history.

Personally, I think it was a genocide, if a complicated one that doesn't necessarily fit into our collective vision of total guilt on one side and total victimhood on the other. I don't know if the U.S. government has taken a particular stand on the issue, and would be grateful if anyone could dig up something official.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Unfortunately, it's a little bit complicated.

Personally, I think it was a genocide, if a complicated one that doesn't necessarily fit into our collective vision of total guilt on one side and total victimhood on the other. I don't know if the U.S. government has taken a particular stand on the issue, and would be grateful if anyone could dig up something official.

Hoh-ho! This is our genocide. Most of the hard work was done before the end of the 18th / early 19th century.

That just to further complicate matters.

Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands and Britain are the first responsible for the depopulation and repopulation of the Americas. Later followed by their successor states. Was it a genocide, that is, a deliberate extermination campaign(s)? Well that is indeed very complicated, but on the whole, a quick comparison between wars in Europe fought by these states and the wars they fought in the Americas shows a clear difference: extermination, slavery and repopulation were, not unknown, but incidental and somewhat limited in Europe, but the norm in the Americas. Hence, yes, there was a clear pattern of culpable, genocidal ideology.

I don't know about the official stance, tbh. I think that in the public opinion it is not really a cause of much debate or concern. The general idea is, that France was the least genocidal of the lot. More concerned with trade and less with depopulation and resettlement. (On the continent, not in the Caribbean, mind). And that hence French colonisation has ultimately been limited to the frosty plains of the St. Lawrence river. Whereas Spanish, Portuguese and English are spoken over vast areas multiple the size of Europe. Come to think of it, I think the reluctance to genocide vast areas is somewhat deplored nowadays...

[IrishArmenian]

Irish Armenian, I like to hear your opinion and to me (ok, I don't really know a lot about the topic ) you don't sound very biased. Maybe biased towards peace and understanding.

Alright, you asked for it.
It is stupid that such an issue is debated by the American congress. They may be the ones who decide what to do about it, but they are politicians, not historians!
Of course its Genocide! Such an affront to human rights is generally called a genocide, yes? The American Indians, the Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and others in World War II and many others serve as examples. Real 'repopulation attempts' include provisions, whereas Armenians were marched into the desert with absolutely nothing, shot if they stopped! Real 'repopulation attempts' do not involve gang-rape and burning at the stake. The once prosperous and esteemed Armenian population--known to some historians as 'The Jews of the Ottoman Empire' in that they were an ethnic and religious minority that held mostly financial and administrative positions--suddenly dissapeared should've raised a few eyebrows, and it did amongst many people, including many Turks, who thought of us as a productive and respectful people. All of a sudden, we were no where to be found. We couldn't've possibly fallen of the edge of the earth, so what happened? Its quite obvious when one pursues the facts.
I'm also disgusted with my wayward brothers who seek violent revenge against the Turkish people for it, though. Sure, I think that we were wronged and well, got the shaft when Armenia emerged--Lake Van and Ararat are all I ask, but I digress--but pinning this on the Turkish people or the Turkish government is simply idiotic. As I stated earlier, the Genocide was the work of nationalists and the scum of the empire, recruited from the prisons. Sure, the Turkish government has downplayed the Genocide in a rather insulting fashion, trying to cover something up that was in no way their problem, inadvertently making it their problem, but they didn't commit the Genocide. The Turkish people didn't do it, come on, many hid us from the authorities, risking their lives and the lives of their families*. That is true brotherhood! It saddens me that many of our Turkish brothers have been indoctrinated by their government, but they might be saying the same about me, so that is a pointless endeavour.
Still, people are entitled to their own opinion. The law that was put up--did they succeed?--in France really hurts the cause. That idea of making it a law would reduce France to the level of the present Turkish government, which can arrest one on the grounds of 'Insulting Turkish Identity', which is a load of rot!
The whole situation makes me excruciatingly angry. If there was admittance, compensation, we could go on living our lives as brothers, but no! Some ten-watts on both sides think that compromise for the weak. What fools! They are obviously blind to the way the world works.
I admit, some Armenians, in retaliation for the Hamidian Massacres of the late 19th century, in which hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed, massacred some Turkish towns. Terrible! Atrocious! I am truly ashamed that they did that in the name of Armenia and the Armenian people!
What wee need is to forgive, have a coming together, and the prosper as brothers, as we should! "No!" says the nationalist, "We should punish them for their insolence!" The politicians cater to what they percieve as the masses, but if they looked to the real masses, they'd see people tired of feuding and wanting to set their differences aside. No politicans want that, though, then people actually unite, which politicans fear the most.
This is merely an issue of people thinking that through adament denial, they can rewrite history, which is absolute bollocks.
*"There is no evil without the smallest measure of good"
--Armenian proverb

[Seamus Fermanagh]

One US political pundit has opined that the recent foray by Congress into a condemnation of the Armenian genocide (our 2nd or 3rd thereof) was done to:

1. Piss off Turkey so that

2. Turkey would invade and hammer the Kurdish militant/terrorists and thereby

3. Screw up Iraq and the fledgling successes of the last few months therein allowing the

4. Democrat party to keep hammering Bush and undercut ANY chance of him claiming success in Iraq because the key thing to do is harm G. W. Bush.

Thoughts? Plausible scenario?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Seems sadly plausible to me.

Heck, seems like the most probably reason for this vote. They get to be morally righteous and kick Bush in the pants.

CR

[Lemur]

Plausible scenario?

Anything's possible, but this does sound a bit tinfoil-hat-esque. Remember the modern version of Occam's Razor -- never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.

[Ice]

One US political pundit has opined that the recent foray by Congress into a condemnation of the Armenian genocide (our 2nd or 3rd thereof) was done to:

1. Piss off Turkey so that

2. Turkey would invade and hammer the Kurdish militant/terrorists and thereby

3. Screw up Iraq and the fledgling successes of the last few months therein allowing the

4. Democrat party to keep hammering Bush and undercut ANY chance of him claiming success in Iraq because the key thing to do is harm G. W. Bush.

Thoughts? Plausible scenario?

I'm with Lemur. Sure, it's possible. Likely? Nah.

[KukriKhan]

Maybe Turkey will just return the favor, and vote a parliamentary resolution deploring America's genocide, instead of authorizing self-defense cross-border incursions.

Then the deplore-o-meter will be back in the center.

And the coalition forces can enforce Iraq's borders, something we're obviously not very good at, home or abroad.

[Devastatin Dave]

Seems a bit late and pointless to denounce it really, what purpose does it serve? How is the current Turkish government responsible.

What's the purpose? Well its so the dems and there 5th column liberal buddies can cut of the supplies to the troops they're always talking about "supporting". There was a time when citizens of the United States and their representatives wanted whats best for the country, not anymore. San Fran Nan should be tried for treason.

[Devastatin Dave]

Anything's possible, but this does sound a bit tinfoil-hat-esque. Remember the modern version of Occam's Razor -- never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.

Tinfoil hatesque? Get real, of course this is what they are doing. But who cars if it gets more of our troops killed as long as it keeps your favorite party in power right Lemur. I wish you guys and your political leaders on the left didn't "support the troops" so much.

[Lemur]

In other words, according to our pet conspiracy theorists:

[Devastatin Dave]

In other words, according to our pet conspiracy theorists:

Get a good laugh my friend. Its a real side splitter. I'm glad I'm not in the military anymore since over half the legislative branch is doing their best to stab you in the back and atleast have of the civilian population could give a ####. Oh I forgot, but you still support the troops right Lemur?

[Lemur]

Oh I forgot, but you still support the troops right Lemur?

Well, I don't accessorize with an American flag lapel pin, and my car does not have a yellow ribbon magnet on it, so I guess I must not. Really DD, it should be easy for you to pick out the anti-American traitors.

[IrishArmenian]

Well played, Lemur.
Anyway, it really angers me that politicians are abusing the Genocide. They're only bringing this up so Turkey doesn't invade Northern Iraq.
Big disappointment, I know! Politicians are, in fact, dirty, terrible people.

Kukri, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

[KukriKhan]

...Kukri, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

I mean I think it's none of my congress's business to deplore someone else's ancient politico-military decisions, particularly when our own are equally deplorable.

And that this kind of action does nothing to address or improve the situation on the ground in the (not-ancient, but current) warzone, where young men - Turk, Kurd, Iraqi, American, and others - stand to lose their lives in greater numbers than they might have without these thoughtless, pandering, so-called resolutions.

Full disclosure: my army son is stationed near the Turk border.

[Lemur]

I mean I think it's none of my congress's business to deplore someone else's ancient politico-military decisions, particularly when our own are equally deplorable.

Agreed. I really wonder about these sorts of things. Truths do not need to be endorsed by law. Pi will be pi whether or not Congress votes on the matter. Note that our Constitution does not enumerate any truths, virtues or Darn Good Moral Lessons.

Next I would like a resolution declaring water to be wet, except when it's frozen. It's okay if the frozen clause comes as a rider or a second resolution.

[Xiahou]

One US political pundit has opined that the recent foray by Congress into a condemnation of the Armenian genocide (our 2nd or 3rd thereof) was done to:

1. Piss off Turkey so that

2. Turkey would invade and hammer the Kurdish militant/terrorists and thereby

3. Screw up Iraq and the fledgling successes of the last few months therein allowing the

4. Democrat party to keep hammering Bush and undercut ANY chance of him claiming success in Iraq because the key thing to do is harm G. W. Bush.

Thoughts? Plausible scenario?

You can wonder about their intent, I guess, but the practical effect of their actions isn't too much in doubt- putting a chill on relations with Turkey and reducing our influence with a vital ally in the region.

Democrat lawmakers can't be so stupid as to not know this, so why are they doing it?

[Husar]

I'm glad I'm not in the military anymore since over half the legislative branch is doing their best to stab you in the back and atleast have of the civilian population could give a ####.

Do I see a new "Dolchstoßlegende" in the making?

[Devastatin Dave]

Do I see a new "Dolchstoßlegende" in the making?

Its quite adorable watching you attempt to deflect your nations immorality upon myself and my country. The FACT that your ancestors (perhaps very recent ancestors, Uncle Wolfgang, Granpa Wilhelm perhaps) are the cause for not just millions, but tens of millions of lives to be snuffed out cannot be compared to my request of a fellow citizen to show a little patriotism or allegience to his country. Germany will ALWAYS be rememberd for the FACT that it caused the deaths of millions and will always be remembered as the one country that has caused the most death and destruction world wide. Maybe it doesn't read that way in your school textbooks or something. No matter how much moral deflection you attempt, it will never wash the blood off your hands. My country has the blood of the Native American, but that can also be a result of European colonilalism, which hasn't been the beacon of light for the world either has it my little self rightous European friends. So next time you little preachers of truth, justice, and the European way want to give a sermon about morality, maybe you guys should take a long look in the mirror.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Do I see a new "Dolchstoßlegende" in the making?

Jibes comparing a person's views to the Nazis have a tendency to provoke offense, and we all ought to know better.

A response has been posted, which I will allow to stand, in that it underlines rather eloquently the point made above - but I don't want this thread derailed any further, nor personal attacks to continue against any poster.

[Husar]

Dave, I've explained before that I don't see blood on my hands if my ancestors did anything wrong, neither do I blame you for what your ancestors may or may not have done to the native Americans.
Everybody is responsible for his own deeds in my view and that's why I'm not going to take the blame for what the Nazis did, I'd rather make sure it doesn't happen again.

That said, AFAIK the Dolchstoßlegende was used by the Nazis but originated from royalists in the german army after WW1, I'm sorry if I sounded like you were a Nazi, that wasn't my intention, I just wanted to point out that your view sounds like a conspiracy theory.

[Devastatin Dave]

I just wanted to point out that your view sounds like a conspiracy theory.

But how can it be simply consiracy. Nancy sees the same intelligence reports and gets same reports from the State department and would know EXACTLY what this would do with our relations with Turkey. Would Churchill have preasured Parliament to vote on a resolution stating that the US commited genocide agains the native American in 1943? This is a strategic political move made by the democrats in order to cause the supply chain to their own troops to be cut off. This is sickening and even moresickening that many of my fellow citizens are defending this act of treachery. This is a calculated move plain and simple and one would have to be completely blind or of complete disregard for the well being of their fellow citizen on the battle field not to see this. For those on this message board who are United States citizens and do not condemn this act, you are just as guilty and should be ashamed that you would allow your political views out weigh the well being of those in harms way. Shame....

[Devastatin Dave]

Well it appears that the military is trying to compensate with the treachery of those that sent them to Iraq in the first place (before i get 50 responses of "Its Bush's War!!!" remember Hillary and most dems gave Bushy the authorization to go into Iraq).
http://breitbart.com/print.php?id=07...cle=1&catnum=3

Oh and as I'm posting this, it appears that the Turkish government are voting on whether or not to invade northern Iraq at this hour. Unbelievable....

[Ironside]

One US political pundit has opined that the recent foray by Congress into a condemnation of the Armenian genocide (our 2nd or 3rd thereof) was done to:

1. Piss off Turkey so that

2. Turkey would invade and hammer the Kurdish militant/terrorists and thereby

3. Screw up Iraq and the fledgling successes of the last few months therein allowing the

4. Democrat party to keep hammering Bush and undercut ANY chance of him claiming success in Iraq because the key thing to do is harm G. W. Bush.

Thoughts? Plausible scenario?

Why is a key thing to hammer G.W. "president with lowest ratings ever" Bush? He's pretty much politically dead nowadays from what I've understood. Anyone competent enough to pull this off would be looking at least onto the next election.

You can probably run something in the lines of pushing a withdrawal before the next election or getting the situation so bad that it's blatantly obvious that retreat is the only practical option, if you want to find a conspiracy theory though.

Tinfoil hatesque? Get real, of course this is what they are doing. But who cars if it gets more of our troops killed as long as it keeps your favorite party in power right Lemur. I wish you guys and your political leaders on the left didn't "support the troops" so much.

You mean like the support the troops have gotten from Bush & company? The Iraqi war and aftermatch have been a political game since day one, with Americans and Iraqis paying for it with thier blood. And US taxpayers paying the money.

[Devastatin Dave]

You mean like the support the troops have gotten from Bush & company? The Iraqi war and aftermatch have been a political game since day one, with Americans and Iraqis paying for it with thier blood. And US taxpayers paying the money.

Again, the democrats are as much to blame for this. They voted FOR this. They have an obligation to truelly support the troops, not attept to get their supply lines cut. I can't believe that for a bunch of Total War armchair generals posting here can't see the obvious strategic move that the dems are making. If I'm paying the bill I want to win, not leave my guys with their ####s in the wind with no suplly line.

[Lemur]

The plot thickens. Also looks like some of the Congressional Dems are waking up to the possible consequences of this empty vote.

Although a Congressional committee has supported the motion, its chances of passing a full vote appear to be waning.

Key Democrats in the US House of Representatives have joined Republicans to warn that US strategic interests could be damaged by the largely symbolic resolution.

[Husar]

There we go, but what I don't understand that well is why Turkey is necessary for supplies? Can't they just deliver the supplies directly to Iraq?
Iraq has ports and airports for such deliveries or are they somehow not able to use them for supply shipments? I understand a lot of the US Air Force is stationed in Turkey as the planes would probably be targeted by mortars etc if stationed in Iraq, but supplies?

[Lemur]

There we go, but what I don't understand that well is why Turkey is necessary for supplies? Can't they just deliver the supplies directly to Iraq?

At the moment the majority of our supplies transship Turkey. Certainly we could route things in other ways, but it would be inconvenient and troublesome to do so.

On the other hand, if Turkey were to attempt to prevent us from using their ports and airfields for shipping, this would be seen as a direct provocation, just short of declaring war. It's hard to picture the Turks denying FedEx and the U.S. military air rights unless they intended to begin open military conflict with the U.S.A.

Don't forget that Turkey believed we would never invade Iraq unless we could do so with a northern front, which is why they denied us the option of moving troops in from the north at the last minute. They believed they could veto the second Iraq war, and they were wrong.

Open hostilities between Turkey and the U.S.A. would be a disaster for both of us, no matter what extremist politicians may say when pandering to their base. Which isn't to say it can't happen, eh? Just ask Gary Busey and Billy Zane.