Was the Armenian "Deportation" a "genocide"?

[Joe]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7038095.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

Other information:

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/index.htm --this has some historical documents from archives about the incident, a map, and photo collections, among other items.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,353274,00.html --this is an article about Turkey denying it was a genocide

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/22/1339201 --this is an interview that includes more information about Turkey's efforts to say a genocide didn't happen.


My simple answer is yes. Turkey's defense is absurd.

 

[RobbieD_PL]

Another Turk bashing thread

 

[Joe]

Nah I'm just in a Comparative Study of Genocides class (one of the few in the nation I believe) and it's funny that the recent news corresponds to our Armenian case study. I've read at least five documents and a book on it already.

Turkish defense: the word "genocide" was coined after this happened...oh and that they only issued a "deportation" order, not the killing of Armenians. That just happened "incidentally" during the deportations...

 

[1966+2006]

Yes, even without reading those sources(which I will be when I have time, promise) I'd say it was definitely a genoicide.

 

[RobbieD_PL]

Nah I'm just in a Comparative Study of Genocides class (one of the few in the nation I believe) and it's funny that the recent news corresponds to our Armenian case study. I've read at least five documents and a book on it already.

Turkish defense: the word "genocide" was coined after this happened...oh and that they only issued a "deportation" order, not the killing of Armenians. That just happened "incidentally" during the deportations...

Yeh I studied the Armenian Genocide for a weekly topic in my "Nations at War" subject last year, as well as a comparison of the collective memory of Germany from the Holocaust and the Turkish coverup over the Armenian Genocide.

 

[Joe]

Yeah, there is a little time involvement in discussing in this thread. But I was hoping someone might a) be willing to take the time for their own information or b) know about it previously.

 

[Theodorakis]

we had been into some serious discussion about this topic at past and honestly I dont think you really care.. I dont care either..

now Bush and Rice are advising the voters to say NO just because they dont want to lose Turkey.. this also shows how much they care about genocide itself.. all turned out to be a political weapon now..

 

[Joe]

I care actually. Neg rep for you.

This sets a precedent, once again, in how we view genocide today. We're ignoring it in the Sudan. Have been. Ignored it in Rwanda. After the Holocaust much effort was taken to internationally recognize these atrocities and put a term behind what we could legally call it. And now if we ignore such an obvious definition in the past when now have 100 years of facts is rather disturbing.

I really just don't get why we can't say, "Yes, sorry. You're our allies but look, all evidence points to this as being genocide. Don't take it personally." This word has been just a political cluster**** and this just proves it more.

 

[Theodorakis]

I care actually. Neg rep for you.

This sets a precedent, once again, in how we view genocide today. We're ignoring it in the Sudan. Have been. Ignored it in Rwanda. After the Holocaust much effort was taken to internationally recognize these atrocities and put a term behind what we could legally call it. And now if we ignore such an obvious definition in the past when now have 100 years of facts is rather disturbing.

I really just don't get why we can't say, "Yes, sorry. You're our allies but look, all evidence points to this as being genocide. Don't take it personally." This word has been just a political cluster**** and this just proves it more.

sure, thanks for neg rep.. why dont you edit my rep points at all if you care that much


I dont wanna sound totally ignorant about that subject, and hands down, I'm sorry about turkish and armenian lives lost in that incident but this thing, I mean what it becomes today is a joke.. they dont actually discuss whether there is a genocide or not, they just want to take political advantage by saying NO in voting.. so what if there was really a genocide? should they say NO just to keep their strategic ally in middle east? meh..

 

[Vagegast]

An interesting tad-bit...

From the Washington Post, on the fight on the resolution currently in the House.

The Turkish Embassy is paying $100,000 a month to lobbying firm DLA Piper and $105,000 a month to the Livingston Group, and it recently added communications specialists Fleishman-Hillard for nearly $114,000 a month, according to records filed with the Justice Department. Turkish lawmakers were on Capitol Hill yesterday, warning that passage would put military cooperation with Turkey at risk.

Meanwhile, leading the charge for the resolution are grass-roots groups such as the Armenian Assembly of America, with 10,000 members, a budget of $3.6 million last year and phone banks that are running on overtime calling members of Congress. The organization has signed up 53 non-Armenian ethnic groups, including a number of Jewish groups, to support the resolution.

Some Jewish groups have found themselves in a bind because Turkey is one of the few Muslim nations to have diplomatic relations with Israel.

 

[Joe]

Not gonna neg.

Yeah, well that's how it is with everything involving the word.

It's also an interesting if you tie the definition of genocide when trying to use the justification of the War in Iraq. Well we believe Saddam was using ruthless, potentially systematic "genocide-like" acts before and after the Gulf War and 15 years later (the excuse is) we go in now? That's why the US is there now right? That's what we hear...and we don't even have the word "genocide" being thrown around anyway...

But you look at Rwanda, for instance, and the international community just sat around. Selective use of force despite much differing degrees in the atrocities taking place. It would've taken the UN or US much less commitment and resources to intervene in Rwanda and save tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives than it did in Iraq. Instead we injure and maim thousands, tens of thousands in Iraq to "liberate" it despite, it appears, many people living in peace. So President Bush, tell me again--why are we in Iraq?

Haha.

 

[Vagegast]

House Committee just approved this resolution. It'll be going for a vote now in front of the House/

 

[Joe]

Woo.

 

[Joe]

But Representative Gary L. Ackerman, Democrat of New York, argued that a vote for the resolution was not a vote against modern-day Turkey. “Turkey is no more the Ottoman Empire than Germany is today’s Third Reich,” he said.
- nytimes.com

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Run DMB]

I couldn't agree more.

Right, but the question is whether the Turks agree. And they don't, which is why this resolution should not pass.

Most US states recognize the Armenian Genocide already, I don't see the need for this resolution.

 

[Joe]

They won't. But their ancestors are the ones who committed the act so they really don't have any neutral say.

If Germany can do it then honestly, why can't Turkey?

Because "genocide" is usually equated to the Nazis. Nobody wants to be viewed as similar to that...

 

[Run DMB]

If Germany can do it then honestly, why can't Turkey?

Germany did it honestly because they lost the war. They were pretty much forced to do it from outside influences. If the Axis powers had never been defeated, the Holocaust would be just as "debatable" today as the Armenian Genocide is.

 

[Joe]

Well Turkey was defeated in World War I too.

 

[Vagegast]

Right, but the question is whether the Turks agree. And they don't, which is why this resolution should not pass.

Most US states recognize the Armenian Genocide already, I don't see the need for this resolution.

How does the opinion of the Turks, whether it be them as a nationality or their government, influence the debate on a resolution in the House? In all honesty, I fail to see the connection.

The sad thing about this whole debacle is the cowardness of so many people who are fully aware of the facts to call this thing a genocide. That's what it is and that's what it should be called. Period.

 

[Joe]

I agree. That's why I bring it up. If it was not it is a huge injustice to people who died then, and subsequently for those in the future.

I can just see it now: "Well, the Armenian massacres weren't called a 'genocide,' so how can we call this one?" It sets a huge double-standard and complicates the definition further.