Biden says Armenian mass killing was genocide- What next for Turkish - US Relations?

[Gromovnik]

So, POVG, you support punishing entire ethnic groups for the acts of individuals?

[PointOfViewGun]

So, POVG, you support punishing entire ethnic groups for the acts of individuals?

Nope. Explaining the intent behind the relocation process is not the same as supporting them. Not that an entire ethnic group was punished back then, only those in the relevant provinces. It wasn't due to acts of individuals too though, but the parties that represented those communities. Ottomans were not the first and the last ones to use relocation processes to ight insurgency. I have no idea how such a situation would be handled today.

[Gromovnik]

Come on, you have to realise how horrible that post sounds, right?

[PointOfViewGun]

Come on, you have to realise how horrible that post sounds, right?

If we're catering to popular opinion, sure, but not really if we're catering to facts and logic.

[Cyclops]

Nope. Explaining the intent behind the relocation process is not the same as supporting them. Not that an entire ethnic group was punished back then, only those in the relevant provinces. It wasn't due to acts of individuals too though, but the parties that represented those communities. Ottomans were not the first and the last ones to use relocation processes to ight insurgency. I have no idea how such a situation would be handled today.

China appears to be continuing a program of supressing/erasing "disloyal" ethnic/religious identities, and this project spans many centuries. Much of historic Eastern Tibet is now thoroughly Sinicised (eg I think they used to be a majority in much of Sichuan, now very much a minority), and we are seeing evidence of some horrible looking treatment of Uighurs. The pressure varies but its applied fairly steadily and the results are clear.

There's intolerance and ethnic hatred that gets flamed by leaders to mislead and distract their communities but but its mostly ****wits jabbering to other ****wits (eg Trumps hollering about Mexicans and China) thats not going to lead to major demographic changes. There are more serious examples of fanning hatred (eg the anti-muslim campaigns fanned in India and Burma) that is putting pressure on large established communities and possibly leading to their displacement or even destruction.

I do think the actions of the Young Turks meet the UN definition of attempted genocide. If you're irritated the same attention is not given to other genocides then you're quite justified in that. The UN is a US invention, its meant to serve US interests.

Come on, you have to realise how horrible that post sounds, right?

Mate if you open a thread about alleged genocide you need to be prepared to hear some ****. He's arguing a case.

History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind

[PointOfViewGun]

China appears to be continuing a program of supressing/erasing "disloyal" ethnic/religious identities, and this project spans many centuries. Much of historic Eastern Tibet is now thoroughly Sinicised (eg I think they used to be a majority in much of Sichuan, now very much a minority), and we are seeing evidence of some horrible looking treatment of Uighurs. The pressure varies but its applied fairly steadily and the results are clear.

There's intolerance and ethnic hatred that gets flamed by leaders to mislead and distract their communities but but its mostly ****wits jabbering to other ****wits (eg Trumps hollering about Mexicans and China) thats not going to lead to major demographic changes. There are more serious examples of fanning hatred (eg the anti-muslim campaigns fanned in India and Burma) that is putting pressure on large established communities and possibly leading to their displacement or even destruction.

I do think the actions of the Young Turks meet the UN definition of attempted genocide. If you're irritated the same attention is not given to other genocides then you're quite justified in that. The UN is a US invention, its meant to serve US interests.

You seem to be talking about forced cultural assimilation which is distinctively different from genocide. For example, forced religious conversion is not genocide. The intent to destroy a particular groups existence is required. China's campaign to suppress Uyghur births can classify as genocide under point (d) of the genocide definition.

Another good example is the treatment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Despite posing virtually no threat to the USA, Japanese Americans were relocated or put in concentration camps. Was that genocide?

What irritates me is how history is popularized and people see it in themselves to claim the high ground because they read a few things here and there. They buy a particular conclusion, often the popular one, do not budge no matter how evidence is thrown at them. That irritates me.

[Condottiere 40K]

What's the worst thing that would happen if Turkey officially admitted that the Ottoman Empire committed genocide on it's Armenian citizens, and apologized?

Reparations?

[PointOfViewGun]

What's the worst thing that would happen if Turkey officially admitted that the Ottoman Empire committed genocide on it's Armenian citizens, and apologized?

Reparations?

It would legitimize popular opinion in place of reality which would further alienate those that want to continue to do research on actual sources exhaustively. Also, the Armenian declaration of independence refers to eastern Anatolia as Western Armenia. The former Armenian president Sarkissian, while responding to a question from a student whether eastern Anatolia would be united with Armenia, said that its the job of future generations. The irredentism is there in Armenia. If the genocide allegations stop being an issue territory disputes could very well be. On the subject of monetary reoperations, courts require a criminal court verdict establishing genocide allegations as true. That doesn't exist. A number of court cases failed because of that.

[Drtad]

It would legitimize popular opinion in place of reality which would further alienate those that want to continue to do research on actual sources exhaustively. Also, the Armenian declaration of independence refers to eastern Anatolia as Western Armenia. The former Armenian president Sarkissian, while responding to a question from a student whether eastern Anatolia would be united with Armenia, said that its the job of future generations. The irredentism is there in Armenia. If the genocide allegations stop being an issue territory disputes could very well be. On the subject of monetary reoperations, courts require a criminal court verdict establishing genocide allegations as true. That doesn't exist. A number of court cases failed because of that.

Standard Armenian Genocide denialist tactics again. Dumb down the conversation by stating it didn’t happen, but they deserved it and we’d do it again, and completely ignore or gloss over the other targets of the genocide (Yezidis, Assyrians, Pontic/Cappadocian Greeks, Iranian Armenians who lived around Lake Urmia). When anyone tries to ask any important question, such as “what about reparations/what are the consequences of acceptance,” they utilize these tactics to deflect, and then talk about Armenian irredentism, even though the vast majority of Armenians would be ok with acceptance of the genocide, an honest reflection on the history of the region and a revamp of the education system so that it actually teaches about the history of Armenia and the Armenians (and other groups) that lived in regions like Western Armenia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Cilicia, etc. Reparations to families that were affected by the Genocide and have the documents to prove that they owned land/property that was confiscated/destroyed in that time. Cooperation and neighborly relations with Armenia that actually values Armenian lives and culture (see, in PointofViewGun’s posts, Armenian lives (or the lives of Yezidis, Assyrians, or Greeks of any kind are not valued. They don’t matter as people), and ensures the security of Armenians living in Armenia and in NK (where Azerbaijan is currently in the process of destroying/converting Armenian historical sites and churches into “Caucasian Albanian” ones and rewriting the history of the region with the Armenians out of it).

[Gromovnik]

The tendency of genocide deniers to dehumanize Armenians is quite telling. I would even say disturbing, but then I would have to deal with a legion of Supreme Gentlemen calling me a snowflake or something in that vein.

[enoch]

As a rule, regardless the genocide, genocide deniers are shills for easily disprovable narratives.

[PointOfViewGun]

As a rule, regardless the genocide, genocide deniers are shills for easily disprovable narratives.

Same as genocide libelers, isn't it?

[enoch]

Can you libel a genocide? Here we are crossing a legal distinction with a historical one. Denying a historically accepted genocide is certainly wrong because the verdict has already been written. Calling something a genocide that the has not been labeled by the appropriate experts globally as such is not libel. Taking the word in the way I believe you meant it my answer is yes, if you continue to label something a genocide on your own as an individual that there isn’t a broad consensus was a genocide you are likely confused. Shill would depend on your motives.

As a rule I would say go to wiki. If it labels something a genocide history has spoken.

[PointOfViewGun]

Can you libel a genocide? Here we are crossing a legal distinction with a historical one. Denying a historically accepted genocide is certainly wrong because the verdict has already been written. Calling something a genocide that the has not been labeled by the appropriate experts globally as such is not libel. Taking the word in the way I believe you meant it my answer is yes, if you continue to label something a genocide on your own as an individual that there isn’t a broad consensus was a genocide you are likely confused. Shill would depend on your motives.

As a rule I would say go to wiki. If it labels something a genocide history has spoken.

As I pointed out in detail in this thread, many of the experts in Ottoman history that you would turn to on anything Ottoman do not conclude that it was a genocide. The "historically accepted genocide" label you use is simply false. Heck, many here try to present as if there is no academic dispute at all. That's libel. You refer to Wiki, yet Wiki is being completely selective in whose words to report and what part of it to report. Since its not hard to manipulate Wikipedia it became a propaganda tool... It's like calling someone a "murderer" even after they show you that they were not there when the murder happened. If you continue to use the term "genocide" despite being shown evidence to the contrary that's libel in my book.

[enoch]

As I pointed out in detail in this thread, many of the experts in Ottoman history that you would turn to on anything Ottoman do not conclude that it was a genocide.

Many doctors believe vaccines cause autism. There will always be idiots and bad actors and shills in any body. The vast majority of experts on this subject have concluded it was a genocide. 100 years from now it will still be called the Armenian genocide. As far as I know the only “experts” who claim it wasn’t a genocide are ones with ties to Turkish nationalism and other political interests who support it.

[PointOfViewGun]

Many doctors believe vaccines cause autism. There will always be idiots and bad actors and shills in any body. The vast majority of experts on this subject have concluded it was a genocide. 100 years from now it will still be called the Armenian genocide. As far as I know the only “experts” who claim it wasn’t a genocide are ones with ties to Turkish nationalism and other political interests who support it.

We're not talking about random doctors. We're talking about doctors with extensive studies that are taken as authority over vaccines. It is a lie that vast majority of experts conclude that it was a genocide. To tie foreign scholars to Turkish nationalism or vague political interests is just lazy argumentation.

I don't rely on what some random Turkish historian says. Primarily I rely on primary sources. After that I rely on likes of Bernard Lewis, British American historian from Princeton University who is the expert on anything Ottoman. I rely on Edward J. Erickson, American historian from Marine Corps University who is an expert on WWI era Ottoman military. I rely on Justin McCarthy, American historian from University of Louisville who is an expert on late Ottoman demographics. Given any other subject these historians would be sought out for their expertise on Ottoman Empire, yet, about the genocide allegations they're either ignored or become victims of false character assassination. The list goes on; Stanford Shaw, American historian from Stanford University, Jeremy Salt, Australian historian from Melbourne University, Norman Stone, British historian from Cambridge and Oxford Universities, Malcolm Yapp, British historian from SOAS University of London, Guenter Lewy, German American historian from University of Massachusetts-Amherst and so on and on. For a good summary of the entire debate you can read "The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide" by Guenter Lewy.

[enoch]

We're not talking about random doctors. We're talking about doctors with extensive studies that are taken as authority over vaccines. It is a lie that vast majority of experts conclude that it was a genocide. To tie foreign scholars to Turkish nationalism or vague political interests is just lazy argumentation.

I only know two of the historians you mention by reputation and it’s my understanding they are, what’s the word, racist adjacent. There are always respected minorities voicing outlier opinions on history subjects. As with science it’s best to take the mass of data rather than cherry-picking what suits our narrative.

[PointOfViewGun]

I only know two of the historians you mention by reputation and it’s my understanding they are, what’s the word, racist adjacent. There are always respected minorities voicing outlier opinions on history subjects. As with science it’s best to take the mass of data rather than cherry-picking what suits our narrative.

Sigh... You're the one cherry picking to keep your narrative alive going as far as character assassination of said people. That's libel, right there. These people are not the outliers. They are the source. With science its not best to take opinion of hundreds of scientists with unrelated expertise on a subject where the actually relevant scientists say something else. Data-wise its even worse as your mass of data would be boiled down to work of few that selectively ignores the actual mass of data that is available. You're not trying to reach a conclusion based on available data. You're trying to pick and choose data selectively while ignoring anything that refutes such data points to keep a particular conclusion you picked alive.

[enoch]

1000s of ottoman/adjacent historians call it a genocide > 6 call it something else

Deny a genocide all you want. The present does and the future will call it the Armenian Genocide so your arguments apply to deniers not people like me (the vast majority of people historians or otherwise with an opinion on the subject).

[PointOfViewGun]

1000s of ottoman/adjacent historians call it a genocide > 6 call it something else

Deny a genocide all you want. The present does and the future will call it the Armenian Genocide so your arguments apply to deniers not people like me (the vast majority of people historians or otherwise with an opinion on the subject).

1000s? You're not even trying to make it sound realistic, don't you? By your logic Galileo was a denialist.