Now it is a crime in France to deny the armenian genocide, and a Turkish writer.....

[Sava]

Originally posted by BeBro


We had this several times here. Dictionary defs aren't used in internat. politics. Look up some real defintions, eg. in law, and they mostly use the same def as the UN convention which refers to destruction of a group "in whole or in part".

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

(esp. under point 2)

So basically, someone took an original meaning and changed it so now some people agree it means something else.

I guess what I find most disturbing about this butchery of language is that now "genocide" can mean something completely different (under international laws).

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

that's from Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide...

So "mental harm" to members of a group is genocide?

Bull****.

You can put wings on a cow, but that doesn't make it a bird.

[BeBMan]

It's the def that counts on the internat. stage, if you like it or not.

[Az]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The problem is, it wasn't a genocide. An atrocity, sure. A war crime, definitely. A crime against humanity even. But not a genocide.

Armenians in Eastern Turkey were led on a forced march that killed a huge number of them before arrival at their new destination (the parallels to the forced removal of the Chreokee from Georgia -- the Trail of Tears -- are very, very striking). At the same time, Armenians living in Istanbul, Izmir and elsewhere were left entirely alone.

It was horrific, and the Turks are idiots for not admitting it happened and apologizing (they're even bigger idiots because they could blame the whole thing on the Ottomans and claim it has nothing to do with the Turkish republic). But it wasn't genocide.

I fully agree.

[Sava]

Originally posted by BeBro
It's the def that counts on the internat. stage, if you like it or not.

It can be legitimate and bull****. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[BeBMan]

Arguing against reality is not exactly wise either

[The Mad Viking]

Here's the point.

How can you claim the Turks perpetrated genocide when Armenians living in Istanbul were not harmed?

Who were the "Turks"? All the Turks? Ottomans? Leaders of certain provinces only?

The language is not very helpful. I think it makes sense to explain what happened to the Armenians. The people who perpetrated this were Turkic. Was the intent to exterminate? No. Did they use deadly force on any who resisted the forced resettlement?
Yes.

But what is occurring now is an attempt to link the acts of some to millions of innocent Turks living today. This is not helpful to anyone. A cynic might suspect certain French interests of trying to scuttle Turkey's aspirations for EU membership.

History should recognize the facts of what happened, and the current Turkish government should acknowledge these. But the use of labels is not helpful. "Turkey committed genocide!" You have reduced the language to such generalities as to make it possible to deny what happened.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

. The French black community is active in this regard with slavery, for example.

There are people who deny that slavery took place?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Here's the point.

How can you claim the Turks perpetrated genocide when Armenians living in Istanbul were not harmed?

And, IIUC, the Nazis only killed Roma living in some parts of europe, and not others. They killed slavs from Poland, but not Croatia. and some groups of Poles more than others, IIUC. In general most genocides are selective, precisely because MOST genocides are done for "rational" political reasons. The notion that a genocide must be total to warrant that description, is basically using the Nazi genocide against the Jews as definitional. I agree that the Shoah was unique AMONG genocides, but it wasnt the only genocide.

I agree the real question is how systematic it was, and I dont know enough on that.

That there are no records of planning is not necessarily definitive. Not all people are as anal about keeping records as the Germans. In fact, IIUC, it was only be accident that records of the Wahnsee conference survived.

[lord of the mark]

re Freedom of Speech.

Im conflicted. I dont feel bad for the deniers that their "rights" are denied, nor do i believe that forbidding denial is incompatible with a liberal society. OTOH it does seem that the existence of laws for denial is increasingly more of an issue than denial itself, and enables the deniers to proclaim themselves victims. I beleive its better to let the deniers air their claims, and then to show how foolish they are. I can see why such laws were needed in Germany in the decades immediately after the war - I would hope there would be a way to gradually move towards the "anglo-saxon" model though.

[Barnabas]

I think a million and a half out of 2 millions (in eastern turkey I mean) died, those in west turkey were unharmed I think, and obviously those in russian armenia too.

[Barnabas]

"France has made it a crime, punishable by up to 1 year in prison, to deny the Armenian genocide. I am the grandson of a genocide survivor who escaped from Van in 1915, but I think this new law in France is stupid and shortsighted and I don't agree with it at all. For a start, it is dangerous when governments start telling people what to think. It might be okay when they get it right, but what happens when the government takes a view that we don't agree with and we do not have the freedom to disagree?
Secondly, how can France ever complain now about the outrageous human-rights violations in Turkey - when writers and academics get prosecuted for "insulting Turkishness" because they dare to admit to what happened in 1915 and afterwards - when they themselves are now planning to lock people up for their opinions about history.
I might get slated for this, but I believe that this new law in France is illiberal, stupid and dangerous."

[Combat Ingrid]

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

In other words: circumcision = genocide

[Dinner]

It's FORESKIN GENOCIDE!!!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
There are people who deny that slavery took place?

No.
However, the black community pushes for an enshrinement of the evils of slavery in French official history. And parts of the black community consider themselves in competition with the Jews for having the spotlight on collective memory and guilt.

This is one of the reasons (and the most public, as it is championed by a famous humorist) that explains the recent souring between the French black and Jewish communities btw.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

No.
However, the black community pushes for an enshrinement of the evils of slavery in French official history. And parts of the black community consider themselves in competition with the Jews for having the spotlight on collective memory and guilt.

This is one of the reasons (and the most public, as it is championed by a famous humorist) that explains the recent souring between the French black and Jewish communities btw.

Over here there are plenty of blacks who more memorialization of slavery, esp of the middle passage. Certainly they see memorialization of the Shoah as a model, but I dont think anyone mainstream in the Afro-am community minimizes the Shoah, and most US Jews are sympathetic (i think) to the afro am desire to commemorate the Middle Passage.

Whats in the water over there? Maybe you dont have enough neo-confederates to bring people together?