Diplomacy - US is still figuring out new ways not to.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by BeBro
Sure. I just would have to face consequences.

And how is that not a human rights violation?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
And how is that not a human rights violation?

Did I say it isn't?

And why would it stop me from voicing my opinion over other things in the world?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

BTW, the Virginia legislature recently apologized for slavery (and also for mistreatment of native americans) I posted about that hear. Some of those who join you on the "realist" side of the armenian res were not too happy with the virginia resolution, either.

But we're not trying to stop a vicious cycle of ethnic cleansing in recently liberated Maryland, where Richmond is threatening to intervene against black separatists in DC...

Excuse me, YOU are the one who suggested that US apologies for our history were somehow relevant to speaking the truth about Turkey.

I dont see how denying truths about 1915 is going to make us a better interlocutor in Iraq.


I also note that you didnt have any trouble with us alienating Uzbekistan and losing an airbase, despite ongoing war in Afghanistan.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Can you say that events weren't a genocide even certain events from your past?

so restrictions on telling the truth about the Armenian genocide are the same as restrictions on lying about the Shoah? Im not defending the latter, but surely the former is objection BOTH as a limit on free speech, AND as a denial of truth and enforcement of genocide denial, and so is worse?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

The trail of tears was an ethnic cleansing. There was apparently inadequate provision of supplies, which aggravated the situation, and some viciousness on the part of at leat one local official, but nothing comparable to what occured with the armenians.

The scale is different. But that's partially because there were a lot more Armenians in Anatolia than Cherokees in Georgia... But AFAIK, the dynamics were basically the same. Both groups were rounded up into concentration camps and marched off, inadequately prepared with supplies during both phases and harassed during the journey.

My impression is that the Armenian exile was accompanied by deliberate massacres of adult males, extensive ones, and that the conditions of exile were deliberate, and theres a fair amount of evidence of that, while with the trail of tears its pretty clear that it was miscalculation. We went over this on the last Armenian thread, at Geronimos prompting.

[DinoDoc]

Neither. I find them both equally repugnant government restrictions on speech.

[lord of the mark]

from wiki

"They began rounding up Cherokees in Georgia on May 26, 1838; ten days later, operations began in Tennessee, North Carolina, and Alabama. About 17,000 Cherokees—along with approximately 2,000 black slaves owned by wealthy Cherokees—were removed at gunpoint from their homes over three weeks and gathered together in camps, often with only the clothes on their backs. They were then transferred to departure points at Ross's Landing (Chattanooga, Tennessee) and Gunter's Landing (Guntersville, Alabama) on the Tennessee River, and at Fort Cass (Charleston, Tennessee) near the Cherokee Agency on the Hiwassee River (Calhoun, Tennessee). From there, they were sent to the Indian Territory, mostly traveling on foot or by some combination of horse, wagon, and boat, a distance of around 1,200 miles (1,900 km) along one of the three routes.

The camps were plagued by dysentery and other illnesses, which led to many deaths. After three groups had been sent on the trail, a group of Cherokees petitioned General Scott for a delay until cooler weather made the journey less hazardous. This was granted; meanwhile Chief Ross, finally accepting defeat, managed to have the remainder of the removal turned over to the supervision of the Cherokee Council. Although there were some objections within the U.S. government because of the additional cost, General Scott awarded a contract for removing the remaining 11,000 Cherokees to Chief Ross. The Cherokee-administered marches began on August 28, 1838, and consisted of thirteen groups with an average of 1,000 people in each. Although this arrangement was an improvement for all concerned, disease still took many lives.

The number of people who died as a result of the Trail of Tears has been variously estimated. American doctor and missionary Elizur Butler, who made the journey with one party, estimated 2,000 deaths in the camps and 2,000 on the trail; his total of 4,000 deaths remains the most cited figure. A scholarly demographic study in 1973 estimated 2,000 total deaths; another, in 1984, concluded that a total of 8,000 people died.[3]



In 2004, Senator Sam Brownback (Republican of Kansas) introduced a joint resolution (Senate Joint Resolution 37) to "offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States" for past "ill-conceived policies by the United States Government regarding Indian Tribes." The United States Senate has yet to take action on the measure."

It really seems that the federal govt was trying to reduce casualties, even going so far as to contract out the removal to the Cherokee nation itself.

A stark contrast with the Armenian situation.


Gertrude Bell filed the following report after hearing the account of a captured Ottoman soldier:

“ The battalion left Aleppo on 3 February and reached Ras al-Ain in twelve hours....some 12,000 Armenians were concentrated under the guardianship of some hundred Kurds...These Kurds were called gendarmes, but in reality mere butchers; bands of them were publicly ordered to take parties of Armenians, of both sexes, to various destinations, but had secret instructions to destroy the males, children and old women...One of these gendarmes confessed to killing 100 Armenian men himself...the empty desert cisterns and caves were also filled with corpses.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What country are you from again?

A country that has faced the past squarely and emerged the stronger for it.

[Sprayber]

It seems that Turkey could vastly improve it's standing and future potential by getting this monkey off its back and just acknowledge what happened was wrong and be done with it. Having pride in ones country doesn't exclude people from honestly looking at their country and seeing the past mistakes. That being said, useless resolutions like this won't do a damn thing to change anyone's view but Congressional attention to things going on today makes much better use of the prestige of Congress. But then again I don't guess Pelosi and the supporters of this resolution has many voters with ties to Sudan.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Colon™
Turkey will have to face up to the Armenian genocide regardless, if they're ever to join the EU. They may huff and puff a little, but it will dawn to them quickly enough this isn't worth losing Europe's and US' allegiance over. The ball is in their camp really.

Has Belgium ever faced up to slaughtering millions of Africans?

Turkey may simply give up with the West and get even more cosy with China and Russia. Russia's already their biggest trade partner.

[Ramo]

Excuse me, YOU are the one who suggested that US apologies for our history were somehow relevant to speaking the truth about Turkey.

I dont see how denying truths about 1915 is going to make us a better interlocutor in Iraq.


I also note that you didnt have any trouble with us alienating Uzbekistan and losing an airbase, despite ongoing war in Afghanistan.

1. I believe it was YOU who was trying to loop opposition to the slavery apology legislation to opposition to the Armenian genocide legislation. I was explaining the absurdity of it...
2. VA is not the US. Note that the Brownback legislation hasn't passed the Senate, despite it's mild language.
3. I haven't disputed that the effect on managing Iraq would be small. Negative, but small.
4. My problems with Uzbekistan have to do with events that aren't a century old.
5. I don't think I've mentioned Turkey's airbase.

My impression is that the Armenian exile was accompanied by deliberate massacres of adult males, extensive ones, and that the conditions of exile were deliberate, and theres a fair amount of evidence of that, while with the trail of tears its pretty clear that it was miscalculation. We went over this on the last Armenian thread, at Geronimos prompting.

I didn't read the last thread. Link?

Anyways, it's true that the Turks did perpetrate major massacres against the Armenians, but IIRC the bulk of mortalities were due to the same basic causes of mortalities in the ToT case, famine and disease. The fundamental difference is in magnitude...

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

1. I believe it was YOU who was trying to loop opposition to the slavery apology legislation to opposition to the Armenian genocide legislation. I was explaining the absurdity of it...

You raised the Trail of tears in post 55. I mentioned the Va Legislation in post 58, in response

2. VA is not the US. Note that the Brownback legislation hasn't passed the Senate, despite it's mild language.

So? My point is that the US is making progress on recognizing and apologizing for misdeeds wrt Native americans. Its doesnt make sense to me that Turkey would see us hypocrites until every state passes a VA type res, or till the Brownback res passes.

3. I haven't disputed that the effect on managing Iraq would be small. Negative, but small.
4. My problems with Uzbekistan have to do with events that aren't a century old.

If the US action has no material effect on the situation in Uzbekistan, and AFAICT it does not, is it really that different? Note in this case we arent cutting off aid, we're merely stating the truth, which is appropriate for past acts. In Uzbekistan we cut off aid, and eliminated our influence.

5. I don't think I've mentioned Turkey's airbase.

No, that was others. But you have said that the strategic situation in Iraq should trump actions with "no consequence". In Uzbekistan, you did not feel that the strategic situation in Afghanistan should trump an action with, apparently, no consequence.

I didn't read the last thread. Link?

Im not sure where it was.

Anyways, it's true that the Turks did perpetrate major massacres against the Armenians, but IIRC the bulk of mortalities were due to the same basic causes of mortalities in the ToT case, famine and disease. The fundamental difference is in magnitude...

The difference is intention. The massacres provide context in which to understand the conditions of the exile. Just as the US govts scramble to fix the conditions for the trail of tears was indicative of US motivations.

Many people died in Nazi death camps of hunger and disease, as well as gas.

Many people died in Bengal in the same period due to hunger and accompanying disease. The difference is that when Churchill found out, he altered the govt of India to stop the famine. The Nazis, OTOH, considered the deaths fulfillment of their plan.