leprechaun
Marquis
Most of the local organisms in South America seem to be deadly and/or poisonous anyway, there's not much point asking them for help.
Armenian Genocide (?)
- 主题发起人 Janissary1453
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Marquis
Ultimately everyone has their own definition to suit their needs but for the purposes of this topic here is quick overview U.N. definition:
The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the following definition of the crime of genocide on December 9, 1948 :
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the following definition of the crime of genocide on December 9, 1948 :
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
butscrew
Sergeant Knight at Arms
Obviously you have never worked in a bottle-o. I had always been able to strike up amicable conversation with Aboriginals before then. But once I started working at Liquorland in Rockhampton the aborigines there treated me like crap. Because I wouldn't sell them alcohol when they were off their nut drunk.
woiffal
Recruit
I´ve just seen a Documentation about the Armenian Genocide in german TV and remembered i read a title in this forum about it. The name of the Documentation was "Aghet - Ein Völkermord".
I simply don´t know why there is any Question about this Issue, and i´m not a Guy who adjudicates fast.
Also watching this movie did again change my view on modern Turkey a bit, b´cos i always have thought of it merely as a destilled rest of the ottoman Empire somehow; but now more and more, not just from this movie (In this thing they mentioned the big financial efforts the germans in ww1 made to support the "Turkish government" back then) it seems to me like it´s an artificial construct with a huge self-esteem but low matureness. I do hope things get well there and also with the lots of turkish people living in Germany and it´s neighbour countries...
P.S.: I always imagined the north coast of Turkey a very bland, beautiful region and didn´t really understand why it´s so - remote and seems so underdeveloped. After watching this documentation now there is somehow a shadow over this land which explains to me ...
I simply don´t know why there is any Question about this Issue, and i´m not a Guy who adjudicates fast.
Also watching this movie did again change my view on modern Turkey a bit, b´cos i always have thought of it merely as a destilled rest of the ottoman Empire somehow; but now more and more, not just from this movie (In this thing they mentioned the big financial efforts the germans in ww1 made to support the "Turkish government" back then) it seems to me like it´s an artificial construct with a huge self-esteem but low matureness. I do hope things get well there and also with the lots of turkish people living in Germany and it´s neighbour countries...
P.S.: I always imagined the north coast of Turkey a very bland, beautiful region and didn´t really understand why it´s so - remote and seems so underdeveloped. After watching this documentation now there is somehow a shadow over this land which explains to me ...
Honestly, I'm highly sympathetic to any analysis which examines the different methods on how countries can start facing with their past injustices. I'd welcome any example of a sovereign country which was compelled to compensate for its past injustices despite overwhelming public denial. I also look forward to any argument which can explain how foreign governments can shift the public opinion on such issues in a positive way. I don't want to believe that Germany voted on this resolution to worsen the situation. But for now, what I see is a shift in the reverse way, and I don't believe Turkish government can be forced to accept the genocide or pay reparations without the public approval. Turkey has been indicted by the ECHR over the occupation of Cyprus, and it didn't pay any of the reparations it owed as a principle. Moreover, I think public acceptance and reconcilation are far more important than official recognition, as they will facilitate reconcilation on different important issues concerning Armenians.
I use the political in a different sense. You can generally see that the number of the countries who recognise the genocide increase in unpopular years of Turkey. Countries often recognize genocide after they have an important problem with Turkey, like Syria. And arguably(I'm not insistent though), the resolution in Germany was influenced by the popular anti-Turkish sentiment. In some other cases, politicians use genocide recognition to woo Armenian voters. So the main dynamic behind these resolutions is often(not always) self-interested political gains, not the sincere concern for the Armenian people. I do not think that they weaken Turkey(which partially undermines your argument that these resolutions can be used to exert pressure) but Turkey doesn't want those resolutions, and countries know it.
More importantly, what is important for my argument is not what it is but how it's perceived. Maybe you do not suffer these problems in Western liberal democracies, but in my country "being American" or "being an English spy" are common and serious accusations. There is a widespread distrust for Western governments, and their recognitions of the genocide end up being a death kiss for us. A genocide denier has to explain two things. First, why it wasn't a genocide. Second, if there was no genocide, why we're talking about it. The second one is explained by conspiracy theories(you can feel that sentiment in Ancalimon's posts in previous pages), "They want to belittle and weaken Turkey, they want to use it etc". So when countries(especially those having bitter relations with Turkey), it adds plausibility to their claims.
I condemn the racist rhetoric, and acknowledge the Turkish responsibility on the issue. However, I sincerely believe that, in order to achieve reconcilation and compensation, those who take part or condone this hate should be convinced. So I'm more interested in how to achieve this, and calling a particular act counterproductive shouldn't be the removal of the responsibility.
I think I've failed to explain my points on public discourse in a clear way. Whereas I claim that German resolution causes the public opinion to go from 7 to 8, you argue that it changes a latent (7) to a manifest 7. It should be quite plausible that different agents have different degrees of credibility in Turkish public, an agent of a particularly low credibility(suspected of being malicious) can actually reduce persuasiveness of its own view. A Turkish intellectual, Erdogan, or an ordinary person recognising genocide is less likely to be accused of having evil intentions when arguing on the genocide. Think of Ku Klux Klan or Putin endorsing Trump. It's not that bad, but it is similar.
Secondly, as different agents have different levels of credibility they create different reactions. When a Turkish intellectual admits genocide or apologize for 1915 without mentioning the genocide, the extremists in the society who label him as a traitor and who want to strip him/her of his/her nationality will not be approved by the common people. Genocide is already an emotionally dense word, which provokes an intense reaction, when people hear it from a foreign government, everyone becomes defensive. You might have a clue from the newspapers which were posted. This time it's harder to side with Germans. The moderates who actually admit some sort of evil start explaining why genocide is a lie as they become defensive. The visceral reaction results in many hate comments(which also influence the beliefs of moderate people). You're right when you say that this reaction is the result of the current state of the society. That's true, in a different ideological topography, people wouldn't act like that. But there are different possible reactions, and this particular reaction creates a fertile soil for genocide deniers. Every person in the country unites against the meddling of foreigners in their affairs, and the debate on the existence of genocide loses its relevance.
Personally, I view last a few days as a regress. No one was probably pushed to question his/her beliefs on the genocide, but the arguments of deniers were reinforced and reiterated. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps all those headlines, news and crazy people arguing on the TV, who would have less opportunity to talk on the issue and who could be refuted more easily without this resolution, didn't shift the public opinion significantly. Even though a proper research may be required, I anticipate that this sentimental and unopposed platform benefited genocide deniers.
@Duh
"International community can influence countries."
Yes, they can. There is nothing controversial about this claim. What we're arguing is the nature of this influence, and I explained how this is likely to be an undesirable one. External interventions have fed reactionary nationalism and hindered dialogue between Turks and Armenians. Not only me but also Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul agrees on this(nonetheless, I should warn that this may not be sincere). Your claim is that these are short-term reactions and do not have any lasting consequences. I suspect if they are. Even though I didn't encounter any study comparing public opinion before and after resolutions, the reactions I've described are the kind of stuff that leads to more extremism. And as far as I know, these resolutions do not have a record of meaningful success. I wonder how the "international prestige and weaken the moral standing and legitimacy of those that oppose genocide recognition" mechanism works, unfortunately, the links you've shared explain quite general things, interesting they may be.
"International community can influence countries."
Yes, they can. There is nothing controversial about this claim. What we're arguing is the nature of this influence, and I explained how this is likely to be an undesirable one. External interventions have fed reactionary nationalism and hindered dialogue between Turks and Armenians. Not only me but also Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul agrees on this(nonetheless, I should warn that this may not be sincere). Your claim is that these are short-term reactions and do not have any lasting consequences. I suspect if they are. Even though I didn't encounter any study comparing public opinion before and after resolutions, the reactions I've described are the kind of stuff that leads to more extremism. And as far as I know, these resolutions do not have a record of meaningful success. I wonder how the "international prestige and weaken the moral standing and legitimacy of those that oppose genocide recognition" mechanism works, unfortunately, the links you've shared explain quite general things, interesting they may be.
I don't understand why you treat Germany's recent resolution like something that happened out of the blue and was aimed to specifically damage Turkey. It's an ongoing and inevitable process worldwide. A whole lot of countries across the world have recognized the genocide already and others just slowly catch up. Last year a score of countries passed similar resolutions including a bunch of EU members (Austria, Netherlands and some others). Why weren't you outraged back then? Why is it only special when Germany does that?
Germany is just finally doing what every civilized country should have done years ago. It's the right thing to do, to declare where you stand. Especially for a country with such a history as Germany.
Germany is just finally doing what every civilized country should have done years ago. It's the right thing to do, to declare where you stand. Especially for a country with such a history as Germany.
Weaver 说:
I wasn't active in the English forum back then. More importantly, living the same **** again and again eroded my confidence in genocide resolutions as an effective method. We both agree on the problem here, what we disagree on is the right method to resolve it.