Armenian Genocide (?)

[Weaver]

Exactly, when Austria and others did it, it wasn't even in Turkish news so you were completely oblivious that happened. No feelings were apparently hurt that much. But German resolution is suddenly blown out of proportion.
Recognition of genocide by third countries is not supposed to resolve problems. It's simply a declaration of where a country stands morally. The issue will only be resolved when Turkey recognizes it.
Of course the more countries recognize it firmly, the more morally bankrupt Turkish deniers will seem. But that's simply their own problem. If they want to react asymmetrically, that would make them look even worse.

 

[Calradianın bilgesi]

Exactly, when Austria and others did it, it wasn't even in Turkish news so you were completely oblivious that happened. No feelings were apparently hurt that much. But German resolution is suddenly blown out of proportion.

You're completely correct, resolutions by different countries do not have equal repercussions. Resolutions by France and Germany resulted in relatively more reaction. Yet, this fact doesn't undermine any of my claims.

Recognition of genocide by third countries is not supposed to resolve problems.

It may seem simple from there, but here I directly feel its effects and I'm aware that what's at stake is the well-being of thousands of people. Isn't it quite natural to express my concerns over the effectivity, or even harms of the actions of other countries?

Of course the more countries recognize it firmly, the more morally bankrupt Turkish deniers will seem. But that's simply their own problem. If they want to react asymmetrically, that would make them look even worse.

The things work completely the other way around. The resolution doesn't decrease but increase the credibility of  genocide deniers. "Look, foreigners want to use this as a stick against Turkey, that's the whole use of Armenian genocide, and those who recognize it are traitors helping imperialist powers."

 

[Weaver]

That logic is so Russian it probably plays balalaika.
But once again, it is important for progressive countries to make a stand on all instances of genocide. If it gives fodder to Turkish reactionary propaganda, so be it. You can't let Turkish right-wing nutjobs blackmail the free society into silence.

I don't accept the discourse that claims this resolution was passed just to poke at Turkey. Turkish regime simply uses it to further its agenda, but it's completely on them.

 

[Úlfheðinn]

Yeah, I don't really see the alternative as working out any better.

Everyone pretending that nothing happened in the hopes that in 500 years Turkey might be ready to admit that the Armenian Genocide occurred, nah, pass.

 

[Calradianın bilgesi]

That logic is so Russian it probably plays balalaika.
But once again, it is important for progressive countries to make a stand on all instances of genocide. If it gives fodder to Turkish reactionary propaganda, so be it. You can't let Turkish right-wing nutjobs blackmail the free society into silence.
I don't accept the discourse that claims this resolution was passed just to poke at Turkey. Turkish regime simply uses it to further its agenda, but it's completely on them.

Well, in the international relations you weight the potential costs and benefits of a particular action before acting. It would be silly to say "any progressive country should sanction China because of its abysmal human rights record. If those sanctions are going to make China more authoritarian, so be it. It's the duty of China to respect human rights." I'm open to any argument which can explain clearly how this resolution can decrease hate crimes  increase Turkish public support for genocide recognition. But isn't it a little bit callous and self-righteous to declare that civilized world will uphold the truth, whatever its costs, even when Armenians may lose from it.

Yeah, I don't really see the alternative, everyone pretend that nothing happened in the hopes that in 500 years Turkey might be ready to admit that the Armenian Genocide occurred?

I mean should we have taken the same approach in regards to the Holocaust or the Rwandan Genocide? Just went "well, it might serve to increase local unrest and dislike of foreigners, so we obviously can't as countries declare that we think it occurred"?

Some countries recognize their crimes without foreign pressure but as a result of internal pressure. It almost always takes long time, it was almost more than 100 years when Germany recognized Namibian genocide(didn't pay reparations yet). To precise my position, I'm not against all the foreigner initiatives. A foreign historian or a public figure doesn't have the same effects at all. It's the actions of foreign governments which create this particular backlash.

 

[Úlfheðinn]

Some countries never recognize their crimes, so we could also say other countries have to do something, rather than nothing.

Similarly, I don't really think it matters who or what entity accepts the Armenian Genocide, Turkey throws a fit no matter what. Now sure, it's going to be played up even more when it's someone important or a relatively important/powerful nation, but in all honesty, I think it simply depends on how much propaganda the Turkish government want to use this month.

I mean it's sort of like North Korea, how North Korea reacts really depends on what they want or how they feel. If they feel generous, they won't threaten Nuclear Holocaust because Obama said their government was bad. If they want to spice up the propaganda, they suddenly decide that an American movie is a clear and obvious declaration of war and arrest an American tourist for the lulz.

 

[Calradianın bilgesi]

Yes some still didn't. I'm aware this is a difficult issue, it's hard to find out how Turkey as a sovereign country with a small Armenian population can finally recognize the genocide. But if a method has some visible and significant costs, and if its repeated use didn't deliver success, maybe it's prudent to refrain from it. 2 years ago Erdogan issued an official condolence. This week he threatened to deport undocumented Armenians living in Turkey, and ranted about why Armenian genocide is a lie, and why Turkey has nothing to be ashamed of its history. If that's not regress, I don't know what a regress really is.

 

[Úlfheðinn]

Again though, where are all these examples of pointing out genocide as having occurred leading to failure?

Yes some still didn't. I'm aware this is a difficult issue, it's hard to find out how Turkey as a sovereign country with a small Armenian population can finally recognize the genocide. But if a method has some visible and significant costs, and if its repeated use didn't deliver success, maybe it's prudent to refrain from it. 2 years ago Erdogan issued an official condolence. This week he threatened to deport undocumented Armenians living in Turkey, and ranted about why Armenian genocide is a lie, and why Turkey has nothing to be ashamed of its history? If that's not regress, I don't know what a regress really is.

Yeah, but again, your dealing with a completely irrational actor who wants to manipulate his people and keep on riding the gravy train of power/corruption.

If IKEA introduced a piece of furniture that made fun of Turkey, Ergodon would probably declare that Sweden is trying to destroy Turkey and then demand that Merkel force Sweden to apologize and ban IKEA for the next 30 years.

At some point it stops being useful to try to place "nice" and pretend there are no problems, when the other party doesn't care what you do, they're just looking for something to react to, no matter what it is.

 

[Weaver]

Well, in the international relations you weight the potential costs and benefits of a particular action before acting. It would be silly to say "any progressive country should sanction China because of its abysmal human rights record.

That's a bull**** argument. Are you really comparing a nonbinding declaration to sanctions?
That's exactly the difference in motivation you fail to grasp. By passing such resolutions the countries of the world are not as much trying to force Turkey to do something as stating their own stance on a historical event. And this stance must be consistent with what the people of said countries believe and should not be allowed to be manipulated by reactionary foreign regimes.

But isn't it a little bit callous and self-righteous to declare that civilized world will uphold the truth, whatever its costs, even when Armenians may lose from it.

No. Declarations do not hurt people in other countries. Oppressive and chauvinistic regimes do.
If Turkey will somehow persecute the local Armenians it will completely and utterly be on the Turks. And then we will see sanctions and other bad things happening.

 

[Calradianın bilgesi]

No. Nonbinding declarations do not hurt people in other countries. Oppressive and racist regimes do.

"When engaging with agents of questionable decency, we shouldn't care about how that agent may react to a certain action, as that agent itself will be responsible from its own actions.  It doesn't matter what the consequence is, even when we can foresee the consequence. If that agent decides the act badly, it's its decision and we don't need to care as we're not responsible." This is callous and self-righteous.

Yeah, but again, your dealing with a completely irrational actor who wants to manipulate his people and keep on riding the gravy train of power/corruption.

If IKEA introduced a piece of furniture that made fun of Turkey, Ergodon would probably declare that Sweden is trying to destroy Turkey and then demand that Merkel force Sweden to apologize and ban IKEA for the next 30 years.

At some point it stops being useful to try to place "nice" and pretend there are no problems, when the other party doesn't care what you do, they're just looking for something to react to, no matter what it is.

I think there is an obvious difference in his attitude, and moreover the attitudes of common people and the tone of the newspapers are also quite different during commemorations of the genocide or the murder of Hrant Dink(an Armenian journalist). This particular reaction cannot be explained only by "people are crazy anyways, it doesn't matter what Germany does." Why Erdoğan didn't  speak in the same way 2 years ago?

 

[Úlfheðinn]

Why does Kim Jong-un react differently over different periods of time?

Why does he speak differently about America and South Korea...say now compared to an earlier period of time?

Those are some very complicated questions to answer, I mean sure, we can toss ideas around, maybe Erdoğan wants some more negotiating power with the EU, so it's great to throw a hissy fit over Germany having the audacity to publicly declare they feel that sufficient evidence exists to accept the Armenian Genocide as true or maybe Erdoğan is just cranky (I don't know, we should probably ask him).



Also, I'm not saying anyone is crazy, I'm saying that someone who wants to find cause to be offended or angry, will find that cause no matter what you do.

Have you never interacted with someone who just wants to fight with you no matter what? Like if you say, sorry, they get more mad. If you tell them to knock it off, they get more mad. If you try to walk away, they get more mad. If you try to be nice to them, they get more more mad, that's what I mean.

Also, irrational doesn't mean crazy, if anything it's pretty normal for people to be irrational.

 

[Weaver]

"When engaging with agents of questionable decency, we shouldn't care about how that agent may react to a certain action, as that agent itself will be responsible from it. It doesn't matter what the consequence is, the other side is responsible, so we shouldn't care."

It is remarkably dishonest and vile to shift the blame for Turkish chauvinism on third countries.
If someone makes a veiled threat amounting to "do not ever mention I massacred these people or I will massacre them again", do you abide by this blackmail? Seeing there is no apparent repentance and impunity emboldens villains, said persecution may repeat regardless of what you do. So ignoring the issue is in fact much worse.

But hopefully Turkish people are wiser than that and you are just doing them disservice by implying they are ready to go after Armenians because some other country recognized a tragic event in latters' history.

 

[Calradianın bilgesi]

@Úlfheðinn
What you argue:
"Nationalistic people will react with extreme responses to these resolutions. If the people weren't that much denialist and nationalist, than they wouldn't act this way."
That's true, and this doesn't contradict with my argument. There are several possible reactions, a commemoration prompts a specific reaction, and a resolution prompts a specific reaction. If Turkish people were different, this set of reactions would also be different. The condition of Turkish society is one cause of the outrage today. And the resolution is another reason of it. Yes, the resolution is only one of the many factors that created this outrage, but this doesn't change the fact that it created a change. What I argue since the beginning is that the public debate during a commemoration is a fruitful one and yielded desirable results. The outrage after a resolution is harmful and only reinforces the hate. These outrages do not take place during commemorations.
@Weaver
The logic is so Kantian that I read it in Gothic font. "I wouldn't lie to SS officer who asked whether a Jew is hiding in my house. I'll tell the truth, if he kills the Jew, that's not my bad." I do not shift the blame at all. I just want countries to anticipate and consider possible consequences of their actions, which is one of the most sensible demands possible.

 

[Úlfheðinn]

@Úlfheðinn
What you argue:
"Nationalistic people will react with extreme responses to these resolutions. If the people weren't that much denialist and nationalist, than they wouldn't act this way."

Nope.

What I'm saying is: "Erdoğan will when he feels like it, react badly to pretty much anything the West does that he doesn't like (no matter how insignificant or unimportant it is to the actual security of Turkey), therefore there's no real point in constantly trying to appease him by avoiding the mention of any topic or issue that might anger him."

I'm then arguing because of the nature of the Turkish government and media, Erdoğan can then stoke the fires of hatred/anger/whatever in the hearts of the Turkish people, so again, we're back to square one, where sure, we can try to cater to the demagogue or we can realize that it's probably not super effective to try to kiss his ass in the hopes that maybe at some point in the future he won't spit us in the face.

It's like the Munich Agreement, did it work out to hand Hitler Czechoslovakia? I mean the West gave him the time and opportunity to chill out, enjoy his new territory, and be friendly...but it didn't quite work out did it? Now of course, there are times and places where it's best not to provoke or to avoid offense at any cost (like say during the Cuban Missile crisis), but in this case I still don't feel you've made a compelling enough case for why it's best to do nothing.

 

[Calradianın bilgesi]

This is not an issue about Erdogan. Prime ministers change, but this phenomenon has been a consistent part of Turkish politics since years. Foreign resolutions result in outrage and increase rhetorical power extremists. They gain a moral high ground against "imperialists", and their arguments become more convincing to the ordinary people who become defensive against foreigners as an instinct. And Armenians lose their chance to engage in dialogue because the extent of the outrage. This atmosphere is significantly different from the other days, and I'm sure that resolutions create a difference. We wouldn't see any of this mess without the resolution, nationalists and their arguments would be less relevant. What I'm less sure is whether these weeks of fury have lasting effects.

 

[Úlfheðinn]

Well yeah, but that's kind of par and course for having decades of politicians of a similar caliber to Erdoğan. So sure, it's nothing new, and it's not just an Erdoğan problem, as he's just the most current Turkish demagogue. That still doesn't mean Erdoğan or his government aren't the problem behind the current troubles.

Again, it's like North Korea, of course Kim Jong-un didn't create the North Korea of today, but he's the third in a line of authoritarian dictators who've utilized similar strategies to keep the North Korean people in check.

Again though, can you provide some examples of genocides that were recognized when no one pressured the original country?

 

[Calradianın bilgesi]

Again though, can you provide some examples of genocides that were recognized when no one pressured the original country?

http://www.webcitation.org/65s1BhlQQ

Now of course, there are times and places where it's best not to provoke or to avoid offense at any cost (like say during the Cuban Missile crisis), but in this case I still don't feel you've made a compelling enough case for why it's best to do nothing.

I'm not insistent on my case. I can change my mind if I can see how the resolutions can change the way Turkish people think in a positive way. But I don't agree with you that "It doesn't matter what the West does if Erdogan is angry". The resolutions change the persuasiveness of nationalists' arguments, shape the debate, change the mindsets of the people, and decrease Armenians' chance to engage in the debate in significant ways. What you argue is "Erdogan would threaten to deport Armenians anyway, the resolution didn't allow it" I do not find this claim reasonable at all.

 

[Almalexia]

Again though, can you provide some examples of genocides that were recognized when no one pressured the original country?

http://www.webcitation.org/65s1BhlQQ

???

How is that your example? Maybe coming from the perspective of someone from Turkey, I suppose your ignorance could be forgiven. But this has been an issue of debate and activism for the past century.

 

[Úlfheðinn]

What you argue is "Erdogan would threaten to deport Armenians anyway, the resolution didn't allow it" I do not find this claim reasonable at all.

No, what I'm arguing is that it's ridiculous to tell/expect Germany not to pass resolutions, when anything they say or do might result in Erdoğan drumming up the presses and the Turkish people (I mean ****, last time all it took was some random German singing a song that offended the glorious leader).

Let's make a completely different example, if I am going to shoot you no matter what you say or do, is it reasonable for someone to argue, "Well, you did kind of make Ulf mad, maybe if you would have given him some time he wouldn't have felt compelled to shoot you" and then to suggest that you are at fault for angering me.

 

[Weaver]

@Weaver
The logic is so Kantian that I read it in Gothic font. "I wouldn't lie to SS officer who asked whether a Jew is hiding in my house. I'll tell the truth, if he kills the Jew, that's not my bad." I do not shift the blame at all. I just want countries to anticipate and consider possible consequences of their actions, which is one of the most sensible demands possible.

So in your example you imply that by recognizing Armenian genocide Germany basically enables Turkey to persecute Armenians.
That is honestly the dumbest and most disgusting thing I've heard today. How does this even work in your head?

You are exactly shifting the blame by implying that Germans (but surprisingly not Austrians or Dutch) somehow are to blame for Turkish chauvinism.