|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2007 18:50:57 GMT -6
this resolution takes a stand against politics deciding history. So, to combat politics deciding history we must use politics to establish the history? What happened happened, this resolution will not alter that fact. As I said, since no one here disputes it being a genocide, we do we need a resolution stating such? And how do we know there are people in the US in general disputing it's a genocide? Or in other nations? The very point of this is saying that we will not appease another nation. That is what the US did in '97. At that time, both France and US had similar resolutions, Turkey asked BOTH countries not to pass the resolution, France did, the US did not, in turn, all of the contracts French companies had with Turkish telecommunication systems were voided and they were given to American companies. That is politics deciding history. Sometimes, yes, it might take a political action to say that no longer will political appeasement be tolerated because one country does not wish to accept the definition of a word. Yes, what happened happened. It is a shame that countries and individuals today continue to deny that it was a genocide, and shame that some do not see the necessity behind clearly stating something happened, and it was that, and fits the definition, so it doesn't happen again. I do not see any real reason why this resolution should not be passed, I do not see any real argument against it on how it would negatively affect our nation. I do not see any harm or any precedent being set that says "we must now have a resolution recognizing the holocaust." (the phrase "the holocaust" is used only to encompass the nazi genocide on Jews, not homosexuals, slavs, and gypsies, etc... ) But, Germany is not denying any part of the "nazi genocide" against any of those groups. Turkey is denying a genocide. there is a profound difference here between Armenia and other genocides, such as Rwanda, what is happening in the Darfur region of the Sudan, Nazi Germany, and Cambodia.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2007 20:04:41 GMT -6
I'm not just speaking about the holocaust (and no, the "holocaust" does not just refer to Jews it does refer to the death of slavs, gypsies, homosexuals, communists, union leaders, political prisoners et al).
The point I am trying to make is that there are many many atrocities that go unrecognized by respective governments. That doesn't mean we need to step up and pass resolutions about those as well. As I said, if we start down this path then why don't we just assign one person to specifically draft resolutions concerning atrocities of the past?
We can cover Blood Libel, the Sacking of Constantinople, the internment of German and Italian Americans (we only ever hear about the Japanese Americans who were interred, after all).
Next why not pass resolutions recognizing those killed at the Bay of Pigs? We never hear about those guys.
Why don't we formally recognize the Republic of Cyprus and formally denounce the land occupied by Turkey on the Island of Cyprus?
Why don't we recognize Tibet and denounce the Chinese invasion?
And when I say "us" I mean Talossans. I have not heard one Talossan say that this was not a genocide. So essentially, you are saying that we need to legislate this little piece of history that nobody presently disputes, and with said legislation, it does not limit one's ability to make such disputes if they wanted to. So, what is the purpose of the legislation? More than "it won't hurt anybody" we should be asking "How is this helping anybody?"
Why don't we focus on legislation that is relevant to Talossans and helps us to build a better future rather than dwell on the misdeeds of our fellow man?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2007 7:35:26 GMT -6
I'm not just speaking about the holocaust (and no, the "holocaust" does not just refer to Jews it does refer to the death of slavs, gypsies, homosexuals, communists, union leaders, political prisoners et al). The point I am trying to make is that there are many many atrocities that go unrecognized by respective governments. That doesn't mean we need to step up and pass resolutions about those as well. As I said, if we start down this path then why don't we just assign one person to specifically draft resolutions concerning atrocities of the past? We can cover Blood Libel, the Sacking of Constantinople, the internment of German and Italian Americans (we only ever hear about the Japanese Americans who were interred, after all). Next why not pass resolutions recognizing those killed at the Bay of Pigs? We never hear about those guys. Why don't we formally recognize the Republic of Cyprus and formally denounce the land occupied by Turkey on the Island of Cyprus? Why don't we recognize Tibet and denounce the Chinese invasion? And when I say "us" I mean Talossans. I have not heard one Talossan say that this was not a genocide. So essentially, you are saying that we need to legislate this little piece of history that nobody presently disputes, and with said legislation, it does not limit one's ability to make such disputes if they wanted to. So, what is the purpose of the legislation? More than "it won't hurt anybody" we should be asking "How is this helping anybody?" Why don't we focus on legislation that is relevant to Talossans and helps us to build a better future rather than dwell on the misdeeds of our fellow man? Actually, the term "the holocaust" in reference to World War II was initially used to describe the unique experience to the Jews, 6 million. Not the 12 million, which included other groups. Only in recent history (the last decade or so) has the term been SLOWLY expanded to encompass others. But it was originally applied by the Jews on what happened to themselves. Moreover, you are equating apples and oranges. Tibet/China have nothing to do with Armenia. And it is not uncommon for us to pass resolutions denouncing actions. i.e. 24RZ41. And other acts have existed. The fallacy here is that your argument is a slippery slope. "If we do one, what will stop us from doing others..." It does not matter if a talossan doesn't call it a genocide or not, the point is the government as a whole is saying the government recognizes it as such, takes a stand against revision history, and also offers some comfort to those who may have died in it. With all due respect Sir, your attitude is one that appeases the Turks and allows them to rewrite history. Also, please show me where we do not recognize the bay of pigs, or the other acts you brought up. I personally recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. the US recognizes the Southern Cyprus gov't as the legimate country, the one you brought up. And if a certain act IS passed which is on the Ziu now, I am more then positive we will be recognizing Nothern Cyprus. Again, where are we disputing what you brought up? Where has it been under such internation attention as the Armenian Genocide? This is a major issue in some parts of the world that have forced countries (even the US) which do not have the debate to pass resolutions. We don't have the debate, doesn't mean we shouldn't take a stand on it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2007 13:07:18 GMT -6
I never said China/Tibet had anything to do with Armenia. I said since we are recognizing this event, why not denounce the China/Tibet incident as well?
Incidentally, whenever I speak about the "Holocaust" I refer to the genocide committed by the Nazis. Period. The specific genocide of the Jews being styled as the "Shoah." That aside, I am simply saying that the resolution serves no purpose.
Nobody disputes (or has at this present time) the Armenian Genocide. There is no debate. However, you contend that we still need to establish a position on something for which there is no debate (which will leave us passing resolutions for plenty of things, leaving us no time to address issues which we are debating). So if you wish to accuse me of the fallacy of the slippery slope, that's fine. However, your argument is a textbook example of the fallacy of the false dilemma. "We must pass this resolution otherwise we let Turkey rewrite history" when in reality history is history, Turkey cannot change that. Turkey may teach whatever they like in their schools but what has happened has happened. It will have happened whether we pass this resolution or not.
And while we are on the subject, kindest sir, the Turkish government seized all of my family assets prior to their coming to America because they were Greeks. Undoubtedly Turkey (as well as many many many other governments, regimes and the like) have committed atrocities. That does not mean we need to recognize them. Nor does it mean we are betraying the memory of these people who were so brutally killed by not passing such a resolution.
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on May 8, 2007 16:11:07 GMT -6
I never said China/Tibet had anything to do with Armenia. I said since we are recognizing this event, why not denounce the China/Tibet incident as well? Incidentally, whenever I speak about the "Holocaust" I refer to the genocide committed by the Nazis. Period. The specific genocide of the Jews being styled as the "Shoah." That aside, I am simply saying that the resolution serves no purpose. Nobody disputes (or has at this present time) the Armenian Genocide. There is no debate. However, you contend that we still need to establish a position on something for which there is no debate (which will leave us passing resolutions for plenty of things, leaving us no time to address issues which we are debating). So if you wish to accuse me of the fallacy of the slippery slope, that's fine. However, your argument is a textbook example of the fallacy of the false dilemma. "We must pass this resolution otherwise we let Turkey rewrite history" when in reality history is history, Turkey cannot change that. Turkey may teach whatever they like in their schools but what has happened has happened. It will have happened whether we pass this resolution or not. And while we are on the subject, kindest sir, the Turkish government seized all of my family assets prior to their coming to America because they were Greeks. Undoubtedly Turkey (as well as many many many other governments, regimes and the like) have committed atrocities. That does not mean we need to recognize them. Nor does it mean we are betraying the memory of these people who were so brutally killed by not passing such a resolution.I think Tim's right. Recognizing this incident as an atrocity sounds like a point paper for a class: There are criterion to qualify things as an atrocity, Turkey met these criterion, therefore this was an atrocity. As for revisionist history, it may be frustrating, but it's like the Black Knight scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The Black Knight continued to believe he wasn't losing, but he was just a torso. His continued attempts at fighting and arguing just made him look even more ridiculous. People can be as stupid and pig headed as they want and not recognize or admit something, but if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2007 16:20:41 GMT -6
Your argument is entirely slippery slope. Was there a debate in NYS when the resolution was passed? no. But it was done anyway.
The very point that seems to be evading you is how this is Unique. the Holocaust and the Nazi Genocide are not contested by any government. The Bay of Pigs is not denied. Turkey continues to deny a genocide took place against the armenian people which is what has forced some other governments to officially recoginze this instance as genocide, and pass resolutions. This will not open a door to where we have to write up a resolution for every event in history that logic is asinine.
I can not stress the uniqueness behind the Armenian Genocide enough, and what it is going through, and the attempts at rewriting history behind it. Moreover the fact that because of peoples unwillingness, the revision have a chance at actually being successful.
There was no debate really on this resolution prior to you. There is no slippery slope. I ask you, what exaxctly was the point in recognizing Somililand? Must we now recognize every area that randomly declares itself free, that is the logic you seem to be arguing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2007 18:27:19 GMT -6
Turkey denies the genocide. Who cares? This bill serves no purpose.
And by the way, as you claim the Holocaust is not contested by any government, I find it interesting that most recently a certain head of state (of Iran) held a Holocaust denial conference....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2007 12:49:32 GMT -6
Turkey denies the genocide. Who cares? This bill serves no purpose. And by the way, as you claim the Holocaust is not contested by any government, I find it interesting that most recently a certain head of state (of Iran) held a Holocaust denial conference.... It's funn you should ssay that when your first post was: "A very important act, however, I must inquire if a similar act exists regarding the Holocaust (WWII)? Simply because I would say the latter stands more of a chance of falling victim to revisionist propaganda. " A lot of bills have served no purpose. The President of Iran, which has no real power, held a conference, NOT THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN. Nice backpeddle.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on May 9, 2007 14:51:28 GMT -6
This Bill has been removed by request of the Author from further deliberation, and will not be Clarked.
-Mick SoS Guy.
|
|