|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Oct 5, 2007 5:06:03 GMT -6
" They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up. " Nicely stated, I love that quote, if Talossa really wants to be a nation, then it has to act like one and take a stance on genocides and anti-humanitarian actions around the world.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 7:58:18 GMT -6
" They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up. " When, do we as Talossans, speak up? While I understand before the Kingdom's reluctance to get involved in other countries internal affairs... I wonder when, and if, we will ever add our voice to those that condemn man's inhumanity to man. We seem very reluctant to ever step on the toes of another country's polices. Unless it's the Republic's. When do we say, enough is enough? Sure, it might not be prudent to condemn what happened a century ago. Or worthwhile. But when do we , as a nation, stand up and tell the rest of the world "Hey! This is wrong! Stop it!" When do we stop hiding in the alley, and walk up to the front of the crowd, and make a statement? I know, that I will. And I am making a statement, as those of you that have a Facebook account know. It's time. It's time to stand up, and say to the world that this is how we feel. Where were you when this was said? talossa.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=hopper&action=display&thread=1172289845&page=1No offense, but I find this all a bit hypocritical. To borrow the point someone there makes, I will apply it here: no one here is lacking sympathy for the cause, no one here is saying the Junta is correct, why do we need a resolution stating such? The resolution will serve no real purpose. The American Congress has passed no such act, it was the American president who has done so. This is a waste of Ziu time.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 5, 2007 8:12:02 GMT -6
At the behest of my citizenry, who feel the issue is very important to them, this Senator is willing to give his time to the resolution. It will not waste Ziu time, methinks... who is going to debate against it?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Oct 5, 2007 8:25:19 GMT -6
Like Senator Davis, I'm ambivalent about the value of a resolution on this issue, but I do think it's reasonable to make a distinction between taking a stand on today's most pressing current events and taking a stand on historic events. Lending the Invincible Moral Support of the Kingdom of Talossa to the anti-junta movement in Myanmar is consistent with past Talossan practice. But our Invincible Moral Support can't affect the course of the Armenian genocide, or the Cambodian democide, or the Nazi Holocaust, or the Ukrainian famines of the 1930s, or the depopulation of the Congo Free State under the rule of King Leopold of Belgium, or the Irish Potato Famine, or the "pacification" of the Vendée in the 1790s, or the annihilation of Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War, or any number of other historical atrocities.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 8:30:42 GMT -6
Show me where a resolution being passed is going to contribute, show me how the work being done is going to help, and show me how you all plan to have this will not be not forgotten like the others, and perhaps I will vote for it. But not until that moment. With all due respect Minister Davis, can you pick a side and run with it? It seems, in the last 24 hours on this issue, you have politically back peddled twice. In that regard, I question your sincerity to this bill as authentic or merely political? The final point is: a resolution is not enough, and if we start on this path we better be ready to finish it. When there is hindsight, it is very easy to make a decision on which side on what could or should have been done, but in this case we lack that. What can we possibly do if this resolution is passed. What benefit do the people in Myanmar have from us passing this resolution? No offense, the tiny nation of Talossa passing a resolution probably will go unnoticed. It seems that most people want this done to merely satisfy their own personal conscience. Are any of you donating money in your personal life? Are any of you working outside of Talossa to get something done? Or are you just makeing this a pointless political issue that has no relevence to daily Talossan political life? If you want to do something, here are some websites to check out: This one is about helping the people: www.help-myanmar.org/This is a global internet petition: www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/t.phpAnd while you're at it, get involved in Darfur. Where an actual genocide is being committed. Stalin: the death of one is a tragedy, the death of a million is just a statistic.
|
|
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 Oct 5, 2007 8:34:01 GMT -6
"The American Congress has passed no such act, it was the American president who has done so."
We are neither the American Congress or the American President.
If you will notice, I didn't have ANY comment on your "Yes, this is Genocide" Act.
The difference is, The actions in Burma are occurring TODAY. The actions that the Ottoman Empire on the Armenian people occured from 1895 to 1922.
I agree, the genocide was a horrible thing. But there is nothing that we, as citizens of Talossa, can do about history. We can, however, do something about what is occurring today.
As for wasting Ziu time? How about an argument about banning a cereal for wasting Ziu time?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 5, 2007 8:49:55 GMT -6
Show me where a resolution being passed is going to contribute, show me how the work being done is going to help, and show me how you all plan to have this will not be not forgotten like the others, and perhaps I will vote for it. But not until that moment. I can promise you that it won't be forgotten, at least by a few people, as this thread evidences, but... "Contribute"? "Help"? A resolution supporting or condemning an international political situation could do neither of these. I don't understand how that particularly rules it out. We would be expressing solidarity and moral support for the monks, as well as establishing in the light of their struggle our own moral precepts in these matters. As I said before, not something that is entirely vital, but I can also see the value. With all due respect Minister Davis, can you pick a side and run with it? It seems, in the last 24 hours on this issue, you have politically back peddled twice. In that regard, I question your sincerity to this bill as authentic or merely political? I am not sure you actually understand what "due respect" means, since even though from the beginning I have stated my ambivalence on the issue, and have changed my mind after initially agreeing with you only as a result of impassioned arguments and an explained feeling of duty, you still are accusing me of "political back peddling". I have been forthright and clear about my stance from the get-go, as I have been since the start of my legislative career on every issue, and I take umbrage at your implication that I am being otherwise now. I am going to assume you weren't trying to refer to me as "hypocritical", even though a cursory reading might suggest that your link to that thread might indicate that, and I will remind you that the Armenian genocide was not a contemporary issue, and I stand behind my reasoning in that thread: if we are condemning past genocides which some people deny occurred, we should start with the Shoah. That is quite different than a current event which is ongoing, and which might deserve moral support. The final point is: a resolution is not enough, and if we start on this path we better be ready to finish it. When there is hindsight, it is very easy to make a decision on which side on what could or should have been done, but in this case we lack that. What can we possibly do if this resolution is passed. What benefit do the people in Myanmar have from us passing this resolution? No offense, the tiny nation of Talossa passing a resolution probably will go unnoticed. It seems that most people want this done to merely satisfy their own personal conscience. Are any of you donating money in your personal life? Are any of you working outside of Talossa to get something done? Or are you just makeing this a pointless political issue that has no relevence to daily Talossan political life? I believe, Minister, that you are beginning to lost perspective. We are not proposing military aid to the monks. This citizen simply wants a resolution offering them moral support and condemning their treatment. Naturally, it has no "relevence [sic] to daily Talossan life". Naturally, most individuals who vote for it will not start donating or volunteering to stop the situation unless they were already motivated to do so. But I was not aware those were hurdles a resolution of support had to pass. Perhaps if we WERE offering them practical help, the element of practicality would be important. But we are not and will not, because we can not, and so practicality here is not a terribly important factor. I note, curiously, that you assert that people want this passed "merely to satisfy their own personal consciences". What a terrible thing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 10:36:13 GMT -6
Show me where a resolution being passed is going to contribute, show me how the work being done is going to help, and show me how you all plan to have this will not be not forgotten like the others, and perhaps I will vote for it. But not until that moment. I can promise you that it won't be forgotten, at least by a few people, as this thread evidences, but... "Contribute"? "Help"? A resolution supporting or condemning an international political situation could do neither of these. I don't understand how that particularly rules it out. We would be expressing solidarity and moral support for the monks, as well as establishing in the light of their struggle our own moral precepts in these matters. As I said before, not something that is entirely vital, but I can also see the value. I am not sure you actually understand what "due respect" means, since even though from the beginning I have stated my ambivalence on the issue, and have changed my mind after initially agreeing with you only as a result of impassioned arguments and an explained feeling of duty, you still are accusing me of "political back peddling". I have been forthright and clear about my stance from the get-go, as I have been since the start of my legislative career on every issue, and I take umbrage at your implication that I am being otherwise now. I am going to assume you weren't trying to refer to me as "hypocritical", even though a cursory reading might suggest that your link to that thread might indicate that, and I will remind you that the Armenian genocide was not a contemporary issue, and I stand behind my reasoning in that thread: if we are condemning past genocides which some people deny occurred, we should start with the Shoah. That is quite different than a current event which is ongoing, and which might deserve moral support. The final point is: a resolution is not enough, and if we start on this path we better be ready to finish it. When there is hindsight, it is very easy to make a decision on which side on what could or should have been done, but in this case we lack that. What can we possibly do if this resolution is passed. What benefit do the people in Myanmar have from us passing this resolution? No offense, the tiny nation of Talossa passing a resolution probably will go unnoticed. It seems that most people want this done to merely satisfy their own personal conscience. Are any of you donating money in your personal life? Are any of you working outside of Talossa to get something done? Or are you just makeing this a pointless political issue that has no relevence to daily Talossan political life? I believe, Minister, that you are beginning to lost perspective. We are not proposing military aid to the monks. This citizen simply wants a resolution offering them moral support and condemning their treatment. Naturally, it has no "relevence [sic] to daily Talossan life". Naturally, most individuals who vote for it will not start donating or volunteering to stop the situation unless they were already motivated to do so. But I was not aware those were hurdles a resolution of support had to pass. Perhaps if we WERE offering them practical help, the element of practicality would be important. But we are not and will not, because we can not, and so practicality here is not a terribly important factor. I note, curiously, that you assert that people want this passed "merely to satisfy their own personal consciences". What a terrible thing. This is both a response to the above two post. In terms of Armenia, it is an ongoing issue. That is the point that seems to be missed. If it was not an issue today, there would not be resolutions on the floors that have been passed, denied, or are limbo waiting to be voted on. The issue is not whether or not people died, it is what it should be called as. This is still an issue and a major one facing Turkey with their EU hopes. Onto the issue at hand, Minister Davis, I was not calling you a hypocrite, I was stating it is almost evident that the "we'll act on some things but not others based on the relevence of Talossa, regardless that both of them have about the same relevence to Talossa." This thread is most certainly NOT evidence of whether or not it will be forgotten. And until there is valid evidence that us acting on something like this won't be forgotten, it is a waste of all of our time. To pass a resolution like this, there should be some way we can stand behind it, some way we may act on it. There is none that has been presented. And yes, I firmly believe that (and I'm not referring to you) some would pass this to satisfy their own psych. "Well... my good deed is done." Whether or not you like it and/or agree with it does not provide evidence proving nor disproving what I just stated, that goes for me as well. But, from where I sit, I find it rather easy to question the sincerity of certain individuals. I am a firm believer in Talossan isolationism. The less attention we bring to ourselves by say... oh I don't know.. the US, the less chance we end up on any American government watch lists.
|
|
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 Oct 5, 2007 10:45:50 GMT -6
And just whose sincerities are you questioning? C'mon- if yer gonna throw the glove down, throw it all the way down.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 10:53:51 GMT -6
I disagree with you both. Talossa is not a nation that operates in a vacuum ignorant and aloof from world events. It is imperative that we proclaim to other nations (virtual, recognized or unrecognized) that we are a people that stand in solidarity with those that are struggling to realize their own dreams of self-determination. Isolation and insularity disgusts me. Fine, be disgusted.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Oct 5, 2007 11:40:20 GMT -6
In terms of Armenia, it is an ongoing issue. That is the point that seems to be missed. If it was not an issue today, there would not be resolutions on the floors that have been passed, denied, or are limbo waiting to be voted on. The issue is not whether or not people died, it is what it should be called as. This is still an issue and a major one facing Turkey with their EU hopes. The events are in the past. The ongoing issue is how to refer to those historic events. In that sense the Armenian genocide is no different than the Nazi Holocaust (still a lot of Holocaust deniers out there, and it's been a major issue facing Iran with the conference they recently hosted), how to describe Australian treatment of the Aboriginal peoples (still a major issue in Australia), and the question of whether the mass starvation of Ukrainians in the 1930s should be described as Soviet genocide (a major issue between Russia and the Ukraine). There is also ongoing debate about whether English treatment of the Irish, American treatment of Native Americans, American treatment of Black slaves, Croatian treatment of Serbs, etc., should be referred to as "genocide." It's true that various states are currently taking a stand about some of these things, but they're taking a stand about the classification of past events rather than the course of current events. That may still be a worthy thing to do, but that is an objective difference between reactions to the Armenian genocide and reactions to the crises in Myanmar or Darfur.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 11:56:49 GMT -6
In terms of Armenia, it is an ongoing issue. That is the point that seems to be missed. If it was not an issue today, there would not be resolutions on the floors that have been passed, denied, or are limbo waiting to be voted on. The issue is not whether or not people died, it is what it should be called as. This is still an issue and a major one facing Turkey with their EU hopes. The events are in the past. The ongoing issue is how to refer to those historic events. In that sense the Armenian genocide is no different than the Nazi Holocaust (still a lot of Holocaust deniers out there, and it's been a major issue facing Iran with the conference they recently hosted), how to describe Australian treatment of the Aboriginal peoples (still a major issue in Australia), and the question of whether the mass starvation of Ukrainians in the 1930s should be described as Soviet genocide (a major issue between Russia and the Ukraine). There is also ongoing debate about whether English treatment of the Irish, American treatment of Native Americans, American treatment of Black slaves, Croatian treatment of Serbs, etc., should be referred to as "genocide." It's true that various states are currently taking a stand about some of these things, but they're taking a stand about the classification of past events rather than the course of current events. That may still be a worthy thing to do, but that is an objective difference between reactions to the Armenian genocide and reactions to the crises in Myanmar or Darfur. Well, technically speaking, absed on the UN convention on genocide, we never actually attempted to 'wipe out' the Native Americans, we just kept taking their land. There is a difference. (It is also why the US only recently ratified the convention in the late 80s decades after most of the world had, including the Soviet Union.) As far as a Soviet genocide, there must be an intent to KILL a group of people based on race, religion, and creed. Starvation is no more a genocide (unless intentional) than Stalin's purges were. (They are politicide, as one cannot commit genocide against political opponeants.) The treat of African slaves... to call it a genocide would be the very antithesis of slavery. Slavery is about keeping them alive and as cheap labour, genocide would be to completely eliminate them. The South didn't want to kill the black man, they wanted to keep him subdued. This are the issues facing Armenians today, was their experiance genocide? There are a lot of differences between the Armenian experiance and the Nazi genocides. Iran, as a nation, does not deny the holocaust, one man does. But he is also seen as a lunatic for that stance and many others. There is a fundamental difference between holocaust deniers and Armenian deniers. Holocaust deniers deny the holocaust took place, or if it did, on such a large scale. Armenia on the other hand, those who argue against it being a genocide argue just that, it was NOT a genocide, they do not deny that anywhere from .5-1.5 million people were killed. Even the Turkish government doesn't deny that. But, when Lempkins word is attached to a nation's history, it takes away a lot of innocence. It is an ongoing debate that does very much determine the role of government in deciding history and the definition of words, and I dare say it holds probably more relevence than Myanmar; as yes, it would affect us, it already has. Myanmar is one country trying to fight for democracy... one. What about rebel groups in South America? Should we start to draft resolutions for them? Open this door once and I'm afraid we'll have to start drafting up resolutions for every injustice done in the world at the moment by governments. Why are we not drafting resolutions against Putin oppression in Russia? Or the Twins in Poland? or the constant attacks on homosexuals in Iran, Egypt, Poland (I can add a lot of countries to this list.) To say otherwise would say that one person's suffering is not as relevent as another. So I hope you're all ready to write, if we start now, we can start on SE Asia and maybe get to Africa by the end of the year.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Oct 5, 2007 12:32:06 GMT -6
As far as a Soviet genocide, there must be an intent to KILL a group of people based on race, religion, and creed. Starvation is no more a genocide (unless intentional) than Stalin's purges were. That "unless" is the question, isn't it? But it appears that Lemkin himself considered the Soviet Union to have pursued genocide against the Ukrainian people. And just like with the Armenian issue, many states have passed resolutions, etc. declaring it to be genocide. www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/10/D641C92D-D804-40ED-9415-8278872FA2D6.htmlYou make a good point, though, that we should be careful not to let Talossa turn into a soapbox for people to pursue their pet political causes.
|
|
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 Oct 5, 2007 12:56:30 GMT -6
V-
Is it that your real beef is that your proposal got shotdown, while this one seems to have support?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 12:58:14 GMT -6
Thanks for the link, i'll have to do some research into it. Intially, Lemkin based his definition on genocide on what had happened in Armenia and Germany. However, during the UN convention, the Soviet Union refused to ratify it unless that little word "political" was taking out.
You got the point I was making though.
|
|