"Genocide" Is Such An Ugly Word. Why Don't We Call It An Unfortunate Misunderstanding?

36 Comments

Mimbreno • Mar 4, 2010 @5:47 pm

I agree with what you are saying. I would suggest that recognition would carry some moral authority if at any point the U.S. honestly addressed its own history of genocide. That also bears on the statement that if the Turks don't come to terms with their history, they'll do it again.
Chris Berez • Mar 4, 2010 @6:01 pm

Well said, Patrick. Bravo. Reading that news this morning turned my stomach. It's absolutely vile and inexcusable that this is happening. This exact same thing happened with Bush, who as a candidate pledged to recognize the genocide and then broke his promise once elected. There was much derision on the left when that happened; I wonder, will they come out strongly here as well? Well Jon Stewart admonish Obama for such a morally-bankrupt backflip?

And absolutely: fuck the Turks. They should be condemnded by the world. But I guess a million or so lives are nothing compared to the grave injustice of hurting the feelings of a bunch of denialist goat herder assholes.

On a slightly-related note, brilliant Armenian-Canadian filmmaker Atom Egoyan made a film a few years back concerning the Armenian genocide. It's a powerful piece and well-worth checking out.
Matt Raft • Mar 4, 2010 @7:03 pm

I love how Chris Berez and Patrick condemn genocide and then unconsciously pave the way for another "agreeable Holocaust" by painting Turks as "barbarous" people who are apparently "denialist goat herder *ssholes." Lovely words. Now go read up on Elie Weisel's concept of "The Other" and consider your own conduct here. Does it increase or reduce the chances of more murders happening in the Middle East?
Chris Berez • Mar 4, 2010 @7:58 pm

Yes, I used strong language. Perhaps I should have been clearer in specifying that I was not grouping all Turks under that umbrella. However, there is a difference between calling backwards thugs what they deserve to be called and calling for mass-murder. While I should have probably specified that I wasn't referring to every single human being in Turkey or the Middle East for that matter, that hardly changes the fact that the people I was referring to don't deserve one single iota of respect. Again, that doesn't mean I'm representing an entire people to a less-than-human-status and calling for then to be killed. But vile people should still be identified as vile.

So is every Turk or Arab that way? Of course not. But the thugs that sit in the government sure tend to be. And it's hardly as if Turkey is some sort of progressive utopia. It's not as if denying its history is one tiny mark on an otherwise spotless record.

And what I wrote should in no way reflect on Patrick. I want to emphasize that my words and my reaction are mine and mine alone.
Sozeer • Mar 4, 2010 @8:22 pm

Just when do politicians have the right to determine historical events? And its very rich that this is coming from America, a country built on the genocide of natives and enslavement of African slaves. Not to mention its current warmongering and blind support of the zio-nazis. No wonder, the USA is so hated around the world. Hopefully, this will cause the Turks to pull the plug on the alliance and kick the American troops off their soil.

An (east) Indian
eddie • Mar 4, 2010 @8:55 pm

Does this bill actually do anything?

If all it does is condemn, then I'm opposed to it – not because I don't condemn genocide, but because I don't like elected officials making statements on behalf.

On the other hand, I'm all in favor of Congress passing bills that don't do anything instead of spending their time and energy passing bills that cause harm (which is almost all of them). So, I guess I support this bill after all.
eddie • Mar 4, 2010 @8:55 pm

"on MY behalf".
Jeffrey Ellis • Mar 4, 2010 @9:02 pm

What a coincidence. Today my boss and I were discussing an employee who has a foul mouth. I was explaining my view that although this particular employee goes way too far, dropping the F-bomb is sometimes, very very occasionally, warranted, in order to make a particularly emphatic point. "Fuck Turkey" is a perfect example.
Chris Berez • Mar 4, 2010 @9:13 pm

I was explaining my view that although this particular employee goes way too far, dropping the F-bomb is sometimes, very very occasionally, warranted, in order to make a particularly emphatic point.

Granted I took it way, way beyond the word "fuck", but this is still the basic sentiment of what I was doing. I wanted to express my anger by using offensive terminology against my target.

I'm starting to regret it a little, and don't want people to get the wrong idea about me. But honestly, this shit with Turkey has been going on since forever, and I've had it already.
Steve Chaos • Mar 4, 2010 @11:43 pm

Perhaps I am missing some nuanced point here, so if I am, please excuse me. But we're basically having a fit about passing a non-binding resolution over an event which occurred halfway across the globe nearly a century ago?

Precisely why is this so important that we have to do it? For posterity's sake? Just to make extra-certain that, despite the wealth of information out there (including this thing called "the internets!") for anyone curious as to what happened, we've "officially" called it a genocide, with absolutely no practical consequences whatsoever.

Have I quite understood things, here? That it's so absolutely pressing that we formally recognize a massacre that occurred nearly 95 years ago that we have an entire lobby devoted to this exclusive purpose alone, and have internet hissy fits over the fact that it is entirely possible someone might dare question both the relevance and timeliness of it now?
Agop Melkumian • Mar 5, 2010 @3:06 am

you might also consider this. there is no monument to civilization that is not testimony of barbarism.

United States of America

Authors such as the Holocaust expert David Cesarani have argued that the government and policies of the United States of America against certain indigenous peoples constituted genocide. Cesarani states that "in terms of the sheer numbers killed, the Native American Genocide exceeds that of the Holocaust".[24] He quotes David E. Stannard, author of American Holocaust,[25] who speaks of the "genocidal and racist horrors against the indigenous peoples that have been and are being perpetrated by many nations in the Western Hemisphere, including the United States …"[26] Michno estimates 21,586 dead, wounded, and captured civilians and soldiers for the period of 1850–1890 alone.[27]
In God, Greed, and Genocide: The Holocaust Through the Centuries, Grenke quotes Chalk and Jonassohn with regards to the Cherokee Trail of Tears that "an act like the Cherokee deportation would almost certainly be considered an act of genocide today".[28] The Indian Removal Act of 1830 led to the Trail of Tears. About 17,000 Cherokees — along with approximately 2,000 black slaves owned by Cherokees — were removed from their homes.[29] 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 4,000 deaths.[30]
Patrick • Mar 5, 2010 @7:28 am

Steve, the last Hutu killed his last Rwandan Tutsi in 1994. That's 16 years ago! Many Americans have passed from birth to high school without a single Hutu killing a single Tutsi (or at least not many). Don't you agree that condemnation of genocide, on that basis, isn't very pressing?

Or is it that there aren't any living survivors of the Armenian genocide? (Well, there are, but they're REAL OLD, and soon there won't be any.) Is that it?

It isn't pressing to you, now, because it happened so long ago. It is pressing to me, now, because it happened so long ago and the United States, Britain, and other civilized countries have done nothing about it, even just to say it was wrong.

Personal to Agop: You won't find any Trail of Tears apologists here. Andrew Jackson is one of the worst bastards who ever lived.
Steve Chaos • Mar 5, 2010 @9:52 am

Patrick: Exactly what effect will "officially" recognizing it as a genocide do now? Will we apply sanctions? Will it somehow travel back in time and prevent any Armenians from being slaughtered? Will it make U.S. policy more rational to accepting refugees in the future? Will it somehow make the Turks think twice before ever, ever contemplating slaughtering off an ethnic minority group? Or hey – will it even change their mind about the fact of the genocide itself?

I'm going to guess the answer to all of these questions is, "Probably not." Instead we are engaged in a game of trivia to make extra-sure Congress has spoken out on every historical atrocity (well, except for the ones we were responsible for), because it's a cost-free way to show we care to a very small number of people who actually care. And, incidentally, while gaining absolutely nothing for the effort, also manage to alienate a strategically important government. It's a win-win!

In short, aside from "officially" recognizing an event any dolt with a computer can find out about today with no actual consequences beyond that (one that, while you breezily dismiss, happened almost a century ago</i), precisely what is the point here?

Meanwhile, when does the House Resolution come up castigating the Romans for leveling Carthage come up?
Patrick • Mar 5, 2010 @12:31 pm

In the words of a Soviet dissident historian Steve, "Let history judge." The United States Congress still has some small influence, and its resolution raises public discussion and awareness of this crime, and crimes like it. And as I mentioned, and as you breezily ignore, there are living survivors of this genocide. There are many, many more children of survivors. There are also many, many children of the people who carried out this genocide, still alive, in Turkey, living on the graves of their parents' victims. They should consider where their homes came from. They should consider past crimes in light of Turkey's present oppression of, for instance, the Kurds. These people are now the elder statesmen of Turkey, of no small influence in a society where age is respected.

Your argument about the passage of time might be important if we were discussing Rome, but I suspect that you're something of a baby yourself, barely of age to shave. You probably do consider the Rwandan genocide ancient history.

Part of the reason Russia is what it is today is that it's never come to terms with its crimes. Part of the reason Russia has never come to terms with crimes committed under Stalin is that the rest of the world has never pressed it to do so. Germany, on the other hand, was forced to come to terms with what it had done, and as a consequence, considering the lenient, non-punitive treatment it has received from the rest of the world in light of its crimes of the 1930s and 1940s, is again a civilized nation. Germans were treated generously but shamed for what they'd done. It Turkey no harm if its genocide is condemned. If it doesn't help Turkey, it may help somewhere else.

Of course my voice, on the Armenian genocide and the Ukrainian Holodomor, is a small one, and unimportant. I console myself with the thought that you are even smaller, less important, and most importantly, a fool.
PatrickKelley • Mar 5, 2010 @12:42 pm

Another thing most people don't consider is the Turkish government-the Ottoman Empire-of WWI, which actually conducted the genocide, is an entirely different entity from the one which is now in existence, which was founded by Attaturk in I think 1924. Also, the three people most deemed responsible for the atrocity-the Interior Minister, the War Minister, and the head of the Ottoman Navy, were actually tried for this crime, convicted, and even sentenced to death, though they were never executed. (they were apparently assassinated some years later).

Isn't this a bit like passing a resolution condemning the present day government of Israel for the massacre of the Canaanites more than three thousand years ago?

Why does this smell like a bit of an attempt to draw a wedge between the US and an ally, one who has by the way been somewhat important in our current effort in Iraq?

I hope no one misunderstands, I do agree that the atrocity that was the genocide should be addressed, and Turkey should come clean about its record and call it like it was. But let's not pretend here that this is nothing but American politicians expressing moral outrage because its the right thing to do.
Steve Chaos • Mar 5, 2010 @12:44 pm

Yes, very good there, Patrick; sweep my objection aside with a series of ad hominem attacks. You've certainly convinced me by means of such. Why bother with actual reasoned arguments in response to my legitimate questions when you can simply remark (incorrectly, at that) to my age and intelligence for daring to have to temerity to question the wisdom or practical effect of raising this issue now, far removed from most peoples' living memory, and ancillary to the U.S. as a whole?

Any remarks about my mother you'd care to throw in? You know, just for the sake of proper emphasis.
Patrick • Mar 5, 2010 @12:45 pm

Ataturk was a high general in the "Young Turks" government in power in 1915, Patrick Kelley, not an outsider. Many of his backers and subsequent ministers were likewise drawn from the government of Pashas Enver and Bey.
Patrick • Mar 5, 2010 @12:47 pm

Steve, go back and read my comment. You'll find much counter-argument leavening the ad hominem. That I think you a fool doesn't mean I won't dispute with you.
Steve Chaos • Mar 5, 2010 @1:02 pm

Patrick, I am still waiting to hear why a legitimate question should engender such a series of ad hominem attacks. I don't think the mere fact of actually bringing up legitimate questions should bring about attacks on my age or intelligence, regardless of how much "leavening" you provided with a historical analogy. You'll notice that not once have I attacked your character – or even your intelligence – for questioning why this is a relevant, both in terms of time and relevance to the U.S. All I have done is to ask a legitimate question and I have been met with unprovoked hostility, something I find to be entirely uncalled for.

You'll notice that not once have I disputed the facts themselves, nor do I think anyone else here has. The question of genocide really isn't being debated (at least, not here in the U.S.). The question is the relevance and appropriateness of Congress getting into the business of making pronouncements on historical events which are largely ancillary to the U.S., particularly this late in the game, well beyond the time in which any reasonable form of redress could be made. (Assuming one can ever make reasonable redress for genocide.)

I am skeptical that a non-binding resolution from a nation far removed from the genocide can reasonably "press" an intransigent Turkish public into a moral re-examination of their past any more than a random government from central Asia could provoke a re-examination of our own historical crimes. I further fail to see why this is the province of the U.S. Congress. I have yet to see you demonstrate convincing reasons as to why either of these is not so.

Note that neither of these statements contradicts the idea that it is valuable for the Turkish people to come to proper terms with the acts committed against the Armenians. I am simply asking practical questions of effectiveness and appropriateness of this particular action, as well as its timeliness. Naturally, I expect these questions to be ignored and written off as "foolish," because that's apparently how objections of these nature are dealt with around here.
SG • Mar 5, 2010 @1:13 pm

If Andrew Jackson is one of the worst bastards who ever lived, why not campaign to have statues of him removed (or re-titled "This country's worst bastard" ?).

I agree with Patrick that what Germany went through was a very good thing for a country and a people to have to do. But every country should do the same thing. Not just Turkey or the US or this one or that one – every single one. Not only because all countries had their "worst bastards" and the crimes that go with them (I'm from France, and back in the colonial era boy were we able to attain such achievements in human asshatery and hate, not to mention our role in the Rwandan genocide !). But because every country, and everyone in each of these countries, has the potential to be a murderer. Many nazies were just John Does, probably very kind with their children and their dog. Not, in themselves, thugs or monsters… until put in the right role, in the right system, in the right ideology (or rather, the wrong one, but you see what I mean).

I'm not sure, then, that pointing fingers at someone in particular is such a good idea. But I also do not see why one would refuse to acknowledge that his country did commit heinous crimes. We've all been there. Perhaps it would help some come to terms with it if all countries were not simultaneously engaged in a game of "oh, how pure, shiny, and glorious I am !".

But allow me to leave you with a quote of former French president François Mitterand, who was a member of "Parti Socialiste" and is still widely admired today, about the Rwandan genocide. "A genocide, in these countries, it's not that important".

Fuck you, François Mitterand.
Patrick • Mar 5, 2010 @1:19 pm

Steve the furor that this is producing in Turkey now is forcing the Turkish people to think about it, as have similar moves from France (which I don't agree with), and ironically, Russia. Consider the present status of Turkish law, in which even discussing the issue (other than to deny that it occurred) can land a man in prison. See the last link in the original post for that point.

You seem to think that this resolution should be considered in isolation. I believe that it should be considered globally. I believe that the resolution does force the Turkish people to come to terms with this crime, in combination with similar actions from other governments, as well as private discussion by idiots with internet connections, or however you chose to phrase it.

Again, as for the ad hominem, if you're going to make absurdist comparisons to Carthage when discussing crimes committed in living memory which are denied to this day by powerful governments, you should expect a little rough and tumble.

I know who you are and where you work, and I knew it before I made the comment about your age. But for all you know, I'm an Armenian-American, whose grandmother barely escaped from Anatolia in 1917.
Steve Chaos • Mar 5, 2010 @1:45 pm

Patrick: Perhaps I am considering this resolution in isolation from the context that it's really not my domain to comment upon whatever non-binding resolutions other governments choose to pass. I question how much leverage this – and other – governments have when choosing to pass non-binding resolutions. This is why I brought up what you might view as perhaps a spurious set of questions – does this have any practical consequences for future policy decisions? Probably not. Policy-wise, things will pretty much stay the same with Turkey (at least on our end in terms of aid, etc.) regardless of whether this passes.

Does it raise a furor? Probably. So too would any other inconsequential government's passage of a resolution condemning historic U.S. atrocities – I'm sure it would make quite a play with the Freepers and the Fox News crowd. Would it have much of an impact upon the debate? I doubt it. Hence, I question whether raising a furor alone, particularly when perceived as being done by an uninvolved interloper, can really have the impact of provoking a serious moral re-examination, particularly among a government so hostile to the idea that they, as you point out, criminalize all criticism of such domestically. If anything, I would argue, the pre-requisite would come from within; that is, until the Turkish people push to allow for such freedoms as to discuss historical events openly in the public square, no serious re-examination is possible. Furthermore, I question whether the pressure of those viewed as "outsiders" can really be expected to provoke such a re-examination, or if they would instead provoke a calcification and retrenchment – a defensive reaction to a perceived attack by cultural outsiders.

Furthermore, timeliness; it's one thing to condemn the Rwandan genocide while still timely and raw in the memory of many in an attempt to facilitate redress and reconciliation. It's another to pass resolutions nearly a century later, particularly as those still old enough to have a remote connection are the least likely to be persuaded, and where any hope of reconciliation is long since past. What you seem to view as a spurious example was designed to make a point – just where exactly is the statute of limitations? Frankly, as has been pointed out, this is a rather dangerous game we're playing, given our own history, and one where we've been loathe to come to terms with our own wrongdoing.

I do find it telling, however, how readily you excuse your own unwarranted (and frankly, childish) personal attacks on the grounds that you found the argument to be specious. I wonder if you so readily jump to such a position if the roles were reversed, particularly given your strident insistence that others recognize and apologize for their historical wrongdoings.
Patrick • Mar 5, 2010 @2:01 pm

I don't excuse my description of your specious argument, or of your repellent choice of analogy, or of you, at all Steve. I stand by all.

What do you say to my grandmother? Would you like for me to explain to her that the statute of limitations has passed, and that she really shouldn't get so worked up about American government recognition of this atrocity, because it's a meaningless exercise that won't return her family to her, and that past is past?
Steve Chaos • Mar 5, 2010 @2:18 pm

Patrick: Nice job with the creative use of editing, there. I can see that not only did you go back to re-edit your comment after the fact, but deleted my own. Very nice way to control the message there after the fact. (Yes, I do notice when you do that.)

Meanwhile, I find your invocation to be a cheap canard; instead of answering my question, you give us heart-rending images of widows and orphans. Would you care to answer my question, or simply give us more emotive arguments of little to no substance? (Erstwhile re-editing the record to give yourself more favorable standing.)
Patrick • Mar 5, 2010 @2:29 pm

What on earth are you talking about?

I frequently edit my comments after I've posted them, for spelling, grammar, and to supplement my thoughts. It's a privilege I have as an author at this site.

I haven't deleted anything you've written. If I didn't want to hear from you I'd ban you by name, ip address, email address, and I'd submit your email address to several spam filters in order that anything you write be flagged as spam at other WordPress blogs.

That you posted the comment above, and I have left it as a monument to what's fast becoming a tedious exchange, is evidence that I'm not deleting what you write. Is it possible that you forgot to hit the "Submit Comment" button, or that it timed out and you navigated away?
Steve Chaos • Mar 5, 2010 @2:33 pm

If it's such a tedious exchange, perhaps then you could focus on more substantiative rebuttals to the issue at hand, instead of engaging in childish personal attacks on anyone who dares to question your orthodoxy or meaningless appeals to emotion.

But hey, that's just me. Not my blog, not my rules.
Patrick • Mar 5, 2010 @2:40 pm

Steve:

engaging in childish personal attacks on anyone who dares to question your orthodoxy or meaningless appeals to emotion.

follows:

I can see that not only did you go back to re-edit your comment after the fact, but deleted my own. Very nice way to control the message there after the fact. (Yes, I do notice when you do that.)

Now, again, what on earth are you talking about? I've banned three legitimate commenters from this site in the years we've run it. I've deleted approximately an equal number of non-spam comments, which I deemed libelous, horrifically offensive, or obscene, but left standing comments which were far more bothersome to me than anything you've written. I'm certainly not about to break that pattern over you.
Ken • Mar 5, 2010 @2:48 pm

Okay, I know I'm slow, but let's see if I've got this:

1. One's own nation recognizing, or not recognizing, a historical event involving the deliberate slaughter of more than a million: not worth getting upset over.

2. Obscure blogger not taking your arguments sufficiently seriously and being mean to you: worth getting upset over.
Steve Chaos • Mar 5, 2010 @2:51 pm

For someone who claims to be tired of a, "tedious exchange," you certainly are doing a fine job of focusing the discussion solely upon such, rather than any substantial issues of discussion.

I'm not going to debate whether or not my message was deleted, despite the fact that I am quite certain I submitted a comment before you subsequently re-edited your own comment. The first is irrelevant, the second can be demonstrated (remarkable the things technology can do these days), and you claim as your privilege. Very well, once again, your blog, your rules; it's a moot point.

My response was not to this matter, but to your own unrepentant childishness in responding to the actual debate of this thread, including unprovoked hostility and name-calling of anyone who dares to question your premises. Failing that, we're entreated to emotive appeals as a substitute for actually answering legitimate and fair questions. I would have thought that where these comments applies to would have been perfectly clear from context, but obviously not.

And Ken: try a little harder. Points for attempting cleverness, but I never said the Armenian genocide was no big deal. I questioned whether Congress should be getting involved over it, nearly a century later. Perhaps if the future Congress decides to consider a resolution over an internet pissing match, our cyborg selves can come back to debate the matter. In the meantime, I simply consider unprovoked hostility to be a bit questionable, particularly given the fact that it comes from an ordinarily excellent blog.
Ken • Mar 5, 2010 @2:55 pm

I quite agree that you didn't suggest that genocide, itself, is not a big deal.

However, correct me if I'm wrong — are you not saying that it's no big deal whether or not our government identifies genocide as genocide?
Steve Chaos • Mar 5, 2010 @3:01 pm

Ken: I question the efficacy and the timeliness of us doing it so long after the fact. I am honestly curious and skeptical of the effect we hope to achieve this late in the game.

If I had to boil it down: it feels like it's a little late for truth and reconciliation at this point. And I further question whether we have any real leverage to effect any reflection on the part of the Turkish people (or, more importantly, the government officials that Patrick points out are most directly connected to the matter). The timing is a bit questionable. Does anyone really expect this to do anything other than to piss off a bunch of Turks at this point? (Not that hurt feelings should be a reason for anything.)

I guess I would say I personally don't understand the point of passing non-binding resolutions like this, particularly this far out in time. This doesn't mean what happened shouldn't be discussed, but simply I fail to see how this achieves anything productive.
Ken • Mar 5, 2010 @3:05 pm

Does our continued refusal to call a genocide a genocide make it more or less likely that our allies, or potential allies, will commit atrocities, thinking that so long as they are sufficiently strategically useful to us we will let it go without comment?
Steve Chaos • Mar 5, 2010 @3:12 pm

Ken: To turn your question around: do you really think that us waiting nearly a century to pass a non-binding resolution condemning a genocide with no policy consequences (including aid) will have any practical consequence either way? I think the century's worth of delay has far more to say than whether we pass anything now.

Furthermore, as far as how we deal with our strategic allies, I think there are far more instructive examples which bolster lawlessness – see, for example, Pakistan (and to a lesser degree many other autocratic / kleptocratic states we choose to reward for being pliant). I think you will agree that these examples tend to far outweigh any comment we might happen to make on historical atrocities a century later.
Patrick • Mar 5, 2010 @3:37 pm

It does have policy consequences Steve. Turkey has withdrawn its ambassador to the United States, for consultation in Ankara.

Whether the consequences are beneficial, or harmful, to the United States and Turkey is an exercise for the reader. Your argument seems to be that this is a meaningless gesture, yet at the same time you contend (logically) that it's a very meaningful gesture for the Turks, because you worry that it will alienate a strategic ally. Which is it?

Personally I agree that it will alienate the Turks, which makes it a meaningful gesture. I believe that the Turks should be alienated, because in the long term this may cause them to reflect on their history. For what it's worth, I approved of Bill Clinton's tepid "apology for slavery" in Africa, wishing only that it had not been so tepid. I believe that crimes should be discussed. I approve, for the same reasons, of South Africa's "Truth and Reconciliation" Commissions, which, like this resolution, carried no sanctions. But they did force and encourage people to discuss the past, and how the past shaped the present.

Do you believe that the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions served no purpose because they carried no fines, imprisonment, or other punishment? I assume that you don't, because the wrongs were raw. I assume you believe that South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commissions were a good thing for the people of South Africa, because they brought wrongs into the light, and made a record for the future.

You'll probably argue, again, that this happened so long ago. But as I've pointed out, as the links above show, living survivors of the genocide are among us. They're small in number, but they're not all dead. And their children are many. Every Armenian, in the world, bears the scars of this atrocity. And the atrocity has real world consequences, today. A terrible war was fought fifteen years ago, in large part because Armenians feel justifiable fear of their Turkish, and Turkic, neighbors.

A fear that stems from the genocide that took place in Turkey.
John Burgess • Mar 6, 2010 @8:59 am

Gee… the governments of modern Turkey and Armenia seem to have decided that the slaughter (I intentionally do not use the word 'genocide') is something that is to be put on the shelf.

It's diaspora Armenians who (once again) throw around demands (and contributions, once again) to 'let history speak for itself'. And, oh my! It's election time (once again) so Congress (once again) finds it a compelling situation that needs to be addressed (once again).

And, once again, the Senate will let the bill die because it sees Turkish-American relations to have some importance. It also recognizes that the best way to have no say in Turkey is to remove oneself from the table.
Jdog • Mar 8, 2010 @11:38 am

The folks objecting to the resolution seem to have less than a keen eye for the obvious: it's not important that the Congress pass this resolution; it's important that the Congress not not pass this resolution over some fear of modern-day Turks taking offense at people noticing the crimes of their ancestors (for which the modern-day Turks are not responsible, of course) or at people noticing and commenting on their denial of the crimes of their ancestors (the denial being something that modern-day Turks are responsible for).