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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

But hey, that's just me. Not my blog, not my rules.

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?

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.)

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?

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.