motor

Mattk · 10-11-2007, 12:53 AM

The US House Foreign Affiars Committee has passed a resolution saying that the deaths of Armenians during the First World War was a genocide at the hands of Turks. Now, this is an ongoing debate in history, one that supporters of the genocide view appear to be winning, but there is still no real answer. For a government to decry an event which still has doubts surrounding it would be disastrous. Politics should not intervene in history.

Mattk · 10-11-2007, 10:02 PM

^And lose pride? No way! Besides, they think they are right.

^ Politics are what write history.

Politics becomes history, but politicians should not force their versions of history upon the world. Certainly not when it is not even certain that a genocide has been committed.

r2r · 10-11-2007, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by Mattk

... but politicians should not force their versions of history upon the world.

First of all, who's side of politicians are you referring too?

Originally Posted by Mattk

...Certainly not when it is not even certain that a genocide has been committed.

Second of all, what in your opinion is the definition of factual evidence?

Mattk · 10-11-2007, 10:49 PM

First of all, who's side of politicians are you referring too?

No side. I am politically active and if my party were to discuss such a resolution, I would not support it. Politicians should not be deciding what should be history, especially a historical event still up for debate. It is not like the Jewish Holocaust, which obviously happened, because people admitted to it.

Second of all, what in your opinion is the definition of factual evidence?

Stuff that happened. Like the fact that there was conflict between the Ottomans and the Armenians and that the Ottomans decided that they would deport the Armenians to the desert. That's really all that is common ground.

The definition of genocide is a systematic extermination of a particular ethnic, racial or religious group. If the Ottomans had indeed physically slaughtered the Armenians, and they didn't just die because they got deported, it is genocide. Otherwise, whilst horrible, it is not genocide.

I believe that genocide is a word which must be used very sparingly. It should refer to only one of the worst of the worst human actions - a systematic and direct elimination of a defined group of fellow human beings. To simply call any mass loss of life genocide devalues the term, just as calling every unfavourable leader a fascist devalues the fascism.

Personally, I think a genocide was committed, but then again, I haven't looked into it in any great detail. However, it is still up for debate.

r2r · 10-11-2007, 11:34 PM

[quote="Mattk"]

Personally, I think a genocide was committed, but then again, I haven't looked into it in any great detail. However, it is still up for debate.

Mattk:

1st. Before giving your opinion on your beliefs in the topic at hand, please "do look into the details" of the subject! (this one's IMPORTANT)

2nd. There are no doubts that this tragic Armenian event has occurred from any side (including Turkey)

3rd. Politics will always drive the myth of historical events. The reason (among other reason’s) Turkey is not willing to admit to this event is because they do not want to face the political, economical, and other consequences in the result. Please follow the first statement to understand why!

79TA · 10-12-2007, 03:32 AM

Uhm, I'm supposed to be sleeping/studying for math but from what I remember I think it was pretty obvious that there was a genocide. Call me eurocentric, biased or whatever, but evidence is evidence. Turkey is irresponsible to deny it like they continue to do.