By matt
Published Wednesday, January 24th, 2007, 3:24 pm
Filed under: World: Europe, Human Rights, Genocide, World Issues

28 Responses to “Action Alert: Ask for Fair Coverage in the Los Angeles Times”

1. You might want to correct the spelling of ‘Ottoman’ in your suggested letter. You might also want to rethink your criticization of The Los Angeles Times’ careful sensitivity about the debate regarding the use of the term Genocide to administer to the deaths and killings that have occurred on both sides.

   You can’t argue for abolishing article 301 to eliminate the restrictions on the freedoms of discussion, and then abolish the debate by simply declaring the validity of the use of the word Genocide without a trial by the defending party accused of the offense, versus the prosecuting party pointing to all the preponderance of evidence and declaring guilty as both the judge and the jury. It shows the weakness of your own double standards.

   metin
   01/25/07 at 1:43 pm
   
2. 

   @Metin
   Thank you for the typo correction. As far as the content of Matt’s article goes, I see nothing factually inaccurate about it, but I would issue an apology if there was. The LA Times itself says they refer to the events of 1915-1923 as Genocide. If that is the case then I see nothing wrong with asking them to adhere to their own standards. I also don’t see why we should give validity to Armenian Genocide deniers anymore than Holocaust deniers. There is no double standard as there is no debate. No serious historian or educated person in the world denies that the Armenian Genocide did occur. We might as well be debating whether or not WWII happened or whether the Native Americans were wiped off their land. The only entity denying the Armenian Genocide is the Turkish government, and for obvious reasons. It’s time that ignorance stop being given the same credibility as historical fact.

   Manila Ryce
   01/25/07 at 11:44 pm
   
3. 

   I only want to respond to what Metin said regarding article 301.

   I’m afraid that there is a huge difference between arguing for article 301 to be abolished, and arguing that the Armenan Genocide is a fact. Article 301 is State sponsored social control. It is micromanaged nationalism and limits the god-given right of free speech for everyone who lives in Turkey. I fail to see how my opposition to such a law negates me from being able to accept the truth of the Armenian Genocide.

   matt
   01/26/07 at 1:40 pm
   

4. Manila Ryce: With all due respect, the LA Times editorial states, “Turks cannot believe the sincerity of foreign parliaments which, usually ill-informed about the Turkish case, give in to Armenian diaspora lobbying for genocide declarations. (One such bill looks likely to pass the U.S. Congress in April.) Politics often seems to trump history. Would the French Parliament have made it a crime last year to deny a “genocide” by the Turks if an unrelated desire to keep Turkey out of the European Union had not been prevalent?”

   Your post in response to the editorial contains the following question posed ‘in the letter to the editor,’ “Many have adopted policies to officially refer to the events of 1915-1923 as Genocide, not an alleged or so-called Genocide. Why hasn’t the Los Angeles Times adopted this policy?”

   But your response to my comment contains, “The LA Times itself says they refer to the events of 1915-1923 as Genocide.” Explain please. And if the LA Times refers to ‘Genocide’ by its name, should the LA Times restrict Op-Ed pieces not doing so? Is that what you have a problem with? Or is it your wish that the LA Times censor what it deems publishable?

   You agree with the LA Times, yet you disagree with it. Again, this is confusing to me.

   You agree with eliminating Article 301 so free discussion and debate can occur. Yet, you simply and simple-mindedly believe that by doing so, a general admission of ‘Genocide’ by Turks without any such discussion will and should occur, based on what everyone else apparently already knows, except the culprit.

   I don’t think Article 301 shuts down internet and global access for any Turk to find out for himself and herself the truth. And if those Turks are convinced of Genocide but afraid of speaking out due to the existence of Article 301, you seem to be giving too much credit then to cowards. And neither Article 301 nor any other easing of restrictions can change that.

   But what puzzles me most is when you also continue your comment by saying, ” No serious historian or educated person in the world denies that the Armenian Genocide did occur.”

   I don’t want to sound like a Genocide-denier, but I can’t help myself but ask; Are you saying that any historian or educated person denying whether the killings and murders (by either or both sides) justify the labeling of Genocide by its true meaning, is not serious or should not be taken seriously.

   Wouldn’t that be considered a libelous statement by those who claim to be serious historians and/or educators. And don’t force me to submit you a long list of who they might be. I am sure you are pretty well aware of what I am talking about. But then again, I am neither an educator, or a historian, and I even wonder whether I am at all serious.

   Good day.

   metin
   01/26/07 at 1:56 pm
   
5. 

   @Metin

   “your response to my comment contains, ‘The LA Times itself says they refer to the events of 1915-1923 as Genocide.’ Explain please…You agree with the LA Times, yet you disagree with it. Again, this is confusing to me.”

   In the past and with Popes column, the LA Times has not referred to the events of 1915-1923 as Genocide. Now that we’ve demanded an apology, the Times says they do indeed refer to these events as genocide. There is no contradiction with my statement, but with the policy of the LA Times. I’ve simply stated that if the Times does now refer to these events as Genocide, which they didn’t before, then they ought to now practice what they preach and apologize for statements which run contrary to the policy they claim to have.

   “And if the LA Times refers to ‘Genocide’ by its name, should the LA Times restrict Op-Ed pieces not doing so? Is that what you have a problem with? Or is it your wish that the LA Times censor what it deems publishable?”

   Should a paper not publish an Op-Ed piece which doesn’t meet its standards? Yes. Censorship is not the issue. Pope has the right to say whatever he wants, but credible news sources don’t simply give a soapbox to everyone. We are upset at the Times (which claims to have a certain view on the genocide) for giving Pope’s ignorance credibility.

   “I don’t want to sound like a Genocide-denier, but I can’t help myself but ask; Are you saying that any historian or educated person denying whether the killings and murders (by either or both sides) justify the labeling of Genocide by its true meaning, is not serious or should not be taken seriously.”

   Unless they have something which shows all previous evidence to be a hoax, then yes. By the same token, I doubt a scientist saying evolution is a myth would be taken seriously by his peers unless he had overwhelming fossil evidence, such as a caveman playing fetch with a tyrannosaurus. If you deny the Armenian Genocide then you better have some real proof it never happened. The genocide is constantly denied, not recognized, for political reasons. Unless you have evidence, you will and should be rejected by the mainstream. Present your proof, not your opinion, and real debate can occur. That is how things work.

   “But then again, I am neither an educator, or a historian, and I even wonder whether I am at all serious.”

   We can agree on that issue at least. I too wonder if any opposing debate over this genocide is serious.

   Manila Ryce
   01/26/07 at 2:31 pm
   
6. 

   As an update for our readers, the Los Angeles Times has since responded to the letter contained in this post. We’ve responded to them on the Largest Minority in a post titled “Action Alert Update: The Los Angeles Times Response“

   matt
   01/26/07 at 3:24 pm
   

7. A correction: Hrant Dink never went to jail. His 6 month sentence was suspended. No one prosecuted under Article 301 has actually gone to jail.

   Regarding “serious” historians: from what I’ve read, the ones who dispute the genocide label don’t dispute that all those Armenians were killed; they debate whether “massacre” is a more appropriate label. For example, there are similar debates on whether the Nanking massacre of the Chinese by the Japanese, the famine in the Ukraine under Stalin, or the Native American deaths in the U.S. constitute “genocide” or not. Meaning, not every third-party historian who disagrees with calling an event “genocide” is totally incompetent, or is doing so out of some irrational hatred of Armenians, Chinese, Ukrainians, etc. In some of these cases, these historians may present a minority view, but it doesn’t make them not “serious” or hateful. Note here that I’m not talking about the official Turkish line on the Armenians, the Japanese line on Nanking, or the Serb line on Bosnia, but third-party historians. These historians are unlike the few Holocaust disputing ones who appear to have personal issues with either Jews or Israel (i.e. Irving). (Speaking of, ironically, besides Turkey, Israel is the nation that most strongly disagrees with calling the Armenian deaths genocide.)

   Michele
   01/26/07 at 10:44 pm
   

8. Michele: Thank you for the great insight. Wonderful summary to refute the ‘no serious historian’ argument posed by the owner of this blog.

   metin
   01/26/07 at 11:00 pm
   
9. 

   @Michele
   Thank you for your opinion. Dink was convicted with a six month jail sentence. Not being an expert on the Turkish legal system, it’s hard for me to argue whether or not he served actual time behind bars. The sources we’ve link for our information don’t focus on those details, only stating that he had a six month sentence. If you know for a fact that he didn’t serve time in jail I’ll take your word for it.

   On to your other point. To argue whether or not the Armenian genocide was in fact a genocide or massacre seems like a petty point of contention based on subjective terms. Is the difference between the two based on numbers or the manner in which the murders occurred? Due to the systematic manner of the events targeting a race of people for extermination, I’m inclined to define the event as genocide. However, our intention with this letter was not to argue endlessly over whether it was or not.

   As I’ve pointed out, the majority of serious historians do acknowledge the Armenian genocide as being a genocide, with the only real opposition being Turkey. Given Turkey’s campaign against genocide recognition and policy against free speech within its borders and abroad, it is understandable to look upon a genocide denier with some deal of skepticism. Even some “third-party” historians have been exposed in the past as having ties with the Turkish government. That is not to say that there aren’t historians who genuinely question whether the events of 1915-1923 should be defined as genocide (and I regret describing the entire group in a dismissive manner), but the serious ones are definitely in a very small minority. These third-party historians have failed to impress the majority of the world, offering nearly the same story that the Turkish government maintains. If there is compelling evidence which clearly shows the events were not genocide, I have yet to see it. As I’ve said, they are allowed to disagree with the mainstream, but they’d also better have some damn good opposing evidence. Thank you for posing a valid argument.

   @metin
   I suggest you form a relevant argument of your own. Some sizable evidence to match your criticism would be nice. Thank you.

   Manila Ryce
   01/27/07 at 1:29 am
   
10. 

    @Michele

    Our apologies for the misquote on the jail sentence in this article. It was quoted correctly in an earlier post, The beginning of a new Turkey?

    “Despite this, Dink was put on trial for “insulting Turkish nationalism” for commenting on the Armenian Genocide and the affect it has had on the Armenian diaspora. He was given a suspended six month sentence in 2004 and again in 2006 for acknowledging the genocide, and was awaiting trial for the same crime during an interview with Reuters when he was killed.”

    Several prominent Jewish scholars and politicians inside and out of Israel visibly denounce Israel’s denial of the Armenian Genocide. Not to mention the same of several of the more than many Jewish lobbying organizations in the U.S. However, the inertia of Turkey’s manipulation of weapon deals, military bases, trade, energy needs, and economic development, is more powerful and far out reaches any moral high ground on the part of both Israel and the U.S.

    Clearly, there is a political and social reality that Israel and the U.S. are not presently willing to cross when it comes to destabilizing their interests in Anatolia.

    Lastly, point taken regarding third party historians. But, I am unaware of a similar or equally funded on-going campaign of denial by the Japanese, Russians or Americans on their respective “massacres.” (Although I do believe the Indian casinos popping up in the U.S. are a way to capitalize and finance reparations)

    Last year, the Turkish government spent over $1 million to include denial DVDs disguised as advertisements in Time magazine (which they later apologized for). They also spent over $10 million over the last 7 years to hire the The Livingston Group (founded by former congressman Bob Livingston, R-Louisiana) for their lobbying extraordinaire on the US congress, State Department, and Bush Administration. I wonder if reparations would just be more cost effective over the long term? I don’t think casinos in Eastern Anatolia would work though.

    This week brought a new social reality to both Armenians and Turks worldwide. I would have never thought they would have marched side by over the murder of an Armenian journalist that fought for democracy for Turkey while saying Armenian Genocide. What an inspiration for all. Hopefully we can turn the corner.

    SirJouge
    01/27/07 at 1:33 am
    

11. “Not being an expert on the Turkish legal system, it’s hard for me to argue whether or not he served actual time behind bars.”

    Some responsible reporting, the very same thing you accused The LA Times of, might have been nice! And that’s my relevant point.

    metin
    01/27/07 at 8:04 am
    

12. A couple comments:

    “To argue whether or not the Armenian genocide was in fact a genocide or massacre seems like a petty point of contention based on subjective terms.”

    I personally tend to agree. However, it is not. Would Armenian groups be okay with only using the word “massacre” for these events? Not from what I’ve seen. Presidents, from Bush I to Clinton to Bush II, have referred to the events as “massacre,” “tragedy”, “calamity”, “annihilation” etc - not actually saying “genocide” - and many Armenians found that unacceptable. In fact this whole debate has become a matter of semantics - with many Armenians who specifically want the word “genocide” used, and many Turks who specifically object to the word “genocide,” but would fully agree with “massacre” “annihilation” etc.

    “But, I am unaware of a similar or equally funded on-going campaign of denial by the Japanese, Russians or Americans on their respective “massacres.””

    The reason Turkey spends so much to refute the genocide arguments is because Armenian groups spend so much money lobbying and bringing genocide resolutions before the U.S. Congress (and foreign parliaments) every year. I’m unaware of Chinese groups spending millions trying to get Congress to say Nanking was a genocide. (But rest assured that there’s plenty of animosity between China and Japan over Japan’s WWII atrocities, and per opinion polls, the two nations can’t stand each other).

    “I wonder if reparations would just be more cost effective over the long term?”

    Should Turkey have to pay reparations? Give over part of eastern Turkey, where millions of Turks live, to Armenia? This here is the biggest reason the Turkish government feels they cannot offer a formal apology - because of fears that Armenian groups will bankrupt the government asking for hundreds of millions in reparations, and try to annex eastern Turkey into Armenia. Also keep in mind that Germany never paid reparations to Holocaust victims, and never handed over any German territory to Jews or Israel. (German companies who used Jewish slave laborers paid reparations in 2000; the German government never did anything other than saying sorry.)

    Michele
    01/27/07 at 10:03 am
    
13. 

    @metin
    Really? Your relevant point is that blogs and newspapers ought to be held to the same journalistic standards? That’s your point?

    Fine, I’ll humor you. My staff consists of myself and two others occasionally. People are not perfect so mistakes are made, but when they are made we apologize and correct them. This is what both I and SirJouge have done above. The LA Times, on the other hand, still has not corrected their mistake. If you really want to compare the accuracy of our published piece with theirs, be my guest.

    Manila Ryce
    01/27/07 at 1:15 pm
    
14. 

    @Michele
    My point was not that terminology doesn’t matter. As I said, the systematic extermination of a race is genocide. What I meant by it being a petty point of contention was that going from “genocide” to “massacre” seems like a bargaining technique. These are subjective terms thrown into the arena with no real substance behind them. “We don’t want to call it genocide, so how about tragedy? You don’t like that? How about massacre?” It’s an awful way to distort history by finding the specific wordage which will please all sides.

    Manila Ryce
    01/27/07 at 1:57 pm
    
15. 

    @Michele

    The Turks committed genocide on the traditional Armenian homeland. Generations thrived in villages like Van, Ezerum, Khapert, Bitlis (and many others). The national symbol of Armenia and Armenians for now and forever is Mount Ararat (now in Turkey). Not to mention the Treaty of Sevres, this is all very different than the German/Jewish experience.

    But, seriously, you hit the nail on the head. It’s the answer that everyone around the world is waiting for. The answer to all the other points that you’ve raised. The answer to this whole chain of comments, blogs, and all the rest of it. I hope others can eventually get there like you have. The very last sentence of your post:

    “…the German government never did anything other than saying sorry.”

    Maybe, that’s all the current Turkish state needs to do.

    SirJouge
    01/27/07 at 10:46 pm
    

16. “The Turks committed genocide on the traditional Armenian homeland.”

    I thought those ‘Armenians’ were actually Ottoman subjects, and they were Ottoman citizens. Or are you claiming that by the same token, Israel is committing genocide by sitting on traditional Palestine?

    You may want to be careful with presenting opinions as a matter of facts.

    By the way, Ezerum is spelled Erzurum. And saying sorry by those who claim they haven’t committed anything is childish. I think they may have to acknowledge that what they did equates to Genocide first. And if it is considered Genocide, didn’t the same Armenians commit Genocide on the Turks as well? Don’t some of the ‘not-so-serious’ historians have evidence to that fact? Why don’t we move on and not hold every American today responsible and having to say sorry for anything that their great-grandparents may have or have done against the Indians of yesteryear? What about what the Whites did to Blacks in South Africa? Or the situation in Darfur? or Rwanda? or Bosnia, Kosovo? or Azerbeijan? or Afghanistan, or what’s happening today in Iraq?

    metin
    01/28/07 at 1:57 am
    

17. […] Prior to his death, no one in the blogosphere was taking about Mr Dink. Now Technorati rates hundreds of blog posts devoted to this man. Google News reports almost 3,000 news stories. And the controversy found in the blogs over this issue is just as strong as in the regular news media. For instance, the LA Times ran an editorial that sparked a grassroots letter campaign to the paper’s editor. However, even with Post Global setting up a discussion board, the blogosphere is where the REAL discussion is at. I will cover Hrant Dink’s funeral and commentaries from the Turks, the Armenians, and a few others; and I invite you all to weigh in on the discussion here. The Funeral and the Turkish Blogs […]

    Global Voices Online » Blog Archive » Turkey is Typing….a Follow-up on the Death of Hrant Dink
    01/28/07 at 7:59 am
    

18. “Generations thrived in villages like Van, Ezerum, Khapert, Bitlis”

    Yes, and generations of Turks and Kurds thrived in those villages as well, as they were a part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries. Should we give back every land that has been conquered from one group of people to another in world history? That’s going to require a lot of people moving around the world. And suppose eastern Turkey is given to Armenia, a tiny nation of 3 million people that’s getting smaller as its population emigrates. Where are the millions of Turks and Kurds living in those lands supposed to go to? I doubt they want to be a part of Armenia. And if they all stay, does Armenia want a majority of its population to suddenly become Turkish/Kurdish and Muslim? (And given that it was mainly Kurds who carried out the orders for the Armenian killings, there’s no great love between them either.)

    So is it fair to punish the current inhabitants of eastern Turkey for events of a century ago - given that almost none of them were even alive in 1915, let alone killing anybody?

    “Maybe, that’s all the current Turkish state needs to do.”

    Maybe, and that’s what I would hope for. But based on Armenian protests I’ve seen around California, with signs saying “Eastern Turkey is Armenia’, given the Armenian terrorism against Turks in the 1980s demanding eastern Turkey, given that Armenia’s own constitution says eastern Turkey is really Western Armenia - I don’t think an apology will be enough for many people. And ultimately, I think that’s what Turkey fears. But perhaps the Turkish government can still take a step in the right direction by first repealing Article 301 (which I think they will), and then going from there.

    Michele
    01/28/07 at 1:50 pm
    

19. @metin

    Metin I am sorry to say but you are nothing but a Genocide denier. I have dealt with this issue for many years and have enough experience to spot deniers from miles away.

    Your nitpicking with spelling the words, going after small details, changing subjects, giving “what if” scenarios are all classical denial techniques. Stay on subject, don’t change it. Yes a lot of murders, massacres, and genocides took place around the world, but WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE so lets stay on subject here.

    Would LA Times publish an Op-Ed. written by a member of the flat earth society? You know to be objective and all. Or maybe on Holocaust, ask the historians to debate it, I know A LOT of Neo Nazis that debate the factuality of the Holocaust, why not give them a space to show their side of the story?

    It just makes me sick.

    To add insult to injury Pope tries to paint a picture that Armenians massacred Turks also. That is a total lie, only Turkish deaths were the result of the Armenian self defense units
    When Atatürk came to power Turkish nationalists started a war with a newly independent Armenian Republic, and they nearly destroyed it too, so Pop’s portrayal of Turkey as a weak country after WW1 is BS. And the so called “Armenian bands” that Pope refers to WERE Armenian self defense forces trying to protect what little they had left. But the Turkish deaths in no way or form can compare to what Turks did to Armenians. WHY?
    Most Turks that were killed were the military or the para military Gendarmes attacking the Armenian villages and not innocent women and children sitting at their homes, plus the number killed was very low. Armenian self defense forces were created only after the Turks started the Genocide and they were poorly armed civilians protecting their village, so the whole Turkish claim of civil war is BS.

    Arman
    01/28/07 at 3:31 pm
    

20. Arman: “To add insult to injury Pope tries to paint a picture that Armenians massacred Turks also.”

    Why do you think that is? I wonder if he’s on the Turkish Government’s payroll?

    I am a defender of the Genocide denier just like I would defend your right. I believe he/she has the right to express his/her denialist position regardless of how you feel. That is called civil liberties my friend. The majority (even if it is true that the majority are Genocide labelers) does not have the right to implement and impose its opinion on the minority. That is the protection of a Republic society granted to individuals. So long as you have that lone juror, the judge may call it a mistrial. Now, you may not like that and I am not even agreeing whether that is right or wrong, but if we are displeased about the way things are, we make attempts to change it, or live with it. Not force everyone to agree or disagree with it.

    Shouldn’t we allow the historians (defending both sides of the argument) discuss and decide this case, or at least be hear?. Or do you also consider any historian to think it otherwise non-existent or one who does not matter, or as Manila Ryce put it, “No serious historian or educated person in the world denies that the Armenian Genocide did occur.”

    metin
    01/28/07 at 8:33 pm
    

21. Michele: I too am hopeful that this will be accomplished in steps or stages. Not an overnight change of position by the Turks. As you put it, “perhaps the Turkish government can still take a step in the right direction by first repealing Article 301 (which I think they will), and then going from there.”

    And your question, “Should we give back every land that has been conquered from one group of people to another in world history?” deserves merit. But in this forum where the discussion is about the Armenian Genocide, the question is irrelevant as pointed out or insinuated by ‘Arman’ above.

    My position is that this is a great opportunity for the Turks to wake up and realize what’s really going on around them. Right or wrong, they should accept the outcome of whatever happens. But they should at least be able to defend their position of ‘denial,’ and we should decide whether it deserves any merit. Armenians should not have a blank check attitude simply because the majority consensus believes it to be a Genocide. Even a murderer has his day in court to try to defend his actions. But we reserve the right to impose the guilty or not guilty judgment. But an automatic guilty verdict because everyone thinks he’s guilty so therefore in the interest of time and energy, let’s just throw the key away attitude should not be how we address this sensitive issue. Don’t you think?

    metin
    01/28/07 at 8:41 pm
    
22. 

    @metin
    “But they should at least be able to defend their position of ‘denial,’ and we should decide whether it deserves any merit. Armenians should not have a blank check attitude simply because the majority consensus believes it to be a Genocide. Even a murderer has his day in court to try to defend his actions. But we reserve the right to impose the guilty or not guilty judgment.”

    Once again, the ambiguity of your position and lack of conviction over either opinion makes any meaningful discussion with you difficult. Whom are you referring to when you say “they”? Do you mean educated Turks or the Turkish government? An increasing number of Turkish scholars do call the events of 1915-1923 genocide. That number would obviously be higher if there wasn’t a climate of fear surrounding the subject. In the scholarly community, yes the debate is pretty much over. If there is additional light to be shed then the opposition to the mainstream will publish their findings and engage in a historical debate with their peers. This is how things work for every other major event in human history.

    As I’ve stated, the main denier is the Turkish government, not the scholars. Are you suggesting we hold some formal trial for the government to deny the genocide when most educated people around the world and in Turkey have already acknowledged that a genocide did occur? I’m a bit weary of letting government dictate reality. Lord knows the US government does it all the time. I’m more inclined to listen to the historians and educated peoples. Take evolution for example. The majority of the world acknowledges it as truth. Do we need to have a formal trial between educated people and religious fundamentalists before we can come to a conclusion? No, we acknowledge evolution as truth because of the overwhelming evidence which leads to one conclusion agreed upon by the majority of scientists. That is not to say we “throw away the key” to further discussion on the topic. Debate is always open amongst scholars, but politicians should have nothing to do with that debate. The only role they should play is in acknowledging its conclusion.

    Manila Ryce
    01/29/07 at 5:00 pm
    

23. You keep putting words in my mouth. I am the last person who wants politicians or governments to do anything. I’ve always debated about having people take over the discussions and not let governments and politicians get in the way. But yet the people asking for the Genocide acceptance want the Government and therefore the politicans to do the ‘accepting.’

    So if you want the Government to accept Genocide then you must debate with the Government. If you’re OK with people being the official representative of the acceptance of Genocide then you must not want the Government to do so. You have to make up your mind. You can’t ask for admission by the Government and then say Government is not capable of debate as they are not worthy. Either dismiss them (Government) altogether or accept their importance in the debate!

    metin
    01/29/07 at 11:55 pm
    

24. I’ve posted about this going back and forth back on April 24th on my blog in a post entitled, “Armenian Genocide of Turks.”

    “No matter the origin, perpetrators, or excuse, it’s about time for real debate and discussion by all relevant parties. It’s the responsibility of both sides to resolve this issue once and for all. All guilty parties should admit guilt so that the long process of reconciliation and healing can then begin. History is full of unjust occurrences, as well as enough holocausts. We can only learn from the mistakes of the past as we play out the current chapter, and prepare future generations to become admirers of our courage and unselfish acts of global matrimony. Let’s not allow pride and prejudice get in the way. Let’s eliminate all of the reasons for the continued hatred that seems to serve the needs of a certain segment of the population who delight in continued discord. Let’s beat them at their own game.”

    And as I commented on Global Voices:

    “I think if we allowed the Turks and the Armenians (without the politicians, and political lobbyists,) create the right referendum for dealing with the issues between the Turks and the Armenians, I am sure that they can come up with an honorable and face saving solution(s) for both parties in the interest of future generations of both parties. And I for one am ready to discuss what needs to happen going forward and not rehash old memories and stories of what went wrong. Let’s discuss what’s needed and how can we get there. I honestly believe there are binds that hold us together greater than any that separate us. This must be proven in civility and humility, followed by acceptance and resolution. The ‘hate’ machinists will probably be made obsolete and therefore do not want this to take place but we must take actions to push for reform and dialogue both of our representatives but more importantly ourselves as individuals.”

    metin
    01/30/07 at 12:00 am
    
25. 

    @metin
    “So if you want the Government to accept Genocide then you must debate with the Government.”

    I disagree. We shouldn’t have to debate with the government, the government should accept the findings of its historians. The debate is amongst the educated and the conclusion should be accepted by the politicians. There is no reason we should make the case to every group in the world once we’ve come to a conclusion amongst the historians. Once again, I draw the correlation between genocide recognition and evolution. There should be no need for scientists to make a case for evolution to an ignorant executive branch pushing creationism. Historians should not have to debate historical fact with the government anymore than an architectural engineer should have to debate the soundness of his structure to a florist.

    “If you’re OK with people being the official representative of the acceptance of Genocide then you must not want the Government to do so. You have to make up your mind.”

    No, not if you believe that the government is the “official representative” of the people. If the people recognize the genocide then it’s the government’s duty to honor that recognition. It is the government’s role to serve its citizens by allowing historical and scientific fact to be taught. It should not have an agenda which we need to then make our case against.

    Manila Ryce
    01/30/07 at 4:45 am
    

26. So you’re basically in agreement with me that the Government should stay out of the debate!

    “I think if we allowed the Turks and the Armenians (without the politicians, and political lobbyists,) create the right referendum for dealing with the issues between the Turks and the Armenians, I am sure that they can come up with an honorable and face saving solution(s) for both parties in the interest of future generations of both parties.”

    But to suggest that the Government should just accept whatever the findings are by an ‘independent’ panel, is like suggesting Bush accept the findings of the independent panel on the War in Iraq. Government should be represented in the forum. Even I may be OK with that.

    Besides, who is the Government anyway? Isn’t Government supposed to be the ‘representative’ of the State and its people. And if people are really running the show, then wouldn’t the people elect a Government more representative of them? And if the people did declare whatever declaration, wouldn’t they want their democratically elected Government to enforce and apply and accept its wishes? Maybe we need to give a little more credit to the people than they deserve.

    I repeat one more time. The point is not to debate who should debate and who should accept. The point is to get the process started. By the People!!! And Article 301 elimination and other stepy by the Government (at the urging of the people) will be the necessary steps for that to take place.

    And I repeat again:

    “No matter the origin, perpetrators, or excuse, it’s about time for real debate and discussion by all relevant parties. It’s the responsibility of both sides to resolve this issue once and for all. All guilty parties should admit guilt so that the long process of reconciliation and healing can then begin. History is full of unjust occurrences, as well as enough holocausts. We can only learn from the mistakes of the past as we play out the current chapter, and prepare future generations to become admirers of our courage and unselfish acts of global matrimony. Let’s not allow pride and prejudice get in the way. Let’s eliminate all of the reasons for the continued hatred that seems to serve the needs of a certain segment of the population who delight in continued discord. Let’s beat them at their own game.”

    metin
    01/30/07 at 8:58 am
    

27. @metin

    metin you can have your right to discuss whatever you want in your own home, with your friends, heck make a web forum and get people who think like you to join and then you can discuss it as much as you want, but CERTAIN subjects that have historic and/or scientific proof are not fit for a discussion on such public forums as the LA Times for example, where the masses turn for concrete facts, and EDUCATED discussion. As I said if you were the LA Times editor would you allow The Flat Earth Society to publish their side of the story? Would you allow Neo Nazi’s or somebody backed by them to print something that is even remotely suggesting the Holocaust did not take place? I think not! You know why? Because your credibility will go down the drain in a matter of nanoseconds. The only reason why certain publications allow themselves to do this with the Armenian Genocide is because of Turkey’s strong lobbying campaign and/or NATO/military industrial complex deals that Turkey got into with the US over the last 80 years. BTW Admiral Bristol was the first big name Western denier since he saw how important Turkey can be militarily and economically for the States, but he very well knew the truth.

    metin say what you want do what you want, but the Armenian Genocide is a hard, cold, fact, stop denying it (oh wait you were not denying you just want everybody to have the right to their opinion….riiiiight)

    BTW since you brought up the example of a criminal in the court let me, explain it to you in that context.
    Well first of all the criminal is no ordinary criminal, he is a smart, vicious, mass murderer, who murdered all of his victims in the broad daylight in front of many witnesses. He was brought to trial facts were heard from both sides, the jury and the judge found him guilty, oh but he had powerful lawyers, so the case got appealed, and the facts from BOTH sides were presented again, with expert witnesses testifying; he lost yet again. More appeals, more losses. Now he is basically serving his life sentence, waiting and hoping that his sentence will be lessened.

    Do you see where, I am going with this? Convicted criminals, especially the ones who everybody knows committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt loss some of their privileges and rights. Turkey lost every time its side of the story was put to the test by true historians, facts are in, there are witness accounts, PERIOD.

    I cant wait to see what is going to be your next reply. Which denialist technique are you going to use this time? Changing of the facts? Changing the subject? Blaming the other side? Heck with you guys everything is possible.

    Oh and BTW the Genocide perpetrators were put on trial, they were just too scared to show up, guess what? They lost that one too.

    Arman
    02/2/07 at 2:15 am
    

28. Arman: Keep your criticism of me to just me alone. Do not try to associate me with whatever or whomever else you think ‘deniers’ or ‘they’ are. Do not address me with the ‘you guys’ attitude. I am an American of Turkish descent and do not represent the Turks or the Turkish state. And you have to figure out which of those two, or both, you have a problem with generalizing. I represent my opinion. And to you, that might be the flat earth society view, but to me, it might be that the earth is not as round as we think, when it comes to perceptive vs. reality vs. education vs. what realy matters most. If your example was the case represented here by the argument of Genocide, why would so many historians, and other ‘educated and serious people continue to ask for further inquiry and further discussion or in some cases calling it by its rightful name. The facts are not black and white my friend. And in a democracy, majority rules over the minority. But in a republic, civil rights and individual thought is cherished. And when people try to impose their beliefs onto others, then we get what I call fundamentalism. The core of the problem today! Not what happened 90 years ago. Try to eliminate the fundamentalism in your thought process and everything will be allright. Oh, don’t forget to take two aspirins also.

    As for replying to you, I don’t want my comments to be redirected at you. My comment(s) are in response to the post on this blog. I choose not to engage in a useless dialogue. And we can agree to disagree at the very least. And I promise I won’t try to change your opinion. In fact, as a Libertarian, I’ll defend your right.

    And, that’s the point!!!

    metin
    02/7/07 at 8:20 am
    

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>