▲ 105 points
back
59 comments
Thanks for sharing this.
Leslie Davis was truly a great diplomat and an incredible human being.
Until Genocides are not widely recognized and stopped. Those who commit them are not punished, they are going to happen again, as they did during 20th century. Hitler used Armenian Genocide to convince others that atrocities committed by Nazis are going to be forgotten. Hitler's quote: "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"
It is a shame that US did not officially recognize Armenian Genocide yet, even though most of the civilized world did and most of the US State legislatures did.
Germany was one of the main allies of Ottoman Empire when Armenian Genocide occurred and they only recognized Armenian Genocide of 1915 in 2016. 101 years after it happened.
Edit: Typos.
> It is a shame that US did not officially recognize Armenian Genocide yet, even though most of the civilized world did and most of the US State legislatures did.
The real shame, in my opinion, is that Israel hasn't recognized the genocide yet. And I say this as a survivor of Azeri Pogroms of the 1990 and a descendant of the Armenian Genocide survivor whose entire family was murdered by Young Turks. It's actually disgusting not shameful and I don't care how much they try to blame Geopolitics for this.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Knes...
It's not like Israel ignores it. But yes, geopolitics plays a role and it is embarrassing as many in Israel agree.
compare to this in the US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_resolution_on_Ar...
On this topic, I highly recommend Samantha Power's book "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide" which details the United States inability to respond promptly to the many cases of genocide over the past century.
For those who aren't familiar, Samantha Power was (until recently) US Ambassador to the UN. Before that, she was an journalist, author, and activist.
I love how that book blames America for failing to respond to many genocides committed far away from its borders - what other great power has ever done so, unless it was for their benefit?
As a non-American, we are fucking lucky that America not only doesn't extord us for loot (as any other empire would) but actually spends so much energy, lives and money keeping protecting us. I am personally really happy that Putin knows there will be consequences if he rolls west.
One could argue that the Roman Empire endured as long as it did because the pax Romana was preferable to the tribal warfare it displaced, even though the Romans may not have particularly cared about security of any given group within their sphere of influence. I'd argue that as the world shrinks long-term consequences manifest over shorter absolute timescales.
Why are you (and others) so negative about feedback? We can't get better at something unless we realize why we aren't doing it well.
> what other great power has ever done so, unless it was for their benefit?
Right, it's for their benefit. Not just morally, but economically and geo-politically.
Which is why we want to make sure we can stop the problem rather than watching the tragedy unfold as we powerlessly flail against ourselves. (ie, waiting until we label something a genocide before trying to help.)
> As a non-American, we are fucking lucky that America not only doesn't extord us for loot
They're generally happier to gain a stronger position than to be up a few bucks. It's long-term thinking.
> I am personally really happy that Putin knows there will be consequences if he rolls west.
Ditto, but these days I believe less and less than the USA would do anything. Or at least until it's too late.
Great point. Exactly what the book tackles. The US did not often intervene in the past because there was no direct benefit to do so.
Powers argues that this is changing. The international condemnation and uproar from citizens has political consequences for those in power and thus is enough to generate action.
Have you read the book? If not I recommend against flippant responses.
It’s a careful detailed history of several genocides, one per chapter.
It’s a harrowing book, and reading each chapter would leave me depressed for a couple days. I couldn’t read more than about one chapter per month.
The comment is ambiguous, it's not really clear if it's actually meant to be flippant or not. If you read it literally, the meaning is directly the opposite and still makes sense.
> America not only doesn't extord us for loot
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-cautionary-t... is a great article of how even when you come I to a place of power, preventing genocide is much harder than it appears.
The Azerbaijan president often tweets about 'The fake Armenian genocde' (and before I get a ton of downvotes again, I use the quotation marks because I don't agree with his view')
Report tweets like that. I hope if enough people do that it can make some difference.
I don't think reporting him helps. Denying the Armenian genocide is one of his main past times, on twitter and off twitter. He is also the world's expert (and only expert) on the fabled Azerbaijan genocide. I'm not Azerbaijanian or Armenian, I can't imagine devoting so much of my life to hating another ethnic group.
American criterias on how to divide Ottoman Empire cause Armenians to "totally-not-genocidie" local populations to secure Greater-whatever-its-supposed-to-be-Armenia. Retaliation is genocidiasfsdfsf
(as in both sides are equally guilty)
I think we are obliged to speak more about this genocide http://www.armenian-genocide.org/hitler.html
It wouldn't surprise me if this was posted and eagerly upvoted as a historical example of how we supposedly should behave in defiance of unjust authority in the age of President Trump.
But the article in question is principally about a genocide of Armenian Christians perpetrated by Turkish Muslims. Doesn't this episode from not-too-distant history demonstrate, for example, the danger of mass, unchecked Muslim immigration to this and every other Western nation, or that diversity, contrary to what is so often asserted, is not a strength but rather is a weakness, one that contributed to the downfall of the Ottoman, Hapsburg, and Russian empires?
the existence of ethnic cleansing is an argument for ethnic cleansing? past atrocities are reason to turn away refugees of current atrocities? sir or madam, i do believe you've got your brain in backward.
The existence of ethnic cleansing is a compelling argument against diversity being a strength, and past atrocities, especially those afflicting Christians of European descent, serve to demonstrate why Christians of European descent should not allow themselves to be displaced and dispossessed through mass immigration, lest they suffer a fate similar to that of the Armenians.
"The existence of ethnic cleansing is a compelling argument against diversity being a strength"
no, it's a compelling reminder to fight racism, xenophobia, religious intolerance, and the rest, like the deadly diseases they are. the atrocities of the past are their result.
Holy hay, I've never heard of anyone blame the Armenian genocide on immigration.
The Ottomans suffered military losses in the Balkans, and kept losing territory to the Russians. The Three Pashas massacred the Armenians to try to stay in power.