Are you at all familiar with how important acknowledging what happened as a genocide is to Armenians?
Of course it is important that he is talking about it in the first place but I don't think it is fair to dismiss terminology when it is clearly so important to some people.
Well to Armenians it's pretty damn important and they were the ones who were persecuted. I don't blame them for being upset and they have every right to be. Sometimes words really do matter.
It's important because the word has a legal connotation. What can be done/not done about the situation, at least by governments, depends on whether or not something is defined as a genocide by that government.
idk if someone already commented this; I didn't read all the replies.
"Maybe"? are you fucking serious? He just gave a speech about the Holocaust and how deniers are whats wrong with the world. MAYBE he shouldnt have made that speech
I doubt he is in denial about the Armenian genocide. If he intentionally didn't usse the word genocide it was probably pure politics. Maybe he'll acknowledge it at another time.
I'd be very surprised if he ever did. Like it or not, talking about the Armenian genocide is an absolute deal breaker for Turkey, and the west needs Turkey at the moment, to be the token, pro-western, secular muslim country. (Of course, the neocons had grand plans to replace Turkey with Iraq in this role, but they fcuked that up so badly that they need Turkey more than ever, now.)
Excuse me?! Maybe you should reread what I wrote. No one is saying the Holocaust never happened. I am pointing out that your ignorant response to Obama's reasoning was as just as ridiculous as Obama not recognizing a historical fact like the Holocaust.
Well, no, it's not a pressing issue, but I think it is important. During his campaign, Obama said he would recognize the genocide as genocide. The fact that he didn't even use the word in this statement suggests he's reneging on that. He's obviously doing it for diplomatic reasons, but it's still a disappointment.
Well, yeah, you have a point, but I don't see why this issue shouldn't be discussed.
And of course we don't know his reasons, but I believe, like the article suggests, that he's avoiding the word so as not to piss off Turkey. It's a lose-lose for him in terms of public opinion. Either Turkey will be angry that he uses it, or Armenians and Armenian-Americans will be angry that he doesn't.
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Of course it is important that he is talking about it in the first place but I don't think it is fair to dismiss terminology when it is clearly so important to some people.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
idk if someone already commented this; I didn't read all the replies.
Reply
are you fucking serious? He just gave a speech about the Holocaust and how deniers are whats wrong with the world. MAYBE he shouldnt have made that speech
Reply
Reply
I'd be very surprised if he ever did. Like it or not, talking about the Armenian genocide is an absolute deal breaker for Turkey, and the west needs Turkey at the moment, to be the token, pro-western, secular muslim country. (Of course, the neocons had grand plans to replace Turkey with Iraq in this role, but they fcuked that up so badly that they need Turkey more than ever, now.)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
And of course we don't know his reasons, but I believe, like the article suggests, that he's avoiding the word so as not to piss off Turkey. It's a lose-lose for him in terms of public opinion. Either Turkey will be angry that he uses it, or Armenians and Armenian-Americans will be angry that he doesn't.
Reply
Leave a comment