Should the Democratic House condemn genocide, specifically the Armenian genocide of 1915?

[IndianaGreen]

Official: Armenian genocide resolution unlikely to get full House vote

Washington (CNN) -- A narrowly passed committee measure that recommends the United States recognize the 1915 killings of ethnic Armenians in Ottoman Turkey as genocide will likely not get a full vote in the House of Representatives, according to a senior State Department official.

The official said Friday that the State Department has an understanding with House leadership on the issue, and, "We believe it will stop where it is."

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/06/us.turkey.genocide.debate/index.html

Related thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=209268

Just as there was a "Jewish question" in Germany in the 1930s, there was an "Armenian question" in Ottoman Turkey. On April 24, 1915, Turkey made the decision to annihilate the entire population of Armenians living in Asia Minor. Two million Armenians were murdered or starved to death. This was a holocaust, which as the Shoa that followed it decades later, consisted of the systematic extermination of an entire population.

Candidate Obama said that he would support a resolution acknowledging that the Armenian genocide did take place. President Obama seems to be a different story altogether.

The question for DUers is a simple one. Should the Democratic House condemn genocide, specifically the Armenian genocide of 1915?

[VMI Dem]

1. What does the President say?

Surely he would support any official condemnation.

[DRoseDARs]

8. Except that is PRECISELY what he is NOT doing. Quite the opposite.

Campaigning, he said he would call the mass murder what it was - genocide - but now the White House is having Sec. Clinton backpedal on this issue because they don't want to upset Turkey who, you know, committed acts of genocide against the Armenians. Poor babies, we don't want to hurt their widdle feewings. :nopity:

I'm sure there are other threads with other sources, but here's one:
White House Set to Block Armenian Genocide Resolution

[baldguy]

2. Should the Democratic House condemn genocide?

Specifically the Native American genocide of 1492-1915?

[IndianaGreen]

3. It's the Armenian genocide that is on the table

You are conflating the genocide of indigenous Americans by Spanish and Portuguese colonials, with the American Exceptionalism that drove the Native Americans from their ancestral lands.

[baldguy]

10. "American Exceptionalism"? You're joking, right?

What makes institutionalized murder & theft exceptional? And if the present gov't of Turkey can be criticized for the actions of a previous regime (which is exactly the way such a resolution would be received), why should the United States get let off the hook for the same thing - especially when they've reaped the benefits of it?

That old saying about stones & glass houses comes to mind.

[IndianaGreen]

12. The point is that it is the Armenian resolution that is on the table

This Congress is not considering reparations for slavery, or for the Native Americans.

BTW, American Exceptionalism is inherently racist, as any other national religious exceptionalism that we come across across the world.

[DRoseDARs]

11. The early US did in fact commit acts of genocide pre-civil war circa 1830.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#United_States_of_America

The true toll will never be known but estimate of 4,000 died in the forced march of the Trail of Tears.

[TheBigotBasher]

4. Turkey and Armenia

have signed on to an attempt to normalise relations. I'm not sure what good a motion would do now except to anger Turkey.

History books are history books, congressional condemnation (or otherwise) of what happened will not change.

Maybe interfering in the affairs of two Nations finally trying to work together is something best avoided, after all, US involvement in the affairs of other Nations in that region have not exactly been successful.

[IndianaGreen]

5. There are the Holocaust deniers, and then there are the Armenian genocide deniers

They are both cut from the same cloth.

[TheBigotBasher]

13. I'm not sure if you are referring to the President and or SofState as holocaust deniers

but as President, he did call the Armenian genocide, genocide.

2009 April 24, Barack Obama, "Statement of President Barack Obama on Armenian Remembrance Day":
Ninety four years ago, one of the great atrocities of the 20th century began. Each year, we pause to remember the 1.5 million Armenians who were subsequently massacred or marched to their death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. The Meds Yeghern must live on in our memories, just as it lives on in the hearts of the Armenian people.

I am not sure of what could be possibly gained by a Congressional motion on this now, why not pass another motion attacking Germany again in Congress for the holocaust?

I'd be more impressed if the US Congress passed a motion condemning the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for an illegal war, with some contrition.

[booley]

6. yes but...

We also need to recognize our own.

You can't move on from a problem by pretending it never occurred.

[IndianaGreen]

7. I am all in favor of slavery reparations

and of dealing with our own sorry history when it comes to the Native Americans, including compensation and other issues.

[rug]

9. Condemn is such a harsh term.

How about "deeply concerned"?