Friday, October 19, 2007
“I’ll take ‘D.) For well over 250 years,’ John.” (5:18 pm)
Thanks to all those who chimed in regarding the seemingly awkwardly timed congressional attention to atrocities committed against Armenians. Initially, it appeared that the United States Congress was exhibiting yet another exercise of moral nearsightedness (think of the genocidal acts within our own borders!), behavior that speaks volumes about the circumvented and selective means of addressing domestic human rights violations. Then things became a bit clearer.
The acknowledgment of genocide is always a progressive thing to do. The drafting of a resolution officially declaring the Turk violence against Armenians takes things one step further. It’s easy to understand the Bush Administration’s dissatisfaction with this resolution: It came from a Democrat-led congress. The resolution spells possible ruin for the key factors enabling a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq. Turkey is more than just another friendly ally to the Bush Administration; it’s a gateway and launch pad for the ongoing war.
In getting back to the issues of moral nearsightedness, it’s imperative that the drafting of resolutions that label mass murderous behaviors as genocidal acts be available for all, namely Native and African Americans. It’s a shame that these two groups should have to continue to be deprived the healing and reparations that having the injustices against acknowledged as genocidal could initiate.
by Davie Williams, publishing intern
posted by Intern
Reader Comments
I don’t believe acknowledging the brutality and murder by which an entire culture or country laid its foundation is “sucking up to an ethnic lobbying group.” That’s a very reductive and dismissive turn of phrase. Only when a culture or country wrestles with the violence of their forefathers can a people move on towards peace. THAT is why this is a progressive move.
posted by Jarrett on 10-21-07 at 2:44 PM
I echo the sentiments of the legitimacy of a very valid stance. It IS quite disturbing that the very acknowledgment of human rights violations on a such grand scale could meet with anything other than commendation. Perhaps that this is possible is the reason such atrocities have been widely accepted by too many within the global community.
The current condition of both Native and African-Americans, whom have yet to have their horrendous plights (past, present, and the next 60 seconds) OFFICIALLY acknowledged as genocide in contrast to the current position of suvivors of the Holocaust is a clear example of the need for such progressive reflection, acknowledgement, policy, and implementation.
posted by Davie on 10-25-07 at 1:01 AM
Discussion Closed
Commenting is closed on articles six months or older. This helps us prevent spam and maintain continuous discussions. We also close discussions from time to time that we are unable to moderate. Thanks for your understanding.
The acknowledgement of genocide in the form of a Congressional resolution nearly 100 years after the fact is not a progressive thing to do, but merely a nominalist thing. A grandstanding thing. A meaningless thing. A waste of time.
Is it really “progressive” to spend time and energy simply to suck up to a particular ethnic lobbying group (let’s not pretend a surge of concern about morality was at issue here) when health care, immigration, social security, war, etc. have not been meaningfully addressed? Since when is posturing progressive?
posted by Mitch on 10-20-07 at 7:27 PM