Armenian Genocide

[Tidewater]

I understand that this is how diplomacy works and has always worked. But it is based on agreements forged by blackmail. They always come back to stab you in the back.

It may be naivity on my part, but I prefer straight shooters. I would think that in the long run, a better, more lasting result is achieved.

I'm not really sure I understand.
Who is doing the blackmailing?
NATO is almost 70 years old. I believe that makes it the longest-lasting military alliance in history.
There was an Armenian muslim community called the Hemshin. Most converted to islam gradually starting in the 1640s. The Hemshin were also mistreated by the Ottoman Turks in the Armenian genocide, but some protected themselves by adopting radically pro-Turkish (or pro-islam) attitudes.

 

[J0eW]

I'm not really sure I understand.
Who is doing the blackmailing?
NATO is almost 70 years old. I believe that makes it the longest-lasting military alliance in history.
There was an Armenian muslim community called the Hemshin. Most converted to islam gradually starting in the 1640s. The Hemshin were also mistreated by the Ottoman Turks in the Armenian genocide, but some protected themselves by adopting radically pro-Turkish )or pro-islam) attitudes.

If the price of keeping a base in Turkey is to turn a blind eye to mentioning genocide by the Ottoman Empire, I would consider that to be blackmail. Maybe that is not the definition of blackmail. But if the practice of this for that goes against your ethics and principles it is foul and poorly conceived.

 

[Tidewater]

If the price of keeping a base in Turkey is to turn a blind eye to mentioning genocide by the Ottoman Empire, I would consider that to be blackmail. Maybe that is not the definition of blackmail. But if the practice of this for that goes against your ethics and principles it is foul and poorly conceived.

Okay, gotcha.
International affairs is the art of compromise.
When facing the Nazis, Churchill (and later the U.S./FDR) were happy to work with a murdering, lying, thieving scumbag in Josef Stalin, because Stalin's guys were killing Germans by the bushel. (Seven of every nine German soldiers killed in WW II were killed by the Red Army).
Once Germany was defeated and no longer a threat, and Stalin was murdering, thieving, and lying his way around eastern Europe, overlooking Stalin's sins became less acceptable.
By the early 1950s, containing the Soviet menace was easier if we overlooked (or politely did not bring up) the Ottoman genocide of Armenians. Turkey controls the Bosporus, Turkey shared a border with the USSR, etc., so the Armenian genocide gets removed from the agenda for meetings with Turkish leadership.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

One thing which has always bemused me it the the confusion between the two groups. The Armenians have more Turkish DNA than the Turks, particularly in Anatolia, and vice versa...

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I understand that this is how diplomacy works and has always worked. But it is based on agreements forged by blackmail. They always come back to stab you in the back.

It may be naivity on my part, but I prefer straight shooters. I would think that in the long run, a better, more lasting result is achieved.

If you’re looking for a straight shooter amongst international politicians, you’re going to be looking for a long time. If you’re looking for a straight shooter amongst leaders of countries that don’t hold normal elections, the earth will be swallowed by the sun before you find one.

Unfortunately, we have to deal with other countries’ leaders as we find them, not as we would like to find them.

I don’t think it’s your intent, but the policy you just described might as well be extreme isolationism — can’t find anybody to deal honestly and with no hidden agendas, so we’ll deal with no one.

 

[Tidewater]

If you’re looking for a straight shooter amongst international politicians, you’re going to be looking for a long time. If you’re looking for a straight shooter amongst leaders of countries that don’t hold normal elections, the earth will be swallowed by the sun before you find one.

Unfortunately, we have to deal with other countries’ leaders as we find them, not as we would like to find them.

I don’t think it’s your intent, but the policy you just described might as well be extreme isolationism — can’t find anybody to deal honestly and with no hidden agendas, so we’ll deal with no one.

I think Washington's farewell address warns of what J0eW was getting at: if you play internationally, you are going to run into folks whose countrymen or friends have done some unsavory stuff.
Another example that we would rather forget today, when Iceland joined NATO and the U.S. wanted to put a naval air station at Keflavik, the Icelandic government demanded we assign no black sailors or airmen to Keflavik. Because the U.S. really needed that NAS to support anti-Soviet ASW, the U.S. agreed and no back sailors or airmen were assigned to Iceland until Nixon ended the practice in the early 1970s.
Valur Ingimundarson, "Immunizing against the American Other Racism: Nationalism, and Gender in U.S.-Icelandic Military Relations during the Cold War"

 

[J0eW]

I think Washington's farewell address warns of what J0eW was getting at: if you play internationally, you are going to run into folks whose countrymen or friends have done some unsavory stuff.
Another example that we would rather forget today, when Iceland joined NATO and the U.S. wanted to put a naval air station at Keflavik, the Icelandic government demanded we assign no black sailors or airmen to Keflavik. Because the U.S. really needed that NAS to support anti-Soviet ASW, the U.S. agreed and no back sailors or airmen were assigned to Iceland until Nixon ended the practice in the early 1970s.
Valur Ingimundarson, "Immunizing against the American Other Racism: Nationalism, and Gender in U.S.-Icelandic Military Relations during the Cold War"

So ultimately it is a decision based on the greater good and lesser evil propositions. The unfortunate result is a Machiavellian concept: the end justifies the means.

 

[Its On A Slab]

One thing which has always bemused me it the the confusion between the two groups. The Armenians have more Turkish DNA than the Turks, particularly in Anatolia, and vice versa...

I was puzzled by the Armenian/Azerbaijan mutual hatred. It all boiled down to (as in Ireland, Middle East, elsewhere) religion.

As I indicated earlier, my wife came to the US as a refugee from Azerbaijan(ethnic Armenian). The atrocities she witnessed as a young girl. Some of which she will not talk about. (Nagorno Karabakh war, 1994, ethnic cleansing, they lost everything to the Azeris).

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I was puzzled by the Armenian/Azerbaijan mutual hatred. It all boiled down to (as in Ireland, Middle East, elsewhere) religion.

As I indicated earlier, my wife came to the US as a refugee from Azerbaijan(ethnic Armenian). The atrocities she witnessed as a young girl. Some of which she will not talk about. (Nagorno Karabakh war, 1994, ethnic cleansing, they lost everything to the Azeris).

I see the root cause in Ireland and the Middle East a bit differently.

In both cases, I think the real argument is land. In both cases, an outside group came in and took by force land that had belonged to the native population for thousands of years.

In the case of Ireland, the British Army supported Scots moving in and taking land that had belonged to the native Irish since pre-history. In the case of Israel, it was taken from the Palestinians.

In both instances, the invaders were of a different religion than the natives: Protestant (mainly Presbyterian) invaders vs. Catholic natives in Ireland, and Jewish invaders vs. Muslim natives in Palestine.

So I’d see religion as a convenient dividing line, and a rallying cry on both sides of both conflicts. But I don’t see it as the cause of either conflict. One group taking land from another was the cause.

 

[Tidewater]

So ultimately it is a decision based on the greater good and lesser evil propositions. The unfortunate result is a Machiavellian concept: the end justifies the means.

That is one way of looking at it.
If the Brits and United States had refused to help the Soviets because they were evil and the Wehrmacht had defeated the Red Army in 1942, would the world have been a better place as a result of that Anglo-American ethical purity?
If the U.S. had refused to accept the Icelander's racist restriction on black servicemen being stationed in Iceland and Soviet submarines had had free rein in the north Atlantic if the Cold War had become a shooting war, would the world have been a better place?

 

[J0eW]

That is one way of looking at it.
If the Brits and United States had refused to help the Soviets because they were evil and the Wehrmacht had defeated the Red Army in 1942, would the world have been a better place as a result of that Anglo-American ethical purity?
If the U.S. had refused to accept the Icelander's racist restriction on black servicemen being stationed in Iceland and Soviet submarines had had free rein in the north Atlantic if the Cold War had become a shooting war, would the world have been a better place?

Life is not easy or simple, is it?

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I see the root cause in Ireland and the Middle East a bit differently.

In both cases, I think the real argument is land. In both cases, an outside group came in and took by force land that had belonged to the native population for thousands of years.

In the case of Ireland, the British Army supported Scots moving in and taking land that had belonged to the native Irish since pre-history. In the case of Israel, it was taken from the Palestinians.

In both instances, the invaders were of a different religion than the natives: Protestant (mainly Presbyterian) invaders vs. Catholic natives in Ireland, and Jewish invaders vs. Muslim natives in Palestine.

So I’d see religion as a convenient dividing line, and a rallying cry on both sides of both conflicts. But I don’t see it as the cause of either conflict. One group taking land from another was the cause.

IDK. If you dig back over the last 2-3 thousand years, the history is of land changing hands over and over. The Scots who came back and took Ulster back over were the same clan which had left a few centuries earlier and displaced the Picts in Scotland. It happens over and over, as it has in present day Israel. Territory is an important part, but religion and language - in this case, distinctive accents - go in to making up a clan also. It wasn't so long ago that the Norse owned the land in Ulster...

 

[J0eW]

IDK. If you dig back over the last 2-3 thousand years, the history is of land changing hands over and over. The Scots who came back and took Ulster back over were the same clan which had left a few centuries earlier and displaced the Picts in Scotland. It happens over and over, as it has in present day Israel. Territory is an important part, but religion and language - in this case, distinctive accents - go in to making up a clan also. It wasn't so long ago that the Norse owned the land in Ulster...

It seems to me that the enire history of mankind has been interspersed with one tribe pushing another off their land because it was viewed as worth the blood, sweat and tears. Sometimes back and forth, the winner being the one with the most might.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

IDK. If you dig back over the last 2-3 thousand years, the history is of land changing hands over and over. The Scots who came back and took Ulster back over were the same clan which had left a few centuries earlier and displaced the Picts in Scotland. It happens over and over, as it has in present day Israel. Territory is an important part, but religion and language - in this case, distinctive accents - go in to making up a clan also. It wasn't so long ago that the Norse owned the land in Ulster...

Guess it depends on how far back you want to draw the line to determine the “original” owner, and yes, there were several migrations over the millennia back and forth between the island of Eire and what is now called Scotland.

Either way, though, The Troubles weren’t really about religion. They were about who the rightful occupants of Ulster were / are.

I see the other stuff as convenient ways of identifying who you hate. The real core argument is still about who “should” occupy the land.

 

[B1GTide]

There is a very interesting documentary series on HBO Max about the global history of human subjugation, enslavement and genocide (Exterminate All the Brutes).

Human beings really are just smart monkeys, bent on dominating everyone and everything around them and willing to do anything - even unto their own destruction - to do so.

 

[Tidewater]

Guess it depends on how far back you want to draw the line to determine the “original” owner, and yes, there were several migrations over the millennia back and forth between the island of Eire and what is now called Scotland.

Either way, though, The Troubles weren’t really about religion. They were about who the rightful occupants of Ulster were / are.

I see the other stuff as convenient ways of identifying who you hate. The real core argument is still about who “should” occupy the land.

When teaching world history, I used a map of Native American lands from AD 1500 (when Europeans arrived in America) and then in AD 1000 (based on pottery and other artifacts). The man of the major tribal groupings changed locations. The Sioux took land from the Cheyenne, the Cherokee took land from the Creeks, etc.
This is normal.
English taking land from the Cherokee, and Americans taking land from the Sioux, however, is completely abnormal and unacceptable.

 

[B1GTide]

When teaching world history, I used a map of Native American lands from AD 1500 (when Europeans arrived in America) and then in AD 1000 (based on pottery and other artifacts). The man of the major tribal groupings changed locations. The Sioux took land from the Cheyenne, the Cherokee took land from the Creeks, etc.
This is normal.
English taking land from the Cherokee, and Americans taking land from the Sioux, however, is completely abnormal and unacceptable.

What we did to native Americans is not comparable to what they did to one another.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

When teaching world history, I used a map of Native American lands from AD 1500 (when Europeans arrived in America) and then in AD 1000 (based on pottery and other artifacts). The man of the major tribal groupings changed locations. The Sioux took land from the Cheyenne, the Cherokee took land from the Creeks, etc.
This is normal.
English taking land from the Cherokee, and Americans taking land from the Sioux, however, is completely abnormal and unacceptable.

Before the Cherokee took north Alabama/Georgia from the Creeks, they had taken western NC/SC eastern TN from the Choctaws and drove them back NE into the Ohio valley...

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Guess it depends on how far back you want to draw the line to determine the “original” owner, and yes, there were several migrations over the millennia back and forth between the island of Eire and what is now called Scotland.

Either way, though, The Troubles weren’t really about religion. They were about who the rightful occupants of Ulster were / are.

I see the other stuff as convenient ways of identifying who you hate. The real core argument is still about who “should” occupy the land.

I differ slightly. I think it's all of a piece...

 

[J0eW]

I differ slightly. I think it's all of a piece...

The first step is usually to demonize then opponent.