What’s this ‘genocide’ to do with Congress?

Chuck Chambers

After working though Mr. Stone's rambling apologia for the Turks, one is still left with the question with which he chose never to address: "What is modern Turkey?" . If it's a Moslem state, then there was never going to be room for a large Armenian Christian minority with equal citizenship rights. . If it's an ethnic Turkish country, then there was never going to be room for either the Armenians or a large Kurdish Islamic minority. Ethnic Turks have made it a crime even to discuss their 1915 massacre, much of which was personal and grizzly, more like Rwanda than Auschwitz. They don’t enjoy discussing their sustained attempt to wipe out Kurdish culture, a national policy that gave rise to the current mess, either. However much Mr. Stone doesn't like it, the US Congress, whatever their motives, and however indirectly broached, has a legitimate, long term duty to understand what kind of country the modern Turks want their country to be. This responsibility goes "in spades" for the legislatures of the European Union. . Now may not the best time to force the issue, but at some point the ethnic Turks will need to make the existential decision of whether they want to live in the multi-ethnic, multi-religious tent of the EU or in a mono-cultural Turkish state of reduced population and area.

ed hooper

I don't know how the Article 301 rules apply to resident foreigners such as Mr. Stone but he is nonetheless playing it safe by shilling for Turkey, as he has done on many occasions.

TDK

"In addition, the figure given for overall losses by the Armenian representative at the Paris peace treaties was 700,000 — not 1.5 million" Oh, that's all right then! Even if you strip away all the debate about intentionality, you are still faced with a situation where the Ottomans instigated and pursued a policy that resulted in a horrific death toll. The Turks then compound this by refusing to countenance any discussion. In contrast I agree with the point that Politicians should not enter such a debate. We've seen the lionization of David Irving after his incarceration; an outcome that results from the political desire to publicly declaim opposition to genocide. That outcome contrasts with his being totally discredited after failing in his libel action. Mixing politics and scholarship never ends happily.

Marc Silver

"What's The 'Genocide' To Do With Congress? remainds me of that moronic 1960s protest, "What Sex Got To Do With Love?" As a non-US citizen, how can the author possibly know what is the business of the US Congress? Is he by chance assuming that America has the principles, ethics and obligations of an Old World nation, and Congress is simply doing a terrible job of fulfilling them? America is not essentially a nation or even a country. America is a humanist religion whose founding principle is that ALL HUMAN BEINGS, not only Americans, are created equal and are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When Scrooge tried to mollify Marley's ghost by saying, "You were always a good man of business, Jacob," Marley exploded, "Business? MANKIND WAS OUR BUSINESS!" How does the post-Churchillian British public feel about Charles Dicken's conviction? Mankind is the business of the American Congress. Whether certain actions taken against other humans in the Brotherhood of Man is genocide is, and always will be, Americas responsibility. Millions of foreign immigrants seeking a new life in the New World know of this bedrock humanist ideal, and sacrifice everything they have to join it. Norman Stone's intellectual pettifogging will not alter the visceral power of the American ideal.