Armenian genocide

[Beorhtnoth]

Joe Biden has, today, stated the USA determines events in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 constitute genocide perpetrated against the Armenians. This has been met with fury by Ankara.

Considering the current frayed relations between Turkiye and the USA, two NATO countries, is this declaration by Biden to be welcomed, or is this indicative of a certain naivety from the new administration?

[elengil]

I think Biden should have started a bit closer to home with admitting the Native American genocide, but I am not unhappy he has labeled the Armenian one, also.

[Beorhtnoth]

He would be a unique leader to begin with national self reflection!

I was under the (erroneous?) impression that the USA had already recognised the genocide of American first nations. Didn't Obama do this?

[elengil]

He would be a unique leader to begin with national self reflection!

I was under the (erroneous?) impression that the USA had already recognised the genocide of American first nations. Didn't Obama do this?

I don't believe it has ever been recognized as genocide - many comments and words on the topic, but not that one, I don't think.

[Beorhtnoth]

He would be a unique leader to begin with national self reflection!

I was under the (erroneous?) impression that the USA had already recognised the genocide of American first nations. Didn't Obama do this?

I don't believe it has ever been recognized as genocide - many comments and words on the topic, but not that one, I don't think.

I am genuinely shocked to learn this.

[elengil]

By that I mean not officially from the government. Obviously lots of individuals and institutions have called it such, but I don't believe the government has.

[Frelga]

I think Biden should have started a bit closer to home with admitting the Native American genocide, but I am not unhappy he has labeled the Armenian one, also.

In fact, I would prefer that today's leaders took a firmer stand against what's happening in the world today. It would be a more fitting tribute to the victims of the past. One hundred years later is far too late.

Russia recognized Armenian genocide in 2015, from their own glass house.

A good historical overview is here
The Armenian genocide explained

[Beorhtnoth]

By that I mean not officially from the government. Obviously lots of individuals and institutions have called it such, but I don't believe the government has.

It brings to mind my favourite biblical quote;

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

- Matthew 7:3 King James Version

[Beorhtnoth]

I think Biden should have started a bit closer to home with admitting the Native American genocide, but I am not unhappy he has labeled the Armenian one, also.

In fact, I would prefer that today's leaders took a firmer stand against what's happening in the world today. It would be a more fitting tribute to the victims of the past. One hundred years later is far too late.

Russia recognized Armenian genocide in 2015, from their own glass house.

A good historical overview is here
The Armenian genocide explained

I would guess you refer to the Holodomor, the claimed deliberate famine perpetrated in 1932 in the Russian territory of Ukraine.
That is a subject that deserves its own topic, if you wish to debate it.

[elengil]

I think Biden should have started a bit closer to home with admitting the Native American genocide, but I am not unhappy he has labeled the Armenian one, also.

In fact, I would prefer that today's leaders took a firmer stand against what's happening in the world today. It would be a more fitting tribute to the victims of the past. One hundred years later is far too late.

Very true, though I think recognizing the 'sins' of our past makes it easier to take a stand against the present happenings. If you brush aside things like genocide just because it's inconvenient to recognize them as such, you'll just keep doing that again and again. When we admit the atrocities of the past, we are more likely to want to prevent them in present, too.

[Beorhtnoth]

I think Biden should have started a bit closer to home with admitting the Native American genocide, but I am not unhappy he has labeled the Armenian one, also.

In fact, I would prefer that today's leaders took a firmer stand against what's happening in the world today. It would be a more fitting tribute to the victims of the past. One hundred years later is far too late.

Very true, though I think recognizing the 'sins' of our past makes it easier to take a stand against the present happenings. If you brush aside things like genocide just because it's inconvenient to recognize them as such, you'll just keep doing that again and again. When we admit the atrocities of the past, we are more likely to want to prevent them in present, too.

I'm not so sure nations learn from their mistakes. Viet Nam to Afghanistan...

[N.E. Brigand]

Joe Biden has, today, stated the USA determines events in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 constitute genocide perpetrated against the Armenians. This has been met with fury by Ankara.

Considering the current frayed relations between Turkiye and the USA, two NATO countries, is this declaration by Biden to be welcomed, or is this indicative of a certain naivety from the new administration?

Here is the statement.

Americans of Armenian descent have been disappointed for decades with the U.S. government's refusal to recognize the Armenian genocide. No president before or after Ronald Reagan had mentioned it while in office -- and Reagan only did so in a passing comment in one speech in 1981. The reason the U.S. didn't officially acknowledge this genocide was surely the fear of alienating Turkey, an ally and NATO member.

In the case of the immediately past president, I harbor other suspicions. I remember that Donald Trump's top campaign national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was secretly and illegally on the payroll of the Turkish government in the fall of 2016, having been paid some $500,000 to write an editorial in praise of Turkey just months after he had espoused anti-Turkish positions, and that Trump in 2020 pardonded Flynn for all crimes that came to light as a result of Robert Meuller's investigation, including this one. I remember also that Trump abandoned our Kurdish allies in Syria in 2019, exposing them to Turkish attacks.

Biden gave Turkey's president advance notice that he would be issuing this statement. Additionally, the statement was crafted in a way that give Turkey an opportunity to itself acknowledge these events but relegate them to the past. The statement refers to the events having been launched in "Constantinople" under "Ottoman" auspices.

[Beorhtnoth]

Thanks, Brigand. Interesting context.

A couple of clarifications.

1. Considering the historic US ignoring of the Armenian genocide, is it not a touch partisan to criticise the Trump presidency for not acknowledging it, irrespective of Flynn's relationship with Turkiye?

2. Why are Kurds determined allies, rather than useful idiots in the USA's "great game" (a reference to 19th century European politics)?

[Frelga]

Very true, though I think recognizing the 'sins' of our past makes it easier to take a stand against the present happenings. If you brush aside things like genocide just because it's inconvenient to recognize them as such, you'll just keep doing that again and again. When we admit the atrocities of the past, we are more likely to want to prevent them in present, too.

Also true, and both are necessary.

[N.E. Brigand]

1. Considering the historic US ignoring of the Armenian genocide, is it not a touch partisan to criticise the Trump presidency for not acknowledging it, irrespective of Flynn's relationship with Turkiye?

No it's not. Also I didn't criticize Trump for not having done so. I said that Reagan was the only U.S. president who did so (kind of), and I offered a reason for why I thought all (but one) of them had not done so, before adding that there were possibly other reasons for Trump's silence.

2. Why are Kurds determined allies, rather than useful idiots in the USA's "great game" (a reference to 19th century European politics)?

I don't think the Kurds are idiots. I do think the U.S. betrayed them.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

He would be a unique leader to begin with national self reflection!

I was under the (erroneous?) impression that the USA had already recognised the genocide of American first nations. Didn't Obama do this?

I don't believe it has ever been recognized as genocide - many comments and words on the topic, but not that one, I don't think.

The closest that he came was to sign a bill that included a section called "U.S. Apology to Native Peoples of the United States" tucked away in a defense appropriations bill:

SEC. 8113. (a) ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND APOLOGY.—The United States, acting through Congress—
(1) recognizes the special legal and political relationship Indian tribes have with the United States and the solemn covenant with the land we share;
(2) commends and honors Native Peoples for the thousands of years that they have stewarded and protected this land;
(3) recognizes that there have been years of official depredations, ill-conceived policies, and the breaking of covenants by the Federal Government regarding Indian tribes;
(4) apologizes on behalf of the people of the United States to all Native Peoples for the many instances of violence, mal-treatment, and neglect inflicted on Native Peoples by citizens of the United States;
(5) expresses its regret for the ramifications of former wrongs and its commitment to build on the positive relationships of the past and present to move toward a brighter future where all the people of this land live reconciled as brothers and sisters, and harmoniously steward and protect this land together;
(6) urges the President to acknowledge the wrongs of the United States against Indian tribes in the history of the United States in order to bring healing to this land; and
(7) commends the State governments that have begun reconciliation efforts with recognized Indian tribes located in their boundaries and encourages all State governments similarly to work toward reconciling relationships with Indian tribes within their boundaries.

It was then followed by a disclaimer saying that it did not authorize any claim or settlement against the United States.

To the best of my recollection, it was never followed up by any explicit statement by Obama.

[Beorhtnoth]

I've done it again!

I didn't mean Kurds are idiots, just that they fulfil the role of useful idiot, as did other "pawns" in the "great Game", the subterfuge sparring between Russia and Britain in the nineteenth century.

Edit - Thanks Voronwë. I posted before seeing your comment.

[River]

I don't think it's naivety. Things in our relationship with Turkey have changed in the past four years and the old calculations don't necessarily apply. This editorial suggests that Biden's move is a reflection of Turkey's relative weakness/NATO's frustration with Erdogan. In short, being mindful of Turkey's feelings just isn't as important as it used to be. It remains to be seen how Erdogan reacts. The out we left them in referencing the Ottomans is a nice, historically accurate touch.

Regarding the situation with Native Americans...we're getting closer and closer to a proper reckoning. There was a huge Supreme Court decision a year or two ago that rocked Oklahoma and put a lot of Western states on notice regarding how the old Indian treaties should be viewed. We've put a Native American in charge of the Department of Interior. It's coming.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Regarding the situation with Native Americans...we're getting closer and closer to a proper reckoning. There was a huge Supreme Court decision a year or two ago that rocked Oklahoma and put a lot of Western states on notice regarding how the old Indian treaties should be viewed. We've put a Native American in charge of the Department of Interior. It's coming.

That was last July. The case was McGirt v. Oklahoma, and in the pre-Justice Barrett days, it was Justice Gorsuch that "crossed over" and joined the then four "liberal" justices in the majority. I'm doubtful that a similar decision would happen in the present court.

[River]

Fair enough. I recall the decision being hailed as a sign of what happens when judges from the Western circuits end up on the Supreme Court. It got me to thinking that expanding the Court to one seat/circuit and appointing judges from each circuit to those seats would be a useful reform, but that's another thread and probably not politically possible.