Armenian Genocide

[Sucuk Ekmek]

 

 Greetings fellow citizens  As you might know  yesterday House held a vote for the genocide. It went  405 aganist 11. I was curious to seek out who voted aganist it and the reason behind it. Then i found a woman, noticed her being critized among Americans(generally) . What is your opinion over the whole subject? 

Here is a link about her statement and some critism : https://mondoweiss.net/2019/10/astounded-and-heartbroken-rep-ilhan-omar-faces-fallout-over-armenian-genocide-vote/

Edited October 30, 2019 by Sucuk Ekmek

[Leo Gura]

I have never mentioned Ilhan Omar on my blog.

[Sucuk Ekmek]

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I have never mentioned Ilhan Omar on my blog.

My bad, i miss interpret reality often. It was Cenk, indeed. Edited. 

I'm such a devil... 

[Forestluv]

21 hours ago, Sucuk Ekmek said:

Greetings fellow citizens  As you might know  yesterday House held a vote for the genocide. It went  405 aganist 11. I was curious to seek out who voted aganist it and the reason behind it. Then i found a woman, noticed her being critized among Americans(generally) .

Ilhan Omar did not vote against the resolution. She voted "present", which is distinct from a "No" vote. She explained her rational in the article you linked. It is a very nuanced topic. I understand the point Ilhan is trying to make about how we shouldn't politicize genocide as leverage to advance a political agenda, yet I also see the criticism. Politics is deeply integrated with society and culture. Societal evolution involves politics and in some contexts, atrocities like genocide can be politicized for societal progress. Yet other times, atrocities can be politicized for regressive political agendas. . . For example, the atrocity of 9-11 in the U.S. was politicized and used as political leverage to invade Iraq. In this context, the underlying agenda was not to root out terrorism and create a safer world (Iraq was not involved in 9-11). Rather, "neocons" in the U.S. had been licking their chops for decades wanting to increase U.S. influence in the middle-east and have greater control of oil resources (if the top domestic product in Iraq was walnuts, the U.S. would not have invaded). This is an example of using a human atrocity to advance a regressive political agenda. . . In such a case, I understand why a congressperson would vote "present". A "present" vote can acknowledge that a human atrocity took place, yet not support an underlying regressive political agenda to take advantage of that human atrocity. . . It's nuanced and context-dependent. 

[zambize]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Ilhan Omar did not vote against the resolution. She voted "present", which is distinct from a "No" vote. She explained her rational in the article you linked. It is a very nuanced topic. I understand the point Ilhan is trying to make about how we shouldn't politicize genocide as leverage to advance a political agenda, yet I also see the criticism. Politics is deeply integrated with society and culture. Societal evolution involves politics and in some contexts, atrocities like genocide can be politicized for societal progress. Yet other times, atrocities can be politicized for regressive political agendas. . . For example, the atrocity of 9-11 in the U.S. was politicized and used as political leverage to invade Iraq. In this context, the underlying agenda was not to root out terrorism and create a safer world (Iraq was not involved in 9-11). Rather, "neocons" in the U.S. had been licking their chops for decades wanting to increase U.S. influence in the middle-east and have greater control of oil resources (if the top domestic product in Iraq was walnuts, the U.S. would not have invaded). This is an example of using a human atrocity to advance a regressive political agenda. . . In such a case, I understand why a congressperson would vote "present". A "present" vote can acknowledge that a human atrocity took place, yet not support an underlying regressive political agenda to take advantage of that human atrocity. . . It's nuanced and context-dependent. 

I think she was just an idiot and that's the best she could come up with to be honest to save her ass.  While I agree using political recognition of a genocide as a tool to spank countries you think are out of line is a bit ridiculous, it doesnt mean that this wasnt super important to some people, especially Armenians.  I'm sure it makes it harder to grieve knowing the atrocities that you had to suffer are denied/belittled by arguably the strongest country on the earth.  This was a chance to right our previous wrong, and even though it comes at a time where it's being used as a slap back, it doesnt mean it's any less important to the people who have been trying to get it recognition for so long.  I think shes just an idiot who was either trying to preserve her own ties in Turkey, or try and stand out and try and be special by being the only Democrat to vote that way, and give some bullshit explanation about how she's above everyone else by not using genocide as a political tool.  We all do stupid stuff sometimes, I think this was just one of them for her to be honest 

[Sucuk Ekmek]

@zambize I don't know her, but what she does seems reasonable to me. This event took place in first quarter of 1900's and now coming back out of blue. Why this didn't happen before? This is such a big question. Now we said yes and everything gonna be fine then... It is so orange and it sells. 

 

[zambize]

29 minutes ago, Sucuk Ekmek said:

@zambize I don't know her, but what she does seems reasonable to me. This event took place in first quarter of 1900's and now coming back out of blue. Why this didn't happen before? This is such a big question. Now we said yes and everything gonna be fine then... It is so orange and it sells. 

 

It should have happened before, but it didnt.  Just because it's obviously used to punish the Turkish government/Trump, doesnt mean that Armenian Americans havent been pushing for this for decades.  Still means a lot to them, and they would've appreciated solidarity from atleast one of the parties 

[Forestluv]

6 hours ago, zambize said:

I think shes just an idiot who was either trying to preserve her own ties in Turkey, or try and stand out and try and be special by being the only Democrat to vote that way, and give some bullshit explanation about how she's above everyone else by not using genocide as a political tool.  

You seem to have a different impression than I do. I don't see Omar as a self-aggrandizing idiot. I see her as someone who fights for the oppressed. Yet she is not always politically savy and has made unforced errors. 

Omar has strongly acknowledged the Armenian genocide. She stated "My issue was not with the substance of this resolution. *Of course* we should acknowledge the Genocide. My issue was with the timing and context. I think we should demand accountability for human rights abuses consistently, not simply when it suits our political goals". . . Omar fights for those oppressed and I believe she is genuine here. Yet this move is very unsightly and undercuts her efforts to empower the oppressed.  I don't think this is a good context for her to make her point. And I think she has tried stand out against the grain to make a point. Yet that doesn't mean she in disingenuous. I think some of it is lack of political experience. Somewhat similar to Marianne Williamson. She made several political errors due to lack if experience.  

[zambize]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

You seem to have a different impression than I do. I don't see Omar as a self-aggrandizing idiot. I see her as someone who fights for the oppressed. Yet she is not always politically savy and has made unforced errors. 

Omar has strongly acknowledged the Armenian genocide. She stated "My issue was not with the substance of this resolution. *Of course* we should acknowledge the Genocide. My issue was with the timing and context. I think we should demand accountability for human rights abuses consistently, not simply when it suits our political goals". . . Omar fights for those oppressed and I believe she is genuine here. Yet this move is very unsightly and undercuts her efforts to empower the oppressed.  I don't think this is a good context for her to make her point. And I think she has tried stand out against the grain to make a point. Yet that doesn't mean she in disingenuous. I think some of it is lack of political experience. Somewhat similar to Marianne Williamson. She made several political errors due to lack if experience.  

It really hinges on her personal motive on why she voted no for, and knowing her turkish relations I definitely assumed the worse of the options.  I definitely respect other reads on the situation though 

[Forestluv]

15 hours ago, zambize said:

It really hinges on her personal motive on why she voted no for, 

She did not vote "no", she voted "present". There is a difference, yet most people don't consider nuances and interpreted her vote as "no". This is why she is trying so hard to explain that she didn't vote "no". This is one reason why I consider her vote as a political error. She was not politically savy enough to know that her "present" vote would be interpreted as a "no" vote by most people.