mnc@hou2g.UUCP (#M.CONDICT) (05/03/84)
The past week has been devoted to remembrance of the Holocaust. Not being as well-informed about the events that led up to it as I would like, I am unable to understand exactly how it could have happened at all. In particular, I wonder why more of those who were taken to death camps did not physically resist. Was it because they did not know what their fate would be or because things were arranged by the Fascist government in such a way that they had no alternative? What was different in the case of the Warsaw ghetto uprising, where there was open rebellion? Private responses by mail would be appreciated if my ignorance is annoying to those who are very sensitive about this issue. Michael Condict
tac@teldata.UUCP (05/04/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice)
DISCLAIMER: This is just to provoke thought, I am in no way advocating
or condoning the "Holocaust".
Sometime near the start of this century (the date escapes me now) the
Turkish people (or their government) embarked upon a program of genocide
against the Armenians. They were very successful, and there are not many
Armenians left in the world. There were minor outcrys about this
attrocity from around the globe, but no major sanctions. No one now
holds world wide rememberance weeks, nor makes major motion pictures
about this subject.
There are two reasons for this.
1) There were not enough Armenians spread around the rest of the
world to effectively sway opinion.
2) Those left did not do (and don't do each year) as effective a
job of PR as the Jewish community.
I don't think what happened to one is any worse than what happened to
the other. Why don't we cry for the Armenians unborn?
From the Soapbox of
Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac}
A Radical A Day Keeps The Government At Bay.
(...Once there were songs about rights instead of wrongs,
Once was the time of man!...)martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (05/06/84)
I see nothing wrong with people sympathizing with Armenian suffering. However the German murder of European Jewry is not comparable. The comparable case would have been the Turks' wiping out the Zionists in Palestine who like the Armenians were seen as a threat to national or imperial integrity. The Turks in fact wanted to wipe out the Zionists. However, the Germans as allies of the Turks intervened on behalf of the Jews. The Armenians were supported by the Russians, but the Russians as enemies of the Turks were unable to intervene on behalf of the Armenians. At the time of the massacre of the Armenians there was a massive public outcry; however, the slaughter was quickly overshadowed by the aftermath of European war and economic disaster. Nowadays no one talks much about the massacre of Armenians because they were massacred by third-world Muslims who as a group are popular with Western leftist intellectuals. The massacre of Armenians is further evidence that the existence of independent Muslim states in the 20th century is a regressive development in the history of humanity. If leftist intellectuals were truly interested in human rights or human progress, they would call for the anihilation and colonization of states like Libya, Iran or Syria. Sympathy for Arab and Islamic nationalism is evidence of Western self-hate or leftist mindlessness and sometimes leftist antisemitism.
tac@teldata.UUCP (05/07/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice) >> If leftist intellectuals were truly interested in human rights or human >> progress, they would call for the anihilation and colonization of states >> like Libya, Iran or Syria. Sympathy for Arab and Islamic nationalism >> is evidence of Western self-hate or leftist mindlessness and sometimes >> leftist antisemitism. Oh, great! "If ... were truely interested in human rights or human progress, they would call for the anihilation..." Sure anihilation of *YOUR* enemies is helping human rights, anihilation of your enemies' enemies is abomination. And I thought we male chauvenist pigs had a monopoly on double standards. To rephrase your last sentance: Sympathy for Israeli nationalism is evidence of Western self-hate or leftist mindlessness and sometimes leftist antiarabism. Doesn't make either good dogma or much sense does it. WE ARE TRYING TO GET YOU MIDDLE EASTERN TYPES TO STOP KILLING YOURSELVES OFF! The idea isn't to change the group that is getting killed! I don't recall reading anything in Jewish religion which says it is alright to carry out genocide on the other guy, are you sure you are Jewish, or are you just using that as a shield so you can't be held responsible for what you are proposing? From the Soapbox of Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac} More suffering and death has been caused in the name of religion than from all other causes since recorded history began. (want to argue that one?)
david@randvax.UUCP (05/08/84)
---
There are a variety of reasons why the "Armenian genocide" is overlooked
by many today. I can think of two principal reasons why this "event" is
overshadowed by the Holocaust:
o The sheer numbers involved. Most estimates of the two phenomena
indicate at least an order of magnitude difference in the number
of murders. In addition, the Holocaust is emotionally, chroni-
logically, and causally tied in with both the overall Nazi plan
for subjugation and elimination of all "inferior races" and
with the most traumatic event in most living people's memories,
World War Two. This gives it much more immediacy and impact.
o Despite what Armenian nationalists argue, there is in fact signi-
ficant doubt among historians as to whether the Turkish slaughter
of Armenians ever really took place. There is no such doubt
vis a vis the Holocaust (in spite of Reichsfuhrer Butz and his
cronies infantile prattle).
Now, as to martillo@ihuxt.UUCP's point:
> Nowadays no one talks much about the massacre of Armenians because they
> were massacred by third-world Muslims who as a group are popular with
> Western leftist intellectuals.
> The massacre of Armenians is further evidence that the existence of
> independent Muslim states in the 20th century is a regressive develop-
> ment in the history of humanity.
> If leftist intellectuals were truly interested in human rights or human
> progress, they would call for the anihilation and colonization of states
> like Libya, Iran or Syria. Sympathy for Arab and Islamic nationalism
> is evidence of Western self-hate or leftist mindlessness and sometimes
> leftist antisemitism.
First, no one has EVER "talk(ed) much" about the "massacre of Armenians"
regardless of intellectual fashions. So, to blame contemporary lack
of interest in the issue on a conspiracy of silence on the part of
Wog-loving pinkos is, at best, a red herring.
Whether or not "the existence of independent Muslim states in the 20th
century is a regressive devlopment in the history of humanity" is an
open question, I suppose. I imagine, however, that the same statement
could be made regarding capitalist, socialist, or what-have-you states,
as well as the Vatican, Armenians, Toyotas, and Wendy's Old Fashioned
Hamburgers. Where, indeed, is the beef?
As for the need for "anihilation (sic) and colonization" of Islamic
states, this argument sounds remarkably Hitlerian. Or, more to the
point, I can just imagine some Ottoman prince in the early twentieth
century saying, "The continued existence of these Armenian rabble is
truly a regression in the ongoing course of Turkish progress. Let's
annihilate them for the good of humanity!" Keep in mind that the
identities of supermen and inferior races tend to vary depending upon
who's pinning labels on whom.
--- das
"Reading the net is rather unpleasant-
ly like being drunk."
"What's so unpleasant about being
drunk?"
"Ask a glass of water."fischer@eosp1.UUCP (Elizabeth Fischer) (05/11/84)
If, indeed, "there is in fact significant doubt among historians as to whether the Turkish slaughter of Armenians took place," then I've got a lot of dead relatives you're going to have to explain about.