...if an innocent person confesses to a crime, the guilty party gets away with it.
All the guilty people are dead. It was 100 years ago. Everyone left is innocent of it.
The rest of the world (apart from some Russians) believes that the Turks deliberately committed mass murder of Armenian civilians.
But they all died a long time ago.
Anyone dealing with the Turkish state now knows that they can't be trusted to tell the truth.
This is a 100% artificial concern. You're pretending this matters to start or continue a fight based on an ancient grievance. I understand this. It's destructive and unjust and potentially destabilizing. It advances the cause of hatred and it benefits no one. Just let it go.
...the question is how people are dealing with the history they have inherited from their ancestors. No one is free to ignore history.
It's unjust to try to burden innocent people with their ancestors' guilt. It's also self-defeating, because, if you look back far enough, I guarantee your ancestors also have blood on their hands, just like everyone else's ancestors.
No one called for "not talking about it". People should talk about it if they want and not talk about it if they don't. But people who weren't alive and making decisions at the time are innocent of what happened. They should be free from dealing with it if they choose.
I don't know about your part of "the West", but I would never be willing to be held even partially financially liable for anything that happened 100 years ago. If the individuals who did it can't be held responsible, then no one should be.
I have taken no side. I don't care which side is right. I'd like people to stop fighting.
They keep telling me it's important though. Yet they haven't offered a compelling explanation of that importance. It's almost like everyone's reciting lines from some alien melodrama.
Why would anyone trust or not trust based on some true or false second- or third-hand story told or omitted about some event from 100 years ago? Is that a wise decision-making criteria?
I'm not seeing how it's relevant. If it's relevant to you, that seems to be something about you rather than something about the people you trust or don't trust.
Slashdot Mirror
...if an innocent person confesses to a crime, the guilty party gets away with it.
All the guilty people are dead. It was 100 years ago. Everyone left is innocent of it.
The rest of the world (apart from some Russians) believes that the Turks deliberately committed mass murder of Armenian civilians.
But they all died a long time ago.
Anyone dealing with the Turkish state now knows that they can't be trusted to tell the truth.
This is a 100% artificial concern. You're pretending this matters to start or continue a fight based on an ancient grievance. I understand this. It's destructive and unjust and potentially destabilizing. It advances the cause of hatred and it benefits no one. Just let it go.
Congrats?
You're just the clown, and not even the Auguste, but the Bouffon.
I don't know who they are. Do they also want people to not start/continue fights about 100-year-old grievances?
...the question is how people are dealing with the history they have inherited from their ancestors. No one is free to ignore history.
It's unjust to try to burden innocent people with their ancestors' guilt. It's also self-defeating, because, if you look back far enough, I guarantee your ancestors also have blood on their hands, just like everyone else's ancestors.
Which side?
I won't be condemning people as "dishonest" for not talking about it. If they don't want to talk about it, that's up to them.
100 years passed
Those who wish to remember, remember.
No one called for "not talking about it". People should talk about it if they want and not talk about it if they don't. But people who weren't alive and making decisions at the time are innocent of what happened. They should be free from dealing with it if they choose.
I don't know about your part of "the West", but I would never be willing to be held even partially financially liable for anything that happened 100 years ago. If the individuals who did it can't be held responsible, then no one should be.
Failing to disclose non-relevant information isn't "dishonest".
I nearby apologize to everyone, on behalf of everyone, for anything and everything that ever occurred. Does that solve it? If not, why not?
So fucking own up that your ancestors did something horrible
What if they just don't want to? There's probably someone somewhere who said what you want to hear. Why isn't that good enough?
I actually find it pretty easy to dismiss whatever about 100-year-old events.
Civilized people have the decency to not build the future on top of the past's graveyards.
What's the alternative? Giving up on the future? Why would anyone want to be "civilized" if it meant they were denied a future?
Then the world can move on.
If the world wanted to move on, the world could move on, regardless. It seems pretty clear that they don't want to.
I have taken no side. I don't care which side is right. I'd like people to stop fighting.
They keep telling me it's important though. Yet they haven't offered a compelling explanation of that importance. It's almost like everyone's reciting lines from some alien melodrama.
a straight forward, plain language sentence is fucking perplexing to you
Which one?
So you can't think of any way anyone benefits? Neither can I.
We could tell you all day, but you would not hear.
Because it's all about someone's feelings being validated? If not that, then what?
Ok, so the answer is related to your feelings about the Turk's attitude. Why should anyone else care about someone's feelings about Turk attitudes?
I was told this was important.
Why would anyone trust or not trust based on some true or false second- or third-hand story told or omitted about some event from 100 years ago? Is that a wise decision-making criteria?
I'm not seeing how it's relevant. If it's relevant to you, that seems to be something about you rather than something about the people you trust or don't trust.
So where is the big deal in saying...
Where's the big deal in not bothering to say it?
well, you get my point I hope
Not really. What's the best outcome? Who benefits?
And? What's your preferred outcome? Who benefits?