Three Turkish Voices At UCLA, November 6

[bell-the-cat]

bell-the-anal-cat.

Tom the stinky, flea-ridden hedgehog.

[TomServo]

Tom the stinky, flea-ridden hedgehog.

Damn straight.

[Anonymouse]

I would have preferred "Three Scholars with an interest in Turkish History". The ethnic origin of the three is entirely irrelevant, and it is offensive to see it mentioned in that poster. UCLA are, by stressing the importance of their race, implying that because a person is from a particular ethnic group they must (regardless of truth or facts) automatically believe what that ethnic group is stereotypically held to uniformly believe. That is racism in my book.

In your book maybe, but race has nothing to do with it here and your original usage of "racism" implies race, therefore it is misplaced. That's all.

Being of a certain ethnicity is not necessarily tied in with race.

[karoaper]

In your book maybe, but race has nothing to do with it here and your original usage of "racism" implies race, therefore it is misplaced. That's all.

Being of a certain ethnicity is not necessarily tied in with race.

Is every instance of "reasonable" generalization racism. Me thinks not. In this case, it is reasonable to outline these three scholars as extreme exceptions to the general rule concerning turkish ideas/convictions. It could have been racist to alltogether ignore them just cause they're turks. Obviously that't not the case and these three "individuals" are allowed to share their thoughts irrelevant of the fact that they're turks.

[winoman]

Of course these people are Turkish and of course it is significant that they have broken out of the denialist mold and have had the courage and insight to speak up and attempt to move this issue and Turkish society foreward. They should be commended and the fact of their "Turkishness" is indeed relevant. Anyone but a stick up their a$$ dolt would understand this.

[karoaper]

Racism has a very strict meaning. It means that a person is forming an opinion, often negative and discriminatory, of another person based on no other factors but the other person's race. When the Europeans went to Africa to pick slaves, that was racism. They chose to enslave Africans because of their race. The way the British oppresed the Indians, that was racism.

To distrust the turks for an Armenian is not racism, because our opinion of them is formed through many centuries of bad history. It could be racist for Armenians to distrust and hate all altaic and turcic people for example.

[winoman]

Whats even more ludicrous is to ID someone as belonging to a certain ethnic group - when they are widely known as such and likely consider themselves to be such.

[Thai-Samurai]

I for one would like to nominate them for the Noble Peace Prize. (The 3 scholars)
And I would even go so far to adopt their children and raise them Christian to show how much I appreciate their cause.

[ArmenianKid]

To bad i cant go i only live about 1000 miles away. that and im tired of hearing old turks whine.

[bell-the-cat]

In your book maybe, but race has nothing to do with it here and your original usage of "racism" implies race, therefore it is misplaced. That's all.

Race should have nothing to do with it. But here it obviously is, since it is given such extreme prominance in that poster. It suggests that the primary reason they are there is because they are Turkish, and not because they have useful things to say.