So because the sacrifice of the present and the future for the past is still occurring, we, personally, directly need to aid in the continuance of such? I’m not all suggesting we should deny, burying and ignoring anything about the past, however continually revisiting the issue when it is relatively recent history I believe is of questionable utility.

Passions, enmity and hatred come as a result of an inability to distance yourself from events that in reality have nothing to do with the modern you ( I use “you” in a rhetorical sense, not you, Simon personally). You see this a lot in the Arab/West, frankly as Westerners we had nothing at all to do with the Crusades and yet it still fuels passions in the Middle East.

I am strongly versed in matters of defense, national strategy and I view the increase defense budgets of China, Japan, and South Korea with a slight dread. I think you need to remember that the facts of history aren’t words on a sheet of paper, they are pawns in regional power plays. If all parties involved were able to examine the facts as dispassionately as you propose (which I would have no problem supporting) then I cannot see how anyone could oppose the effort. However, dispassionate discussion (as the comment thread above ours would indicate) is not possible given our nearness to the historical events being discussed. The facts of the WHOLE of the first part of the 20th century needs to be examined in the circles of Academia, not in the larger political sphere. When such discussions take place in the political sphere they lead to arms races.

So in terms of point #3, I agree with you, the discussion will come out when the people are ready. My analysis says that the PRC, DPRK, ROK and Japan are not ready to have this discussion in the tone that it needs to happen, especially not when I see the deployment of offensive strike fighters like SU-27MKKs and Chengdu J-10′s in the PRC Air Force being accelerated
.

So because the sacrifice of the present and the future for the past is still occurring, we, personally, directly need to aid in the continuance of such? I’m not all suggesting we should deny, burying and ignoring anything about the past, however continually revisiting the issue when it is relatively recent history I believe is of questionable utility.

Passions, enmity and hatred come as a result of an inability to distance yourself from events that in reality have nothing to do with the modern you ( I use “you” in a rhetorical sense, not you, Simon personally). You see this a lot in the Arab/West, frankly as Westerners we had nothing at all to do with the Crusades and yet it still fuels passions in the Middle East.

I am strongly versed in matters of defense, national strategy and I view the increase defense budgets of China, Japan, and South Korea with a slight dread. I think you need to remember that the facts of history aren’t words on a sheet of paper, they are pawns in regional power plays. If all parties involved were able to examine the facts as dispassionately as you propose (which I would have no problem supporting) then I cannot see how anyone could oppose the effort. However, dispassionate discussion (as the comment thread above ours would indicate) is not possible given our nearness to the historical events being discussed. The facts of the WHOLE of the first part of the 20th century needs to be examined in the circles of Academia, not in the larger political sphere. When such discussions take place in the political sphere they lead to arms races.

So in terms of point #3, I agree with you, the discussion will come out when the people are ready. My analysis says that the PRC, DPRK, ROK and Japan are not ready to have this discussion in the tone that it needs to happen, especially not when I see the deployment of offensive strike fighters like SU-27MKKs and Chengdu J-10′s in the PRC Air Force being accelerated
.

#2, truth and reconciliation processes aren’t imposed by some uninvolved third parties (i.e., a United States Congress). The processes are engaged in by the peoples, nations, ethnic groups, factions, tribes that had been directly involved and impacted by a conflict.

#3, those processes only work when people engage in them willingly. Only when people are ready. Sometimes that readiness is almost instantaneous (South Africa) and sometimes generations must pass before people are willing to risk exposure, willing to risk what they might find. As is the case with the Chinese and Japanese historians. Such processes can’t and won’t work today with Turkey because the Turkish people are unwilling to examine that past and see what they might find there. And unwilling to let anyone else examine that past too. Dead give-away, always a sure sign that folks aren’t ready…

#4, in so many conflicts around the world, armed and otherwise, you will find that people are ALREADY sacrificing the lives and well-being of those here and now, BECAUSE of what happened in the past. You may not find that acceptable but people having been waiting around to find out what you think – people are already out there sacrificing their presents and their futures all along, because of what happened in the past. We’ve been doing it forever. And the very thing you propose, denying the past, burying the past, ignoring the past is precisely the kind of thing that so inflames passions, fuels enmity and sustains all the hatred and mistrust.

So don’t dismiss this entirely, the value in people knowing the truth, acknowledging it, and then agreeing to move on to a different future. That’s the goal of what’s been going on with the joint examination in Nanjing, and it seems likely to benefit everyone.

#2, truth and reconciliation processes aren’t imposed by some uninvolved third parties (i.e., a United States Congress). The processes are engaged in by the peoples, nations, ethnic groups, factions, tribes that had been directly involved and impacted by a conflict.

#3, those processes only work when people engage in them willingly. Only when people are ready. Sometimes that readiness is almost instantaneous (South Africa) and sometimes generations must pass before people are willing to risk exposure, willing to risk what they might find. As is the case with the Chinese and Japanese historians. Such processes can’t and won’t work today with Turkey because the Turkish people are unwilling to examine that past and see what they might find there. And unwilling to let anyone else examine that past too. Dead give-away, always a sure sign that folks aren’t ready…

#4, in so many conflicts around the world, armed and otherwise, you will find that people are ALREADY sacrificing the lives and well-being of those here and now, BECAUSE of what happened in the past. You may not find that acceptable but people having been waiting around to find out what you think – people are already out there sacrificing their presents and their futures all along, because of what happened in the past. We’ve been doing it forever. And the very thing you propose, denying the past, burying the past, ignoring the past is precisely the kind of thing that so inflames passions, fuels enmity and sustains all the hatred and mistrust.

So don’t dismiss this entirely, the value in people knowing the truth, acknowledging it, and then agreeing to move on to a different future. That’s the goal of what’s been going on with the joint examination in Nanjing, and it seems likely to benefit everyone.

This year the political majority in Congress passed a resolution that dubbed the 1915 Massacre in Armenia a “Genocide”. The facts I have read of the case would seem to support the claim. My main problem with the resolution is this:

The Turks are some of our strongest allies in the region, and they are at a very sensitive stage with regards to our involvement in Iraq. Our passing of the resolution gave them pretext to begin military operations in Kurdish Northern Iraq against the KPP, in what is currently the most stable and most prosperous part of the country.
In effect the current political majority used the murder of people from almost a hundred years ago to rile up the foreign policy situation now (mostly to tweak GWB’s nose). That would be all well and good, but there is a very real risk (and this has proven to be the case in recent events) that it could cost lives in the here and now.

Under no circumstances do I find it acceptable to sacrifice the lives and well-being of people that live in the NOW for what has happened in the past, and that is PRECISELY what I mean by bringing a conflict that belongs to our grandparents and bringing it into our generation.

This year the political majority in Congress passed a resolution that dubbed the 1915 Massacre in Armenia a “Genocide”. The facts I have read of the case would seem to support the claim. My main problem with the resolution is this:

The Turks are some of our strongest allies in the region, and they are at a very sensitive stage with regards to our involvement in Iraq. Our passing of the resolution gave them pretext to begin military operations in Kurdish Northern Iraq against the KPP, in what is currently the most stable and most prosperous part of the country.
In effect the current political majority used the murder of people from almost a hundred years ago to rile up the foreign policy situation now (mostly to tweak GWB’s nose). That would be all well and good, but there is a very real risk (and this has proven to be the case in recent events) that it could cost lives in the here and now.

Under no circumstances do I find it acceptable to sacrifice the lives and well-being of people that live in the NOW for what has happened in the past, and that is PRECISELY what I mean by bringing a conflict that belongs to our grandparents and bringing it into our generation.

Truth-telling routinely involves people who had no involvement or participation in any crimes. Or in any misdeeds.

Truth-telling applies directly to what happened yesterday, to what happened 50 years ago, 150 years ago. It applies to European actions in the New World, much further back than that. In the US it applies to our own governments’ action and our own people’s actions toward native populations, Africans and slaves and people of color, toward immigrants, Hawaiians, Filipinos, etc..

Truth-telling applies to what happened between Turkey and Armenia, and to British colonial rule in Kenya or French rule in Vietnam, to what happened under Fascist rule in Spain and elsewhere, under communist rule in Eastern Europe, “Cold War” actions undertaken by the West that seemed right at the time but maybe need some truth to be told about them now, because deep injuries were inflicted on others.

In fact, there’s a lot of demand out there for some Truth-Telling about all kinds of things that involved people now gone. But that honestly makes zero difference, none at all. Wounds and injuries inflicted on others, individuals or nations, those typically don’t just disappear when those directly involved die away. Nope, the deepest wounds linger, and often worsen. Again, shout out to friends in the Balkans. And the Baltics. Good morning Cyprus and Lebanon, and shall I go on?

So I do think you misunderstand what “truth-telling” is all about and why people do it. You can get a better understanding of the purpose, process, and outcomes at places such as:
http://www.salzburgseminar.org/ihjr/index3.cfm

Truth-telling routinely involves people who had no involvement or participation in any crimes. Or in any misdeeds.

Truth-telling applies directly to what happened yesterday, to what happened 50 years ago, 150 years ago. It applies to European actions in the New World, much further back than that. In the US it applies to our own governments’ action and our own people’s actions toward native populations, Africans and slaves and people of color, toward immigrants, Hawaiians, Filipinos, etc..

Truth-telling applies to what happened between Turkey and Armenia, and to British colonial rule in Kenya or French rule in Vietnam, to what happened under Fascist rule in Spain and elsewhere, under communist rule in Eastern Europe, “Cold War” actions undertaken by the West that seemed right at the time but maybe need some truth to be told about them now, because deep injuries were inflicted on others.

In fact, there’s a lot of demand out there for some Truth-Telling about all kinds of things that involved people now gone. But that honestly makes zero difference, none at all. Wounds and injuries inflicted on others, individuals or nations, those typically don’t just disappear when those directly involved die away. Nope, the deepest wounds linger, and often worsen. Again, shout out to friends in the Balkans. And the Baltics. Good morning Cyprus and Lebanon, and shall I go on?

So I do think you misunderstand what “truth-telling” is all about and why people do it. You can get a better understanding of the purpose, process, and outcomes at places such as:
http://www.salzburgseminar.org/ihjr/index3.cfm