Political activists continuously provide new arguments in order to convince uninformed individuals to flock to their perspective. One such argument was encountered in an article. The argument was that since Armenian women and children were relocated, then there must have been a genocidal plan of extermination, and asked why the Ottoman government would relocate women and children. Another activist explained why drawing such a conclusion through this sort of speculation would not be beneficial for society.
It is important to note that though it is sometimes convenient to speculate and assume that plans of genocide had taken place, it should be argued as a conspiracy theory and not an argument proving anything. In a court of law, speculation is usually frowned upon because a specific conclusion is provided to the jury even though that may not be the only conclusion that can be drawn.
A commenter explains that "Lewis completely ignores the fact that not just rebels or men were
"deported", but all the women and children too were uprooted from their
homes and led on death marches" and then makes the conclusion of "What purposes would there be to do that, if not Genocide?"
This is simply a logical fallacy, you're saying that since Armenians died in relocation convoys, therefore there must have been death marches. However, you don't consider the fact that the Cherokee Indians were also relocated by the U.S. Army, and that Cherokee Indians died as well; so should we conclude that there were death marches and thus the U.S. Army committed a Cherokee Genocide? Historians don't seem to think so, since there was no intention to destroy them, just to move them as is implied by the Relocation Laws of the Ottomans who relocated the Armenians.
You also imply that since women and children as well were relocated, then it must have been genocide, but you don't consider that the men would have wanted their women and children with them as well, or that the women and children would have wanted to be with their husbands/fathers.
You don't consider that the Ottomans also gave time to each family to give their children to orphanages or to trusted Turkish families to adopt, because traveling in 1915 was harsh and could result in death of small children; of course many Armenians could not separate themselves from their own children, many parents cannot make such a hard decision.
You don't consider that the Ottomans were not trying to harm the Armenians, and thus they did not want to ruin Armenian families and lives by separating the men from the women and children.
You don't even consider the idea that if the Armenian women and children were separated from their fathers or husbands, then they could also die as well. Remember that back then most women did not work, they took care of their families, and thus the men did the job and brought the money and food to the family. How could Armenian families survive without their fathers and husbands?
In your argument you are concluding that if the Ottomans were even more cruel, they wouldn't have been guilty of genocide.
In your argument, you are also making the logical connection that since Jewish men and women were separated in the Holocaust, then the Holocaust was not a genocide.
I applaud your effort in trying to convince people in an unproven genocide with no motivation or evidence of intent provided, but please do the research before speculating on what is and what isn't a genocide.
Though one may not agree with the conclusions that the political activist has drawn, the argument made by the activist showed the logical fallacy in the argument that "Armenian Women and Children being relocated proves genocide."
One must consider only one thing when deciding whether the Armenian Genocide is a proven label for the events described: Intent.
The Ottomans did not intend to destroy the Armenians because after 93 years, no solid archival evidence has been provided explaining why the Ottomans were motivated to do this or that they even planned any sort of extermination campaign. Some may argue otherwise, but the current evidence only allows for speculation of a possible genocide rather than proof.
No physical evidence (like with the Holocaust, the gas chambers show clear premeditated intent to annihilate the Jews) has been provided to show the Ottoman intent to destroy. It can still be argued that there was intent to kill because the locations Armenians were relocated to were not the most friendly regions of the world, but that may not have been intentional.
Wow, comparing 1915 to 'just' the Trail of Tears is hardly a resounding endorsement for your idea it wasn't genocide.
Ah, but it is a great argument made by "Brian A.". At least the Ottomans had a good reason to relocate the Armenians there was a general rebellion during and before World War I and the Russians were already deep inside Ottoman territory, under this pressure they decided that the only way to quickly stop the rebellions was to relocate the Armenians in specific villages and cities, whom they thought were in general helping the Armenian Revolutionaries. However, the United States didn't even have a good reason to relocate the Cherokee, they did it to make room for settlers who wanted the Cherokee land for gold.
Anyway, unless you are implying that the United States committed genocide against the Cherokee Nation, I suggest you don't follow this route of debate.