LOADING

Type to search

News

CSUN holds a post-election panel led by The Young Turks

Share
Photo shows four members of the Young Turks seated at a discussion panel

“The Young Turks” (TYT) on Fusion held a live showing of the web series at the Little Theatre in Nordhoff Hall Wednesday night to discuss the results of the 2016 presidential election.

The panelists were TYT hosts John Iadarola and Ana Kasparian, Vice President of programming and correspondent at Fusion Nando Vila, and former “The Daily Show” correspondent Brian Unger.

“The DNC [Democratic National Committee] went out of its way, they had already selected [Democratic candidate] Hillary Clinton as the nominee,” said Kasparian, looking at the Democratic Party as having ruined the election for themselves.

As revealed by WikiLeaks, Clinton was seen to have been favored by the DNC over her primary opponent Bernie Sanders.

“There were polls indicating that Donald Trump was going to beat her if she was the nominee,” Kasparian said. “If you put Trump against Bernie Sanders, that’s not the case. He would have beaten him. He certainly didn’t have to deal with any email scandal, he didn’t have to deal with Benghazi, he didn’t have to deal with any accusations of corporate influence and corruption because he did not take money from big donors.”

During a Q&A session of the show with CSUN students, two outbursts about the show title occurred. Young Turks were a political movement in Turkey that caused the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915, known as the Armenian Genocide. The Turkish government denies the genocide happened, and some critics of TYT have called the show’s host Cenk Uyger a Armenian Genocide denier.

“I would never in a million years, work for a man who denies the genocide, work for a show that takes on a name that has a negative meaning,” Kasparian said, speaking to the heckler and to the audience. “So, I just want you guys to understand that has nothing to do with Turks or Armenians, it has to do with independent media challenging those in power, challenging those who are a part of the status quo and part of the establishment.”

Upon returning to the conversation of the consequences of the election, Iadarola went back to criticizing the DNC and its role in failing to win control over the government.

He criticized DNC interim chairwoman Donna Brazile, who was recently revealed to have sent questions before a town hall primary debate to Clinton, of not feeling worried about losing her job.

“If you can keep your job after losing the presidency, control the senate, more seats in the house, more state legislatures, more governorships,” Iadarola said. “At what point do you have that job taken away from you? In other countries, they have votes of no confidence, does anyone in the room have confidence in the leadership of the Democratic party right now?”

Some students in the audience responded back, “No.”

Jerry Mendez, 19, cinema and television arts major and junior, said he thought the TYT event gave him a new perspective on events occurring in the United States, but said he feels worried as part of a minority group.

“The power that Trump has is terrifying,” Mendez said. “There’s check and balances, but Republicans are running the Congress and Senate. Just terrified, disappointed, shocked.”

His friend Rubie Magallanes, ELPS graduate student, 25, heard of TYT through her sister, who she said is a fan.

“Yesterday I thought it was going to be a very different discussion,” Magallanes said about the aftermath of the election. “I feel like a lot of people are very scared. The issues taken on immigration and abortion scares me.”

Given the protests at CSUN and across the country, the frustration will continue, said Vila.

“It’s an interesting undercurrent that you’re seeing in certain sections of American society,” Vila said. “There’s just a huge amount of frustration and mistrust and of general rage toward anything that is perceived to be a powerful, cultural elite political power. You know the generalized blind rage toward it.”

2 Comments

  1. Choicevoice Nov 19, 2016

    Author of article, Ryan Mancini:

    It is very embarrassing for someone who tries to pass himself off as a “journalist” to rely on one prejudicial source. (Inasmuch as the source you linked to professes to be about “History.” In this case, they are all about “propaganda.”)

    You carbon copied the erroneous claim, “Young Turks were a political movement in Turkey that caused the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915, known as the Armenian Genocide.”

    There are many ways to disprove this fallacy, and too bad you did not lift a finger to investigate. Such does not bode well for your credibility.

    As far as the numbers, you could check out this Near East Relief Report of 1921. (The Near East Relief organization was no friend of the Ottoman Turks.)

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-RU08P6-fyINGM0ZmU0N2EtNTg4Mi00M2U3LTgwZDMtNjE0OWYyZDBlYzIz/view

    Look on Page 5 under “Relief”. It says over 1,000,000 Armenians are alive and being well fed, further mentioning that the rest died of famine, sickness etc.

    Many sources of the time, including the Encyclopedia Britannica (no friend of the Ottoman Turks), calculated the total pre-war Ottoman-Armenian population as 1.5 million.

    We have to respect math.

    Of the half-million who lost their lives, the vast majority died of famine and disease, and other non-violent causes. Millions of Turks and Muslims also died of these causes. More Ottoman soldiers, the only line of defense between nothing less than life or death for their nation, died of hunger/disease than through battle.

    In order to prove genocide, you must have evidence. The British tried very hard to come up with evidence after nearly three years of searching, in preparation for the Malta Tribunal, and all they found were hearsay and forgeries. Nearly everything touted today as evidence was rejected by no less than the greatest enemy of the Turks, at the time.

    The Armenians rebelled (you can look at no less a source than the manifesto of Armenia’s first prime minister, Hovhannes Katchaznouni. Luckily, we have the internet), and they were temporarily relocated to farther-away villages. (Not prison, mind you, as we Americans did with our Japanese and other “Axis” citizens during WWII.) There was no plan to exterminate the Armenians. (If there were, two-thirds could not have survived. Common sense.)

    In fact, the Ottoman government prosecuted nearly fifteen-hundred for committing crimes against the Armenians. Over sixty were executed. That would be one lopsided way to run a genocide.

    You also have to look at the other side of the coin. The Armenians were not innocent. (The 1948 genocide law exempts political groups. Victims must be innocent, as the Jews of WWII.) They not only rebelled, but when their Russian (and after the war, their French) allies occupied vast regions of Ottoman territory since 1914, the Armenians engaged in a campaign to systematically mass murder hundreds of thousands. The Ottoman archives (prepared for internal usage, and thus honest) calculates a toll of half a million, which is curiously the same number as the Armenians who lost their lives. (Although in the latter’s case, mainly in a non-violent fashion.)

    You can check out the 1919 report of two pro-Armenian Americans, Niles and Sutherland, for starters: http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Niles_and_Sutherland.pdf

    You can’t go to a laughable site of a TV network for your evidence, any more than you can go to a questionable site such as “WIkipedia,” where anyone can write anything. To find the truth, you must dig up sources that have no conflict-of-interest. In the same manner that a legitimate court of law would demand.

    I realize you live in a state where you are bombarded more than in other places with this genocide propaganda, given how many Armenian-Americans are zealous about the subject… but you must be responsible. Bottom line: if you cannot find the factual evidence for a criminal act, yet you still make the charge, you invite hatred upon the accused. Only in this case, the accused is not one individual, but an entire people, and a nation.

    And if you must open the subject, you cannot do so without acknowledging the Turkish, Muslim, Jewish and other victims of the Armenians. If you do not do so, you are supporting the notion that some lives are more valuable than others. That is what we call, accurately in this case, “racism.”
    .

  2. The Genocidal Turks Nov 11, 2016

    This is a show founded by an Armenian Holocaust denier and given the name of the perpetrators of that Genocide.

Skip to content