Nakhichevan

[levon]

Re: Nakhichevan

Don't apologise. The purpose of experience is to be able extrapolate the knowledge you have gained about one subject onto another subject, thus avoiding having to start from scratch with that second subject. That is why we say "knowledge is power".

I really don't think you should make baseless comments. Either state your sources, for the content in the previous post, or refrain from making statements you cannot back. Frankly, your "experience" in another subject has absolutely no significance in providing credibility for your posts on Armenian History. Either prove what you are claiming, or refrain from making baseless comments relying merely on "your experience".

In your case, it is not "knowledge is power", but "propaganda is power". Prove your points.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Nakhichevan

I'm not. I guess I shouldn'tve given what I've personally inferred from my own experience of looking into our history, before giving you the source for the facts I've considered.

Don't apologise. The purpose of experience is to be able extrapolate the knowledge you have gained about one subject onto another subject, thus avoiding having to start from scratch with that second subject. That is why we say "knowledge is power".

[levon]

Re: Nakhichevan

You know so little about your own history.

There were no secular Armenian schools before the 19th century. Most Armenians were illiterate before the 19th century. Publications were mostly limited to religious texts until the 19th century. Western Armenians until then knew, and wanted to know, next to nothing about historic Armenia. It was only in the 19th century, as a result of growing secularisation, modernisation, and an increasing sense of national identity, that they started to be concious about historic Armenia and its history and desired to read books about it. By theend of the 19th century that involved the production of proper history books and proper research, but much of the early material produced just involved the compiling of existing religious myths and traditions.

Where are your sources? Got any to back yourself up?

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Nakhichevan

Did they??? 19th Century? not in 18th or 17th or 16th century prints, or in written form from earlier centuries? I didn't realize you had a direct line to the spirits of deceased west Armenians to instantly check what they read from which century and how they pronounced what they read!

You know so little about your own history.

There were no secular Armenian schools before the 19th century. Most Armenians were illiterate before the 19th century. Publications were mostly limited to religious texts until the 19th century. Western Armenians until then knew, and wanted to know, next to nothing about historic Armenia. It was only in the 19th century, as a result of growing secularisation, modernisation, and an increasing sense of national identity, that they started to be concious about historic Armenia and its history and desired to read books about it. By theend of the 19th century that involved the production of proper history books and proper research, but much of the early material produced just involved the compiling of existing religious myths and traditions.

[levon]

Re: Nakhichevan

Ok, so engage me now with your views, which are much less flawed. I'm trying to say that the Church found use of that story, since it served Armenian national interests, and likely changed it from just a local story in the Ararat plain, to something to be embraced in all places where there is an Armenian church. Churches were the closest thing to tv networks in those days. So its promulgation likely happened through the church, given that it's a Christian institution and hence has complete access to that story.

Again, I'm not saying it happened one way or another, what I'm saying is that logic such as "They probably could do it, and they likely wanted to do it, then they did it" Is flawed, as it infers a conclusion without proof based entirely on what could and was likely to happen. Furthermore, in order to say could and likely you would first have to prove that the church could indeed do that and was likely to do it. And this last part cannot be based on your personal views. Finally, unless you show evidence that the church did do it, your personal views and inferences are worthless.

[gegev]

Re: Nakhichevan

gegev this site seems to be very restrictive.
Is it an active BB or its me the problem?

It isn't, if you search for Nakhidjevan Ethnic Cleanings History, you'll find it easily, in Google it is the first choice.

[lampron]

Re: Nakhichevan

It is actually the Armenian government that wants the incident hushed-up / kept silent (Azerbaijan simply says it never happened). .

brilliant! So Armenia and Azerbaijan are united in the cover up of the destruction of the Armenian khachkars in Jugha? I have a better one for you to use next time. How about it was the Armenians of Nakhichevan who did it (all were attacked and driven out in 1988 as you know, but never mind about that), in order to give Azerbaijan a bad name?

[londontsi]

Re: Nakhichevan

http://+.com/index.php?showtopic=14236&st=220
Replace the + sign above with H y e f o r u m to enter the website.

gegev this site seems to be very restrictive.

Is it an active BB or its me the problem?

[lampron]

Re: Nakhichevan

Because they learned the name from its printed form found in 19thC Armenian books.

Did they??? 19th Century? not in 18th or 17th or 16th century prints, or in written form from earlier centuries? I didn't realize you had a direct line to the spirits of deceased west Armenians to instantly check what they read from which century and how they pronounced what they read!

[jgk3]

Re: Nakhichevan

That's not proof. And if you've read it somewhere I would surely like to know the source of their reasoning.

Now, look at the bold part. You are using the reasoning "if they could do it, then they probably it. That kind of reasoning is flawed, yet you keep presenting it as fact.

I'm not. I guess I shouldn'tve given what I've personally inferred from my own experience of looking into our history, before giving you the source for the facts I've considered.

That's one view of it all. There are also accounts showing a completely different viewpoint. How are you so sure that this version of the story is the correct one?

Furthermore, you claimed in a previous post that the Church had likely ordered the changes, yet your source simply states taht at some point in time Armenians started to refer to Ararat as Noah's landing site. There is nothing related to the source of the change, yet you want to confidently state that it was the result of the Church's power.

Again, your reasoning is "it probably was so, the church could do it, therefore the church did do it. Flawed

Ok, so engage me now with your views, which are much less flawed. I'm trying to say that the Church found use of that story, since it served Armenian national interests, and likely changed it from just a local story in the Ararat plain, to something to be embraced in all places where there is an Armenian church. Churches were the closest thing to tv networks in those days. So its promulgation likely happened through the church, given that it's a Christian institution and hence has complete access to that story.