The Case for Siamanto and Other Forward-Thinking Armenians

[yerazhishda]

Re: The Case for Siamanto and Other Forward-Thinking Armenians

It matters because the larger a minority is the more chances that seccesion can occur, such as what happened in Serbia, what happened to Mexico in regards to Texas, and will most likely happen when Mexicans finally take over southwestern u.s.

Are you referring to what the Mexicans call "Aztlan"? That's a mestizo pipe dream if I ever heard one! lol

Whether this occurs naturally because of ethnic strife, such as majority ethnic group harrassing the minority ethic group, or the flames of succestion are flamed from outside, as in the case of Chechnya, it is dangerious for a nation to deal. When one considers the aweful geopolitcal circumstance that Armenia already is in, the last thing we need are non Armenians who took advantage of our nation letting them live within our borders (assuming we ever have a large minority) and then one day decide to break away from Armenia.

The difference between those breakaway nations and Armenia is that the breakaway nation had historic ties to the land (The Armenians in Azer., The Chechyns, and currently the Ossetians in Georgia). A foreign population that immigrated to Armenia from places such as Africa and China would have no motive to secede.

This is more or less what occured in kosovo, and please do not repeat the bs about genocide committed against the albanians, there is enough evidence online for you to do your own research and see that the media (willingly or not) misinformed the public both about the bosnak-serb conflict and the one in kosovo.

Wow that's the first time I heard that it wasn't a genocide. I'll have to look that up. What about Milosevic? I thought he was an oppressive dictator.

[Armanen]

Re: The Case for Siamanto and Other Forward-Thinking Armenians

Are you referring to what the Mexicans call "Aztlan"? That's a mestizo pipe dream if I ever heard one! lol

Well, if you take a look at the make up of southern california, and now the rest of the southwest, plus as you seemed to agree (the empire is crumbling), then would it really be that suprising to see non integrated mexicans claim land that did belong to them, as you pointed out with the Ossetians and Chechians? Plus, since 2005, more hispanic babies have been born in california than white, non hispanic.

The difference between those breakaway nations and Armenia is that the breakaway nation had historic ties to the land (The Armenians in Azer., The Chechyns, and currently the Ossetians in Georgia). A foreign population that immigrated to Armenia from places such as Africa and China would have no motive to secede.

I see you point, and it would be more valid if an independent chechnya could actually survive on its own. The fact is various anti Russian elements from the west and turkey, pakistan, Iran to lessor extent, fanned the flames, most chechians didn't want independence, just autonomy. It wouldn't be a stretch to see the same occur in Armenia if we had large minorty groups.

And how do you explain what happened to Serbia? Kosovo never was albanian and until 50 years ago when Yugoslavia decided to let albanian migrants come into that area, never even had a population of albanians above 15%. I see Serbia losing Kosovo almost akin to Armenia losing Artsakh.

[Armanen]

Re: The Case for Siamanto and Other Forward-Thinking Armenians

Meline jan of course I agree, I thought this went without saying therefore I didn't bother to point out how the albanians of kosovo actually didn't win their independence, it was given to them, on condition that they join the zog alliance. Camp bondsteal in kosovo was part of the deal, among others. Atleast in Artsakh, Abkhazia, Transdinestr, and S. Ossetia the native population fought for their freedom, kosovo, no such thing they were getting their @ss' kicked left and right.

[Anonymouse]

Re: The Case for Siamanto and Other Forward-Thinking Armenians

Most certainly in the diaspora but 100% of the time in the hayrenik? Is a black who is fighting and dying for Armenia not Armenian?

This is the type of thinking which I am referring to; this notion that someone who merely acquires citizenship is considered ethnically Armenian. Therein lies the difference. You cannot just be Japanese if you go to Japan. If you go to Japan with these ideas, they will just call you 'gaijin'.

btw, I remember my father saying that if a diasporan goes to Armenia, they will not view them as an "Armenian", but whatever their nationality is. Is that true?

This is exaggerated. Does he mean all diasporans? I don't believe I've heard this.

You can also attribute the rise and falls of peoples to class struggles, radical ideologies, etc. Race is just one way to describe the events of history.

Not necessarily. All cultures are a product of the peoples that create them. Logically, then, it follows that when the people that create a certain type of culture disappear that civilization disappears and/or changes with the demographics. This is why civilization will gradually reflect the people who come to dominate a certain society, such as France, with its huge Arab Muslim and Black population.

I don't think the problem is as much as keeping Blacks and Asians out of Armenia than it is keeping Armenians in Armenia.

Well, this is definitely true, but the point was alluded to merely for analysis purposes. If you had 3 million Asians or blacks replace the Armenians in Armenia, can anyone seriously call these people Armenians? Maybe the most oblivious egalitarians...

Right, but it's not necessary for a black Armenian (nationality), serving in the Armenian military to be subjected to harrasment day in and day out. They are not better than he is and vice-versa. He is serving Armenia and should be lauded for that - regardless of his "race" or "ethnicity"

You are asking people to ignore the natural instincts of race. Race will never disappear until everyone has one shade of brown. As long as there are races, people will be cognizant of it and it will be a driving force. It's better to keep them separated because you can never force people to like others, and you can never force egalitarian virtues on people who do not want to be integrated and wish to be separate. This is not about someone being better or superior, this is about wishing separation.

They helpful, however, in that they can give organized protection to peoples that would otherwise be subject to foreign rule.

Yet they are detrimental because they blur the boundaries of race and culture, and create the problem I alluded to, namely, someone holding a citizenship, somehow is believed to have acquired the ethnicity of the host population - which is patently absurd.

Although I hear what you're saying, I'm still not sure why it matters whether Armenia is 98% ethnic Armenian or whether it's 80%. Armenia is in a very small minority of ethnically homogenous countries; I think there are only 10 in the world with 95% or more ethnic homogenity (sp?).

Even if Armenia was 10% or even 20% black, how would this affect the survival of the nation if those blacks were dedicated to the homeland?

I think I may have explained the reason of why this is bad up above in my response. Culture is a reflection of the people that create it. You alter that recipie, you alter and forever change that civilization. And before you say "All civilizations change," one must not confuse change that occurs from within with change that occurs from without.

[Lucin]

Re: The Case for Siamanto and Other Forward-Thinking Armenians

Well in that case...thank you I guess.

I'm not sure of the exact make up of my odar half (you know how the Western Europeans like to mix with anyone and everyone ) but I think I'm 25% English and 50% Irish.

To be honest though, I've never been interested in anything other than my Armenian heritage. That's not to make me look like a "better Armenian", it's just a fact: my odar half does not interest me. I'm not sure why.

Երաժիշտա՝
Oh, I just love how you refer to your non-Armenian half as odar.
It means a lot.

[yerazhishda]

Re: The Case for Siamanto and Other Forward-Thinking Armenians

Երաժիշտա՝
Oh, I just love how you refer to your non-Armenian half as odar.
It means a lot.

[Siamanto]

Re: The Case for Siamanto and Other Forward-Thinking Armenians

First of all, Thank You for your post that sets a framework, and I hope that there will be future versions as developments and refinements of this initial effort!
My comments are meant to stimulate thinking, as in a brainstorming session, hoping that they will contribute to your efforts; unfortunately, they - my comments - are neither complete, nor organized, but that is a characteristic of brainstorming, a process.

What is Ultra-nationalism?

Ultra-nationalism is a radical form of nationalism – it is love for country taken to the extreme. It is characterized by an over-obsessive preoccupation with everything that is of that country. The MSN Encarta Dictionary defines ultra-nationalism as “nationalism that is so extreme as to be detrimental to international interests or cooperation”. I will amend this definition to include “to be detrimental to national interests” as well.

The nation is the object, the "over-obsessive preoccupation" characterizes the subject; any definition should
1. Explicitly distinguish the two entities
2. Clearly define the relationship - i.e. the "over-obsessive preoccupation" that is the essence of ultra-nationalism. For instance, the obsessive nature of the preoccupation, not the nation, determines the dynamics of the relationship; actually, some are as much preoccupied as ultra-nationalists are, without being obsessive
3. Make sure that the tree is not hiding the forest - ultra-nationalists hide behind the object

1. A sense of moral superiority or authority
a. An ultranationalist’s primary role is as moralizer; s/he claims the moral high ground and chastises others for their “sins”.

Though Kurosawa's Seven Samurai is not about ultra-nationalism per se, it remains an excellent work that, quite faithfully, illustrates the behavior and psychology of an ultra-nationalist, in the character of the peasant "wearing the mask" of a samurai - i.e. the samurai of peasant origins, who, despite his (almost) pathological hatred/despise towards his own kind - expressed as a perceived "moral superiority," is risking his life to
1. Save his kins - i.e. the peasants - from perdition
2. Prove his (moral) superiority

Of course, the value of the movie is not limited to the above.

b. An ultranationalist believes equates the “interests of the nation” (whatever this means to the ultranationalist at the time) with rationality and morality.

Though “interests of the nation” is quoted, the above may mislead; I'd prefer to add the following - regardless of the exact wording
An ultra-nationalist presents - at times, masks/disguises; at times, sincerely believes - his/her personal agenda as the “interests of the nation”

2. A fixation on ethnicity and race
a. An ultranationalist is preoccupied with keeping the nation “monoracial” and “monoethnic”. An ultranationalist does not recognize that race and ethnicity are social constructs.
b. An ultranationalist is unwilling to accept members outside the ethnic group as “true” members of the nation. S/he feels s/he is of superior “stock” and “breeding” to the mulatto or foreigner.
c. An ultranationalist fixated on racial purity may express this through narcissistic and egomaniacal tendencies.

The "superiority" of the race is essential in the effort to legitimize the "necessity" - can't find the right word - of a "mono-ethnic/mono-racial" nation
Also, in some cases, a handful of other, similarly "superior," races are tolerated

An ultranationalist does not recognize that race and ethnicity are social constructs.

I don't know what it was meant, but it seems that the above perplexed more than one, as it can be easily misunderstood. If I understand you correctly, you mean something like:
"A group of individuals who identify themselves as belonging to the same race, form a human collectivity that has similar dynamics and characteristic as a social construct - i.e. a human collectivity formed by a group of individuals who identify themselves as belonging to the same society."
If I understood you correctly, than
1. I suggest a comparison of the two entities - i.e. race and society - where you list the similarities inherited from more generic entities such as "human collectivity," "identity" etc. In other words, consider an ontological approach
2. The dynamics and characteristics of the Armenian Nation - i.e. Diaspora + The Republic of (North-Eastern) Armenia - are a bit more complex than the dynamics and structural/architectural complexities of a simple social construct

c. A sense of moral authority combined with this rigidity of thought is what leads the ultranationalist to suggest the invasion of other countries without considering the long-term effects of geo-political isolation. Consider the situation in Javakh – separatists do not understand that if they separate from Georgia, Armenia will be cut off from Europe. Iran will have Armenia by the balls. In this sense an ultranationalist does not concern him/herself with what is practical but only with what they consider as moral.

Though I may agree with what was meant - if I understand you correctly, but
1. Is it rigidity, or the fear of an "imminent danger/threat" - at least, the pretext - that drives the invasion of countries?
2. Javakhk is not a good example, because it's an example of self-determination and the Armenians of Javakhk do not intend to "invade another country." Your example is a bit dangerous, as it may be used to describe and vilify the rightful claims for self-determination and independence of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire

As for how detrimental rigidity is to a construct - social, software, or...one can recall La Fontaine's fable, but I prefer what I call the "palafito allegory:"
I have spent a couple of days in a small village called Punto de pescadores; a village of fishermen, in the middle of the ocean, located on the edge of a jungle, in East Venezuela. Like in similar villages, the natives lived in palafitos, constructs that look too fragile to resist in such a hostile environment: Torrential rains, strong winds, and the tides - the village was located at the mouth of a river, in Delta Amacuro.
Because located near the islands of Trinidad/Tobego, the Venezuelian authorities have built, between two palafitos, a platform for helicopters, to allow their operations against drug and other traffics. The apparent robustness of the concrete helicopter platform, contrasted with and further accentuated the apparent fragility of the palafitos, built with branches and tree trunks from the nearby jungle, to the point where they looked "caricatural." However, appearances often deceive, and a closer look at the majestic and invincible platform revealed many fissures that, according to the natives, forced the authorities to constantly restore and repair, as the situation degraded, an edifice unable to endure the harsh climate. The natives also took a lot of pride in the endurance and resilience of their, apparently fragile, palafitos that proved to be agile enough to adapt.
[By the way, I would compare the helicopter platform to the state of Israel that would collapse without the constant and costly support by the US.]

It is also noteworthy that rigidity becomes more detrimental as the construct becomes more complex

1. Insecurity about their own Armenian-ness
a. An ultranationalist overcompensates for a perceived lack of “Armenian-ness” by imposing extreme nationalism on others.
b. This insecurity is usually subconscious and thus an ultranationalist will be the first to deny his/her insecurity.

Is it the perception of an (existing) "lack" or the fear of a (potential) "loss???" Most likely both??? To understand the devastating psychological effects of the (potential) loss, consider the concept of "narcissistic bleeding" - or "bleeding of the self/identity" - coined, if I remember correctly, by Gérard Mendel, a socio-analyst.
The distinction is essential in many ways
1. Psychology: The perception of the "lack" is often relative to an ideal/authority -i.e. an over-ego/superego, and characterizes Neurosis; the fear "loss" - i.e. a threatened/endangered self/ego - is often projected as paranoia/Conspiracy Theories, and characterizes Psychosis.
2. Organizational/Role: It is true that we all have a moderate dose of both Neurosis and Psychosis, but pathological Psychosis more often characterizes the "leaders" and pathological Neurosis the "followers;" of course, reality is seldom as clear-cut
3. Ideal/Authority: The necessity/creation of an ideal/authority - i.e. over-ego/superego, is a natural self-preservation reaction, meant to protect/save the "persecuted/endangered" ego/self.
The psychology and dynamics of such individuals have been studied by many after WWII

2. Us vs. Them mentality
a. An ultranationalist divides the world into “us” and them” meaning “nationalist” and “non-nationalist”, with the nationalist being moral and the non-nationalist being immoral.
b. Furthermore, an ultranationalist may even go to the extent of dividing the world into “Armenian” and “Odar”, with the Armenian being moral, and the Odar being immoral. As Siamanto pointed out in another thread, this division can be extended to “East vs. West”, “Ramgavar vs. Tashnag”, “Democrat vs. Republican”, and “Diasporan vs. Native”. The “beauty” of this mentality is that you can divide people by any trait.
c. This mentality creates what is called “the Other”. “The Other” is an academic term that is applied when one group who excludes another they consider to be different in some way or another. It is thus easier for the group to belittle, berate and dehumanize “the Other”.

In order to illustrate the above ideas, I often use the relatively well-understood, and elegant, model of the Immune System: The recognition of molecules as self and non-self, the function of Antibodies, necessity for the health, the self-destructive excesses and malfunctions such as allergies and AIDS.

3. Unhealthy obsession with everything Armenian

Is it everything Armenian or everything non-Armenian??? Though equivalent from an extensional point of view, but quite different from an intentional - therefore psychological - point of view.

Who does this type of ideology attract? Usually it attracts Diasporans who have never had a sense of direction or a grounded morality. The fact that they are diasporans allows them to romanticize the homeland while the fact that they have never had a sense of morality allows them to take this morality to the extreme.

Can you please develop the above? Thanks!
Also, consider documentaries/sociological studies about the nascent neo-Nazi movement in East Germany, Russian skinheads...




Additional comments
1. Some fundamental characteristics are missing
..1.1 Religious fundamentalism, mysticism etc.
..1.2 An inclination and fascination for military type organization/hierarchy and practices - though the latter was indirectly mentioned
2. The concepts of protection, savior: The ultra-nationalist thinks of himself/herself as the protector/savior of the "persecuted/threatened" ego/self, and the defender/incarnation of the over-ego/superego
3. The concept of Identity. If you understand French, I recommend Guédiguian's Le voyage en Arménie - I don't know if there's a subtitled version???
4. Adorno's Authoritarian Personality is of relevance

[TXMENIAN]

Re: The Case for Siamanto and Other Forward-Thinking Armenians

3. The concept of Identity. If you understand French, I recommend Guédiguian's Le voyage en Arménie - I don't know if there's a subtitled version???

A great movie and there is an English subtitled version. I got mine from Amazon.com.

[Siamanto]

Re: The Case for Siamanto and Other Forward-Thinking Armenians

A great movie and there is an English subtitled version. I got mine from Amazon.com.

Thanks for the info!
Considering that I was a bit disappointed by his previous movie about Mitterand, I was pleasantly surprised; I really enjoyed it. I was planning to write a review; I may, if I find the time.

[TXMENIAN]

Re: The Case for Siamanto and Other Forward-Thinking Armenians

Thanks for the info!
Considering that I was a bit disappointed by his previous movie about Mitterand, I was pleasantly surprised; I really enjoyed it. I was planning to write a review; I may, if I find the time.

You are welcome. It is the first movie by Guédiguian for me. Everyone that gave this movie a negative review saw it as a documentary and not just a story.