The Case for Siamanto and Other Forward-Thinking Armenians

[Siamanto]

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

People will accuse me of racism, rather than face these uncomfortable discussions of race.

I absolutely agree with you that it is unfortunate that some, "rather than facing these uncomfortable discussions of race," attribute others views and opinions that they have never expressed, and, when failing to produce exhibits to support their accusations, delete posts and close threads.

Or the alternative, people attempt to throw stupid and simplistic quotes such as "Love is blind" which is the mother of all copouts.

Just curious, do you see a fundamental difference between "Love is blind" and "That which is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil?" (Nietzsche)

Those who promote and trumpet diversity miss the essential paradox that the more you support this notion, the more diversity will stamp out and destroy diversity.

Can you produce exhibits - i.e. references where "diversity is promoted and trumpeted?" Thanks!
Limiting ourselves to the scope of the discussion - i.e. the Armenian Community - can it be that those who are perceived by you as "promoting and trumpeting diversity," do not consider diversity as a goal, but a mere fact? Can it be that you have missed that it's not about "promoting and trumpeting diversity," but about managing the existing reality?

However, when some of these hippie types attempt to....

Hippie??? Are there hippies on the forum?

I can tell you that Armenia is a doomed country, regardless of who sits on the throne of the Ivory Tower.

The diaspora is doomed.

http://forum.armenianclub.com/showpost.php?p=197144&postcount=20

What happened to Active Nihilism, did Sartre's morosity eclipse the Nietzschean sun?
I hope that eventually, your intellectual daybreak will shed some light on reality and brighten your world.

[Siamanto]

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

Everyone that gave this movie a negative review saw it as a documentary and not just a story.

I agree with you that it's not meant to be a documentary; it's about Identity. Though I don't remember the exact words - I'll look into my notes, Guédiguian suggested that Identity is built as we interact with others that we perceive as "friendly;" the movie seems to be based on his perception of Identity i.e. Anna "creates/(re)defines/discovers/uncovers" her Armenian Identity as she's building friendship with Armenians - either from the Republic of (North Eastern) Armenia, or the Diaspora. If you remember, on the phone she said something like: "They look like me, I see a resemblance."
Also, it is noteworthy that, without attempting an explanation, Anna's personality did not change, yet her Identity changed.

By the way, it will be aired on TV5 on July 17, at 20:30 EST - most likely, it will be aired more than once. In the US, TV5 airs some movies with English subtitles.

[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.

[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

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.