Recognition and Restitution

[hrai]

Re: Recognition and Restitution

It's not quite the same in the Armenian Republic. There, academics have become somewhat marginalised and irrelevent since independence, so some of them have started to spout extreme nationalist views, pseudo-history, and extremist religious opinions, in order to feel important and accepted.

So Bell, is Ghazarian from RA or Diaspora??

Ghazarian's book appears to be a "by an Armenian for Armenians" work. It is not a text book about the Armenian genocide, it is a book about what Armenians thinks a non-Armenian should know about the Armenian genocide.

Are you contradicting yourself there? It's "by an Armenian for Armenians" aimed at non-Armenians...........................or do I misunderstand you?

[Haykakan]

Re: Recognition and Restitution

A good example of what cat is trying to say would be the crap spewing out of aliev's mouth about getting karabagh back etc. It is meant for the azeri masses, to play on their patriotism and nothing more. I dont know the book in question here but i think this is the right analagy you are looking for.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Recognition and Restitution

The thing I don't understand is the change in the meaning when you swap the places of "for" and "by". The rest is not a rocket science, nothing that you invent for sure. Actually it is a version (by version I mean changing the word after "for" and "by") of the famous political slogan "for people, by people".

The rest of the story is self explanatory from the previous posts. Discrediting one's work because of ethnic origin is not true, what matters is the content, its factual base. While one can dismiss an article starting FIRST with ethnic origin should not be complaining when it happens other way around. That was my point, nothing else nothing more.

You still don't understand. Which leads me to suspect that you won't recognise similar aspects within Turkish society. There are plenty of "by Turks for Turks" Armenian Genocide-denialist productions and they are very different from the superficially-refined productions that are sanctioned at a high level by the Turkish state and are intended for a foreign audience. Those cruder works, intended only for an internal audience, more accurately reflect the opinions of the Turkish State and its institutions that those more "refined" works.

[may]

Re: Recognition and Restitution

You don't understand the meaning of what I wrote. I did not write "for Armenians by Armenians". I wrote "by Armenians for Armenians".

The thing I don't understand is the change in the meaning when you swap the places of "for" and "by". The rest is not a rocket science, nothing that you invent for sure. Actually it is a version (by version I mean changing the word after "for" and "by") of the famous political slogan "for people, by people".

The rest of the story is self explanatory from the previous posts. Discrediting one's work because of ethnic origin is not true, what matters is the content, its factual base. While one can dismiss an article starting FIRST with ethnic origin should not be complaining when it happens other way around. That was my point, nothing else nothing more.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Recognition and Restitution

Oh okay, so we'll dismiss Professor Ghazarian's book on that basis then.

If you don't suspect something is seriously wrong with the aims, content and scope of Ghazarian's book by just looking at the photos on that ebay link I gave, then the near total lack of reviews of the book should. Compare it to the number of reviews that a serious book gets - such as Dadrian's "History of the Armenian Genocide", or even a lightweight work like Balakian's "Burning Tigris".

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Recognition and Restitution

Dismissing ones ideas/writings/information based on the person's ethnic origins, if what is said does not favor your stance.

I thought you were opposing Bell's dismissal of a person's work with a reasoning of "for Armenians by Armenians". Then your point (at least that is what I understood) was "For Turkish by A Turk of xxxish origin". In my opinion, Bell's and your response for two different sources fall into same kind of reaction.

You don't understand the meaning of what I wrote. I did not write "for Armenians by Armenians". I wrote "by Armenians for Armenians".

Most of what diaspora Armenians say and write is not intended for an external audience, but for an internal audience, for members of their own community. The same goes for most of the posts in this forum. Those that want to become its community leaders, along with a minority section of its intellectuals, seem to vie with each other to appear more patriotic or more religious or more charitable. The more extreme the statements they make, the better. If they are lucky they will eventually attain the lofty status of "superior Armenian" - these "superior Armenians" have the right to define what it is to be a proper Armenian and what views a proper Armenian should hold. It's not quite the same in the Armenian Republic. There, academics have become somewhat marginalised and irrelevent since independence, so some of them have started to spout extreme nationalist views, pseudo-history, and extremist religious opinions, in order to feel important and accepted.

Those "by Armenians for Armenians" and "superior Armenian" phrases are just my inventions, created to give a name to a reality that I see. However, it's a reality that the majority section of Armenian intellectuals would also recognise, along with those working in the field of Armenians studies - probably they have their own terminology to describe the situation!

There is nothing wrong in producing "by Armenians for Armenians" works or statements if they contain factual information, but when those works or statements are intended for an external, non-Armenian audience they often have limited or no value, and are usually counterproductive.

Ghazarian's book appears to be a "by an Armenian for Armenians" work. It is not a text book about the Armenian genocide, it is a book about what Armenians thinks a non-Armenian should know about the Armenian genocide. Ghazarian seems to think that the majority of people do not believe the Armenian Genocide happened (as opposed to the majority just not knowing much about it). Nor does he seem to put much faith in the power of his own writing if he needs to tail-end his book with numerous pages of quotes from the likes of George Bush to make the point that the Armenian Genocide happened. And his Turkey "...should make full restitution of a homeland, that of Western Armenia and Armenian Cilicia to the Genocide survivors, indemnifying massive material damages as well" statement is a "by Armenians for Armenians" statement.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Recognition and Restitution

Dismissing ones ideas/writings/information based on the person's ethnic origins, if what is said does not favor your stance.

I thought you were opposing Bell's dismissal of a person's work with a reasoning of "for Armenians by Armenians". Then your point (at least that is what I understood) was "For Turkish by A Turk of xxxish origin". In my opinion, Bell's and your response for two different sources fall into same kind of reaction.

Your opinion is wrong then.

My previous post was based on different things and for different reasons considering different contexts. If you have issues with that respond in the proper thread and post. I think my point there was completely valid.

[may]

Re: Recognition and Restitution

What is it that you "don't see much difference" in? My and bell's response?

Dismissing ones ideas/writings/information based on the person's ethnic origins, if what is said does not favor your stance.

I thought you were opposing Bell's dismissal of a person's work with a reasoning of "for Armenians by Armenians". Then your point (at least that is what I understood) was "For Turkish by A Turk of xxxish origin". In my opinion, Bell's and your response for two different sources fall into same kind of reaction.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Recognition and Restitution

Anonymouse, I don't mean any offense but it works both ways.

Below is your response for another post (Shelomo Alfassa) which gives a link to an article that denies AG. I don't see much difference with Cat's response.

"Note how he cites a Turk of xxxish origin as his source! That's laughable, considering there's quite an argument to be made that many of the Young Turk high command were of xxxish roots themselves!"

I admit that there is a serious information/interpretation garbage, but as I said, it works both ways.

What is it that you "don't see much difference" in? My and bell's response?

[may]

Re: Recognition and Restitution

What Armenian's statement is important? It seems that no one's is according to your standards. I presume you will say no one has made a lick of difference yet and we are awaiting for someone that will. What then do you think will define or be a statement which will make a difference?

Anonymouse, I don't mean any offense but it works both ways.

Below is your response for another post (Shelomo Alfassa) which gives a link to an article that denies AG. I don't see much difference with Cat's response.

"Note how he cites a Turk of xxxish origin as his source! That's laughable, considering there's quite an argument to be made that many of the Young Turk high command were of xxxish roots themselves!"

I admit that there is a serious information/interpretation garbage, but as I said, it works both ways.