notes / comments

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Sunday, February 03, 2008
****************************************
REFLECTIONS
*******************************
When told non-violence is for cowards, Gandhi replied: “I prefer violence to cowardice. A coward has no right to call himself a member of the human race.”
*
A nation whose rulers are ignorant philistines, both ignorance and philistinism will be the norm and anyone who refuses to conform will be an enemy of the people – not an enemy of ignorance and philistinism, but a traitor to the cause.
*
There are honest men and there are liars, and i prefer an honest Turk to a lying Armenian.
*
In his efforts to assert his Armenianism, one of our nationalist leaders claimed to have traced his ancestry all the way back to the Mamikonians (Chinese) -- or was it the Bagratunis (xxxs)?
*
“There is no such thing as a Turk,” a Turkish friend once informed me. “We have all been bastardized and mongrelized. We are all the offspring of mixed marriages that go back hundreds of years. There is a Greek, an Armenian, a xxx, a Kurd, and an Albanian in all of us.”
*
In the Armenian ghetto where I was born and raised there was a blond barber called Alaman (German in Turkish) and a greengrocer named Kurdoghlanian (Son of a Kurd). They were accepted as Armenians and no one questioned their pedigree, perhaps because everybody was too busy trying to survive in an alien environment to care about such impure concepts as “pure blood.”
*
No matter how hard they try, they will never convince me that honesty and objectivity are anti-Armenian, or that the statement “All men are brothers” is pro-Turkish.
*
To brainwashed dupes who question my Armenianism on the grounds that I am critical of fellow Armenians, I ask: If I speak the truth and in doing so I expose liars, am I good or bad? After long centuries of living in fear, aren’t you tired of lies? Why should truth be a source of dread? What if in treating an honest Armenian as if he were a Turk, you succeed only in exposing your Ottomanism?
*
A historian is not judged by the degree of his patriotism, nationalism, loyalty or subersvience to a power structure, but by his honesty and impartiality. For more on this subject see Michael Grant’s GREEK AND ROMAN HISTORIANS: INFORMATION AND MISINFORMATION (London, 1995).
#
Monday, February 04, 2008
***********************************************
RANDOM THOUGHTS
***********************************
If you speak the truth to liars, they will call you a liar. What else can they do? If you are an honest man among crooks, they will call you a crook. That’s their only line of defense and they will take it for all it’s worth.
*
To deprogram someone against his will can be a formidable undertaking and it doesn’t always work. The alternative – to hope that he will deprogram himself – may take years and sometimes decades, depending on a number of variables which are not worth going into. The fact remains that because we are all products of a cultural milieu with its own specific and clearly defined educational system and dominant ideas, we cannot claim to be who we are in the same way that a wooden table of chair can no longer claim to be a tree in a virgin forest.
*
Crooks and liars are relatively easy to deal with because they are aware of who they are and they feel vulnerable to exposure. Dupes who have been brainwashed to believe they are honest men are infinitely harder to deal with because the lies they recycle are not theirs but someone else’s. This fact makes them invulnerable to reason because there exists between them and reality an impenetrable wall of illusions, and nothing comes more naturally to us than to confuse illusions with reality. Consider what happened to us at the turn of the last century when our revolutionaries thought the Great Powers cared for us. And consider what happens to us today whenever a political candidate, for obvious reasons of his/her own, promises to recognize the Genocide.
*
It is said, investigative reporters are the eyes and ears of a nation. Where are our investigative reporters? Do we have them? Did we ever have them? Why is it that we have dozens of papers but not a single investigative reporter? Are we afraid of what they will uncover?
*
Turks worry me less than the Turk within us.
#
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
********************************************
TURCOPHOBIA
**************************************
Dionysius of Halicarnassus (first century B.C.), in THE ANCIENT HISTORY OF ROME: “The majority of the Hellenic public have been misled by the false view that founders of Rome were uncivilized vagrants and outlaws who were not even freeborn; and that the secret of Rome’s gradual advance in world dominion has not been her righteousness or her fear of God or any moral quality, but some blind, mechanical and immoral operation of Fortune, who has bestowed her greatest gifts upon her most unprofitable servants, and the lowest of savages…It is my hope that the discovery of the truth may induce a proper appreciation of Rome, unless they are her fanatical and irreconcilable enemies.”
*
Istanbul is not Rome, granted; but neither is Armenia the Garden of Eden.
*
A reader born and raised in Turkey tells me, “Turks can be very nasty if you ever dare to say anything remotely critical about them in their presence.”
Are we different?
“Maybe not, but they massacred us, we didn’t massacre them.”
According to impartial witnesses whenever we had the upper hand, we did to them what they did to us.
“They massacred two million; how many did we massacre, two thousand or two hundred?”
That doesn’t make us more civilized or morally superior. To say otherwise is to confuse military inferiority with moral superiority. You cannot live under a ruthless master for six hundred years without assimilating part of his ruthlessness. Neither can you say to a man, “I want to be friends with you but only on condition that you admit to being a cold-blooded murderer, a thief, a liar, and a bloodthirsty barbarian who should have stayed in Mongolia and never ventured westward where you will never be accepted as a member of a civilized community.” But if you do, don’t be surprised if he doesn’t respond with expressions of gratitude and joy.
*
Do you want to know why sooner or later Hitler’s name props up in Armenian arguments? The following easy-to-remember formula may be as good an explanation as any:
nationalism + antiSemitism + anti-intellectualism = fascism.
#
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
*************************************************
OUR BETTERS OR OUR WORST?
**************************************************
Since time immemorial man has known that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” And yet, the only enterprise in which our leaders have been consistently successful throughout our millennial existence has been in dividing us and in keeping us divided.
Our writers have called them “useless” (Zarian) and “brainless” (Issahakian), and if you think they overstated their case, you should hear what they (our leaders) call one another.
Once, many years ago, when I published an interview with a Tashnak leader, which dealt not with politics or history but with childhood reminiscences and the personalities that had shaped his character and worldview, a Ramgavar leader published an attack so nasty that I was left speechless. This may explain the gutter mentality of some of my brainwashed partisan critics.
*
When things didn’t work out for them, the Bagratunis moved to Georgia, and from Georgia to Russia. When our revolution in the Ottoman Empire failed, our revolutionaries abandoned the people at the mercy of butchers and kept themselves busy by writing long-winded memoirs. They had a Plan B for themselves but only a Plan A for the people.
*
They flatter us by bragging about our survival in an environment where many others perished. They are right: “they” survived all right while countless others did not. They survived to what end and for what purpose? To divide us, of course, and to make sure we stay divided. That’s because that is the only undertaking in which they excel – after all, they had millennia of practice in which to refine and master the technique.
*
Are they our betters or our worst? I will let you answer that question in the hope you will come up with the right answer not because you are smart (I will let them use the maneuver of treating you like fools after flattering you to believe you are just about the smartest people on earth) but because I trust you are capable of using your common sense, which, it has been said, is the least common of all faculties.
#




"Intellect is invisible to the man who has none."
Arthur Schopenhauer

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Sunday, January 27, 2008
***********************************************
FROM MY NOTEBOOKS
******************************
It would be useful for all Armenians to be reminded once in a while that we live in a world where wars and massacres are dime-a-dozen routine occurrences.
*
Leaders, all leaders, even the most enlightened and progressive, share in common the conviction that the less the people know the better.
*
Sooner or later every Armenian writer must resign himself to the fact that there isn’t much he can say to readers who know better and have all the answers.
*
We like to say that xxxs go out of their way to support their own and that we go out of our way too but only in the opposite direction. But I am suspicious of all ethnic or racial generalizations. In my view, it is a fact of human nature that envious mediocrities will do their utmost to obstruct the path of anyone that threatens to expose their mediocrity.
*
Reason alone is not enough, but reason is all we have in a world where faith, dogma, and subservience -- that is unreason -- are synonymous.
*
Breakdowns occur because we cannot go on deceiving ourselves, others, and least of all, reality.
*
When a man says God is on his side, he is sure to be closer to the Devil.
#
Monday, January 28, 2008
**************************************
ON TURKISH LOVE & ARMENIAN HATRED
************************************************** *****
If Turks love me and Armenians hate me (this according to one of my gentle anonymous readers on the Internet) it may be because Turks are not always wrong and Armenians not always right -- especially when it comes to judging their fellow Armenians.
To avoid recognizing the devil in us we demonize others –i.e. we project. In the same way that xxxs demonize anti-Semites, and some blacks demonize white men (“White man is the devil”), we demonize not only Turks and the Great Powers of the West, but also anyone who dares not to be on our side. On more than one occasion I have myself been demonized by fellow Armenians simply because I refuse to parrot their favorite brand of propaganda. Hence my skepticism of all blame-games.
Playing the blame-game might as well be synonymous with being infallible, and being infallible means an inability to learn from one’s mistakes, because in order to learn from them one must first admit them.
An addict of the blame-game is a morally bankrupt man because he’d rather lose his reason than give up his addiction.
As for Turks loving me: as far as I know, Turks don’t read me, and if they read me, they don’t comment on what I write. The only Turk who has written me agrees with me that Armeno-Turkish relations will have a better chance to improve on the day extremists on both sides are marginalized thus allowing the moderates the upper hand.
As for Armenians who hate me: I also have a good number of Armenian readers who agree with me, and others who are critical only because I don’t go far enough in my criticism. My comment on Armenians who hate me: their verbal abuse is such that it does not require any comment on my part.
#
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
*******************************************
THE BARBARIANS AMONG US
************************************************
After reading Plato’s dialogues, Shaw’s plays, and countless letters to the editor in foreign newspapers and magazines, I have discovered that every assertion can be contradicted and every generalization questioned without resorting to verbal abuse. Verbal abuse not only detracts from the merit of the argument but also exposes the writer’s character, IQ, and level of upbringing.
*
It is not true that I criticize Armenians, or only Armenians, or all Armenians; I criticize only charlatans and their dupes regardless of nationality – dupes who have dug themselves into a hole so deep that they can no longer see the light of reason.
*
It has been said that suffering is one of the very best ways to learn to know oneself. But I guess, when given the opportunity to learn, some people will choose the bliss of ignorance.
*
The trick in good writing is to convince the reader that you write to express not your own sentiments and thoughts but his.
*
We are not a nation but a mosaic of tribes and products of different environments and cultures. Unless we stress what we share, learn to explain ourselves in a civilized manner, and understand one another – none of which can be achieved by means of insults and verbal abuse – we are doomed.
#
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
********************************************
REASON AND AUTHORITY
**************************************
Theophylactus Simocatta the Egyptian (500-630 A.D.): “By reason, men converge toward one another and advance from the outer surface to the inner mind. Reason has showered innumerable blessings upon men and is an admirable collaborator with nature.”
*
If one is brought up to respect authority, those in authority are brought up to deceive and intimidate. Authority and subservience produce dogmatism, intolerance, and ultimately war and massacre. Is anarchy the answer? No. Skepticism? Yes. Don’t believe everything you are told. Authority is a double-edged sword that speaks with a forked tongue. Its main concern is to legitimize its own power at all cost even if it means the conscious avoidance of truth and the destruction of the world.
*
The best way to achieve immortality is to speak the truth to liars, for liars have the memory of elephants.
#

[Virgil]

Re: notes / comments

Ara, stop claiming that you are only "writing" and that you have a right under "freedom of speech" to express any comment you would like to express, the reality is that your opinions on borderline offensive to the majority of Armenians and, for the most part, lack any objectivity (I find it funny how you claim to be "objective"). Just admit it, you are a hypocrit and admit it that being writer does not entitle you to insulting Armenians even for the sake of "making a point". And please, refrain from the "holier than thou" stance, whether by choice or circumstance, you are product of nationalism and are living in a state that funds your livelihood through the securement of national interests. I can only hope you wake up from this selfhate and irrationality, but I know you will die first.

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Thursday, January 24, 2008
************************************************
FROGS
************
Speaking of our revolutionaries, one of our elder statesmen once compared them to “frogs trying to rape an elephant.”
*
Save the nation? Part the Red Sea? Change water to wine? Raise the brain-dead? I leave these things to better men than myself. I write. That’s the only thing I do because that’s what all writers, including our own, have always done. I write to express my thoughts and sentiments as honestly and objectively as I can. Let others do what they will with them.
*
Where honesty and objectivity are equated with self-hatred and betrayal, free speech will be violated in the name of God and Country.
*
To say my country, right or wrong, is less nationalism and more narcissism, and as such, less ideology and more pathology.
*
Our pundits are more interested in settling old scores than in the welfare of the nation. Perhaps because, in Einstein’s words: “The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.” Or, frogs cannot solve problems created by elephants.
*
Instead of trying to solve problems created by others, let us begin with problems created by us, such as: respecting one another’s fundamental human right of free speech, engaging in dialogue, and developing a consensus. I wonder why is it that these problems are ignored by our “betters.” Is it because they don’t require any capital investment and no letters that end with their favorite mantra, “mi kich pogh…”
#
Friday, January 25, 2008
*********************************************
DEFINING FASCISM
************************************************** ****
One reason why I write about our problems is that I don’t know much about Eskimo and Patagonian problems. As for Canadian problems: once, when I dared to say something on the subject, I was told to go back where I came from. That put an abrupt end to my career as a Canadian critic.
*
We are all born fascists. But whenever we confront another fascist unwilling to relinquish his infallibility, we are given a chance to reconsider our political convictions.
*
I once asked a Turcocentric pundit if he had read a single Armenian writers and he said he had not, after which he advised me to write more about Turkish atrocities. I didn’t ask him to define patriotism, but if I had, my guess is he would have said “hatred of Turks,” which may suggest there is more Ottomanism and less Armenianism in his worldview.
*
Bad things happen to good people because when bad people do bad things to bad people, they don’t give a damn about collateral damage. That’s how Turks see the Genocide – as collateral damage, which is something that happens in every war, beginning with Homer’s ILIAD.
*
We have a better chance to reach a consensus with the Turks if we tell them, we understand why they did what they did and we would like them to understand us when we say what they did was not right.
*
Our bosses, bishops, and benefactors are convinced they are saying what must be said and doing what must be done, and they resent usurpers like me who try to muscle in their territory.
*
It would be a mistake to underestimate the power of our hoodlums. They may seem to be a harmless and non-representative minority, but all they need to become a murderous majority is someone like Hitler and Stalin.
*
“Hoodlumism in the name of patriotism,” is as good a definition of fascism as any.
#
Saturday, January 26, 2008
***********************************************
ALIEN TRASH
********************************
You cannot tell people what to think and how to feel. You can only speak of your own thoughts and feelings and all the mud that is flung in your direction by dupes simply because you refuse to subscribe to their lies, which are not even theirs; or, as Zarian puts it: “even their trash is picked up from alien streets.”
*
I cannot adapt. I cannot change colors like a chameleon. Call it an evolutionary failure. My kind may well be headed for extinction. That doesn’t mean I will exit in silence.
*
To how many of my critics (if you will forgive the overstatement) I could say: When I was your age – and it makes no difference if you are nine or ninety – I too pretended to know and understand things that I didn’t, and succeeded only in making an ass of myself.
*
No man can be said to be an authority on his fellow men, let alone himself, because most of our real self is buried in our subconscious. We can only speak of unverified and unverifiable theories and guesses.
*
No need to contradict someone who lives in a world of illusions because reality will be his most effective and persistent contradictor.
#

[Armenian]

Re: notes / comments

ArmSurvival, more you engage this character the nuttier he gets. And the funniest part is that he does not realize just how stupid and ignorant he sounds. Perhaps it's his age. I am glad, nonetheless, that the public can now see him for what he's really worth. By making the following two points, I will reveal to you that our resident "thinker" has a minuscule understanding of the world around him.

Number one: Most serious military historians agree, without the French Navy harassing and blocking-off the British navy in the Atlantic, the American revolutionary war would not have succeeded. What's more, European volunteers, such as the French general Lafayette and the Polish general Kosciusko, were instrumental in various decisive land battles against the British as well. Here is a link concerning the French factor during the American Revolution: http://xenophongroup.com/mcjoynt/marine.htm

An excerpt from the link:

The French Navy's role in the success of the American Revolution is seldom acknowledged in general American histories. Yet it is difficult to see how American independence could have been won -- at least in that particular war -- against a regime that was the world's acknowledge leading naval power in terms of ship inventory and recent combat exploits. Certainly, the undisputed expert on the war, General Washington, appreciated the critical importance of naval presence in the North American theater. As long as the British navy could support their army's operations along the eastern coastline, the rebellion was doomed. The French naval success at the Second Battle of the Virginia Capes in September 1781 was ‘the keystone' of the Yorktown Campaign, and provides dramatic testimony of the French Navy's contribution to the American cause in that theater of operations. In all due respect to the modest Continental and American state navies, and to the spectacular performances of the American privateers, it was the Royal French Navy that was the only ‘standing navy' to serve the American army in terms of engaging British naval formations and supporting land operations in North America.

Number Two: Ara's foolish comment about Armenians depending on the great powers too much is completely irrational and it clearly reveals the "thinker's" utter ignorance and shallowness. Unlike the well organized north American revolutionaries who were living thousands of miles aways from the United Kingdom, Armenians were living as minorities in the very heartland of the Ottoman Empire. And faced with the threat of total annihilation and/or assimilation, Armenians at the time had absolutely nothing to wage a war of self-defense against Turks. As a result, Armenian nationalists had to greatly rely on foreign powers for assistance, military and diplomatic. However, the geopolitical insignificance of the Armenian nation lead to it getting betrayed by its "allies" at the end of the war. Having said that, Armenian reliance on Russia at the time initially payed great dividends. Soon after the outbreak of the First World War, a Russo-Armenian force entered the eastern regions of the Ottoman Empire from the Caucasus. This force defeated Turks on the battlefield and pushed them beyond Van. However, this Russo-Armenian military success soon turned into total failure. As we all know, Russia abandoned the war against the Ottomans due to the unexpected success of the Bolshevik revolution.

So, where the well organized north Americans got lucky with the successful presence of the French navy off the shores of the rebellious states - for various unforeseen geopolitical factors Armenian revolutionaries got abandoned by the major powers at the time. What's more, it is important to note that Armenian revolutionaries could not rely on a great majority of Ottoman Armenians for any kind of support. As a matter of fact, the ignorant/complacent/assimilated Armenians of the Ottoman Empire were at times a greater obstacle to the revolutionaries then were Turks. Nonetheless, our revolutionaries did what they had to do and they did so without widespread public support. It's only because of those selfless patriots we have an Armenian Republic today.

If you read between the lines of garbage men like Ara, you will soon realize that these egocentric vermin would have wanted to live as loyal Ottoman subjects and not strive to rid the Armenian nation of its Turkish yoke. This Ara character is a wonderful representative, a proud off-springs, of those Armenian whores known as "Loyal Millet" - who, in my opinion, were nothing more than vile Turks with a hint of Christian flavor.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: notes / comments

what you say above is all propaganda.
armenians were known as the most loyal millet. the turks had no reason to exterminate us at a time when they needed us most.

Well its easy to make blanket statements like "what you say is all propaganda", but its going to be a little harder to convince a reasonable person to believe you. I'm not the one making gross generalizations, saying Armenians in the Wehrmacht were all volunteers, when most of them were in fact POWs from the Soviet side, and then using the same inaccurate fact to try to make a vague point about Armenian fascism. But I digress...

Of course the Turks had no reason to kill us, genocides are very destructive to any society as they drain manpower and skilled people from the general population. Any genocide is detrimental, even to the society that is committing them. But they killed over 200,000 Armenians starting in 1894, and that was not because there was "revolutionary activity" by the Armenians, so how do you explain that? Armenians simply urged for reforms, to make Armenians equal citizens under law, and the Ottoman Sultan gave them the sword.

And it is a fact that a radical wing of the CUP which took power in a 1913 coup had extermination of the Armenian population as part of their secret policy at some point in time (the evidence is the fact that the event actually took place by an official decree from the party, the Tehcir Law, so it is clearly an official policy). Their official excuse was that we aided the Russian counterattack against Ottoman forces, even though there were only about 5-6,000 Armenians fighting for the Russians (who numbered in the hundreds of thousands), most of which were from Russian Armenia. Propagandists, like the Young Turks, always have their own motives, and search for a casus belli (an excuse) to make people think that their radical policies are a necessity. But you choose to focus on the Young Turks' casus belli instead of the real conditions of the time, and blame Armenians for resisting the decades-long Ottoman oppression (you even acknowledged they were oppressed). So what was the alternative, they should have just laid down and let the Ottomans do as they please? Or do you actually believe that massacres would not have taken place if it were not for "Armenian revolutionary activity", even though they massacred Armenians 2 decades prior? More than any of my other comments, I would like to hear your ideas on this specific issue.


And I agree with your notion that the Armenian revolutionaries relied too much on outside help, but that stems from the fact that most Armenians did not support them in any way. Most Armenians complied with the general disarmament of the Armenian population and the Tehcir Law, putting their trust in the Ottomans that they would be returning to their homes as soon as the war was over.

yes, the american revolution had french help, but americans did not rely solely on the french. armenians relied too much on the great powers and ignored the fact that in politics promises mean lies.
the french revolution not only did not rely on outside help but had a great deal of opposition -- all kings in europe were related and feared republicans i.e. of losing their heads to the guillotine.
a revolution is or ought to be the most quintessentially self-reliant act.

You forget that the Americans had the Atlantic Ocean between themselves and the British homeland, while the Armenians had no buffer between themselves and the Turkish yoke in Anatolia and the Kurdish tribes working for them. Thats a huge logistical advantage for the Americans (war is all about supply lines). Coupled with the fact that tens of thousands of able-bodied Armenian men were fighting in the Ottoman army, and were subsequently killed off in labor battalions, the American revolutionaries had very distinct advantages over the Armenian revolutionaries, which is why the Armenians needed more outside help than the Americans did. The conditions were completely different, so to use the same standards for both cases is deceptive at worst and naive at best.

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

This is a gross generalization. Much of the Wehrmacht's Armenian Legion actually consisted of Armenian POWs from the Soviet side, and this contingent saved a lot of xxxs by pretending that xxxish POWs were Armenians, allowing many of them to escape.

And sure there were a small number of Armenian volunteers for the Wehrmacht. It was either that or the POW camps, which, if you've read any of the accounts, were some of the worst places to find yourself. And you left out the important fact that when Hitler left for the eastern front, his Armenian Legion garrisoned in Amsterdam revolted against the Nazis and was replaced by a more loyal brigade.

And you can find a small number of Wehrmacht volunteers and/or supporters from any European nationality. It just baffles me how you use this example, among many others, to imply that Armenians are somehow inherently fascist or racist, but the examples you use can be applied to any other group. You then use this selective logic to come up with statements like this:





As for your implications which enable you to ask these kinds of questions (nothing wrong with asking questions, the podium is yours for as long as you like, but what you ask is reflective of what you want to know and from which perspective you want to approach the issue), I hope I don't have to dig up examples of how you imply that all Armenians are racist and are generally incapable of intellectual thought, while claiming that our very problem is that we are racist and incapable of intellectual thought. Hell of a way to prove a point. And no, I'm in no way affiliated with a political party nor am I a racist (just read some of my posts), I just think your perspective is self-destructive as it will keep you thinking in circles, which will make it impossible to move forward and actually do anything. Some of it is a good read, you seem like a well-read person, but in the end its just mental masturbation, as your abstract implications are not applicable to real situations**.



**One of your implications is how the Armenian revolutionaries acted just before WWI, which the Turks used as an excuse to kill all Armenians. You imply it is the fault of the revolutionaries. You forget about the Hamidian massacres just a couple of decades prior to the revolutionary activity. Revolutionaries were essentially operating to prevent another Turkish massacre of Armenians. Building their own nation-state was one strategy in ensuring that Armenians cannot be at the mercy of Turks. This would only be possible by allying with foreign powers (it was a world war, afterall, and almost every revolution in history has outside support). If you have read the history of these events, you would know that it was a secret policy of the CUP to get rid of their Armenian population, regardless of what Armenians did, and they would look for any excuse to enact their genocidal policy. Ignorant people believed that the work of the Armenian revolutionaries was so sinister, even compared to the decades of Ottoman atrocities, that it naturally warranted a sharp, genocidal response from the Ottomans. So you choose to blame the people that actually got up and tried to protect their people from this oppression, while taking the blame off the actual culprits, who had a history of oppressing Armenians and who also had a premeditated plan to finish off what they started decades earlier (as a counterexample, Armenians resisted (by use of arms) the Russian Empire's decree to seize all Armenian church property in 1907, and the Armenians were successful and Russia did not commit a genocide of Armenians due to "revolutionary activity", so blaming Armenians for standing up to Ottoman oppression is just silly). Correct me if I've misunderstood you, but I only have your implications to go by as you mostly speak abstractly about history, and the few facts I have seen you use are inaccurate. I would appreciate it if you would make your ideas on the matter more clear.

what you say above is all propaganda.
armenians were known as the most loyal millet. the turks had no reason to exterminate us at a time when they needed us most.

yes, the american revolution had french help, but americans did not rely solely on the french. armenians relied too much on the great powers and ignored the fact that in politics promises mean lies.
the french revolution not only did not rely on outside help but had a great deal of opposition -- all kings in europe were related and feared republicans i.e. of losing their heads to the guillotine.
a revolution is or ought to be the most quintessentially self-reliant act.
remember zarian's dictum: "Our political parties have been of no political use to us; their greatest enemy is free speech." and where there is no free speech, propaganda and lies proliferate.
don't be a dupe!
/ ara

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Sunday, January 20, 2008
***********************************************
CROCODILES
*********************************
Readers who disagree with me and engage in verbal abuse are not my enemies. They are enemies of free speech, and enemies of free speech are fascist bullies who have no place in civilized discourse for the simple reason that they are against discourse.
I did not create free speech. Free speech has been around for a long time. So have been its opponents and victims, of course. Greeks, who 2500 years again disagreed with Socrates, also rejected the concept of free speech and dialogue by silencing him permanently. We have come a long way since then. Heidegger, one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, was also a Nazi, and as a Nazi he deserved the hangman’s noose. But he was left alone, probably because Americans, like Armenians, don’t think highly of philosophers because they favor philomorons, like Senator McCarthy, Kennedy’s “best and brightest” of Vietnam fame, Bush and his gang of neo-cons, and televangelists and their “moral majority.” As for Russians, our “Big Brothers”: they are worse. My guess is, Russians have silenced, exiled, and exterminated more intellectuals (including our own) than all other nations combined. Chekhov was right when he predicted that 20th-century Russia would be at the mercy of “crocodiles,” that, unlike their jungle counterparts, would engage in cannibalism.
#
Monday, January 21, 2008
*******************************************
THE LAMENT OF A WRITER
****************************************
“I am ashamed to call myself an Armenian,” Vahé Oshagan is reported to have said when one of his books was given a negative reception in our weeklies. Once upon a time I too identified myself with my fellow Armenians to such an unreasonable degree that I was embarrassed when any one of them behaved badly. I know now that Armenians, all Armenians without exception, are first and foremost individuals before being members of a tribe or nation; and as individuals, they should be judged as individuals. If an Armenian chooses to make an ass of himself in public, so be it, that is his choice, not mine or anyone else’s. If, as an individual he is free, so am I, and I freely choose not to be responsible for his actions.
*
Only dumb people assess themselves as smart, believe in their own assessment, and brag about it. And it doesn’t take much to be a victim. It takes even less to wallow in victimhood. Now then, go ahead and say, I am proud to be an Armenian because I am smart and because I come from a long line of perennial victims who have harmed no one but themselves and one another.
*
Whenever odars are given the opportunity or care enough to judge us, they will do so not by what we say about ourselves but our history; and no matter how you slice it, our history is a sad one, or, to put it more bluntly, it is nothing to brag about. If we have anything to brag about, it is our literature. But who reads Armenian writers these days? Not even Armenians. If Vahé Oshagan were alive today, I would tell him he has nothing to be ashamed of. After all, his book was read and reviewed by a handful of Armenians, which means, he was better off than most of our classics.
#
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
**********************************************
MEMO TO OUR PUNDITS
*************************************
Being popular by writing what the people want to read means pandering to the lowest common denominator, and as such it is to be avoided because it is the surest symptom of unprincipled mediocrity.
*
To speak of massacres is to relive them, and to speak of Turks means to reassert them as our masters even if the assertion is made in a remote corner of our subconscious. Our aim ought to be recovering our humanity and with it our creative impetus, which will allow us to make contributions to the welfare of our fellow men regardless of race, color, and creed. Then and only then we may deserve universal support.
*
Our writers are not our enemies, and yet this is how we have treated them. Being the offspring of victims does not justify us victimizing one another, especially those among us who dare to speak honestly and objectively about our failings. We all sympathize with victims, but if they insist on it day in day out, compassion fatigue may set it and sympathy may turn to annoyance and irritation.
*
To our Turcocentric pundits I say, it is now time that you downsize your Turcocentrism and emphasize Armenianism by writing more about our present problems and contradictions, of which we have more than our share.
#
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
********************************************
HISTORY AS THE PROPHETESS OF TRUTH
& WELLSPRING OF PHILOSOPHY
************************************************** *******
Diodorus of Sicily (first century B.C.), Greek historian: “Even the entirely fictitious legend of Hell is a mighty instrument for turning the hearts of men to righteousness and the fear of God. How much greater, therefore, must we conceive to be the potential ennobling influence upon character of History, the prophetess of truth and the wellspring of philosophy?”
*
Nothing stays the same. Suppose in a future post-global warming and post-World War III America the Constitution is amended and the laws of taxation re-written, so that instead of collecting taxes from ethnic minorities, bureaucrats from the IRS visit homes and collect our children – boys for the army, and girls for “comfort,” that is, legalized prostitution. How long before we emigrate? It took us 600 years to get out of the Ottoman Empire and even then we had to be driven out at the point of a yataghan. Our pundits are unanimous in saying Turks are butchers, rapists, thieves, and liars. I wonder, why is it that it took us 600 years to figure that out? If my better-informed readers know the answer to that question, why is it that so far they have kept it to themselves? At least let us have the honesty to admit that we may not be as smart as we think we are, and our greatest deceivers have not been the Great Powers of the West but our own speechifiers and sermonizers parading as statesmen and pundits.
*
Once upon a time we were free. Then we ceased to be free. We forgot what freedom meant. We had to be taught what freedom meant by the West, and we are still learning. Some day we may even begin to appreciate the value and importance of free speech.
*
Samuel Butler (1835-1902), English author: “Life is the art of drawing sufficient conclusions from insufficient premises.”
#

[ArmSurvival]

Re: notes / comments

Did they have a choice?
The Armenians on Hitler's side were volunteers.

This is a gross generalization. Much of the Wehrmacht's Armenian Legion actually consisted of Armenian POWs from the Soviet side, and this contingent saved a lot of xxxs by pretending that xxxish POWs were Armenians, allowing many of them to escape.

And sure there were a small number of Armenian volunteers for the Wehrmacht. It was either that or the POW camps, which, if you've read any of the accounts, were some of the worst places to find yourself. And you left out the important fact that when Hitler left for the eastern front, his Armenian Legion garrisoned in Amsterdam revolted against the Nazis and was replaced by a more loyal brigade.

And you can find a small number of Wehrmacht volunteers and/or supporters from any European nationality. It just baffles me how you use this example, among many others, to imply that Armenians are somehow inherently fascist or racist, but the examples you use can be applied to any other group. You then use this selective logic to come up with statements like this:

Can two Armenians engage in dialogue?
I have to see it to believe it.

As for your implications which enable you to ask these kinds of questions (nothing wrong with asking questions, the podium is yours for as long as you like, but what you ask is reflective of what you want to know and from which perspective you want to approach the issue), I hope I don't have to dig up examples of how you imply that all Armenians are racist and are generally incapable of intellectual thought, while claiming that our very problem is that we are racist and incapable of intellectual thought. Hell of a way to prove a point. And no, I'm in no way affiliated with a political party nor am I a racist (just read some of my posts), I just think your perspective is self-destructive as it will keep you thinking in circles, which will make it impossible to move forward and actually do anything. Some of it is a good read, you seem like a well-read person, but in the end its just mental masturbation, as your abstract implications are not applicable to real situations**.



**One of your implications is how the Armenian revolutionaries acted just before WWI, which the Turks used as an excuse to kill all Armenians. You imply it is the fault of the revolutionaries. You forget about the Hamidian massacres just a couple of decades prior to the revolutionary activity. Revolutionaries were essentially operating to prevent another Turkish massacre of Armenians. Building their own nation-state was one strategy in ensuring that Armenians cannot be at the mercy of Turks. This would only be possible by allying with foreign powers (it was a world war, afterall, and almost every revolution in history has outside support). If you have read the history of these events, you would know that it was a secret policy of the CUP to get rid of their Armenian population, regardless of what Armenians did, and they would look for any excuse to enact their genocidal policy. Ignorant people believed that the work of the Armenian revolutionaries was so sinister, even compared to the decades of Ottoman atrocities, that it naturally warranted a sharp, genocidal response from the Ottomans. So you choose to blame the people that actually got up and tried to protect their people from this oppression, while taking the blame off the actual culprits, who had a history of oppressing Armenians and who also had a premeditated plan to finish off what they started decades earlier (as a counterexample, Armenians resisted (by use of arms) the Russian Empire's decree to seize all Armenian church property in 1907, and the Armenians were successful and Russia did not commit a genocide of Armenians due to "revolutionary activity", so blaming Armenians for standing up to Ottoman oppression is just silly). Correct me if I've misunderstood you, but I only have your implications to go by as you mostly speak abstractly about history, and the few facts I have seen you use are inaccurate. I would appreciate it if you would make your ideas on the matter more clear.

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Thursday, January 17, 2008
**********************************************
SMOKE & MIRRORS
***************************************
Nigoghos Sarafian (1905-1973): “Our history is a litany of lamentation, anxiety, horror, and massacre. Also deception and abysmal naiveté mixed with the smoke of incense and the sound of sacred chants.”
*
In the Preface to his ANECDOTA or SECRET HISTORY, the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesaria (500-565 AD) writes that, by exposing past blunders, historians warn future leaders not to repeat them in the hope their incompetence will never be exposed and their reputation will remain unblemished. If it weren’t for historians, he goes on, we would never have known about “the dissolute career of Semiramis and the frenzy of Sardanapalus and Nero…”
*
Nothing comes more naturally to a blundering leader than to cover up his incompetence and to misrepresent his liabilities as assets, and his military defeats as moral victories. To this type of frauds parading as statesmen, and to their hirelings and dupes, honest observers will be branded as hostile witnesses and even enemy agents to be silenced, ostracized, and persecuted.
*
If you listen carefully to our sermonizers, speechifiers, and dime-a-dozen pundits, you will notice that their central message is always the same, namely, we are in good hands -- our leaders have done nothing wrong – it’s all someone else’s fault – the West betrayed us and the Turks are bloodthirsty savages, thieves, rapists, and liars. Hitler blamed the xxxs. We blame the world, after which we expect its sympathy and support.
*
After experiencing centuries of oppression and degradation under ruthless alien despots, we cling to the absurd notion that God is on our side, there is justice in this world, and sooner or later victory will be ours. All we have to do is trust the judgment of our bosses and bishops, and support them by sending “mi kich pogh.”
*
Where there is leadership without accountability there will also be taxation without representation.
#
Friday, January 18, 2008
************ ********* ********* ********* ********
AMOT!
************ ********* ******
“I love mankind,” Baronian once said, “but I hate men.” Born and raised in the Ottoman Empire, Baronian was in an excellent position to know that men are either executioners or victims, masters or slaves (Hegel), exploiters or workers (Marx); and the secret ambition of all underdogs is to be top dogs, exploiters, masters, or executioners. He also knew that when victims cannot victimize their executioners, they victimize one another. Baronian did not live long enough to be victimized by Turks, but he was betrayed to the Turkish police and victimized by his fellow Armenians.
*
We love literature but we hate writers. No, not quite. If truth be told, it’s much worse. We don’t give a damn about writers and what we really hate is free speech. And we hate free speech because it threatens to expose us as potential executioners not of our enemies but fellow Armenians who dare to disagree with us. I speak from experience.
*
Like all nations we have our share of skinheads, philistines, and hooligans, with one difference: they are now our masters. Or, in the words of a wiser man than myself: “Once upon a time we were slaves. We are now slaves of former slaves.”
*
To silence someone whose sole intent is to share his understanding of reality is to choose to be on the side of executioners, assassins, and some of the worst serial killers in the history of mankind – Hitler and Stalin being two recent cases in point.
*
To our hooligans I say: For once, reality is against you because we live on a continent where free speech happens to be a fundamental human right. You have two options: get out or stop reading, or if you can’t give up reading, read only chauvinist crapola, partisan editorials, and our dime-a-dozen Turcocentric pundits. But if you insist on reading me, it may be because deep down somewhere – assuming such depths exist – you find truth irresistible. Either that or you are fed up with your own lies which are not even yours but that of our crème de la scum parading as our crème de la crème.
*
Only people who can’t tell the difference between literature and propaganda assert truth is on their side. Only fanatics who can’t tell the difference between god and the devil dare to assert god is on their side.
#
Saturday, January 19, 2008
***********************************************
WRITERS & POLITICIANS
******************************************
Hagop Baronian (1842-1891): “Truth is a language that if not spoken is forgotten.”
*
Derenik Demirjian (1877-1956): “Every Armenian has another Armenian whom he considers his mortal enemy.”
*
Shahan Shahnour (1904-1974): “For my generation of Armenians, the enemy is not the Turk but us.”
*
The pen is mightier than the sword? Our writers and poets were Talaat's and Stalin’s first victims.
“Writers are the architects of the soul,” one of our bosses once said to me and I believed him, until I read a similar statement by Stalin.
*
We are all born dupes but inevitably we run across another dupe who stands in direct contradiction to us. At which point we wonder: How can anyone be so wrong and so sure of himself? What if he is right and I am wrong? What if we are both wrong? Why would anyone lie to us?
*
We either believe our politicians or our writers. I am not saying all writers speak the truth and all politicians are compulsive and habitual liars. What I am suggesting is that, when it comes to lying, politicians are better at it because they have had more practice.
*
I don’t write against Armenians. I write against charlatans and dupes. Only readers who can’t tell the difference between one and the other accuse me of being anti-Armenian.
*
Shirvanzadeh (Alexander Movsessian: 1858-1935): “The narrow partisan propaganda line that is espoused by our press is the enemy of all literature.”
*
Siamanto (Adom Yerjanian: 1878-1915): “Our perennial enemy – the enemy that will eventually destroy us – is not the Turks but our own complacent superficiality.”
*
Hagop Garabents (Jack Karapetian: 1925-1996): “Once upon a time we fought and shed our blood for freedom. We are now afraid of free speech.”
#