notes / comments

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Saturday, December 29, 2007
************************************************** *
FEEDBACK
********************************
“If genocide means the systematic extermination of a nation, how come you are still around?” a Turkish reader wants to know.
No matter how systematic and efficiently carried out, a genocide is seldom successful. Even the Germans, the most efficient and systematic of nations, failed to exterminate xxxs and Gypsies.
*
Another Turkish reader writes: “The Turks are too sloppy a people to have organized and carried out a policy of systematic extermination.”
It is equally true that Armenians are too divided to agree on anything. And yet, not only they agree on the reality of the genocide, they have also been successful in convincing an important fraction of the world to agree with them.
*
My quarrel with our genocide pundits is not that they misrepresent reality but that they live in the past. “Let the dead bury their dead,” we are told, especially at a time when the living are dying.
*
To speak of Armenians only in the context of massacres: is that not a misrepresentation? Or, as Gramsci points out somewhere: Why would anyone care about a people known only as victims?
*
It is easy to make enemies, much more difficult to make friends. Our challenge is to convert our enemies to friends, and not to convert our brothers to enemies.
*
Civility and patriotism are not mutually exclusive concepts. Rules of civilized conduct apply even to superpatriots. So do rules of logic, common sense and decency. To say otherwise is to equate patriotism with barbarism.
#

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Sunday, December 30, 2007
**********************************************
DAVID ANHAGHT
*********************************
As children we were taught that Armenian philosopher David Anhaght (6th century AD) was called “Invincible” because he never lost an argument. What were the central ideas of his philosophy? Did he support freedom or obedience to authority? Who gave him that sobriquet – his students or disciples? Why is it that he is not mentioned in any text on the history of philosophy – not even in a footnote? What was his favorite method of winning arguments -- quoting Plato, Aristotle, and the Scriptures? Raising his voice? Attacking his adversary’s ideas or person? Finally and most important of all: what’s the merit in winning an argument in defense of false ideas?
*
An organized religion becomes idolatry when obedience to God evolves to subservience to men who speak in His name?
*
If a messiah were to appear among us today, I suspect one of his most important messages to the world will be: “Verily I say unto you: When a man speaks in the name of God, it is the words of the Devil that issue from his mouth.”
#

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Monday, December 31, 2007
************************************************
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
ON TURKISH DENIALISM
& RELATED ATROCITIES
****************************************
Q: How should we treat Turkish denialism?
A: With understanding. We should not speak of them as if they were bloodthirsty savages.
Q: But isn’t genocide a quintessentially bloodthirsty crime against humanity?
A: Yes, of course. But we should ascribe that crime where it belongs, namely, to their share of ruffians and cutthroats…and I hope you will agree with me when I say that all nations, including the most civilized, have their share of rapists and serial killers.
Q: Isn’t it equally true that not all nations deny their crimes against humanity?
A: Let us not confuse nations with regimes, and regimes with the people. We should not ascribe Turkish denialism to the nation or the people but to the foreign policy and educational system of the present regime. If many Turks reject the charge of genocide, it may be because most Turks, like most people, are dupes whose worldview is shaped by propaganda as opposed to rules imposed on us by objective judgment.
Q: If I understand you correctly, you are saying, Turks may plead not guilty by reason of ignorance?
A: What I am also saying, collective ignorance or patriotic bias is not an exclusively Turkish aberration.
Q: You also seem to be saying all nations and all people are more or less alike. In which case I must ask, how do we explain the fact that Turks are guilty of genocide but Armenians are not?
A: We explain it by saying, that is not a result of moral superiority but of military inferiority.
Q: On a related topic: you speak of Ottomanized Armenians. Could you define Ottomanization for us?
A: I would define it as the assimilation of Ottoman cultural values, such as the adoption of extreme views, even when these views are against our own interests. Case in point: our refusal to engage in dialogue with those who disagree with us, or to interpret disagreement as an expression of hostility or even hatred. Another case in point would be our painting Turks all black and Armenians all white thus undermining our own credibility in the eyes of the world. No one in his right mind believes Armenians are or could ever be all white for the simple reason that even saints are not all white.
Q: Final question: How do we go about de-Ottomanizing ourselves?
A: That’s almost like asking how do we de-programme a brainwashed person? There are no easy answers or methods. Education would be one way. Etiquette would be another. Suppose you believe in something with every single fiber in your body but you are not sure if your interlocutor shares your belief. If you make an assertion based on your belief and introduce or end it with the qualifier, I may be wrong about this, you may consider yourself de-Ottomanized as well as de-Stalinized.
Q: Why is it that a great many Armenians disagree with you?
A: If they do, it may be because I am wrong.
Q: Practicing what you preach?
A: That’s the very least I can do.
Q: I wish you a happy and creative New Year.
A: I too wish you all the best. May all your dreams come true!
#

[KarotheGreat]

Re: notes / comments

I qot 2 questions for you, why don't you stop writing? And why do you suck so much? can you tell me that,

[jgk3]

Re: notes / comments

he writes because it's in his interest to. He doesn't suck, he's just not a nationalist. When I think nationalistically, I feel in disagreement to a lot of what ara has to say as well.

When I think individualistically, or humanistically, that changes and I see merit in his analysis of human beings and society.

[zourna]

Re: notes / comments

he writes because it's in his interest to. He doesn't suck, he's just not a nationalist. When I think nationalistically, I feel in disagreement to a lot of what ara has to say as well.

When I think individualistically, or humanistically, that changes and I see merit in his analysis of human beings and society.

Very well put, jgk3. Couldn't agree more!

[crusader1492]

Re: notes / comments

I qot 2 questions for you, why don't you stop writing? And why do you suck so much? can you tell me that,

Now he's interviewing himself

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Tuesday, January 01, 2008
*****************************************
IT IS WRITTEN
***********************************
Fools who think they are smart: they are the curse of mankind. I am not surprised therefore when on rereading THE PROVERBS in the Old Testament, I notice that almost every other proverb deals with fools. God loves the poor, it is said, that is why He has created so many of them. If we assume that to be true (which I doubt), why then did He create so many fools when He obviously has nothing but contempt for them (if we assume the Scriptures to be His word)?
*
“Like a dog that returns to his vomit, is a fool that repeats his folly,” reads one proverb.
*
“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself,” reads another.
*
More random samples follow:
“A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the back of fools.”
*
“A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man quietly holds it back.”
*
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
*
“A fool’s lips bring strife, and his mouth invites a flogging.”
*
“A fool’s mouth is his ruin, and his lips are a snare to himself.”
*
Is a fool capable of admitting to being one?
What could be more foolish than trying to reason with fools?
While reading THE PROVERBS, has a fool ever thought, “It is about me that the Good Lord speaks.”
#

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Wednesday, January 02, 2008
*********************************************
WHY WE DISAGREE
*********************************
Most Christians are Christians because they were born in a Christian country. The same applies to Muslims and Hindus. Environment plays a key role in determining our belief system. Different environments, educational systems, parents, experiences, role models, and encounters mean different worldviews. Most Tashnaks had Tashnak parents, likewise most Ramgavars and Communists. My father lost everything he owned in two separate occasions, World War I in Turkey and World War II in Greece. He was too busy trying to survive in an alien environment to have any time for politics. This may be only a partial explanation as to why I am suspicious of all political parties and ideologies. This may also be why I don’t expect anyone to agree with me, especially if agreement means recycling the same propaganda line. I am not in the business of recycling propaganda. If anything the opposite applies: I have made it my business to expose the lies of propaganda, the very same lies that are at the root of our internecine conflicts and divisions, not to say dogmatism and authoritarianism. Disagreement is both inevitable and natural; what is not natural is the implication that the neighborhood in which you were born and raised is better than someone else’s, which is almost as absurd as the suggestion that those who brainwashed you were better men than their counterparts on the other side of a mountain, river, sea or some other imaginary line. In my view brainwashing is a criminal offense and no good man would ever engage in such a nefarious activity. Since truth is destined to remain beyond our reach, let us agree that more often than not disagreements are clashes not between a truth and a lie but two half-truths and sometimes even two big lies.
#

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Thursday, January 03, 2008
************************************************
ASKING QUESTIONS, GETTING ANSWERS
************************************************** ******
If you want to know the truth about the Catholic Church, don’t ask the Pope. This inevitably raises the question: If you can’t trust the Pope, whom can you trust? The answer is and must be: No one with power.
*
If you want to know more about Armenians, don’t ask an Armenian, who may know much more about Armenians than most odars. That’s because quantity of knowledge does not always translate to quality, or objectivity, reliability, and honesty. If you want to know the truth about Turks, would you ask a Turk?
*
If you want to know more about nationalism, the worst mistake you can make is to ask a nationalist. Ask instead the victims of nationalism, and if you are an Armenian, you don’t have to look for one. Ask yourself. Armenians have been the first major victims of nationalism in the 20th century.
*
John Stuart Mill: “No one but a fool, and only a fool of a peculiar description, feels offended by the acknowledgement that there are others whose opinion is entitled to a greater amount of consideration than his.” Translated into dollars and cents, this means: All men are created equal, but their opinions are not.
*
Speaking of the Pope and Christianity, I read the following question in a recent issue of THE SPECTATOR: “Where would Christianity be if Jesus had got 8 to 15 years with time off for good behavior?”
#