Հայոց ճակատագիր

[tunot]

Re: notes / comments

Your 'worthless' comment is interesting. I wouldn't expect tunot's opinions to be far from yours as a cheerleader always stands by her team.

As far as nationalism, the right to survival and preserving one's nation is a natural right. If one believes and takes pride in ones nation over others, does that make him a nationalist? If one seeks the preservation of ones nation does that make him a nationalist? Why do closed minds use only the vile examples of genocides and persecutions by one nation or another as an example to fault all motives of nation preserving? Ironically, those like you who believe nationalism to be a foreign force to influence Armenians do not realize that it is Marxists and cultural leftists who believe in such things, who believe that there were no nations until Europeans ushered in nationalism, thereby 'injecting' into our minds the concept of 'nations'. Such thinking presupposes that people suffer from a false consciousness of sorts.

But it's true. Armenians didn't believe in a nation, or did not see themselves as a part of a greater Armenian nation, until late into the twentieth century. Even in the late nineteenth, it was only a small group of cosmopolitans, who had been schooled in Europe and America, who brought the notion of a nation with them. The rest of the Armenians identified themselves with their church, their village, their class, and ultimately their "tribe" or family. The whole concept of us belonging to one whole, allowing ourselves to get married among each other, regardless of town, class, or tribe is very new and very European/American influenced.

[Anonymouse]

Re: ????? ?????????

But it's true. Armenians didn't believe in a nation, or did not see themselves as a part of a greater Armenian nation, until late into the twentieth century. Even in the late nineteenth, it was only a small group of cosmopolitans, who had been schooled in Europe and America, who brought the notion of a nation with them. The rest of the Armenians identified themselves with their church, their village, their class, and ultimately their "tribe" or family. The whole concept of us belonging to one whole, allowing ourselves to get married among each other, regardless of town, class, or tribe is very new and very European/American influenced.

By the above you only display your gross misunderstanding of history. Why not do us all a favor and stick to linguistics where you shine better than in history? As far as your assertion above, that is only a Marxian interpretation of events and not in any way explanatory of anything. I only have one answer to people who proclaim the above bromide, that supposedly people were not a people before they were told they were a people by God knows what. I know, because I used to believe this grossly incorrect above argument.

Why do you think people such as Bede wrote The Ecclesiastical History of the English People in 731 A.D. What about Movses Khorenatsi who wrote History of Armenia in the 5th century? I find it difficult to see how men could write a book about peoples, who supposedly did not exist until the 19th century cosmopolitans came around to tell them they did.

Before the 19th century, nationalism did not need a name, it was a natural and God given train of thought that most respectable beings instinctively saw as being so true that it did not need a name. This natural and sustaining feeling that has existed as long back as we can see, and is an essential factor of any community that values itself, only needed a name when Marxian ideologues and 'enlightenment thinkers' or 'cosmopolitans' started to destroy it. It comes down to shared history, common values and common culture, despite all else. Its a tribal thing, and this is commonality. The Armenian villages, the age of nakharars, etc., had far more in common with themselves than they did with neighbor Kurds, or Turks, or Mongols. You can believe otherwise as much as you want, but it remains nothing more than an appeal to your own ignorance, and the way you would rather things be, or ought to be.

For your information: Ara only reads his own thread, and thus only replies there. I actually don't see why anything needed to be removed.

Regardless.

So you're saying we should live by anarchy? That we should have no government? Or that we cannot create the first government ever that actually cares about its people, rather than itself?

If you knew anything you would know that such thinking is wishful thinking and only engaged in by dupes. Governments have always grown out of proportion to only support themselves. While governments may have started with noble intentions, they almost always morph into things beyond what they supported. While institutions are designed supposedly to serve man, (at least in theory, under the overrated thing we call democracy) institutions take on a life of their own after some time and instead of staying true to their original intent - namely to support those they were erected to support - they become ends in themselves and the bureaucrats who wield it. You cannot replace one system of control, and of bureaucracy and expect to get different results, for, as I am sure you know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And absolute power is only available to people in the arena of statecraft.

Are we then like everyone else? Why not mix then and forget about culture, since it's like everyone else's anyway?

You would love that, wouldn't you?

You keep accusing me of defeatism, but you have here shown that it is in fact you who is a defeatist, especially as a future lawyer, since it is the law that might ensure that we keep our leaders in check.

How am I a defeatist? Here is a typical example of you engaging in non-sequitur line of reasoning. You make an unsubstantiated assertion - that I am a defeatist - and go on to not even establish that. At best you base it on the misleading statement that since I do not support government bureaucrats that I am therefore a defeatist. Just what have I said that rivals your nihilism, cynicism, and defeatism? It has been you and only you (and Ara) that have called Armenians worthless, that have called for our own destruction and defeat as being 'better off'. Am I missing something here?

As far as laws, since laws are products of legislation, and mind you, a product of the legislative branches in governments - the work of politicians - laws cannot ever ensure 'checks and balances', because overtime it is not in the interest of the bureaucracies to do so. The surest failure of such a system is the United States. Yet, because of your lack of exposure to political philosophy you cannot see that and instead resort to trying to have an argument by trying to taint me as a future lawyer, which really doesn't amount to much. I might be the lousiest lawyer there is, but what does that have anything with this?

Clearly some countries are doing better than us. Much better, in fact. Otherwise we wouldn't be living in their countries.

Thank you for that Captain Obvious!

As for Armenians being on the verge of extinction, you have to be truly uneducated about your Armenian history to think that we have ever been a significant country or nation. We've been around for over 3000 years, for your info. Only 6 million of us today? That is if we include the likes of Princess Diana and Cher. Otherwise, we might as well barely reach 1 million. All that because one part of us lives in evil Western countries that wish to melt us in their pot and because we are xenophiles by nature? This is why I can't take you seriously. Neither you, nor your solutions.

Oh please, everytime something disagrees and goes against with your cherished nonsense, then it surely must be because the other side is ignorant and uneducated, because you and you alone (and Ara) see the truth! Everyone else, as usual, in the world of tunot, is suffering from dire myopia and meandering in ignorance, because she and she alone sees the truth and the underlying deep and esoteric textures of life and mind, while the rest of us profane folk are just tilling the fields like pigs. And while you constantly claim you do not take me seriously, yet why have you repeatedly responded to me or felt the need to? You have followed me in every thread where I have stated these and in a prevous thread you even haranged me for 'having the last word' and not giving you the chance on 'having the last word'. And when Ara's thread was cleaned up and all of these discussions removed, why did you bring up what I have said or say when clearly we were not in discussions at that specific moment? It seems you would like to believe yourself, and you would like for you to not take me seriously, but you do, and I am basing this entirely on your actions. Whether you accept or deny it, it matters not.

I have told you before, if you don't like it, pack your bags. If you are going to call Armenians worthless and insignificant and better off mixed and assimilated, you are better off being a Turk or being with a Turk or calling yourself a Turk. What part of this do you call 'doing your share'? Your constant whining and haranging is exactly what Armenians have suffered too much of now and then and it is sickening. I expect Turks to come in with the hatred you have toward your own. You will claim you have no hatred, for you truly care otherwise you wouldn't be here trying to 'find solutions' or that 'you have done your share', but is this really caring and sharing? If this is caring, then I don't want to know what despising it is. Calling Armenians worthless, and better off assimilated, dabbling in your pessimism and cynicism and calling everyones efforts and solutions as worthless, yet you having no solutions yourself? Solutions are plenty and all around us, that is never and has never been a problem for Armenians. The problem with Armenians is that they have trouble putting their huge and inflated egos and arrogance aside, and actually doing something, anything.

[tunot]

Re: ????? ?????????

Give me a f.king break! If I wanted to write an argumentative essay every time I came here!

I think my comments are obvious enough, for instance that you are a defeatist. Here's the non-sequitoriosisness of it: you say that there is no point in trying because it is corrupt by nature and therefore nothing we can do to change it. That, my friend, = defeatism.

On nationalism: that's what I thought too, until I read some other works that explained how Armenians saw themselves as parts of tribes, rather than a whole nation. As to Khorenatsi: it's hard to say whether he was writing about the entire people, or about one specific tribe only; namely, the royal tribe.

As to our significance. You truly must be an idiot to put more worth to us than we are. That is the product of nineteenth century nationalism: thinking your nation is worth more than it is. Guess what? If it was worth anything, it would not be a mess today, the Chinese couple across your street would not mispronounce it as "Romania," your teacher would not ask you to "explain", was it?, and 99.9% percent of the traveling world would not choose Turkey over Armenia as their holiday resort, not to mention that Armenian as a second language would be "cool" to learn. As long as that is not happening, as long as we are tiny, insignificant, and dependent, you can't expect me to say anything else but: we have not learned ANYTHING over the last 3000 years of our tribal existence. Our culture promotes our assimilation and our people could care less. That, my friend, = worthless and useless to the rest of us. And then you blame us for being xenophiles?? Hey, maybe those xenos have quite a bit more to offer us than our own so-called nation. That includes you and your parents, buddy.

[Anonymouse]

Re: ????? ?????????

Give me a f.king break! If I wanted to write an argumentative essay every time I came here!

I think my comments are obvious enough, for instance that you are a defeatist. Here's the non-sequitoriosisness of it: you say that there is no point in trying because it is corrupt by nature and therefore nothing we can do to change it. That, my friend, = defeatism.

Apparently you don't even know the disease you suffer from, namely, defeatism and nihilism. One of the main points of Nietzsche's writings were on nihilism, and that nihilism eventually is defeatist for it leaves man in a state of distruction. It is against all life affirming and life reinforcing values.

You are either deliberately misconstruing what I say or you are slow. I have stated there is no point in trying to reform politics for politics by itself is non-reformable. It only resorts back to the same thing. That you cannot see this is 1) being bull-headed for the sake of having something to argue and 2) your ignorance in political philosophy. And if you actually read what I wrote, I did offer my thoughts on solutions to relying and being dependent on government, the god that failed.

On nationalism: that's what I thought too, until I read some other works that explained how Armenians saw themselves as parts of tribes, rather than a whole nation. As to Khorenatsi: it's hard to say whether he was writing about the entire people, or about one specific tribe only; namely, the royal tribe.

Ronald Suny is big on that sort of thinking, trying to negate Armenians as a nation. However, that is simply a twist that Marxian scholars have taken, and since last I could remember, Ronald Suny was of the Marxist persuasion. I find this amazing, or rather disturbing. As a matter of fact nations are as real, socially and politically, as a rock is real. In the past there may have been other names for what we call today a nation. They used to call the ancient nations "tribes". Looking after the tribes interests (which is pure common sense) is what we call nationalism today.

We have already had the claim that "race doesn't exist" or "is a social construct" and this seems to be up in that alley. Anything and everything that stands in opposition to egalitarian and post-modernist pipe dreams must be negated to feel good. This seems to be some kind of nihilism post-modern scholars seem to engage in after one pipe-dream collapses after the other. What's next, capital doesn't exist and capital is "nothing more than the creation of the 19th century"? How much more stupid are people going to get?

As to our significance. You truly must be an idiot to put more worth to us than we are. That is the product of nineteenth century nationalism: thinking your nation is worth more than it is. Guess what? If it was worth anything, it would not be a mess today, the Chinese couple across your street would not mispronounce it as "Romania," your teacher would not ask you to "explain", was it?, and 99.9% percent of the traveling world would not choose Turkey over Armenia as their holiday resort, not to mention that Armenian as a second language would be "cool" to learn. As long as that is not happening, as long as we are tiny, insignificant, and dependent, you can't expect me to say anything else but: we have not learned ANYTHING over the last 3000 years of our tribal existence. Our culture promotes our assimilation and our people could care less. That, my friend, = worthless and useless to the rest of us. And then you blame us for being xenophiles?? Hey, maybe those xenos have quite a bit more to offer us than our own so-called nation. That includes you and your parents, buddy.

Then stop whining and pack your bags and leave. Why the need to justify yourself constantly and whine about it? If all hope is lost, then get lost.

[tunot]

Re: ????? ?????????

Apparently you don't even know the disease you suffer from, namely, defeatism and nihilism. One of the main points of Nietzsche's writings were on nihilism, and that nihilism eventually is defeatist for it leaves man in a state of distruction. It is against all life affirming and life reinforcing values.

Speak for yourself. Read what you wrote below:

You are either deliberately misconstruing what I say or you are slow. I have stated there is no point in trying to reform politics for politics by itself is non-reformable. It only resorts back to the same thing. That you cannot see this is 1) being bull-headed for the sake of having something to argue and 2) your ignorance in political philosophy. And if you actually read what I wrote, I did offer my thoughts on solutions to relying and being dependent on government, the god that failed.

The above is nihilist, cynical, and defeatist by nature. We need a government otherwise we cannot survive. Other governments have apparently done much better than ours, or else we would not be living in their countries. How come?

Then stop whining and pack your bags and leave. Why the need to justify yourself constantly and whine about it? If all hope is lost, then get lost.

I never said hope was lost. You are the one who is suggesting that there is nothing we can change about our situation. That we should take it or leave it. As long as you think that way, we ARE doomed to continue to exist precisely in the same way, or worse, as we have until now. You'll move to Armenia with your kiddies, and they will move out the first opportunity they get. The cycle continues. If that's what you want, then you deserve it, but don't expect others to give you a standing ovation.

[Anonymouse]

Re: ????? ?????????

Speak for yourself. Read what you wrote below:

The above is nihilist, cynical, and defeatist by nature. We need a government otherwise we cannot survive. Other governments have apparently done much better than ours, or else we would not be living in their countries. How come?

That is untrue. Perhaps you don't know me or my position on governments in general which is why you are led to brand it nihilistic. On the contrary, you want it to be nihilistic, not that it is. As far as governments, America, by any standards had the smallest, and up to this point, was the best experiment in terms of statecraft. It has failed and will continue toward its downward spiral and if you want a discussion on that as it is a seriously different topic, a thread can be erected.

I never said hope was lost. You are the one who is suggesting that there is nothing we can change about our situation. That we should take it or leave it.

That is a lie. I have repeatedly stated change is possible and I am all for change, and change begins on a local level, and not worrying about "politicians, bosses and bishops".

As long as you think that way, we ARE doomed to continue to exist precisely in the same way, or worse, as we have until now. You'll move to Armenia with your kiddies, and they will move out the first opportunity they get. The cycle continues. If that's what you want, then you deserve it, but don't expect others to give you a standing ovation.

What way do I think? It has only been you that has spewed your cynical tirades on these here boards. I have constantly said that work is ahead of us and change begins individually and locally. You seem to want drastic results in drastic measures on drastic cross sections of Armenian society and government. It doesn't work that way.

[tunot]

Re: Հայոց ճակատագիր

If you think working on a local level will help, go ahead and do it! Although I still think our greatest challenge is on a much higher level. Once that is done, the rest should follow. We need to scrape all political parties that are ruining us in the diaspora, scrape fund-raisers and benefactors, start creating jobs for our youth that benefit Armenia, and show them that Armenia has a worthy future ahead of it. If you can do this, by all means, I will stand behind you and maybe even give in my share, there where I can.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Հայոց ճակատագիր

If you think working on a local level will help, go ahead and do it! Although I still think our greatest challenge is on a much higher level. Once that is done, the rest should follow. We need to scrape all political parties that are ruining us in the diaspora, scrape fund-raisers and benefactors, start creating jobs for our youth that benefit Armenia, and show them that Armenia has a worthy future ahead of it. If you can do this, by all means, I will stand behind you and maybe even give in my share, there where I can.

Why do you think America has been a success? It is not because of government (maybe to a degree), but rather because of its economy, because the government was limited to its spheres and allowed the market to flourish and create the great boom that it had, and now has run out of steam.

Unfortunately for Armenia, almost a century of Bolshevik welfarism and bliss has drained the country both of its work ethic and resources and greatly altered the peoples mentality and habits. It has only made them more dependent on government, and has allowed the corruption to continue. The corruption that you see now in Armenia, and many other former Soviet republics, are a vestige of the old regime that have carried over into the present. How many ministers, interiors and offices does Armenia have? It seems there is a minister and a bureaucrat for everything from trees to sports and the only thing they are short of is a bureaucrat for shytting. Who needs that? When you say get rid of it, I am all for it, get rid of. I believe the best government for Armenia is the government that will govern least, and I am fully aware that my position is the most unpopular and perhaps even seen as untenable. I have often heard objections stating "What if Azeris attack with their army?" Apparently these people have never heard of arming every citizen, or guerellia warfare. If backward people like the Afghanis can defeat the Soviet Union, and now as insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are giving America more trouble than it bargained for, anything is possible.

Change cannot occur from top down, as you would like, by the hand of government, for no government bureaucrat could ever effectively make decisions for other people because it is impossible to process all of the information that goes into other people's decision-making. When the government attempts these sort of things on grand scales, as the Soviet Union did and the U.S. has increasingly dabbled in, it creates unintended consequences which are always harmful. Change occurs and must come from below, from individuals and gradually, but in time it will lead to nobler and higher things, to the Armenian of the future. If you think it is only government that holds together what you see as the frail thread of Armenian identity and it is government that creates jobs, then you are looking up at the wrong constellations.

This isn't about anyone standing behind me or anyone else. I want everyone to stand behind themselves, their families and their children, and to do all that is possible to help extend us and Armenia to forbidden futures, forbidden futures that no doubt the Turk, the Azeri, the Bushyte, the Blair, etc. would like to see absolved.

[tunot]

Re: ????? ?????????

I'm not saying that governments should decide for us what we should do or not, as it was during the Soviet Union. I'm saying that the government should protect us and create an environment in which we can all flourish individually and as a whole. That is why nothing will change until the top is changed.

[Anonymouse]

Re: ????? ?????????

I'm not saying that governments should decide for us what we should do or not, as it was during the Soviet Union. I'm saying that the government should protect us and create an environment in which we can all flourish individually and as a whole. That is why nothing will change until the top is changed.

Unfortunately, that is not a reflection of how governments form. They manufacture consent and are comprised of from below. They must form from below for nothing can exist right off the top. What should the government protect us from? How has it protected Armenians thus far? In fact, it can reasonably be argued that government is precisely what has caused more problems, economically, politically and which has in turn created the unintended consequences of emigration, economic stagnation, etc. I do not share your faith in government.