Twilight Bark

Dear Axel, Unlike Boghos, I have no animosity toward you. However, I have to say that you seem to have missed the point I was making. Or rather, you have this "hard core" + "soft peripheral" idea of the diaspora, apparently theorizing that, once assimilation eats away at the soft part, it will stop with a thud when it bumps against the "hard core". That does not reflect reality. Even the most fervent preservationist family will have kids that simply will not accept the burden of preservation, or the message will be garbled because the "message", "the point" of it all will be garbled in transmission from one generation to the next. It would happen with a significant and regualr frequency, because people are imperfect. More often then you would like, you will have a descendant that by his/her nature will not care as much about the whole thing, and that will be the end of that branch. Individuals vary, but statistics are merciless. Unless the statistics themselves are moved by a "sea change". I support individual effort. I just choose not to suspend my reason. I have no problem with a "losing battle", if only for boosting the chance to catch the "sea change". On to a more practical matter, and related to what I have been saying. For "individual effort" to succeed, the preservationist not only needs to have a convincing, compelling message to his/her offspring, but needs to have at least three kids to beat the odds. Four or five would be better. If you make that a part of "preservationist ethos", and make the larger ethos compelling enough to withstand the relentless attack by the host culture, then you have a chance of having a "hard-core" that will resist disappearance without fresh additions. As for the desperate and deeply flawed arguments of mx5, I already expressed my disgust at the idea of viewing Armenia as a source for replenishing a leaking diaspora. I am no fan of "rationalistic pessimism" either. And "pessimism" is not rational, it is an emotion. Whether you are a fan of rationality or not, the reality as it exists now will not care about what you, as an individual prefer. And to change reality itself takes more than a random convergence of individual efforts. It needs a "sea change", a "coherent driving force". What I lament is the apparent lack of the latter. While I gave up hope on mx5, I hope you will read what I have been saying more carefully and not interpret my view of diasporan demise as a gleeful anticipation but a sad inevitability whose existence I chose to accept and fight (in my small way) at the same time. I will not change my attutude towards asimilation (I oppose it vigorously) regardless of whether it is futile to fight it or not. But I will change my "prediction" only when facts on the ground change.

Same to you. You definitely need a lot of it to make up for some deficiencies.

I am trying hard to keep an open mind about the smell Domino.

His pledge was not to simply read the forum but to read the forum with a flexible mind, and with his sense-of-humor circuits turned on. So he needs to re-read the stuff then.

What is your problem exactly? Do you want rational discourse or kindergarten level parroting of what you want to hear? You claim to be a chess-player, but fail to show any of the mental discipline that would be required of one. So far, all I have seen from you is a consistent misdefinition of just about everything you try to handle. In your lingo, an intuitive, emotional approach becomes "in-depth, rational analysis", a dispassionate and honest assessment of a situation becomes "intuitive", clear mathematical facts get responses twisted up in self-conflicting non-logic. And you are talking about disappointment and negativity. Enough is enough. I expressed my sympathy about all the preservation stuff. I certainly do my part in my family. However, if you expected me to submit to half-baked trivial interpretations of reality, it is no surprise that you are disappointed. Just be honest with yourself and admit that you cannot handle a rational view of reality, instead of demanding a suspension of reason.

To keep concepts coherent, one needs to treat the separate but related concepts of underlying assimilation behavior of the diaspora itself, and the immigration into and out of Armenia separately. It seems we agree that the diapora would implode without fresh additions from Armenia. Always? Only if there is "always" fresh additions from Armenia. I don't think he "suggested" that it be done. He simply predicted that it would eventually occur to any diasporan family after an arbitrary but finite number of generations. Pirate says it all depends on "individual initiative". Well, in that case, see my argument above. It is not a self-sustaining idea. And "deciding to go back home" will realistically happen only when my aforementioned dreams comes a bit closer to being a reality (as it stands, it should start with "in a galaxy far far away ...) But I am being realistic. I am simply enumerating the possibilities and preferred scenarios. When something is a dream rather than a prediction, I honestly say so. My sincere best wishes in your quest to find a niche in the homeland. America is designed to assimilate the newcomers into a "melting pot". In the past, it relied on more heavy-handed tactics. Nowadays it simply waits for its cultural machinery to take care of it slowly, nicely, and surely. So yes, it would not be the best place for "preservation".

Then it turns out that you agree more with Boghos than Pirate, as far as the underlying diasporan dynamics. I'd rather be optimistic about the future of Armenia than the preservation of a hemorrhaging diaspora. I'd rather dream of an Armenia that has two gleaming metropolises that act as a regional, and why not, a global powerhouse of cultural, scientific and economic activity. I want to dream of an Armenia that easily houses 20 million people, whose "overflow" would be establishing commercial colonies in the neighboring countries, acting as conduits of more progress and good will. I find it insulting to think of Armenia as a supplier of immigrants to faraway lands to their eventual assimilation.

Mathematically, that would be unsustainable, since the fertility rate in the homeland is about 1.6 at the moment, I think. But what a dismal view. Much more dismal than the prediction of a disappearing diaspora. So the function of the homeland is to supply more biological material for the countries hosting the diaspora, where the diaspora acts the middle man? Yuck.

Yes of course. If you notice, somewhere in the preceding dialogue I do say "in the absence of fresh additions", or something to that effect. That is an obvious corrolary. And I don't think anyone here wants to preserve the diaspora by "fresh additions".

I think you have it backwards. Boghos is being dispassionate about the fate of the diaspora, and Pirate represents the emotional approach. Both have their place. Consider this: The "replacement rate" for fertility is about 2.1 children per woman. From what I see, three- or four-child Armenian households are not very common. The typical is two kids, with a significant number of one-child families. My guess is that the fertility rate in the diaspora is slightly below the replacement rate to begin with. Now consider a wildly optimistic 20% assimilation rate, which decreases the "effective fertility" even further, and what you get is an asymptotic decay of disaporan numbers to zero. This will not change by "individual effort", because the number of individuals who make the "effort" would still be handicapped by the erosion of the base number, unless there is a coherent "sea change" that results in a collective change of attitudes of a magnitude that reverses the math above. There are other inconsistencies in Pirate's long, passionate, but not-so-deep "analysis", but maybe we can talk about them some other time.

Alright. I'll accept that. And I also don't know much about how "brutal" the Christianization of Pontic Greeks were. In any event, if your rejection by the mainstream Greek culture has anything to do with the brutality of conversion, it is in the reverse sense of what you are suggesting. To clarify, to the extent that the islamization of Pontic Greeks was not "brutal", Greeks may see themselves justified in saying "You made your choice, you abandoned what is profoundly important to us. Don't bang the door on the way out." So I don't know what exactly the issue of brutality has to offer in the way of acceptance into the mainstream of Greek culture. I personally would welcome muslim Armenians to the fold, but I suspect I would be a relatively small minority in doing so. I am afraid Armenian mainstream does not offer many ecouraging examples in terms of accepting non-Christians into their fold. However, there certainly are Armenians who would like to see the Hemshinli to embrace their Armenianness. Anyway, you are welcome to comment on things Armenian from your perspective.

As I said, relevance would not be harmful. Ah you finally forced me to look at the thread. Yes, our visitor Teutonic Knight, who is not an Armenian. He is an "aryan-enthusiast" that had attempted to work up Armenians about their supposed fraternity with "whites"/europoids/whatever, and failed rather miserably, having underestimated how uninterested most Armenians are in racism, particularly in its theoretical, abstract form. Let him be; he seems harmless enough as far as the forum decorum goes. As for Gamavor, his favorite sport is to annoy America-Hye (a.k.a Hagarag, a.k.a Khodja), and one easy way to do it is to bait him with jewish/semite talk. I don't think Gamavor cares about race at all, or all that much, other than as a tool to get under the skin of America-Hye. Now that I bothered to mine this thread for you, I ask a reciprocal favor. Browse the forum, and gather as much sense of humor as you can to better understand the exchanges between people. And remember that not every objectionable piece of writing has been, needs to be, or can be, addressed by either the moderators or the rest of the active members. You do not have the right to assume that silence is the same as agreement. It is not our day job to make this forum all spic-and-span and heavenly for everyone and anyone that might possibly be offended by some of the expressed thoughts. I certainly am very selective in what I respond to.

No, they are very much to the point. But apparently they are not pointed enough to pierce a thickness above a certain threshold. Precisely. Why? Why do you sell anti-chauvinism to Armenians, when Armenians are a group that suffered immensely at the hands of the most brutal application of chauvinism? Because a few Armenians vent their anger at their impotence in the face of a cruel and (perhaps understandably) uncaring world? What he does is to tell the obvious to the oblivious. All sorts of opinions are usually tolerated here. However, there is no harm in being relevant. And what you are attempting here is much more sinister, whether by design, or by accident. Linking the sins of other Christians (from which Armenians also suffered greatly; read about the treatment Armenians received from the Byzantines; oh wait, that would be what you would call your ancestors) to the suffering of Armenians, and implying that "now we can call it even" should not be let pass without a thorough ridicule. you should be No. See, that would not be a good propagandistic ploy. Lying obviously like that. You should imply it and let the innocent reader kinda sorta imagine that in a fuzzy way. And either by design or by accident, you managed to do the latter. Don't link, directly or subliminally, what other Christians did to what Armenians did or did not do, or what happened to them. Ever. No, not interested, unless you'll be kind enough to fetch them.

Since we are in the mood to sell refrigerators to the Innuit, may I offer you lessons in Turkish?

Although I am quoting TRP's comment, this remark is meant as a cross-cultural, educational factoid for the rest. Sense of humor in Turkish society is not very "advanced". For example, American humor, which I think is often quite refined and subtle, goes a mile above their head, and is regarded as supremely unfunny. Just be warned. Since you are lecturing in an Armenian forum, we need to put this in the Armenian perspective, and not the more generic Christian perspective, with which Armenians have almost nothing to do, and over which they have had absolutely no control. Armenians themselves were Christianized in a very brutal and culturally destructive way. To come within even a light-year of suggesting that Armenians Christianized others brutally ranks right up there with any "Nazi" remark you find (where are those remarks in this thread anyway?).

Well, yes, but ... Then we should perhaps be more relaxed about the state of affairs over there, since the developmental scenario of the country has been a screwed-up one from the beginning. It just needs to take its course, and cleanse itself of its militaristic beginnings. Say about 30 years, to be optimistic. Are we all OK with that?

Anyone agreeing or disagreeing with this?

I do take it the "wrong" way, which is the only way it could be taken. With your permission, dear high commissioner, I will choose whom I like and whom I don't. I will choose whom I consider an intellectually compatible person. Boghos and I (my membership number is misleading) are "old-timers" here, and we understand each other pretty well I think. Do you mind? I do not consider my presence as a gift of any kind, and I do not consider any of my body parts, brain or testicles, a special source of pride, for the simple reason that I did not build them; I was born with them. I do act "arrogantly" towards people that deserve it well. If you observe my instances of being less than pleasant, you will see that it reflects my lack of patience with arrogant stupidity, even though I am infinitely patient with innocent stupidity. Raw brain power is nothing to be proud of. A toxic personality, however, is not something that we should consider unavoidable. So I must consider "toxic dum-dums who think they are extra-smart" as another source of temptation to write. There are some points in this thread that deserve further elaboration, and I'll do my part as I find time.

Wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, if I can help it.

Yes. And you were there too.

Oh no. We have been through this before. Order does not quite work as a metric of good/bad. Or was this just a bait to suck me in?

Independence was juxtaposed with the ascent of military concerns and therefore the military itself. When the military is the midwife of a "democracy", you can expect long decades of painful plastic surgery in order to fix the damage inflicted upon birth. Look at Turkey or Pakistan for a couple of quick examples. India, on the other hand, against all odds, remains a fairly healthy democracy, nothwithstanding its other cultural "defects".

Why would that be? Irrelevant. Who said that? "Turkification" of the subject peoples means that Turks are the ones that are no longer "pure and clean", not vice versa. They don't whenever they can't or is against whatever argument they are making at that given moment. They first have their cake, and the next moment, they will proceed to eat it too. A pointless point. Ah yes, Turkey is just a minority's paradise. Yes, isn't it just annoying that there is a little piece of land where Armenians can be Armenians? I mean, when they can be 8th [Edit: I should have said 11th, counting the number of ethnic groups listed by our "Turk"ish guest] class citizens in the minority's paradise next door? The only minorities that were "wiped out", were the "Tatars" (later called Azeris), in the same enlightened (!) spirit of "population exchange" that happened between Turkey And Greece. It's not pretty, but it's not "wiping out" in the sense of what the "minority's paradise" next door routinely carried out. And once established, Armenia had a very, very liberal attitude towards the cultural autonomy of its minorities. Yeah. Tell that to your government and its propagandists, not me. Ahh, you would dearly love me to do that wouldn't you. In the meantime, you have to reserve such lectures for others. That much is obvious from none other than the level of analytical thinking displayed. It's nothing racial of course. It's to do with what's encouraged by the government, and what's not. I have none that does not spring from the reality on the ground. I hope that was not addressed to me. Well then, you are one lucky individual, aren't you. Please don't mind us and keep enjoying your paradise. I hear North Korea is just as swell. Just an option, in case your paradise changes too much from its current, ideal state.

As I said before, if it is truly mundane, it would not generate enough interest to come to a vote. There are ways to gauge whether something is mundane or not. Exactly my point, Sasun. Thanks for agreeing with the whole point I am making here. Votes should be about issues, as advocated by its stakeholders and experts, and not about personalities. Populations are dumbed down and trained to avoid actually relevant issues precisely because it allows the continuation of personality based politics. Issues and principles don't have a chance against real live people, when it comes to hijacking democracy to accentuate their importance. Real live people tend to perpetuate a system that makes them, rather than the issues, seem important. However, once the population gets a taste of actually mattering in the process, that much superior system has a chance to be self-perpetuating, and produces a much more intelligent and involved population.

A few quick points, and none has anything to do with primary sources etc., but underlying themes. Contemporary Turkish culture is infinitely more at ease with their Greek "heritage" than it is with anything to do with Arm... , I mean Erm.., actually Alb.., you know, those despicable people whose name must not be mentioned, and have the audacity to have survived. So Turkish sources would easily blurt out the word "Greek", and be done with the "problem" of Sinan's origins and move on to "Ottoman glory". And western authors that are either in debt of their Turkish sources, or simply too naive to question the veracity of what's coming from what they consider "the horse's mouth", are only happy to repeat it. "Greek"s of Anatolia are largely Hellenized Anatolians, much in the same way as they were later Turkified, using similar methods of "persuasion". The only "pride" Greeks can extract from the accomplishments of Anatolian "Greek"s is the efficiency with which their original identities were erased and hijacked. Having said these, I have seen no evidence that Sinan was Greek, or "Greek". But more importantly in my view, this whole argument over who provided the slave that served the Ottoman masters brilliantly is quite pathetic. Almost the entire collection of "Ottomon cultural accomplishments" were done by subject peoples, and the Ottoman rulers in fact encouraged that. So he is squarely in the Ottoman tradition, to the extent that we allow such a tradition to exist in our minds.