Twilight Bark

Harut jan, I know you are not implying that they are useless. In fact you make the good point that having multiple words for the same group of concepts enriches a language and gives it the flexibility to express nuances and specific contexts by choosing the right words. And I appreciate your showing an interest in the subject. As for the cultural implications. It is perfectly expected that dialects form and keep diverging when populations are isolated from one another. But it is also expected that when populations mix, their languages do so as well, to some extent. This often seems to be the case even when there is some antipathy or mild animosity. I am interested in knowing the extent of "borrowing" from WA to EA in the 20th century. I am quite ignorant on the subject. If the extent is very little, one might reasonably suspect that some "cultural inhibition" (or perhaps state intervention) existed. I would like to hear more thoughts on the subject.

For those who don't know what I am talking about Aghvor: Nice; beautiful (probably related to the word "allure" in French, English, etc.) Agheg: Well; good.

Sure Harut jan. "La" or "a" is even shorter . Making a "thumbs up" sign even skirts the whole issue of making a sound. Seriously though, these are not difficult enough words to account for their "rejection". If that were the case, Arpa would not be (rightly, oh so rightly) complaining about "mile-long" words, of which we have plenty. These are not words made-up by 19th century writers; they are "native", natural words. Anyway, I guess your opinion then is that their lack of acceptance is not an example of something deeper. Fair enough. Others?

Aghvor & Agheg It is interesting that those quintessentially "Western Armenian" words apparently have not entered the "Eastern" lexicon even after a large number of Western Armenians integrated into Armenia. Considering the ease with which "foreign" words make their way into Armenian, I find it somewhat curious. Could it be that the idiosyncracies found within our own flock is less acceptable than a totally foreign one? Do you think this reflects something important about our culture?

Well, the other link is linguistic, as I mentioned, for what it's worth. As for the greek myth about cutting breasts, I would not assign much significance to it. In fact, I would dismiss any Greek explanation of any Anatolian names unless independent evidence points to its validity. Gruesome detail should not lend it any more credibility than it normally deserves, which is not much. So, what is left is a smaller "speculation space" (i.e sans Greek). That's the best that can be done at the moment, I think.

Hi Nairi, I don't have any pet theories about the subject, but let me contribute the few crumbs of information lying around in my brain. "Arma" (a variation of "ama" mentioned in this thread?) was the (I think Luwian) Moon Goddess. Hence my pet speculation that Arma-wanda may be the origin of the word Armenian (Arma-wanda --> Armanda --> Armen). If you make this bold assumption, A®ma-dzin makes sense as at least related to Armenians, perhaps as co-religionists if not cousins or closer. Just some crumbs for thought. TB P.S. Greek myths about personal and place names are often conjured up stories to explain non-Greek names from Hellenized Anatolia. Countless "Greek" names (coming with their obligatory myth, of course) have wonderfully sensible explanations as distorted Hittite/Luwian names.

Bravo! I expected somebody to say this. In homeland a dirty house in diaspora a bunch of pussies. Naturally enough, the homeland is the only entity we have that has enough organization and the potential wherewithal to "make things happen". And not unexpectedly, the diaspora is a very heterogeneous and disorganized cloud; it does not have the potential to lead or make things happen by itself. In the absence of inspiring, charismatic leadership from the homeland, the individuals in this cloud are preoccupied with the challenges of daily survival, materially as well as spiritually (and I don't mean religion). Complaining about the diaspora is like complaining about the weather; tha act of complaining will not change it, because there is no mechanism to implement the changes, short of visiting each diasporan house, and lecture them ( ) on a constant basis without getting beaten up . To continue (and conclude) on the orginal topic, in the absence of sufficient information about how good a deal a "raw deal" (to which I am not against offhand) on the recognition issue would be in the long run, I am inclined to urge focusing on fixing our internal problems and our internal strengths. Needless to say, easier said than done in the absence of an intelligent and inspiring leadership with integrity. Currently we are lacking about 2-2.5 of those 3 "I"s. Twilight Bark

Exactly. Thoth and you did a good job of fleshing out the situation and the possibilities at the time of genocide. Enough with the whining "Oh why were we so weak?", "Oh, shame on us, shame on us". Enough self-flagellation. Enough demoralization. Enough pointless whining. My feeling is that before we address those grand issues, we have to do the dirty work of getting our house in order in order to be taken seriously. All the usual suspects: Corruption, independent and competent judiciary, press freedom, human rights, major reform in the army's treatment of its soldiers. Not much glory in cleaning up those problems, but they are essential for the internal strength that is necessary for facing "opponents". Obvious, I know, but it's not bad to come down to earth every now and then. Without fixing these problems, we are like an unshaven, smelly bum that wants to crash a party of CEOs and discuss business opportunities.

TB, I don't know russians saying that. If you refer to what I posted ("net dima bez ognya") I am afraid you either misunderstood or don't know what it means. P.S. Those of you making personal attacks, plz either leave the thread (I started it so I don't want to see that here) or change the attitude please. Indeed I don't speak russian. I suspect it means something like "you would have done the same" or some such. Please elaborate, but I wouldn't put much store in whatever "wisdom" they have to peddle.

Hi Sen_Vahan, I tried to convey the idea that we should raise good Armenians that will help Armenia and Armenians everywhere. Please do not interpret this as advocating a perpetual and pickled existence in the disapora. My position has always been that our stated destination must be Armenia, physically or through other organic links. Then why do I not say just "Armenia"? Because there is a profound bond of family among us, and we should help and feel affinity toward each other regardless of where we are. While it is important to emphasize the uncontestable priority of Armenia as our center, we should view it as the center, and not the only piece of our existence. Because it is not the only piece of our existence, despite our wishes to the contrary. Armenia is the center because it is the only place where we can hope to build an environment in which we can live as Armenians and pursue our dreams at the same time (even though that is currently a dream by itself), not because it is a prime piece of real estate, or that the abstract notion of Armenia is so compelling by ityself. It is us that we should love, not a piece of land. Armenia is an "instrument", if you will, for Armenian existence, not an end in itself. I hope you don't misunderstand what I am trying to say here, because I don't think we have much of a disgreement. As for the role of the revolutionaries, we really should stop obsessing about them or blaming them. The presence of rebels among a horribly oppressed population is a logical dictum. It cannot be avoided. We might as well state that the presence of an atmosphere helped the genocide to happen. Sure, that is technically correct. But it is a trivial part of the background, not something that you can realistically take out of the picture. Which "millet" did not have hotheads that were agitating against the authorities? After centuries of being oppressed directly by the state or indirectly by the ever-present Kurdish thugs, it was absolutely unavoidable that Armenians would have a number of "revolutionaries". But they were not a real military threat to justify the "treatment" the Armenians received. The claim that Armenian are partly responsible for their genocide is without merit. Russians can say all the self-serving imperialistic junk they like. They may know how to launch a rocket, but that does not make them experts on morality or a proper judge of history. The bully nations, despite their superficial differences, share a common value system, and as far as I am concerned, they can their value system and stick it ... where it belongs. As for the ugly or beautiful solutions to recognition. At a fundamental level, I don't care. I just want the whole thing to go away. My only worry is that if the "recognition" is executed in the "wrong" way, it will entrench the wrong view of history and self-image in Turkey as well as Armenia, having real consequences in the evolution of both nations. Otherwise, it is a major stumbling block for the social progress of Armenia and Armenians, it is like a debilitating tumor, and needs to be eliminated. But I am not arrogant enough to suggest that I know the solution that evaded everyone else. Perhaps doing our best to instill a sense of urgency into the minds of our "leaders" (for lack of a better term, and language restrictions in the forum) is the only thing us mortals can do right now. In the final analysis, I am not sure that our hand is strong enough to influence our destiny, short of near-complete capitulation to the Turkish line (sort of like "influencing" your destiny by exercising your right to agree with the Soviet authorities ). Try to sell that to the Armenians. TB

As a break from self-flagellation about Armenian history, this is an interesting read: http://www.padus-araxes.com/zekiyan/The%20...lightenment.pdf

Also, whether there were Armenians that "rebelled" against the empire is an irrelevant, almost information-free and insight-free issue. Of course there were. All the subjects peoples started agitating against the age-old domination by the empire, and Armenians were no exception. It is absurd to expect otherwise. If anything they were overall the most docile, and tragi-comically the most loyal millet to the very end. Many were led to their slaughter like sheep, thinking it's going to be alright in the end. The relatively unimportant "revolutionaries" provided no real reason for the genocide, even when one takes an immoral stand and tries to justify it as a repugnant but militarily necessary deed, say for example, as Romans would think in ancient times. Armenians were killed and their lands were Turkified because the government correctly estimated that it could get away with it. So next time the issue of Armenian "revolutionaries" crosses your mind and wonder whether things would be different if there weren't any, you can instead start thinking on whether it would have made a difference if the sun rose from the West instead of the East, with no loss of potential insight to gain. Because there is none to be gained from the exercise. TB

Hello all, It's been a while, so I'll warm up by commenting on this topic. As we discussed it many times here, many of us think that asking for lands outright is not only unrealistic, but also morally and philosophically questionable. However, asking for the restoration of rights (as a natural, neutral remedy) including re-settlement for those that wish it, and cultural and administrative autonomy for the settlers (to make the remedy meaningful) are not ridiculous propositions although pseudo-realists' knee-jerk reaction would be to characterize them as such. Whether such re-settlement is desirable is nobody's business but those that wish to do it. As for "punishment", I think that is not the proper context. A more proper term would be "paying a debt". Whatever it is, it would have to be devised in a way that would foster more friendly relations between the two peoples, rather than resentment on the part of the Turks. If the Armenians had recovered from the trauma, the recognition business would be relevant only for Turkey. They are the ones that need to understand themselves and be able to truly move forward. The fact that they think it is not an important issue for them does not make it so. Only if the world were so simple. "I don't think it's important, so it's not". In what other context would one think it is a sane approach? But most Armenians (who still identify themselves as such) have not recovered from the trauma, and are obsessed by the memory of it. In our case, the only thing at stake is to assure ourselves and the world (which does not really care one way or the other) that we were indeed victimized. Not a compelling "material" cause, but here we are. Even if something is not actually important, it becomes so simply because we think it is. This is of course so often the case with all facets of our individual lives as well. Unfortunately, the equivalent of a "shrink" for nations does not exist. They have to deal with it in a much more brutal environment. If it were up to me, I would say let's just move on. Yes, remember it, and teach it. But don't let it become a block to your progress. Let it just be a block to the perpetrator's progress. But it is not up to me. One ugly solution is to have a fake, hollow, "recognition" by Turkey, as Ali Suat suggested, coupled with a stupid guarantee by Armenia to not ask for land that it is already not asking (thus inaccurately admitting that Armenians were the initiator of the "chain of events", as well as the block to reconciliation). Large sections of the diaspora would melt away, their perverted center of culture having been taken away, and Armenia still not exerting a strong enough cultural pull. People and their offsprings would then move on, some as Armenians, most as entirely assimilated members of their host cultures, with newly assumed cultural identities. I think I have indicated what the "beautiful" solution would be. But that counts on a true enlightenment among the Turkish elite (the population would follow, some silly "they are trying to break it to their population nicely" pontifications notwithstanding), which is happening at a snail's pace. The ugly solution is unlikely to be acceptable to the Armenians, while the beautiful one has negligible chance of being acceptable to Turkey in the short term. So there is good reason to be depressed. Those that can, should move on and focus their energies on contributing to Armenia and Armenians everywhere in tangible ways, or on raising their children as good Armenians that will do so in the future. Twilight Bark

quote:Originally posted by MJ:What a pathetic comedy. Ahh. Good. We are making progress. Posts getting shorter. Angry expressions giving way to a painful smirk. Good place to stop.

quote:Originally posted by THOTH: quote:Originally posted by Twilight Bark:Alas, I still like him. Yeah - me too...thoguh I wonder sometimes...LOL..and you too...so please stop this fighting you two. For what reason? To what end? Again - it is two people making points that often are not as far apart as they might seem - yet in talking past one another they concentrate on the differences...and its gotten personal...and nasty...no good...no use...think about it..Dear Thoth,In your effort to seem impartial, you may be overlooking the fact that I never made it "personal". Indeed, it has got ugly. And for that, please address your advice to MJ, rather than "us two". TB P.S. As I said earlier, in another thread, there is nothing wrong with concentrating on differences. In fact that's what one should do in order to have a meaningful discussion. Not much would come out of telling one another how much we agree on things that we agree on.

quote:Originally posted by hagarag:TWILIGHT BARK, Ays esheen hede eencho ge khosis? Vorovhedev he cares. Vorovhedev he would have to try extra hard to be excluded from my extended family. Yev vorovhedev he does have many ideas that are worth reflecting on. Even though some of them may turn out to be "cul-de-sac"s at the end. I easily get angry at ideas (that I find stupid or offensive), but not people. People would have to intentionally try hard to get on my nerves. MJ is doing an exceptional, valiant effort (worthy of St Vartan ) in that direction. Alas, I still like him.

quote:Originally posted by MJ:Ping-pong, ping-pong, ping-pong... Yes, another case of divergent iteration (or infinite loop for Sip and his friends ). At least you sound calm now. Maybe a real ping-pong match is just the ticket to calm the nerves. I know, I know, you have no need to calm down.

quote:Originally posted by MJ:If you .... quote:... especially if you quote: in the 1.5 years of your existence quote:.. you have quote:...But how many times have you ... quote:... your ... you ... you ... you ... you .... If you, due to your cowardice ... yourself ... you ... ... If you ... ...your imaginary shell ... if you ... you can layout your ... if you have any. ... your shoulder ... This is not, and has never been about me. And stop making it about yourself. quote:... analyze again if I have said anything in this thread that has implied me excluding you.This is not about my panic about being excluded. If you had a clear head, you would have noticed that. quote: Then, if you have ... ... (if you .. ... anyone other than yourself ... can exclude you. You are the one talking about excluding me. Certainly not me. The thought has not even occurred to me. Thanks for pointing it out as a possibility. Or is that a threat? quote:During my entire presence in this forum and elsewhere, I have claimed that Armenia belongs to them and Armenians are those who claim ownership of Armenia. This is a very low threshold. There cannot be anything more inclusive that is not a mockery. Yes. I now declare that whoever wants to give me a big fat check is more than welcome to do so. I am waiting. What? You want some inducement? The audacity of it all. Hmph... quote:If you feel excluded after thisAgain, I wasn't talking about myself at all. However, thanks for baring your frustrations about me. It seems that all it takes is a little scratch at the surface. In my fairyland, MJ, some people defend positions out of principle, and try to convert people to that way of thinking even though it has no relationship whatsoever with their personal stakes. Hard to square with a "strictly rational" mind perhaps? Pity. quote:, it tells me only one thing - you are a coward Oh my. You are bringing my house of cards. All this time I fooled myself and others that I was a hero. Who cares if I am coward or a hero? I am who I am, and the only part of my personality I am willing to share publicly is my ideas, not my CV or other heroic accomplishments or lack thereof. quote:Then who is the snob amongst us? True. I do snob the snobs. I do it whenever I can, with pleasure. And they deserve it. Are you one of them? It's your call. quote: I am not driven by “agreements or disagreements” nor driven by a desire to throw a “hoopla,” or to look “smarter than you are.” Really? You could've fooled me. And there is nothing particularly wrong with these things either. As for smartness, it's what you do with it, not whether you had good luck with the lottery at the moment of your conception. No need to obsess over it. quote: If I have something to say, I come forward and I say it. I was under the impression that you can't tolerate me saying what I had to say. What with the hysteric reaction and all. quote:I have included myself.Good for you. That makes one. Now work on including others, rather than turning them off. quote:Have you?I never needed active including. I belonged from the moment my ears heard the oror of my mother and father. You are the one grappling with the issue, not me.

quote:Originally posted by MJ:TB, We can "divorce" but we don't have to lose our dignity, meanwhile. So that to be clear what I am hinting at, I have made my comment about "3 million" a while ago. You have not responded then. Now, you are bringing my comment into our discussion in an out of the context manner. This is called chip-on-the-shoulder-cowardice. There is no place for such qualities in my family. It seems we have different definitions of what constitutes dignity. About the 3 million. This is exactly an example of the context in which it is relevant and rounds out your outlook. Declaring it out of context does not make it so. As far as chips on shoulders, I can certainly see one or two on yours. As for mine, if they exist, they do so out of compassion and inclusivity; not out of snobbery and exclusivity. As for cowardice, I think we agree that being "heroic" at the expense of others is evil. Think about that, and see if you are being consistent with that conviction. Finally, when I say "irreconcilable difference", I don't have a "divorce" in my mind, dignified or otherwise. Irreconcilable difference means irreconcilable difference. It doesn't mean we should consider each other "estranged" for heavens' sake. Lighten up. You used to be good at agreeing to disagree. What happened?

quote:Originally posted by MJ:we have reached a point that repeating our monologs (though addresssed to each other) on this subject doesn't promis any meaningful outcome and would be rather repetitive. Yes. That is another way of saying "we have irreconcilable differences". quote:There is very little that you say on the subject makes practial sense to me. Really? As far as I can make sense of it, your idea is to do absolutely nothing to attract our "misguided" to a productive way of thinking, hope that they will assimilate away in their dreamland, and make sure that our little Prussia-in-Caucasus, which can only support 3 million people, does not overflow with too many Armenians. And as luck has it, the surplus (undesirable) Armenians are exactly the right number to keep the population of our Prussia-in-Caucasus at 3 million. I must admit what you say makes no "practical sense" to me either. I do understand the logistical convenience of doing absolutely nothing though. Your plan has considerably greater chance of succeeding than any pedestrian ideas I might have, as it works with no effort on our part. What can I say MJ, I hope it would be good for Armenia and Armenians. quote:Do, I will give myself the liberty of not repeating myself.Deal.

quote:Originally posted by MJ:.. to define and build itself (not rebuild). Whatever. I do describe Armenians as a "tribe". Where we have been stuck forever is right between "tribe" and "nation". We do have to move on the next step, on that we agree. quote:You can label my “vision” of Armenia with a term Inc all you want. That’s fine with me. I prefer that one to the one which would be called Perpetual Whining Loser Perennially Sorry for Herself. Somewhere between a self-legitimizing organized crime syndicate and a whining loser is a dignified, strong Armenia and Armenians, that is a lot closer to being a "family" rather than a "corporation". The latter is no basis for a nation. It may be good for a municipality or even a city. Not a nation. quote:As far as dysfunctional families goDysfunctional, mysfunctional. It is our family, and it is our duty to fix it. You can always leave the family and join another one that will take you. And there are plenty of them apparently. quote: The reason you are happy with your perception of Armenians may be due to the fact that it is a comfortable refuge, it is easy and does not obligate one to anything and does not burden one – sort of “do not shake me. I have barely found my comfort.”Utter nonsense. I arrive at my notion as a result of eliminating all other self-consistent and meaningful alternatives for bothering with a nation. (Edit: I meant to say "I arrive at my notion of a nation that is worth bothering with after eliminating all other alternatives on the basis of self-consistency, sustainability and meaningfulness. ". Really )(Addendum: I am hardly comfortable with the current shape we are in. In fact, it bothers the hell out of me. However, it never occurred to me to advocate the distillation of a lean and mean micro-nation from our tribe. I guess I am neither bold nor imaginative enough. ) quote:The allegation on “reformed syndicates of organized crime” is immaterial for this onversation, so I will not go into it. It is not an allegation; it is a "poetic" and yet accurate description of exactly what they have been. And as far as emulating or becoming a part of (read: assimilate into) them, it is more relevant than most of the other nonsense we are mumbling about. But I am with you in your reluctance to hyperventilate about it. They are what they are. quote:But the environment Armenia is in (and will be), obligates her to be a “lean mean machine.” To a certain degree, it is a one. As far as the “nucleus” is concerned, maybe it doesn’t exist or maybe you haven’t even looked for it, but what is the moral of your statement?Well then, what is preventing our "lean, mean machine" from competing for the souls of its sons and daughters? It either has a capable nucleus that will be left bare after the flab is gone, or it doesn't. Is it going to wake up after the flab is gone? It is good for only "negative" things such as "fighting" the mean neighbors? "We don't do positive" huh? Not macho enough I suppose. quote:Competition is possible amongst the competitive parties.If you cannot claim the souls of your sons and daughters, and do not have the sensitivity to weep for the lost ones, what is it that your lean, mean distillate of a nation good for? Picking a fight? Is that going to be our "core competence"? quote:And thank you for allocating a spot for me in your “family.” Any time. quote:Have to run. I have been "running" as we "speak"! [ January 22, 2003, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

Dear MJ, I may agree with you about many tangible issues, such as the need to identify closely with the real Armenia that exists today. However, I vigorously disagree with the way you are defining our nation, or you idea of rebuilding it. Deny as you may, it is quite clear that you view the Armenian nation as Armenia Inc. United States can be viewed in those terms, and so can many Western European countries. Many of them can also be viewed as reformed syndicates of organized crime. But what do we care. Despite your heroic efforts to the contrary, Armenia and Armenians can be sensibly described only in the terms and concepts of a family. I am happy with that, and you are not. That is our crucial difference. Now if the "nucleus" that you want to keep (after shedding the flab that most of the diaspora represents in your eyes) is in fact a lean, mean fighting machine that will accomplish great world-class ideals, I might be open to your version of iconoclasm. But there is no such nucleus, as far as I can see. You ask "winning them over for what?". The simple act of asking that question summarizes our difference. Its answer is in the first paragraph. And it won't satisfy you, presumably because it cannot be explained in the logic of an "Anglo-Saxon" corporation. Perhaps you can relate to the fact that trying to win them over itself involves creating something positive and compelling. I am not talking about pandering to the stupid ideas of "revolutionary" dinosaurs. I am talking about a healthy competition between Armenia and the host countries for the "souls" of the diasporans. If you think we should not be in the running, the lean, mean nucleus must be sleeping so deep that it might as well be dead. So dear MJ, we have an "irreconcilable difference". However, that does not mean I wish you were not in the Armenian family. To the contrary, you make a very interesting and worthwhile contribution to my idea of Armenian family. Regards, TB

quote:Originally posted by Stormy:Actually, MJ, I'm wondering - given that popular story-telling and history on the part of the common folk are not too keen on diplomacy and whatever political mechanisms, could it be that the precise details of the "why" of these battles and wars have been flung into obscurity to be overshadowed by the filling-in of imagination? Somehow I don't think thousands upon thousands could have done a kamikaze for a "miserable" figure. I don't mean this for Avarayr in particular, though. Am I to assume through your characterization of Mamigonian as flip-flap that you imply upon his conversion and re-conversion and how it would seem almost naive to take this at face-value? What you should be wondering right now, Stormy, is why you have not yet asked MJ to present convincing evidence in support of his thesis. In the absence of such inquiry, you would be guilty of being an accomplice in manufacturing an "imaginary perception", regardless of whether the particular perception in this case is close to reality or not. I, for one, am interested in knowing more about the subject.

quote:Originally posted by MJ:I have also never been interested in such false categories as the “genealogy” of Armenians, their origin, etc. I don’t care about Hittits, Shumerians, Urartu, Great Armenia, etc, unless it is to understand how did we get where we are today, and what is it that prevents us from repeating the same path. One should care about origins the way one should be curious about the origins of one's family. Looking into the origins in search of past glories or nobility is silly and often repugnant. However, I am not about to let the silly gold-diggers-in-history to detract from why I care about where we came from. It is a human, primal desire, and I am also not about to abandon it in order to be a "cool" man of the times. quote:I think that my previous response to Hovsep was clear enough of what I am saying – if “he is my brother,” then he has to “share with me my mother.” Otherwise “he is my cousin.” What does your mother say about all this? quote:Moreover, I have not ever given myself the privilege of defining “who has the right to share with me my mother.” I have always claimed it being an issue of self-determination. And I think this is not a high threshold. If someone is refusing to claim ownership of “my mother,” why does he/she expect me to recognize him/her as my “brother/sister.” I am glad we are casting the discussion in terms of family. You can't choose your mother. That means you can't choose your brother. quote:I would like to also remind you of a newcomer, lately, who in his first material in the forum proclaimed “this Armenia being not the real one, but the Great Armenia being the one.” My posture on the issue is a reaction towards the stance of such cowards.Those that do not view Armenia (the real one) as their motherland have already done the refusing. You don't need to. In fact I would go after "converting" his kids, after a polite smile to the father. You see, I don't want to lose any member of my family, present or future. quote:I don’t want to be “brothers” with cowards. You can't choose what you are born into. Besides, the ones that you don't like appear to have done all the dirty work of distancing themselves. That hardly requires an active rejection on your part. However, our mother could work on making the family abode more attractive. quote:Now, my original message in this thread meant that Armenians are heavily influenced by the Turkish culture (call it Ottoman or Anatolian, I don’t care – it is not Armenian.) It seems that now we agree on it, based on the emerging responses, only “we have decided not to talk about it.” Talk all you want until the cows come home, MJ. The said traits are common. And one trait that is very common, and problematic, is also central to your outlook on the issue. quote:My developing thought has been that most of the Diaspora Armenians are disattached from the recognition of a real “common mother,” and have rather imaginary perception of her. If I am wrong, I would like to be corrected. Yes, MJ. They are what they are. And there are understandable reasons behind their dumb attitudes. But you can't scold them into the "right" way of thinking. You have a much better chance of charming them into it. The only thing that can be done is to make Armenia a compelling magnet. This means the "unfair" burden falls on the shoulders of those who do have the desired attitude. Look at any great nation, and it is formed by a relative few by winning over the rest. The focus should be on winning people over, not cutting them off. We have enough negatives in our culture: Don't do this! Don't do that! Ooo, shame, shame shame! Sometimes it seems that we base our traditions and outlook on not doing things.

quote:Originally posted by THOTH:I think that you are barking up the wrong tree. Obviously we are not "Turks" - we are Armenian - and this is certainly identifiable. Well, it was time for a twilight bark I guess . My aside about Turks was not in response to the "Turkish diaspora" idea, in the sense of proving we are not "Turks". I tried to use it as a glaring example to put things in the proper context, and analyze them comparatively. Armenians were the first to be conquered and the last to be ditched aside as a half-dead body in the thousand-year saga. And what is to be awed by, and analyzed, is not whether they changed and adapted in the process. It is the fact that they managed to keep a critical amount of their "cultural DNA" to re-emerge as a coherent, proud entity. With many scars to be sure. Whether the Armenians of Kutahya were scarred differently than the ones in Ijevan can be an interesting discussion in a nice little conference room, for the enjoyment of the specialists. It should have no role whatsoever in a discussion of whether "Western" Armenians belong to the same nation as the "Eastern" ones. Such a discussion should not take place at all. Not because it is "amot", but because it is contrary to how Armenians view themselves. No sophistry can argue against that. quote:And understood that the "Turks" of Anatolia are a "crafted" people - of recent origin in this sense and Armenians are as you have said - an ancient lineage (of blood & culture). Nothing (said) changes this.I was not suggesting that such was implied. quote:However, it is clear that the Ottoman period has colored Armenians - I don't think that this can be denied.Nobody in this thread denied it. It is in how we view, interpret, and deal with it that we seem to have differences. quote:I think Boghos is not proposing what you claim What did I claim? quote: saying that we need to acknowledge and understand that much of who (many/most? of us) are is also bound up with the Ottoman/Turkish past. This is perhaps nearly as much a part of us as our being Armenian. We are tied to Anatolia and to the Ottoman legacy - because this was the reality of our forefathers for generations. It colored their world view - their exposure - likes/dislikes - patterns of thought and action. And living there had a profound effect on Anatolian Armenians individually and of course as a group...a very clear effect...I think a good majority of Armenians are aware of the Ottoman legacy. Some embrace it and view it as quintessentially Armenian. Some deny it. And some try and move beyond it. My contention is that all Armenians have been affected by the Ottoman legacy, including those in the Republic. Ottoman legacy is something we have to live with, build upon, change, and move beyond. However, it is not something that divides us. It's not as if the Yerevan province was at the heart of European Renaissance. Therefore, I disagree with the context of the Ottomanization discussion. quote:I am interested in hearing Boghos's views as he proposed this discussion.So am I. Boghos, can you elaborate your thoughts? [ January 21, 2003, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]