Vigil

Turkey to push EU bid in France By Jonny Dymond BBC Istanbul correspondent Turkey's bid to join the European Union will be high on the agenda when Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan arrives in France on Monday. In the minds of many in Turkey, there is little doubt that France is the member state which is most openly hostile to Turkey's membership bid. Some senior French politicians have publicly opposed Turkey's membership. But Istanbul hopes to get assurance from the French that its bid will be judged on the right criteria. In Turkey, few have forgotten the words of former French president and architect of the EU constitution Valery Giscard d'Estaing. He said bluntly that Turkey was not European and that if it joined the EU, it would be the end of the union. No French politician in office has been so openly hostile to Turkey's bid. But the concern is that Mr Giscard d'Estaing voices publicly what many in France believe privately. What Turkey wants from the visit is pretty plain - an assurance from the French government that its bid will be judged on the so-called Copenhagen criteria of political openness and accountability, rather than on the rights or wrongs of admitting a large, poor, Muslim state into the union. Analysts here believe that the visit would not have been organised had France not been prepared to make encouraging noises. Both in Turkey and across European capitals, the results of the meetings to come will be watched closely indeed.

I thought about it for a while and to be honest everyone has their own definition of what an Armenian is, which is why it is very hard to actually define an Armenian. For instance the dictionary defines an Armenian as "a native or inhabitant of Armenia". This definition does not give Armenians justice due to the fact that fifty percent of ethnic Armenians reside outside of Armenia, which is why we must be open to each Armenians own definition of a Armenian. However, in no way must we merge the lines that separate ethnic Armenians from national Armenians because once we are reduced to being only a nationality the entire Diaspora goes extinct as do our claims to be labeled a ethnicity. We must stress the fact that Armenians are first and foremost an ethnicity before they are a nationality. Being Armenian is not just "feeling" and "defining" yourself an Armenian. It is a very complex to define due to the fact that Armenians can be considered an ethnicity, race, and nationality based on the definitions of these words. If Armenians are an ethnic group then there is no way someone of Korean descent could actually be Armenian and vice versa, which is why there would be no way to actually convert a Korean into an Armenian. In fact the idea of "converting" at this point has no meaning because if we assume that being Armenian is indeed just a ideology then it would make being Armenian the equivalent of being part of a religious group, thus, being Armenian is not just a ideology. If Armenians are a nationality then there is no way an American of Armenian descent could be considered Armenian. You can not pledge your loyalty to the American national interests, while at the same time remaining loyal to Armenian national interests. For the sake of argument you can support both by connecting American national interests with that of the Armenian, which is why I pointed out the fact that if you are Armenian-American you can still be considered Armenian if you better the dialogue between both nations. Nevertheless, at the very end you have to support one over the other. Furthermore, If Armenians are a race then the Armenian race is not just limited to the Armenian ethnicity in terms of visual distinctions. You may have other ethnic groups that may look "Armenian" racially, which is why it would be incorrect to label Armenians as only a race. Armenians are ethnicity because they indeed have a unique culture that is different then any other. They are a nationality because today Armenia is a republic that unites citizens of different ethnic and racial backgrounds under the banner of an ideology that is uniquely Armenian, while they are race because they have a dominant visual distinction among their population domestically and abroad. This is why I define Armenians as a race, ethnicity, and a nationality. Yes and No, yes, because you need to define yourself an Armenian, but no, in that by defining yourself an Armenian in no way are you actually Armenian. For instance if I define myself Japanese am I really Japanese? No, furthermore, what would make me not define myself Russian or Mexican later? Virtually nothing, which is why to base your definition of what a Armenians solely on the fact that they define themselves as a Armenian would be a poor analysis of what a Armenian actually is. Domino, basically, all my definitions of what an Armenian is must hold, however, in no way must all of them be met to be considered a Armenian by another Armenian. I may decide that only three of the conditions must be valid in order to be an Armenian, while another Armenian may only need one of the definitions to be met in order to consider someone an Armenian. For instance, in my opinion I feel that reading and writing Armenian is important, but to honestly expect every Armenian born in a English speaking country to learn it when in fact only a very small portion of the population can speak it is a very high expectation. However, in no way am I supporting the decline of actually learning to read and write in Armenian, but just feel that being Armenian is more then just learning the language. Honestly, how many Armenians are reading our literature? How many of them know about the history? How many of them keep up with current affairs? I would guess a very small portion of the Diaspora, which leads me to not place a lot of emphasis on defining a Armenian as someone that actively takes time to learn the language, history, and or cultural traditions. I feel that learning the language, history, and or cultural traditions is an important step in being defined an Armenian, but let’s face it, we would not be considered Japanese if we learned the language, history, and cultural traditions of Japan. Being Armenian, in general, is defining you’re self an Armenian, being raised in a family consisting of an Armenian father and mother, and wanting to pass the Armenian identity on to the next generation. However, in no way am I stating that this is the only way to define an Armenian because everyone has their own standards. I just do not want Armenians to base their definitions on technicalities like "if you’re mother is Armenian you are Armenian" or "if you generally feel Armenian your Armenian" because to be honest those do not amount to anything besides technicalities. In closing I would like to stress that Armenians can be defined as Armenian by race, ethnicity, or nationality.

Kerry sends brother to Israel to shore up the Jewish vote By Inigo Gilmore in Jerusalem (Filed: 18/07/2004) John Kerry, the Democratic senator and presidential candidate, has sent his brother Cameron, a Jewish convert, on a delicate political mission to Israel to shore up Jewish support ahead of November's election. The visit, which was due to end last night, has delighted Israeli government officials but has dismayed left-wing Israeli peace activists and Palestinian leaders, whom Mr Kerry studiously avoided as he voiced stridently pro-Israeli views on behalf of his brother. In meetings with Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister, Silvan Shalom, the foreign minister, and Shimon Peres, the opposition leader, Mr Kerry delivered an unequivocal message from his brother: that he will take a firm pro-Israel line on all main issues, including the controversial construction of the security wall in the West Bank. In an interview with one Israeli newspaper, Mr Kerry, 53, said: "He [senator John Kerry] is very clear in his statements: the security of Israel must come first and Israel needs to be able to protect itself." He echoed the Israeli government's line on refusing to negotiate with Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, and added: "There is no Palestinian partner at this time. It is not the place of the US to pressure Israel to reach an agreement with the Palestinians." More controversially, he said the 425-mile security wall was "essential for the security of Israel" - an apparent reversal of remarks by his brother, earlier in the campaign, in which he described the wall as "a barrier to peace". The apparent change of stance on the barrier by the Kerry camp came as the United Nations continued to consider a draft resolution demanding that Israel comply with last week's International Court of Justice ruling that the West Bank separation fence is illegal and must be dismantled. Mr Kerry's new position will disappoint European officials, who have been highly critical of the security barrier. Cameron Kerry insisted that his brother had previously raised questions only on the route of the fence, not the issue of the construction itself. Israeli peace activists were dismayed but not surprised by Mr Kerry's public pronouncements. Jeff Halper, a leading Israeli peace activist and an opponent of the wall, said: "Bush has been incredibly pro-Israel but the Democrats are clearly not a liberal alternative who will be more critical of Israel. "It is very distressing when you have issues of conflict, occupation, and violation of human rights, that the liberals seem worse than the Republicans in their support for the most extreme Israeli line. Just look at Hillary Clinton. The Democrats will not give the Palestinians or Israeli peace activists the time of day." The Democratic Party is seen by most American Jews as their natural political home. Mr Kerry's own pro-Israel leanings may have been encouraged by his discovery last year that his paternal grandparents, who lived in Austria, were Jews who converted to Catholicism. Cameron converted to Judaism from Catholicism in 1983 when he married a Jewish woman, Kathy Weinman. During the Democratic party primaries, Cameron helped to arrange meetings between his brother and key Jewish leaders, and he has continued to be the campaign's "link man" to the American Jewish community. One of the organisers of Mr Kerry's visit to Israel is Jay Footlik, an American Jew with close ties to AIPAC, the main pro-Israel lobby group in the US. Republican backing for Israel has also hardened in response to the growing strength of the evangelical Christian movement, which believes in the Jewish people's right to reside in the Holy Land and which the Bush administration has assiduously courted for votes. The result is that all the key Washington institutions support the Israeli government.

Thanks and I apologize for confusion. Yes, you are right, nationally you are American and ethnically you are Armenian. This was my original point and I am sorry I confused you.

Irish Times Jul 16, 2004 World rankings of the 2004 Human Development index The index is based on per-capita income as well as educational levels, health care and life expectancy: 1. Norway 2. Sweden 3. Australia 4. Canada 5. Netherlands 6. Belgium 7. Iceland 8. US 9. Japan 10. Ireland 11. Switzerland 12. Britain 13. Finland 14. Austria 15. Luxembourg 16. France 17. Denmark 18. New Zealand 19. Germany 20. Spain 21. Italy 22. Israel 23. Hong Kong 24. Greece 25. Singapore 26. Portugal 27. Slovenia 28. South Korea 29. Barbados 30. Cyprus 31. Malta 32. Czech Republic 33. Brunei 34. Argentina 35. Seychelles 36. Estonia 37. Poland 38. Hungary 39. St. Kitts and Nevis 40. Bahrain 41. Lithuania 42. Slovakia 43. Chile 44. Kuwait 45. Costa Rica 46. Uruguay 47. Qatar 48. Croatia 49. United Arab Emirates 50. Latvia 51. Bahamas 52. Cuba 53. Mexico 54. Trinidad and Tobago 55. Antigua and Barbuda 56. Bulgaria 57. Russia 58. Libya 59. Malaysia 60. Macedonia 61. Panama 62. Belarus 63. Tonga 64. Mauritius 65. Albania 66. Bosnia and Herzegovina 67. Suriname 68. Venezuela 69. Romania 70. Ukraine 71. Saint Lucia 72. Brazil 73. Colombia 74. Oman 75. Western Samoa 76. Thailand 77. Saudi Arabia 78. Kazakhstan 79. Jamaica 80. Lebanon 81. Fiji 82. Armenia 83. Philippines 84. Maldives 85. Peru 86. Turkmenistan 87. St. Vincent and the Grenadines 88. Turkey 89. Paraguay 90. Jordan 91. Azerbaijan 92. Tunisia 93. Grenada 94. China 95. Dominica 96. Sri Lanka 97. Georgia 98. Dominican Republic 99. Belize 100. Ecuador 101. Iran 102. Palestinian Territories 103. El Salvador 104. Guyana 105. Cape Verde 106. Syria 107. Uzbekistan 108. Algeria 109. Equatorial Guinea 110. Kyrgyzstan 111. Indonesia 112. Vietnam 113. Moldova 114. Bolivia 115. Honduras 116. Tajikistan 117. Mongolia 118. Nicaragua 119. South Africa 120. Egypt 121. Guatemala 122. Gabon 123. Sao Tome and Principe 124. Solomon Islands 125. Morocco 126. Namibia 127. India 128. Botswana 129. Vanuatu 130. Cambodia 131. Ghana 132. Myanmar 133. Papua New Guinea 134. Bhutan 135. Laos 136. Comoros 137. Swaziland 138. Bangladesh 139. Sudan 140. Nepal 141. Cameroon 142. Pakistan 143. Togo 144. Republic of Congo 145. Lesotho 146. Uganda 147. Zimbabwe 148. Kenya 149. Yemen 150. Madagascar 151. Nigeria 152. Mauritania 153. Haiti 154. Djibouti 155. Gambia 156. Eritrea 157. Senegal 158. East Timor 159. Rwanda 160. Guinea 161. Benin 162. Tanzania 163. Ivory Coast 164. Zambia 165. Malawi 166. Angola 167. Chad 168. Democratic Republic of Congo 169. Central African Republic 170. Ethiopia 171. Mozambique 172. Guinea-Bissau 173. Burundi 174. Mali 175. Burkina Faso 176. Niger 177. Sierra Leone

American is more of a nationality due to the fact that there is no American race and or ethnicity. The American population is a melting pot that consists of different races and ethnicities, which are unified under a national interest and or ideology. When I mean race and or ethnicity I am referring to the definition in my previous post. You can be American and Armenian, but you can not be African-American and Armenian-American. Equally, you can not be Canadian and American, but you can be Armenian and Canadian.

Domino, please specify, thanks. This is a beta version, which is why I want as much input as I can get. On a side note I was watching the video today on Artshak and this one woman was saying how she volunteered because if she did not no one would. Anyways, when asked why her husband did not join her she explained how he was Russian and because he was Russian felt it was not "his war" because it was not "his land", which is something to think about. Please do not retort with the hippie ideology that "I am pacifist" because there is no way in hell you can avoid war. If it does not erupt in you’re lifetime it will erupt in you’re children's lifetime.

Vigil's definition of a Armenian Version 1.0 In no way is "Vigil" a expert on "Armenianism". In fact no one is a expert, but eventually, as a community, we must come to concise decision as to what a "Armenian" actually is in order to push forward with our geopolitical agendas. Before we begin I would like to define a few words, answer a few questions, and define the Key. Definitions: Ethnicity: When I refer to ethnicity I am referring to the differences between individuals and groups in skin color, language, religion, culture, national origin/nationality, or geographic regions. Nationality: When I refer to nationality I am referring to an identity comprised and driven by a groups that push for statehood (I.E. Americans, Canadians, and Australians). Generally, these groups are comprised by different ethnicities and races. Race: When I refer to race I am referring to visible distinctions in a population. Questions: Are the Armenians a religions group? No Are the Armenians a political group that have motives to take over the world? No Are the Armenians an ethnicity? Yes Are the Armenians a nationality? Yes Are the Armenians a race? Yes NOTE: Visible distinctions are based on opinion. You may look at a population and see a visible distinction or you may not see a visible distinction. In the case of Armenians, it is my opinion that they have a visible distinction, thus, meaning that they indeed are race. Key: A = in order to be Armenian this particular definition must always hold. B = this particular definition by it self makes you Armenian even if none of the other definitions hold. C = steps that must be taken in order to be considered Armenian by Vigil. Vigil's Definition of a Armenian NOTE: Definitions are in no numerical order of best to worst or vice versa. 1) [bC] Having a biological Armenian father and mother. When I refer to Armenian I am referring to an Armenian that also has or had a biological Armenian father and mother. When I refer to biological I am referring to Armenian lineage and genes. NOTE: If you are half Armenian you are not biologically Armenian in terms of genes and lineage. In this circumstance you may not be looked upon as an Armenian by Armenians, but because you define yourself as an Armenian you can make sure your descendents are looked upon as Armenian by marrying in the Armenian ethnicity, race, and nationality, which might counter any effects of the “otar” biologically and sociologically. 2) [ABC] Being raised under the supervision of a legal guardian and or parents that are of Armenian descent. When I mean "raised" what I am referring to is the strict ideals, morals, and expected behavior that is transmitted from generation to generation that eventually, comes together to form the basic identity of a ethnicity, nationality, and or race. 3) [C] Understanding, learning, and enforcing the study of the Armenian language, history, and culture upon your children. NOTE: The study of the Armenian language, history, and culture for academic and or commercial reasons does in no way mean you are Armenian. When I refer to academic I am referring to the time taken to learn the Armenian language as a second language and or the research conducted on the language, history, and culture. When I refer to commercial I am referring to the time taken to learn the Armenian language, history, and culture for commercial needs like running a business with Armenians and Armenia. 4) [AC] Defining yourself a Armenian. 5) [AC] Wanting to maintain your Armenian identity even under the most physically and mentally debilitating conditions. 6) Being accepted as an Armenian by the Armenians domestically and abroad. 7) [C] Defining yourself as a Armenian before defining yourself as part of any other nationality (I.E. American, Canadian, or Australian). NOTE: This definition only holds if you consider yourself [insert Nationality Here] as opposed to Armenian. What I mean by this is that if you define yourself as Armenian-[insert Nationality Here] then you have a chance to be defined a Armenian by Armenians if all the other definitions hold. As a Armenian-[insert Nationality Here] you must try you’re best to improve relations between Armenia and the current country you reside in. However, this exception to the rule is voided if you are living in Turkey or Azerbaijan. 8) Being born in Armenia and or being raised in Armenia. NOTE: This rule has been implemented due to the fact that Armenia is a republic, which means that as a republic Armenians would have to accept anyone as Armenian if they are born in and or pay taxes to Armenia.

Listen, Domino, let me simplify what you are proposing, which is: "As a result of the long and varied history of the [Armenians], it is difficult to define a [Armenian]. For example, there is no such thing as a [Armenian] race. Anyone born to a [Armenian] mother, or anyone who has converted to [Armenianism] according to [Armenian] law, is a [Armenian]. Many people define [Armenians] as a persons who consider themselves [Armenian]." Now since you are indeed making being Armenian the equivalent of being Jewish I for one do not want to be "Armenian" because I am not spiritual, which is why Domino, Nairi, and Boghos must go on converting missions due to the fact that the 6 million Armenians worldwide are already Christians. Domino, did you "retort" the pages upon pages of logic I used to destroy your argument? No, which means then that do not expect someone to take you seriously. If what you are proposing is indeed if "I think like a Armenian, I am Armenian" then equally if "I think like a tree, I must be a tree", right? Wrong, because if indeed being Armenian is the equavalent of being tree then indeed what you are proposing, logically, must also make sense, which it does not. I agree with you that a adopted child would be Armenian if they were raised by Armenian parents, but the adopted child would only be Armenian if the parents enforced "Armenianism" on the child, which means then that the source of your identity does indeed come from interacting with your parents. However, if a child was Korean would he indeed "feel Armenian" if the parents do not enforce the Armenian language, history, and culture on the child? No, he or she would not be "Armenian" nor would he or she be "Korean", but in the long run if they met a "Korean" they would have a stronger bond with a "Korean" as opposed to a "Armenian" due to the fact that ethnically and genetic they are "Korean" and "Asian". Eventually, you’re definition is no different then the definition Jews use to define themselves and last time I checked being Jewish is the equivalent of being Christian, which means that if indeed what your proposing is accurate then the 6 million Armenians are not Armenian at all, but rather they are just Christians. You have to impose the Armenian identity on to this Korean child, which means that you do not value his or her Korean heritage. This means that indeed what you are proposing is racist and no more genuine then what Jews do to increase their population.

What is sad is that Domino or [insert board know it all here] will try and retort TAP's mockery of the entire "opposition" with one or two pseudo-intellectual comments as a rebuttal.

No, your just confused.

Hyeforum Boards: TAP= 999999999999 Opposition= 0 As usual, owned, where have you been TAP?

From the encyclopedia: "As a result of the long and varied history of the Jews, it is difficult to define a Jew. For example, there is no such thing as a Jewish race. Anyone born to a Jewish mother, or anyone who has converted to Judaism according to Jewish law, is a Jew. Many people define Jews as a persons who consider themselves Jews."

Sev-Mard I do not care if you have a relationship with a Armenian girl. The only point I stress is that they are trying to convince me to accept you as Armenian and eventually your kid as a Armenian, when in fact we all know you and your child will never be Armenian. That is the only problem I have with you, but since you yourself do not "feel" Armenian then by their own definition you are not "Armenian". Fine if you are not "White" then do not claim you are "Indo-European", "European", and or "White". Furthermore, from now try to find roots that either place you in Africa or label you a Semite. In fact at this point anything that is remotely connected to Armenians historically can also be discarded since Armenians are not "white" and have no relation to the "Proto-Armenians". By the way, you're entire ideology does indeed force Armenianism on someone in the long run and in my opinion is indeed a "purist" or "racist" idea. It is true I am ethnocentric; however, in no way am I racist. The same can not be said about what you are proposing because if indeed you impose Armenianism onto someone you must think being Armenian is better then not being Armenian. However, I have already spent so much time getting involved in these useless threads where pages upon pages of logical retort is not enough to convince some individuals they are wrong. Conclusion: Armenians are no different then Turks and Jews in terms of ancestry, so, guess what you win, which is why I am going to place the "blessing" of being Armenian on to the next individual that "feels Armenian". If indeed being Armenian has no bearing upon race then from now on please do not state that Eastern Turkey is the homeland of Armenians because genetically you have no relation with ancient Armenians, but a Turk does. In fact by your're logic then Turks are indeed the rightful descendents of ancient Armenians seeing how you think Armenians are not "white", which means that contemporary Armenians are not the Armenians of ancient times. In fact Armenians now are closely related to Arabs and are indeed one of the lost tribes of Israel as most Jews claim they are because genetically they have more in common with Ashkenazi Jews, who we all knew are pure of blood. Good luck finding faithful Armenians!

Part 1 Why are you putting words in my mouth? When did I ever state "black blood is filthy"? Please do not label me a "racist". I am just stating that, socially, it is much better being "white" then it is "black", now, you can sit here and call me a "purist", but we all know this is true. Furthermore, who indeed is being a "purist", someone like me, that only stresses the need to maintain our "Armenianism" and "whiteness" through marrying in the culture, or you, who wants to "convert" someone of another ethnicity and race into "Armenianism"? By all means explain to me how forcing the Armenian ideals on another ethnic or racial group is not racist or "purist" in theory? How is this no different then the other racist logic that Jews use to convert someone of another race, ethnicity, and nationality? Jews justify it by stating that "Jews are God's chosen people", which leads me to ask how you are going to justify it? How are you going to convince someone to convert to "Armenianism"? For instance, Sev-Mard, is justifying the ultimate assimilation of Armenians by black culture due to the fact that Armenians in the United States live in communities that have a high saturation of blacks in and around them. Now, how are you going to convince another person as to why it is better to be Armenian and how will this benefit the child? I mean if indeed there is no differences then explain to me why is it better for a child to be Armenian as opposed to what the other side of family has to offer? Listen, the bottom line is that we are "White" and "Armenian", which is why in no sense have we ever been "black", now, you can sit here and try to convince me that I am "racist", but if you really think about it what you are suggesting is far more "racist" then what I am. IN the process of being "tolerant" we are also being racist and if you do not see this then you’re blind. How can you actually convince me that by imposing you’re "Armenianism" onto your children, who may have a father that is not of Armenian ancestry, you are not being racist? Correct me if I am wrong, but by sending your child to Armenian school are you not implying that it is better for the child to be Armenian? We both know that a half Armenian child will only adopt one identity, so, would not the act of imposing your Armenian ideals onto the child be racist because you feel that it is better of the two to preserve? Yes, it would be intolerant so do not sit on your high horse and point the racist finger at me because what you are proposing is far worse. Furthermore, if indeed it is inevitable then the survival of the Armenian Diaspora must be some kind of fluke, right? Wrong, however, what I think will ultimately destroy the Diaspora is not someone like me, but someone like you, who tries to find logical reasons and excuses as to why diversity is "ok" when it is blatantly oblivious that diversity just marginalizes and degenerates the Armenian ideology. Part 2 In general Sev-Mard society has a problem with "blacks" not because they are biologically different, but because to function in a society that was meant for "whites" you must ultimately be "white". What I mean by that is that in order to succeed in “western” countries and to ultimately become a “western” country you must either assimilate your culture to fit the mold of a “western” country or must “westernize” your outer appearance including your race. Another factor that you must consider is how black people portray themselves through their own culture. What I mean is that if indeed "hip-hop" is part of black culture then rappers that degrade black men and women also represent the black community, which is why the first thing African-Americans need to do is to stop supporting rappers or aspects of their culture that my portray African-Americans negatively. For instance rappers in general portray African-American woman as "whorish", which in my opinion is not true because this aspect of society is prevalent among any ethnic or racial group, but unfortunately endorsing "whorish" behavior in no way reflects African-Americans "positively" towards ethnic groups that in general have conservative views on male and female relationships. An example was the recent move Soul Plane, which was somewhat funny, but I found the humor highly distasteful and if I was black I would have protested the release of it. Now you wonder why this is important. Well in general the next generation of any ethnic group behaves the way they feel they should behave. The movie portrayed African-Americans as oversexed, which ultimately makes being "oversexed" cool, which is not harmful, but equally is not much beneficial to the social progression of African-Americans. Also, this in no way reflects upon the black culture in a positive manner when in fact most "ethnic" groups, like the Armenians, have conservative views on male and female relations. Furthermore, a Jew will never call another Jew a "Kike", not because a "Kike" is a derogatory word because to be honest calling a Jew a "Kike" has virtually no meaning in terms of the actually word, however, the act of calling a Jew a "Kike" is wrong because the word "Kike" eventually becomes a derogatory word given time. Now, why do I bring this up? Well, the first thing the African-American community should do is stop calling one another "nigga" because by calling one another "nigga" you can not gain the respect of the rest of the world. The entire logic that because you are black you have a right to call another black person "nigga" just degrades African-Americans. Would it be any worse if someone other then a black person was to call a black person "nigga"? No, so, why then does it make it "ok" for a black person to call another black person "nigga"? It does not make it "ok", which is why African-Americans need to make sure the next generation does not adopt the same habit, but seeing how African-Americans endorse rappers that indeed endorse this logic, I find this hard to accomplish. The reason I bring this up is because virtually everyone I communicate with tells me the same things in terms of why they disassociate themselves, socially, with African-Americans. Now with the exception of the Armenians that try to be "black" themselves in general you can not expect people of another ethnic or racial group to respect you when in fact your own culture does not respect it self. Recently, however, the same can be said of Armenians when they call themselves "Armos", but this is another topic. Anyways, Sev-Mard, I have nothing against you personally, rather, I find it hard at times to be a socialite, when in fact being a "socialite" does not always guarantee that what you have to say is actually "correct", but rather what you say is only done so because you want to be socially accepted and at this point in society it is far more socially prudent towards individuals like Nairi.

NO and I am never going back to this issue, but to place them on equal footing as a Armenian that is not mixed, is also wrong. That is all I am going to say about this issue because anything else leads to the same old debate and I getting sick and tired of it. Everyone knows where I stand and if they don't just do a search. I do admit that Armenians in general have individuals that may not look like the majority of Armenians you typically see, but in general 95% of Armenians are "white" and look "white". Furthermore, 95% of Armenians are “white” and at this point to argue that a Armenian born into a family consisting of Armenian parents is not Armenian because his or her complexion is not as "white" is ridiculous, however, to state that "racial diversity" is "ok" because Armenians in the past have "intermingled" with other races is not smart either because the amount of interaction is very minimal, which is why you still have a lot of Armenians with blue eyes. Now am I stating that being "white" is biologically superior? No, however, if in a thousand Armenians look black then by no means do they have a right to claim they originated from the Armenian Highlands due to the fact that historically only a Indo-European race lived in that region. This is just pure logic I am using because we both know that to claim you originated from Armenia, while at the same your entire population looks African means that you original may have come from Armenia because you may have retained some of the culture, but in no way can you claim the Armenian highland as your own. This goes back to my original comment, related to why Turks should not be considered "white" due to the fact that eventually they can state that "since we are white, we are the descendents of the original population of these lands", while the same can be said of Armenians by Turks, which is that "since Armenians are not white they do not have claim to the land". Now if you think I am crazy then next time you meet a Turk ask him how he is "white" and I guarantee you he will say because he is descendent of some Turkified [insert indigenous Indo-European Population], Armenian, or Greek. This is why I find it very foolish for someone of Jewish descent to state they are a "Semitic" people when in fact most Ashkenazi Jews have blonde hair and blue eyes. Furthermore, to claim that a population that in general looks "white" has a right to a geographic region, which only a "Semite" has claim to, in my opinion is a double standard implemented to retain the right of land with the social benefits of eventually becoming "white". Assuming then that they are "Semitic" wouldn't that mean then that by "race" they are "Semitic" because in general when someone refers to themselves as a "Semite" they mean it in terms of race as well? Yes, it would, which means then that to state that they are of "Semitic" origin is wrong, which means that stating they are "Israeli" is also wrong because historically a "Israeli" is a "Semite". I still do not understand how a blonde hair blue eye European looking Jew is a "Semite". This is why I find it very important for Armenians not to get too engrossed with "black" culture or to adopt it as their own because historically Armenians have had no ties with Africa, so, for you to automatically make being "black" the in thing to be is in my opinion very detrimental to the next generation. You’re basically saying that because a few Armenians do not look "Armenian" then racial diversity is a priority, when in fact countries like Turkey and Israel are trying to racially homogenize their population by implementing strict immigration laws and by forcibly mixing with Europeans. Every Turk that I have met so far in the United States has a "white" wife, which either is a coincident or is indeed a signal. I just find that hard to swallow because the rest of the civilized world is "white" not to mention that historically Armenians are "white". In fact if it was not for Jewish and Turkish manipulation of history Armenians would be considered the oldest Indo-European race (Hittite) meaning that we are indeed the first "white" race. This has no implications for a political correct person like yourself because to you race has no meaning, but for me it places me, as a Armenian, almost 3000 years before the birth of Christ, which would make the Jewish ideology that they are indeed "God's chosen people" and the oldest ethnicity in the world a bunch of hogwash. Furthermore, it would mean that Armenians had an empire that can only be compared to Egypt in size and wealth, which I am sure to someone like yourself that mixes up cultural pride with racism, has no implications or significance in the long run. However, I am sure that if tomorrow Armenians were labeled as "Semites" or something other then "white" or "European" the first individuals that would complain are Armenians like you because eventually you would understand that being labeled "White" or "European" is indeed important to social progression and interaction in contemporary society especially when being Muslim is already considered backwards by “westerners”. Most importantly, the world is run by a "white" civilization in order for a individual to function at maximum performance they must also be "white", now, you can tell me well "you are wrong because in America everyone is a American" in which I will tell you that if this indeed is the case why is it that even though almost 40% of the population is colored we still do not have a black president? If indeed we are "egalitarian" society why is the majority of upper income bracket in America "white"? The answer to this question is obvious, which is that you are living in a "white" civilization, which was created, founded, and meant for people of "white" skin. The "white" population will always be ahead of the "colored" because of the fact that they were the founders of "western" civilization (example Rome, America, and etc.). Now, you can state that well in "contemporary history we are equal" in which I reply that if indeed we are equal why the act of discrimination is still investigated or looked into? If we are equal then programs that favor minorities should indeed be history, right? Right, which means that we indeed are not living in a equalitarian society, which makes any attempt to keep Armenians “white” a good investment. Now, what bothers is the way you patronize "black" culture like its the next best thing when we in fact function in a "western" and "white" civilization, when in fact adopting black culture is no different then adopting Persian, Turkish, or Western Culture, so, do not think that I am patronizing “westerners”, however, I am just pointing out that being white is far more beneficial socially then it is being black. Biologically there is nothing different about a White and Black man and as Domino pointed out in another thread skin color is indeed like eye color, however, socially being "white" is more welcome then being "black". This leads me to my next point. If indeed being "white" is not a desired in our society then why is it that in the Black-White intermarriage rate in the United States you have 73.8% of black males marrying white women, while only 26.2 percent of black females marrying white men? If indeed being labeled or accepted as "white" was not indeed a definitive edge then why is it that in general Black males have a higher rate of marrying a white women then Black females marrying White men? If indeed black is beautiful why is it that you have "black" males that marry "white" women not because they have anything in common with them due to the fact that in general you always hold a stronger bound with someone of the same race, ethnicity, and religion, but because they indeed understand that "white" is more socially prudent. Now you can call me a racist, bigot, and [insert comment here], but I am just painting the picture as I see, which is that in part "westernizing" means that you also become must become "white". In fact this trend is also common in the Asian community. Out of 655 individuals surveyed 452 Asian women are married to White Men, while at the same time only 203 Asian men are married to White Women. Just in Korea they have surgery that makes their eyes more “western” looking. The surgery is conducted by the majority of Korean woman not because having “western” eyes is biologically worse then having “Asian” eyes, but because socially that is what is desired because we live in a “western” world. No we are not all "mixed" somewhere and if that would convince you to go out and marry a black man then by all means you have my blessing, but do not try and convince me that being "black" is the same as being "white" because I can honestly tell you that socially, historically, and psychologically, it is not the same experience. For instance I was watching this documentary on African-Americans that related the downward degeneration of the African-American youth is partially to the psychological effects of slavery. Now, when I watched the video I honestly thought that this has got to be the most dumbest reason as to why the African-American youth is degenerating, but began to realize that indeed part of the reason I am where I am today is because historically Armenians have never been subjugated to the faith of slavery, which in time has destroyed any cultural connection a African may have had with his or her respective origins. Listen, I do not want to get into the whole "mixed" topic because then it goes back to the same point, but your justification as to why it is "ok" is very misleading and that is all I will say. As a "committed nationalist" what I find funny is how instead of fixing any social stigmas Armenians have in general we have individuals like you that propose racial diversity is what Armenians are lacking when in fact racial hegemony is what is always needed to create a functioning society. I find it very upsetting that Armenians find it more convenient to force the entire community to adopt a bogus and wrong ideology that "Armenians are racial mixed" when in fact most Armenians are as "white" as they can be. Even Israel, which is a Jewish state, implements strict immigration laws that only allow individuals of Jewish ancestry to immigrate there. Are they doing it because they are racist? No, but because they want to create a racially hegemonic society. Do not get me wrong in no way am I stating that just because Armenians are "white" they should all of sudden go marry anyone that is "white", but rather am stating because we are "white" we should stay "white" by marrying Armenians, but since more than half of the Armenian population is part of the Diaspora eventually Armenians will indeed look anything but Armenian. However, since you feel more comfortable integrating yourself in "black" culture then by all means go marry someone that is "black" and see how different your child's life will be living as a black man or woman. Furthermore, I find it tragic that a black man can come on these boards trying to convince Armenians that they will eventually intermingle with blacks, so, they might as well submit to it as soon as they can when we sure as hell that if Armenians were to submit to Turks due to the fact that they will "eventual intermingle" then we as Armenians would not exist today. I have had it with this, which is why this will be my last response. If Armenians want to go be the next lost tribe of Israel then by all means they have my blessing.

Ok that makes sense, which means that Judaism is ethnicity? I mean if you are Jewish-Christian wouldn't that make a converted Jew not Jewish? This article does make it seem like that genetically John Kerry is Jewish, so, would that mean that anyone who is not genetically a Jew not Jewish? Also assuming then that indeed John Kerry is Jewish-Catholic wouldn't that mean that Judaism is not a religion? I mean how can you be "Jewish-Catholic"? I do not know, but it seems to me like they are using a double standard here. I feel that John Kerry is indeed Irish-Catholic, but his ancestry could have been Jewish due to the fact that genetically there is no such thing as a Jew. Now I checked the encyclopedia to find any clue as to why this is and it stated: "As a result of the long and varied history of the Jews, it is difficult to define a Jew. For example, there is no such thing as a Jewish race. Anyone born to a Jewish mother, or anyone who has converted to Judaism according to Jewish law, is a Jew. Many people define Jews as a persons who consider themselves Jews." Now assuming then that Jews feel that anyone who "feels" Jewish is Jewish could we assume since John Kerry does not feel Jewish then he must not be Jewish, right? Right, so, for them to state he is indeed Jewish when in fact by their own definition he is not Jewish is wrong. Since, by a Jewish race does not exist then we must assume that this is the only way to define a Jew, which is if they "feel Jewish" they must be "Jewish". Furthermore, since his “Jewish ness” stems from his paternal side that would mean he is not Jewish also since he was not born to a Jewish mother. I think I answered my own question, thanks Anoush on your insight.

By your logic then everyone in the world is Armenian and since "Armenianism" can indeed be attained by just "feeling" it then by all means I will leave it up to "otars" to preserve the Armenian culture. If indeed your premise is right then try to go convert somone of another ethnicity, race, and nationality. By your logic you should have no problem because if somone "feels" Japanese then they can just instantly be Armenian by "feeling" Armenian. If indeed the Armenian identity can be attained by books or by just "feeling Armenian" then by all means I will leave it up to you to go and spread the teachings of "Armenianism". I will also leave it up to you to find individuals willing to go die for Armenia and to donate their own funds to the Armenian cause. I will leave it up to you to go and find individuals that will take the time to read about Armenian literature and to pass the stories orally like my mom and dad to their children. By all means Shaunt, Domino, Nairi go outside and find a replacement. In fact all you need to do is find just one replacement due to the fact that from now on since being Armenian is just a matter of emotions then I see no value in preserving due to the fact that at any point in my life I can be Armenian by just "feeling it". This is ridiculous and childish to think in terms of "if you feel your Armenian your Armenian" and is a bit tragic that Armenians like yourselves are reducing the entire Armenian into "feeling Armenian" due to the fact that if I were to "feel Japanese" there is no way in a hell a Japanese person will ever consider me Japanese based on this premise. I just find it unbelievable at how desperate some individuals are in trying to force the entire Armenian community to socially accept a non Armenian as a Armenian when in fact in no way is a "otar" ever going to be Armenian. I do not care, who you want to marry or what you want to do with your life, but do not come here and force every Armenian out there to accept a half Hye as a Hye because the difference is blatantly obvious. You know what makes me go bonkers is that every Armenian meet that has married a "otar" always tells me that "yeah, swore off Armenian men or women", while at the same time they send their children to Armenian school. The hypocrisies is just disgusting I mean here you have a Armenian boldly stating that he or she swore off Armenian men or women, but yet just so they can be socially accepted place their children in Armenian school in a vain attempt to impose the Armenian identity on them. A family friend even has a odesity to ask my mom to find a "Armenian girl" for his half Armenian child, when in fact he did not take time to find one for himself. How can you actually tell your child to preserve or keep being Armenian when you married somone of another ethnic background? I mean are you going to tell me I am racist now also because so far I think your definition is by far more racist in the long run then mine is. The sad part of the story is that someone like me, who indeed is not racist, is deemed "racist" or a "bigot" when in fact it is the parents of the half Hye, that are imposing their culture on the child, is. In your opinion does that no constitute racism? If the child was half Armenian and let us assume half German. Would not she or he not have a right to choose which culture to partake in and by forcibly imposing the Armenian ideals onto the child are you not in turn indirectly stating that Armenianism is indeed better then the other culture? Yes, you are and by doing so are you not also being a hypocrit by in time forcing the child to marry a Armenian? Yes, you are. At this point I find what you people are proposing no more disingenuousness as when someone of Jewish ancestry forces the husband or wife to convert to Judaism and learn Hebrew. I have just had it with this politically correct garbage and indeed am shocked at how passively some of you can just sit here and allow this mockery to continue. You know what like I stated earlier put your money where your mouth is and try to "feel Japanese" among the Japanese and see how far you get when in fact they laugh at you and say “get lost Ghigin” then you will understand that being part of a ethnic group is not just “feeling” you are part of it. Furthermore, I want every one of you, who agrees that by "feeling" Armenian you are Armenian, to go and try to convert someone because by your definition the 6 million Armenians worldwide can only be Armenian if they "feel Armenian". By the way on a side not way was my thread on asking if John Kerry was Jewish deleted? This was in no way aimed to be racist, ethnocentric, or anything of that sort so why was it deleted? Also, why was Boghos thread about him asking if I was Jewish deleted? To be honest it did not bother me and I hope the Mods did not ban him. This is bureaucracy at its best and I am almost getting sick and tired of it, but since I choose to be here I will ignore it this time. This is my last post ever on this subject because it seems to me I can not really change some of the members’ opinion due to the fact that the entire board consists of half Hyes or “westernized” Armenians that are trying to find ways to make intermarriage socially prudent when in fact in no way does someone, who indeed wants to preserve their culture, accomplish preservation by intermarrying. Furthermore, I am sick of antagonizing myself or anyone else so from now on you all have my blessing and can spread your wonderful definition of “Armenianism” to the masses. From now on the fact that my parents are Armenian and have been raised in an Armenian community, which eventual is passed onto me through interacting with them, does not actually make me Armenian, but actually “feeling it” does. From now on I am going to "feel American" because to be honest if indeed being Armenian has no bearing in terms of genes, lineage, and or social interaction with Armenian parents then by all means I would rather “feel” American because at least if you are American you have to wait 5 years before you are citizen. Oh and do not state "well you can not force your ideals onto us" because I am not "forcing it on to you", but to say that "feeling" or "thinking" you are Armenian defines what a Armenian is just hogwash.

Furthermore, what you are proposing is no different then someone of Jewish ancestry forcing their husband or wife to convert to Judaism, which begs the question if indeed there can be someone of Jewish-Catholic ancestry? For example if we are to assume that John Kerry is from Jewish ancestry because of his grandfathers side then we must assume that being "Jewish" is indeed in the blood, right? Right, which means then that converting a "Jew" into the "Jewish faith" is a bogus means of attaining the Jewish identity, so, to convert a "Sev" to the Jewish faith is a double standard that ultimately labels someone of non Jewish ancestry as a Jew, but also places someone of "genetic" Jewish ancestry in the mixture. This is exactly what you are proposing, now, do you see how you are not making sense? You see how by making rules and regulations you ultimately still end up using genetics as litmus test? However, just basing it on books and factual information is also equally stupid because it reduces the barriers of entry into owning books and attending school. It places a historian studying Armenian history at equal footing as a actually Armenian. On the other hand, what I proposed is indeed the best way of defining the Armenian identity, which is that if you are raised by Armenian parents you are Armenian regardless of the color of your skin, eyes, and hair. If someone is half Armenian by all means you have the right to "feel Armenian", but do not expect someone like me to actually call you a "Armenian" because the difference between me and you is not just genetics, but also sociological. However, is that stopping you from marrying a Armenian girl and integrating yourself back into the Armenian ethnicity? NO, but do not think for one minute that by justifying your parents decision you are indeed Armenian because you are not. Furthermore, I am not going to be a racist and force my half Armenian child to adopt his or her Armenian half just so I can still function in the Armenian community. If my half Armenian child wants to adopt his other ethnic roots then by all means he or she has my blessing, but in no way am I going to condone these racist actions of forcing my child to adopt her Armenian as her primary ethnicity.

Your just beating a dead horse with a stick. I already stated that "At this point I am not using "race" or anything related to "genetics", but rather is a purely sociological approach to this question. So, please explain to us Domino how is a half Armenian child truly Armenian when in fact he or she only interacts with one Armenian parent", so, please do not bring genetics into the debate. Sev-Mard can no way attain what it took my dad all of his life to attain. Your just finding reasons and justifications as to why it is "ok" for Armenians to intermarry when in fact we know in no way do you actually "preserve" the culture by doing so. Can you also guarantee to me that without sending this child to Armenian school she will adopt her Armenian culture as her primary one? No you can not, but the chances of her accepting the Armenian is greater in a setting where her ultimate choice is to be Armenian. Furthermore, how can you actually guarantee to me that a half Armenian will indeed marry an Armenian when in fact his or her parents did not? Please explain to me how Sev-Mard is actually "Armenian" and how he can attain the title "Armenian"? Give me concrete steps as to how he can become "Armenian" without reading about Armenian culture, which we both agree is impossible. My point of view is more valid since it does not contradict with any of my previous statements, but your argument just does not make sense in terms of "preservation" due to the fact you are reducing the Armenian identity into owning books and attending schools. The argument I am making does indeed label an adopted child as Armenian if he or she was raised by Armenian parents and thoroughly holds in any scenario, but yours on the other hand is just confusing. Your creating rules and regulations just so you can force me to accept a half Armenian or someone of another ethnicity, race, and nationality into my community as a Armenian. Are you going to also convince me that Sev-Mard indeed is as much of an Armenian as my dad? So, by your logic then once I marry a person of German ancestry I also can become German? Yes, which means that since I can attain the title German by not having a biological connection with someone of German ancestry then we must also assume that I do not have to be born into a family consisting of German parents to attain the title German, right? Right, that is exactly what you are proposing, which is that out of the blue someone can become a German without having no biological connection with a German, but also no sociological connection as well. This is just ludicrous and insulting to just propose to change the entire dynamics of ethnicity, race, and nationality just so you or anyone else can feel more comfortable marrying a “otar”. The best way to define an Armenian is someone that is raised by and interacts with a Armenian father or mother. Let us be honest and get to the heart of the issue, which is if intermarriage is socially prudent in any ethnic community. I am not being "extreme" and in no way is stating that “the only way to be Armenian is to be raised by Armenian parents” an “extreme” idea, but it is blatantly oblivious that you just can not accept the fact that intermarriage is not socially prudent and are trying to make it socially prudent.

No and he will still get my vote, but I was just wondering how he can be Jewish-Catholic.

Why insult me? Listen Nairi all I am saying is that my ancestors were "white", which in no way am I saying is better then being black, but if Armenians want to be "black" then they forfeit their right to call the Armenian Highland their point of origin due to the fact that historically only a Indo-European stock have called the Armenian Highland their home. In fact "Hindus" themselves refer to themselve as a Indo-European race, which means that you are wrong in placing their origins near or in Africa. Face it you know I am right, but just are resorting to name calling in order to discredit me. By the way I was being sarcastic in my previous 2 posts.

I never implied the above, but instead am just asking how is it possible for Kerry to be Jewish-Catholic, that is all.

How is an individual going to "feel Japanese" when he or she does not know anything about Japanese culture? He or she must at least read about Japanese culture from a book, right? Right, which means that by stating that "by learning Japanese and learning its culture and reading books about it one can not just become Japanese" you automatically contridict yourself. Face it, Domino, the only way one can truly become "Japanese" is by being born into a family consisting of Japanese parents. This goes back to my logic that your Armenian identity is formed by interacting with a Armenian father and mother. Now, since half Armenians interact with only a Armenian Father or Mother then we must assume that they indeed are not Armenian in sense of their behavior, ideals, and morals, which last time I checked forms the ideology of the culture. At this point I am not using "race" or anything related to "genetics", but rather is a purely sociological approach to this question. So, please explain to us Domino how is a half Armenian child truly Armenian when in fact he or she only interacts with one Armenian parent? How can this actually understand the ideology of the culture when in fact he or she has only interacted with an Armenian father or mother, but not both? He or she can not be Armenian and to say other wise in my opinion is a failed attempt to make racial and ethnic intermarriage socially prudent. This is what it boils down to people, which is if intermarriage is socially prudent or not because to be honest if someone wants to marry a "otar" he or she does not have to ask another Armenian if they agree or disagree, but because they have to still operate among Armenians after the marriage they must try and find justifications to racial and ethnic intermarriage. Please do not make this into a racist, ethnocentric, or illogical argument due to the fact that my logic makes perfect sense while yours is a bit contradictory. How can you state that by "feeling Japanese" you can be Japanese when in fact the act of being part of Japanese without having prior knowledge about Japan would require you to read a book about Japan? You can not, which is why your logic automatically contradicts with our mutual agreement on how reading books about culture does not actually make you part of that culture. No culture is not transmitted due to the fact that he or she did not interact with a Armenian mother or father, so, at most only half of the identity is transmitted, which degenerates and marginalizes the Armenian identity. Are you saying then that my 20 years of interacting with Armenian father and mother can be attained by going to "Armenian school"? No, of course, which in my opinion is insult to parents that married in the culture so they would actually preserve their identity? Yes, it is a insult and furthermore, insult my parents and every other parent that has taken the time to actually marry in the culture. Domino, just face it, there is no way to become "Armenian" without being born into a family with Armenian parents. Eventually the child does not become Armenian and just fades into American society. Furthermore, the above statement contradicts with the statement in your original post which is "to state that I don't think there is 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 Armenians etc... you are Armenian, half Armenian or not Armenian at all" proves to me that at this point you honestly are just trying to make it socially prudent to be "half Armenian" when in fact we all know that preservation can only be accomplished by exposing a child to a Armenian father and mother. However, in now way can I deny a half Armenian their right to be Armenian, but in no way can I force them to accept it either, which is what you are proposing. I think it is more racist and prejudice to forcibly put a half Armenian into Armenian school just so he or she will eventually adopt the Armenian side as his or her own. That is racist and fascist, which in my opinion is wrong, right? Right, so, not only is what you’re proposing "wrong", but in a sense is also racist due to the fact that you are trying to impose the Armenian identity upon your half Armenian child when that child is also part of another race, ethnicity, and nationality. Are you saying then that being Armenian is better then not being Armenian? Yes that is exactly what you are proposing by stating that the child has to go to “Armenian school”, when in fact the child also has a right to choose the “otar” side of his or her family, which in no way is below the Armenian side. Yes, that child is Armenian, which is something I can live with due to the fact that some Armenian may not be able to biological have children, but to state that a "otar" can automatically replace a Armenian in my opinion is insulting. What I am proposing is not racism, but if you really think about it what you are proposing is. It "magically goes beyond the person" through a Armenian mother and father. Are you honestly telling me, Domino, that an "otar" father or mother knows about how to be Armenian equivalent to my father or mother because that is what you are proposing, right? Right, which again is wrong because logically there just is no way for a "otar" to understand the Armenian identity equal to or better then a actual Armenian born into a family with a Armenian father and mother. Are you ignoring the fact that he is half Caribbean, African, and American? I mean is it me or are you saying that his child is better off being Armenian? Yes, that is what you are saying, which implies that indeed you are being racist because you do not value Sev-Mards lineage. Now are you telling us that this Armenian woman will understand the Caribbean, African, and American ideology equal to an actual Caribbean woman? No, of course not, which equally means that in no way is Sev-Mard an actual replacement for an Armenian father, thus, in no way does the child actually become Armenian. I just find it funny how some on these forums insist on stating that their half Armenian children will be Armenian, when in fact we all know it is not going to happen. This is partially done because they want to still function in the Armenian community, while at the same time making racial and ethnic intermarriage socially prudent. If I were to get married to someone of different race or ethnicity I would in no way impose my Armenianism onto the child by putting him or her in Armenian school. This in my opinion is racist and in reduces our ethnicity to owning books.

I don't know if some have already heard about this and have more info. Yeah, Domino, the way this forum is mixing up cultural genocide with preservation I am sure you are right. Well, if we indeed are "Africans" then we should in no sense claim we are 'European" due to the fact that historically we migrated from "Africa". In fact claiming we are “Semitic” would indeed also be inaccurate at this point. Furthermore claiming that we genetically are somewhat pure also is "wrong" because face it Armenians are not black, so, in essence we are mongrels like Jews and Turks. Hell claiming that we indeed come from Urartu lineage is also wrong and furthermore allowing the lie that we indeed migrated from the “west onto the Armenian Highlands around 600 BC” is also wrong. Yes, your right Domino I think we are indeed Africans. We should now perform female vaginal mutilation.