MJ

quote:Originally posted by Twilight Bark: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. Fine. What do you want me to do about it? quote:What does your mother say about all this? She cannot speak - she is not feeling well. quote: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.Your gesture of politeness is very charming. However, what's the purpose of the proposed reunion? quote: 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. If I am born into something, it doesn't meen I am doomed to it, right? Besides, why is it that it is always someone else that has to do something and it is someone else's fault? quote: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.Would you care to say what you are trying to say more elaborately? quote: 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. Winning them over for what? Finally, would you tell me, please, what is that you are arguing with me about in this thread?

Stormy, As in every feudal society, those “thousands and thousands of kamikaze” were the “personal property” of nakharars. Their structure has been one of personal loyalty – “the way the master says the way it goes.” At the time of Avarair, Armenians had been divided and fighting against each other – a significant part of Armenians being on the Persian side along with their nakharars.

quote:Originally posted by Arpa:Does anybody remember "drunken paganism" during Vardananaq? How about the Persian elephants?

I came home late last night. Now I am waiting for the cows to come home. Later, I willl decide TB or not TB. Then we'll go from there.

Hovsep, Like I have told once, if I am giving you aparence of coming out of the closet, it must be your closet we are talking about. Edit: Appearance [ January 22, 2003, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by WhiteHorse:Right now, not all those were born outside Armenia are Armenian citizen, unless you live in Armenia for 10 years and apply for citizenship. When this goes through, automatically all Armenians become Armenian citizens around the world regardless of your birthplace. Armenians in Armenia sending a message to all nations, we all are Armenian, regardless of WHERE WE WERE BORN or WHERE THE FUTURE ARMENIANS WILL HAVE BORN. Well, being ALL AMENIANS is well recognized. But, still, what does it have to do with citizenship? Why should the citizenship be granted on the basis of ethnicity, even if it is currently being done so?

quote:Originally posted by Twilight Bark: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. Which thesis?

564312, I, basically, agree with everything you said above. Don't have much to add. I just like laughing at ourselves. But laughing at others is not nice...

Hovsep, The issue is that you have "gone on and on and have departed too far." The question is, "could you come back?"

Yes, you do get the wrong point. Why?

Since we are talking about the “proper context” here, let’s also use it for the ease of further conversations. I do not belong to the category of people defining who the “true Armenians” are and counting the number of beans in the soup. It has been a recurring thesis of mine in this forum and elsewhere that the nationality is a subject of self-consciousness, and this is what I have reclaimed in this thread. 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. In the current Armenian palette the “Eastern” vs. “Western” Armenian is nonsense. It is not the origin that defines who we are. It is our current attitude and consciousness. For example, I am a descendent of Western Armenians with all my ancestors originating in the Ottoman Empire. However, the axis of my Armenian self-consciousness is the Republic of Armenia. One can say that this is because I am born there. I would disagree. I know many Armenians who are not born in Armenia but share my thoughts and feelings. I know also the opposite. As a side comment to Boghos, nothing that I have said implies that not all of us are Armenians in my view. I think everything I say implies that I recognize it. What I am saying can be formulated as “So what?” 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.” 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.” This should be clear, by now. 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. Only, in his case it is explicit, in most of the cases it is implicit. And this cowardice is most widely spread. I don’t want to be “brothers” with cowards. 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.” 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. Finally, about Armenia being a corporation or not… Nice terminology… However, Armenia is not a corporation. Additionally, it is not an imaginary symbol. It is a homeland. Moreover, the Republic of Armenia has been the only real manifestation of Armenian homeland in about 800 years – this is a whole lot of history. If someone doesn’t recognize it, why should I recognize him/her other than as “cousin?” Now, I am short of time, and still could not organize my thoughts better, and I would rather stop before breaking myself while hitting the wall...

In few words, he was a flip-flap artist with no understanding of where he stood and why. He could be on either side - depending on who demands it. Well, while he could do with his miserable life whatever he would decide, he also took with him thousands and thousands of others (based on the sources) and got them slaughtered for no apparent good or meaningful reason. In the result, it took about 500 years for Armenians to be able to bring together another army and to stand for its independence. Then, his image and what he did was taken out of the context, misrepresented, and here you have a false hero. While others, who were perhaps patriotic noblemen, where portrayed as traitors. It takes a whole life of studies to be able to make sense out of the Armenian history.

Hovsep, I don't consider others neither my cousins nor my brothers. Ad hoc, others are normally strangers to me. But once they find their place and define their affiliation with me, I will make my choices correspondingly. So, now that you have called me “brother,” I would like to learn if we have the same emotions towards my mother so that I decide to accept your brotherhood or not.

Sip, My biased conclusion, as you frame it, is resulted from my conviction that we, Armenians, are an exclusive nation , we are the first Christian nation , and we represent the cradle of civilization (God have mercy on my ). Therefore, while the “Humans may be indeed dumb,” one can not expect the same from Armenians.

Thanks, Azat. I already got response from him. Turns out he is facing serious health problems. Yet, he has published another book called "The Bible in the Armenian Tradition." I would ask the spiritually advanced ( ) members of our forum to pray for the success of his upcoming surgery.

Yes, indeed. Besides, they are ultra-conservative Republicans and have prejudices against the bisexuals, even if it is an experience not practiced for about 20 years. Kill the bastards.

Libya takes UN human rights chair Monday, January 20, 2003 Posted: 8:48 AM EST (1348 GMT) GENEVA, Switzerland (Reuters) -- Libya, long accused by human rights activists of major abuses, has been elected to chair the United Nations' top rights body. The decision on Monday comes despite objections from the United States and other Western nations about the country's poor record on civil liberties and its alleged role in sponsoring terrorism. The Libyan candidate, long-time diplomat and former journalist Najat al-Hajjaji, won 33 votes in a secret ballot of the 53-nation United Nations Human Rights Commission, with 17 states abstaining and three voting against her as Washington had recommended. The North African country ruled by President Muammar Gaddafi will therefore preside at the March 17-April 25 annual session of the Commission when the state of human rights around the world will be scrutinised. For the first time since the Commission was founded in 1947, the decision went to a vote after Washington said it could not "reward Libya's terrible conduct" and demanded a ballot. Libya, which is still not fully free of U.N. sanctions imposed for its alleged role in the Lockerbie airliner bombing, had been nominated by African countries, whose turn it is by U.N. tradition to make the choice. www.cnn.com

OK, here we go... I think the geographic origins should not be considered as the determining factor of affiliation and belonging - it is rather the cultural and other identifications that have to serve as criteria. People should be free to self-define their identity. On the cultural basis, however, I think that the predominant part of Armenian Diaspora, especially outside the former USSR, is not to be considered as Armenian Diaspora but rather as Turkish Diaspora of the Armenian Apostolic Church flavor – essentially this is what Armenians of Turkey have been for about 300 years, at least. This makes us "cousins," I guess, as once mentioned in the Hye Forum. This is a reality regardless of our attitude towards it. Iranian Armenian Diaspora is another distinct phenomenon and a subject of a separate discussion. Maybe in my next message I may be better organized.

quote:Originally posted by WhiteHorse: Hopefully armenian's in Armenia will agree all armenians are armenian. How does this relate to the double citizenship?

Thoth, Are you suplimenting my sbove thesis or are you contradicting it?

quote:Originally posted by MJ:[i used to think that V. N. works for the British Museum and I contacted them asking for his contact info. Turns out I was wrong. Does anyone know how to contact him?] Turns out he works for the Britsih Library not the Museum.

There was cult of traditional Armenian History in my family when I was growing up. I started to feel that Armenian History, as presented in the traditional framework, makes no sense once I was over my teenage years. The reason is that I found it to be too illogical and stupid so that to convey a coherent and convincing story. In the list of all the falsehoods there is one fable which stands tall as the utmost nonsense of Armenian history and the most egregious lie. I couldn't digest it since my early childhood - it is the story of the Avarair Battle – not the fact of the battle itself but its interpretation, or better to say, its misrepresentation and misinterpretation with all the fatal consequences for the future of Armenia throughout 1500 years, along with the invention of false heroes such as Vardan Mamikonian, who should have been considered, in my view, as one of the most miserable individuals in Armenian history. Anyway, I have been reading Vrej Nersissian’s “Treasures from the Ark” over the weekend and came across some narration which supports all my doubts, I think. [i used to think that V. N. works for the British Museum and I contacted them asking for his contact info. Turns out I was wrong. Does anyone know how to contact him?] Anyway, here is an interesting material, as I perceive it. Though the quality of the scanning requires some editing, I am too lazy to do it. The Spread of Christianity in Armenia F. Dvornik in a series of studies has proved that' one of the leading features of primitive Christianity was precisely that it laid everywhere the first foundations of the universal edifice of the Church on a national plan'.[4] To reach the roots of the growth of western Christendom, special emphasis must be placed on the Christian east, since it is the Eastern Churches that have best preserved some features of early Christianity .[5] For this perspective Church historians must abandon the picture of the history of the Christian Church as presented by the father of ecclesiastical history, Eusebius, who gives a 'very poor coverage' of the Church before the conversion of Constantine.[6] When Christianity began to spread from Palestine in the first century AD, two world empires, the Christian empire of East Rome (later Byzantine) and the Zoroastrian, Sasanian empire of Persia, had a determining influence on the Christian populations that lived in the shadow of 'the two shoulders of the world' . Their frontiers cut across a largely undivided culture, with the result that Christians who lived in Roman and Sasanian Syria and Mesopotamia remained in close contact with each other, and yet were part of empires that spread the cultural achievements of their peculiarly vibrant region far to the west and to the east. Christianity spread into Persia via Edessa, which in the first century was still the capital of an autonomous state under Roman supremacy, though it was to be incorporated into the empire two centuries later. As the same language Syriac - was spoken on both sides of the Romano-Persian frontier, Christianity spread from Edessa first along the Tigris and the Euphrates deep inside the realm of the Persian empire. The Parthian kings did not hinder the diffusion of Christianity and after 226 their Sasanian successors spontaneously offered asylum to Christians seeking refuge in Persia from persecution in the Roman empire. Not until war broke out between the Romans and the Persians in 340 did the Christians come under public suspicion, as was only to be expected, and a bloody persecution was let loose under Shapur II. In the realm of the Romans as well as of the Persians, Christianity had to exist as a religious minority amidst a non-Christian population, subjected to non-Christian rulers. Church history is full of accounts of martyrs in both empires.[7] But Christianity under Persian rule differed from that under the Roman empire in many ways. Christians in the Persian empire were not subject to persecutions officially ordered by the King of Kings. The persecutions in the Persian empire were rather of a local nature. The ruler of the state was not behind the martyrdom of individual Christians. Even when persecution was at its worst, Christian worship was freely carried on in some provinces. In Persia persecutions never assumed the character of a general imperial policy as in the Roman empire. It was the powerful Persian Zoroastrian religion that after the third century flourished and deprived Christianity of its chance to convert the ruler and the state.[8] The fact that the Persian kings were not Christians, and the Churches in Persia never enjoyed the position and the privileges of a state religion, in no way prejudiced the development of Persian Christianity and its spread to the east. The Church in Persia did not need privileges to fulfill its mission; it had all the characteristics of a national Church without the dangerous entanglements which a state Church could scarcely avoid.[9] In the Roman empire the situation was quite different. Since the time of Emperor Decius in the fifties of the third century the ruler himself had tried to wipe out the Christians from allover his empire through cruel persecutions. In its opposition to Christianity, however, the pagan Roman authority could not rely on any particular religion being strong enough to check Christianity in the long run. The Christians in the realm of the Romans existed in a religious environment, which, despite all syncretic approaches, was generally multiform and in the end powerless to prevent the Christian victory that came with the conversion of Constantine the Great. The hostility which for centuries divided the two empires made it absolutely necessary for the Christians of the Persian empire to build up their own independent ecclesiastical organization and to foster as little contact as possible with the Christian Churches of the Roman empire. This made the Persian Church a national Church over which the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon wielded unlimited authority .[10] It adopted the church organization as it had grown up in Roman Christianity, complete with patriarchs, metropolitans and bishops, ruling from definite sees over carefully delimited dioceses as the necessary framework to carryon its mission to the east. And yet the sense of being part of the Universal Church was very much alive and received adequate expression. It always valued its relations with Edessa and Antioch. In AD 410, the Persian Church accepted the canons of the Council of Nicaea and some other western synods. In AD 424, the Persian Church took an important step when a new Persian synod decreed that thereafter there would be no appeal from the judgement of the Catholicos to the Western Fathers, the metropolitan of Edessa and the patriarch of Antioch: 'Easterners shall not complain of their own Patriarch to the Western Patriarchs; any case that cannot be settled by him shall await the tribunal of Christ.' [iI] The above decision has often been construed as an expression of the Persian Church's schism in disguise, but the verdict is rash; we should rather read the decision as the manifestation of the natural desire of every national Church to be independent of other Churches, which in its eyes are also national. There was a general tendency allover the east for every Church to be autocephalous: the Armenian Church was another case in point. References 4. Dvornik, F., 'The study of church history and Christian reunion', The Eastern Church's Quarterly VI, 1 (1945), 4. 5. Dvornik, F., National Churches and the Church Universal. Westminster, 1944, p. 5. 6. Brock, S.P., 'Christians in the Sasanian Empire: a case of divided loyalties' , Studies in Church History 18 (1982), 2. 7. Rage, Wolfgang, Syriac Christianity in the East (Moran Etho 1 ). Kottayam, 1988, pp. 3-9. 8. Christensen, A., L 'Iran so us les Sassanides. Copenhagen, 1936. pp. 136-73. 9. Dvornik, 'Study of church history', 13. 10. Macomber, William, F., The Authority of the Catholicos Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (offprint), pp. 179-200; Young, W.G., Patriarch, Shah and Caliph. Rawalpindi, 1974. 11. Chabot, Jean Baptiste, Synodicon Orientale, Notices et Extraits des Mss de la Bibl. Nationale et autres Bibliotheques. Paris, 1902, vol. 37, pp. 51, 296.

Axel, All I read in your previous note is pride. This is also why I don't believe you.

quote:Originally posted by axel: You don't have any arguments so you try to discredit my position through personal attacks and other sophistic means... Do you really believe Armenians are that dumb? Axel, I am not trying to discredit you. You do it for yourself. Additionally, you are the one who has started to discredit others here. Also, I have not yet applied sophisticated means - I just have thrown out a couple of light comments and you already have become defensive. So, where is your Faith? I am just trying to say that your "Faith" comes across as corrupt with ideology and philosophy. If you want to talk philosophy, we can do that. If you want to talk literature, we can do that too. We can also talk ideology. But we would need to segregate them. But if you want to talk Faith, you should talk love. Love is the missing category in all your contemplation. That's why I don't believe you. It doesn't mean that I think you are dumb, nor an evil person (contrary to what you have implied in one of your posts earlier.) It means just that you have to clear your head and your heart to see things in more transparent ways. As to me bringing arguments, sorry, don't have any interest beyond what I have already said - too bored too argue. And by the way, more I spend time on the Internet, more I get impression that Armenians are indeed dumb - don't blame me...

Why is it that I cannot buy at their face value whatever Axel says...?