MJ

Nice silence.

quote:Originally posted by 564312: But isn’t Christianity part of the Armenian identity? No. Christianity has nothing to do with ethnicity and the other way around.

Thanks again.

Thanks, Domino. Do you have the link for this material, too? I have promised it to someone.

quote:Originally posted by THOTH:It was Lowery. I think Domino has this extensively archived if I'm not mistaken. If not, I do (somewhere...)... Thanks, Thoth. I know it is somewhere in this HyeForum. I need the material. Thanks for the help.

In the past, I had posted Heath Lowrey's scandalous letter to the Ambassador of Turkey in HyeForum. I searched for it, and couldn't find. Does anyone remember where it was? Or does anyone remember the original source? Or was it Bernard Lewis? Thanks for the help.

quote:Originally posted by Sip:

Indeed, Alpha. I find it being increasingly hard to say something qualitatively new in this forum. There is enough material here for launching a political party with a broad political, economical and social program. Nevertheless, I think some of the low margin industries may have very important positive impact for the long run - they are low risk industries, they may generate a lot of jobs and provide a “bottom line.” Today, they are absent, thus the huge unemployment rate in Armenia. Without the steady flow of cash flow through the low margin businesses, the government would not have (as it is the case now) the money to invest in knowledge based and high return enterprises. We have all the schools we need in Armenia. What we lack, I think, is an outlet for the graduates and sufficient financing for the schools to upgrade their programs. We also have a secondary problem of “hard head” academicians. But “money talks.” I also share your vision of Armenia becoming, in perspective, regional banking center as well as energy center. However, I doubt that Armenia would be allowed to “control” the regional energy supply. But she can efficiently organize it, which would help Armenia to become regional energy center - regardless of where the pipelines subject to controversy may pass through.

Thanks, Sepahn. That must be it. I'll try.

WOW! Glad to have asked such a mind stimulating question... The executable is a program installing (supposedly) the AOL 8.0 package.

Unfortunately, it doesn't . It requires an Application to be Associated with.

Does anyone know how to run an executable file - *.exe on MAC, i.e. what Application should it be Associated with? Thanks.

I am a strong believer of the potential Armenian wine industry and associated with it tourism. Armenian grape and water are exquisite. However, bringing it to the attention of the international consumers is not that easy. But it is very possible – the Australian wines being a recent such phenomenon. One can also take into notice the South African and Chilean wines. I personally can consume about 15% of it, and Thoth can consume 65%. The remaining 35% can be marketed to the rest of the world. (In case someone doesn’t like my arithmetic, the mismatch is due to the black market effects. ) I am also sure that we there is a possibility of the targeted tourism, but so that to accomplish something on that stage, one has to get out of the realm of the parochial "Armenian themes." One example would be "weight Lose Facilities," for example. I am sure we can be creative enough to come up with many other ideas. In any case, appropriate taxation and other incentives may always help to promote different industries. An example that comes to my mind is one of the Caribbean Islands, where people go to have cosmetic surgeries done – the surgeons do not have to be necessarily Armenians, btw. This is just one example for the sake of the conversation.

Well, if anyone has to claim the Analyst’s Corner in the Hye Forum, that would be not me but Alpha and Boghos. I can just make a couple of declarative statements. Armenia is part of the fiber optic network extending from the Black Sea to Iran. The access is not the problem (I assume that I understand the question correctly, otherwise if it is about production of the material used in fiber optics, I am not knowledgeable in it, but assume that something of that type should be very easy to bring together in Armenia – assuming there is market to export it to). The problem is the Armentel deal and the monopoly provided to ArmenTel by the Minister of telecommunications at the time – Boghbadyan, who I suspect is still serving his jail term. The good thing is that the ArmeniTel monopoly is about to expire in a year or two, if I am not mistaken. I have no comments about travel. It is a very "Diaspora Oriented Business." It would not make the day, I think. However, to the extend that it can be encouraged, why not? I think it is more realistic to think of Armenia as an intimidate hub for cargo shipments. Hope that the latest status change of the Zvartnots airport ownership/management may support such potential endeavor. I think the only chance of Armenian chemical industry’s revival is conditioned to the establishment of Armeno-Turkish relations, otherwise it is an industry with very high transportation cost. I also know for sure that Satellite Dishes do exist in Armenia. One of my best friends in Yerevan has a dish sticking out of his balcony. Whether it allows fast Internet access, I don’t know. P.S. In the past, there has been a very significant base for laser industry in Armenia. How much of it is intact in our days I don't know. Sure it fits the profile of low transportation cost industry. [ December 06, 2002, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: MJ ]

I think "high tech labor" is too broad of a term. In the past, Armenia has been a leader within the USSR in microelectronics, etc. I doubt very much that in our days the Armenian "high tech labor" is qualified to attract foreign investors on its own. Systematic effort has to be put together to retrain the former employees of the industry, to promote new norms of discipline, significant investments are needed to acquire necessary equipment, etc. Whatever could be easily brought together and marketed, Russians have already jumped on, I think. So, the low hanging food is gone. As far as the software industry is concerned, sure it has significant potential - that is it can be gradually developed, assuming one can find market niche. However, there is a major stumbling block there - the fast internet connection and its cost thanks to Mr. Boghbadyan and his alike. Overall, low transportation cost industries, such as textile, shoe production, wines, crystals, etc, may have future, I think. But the existence of potential does not manifest mechanical success. Some special effort and vision is expected from the government of Armenia. One venue of attracting foreign investments may be, I think, the establishment of duty free (whatever it may mean) economic zone, let’s say, in the earthquake zone. As a collateral effect, the earthquake zone may also be built. In perspective, the duty free zone may be expended to include Adjaria, and the Kars province of Turkey. In any case, I think it would be a good practice to start it from Kumairy. What industries may thrive may depend of what investors may find such entity attractive.

With the crash of the stock market worldwide, I suspect it is a good time for Armenia to start an organized campaign of attracting foreign investments. After all, the likelihood of losing your investments in western markets is pretty significant, too. I think this may be a momentum not to be lost.

I think much of the content of this thread goes into the heart of the notion of "set of symbols" substituting the Armenian history and, more importantly, the future of Armenia. It seems that for many the history of Armenia is identified with a number of symbols - legends - myths, which are frequently even taken out of the context of the reality. This obsession with symbols is indicative of the absence of the sense of present. About 150 years ago these symbols did a good job in the context of the awakening of the nation. In our days these symbols are equivalent of drugs denigrating the national consciousness and sending the receivers into a deep denial of reality, part of which is formulated through the rhetoric questions in Arpa’s note above. I say drug therapy is a good thing as painful as occasionally it may be…

Pfffffffff, I'm only me MJ, you know that. Can you step down to my kitchen for a minute? Good timing! I am hungry... How can I interpret that... Armenia as a sort of Andorra? Sort of... So Armenia belongs to the EU culturally but not economically. OK. Not really. Armenia is a cultural chaos... It belongs neither to Europe nor to Asia. It is just something mixed and has been so for centuries - filter between Europe and Asia. However, in the last 50 years or so, Turkey has captured some of that function. Greetings to L. from the City Hall! [ December 04, 2002, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: MJ ]

I am humbled by the honor offered to me… I don’t think Armenia would become a EU member, especially if Turkey is not admitted into EU. I am not even sure that Armenia’s membership in EU is expedient for Armenia. Armenia belongs to the Caucasian-Middle Eastern domain both economically and politically. Culturally, Armenia doesn’t belong to any of these domains or belongs to all. I think it is better for Armenia to be some kind of free economic zone facilitating inter-structural cooperation throughout the continent and the region – some special economic status.

Vahan, I broadly agree with you. However, I think the primary problem in Armenia is not the corruption, while it certainly is a big hindrance on the way of our development. Corruption is a consequence. One of the primary problem is that Armenia(ns) has(ve) no facilities to get access to the whatever markets and to claim market share. This, by in large, is due to absence of vision in the big realm of things, and total lack of understanding of the rules of the marketing game. If Armenia would have coherent vision and marketing strategy, jobs can be created and the corruption can be gradually phased out. Corruption thrives only when there is no positive outlook. Armenia indeed needs new people and new mentality. These people exist. One just has to help them to come forward by establishing proper mechanisms for their self-identification. Armenians are normally very creative and able individuals, and forgot to tell… they love money. There is one big problem though – a big mouth, and a perception that they already know everything, and these "stupid Americans (for example) don’t understand anything." Every other Armenian has "cracked the problem of international politics," is aware of all "conspiracies" in the world, and is ready to "export" his knowledge outside the perimeters of Armenia. This leads to the syndrome of "tunnel vision." What we also need to understand is that we have been left behind the modern world by some 30 years, at least. The good thing, however, is that we can cross that road in some 5 years if we stop inventing the wheel and stop thinking that we are "unique and special." We are not! All it takes to change things is a coherent effort and discipline. The lack of discipline is one of the primary faults of Armenians. One has to figure out how this can be changed – this is the hardest part. It is hard to change people’s habits. The government of Armenia is not going to do it. No other government will do it, either. That’s not how it works. But someone has to put forward a positive message that can excite people. People need hope and they need to believe in the future. Then, things will change on their own. Now I solved the problem.

Dear TB, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your contribution to this forum and find it invaluable. On the soborness: I think I am more sober than ever. Just some have unlimited capacity for dumping crap and I have very limited capacity for digesting it. On style: style is not necessarily the best communication device. On debates: no debates on the color of the crap!

At What Point Is Killing 'Genocide'? Nearly Nine Decades After the Massacres, A Battle Still Rages To Define 'Genocide' By Philip Kennicott Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, November 24, 2002; Page G01 The festive atmosphere last month at an advance screening of Atom Egoyan's "Ararat" wasn't what one would expect at an evening devoted to a movie about genocide and denial. The Library of Congress event, hosted by the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, felt decidedly celebratory, with a young congressional staffer all smiles as he spoke of the progress toward greater recognition of the crimes perpetrated on Armenians by the Ottoman Turks during the final years of the First World War. Members of the caucus introduced the film, and celebrated the accomplishments of Egoyan, a Canadian filmmaker of Armenian descent. Genocide and genocide denial are grim but perennial topics in human history, but this was a night to enjoy the success of Armenian muscle in the halls of American power. And then Egoyan's film began to roll. It is an onion of a film, with historical events wrapped inside layers of memory, confusion and argument, with everything unsettled and elusive. Miramax is now promoting it with blunt ads that play up expectations that the film's direct treatment of the Armenian genocide will anger the Armenians' most ardent critics, Turks and the Turkish government: "Uncover the shocking secret of the movie they don't want you to see" and "the most controversial film of the year." But this is not a punch-in-the-gut film. It is not even a slick potboiler like "Schindler's List." In that sense, Egoyan's movie mirrors the strange fate of the Armenian genocide in cultural memory: The Armenian tragedy is a fact of history kept permanently unsettled, not because it didn't happen, but because -- like a shuttlecock in a badminton game -- a small number of people have succeeded in keeping it up in the air. Some facts are simply read into the record of history. Others are contested every step of the way. Even as writers of popular history, mainstream journalists, politicians and academics find greater comfort with attaching the label "genocide" to the events in Eastern Turkey 85 years ago, the Turks still contest the basic facts so successfully that it doesn't make much sense to speak of a "middle ground" between the contested viewpoints. Rather, like the efforts of creationists to question established evolutionary science, there is a vast planet of accepted truth around which orbits a satellite of vocal dissent. At What Point Is Killing 'Genocide'? In the final years of the First World War, the Ottoman Empire was falling apart, under stress from a war being fought against the Russians and Western allies, across several fronts. Within the empire's vast, polyglot territory were Christians and Muslims, Turks, Kurds, Armenians and Jews; it was a fractious world. Spurred in part by a fear of Armenian sedition that was vastly disproportionate to any real threat, the Turks rounded up Armenian intellectuals and killed them. There followed a series of mass deportations and killings, and soon horrendous starvation. No settled figure for the death toll is agreed upon, though estimates run from the hundreds of thousands to more than 1.5 million. The suffering was documented, at the time, in American newspapers, and the American ambassador to the empire, Henry Morgenthau, repeatedly decried the genocide. Morgenthau, whose account of the events has been criticized by Turkish scholars as being exaggerated and perhaps fabricated, appears as a character in a film-within-the-film that frames Egoyan's story. When Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish lawyer and activist, coined the term "genocide" in the 1940s he was inspired, in part, by the fate of the Armenians. Adolf Hitler took inspiration, too: "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" he is supposed to have asked while planning his invasion of Poland in 1939. Those words appear in the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, as an ominous warning about memory and conscience; and their presence in the museum has been vigorously opposed by Turkish Americans and the Turkish government. Fast forward to this past spring. Samantha Power, author of "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide," was speaking at the Holocaust Museum. Her book began with a brief sketch of the Armenian genocide, perhaps two dozen pages out of more than 600. Those few pages were enough to inspire a fusillade of angry questions from people who identified themselves as Turkish American and, in one case, a staffer from the Turkish Embassy. "It was a very crowded event, and person after person called on asked about that," she remembers. "It was spooky. At one point, I said, 'Look, I don't have a dog in this fight.' " Asked whether this was an organized confrontation, a Turkish official said, "This is an issue that Turkish people are very sensitive about." He also said that Power, a scholar at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, is not a specialist in Ottoman history, and takes an idiosyncratic view of the United Nations genocide convention.In that official's broadside on Power are the major elements of the Turkish strategy for controlling the argument: a general appeal to treat the Turks (who are U.S. allies and who form a significant minority community in the United States) with sensitivity; a warning that only specialists in Ottoman affairs are qualified to sort through the relevant history; and the exploitation of the gap between what genocide means in international law and what it means in most people's common understanding. The last of these has been particularly fruitful. Genocide, in the popular imagination, means the crimes perpetrated by Hitler: the boxcars and death camps, the industrial efficiency of killing and the seven-figure body count. But neither Lemkin, who invented the word, nor the diplomats who forged the United Nations convention on genocide wanted Hitler to be the last word on the subject. While Germany established the benchmark for genocidal madness, the club is easier to get into than most people realize. When the convention on genocide was adopted in 1948, the United Nations didn't interpret the term to mean the utter annihilation of a people, only the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part." And by destroy, the U.N. meant not just killing, but "serious bodily or mental harm," or the deliberate creation of conditions that are deadly or destructive. "Those who don't believe that what the Turks did to the Armenians, or what the Iraqis did to the Kurds, is genocide have in their mind a standard of genocide which requires the systematic extermination of every member of an ethnic group," says Power. "But the standard isn't based on 6 million people, or mechanized k illing, or outright extermination. The Armenians know the definition of genocide and they know it's not even a close call. It was genocide." The Turkish view, as articulated on the Web site of the Turkish Ministry of Culture, and echoed by a Turkish official, is a collection of arguments, and it is a scorched-earth affair.Some highlights: The Ottoman Turks are not to be confused with the Republic of Turkey; both Turks and Armenians died, as well as Kurds and Jews; the charge of genocide doesn't fit the crime; the country was at war and feared Armenian disloyalty; there are no hard numbers to justify the case of genocide; evidence used to support the claims of genocide may have been fabricated; and because the Ottoman empire was on the wrong side of the First World War from the point of view of the United States and Britain, sources from those countries can't be trusted. The Turkish argument throws out a lot of firsthand testimony as politically tainted.If it were a legal argument, say pro-Armenian scholars, it would be rather like saying that my client wasn't there, couldn't have done it, has been charged with the wrong crime and it was self-defense.But it has been enough to chill scholarship. A distinguished professor of Ottoman studies who asked not to be identified because he wants to avoid alienating both Turkish- and Armenian-identified colleagues, says: "I believe there is a lot of self-censorship taking place. People are afraid to go down certain paths, so they avoid controversy." It is easy to understand why there is self-censorship. To become expert in the issues involved in the Armenian genocide, a scholar would ideally need to know both modern and Ottoman Turkish as well as Armenian, which all use different alphabets. Scholars who devote years of study to learn these skills also need access to important archives in Turkey, which, according to some scholars, has impeded access and evicted scholars deemed too pro-Armenian. And the Turkish government has generously supported the creation of powerful academic chairs at prestigious American universities, including Princeton and Georgetown. Seeking Truth Through Public Policy Armenian Americans have sought some settlement of the issue not only in the academic world, but also through congressional resolutions recognizing the genocide (which so far have failed to pass). For Aram Hamparian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee of America, the facts of the matter have long been settled. "We're at the point of waiting for public policy to catch up with the truth," says Hamparian, whose organization has fought hard for a congressional resolution that recognizes the genocide as fact. "When we debated this resolution in 2000, there was only one member of the House International Relations Committee who questioned the facts of the genocide. For everyone else, the debate wasn't about the facts -- they know it happened -- but about how recognizing it would affect U.S.-Turkish relations." After pressure from President Bill Clinton, who cited national security issues, House leaders pulled the resolution from its agenda in October 2000. One of the central conflicts in Egoyan's film takes place between an actor of Turkish descent and a young man of Armenian descent, in which the latter gets the upper hand. It is a moment of reverse aggression, the Armenian refusing an overture from the Turk. That, too, captures an important nuance in the political debate of historical fact. "Some of the main protagonists on the Armenian side have assumed a prosecutorial role," says Ara Sarafian, an Armenian scholar who has compiled volumes of material documenting the genocide. "There are so many different camps, including a very strong Armenian nationalist camp. I personally don't approve of it all." Looking to politicians for confirmation of historical fact may unleash more forces of confusion and conflict than it offers comfort of official sanction. Over the years, debate about Armenian genocide resolutions has spawned charges that there are larger, hidden goals to Armenian political activism, including even claims for restitution or Turkish territory. And once the debate becomes purely political, there is no predicting the fault lines. Supporters of Israel, for instance, have not been strong supporters of congressional efforts to recognize the Armenian genocide, especially since the mid-1990s, when Turkey and Israel forged a close relationship. A shared past of genocide does not necessarily make allies of people. There is also a philosophical dilemma. If a political body can lend weight to historical fact by passing a symbolic resolution, what does it mean if that resolution fails to pass? Are the facts thereby less certain? If you turn truth over to people who negotiate, you may end up with negotiated truth. Egoyan's film ends with an act of leniency, forgiveness and healing that has nothing to do with the Armenian genocide, as if to say that it is not the protagonists of a battle, but those on the outside, who will move things forward. And it may be true of genocide recognition as well, which makes Miramax's efforts to promote the "controversy" of Egoyan's film rather odd. Egoyan takes the genocide for granted, as do most people these days. By calling it controversial, Miramax has joined forces with the Turks. Both stand to profit. © 2002 The Washington Post Company

quote:Originally posted by THOTH:MJ - how wrong you are. Just goes to show you that it is not wise to read your pre-concieved biases into everything that you read. Thoth, You are losing your sense of humor again. Sorry if my unsuccessful joke has hurt you.

quote:Originally posted by THOTH:LOL - actually I have no '88's but I have a few wonderful '86's & '89's. I have a very nice Calon Segur '89 slated for thanksgiving dinner. I'd invite you to join us sometime but you really must behave. The (true) Grandmaster has spoken. Unbelievable... I just figured out that Thoth eats dead turkeys, or better to say turkey corpses...

Material expired. [ November 25, 2002, 03:42 AM: Message edited by: MJ ]