MJ

Khodja, Please tell me when is your birthday so that I send you a present - a mirror that you can look into and, possibly, reflect.

Long live our Royal Superstud Khodja Nostradamus HyeAgck Hagaragian with his amzing genetic composition!

I suspect you will get closer than that... After all, Dutch are coser to Armenians than the Chinese or the Indonesians... I saw the episode. ...those bad Brits - as hypocritical as the Americans... Almost...

quote:Originally posted by Aghtchik:Yes, too bad. But to reach the finals at Wimbeldon is quite an achievement already. So he didn't really lose, he just didn't get first. By the way, he looks more Dutch than Armenian to me. I think he lacked experience and aggressiveness. But he has just started. So, my verdict is, "Well Done!" I think he looks like Armenian - there is plenty of his type of Armenians. To contrary, I think you look more Armenian than Dutch.

It was a pity…he lost… But demonstrated good potential for growth. I am sure it is not the last time we hear from him.

Timeout.

Dear TB, Let me start claiming that that there has been not a slightest desire or attempt from my side to subject you (of all the people) to sarcasm. If, against my will, I have come across as sarcastic - I apologize. Also, in an attempt to tackle over the Internet such a huge issue, our discussion becoming prolonged and extended, has somewhat lost its axis and focus. Besides, my vacation is coming to its end, so in the remaining couple of days I will engage, at best, only in light conversations. I will try to wrap my thoughts on the subject up in my own words rather then letting someone else (however admirable) define my position on such important issues. 1. There may be a mountain of evidence to condemn Australia for its past actions against its aborigines, but I am not exposed to it. Therefore, I will refrain from making comments on a subject where I don't have strong background; 2. There is no reason to refrain from judgment when faced with a huge mountain of evidence. As for descendants carrying the sins of their ancestors. You know that such absurdity has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am talking about applying the "lessons learned" from a radically different experience by a radically different culture to the wrong nation; 3. Continuity, tradition, structure, wealth, stability, power, influence, etc, are advantages in the continuation of the "familial chain." Additionally, their absence leads to the break of the "familial chain," since the "familial chain" has strong merits only if it is based on the continuation of private ownership. When the chain of ownership is broken, the "familial chain&" also gets broken. Needless to say that the broken chain of ownership is a perennial Armenian attribute; 4. I am not saying that it would have been "swell" if we had become another aggressive nation. However we, like anybody else, had a responsibility to defend ourselves. And this is not based on my taste but the recognition of historic reality. I also do not consider the declarations of our peaceful nature as valid arguments. We have not been "peaceful." I can call peaceful the Chinese or the Indians. The week are not peaceful but helpless; 5. Like Boghos has mentioned above, and which has been a clear cut position of some in this forum for a couple of years, now, Diaspora is steadily headed towards its extinction quite naturally as an entity with no purpose. By being "subservient" to the Republic, or better to say by making itself an extant ion of the Republic, Diaspora may only save itself. It will also serve the homeland; 6. The expression of "Disporan communities" has to be put in perspective. The absolute majority of Diaspora has nothing to do with communities. Armenians steadily dissipate in the host cultures for a millennium, now. If not for the Genocide and the hardships in the Republic, we would've not had Diaspora in the 21st century; 7. Maybe the motherland has not done much mothering. There are several reasons. First, Diaspora has not been interested in the motherland beyond a very limited participation in the efforts of motherland’s recovery from disasters and sharing the emotional satisfaction from the military successes of Karabagh. Unlike many other Diasporas, it has demonstrated a repugnant behavior of unreliability in the course of the national liberation movement of the homeland and the military operations around Karabagh. Additionally, the Diasporan establishment has entered the political arena of the homeland with a clear intend to take over its political process and has appealed to all dirty tactics along the lines of the accomplishment of such a role; 8. For the sake of the fairness, at least, we have to admit that the newly emerged culture of the Republic has its share of responsibility in the above, too. It is associated with the distribution of the national property in the process of privatization. This is another big topic; 9. The idea of Armenianism, whatever it may mean, has history of less than 150 years, which has been preceded by centuries of total lack of any national aspirations. I would also like to add that I have not questioned your thinking. To the contrary, I am much impressed with your chain of thought. My comments in the last post where unequivocally directed at your "liking and being interested" but not at your "thinking." So much from a sleepless man. P.S. Plesae disregard the paragraph 2 for obvious reasons. [ July 06, 2002, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: MJ ]

Nalbandian reaches final Argentina's David Nalbandian became the first player in the Open era to reach the Wimbledon men's final on his tournament debut. The number 28 seed won the final set of his semi-final against Xavier Malisse 6-2, after it was suspended on Friday at two sets all. His 7-6 6-4 1-6 2-6 6-2 victory means he will now play world number one Lleyton Hewitt in Sunday's men's singles final. http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/020706/4/d2vyj.html P.S. Actually, you can see the game right now on WXIA. [ July 06, 2002, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Two continents (North America and Australia) physically cleansed of its natives, three continents cleansed of its native cultures (add South America), one continent left in a huge mess, largely because of a complete lack of respect for "tribal" boundaries and a disastrously misguided belief that the "modern" idea of a "nation-state" would cure those tribes out of their outmoded "tribal" identities. Two genocidal, brutal world wars. You don't think those acts qualify the western civilization as a rapist? The rapist in the analogy is clearly a brilliant man, with numerous accomplishments in all fields. But he is a rapist nonetheless, and has no moral ground to lecture non-rapists on the benefits of castration. I don’t know much about Australia. Would refrain from the judgment. A know a little bit about the US history. If one can clearly articulate the allegation and support it, I may even accept the commitment of Genocide by the US. However, I don’t think that it qualifies US/{Western Culture} as “rapist” and, definitely, it doesn’t condemn it to silence. You see, if my grand-grand-grandfather has been an idiot, per se, it doesn’t imply that my children are idiots, and certainly doesn’t condemn me to silence. quote:Ahem, what advantages would these be? Clear advantage of continuity, tradition, structure, wealth, stability, power, influence, and so on. quote:Remember, the familial chain? I don’t think it does much in the context of nation-building in our days. quote:However, the "higer level self-organization" has to be done very carefully and delicately. Otherwise, Armenians would become just another "me-too" ho-hum "nation" with no point to their distinct existence. It is extremely easy to delegate too much cultural power to the state. I am not interested in such a mutant. The planet is already stuffed with those. See, your interest and the national advancement are two very different things. What I hear you saying is, “I don’t like it, and I am not interested in it.” Well, OK. .. But this is about the advancement and, if you wish, shaping of this nation. That things have to be done carefully, who can argue with it? I would say, things have to be always done diligently. But if you leave the culture to the “masses,” they create monsters like you can see if you turn on the Armenian TV channels in US on Sunday mornings. Following your example, I can also say, “I am not interested in it.” quote:We didn't have a "modus operandi". Absolutely right. Because we didn’t have purpose. quote:We just did what we could. It is rarely obvious what the "right thing" is, even in hindsight. Wrong. Somehow others knew it and did a better job at it. quote:It is not obvious, even in hindsight, what the Armenians could do to have fared better, unless they became a very different kind of nation. I have this sneaky suspicion that I might not have liked to be a member of that "new and improved" nation. There are many of those on the planet, and I usually don't like their arrogance. What kind of nation? History has given us the chance to be a “different” type of nation. It is us who have not figured that out. And again, you’re and my non-liking of “different” type of nations has not much to do with the past and future paths of the historically justifiable evolutions. If one loses once, he/she should try to win next time. If losing time-and-time again, it qualifies one as perennial loser. Then, no lamentations are warranted. With the lack of aspiration to win extinction is best so that to avoid becomeing environmental hazard. quote:Pragmatic results that are worth achieving spring from intelligent philosophical exercise with pragmatic goals. OK. I can live with that… quote:The problem lies within our culture itself, starting with how we raise our kids. Yes. We have a serious problem, here. I think that’s where this discussion started from, even though we deviated from it. Seems like the traditional “familial chain” is failing, isn’t it? quote:… These can be cured without changing the nature of our brand and mode of propagation of our national consciousness. But at the same time, the cure can only be implemented by the leadership and resources of a state. On that we also agree. Yes. But it starts from the recognition of the authority of the state! quote:Well, then your point is rather inaccurate. What has been passed down is unmistakably a "national consciousness", but of a kind different from a French, American, or a Turkish one. I disagree. The history of the late 19th and early 20th century demonstrates that that national consciousness was totally absent in the “nation” (better to call it religious minority) outside some elitist groups. That was a major problem of Armenians in the last 100 years, and by in large, it still remains a primary problem outside the boundaries of Armenia. There has not been continuity of Armenians. Much like the contemporary Egyptians are called Egyptians. But how much common do they have with the ancient Egyptians? quote:In any case, I think we agree that today there is an unwarranted and counterproductive (I am resisting the word "toxic") emphasis on being a Christian. The two concepts must be separated, as the religious identity is introducing too much confusion to the point of Armenian identity. What was a useful distinction 100 years ago has become a digression today. I disagree here, too. Unlike some others, I don’t consider that it was the fault of Christianity (as a doctrine or religion) that Armenia got destroyed. I think it was the fault of the well-known repugnant institution which usurped the ownership of Armenian identity and its purpose, and corrupted it,the institution which betrayed the country at every critical juncture. Also, not that, our last mainland independent kingdom – the Bagratuni Kingdom has been one that has become possible as a result of an amazing Christian movement and rebellion – the Paulicians, which have been notorious for their military skills and have maintained Armenia’s independence on their own for almost a century. Additionally, they have been so well recognized for their military skills that they have been hired in later centuries to defend the southern flanks of Europe – after the killing of the yet another Armenian King by another beloved Armenian Catholicos, and the distraction of Armenia fore a millennium to come. Note, also, that all of the contemporary European countries, for example, owe to Christianity for their stabilization. In our case it has been very different, however. quote:Right. Preferably better than being something else, or nothing in particular. "Something else" and "nothing in particular" are in fact quite compelling and attractive choices presented to the diasporan youth every day. As you said at the beginning of the thread, many opt to take one of those choices. It is imperative to crystallize, philosophically, why there is a point to remaining Armenian. It does take a "high level of organization" by a mother country to convey that point effectively. As you know, I am an ardent supporter of that notion. But it takes more than that. There has to be something philosophically compelling behind the organization. Glad to learn that.

quote:I am more than a little surprised at your professed lack of knowledge on the issue. No need to be surprised. I am not aware of such phenomenon, at least because it sounds too generalizing. Besides, it looks like you are backing a little bit away from your earlier assertion, right? quote:Europeans (please note that I use the term "European" to indicate European-based societies on other continents as well) recognize that their experimentation with an ancestrally based "nationalism" was an unqualified disaster. Well, if it was disaster for them, why should we have reasons to believe that we have the ability to be better than them on the ground where they had clear advantages? quote: What is important is the mode of propagation of values. So, what is our mode of propagation of values? quote: If you re-read what I wrote more carefully, you will realize that I am not equating the familial chain of love with national consciousness or coherence. I am saying that propagating the national consciousness via that familial chain of love is a vastly preferable conduit than a central brainwashing system. I am not rising in support of brainwashing systems. But I am for higher forms of self-organization without undermining the value and place of the families. But I am also asserting that those incapable to transit to higher forms of self-organization will remain at lower levels of self-organization (a little tautology, but to the point, I think ). And what would be the consequence? The same as before (for centuries), I am afraid...And even this under the best scenario. quote: I can hand over to my children, along with my love and care, a love of baseball, or a love of guns, or a tradition of bullying others, or the idea that being Armenian is a good thing, or nothing at all. It is my choice. What is unique about Armenians is that the national consciousness has been passed down by the familial chain, without a central authority, or threat of violence or other unpleasant repercussions. And I think that is a very good thing, and somewhat circularly but self-consistently makes being an Armenian a good thing. We, Armenians are a very diverse group. Among us you would find all categories in substantial numbers on a percentage basis – those who cherish the tradition of not bullying others, those bullying their own, those loving guns, and those more in a pacifistic mode, etc. While not denying that "the national consciousness being passed down by the familial chain" may be a good think, what I am saying is that left on its own devices, it is a very inadequate form of the advancement of a nation. If that has been our modus operandi, definitely it has been an absolute disaster. After all, our national infrastructures, national consciousness, our headcount and so on, have been on a fast and steady decline for a millennium, and to the least due to massacres - perhaps just due to the lack of aspirations. After all, we have gone through a whole millennium ( maybe a century less) of total vacuum, collapse and decay of anything national, which points at our own failed experiments, if I am to borrow your terminology. And what we have today is not a success story – it is the last remains on a steady rout of extinction, if it is not for the Republic. I hope that you are not going to claim that "we have done the right things, and it is all our neighbors fault." And I am not saying that being Armenian is not a good thing. I am just saying that it is a very weak "thing," very vulnerable, very immaterial and, again, unless new and "contemporary" mechanisms of advancements are brought together [by the Republic], it is a "thing" with a very short lifespan. quote: Your use of the term "existential" goes some way in explaining your current mood, I think. It is not a current mood. It has been with me for a quite long time... However, it is driven not by the desire of engaging in philosophical exercises but by achieving pragmatic results. quote: I agree with you about the fragrance emanating from the fruit. I am not so judgemental about the tree's fault in the matter, however. It may be that the poor tree had too many lousy gardeners. Hopefully it can return to health. I am not saying that it is the fault of the tree. The tree is just a tree - never in fault... Maybe it is the fault of the gardener, or perhaps the absence of the gardener, or maybe it is the inadequate system of nourishing, or all of it together - back to where we started, I guess? One or another way, we should recognize that there is something incredibly wrong in our, so-called, national mentality. Let's just judge by its results... Don't they [the results] at least raise serious questions? quote: In this juncture I will simply repeat what I said earlier: "What is unique about Armenians is that the national consciousness has been passed down by the familial chain, without a central authority, or threat of violence or other unpleasant repercussions. And I think that is a very good thing, and somewhat circularly but self-consistently makes being an Armenian a good thing." My point is that it has not been passed down...it has been lost long time ago, and what we are trying to do now is to create it. ...at least in the context of the future to come. And if being Armenian is recognized as being not a good thing (not meaning better than being something else), why bother, right? [ July 05, 2002, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: MJ ]

Dear TB, I have no knowledge of the Western intellectual tradition’s arrival to the conclusion you have mentioned above. If the English are indicative to any degree of Western intellectual tradition, then I think they would come to readily negate your corresponding allegation. This is just one example. And I think your example about the “rapist” is a little far-fetched. To develop on an earlier statement of mine, not only we know practically nothing about our ancestral ties, and we don’t need to go as far as Hayasa-Azzi or Urartu to make such a statement valid, but we have merely an image of “synthetically” created bag of symbols on the capacity of ancestral knowledge, based on the 19th century Armenian prosaic literature. If we are to talk about the millennial propagation of love through family, family love doesn’t necessarily constitute national tradition or coherence – it is rather idiosyncratic to the nature of the Homo Sapience. If our history is indicative, on the other hand, in the period between the 12th century and the end of the 19th century, the Armenian national consciousness practically had disappeared – Armenians had stopped being a nation, but I am sure the family love was transcending from the parent to the child and over. For example, I love my children and I am sure they will love their children, but it has nothing to do with me being Armenian or them being Armenians. As far as the Eastern vs. Western civilizations are concerned, I think it is a very vague distinction in our days, if by Eastern we don’t mean necessarily the Far eastern (i.e. Asian/Oriental). Obviously, the Eastern civilization along with its Armenian manifestations has collapsed throughout history (at least the last millennium) by consistently being in the losing side of the inequality (and not equality). And obviously, our national history also places us at the losing side of the binary ( ) relationship. I think it is indicative of the weaknesses of the patriarchal societies and their limited reach in a fast pace historical environment. I agree with your assertion regarding knowing the past. The question is what is our past, however. More importantly, to phrase it existentialistically, “why is our past?” One allegory that I would like to reference here in this context is the well-known ``The tree is judged by its fruit.” If the fruit is our present status quo, then it is easy to judge about the tree manifesting our past. In this sense, yes, indeed, the past sheds light on the present. Finally, if the ancestral ties based societies where to be held as positive example, I think we should have all admired the Chechen society, for example, as a prototype for our desirable national infrastructure.

TB, I have been thinking on the subject of common ancestry. I think it is a bit superficial thing. With all the perturbations in the region no one can tell us what our ancestry is if we are to go sufficiently far. Besides, any referral to ancestry is going eventually drag us to the past, while I think our commonality should be tied to our aspirations for the future, and should merely reside in our consciousness.

...and to think of it...no, the Republic doesn't live up to its responsibilities due to the lack of vision, perhaps, but more importantly, due to the fact of being hijacked by a class of new unshaved heroes...

smile.gif

Dear TB, I agree with your observation that perhaps some (significant part) in Diaspora don’t feel being a derivative of the homeland due to geographic categories. Too bad for them. I think it qualifies them as people without homeland – sort of gypsy camp. But they have the opportunity to connect with the homeland – their choice. I would also like to bring to your attention that there is an opinion in Armenian academic circles here in the US that the Eastern and Western Armenians are two different nations. And as we go, I feel myself inclined to ascribe to that thesis, unfortunately. After all, what does unite us if not Armenia? The myth of the past glory? Too unrealistic. The language? There are too many distinct nations sharing the same language. Perhaps the hatred towards the Turks? Too unworthy of a cause to unite around. I disagree with your argument of the Armenian identity being so much different from other identities. First of all, I think it is very hard to define the Armenian identity. Armenians are so different among themselves. Just compare Armenians from the Middle East with those from France. Even worse, compare Armenians from different Middle East countries with each other – say those from Egypt with those from Lebanon. The differences between us are so remarkable that we just have nothing in common with each other, if it is not for the Turks or Armenia. As far as your analogy with the flowers and the garden is concerned, I think it raises a question of who is the gardener and what is the purpose of the flowers (back to the purpose) – their esthetical value, their functional merit, or something else? I do think that it is up to the Republic to make whatever special effort to save the “flowers,” that is if there is a function for the “flowers” in the garden. I do agree that it is up to the statehood to preserve the identity. I think it is the only viable structure which may succeed along those lines and can produce something coherent and meaningful. But the preservation itself is a very low ideal. It is not worth existing for the sake of preservation. It would qualify one as a parasite sooner or later. After all, if the purpose is the preservation, why do others have responsibility for it? I also think that the outlook of melting the Armenian population into a synthetic nation is very desirable, to me. After all, as I mentioned above, we are so much different from each other and our nation is so short of “definition.” But I have observed over my lifetime how fast that melting can take place - 2-3 generations at most under the conditions of sovereignty. The refusal of “melting” into a synthetic nation under sovereignty would be just manifestation of racism. I also want to express my disagreement with the description of a past identity you have given in such sympathetic tones. In my view, one of the primary Armenian problems throughout history has been the lack of robust identity. If you think of it, we never succeeding in shaping as a distinct nation ( I don’t mean an ethnic group). We went through a process for few centuries but it got interrupted. Then, we melted more or less into a common or “synthetic” nation under the Byzantine or Persian or Ottoman Empires while constituting ourselves as a pseudo-religious minority – big deal. If you look at it carefully, even in our days you would find many who would define our identity by a religious-institutional compartmentalization. I would call it lack of identity if it was not for the Republic. This is a big topic. Have to run now.

Dear TB, Since I have taken off from work for the holidays and am not taken over buy the urge “to put shoes on the feet of my children,” I guess I can speculate on the subject a little further. I think a lot of harm to the homeland is being done by the current modus operandi of Armenian Diaspora. The harm ranges in a wide spectrum. Most notably, it interferes with the domestic and the international agendas of the homeland. Regrettably, it corrupts to a further extent the political process of the homeland. I agree, however, that Karabagh is the primary factor holding the development of the homeland back. I hardly believe that I am the one to change the psychological dynamics you contemplate above. However, every now and then, I have this urge to emphasize how messed up our Diaspora is, and how fictitious its declarations and ideals are beyond those starting with a $-sign… (Maybe I am just trying to let the accumulated inside (me) steam out. ) I also want to make a clarification that when referring to the Diaspora, I am talking about its establishment. I think its disappearance is imperative for the formation of a new type of Diaspora and for the formation of a new set of ideals – much more pragmatic and honest ideals. I am also well aware of the serious flows, as you put it above, on the homeland fronts. But that is the homeland with its eternal significance and purpose – one may and should have patience with it. Meanwhile Diaspora, supposedly, should be merely a derivative of the homeland and one of its devices. And if it doesn’t serve the homeland on such capacity, and sometimes even sabotages the homeland, it better disappear. I also share your opinion regarding the “individuals vs. masses.” Our entire history is history of a bunch of “elitist” individuals with a lack of noticeable achievements on the front of the “masses.” Sometimes I even think that we don’t have a mission as a nation other than producing some individuals of great quality – not better than of other nations and not worse. I also take your point on “belonging” with due recognition. There is no alternative to it except, perhaps, that of taking a stance mimicking the newly recognized prophet of the Forum with maximal IQ and a “six-box” tummy… At the risk of deviating from the topic, I want to add that I don’t see the Armenian identity being significantly different from other identities – at least in perspective. If this identity would become significantly different from those of universal humanity and serve some other purpose other than the universal humanity, it will make the nation to be transferred into the fringes of human society (as partially observable at this time in our history) and make the nation increasingly irrelevant. I think an issue of similar type was raised by Vahan, lately, in the context of Armenian writers traditionally “addressing” Armenian issues, and “creating” national literature, and thus turning themselves into provincial troubadours under the best scenario. Finally, about the preservation of the identity, since it is way past my bed time… I don’t think that something special has to be done to preserve the Armenian identity. If the identity has merits, it will be preserved on its own. Any artificial effort directed at its preservation may turn to be futile over a moderately long run as we observe it in Diaspora. What needs to be preserved, in my view, is the Republic with its enhanced structures, with the redefinition of its purpose and the ways of serving that purpose. Then, the preservation of the identity would become a consequence – an acceptable consequence.

To continue on the subject, I think there is nothing negative with the Diaspora, as we know it, dying. In fact, I think the quicker it dies the better it is - there is no use to anyone from it - neither to Armenia nor to the individuals comprising that segment of Diaspora. However, I think new Diaspora is being formed due to the migration out of Armenia. I hope that some day, the opposite migration may start taking place and our nation would "rotate" in a well thought out manner – on a conscious and subconscious levels, which would make Diaspora a permanent and positive phenomenon, I think.

Hi Boghos, I see nothing wrong with finding outlet in “odar” circles – moreover, I think it is good and should be encouraged. As you understand I belong to the mentioned category myself, as well as my children do. I am not for the “ghettos,” not for their “reform,” but for their demolition. While I agree with your compartmentalization of the different attitudes among different “ghettos” based on their geographic origin, I think the lose of identity is greatly apparent in the communities in France, the 3rd generation US communities, etc. They, also, by in large, suffer the same stigma – definition of identity through the relationship with the Turks (or attitude towards them). I also think that ditching the victim stigma can be successfully accomplished without lose of truth as evidenced on the example of some. I think what we lack is intelligentsia which is wiling to come forward without being scared of a potential character assassination.

Hi TB, I had a teenage-to-a-collage-age person in mind. I agree with your suggestions on some of the things that one needs to do to properly raise Armenian children. My thoughts, however, are directed at the things that one should not do. That is to raise a child with constant injection of a requirement “to not forget.” I think children have to be raised as children and their childhood should not be robbed from them – this is what the Armenian communities, the Armenian Churches , the Sunday schools and other cultural and social establishments do. The outcome is twofold – you get either healthy children who reject the notion and at their first opportunity to make independent choices run away from their identity as far as they can, or you get a segment of schizophrenic “guardians of the national cause,” of which we are aware even from the few online forums. Neither scenario is desirable, I think. On the other hand, the generation who is raised itself in a schizophrenic and fictitiously Armenian spirit has nothing else to offer – we all offer what we are capable of. This is primarily directed at Diaspora. Have you noticed how frequently an Armenian person in Diaspora presents himself/herself along these lines, “I am Armenian. I am a (grand-)child of survivors of the Genocide perpetuated against our nation by Turks… I am here because if the Genocide…” And so on. I think this is terrible. First of all, from the perspective of the tremendously handicap psychology that it implies in view of the perpetual victimization. Needless to say that a perpetual victim is not capable for great things but only for whining. If the representative of the category I mentioned above feels his Armenian identity comes with a tremendous burden, this last one is a burden in the healthy segment of the nation himself/herself. The second, very ironic, argumentation is, if you notice, this second category implicitly defines himself/herself always through the association with the Turks – he/she is a hair of the survivors of the Genocide committed by the Turks. I would call it lose of identity before anything else. I think this is terrible. Their primary, and perhaps the only, driver is “to get even with the Turks.” As soon as it is done (it still remains to be understood what it means to get even), their “Armenianness” is over. In my view, this category, which is the predominant majority of the active part of Armenian Diaspora is the heavy stone hanging on the neck of this nation – this category has hijacked the national agenda and the outlook for the national progress and development. I think we need new voices and new concepts for a better outlook for the future.

quote:Originally posted by MosJan:i'mijaiylots MJ dzerq@t inchpes yerav ??? Shnorhaalutiun Movses, Bavakan lav e.

Frequently I wonder if it easy for a young person to be Armenian? My answer is that not only it is not easy but, moreover, it is a heavy burden to be carried with implications, under the current system of national consciousness and upbringing. This is especially true, I think, in the case of the Diasporan youth. In most of the cases, they are raised as "different." But sooner or later they ask the question of why and how are they different – they ask it at least to themselves. And then ... Genocide, lost lands, earthquake, homeland in need, corruption, crime, distasteful and ghettoized existence in some segments, lack of positive outlook overall, etc. To summarize, nothing positive. And what is the conclusion ...? [ July 01, 2002, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by Kazza:.....We accepted and kept Christianity and all our surrounding countries had accepted and kept being Muslim? I think it is not a quite accurate statement. At the time we have accepted Christianity, all our neighbors except Persians have also accepted it.One may say that some of them ( Aluanians, in particular) later have converted into Islam. Yes, but... the majority of Armenians have also done so and have assimilated. Only a minor part of Armenians has "stayed" Christian. And obviously, as Arpa says, the acceptance of Christianity by Armenians as a state religion has been a political move. I think it was a fatally faulty political move (while I am for Christianity) and has destroyed Armenia. Those who know the history of Armenia would know, for example, that Armenians have suffered far greater in the hands of Byzantine then the Arabs, for example. At the end of the day, the fundamental question which remains to be answered, I think, is, "who destroyed Armenia?"

I am not aware of such "qualifications" of Armenians by Pushkin to this extend. I am aware of a line in a verse, which sounds like, " You are a slave, you are a coward, you are Armenian..." Clearly, he has hated Armenians, and clearly he has written this verse at a time when the Armenian nation was enslaved for centuries, and its elite was begging the European+Russian powers to "liberate" Armenians. However, there is another verse by Pushkin where he expresses his hate to an Armenian man, who apparently had "stolen" a women from him. Some people thing that this even has been the trigger for Pushkin to write the mentioned above lines. As far as the betrayal of Israel by Armenians is concerned, I think it is an exaggerated depiction of an isolated event in history - and even that taken out of the context. If I remember correctly, an Armenian merchant residing in Jerusalem at the time of one of the crusades is alleged to have betrayed the "locals." Unfortunately, don't remember the details - its been long time I have read about it.

Do we face the emergence of a new category - Armenian-American Princess? [ June 21, 2002, 04:12 AM: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by MosJan: MJ jan es du mek dzerkov es grel ??? bravo qez Movses No, Movses, hitting the keyboard with a pencil in my mouth.