vava

Don't forget that one of the most vehement Genocide denier is Maurice Velacott - a Reform/Alliance/Conservative.... I think Paul Martin's decision to allow his MPs to vote freely (and he also permitted many of his ministers to abstain) enabled the resolution to pass. Let's also remember who introduced the bill in the first place - the bloc, believe it or not.

Is it your birthday?

I always thought that "sick man" referred more to Abdul Hamid's administration than to the sultan himself. Bloody sultan was all him though....

With regards to your view of the diversity of Armenians today - I agree. It is an asset if leveraged as such. Unfortunately, many regard our diversity as a hindrance.

I'm certain this has been discussed before, perhaps even at length - probably Arpa has brought it up. But I'm still confused as to the use of Է / է (eh) & Ե ե (ye). It's obvious when writing Երեվան (Yevervan) for example, at least in the case of the first Ե (ye). But how about the second? Why not write barev as Բարէվ instead of the above Բարեվ ? Same thing with Ինչպես էք vs. Ինչպես եք? եք seems to me more likely to be pronounced "yek" like the persian "one" (yek, do, seh. ch'ar....) Finally about bari louys, Բարի լույս is also used by parskahyes, not just in Armenia.

How many lessons have you written so far? You could probably get the published! (Although it's very generous of you to offer them to the public for free)

Vartahoor - did you write these lessons your self? They're great Keep it up!

Bari taredarst Nvard jan

Clear & concise.

I'm not sure i would qualify it as insecurity; it's more like frustration and disappointment. Have we given enough to the world? Perhaps from our perspective, yes. But not where it counts - Armenia, and Armenians historically, do not get adequate international support. Sevres was practically annulled by the international community. In spite of overwhelming evidence, there are still nations that take the Turkish stance on the Genocide. There are many nations advocating a return of Artsakh to Azerbaijain. Why do we need the "world's" help? I think it's obvious - Armenia is landlocked, loathed by it's neighbours, living under constant threat and trade embargoes - and furthermore when she has helped herself (eg. Artsakh) she has been heavily critised in the international community. I think Yervant's point is simply that the International community will never have Armenia's concerns at heart - unless there's something "in it" for them. So what can we offer in that regard? Not an easy question to answer...

Unfortunate but true... Yes - but the question is how? Most of the trade through Diasporan investment seems to be created to line the pockets of those involved (not that there is anything wrong with making profit) however, it wouldn't hurt us to direct some of the "nationalism" that seems to suddenly appear whenever the Turks are making noise towards self-development in Armenia. I realize that I'm hypocritical in this regard - but perhaps there are many more like me waiting for an opportunity to mobilize.

Gentlemen, refrain from insults, abusive language etc. It's not allowed here. Hellektor, your language in your last post goes beyond what's permitted at Hye-forum. I ask (nicely) that you edit it yourself...

Yeah - some of us like to talk about J's, who hates J's, who is a J, who's mother's brother's friend's cat is a J. I think it's pathetic. Can't we talk about something that has nothing to do with J's.??

Happy belated Anita jan!

Why would this be of interest to any of us? Edit: fixed smiley

Edited - oops - missed the link!

HAHAHA! I just saw this Azat jan! If you noticed - i said " 50 thousand" hours per week (50 000) and I should sincerely hope you're not working that much, 'cause I'll never take a step outside Quebec if that's the case!

Here's what I had in mind: The NYT editorial department should be commended for bringing attention to Turkey's continued (and soon unsupportable) efforts to sweep the genocide issue under the rug. But perhaps I have become cynical, for I fear that this article is an indication of more insidious developments with respect to the world's attitude towards Armenian Genocide recognition. Increasingly we are witnessing a new nuance in such articles in the media and more importantly in the international foreign relations community, that seek to distance "modern, secular, democratic" Turkey from it's Ottoman past. As with the recent Hrant Dink affair, responsibility for Turkish criminal behaviour is conveniently deflected upon the "extremist" and/or "nationalist" elements within the country. The author has gone to great effort to underline the separation between Turk and Ottoman. He states early in the article, "Even in the modern-day Turkish republic, which was not a party to the killings....". This can be misleading. Today's Turkey was born of the Ottoman empire. And although the Turkish founder Ataturk denounced the killings, his policies also paved the way for nearly a century of denial which has been propagated and heavily sponsored by modern Turkey. The author further emphasizes the distinction between "democratic" Turkey and her nationalists: "Turkish nationalists launched an extermination campaign" . It's certainly true that the the Young Turks (CUP), the governing party at the time of the Genocide, were nationalists. Yet, it can also be argued that they could not have invoked the type of deliberate, systematic program of genocide without popular support, especially in the eastern reaches of the empire where the military influence was more limited. Currently, Turkish nationalism is on the rise and continued standoffs with the EU are having a negative effect upon the efforts of the administration to "Europeanize" the nation. The assassin who murdered Dink was painted by Turkey and her allies as an extremist, minimizing the popular support the youngster held in non-urban regions. And although many thousands of Turks turned out honor Dink at his funeral, it remains worrisome that the "nationalist" Turk, is also a common Turk, and so the actions of a few "Nationalists" can be interpreted to some extent as representative of the population in general. What is disturbing about all this? Well, I believe that we are beginning to witness the preparation for a diluted, weak semblance of genocide "recognition". One that is so rife with conditions and justifications that in the eyes of Armenians it will hardly be recognition at all. Possibly, the new line will be " Yes, there may have been a genocide, but it was the extremists; it wasn't us at all. So it's not really our fault." In the end, this sort of weak admission accomplishes very little more than outright denial, but could be the perfect ticket for Turkish administration. By deflecting the blame in this manner, they can "acknowledge" the Genocide and thereby silence many of their critics, while at the same time maintain their current viewpoint that it was simply war - and people died. This editorial seeks to lay blame at the feet of the UN for not taking a strong stand against Turkey's rhetoric, yet through the back door, it offers Turkey a golden opportunity to exit their quandary. Insidious indeed.

The article in question was an editorial published in the New York Times yesterday. Here it is below. But please note that not all is as rosy as it seems. This isn't merely a critique of the UN or Turkey - there is a "back door" in the editorial. One that we're seeing more frequently of late - and it doesn't look too promising.

Great author - sad to see him go.

And good posts too! Congrats anoushik jan

But she was still parotting the the denialist line of "let's have scholars look at the issue" - phooey!

I hate that stupid pre-recorded helper person. She's SO ornary! "I did not understand your response, if you are looking for technical assitance, say 'technical assistance'".... Why can't I just hit the "1"????

What is this guy doing on the list ?? Wasn't it proven that he was using an Armenian pseudonym? I remember reading something about Arutyunov... maybe I just don't recall....