as i see it - Pt. IV

[Takoush]

Phantom:

 

I understand what you said. It's almost unbelievable though some of the lowest and the most degrading namecallings they have bewtowed upon Ara. Though I know some of our people can be to say the least, incredible.

 

I can relate to Ara's last paragraph, when he said:

"Dealing with fellow Armenians build character, provided you survive the experience".

 

Well I have to say one thing to be desired for this sentence. Though Ara's words are quite justified; but it's simpler and easier when one is young to survive the pressures from Armenians; but it's not as easy and simple when one starts getting older and the body starts taking it's toll to receive so much more pressure and stress. Then I'm afraid it becomes more of a matter of survival. It's true, isn't it?

[ara baliozian]

Friday, October 14, 2005

********************************

We treat our satirists not as social critics but as comedians; we silence our dissidents; we discard anti-Armenian odars as Turcophiles (meaning the lowest scum on earth); and we believe in our own assertions of moral and intellectual superiority. All of which combine to make of us a nation in denial. And if our pundits and academics ignore our contradictions and concentrate their efforts on documenting the massacres and exposing Turkish lies, it may be because it is not popular to criticize a nation that has sustained a near-mortal wound. Either that or they follow an old American political maxim that says, "You don’t kill a man who is committing suicide."

*

About anti-Armenian odars: it makes little sense to label them as Turcophiles. All nations have their critics, why should we be an exception?

*

Once, when Napoleon said, “All Italians are thieves!” his interlocutor replied, “Buona parte,” (meaning, not all of them but a good fraction).

#

[ara baliozian]

Saturday, October 15, 2005

*********************************

THE ARMENIAN CONNECTION

This year's Nobel Prize winner for Literature is Harold Pinter who was greatly influenced by Arthur Adamov, a cofounder (with Beckett and Ionesco) of the Theater of the Absurd. It is to be noted that Adamov (an Armenian), Beckett (an Irishman) and Ionesco (a Rumanian) lived in Paris and wrote in French because their own homeland did not provide them with a friendly environment. In the same way that money goes to money, great writers go to great cultures. And Harold Pinter is a Jew who lives in London and writes in English.

*

A THOUSAND AND ONE SMILES

If I were to name the funniest book in the world it would be neither Stalin's COLLECTED WORKS nor Castro COMPLETE SPEECHES but THE COMPLETE CARTOONS OF THE NEW YORKER: ALL 68,647 CARTOONS EVER PUBLISHED IN THE MAGAZINE. There is a smile here on every page and a belly laugh ever five or six pages. It is not only the funniest but also the biggest and heaviest book I have ever handled. Take all your vitamins before you decide to carry it home from the library or your nearest bookstore.

*

THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE WEST

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are major scandals, of course, but infinitely worse is the fact that Sinatra and Elvis sold more records than Sibelius and Elgar; and worse, much worse: the Beatles made more money than Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, and Bartok combined.

#

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, October 16, 2005

********************************

All the Turks have to say is Armenians are prone to engage in acts of terrorism if their demands are not met and they will have majority support in Washington. And if, on top of that, Yanks discover the fact that some Armenians harbor anti-Israeli and pro-Arab sentiments, then you can kiss acknowledgement of the Genocide goodbye.

*

Several readers have pointed out that my testimony cannot be relied on because I am a traumatized witness. I am more than willing to plead guilty as charged. But if these very same readers imply that six centuries of Ottoman oppression followed by massacres and dispersion have not traumatized them, they deceive themselves. Either that or they have been so thoroughly dehumanized that it doesn’t even occur to them that they may be in denial.

#

[ara baliozian]

Monday, October 17, 2005

***********************************

In an interview published in SOCIAL SCIENCE RECORD: THE JOURNAL OF THE NEW YORK STATE COUNCIL FOR THE SOCIAL STUDIES (Volume 24, Issue 2), Professor Vahakn N. Dadrian has some kind words for Armenians of Zeitun and Sassoun who “defied authority, retaliated, engaged in reprisals, in consequence many Turkish hordes as well as regular and superior army units were held at bay and in some instances even defeated and humbled.” What the good professor fails to discuss is, to what extent this kind of isolated defiance provoked the Turks to retaliate by massacring innocent and defenseless civilians who were in no position to resist?

*

Nikol Aghbalian is right, we are a tribal people; or, in the words of Gostan Zarian, our concept of nation begins and ends with our mountain, our valley, our village, our church, and our chickens.

*

Dadrian sets the stage for the interview by describing Armenians as a “historically persecuted race…an orphan nation” that has experienced “massacres, atrocities, and massive destruction.” What he fails to explore is to what extent our own tribalism, lack of solidarity, and incompetent leadership – things that have been discussed at some length by our own historians, novelists, essayists, satirists, and poets – were a contributing factor to our perennial status as losers and victims.

*

Elsewhere in this same interview and speaking of other academics who, unlike him, have so far ignored the study of genocides, Dadrian explains that it may be because they prefer to explore topics “that yield them dividends in terms of research money, prestige, publicity and publication.” Dadrian thus illustrates another notorious Armenian idiosyncrasy – the widely held illusion that our status as victims empowers us to assume a morally superior stance by viewing Turks as Asiatic barbarians, the West as thoroughly corrupt, degenerate, and cynical, and, as if that weren’t enough, to express outrage when the world fails to support our claims.

#

[Takoush]

Monday, October 17, 2005

***********************************

In an interview published in SOCIAL SCIENCE RECORD: THE JOURNAL OF THE NEW YORK STATE COUNCIL FOR THE SOCIAL STUDIES (Volume 24, Issue 2), Professor Vahakn N. Dadrian has some kind words for Armenians of Zeitun and Sassoun who “defied authority, retaliated, engaged in reprisals, in consequence many Turkish hordes as well as regular and superior army units were held at bay and in some instances even defeated and humbled.” What the good professor fails to discuss is, to what extent this kind of isolated defiance provoked the Turks to retaliate by massacring innocent and defenseless civilians who were in no position to resist?

*

#

Ara:

 

Although I have noted that in reference to this paragraph you have said similar things but in a differenct way of course; I do wonder whether you are outraged or perhaps that's a bit too strong a word, but quite unhappy with the Tashnagtsoutyoun gousagtsoutyoun that have armed themselves on the mountains of Armenia to try to put an end of the perpetrations as they have armed Sassoon and Van too. I think due to the fact that they have done this initially and continued to do so for 30 years you are upset at them. Is this true? Unfortunately though, if the genocide didn't occur, perhaps most of the cities would have been pretty well armed against the Turks. Lest you forget that a great deal of little atrocities and killings were continually being committed against Armenians even before Tashnagtsoutyoun came about as they have only surfaced around 1890. I am not in that much authority on the subject; however I have a pretty good knowledge about Tashnagtsoutyoun's works and deeds, and I still think that their position was as (they were damned if they did fight on the mountains of Armenia and damned if they didn't). I am open to other thoughts, however that's what I perceive to see.

Edited October 18, 2005 by Anahid Takouhi

[Takoush]

Monday, October 17, 2005

***********************************

*

Nikol Aghbalian is right, we are a tribal people; or, in the words of Gostan Zarian, our concept of nation begins and ends with our mountain, our valley, our village, our church, and our chickens.

 

*

Elsewhere in this same interview and speaking of other academics who, unlike him, have so far ignored the study of genocides, Dadrian explains that it may be because they prefer to explore topics “that yield them dividends in terms of research money, prestige, publicity and publication.” Dadrian thus illustrates another notorious Armenian idiosyncrasy – the widely held illusion that our status as victims empowers us to assume a morally superior stance by viewing Turks as Asiatic barbarians, the West as thoroughly corrupt, degenerate, and cynical, and, as if that weren’t enough, to express outrage when the world fails to support our claims.

#

I agree then with Nikol Aghpalian, because we were initially of tribal origins. You'd think though through the years, after successfully having acquired kingdoms and such, we should have continued to come out of our earlier tribal ways. I think because we didn't think of being an entity other than our own little worlds, btw. our little mountains, valleys, towns, church, and crops, pretty much as Gostan Zarian put it well. I don't think our princes felt that much pride for their Armenia either. As a matter of fact they did not. They went and kissed either the Iranian Shahs or the Greek Kings. Pretty much like today; a lot of Armenians that I came across to they brown nose odars a great deal; but are extremely jealous, offish, arrogant and rude to their own kinds. The same mistakes through centuries and centuries are repeated continuously. I don't know why we don't learn from past mistakes and start feeling more confident and proud of ourselves. On the other hand, most Greeks that I know have that attribute that we lack; (a lot of confidence for their own and lots and lots of pride for anything and everything that is of Greek origin).

I wish most Armenians would start to feel the same pride and joy for anything and everything that is Armenian.

 

On the above second quoted paragraph, other than Dadrian there are others also who I believe have the same view on this, that the Genocide empowers us to assume a morally superior stance compare to the Turks or the Europeans. I can speak of myself only and how I feel, but I wish a million times that the Genocide didn't occur rather than assuming ourselves to be superior to Turks or even to the Europeans. Yes the Turkish government then (the Attaturks) acted barbarically and mercilessly towards Armenians, and Europe major didn't even care less about us; but the fact that practically the majority of my nationality were annihilated as well as the majority of my own family certainly makes me feel very crummy inside; and I could care less whether the Turks or the Europeans are regarded today less humanly or not.

Edited October 18, 2005 by Anahid Takouhi

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

***********************************

THEME AND VARIATIONS

*********************************

History makes one point very clear: in time of trouble, when we need them most, our political parties are nowhere to be seen. But in time of peace they are all over the place – in schools, churches, community centers, and the media, speechifying, sermonizing, organizing demonstrations, lobbying, and, above all, rewriting history in their efforts to cover up their blunders and inability to face facts and to come to grips with reality.

*

As a case in point, consider the Ottoman Bank caper at the turn of the last century in Istanbul – the theme of many future variations. A small group of self-appointed heroes do their thing, clear out, and as a result of their actions, innocent civilians are massacred by the thousand. And, as if that weren’t enough, they add insult to injury by misrepresenting that debacle as a glorious page in our history.

#

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

***********************************

Somewhere in his STUDY OF HISTORY Toynbee writes that the uneducated or poorly educated masses are no match for the educated bourgeoisie. Elsewhere he explains that the aim of an educational system is to maintain the status quo and to protect the privileges of the ruling class. To put it more bluntly, we are all brainwashed to believe that the political system in which we live is fair and we should be satisfied with our lot.

Long before Toynbee, Napoleon said if it weren't for religion, the poor would butcher the rich.

Both Napoleon and Toynbee were members of the privileged classes or the Establishment, and both could afford being honest.

One positive feature of the bourgeoisie is that, in addition to producing swine, it has also produced some men of integrity and courage. Jean-Paul Sartre comes to mind. This Nobel-Prize winning philosopher, novelist, and playwright was born and raised into a petit-bourgeois family and he hated the bourgeoisie so much that he allowed himself to be a dupe of Stalin, Mao, and Castro.

On the day the average Armenian becomes aware of his status as a dupe, our bosses, bishops, benefactors with all their hirelings, flunkeys, hangers-on and brown-nosers will be consigned to the dustbin of history before anyone can say Jack S. Avanakian.

#

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, October 20, 2005

************************************

In the latest issue of NEWSWEEK I come across the following highlighted sentence: “For many Iraqis, the only sense of security they can find after so much chaos is in the bosom of their sect or tribe.” There it is, I thought, the roots of our tribalism.

Perhaps one of our problems is that we have too many political pundits and very few or no psychologists; either that or we have them too but they have given up on us as beyond repair.

If you ever suggest to an Armenian that he may be in need of a shrink, he will start analyzing you and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were conceived in an asylum for the criminally insane. I speak from experience. Once when I quoted Jung to a reader, he counter-quoted Freud, Adler, and half a dozen other Germanic names I knew nothing about.

#

[ara baliozian]

Friday, October 21, 2005

********************************

When it comes to analyzing Turks, we speak like experts in the field; but when it comes to analyzing ourselves, we cannot even tell the difference between self-analysis and flattery. And whenever an Armenian dares to suggest that we may not be paragons of virtue, he runs the risk of being labeled a Turcophile and a denialist. I speak from experience.

*

We analyze Turks as if our aim in life were to improve them, and we avoid analyzing ourselves on the grounds that one should not fix what ain’t broken. Why else would our dime-a-dozen pundits spend more time exposing foreign misconduct and ignoring our own?

*

It’s astonishing how many decent people allow their paycheck to dictate their code of ethics and to ignore the fact that “grub first then ethics” is no ethics.

*

If you lie down with an Armenian don’t be surprised if you wake up with a Turk.

*

Sometimes a man reveals himself less by what he says and more by what he does not say.

*

I don’t understand everything and I don’t want to understand everything because I already understand enough; I also understand that there isn’t one hell of a lot I can do with what I understand except to become more aware of my own powerlessness.

*

Man is unpredictable even to himself.

#

[ara baliozian]

Saturday, October 22, 2005

**********************************

In one of their anthems (it may be "Rule Britannia") the Brits pride themselves of the fact that they have never been slaves. When I first heard that song it occurred to me that we have more reasons to be humble than proud. Which is why the sight of a "proud Armenian" annoys the hell out of me. First of all I consider pride, including British pride, not an asset but a liability. Second, the so-called proud Armenians I have met are as a rule full of bombast or what we call "borodakhosoutiun" (thunder-talk, empty loud verbiage, b.s. for short), that is more a mask of inferiority than self-esteem. Unless we admit that we have been slaves most of our collective existence, we will continue to be slaves to our agha-babas and alienate all decent Armenians who can tell the difference between baloney and straight talk.

*

To those who accuse me of having a very low opinion of my fellow Armenians, I can only say, nobody really gives a damn what I or anyone else thinks. What matters, what really matters, is whether or not I can tell the difference between fact and fiction.

*

A writer by the name of Robin Abcarian has just published an article in the LOS ANGELES TIMES (reprinted in our local paper today) titled "Bush nominee knows the art of sucking up," about U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, where he explains that brown-nosers create a toxic environment in which objective assessment and honest talk become less valuable than flattery and b.s. Two questions: Why is it that articles like this one are never reprinted in our papers? And why is it that Robin Abcarian is not more widely known and respected in our environment as one of the sharpest and most insightful observers of the contemporary American scene?

#

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, October 23, 2005

**********************************

GUARD DOGS AND DISSIDENTS

****************************************

Intellectuals may be divided into two categories: defenders of the status quo (or, in the words of a French philosopher “guard dogs”) and dissidents. It goes without saying that the guard dogs enjoy the full support of those in power, and the dissidents are ostracized, alienated, and, whenever possible, silenced, starved, poisoned, or shot.

*

The history of our literature is rich in dissidents. But when guard dogs compile anthologies and textbooks they tend to cover up the dissent and emphasize the patriotism and nationalist propaganda. Writers like Raffi, Baronian, Odian, and Avedik Issahakian, who were merciless critics of our leaders, are misrepresented as patriotic versifiers, historical novelists or comedians. Many others (Voskanian, Massikian) are relegated to the status of non-persons.

*

Was Narekatsi a guard dog or dissident? Hard to say. He was quintessentially non-political. He concentrated on himself as a sinner. He blamed no one but his own evil inclinations. If he were a contemporary and if he took it upon himself to write about our genocide, my guess is he wouldn’t even mention the Turks. He would have said what a born-again, Bible-thumping, fundamentalist friend of mine in his 80s once said to me: “Armenians were massacred because they were evil and they deserved to be punished by God.”

*

Were Khorenatsi and Yeghishe, two of our greatest historians of the Golden Age, guard dogs or dissidents? It is true that most of our medieval chroniclers were propagandists of a prince with dynastic ambitions. In order to fulfill their duties they had no choice but to attack political adversaries and expose corruption in high places. In so far as they did that, they too may be said to have been dissidents.

*

What about Sylva Kaputikian? When the USSR collapsed she declared herself to have been a proud member of the Communist Party, the very same Party that had systematically eliminated some of our ablest intellectuals. Shortly thereafter she also published an autobiographical book in which she portrayed herself as a dissident. If true, she must be the only Soviet dissident who was awarded the Stalin Prize.

#

[ara baliozian]

Monday, October 24, 2005

**********************************

RELIGIOUS TRUTHS ARE BIG LIES

*********************************************

In a recent interview published in a learned French periodical, a Muslim scholar proves to his complete satisfaction that Islam is a better religion than Christianity, and the only reason Christians outnumber Muslims is that Christianity is six centuries older. In the next six centuries, he goes on, Islam will surpass all other organized religions in popularity. That is one of the central problems with all men of faith: they think they know better and they are closer to God even when they behave like swine. And you may have noticed by now that it is not the good and the honest who assert moral superiority but charlatans and riffraff. “If I am no good,” they seem to be saying, “the least I can do is pretend to be better even if it means engaging in double-talk and lies.”

*

The world will be a better place on the day scholars concentrate their efforts in exposing the shortcomings of their own belief systems and the blunders of their own tribes instead of asserting moral and intellectual superiority with arguments that convince no one but themselves and their dupes.

*

If the Pope doubts his faith seven times every day, as Italians are fond of saying, let him say so if only because in matters of faith doubt is more civilized than certainty.

*

And if God is infallible, why has He created an imperfect world in which man’s inhumanity to man is a constant and war and massacre are routine occurrences? To those who say wars and massacres are men’s doing, not God’s, because God has given man free will that allows him to choose between good and evil; I say, the free will argument may apply to the victimizer, not the victim. Given the choice, who would freely choose to be the victim of fanatic butchers?

#

Edited October 25, 2005 by ara baliozian

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

************************************

A headline in our local paper today reads: “Rosa Parks’ defiance changed a nation.” What it does not say, or what it covers up, is that the compliance of millions of others perpetuated an unjust, not to say, an evil system.

*

If in crime it’s cherchez la femme, in all verbal communications it’s cherchez the unsaid or the covered up – there it is, step on of deconstruction 101.

*

To believe a nation’s own version of its past amounts to believing a criminal’s plea of not guilty.

*

If a ruthless serial killer were to write his memoirs, you can be sure of one thing: he would portray himself as a victim rather than a victimizer.

*

Every nation thinks of itself as a role model among nations.

*

Propaganda may also be defined as emphasizing the positive in us and the negative in our enemies.

*

To believe in an Armenophile’s version of Armenian history makes as much sense as believing in a Turcophile’s version of Turkish history.

*

The history of our literature is rich in writers who, like Rosa Parks, defied the status quo. But their voices have been silenced so effectively that whenever they are quoted or paraphrased, our propagandists are scandalized. I speak from experience.

#

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

************************************

So far we have been emphasizing our status as victims or extensions of someone else's will, be they foreign aggressors, tyrants, denialists, revisionists, Turcophiles, and ultimately our own mini-sultans and neo-commissars. How do we liberate ourselves from that mindset? There are no easy answers. But we could start by seeing things as they are.

*

One of the functions of leadership is to convince the people that their leaders know better even when they don't. That's because all leaders prefer sheep to wolves. If the German nation had followed Hitler to the end, it would have committed suicide and that would have been the end of their story. Something similar could be said of the Japanese.

*

Leaders may pretend to know better, but they don't. Our status as perennial victims and losers is a result of foreign barbarism and domestic incompetence. All other explanations are propaganda whose sole aim is to mislead us into thinking that patriotism consists in allowing ourselves to be an extension of our leaders's will, in other words, to adopt the mindset of sheep.

#

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, October 27, 2005

*************************************

If you compare the contents of your local daily with those of an Armenian weekly, you may notice that odar papers cover an encyclopedic array of subjects and issues, while the Armenian weeklies seem to be obsessed with Turks. Today, for instance, after counting thirteen headlines on Turks in the latest issue of an Armenian weekly, I gave up in disgust. Focusing on Turks also means (a) reinforcing our image as victims, and ( ignoring or covering up our own present problems of which we have more than our share.

*

Even when, on those rare occasions, we focus on a specific Armenian problem, we do so monomaniacally. During the last couple of months, for instance, I have been reading a veritable eruption of articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor about a couple of Armenian-American benefactors who were cheated by a crook in Yerevan and abused by a thoroughly corrupt or inept justice system.

*

My question is: Why is it that some Armenians who have been fully aware of corrupt practices in the Homeland from day one are heard from only when they are personally stung by them? Don’t they know that by keeping silent they actively legitimized the very same system whose victims they now claim to be? What about the countless other victims, who cannot afford lawyers, are in no position to make headlines, and whose sole alternatives are either emigration or prostitution?

#

Edited October 27, 2005 by ara baliozian

[ara baliozian]

Friday, October 28, 2005

***********************************

In what we think and believe we are all dependent on experts and we tend to forget that experts, very much like Armenophile and Turcophile historians, seldom agree on anything. They may be able to reach a consensus in another planet or life, but in this one, never! If it were up to laymen like us, we would continue to think the earth is flat.

*

In the eyes of laymen, televangelists and ayatollahs, or for that matter, popes and bishops are more trustworthy than Socrates.

*

In our belief systems we resemble parrots, and in our defense of these belief systems, we behave more like cannibals.

*

No one has ever killed or died in defense of the flat-earth theory, but millions have been massacred in the name of a fictitious god.

*

All wars and massacres may be said to be consequences of laymen and dupes (but I repeat myself) placing their trust in the judgment of preachers and politicians, whose very survival depends on their self-assessed expertise to rewrite history.

*

Religious leaders not only rewrite history but also the word of god, to the point that a god of love, compassion, and mercy becomes a god of prejudice, intolerance, hatred, and murder. Figure that one out if you can.

#

[ara baliozian]

Saturday, October 29, 2005

*********************************

Armenians come in all sizes and shapes and not all of them are what they pretend to be. Some look like Germans, others like Mongols, Arabs, Jews, and Indians. I even know an Armenian whose name is Kurdoghlanian (literally, son of a Kurd). Speaking of myself: since, on a clear day, I can trace my ancestry all the way back to my father, I could be a combination or permutation of several dozen tribes in all the colors of the rainbow. When I was a little boy, I remember, two neighborhood Greek girls nicknamed me Hirohito.

Raffi may have been wrong when he said "treason and betrayal are in our blood." What is in our blood may well be divided loyalties and in such a situation to be loyal to one side means to betray the other. And those who want to be loyal to humanity, as opposed to a fraction of it, may have to betray two or more sides.

Something similar could be said of Turks. Since intermarriage (to be politically correct about it) was practiced for centuries in the Ottoman Empire, identifying oneself as a Turk today may serve some vague political classification but is not and cannot be a racial or national or tribal designation.

What about Canadians and Americans? I will never forget the answer of an unbelievably attractive teenager when I asked for her nationality. "Canadian," she replied; and when I pressed for more details, she said: "Polish, German, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Indian, French…."

The Turks maintain what they did to us at the turn of the last century can't be called genocide because it had nothing to do with race; it was civil war. Which raises the question: Does civil war justify indiscriminate fratricidal massacre?

#

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, October 30, 2005

************************************

In my dealings with most Armenians I have discovered that being an Armenian is not an asset but a liability. As a friend of mine who grew up among Armenians and Turks in Cyprus is fond saying, “Armenians treat Turks with greater respect than fellow Armenians.”

*

In the eyes of our Oriental carpet dealers and philistines in general, writers are no better than potential beggars to be avoided at all cost. I have met only one Oriental carpet dealer and one national benefactor who sought me out and were eager to shake my hand: the first wanted me to translate his memoirs into English, and the second wanted me to help him write his memoirs.

*

The aim of all power structures is either to kill you or tell you what to think.

*

The more benevolent a despot, the more ruthless his underlings and henchmen.

*

The best practical advice I have had from a Canadian writer: “Never serve chicken salad to chicken shit.” If I am a failure, it may be because like most Armenians I have tendency to ignore good advice.

*

Whenever I am accused of hating my fellow Armenians, I remember an eminent English critic’s description of Jane Austen’s fiction: “regulated hatred.” Hatred of what or whom? Hatred of the aristocracy, of course. Or, as my wise Canadian friend would say, hatred of chicken shit who pretend to be chicken salad.

#

[ara baliozian]

Monday, October 31, 2005

***********************************

In a recent issue of HARATCH (Paris) I read a lengthy review by an Armenologist (Mutafian) of a textbook on Armenian history by another Armenologist (Mahe). If Mutafian is to be believed, almost every other paragraph in Mahe’s opus contains an error. That’s the way it is with experts: their best efforts go into exposing the misconceptions and inaccuracies of the competition.

*

A sociologist published a book recently in which he proves that crowds act more wisely than individuals.

*

If laymen are wiser than experts, it may be because laymen are like members of a jury, in a position to compare the testimony of experts (who, as a rule, contradict one another) and reach a consensus (which experts are unable or unwilling to do).

*

Experts are seldom independent operators or objective observers. Rather, they are products of specific cultural and political environments or schools of thought; they work for institutions, serve vested interests, elites, or regimes. Very much like lawyers, they defend a set of ideas and question the validity of all ideas or witnesses who may introduce doubts into their assertions of certainty.

*

When crowds misbehave, as they tend to do in time of war and revolution, it is because they are misled by leaders with personal stakes and conflicting goals. If it weren’t for the Sultan or the Young Turks and our revolutionary leaders, the chances are there would have been no massacres and Turks and Armenians would now be living side by side in peace.

*

Rosa Parks was not a historian, a sociologist, or a political leader. She was the quintessential anonymous face in the crowd. She used her common sense, did the right thing, and changed the course of history. What we need, what mankind needs, are more individuals like Rosa Parks and fewer experts and academics with axes to grind.

*

Any one of us may change history if he uses his common sense, does the right thing, and ignores the sophistries of academics and the rhetoric of political leaders.

*

A nationalist historian who believes in his own version of history has a dupe for a reader.

#

[Armen]

A sociologist published a book recently in which he proves that crowds act more wisely than individuals.

 

If laymen are wiser than experts, it may be because laymen are like members of a jury, in a position to compare the testimony of experts (who, as a rule, contradict one another) and reach a consensus (which experts are unable or unwilling to do).

 

When crowds misbehave, as they tend to do in time of war and revolution, it is because they are misled by leaders with personal stakes and conflicting goals. If it weren’t for the Sultan or the Young Turks and our revolutionary leaders, the chances are there would have been no massacres and Turks and Armenians would now be living side by side in peace.

 

That's the essence of Jesus Christ's story. The problem of present day society is that there should not be any "laymen". Everyone must be educated.

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

**************************************

What happened I know. Ever since I was a child I have known. As an adult I want to know why. The conventional explanation repeated ad nauseam (Asiatic barbarians, degenerate West) might satisfy a dupe but not an adult who has acquired the ability to think for himself.

As an Armenian I don’t feel morally superior to anyone and I consider all assertions of moral superiority bogus. Only Jews believe they are the Chosen People and only Nazis believed they belonged to a Superior Race. An Armenian who asserts moral superiority convinces no one but himself and his fellow dupes. I don’t have to engage in academic double-talk or philosophical gobbledygook to reach this conclusion. All I have to do is exercise the minimum degree of common sense and objectivity.

Many readers have questioned my judgment simply because I dare to question racist slogans and nationalist propaganda – the very same mental aberrations whose victims we have been. To say or imply that Asia is populated by barbarians and the West by degenerates is to dehumanize mankind, and to dehumanize is stage one of all man’s inhumanity to man, including genocide.

If we are no better than the rest of mankind, it follows all men are brothers and deserve our understanding. To understand Turks is not the same as denying the reality of the Genocide. It only means that no matter how hard we try we are not equipped to understand everything.

If God exists, He may be infallible in His judgments. But as human beings we can only hope to understand today something we did not understand yesterday. If that’s being a denialist, then I say the English language is not our common medium of communication.

#

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

************************************

Whenever I read a book I learn a few things even when the subject is a familiar one; and since there are thousands of books that I have not read, what I don't know far exceeds what I know.

*

If I have learned one thing so far it is to reject all dogmas and to question all certainties, especially dogmas and certainties in the name of which millions have killed or died. I have learned this not only from books but also from personal experience.

*

When as a boy someone suggested that what I had been taught until then had been stuff and nonsense, I was not outraged. On the contrary, I immediately assumed I was dealing with an eccentric who should be humored and ignored. It was very gradually that I became aware of my status as a thoroughly brainwashed dupe.

*

If dogmas and certainties are more popular it is because they are supported and actively promoted by power structures. Benefactors, for instance, know that money is no better than excrement (and Freud agrees) unless it is used to acquire power and prestige. Something similar could be said about religious, political leaders and their propaganda.

*

"Makers of idols don't believe in them," says an old Chinese proverb, and if Italians are to be believed, "Even the Pope doubts his faith seven times every day."

*

Propaganda pays, philosophy starves. Because Socrates said, "Of the gods we know nothing," he was condemned to death. If history, our own history, teaches us anything, it is this: all ideologies and religions are no better than bloodthirsty idols.

#

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, November 03, 2005

***************************************

One good thing about Naregatsi: he consistently refused to play the blame-game card; and one good thing about our naming him our greatest writer, “our Shakespeare,” is the unspoken admission that our admiration may well be an extension of the fact that we collectively lack his honesty and courage.

*

If Turks are Asiatic barbarians, what does that make us? What kind of moral and political standards were we able to acquire as slaves of Asiatic barbarians during six centuries of subservience?

*

An explanation that implies moral superiority is a convenient explanation; and such an explanation is bound to be biased if only because all claims of moral superiority are false.

*

Conformism is also a form of subservience. To repeat a version of the past that enjoys the approval of a power structure is also a symptom of slave mentality,

*

If the average Turk or Armenian is willing to recycle state propaganda, it may be because Ottomanism continues to shape his perception of reality.

*

When it comes to our perception of reality, Ottomanism can be as misleading as Americanism or Armenianism. That’s because reality is neither Ottoman nor American or Armenian. Mountains and rivers, lies and truth, love and hate, honesty and dishonesty do not recognize national boundaries.

#