as i see it - Pt. IV

[gmd]

the difference between turks and armenians is that they won and we lost.

 

But has this taught Armenians to do everything in the name of victory? Based on some of your posts I got the feeling you did not support this idea. If all this time you have been trying to tell Armenians to out-Turk the Turk then I may actually have to apologize to you.

[Takoush]

as far as i remember most of the tashnak leaders survived and wrote multi-volume memoirs of their heroic deeds, but also as far as i remember, they did not save a single life during the genocide.

But you should know already as a writer that most of the Tashnagtsagan leaders in Istambul were hanged on the streets on or about April of 1915. The ones that survived were in today's ROA region. That's why some of them have survived. Otherwise as you should know everyone was subjected to the death penalty along with their herds. Yes when they were able to they did fight; the Vasbouragan Van region and also the Ourfa region. Namely under the leadership of the Yotneghpayrians (who were Tashnagtsagan) and who fought with all their might.

 

Amidst all that unwarranted and totally unexpected chaos they fought when they were prepared to fight. You also know the facts that this was completely unexpected and they didn't have enough time to be able to arm the people against the turks' enormous conspiracy, plot and the intrigue against the Armenians.

[nairi]

Arman, we're back to square one. No one denies difference. I still don't see where you get the notion from that egalitarianism means that we are all carbon-copies of each other. Hasn't this era, at least in the West, emphasized uniqueness? Egalitarianism, in its simplest definition, means that we should treat ourselves as human beings, and with that respect and protect differences among us. The danger in what you are suggesting is that because we are inherently unequal, some of us should be treated differently from others. In other words, you are legitimizing the maltreatment of anyone that you consider to be inherently inferior to you. And since you are known to me as a notorious divisionist, especially in categorizing race, you are basically saying that as superior Caucasian beings, we have every right to deny Africans of human rights, since Africans are inherently inferior to our superhuman Caucasian beings. By making this division into clear-cut groups, you are missing precisely what today's egalitarian world is saying: namely, that we are born as individuals and that boundaries cannot be so easily demarcated as they were in the nineteenth century (which was known for ideologies, by the way, that paved the way to among others the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust).

[zurderer]

the difference between turks and armenians is that they won and we lost.

 

 

Not excatly, Turks won against armenian rebellions.(It was not even a war) But lost majority of their lands.

 

Young Turks and their turan ideology harmed Turkey much more than some armenian rebels. Like armenian nationalism did not helped armenians, Turkish nationalism did not helped Turks.(I should also add, Turks wrote worst part of their history at that times.)

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION

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

QUESTION: Would you agree with me when I say that our critics and dissidents have been consistently negative, perhaps even hostile and prejudiced towards our political leadership?

ANSWER: To say that is to completely ignore the fact that our political leaders – be they kings, princes, nakharars, and ideologues -- have been much more negative and hostile towards one another.

Q: What would you say to those of your readers and critics who say you are consistently negative in your judgments?

A: I would say that our “betters” are even more negative in their judgments as well as policies against one another, hence our perennial divisions that have crippled the nation and reduced us to the status of perennial losers. If I am wrong, I can be corrected and contradicted. Can we say the same about them?

Q: If you are right and they wrong, why is it that they have many more supporters, followers, and hamagirs (sympathizers) than you have readers?

A: One reason, they control the media. Another reason, bad ideas make perfect sense to dupes who are easily satisfied with slogans and clichés that flatter their vanity. As for good ideas: history tells us even the best ideas can be manipulated and perverted by cunning operators to such a degree that they become their own contradictions. Hence, such phenomena as dissidents who are labeled as “enemies of the nation,” and contempt for ideas in the name of ideology.

Q: A final question: Why should the average reader trust your ideas more than the ideas of – to use your own expression -- our “betters”?

A: Let’s have the honesty to admit that none of our ideas is original or new. We are all in the business of recycling old ideas. A 20th-century English philosopher has gone as far as saying that all philosophy is a footnote to Plato. Our choice is between the received ideas of politicians with an ax to grind on the one hand, and on the other, the received ideas of thinkers who have dedicated their lives to the selfless and thankless labor of enhancing our understanding. And now, allow me to ask you a question: Can you think of a single memorable sentence spoken by any one of our leaders during the last fifty years?

[ara baliozian]

Not excatly, Turks won against armenian rebellions.(It was not even a war) But lost majority of their lands.

 

Young Turks and their turan ideology harmed Turkey much more than some armenian rebels. Like armenian nationalism did not helped armenians, Turkish nationalism did not helped Turks.(I should also add, Turks wrote worst part of their history at that times.)

 

my only comment to what you say is that,

the only consolation for a loser is to say that he is a winner.

[ara baliozian]

What evidence have you found that I agree with "our leadership"? Is there anything that has led you to suggest that I do not disagree with "our leadership"? So when you cannot attack the message you attack the messenger? Do I not faintly remember one of your rants being exactly about that? Yet here you are defying your own wisdom?

 

First, there is a difference between disagreeing, whether with leadership or anyone else, and constructively criticizing something and being nothing more than a orifice for communicating nothing but negativity and self-hatred and nihilism. You are the latter.

 

if i attack those in power,

and you attack me,

it follows you must be for those in power.

 

as for being positive:

to be against lies: what could be more positive?

[ara baliozian]

But has this taught Armenians to do everything in the name of victory? Based on some of your posts I got the feeling you did not support this idea. If all this time you have been trying to tell Armenians to out-Turk the Turk then I may actually have to apologize to you.

 

i am for honesty.

no one starts a war with the intention of losing it.

and after losing it, to assert moral superiority or victory.

[ara baliozian]

But you should know already as a writer that most of the Tashnagtsagan leaders in Istambul were hanged on the streets on or about April of 1915. The ones that survived were in today's ROA region. That's why some of them have survived. Otherwise as you should know everyone was subjected to the death penalty along with their herds. Yes when they were able to they did fight; the Vasbouragan Van region and also the Ourfa region. Namely under the leadership of the Yotneghpayrians (who were Tashnagtsagan) and who fought with all their might.

 

Amidst all that unwarranted and totally unexpected chaos they fought when they were prepared to fight. You also know the facts that this was completely unexpected and they didn't have enough time to be able to arm the people against the turks' enormous conspiracy, plot and the intrigue against the Armenians.

 

there are as many versions of these events as there are participants,

and i don't mean turks and armenians,

but also armenians and armenians.

i choose to believe none of them.

bviously you have made your own choice.

Or the choice has been made for you by your "betters."

if you ever speak to a ramgavar,

you may get an entirely different version of the story.

[ara baliozian]

Arman, we're back to square one. No one denies difference. I still don't see where you get the notion from that egalitarianism means that we are all carbon-copies of each other. Hasn't this era, at least in the West, emphasized uniqueness? Egalitarianism, in its simplest definition, means that we should treat ourselves as human beings, and with that respect and protect differences among us. The danger in what you are suggesting is that because we are inherently unequal, some of us should be treated differently from others. In other words, you are legitimizing the maltreatment of anyone that you consider to be inherently inferior to you. And since you are known to me as a notorious divisionist, especially in categorizing race, you are basically saying that as superior Caucasian beings, we have every right to deny Africans of human rights, since Africans are inherently inferior to our superhuman Caucasian beings. By making this division into clear-cut groups, you are missing precisely what today's egalitarian world is saying: namely, that we are born as individuals and that boundaries cannot be so easily demarcated as they were in the nineteenth century (which was known for ideologies, by the way, that paved the way to among others the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust).

==============================

Hear, hear! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

==================================================

[Takoush]

there are as many versions of these events as there are participants,

and i don't mean turks and armenians,

but also armenians and armenians.

i choose to believe none of them.

bviously you have made your own choice.

Or the choice has been made for you by your "betters."

if you ever speak to a ramgavar,

you may get an entirely different version of the story.

Yes the choice has been made; but not from my betters but by myself. And it has been made because I know the facts and the facts are what I have mentioned in here earlier.

 

On the other hand it looks as though the choice has been made for you as well either by yourself or perhaps by your betters.

Edited December 13, 2006 by Anahid Takouhi

[gmd]

i am for honesty.

no one starts a war with the intention of losing it.

and after losing it, to assert moral superiority or victory.

 

Your answers are not always clear to me. This is entirely my fault for wasting braincells, in my younger days, as if they were going out of style.

You are obviously well read and knowledgable on Armenian history and issues. I don't really care too much about political ideology, especially among Armenians. Provided the philosophy in question is focused on providing some sense of unity in purpose among Armenians I am all for it.

What bothers me about your writing is not criticism of the powers that be but the lack of positive direction. I think your view may be that honesty is what it is. However, without giving you too much credit in comparisson I want to point out some of the influential intelectual leaders within the American revolution. I bring this up because I do not see (or know of) such leaders among Armenians living today. You always only criticize but never seem to offer anything better. This is one problem I have come accross with many Armenians. All love to talk about things endlessly but few take up the torch and do something about it. If you know so much why do you not strive to be more then those you criticize by providing or supporting that which you see lacking within our small tribe?

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, December 14, 2006

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

ON A POPULAR DELUSION

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

When it comes to god, there are three schools of thought: (one) god created man in his own image; (two) man created god in his own image; and (three) there is no god. In THE GOD DELUSION (New York, 2006), the American biologist Richard Dawkins seems to support the second and third schools. Here is how he describes the god of the Old Testament: “a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully” -- which could also be a fairly accurate description of an average Yankee redneck or a fundamentalist Muslim jihadist.

In her book, THE FORCE OF REASON, the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, who like Tolstoy, described herself as “a Christian atheist,” asserts that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. Dawkins goes further and says fundamentalists of all faith exist because moderates legitimize and promote faith as a good thing. Which means, moderates create fanatics as surely as man creates god.

He explains the popularity of religions by saying children are “programmed” to believe anything their parents and elders tell them, which happens to be an undeniable biological fact observable not only in man but also in many other forms of animal life. According to Dawkins, a religious education is a form of brainwashing and as such should be equated with child abuse. This may explain why other forms of child abuse come naturally to those directly involved in organized religions.

It is to be noted that the above-mentioned Oriana Fallaci died recently (September 15, 2006) of cancer, aged 77. Her close friendship with Pope Benedict XVI, echoes that of Gandhi’s, a devout Hindu, with Tolstoy.

For more on the god of the Old Testament and Christianity, see also Bertrand Russell’s WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN.

#

[ara baliozian]

Your answers are not always clear to me. This is entirely my fault for wasting braincells, in my younger days, as if they were going out of style.

You are obviously well read and knowledgable on Armenian history and issues. I don't really care too much about political ideology, especially among Armenians. Provided the philosophy in question is focused on providing some sense of unity in purpose among Armenians I am all for it.

What bothers me about your writing is not criticism of the powers that be but the lack of positive direction. I think your view may be that honesty is what it is. However, without giving you too much credit in comparisson I want to point out some of the influential intelectual leaders within the American revolution. I bring this up because I do not see (or know of) such leaders among Armenians living today. You always only criticize but never seem to offer anything better. This is one problem I have come accross with many Armenians. All love to talk about things endlessly but few take up the torch and do something about it. If you know so much why do you not strive to be more then those you criticize by providing or supporting that which you see lacking within our small tribe?

 

i have spent a great deal of time writing about and translating armenian literary works which emphasize the importance of honesty and the dangers of charlatanism.

i am not responsible if you choose to ignore that aspect of my work.

[ara baliozian]

Yes the choice has been made; but not from my betters but by myself. And it has been made because I know the facts and the facts are what I have mentioned in here earlier.

 

On the other hand it looks as though the choice has been made for you as well either by yourself or perhaps by your betters.

 

about the facts:

hearsay evidence is not admissible in any court of law,

especially hearsay evidence by prejudiced observers.

i have read several studies on tashnak blunders;

i have yet to meet a tashnak willing to admit them.

[Takoush]

about the facts:

hearsay evidence is not admissible in any court of law,

especially hearsay evidence by prejudiced observers.

i have read several studies on tashnak blunders;

i have yet to meet a tashnak willing to admit them.

FYI it is not hearsay, I know for fact and people who know history know too that a great deal of Tashnak men were annihilated in Istanbul along with all our intellectuals. You can say all you want or your friends as well; but the facts are the facts, you seem to want to deny it or perhaps you are unaware but they are the facts. You seem to like to argue about it, I will cease to argue about it now.

[Arpa]

FYI it is not hearsay, I know for fact and people who know history know too that a great deal of Tashnak men were annihilated in Istanbul along with all our intellectuals. You can say all you want or your friends as well; but the facts are the facts, you seem to want to deny it or perhaps you are unaware but they are the facts. You seem to like to argue about it, I will cease to argue about it now.

Anahid,

Long time no see.

How are you?

Why do you repond to the kaka that he spews?

Why do you even read his kaka?

I have no idea what he had said above. I don't read him, and I could care less what he has to say. I only survey when a better of our unsuspecting forumers may have been enticed to respod to him for whatever reason and whatever sh*t he may have spread.

Can we just leave him alone to wallow in his miserably masturbatory masterpiece "Shithouse of Yerevan" life and let him fade in his (shitty) sunset???

Critics?

Who needs more?

Am I not enough a critic already?? :)

Edited December 14, 2006 by Arpa

[gmd]

i have spent a great deal of time writing about and translating armenian literary works which emphasize the importance of honesty and the dangers of charlatanism.

i am not responsible if you choose to ignore that aspect of my work.

 

Which of your works do you recommend that would answer my question.

[Takoush]

Anahid,

Long time no see.

How are you?

Why do you repond to the kaka that he spews?

Why do you even read his kaka?

I have no idea what he had said above. I don't read him, and I could care less what he has to say. I only survey when a better of our unsuspecting forumers may have been enticed to respod to him for whatever reason and whatever sh*t he may have spread.

Can we just leave him alone to wallow in his miserably masturbatory masterpiece "Shithouse of Yerevan" life and let him fade in his (shitty) sunset???

Critics?

Who needs more?

Am I not enough a critic already?? :)

Hi Arpa jan; I tell you what you are quite right and you are the greatest!!!!!!!!

He actually doesn't like anyone person disagreeing with him, otherwise that person is in the sh**t house for him. That's absurd!!!!!!! I know the innuendos and the stones that he is throwing and right after our posts and that's immora and uncalled for!!!!!

 

Arpa jan you were right then and you are right now!!!

 

I love your kind of critics any time buddy and pal!!!!!!!!!!! :)

Edited December 14, 2006 by Anahid Takouhi

[zurderer]

Am I not enough a critic already??

 

critics? do you call your words as critics? I dont know, I dont care, I dont read. I just remembered three monkey. Dont know reason.have any idea?

[ara baliozian]

Friday, December 15, 2006

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

THE SECRET OF MY SUCCESS

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

Readers – they are my only secret:

gentle readers, avid readers, concerned readers

willing to correct me

when I stray from the righteous path,

eager to remind me that

honey catches more flies than vinegar

(so does manure, but never mind about that now).

Writers of the past were not as lucky as I am.

During the Soviet era, for instance,

the only advice our commissars had for our writers

was a bullet in the neck.

Under Talaat in Istanbul

at the turn of the last century

things were no better.

But what’s done is done.

Let bygones be bygones,

and as my readers keep reminding me,

it doesn’t pay to dwell too much

on negative things;

and as the Good Book says,

“Let the dead bury their dead.”

After centuries of brutal oppression

we have finally emerged

from the darkness of the past.

We have seen the light

and no power one earth

can thrust us back into darkness.

My success is not mine alone

but that of Armenian literature as a whole,

and by extension, that of the nation.

For readers create great writers

as surely as great writers create masterpieces.

I have no doubt whatever in my mind

that we now stand on the verge of a Second Golden Age

beside which the First is as nothing.

A new generation of great writers is about to rise

from the ashes and soar

like a phoenix into the stratosphere

where masterpieces are born

and Nobel Prizes awarded.

All because of gentle readers

who are committed body and soul

to the welfare of our literature and culture.

When during a visit to an Armenian community center

I was asked why so far I had shown

no interest in encouraging a new generation of writers

but preferred to live in solitude in the middle of nowhere,

I was dead wrong to reply:

“What the nation needs more today

is not writers but readers.”

The truth of the matter is

I have many more good readers than I deserve,

avid reader, concerned readers,

able literary critics all,

whose sole aim in life

is to raise our esthetic and moral standards.

My gratitude to them knows no bounds.

I am what I am because of them.

My success is not mine but theirs.

I say to them what Samuel said to God:

“Speak, Lord, for Thy servant is listening.”

God bless you.

God bless Armenian literature.

God bless Armenia.

#

[ara baliozian]

FYI it is not hearsay, I know for fact and people who know history know too that a great deal of Tashnak men were annihilated in Istanbul along with all our intellectuals. You can say all you want or your friends as well; but the facts are the facts, you seem to want to deny it or perhaps you are unaware but they are the facts. You seem to like to argue about it, I will cease to argue about it now.

 

i will agree with you if you say a great many armenians died.

among them a few tashnaks...probably because,

my guess is,

tashnaks are not immortal.

[ara baliozian]

Which of your works do you recommend that would answer my question.

 

all of them.

[ara baliozian]

Saturday, December 16, 2006

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

TOYNBEE, DESCARTES, ZARIAN, AND OTHERS

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

If you say you disagree with Toynbee, you disagree with Descartes, and you disagree with Zarian, don’t be surprised if those who agree with Toynbee, Descartes, and Zarian disagree with you, and they disagree with you not because they are prejudiced against you or remotely interested in questioning your intelligence or honesty but because they respect more Toynbee’s understanding of history, Descartes’ philosophical judgment, and Zarian’s familiarity with recent developments in Armenian affairs, in most of which he was himself a participant in addition to being personally acquainted with the main players.

*

Zarian: “Our political parties have been of no political use to us. Their greatest enemy is free speech.” Why free speech? Because it may expose their blunders and lies, which may spell their political and moral bankruptcy.

*

Tell me what you are afraid of and I will tell you who you are.

*

If you say your version of the past is the only true one, you do nothing but repeat the words of those who say exactly the same thing about their own version of the past, which may contradict yours.

*

The problem with partisan versions of the past is that there will be other partisan versions.

*

The statement “My party is infallible or morally superior,” will convince only fellow partisans and no one else. If I say I am a great writer, I may succeed in convincing only my mama at the cost of making myself ridiculous in the eyes of the world.

*

If you write history with an ideological, religious, or nationalist bias, you can be sure that it will not be as objective, accurate and credible as that written by someone without an ax to grind.

*

The trouble with people with an ax to grind is that even when they bury their ax, they remember where they buried it.

*

Last night I heard an interview with a Catholic theologian who said, among other things, “All present wars are fought in the name of religion. Our only chance of preventing this from happening again is to alter our view of religion.” And I thought religions have had that chance for much more than a thousand years. Is there a single religion today willing to consider its history as one of failure?

#

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, December 17, 2006

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

When speaking with an older and wiser person, assume you are wrong. When speaking with an infallible person, assume he is wrong.

*

Little mistakes we don’t mind admitting. But when it comes to big ones, we like to believe smart nations don’t make them. Which may suggest that in little things we are willing to be objective; in big things we prefer to follow the dictates of our vanity.

*

Never ceases to amaze me -- the stupidity of self-assessed smart people.

*

I don’t diminish Armenians; I only describe the many ways in which they diminish themselves.

*

When I was young and foolish I too said many things that I now regret; and if someone had warned me I would have ignored him, the way I am ignored today by our dupes.

*

Tolstoy: “The higher I rise in the eyes of the world, the lower I sink in my own.” The opposite is also true: the lower we sink in the eyes of the world, the louder bray and we brag.

*

One of our editors once called me to complain that some people didn’t like my kind of writing. Who? I wanted to know. He mentioned the name of a benefactor’s flunkey. Shortly thereafter the editor stopped publishing me. The flunkey must have made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. As the old saying has it: “Parai veren duduyu chalar” (freely translated, “He who pays the piper selects the tune”).

*

People are educated to recognize and question the propaganda of other nations, never their own. Why should we be an exception? – you may well ask. Too late. Now that the cat is out of the bag, can you really believe everything you have been told?

#