Interracial Dating Among Armenians?

[Anileve]

I really can’t understand why this subject keeps resurfacing so often. The resolution is so simple that it requires one simple question and a simple answer.

 

What is more important to you, preservation of your heritage or your INDIVIDUAL happiness? If more priority lies in the former than try to find a partner that’s of the same “sort” and who also makes you content, if your priority lies in exercising your individualism outside of collective expectations than by all means go for the person and not his ethnic and racial background. Why can’t people understand that the purpose of having intellect and reason is to possess the ability to exercise freedom of choice, which doesn’t have to necessarily comply with everyone else’s?

 

Anon, interestingly enough for someone who so strongly believes in the idea of individualism you can somehow dictate your own standards of living/human existence/procreation as a universal aphorism. I agree with you on many issues but this one concept of preservation always seemed a little fanatical to me.

 

Life is so short, for Goodness sake, just enjoy it, do whatever makes you happy. If you live your life for everyone else, before you know it you are in your deathbed and you haven’t even started to live your own.

[hagopn]

I really can’t understand why this subject keeps resurfacing so often. The resolution is so simple that it requires one simple question and a simple answer.

 

What is more important to you, preservation of your heritage or your INDIVIDUAL happiness? If more priority lies in the former than try to find a partner that’s of the same “sort” and who also makes you content, if your priority lies in exercising your individualism outside of collective expectations than by all means go for the person and not his ethnic and racial background. Why can’t people understand that the purpose of having intellect and reason is to possess the ability to exercise freedom of choice, which doesn’t have to necessarily comply with everyone else’s?

 

Anon, interestingly enough for someone who so strongly believes in the idea of individualism you can somehow dictate your own standards of living/human existence/procreation as a universal aphorism. I agree with you on many issues but this one concept of preservation always seemed a little fanatical to me.

 

Life is so short, for Goodness sake, just enjoy it, do whatever makes you happy. If you live your life for everyone else, before you know it you are in your deathbed and you haven’t even started to live your own.

 

Yes, what is more important to "you?" Definitions seem simple enough, but the holistic argument does not leave out the various components such as stages of human growth/maturation, spirituality and its role, different contexts in which one is forced to live in and the forces at play...

 

Yes, when thinking in components, it is indeed very simple: The act of worrying and carrying about one's group, nation, culture, is a higher instinct. It goes beyond the personal, and not everyone is equipped with this instinct. It's the same concept as a person in the sahara who does not have even a word for snow.

 

The act of only worrying about your "happiness" (i.e,. in this context, impulsive romance, attraction, ans o on) is an animal instinct centered only on the one idividual and his lower needs. "Warmth, nurturing," and so on are initial stages of human growth, but the "individualist argument" is an attempt to perpetuate the "adolecence" into adulthood.

 

Adolescents need to be "in the forest to prove their worth." That is a natural stage in human growth, and it should be respected and properly guided upon arrival.

 

However, then comes adulthood, when the individual is no longer an individual but a full member of the given grouping of civilization, nation, tribe, group, family, clan, whatever.

 

Definitions are easy to concoct, and they are easier to split hairs on as well. Therefore, nothing is easy.

 

Nation is not really a personal choice but a duty that one is blessed with. One is given the gift of many lifetimes of memory and wisedom, passed down to him through genuine spiritual attachment and love.

 

There is no chance in the world that I can dictate policy onto you, nor am I willing to arrive at my goals as a member of the Armenian nation is such manner.

 

I think you are approaching this with the same elitist nonsense that is taught in the "individualist" school where, as mentioned above, the very idea of contemplating the existence of "spirit" is denied as some sort of "lower form of consciouness."

 

I beg to differ. Love, especially multigenerational love, cannot be surpassed in quality.

[aSoldier]

If you live your life for everyone else, before you know it you are in your deathbed and you haven’t even started to live your own.

 

Living for others is what life is all about

[Anonymouse]

I really can’t understand why this subject keeps resurfacing so often. The resolution is so simple that it requires one simple question and a simple answer.

 

What is more important to you, preservation of your heritage or your INDIVIDUAL happiness? If more priority lies in the former than try to find a partner that’s of the same “sort” and who also makes you content, if your priority lies in exercising your individualism outside of collective expectations than by all means go for the person and not his ethnic and racial background. Why can’t people understand that the purpose of having intellect and reason is to possess the ability to exercise freedom of choice, which doesn’t have to necessarily comply with everyone else’s?

 

Anon, interestingly enough for someone who so strongly believes in the idea of individualism you can somehow dictate your own standards of living/human existence/procreation as a universal aphorism. I agree with you on many issues but this one concept of preservation always seemed a little fanatical to me.

 

Life is so short, for Goodness sake, just enjoy it, do whatever makes you happy. If you live your life for everyone else, before you know it you are in your deathbed and you haven’t even started to live your own.

 

I have to clear something out. I am a firm believer in individuality, which is very different from the dogma of individualism. When an ism is added to anything, it dances with dogmatism. With that said, while I believe it is important to embrace individuality, I do not ignore the fact that humans, aside from being spiritual beings, are also part of this physical world and thereby animals as well. And it is man's animality that has continually pushed man to group himself in tribes, nations, races, etc. Individuals exist, but let's not forget that humans are social beings tied to the nautical paths of nations and races.

 

Everything in the world is fanatical and fanatical is a matter of perspective. What in nature can you point to that is not fanatical? One can very well argue that your rebellion against culture and nation is as much fanatical as one's goal to preserve it. What is your point? There is no use in getting bogged down on definitions, because it is pointless. The survival instinct of any organism, is precisely that, hardwired into the DNA and soul of that being. Is a rose with thorns fanatical for having survival instinct? Is a mother bear fanatical for protecting it's young and its kind when others be it foreign species or humans trespass and invade it's natural habitat? Is a human fanatical for daring to protect and preserve it's kind? As an organismic consciousness, man's survival instinct transcends and transforms everything else, and thank God it is fanatical. Without man's fanaticism for survival, we would be nothing more than victims to the Praetorian preaching of evangelical egalitarians who believe in nothing more and nothing less than what is within their immediate range of prurient self-gratification. The world of of such self-appeasing migrants is a world in which their own whims and passions reign supreme, and everything else is like a baby in the backseat without a seatbelt.

 

People of such mindsets believe that human nature either doesn't exist or it is infinitely plastic. If we were entirely and truly individual creatures, we would not need nations, races, families, friends, loved ones and so on. There is an integrated sense of wholeness that is conquered only through man's subtle yet eternal longing to lose his ego, the virtue that is seen in giving oneself up to something greater, something higher, something nobler, something sublime and beyond the mere gratification of the gut. Otherwise we would all be cats, although I would argue that some folks are like cats.

 

While social butterflies like yourself have abandoned their survival instinct, that can only exist in the world at both price and state. The price of such suicidal self-appeasement, and addiction to the pale passions of man is like the passing of a coryza through the spirit of that nation. When the world floats in regularities and the soft prances of time, it seems as though nothing other than the sophmoric soliloquies of individuals matter. When civilizations clash and brakes set in, sparks fly from the under the gears of society, depressions and chaos set in, men naturally divide along common lines in bids to survive. Examples of this are found everywhere in our society, from the prison system where life is earned everyday and can be taken everyday, where men naturally group into racial and ethnic groups to the inner city schools as evidenced in Los Angeles' Latino and black student riots.

 

In any event, people who, like you, believe in nothing more than yourself, will only do so, so long as the world is calm and quiet, and there is still a somwhat of a hazy majority of Armenians who exist that somewhat preserve the general (although fading) idea of Armenian. Rebels can always stray and exist and bask and even brag about how bold and individual they are, so long as they are the minority. But a rebel, and an individual only exists in relation to a clear majority! You cannot exist outside of the system which you go against, for you would be obsolete. Your definition as a subscriber to The Individualism Manifesto exists only so far as you have a clear opposite, an opposing noun, to define you as the subject. My point is, our definitions and places within society are dependent on our place within the relational patterns of society. The destruction and extinction of the Armenian race is as much detrimental for those of your persuasion as it is for those who seek to preserve it.

 

You speak of choice, yet forget that we all have choice in the lives we pursue, from the careers that we do, to the people that we love. It is all the same and self-same path taken by the torch of choice. Everything is a matter of choice. And ultimately it is us who choose our present and our future. When we choose, it is important to remember that our choices are like ripple effects and fractals in a world of chaos, and these ripples affect every other part of society. Perhaps you do not care about the butterfly effect of your choices, but it has already affected someone else in the future. Perhaps you do not care for the preservation of Armenians, but forget to realize that your cherished status as the prized rebel exists only so far as Armenians exist and that events are not haphazard blots of ink on the paper of time, but that there is an inextricable link between phenomena and noumena between event and event. We as individuals, and as a people are tested by temptations and confronted with august abstractions and it will be posterity, if the future will permit for posterity, that will decide if we were faithful, honorable and courageous, or if we were gluttonous, prurient, weak and ignoble. The choice is yours and bask freely but not too freely for time lurks behind you.

[hagopn]

I have to clear something out. I am a firm believer in individuality, which is very different from the dogma of individualism. When an ism is added to anything, it dances with dogmatism. With that said, while I believe it is important to embrace individuality, I do not ignore the fact that humans, aside from being spiritual beings, are also part of this physical world and thereby animals as well. And it is man's animality that has continually pushed man to group himself in tribes, nations, races, etc. Individuals exist, but let's not forget that humans are social beings tied to the nautical paths of nations and races.

 

Nice distinction, "dogma of individualism" versus "true learned and mature individualism." I like that. This dialog can be characterized more as a "cult of hedonism" versus "cult of spiritualism/altruism," but your definition is more poignant in explaining the confusion that exists among the impressionable post-adolescent but perpetually adolescnet minds.

 

Robert Blye has a nice term for this phenomenon: "Sibling society."

 

Everything in the world is fanatical and fanatical is a matter of perspective. What in nature can you point to that is not fanatical? One can very well argue that your rebellion against culture and nation is as much fanatical as one's goal to preserve it. What is your point? There is no use in getting bogged down on definitions, because it is pointless. The survival instinct of any organism, is precisely that, hardwired into the DNA and soul of that being. Is a rose with thorns fanatical for having survival instinct? Is a mother bear fanatical for protecting it's young and its kind when others be it foreign species or humans trespass and invade it's natural habitat? Is a human fanatical for daring to protect and preserve it's kind?

 

In continuation, according to this mechanical and two-dimensional view, all such incredible phenomena are "accidental in nature." Never mind that the mere act of being aware is in itself a unexplainable phenomenon. Never mind that the very process of arriving to the conclusion that human beings have come to, that they need to actively and intelligently retain memory of such nature/DNA drive occurrence is in itself a very interesting and has to do with a sort of evolution that transcends "natural selection" and other vulgar explanations. Ndver mind that the first global mythology that deals with the very problem of man and nature and their interaction is not in any sense "tribal in nature" and is in fact very universal, quite altruistic in intent, and quite beyond teh realm of "survival" in the animalistic sense. Human evolution measured in the strictly anthropoligcal "sense" (which is what it is, whether the adherents of such vulgarity wish to admit it or not) is a total misrepresentation of man's actual role in his quest for pure awareness, far beyond the realm of "survival instincts," and nationalism is a primary vehicle, because spiritual and cultural nationalism is the only reliable and integral method for the conveyance of this all too valuable commodity for human beings called memory.

 

As an organismic consciousness, man's survival instinct transcends and transforms everything else, and thank God it is fanatical. Without man's fanaticism for survival, we would be nothing more than victims to the Praetorian preaching of evangelical egalitarians who believe in nothing more and nothing less than what is within their immediate range of prurient self-gratification. The world of of such self-appeasing migrants is a world in which their own whims and passions reign supreme, and everything else is like a baby in the backseat without a seatbelt.

 

Tell that to every student and follower of Hobbes. The concoction of the "necessary evil" argument stems from this.

 

People of such mindsets believe that human nature either doesn't exist or it is infinitely plastic. If we were entirely and truly individual creatures, we would not need nations, races, families, friends, loved ones and so on. There is an integrated sense of wholeness that is conquered only through man's subtle yet eternal longing to lose his ego, the virtue that is seen in giving oneself up to something greater, something higher, something nobler, something sublime and beyond the mere gratification of the gut. Otherwise we would all be cats, although I would argue that some folks are like cats.

 

Some folks are like dogs, other pigs, others ants..., and the entire Aryan re-incarnation mythoology is a lesson in character, warning that human beings are alterable and infinitely flexible, to the point that they will give themselves the "privilege" to immitate the lowest of all lows in nature, in the univers, if permitted to do so, if permitted to go by their "guts" alone. It's all been said, friend. Just read Indra's plight, and see how our ancestors tackled this issue.

 

While social butterflies like yourself have abandoned their survival instinct, that can only exist in the world at both price and state. The price of such suicidal self-appeasement, and addiction to the pale passions of man is like the passing of a coryza through the spirit of that nation. When the world floats in regularities and the soft prances of time, it seems as though nothing other than the sophmoric soliloquies of individuals matter. When civilizations clash and brakes set in, sparks fly from the under the gears of society, depressions and chaos set in, men naturally divide along common lines in bids to survive. Examples of this are found everywhere in our society, from the prison system where life is earned everyday and can be taken everyday, where men naturally group into racial and ethnic groups to the inner city schools as evidenced in Los Angeles' Latino and black student riots.

 

Wonderfully said: In other words, as was written above: When the substrratum of multigenerational hope that can only be supplied by nationalism, he "religion" of father and mother loving their own ancestors and children in that wonderful string of timeless love that goes forward and backward in time, when that sort of understading fades, so too fades the hope, and a void is left where there is an innate need for a human being to connect to the universe in stages with no shortcuts.

 

In any event, people who, like you, believe in nothing more than yourself, will only do so, so long as the world is calm and quiet, and there is still a somwhat of a hazy majority of Armenians who exist that somewhat preserve the general (although fading) idea of Armenian. Rebels can always stray and exist and bask and even brag about how bold and individual they are, so long as they are the minority. But a rebel, and an individual only exists in relation to a clear majority! You cannot exist outside of the system which you go against, for you would be obsolete. Your definition as a subscriber to The Individualism Manifesto exists only so far as you have a clear opposite, an opposing noun, to define you as the subject. My point is, our definitions and places within society are dependent on our place within the relational patterns of society. The destruction and extinction of the Armenian race is as much detrimental for those of your persuasion as it is for those who seek to preserve it.

 

Very well written. In other words, you are the perpetual adolescent in "rebellion," which should otherwise be a natural stage of spiritual growth. But the operative word is "stage" or "phase" of spiritual growth.

 

You speak of choice, yet forget that we all have choice in the lives we pursue, from the careers that we do, to the people that we love. It is all the same and self-same path taken by the torch of choice. Everything is a matter of choice. And ultimately it is us who choose our present and our future. When we choose, it is important to remember that our choices are like ripple effects and fractals in a world of chaos, and these ripples affect every other part of society. Perhaps you do not care about the butterfly effect of your choices, but it has already affected someone else in the future. Perhaps you do not care for the preservation of Armenians, but forget to realize that your cherished status as the prized rebel exists only so far as Armenians exist and that events are not haphazard blots of ink on the paper of time, but that there is an inextricable link between phenomena and noumena between event and event. We as individuals, and as a people are tested by temptations and confronted with august abstractions and it will be posterity, if the future will permit for posterity, that will decide if we were faithful, honorable and courageous, or if we were gluttonous, prurient, weak and ignoble. The choice is yours and bask freely but not too freely for time lurks behind you.

 

Nice. "An atom shakes, and the universe quivers."

 

There is also another addendum to the above: "Of the infinite number of choices available to us, there is truly only one at any given instant that is the correct one. Man's work is then to be as conscious, as ware, and connected to divinity (or universe) as possible in order to be a recepticle for the correct vision and the openin of the door for a more correct choice in life."

 

The mystics and ascetics were so fanatical in their quest for a "quiet space" to hear the "song of the universe" for this purpose, and they were quite explicit.

 

We today are arrogant in thinking that all such higher thoughts have not crossed man's mind since time immemorial, and, ironically, mankind has worked hard to maintain a string of memory in the form of spiritual teachings, religious teachings, and the older, the better, the less materialistic, the more the likeliood of sincerity and, thus, accuracy.

 

Email me, and let's get in touch.

[alexan]

I agree with anileve and disagree with hagopn

 

"Yes, when thinking in components, it is indeed very simple: The act of worrying and carrying about one's group, nation, culture, is a higher instinct. It goes beyond the personal, and not everyone is equipped with this instinct."

 

I would say that "the act of worrying and carrying about one's group, nation, culture, is a higher" something else (something cerebral, consequent to resoning) not a higher instinct. Instincts are the same for all.

 

I can't see how anileve's position can be wrong.

I guess (that is I'm not sure about that, but its eems so to me) that Armenians who feel themselves Armenian according to anileve's resoning are more at ease with their everyday life both as individuals and as Armenians

[Anonymouse]

I can't see how anileve's position can be wrong.

I guess (that is I'm not sure about that, but its eems so to me) that Armenians who feel themselves Armenian according to anileve's resoning are more at ease with their everyday life both as individuals and as Armenians

 

 

This is a stupid assumption to make unless you are somehow claiming you have psychic powers.

[Takoush]

I have to clear something out. I am a firm believer in individuality, which is very different from the dogma of individualism. When an ism is added to anything, it dances with dogmatism. With that said, while I believe it is important to embrace individuality, I do not ignore the fact that humans, aside from being spiritual beings, are also part of this physical world and thereby animals as well. And it is man's animality that has continually pushed man to group himself in tribes, nations, races, etc. Individuals exist, but let's not forget that humans are social beings tied to the nautical paths of nations and races.

 

Everything in the world is fanatical and fanatical is a matter of perspective. What in nature can you point to that is not fanatical? One can very well argue that your rebellion against culture and nation is as much fanatical as one's goal to preserve it. What is your point? There is no use in getting bogged down on definitions, because it is pointless. The survival instinct of any organism, is precisely that, hardwired into the DNA and soul of that being. Is a rose with thorns fanatical for having survival instinct? Is a mother bear fanatical for protecting it's young and its kind when others be it foreign species or humans trespass and invade it's natural habitat? Is a human fanatical for daring to protect and preserve it's kind? As an organismic consciousness, man's survival instinct transcends and transforms everything else, and thank God it is fanatical. Without man's fanaticism for survival, we would be nothing more than victims to the Praetorian preaching of evangelical egalitarians who believe in nothing more and nothing less than what is within their immediate range of prurient self-gratification. The world of of such self-appeasing migrants is a world in which their own whims and passions reign supreme, and everything else is like a baby in the backseat without a seatbelt.

 

People of such mindsets believe that human nature either doesn't exist or it is infinitely plastic. If we were entirely and truly individual creatures, we would not need nations, races, families, friends, loved ones and so on. There is an integrated sense of wholeness that is conquered only through man's subtle yet eternal longing to lose his ego, the virtue that is seen in giving oneself up to something greater, something higher, something nobler, something sublime and beyond the mere gratification of the gut. Otherwise we would all be cats, although I would argue that some folks are like cats.

 

While social butterflies like yourself have abandoned their survival instinct, that can only exist in the world at both price and state. The price of such suicidal self-appeasement, and addiction to the pale passions of man is like the passing of a coryza through the spirit of that nation. When the world floats in regularities and the soft prances of time, it seems as though nothing other than the sophmoric soliloquies of individuals matter. When civilizations clash and brakes set in, sparks fly from the under the gears of society, depressions and chaos set in, men naturally divide along common lines in bids to survive. Examples of this are found everywhere in our society, from the prison system where life is earned everyday and can be taken everyday, where men naturally group into racial and ethnic groups to the inner city schools as evidenced in Los Angeles' Latino and black student riots.

 

In any event, people who, like you, believe in nothing more than yourself, will only do so, so long as the world is calm and quiet, and there is still a somwhat of a hazy majority of Armenians who exist that somewhat preserve the general (although fading) idea of Armenian. Rebels can always stray and exist and bask and even brag about how bold and individual they are, so long as they are the minority. But a rebel, and an individual only exists in relation to a clear majority! You cannot exist outside of the system which you go against, for you would be obsolete. Your definition as a subscriber to The Individualism Manifesto exists only so far as you have a clear opposite, an opposing noun, to define you as the subject. My point is, our definitions and places within society are dependent on our place within the relational patterns of society. The destruction and extinction of the Armenian race is as much detrimental for those of your persuasion as it is for those who seek to preserve it.

 

You speak of choice, yet forget that we all have choice in the lives we pursue, from the careers that we do, to the people that we love. It is all the same and self-same path taken by the torch of choice. Everything is a matter of choice. And ultimately it is us who choose our present and our future. When we choose, it is important to remember that our choices are like ripple effects and fractals in a world of chaos, and these ripples affect every other part of society. Perhaps you do not care about the butterfly effect of your choices, but it has already affected someone else in the future. Perhaps you do not care for the preservation of Armenians, but forget to realize that your cherished status as the prized rebel exists only so far as Armenians exist and that events are not haphazard blots of ink on the paper of time, but that there is an inextricable link between phenomena and noumena between event and event. We as individuals, and as a people are tested by temptations and confronted with august abstractions and it will be posterity, if the future will permit for posterity, that will decide if we were faithful, honorable and courageous, or if we were gluttonous, prurient, weak and ignoble. The choice is yours and bask freely but not too freely for time lurks behind you.

 

Anon:

 

It is very obvious that I more than agree of your idealisms, especially here and now. However, your diction and your paradigm of philosophical and theoretical framework of mind and of discipline is outstanding.

 

I can't stress enough how poetic your enunciation can possibly be. It is an honor for me to be in this presence for with your elocution and diction you can convince the most obstinate of individuals.

Edited May 17, 2006 by Anahid Takouhi

[Anileve]

Anon:

 

It is very obvious that I more than agree of your idealisms, especially here and now. However, your diction and your paradigm of philosophical and theoretical framework of mind and of discipline is outstanding.

 

I can't stress enough how poetic your enunciation can possibly be. It is an honor for me to be in this presence for with your elocution and diction you can convince the most obstinate of individuals.

 

Oh please. You really don’t need to fluff up your language to impress Anon, it sounds very contrived. “It is an honor for me to be in this presence for with your elocution” I am sorry, but who says that?

[Anileve]

Precisely! Once you become a woman's "friend", she will no longer see you as a potential emotional or sexual mate and something deeper. She sees you "only as a friend", quoth the woman, and nothingmore.

 

Women always want the opposite of what they claim they want verbally. When a woman says she wants a "sensitive" man, she doesn't just mean that. She means the whole package: someone who is sensitive, tough, rough, alpha, intelligent, attractive, etc. It's like some company who has an open security position. Will they hire the guy who can just scope out the camera, or the guy who is big tough, is able to scope out the camera, is familiar with electronics, physically fit, etc.?

Maybe it's because those women don't really know themselves, thus what they think they want may be a result of someone else's influence.

 

Usually a human being is not one-dimensional. In addition to sensitivity there are other qualities which are present, and a combination of those qualities may not be appealing as a whole. It's all about deciding which characteristics are paramount to you, everything else can either be worked on or worked with.

[Anileve]

This is a stupid assumption to make unless you are somehow claiming you have psychic powers.

 

I fail to see how alexan’s post is a “stupid assumption” any more than any of YOUR assumptions. His post specifically states that he is not sure about his statement, and that it seems to him as such. I can’t see how one can claim that it’s a stupid assumption based on psychic power if assumptions are opinions formed and not apparent facts. Unless you are just pissed that he agrees with me, which is very childish.

[Anileve]

With that said, while I believe it is important to embrace individuality, I do not ignore the fact that humans, aside from being spiritual beings, are also part of this physical world and thereby animals as well. And it is man's animality that has continually pushed man to group himself in tribes, nations, races, etc. Individuals exist, but let's not forget that humans are social beings tied to the nautical paths of nations and races.

 

Everything in the world is fanatical and fanatical is a matter of perspective. What in nature can you point to that is not fanatical? Without man's fanaticism for survival, we would be nothing more than victims to the Praetorian preaching of evangelical egalitarians who believe in nothing more and nothing less than what is within their immediate range of prurient self-gratification.

 

Otherwise we would all be cats, although I would argue that some folks are like cats.

 

In any event, people who, like you, believe in nothing more than yourself, will only do so, so long as the world is calm and quiet, and there is still a somwhat of a hazy majority of Armenians who exist that somewhat preserve the general (although fading) idea of Armenian...... You cannot exist outside of the system which you go against, for you would be obsolete.

 

....Everything is a matter of choice.... Perhaps you do not care for the preservation of Armenians, but forget to realize that your cherished status as the prized rebel exists only so far as Armenians exist .......

 

Arman, first of all your post is a mixture of various arguments which are not fully developed and require individual threads.

 

Your argument for fanaticism is not logical and you fail to present any proof to support your argument. You just picked the word “fanatical” and plugged it anywhere you see fit, that doesn’t make it rational. In regards to nature and animals, well both are extremely diverse and complex, one cannot assume that by knowing about roses, dogs and cats, one fully grasps the science of biology and zoology, that’s just plain pretentious. Many philosophers wrongly attributed certain human qualities to animals (as a general term) without proper knowledge of the latter.

 

I have also noticed that you are increasingly contradicting yourself with arguments that used to be so sound and consistent. It seems that you are torn between individuality, in fact you seem to be leaning more and more towards collectivism, because many of your statements directly contradict the essence of individuality.

 

And my dearest friend THIS statement completely demolishes any trace of your belief in a free market economy and individuality, frankly I would have never thought this sort of thinking would come from you.

 

“You cannot exist outside of the system which you go against, for you would be obsolete.”

 

Did you not advocate going against the current system we revolve in, not voting or conforming to socially imposed standards that are so prevalent to collectivism?

 

I am afraid you didn’t understand me well. You cannot force individuals to live for a national goal, nor can you criticize them, because to do so is to remove and individual right to exercise freedom over your life and choices. A dictatorship always starts with an idealistic and normative doctrine. Whether Marxist, Communist or Socialist or any other system of its kind, which claims that an individual should act in the interest of a nation rather than revel in his/her self-interest. If you were to agree with Hobbes… he claimed that in order to prevent extinction of human race you must disallow people to act in self interest, because according to him humans are inclined to commit horrific acts. The solution is to create a system that ensures a survival of human specie. This system is composed of INDIVIDUALS that give up their right to act in self interest in order to preserve commonwealth. The government would be absolute. Sounds like a dictatorship? I think so. Lenin did it and Hitler did it and Hugo is doing it. This concept of COMMON GOOD is a flawed concept, because if you speak of nature, it is an inherent trait of a human being to first act in self interest.

 

“The destruction and extinction of the Armenian race is as much detrimental for those of your persuasion as it is for those who seek to preserve it.”

 

Sounds Hitleresque, Marxist and Hobbsean.

 

I would think that all those from Austrian school of economics as well as pro-free market crowd would argue that the best preservation is to act in self interest. Why, well they offer better arguments than I ever will.

 

Finally, I don’t know why you must resort to this didactic way of replying to my post that seems to be completely “self sufficient” and indisputable since it doesn’t favor anything over the other. Unless you believe in forcing people into one morally superior system, I can’t see how it can be wrong or right. An individual is a individual in that she is composed of various element, that is if you don’t believe in Egalitarianism (which I still recall you don’t, but who knows). To continue, an individual may act in compliance with national standards or a collective ideology that he favors and considers his duty, or he may chose to act in self interest which he considers his primary duty. The world, thankfully is not homogeneous, thus factions are unavoidable. You can be a part of that group or this group, thankfully what separates you from an animal kingdom is that you have a choice of belonging to whatever you wish. Right or wrong, that’s the way it is.

 

If I act in pure self interest where my priority lies in the well being of my family and my friends which is a SELF CHOSEN CIRCLE, then perhaps I will ensure that I can provide education and good values to people who are a part of a human race or a localized society, thus through self interest one can inadvertently translate personal values into a positive contribution to better a society. And if everyone would for once be more concerned with their individual (moral) actions as opposed to living for some mythical goal of preserving a nation or a race, the world would be free of Genocides, suicide bombers and international military invasions.

 

One of major differences between you and I is that first you are Armenian then an individual, I am an individual first before Armenian comes into the picture.

 

Being Armenian is not the only definition of you as a PERSON but one of many. Unless of course that is all you are about, just being Armenian…in that case disregard the last statement.

[Anonymouse]

Arman, first of all your post is a mixture of various arguments which are not fully developed and require individual threads.

 

 

What do you want me to do? Write a book? If we cherry pick every such argument as you insist, any one's posts and arguments can be stretched to volumes. Any ideas expressed by any one can be seen as being insufficient and “not fully developed” from a certain perspective, just like no painting by an artist is truly ever finished if one wills. That is not the point. Given the limited nature of a forum, we deal only with what we can. However, that was a silly attempt on your behalf to try to take the moral high ground.

 

Your argument for fanaticism is not logical and you fail to present any proof to support your argument. You just picked the word “fanatical” and plugged it anywhere you see fit, that doesn’t make it rational. In regards to nature and animals, well both are extremely diverse and complex, one cannot assume that by knowing about roses, dogs and cats, one fully grasps the science of biology and zoology, that’s just plain pretentious. Many philosophers wrongly attributed certain human qualities to animals (as a general term) without proper knowledge of the latter.

 

First of all, "logic" and "rational" are not holy writ and in the world we live, rationalism is merely a perspective out of many. It has no more moral high ground than being irrational. This line of reasoning is expected from people who always argue that somehow, 'rationalism' is supreme and better than everything else, yet rationalism is simply a perspective. The arrogant man will never concede how his own value can be a perspective but that is the way it goes. Now, if you were to argue about rationality vs. rationalism, then you might have a case, but you seem to be arguing and exchanging one ism for another and in the process reaffirming a misconception.

 

Contrary to your assertions, I intentionally and with purpose placed the word 'fanatical' where I did. It was not random or haphazard. I did not just plug it in anywhere I saw fit. I plugged it in precisely where it fit. This is not about your psychic abilities, nor what you think I did or intended with a word. Do you seriously entertain the belief that I do not know the difference between sentient beings and mere animals? That was not the point, and clearly, it flew past you, since the point was the inclination for self-preservation.

 

I have also noticed that you are increasingly contradicting yourself with arguments that used to be so sound and consistent. It seems that you are torn between individuality, in fact you seem to be leaning more and more towards collectivism, because many of your statements directly contradict the essence of individuality.

 

Two points:

 

1) To address your point with your own logical argument, there is no contradiction. I already highlighted the mistake you have made in not distinguishing between individuality and individualism. Individualism assumes that the individual is the center of the universe. It is akin to the blind allegiance that many Randians possess, like spirits without a resting place. I do not once deny individuality in man and uniqueness; and individuality as an intra- and inter- group phenomenon, but I do have a serious problem when that individualism is taken as the endpoint of everything, just like collectivism is. In response to your other assertion, I am not a collectivist. To recognize, realize and accept the world of natural divisions does not, in any way mean that I somehow believe in collective ownership or collective rule. Your misconceptions and misrepresentations, while unintentional, result from your avowed use of the isms. To a mind that insists an all-or-nothing deal, on either one way or another, this view may seem foreign and even complicating. It takes more than imagining two outcomes to imagine how one can be an individual yet belong to a group. Simple minds call it contradiction, but masterminds call it harmony.

 

The problem is that you believe humans are nothing else other than individuals, which is untrue. That would assume that humans possess complete free will and that there is no biological component to being human. As we know, while man does possess free will, it is limited, and not absolute. If man were in possession of absolute free will, everyone would co-exist harmoniously, and the world would be a borderless utopia. Everyone would also be able to will anything at anytime. However, that is not the case since man is as much animal, as he is spiritual, and thereby, what elevates him to the stars and heavens and causes him to probe into space and time and position himself outside of earth and muse about existence, is also what binds him and limits him to this earthly domain.

 

This unhallowed belief in complete human free will further assumes that large groups of human tribes can share and occupy the same land and limited resources and somehow coexist peacefully because everyone can somehow magically “change themselves on the inside” and “love everybody”, which, if history is our guide, is utterly untrue. And as I pointed out, which you completely ignored, such conditions of artificial racial and ethnic peace is brought about by conditions of excess and stable economic and political periods. When the winds of turmoil blow into civilizations’ windows, then it is not the individual that can stand-alone - for the individual will perish - but the group. Survival instinct kicks in an entirely different mode of being human. In addition, in these instances, humans naturally flock to the group. In an idealistic world, everyone would live in harmony. However, in this world, what happens? One group tries to impose what Nietzsche called it's "will to power" on another amid periods of discord, whether directly or indirectly, whether covertly or overtly, whether consciously or unconsciously. There is your reason for genocide and there is your cure for it.

 

2) In a world of flux, there are no contradictions but only perspectives. And for the sake of argument, contradictions are merely the philosophical projectiles of the cult of rationalism. Hence, those that assume the dogma of rationalism also assume what comes with the territory: there are contradictions and those that do not conform to the rationalist principle are walking contradictions. And if this perspective is taken to the omega of its reasoning, what in nature isn’t a contradiction? Who isn’t contradictory? Does such a person learn less of truth? What aren’t oxymorons and paradoxes? And do you think I am not aware? Man’s imperfect nature has precisely placed contradictions on every action. We only operate in the minefields of contradictions. In fact, I would not consider contradictions a defect, but rather a virtue. Woe is he who is not contradictory, for there is less human in such a man.

 

 

And my dearest friend THIS statement completely demolishes any trace of your belief in a free market economy and individuality, frankly I would have never thought this sort of thinking would come from you.

 

“You cannot exist outside of the system which you go against, for you would be obsolete.”

 

Did you not advocate going against the current system we revolve in, not voting or conforming to socially imposed standards that are so prevalent to collectivism?

 

I am afraid you didn’t understand me well. You cannot force individuals to live for a national goal, nor can you criticize them, because to do so is to remove and individual right to exercise freedom over your life and choices. A dictatorship always starts with an idealistic and normative doctrine. Whether Marxist, Communist or Socialist or any other system of its kind, which claims that an individual should act in the interest of a nation rather than revel in his/her self-interest. If you were to agree with Hobbes… he claimed that in order to prevent extinction of human race you must disallow people to act in self interest, because according to him humans are inclined to commit horrific acts. The solution is to create a system that ensures a survival of human specie. This system is composed of INDIVIDUALS that give up their right to act in self interest in order to preserve commonwealth. The government would be absolute. Sounds like a dictatorship? I think so. Lenin did it and Hitler did it and Hugo is doing it. This concept of COMMON GOOD is a flawed concept, because if you speak of nature, it is an inherent trait of a human being to first act in self interest.

 

Despite your assumptions, conjectures and projections of what you believe to be the case, there is not on iota of truth chiseled in your text. The most glaring assumption you make is that somehow I am advocating forcing individuals into my version of what ought to be. I can see why that is very quaint and tempting. For someone who touts the rational and logical approach, you sure got hasty with that assumption, like rushing rain, so eager to 'prove a point' you did not pause to reassess and realize that not once did I mention anything even remotely resembling force, or coercing people to believe anything. It is entirely you, who, projected force into my argument to have something to argue. Moreover, that preceded the pretentious and holier-than-thou lecture of how Marxism, Socialism, etc., propound forcing people to conform to their idealistic views. Nevertheless, in reality, my position is only one of discourse, argument and teaching. It is only with persuasion that I would seek to make people understand. I would never use the same methods of forcing people to ideals used by egalitarian idols and trolls of all stripes.

 

I am very careful in the thoughts that I construct and the arguments that I make, thus all those silly accusations of contradictions you hurl at me are easily reconciled if not for those glaring assumptions with which you dance.

 

“The destruction and extinction of the Armenian race is as much detrimental for those of your persuasion as it is for those who seek to preserve it.”

 

Sounds Hitleresque, Marxist and Hobbsean.

 

I would think that all those from Austrian school of economics as well as pro-free market crowd would argue that the best preservation is to act in self interest. Why, well they offer better arguments than I ever will.

 

If the self-preservation of Armenians makes me “Hitleresque”, then, by all means, I am a Nazi. Only in this inverted age of political correctness where loaded words are merely used as special effects of trying to intimidate, either belittle, or emotionally sequester someone who disagrees, can people get away with such intellectual robbery.

 

And contrary to what you think or seem to think you know, even long before I was an advocate of free markets, or a reader of Mises.org, I have always been conscious of race, ethnicity and culture. I have always maintained the survival of Armenians, the separation and the actual preservation of diversity. Advocating free market economics and believing in the preservation of my culture and the natural separation of races and peoples, are not mutually exclusive. You can still be black and white and engage in trade. They are only mutually exclusive if the emotional Socratics with their long applause of small virtues want to make it so. And if you want to speak of contradictions and irony, the same people such as yourself who pay homage to the cult of diversity and multiculturalism, are the same contributors to the destruction of that very same diversity! The promotion of diversity ultimately negates diversity itself as it gives way to a brown cultureless melange. It is why I do not believe such advocates of diversity are true admirers of the diversity of life. Therefore, those of us who actually admire such complexity seek to maintain it.

 

Finally, I don’t know why you must resort to this didactic way of replying to my post that seems to be completely “self sufficient” and indisputable since it doesn’t favor anything over the other. Unless you believe in forcing people into one morally superior system, I can’t see how it can be wrong or right. An individual is a individual in that she is composed of various element, that is if you don’t believe in Egalitarianism (which I still recall you don’t, but who knows). To continue, an individual may act in compliance with national standards or a collective ideology that he favors and considers his duty, or he may chose to act in self interest which he considers his primary duty. The world, thankfully is not homogeneous, thus factions are unavoidable. You can be a part of that group or this group, thankfully what separates you from an animal kingdom is that you have a choice of belonging to whatever you wish. Right or wrong, that’s the way it is.

 

If you had remained true to what you prescribed earlier, namely, relying on logic and evidence and calling on my lacking of it, you would see the irrelevance of the above paragraph. This running theme in your reply about force, like a fall leaf in a stream, floats everywhere yet nowhere. Beyond that, it reflects your need to pin something on me from your own projections to have something to argue. I never mentioned anything about coercion and I dare say you cannot produce evidence of such either. However, it is nonetheless, the main event of your argument, which does not say much for the under card.

 

The eternal confusion you have with individualism and individuality is that the initial is the conceit of the latter. While we are individuals, we do not exist outside of groups. While we are groups, we do not exist outside of individuals. Are you familiar with circular reasoning? In each case here, we have arguments that must rely on their own propositions to support their central premise. It proves everything, yet it proves nothing. Arguing this is like arguing which came first, the chicken or the egg. All that we know or seem to know is that man exists, has existed, and has done so as two things at the same time, spiritual and animal, in possession of choice (free will) as well as a biological life force. You allude to choice and free will, but humans do not possess absolute free will. And in the cases you raised, it would be a perversion of meaning and would take an extreme imagination to state that somehow we choose to belong to whatever group we wish, implying complete and absolute free will. There is only partial truth to this assertion.

 

While it is true, we do have choices in which artificial groups we choose to belong, we do not have choices in the biological groups we come from. While it is entirely a matter of choice to be a member of National Organization of Women, Oprah's Book Club, or Alcoholics Anonymous, these are social groups invented by man. It is not a matter of choice being born to a certain family or belonging to a certain race and possessing certain genes. Biology is unchanged and rooted in the very base of life. The egalitarians never tire of stating how everything is a "social construct" but where they fail is that they cannot make the distinction between what is truly a social invention by man's unique faculties of creativity, and what is innately a biological construct that has been part and parcel of existence since the sun shined its rays on earth. Moreover, it is in this regard where biology ultimately trumps and defeats ideology.

 

 

If I act in pure self interest where my priority lies in the well being of my family and my friends which is a SELF CHOSEN CIRCLE, then perhaps I will ensure that I can provide education and good values to people who are a part of a human race or a localized society, thus through self interest one can inadvertently translate personal values into a positive contribution to better a society. And if everyone would for once be more concerned with their individual (moral) actions as opposed to living for some mythical goal of preserving a nation or a race, the world would be free of Genocides, suicide bombers and international military invasions.

 

One of major differences between you and I is that first you are Armenian then an individual, I am an individual first before Armenian comes into the picture.

 

Being Armenian is not the only definition of you as a PERSON but one of many. Unless of course that is all you are about, just being Armenian…in that case disregard the last statement.

 

Who said Armenian is the only definition of me? While it is that which I was born into, I am also a lover of comic books, and I find much in common with people who are fans of X-Men and Wolverine. That begs the question. So what? Socially invented groups and definitions are elastic but biology is not. Where there are no natural or biological distinctions, humans have a natural and cognitive drive to classify, differentiate, categorize and create distinctions. Here we again point to the distinctions that are socially invented and the distinctions that are biological. I did not choose to be Armenian, and neither did you. It chose me. I did not choose to be a male. It chose me. In Armenian the saying goes, “Aryoona joor chi darna” and I am sure you have heard of it and are probably tired of it considering your view. There is too much truth in that, which has yet to be fully extracted by the thirsty lips of men, and often times, flies by the satiated tillers of selfish fields. That someone who is Chinese or African, can learn Armenian language and dance, does not make that person Armenian. These folks become culture bearers but not culture creators or originators. This always brings in the example of Japan. You cannot be Japanese if you learned how to speak Japanese, or eat sushi and walk around with a katana sword. Japan prides itself as not only a unique culture but also a unique people. Hence, they consider it the same.

 

You can deny you are Armenian. You can live on not calling yourself Armenian. That does not absolve the fact that you were born as such to that specific DNA merged when your parents merged. Individual identity, creativity, culture, soul and spirit have always existed and been expressed only within the limits, confines, frameworks and parameters of a cultural, racial and religious and group enclave. In other words, individuals need the group just as much as the group needs the individuals for one cannot exist without the other, a mistake you make. One defines the other and in the process, compliments the other. This is getting back to my earlier point that your rebellion against Armenian culture cannot exist if there were no Armenians as a group. Then you would be obsolete. There must be for every idea, a resistance and an opposite to support it for otherwise that idea would not exist, for all ideas come to be only in relation to others. Things do not exist in isolation and individuals and groups are no exception. The sphere of life is held in orbit by two contrary forces. If the centripetal force should overcome the centrifugal as an example, then it ceases to exist. The further result of rebellion becomes a paradox as those who do not seek to conform themselves become conformists to the goal of not conforming, or in your case, individualism.

 

Furthermore, survival is not a mythical goal. Survival is a goal and a good in itself, because it is intrinsic to life. It is not a means to some other end, but rather, it is an end in itself, the purpose of life itself, acted out in the propagation of our genes. All living things have this thirst for life, the directive to survive. It is in periods of gluttony, excess, sloth, when youth and society are perverted and enervated when this need is replaced by nothing more than hedonistic sensation seeking. Selfishness is merely a perspective and changes with time and circumstance. For what goes into the cognitive decision making of the individual is ultimately as unknown as what lies beyond space on the other side of the universe. All we know is humans act, whether their motivations are consciously or unconsciously selfish or altruistic is a matter of conjecture and ultimately faith. However, survival is the fact of life and it stands as its own justification and includes all acts whether selfish or altruistic. This point really is not open to argument because the only alternative to survival is stagnation and extinction. Existence is the whole of which you and I are a part and if we did not exist, it would make a difference. The half-wise in reality but over-wise in their own abstract aquariums may assail our symbols and ideas with sarcasms and snarls but they are nevertheless ingenious veils that cover the truth. If in every culture, race and people, exceptions such as yourself became the rule, then ultimately, you would be the funeral wreath of of that people and culture.

[Anonymouse]

I fail to see how alexan’s post is a “stupid assumption” any more than any of YOUR assumptions. His post specifically states that he is not sure about his statement, and that it seems to him as such. I can’t see how one can claim that it’s a stupid assumption based on psychic power if assumptions are opinions formed and not apparent facts. Unless you are just pissed that he agrees with me, which is very childish.

 

Of course you would fail to see alexan's post as a stupid assumption my dear little social butterfly. It's because he agrees with you!

 

However, how can he possibly know "that Armenians who feel themselves Armenian according to anileve's resoning are more at ease with their everyday life both as individuals and as Armenians" unless he was actually psychic and had probed and read the mind of every Armenian regardless of whether they are Armenian rebels or preservers?

Edited May 19, 2006 by Anonymouse

[gamavor]

Some things in life you learn the hard way and some others come for granted. Let those of us who do not put that much importance into their being with an Armenian, teach their offspring why there are those who choose to be with an Armenian about their motives and vice-verse.

 

It all boils down to culture and upbringing.

[Takoush]

Gams dear; and what if your beautiful offspring will grow up to eventually gear towards say, his or her father's or mother's Irish or German descent, rather than your's or my Armenian's. Say if you have several offsprings, one may grown up simply wanting and loving your Armenian side, the second one may gear towards both and yet the third one, if you happen to have a third one; then he/she may gear towards the Irish/German side.

 

In the final analysis; you don't know and you wouldn't know a number of things:

 

-a- Whether your wife for instance, will let you or will want to bring your offsprings in your own culture, that is continue to be what you thought she would be,

 

-b- Whether your child's blood will love you'r odar wife's ethnicity and culture or your's after he/she has grown, and finally

 

-c- All things considered and to your liking, your wife may turn out to be the woman that you've dated all along, that is she'll continue to have Armenian tendencies and likings and will be in conformity with you, and your offsprings will continue to love your own Armenian ethnicity as well as your culture.

 

See, the complexity of marrying with an odar is that; you don't know how it's going to turn out. That's the hidden unknown. You and your luck!!!

 

That is when you decide to have your offspring's blood mixed; then after that chances are, you will not be able to make or continue to have your wife's adherence into your Armenian ethnicity/culture; and you simply don't know how your children will end up loving or liking. Your ethnicity and culture or hers?

Edited May 19, 2006 by Anahid Takouhi

[Takoush]

Some things in life you learn the hard way and some others come for granted. Let those of us who do not put that much importance into their being with an Armenian, teach their offspring why there are those who choose to be with an Armenian about their motives and vice-verse.

 

It all boils down to culture and upbringing.

Dear Gams:

 

To clarify some points, when I wrote my previous post I wasn't merely addressing to you but trying to put some points across for everyone to reflect upon. True I have addressed it to you, but I am fully aware the intent, the scope of your post and your reasoning.

 

However, I wrote what I wrote simply for everyone to reflect the complexity of the situations at hand once you are married with an odar.

[vava]

See, the complexity of marrying with an odar is that; you don't know how it's going to turn out. That's the hidden unknown. You and your luck!!!

 

You can say the exact same thing about an Armenian partner. How do you know that he/she is going to want to push Armenian culture on your offspring. You don't. And it's certainly possible that a particularly rebellious child will entirely reject his or her heritage. These instances exist - and marrying an Armenian is in no way a guarantee that your children will grow to love and cherish their heritage. You just don't know how it's going to turn out.

[Takoush]

You can say the exact same thing about an Armenian partner. How do you know that he/she is going to want to push Armenian culture on your offspring. You don't. And it's certainly possible that a particularly rebellious child will entirely reject his or her heritage. These instances exist - and marrying an Armenian is in no way a guarantee that your children will grow to love and cherish their heritage. You just don't know how it's going to turn out.

Dear Vava:

 

You are absolutely right. I have seen some Armenians that were very aloof and let's say cold towards their ethnicity and culture or simply not mingling and associating with their own kind. Yet I have also seen some very few odar wives and or husbands to adhere open handedly and gear towards their Armenian husbands or wives. However vava jan, thrufthfully and perhaps you can enlighten me, as you know more French Canadian wives to be nice about those things; but again, how many of these odar wives or husbands will be sweet and adhering towards yours?

 

Then again, the majority of Armenians are not and at least I hope not to be in the category that you have mentioned above. See, most of them I believe in the Diaspora have more tendencies to be protective towards their culture and ethnicity I believe.

Edited May 19, 2006 by Anahid Takouhi

[Takoush]

Vava:

 

I wanted to add more that although you are right there's never a guarantee in these matters. However, I believe that the chances will be more in our favor if we tend to marry with our own kind. Not a guarantee of course, but more likelihood of adherence and or wanting to remain in our own ethnicity and culture.

Edited May 19, 2006 by Anahid Takouhi

[Azat]

i dont see any of these worried Armenians wha want to make sure their children grow up Armenian ligned up at the embassy toget their passports and move back to Armenia because we are only fooling ourselves to think that we wont mix in USA

[Takoush]

i dont see any of these worried Armenians wha want to make sure their children grow up Armenian ligned up at the embassy toget their passports and move back to Armenia because we are only fooling ourselves to think that we wont mix in USA

So what exactly do you suggest? Either to go and live in Armenia or to be quiet and give up the ship completely? I'd say don't give up the ship and try as best as you can to stay in your own ethnicity even though you are still remaining to live here. Of course, if and when you can it would be ideal to move to Armenia completely!!!

[ED]

Anahid its not matter of choice or give up the ship, no matter how hard you try you wont have a control over some day your child will grow up and marry an odar, but it does not nasseserely mean he or she will forget the haritage, time does its job, and especialy its thru in USA where assemiliation is very real among Armenians

even if we speak of Armenianes among us I hardly see anything Armenian among those who claim so passionatly they have Armenian haritage, from there songs to how they dress, what they eat and how they speak...nothing resembls to what is known Armenian

Edited May 19, 2006 by Edward

[vava]

I have seen some Armenians that were very aloof and let's say cold towards their ethnicity and culture or simply not mingling and associating with their own kind.

 

Must you mingle with your own "kind" to be Armenian? If I happen not to mingle with my "kind" am I less of an Armenian? Am I cold towards my ethnicity? I don't think so - it's entirely possible have social circles that extend beyond one's ethnicity and yet still retain a measure of loyalty.

 

Yet I have also seen some very few odar wives and or husbands to adhere open handedly and gear towards their Armenian husbands or wives. However vava jan, thrufthfully and perhaps you can enlighten me, as you know more French Canadian wives to be nice about those things; but again, how many of these odar wives or husbands will be sweet and adhering towards yours?

 

I have no idea what you're asking here, and what you mean by "adhering". What is there to "adhere" to? Ethnicity is not like glue - there are no "rules" or laws that one must follow to be part of an ethnic group.

 

Then again, the majority of Armenians are not and at least I hope not to be in the category that you have mentioned above. See, most of them I believe in the Diaspora have more tendencies to be protective towards their culture and ethnicity I believe.

Protection of one's culture and language does not require self-isolation IMO. It's entirely possible, and desirable perhaps, to be more inclusive with our cultural communities, impart our values to others and grow our populations rather than cut ouselves off from eachother until our eventual demise.

 

.... I'd say don't give up the ship and try as best as you can to stay in your own ethnicity even though you are still remaining to live here. Of course, if and when you can it would be ideal to move to Armenia completely!!!

 

What does that mean exactly "stay in your own ethnicity" ? Imagine if everyone thought that way. The divides between cultures would extremely significant... out tendancy these days is towards a more global community, with cultures slowly beginning to understanding eachother. What I think you're advocating is a step backwards for humanity.

[Takoush]

Anahid its not matter of choice or give up the ship, no matter how hard you try you wont have a control over some day your child will grow up and marry an odar, but it does not nasseserely mean he or she will forget the haritage, time does its job, and especialy its thru in USA where assemiliation is very real among Armenians

even if we speak of Armenianes among us I hardly see anything Armenian among those who claim so passionatly they have Armenian haritage, from there songs to how they dress, what they eat and how they speak...nothing resembls to what is known Armenian

Ed, I hear you and understand what you mean; at this time it is not wise to talk big about my child marrying or not marrying an Armenian. Though I will try my very best to bring her up as Armenian as I possibly can for her to want to intermarry with her own kind.

 

For your second point; I can also relate as to what you're saying; though we live in a society that the code of dress ethics are very Europeanised and though you and I cook and eat more Armenian cuisine than perhaps others, but the truth of the matter is that we still eat Armenian food, say about 55-75% of the time approx. and most of the songs I love to hear that talks to me is Armenian. I don't know of others how they relax with which music and songs. Though whenever I want to hear or sing it is Armenian. I also love Armenian books. That's my passion. Though you may have of course more Armenian cultural tendencies as you were actually born in Armenia, I was not. Though considering the fact that I was born abroad I consider myself to be very Armenian and a lover of my own culture and ethnicity. I am sure there are many more Armenians that are just as much and even more than me.

Edited May 19, 2006 by Anahid Takouhi