as i see it - Pt. III

[DominO123]

Ara, for the record I do not hate "Turks" and or "Jews", but rather, I mistrust them.

 

My entire argument is that you're writings contradict one another because at one end you condemn Turks for their actions, but at another you support them by justifying what they did?

 

It is not progressive to hate the Turks of today, but the fact that they "deny" what they did is what that has fueled the fire. Furthermore, their government is as nationalistic as Nazi Germany, so, Armenians have a God given right to mistrust them.

 

Ara, there just is no way to reconcile with a population that is out to create a Pan-Turkish nation at the expense of Armenian independence.

 

Armenians are not the aggressors and quit implying that they are. I am not here wearing an "I hate Turkey" T-Shirt, but someone has to acknowledge what happened in the past. The worlds has to, either, accept the Armenian recollection of the events or the Turkish, but one has to be the dominant version of those historic events.

 

However, you are right in that Armenians were taking steps towards liberation, but can you blame them?

That's great, Vigil has found someone to debate with.

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, August 04, 2004

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

TWO KINDS OF REACTIONS.

PAINFUL ADMISSIONS.

WHAT IS OTTOMANISM AND SOVIETISM?

VERBAL MASSACRE.

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

If you voice an opinion that is your own as opposed to being regurgitated chauvinist crapola, you will get two kinds of reactions from Armenians: those who are civilized or born-again human beings will say: "I disagree with you," after which they will proceed to explain why. The Ottomanized Armenians, by contrast, will call you names - jerk, moron, idiot, Turk…and even ask you such questions as, "Was your mother a concubine in a Turkish harem?" As you may have guessed by now, I speak from experience.

*

Six hundred years, even sixty years, is a long time, and whether we like it or not, we have all been to some degree Ottomanized or Sovietized or both.

*

Where there is an ism there will also be an anti-ism, namely (in our case) anti-Ottomanism and anti-Sovietism. One reason I stress the Ottomanism and Sovietism in some Armenians is that I have developed an allergy towards these aberrations that have made of us a nation of frauds who speak with a forked tongue and legitimize treason in the name of patriotism and subservience in the name of freedom.

*

Authoritarianism is another symptom of our Ottomanism and Sovietism, and authoritarianism creates an environment where the liars at the top are free to lie and those who dare to speak the truth are rudely and unceremoniously interrupted and, whenever possible, silenced. Which is why an opinion that springs from personal observation and experience and does not bear the seal of approval of a boss, bishop or benefactor provokes verbal abuse, gutter disapproval, and sometimes even verbal massacre.

#

[ara baliozian]

Ara, for the record I do not hate "Turks" and or "Jews", but rather, I mistrust them.

 

My entire argument is that you're writings contradict one another because at one end you condemn Turks for their actions, but at another you support them by justifying what they did?

 

It is not progressive to hate the Turks of today, but the fact that they "deny" what they did is what that has fueled the fire. Furthermore, their government is as nationalistic as Nazi Germany, so, Armenians have a God given right to mistrust them.

 

Ara, there just is no way to reconcile with a population that is out to create a Pan-Turkish nation at the expense of Armenian independence.

 

Armenians are not the aggressors and quit implying that they are. I am not here wearing an "I hate Turkey" T-Shirt, but someone has to acknowledge what happened in the past. The worlds has to, either, accept the Armenian recollection of the events or the Turkish, but one has to be the dominant version of those historic events.

 

However, you are right in that Armenians were taking steps towards liberation, but can you blame them?

i see nothing wrong in hating murderers of innocent women and children. even the bible tells us it is evil not to hate evil.

as for justifying the turks: whatever gave you that idea? to explain is not to justify.

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, August 05, 2004

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

CRITICISM AND HATRED.

WHY IS ISRAEL PRO-TURKISH?

A REVERSAL OF ROLES.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NATIONS.

THE IRRELEVANCE OF LITERATURE.

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

The difference between being critical of American politics and being anti-American is that, Michael Moore’s FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is critical, whereas Muslim fanatics are anti-American.

*

Something similar could be said of anti-Armenianism and of being critical of Armenian politics. Movses Khorenatsi, Yeghishe, Raffi, Baronian, Odian, Zohrab, Zarian, Massikian, Shahnour and many others were critical of Armenian politics, but Sultan Abdulhamid II and Talaat were anti-Armenian.

*

Perhaps one reason the Israelis are pro-Turkish is that they would like to do to Palestinians what the Turks did to us. And I cannot help wondering what would have happened had the Ottoman Empire been an Armenian Empire and the Turks our “Armenians.” One guess: We would have done to them what we did to the Azeris in Karabagh (more or less), and having done so we would brag about it; and when asked to admit responsibility or guilt we would accuse our accusers of anti-Armenianism sure in the knowledge that we would have the support and understanding of all imperial powers who at one time or another had been in our position.

*

Like individuals, nations too have their psychological complexes. This is not a secret. Anyone in a leadership position knows this but it is to his advantage to exploit these complexes rather than to analyze them, if only because analyzing them may expose him as a wheeler-dealer whose number one concern is number one but who must pretend otherwise by parading as a selfless and humble servant of the nation.

*

Sartre is right. Literature solves nothing and helps no one. Our history is very clear on this point. Writing for Armenians is a waste of time. But I go on because Armenianism has been hijacked by rascals and standing by and saying nothing is as difficult as witnessing a gang rape and assuming a passive stance. So what if everything I have said so far doesn’t even amount to a whisper on a deserted street in the middle of the night?

[ara baliozian]

Friday, August 06, 2004

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

DEFINING PROPAGANDA.

POWER STRUCTURES AND DISSIDENTS.

ARMENIAN HISTORY 101.

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

One Way to define propaganda is to say that it is anything and everything that a power structure tells you.

*

If a common crook or a pathological liar tells you 2+2=4, believe it. But if a power structure tells you the same thing, believe it not.

*

To recycle propaganda means admitting two things at once: “I am a dupe,” and “I hate to think for myself.”

*

Power structures are not monolithic entities; rather, they have internal fissures and divisions with constantly shifting alliances. A smart Armenian who wants to survive in our environment must sooner or later associate himself with and be subservient to either a boss, bishop or benefactor, all of whom unite only against a common adversary, dissidents. That may explain why Armenian dissidents are an extinct species today.

*

The French beheaded their king, the Russians executed their czar, and the Italians hanged Mussolini. Our leaders have managed to survive because they brainwashed us to believe we owe our survival to them.

*

“When the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch,” the Bible tells us. Our history in a nutshell.

*

When the blind leads the blind and the inevitable happens, should we call that leading or misleading?

*

When the blind lead the blind and if both are Armenian, they will brag about their survival even as they lament over their shattered bones.

#

[ara baliozian]

Saturday, August 07, 2004

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

THE USES AND ABUSES OF PATRIOTISM.

DEFINING HOMELAND.

WHAT IS CULTURE?

MEMO TO A CRITIC.

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

Why is it that some Armenians are not emotionally and intellectually equipped to disagree without engaging in verbal abuse? And to think that more often than not they are the very same Armenians who reject the label "Ottomanized." And then there are Armenians who think there is nothing wrong in hating a fellow Armenian or an entire class of them so long as it's in the name of patriotism; and their definition of patriotism is so narrow that any other definition is dismissed as treason.

*

What is patriotism? Let's see if we can define it or at least take a step in the right direction. If we say it is love of country (in the sense of homeland) then we shall have to define country: is it the real estate? -- the mountains, lakes, rivers and valleys? Is it the Armenian people as a whole? Is it the present regime or the administration of justice? Is it the culture? Things, as you may begin to suspect, are not as simple as they may appear to be at first sight.

*

If by country we mean the land, then we must ask the question: In what way Armenian mud is different from Turkish mud?

If it is the people: Does that mean you are less of a patriot if you hate or disagree with even a single fellow Armenian?

If it is our culture: What is culture? Or, who is qualified to define it? - a politician (whose central concern is power), a priest? (whose business is saving souls), or a writer (whose aim is to understand reality by separating fact from propaganda)?

*

If, on the other hand, we adopt Goethe's definition of homeland ("Wherever a man is allowed to work and provide for his family") we may have to agree that Armenians of the Diaspora and Armenians in the Homeland who wish to emigrate (and I am told everyone except policemen and politicians does), Armenian patriotism might as well be an oxymoron.

*

It took me about three decades to figure out what's what and who's who in our environment. Instead of calling me names or identifying me as an enemy of the people, I suggest you give yourself a little more time before you jump to conclusions - unless of course you happen to be one of our dime-a-dozen geniuses or self-appointed experts on any given subject born with superior powers of observation and understanding. In which case you should get busy sermonizing and speechifying in an effort not only to convert skeptics like me but also to re-interpret the work of many of our ablest writers who at one time or another adopted a critical stance.

#

[Vigil]

It took me about three decades to figure out what's what and who's who in our environment. Instead of calling me names or identifying me as an enemy of the people, I suggest you give yourself a little more time before you jump to conclusions - unless of course you happen to be one of our dime-a-dozen geniuses or self-appointed experts on any given subject born with superior powers of observation and understanding. In which case you should get busy sermonizing and speechifying in an effort not only to convert skeptics like me but also to re-interpret the work of many of our ablest writers who at one time or another adopted a critical stance.

 

Ara, for the record, I never "called you names", but rather I want you to be more direct so that we can understand you're ideas and suggestions. However, I do not agree with most of you're views, but in no way have I ever insulted you.

[ara baliozian]

does anyone on this forum know an Armenian in Marseilles?

i am trying to locate an old friend there.

thanks for your cooperation. / ara

[ara baliozian]

Ara, for the record, I never "called you names", but rather I want you to be more direct so that we can understand you're ideas and suggestions. However, I do not agree with most of you're views, but in no way have I ever insulted you.

dear V.:

i assure you i did not have you in mind.

why feel guilty if you are innocent? / ara

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, August 08, 2004

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

THE NATIVE TONGUE.

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

In the Greek ghetto where I grew up the old folks spoke in Turkish among themselves and the kids spoke in Greek. Once when urged to speak in Armenian by the old, I asked my dad: “You speak in Turkish, and yet you insist that we speak in Armenian, why?” My father explained: “We speak in Turkish because the Turks used to threaten to cut out our tongues if they caught as speaking in Armenian.” Armenians must have been an obedient bunch, I remember to have thought, because there were no Armenians in the ghetto of several thousand (all of them refugees from the Ottoman Empire) with missing tongues or any kind of speech impediment.

*

The question we should ask at this point is: If it was Ottoman policy to cut out tongues, why is it that they allowed Armenian writers to write and publish hundreds of books and dozens of newspapers, periodicals, and calendars in Istanbul? Unless of course cutting out tongues was a policy implemented only in the interior provinces. But then, even in remote villages there were Armenian churches and schools and most of our writers were educated in such provincial schools.

*

Consider what is happening in the Diaspora today: most Armenians cannot or don’t want to speak in Armenian even though no one is threatening to cut out their tongues if they choose to do so. And most Armenians prefer to assimilate perhaps because they instinctively see no future in keeping their identity, culture and traditions – except perhaps when it comes to shish-kebab and pilaf.

*

The thought now occurs to me that perhaps when our elders reminisce about the “old country” they do not always speak the truth.

*

Cutting out tongues is a barbaric custom and it is against the law in all civilized countries, including America. But in what way silencing a writer is not cutting out his tongue? And of what possible use is the fundamental human right of free speech if it is employed only to recycle propaganda or to engage in verbal vandalism? -- which consists in doing to civilized discourse what the Turks did to us.

*

Perhaps what I am trying to say here is that, if you ever want to assert your Armenianism, do not behave like a Turk, and when someone points that out to you, do not pretend not to see it.

#

[Vigil]

Ara, you have a point there. I have met many Turkish Armenians that are more Turkish than Armenian? Can you elaborate?

[ara baliozian]

Monday, August 09, 2004

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

RAFFI’S THEORY.

A 19TH-CENTURY FALLACY.

INFANTILE CRITICISM.

WHAT IS MORAL COMPASS?

I PROPOSE AN EXPERIMENT.

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

Raffi once ascribed all our defeats to treason, which, he said, “is in our blood.” The conception of “blood” as the source of racial traits or national character is, of course, a 19th-century fallacy. Instead of blood, we now speak of convolutions of the brain, or environmental conditioning, or collective unconscious. Raffi’s theory is not without merit, however, even if it requires some terminological updating.

*

In my view, all our misfortunes may be ascribed not to blood or fate or an extension of powers beyond our control or comprehension, but to a certain type of individual or rather meddler (and here we can borrow Odian’s terminology by calling him a Panchoonie) who, in today’s parlance, would be described as a loud-mouth smart-ass with the moral compass of a certified moron, by which I mean an inherent inability to tell the difference between patriotism and fascism, or between Armenianism and Ottomanism (or Sovietism). When such a type preaches tolerance, he means tolerance only of his own ideas. As for free speech, dialogue, compromise, consensus, and democracy: he dismisses them all as Western aberrations. In his view, the West is morally bankrupt, and Armenianism (meaning Ottomanism) is a superior brand of ideology, mindset, or system of thought. And if you were to ask him how does he know these things or what has been his experience in the field, he will either call you names or ascribe his wisdom to his racial inheritance or blood.

*

Because I have written again and again against dogmatism, intolerance, authoritarianism, all forms of fascism and racism, I have been called dogmatic, intolerant, authoritarian, fascist and racist – among other things. I call this type of criticism infantile or bounce criticism, because it doesn’t require any thinking: it simply bounces back the criticism to the critic; and infantile because that’s exactly how we reacted when we were kids: when someone called us a liar, we replied: “You are the liar!”

*

To those who say writers are unreliable because they are eccentrics, sometimes even unstable, I suggest the following experiment: ask any alienated or assimilated Armenian (and there are millions of them): “Why? Why are you alienated?” or “What motivated you to opt for assimilation?” and don’t be surprised if his reasons are variants of the very same ideas that I have been expounding here.

#

[ara baliozian]

Ara, you have a point there. I have met many Turkish Armenians that are more Turkish than Armenian? Can you elaborate?

dear V.:

that's exactly what i have been doing -- elaborating on that point. / ara

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

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

ARMENIAN HISTORIANS AND THEIR COUNTERPARTS.

A MATTER OF CREDIBILITY.

HOW TO RECONCILE THE IRRECONCILABLE.

WHO WAS ARTIN DADIAN?

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

Even though Armenian pundits and historians don’t always agree with one another and notwithstanding the fact that I have myself been exposed to a great deal of nonsense by them, I have been brought up to believe they are fundamentally more honest than their Turkish counterparts. The problem is, most Turks have also been brought up (or brainwashed, if you prefer) to believe their own historians are more honest than their Armenian counterparts. How to reconcile these two opposite camps?

*

I am told some Armenian historians, among them our foremost Genocide authority, Vahakn Dadrian, are now available in Turkish. On the day we translate and publish Turkish historians into Armenian, we may be in a better position to see the light at the end of the tunnel. But I for one am not holding my breath. Armenians refuse to publish even their own writers who refuse to recycle a certain brand of crapola.

*

How many of my readers, I wonder, are familiar with the name of Artin Dadian? – a prominent member of the Ottoman Administration under Sultan Abdulhamid II, who wrote the following letter to our revolutionaries in 1898:

“I suggest that today we exercise nothing but patience and tolerance. First, Europe shows complete indifference and says there is no Armenian question as far as they are concerned. Second, the threat of the complete annihilation of the Armenian nation has not yet entirely passed, and third, the people are tired of revolutionary deeds and are ready to patch up their differences with the government in order to remain safe from further terrible events as have almost wiped out our people from the face of the earth. Fourth, various organizations are fighting different causes, each in their own way, and in the middle of all this stands one pitiful Artin Dadian, who on the one hand begs the Sultan for mercy by telling him that this would be the best thing for his empire and on the other hand fights base individuals who in order to attain their selfish aims are even willing to sell their nation. I believe it will be proper, as I have mentioned countless times before, for our people to patch up their differences with the Sultan.”(*)

 

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

(*)See THE ROLE OF THE DADIAN FAMILY IN OTTOMAN, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND POLITICAL LIFE by Pars

Tuglaci (Istanbul, 1993).

#

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, August 11, 2004

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

VARIETIES OF PATRIOTISM.

FREE SPEECH AND ITS DEFENDERS.

DO I REPEAT MYSELF?

DISSENT AS TREASON.

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

Patriotism has several meanings, including some that are downright unpatriotic. Patriotism is unpatriotic when it consists in supporting and defending a corrupt or incompetent leadership whose ultimate if unstated aim is the destruction of the homeland. Cases in point: Italian and German patriotism under Mussolini and Hitler, or, for that matter, under any form of power structure that views dissent (or free speech) as treason.

*

Like patriotism, free speech too has more than one definition, and under all authoritarian regimes it means only one kind of speech and one kind of ideas, any other kind being a manifestation of hostility that should be suppressed.

*

I remember to have read only one editorial in defense of free speech in our partisan papers -- that's when Levon Der Bedrossian banned the ARF press in Armenia.

*

No doubt some of my readers will think I am expressing these views because I have been silenced by our press. "What if you have been silenced because you are wrong?" they may even demand to know. Free speech and the possibility of being wrong are not mutually exclusive and might as well be synonymous. If we say free speech is a privilege accorded only to the wise and the infallible, who among us would qualify? Or who among us would admit to being unwise and foolish?

*

Have I said all this before? Probably. Do I bore you with my obsession with a limited number of ideas? If yes, do yourself a favor and stop reading me. No doubt you will find more variety and entertainment in the kind of talk that says we were the first nation to convert to Christianity and the first nation to suffer a genocide in the 20th century, the implication being, we owe our Christianity to our enlightened, progressive and far-sighted kings and our massacres to the barbarism of the Turks and the hypocrisy of the West; which also means that our leaders (unlike all other leaders) can do no wrong and anyone who says otherwise is an enemy.

#

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, August 12, 2004

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

A MATTER OF SEMANTICS

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

It is wrong to say “The Turks massacred us.” We should say instead, “Some Turks massacred us.” Not all Turks were bloodthirsty savages. Had they been, there would have been no survivors.

*

When we ascribe the crimes of a few on the many, we do to civilized discourse what the Turks did to us – make it, “what some Turks….” As you can see, habit is an irresistible force and it requires a vigorous and sustained program of re-education.

*

Though I can say these things on a conscious level, there is something within me or deep in my subconscious that wants to cry out: “To hell with semantics! Turks are butchers and barbarians, and no amount of logic can alter their image or minimize the enormity of their crimes against humanity!”

*

It has been said that to generalize is the original sin of the mind. When Turkish and Turcophile historians today try to explain and justify the Genocide by accusing Armenians of disloyalty or acts of terrorism, they generalize too and are therefore abysmally wrong. Most Armenians – the overwhelming majority – within the Ottoman Empire at the turn of the century were law-abiding citizens who lacked political awareness. The revolutionaries were only a handful of misguided agitators who represented no one but themselves.

*

We know that under Stalin, some Armenians tortured and killed fellow Armenians – and they did this to their best and the brightest. We also know that members of the Armenian bureaucracy today are thoroughly corrupt. It doesn’t necessarily follow that all Armenians are sadists, executioners, and bloodsuckers. On the contrary, most Armenians – and again, the overwhelming majority – are victims of Ottomanized partisans and Stalinized bureaucrats who represent no one but themselves.

*

Somewhere we read in the Bible that it is hateful not to hate evil. By all means, let us hate all criminals regardless of nationality, but let us also support and befriend those who are on our side – regardless of nationality – including Turks. To those who say, Turks will never be our friends, I ask: How does one explain the fact that thousands of Armenians today prefer to live in Turkey rather than in Armenia?

[ara baliozian]

Friday, August 13, 2004

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

HUBRIS AND NEMESIS

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

Something very strange happens when an Armenian calls a fellow Armenian an idiot – he turns into one. And there is a reason for that.

The Greeks believed that arrogance (hubris) is sooner or later punished by the gods (Nemesis). One could therefore say that, he who brags about his superior IQ will be punished by the gods who will turn him into a blabbering idiot. Who says there is no justice in this world?

*

When I speak of superior IQ, I speak of Armenian arrogance and inability of Armenians in general and our leaders in particular to admit and learn from their blunders. Why admit blunders if we can blame all our defeats, catastrophes and misfortunes on outside agencies?

*

And now, from the general to the specific. Whenever a reader calls me an idiot, he condemns himself to spend the rest of his life trying to prove that I am an idiot, not because he cares to prove who or what I am – after all, what would be the possible merit in proving that an idiot is in fact an idiot? – but because he wants to prove to himself that he is smart.

*

Calling a fellow Armenian an idiot simply because you disagree with him is doing to civilized discourse what the Turks did to us. This point needs to be repeated and emphasized until it sinks in.

*

I don’t preach a strange cult; neither do I promote a new ism. What I do is express my views as honesty as I can by using my common sense. Instead of calling me names, show me in what way your common sense is different from mine. If you can prove me wrong, why go down into the gutter thus besmirching your own status as a civilized human being and proving once more that “one Armenian eats one chicken; two Armenians eat two chickens; and three Armenians eat each other.”

*

I don’t believe in covering up bad manners in the name of patriotism. If an Armenian does the wrong thing, he should be exposed because ignoring bad manners today may lead to covering up criminal conduct tomorrow.

*

Like all Armenians I too was brought up to condemn Turkish crimes against humanity and Western hypocrisy. But neither Turkish crimes nor universal hypocrisy justifies our intolerance towards and contempt for fellow Armenians. And what could be more contemptible than hurling insults at someone simply because he fails to echo our sentiments and thoughts? And what could be more arrogant than to assert infallibility?

*

If we operate on the assumption that we are smart and we can do no wrong, we condemn ourselves to learn nothing and to remain fixed in our state of total ignorance. If scientists adopted that stance, mankind would now believe the earth is flat and at the center of the universe.

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, August 12, 2004

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

A MATTER OF SEMANTICS

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

It is wrong to say "The Turks massacred us." We should say instead, "Some Turks massacred us." Not all Turks were bloodthirsty savages. Had they been, there would have been no survivors.

*

When we ascribe the crimes of a few on the many, we do to civilized discourse what the Turks did to us - make it, "what some Turks…." As you can see, habit is an irresistible force and it requires a vigorous and sustained program of re-education.

*

Though I can say these things on a conscious level, there is something within me or deep in my subconscious that wants to cry out: "To hell with semantics! Turks are butchers and barbarians, and no amount of logic can alter their image or minimize the enormity of their crimes against humanity!"

*

It has been said that to generalize is the original sin of the mind. When Turkish and Turcophile historians today try to explain and justify the Genocide by accusing Armenians of disloyalty or acts of terrorism, they generalize too and are therefore abysmally wrong. Most Armenians - the overwhelming majority - within the Ottoman Empire at the turn of the century were law-abiding citizens who lacked political awareness. The revolutionaries were only a handful of misguided agitators who represented no one but themselves.

*

We know that under Stalin, some Armenians tortured and killed fellow Armenians - and they did this to their best and the brightest. We also know that members of the Armenian bureaucracy today are thoroughly corrupt. It doesn't necessarily follow that all Armenians are sadists, executioners, and bloodsuckers. On the contrary, most Armenians - and again, the overwhelming majority - are victims of Ottomanized partisans and Stalinized bureaucrats who represent no one but themselves.

*

Somewhere we read in the Bible that it is hateful not to hate evil. By all means, let us hate all criminals regardless of nationality, but let us also support and befriend those who are on our side - regardless of nationality - including Turks. To those who say, Turks will never be our friends, I ask: How does one explain the fact that thousands of Armenians today prefer to live in Turkey rather than in Armenia?

#

Friday, August 13, 2004

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

HUBRIS AND NEMESIS

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

Something very strange happens when an Armenian calls a fellow Armenian an idiot - he turns into one. And there is a reason for that.

The Greeks believed that arrogance (hubris) is sooner or later punished by the gods (Nemesis). One could therefore say that, he who brags about his superior IQ will be punished by the gods who will turn him into a blabbering idiot. Who says there is no justice in this world?

*

When I speak of superior IQ, I speak of Armenian arrogance and inability of Armenians in general and our leaders in particular to admit and learn from their blunders. Why admit blunders if we can blame all our defeats, catastrophes and misfortunes on outside agencies?

*

And now, from the general to the specific. Whenever a reader calls me an idiot, he condemns himself to spend the rest of his life trying to prove that I am an idiot, not because he cares to prove who or what I am - after all, what would be the possible merit in proving that an idiot is in fact an idiot? - but because he wants to prove to himself that he is smart.

*

Calling a fellow Armenian an idiot simply because you disagree with him is doing to civilized discourse what the Turks did to us. This point needs to be repeated and emphasized until it sinks in.

*

I don't preach a strange cult; neither do I promote a new ism. What I do is express my views as honesty as I can by using my common sense. Instead of calling me names, show me in what way your common sense is different from mine. If you can prove me wrong, why go down into the gutter thus besmirching your own status as a civilized human being and proving once more that "one Armenian eats one chicken; two Armenians eat two chickens; and three Armenians eat each other."

*

I don't believe in covering up bad manners in the name of patriotism. If an Armenian does the wrong thing, he should be exposed because ignoring bad manners today may lead to covering up criminal conduct tomorrow.

*

Like all Armenians I too was brought up to condemn Turkish crimes against humanity and Western hypocrisy. But neither Turkish crimes nor universal hypocrisy justifies our intolerance towards and contempt for fellow Armenians. And what could be more contemptible than hurling insults at someone simply because he fails to echo our sentiments and thoughts? And what could be more arrogant than to assert infallibility?

*

If we operate on the assumption that we are smart and we can do no wrong, we condemn ourselves to learn nothing and to remain fixed in our state of total ignorance. If scientists adopted that stance, mankind would now believe the earth is flat and at the center of the universe.

#

Saturday, August 14, 2004

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

THE ART OF LEARNING.

HOMO IGNORAMUS.

ON REPETITION.

ARE WE SMART?

THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION OF ALL.

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

If you don't learn from your friends, you will learn from your enemies - provided of course you survive the lesson.

*

The older I grow the more I realize that reality isn't merely different from anything I know, but different from anything I can imagine.

*

When I compare what I knew as a child with what I know today, and what I know today with what I don't know, I am more than willing to identify myself not as homo sapiens but as homo ignoramus.

*

It has been said that man cannot create a single worm, yet he has created ten thousand gods, and not only believed in them, but also fought, killed and died in their name.

*

Have I said that before? Very probably yes. Do I repeat myself? Certainly. What's wrong with repetition? Readers who criticize me for repeating myself are not themselves against repetition per se. On the contrary. They love repetition to the point of addiction - provided of course what's being repeated is in their favor, such as "Armenians are smart." I have at no time heard an Armenian complain that after being exposed to that line ten thousand times, he has had enough of it. Only once, I remember, many years ago, when I repeated that cliché in the presence of an assimilated Armenian who happened to be a professor at a prestigious American university, he became agitated, almost lost his temper, mumbled some disconnected and incomprehensible words, and gave up in disgust. My guess is, what he tried to say was that being smart in the marketplace does not necessarily translate to being smart in politics; I also know now that when it comes to politics, our collective IQ might as well be single-digit, if not downright negative.

*

And what is even more astonishing (and I can see why the good professor gave up on me in disgust) is that we have consistently refused to learn from our critics, beginning with Movses Khorenatsi and Yeghishe in the 5th century AD to Raffi, Baronian and Voskanian in the 19th century. And because we refused to learn from them, we were taught a harsh lesson from the likes of the Sultan and Talaat.

*

The question we must ask at this point is: What have we learned from our massacres? Reread Khorenatsi and Yeghishe, reread Raffi, Baronian, and Voskanian, and they might as well be our contemporaries. Nothing has changed. Or, as the French are fond of saying: "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme merde."

#

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, August 15, 2004

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

DECLINES AND FALL

OF THE ARMENIAN EMPIRE

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

If at the beginning was the word and if the world is a mess today, it must be because the word has no effect on hooligans; and hooligans come in all sizes and shapes, including professors and schoolteacher as well as political and religious leaders. History is very clear on this point.

*

If patriotism is the last refuge of rascals, hooliganism is the first; and one way to define hooliganism is to say what it is not: it is not a system of thought because its upholders cannot think. Destruction is its sole aim. Which is why it must assume another identity and adopt noble vestments, and what could be more noble and more universally accessible than love of God or homeland? There you have the source of all our miseries: not just Turkish savagery and Western double talk, or for that matter, Assyrian, Persian, Arab, Mongol, and Russian hordes. But hooligans regardless of national origin. This is why the written word has had no effect on our leaders and no writer in the entire history of our literature has ever made a difference, except perhaps Naregatsi, who taught us to grovel in the dust and to repent our countless sins because in the eyes of the Almighty we are no better than the scum of the earth – what a heartless lesson to teach to perennial victims!

*

And consider Zarian, for whom Armenianism was a form of messianism. Dostoevsky believed it was Russia’s manifest destiny to be the messiah of nations. In Zarian’s eyes, Dostoevsky was a charlatan. It was Armenia’s manifest destiny to be the messiah of nations. Zarian believed this with every fiber in his body. It took him several decades and near the end of his life to realize that Armenianism was a mask of hooliganism and Armenians survived by “cannibalizing one another.”

#

[Vigil]

Ara, I have to disagree with you on your last post.

[bellthecat]

Ara, I have to disagree with you on your last post.

I'm sure that Ara would be rather disapointed if everyone agreed with him! In fact, I think getting disagreement is his main source of satisfaction.

[ara baliozian]

Monday, August 16, 2004

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

VARIETIES OF QUESTIONS.

PROMISES AND PREDICTIONS.

PUNDITS AND APOLOGISTS.

CHARLATANS AND RIFFRAFF.

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

Everything I write and everything I have written so far is an answer to some specific question raised at one time or another. Whenever I fail to answer a question it may be because, unlike some of my fellow Armenians, I don’t have all the answers. Another reason: Some of the questions I am asked are not genuine questions but what’s known in the business as loaded or phony questions, such as: “Did your mother enjoy being a concubine in a Turkish harem?” or, “If you are single, is it because you are a homosexual?” But more often than not, I am asked questions whose answers are already known to the interrogator.

*

A wise man once said, we cannot predict the future if we don’t understand the present. This, needless to add, does not apply to men of faith and ideologues, who will tell you they may not have the answers to such petty questions as those dealing with the weather or the stock market, but they do have all the answers to questions that matter or are vital to our welfare as a nation.

*

As a child, I was taught to believe if I did this, that or the other, or rather, if I refrained from doing certain things (for more details see the Ten Commandments) I would go to heaven and live in eternal bliss. Any mullah will tell you today if you die while killing infidel dogs (even if they happen to be innocent women and children), Allah will reward you with 73 virgins.

*

At the turn of the last century we were told by our ideologues that if we rise against the Ottoman Empire we will be rewarded with our historic lands. That dream turned into a nightmare but there are still dupes who believe our partisans were right and reality (in the shape of Turkish savagery and Western double-talk: was there a time when the Turks were civilized and the West honest?) wrong, and if we continue the struggle, sooner or later Mount Ararat will be ours.

*

At this point someone will no doubt remind me that all politicians make promises they have no intention of keeping, and that in politics lies and promises might as well be synonymous. Why make unreasonable demands on our own politicians?

*

As you can see, we are blessed with an abundant supply of self-appointed pundits who have all the answers, and anyone who dares to remind us that truth or reality may not fit in our straight-jacket view of life is a spoil-sport, a cynic, an enemy, and very probably a Turk parading as one of us.

*

The world continues to be at the mercy of charlatans and riffraff who will never run out of dupes, or as Zarian once put it, “of cripples in

[Vigil]

I'm sure that Ara would be rather disapointed if everyone agreed with him! In fact, I think getting disagreement is his main source of satisfaction.

I was going to write a one page explaination as to why to I disagreed with him, but it is just a waste of time.

[ara baliozian]

Ara, I have to disagree with you on your last post.

you disagree with me or reality?

because i too disagree with reality! / ara

[Vigil]

And consider Zarian, for whom Armenianism was a form of messianism. Dostoevsky believed it was Russia’s manifest destiny to be the messiah of nations. In Zarian’s eyes, Dostoevsky was a charlatan. It was Armenia’s manifest destiny to be the messiah of nations. Zarian believed this with every fiber in his body. It took him several decades and near the end of his life to realize that Armenianism was a mask of hooliganism and Armenians survived by “cannibalizing one another.”

 

Ara, can you please explain what this means?