survivors by touryan-miller

[aurguplu]

i have just received "survivors: an oral history of the armenian genocide" by donald & lorna touryan-miller. i would like to know whether anyone has read it, and if so, what they think of it, and whether there are any other books on oral history of the ag they know about.

 

[ November 15, 2002, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: aurguplu ]

[Rubo]

Hi Ali, I am reading a book by a survivor titled “Rebirth” by Elise Hagopian.I just started but already very interesting details. Once finished I can send it to you.

[Boghos]

I am at the office and I don´t recall the titles of small press books , but here is one that might interest you:

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/192...8531892-3162510

 

[ November 18, 2002, 05:18 AM: Message edited by: Boghos ]

[MJ]

There are very few books written on Armenian history by professionals - less than a handful. The primary reason is that Armenian History has been or is of very little interest to a non Armenian scholar or has been only of derivative interest. In the pure sense of the word, Armenia doesn't even have much of a history but has been taken out of the history for most of the history - how about this phrase. Armenia's history is very episodic. Armenians do have history, in contrast, but it is a history of survival, and there is no strong insentive to write about such low categories or values.

 

Furthermore, the few Armenian monks that have written monographs are frequently equivalent to the historians of Communist Party, per se. The integrity of their narration is frequently highly questionable and scandalous. Khorenatsi is a good example.

 

On the other hand, there is a large body of professional articles in professional journals with a lot of useful information. However, this is not convenient for quick reading.

 

One of the primary flaws of the books written by Armenian historians (haven't read R. Hovhannessian, so cannot judge about it - however would expect that it meets the professional standards) is the fact of them being deprived of a proper context or methodology, in the first place. If it is something written in Soviet Armenian historians, according to the requirements of the regime it is put in a methodological framework of "class struggle." If it is writtten by a Diasporan Armenian, it is about "Armenians being the first Christian nation amongst the barbarians."

 

In my view, the proper understanding of Armenian history requires application of adequate analytic methodology. Then, everything else would become self-evident based on the history of the region at-large.

[Boghos]

Agreed. I have read Hovhanissian´s volume on the aftermath of the first Republic and I found it reasonably well written if a bit monotonous. Ter Minasian is another source of some academic quality, especially for contemporary history.

 

There is plenty of primary source material available on Armenia and Armenians starting in the XIX century. I am yet to see a good book on the period preceding the Genocide that does not have it as a leitmotiv.

[aurguplu]

maybe a history of armenians is a better working title than a history of armenia.

 

the notion of armenia has been subject to changes and frequent and long lasting submergations throughout history, but the notion of armenian identity has been relatively constant, if i am not mistaken: it may therefore make more sense to write a history of the people than the place.

 

what do you think?

[MJ]

There is a lot written about Armenians. I for one have never been interested in reading about it.

 

The notion of Armenian identity has not been constant, either. It is yet to be crystallized. I think the establishment of the Republic will inevitably lead to clarifications in few decades.

 

In my previous note, I forgot to say that the absolute majority of Armenians, under the best scenario, knows about Armenian history from the few historic novels - magnificent ones - written by Raffi, Demirchian, Muratsan, etc. Even such dramatic events in Armenian history as the battle of Avarair are much misinterpreted and falsified. This is consistent with the desire of injecting a set of symbols with the purpose of inspiring self-indulgence.

 

I am far from ascribing such behavior only to Armenians. If we compare it with the Turks, for example, obviously on that stage of comperission Armenians would be innocent wanderers.

[aurguplu]

thanks rubo.

 

i would like to have your comments if you read the touryan-miller book. i am compiling my own (received the book this friday and just finished reading it over the weekend).

 

also, i am a bit disappointed with redgate's "the armenians" from blackwell's publishers, as i had said in the relevant thread. i am looking for a one volume history (preferably written by an armenian) which is more matter of factly in style, and for god's sake, has a decent chronology from centuries b.c. to the present day (otherwise it's easy to get lost in three thousand years of history, especially if you have no former exposure to it, or have a probably distorted one). i was going to try hovhannissian (the two-volume edition) but apparently 1) the first volume is not available, 2) the thing is horrendously expensive and 3) no second-hand copies are available.

 

also, this weekend i made a rather curious discovery in a bookshop in istanbul which is now part of my library: the battle of sardarabad by kajaloff. interesting reading.

 

i am currently building a library on things armenian, with armenian and pro-armenian, turkish and pro-turkish and apparently neutral stuff is going to be there. the only serious problem is that the things are so very expensive, especially the older stuff.

 

cheers,