Be Aware

[DominO123]

Here my two golden napoleons

 

There was NO Eastern and Western Armenia up until 1828. There were Medz Haik (Great Armenia), Pokr Haik (.....petite maybe:) Armenia), Giligia (Cilicia) and some other adjecent regions known as Pontus, Capadokia, Lake Urmia region, Eastern Anatolia who were populated by Armenians at different times but rarely under Armenian rule. The division East / West became effective after 1828 when portion of what geographically might be called Eastern Armenia was 'liberated' and thus became gubernia under the Russian Empire.

Some may argue that there were acctualy Eastern and Western Armenians even before that, but those divisions hadn't had political nature, but cultural and regional just like Northern Armenians are very different from Southern Armenians in their customs and way of life.

Spectra read well what Gamavor has writen, it is on the same line as what Suny writes. And this is an overall accurate info, on the other hand this is against your "protege."

 

Suny is not an anti-Armenian, BTW, he is half Armenian.

 

In his work which you refered, it is writen that Suny is undermining the genocide because he claims that the Turks did that by fear etc... rather than a long planned genocide... I don't see how it can be undetermining the genocide, it is true, I do agree with Suny in most of his views about the genocide, but do disagree in some of them, but it is evident that Suny know and master that event better than your protege.

 

As for "Movses Khorenatsi" I have not read enought of him to come with any conclusions, while you on the other hand think that you can criticise Suny and come up with words such as "always" only because you have read a work criticising him.

[spectra]

Dear Fedix,

 

It is true that Suny is "pro-Armenian" on the Armenian Genocide issue. But he wrote such untrue events that any reader of his article will criticize the Armenian Genocide.

 

The theory of Suny about the Armenian Genocide is as follows. He claims that in 1915 Russia was threatening the almost collapsed Ottoman Empire, therefore, the Ottomans resolved the Armenians Question with a radical way. "Rather than a long-planned and carefully orchestrated program of extermination, the Armenian Genocide was more a vengeful and panicky act of suppression" – Suny, "Nation-making, Nation-breaking," op. cit., p. 16. (Source: "The history of the Armenia as Presented in American Histography" pages 86, 87)

 

Suny has also made mistakes on the number of executed Armenians at the Armenian Genocide. First off he mentioned number of executed Armenians in 1915-1918 was 600,000-1,000,000 (Suny, "Nation-making, Nation-breaking," op. cit., p. 16). Then he mentions in "Looking toward Ararat" book that the number of executed Armenians in 1915-1916 was from few hundred thousand to 1,500.000. And then he says that the number of executed Armenians was 600,000 to 1,500,000. Then in 1993 published "The Revenge of the Past" (Page 74) book Suny changes the number of executed Armenians to 600,000 to 2,500,000. If I were a reader of his work, I'd classify the Armenian Genocide as a total lie. There cannot be such inaccuracy in numbers.

 

The source of the foregoing is "The history of the Armenia as Presented in American Histography" by Armen Aivazian.

 

Fedix, if you would like to continue protecting Suny as a pro-Armenian historian I can provide more articles on that regard and prove that Suny is nothing else than a corrupted anti-Armenian "historian".

Edited January 3, 2004 by spectra

[DominO123]

Spectra, have you once read by yourself Sunys books? Why do you have to criticise an individual which you have not read any of his books?

 

Aivazian is manipulating Sunys works and making it say things that it doesn't say. First of all, one doesn't understand why Aivazian doesn't place any importance on the major work of Suny published in 1983, "Armenia in the Twentieth Century" where he refer that according to the sources there has been from 600,000-1,5 million victims, he repeat this in various other papers and works, one of which you pointed out here.

 

Aivazian, and you wrongly are attributing orders here, like if he has changed his claims and increased the number of victims, while one of his first work already placed the number of victims from 600,000 to 1.5 million(1983), those numbers he provide he make it clear that the sources varies from one to the other. In fact, Suny never claimed any numbers of victims he just refered to what sources were giving.

 

His 600,000 was the second references from Toynbees work, he is not making up numbers, Suny is the type of person that does not make any calculations or estimations but rather reprint what sources say about things.

 

"Looking toward Ararat" "few thousands" is a reprint of Turkish histography, and I don't see anything wrong here when the author specify the sources. If there is other avelable sources he will just print them.

 

Now comming to the premeditation part. Suny never denies there has been a premeditation on the act of genocide, he stat that there never really was a long planned plan set for the genocide, I have not find either any evidences which will contradict Sunys conclusion. The Ottoman did feared, such reasons existed, it would give too much credit to the Ottoman to think that a long term planned premeditation was prepared long ago, the Ottoman could not have known that there was to be a war, as well, the entry in the war was not voted because the Ittihadist heads were afraid that it will even not pass. If such long planned decision was taken, why would that be the cases?

 

As well, there is other events, such as changing the governors in area's where the governors refused to executate the decision(extermination), if it was a long planned decision, do you not think that those that could accomplish what was demanded not be already the governors?

 

Sunys opinion is that the decision of extermination was taken during the war, from my researchs, it was probably taken in feb. 1915, after the defeat of the Ottoman on the Russian front,... all the problems accumulated for years just exploded in this war, the Ottoman just exploded on the Armenians. This is it, it is similair to the decision by the NAZI during their defeat on the Soviet front early on the war.

 

To conclude, nothing you present here support your conclusion that Suny is a corrupted individual.

Edited January 3, 2004 by Fadix

[spectra]

Fedix, you do your thing, I will do my thing, this thread is getting boring. I know who are corrupted and who are not. I rather to follow an Armenian who was born in Armenia. Suny-Muny, and such people have no right to WRITE the Armenian history.

 

All of this time I've posted facts what Suny said and what Aivazians opinion was.

[DominO123]

Suny-Muny, and such people have no right to WRITE the Armenian history.

 

All of this time I've posted facts what Suny said and what Aivazians opinion was.

Who the heck are you to forbidden anyone to write about Armenian history?

 

And no you have not posted any facts about what Suny said, you reported what Aivazian said about what Suny said and concluded what was said by Suny from Aivazian opinion.

 

Can I ask you a question? Beside Aivazian, what other author have you read to give yourself the right to reject Suny? I mean, in order to take such a step, one must have a knowledge of the events and facts presented by Suny. No?

[hagopn]

Aivazian is manipulating Sunys works and making it say things that it doesn't say. First of all, one doesn't understand why Aivazian doesn't place any importance on the major work of Suny published in 1983, "Armenia in the Twentieth Century" where he refer that according to the sources there has been from 600,000-1,5 million victims, he repeat this in various other papers and works, one of which you pointed out here.

Domino,

 

1. Aivazian has not "misrepreseented Suny," as I have read the "Looking Toward Ararat" cover to cover, and the impression it left on me was precisely as described by Aivazian. I see Aivazian to be honest, at least more so than Suny.

 

2. Aivazian does not deny that Suny has pro-Armenian publications. Here is where you miss the most important critique Azivazian makes on Suny: Aivazian has basically caught Suny making the 180 degree turn in ideology concerning Armenian nationality. Not only that, he has caught Suny making that turn in conicidence with the State Department's shift in policy towards teh Armenian Question, the Artsax issue and so on. In other words, Aivazian has managed to show that Suny merely tows the line for the US State Department to the point of mimicking their sentiments when its suits him and them. When the State Department is pro-Armenian nationalism and pro-Armenian claims to Artsax based on "historical grievances and claims," so does Suny support him 100%.

 

3. Suny, however, has managed to misrepresent Aivazian in gross exaggerations on small points, by quoting sentences out of context. This is typical of a trained propagandist. That is what they do best.

 

4. Aivazian, on the other hand, has caught Suny in a definite PATTERN of behavior that, ironically and quite contrary to your opinion, show that Suny has printed BOTH pro and anti-Nationalist rhetoric when it suits the - well - State Department.

[MSHAK]

spectra, I havn't read his new work, but did read some of his others, (those in Armenian, I have tried to read them with my limited Armenian reading). What I can say, is that I hope he don't get translated his Armenian works in English.

 

His Karabagh work is rather interesting, the only one beside "The Armenian Rebellion of the 1720s and the Threat of Genocidal Reprisal". No wonder those get translated and the others not.

 

His works are on the limit of racism if you ask me, picturing Armenians as superior "race" and he even don't manage himself.

 

Example:  "With the two rivers [i.e. Euphrates and Tigris] and the [Noah's] Ark, we stand higher than all other[nation]s! "

 

This is a quote from the conclusion translated in English by him.

 

Still, I will be reading his last work, just to see the way he slander others with his arrogance... since his works are free of access here.

 

http://www.artsakhworld.com/Armen_Aivazian...g/MainPage.html

 

Most of them worth just that, free of access and not worth spending anything on them. Reading him, one will feel reading works from Turkish scholars that can't diferenciate myths from realities.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

The passage you are talking about is from Aivazian's book "Mother Tongue and the Origins of Nationalism." In his book he only compares Russian, English, Armenian and French nationalism bringing quotes from Richard Carew, Mikhail Lomonosov, Yeghishe and others.

 

The quote you have mentioned, "With the two rivers [i.e. Euphrates and Tigris] and the [Noah's] Ark, we stand higher than all other[nation]s!", is from Yegishe 5-th century Armenian historian who has written the history of Vardanank. Aivazian brings that quote as an example of Armenian nationalism. In other chapters, he quotes French nationalism, "The sweet French tongue is the most beautiful, gracious and noble language in the world, the best accpeted and loved...." In your "logic", Armena Aivazian is also French racist

 

What about Suny, I'd better quote one phrase from him, "Azerbaijani flag should fly upon the government buildings of Stepanakert" (Source: S.Maghakyan, "Dangerous point for Armenia", interview by Levon Marashlian, published in VASN HAYUTYAN Armenian weekly, Yerevan, August, 2004, in Armenian)

[DominO123]

What about Suny, I'd better quote one phrase from him, "Azerbaijani flag should fly upon the government buildings of Stepanakert" (Source: S.Maghakyan, "Dangerous point for Armenia", interview by Levon Marashlian, published in VASN HAYUTYAN Armenian weekly, Yerevan, August, 2004, in Armenian)

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I am not interested into discussing this matter. I will just make few comments.

 

I have posted the link of the essay where Suny say that... from it, one may conclude that those selectively quoting it are doing the exact same thing then Turkish appologists.

 

I will not post the link again, I am not interested into wasting my time in this topic.

 

Oh and, if Aivazian work was well supported and really worthwile, he's doctoral theses would not have been rejected. Seems that he wasn't able to defend his theses afterall.

Edited December 16, 2004 by Fadix

[MSHAK]

I am not interested into discussing this matter. I will just make few comments.

 

I have posted the link of the essay where Suny say that... from it, one may conclude that those selectively quoting it are doing the exact same thing then Turkish appologists.

 

I will not post the link again, I am not interested into wasting my time in this topic.

 

Oh and, if Aivazian work was well supported and really worthwile, he's doctoral theses would not have been rejected. Seems that he wasn't able to defend his theses afterall. 

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

If the people who are decide whether Aivazian should get his doctoral or not, are like you, who cannot read books and mix quotations with thesis, of course he won't get it.

 

Hovhannes Toumanian hadn't finished his high school. But he was still genius.

 

Why didn't u respond to the first part of my post? Huhe? Nothing to say? Are you ashamed for lying or what?

[DominO123]

If the people who are decide whether Aivazian should get his doctoral or not, are like you, who cannot read books and mix quotations with thesis, of course he won't get it.

 

Hovhannes Toumanian hadn't finished his high school. But he was still genius.

 

Why didn't u respond to the first part of my post? Huhe? Nothing to say? Are you ashamed for lying or what?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Or maybe there is a simpler explanation, and that I am not interested to go back and start reading his works again?

 

Given your uses of Suny quotes regarding Azerbaijan, ... I don't think you are honnest to discuss with.

 

Toumanian was an artist, in this cases it is different, it's about research and documentation, if you are in no position to defend your doctoral theses, you don't get your degree. It's as simple as that. A theses should be supported by valid arguments, your hero was not able to validly support his theses.

 

I will trust the judgement of a university against yours if you don't mind.

Edited December 16, 2004 by Fadix

[MSHAK]

Or maybe there is a simpler explanation, and that I am not interested to go back and start reading his works again?

 

Given your uses of Suny quotes regarding Azerbaijan, ... I don't think you are honnest to discuss with.

 

Toumanian was an artist, in this cases it is different, it's about research and documentation, if you are in no position to defend your doctoral theses, you don't get your degree. It's as simple as that. A theses should be supported by valid arguments, your hero was not able to validly support his theses.

 

I will trust the judgement of a university against yours if you don't mind.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

You didn't respond to the first part again. I accept it as your realization for attemptly missquoting Aivazian and calling him racist without any reason. You should at least apologize for that.

[DominO123]

You didn't respond to the first part again. I accept it as your realization for attemptly missquoting Aivazian and calling him racist without any reason. You should at least apologize for that.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I think I answered simply.

 

I will just repeat it.

 

I will not reread his works, the last time I've tried reading them, it ended up being a waste of time.

 

LAST NOTE

 

Furthermore, when one uses another reference to support a cases, the uses of the reference is considered an example and is self-explanatory. If I were to write a work regarding Turks, and in my study I quote from someone that wrote: "Turks are barbarians," the example in question is used in the argumentation as an example to support a position; if not, it has no places in the study.

 

Your hero, is not studying the "mistakes" in those quotes, rather he is using them to support HIS arguments.

 

As for apology, I'll apologise once you apologise to the Armenian accademia whom you slandered in your other thread regarding your heros failure to obtain his PhD. And since we're there, appologise to Suny for having manipulated what he said with your selective quoting.

 

For me this cases is closed, if you think you will drag me in this worthless discussion, you're greatly mistaken. Even more mistaken, if you think that I will take someone with such an avatar as yours seriously. Sorry, find another one to talk about this subject.

Edited December 16, 2004 by Fadix