Thursday, October 27, 2005
*************************************
If you compare the contents of your local daily with those of an Armenian weekly, you may notice that odar papers cover an encyclopedic array of subjects and issues, while the Armenian weeklies seem to be obsessed with Turks. Today, for instance, after counting thirteen headlines on Turks in the latest issue of an Armenian weekly of 16 pages, I gave up in disgust. Focusing on Turks also means (a) reinforcing our image as victims, and (b) ignoring or covering up our own present problems of which we have more than our share.
*
Even when, on those rare occasions, we focus on a specific Armenian problem, we do so monomaniacally. During the last couple of months, for instance, I have been reading a veritable eruption of articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor about a couple of Armenian-American benefactors who were cheated by a crook in Yerevan and abused by a thoroughly corrupt or inept justice system.
*
My question is: Why is it that some Armenians who have been fully aware of corrupt practices in the Homeland from day one are heard from only when they are personally stung by them? Don’t they know that by keeping silent they actively legitimize the very same system whose victims they now claim to be? What about the countless other victims, who cannot afford lawyers, are in no position to make headlines, and whose sole alternatives are either emigration or prostitution?
#
Friday, October 28, 2005
***********************************
In what we think and believe we are all dependent on experts and we tend to forget that experts, very much like Armenophile and Turcophile historians, seldom agree on anything. They may be able to reach a consensus in another planet or life, but in this one, never! If it were up to laymen like us, we would continue to think the earth is flat.
*
In the eyes of laymen, televangelists and ayatollahs, or for that matter, popes and bishops are more trustworthy than Socrates.
*
In our belief systems we resemble parrots, and in our defense of these belief systems, we behave more like cannibals.
*
No one has ever killed or died in defense of the flat-earth theory, but millions have been massacred in the name of a fictitious god.
*
All wars and massacres may be said to be consequences of laymen and dupes (but I repeat myself) placing their trust in the judgment of preachers and politicians, whose very survival depends on their self-assessed expertise to rewrite history.
*
Religious leaders not only rewrite history but also the word of god, to the point that a god of love, compassion, and mercy becomes a god of prejudice, intolerance, hatred, and murder. Figure that one out if you can.
#
Saturday, October 29, 2005
*********************************
Armenians come in all sizes and shapes and not all of them are what they pretend to be. Some look like Germans, others like Mongols, Arabs, Jews, and Indians. I even know an Armenian whose name is Kurdoghlanian (literally, son of a Kurd). Speaking of myself: since, on a clear day, I can trace my ancestry all the way back to my father, I could be a combination or permutation of several dozen tribes in all the colors of the rainbow. When I was a little boy, I remember, two neighborhood Greek girls nicknamed me Hirohito.
Raffi may have been wrong when he said “treason and betrayal are in our blood.” What is in our blood may well be divided loyalties and in such a situation to be loyal to one side means to betray the other. And those who want to be loyal to humanity, as opposed to a fraction of it, may have to betray two or more sides.
Something similar could be said of Turks. Since intermarriage (to be politically correct about it) was practiced for centuries in the Ottoman Empire, identifying oneself as a Turk today may serve some vague political classification but is not and cannot be a racial or national or tribal designation.
What about Canadians and Americans? I will never forget the answer of an unbelievably attractive teenager when I asked for her nationality. “Canadian,” she replied; and when I pressed for more details, she said: “Polish, German, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Indian, French….”
The Turks maintain what they did to us at the turn of the last century can’t be called genocide because it had nothing to do with race; it was civil war. Which raises the question: Does civil war justify indiscriminate fratricidal massacre?
#