Thursday, November 23, 2006
**************************************************
REFLECTIONS
**************************
Let others speak of Armenian pride. I prefer to speak of Armenian courage, the kind that allows us to take an objective look at ourselves and assess the damage that centuries of oppression has done to our psyche.
*
One of the hardest things in life is to convince an Armenian idiot that he is not a genius. I did not say that. One of my gentle readers did. And he was talking about me.
*
Dialogue is an unArmenian activity, and if you can insult someone from a safe distance, why stand on ceremony?
*
There is a type of reader who reads to have his views confirmed. The only way to please such a reader is to find out what he thinks about a specific subject and repeat it to him. As for good manners: I guess that’s making too many demands on victims of massacres.
*
There is something about me that Armenians don’t like. But perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there is something about Armenians that Armenians don’t like. Is it because they see reflections of themselves?
#
Friday, November 24, 2006
********************************************
Even as children in the ghetto we used to quote a Turkish saying that, if memory serves, went something like this: “Chok ghareshterma, bokhou chekar” – freely translated: “Don’t stir things too much, you may expose the shit.”
Listen to a German philosopher (Herbert Marcuse) saying almost the same thing: “Remembering the past may be a source of dangerous intuitions, which is why an established society has reason to fear the subversive contents of memory.”
*
Speaking of simplifications, I remember to have read somewhere the following assertion by a Turkish diplomat to an American politician: “Why all the fuss about Armenian massacres? We did to them what you did to your Indians. Think of Armenians as our Indians.”
*
Perhaps my mistake consists in not allowing my patriotism to direct and shape my analysis. But if I were to value my patriotism over my objectivity, I would do what our enemies do and say, in effect, even at our worst we are better; or, even our crap is better than their rose-jam.
*
I believe in Armeno-Turkish dialogue, but I also believe before we tackle that challenge, we should learn to engage in Armeno-Armenian dialogue.
*
I prefer a tolerant Turk to an intolerant Armenian.
*
Everyone writes these days: politicians, singers, actors, directors, Popes, Oriental carpet dealers (at least three of them wanted me to translate their memoirs into English), bordello madams, and serial killers… When my plumber found out I was a writer, he said he too was writing a book.
*
Why would anyone who knows anything about Armenians and Armenian literature choose to be an Armenian writer? I wish I knew. As for success: I shall consider myself a success if I survive…and so far so good.
#
Saturday, November 25, 2006
**********************************************
HISTORY-MAKERS AND HISTORIANS
*****************************************************
It is an undeniable fact that history is not always made by the best and the brightest. Think of the abysmal mediocrity of most kings and political leaders. It would be more accurate to say that more often than not history is made by the worst and the dumbest. Think of fascist dictators and their countless dupes and victims. To judge a nation by its history sometimes means judging a people by its criminals. Consider Armenians and Turks as cases in point. No doubt the majority of Armenians and Turks were peace loving decent folk lacking in political awareness and incapable of harming anyone. And yet, most Armenians and Turks today judge each other by the very few criminals who took it upon themselves to act in the name of their respective nations. Instead of combating this misconception, most historians legitimize and promote it. To them the average law-abiding, harmless citizen is ahistorical, therefore of no interest. In other words, instead of promoting mutual understanding, historians legitimize prejudice, and ultimately hatred. In the books written by royalist historians, for instance, the French Revolution is seen as a colossal blunder instigated and perpetrated by bloodthirsty agitators who committed many unspeakable crimes against humanity. In the eyes of anti-Bonapartist historians Napoleon is seen as the devil incarnate, and in the eyes of their adversaries as an agent of progress and enlightenment. We may not all be fanatics and chauvinists, but I suspect even the least patriotic and partisan among us carries within him traces of narcissism that leads him to say, “My country (or my ideology, or religion) right or wrong!” Perhaps the only way we will make any progress towards tolerance and peace is to teach ourselves to think and feel not in terms of countries, nations, tribes, and races, but in terms of human beings and humanity. And that’s where historians have failed us. What mankind needs is not patriotic historians but unpatriotic ones who will dare to emphasize the blunders and misdeeds of their own political leaders, because true patriotism consists in promoting self-examination and understanding as opposed to asserting moral superiority, because there are no such things as morally superior tribes, nations, and races, only morally superior human beings who do not, as a rule, brag about their moral superiority.
#