The Armenian Weekly On-Line
80 Bigelow Avenue
Watertown MA 02472 USA
(617) 926-3974
[email protected]
http://www.a rmenianweekly.com
***
The Armenian Weekly On-line; Volume 73, No. 21, May 26, 2007
Commentary:
1. The LA Times and Other Censors
By David B. Boyajian
2. A Piece of Sassoun… In Paris
By Khajag Mgrditchian
3. Talking Turkey II
By Garen Yegparian
Letters to the Editor:
4. Leone’s Review of `The Bastard of Istanbul’
By Dennis R. Papazian
Features:
5. `Never Again!’
First Annual Jewish World Watch `I Witness’ Awards in Honor of
Dr. J. Michael Hagopian and Professor Richard Hovannisian
By Lalig V. Arzoumanian-Lapoyan
6. Oral History of Michael Krikorian
By Gregory H. Arabian
Literature:
7. Charents Unravels a Secret in Pushkin’s Poem
By Sonia I. Ketchian
8. Three Poems by Zahrad
Translated by Tatul Sonentz
—————————————— ———————-
1. The LA Times and Other Censors
By David B. Boyajian
Frantz and Turkey
Frantz, reportedly a genocide denier, defended his actions. Arax was
biased, claimed Frantz, because he and other Times journalists had
sent management a letter in 2005. The letter pointed out that the
paper’s reports from Turkey violated the Time’s formal policy of using
the word `genocide,’ rather than milder terms, when referring to the
1915 exterminations.
Times editors had actually agreed with the letter and had run
corrections. Significantly, Frantz was the paper’s Istanbul bureau
chief in 2005 and thus ultimately responsible for mischaracterizations
of the genocide. Previously, he headed the NY Times office in Turkey.
That Frantz is a Turkophile is perhaps not surprising. Fellow
correspondents Hugh Pope of the Wall Street Journal and Stephen Kinzer
of the NY Times, both of whom have done stints in Istanbul, are also
outspokenly pro-Turkish.
In a memo to Times colleagues that found its way onto the Internet,
Arax has said he believes his article was axed because Frantz is
biased in favor of Turkey and against Armenians. California Courier
publisher Harut Sassounian, who broke the scandal, agrees.
Might Frantz also be holding a grudge against Arax because of the 2005
letter? And what role has the reportedly close relationship between
Frantz and the local Turkish Consul General played?
It is apparent that, particularly in detailing how the Lobby has
worked arm in arm with Turkey to kill Armenian resolutions, Arax’s
investigative reporting was simply too good and too on-target. That
and pro-Turkish bias help explain why the newspaper killed the Arax
piece.
The Times will argue that it had no qualms about investigating the
Lobby’s denialist machinations. Were that so, however, the paper
would itself have been reporting on the Lobby’s genocide hypocrisy,
one of the most outrageous double standards in American politics
today.
Let’s be clear: we are critiquing only mainstream media and the
denialists within the Jewish lobby. Indeed, Armenians value, and
perhaps insufficiently, the many principled Jews and
Israelis’scholars, public officials, writers, clergy, lawyers, and
organizations’who support affirmation of the Armenian genocide.
Moreover, we recognize that the U.S. State Department and various
other parties also support genocide denial.
Foxman Fibs
The Times apparently didn’t dare discard all of Arax’s research.
Simon’s article quotes Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL), as acknowledging that his group opposes Armenian
genocide resolutions.
However, in answering a question of mine at a taped presentation at
Clark University’s Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies three
years ago, Foxman’with scholars Deborah Dwork and Simon Payaslian
sitting right behind him’sang a different tune. The ADL, he crooned,
`did not oppose’ Armenian genocide resolutions.
Was Foxman telling the truth? That seems unlikely. A prominent
Jewish-American leader in Washington, D.C., had, just days before,
confided in me that the ADL had indeed worked against Armenian
resolutions.
The spineless mainstream media seem to think Foxman is some kind of
demigod. He reportedly pressured Fox TV into removing from its web
site an investigative report on another largely taboo story: Israeli
intelligence agents in the US, posing as `art students,’ may have been
tailing the 9/11 hijackers.
Cover-ups
Then there’s Sibel Edmonds, the courageous FBI whistleblower
(Justacitizen.org). She translated wiretaps that she says revealed,
among other illegalities, that Turks and highly placed Jewish American
neo-conservatives were involved in such activities as illicit
international weapons transfers. Mainstream media, not surprisingly,
consider the Edmonds case too hot to handle.
Similarly, most media have vastly underreported the story of Steve
Rosen and Keith Weissman, former officers of the Lobby’s American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), who will be tried for
espionage: passing classified documents to Israel.
For over a year, the Boston Globe has reported on, and opposed, plans
to break ground for an Armenian Heritage Park on the city’s Rose
Kennedy Greenway. I have repeatedly informed the Globe that Greenway
Conservancy chairman Peter Meade, the park’s main opponent and an
outspokenly pro-Israeli Catholic, has a serious conflict of interest:
he sits on the New England board of the genocide-denying ADL. The
Globe has concealed that fact and, incredibly, continues to tell me
that Meade’s ADL background is not relevant.
Yet even non-mainstream media are capable of suppressing unwelcome
facts.
Non-Mainstream Media
Antiwar.com, whose chief political analyst is Justin Raimondo, may be
the Lobby’s most relentless and intelligent critic.
Imagine my surprise, therefore, when an Antiwar editor recently
rejected my tactful, well-documented letter on the Lobby’s opposition
to genocide affirmation. He repeatedly castigated me for using the
term `Jewish lobby’ rather than `Israel lobby.’
Yet even leading Lobby member Yolanda Habif Johnston, whom my letter
quoted, used that term: `The Jewish lobby has prevented the Armenian
genocide resolution from passing.’
Though I offered to revise my letter, the editor, who happens to be
half Jewish, informed me that Antiwar.com `is run by Jews.’ Though he
quickly apologized for his `rant,’ it’s clear that even critics of the
Lobby may balk at scrutinizing its genocide hypocrisy. Finally, we
would be remiss if we did not also criticize those Christian
organizations’including the so-called fundamentalists who have aligned
themselves with the Lobby’that ignore the past and present fate of
Christians on their ancestral lands in Turkey. But that’s a subject
for another time.
The author is a freelance writer based in Massachusetts.
———————————– ———————————
2. A Piece of Sassoun… In Paris
By Khajag Mgrditchian
Paris and Sassoun: Two very different regions with very different
cultures and values. But the sad realities of life and Turkish
policies have brought them together.
There are many Sassountsis in all corners of the world, just like
there are Armenians from all parts of Western Armenia in all corners
of the world. But the Sassountsis in Paris are different. They are the
ones that bore Turkish oppression and genocidal acts, but could not
bear the policies that succeeded the massacres: forced Turkification,
systematic attacks on national and ethnic identity, violation of basic
human rights and Turkish xenophobia that stems from Kemalism.
These hundreds of Sassountsis are different because they are the most
recent witnesses to a genocide that continues. Their ordeal can be
read in their eyes, but the most striking testimony they provide is
revealed when they start speaking’only a few of them can express
themselves in Armenian. The dominant languages during the
conversations are Turkish and Kurdish.
Unfortunately, the language barrier has created a barrier of
communication between these Sassountsis and their French-Armenian
compatriots. Of course, the Sassountsis can’t be blamed for forgetting
Armenian, using Kurdish and Turkish and not being fluent in French
just yet. The blame should fall on those who approach this situation
without empathy and understanding. In this case, Diasporan
institutions are clearly expected to assist these Sassountsis, and it
is an unforgivable mistake to misunderstand the true causes of this
phenomenon and place blame on them. We must all realize that it is our
duty to help these individuals and bring them back into Armenian life.
Kurdish and Turkish influences have not been able to erase their
Armenian core, which they are in the process of rebuilding and passing
on to the next generation. In Arnaudville, a suburb of Paris where a
rented apartment has become their meeting place, each and every
picture hanging from the walls’Sassountsi Tavit, Gen. Antranig, a map
of the Armenian Genocide, picturesque images from Sassoun… and Hrant
Dink’is an outcry against the fate that has befallen them. You can see
the mythic. Pictures from different cultural and sports events attest
to the determination to survive.
More proof of this determination can also be found there. Armenian
dance lessons have been organized for the young Sassountis, and they
can now learn the Sassoun Kochari and the Yarkhoushda. The children
are also being taught Armenian (They need textbooks in Western
Armenian). There is also hope that a new initiative to build a school
in Paris for the Sassountsis might come to fruition. The Sassountsis
told the `Hairenik’ that a building currently being renovated will
open in September as the `Hrant Dink’ school. The school will be
opened initially with two kindergarten classes and will add a class
every year, thus becoming a new beacon of learning for the next
generation of Armenians.
That’s all for now about the soaring Sassountsi spirit in
Paris. According to my colleagues, there are similar enclaves of
Sassountsis in other European countries, such as the Netherlands,
Belgium, Germany, etc… And here the role of an organized
European-Armenian community becomes extremely important. This
community must welcome and embrace the Sassountsis and understand that
helping them is one of the most important missions of Hay Tahd they
could be entrusted with.
Translated by Simon Beugekian
—————————————- ——————————-
3. Talking Turkey II
By Garen Yegparian
The last time we talked Turkey like this was just over two years ago
with yours truly pointing out a marked increase in coverage of that
wondrous country by the LA Times. Back then, I’d attributed it to
`progress’ by Turkey on the European Union front and attendant
U.S. State Department activism. This time, I suspect the relatively
massive coverage (see the table) stems from two other factors.
Imagine! Turkey’s presidential election, a relatively closed affair,
conducted within parliament, got arguably more coverage than France’s
countrywide popular vote for its president. Both were conducted around
the same time. Based on this, are we to assume the LA Times thinks
these two countries hold roughly equal relevance in the world?
Let’s not even probe how pathetically little coverage Armenia’s
parliamentary election was given by a newspaper serving the world’s
largest Armenian expatriate community of about half a million. Then
there’s the anemic coverage of Genocide issues around April 24th: two
op-ed pieces, an article (the `replacement’ for Mark Arax’ piece) and
a picture of the demonstration at the Turkish consulate. And what of
Hrant Dink’s murder? Other than a brief burst of coverage, it has
become a non-issue.
I rather think the roots of this inanity are to be found in staff. Now
that we know about the Turcophilic tendencies of Doug Frantz (the
villain in the Mark Arax saga), the pieces start falling into
place. Twenty pieces over the course of 45 days’ average, almost one
every other day. And, you probably noticed I’m including an
advertisement in the count. You might deem this unfair, not I. Why?
Typically, ads with political content make newspapers quake in their
boots, so they prominently mark such items as `paid advertisement’. I
saw nothing of the sort on this one.
It’s another case of familiarity breeding comfort. Frantz’ approach
may have been, initially, to simply drown out any discussion of
Genocide recognition and reparations. That may well have been his
contribution to the `Genocide without consequences’ policy that Turkey
and its U.S. sponsors are pursuing. Remember those words in
quotes. That phrase is becoming a term of art in our
struggle. Substantively, what it means is, Turkey will say
`Sorry. Oops. Naughty us. We’ll never do it again’ without suffering
any consequences. Clearly, that’s unacceptable.
Then Frantz got lucky. The bogus democracy of Turkey handed him a
golden opportunity for more Turkey promoting: the bungled presidential
election wherein Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul couldn’t muster the
quorum needed to conduct an election, even though he had a majority of
the votes. And’by way of a frightening parallel with the U.S. in
2000’Turkey’s supreme court ruled invalid the election precisely
because of the quorum issue. Coverage of this farce accounts for a
number of the pieces running in the times.
For good measure, the list includes an op-ed piece by Ayaan Ali Hirsi,
the woman who has earned much scorn and hatred in the Islamic world
because of her writings about that religion.
In case you doubt all this could have happened in an American
newspaper’s offices, consider one more factor. How much time would
Arax have needed to research a piece about the anti-Genocide
resolution efforts in Congress? Two? Three? Four weeks? Well, I first
heard of Frantz’ dirty doings on April 20. Count back from
there. Remember that Arax had gotten approval to work on this
project. Now notice the date of the first article in the attached
table.
With all this noise, Turkey got something of a free pass in the LA
basin this April. Now that we know the pattern, let’s preempt it next
year. But even earlier, let’s get that Turkey-worshipping,
poor-excuse-for-a-journalist Doug Frantz fired. That means everyone
must keep punching away at the Times. Let them know how you feel.
——————————————– ———————
4. Letters to the Editor
Dear Editor,
I think those who write book reviews are too busy to read details with
care. Regarding Michael Leone’s review of `The Bastard of Istanbul,’
a couple of small errors should be corrected. First, Rose, the wife
first of an Armenian of the Tchakhmakhchian clan, Barsam, and the
mother of Armanoush (Amy), is an odar and not at all an Armenian. I
call her an odar because she felt suffocated by the Tchakhmakhchian
clan and wanted out, she got a divorce and custody of the child.
Secondly, Rose was not an Armenian woman who married a Turk named
Mustafa, she is an odar who wants revenge on her first husband and his
Armenian family by marring a Turk. This is an important point for the
plot development. Thirdly, Rose want to anger her alienated husband
and Armenian in-laws, not `Turkish in-laws.’
My wife and I read the novel and found it fascinated, but x-rated. I
strongly recommend it to adults of all stripes, but particularly to
Armenians. Finally, I don’t think it `includes a predictable
revelation at its conclusion,’ unless Mr. Leone cheated and read the
conclusion before he thumbed through the book or he is so well-read
that nothing surprised him. I personally was shocked. It is a
page-turner (if you forgive the cliche).
Sincerely,
Dennis R. Papazian
—————————————– —————————–
5. `Never Again!’
First Annual Jewish World Watch `I Witness’ Awards in Honor of
Dr. J. Michael Hagopian and Professor Richard Hovannisian
By Lalig V. Arzoumanian-Lapoyan
The Event
At the persistent efforts of Raphael Lemkin, on December 9, 1948, the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
was adopted by the United Nations.
`Relative to stopping the genocide in Darfur, Sudan, Nicholas Kristof
(The American Witness, March 2, 2005) correctly challenges us to defy
the passivity with which we are so often and so deeply afflicted¦ The
UN was founded because of and upon the ashes of genocide. While the UN
is splitting hairs over whether enough have died to declare a
`genocide,’ the situation worsens. We Americans must not allow the UN
to abandon its core purpose and mission¦Otherwise, while we may be
better that the Janjaweed militia, we are not free from guilt.’
(Excerpts from `Letter to the Editor, New York Times,’ by Janice
Kamenir-Reznik, Chair, Jewish World Watch’New York Times, March 3,
2005)
`Rosh Hashanah doesn’t celebrate the birth of any particular
religion’God did not create religion. God created the universe and
within the universe, humanity.’ Those were the words uttered by Rabbi
Harold M. Schulweis of Valley Beth Shalom, Founder of Jewish World
Watch (JWW), in his sermon at Rosh Hashanah 2004. `Dear friends, they
are killing people every day in Darfur, in Sudan¦They have already
forcibly displaced a million human beings¦ I say: `Never again!’ Was
this vow only to protect Jews from genocide? Don’t I remember what you
and I said, and preached, and taught and heard: `Where are the nations
of the world? Where are the churches of the world?’… And will my
children and grandchildren ask of me, `And where was the Synagogue,
where were the rabbis, and where were you during Rwanda, when the
genocide took place in 1994?”
It was based on Rabbi Schulweis’s challenge to the Jewish people to
honor the promise of `Never Again’ made following the holocaust that
the JWW has been established in October, 2004. JWW is a coalition of
over 54 synagogues committed to educate their schools, members and the
community about atrocities happening in the world; to advocate and
generate response from the United Nations and U.S. policy makers; to
provide assistance to the survivors and victims of genocide and
violations of human rights. Medical clinics, water systems and wells,
a solar cooking project to reduce the instances of rape are among the
projects that have been funded so far by JWW in Darfur, Sudan.
On Tuesday May 15, at 7:30 p.m., members of the Jewish-American and
Armenian-American communities of Los Angeles County, headed by Rabbi
Schulweis; Rabbi Bernhardt; Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian, Prelate,
Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America; Father
Dajad Yardumian, Vicar of the Western Diocese, and other priests and
rabbis gathered in Valley Village’s Adat Ari El Synagogue. We were
there to celebrate the first annual JWW I Witness Awards honoring
Dr. J. Michael Hagopian and Dr. Richard G. Hovannisian.
`Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Whatever
affects one directly affects all indirectly.’ It is with Martin Luther
King Junior’s words that Archbishop Mardirossian addressed the
audience. `He spoke for the whole human race. Today, we are doing the
same. We are speaking for human kind,’ he said. `Without a universal
respect for human rights, the world cannot achieve peace,’ he
added. `The Armenian Genocide is a dark chapter in the history of our
people¦The Turkish Government continues to actively’and
aggressively’promote its denial campaign throughout the world.’
Hrant Dink, the editor-in-chief of the Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos
newspaper in Turkey, was a sincere advocate of Turkish-Armenian
dialogue. His assassination in front of his newspaper office on
January 12, 2007, resonates as a proof to the Archbishop’s
statement. `The horror of the Genocide must be remembered as a warning
to society of the dangers of arrogance, bigotry and oppression¦ of
man’s capacity for atrocity and inhumanity. The first genocide of the
20th century must be recognized to send a message to the world that
ethnic cleansing will not be tolerated,’ the Archbishop pledged.
Dr. J. Michael Hagopian
This is the 92nd year of the Armenian Genocide perpetrated by the
Young Turk regime of the Ottoman Empire. `The most tragic event in our
3,000 year history: the death blow to the presence of Christian
civilization in the Middle East,’ in Dr. Hagopian’s words. `It was
followed by a span of mere 20 years by the most cataclysmic event in
the 5,000 year history of the Jewish people.’
Born in Kharpert-Mezreh, Dr. Hagopian was then a child of two. Wrapped
in a warm cradle, he was saved because he was hidden in a dry well
under a grove of mulberry trees. His father, a surgeon, and his family
eventually survived and embarked on a new life in Boston.
Unsatisfied with the educational films available for use in his
classroom, Dr. Hagopian left his position as a professor of political
science and economics and became a documentary film-maker. He held a
doctorate in international relations from Harvard University and an
undergraduate degree from the University of California at
Berkeley. `But a silent voice stirred me through the years,’ he
recalled, `It led me, in time, to trace genocide survivors throughout
the world.’
Searching for his roots and the history of his people, Dr. Hagopian
traveled to 13 different countries, hence surmounted numerous
obstacles, seeking first-hand eyewitness testimony of survivors. His
endeavors have won him critical acclaim, including two nominations for
Emmys for writing and producing `The Forgotten Genocide,’ the first
feature film on the Armenian Genocide. His work encompasses 20 years
of research and more than 400 survivor interviews. `Their eyewitness
accounts belie the Turkish claims to innocence. Their testimony
affirms that deportation was a code word for extermination, that plans
were centrally made, that the annihilation was predetermined, and the
execution was in secret,’ said Dr. Hagopian.
In 1979, Dr. Hagopian founded the Armenian Film Foundation, a
California non-profit organization. Since then, he has been focusing
his efforts on creating the Witnesses Trilogy on the Armenian
Genocide, which includes `Voices from the Lake,’ `Germany and the
Secret Genocide,’ and `Caravans along the Euphrates,’ to be released
in a year. Among his other projects are well-respected films such as
`Jerusalem- Center of Many Worlds,’ `The Nile River’ and `Asian
Earth,’ which won the Golden Reel Award at the American Film Festival
and first place at the Cleveland and Boston film festivals.
Joining with Rabbi Schulweis and Archbishop Mardirossian in their
pledge, Dr. Hagopian emphasized, `The historical record indicates that
had the world confronted the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide,
the Jewish Holocaust may not have happened. Victimization and genocide
perpetrated and denied in one part of the world can become the
breeding ground for greater crimes against humanity in another part of
the world. In a firm, reasonable and determined way, Americans of
Armenian heritage join with you and wish to raise their voices in a
world where often might makes right¦’
Dr. Hagopian’s words reminded me of a passage that I had read in
Democratic Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama’s Dreams from My
Father, `I dropped to the ground and swept my hand across the smooth
yellow tile. Oh Father, I cried. There was no shame in your
confusion. Just as there had been no shame in your father’s before
you. No shame in the fear, or in the fear of his father before
him. There was only shame in the silence fear had produced. It was the
silence that betrayed us. If it weren’t for that silence¦you might
have told him¦ that this power could be absorbed only alongside a
faith born out of hardship, a faith that wasn’t new, that wasn’t black
or white or Christian or Muslim but that pulsed in the heart of the
first African village and the first Kansas homestead’a faith in other
people.’ (Obama, 129)
`Humanity, the call for justice and firm resolve are on our
side¦Together we can combat to prevent other genocides¦ And together
we can combat the perpetrators and deniers of past genocides¦ And
united we can confront governments that are complicit in the cover-up
truth.’ With these goals in mind and feelings of profound humility,
Dr. Hagopian accepted the honor of the first annual JWW I Witness
Award.
Dr. Richard Hovannisian
Why is it important to write history? `The answer in Richard’s case is clear,’ said Dr. David N. Myers, History Professor and Director of the Center for Jewish Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), a colleague and friend of Dr. Richard G. Hovannisian. `The study of the past is an essential guard against the corrosive waves of forgetting, neglect, and denial, as well as a guide to action in the present. For Richard, the study of the past is more than an academic pursuit; it is about bringing to life, in richly documented detail, key historical events and actors to whom he feels a deep connection.’
Dr. Hovannisian recalls to mind two predecessors in this regard: Movses Khorenatsi, the mythic founding father of Armenian historical writing, and Simon Dubnow, the early 20th century Jewish historian and activist, who has authored a ten-volume history of the Jews.
Dr. Hovannisian, Professor of Armenian and Near Eastern History and Chair of Modern Armenian History at the UCLA, is a native of Tulare, California. Growing up at his parents’ farm in the San Joaquin Valley, he has acquired the habit of hard work. He has received his B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of California, Berkeley, and his Ph.D. from UCLA. He has worked intensely to establish himself as a scholar of Armenian History when no doctoral advisor in the country existed; to found the nation’s premier undergraduate and graduate programs in Armenian and Caucasian history; and to preserve Armenian cities and regions through a series of conferences and books, namely, Armenian Van/Vaspurakan, Taron/Mush and Baghesh/Bitlis, Kharpert/Tsopk
(where his family has originated), Karin/Erzerum, Sebastia/Sivas, and Tigranakert/Diarbekir and Edessa/Urfa. He is considered to be a towering figure in the field of Armenian history, renowned for his 4 volume series on the Republic of Armenia and more than a dozen books about Armenian history and the Genocide.
Dr. Hovannisian is a Guggenheim Fellow and has received many honors for his scholarship and civic activities. His biographical entries are included in Who’s Who in America, the International Who’s Who, Writers’ Directory, and a number of other scholarly and literary reference works. He is the founder and four-time president of the Society for Armenian Studies and has represented California on the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education. He is a member of numerous editorial boards and serves on the board of directors of nine scholarly and civic organizations. Dr. Hovannisian has been honored by His Holiness Karekin II of the Great House of Cilicia (Later Catholicos Karekin I of Holy Echmiadzin) with the Medal of St. Mesrop Mashtots, and with other medals and encyclicals bestowed by His Holiness Garegin II and His Holiness Aram I. In 1990, he was elected to the Armenian Academy of Sciences as the first social scientist living abroad to be so honored. He has received
honorary doctorates from Yerevan and Artsakh State Universities. In
1998, Dr. Hovannisian received the Movses Khorenatsy Medal of the
Republic of Armenia. In 2001, a Jubilee honorary celebration
sponsored by the Armenian Educational Foundation marked more than 40
years of Dr. Hovannisian’s exemplary academic and personal life. In
2002, the President of Artsakh personally presented Dr. Hovannisian
the Republic’s Medal of St. Mesrop Mashtots. Dr. Hovannisian has been
married to Vartiter, a medical doctor, for 50 years. They have 4
wonderful children and 13 grandchildren.
`Who after all speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?’ a
question Hitler had posed on the eve of the invasion of Poland in
August 1939. `Dr. Hovannisian continues to work hard to ensure that
never again will someone dare to ask that question,’ declared
Dr. Myers.
`This infamous quote reminds us of the deep bonds of affinity that
exist between Armenians and Jews,’ Dr. Myers continued. `Both peoples
know well the travails of dispersion and, more bitterly, the trauma of
genocide. Both peoples know the searing pain of denial¦ But perhaps as
importantly, both know the secret of survival, of creative adaptation
to the most trying of circumstances¦ Indeed, both peoples have been
bent, but never broken¦ As a result, both have a unique calling’not
only to economic and intellectual success, but to seeking and exposing
truth. Richard Hovannisian is the embodiment of that calling¦ What he
shows us is that particularism and universalism are not mutually
exclusive, that the gateway to the universal is often through the
particular, that a sense of compassion for the other comes through a
grounded sense of the self.’
Dr. Myers concluded by expressing gratitude to JWW for having the
wisdom to allocate the I Witness Award to `a teacher, scholar,
patriot, humanist, and `mentch’ of the greatest distinction, Professor
Richard Hovannisian.’
`Joining hands with others is a healthy development,’ remarked
Dr. Hovannisian, who recalled the roles of Henry Morgenthau, Franz
Werfel, Raphael Lemkin, Leo Kuper, Helen Fein, Robert Melson, Israel
Charny, Yair Auron, and his colleague Dr. Myers, who helped to make
known the enormity of the crime committed against the Armenian
people. Together, with persistence and faith, we can indeed raise
consciousness about human rights violations and mass murders, fight
genocides and tear down the walls of denial.
A Final Thought
The ceremony concluded with music played and sung by Armenian and
Jewish artists of the Los Angeles Jewish Symphony, opera singer Sosie
Avakian, and conducted by Noreen Green. As the grandchild of survivors
of the Armenian Genocide and parent of two college students in North
America, growing up in an ever faster spinning, globalizing world, yet
challenged by numerous environmental, economic, political,
socio-cultural and health threats, I couldn’t help but ponder: what
better legacy to bequeath our children than a commitment to advocacy
for compassion, moral unity, justice, and therefore peace? `It is
unthinkable that God would do wrong, that the Almighty would prevent
justice’ (Job 34:12). `For the Lord loves the just’ (Psalm 37:
281). `Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from
God…because God is love’ (John 4: 7, 8).
———————————————- ————————
6. Oral History of Michael Krikorian
By Gregory H. Arabian
Michael Krikorian is a veteran of the United States Navy. He served from November 1945 to November 1947. He served aboard the USS Proteus, a sub tender that supplied submarines with ammunition, foodstuffs and other supplies. He was intimately connected with the U.S. Navy’s Submarine Service.
Michael was born, brought up and educated in Lowell, Mass., where he enlisted. His parents came from Armenia: his father in 1900, his mother in 1920. Born in 1928, Michael says, `My father came from Turkish occupied Armenia, near Kharpert. He was a barber; my mother worked part time in some of the area shoe shops. They got by.’
Michael enlisted in the U.S. Navy because the only other alternative was eventual enlistment in the U.S. Army. There was a draft during those times, so he opted to enlist while he had a choice. He says, `While there was no war going on at the time of my enlistment, the clouds of war in Korea grew at the time of my discharge in 1947.’ He was 17 years old and had recently graduated from Lowell High School with no trade or special training. So he was not qualified for any type of work. He did not know what to pursue and his parents had no real objection to his enlisting. They let him use his own judgment and did not object. As a result, he eventually became an expert draftsman after taking advantage of the GI Bill, and worked at that career for 40 years, up to his retirement.
President Roosevelt died just seven months before he enlisted at the Navy’s Fargo Building in Boston. President Truman was in office during Michael’s entire tour of duty. Krikorian remembers the dropping of the Atomic Bomb in August of 1945. He approved of President Truman’s decision because it saved thousands of American lives.
Krikorian served mostly in the Atlantic Theater. His boot camp was in Bainbridge, Maryland’a large campground in a very hot part of the country. He finished his boot training and learned the fundamentals of service life: following orders, firing the rifle, and then target practice with the 25 cal hand pistols, a light model target practice weapon. He qualified for what he was doing.
His drill instructor showed him all of the necessary procedures: a lot of marching, no technical training, nine weeks of basic training, basic swimming and fire training and dealing with smoke conditions. All this training was given to teach sailors what to do if the ship caught fire or had to be abandoned. `I never got into a shipboard fire, but learned how to deal with fires on board,’ he says. He got through boot training OK, with average grades and met the requirements. `While at boot camp, I wrote on a weekly basis to family and friends. I did not know Armenian, so I wrote in English. I occasionally kept up with cards or short notes to my friends and family.’
`I was assigned to the USS Proteus, a submarine tender, after boot camp. During WWII, USS Proteus serviced submarines mostly in the Pacific theater. The submarines would dock at Guam, and USS Proteus would service them at the docks giving them supplies, foodstuffs and ammunition. Proteus was also a repair ship,’ he says.
`When WWII ended, USS Proteus was in the harbor for the surrender ceremonies and then headed back to the states. Upon getting back to the states, USS Proteus took on a new crew, which included me. The older WWII veterans got out of the service and left the ship; new sailors like me formed the new crew for USS Proteus for future operations. Tony Curtis was on that ship when it came into the harbor. I boarded the ship in Portsmouth, N.H. I went from Bainbridge, Md. to Portsmouth, N.H. where I reported for duty.’
`When I joined USS Proteus in 1946, veterans who had served on board during the war got discharged. I was part of a new crew. There was a new crew, numbering 400-500 new, green sailors. Captain Jordan, a veteran of WWII, was our Captain. He was a good man, although I did not see him often. I was first assigned to the Carpenter’s Unit of the ship, so my immediate superior was a Chief Carpenter’s Mate and then was transferred to the Deck Crew whose duty it was to maintain the decks. I did some carpentry while I was there. We had a lathe on board and turned some lugs for damage control. We learned and did damage control. On deck, we chipped away rust areas and dirty paint and did general cleaning. The ship was congested and the sleeping quarters were bunks in close quarters. The ship was 600 foot long and 60 feet wide. We had twin five-inch guns on the bow, 40 mm AA guns, three turrets and 20mm AA guns.
`USS Proteus supplied the submarines. While the subs were docked, we would pull up next to them and service them. We helped load supplies onto the subs and would sometimes go down to the sub to do repair work. USS Proteus was generally loaded up with supplies from various ports. She carried 300 torpedoes, ammunition and food. We had to supply the subs totally.’
Michael says, `I began my tour of duty from Portsmouth, N.H. on USS Proteus, sailed south through the Panama Canal, and then went to Cuba for gunnery practice. We docked in Cuba, then went to the Virgin Islands and finally to our home base in New London, Conn. We were all green on board and learned all the shipboard rules and regulations during the trips. We docked at New London, which was our home port. We also docked at the Panama Canal and other ports.
`Going through the locks on the Panama Canal was a thrill. There are two lakes and a series of locks. When you go through the locks you are towed with rail cars; when you proceed along the lakes, you are on your own power. It was interesting to see how the locks were built in the early part of the century. To think that people could have done this so many years ago and then compare it with today’s technology made me realize how innovative and determined we were even back then. It was amazing. I had a good view while going through the locks because I was on deck. I went through twice; once going west and once coming back east.’
`I saw no combat because my service was after WWII and before
Korea. We had gunnery practice several times. They would put a raft
type target or other target in the water, and we would shoot the
five-inch guns out to it. Also, we had aircraft targets. The aircraft
would fly dragging a sleeve far behind it that we used as a target. We
made sure to fire at the sleeve. Once we came too close to the
aircraft dragging the sleeve and he took off.’
`We were well stocked. Submariners ate well and, because we supplied
them, we also got the best possible food. We ate in the ship’s mess
hall. We had a pretty good sick bay, but had no doctor on board; we
had a pharmacist’s mate to handle first aid matters. They took good
care of us. We had injuries from a few minor accidents. There were no
surgery facilities.’
`We would normally use fresh water for showers and for drinking. The
fresh water would be stored in tanks on board the ship. However, when
we ran short of fresh water, we also had salt-water showers to use;
however, most of the time we used fresh water stored in tanks on the
ship.
`We had no desalination facilities like most ships have now.
`We got along with each other very well. We had 5-6 sailors in the
carpenter’s shop and 40 in the deck gang. We had 2 sailors from
Lowell; Fred Hamil and Herbie Russo. Herbie and I went to High School
together.
`The time came when I was looking forward to leaving the
service. About that time storm clouds were on the horizon due to the
upcoming Korean conflict. That did not seem to bother me as I knew I
was getting out and so I let the politicians do what they do. I think
that Truman did the right thing in Korea. Macarthur, called the
American Caesar, was well qualified, but was too much of a Prima
Donna, so Harry Truman got rid of him; something that I think was the
right thing to do. But by that time, we were all discharged and gone.
`In November 1947 my time was up. I looked forward to getting out of
the service. I was discharged from New London. I was not interested
with the regimentation and military life, so when I was asked if I
wanted to re-enlist, I said no.
`Before getting out, the Navy asked me if I wanted to re-enlist, and I
said no because I had no incentive. I qualified for and used the GI
Bill to go to and graduate from Feener Technical School, Boston, from
which I graduated in 1951. I learned advanced drafting, machine design
and mechanical design. I attended school for 2 years, commuting from
Lowell to Boston every day. I enjoyed it. I saw that that there were
openings for drafting jobs and that is what I did for a living the
rest of my life. I pursued a career in Design Drafting for several
large companies for 40 years. `I joined the Lowell Armenian American
Veterans Organization (AAVO) in 1946. I was proud to be a veteran with
others. There were a lot of nice fellows and they were also proud to
be veterans with me. We had 14-15 fellows. I was active for a while.
`Today, as far as Iraq is concerned, I think we overstepped ourselves
and got into a type of a mess; hopefully we will be bringing our boys
back home soon. We have to get them back home. On the other hand, I
would not protest; we never engaged in protesting, as I am more of a
follower and not a protester.
`I think the service is a good experience for a young fellow. I never
regretted it. It was a helpful experience. I would never have gotten
to where I am today without the GI Bill. We learned how to get along
with each other and we learned tolerance.’
————————————– ———————–
7. Charents Unravels a Secret in Pushkin’s Poem
By Sonia I. Ketchian
(Special to the Armenian Weekly*)
The Russian poet Alexander Pushkin (1799-1837) wrote his octet `To the
Bust of the Conqueror’ that, according to scholars, addresses a bust
of Alexander I sculpted in 1820, following his visit to the Caucasus
in 1829. In 1929, Eghishe Charents (1897-1937) conveyed his discovery
of a secret through a key word in his poem, `In the Basement of the
Winter Palace.’ Following Pushkin’s example, Charents places this word
in rhyming position. Having uncovered that the poem’s underlying
subject is not is not the previous emperor Alexander I, Charents
portrays the other Russian emperor in his poem to symbolize his own
times. Both poets’ actual barbs are aimed against the country’s
regnant leader one century apart’1829-1929.
Like John Keats, Eghishe Charents, who was born in the fortress city
of Kars that Pushkin visited in 1829 as it became part of the Russian
Empire (now eastern Turkey), was a polymath and in essence an
autodidact. Pushkin describes the fortress of Kars in Journey to
Arzrum during the Campaign of 1829. Irony conceals affection, although
neither the helpful lad nor his kind family, with whom Pushkin spent
the night, are named:
Early in the morning I set out to examine the sights of the city. The
younger of my hosts offered to be my Cicero. In looking over the
fortifications and the citadel, built on an impregnable cliff, I could
not understand how we could have taken possession of Kars. My Armenian
explained to me, as well as he could, the military operations, to
which he himself had been a witness.
Entering poetry as a Symbolist, the fiery polyglot Charents (Armenian,
Russian, French, Turkish) embraced the nascent Bolshevik land by
becoming a party member in 1918 and by fighting in the Red
Army. Subsequently he joined the Futurists, believing them to be the
creators of progressive proletarian verse. His accolades in verse to
Lenin followed, such as Lenin and Ali, and were coterminous with verse
gems that assumed memorable resonance and form. Charents spent the
early nineteen twenties in Moscow where he studied and met many of the
Russian writers, including Vladimir Maiakovskii (1893-1930). In 1924
he traveled to Paris, Constantinople, and other places. His
translations of the world’s greatest writers into Armenian’Goethe,
Dante, Pushkin’anchor some of his extensive reading. Charents was as
fluent in Russian as in Armenian; eighty percent of his library at his
House-Museum in Yerevan is in Russian with more books on Pushkin than
on any other author. Charents’s voice was strong at the First
Conference of the Writers Union in 1934 where he defended Boris
Pasternak (1890-1960), but the latter criticized Charents in the
manner of `great Russian chauvinism.’
Anna Akhmatova (1889-1966) chose Charents’s poem as one of two for
translation in 1935 for a proposed volume of his collected works in
Russian, but after his expulsion from the Writers Union in 1934 for
alleged nationalism and chauvinism, he was never again published in
his lifetime. Charents was arrested and brutally murdered in prison
in 1937. Charents’s poem in literal English translation reads:
In the Basement of the Winter Palace
In these rooms one dark night
When outside the snowstorm
roared hysterically,
One purple-bearing regent-
harlequin
Interrogated the Decembrists.
With an icy smile, his moustache
sharpened,
He pressed their tremulous
fingers
And from his blue eyes
Implacable fate looked at them
for an instant.
With the very same smile, with
which he often
Liked to look at his paramour’s
thigh,
With his thin hands crossed on
his chest
He invited Pestel to be seated.
Fixing his blue eyes on his
sword,
Although restraining in his heart
a deep terror,
Exceedingly intimately, politely,
He conversed with Ryleev.
He called them one by one, spoke with them in this way,
He even `opened up’ his heart
to some,
He even tried to influence by
majesty
Like one fairy-tale sovereign…
Having concealed in his eyes
raging passions,
He blessed them with a placid
smile,
And he sent them on their
way from here
To prison, Siberia, to the gallows.
Because Armenian, like Russian, has its own words for `harlequin,’
Charents’s alerting usage of the foreign `arlekin’ in rhyming position
recalls Pushkin. Charents buttresses that key word: eight lines bear
rhymes with the anchoring vowel `i,’ and the rhymes in lines one,
three, four, ten and thirteen end in `-in.’ This ties Charents’s overt
portrayal of Nicholas I interrogating the insurgent Decembrist leaders
to Pushkin’s poem, never published in the latter’s lifetime. Scholars
link it to Pushkin’s note of 1828 on the Danish sculptor Bertel
Thorvaldsen that avoids naming the tsar and presume that the bust
referred to in Pushkin’s poem is the bust of Alexander I:
Thorvaldsen, in making the bust of a famous person, was amazed at the
strange division of the face, however handsome’the upper part is
scowling, redoubtable, the lower is expressing the customary
smile. Thorvaldsen was not pleased with this:
Here’s a crude face.
Pushkin’s acquaintance with the bust, if it was not published in a
journal earlier, must have occurred in the late eighteen twenties
since he had been exiled from 1820 to 1826, yet focusing on the former
emperor is surprising. In viewing the bust of Alexander I, Pushkin’s
attention would have been on the current ruler, perhaps to compare or
to contrast the physical appearance and character of the
brothers. Charents has grasped that Pushkin’s portrayal by
displacement refers mainly to Nicholas I. Charents has bridged
language, culture, history, tradition, and time to decipher Pushkin’s
intent and to make it applicable to his terrible Stalinist
times. Pushkin avoids personal traits of Alexander I, other than what
the sculptor allegedly felt and conveyed in marble, unlike his epigram
of 1824, `On Alexander I,’ where he particularizes the subject’s
cowardice that can refer only to that emperor through the title and
the battle locus:
On Alexander I
Trained to a drum,
Our tsar was a dashing captain:
At Austerlitz he ran,
In eighteen twelve he
trembled,
To make up for it he was a
frontline professor!
But the hero grew bored with
the front’
Now he is a college assessor
On foreign affairs!
The poem under consideration bears no hint of cowardice. This emperor
is a conqueror of lands and peoples’in 1829 Nicholas had just annexed
Armenia. If Pushkin is referring to Alexander’s bust, he is
superimposing the younger brother Nicholas’s face in his octet and
creating dichotomy in his poem on a dichotomous bust.
To the Bust of the Conqueror
In vain you see an error here:
The hand of art has traced
On the marble of this mouth a
smile,
And anger on the cold shine
of the brow.
Not for nothing is this
countenance bilingual.
Such also was the sovereign,
Accustomed to contrary
emotions,
In face and in life’
a harlequin.
The octet’s wording conveys the duplicity of the bust’s subject,
captured in marble for the ages, such as line five calling the
countenance `bilingual,’ which points to the emperor’s foreign roots
and his demeanor as `fork-tongued’ or `two-faced.’
The poem’s date is when Pushkin returned to Moscow from the Caucasus
where he visited his brother Lev and checked surreptitiously on the
exiled Decembrists, besides holding a secret meeting with the
out-of-favor General Ermolov. Pushkin had first-hand accounts of the
military operations and the politics. September 1829 was the time of
the basis of the Russian policy toward Turkey until the outbreak of
the Crimean War in 1855’56. The hero of the campaign General
Pashkevich Erivanskii arranged surveillance on Pushkin in the
Caucasus. Pashkevich had informed the authorities of his predecessor
General Ermolov’s friendly attitude toward the demoted Decembrists,
now fighting in the Caucasus. The peace settlement with Turkey
afforded Russia a part of Armenia including Kars: the northern
exposure of Mt. Ararat had been acquired earlier.
Pushkin’s octet in iambic tetrameter with alternating
feminine’masculine rhymes, transforms through devices from Alexander
to Nicholas. In the first half Alexander’s presence appears through
sounds in his name. The four concluding rhymes advance dichotomy in
the bust: they end in `n’ with an `i’ sound preceding each one and for
lines one, three, and five opening with `n,’ as well as for each line
containing an `n.’ When read in reverse, `in’ becomes `ni’ to evoke
Nicholas. The penultimate word ends in `ni without reversing, and the
final word `arlekin’ (harlequin) reads as a reverse approximate
anagram, containing five sounds of the Russian form
`Nikolai”’nikelra.’ The extra consonant sound `r’ probably stands for
Romanov, and the final `a’ serves both of Nicholas’s names. The name
Nicholas means `conqueror’ so the poem’s title refers to him! In
drawing the prevaricating, equivocating regent-harlequin image from
Pushkin’s octet, Charents conveys not only the harlequin’s tricks but
also his demonic aspect.
Charents has captured Nicholas’s frigidity, reflected in all the
coldness of the Winter Palace’s basement and his duplicitous smile and
actions. Charents adds the emperor’s blue eyes as contrast to Stalin’s
brown eyes. In moving from the art object’s features to the
characteristics of an actual unnamed sovereign, Pushkin enlists levels
of language by replacing lofty expression with the common so that the
subject advances from majestic marble pomp to a harlequin, a court
jester, clown, and demonic intriguer. The octet’s movement is from
assumed inaccuracy in portrayal as a query for correction.
Remarkably art’sculpture, poetry’reveals and retains the inner
substance of its subject. Whether Pushkin is projecting Nicholas I
onto Alexander’s bust or describing an actual marble bust of Nicholas
(none is found), or an imaginary one is uncertain, but his linguistic
and literary devices in the octet are clear; and in the poem’s final
word they are trumped by the approximate reverse anagram of Nikolai’s
name. Pushkin could not be any more explicit in those restrictive
times. Having correctly attributed the octet’s portrayal to Nicholas
I, Charents enlists it to brilliantly hint at Soviet prisons and
exile. The key to Pushkin’s octet of 21 September 1829 is finally
revealed circuitously through Charents’s Armenian poem one century
later that Anna Akhmatova brought to wide scholarly attention through
her choice of translation on the cusp of Stalin’s Great Terror.
* An extended version of this analysis appeared as `The Word As Key in
Pushkin’s `To the Bust of the Conqueror’ As Discovered by Charents,’
Festschrift for Norman W. Ingham. Editor Christian Raffensperger.
Russian History, Vol. 33, Nos. 2-3-4, 2006.
——————————————– ————————
8. Three Poems by Zahrad
Translated by Tatul Sonentz
THE GULL
If the gull is silent
facing the waves
it is not that it has nothing to say
about itself or the world
if it is silent
it means it prefers to be silent
According to it’the sea
if instead of lounging wide and long
it stood up
erect
it would be a soaring seagull
lovelorn and
female
***
THE GULLS
To remain airborne
one must either be a long sigh
surging from way down
or be a gull’s meaningless noise
or endless angst
and proceed careful focused
as if’for instance’on the strings
of an old cello
***
METAL YOU AND I
Years full and filling
I a golden ceiling’
You an old and feeble
Floor of zinc
As I search and bounce wall to wall
‘steel spring’
You snooze and sleep
A zilch made of tin
Life a cast
Stressing lead `
You and I iron
For me
Solid fate
For you distress
‘Rust’
Copper ring
Don’t let the gale whisk you away
Resist like me
Silver fox
***
(c) 2007 Armenian Weekly On-Line. All Rights Reserved.