Showing posts with label Diasporan Reflections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Diasporan Reflections. Show all posts

Monday, September 7, 2015

ԿՈՉ ԹԻՒ ԵՐԿՈՒ


Թէ ինչո՞ւ թիւ երկու: Որովհետեւ, ըստ երեւոյթին՝ առաջինը, թէ' որպէս բանաստեղծութիւն եւ թէ' անոր հետ առնչուող պատկերիզը այնքան ալ դիւրին չէր ըմբռնելը:

Գանատական դաշնակցային ընտրապայքարի հայկական թեկնածուական էջերը հիմա արդեն փակուեցան երկար ժամանակաշրջանի մը համար:  Միահամուռ (եւ ոչ միայն միասնական) ոյժերով կար երազը եւ այո', նոյնիսկ կարելիութիւնը, Գանատայի խորհրդարանին մէջ զետեղելու երեք հայ երեսփոխաններ, որոնք ո'չ միայն թումբ՝ այլ նոյնիսկ հզօր պարիսպ մը կրնային ըլլալ ի դէմ հանդիման թրքական պետական մարմիններու գանատահայ գաղութին իրագործումներուն դէմ կազմակերպած արդեն իսկ դիմակազերծուած եւ կազմակերպեալ նախայարձակ քայլերուն:  Այդ երազը այլեւս թաղեցինք:

Կարծես թէ չէինք գիտեր, բայց փաստեցինք թէ հայերս կրնանք լաւապէս իրար չեզոքացնել:  Բայց այս  «գիտելիք»ին ալ գինը բաւականին սուղ եղաւ թէ' մեր գաղութին եւ թէ' ալ ընդհանրապէս մեր ժողովուրդին ապագայի ուժականութեան համար:

Այսօր սակայն՝ մեր ազգային ինքնապատճառ անկարողութիւնը մեզ կը դնէ իրականութեան մը առջեւ, որմէ եթէ չկարողանանք առնել անհրաժեշտ դասերը եւ անոնցմէ հետեւող քայլերը՝ ապա դատապարտուած պիտի ըլլանք միշտ օրօրելու մեր գլուխները եւ կրկնելու մեր յաւիտենական «մարդ պիտի չըլլանք»ը, այլ նոյնիսկ զայն պիտի գոռգոռանք սրահներէ ներս եւ ափսոսանք, ծեծենք մեր կուրծքերը եւ ողբանք մեր ազգին ապագան:  Յետո՞յ: Յետոյ ոչինչ: «Աս աս է եւ ասանկ ալ պիտի երթայ», պիտի ըսեն, «մոռցի'ր թող անցնի»:

Իսկ նոր սերո՞ւնդը: Չէ՞ որ անոր խոստացած էինք բաժանումներու վերացում: Չէ՞ որ տարիներէ ի վեր Մոնթրէալի քաղաքի կեդրոնը ամէն Ապրիլ 24ին միասին կը քալեն մեր տղաքը:  Ի՞նչ է, սո՞ւտ է այդ:

Իսկ հայկական հա՞րցը: Չէ՞ որ անոր հետապնդումը բոլորին անկեղծ ներդրումին կը կարօտի: Դադրի՞նք ատոր հաւատալէ:

Իսկ Հայաստանի եւ Արցախի ի նպաստ տարուելիք աշխատանքները: Չէ՞ որ անոնք միմիայն կրնան իրագործուիլ եթէ բոլորս միասին լծուինք այս գործին: Ընդհատե՞նք այդ աշխատանքը որովհետեւ ապարդի՞ւն է:

Հիմա ի՞նչ պիտի ընենք:

Դիւրին պիտի ըլլար ըսել թէ ո'վ որ այս վիճակին հասցուց մեզ, ի'նքն ալ լուծումը թող տայ:

Իսկ եթէ՞ լուծում չառաջարկուի, կամ նոյնիսկ եղածը նուազագոյնօրէն խնդրայարոյց չսեպուի՞ անգամ:

Հարցումը կը մնայ: Ի՞նչ պիտի ընենք:

Եթէ փորձենք առարկայականօրէն մտածել թէ ի՞նչ է պատահածը՝ կրնանք հաւանաբար յանգիլ հետեւեալ եզրակացութիւններէն առնուազն մէկուն կամ ա'լ մէկէ աւելիին եւ կամ ա'լ բոլորին:

1.      Կարեւոր չէ թէ որ «կողմ»ին կրնանք պատկանիլ կամ ո'չ, ուրիշ «կողմ»ի մը պատկանողները կամ ալ անոնց հրահանգողները ազգային շահերու դէմ դաւադրող դաւաճաններ են:

2.      Կարեւոր չէ թէ որ «կողմ»ին կրնանք պատկանիլ կամ ո'չ, ուրիշ «կողմ»ի մը պատկանողները կամ ալ անոնց հրահանգողները ստախօսներ են:

3.      Կարեւոր չէ թէ որ «կողմ»ին կրնանք պատկանիլ կամ ո'չ, ուրիշ «կողմ»ի մը պատկանողները կամ ալ անոնց հրահանգողները միմիայն իրենց նեղ անձնական շահերը հետապնդող անձեր են:

4.      Կարեւոր չէ թէ որ «կողմ»ին կրնանք պատկանիլ կամ ո'չ, ուրիշ «կողմ»ի մը պատկանողները կամ ալ անոնց հրահանգողները միմիայն իրենց կազմակերպչական կամ ալ կուսակցական շահերը փնտռող անձեր են եւ հայութիւնը առաջնահերթ չէ իրենց համար:

5.      Կարեւոր չէ թէ որ «կողմ»ին կրնանք պատկանիլ կամ ո'չ, ուրիշ «կողմ»ի մը պատկանողները կամ ալ անոնց հրահանգողները ծախուած գործակալներ են, եւ ուրեմն միմիայն մեր արգահատանքին արժանի են:

Նմանօրինակ «տրամաբանութեան» շարունակականութիւնը ուրեմն պիտի թելադրէր թէ անկարելի է ստախօսներու, դաւաճաններու, շահամոլներու, նեղմիտներու եւ գործակալներու հետ լեզու գտնել եւ ուրեմն ամէն ի'նչ անհիմն է եւ կրկին պիտի վերադառնայինք սկզբնական քառակուսիին:

Իրականութիւնը սակայն բնաւ այդպէս անհեթեթ չէ: Եղածը իր արդիւնքով կը դատուի: Ինչ անուն ալ տանք եղածին, եւ ինչքան ալ աշխատինք դառն իրականութիւնը «ժողովրդավարական» լոզունգներով անուշցնել, միակ պարտուողը հայութիւնն է որ դուրս եկաւ: Խրամատը կայ, գոյութիւն ունի, կը խորանայ եւ վէրքն ալ կը շարունակէ արիւնիլ՝ նոյնիսկ հաւանաբար աւելի յորդառատօրէն քան առաջ:

Բան մը չեղածի նման նոյն ուղիով ընթանալը, լաւագոյն պարագային տկարամտութիւն պիտի ըլլար, յոռեգոյն պարագային՝ խմբային ինքնասպանութիւն:  Ա՞յս է մեր ուզածը:

Իսկ ի՞նչ է կոչիս միտք բանին:  Նոյնը ինչ որ ամիսներ առաջ արտայայտած էի keghart.com ի էջերէն, այսինքն.

·         Անմիջապէս դադրեցնել արիւնահոսութիւնը:  Այո', դանակը ոսկորին հասած է, սակայն հիւանդը չբուժուիր այդ ոսկորին վերջին տապարային հարուած մըն ալ տալով:  Ուրեմն պէտք է դադրեցնել հանրային բոլոր լուտանքները ի գին մեր իսկ ինքնարժեւորման:

·         Վստահութիւն ներշնչող անմիջական եւ յստակօրէն շինիչ քայլեր կատարել բոլորին կողմէ: Օրինակ՝ ակումբներէ ներս հրաւիրել իրար, հանրային կարծիքի փոխանակութեան համար մեր ամբողջ գաղութի անդամներու ներկայութեամբ: Չվախնալ խօսք ու ձայն տալէ ընդդիմադիրներու եւ անկախ մտածողներու որպէսզի առիթ ըլլայ շինիչ քննադատութեան ոգի մը ներկայացնել: Ընդունիլ սխալները, ի գին բարելաւման եւ ապագայի մարտահրաւէրներուն: Վիճաբանութիւնները նկարահանել եւ պատկերասփռել:

·         Բուժում առաջարկելէ առաջ, նախ կեդրոնանալ ախտաճանաչման վրայ:  Ըստ ինծի, մենք իրարու հետ նոյն «լեզու»ն չենք խօսիր:  Իւրաքանչիւր կազմակերպութիւն ունի իր պատմութիւնը, զարգացումը, մտահոգութիւններն ու վախերը, եւ նաեւ ցոլացումն է իր ղեկավար տարրին: Մեր ազգային բաժանումները ինքնին արդեն իսկ այդ լեզուն դժուար հասկնալի կը դարձնեն: Մեր պատմութեան հանդէպ մեր անառարկայութիւնը նաեւ կու գայ մեր ժառանգած միտքերէն եւ ընդհանրապէս քննադատական եւ մտաւորական վերլուծման հանդէպ մեր ունեցած վերապահութենէն: Եթէ անոնց վրայ ալ գումարենք նաեւ աշխարհայեացքի տարբերութիւնները, արդեն իսկ իրար ճիշդ հասկնալու այդ հաւանականութիւնը յստակօրէն կը նուազի:  Իրար ճիշդ հասկնալ կը նշանակէ նաեւ ընդունիլ բանակցութեան «խաղ»ին օրէնքները: Առնուազն ընդունիլ թէ տարբեր էութիւնններ զանոնք տարբեր ձեւով կ'ըմբռնեն: Հայկական աւանդական կուսակցութեան կագապահութեան վարժ ենթակայ մը՝ կրնայ օրինակ չհասկնալ եւ չըմբռնել թէ ազատ միտքի մթնոլորտի մէջ մեծցած ուրիշ մը ի՞նչպէս պիտի իր առաջադրածը երաշխաւորէ եթէ իր նման կարգապահական դրութեան մը ենթակայ չէ:  Իրար չհասկնալը կը տանի դիմացինին հանդէպ կասկածամտութեան, կասկածամտութիւնը կը տանի թերահաւատութեան, որ ինքին՝ իրարամերժութեան առաջին յանգրուանն է:

·         Լրջօրէն մտածել եւ մնայուն ծրագրուած աշխատանք տանիլ միասնականութեան ի խնդիր՝ կազմելով միջ-կազմակերպչական մնայուն մարմին մը: Ազգային միասնականութեան մասին որեւէ խօսք ինքնին միմիայն գործով է որ կ'իրականանայ եւ ո'չ թէ պարզ խօսքերով: Միասնականութիւնը սակայն՝ անշուշտ որ հարցադրումի տակ չի դնէր միւս հարցերը երբ որ միասնական աշխատանքին առանցքը գետնի վրայ գտնուող ոյժերու բաժանումն ու իրավիճակը փոփոխութեան ենթարկելու հետեւանք պիտի չունենայ: Օրինակ՝ դժուար չէ համախմբուիլ ցեղասպանութեան հարիւրամեակի միացեալ ոգեկոչման լոզունգին տակ, կամ ալ Հայաստանի անկախութեան ի նպաստ միացեալ ձեռնարկի մը համար:  Ասոնք սոսկ կազմակերպչական կամայականութեան հարցեր են որոնք գաղութային տեղական վարչական ամենօրեան փոփոխութեան չեն ենթարկեր: Փորձենք սակայն խօսիլ քաղաքական լուրջ եւ երկարաշունչ ծրագրի մը մասին ուր մեր բոլոր ոյժերը պէտք է հաւանաբար սերնդային ժամանակաշրջանի մը վրայ զօրաշարժի ենթարկել եւ իւրաքանչիւր անհատ թէ կազմակերպութիւն պէտք է ընդունի խաղալ իրեն վստահուած դերը միմիայն (սակայն կատարելապէս), եւ հոն արդեն պիտի մէջտեղ գան  վերոյիշեալ «անհասկացողութիւններ»ը (ինչպէս անոր վկան եղաւ ամբողջ գանատահայութիւնը հայ թեկնածուներու հարցով):  Իրականութիւնը այն է թէ միասնական խորին աշխատանքը միմիայն կ'իրագործուի դիրքերու զիջումներով, զիջումներն ալ՝ իրարու հանդէպ վստահութեամբ եւ քաջատեղեակ ըլլալով թէ եթէ դեր մը պիտի զիջինք ուրիշին, որովհետեւ այդ ուրիշը աւելի լաւ կրնայ կատարել այդ դերը. իսկ այդ վստահութիւնը ունենալու համար մեր իսկ «ուրիշ»ին հանդէպ՝ պէտք է հասկնալ դիմացինին ըսածը եւ մանաւանդ չըսածն ալ:  Ինչ որ շատ ճիգ եւ ներդրում կը պահանջէ մեզմէ, եւ պէտք է իսկապէս ուզենք այդ ընել:

Ճանապարհը դիւրին չէ, եւ շատ յաճախ գայթակղութիւնը կայ նախընտրել ապաւինիլ օտարին, որովհետեւ այդ օտարը ծանօթ «արժեք» մըն է որուն շահերը կը յաւակնինք աւելի յստակօրէն գիտնալ քան թէ մեր իսկ «ուրիշ»ինը: Անոր ապաւինիլը դիւրին է: Ձեւով մը հաւաքական ծուլութիւն մըն է մեր իսկ կողմէ, պատրաստ չըլլալով հասկնալու մենք զմեզ:

Բայց մէկ բան արեգակի նման յստակ է եւ չփոխուիր:  Եթէ քայլեր չառնենք, մեր իրավիճակը պիտի չբարելաւուի:

Կոչս ուրեմն կրնայ ամփոփուիլ ամբողջ արեւմտեան աշխարհի փիլիսոփայութեան հիմքը հաստատող Սոկրատեսի սիրեցեալ առածով -  «Ծանի'ր զքեզ» -, որ նոյնպէս փորագրուած էր հին Յունաստանի Ափոլօնի տաճարի ճակատին, որպէս ապագայի գուշակութիւնը լաւագոյն կերպով յստակացնելու բանալին:

Եթէ' անշուշտ կը հաւատանք թէ ապագայ մը ունինք միասին կերտելու:

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Hold That Thought: Ski Jumping, Credit Unions and What They Could Teach the Diaspora(s)

"Now what kind of a headline is that?" you might say.

Hold that thought, for now.

***
Human physical athletic achievements are truly remarkable. Especially, when the athlete competes only against himself (or herself).

If you are like me, you were likely enthralled watching the Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Vancouver this past February. One of the most spectacular sports that have always fascinated me is the ski jump. The athlete essentially skis down a steep slope, and then just hurls himself into a precipice, while gliding as he takes off from the ledge, with the hope of landing safely at the bottom and having literally jumped the longest possible distance. This is truly a tremendous demonstration of bravery, elegance, understanding of the forces of nature, understanding of the laws of physics, faith in one's own abilities and, I would venture to say, it is an almost unparalleled expression of the overcoming of one of the most basic of all natural instinctive fears, the fear of the force of gravity and falling down into the depths to one's own doom.

At the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, the longest ski jump that achieved gold medal status was 138 meters, a scary thought for anyone. Especially if one has seen the vertical video shot from the top of the jump hill all the way down to the landing area.

But, it turns out that that jump does not even come close to the world record of 239 meters of Mr. Bjørn Einar Romøren of Norway. Granted, this was not a standard ski jump, but was part of what is known as ski-flying competitions and was set back in 2005. There are apparently only a handful of ski-flying hills in the world that can allow for such a long takeoff, but this is something truly amazing to see. The jumping-off height is the equivalent of jumping off the Empire State Building (without a parachute!!!). Here is that jump for the record

World's Longest Ski Jump

The question that pops to one's mind though is how does one get there? How does one train to achieve such spectacular results? Do the athletes simply jump off cliffs and break their bones to smithereens, with those who survive and being foolish enough to try again eventually succeeding? Are these simply a suicidal lot who just happen to be selected by a process of self-elimination to amaze us?

Well, we know the answer. Ski jumping is like any other sport. It takes a long time to practice to achieve perfection, and like everything else, one has to start with very small steps. Children start training at a very early age, even as young as 3-4 years' old and they start practicing jumping off literally little bumps no higher than a few centimeters. Eventually, if they practice long enough and try hard enough and overcome all their fears and challenges they can achieve the 100 meter jumps and beyond.

Of course, you don't have to take my word for it. Here it is explained by a former US Olympic ski jumper Kurt Stein (11th in Lillehammer in 1994).

Now hold that thought again.

***
What would your reaction be if a complete stranger called you and said?

"We would like to create a financial institution based on the proven concept of credit unions that would take care of all your financial needs, your children's and grandchildren's education, your financial goals, your home ownership plans, your business financing needs, your retirement planning, your insurance planning, your tax planning, your estate planning and everything else that has to do with your family's finances, and by the way, you will have a say in how this organization is run."

Your first reaction might be like that of most people, to ask them not to bother you again and then simply hang up. Or, depending on your mood of the moment, you might skip the first part and just hang up.

A few slightly interested folks (or those who are likely more polite) might first ask the most obvious question:

"Who are you?” by that they would mean "Please identify yourself and let me judge if you are worthy of a little bit more of my time".

Then they would apologize and hang up.

Even a fewer number of people might engage in the conversation saying something like:

"And what are your (your group's, your team's, your company's) qualifications and certifications to allow you to engage in such broad-based financial activities?"

Even fewer might ask

"And who are your investors? Where does your money come from and how do you guarantee my deposits with your institutions".

And even fewer might further ask

"And what kind of track record do you have of prudently managing other people's money and investments and meeting their financial needs? Can you provide independent references that I can verify? What kind of checks and balances are in place to protect your clients etc. etc.?"

Now even fewer if any of these last very few, who would admittedly be interested, would say

"OK, things seem to check out, here is ALL of our family's financial wealth, we shall be using your services EXCLUSIVELY and where do we sign on the dotted line?” They would be the biggest of fools if they did so, simply because, from a financial perspective that would be the equivalent of being anti-diversified and putting all of one's eggs in the proverbial single basket. How many people you know would actually do that?

Of course, if the caller answered the question "Who are you?" with "My name is Bernie Madoff / Earl Jones / Charles Ponzi and have I got a deal for you" and you still continued the conversation, then you wouldn't deserve anyone’s sympathy.

Now, once again, hold that thought. This will be the last time, I promise.

***

If I were to ask a simple question of anyone with a semblance of knowledge of the Armenian Diaspora(s) and that simple question being this:

"Can you point out a successful historical experiment in democracy in any of the multitude of Armenian Diaspora(s)?"

What would be the answer?

It is of course a rhetorical question, but nevertheless, if anyone is tempted to answer YES, I would suggest that any answer should consider the following facts:


- The concept of democracy is to be understood as illustrated by the practical context of the societies of Western liberal democracies.


- It includes basic ideas such as representation and a legitimacy granted through some formal electoral process.


- It is bounded by the concept of an entity which encompasses a multitude of individuals, who do share a common aspect (religion, nationality, organizational affiliation etc.).


- It includes the actions of the representative body as being relevant for those individuals. For example, by acting for the social benefit and the improvement of the lives of the people that they are elected to represent.


- It encompasses some temporal boundaries, which limit the representing group in time and enforce repeated electoral processes after the expiry of that temporal limit.


- It encompasses varying degrees of checks and balances within the representational process itself and during the lifetime of the representational body.


- It also presupposes some kind of executive sub-body that emerges from the majority of the representative body, which in turn implements the agenda items and priorities that are deemed relevant for the larger electing group.


- It includes the implementation of an appropriate opposition to the majority representational group that works for similar objectives but with differing approaches and priorities.


- Said opposition being tasked with ensuring that the checks and balances in place are not circumvented and that accountability is maintained towards the individuals who have elected their representatives.


So, in summary, we are looking for representation through fair elections, an opposition serving the same principles, accountability to those who elect, legitimacy, and controls. All these being foundations of functioning democratic institutions as they are to be understood.


Given these criteria, one should perhaps look at the actual Armenian experience in the Diasporan context(s). Institutions of Armenian communities anywhere around the world are in fact, to this day, full of fake "democratic" practices. Even when one argues that there are relatively "fair" elections, the usurpation of any such "elected" position is a regular practice; changing the bylaws and regulations of the organization is a norm to allow the said usurpation; decisions without any consultation, let alone heeding any dissenting and opposing voices is an oft repeated storyline that can be told by many in any community; conflict of interest and nepotism are not even discussed anymore as they are daily practices across the board and so on. When was the last time that anyone attended an annual general meeting in an Armenian organization where those who reported to the members officially and unequivocally declared that there was no case of any conflict of interest in the year reported on and that that statement was recorded in the minutes and is part of the official proceedings? The issue is not even a relevant agenda item, and would barely be understood if brought up.


My first point therefore is related to the issue of trust. Given this reality and given that we have a serious institutional democratic deficit, and we actually do not know how to collectively behave democratically, why would we conclude that any new effort we come up with will succeed? Why would anyone in their sound mind give away their representational right to anyone who comes forward? Especially if those who are coming forward have any Diasporan institutional track record? Why would any of the readers of this essay for instance say to Mr. or Mrs. Spyourkahay Nergayatsoutsitch "I believe in you, here, take my vote and you have carte blanche. Represent me on any or all issues that our proposed Global Diasporan Representative Body decides on. Whether it be issues of policy, in country political positions, representations at the table of international organizations, negotiating rights and positions as it relates to our historical lands and crimes committed against our nation, or even cooperating with or perhaps actively undermining the government of Armenia". Even assuming through some miracle of a sudden Hokin Sourp (“Holy Spirit") descending upon all our existing "leadership" with their existing baggage and institutional inertia of undemocratic behavior being washed away, why would anyone believe that once this body is actually created that they could keep this suddenly discovered goodwill and sacrifice their priorities for the common good on all issues and for a long and sustained period of time?


To be fair, there is an existing track record of a cooperative structure, in the form of the All Armenia Fund. Yet, it certainly does not satisfy the conditions of a democratically elected body as outlined above. It is one of a narrow focus, which I would argue is the rightly focused approach to creating a Diasporan global governance model.


My second point is one related to universal legitimacy. Once again, given the current context, and even assuming that the issue of trust in all those who would come forward is resolved, the question is, why would anyone want to give away a universal representation on all issues to such a group? What happens if members of the Diasporas disagree with the positions taken by this organization? That would be a very likely possibility, yet this institution would have far-reaching representational legitimacy, it would have negotiating powers, policy agendas, and positions on serious topics of the day (many being extremely divisive). Furthermore this organization would run the risk of being compromised by international security agencies etc. Giving it broad legitimacy on all issues to represent the aspirations and positions of the Diasporas would be a serious mistake, knowing also full well that the concern of usurpation of power and leadership is a valid concern in all Diasporan institutions.


My third point is one of practicality and experience. Again, assuming that the previous two issues are resolved, where is the historical experience that would enable us to run such an organization across the whole world? How is the process of elections to be managed for example? What are the sources of financing and how transparent are they? How is the voice of the “silent majority” (non-affiliated with any organization) to be heard? How are the international jurisdictional issues tackled? Are there other international governance models that can be emulated and learnt from? And so on.


I would suggest that spending efforts and resources creating such a body, even when sincerely proposed, are at best misguided.


Why?


Because it would be the equivalent of skiing down the jumping hill and then dropping straight down into the void, not taking off into the skies.


Because it would be the equivalent of giving all our money to a bunch of people who have no experience building a credit union and yet they want to handle all of the financial affairs of their clientele.


Because, in a worst case scenario, it would be the equivalent of giving all your retirement money to Mr. Ponzi.


In an overstretched metaphor, it would be the equivalent of expecting cavemen to design a supersonic aircraft. Not impossible, but highly improbable.


Since it is no longer advised to hold our thoughts, especially in our politically charged times, I would also suggest that a global governance needs to be experimented with by focusing on specific projects around which all the Diasporas and multitudes of our identities would agree. The All Armenia Fund is one such project; the Armenia Tree Project is another one. The pursuit of justice and retribution for the crimes committed against our people could be another one. And so on. Granting legitimacy through representation on specific issues is viable and acceptable. At some point, if one disagrees with the direction it is taking, one can always withhold support. Even if the institution itself continues to officially represent us on its issue, at least it could not claim representation on all issues and forever. If the Diaspora(s) were not particularly thrilled when President Sarkissian signed the “Protocols”, why would they want to create the opportunity for more of such acts?


Any other approach would not be worth the effort.


I think.


And so should you.

© Viken L. Attarian
April 7, 2010

Saturday, April 26, 2008

"Collapse" and how it relates to things Armenian

One of my personal influences is Jared Diamond. After reading his Pulitzer Prize-winning Guns, Germs and Steel (1998), many things that were a mere suspicion became very clear, as if when a misty and blurry image suddenly comes into very sharp focus. The memory of that moment never leaves you and, even when you willingly try to, you can no longer claim that you do not know. It keeps drawing you back into its referenial frames and reminds you that you cannot stray away from its conclusions.

In fact, that book was a source of inspiration for me to deliver a lecture a few years ago, on the invitation of the Canadian Armenian Women's Association on March 8th, the International Women's Day. The topic was, "History of the status of women over the past 10,000 years, or How we got where we are today". The lecture lasted about 2 hours.

As a result, I might actually be the record holder (at least among Armenians) of covering such a long period of time in such a relatively short lecture. It would put me at about 5000 years per hour or at an "astonishing" 1.9 years per second. I had a lot of fun researching and delivering it.

In 2005, Diamond published another book called Collapse, How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. By all indications, it is destined to become another landmark book. Collapse describes the stories of several historical societies that collapsed because of certain things they did or did not do. Examples of such societies, which lasted several centuries and even millenia before they destroyed themselves, include Easter Island, the Maya and the first Norse settlement of Greenland. Diamond also analyzes the reasons for such behaviour by those societies and, once again, comes up with masterful conclusions as to the causes.

In the same year of publication, Diamond gave a series of lectures about his new book. The most famous of them occured upon the invitation of the Long-Now Foundation, an institution dedicated to foster and encourage the proliferation of very long-term thinking (on the millenial scale). Give their web site a visit, you might learn a thing or two. Here they are

http://www.longnow.org/

You can listen to Jared Diamond giving his famous talk here.

Diamond's book is ultimately about environmental degradation and how, despite the glaring evidence, societies have in the past continued (and sometimes still do so today) to destroy their surroundings and themselves in the process.


Here are some of the main reasons, Diamond concludes, that cause societies to refuse to acknowledge that they have embarked on a track of self-destruction. He is, of course, much more articulate and gives numerous examples of each case.

1. Failure to anticipate the upcoming disaster, sometimes because nothing in their past experience would suggest the resulting outcome, or because that past experience is forgotten, or because they refuse to learn from that past experience fuelled by their use of false "analogies".

2. Failure to perceive that the problem has actually arrived, sometimes because the problem is imperceptible, or because of the remoteness of the decision makers from the actual place of occurence of the problem.

3. The slowly accruing trend of the problem that creates the concept of "creeping normalcy", in other words, because of the long-lasting trend, the incremental differences in degradation become accepted by that society until a point of no return is reached.

4. The "rational/utilitarian" behaviour of some of the members of that society, whose interest is at a conflict with the interest of the society as a whole. This argument follows the "logic" (or lack thereof) of someone who decides, for example, to overfish or overharvest, because he reasons that if he doesn't, then someone else will. As more and more members of that society behave that way, the society depletes the resources it relies on and essentially dies off. Such decline is rapidly accelerated especially if it is the governing elite that engages in such predatory practices, at the expense of the common folk.

5. "Irrational behaviour" attached to values, mainly religious ones, resulting in persistence in error. For example, by insisting on not practicing birth control by many societies today, or by the religious fervour of building monumental statues on Easter Island.

6. Dislike of the general public of those who are bearers of bad news, and their ensuing dismissing of the warnings as exaggerated. This results mostly from a short-term focus of all the levels of a society and the inability of the governing elites to focus on the longer term issues that would extend beyond a generation.

7. "Crowd psychology" or "groupthink", better known as the herd mentality, where a smaller group of people who think alike, will act in a mutually reinforcing way, and as they steer the society in the wrong direction, they are followed by the rest. This leads to a complete disappearance of critical thinking and the eventual destruction of that society.

8. Psychological denial, because of suppressed painful memories that prevent a society from taking the right decisions and basically paralyze it. The same way that such denials are used to explain individual behaviour, they would apply to societies that have suffered some kind of historical trauma or terror, therefore refusing to confront a massive threat and essentially "shutting down" their collective defense mechanism.

As you will hear in the lecture linked above, Diamond says that when he presented the case of the collapse of the Easter Island society to his students, they posed a very interesting question. Since the collapse of that society was ultimately driven by the destruction of all the trees on the island (which they needed for wood to build sleds to carry their megastatues to their places of worship, and to build canoes to go fishing in the ocean), the question that his students posed is as follows:


"What did the person who chopped down the last tree on the island say, as he was chopping it down?". They also proposed some answers as follows:

a) "Never fear, technology will solve all our problems by finding a substitute for wood !!!".


b) "This is my private property. This tree is mine. Private property rights are to be respected and I can do with them whatever I please. Keep the big government and the chiefs off my back !!!".


c) "The fears of you environmentalists are exaggerated. You don't know what is going on in some other part of the island. Perhaps there are still trees out there. A ban on logging would be premature. We need more research".


d) "Never fear ! Have faith ! God will somehow provide for us".


Of course, history tells us that after a civilization that likely lasted over a thousand years, the last tree on Easter Island was cut down in the 1680s. The islanders could no longer build the sleds to carry the giant statues of worship. Soil erosion and deforestation killed off all sources of food on the island. They could no longer build canoes to go out fishing. So they turned on each other for sources of protein. They descended into civil warfare and cannibalism. When Europeans discovered them about a century later, there were only a few hundred islanders left who had lost the ability to read and write in their uniquely developed language, and had almost reverted to stone age tools. Most of them died as a result of the diseases imported by the Europeans or were enslaved by the newcomers.

Now why is all this relevant to Armenians?

Let me count the ways.

Firstly, every single one of the reasons that these societies collapsed seems to be endemic among Armenians, both in Armenia but, also mainly, in the Diaspora.

Secondly, the Easter Island metaphor is very much applicable and in fact quite analogous with our situation as a people.

If we look at our resources that will be required to get to through these difficult times, then they would be financial capital, intellectual capital and arguably the State of Armenia itself. Related resources and concepts would be the Armenian identity (for, in general, one will firstly need to identify with being Armenian in order to feel compelled to act for improving our sort), and ultimately the demographic vigor and dymamism of the Diasporan communities and its institutions.

These resources are finite and under tremendous stress.

Here is a one-to-one mapping of the above reasons for collapse to our situation:

1. Failure to anticipate the upcoming disaster, well, this would be rather obvious. In the past century, we collectively failed to anticipate the Genocide, the Treaty of Lausanne, the assimilation of the Diaspora. I single these three calamities out because we are today living and literally dying as a nation because of the consequences of these three events.

2. Failure to perceive that the problem has actually arrived, the real problem, after the Yeghern, has always been the gradual disappearance of the Diaspora and the increasing distance between itself and its collective memory of a homeland. Demographic and societal evolutions have statistical and mathematical rules by which they evolve. The notion of a minimal critical population mass in a community is actually a well-established construct in the social sciences. We have ignored these important intellectual advances to our own peril, and gradual assimilation has blurred the boundaries of what can or can no longer be saved. Large migrational trends away from the geographical proximity of a historical homeland have accelerated the assimilatory trends and the further dispersions of the Diasporan communities. For the first time ever, we have a new generation that has not even grown up knowing and interacting with Genocide survivors. That experience is now therefore relegated to a memory which, at best, is written in a language which is no longer read, or it is largely a memory of oral history, therefore subject to distortion. As a result, the survivability of such communities beyond a single generation is highly questionable.

3. The slowly accruing trend of the problem that creates the concept of "creeping normalcy", a glaring example of this one in our communities is the current almost "accepted gospel" that the Armenian language is not relevant for the modern conceptualization of an Armenian identity, or that at least it is not as relevant as it used to be. Parents of children attending Armenian schools complain about the "high" number of hours alloted to Armenian topics and the amount of homework given in Armenian. Organizational leaders publicly argue that the role of language in determining identity belongs to the past and that we must embrace the definition of the new Armenian for whom the learning of the Armenian language is equivalent to learning any foreign language, like Mandarin or Spanish. The fact that this position goes against not only common sense, but in fact against every single research conclusion done on the topic of language and identity for the past two hundred years does not seem to bother anyone. Furthermore, there is a conspicuous absence of any organized official or grassroots body in the Diaspora or even in Armenia to defend the Armenian language, in any of its forms (Eastern or Western) against serious encroachments and outright assault from all sides. Lack of knowledge of Armenian does not seem to be a deterrent for advancement in any Armenian insitution (even in Armenia), mastery of the language does not seem to be a requirement even for journalists in Armenia, whose media is literally peppered with gross grammatical and orthographic violations. For example, as recently as a few weeks ago, one of the web sites of a major and respectable journalistic outlet (in Armenian) from Armenia had the label on its Search Function button spelt glaringly ՓՆՏՐԵԼ (Pronounced Pndrel). After I pointed out to them 3 times, over a period of three months, that this is a major error in any branch of the Armenian, the Western, the Eastern and even in the bastardized Apeghian orthography and should be ՓՆՏՌԵԼ , i.e. with the trilled letter "r" (Pronounced Pndrrel = to search for). I am still to be honoured by even an acknowledgement of receipt of my emails. There is a massive international movement to protect and even to revive thousands of languages that are part of the human heritage and shape the identity of the people who speak them. In fact, this is deemed so vital to identity and heritage that the UN General Assembly declared 2008 to be the International Year of Languages and mandated the UNESCO to lead the initiatives worldwide to preserve all languages. Visit their website and you will see there calls for papers, projects, conferences, research material, funding opportunities. The Armenian contribution? How to preserve the cultural heritage of the Duduk. Important, but hardly relevant.

4. The "rational/utilitarian" behaviour of some of the members of that society, whose interest is at a conflict with the interest of the society as a whole. Now, examples of this would really be countless, but certainly, every single story of embezzlement, enticement to fraud in our community organizations would fall under this one. How about the stifling of dissent in our organizations? The hiring of incompetent teachers and administrators in our scools? How about our political parties pursuing a strictly self serving agenda? Do we need to enumerate the incidents of brotherly hate? The murders of Armenians who belonged to other factions by fellow Armenians? How about the assasination of the former Prime Minister in the Armenian Parliament? The murder of an archbishop on the altar in New York? The betrayals to the Ottomans, the Stalinists, and even the collaboration with the Nazis of our modern "heroes"? Every single one of these instances is actually an exercise in "utilitarian" behaviour by the perpetrators. The end result? Erosion of collective goodwill, institutional breakdown, decline of standards of social behaviour, disappearance of true altruism, and a growing mentality that the Diaspora is not reformable, and hence the disappearance of vitality and youth involvement is virtually guaranteed. Members of an educated, highly mobile, ambitious young generation of Armenian descent see no reason to invest of themselves in their communities.

5. "Irrational behaviour" attached to values, mainly religious ones, resulting in persistence in error. This one is certainly prevalent across the board. Ask any Armenian, in the Diaspora or in Armenia to name five top priorities for the nation, and I can guarantee you that building more churches would not be one of them. In Armenia, the issues would be centered around healthcare, jobs, decent living standards, environmental degradation, democracy, corruption, crime rate, outmigration from the villages into Yerevan, emigration from the country etc. In the Diaspora, the issues would be centered around survival of the Armenian language, the lack of youth involvement in traditional organizations, the lack of quality Armenian schools and the qualified staff for them, Genocide recognition, survival of the community as a whole, intermarriage with non-Armenians, migration demographics and integration issues among several communities of differing geographical backgrounds (e.g. Egyptian-Armenians with Iranian Armenians), etc. The solutions to many if not all of these problems hardly ever would include the building of churches, especially in communities and places that have an overabundance of them, like Armenia. While a church has its place and role in the Armenian psyche, it cannot be the all curing panacea. No truly critical thinking would come up with such an approach. The question then is, why are enormous resources literally wasted to build more and more churches? Why can't we renovate the existing historical ones in Armenia and revive them instead? And in the Diaspora, why cannot we dedicate our resources to building museums, better schools, training our teachers, building art institutions, concert halls, research labs, university scholarship funds for all Armenians, publishing books, creating literary and artistic prizes, building clinics, old age homes? Sure, we might be doing all or some of that, but if we compare the level of investments, I suspect that over 90% of it go into churches or related religiously affiliated establishments which become the only way to channel any other community public activity, essentially lulling us to believe that there is no other way to do things. We can see that all across the Diasporan communities in the Western world. The wealthiest and most properous of the Diasporas which is in US, after at least a century of highly affluent existence, does not have a single Armenian Art Center or a Concert Hall. If the Italian community in Montreal can initiate and complete the DaVinci Cultural facility which is unique in the city and attracts world class performances and events, why can't Armenians have one, and they focus instead on building church number 8 in a community of 35,000 and actually see nothing wrong with this? Why is it that there are special educational consultants that work for the secular institutions built by the Jewish community such as Jewish Family Services, (not attached to any synagogue by the way), who provide expert services not only to the Jewish community but to all educational institutions in Canada, and Armenians insist on attaching any social service programs they might have, if at all, to their religious institutions?

6. Dislike of the general public of those who are bearers of bad news, and their ensuing dismissing of the warnings as exaggerated. The most persistent example of this is the rapid disappearance and quasi elimination of the Armenian intellectual in the Diaspora (see my lecture "The Vanishing Breed of the Armenian Intellectual : Canaries in a Mineshaft", at the Columbia University conference The Diaspora and its Discontents to be posted soon on this blog). The educational institutions nurturing those intellectuals are all but gone or have been radically reduced in their instructional stature and capacity (The Melkonian Educational Institution in Cyprus, Mourad Raphaelian of the Mekhitarist Order in Venice, Hovaguimian-Manouguian of the AGBU in Beirut, Djemaran of Hamazkaine in Beirut) the only exception still being Getronagan in Istanbul. Arguably the two greatest writer/intellectuals of the Diaspora and even Armenia were Shahan Shahnour in Western Armenian and Gostan Zarian in Eastern Armenian. Both of whom were reviled and attacked at all levels both by individual, institutional and even state structures. Yet both produced pieces that diagnose the destiny of our people with remarkably clear foresight. The intellectuals of today, none of whom is at the level of these two, are at best ignored, and at worst, still reviled publicly and privately. This behaviour, while not unique to Armenians, is particularly detrimental for us as a people, because we lack any other mechanism of checks and balances. Destroying our own intellectual ability is literally cutting off our potential to renew ourselves and destroying our early warning system. Tsunamis, earthquakes and other extreme natural phenomena do a lot more damage when they are not predicted.

7. "Crowd psychology" or "groupthink", better known as the herd mentality. Think about it, when was the last time that any convential wisdom in any community was challenged with a true public critical debate? Things like "There is no HIV crisis among Armenians in our community" (no one knows how many Armenians have died of AIDS or are HIV positive), "Armenian youth are not involved in gangs" (There are 15,000 Armenians in California jails), "There is no bullying in Armenian schools" (deny, deny, deny), "Wife beating is only a very rare phenomenon among Armenians" (ask Armenian psychiatrists to give you the real story), "Our only saviour throughout history has been our church, therefore they alone can bring us through these difficult times once again" (we now have an independent country, and it is the Ottoman Sultans that have taught us that our leaders are our religious leaders), "There is no scandalous behaviour among our clergy" (look closely, really closely, the evidence is all around you, or you can play the Name That Khatchakogh game), "There is no potential for fraud in our institutions" (has anyone ever actually had the books audited by any of the big five firms?), "All our resources must be focused on Armenia" (and deplete the Diaspora for good in a few years?), "Our history is proof that we can survive the worst" (It is yet to be proven that we have survived the Genocide), "Gay Armenian rights? What gay Armenians?" (no comment), "There is no physical and sexual abuse of Armenian children in Armenian families" (check with your own families and those of your neighbours or your neighbours' neighbours), "Our school is the best, and parents love sending their children to our school" (so why is enrollment declining? Do we have year to year comparisons? Do we have market research that highlights what parents want or do not want?), "Armenians are not racists" (really?), "All Turks are murderers, it is in their genes" (so all the Turks who have bravely challenged the denials of their country and continue to do so are murderers too), "There are no cowards among Armenians, all our historical figures are heroes" (right, so the traitors in our history should not be analyzed), "People in our community do not appreciate culture and arts, they prefer to have parties, dances and eat Armenian food, so that is why we give them what they want, at least they are getting together (bring on the kebab singers)."

8. Psychological denial, because of suppressed painful memories that prevent a society from taking the right decisions and basically paralyze it. Two words Medz Yeghern - Մեծ Եղեռն.

In the final analysis, how many times have you heard, "Do not worry, God will build this church for his glory" (so why are we asking then the community to pay for it blindly?), "The community has the financial resources, so why shouldn't they support this project" (let's see, maybe because the project does not make neither financial nor strategic sense?), "We are a victorious nation, all our enemies over the millenia have disappeared yet we are still here" (so why worry about identity, saving the Diaspora or Armenia, if we are genetically predestined to survive?),"This church/school/community center is a private institution and we can do with it as we please" (so how come it was built with funds raised from the community? And wasn't it built for the community in the first place?).

For the record, one thing that Jared Diamond does not mention. It goes without saying that all those societies that collapsed, never ever had a clue that they were about to do so.

As already mentioned, the Easter Island civilization collapsed and subsequently degenerated into cannibalism. Armenians are notorious for despising each other to the extreme, perhaps that is proof that we have degenerated into our form of "cannibalism" and we may have already collapsed as a collective.

It would be worthwhile to contact Jared Diamond and ask him to write a book about Armenians. If he does, would that be further proof about us being an endangered species?