Sharansky working to end rift between Greek, Armenian clergy

Ha’aretz, Israel
April 15 2005
Sharansky working to end rift between Greek, Armenian clergy

By Yuval Yoaz

Minister Without Portfolio Natan Sharansky is trying to reconcile the
Greek Orthodox and Armenian clergy to enable the peaceful performance
of the Sabbath of Light ceremony in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre
in Jerusalem.

The High Court of Justice yesterday debated an urgent petition filed
by the Armenian patriarch, Archbishop Torkom Manoogian. Sharansky,
who was appointed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to reconcile the
sides, apparently persuaded both patriarchs to sign a commitment
calling on the public to refrain from violence. Police have warned
that violence during the ceremony could lead to numerous casualties.
The Sabbath of Light ceremony is held on the last Saturday before
Orthodox Christian Easter at the Holy Sepulchre church in the Old
City. Both communities believe that a divine flame descends from the
sky on this day and lights the oil lamp standing on Jesus’ tomb.
Orthodox Easter falls on May 1 this year.
Attorney Eitan Epstein, who represents the Armenian Patriarchy, says
both sides had maintained the status quo in conducting the ceremony
together for hundreds of years. However, Greek Orthodox Patriarch
Irineos I, who was appointed in 2002, refused to let Manoogian leave
the tomb area first during the ceremony, as is customary. In the
scuffle that erupted, the “holy fire” from Manoogian’s candles was
extinguished.
Now the Greek Orthodox Patriarchy refuses to let the Armenian
representative enter the tomb chapel at all, demanding he wait
outside the chapel and light his candles from Irineos’ candles. “It’s
a scathing humiliation to the Christian Armenian world,” said
Epstein.
If Sharansky fails to reconcile the two sides by next Tuesday, the
court will have to rule on the Armenians’ request for an injunction
ordering the police to hold the ceremony in the traditional way.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Private House Sale-Purchase Transactions Decrease 27.2% In FebruaryC

PRIVATE HOUSE SALE-PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS DECREASE 27.2% IN FEBRUARY COMPARED WITH SAME MONTH OF 2004
YEREVAN, APRIL 8, NOYAN TAPAN. In February, 2005, 354 transactions
on sale and purchase of private houses were made in Armenia,
85 of which in Yerevan. The number of transactions declined 27.2%
(12.4% in Yerevan) compared with February, 2004, at the same time it
increased 18.4% compared with January, 2005 (4.9% in Yerevan, 23.4%
in the marzes). The monthly growth of 1 cubic meter of private houses
made 2%. In February, the minimum and maximum prices of a private
residential house with a 250-sq.meter building and a 400-sq.meter
personal plot made in Yerevan communities: Kentron – $255-1,000,
Arabkir – $205-900, Kanaker-Zeytun – $140-360, Nork-Marash – $120-550,
Avan – $125-280, Erebuni – $130-320, Davtashen – $140-700, Shengavit –
$125-350, Ajapniak – $125-320.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Acknowledgement Of New Parliament Brings Stabilization to Kyrgyzstan

RIA Novosti, Russia
2005-04-01 15:01
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NEW PARLIAMENT BRINGS STABILIZATION TO KYRGYZSTAN
LUXEMBOURG, April 1 (RIA Novosti) – The acknowledgement of the
authorities of the new single-chamber parliament elected on February
27 and March 13 has brought stabilization to Kyrgyzstan, official
spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry told journalists on
arriving in Luxembourg on Friday.
“Efforts taken by acting Kyrgyz leaders to stabilize the situation are
yielding positive results,” Yakovenko said.
According to the diplomat, Russia is contributing to Kyrgyzstan’s
settlement.
“We want the domestic developments to be peaceful and legitimate. We
maintain permanent contacts with parliament, the government and
Foreign Ministry of the republic,” Yakovenko noted. In his words,
Moscow hails Bishkek’s readiness to stick to international
obligations, particularly, connected with the country’s membership in
the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO: Belarus, Russia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Armenia) and Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO: Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, China
and Tajikistan).
“Russia supports the OSCE efforts aimed at the restoration of
legitimacy in Kyrgyzstan on the basis of the Constitution,” Alexander
Yakovenko stressed.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AAA: Over 100 House Members Urge Bush to Recognize Armenian Genocide

Armenian Assembly of America
122 C Street, NW, Suite 350
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-393-3434
Fax: 202-638-4904
Email: [email protected]
Web:
PRESS RELEASE
March 31, 2005
CONTACT: Christine Kojoian
Email: [email protected]
OVER ONE HUNDRED HOUSE MEMBERS URGE PRESIDENT BUSH TO RECOGNIZE THE
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE Assembly Touts Efforts of Armenian-American
Community
Washington, DC – A congressional letter calling on President George
W. Bush to properly acknowledge the Armenian Genocide in his statement
of remembrance later this month, has the backing of over 100 Members
of the House of Representatives to date. The letter, initiated by
Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues Co-Chairs Joe Knollenberg
(R-MI) and Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), will be sent to the President
next month.
“As we approach the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, we
recall with appreciation the leading role of the U.S. in attempting to
prevent the genocide and helping those that survived,” said Assembly
Board of Directors Chairman Anthony Barsamian. “It is now time for
the U.S. to formally and irrevocably reaffirm the facts of history and
recognize this crime against humanity. We thank Congressmen
Knollenberg and Pallone for again leading this effort and rallying
strong bipartisan support to set the U.S. record straight.”
Barsamian also commended hundreds of Armenian-American activists
nationwide, who this month responded to the Assembly’s call to action
urging President Bush to properly recognize the Armenian Genocide.
Assembly State Chairs also took a leadership role in the campaign for
reaffirmation, helping to mobilize grassroots activists and
encouraging congressional support for reaffirmation of the
U.S. record.
The letter to the President says in part, “By properly recognizing the
terrible atrocities committed against the Armenian people as genocide
in your statement, you will honor the many Americans who helped launch
the unprecedented U.S. diplomatic, political and humanitarian campaign
to end the carnage and protect the survivors.”
“As U.S. efforts to aid victims of genocide continue, it is imperative
that we pay tribute to the memory of others who have suffered and to
never forget the past,” the letter states. “By commemorating the
Armenian Genocide, we renew our commitment to prevent future
atrocities and therefore negate the dictum that history is condemned
to repeat itself.”
In his commemorative statement last year, President Bush avoided the
term “Armenian Genocide,” and instead offered the textbook definition
of this crime against humanity.
“On this day, we pause in remembrance of one of the most horrible
tragedies of the 20th century, the annihilation of as many as 1.5
million Armenians through forced exile and murder at the end of the
Ottoman Empire,” the President said in part.

The Armenian Assembly of America is the largest Washington-based
nationwide organization promoting public understanding and awareness
of Armenian issues. It is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt membership
organization.
###
NR#2005-037
Editor’s Note: The list of U.S. Representatives who have signed the
letter is attached. This list is also available on the Assembly’s Web
site at
Members of Congress That Have Signed onto the Letter Urging President
Bush to Properly Recognize the Armenian Genocide
Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Thomas Allen (D-ME)
Rob Andrews (D-NJ)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Charles Bass (R-NH)
Melissa Bean (D-IL)
Xavier Becerra (D-CA)
Shelley Berkley (D-NV)
Howard Berman (D-CA)
Sanford Bishop (D-GA)
Tim Bishop (D-NY)
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
Mary Bono (R-CA)
Jeb Bradley (R-NH)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Lois Capps (D-CA)
Michael Capuano (D-MA)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Dennis Cardoza (D-CA)
John Conyers (D-MI)
Jim Costa (D-CA)
Jerry Costello (D-IL)
Joseph Crowley (D-NY)
Susan Davis (D-CA)
William Delahunt (D-MA)
Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
Mike Doyle (D-PA)
David Dreier (R-CA)
Eliot Engel (D-NY)
Anna Eshoo (D-CA)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Mark Foley (R-FL)
Barney Frank (D-MA)
Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
Scott Garrett (R-NJ)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)
Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
Rush Holt (D-NJ)
Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
Steve Israel (D-NY)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Sue Kelly (R-NY)
Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)
Dale Kildee (D-MI)
Joe Knollenberg (R-MI)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Jim Langevin (D-RI)
John Larson (D-CT)
Steven LaTourette (R-OH)
Sander Levin (D-MI)
Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ)
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Nita Lowey (D-NY)
Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)
Jim McDermott (D-WA)
James McGovern (D-MA)
Michael McNulty (D-NY)
Martin Meehan (D-MA)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Candice Miller (R-MI)
George Miller (D-CA)
Grace Napolitano (D-CA)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
Devin Nunes (R-CA)
Frank Pallone (D-NJ)
Collin Peterson (D-MN)
George Radanovich (R-CA)
Mike Rogers (R-MI)
Steven Rothman (D-NJ)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
Ed Royce (R-CA)
Linda Sanchez (D-CA)
Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)
Jim Saxton (R-NJ)
Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Joe Schwarz (R-MI)
E. Clay Shaw (R-FL)
Christopher Shays (R-CT)
Brad Sherman (D-CA)
John Shimkus (R-IL)
Chris Smith (R-NJ)
Mark Souder (R-IN)
John Sweeney (R-NY)
Edolphus Towns (D-NY)
Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
Peter Visclosky (D-IN)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Diane Watson (D-CA)
Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Anthony Weiner (D-NY)
Joe Wilson (R-SC)
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

www.armenianassembly.org

Turkish newspaper doubts benefits of closed border with Armenia

ArmenPress
March 21 2005
TURKISH NEWSPAPER DOUBTS BENEFITS OF CLOSED BORDER WITH ARMENIA
YEREVAN, MARCH 21, ARMENPRESS: At the initiative of a Turkish
Rotary district governor, Turkish, Armenian, Azerbaijani and Georgian
Rotary clubs met in Ankara on March 19 for an unprecedented joint
program titled “Caucasus Friendship Days.”
Two Armenian, one Azerbaijani, one Georgian and several Turkish
Rotary clubs were meeting at Ankara’s Bilkent Hotel within the scope
of the program. Members of the Armenian clubs reportedly traveled by
bus after spending a night in Kars.
The meeting was covered by Turkish newspaper. The English-language
Turkish Daily News, particularly, said: “Is not it time to find out
what are our benefits from the closed border with Armenia? If we open
the border would it make Armenians more unyielding in what is related
to their problems with Azerbaijan or their drive to have the 1915
genocide recognized internationally.? Open border may however, make
Armenians realize the importance of Turkey as a neighbor nation and
the importance of living in peace. It may also make them soften their
tough position.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Car Of Independent Journalist Catches Fire

CAR OF INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST CATCHES FIRE
YEREVAN, MARCH 9. ARMINFO. Yesterday in the daytime in the territory
of Yerevan community of Erebuni, the car VAZ 21-07 with Russian
state number-plate belonging to the Head of the Public Initiative
“Protection of Journalists’ Rights” Hasmik Kirakosyan caught fire.
The above organization informs ARMINFO today that fortunately no
victims were recorded as no one was in the car at that moment. The
organization considers the event as a terrorist act with respect
to the independent journalist. Hasmik Karapetyan is known by her
recent sensational publications and sharp issues read out from
various tribunes. The members of the initiative say that the trails
of the crime lead to the persons Kirakosyan’s sharp publications
were addressed to. “We expect for exposure of the crime as soon as
possible and for an objective investigation,” the message says.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

How America has become a multicultural nut-house

How America has become
a multicultural nut-house
————————————— ————————-
Posted: March 7, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily
MONDAY
MARCH 7
2005
2005 WorldNetDaily.com
How America has become
a multicultural nut-house
Posted: March 7, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
This is a true story about America, about how the magnificent
Judeo-Christian culture of my youth – which represented the hope of liberty
for the world’s oppressed – was so easily turned into mush in my lifetime.
Let me begin with a brief story about my father. When he was only three
years old, my dad was sentenced to death. That’s right. The Turkish
government was engaged in a deliberate campaign to force him, his mother and
infant sister, along with hundreds of thousands of other Armenians, into the
Syrian desert where they would die of starvation, disease, or worse –
torture and death at the hands of brutal soldiers or roving bandits.
It was 1915, at the peak of Islamic Turkey’s gruesome, premeditated genocide
of the Christian Armenian population in that country. Those not butchered
outright – the men were often killed immediately – were driven into the
Derzor, the Syrian desert east of Aleppo, to perish. My father’s father, a
doctor, had been pressed into the Turkish army against his will, to head a
medical regiment.
“One of my earliest recollections, I was not quite three years old at the
time,” my dad, Vahey Kupelian, told me shortly before he died in 1988, was
that “the wagon we were in had tipped over, my hand was broken and bloody,
and mother was looking for my infant sister who had rolled away. The next
thing I remember after that, mother was on a horse, holding my baby sister,
and had me sitting behind her, saying, ‘Hold on tight, or the Turks will get
you!”
The three of them rode off on horseback, ending up in Aleppo, one of the
gateways to the desert deportation and certain death. Once there, my
grandmother Mary, always a daring and resourceful woman, realized what she
needed to do.
After asking around to find out who was in charge, she bluffed her way into
getting an audience with Aleppo’s governor-general. Since her Armenian
husband was in the service of the Turkish army – albeit by force – she
played her one and only card, brazenly telling the governor-general, “I
demand my rights as the wife of a Turkish army officer!”
“What are those rights?”
“I want commissary privileges and two orderlies,” she answered.
“Granted.”
In this way, by masquerading as a Turkish officer’s wife, Mary bluffed her
way out of certain death, saving not only her own life and those of her son
and daughter, but also the lives of her husband’s two brothers, whom she
immediately deputized as “orderlies.” The group then succeeded in sneaking
several other family members out of harm’s way, and my grandmother kept them
all from starving by obtaining food from the commissary. Thus was my family
spared, although little Adolphina, my father’s infant sister, was unable to
survive the harshness of those times, and died shortly thereafter.
As for my grandfather, Simeon Kupelian: After an unusually bloody battle
between the Turks and the British, he and the other doctors, all Armenians,
tended to the Turkish wounded as best they could. Immediately after this, a
squadron of Turkish gunmen came and killed them all, including my
grandfather.
One and a half million Armenians perished in those years at the hands of the
Turkish regime, the 20th century’s first genocide.
On returning to their beautiful home in Marash a couple of years later, Mary
and son Vahey, who was then about 6 years old, found it had been ransacked.
Their fine tapestries had been pulled off the walls, ripped and urinated on.
Everything that could be carried out had been stolen, and everything else
had been deliberately broken. Everything. Every single pane of glass in the
French doors was broken, even handles on drawers were destroyed.
Eventually, the hardships of their life led my father and grandmother to do
what millions of persecuted people have done over the last few hundred
years. They made the long voyage to the one country that welcomed them and
offered them freedom and an opportunity for a new life – the most blessed
nation on earth, their promised land: America.
Life wasn’t easy in this new land, but both mother and son managed to
overcome many obstacles, learned English eagerly, built a life for
themselves, went to college and pursued careers. Dad got married and had a
family. I was the middle of three children; he provided for us, protected
us, worried about us, loved us. He also rose to the top of his chosen
profession – aeronautical engineering – becoming the Army’s “Chief Scientist
for Ballistic Missile Defense.” He lived a good and full life in a blessed
land.
That’s just one story – my story. Now multiply it by millions of similar
cases of dispossessed and persecuted people coming to America, and you’ll
have a vague idea of what America has long represented to the freedom-loving
people of this world.
Born Greek-Armenian, my dad became an American, as did thousands of other
Armenians fleeing the genocide. As did Jews fleeing the Nazi Holocaust,
Chinese seeking freedom from totalitarianism, Vietnamese and Cambodians
escaping from their war-ravaged land, and countless others coming to America
for a better life – starting with the English Pilgrims that came here to
escape religious persecution. In short, the “huddled masses yearning to
breathe free” have come to these shores from every land, speaking every
language – but wanting to become Americans.
‘Mother of exiles’
Inscribed in bronze at the base of the Statue of Liberty, Emma Lazarus’
transcendent 1883 poem, “The New Colossus,” captures the spirit of America’s
big-heartedness and generosity perhaps more than anything else, except for
“Lady Liberty” herself.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from
land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty
woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild
eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she With silent lips. Give
me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The
wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless,
tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
There has always been something different about America, which enabled this
magnanimous nation to wrap her arms around the “wretched refuse” of other
nations.
This nation of immigrants was bound together by a spirit, you might say. For
although one cannot become French or Chinese or Russian, one can become an
American – by embracing that spirit.
Becoming a naturalized American citizen therefore meant more than passing
the federal government’s screening process and stumbling through a few
civics questions. It meant an implicit and heartfelt agreement to abide not
only by the nation’s laws, but by its hidden, unwritten “laws” as well – the
principles that made up the invisible but vital fabric of Western
Civilization: the individual as citizen-sovereign; a balance of freedom and
responsibility; unlimited opportunity – to succeed or fail; independence and
self-reliance; tolerance; the work ethic; equality under the law; and other
core Judeo-Christian values.
Underlying all of this, in turn, was the common belief – a belief so deep
and unquestioned that it underpinned all of our major institutions – that
there is a God, that He is the God of the Bible, that the 10 Commandments
and the Sermon on the Mount are the foundation of a good life and a great
society, and that America had been uniquely blessed by that God. These were
the underlying assumptions infusing America’s dominant culture.
All that started to change in the 1960s. Actually, the nation’s moral and
cultural foundation had been under attack for decades, but the ’60s is when
the attacks literally spilled out into America’s streets, resulting in
unprecedented cultural chaos by decade’s end.
One of the first times I personally remember feeling the foundations of
America tremble was in 1964 during my 9th-grade civics class. A girl – I
don’t remember her name, but I think she was from Tennessee and she had a
very thick southern accent – answered a question from the teacher by
mentioning something about God.
“How do you know there is a God?” the teacher shot back.
It was like an earth tremor – just a faint quiver really, a precursor to the
tidal waves to come a few years later – a smiling, casual, off-handed swipe
at “the world as we knew it.”
How did the little southern girl know there was a God? Clearly taken aback,
she answered the teacher earnestly, incredulously, her voice breaking:
“Because … there is!” She had, quite naturally, offered up the best answer
anyone could possibly give.
The teacher had questioned the unquestionable, injecting doubt into a room
of impressionable young boys and girls. It was one of those moments you
remember 40 years later because it created a spark, a momentary contact with
another dimension – that alien dimension of cynicism and disbelief.
Within a few years, the gathering tides of rebellion against traditional
America would come crashing down with great ferocity and on many shores. One
key area was the Civil Rights Movement.
Despite the fact that America had long-since forsaken slavery, and – thanks
to the movement led by Martin Luther King Jr., which culminated in the
landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act – had outlawed segregation and made great
strides in moving beyond racism altogether, a demand for “black studies”
nevertheless arose in the nation’s colleges.
The idea was that past denigration and mistreatment of blacks necessitated
special emphasis on their culture and accomplishments. “Black pride” was
born and “black studies,” “black history” and the like proliferated through
the nation’s university campuses.
Although most people didn’t comprehend it at the time, “black pride” and
similar “liberation movements” did not arise out of the mainstream of the
Civil Rights Movement, which had arrived, in King’s famous “I have a dream”
speech, at the ultimate solution to racism: the “color-blind” society where
people would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of
their character.” This enlightened vision of America – which would have
completed the promise of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are
created equal” – was hijacked by forces of the ’60s radical left. These were
people who did not want peace and racial harmony. They condemned racial
integration as “Uncle Tomism” and “co-optation.” Their aim was to indict
America as a racist oppressor as a means to foment division, revolution and
societal transformation.
But all this was off the radar of most Americans, who, under the sway
perhaps of the nation’s collective guilt over slavery and segregation,
cautiously accepted “black studies.”
It didn’t end there, however. Soon there were “women’s studies” and “gay and
lesbian” studies. Before long, the world of academia was awash in
“multiculturalism.”
Wait a minute, you might ask, what’s wrong with multiculturalism? Doesn’t
exposing students to other cultures and values serve to enrich their
understanding of the world and its peoples?”
Of course. And there would be nothing wrong if that was what was actually
going on.
In reality, however, as Robert Bork explains in “Slouching Towards
Gomorrah,” multiculturalism had been conjured up solely to serve as a
battering ram, “a philosophy of antagonism to America and the West,” an
“attack on America, the European-American culture, and the white race, with
special emphasis on white males …” The proof, he noted, is evident in the
multicultural curriculum choices:
A curriculum designed to foster understanding of other cultures would study
those cultures. Multiculturalism does not. Courses are not offered on the
cultures of China or India or Brazil or Nigeria, nor does the curriculum
require the study of languages without which foreign cultures cannot be
fully understood. Instead the focus is on groups that, allegedly, have been
subjected to oppression by American and Western civilization – homosexuals,
American Indians, blacks, Hispanics, women, and so on. The message is not
that all cultures are to be respected, but that European culture, which
created the dominance of white males, is uniquely evil. Multiculturalism
follows the agenda of modern liberalism, and it comes straight from the
Sixties counterculture. But now, in American education, it is the dominant
culture.
To fathom what’s been happening to America, you simply must understand that
during the 1960s, the moral foundation of America came under a full-blown
assault. The radicals of the ’60s – including, by the way, Bill and Hillary
Clinton – have today either taken over or profoundly altered the key
institutions they originally wanted to destroy, from government to the news
media, from education to religion.
A generation later, the various “liberation” movements – “sexual
liberation,” “women’s liberation,” “gay liberation” and so on – have
blossomed into rampant infidelity, divorce and family breakdown, gender
confusion, AIDS, abortion and other mammoth problems. Moreover, the
multicultural madness that started in the ’60s has infused virtually all of
American society with unending confusion.
Today, in the rarified but toxic air of multiculturalism and political
correctness, all cultures and all values are of equal value: The most
ignorant, oppressive, suffocating, women-hating culture, where young
people’s hands and feet are amputated as punishment for petty offenses, is
now worthy of equal respect to Western culture, which has provided most of
the world’s knowledge, progress, food, medicine, technology, quality of
life, representative government and liberty.
This virtual brainwashing of a generation has had its intended effect. New
York Times journalist Richard Bernstein spent two years documenting the
effects of multicultural ideology. The result, notes Bork, “is not an
impressionistic book or one based on an ideological predisposition; it is a
report of empirical findings.”
He points, for example, to the remarkable change in attitude towards
Christopher Columbus between 1892 and 1992. Though not a single new fact
about Columbus’s life and exploits had been uncovered, the country’s mood
swung from one of uncritical adulation to one of loathing and condemnation,
at least among the members of the “intellectual” class. The change was
accomplished by the aggressive ideology of multiculturalism. The Columbus
turnaround is merely a specific instance of more general alterations in our
moral landscape.
Another example: Thanksgiving visitors to historic Plymouth Rock should be
prepared for a shock, writes Douglas Phillips, president of Vision Forum.
“If you walk fewer than a hundred yards from Plymouth Rock and ascend to
Cole’s Hill, the magnificent burial ground of the 50 Pilgrims who perished
during the first cold winter of 1620, you not only will encounter hundreds
of demonstrators who gather on the last Thursday of every November to
disabuse the memory of the Pilgrim fathers. But you also can read the new
monument plaque that describes the devastating effect of Christianity on
North America, the ‘genocide’ of Native Americans by the Pilgrims and the
importance of treating Thanksgiving as a ‘National Day of Mourning.'”
This moral inversion caused by multiculturalism, which proclaims that all
cultures are equal, has extended to virtually every area of society:
All religions are equal: Witches and Satanists are now afforded the same
respect as Christians and Jews. As just one example, U.S. District Court
Judge Dennis W. Dohnal ruled in 2003 that officials in Chesterfield County,
Va., discriminated against Cyndi Simpson, a Wiccan, when they barred her
from opening the board of supervisors’ meetings with prayer.
Britain’s Royal Navy went a step further, allowing an officer to conduct
satanic rituals on board one of its ships. Chris Cranmer, a 24-year-old
naval technician and non-commissioned officer on the frigate Cumberland, was
given his own satanic altar where he could dress up in black robes and
perform ceremonies to worship the devil using bells and candles. Cranmer
says he’s a “Magistrate of the Society of the Onyx Star Black Guard,” and
believes he is evil.
“From a military perspective, I believe in vengeance. If I were asked if I
were evil, I would say yes,” he told London’s Daily Mail newspaper, which
notes that permission to worship on board was granted the Satan-worshipper
under equal-opportunities legislation.
As with religion, where good and evil now are afforded equal respect, so in
the area of sexuality, what was bizarre and unmentionable a generation ago
is today a civil right:
All sexuality is equal: In 2004, thousands of same-sex marriage ceremonies
were conducted throughout the U.S. – in open defiance of the law – under the
banner of fundamental fairness and non-discrimination.
Even adult-child sex – euphemistically called “intergenerational sex” – is
making surprising headway into the mainstream, based on today’s pervasive
climate of moral equivalence among all forms of consensual “love.”
Self-righteous child-molesters claim their cause is simply the latest in a
long line of civil rights movements and eagerly anticipate the day society
will shed its ancient taboos and grant full “sexual rights” to young
children and the adults that “love” them.
This worldview whereby we declare all human cultures and moral codes, from
the fairest to the foulest, to be equal in value is made possible only by
the total abandonment of any objective standard of right and wrong.
Despite the fact that multiculturalism has rewritten history, demonized
Western culture and turned civilization on its head for a generation,
Americans for the most part just floated along with this charade, year after
confusing year – until Sept. 11, 2001.
The otherworldly shock and horror that we experienced on that particular
Tuesday morning was followed by a crash course in radical Islam – a very
strange and menacing culture indeed.
We learned that those who wantonly murdered thousands of American civilians
and threatened even greater destruction justified their acts as being
required of them by Allah. We learned that “shaheeds” (martyrs) – those
Muslims who die while killing “infidels” (“unbelievers,” primarily Jews but
also Christians and Americans generally) in “jihad” or holy war – are
indoctrinated, often from an early age, by radical Islamic clerics.
And what is the jihad message taught in so many mosques and madrassas
(religious schools) throughout the Middle East? Just this: As soon as the
first drop of your blood is shed in jihad, you will feel no pain, all your
sins will be forgiven, and you will be transported instantly to paradise
where you will recline comfortably for eternity on plush green cushions, to
be lavished with the choicest meats, the finest wines and endless sex with
70 virgins. In addition, all of your family members will be admitted into
heaven, as part of your reward.
We learned that our nation’s borders were scandalously unprotected and our
immigration policies full of holes easily exploited by terrorists. We
learned that our beloved country was targeted for even more horrific terror
attacks – using biological, chemical or even nuclear weapons – by a maniacal
cult of jihadists spread out over 60 nations. We learned that “terror cells”
and “sleeper” suicide warriors were already in the U.S., intending to strike
and inflict indiscriminate terror and death. We learned that a
well-developed network of Islamic terror supporters was operating freely
within the open American system, conducting fundraisers and providing
support for known terror groups – in their mosques, meeting halls, and even
on American college campuses.
How exactly did the United States of America “become the scene of one of the
most hideously bedeviled conflicts of all time?” asked New York University
literature professor Carol Iannone in the New York Press.
Quite simply, it happened because America lost its grasp of its own historic
character, and embraced “diversity” as a national goal. In the name of
equality and nondiscrimination we invited mass immigration from every part
of the globe, and made no demands on the newcomers to become Americans. In
fact, we gave up our American core, adopted multiculturalism and declared
all cultures equal. We invited the new groups to celebrate themselves while
we cravenly permitted libelous denigration of our own past. Like fools we
prated that diversity is our strength, when common sense and all of history
tell us that strength comes from unity.
Absolute nondiscrimination meant we no longer enforced standards, made
judgments, distinguished between good and evil, friend and foe. We grew
lazy, stupid and careless – about our borders, about national security, even
about previous terrorist attacks against us. We worried over our “hate
crimes” and our “racial profiling,” while men resided in our midst who
seethed with murderous fury even against our children and plotted our
destruction. Now we have a fifth column, fear further assaults and labor
under a draconian security regime that is changing the nature of our lives.
Marketing multiculturalism
It’s easy to blame ’60s radicals, university Marxists, cowardly politicians
and an elitist press for today’s multicultural madness. But the fact is,
millions of Americans have bought into it. Why?
Isn’t it obvious? Since the 1960s, America – from her government to her
schools and even to her churches – has steadily fallen away from the
Judeo-Christian values that previously illuminated and gave life and
strength to the nation’s institutions. This is equivalent to turning out the
country’s lights: And when you turn out the lights, everything looks the
same color in the dark – that’s multiculturalism.
Moreover, no longer guided by universal standards of right and wrong,
Americans have had nothing more reliable than their own feelings to guide
them in the moral realm. And as modern marketing well knows, when people are
operating primarily on the basis of feelings and emotions, they’re wide open
to every sort of manipulation imaginable.
Remember, marketing is the application of the knowledge of human psychology
to the task of persuasion. And what psychology has taught the marketing
world is that the most powerful persuasion of all takes place not through
above-the-board appeals to reason, but by directly targeting the emotions.
By way of illustration, cigarettes were once sold on the basis of “great
taste” and “fine tobacco.” Not all that convincing – but then, there aren’t
a whole lot of “benefits” and “features” to sell with cigarettes. Then along
came the “Marlboro Man.” Created in 1955 for Philip Morris Co. by
advertising giant Leo Burnett, this icon of the quintessential American
cowboy is probably the most famous brand image to appear in our lifetimes.
The rugged, masculine trademark made Marlboro the world’s best-selling
cigarette.
What does the “Marlboro Man” – a rancher on a horse – have to do with
cigarettes? Nothing, except that the ubiquitous cowboy evoked within
millions of men feelings of masculinity, independence, wide open spaces and
freedom. So successful has been the decades-old campaign that on some ads
the image is reduced to little more than a saddle and a splash of red, but –
like Pavlov’s bell – it still subtly makes people salivate for the mythical
place called Marlboro Country.
For the last generation, commercial marketing has aimed not so much at
extolling the intrinsic value or usefulness of a product to consumers, but
rather, at conditioning the consumer to associate the product with a
particular feeling.
Bottom line: If the marketer can elicit in you a feeling – the right feeling
– he has won. Game over.
With this principle in mind, let’s look at how the public is so easily
persuaded to abandoned long-held loyalties. How are people so easily
persuaded that Columbus, a national hero for 500 years, and the Pilgrims,
revered and studied by generations of school children, were actually
genocidal racists? How are our former sentiments opposing homosexuality or
Wicca so readily transformed into “enlightened tolerance” and open support?
Pick a topic – let’s say, same-sex marriage.
Imagine you’re participating in a televised one-on-one debate. You’re
defending traditional marriage. There you are on one side of the set, and
facing off against you is a lesbian. Not just any lesbian, but an
attractive, young, eloquent, educated, sensitive, well-dressed lesbian – and
to all appearances a fine human being. She looks you right in the eye and
says, in a disarmingly mainstream and reasonable tone: “I love my country, I
obey its laws and I pay my taxes. I’m an American, and have all the same
rights you do. In fact, I’ve served my country in the military and have put
my life on the line. I’ve lived monogamously with my partner for 18 years.
We truly love each other and want nothing more than to be married and to
live out our lives in peace and happiness – just like you. What’s the matter
with that? Why shouldn’t we be allowed to be married? How does it hurt you?”
You have 30 seconds to respond before the commercial break.
How can you neutralize the powerful, positive emotions your opponent has
skillfully invoked? Will you offer up a statement about the dangers of
altering the traditional definition of marriage? Will you point out that
children do better with both a mother and father? Will you say the Bible
clearly condemns homosexual acts?
The debate will be won by whoever touches the most feelings, the strongest
emotions of sympathy in the audience.
Therefore, unless you’re an extraordinarily gifted and charismatic debater –
you lose. And when you lose, millions of people out in TV land are pulled a
few inches further away from common sense values, and a few inches closer to
embracing, or at least resigning themselves to accepting, same-sex marriage.
The lesbian debater appeals to Americans’ basic traits of tolerance,
inclusiveness, fair-mindedness and honor toward veterans. Every statement
she makes tends to create in the viewer positive feelings, not toward
same-sex marriage per se, but toward her – yet it’s the viewers’ attitudes
toward same-sex marriage that will change.
Each hidden persuasion is like “money” accruing in the “emotional bank
account” of the listener – and when there are enough funds (strong feelings
of sympathy) in the listener’s account, he or she has been “persuaded” of
the justness of these two women being married. Of if not persuaded, at least
“neutralized” in terms of offering any effective opposition to same-sex
marriage.
Watch how the feelings accumulate in the listener’s “bank account” until
they reach critical mass: “I love my country” (patriotism – cha-ching). “I
obey its laws and I pay my taxes” (responsible citizen – cha-ching). “I’m an
American, and have all the same rights you do” (appeal to fairness –
cha-ching). “I’ve served my country in the military and have put my life on
the line” (she’s a veteran! – double cha-ching). “I’ve lived monogamously
with my partner for 18 years” (loyalty – cha-ching). “We truly love each
other and want nothing more than to be married and to live out our lives in
peace and happiness – just like you” (true love – cha-ching). “Why shouldn’t
we be allowed to be married? How does it hurt you?” (personal intimidation –
cha-ching).
Now imagine how the television viewers are reacting to this debate.
Many of us in the audience find our feelings have been stirred by the
lesbian’s touching appeal. We like her. We want her to be happy. Our
positive feelings toward her start to subtly eat away at our long-held
conviction that same-sex marriage is wrong. Those warm emotions give rise to
a stream of thought-whispers that orbit our minds at light speed: Maybe I’ve
judged these people too harshly just because they’re different. Maybe they
could make each other happy if they were married. After all, heterosexual
married couples have lots of problems, and half of them get divorced – so
what difference does it really make? We start to doubt our prior beliefs,
wondering if they’re as hallowed as we’ve thought, or rather just some
antiquated religious notions about sex and sin that don’t really apply in
today’s world. Then the thought occurs to us, as though from divine
revelation: Don’t we all long to love and be loved? Maybe that is the
ultimate truth. She’s right, it doesn’t hurt anyone else for her to be
married to her partner. It’s mean-spirited to deny other human beings their
happiness. I like her. I want her to be happy.
Seduction complete.
If we were anchored in the Judeo-Christian moral standards that are
responsible for the singular success of the Western World, all this
emotional persuasion would be for naught. We’d easily discern the truth of
the debate and just be amused at the feeble attempts at manipulating our
feelings. But after several decades of public education that reflects not
the values of the nation’s founders, but those of ’60s radicals and
reformers, millions of Americans are just plain confused.
The farther we stray from the rock of unchanging spiritual principles, the
easier it is to get swept away by clever appeals to our feelings – including
the need to prove to others that we are “tolerant.” Increasingly, that means
“tolerant” of evil.
There’s no end to the variety of emotional manipulations to which we fall
prey, and there are no words to describe the stunning ease with which we
have been seduced to throw away that which is most precious to us.
In C.S. Lewis’s seven-volume “Chronicles of Narnia,” the poignant and
brilliantly insightful final book, “The Last Battle,” describes how the
good-hearted but naïve inhabitants of Narnia throw away their cherished
civilization – losing both their lives and their world itself – by falling
for a shabby ruse perpetrated by a few cunning and unprincipled characters
When you read it, you can’t help thinking, “Oh my gosh, this isn’t even a
very clever con game; it’s crude, full of contradictions, and easily seen
through from a thousand different directions.” You just want to shake them
and say, “Don’t you see what you’re falling for?”
Nevertheless, as the con men ruthlessly play on the doubts and fears of the
Narnia folk, their lies take hold and the light of civilization goes out.
Haven’t we in America done exactly the same thing? Look at the shabby ruse
we’ve fallen for. We’ve traded Western Civilization for vain delusions,
cheap thrills and laughably illogical doctrines. Like the townsfolk in “The
Emperor’s New Clothes,” we all know the king is wearing no clothes – we can
plainly see the truth – but we play along out of fear and intimidation.
We’re afraid of confrontation, of losing the love and approval of others, of
being labeled “judgmental,” “racist,” “bigoted” or “homophobic.” So, we
quietly allow our minds to be twisted, as we surrender our former beliefs
and bequeath an unknown country to our children and grandchildren.
How strange. Out of the thousands of years of suffering and oppression that
comprise human history, a light burns brightly for just a couple hundred
years. The American experiment – a revolutionary idea that the common man
can be free, master of his own government, so long as he himself is ruled by
God. For a short time this brilliant young country dazzles all the world and
all of history, not just with its power and productivity and progress, but
with its goodness.
And then, out of pure hatred – the same rage and rebellion institutionalized
in communism, Nazism and all the other “isms” that have paved the world’s
roads with corpses throughout the last century – haters of Truth scheme to
extinguish this shining light. So they concoct an absurd, fantastic ruse –
that cannibal societies are as worthwhile as Western ones, that animals
should have the same rights as human beings, that white people are
inherently racist and oppressive, that sexual perversion is perfectly normal
and noble, each passing year bringing new and more bizarre delusions to be
held up as truth.
How much stranger still that we’ve bought it.
Can we get the real America back? Only time will tell. But if we do, it very
likely will be due to the efforts of the current generation, which still has
some memory of the real America.
The “great melting pot” – E. pluribus unum – depended on an ideal. But the
melting pot become corrupted without this guiding spirit. Millions now
residing here are not loyal to American values. Rather than unified and
“color-blind,” the nation is divided and segregated. On top of everything
else, America literally has been invaded and we are at war.
Recognizing they must take rapid steps to reverse course, policy makers
entertain options for better policing the nation’s borders, screening
potential immigrants and re-evaluating those already in. But just over the
horizon is the more painful work – of revisiting the madness of
multiculturalism, political correctness, rebellion against America’s
founding values and the spiritual confusion that rebellion has caused. But
revisit them we must, since it is they that have led to both the present
invasion and the resulting near-paralysis over how to deal with the problem.
If we don’t change course, America will end up the loser. Even if the
current “terror war” went away – if it were all only a bad dream from which
we awoke with the World Trade Center towers still standing – we would still
lose America to the long-term invasion and conversion of our basic identity
that has been under way for decades.
Epilogue
Toward the end of her life, my grandmother Mary Kupelian wanted to travel
overseas one last time to visit her old-country relatives. I went with her,
as her bodyguard, you might say. I will never forget the time I spent with
her and those in her village – virtually all of whom, it seemed, were
somehow related to me. I will never forget her stories about what she and my
father went through during the Armenian genocide, and I’ll never forget what
a survivor she was, to pick up the few shattered pieces of their lives and
to come to America to start over.
And I will never ever forget the night we finally returned to the United
States. Our plane from Athens arrived at New York’s Kennedy Airport too late
for us to make our connection to Washington, D.C., so Grandmom and I slept
in the airport terminal that night, up in the second floor lounge. We were
both tired, and very happy to be back in America.
After a while, Grandmom shuffled off to the ladies’ room. On her return, she
described for me – her old woman’s voice brimming with excitement – how
everything in the restroom was so clean and shiny and modern, how there was
hot and cold running water, how everything worked properly – so totally
different from where we had just been. And she said she felt like kneeling
down and kissing America – right there on the floor of the restroom of JFK
airport – so grateful was she for being back in the USA.
My grandmother, who decades earlier as a “homeless, tempest-tossed”
immigrant had found refuge in this generous land, had once more come home
through the “golden door.”
To this day, whether due to some special blessing from God or just because
there’s so much contrasting darkness throughout the rest of the world,
America remains – despite unrelenting assaults by enemies within and without
– the national light of the world. May she always remain so.
——————————————————————————–
The preceding has been excerpted from the February edition of WND’s monthly
Whistleblower magazine, a comprehensive expose of multiculturalism and its
effects on America. The article is an abbreviated version of a more in-depth
exploration of multiculturalism from the forthcoming book by David Kupelian,
“The Marketing of Evil.”
——————————————————————————–
David Kupelian is vice president and managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com
and Whistleblower magazine, and author of the forthcoming book, “The
Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us
Corruption Disguised as Freedom.

Crime of Crimes; Does It Have to Be Genocide for the World to Act?

The Washington Post
March 6, 2005 Sunday
Final Edition
Crime of Crimes; Does It Have to Be Genocide for the World to Act?
by David Bosco
On Feb. 1, the United Nations issued a finding that sounded like
hopeful news about one of Africa’s worst conflicts.
“UN report clears Sudan government of genocide in Darfur,” reported
Agence France-Presse.
“UN Panel Sees No Genocide in Darfur,” a St. Petersburg Times
headline on a Reuters wire story said the next day.
“Report on Darfur Says Genocide Did Not Occur,” read another in the
New York Sun.
The headlines said more about the mindset of the people reading the
report than they did about the long-awaited investigation by the U.N.
commission of inquiry on the conflict in western Sudan. The 176-page
document provided a litany of misery and blamed the government in
Khartoum. But to many readers, it appeared to have let Sudan’s
leaders off the hook by not branding their actions as genocide, as
the Bush administration and U.S. Congress had already done.
It’s not as though the report gave Sudan a seal of approval. It
detailed extensive atrocities authorized by the Sudanese government
and carried out by Janjaweed militias. Its authors concluded that the
government and militias conducted “indiscriminate attacks, including
killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction
of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and
forced displacement throughout Darfur.” They added that the
government’s brutal campaign had displaced more than 1.5 million
people. But for many news editors and readers, one conclusion
overshadowed all the rest: There was no genocide in Darfur, after
all.
In considering whether and where to intervene, one question has
assumed talismanic significance: Is it genocide? In the words of
judges on the international tribunal for Rwanda, genocide is the
“crime of crimes.” Such a finding has become a signal for the world
to act.
But as the Darfur report shows, genocide is an unreliable trigger.
For all its moral power, genocide is both hard to document and linked
to questions of race, ethnicity and religion in a way that excludes
other — similarly heinous — crimes. Intended as a clarion call, the
term itself has become too much of a focal point, muddling the
necessity for action almost as often as clarifying it.
Few issues have been more important in the last decade than reacting
to the bloody civil conflicts that still haunt many parts of the
globe. The current film “Hotel Rwanda” hammers audiences with the
tale of the world’s shameful failure to stop the 1994 Rwandan
massacres. Looking to the genocide label to motivate international
intervention in places like Rwanda, however, overlooks two sad
truths: Widespread slaughter can demand intervention even if it falls
outside of the genocide standard. And the world is quite capable of
standing by and watching even when a genocide is acknowledged.
To a remarkable extent, the term genocide was the product of one
man’s work. As Samantha Power recounts in her recent book ” ‘A
Problem From Hell’: America and the Age of Genocide,” Raphael Lemkin
placed the term into public discourse and international law through
sheer willpower. A Polish Jew who narrowly escaped the Nazis, Lemkin
was instrumental in drafting and winning support for the 1948
Convention on the Prevention of Genocide. He wanted a law that
captured the unique horror of a concerted campaign to deny a specific
group’s right to exist, and that is what he got.
In international law, genocide is a crime of specific intent — it
requires that the guilty parties intended to destroy all or part of
an ethnic, racial, national or religious community. Identifying that
intent can be a difficult struggle.
In 1995, Bosnian Serb forces killed 8,000 Muslim men and boys in the
besieged town of Srebrenica. It was Europe’s worst massacre since
World War II. But when the U.N. tribunal finally got hold of one of
the Bosnian Serb generals who had been at Srebrenica, it found him
guilty only of aiding and abetting genocide — not actually
committing it. “Convictions for genocide,” that court said, “can be
entered only where intent has been unequivocally established.” Try as
they might, the prosecutors in that case could not document the Serb
officer’s intent.
If getting inside the mind of the killers is one complication,
identifying and classifying the victims is another. The commission
investigating Darfur, for example, immersed itself in the details of
local tribal structures as it tried to puzzle out whether the victims
of that conflict fit under the definition of genocide. “The various
tribes that have been the subject of attacks and killings,” the
report conceded, “do not appear to make up ethnic groups distinct
from the ethnic group to which persons or militias that attack them
belong.” Only after lengthy analysis did the authors conclude that
the victimized population in Darfur was a different tribe and
therefore a “protected group.” But they were still unable to identify
the intent needed to show genocide.
Documenting genocidal intent and determining whether the victims are
part of a protected group eats up time when time is of the essence; a
few weeks of concentrated violence killed more than 800,000 people in
Rwanda. Waiting for the lawyers to decide is perilous, as became
apparent once again when the Sudan commission released its report. To
many observers, it appeared that the U.N. experts were downgrading
the Darfur crisis when it was really struggling — in good lawyerly
fashion — to meet a high evidentiary burden.
Perversely, the intense focus on genocide has allowed a U.N. report
that documents widespread atrocities to serve as moral cover for
continued official lethargy. The United States has been the leading
player in diplomatic efforts in the Sudan, but has not pushed as
aggressively as it could for sanctions. Europe — and France, in
particular — has talked a good game but done little. Russia and
China, both U.N. Security Council members, have made only the weakest
gestures of concern. And so staunching the bloodshed in Darfur has
been left to a small, ill-equipped force from the African Union
(A.U.), a regional economic and security organization.
There is an alternative to this intense focus on genocide. The
category of “crimes against humanity” — first used to describe the
massacres of Armenians after World War I and then codified at the
Nuremberg trials — is simpler and broader but still morally
powerful. It encompasses large-scale efforts to kill, abuse or
displace populations. It avoids messy determinations of whether the
victims fit into the right legal box and whether the killers had a
sufficiently evil mindset. Do we really care, after all, whether the
victims of atrocities are members of a distinct tribe or simply
political opponents of the regime?
Moving beyond what has by now become a warped diplomatic parlor game
(who will say the G-word first?) would have the added benefit of
shifting the debate from the abstract to the practical. The word
genocide may be too powerful for its own good. It conjures up images
of a relentless and irrational evil that must be confronted
massively. It is almost paralyzing. We are used to fighting crime;
genocide seems to require a crusade.
There are small but concrete steps that the United States could take
to fight the mass killings and crimes in Darfur, without sending a
U.S. combat force. The most critical step would be to bolster the
African Union force there now. For almost a decade, the United States
has sought to strengthen Africa’s ability to tend to its own crises.
That effort — and tens of thousands of lives — are on the line in
Sudan.
The A.U. has promised a force of almost 3,500 troops, but only about
half of them have arrived. Getting those soldiers to Darfur fast may
require airlift capacity that is a U.S. specialty. And the fragile
A.U., which is struggling to bear the costs of the Sudan operation,
needs immediate cash infusions. Both the United States and Europe
have pledged funds, but they have been slow in coming.
The Darfur Accountability Act, introduced in the U.S. Senate last
week, calls for increased aid to the A.U. force, as well as a
military no-fly zone and a tight arms embargo. It’s a start. If the
government in Khartoum gets in the way, the Security Council should
impose tough and targeted sanctions. And if China and Russia get in
the way of the Council, the United States and Europe should act
without it. The United States and Britain (which has gone furthest in
discussing a deployment) should send their own small tripwire force
to accompany the African monitors.
Some of these measures may require a U.S. policy that borders on
unilateralism. But this administration has not shown undue patience
with or deference to the often dysfunctional and amoral U.N. Security
Council — and there’s no reason to start now. As Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld put it in another context, “the mission defines
the coalition.” And the mission of fighting crimes against humanity
must be a central one, as it was in Bosnia and Kosovo and should have
been in Rwanda and at an earlier stage in Sierra Leone.
Realities, not labels, should define our response. The word genocide,
rightly, has a unique moral impact. But the concept — and the
interminable debate about its boundaries — must not become the
issue. When the world chooses to immerse itself in terminology rather
than take action, it does today’s very real victims no good at all.
Author’s e-mail:
[email protected]
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Ex-pupil Armen Lucas visits the Armenian College in Calcutta

Ex-pupil Armen Lucas visits the Armenian College in Calcutta
Azad-Hye, Dubai
Feb 28 2005
The Armenian College, one of the oldest Armenian schools in the
world, was established on April 2, 1821 in Calcutta, India. Since
then it has played a significant role in shaping the future of
thousands. The whole Indian Armenian community life is reflected in
the story of the College. The College has a neat “unofficial”
website, dedicated to all the boys and girls who attended the
Armenian College and the Davidian Girls’ School of Calcutta. Many of
these former pupils are scattered all over the world pursuing
successful careers, mostly in Australia, the USA and Iran. The goal
of the site is to collect material related to the school and make it
known to the public. It is designed by Vardan Hovhannisyan, Peter
Osipof and Zorab Ohanessian, all ex-pupils of the Armenian College.
Since lot has been said lately about the mismanagement of the
Community affairs in Calcutta (see previous postings under “Indian
Armenians”), it is a good idea to have a look at the forum hosted in
the same website.
Armen Lucas, an ex-pupil writes about his impressions after paying a
visit to his beloved old time School:
Our visit to the Armenian College:
We, all 4 of us visited Mrs. Sonia John, strictly by appointment, at
the Armenian College. We had a firm appointment, and were initially
asked to wait at the gate by the Chaprasees. We were finally shown in
to the big office, shared by Mrs. Sonia John and her secretary,
Coleen Blanche. The interview took 3.5 hours, and we asked ALL the
questions which you had asked us to put to her.
I will first report on the Q and A, and then will put forward our
views. Our kids, Karineh, aged 20 and Stefan, aged 17 were also
present during the interview, but they left half way through to go
and talk to the Hye kids, and play basketball with them, and visit
their dormitories, etc. They enjoyed their tour of the school, and
the kids also enjoyed meeting the 2 strangers from Europe, and
speaking Armenian with them.
1. I asked about the teaching staff, and was told that they only had
3 Armenian staff, from Hayastan. There were also a few Indian
teachers. During the last 2 older classes the kids had to attend an
Indian High School, but they could sleep in the College…because
they didn’t have competent teachers for the bigger kids. She also
added that she thought it was good for the bigger kids to mix with
kids from the outside world, as they were too protected within the
confines of the school.
2. Sports: The kids had sports organised normally every afternoon,
and also had an official Sports Day, when prizes were given and
special food was organised for them.
3. I asked for OLD photos for sports dating back to your time, but
these were not made available to me. There were school almanacs, but
it was difficult to dig out the info.
4. The current student body consisted of: 60% Hayastansis, and 40%
Parskahays. Sonia John informed us that the kids were allowed to
return to their respective countries once EVERY 3 YEARS. Most kids,
she alleged had come from broken and poor homes, and a few had
returned to the School very disturbed after visiting their
families…
5. No class photos were made available to us. We did however take a
lot of photos ourselves, and these will be forwarded to you via the
internet shortly.
6. The school appeared to be run efficiently, in a very strict
manner. Discipline is considered very important, and no unruly
behaviour of any kind is tolerated. The kids appeared to be, looking
from the outside, perfectly happy, but remember, we were only there
for a total of 4 hours.
7. The current Principal could be considered to be Sonia John, but
the Head master is an Indian guy. An ex. student called Michael J.
Stephen is the Asst. manager, and he was very helpful to us.
Our views: We had a visit by Arsham Sookias every morning for
breakfast at our hotel; he seems to be a really decent chap…quite
harmless. We also met Haik Sookias at the Calcutta races on X’mas
day. Both brothers are pretty upset at having been ousted from the
Armenian committees of the Church as well as from the Armenian
College School. I was unable to discover the real reason why this
huge rift took place. The Sookias brothers had their opinions, and
Sonia John had hers. Sonia alleged that the Sookias brothers were
trying to stop the continuation of the Armenian College as a fully
functioning institution of learning for Armenian kids. She also
accused Haik Sookias of trying to sell the School to Indians by
having them on the Board…?
Sonia also alleged that she had had a lot of interference and
malicious gossip from an old boy called Galstaun, who lived in
Calcutta; this had resulted in Court cases and lots of back-biting
and very negative publicity against the School and also against Sonia
in person. The Sookias brothers alleged that Sonia was a power-hungry
authoritarian, and that she just wanted to rule ALL the Armenian
Committees on her own, without interference. It was also alleged that
Sonia had got rid of 2 or 3 Armenian priests from Calcutta…having
accused them of all sorts of wrong-doings.
All in all, we considered this extraordinary situation as being very
unfortunate for the students, and not at all beneficial to the small
community.
I questioned Sonia about the various accusations of her squandering
Armenian Church money to Indian charities, and associations, and she
freely admitted that she had done so, but gave her reasons that she
thought it wise to give money back to India, for showing kindness
towards the Armenians… She had also given a lot of money to various
Charities, like : 2 X Heart Wards, Sir Cachik Paul Chater Ward, an
Eye Hospital, and various Cancer Wards. She had also created a
Garekin 1 Scholarship Fund for post graduate students to study at
various universities in India.
All the kids were given Rs. 1500 each every X’mas for shopping money.
Sonia considered the security of the school as being very important,
and nobody was allowed IN or OUT of the school without her express
permission.
At this stage an old boy and his wife turned up and asked to be let
in. The Chaprasees kept them waiting for ages at the gate, and they
were finally allowed in to the waiting room, and after an hours wait,
they left, without seeing the school, or Sonia John! Sonia’s reaction
was that she thought they wanted money! The infirmary had 14 beds.
There is a man from Armenia called Souren Babakhanyan who works there
as a sports and general teacher; we met him.
It is our opinion that it is a real shame that Sonia decided to oust
the Sookias brothers from the various Committees; she now runs the
Church Committee and all it’s huge pot of money…ON HER OWN. We feel
this is a dangerous precedent, and is absolutely not being run in a
democratic manner. Sonia is obviously, in her opinion, doing a lot of
good work for the school, but we got the feeling that she ran it as
an authoritarian, without any semblance of communication without any
one else in the outside world. This undemocratic manner of
single-minded management technique is a dangerous precedent, as there
is no one else to control the decisions she makes with the College,
as well as with the vast funds held in the kitty of the Church. Sonia
said she sends her ‘Hisab (Accounts), to the Armenian Church in
Hayastan on a yearly basis.
We examined the Armenian Sports Club, and regret to inform you that
it was in a very run-down state, and appeared to be totally
neglected. This will be particularly sad news for all you Rugger
players out there.
The Armenian Old Peoples home is being run by our very own Uncle
Charlie Sarkies, (father of Margaret and Joe Sarkies), known to all
as Uncle Cha Cha. We visited him and we spent some precious time
together; he is doing sterling work in looking after the Church, the
Old peoples home with it’s nursing staff, as well as the Armenian
cemetery, all of which we visited. Uncle Charlie, as Manager of the
Old People’s home, also comes under the authority of Sonia John.
Thus, it would appear that Sonia is running THE WHOLE SHOW, SINGLE
HANDED. It is a pity that she does not permit any form of dissension;
nor does she permit anyone else on to HER committees. This form of
single-rule policy, I repeat is very dangerous, and in our opinion
should not be permitted.
There is no doubt that Sonia believes she is doing a good job;
however, after interviewing the Sookias brothers, Uncle Charlie, and
Sonia John, we think there should be a fairer method of management
than the one she imposes on all 3 committees. Other older Armenians
who have a great deal of experience of running these committees
should be consulted before making momentous decisions re. the School
and giving away Armenian Church funds …willy-nilly. I believe a
FAIRER, MORE DEMOCRATIC method of MANAGEMENT should be adopted.
Sonia John informed us that she was abundantly aware of all the
accusations being made against her, from Armenians all around the
world, and she said she had no intention of going on line to defend
herself, as she felt she had not done anything wrong. It made me very
sad to witness this rather messy scenario; it is a pity the Armenian
community in Calcutta, as small as it is, cannot get together to
combine their forces to keep this very small community together,
without constant bickering and false accusations.
I volunteered the services of Zohrab as the future new Principal of
the College, and she asked about his qualifications. She said she
welcomed him to apply for the post, should he feel he was suitable.
Please feel free to circulate this letter to all your friends, so
they can catch up with currents events about their wonderful old
school. I will be sending you some lovely photos shortly. I am sorry
I was not able to only give you positive opinions, but we must report
back in an honest fashion, as we found the situation. I have brought
back a year-book from the Armenian College for you, and will be
pleased to post it to you if you send us your full postal address.
Barevnerr from all 4 of us,
Hasmick and Armen
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

‘Kash’ moves on from L.B.

‘Kash’ moves on from L.B.
By Jim Kashishian
Long Beach Press-Telegram, CA
Feb 28 2005
When asked where I come from, my answer is “California,” followed by
“Long Beach,” if I am pressed further. I get asked that quite often as
I have been a resident of Madrid for the last 38 years. Not only am I
a native of Long Beach (born in 1941 at Long Beach Memorial Hospital),
but my father, Edwin George Kashishian (better known as Kash), was
born in Long Beach. His mother and father were originally from an
Armenian neighborhood in Kayseri, Turkey, and settled in Long Beach
around 1910. George Sarkes Kashishian and his wife, Pearl, became a
bit of a legend in Long Beach by eventually living in a home styled
with a Turkish dome on the top of it.
Anyone who has spent any time at all in Long Beach should now begin
to put two and two together and come up with the name: Kashishian
Oriental Rug Company on East Carson between Long Beach Boulevard and
Atlantic Avenue.
As my grandfather was in the construction business, he built the
domed rug company building (where his family also lived) for his wife
to have a place of business for the career she learned as a child
in Kayseri. G.S. Kashishian, contractor, will also be remembered as
the name imprinted every few yards on many, many of the sidewalks in
Long Beach in the 1930s, ’40s and ’50s. I remember my school friends,
as we walked to Burbank Elementary School, spitting on the name when
I pointed out that it was mine! I can laugh about it now!
Pearl became well-known in the city for her expertise in Oriental rugs
and my dad, Kash, carried on the tradition, expanding the business
into rug and carpet cleaning. During a recent visit in the Bixby
Knolls area, I asked him if he had cleaned carpets in many of the
homes we were passing. He answered with “an approximate 90 percent,”
which may be exaggerated somewhat, but probably isn’t far off.
The rug company building still stands, although it is now a private
home. My sister and I were very pleased that it was purchased by a
family that wanted to keep it in its original state when the company
was recently terminated.
My father turned 90 on Feb. 16. Myself, my Irish wife, Orla, and
my sister, Gracia and her husband, Tom McDairmant, joined Dad for a
small birthday party with a few relatives and friends.
We all were amazed at arriving in Avalon in less than an hour,
remembering the steamboat that used to take over three hours when
we were kids. The Belmont Shore area has come alive with shops and
people, and nearby Naples is really a beautiful area.
It is amazing to recognize street names and know exactly where you
are but not recognize a single building in the area. Some places never
change, though. The Art Theater still stands on Fourth Street … the
Villa Riviera still pokes its head up high (although the area around
the beach side doesn’t look right to me, as the hill should drop
steeply and the road should go onto the planks that were Rainbow Pier).
I ended up in Madrid due to my music, which began in the Long Beach
school system at Burbank Elementary, Franklin Junior High and later
Poly High, and was nurtured further by being a member of the Long
Beach Junior Concert Band for about 10 years. The U.S. Air Force
became my next stop in music after several years playing jazz in and
around Seal Beach and Huntington Beach, and I was eventually assigned
to a band in Spain. I later decided to stay on to become a part of
the recording studio and jazz scene here.
The Press-Telegram had a lot to do with my upbringing in Long Beach.
Also, as I had newspaper routes for years and eventually had a “corner”
of my own, which involved passing out the papers to the various boys
for their routes and managing their “collections” from the subscribers.
The purpose of writing down all of this history is brought on by the
fact that we are moving my father to be close to my sister and her
extended family in Warsaw. Dad’s wife, Ruth, died last May and there
is no family left in the area now. Time moves on, I know, but I find
it a little sad that almost 100 years of Long Beach history with the
Kashishian family comes to an end as Kash leaves the area.
It is a beautiful city, with wonderful opportunities and wonderful
weather, and should be appreciated by those who live in it. I wish
to thank all those Long Beach residents who supported me as I grew
up and a farewell to all who were friends of the Kashishian family.
— Jim Kashishian, a Long Beach native, lives in Madrid.
–Boundary_(ID_rqNqTir/kZG+XKRD/udzxQ)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress