http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/world/europe/25prexy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/04/once-again-president-obama-breaks-promise-to-call-armenian-genocide-genocide.html

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_ARMENIA_MASS_KILLINGS?SITE=OHLIM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36297.html

I figured I should give the class an update on the Turkish Denial. A short summary of the articles above is that President Obama, in a speech memorializing the Armenian Genocide, refused (as he has done previously) to use the word "genocide," despite saying he would during the campaign. Now, I must say that, ideally, a US president should call it a genocide. Turkey, however, geographically, militarily and economically is a makor US ally. Although President Obama promised speak out in the campaign, Turkey is not a country we want to alienate. I find it to be very disappointing that candidate Obama would make a false promise just to gain the vote of the Armenian American population. I, however, understand that as a president, he cannot call the genocide as such during a time when the Middle East (in which Turkey is one of our few allies if you count it as part of the Middle East) is so unstable. Although President Obama's actions are reproachable, they are necessary. We cannot think that the fault lies on the US. The blame for our president's actions must be firmly placed on Turkey. They are the ones instituting the gag rule. The denial is their fault. It almost seems petty that, to them, the difference between the words "atrocity" and "genocide" is the difference between an enemy and an ally. Thus, though I would like the US to acknowledge the genocide, it is not our fault that we cannot. It is Turkey's.

Will we even vote about Armenia?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/06/us.turkey.genocide.debate/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+rss/cnn_topstories+(RSS:+Top+Stories)&utm_content=FaceBook

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=10021756

When checking the news, I stumbled upon these and many other articles about the recent vote by a US foreign affairs council to recognize the Armenian genocide as a genocide. When looking at the headlines, the news seems inspiring. The resolution, however, is non-binding, and it merely says that it is in the US's best interests to identify the genocide as such. The resolution, also, passed only 23-22. Thus, what seemed initially like a step forward for Armenia means nearly nothing. To make things worse, it is unlikely any such bill will ever even make it to the House of Representatives, never mind pass. What surprised me even more was that the Obama administration, an administration that run from the plattform of protecting human rights and admitting historical mistakes, is actively preventing the bill from getting anywhere (if it even becomes a bill). It seems we are still just as much dependent on Turkey as we were in 2007 when a similar resolution never even saw the light of the Legislative Branch. I guess nothing has changed.

Cutting the Gas Line: Part of a Broader Issue?

This post started in an unusual place for me: a search through all the sources through which I check the news (which is quite an extensive list) for the word "Armenia." Only one result appeared. It was an article from the BBC, which can be found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8411261.stm. The first thing I found to be odd was that the article was so brief and so full of speculation. There was no concrete reason given for the planting of the alleged bomb plot. The second was that there was absolutely no follow up. According to the BBC, Russia cut off the gas on December fourteenth, and there were absolutely no articles in the BBC or any other news source I could find about a resolution of this conflict. After scouring the web for more information, I found only articles similar to the BBC's: brief and unresolved. Most articles just quoted the BBC exactly, except for Euronews. Then I found an Armenian news source known as Asbarez. In their article, more information was given. After reading the paragraph, "Supplies of Russian gas to its ex-Soviet neighbors have been disrupted at various times in recent years by security scares and by political disputes’. Russia cut supplies to parts of the European Union last winter during a pricing dispute with Ukraine. Russia’s Gazprom stopped buying gas from Turkmenistan in April after a pipeline explosion sparked a broader diplomatic row over gas," I realized that this lack of media coverage was just a microcosm of a larger issue. Russia had frequently cut off Armenia's gas supply, and extremely few news sites covered it because there is a blatant disregard for Armenia in the media and in Western politics. This problem is not new. On pages 288 and 299, Balakian gives a detailed list of all the suffering Armenia has had to go through since independence, and cutting the gas lines is just one of the attempts to eradicate Armenia which Turkey has used in the past. Although I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, this story has no definite evidence, no broad media coverage and clear echoes of the past. Even scarier, the majority of the related links I clicked on by googling the term "Armenia gas" said that the articles had been deleted. This would make sense had the event taken place about six months ago, but the gas was only cut off on December fourteenth. Perhaps one of the comments on Asbarez sums it up best, "This was predictable enough, why Armenians are sleeping?"

cultural confusion

Balakian makes it clear early in his novel Black Dog of Fate that although his family is not considered "typical" by America's standards, they are also not a completely traditional Armenian family. Many cultural ties are severed by the death of Peter's grandmother, who grew up in a very Armenian family and taught Peter many of the Armenian words and customs that he knows. Peter describes his time with his grandmother as " access to some other world... some kind of energy that ran like an invisible force from this old country called Armenia to [his] world in New Jersey" (18). Peter's mother also represents a more Armenian side of the family, as Peter portrays his mother as someone who is very traditional and overall un-accepting of American culture: " 'The Americans,' or 'typical American' my mother would say... the phrase slapped me in the face... Weren't we Americans?" (57). Balakian identifies with his American surroundings, such as the culture of his American neighbors or the Yankee games, and is confused why his mother would consider their family un-American. Peter's father, however, seems more in tune with American culture through his support of Columbia University and their football team: "My father never entered the stadium without a program and saved every one... my father had no interest in the social part of Ivy League football... he seemed oblivious to all that, and privately I resented it" (74). Here Balakian seems to admire his father's commitment to football, a sport synonymous with American culture, however Peter "resents" the fact that his father is not like the other men at the game, engaging in social activities at the game like other Americans do. This contrast between the behaviors of Peter's mother, father, grandmother, and the other people surrounding Peter cause cultural confusion for Peter, forcing him to wonder if he identifies more as an Armenian or an American.

Different Armenian Generations

In his book Black Dog of Fate, Balakian tells his story as a third generation Armenian immigrant living in the United States. As Peter is growing up in New Jersey in the 1950's and 1960's he cares little about his family's past and their homeland's history. Young Peter Balakian does not truly appreciate his culture. Instead it has more to do with being different from mainstream American culture. He manifests his desire to be Jewish like many of his neighbors in Teaneck, and a few years later he wishes to belong with the Columbia alums in "Scott-plaid pants and blue blazers" in Tenafly. All he wants in terms of a cultural identity is to fit in. It is only years later when he is already a young adult that Peter becomes interested in and learns about his family and people's past.

Balakian belongs to a generation of contemporary Armenian authors who have written about the struggle of their people in the 20th century. The novel reminds me of another book I've read that involves Armenian culture, especially the Armenian genocide. However, instead of describing the life of a third generation genocide survivor living in the United States and striving to find his culture in a very different land from that of his family, Adam Bagdasarian's Forgotten Fire tells the story of a teenage boy, the author's great uncle Vahan Kenderian, who eye witnessed and survived the genocide in the Ottoman Empire, including his father's disappearance, his brothers' murders, and his own escape, leaving his mother behind in a killing field. Vahan was eventually able to immigrate to the United States in 1921. His arrival at Ellis Island marks the crossing point between his past and his future.

Both authors, Balakian and Bagdasarian, talk about the lives of Armenian genocide survivors and their descendants. Bagdasarian talks about the actual ordeals of earlier 20th century Armenians in the Ottoman Empire whereas Balakian chooses to discuss how that Armenian culture can fit in to the more complex American culture, which incorporates cultures from all over the world. It is the story of rebuilding a family's life after tragedy and about trying to find one's identity and place in society. Together, the two narratives can be seen as two chapters in the same story of overcoming suffering and starting anew.

"Born in New York City"

“The more aloof, distant, and disapproving my father became, the more I thought of him as Armenian. The truth is I never thought of my father as an immigrant…He was so thorough about not identifying with ways that might be thought of as ‘ethnic’—that generic word Americans like to use to refer to ‘the other’ …He sometimes told people he was born in New York City. ‘It makes it easier,’ he said. ‘When I die just put ‘born in New York City,’’ he told me once when I was in college. Around his Armenian friends he never said such things; they all knew he was born in Constantinople.” (79-80)

Balakian portrays his father’s desire to blend into American culture and not appear “ethnic” as a result, possibly, of his experiences during the Armenian genocide when he was part of “the other.” Negative experiences such as the “train departing Constantinople” (84), most likely the Berlin-Baghdad Railway, have made it easier for Balakian’s father to forget his past and “not identify” with the ugly side of the Armenian past. The emotions and memories Balakian’s father associates with his Armenian past are so powerful and influential that he does not even want to speak the Armenian language with his Armenian patients. Balakian’s father tells people that he was born in New York City to not only become part of the “we,” the majority of Americans born in the United States, but also to further distance himself from his Armenian past. Interestingly, Balakian’s father never mentions this false New York City birth story among his Armenian friends since “they all knew he was born in Constantinople.” Possibly, the shared experiences during the Armenian genocide have created an unspoken connection between Balakian’s father and his friends that delves deeper than the subject of birthplace. The power of these past experiences has created the feeling that only those who have lived through the same experiences can comprehend the magnitude of the Armenian genocide. Essentially, the Armenian genocide is a subject that Balakian’s father only feels comfortable acknowledging, even very subtly, with his closest companions.

Balakian, his father, and Armenian Genocide

"My father, his voice rising with a modicum of excitement, asked, 'So what have you found out about Armenia?'

'I wrote about Turkey,' I said.

My father stared at me, and silence hung over the table. 'What?' His voice cracked as he lingered on the t. 'You were supposed to write about––'

'I know," I cut in, 'but I couldn't find anything.'

He was shouting now. 'Don't you know what the Turks did to us?'

'Of course,"'I said, but I was too hurt and confused to admit I didn't know what the Turks did to us. Although I recalled the word massacres coming up in conversations every once in a while, when children were not supposed to be around, no one ever attached the word to a meaning." (100)

In the passage above, Peter Balakian recalls a memory of a report he wrote on Turkey, that had enraged his father, even though he had received an A. As Peter researched for his paper, originally about Armenia, by trying to go through books about Turkey, "[he] found that [he] had read several books on Turkey without ever once coming across a reference to Armenia." (99) Soon after the founding of the Turkish Nationalist government, the government adopted a policy of denying the Armenian Genocide and took many measures to suppress any discussion of the genocide in international and public forums. (Armenian National Instititute) In addition to such an international coverup by the Turks, Balakian's family never discussed the events of the Armenian Genocide in front of the children, probably to shield them from the horrors done to their ancestors. Balakian's father's outrage and hurt seems to be rooted in his Armenian pride and a general misunderstanding between him and his son. At this point in his teenage life, Balakian has no idea about these massacres, but somehow, his father expects him to already have knowledge of these mass killings because of his research. So between the lack of information in Balakian's research and the lack of conversation about his family history, Balakian is still in the dark about his Armenian past.

The Blending of Cultures

In the Black Dog Of Fate, Peter Balakian reveals that no matter how "Armenian" his family may seem, their Armenian traditions nevertheless developed and grew with aspects of other cultures until a hybrid culture was formed.

On page 89, Balakian writes "Like many Armenians, my grandparents' had been converted to Protestantism from their own Armenian Orthodox Christianity by the American missionaries who went to Turkey in the nineteenth century with hopes of converting the Turks from Islam. By the time the Aroosians and the Shekerlemedjians had come to the United States, they were already on the road to being American by virtue of their Protestantism- a Protestantism that had, as well, nearly two thousand years of Armenian Christianity behind it."

As the lifestyle of Balakian's family suggests, such as the long ritualistic Armenian dinners, the traditions of Protestantism are blended into a background of Armenian Christianity in the foreign lands of America.

Also of particular interest is the impact that a role-model country like the U.S can have on the people of another country like Armenia.