Armenia is a post-Soviet country with the full implications of that word, and these three words contain in them enough pathologies to require a century of patient reforms and social change.

Now as to how this author characterizes Diaspora demands of Turkey, I cannot help but laugh. Does the diaspora demand the oppression of Turks? Does the author seriously think that all diasporans are somehow members of the Tseghpesht movement? Diasporans have in general favored a more democratic environment in Turkey, and insisting that the genocide is recognized DOES NOT mean oppressing anyone — only a lunatic would equate the two. In fact, Genocide recognition would help free Turkey from a lot of problems and would enable it to have rational conversation with Armenians everywhere. Finally, the author is curiously silent on the Turkish blockade of Armenia, Section 301 of the Turkish code, the murder of Hrant Dink, the destruction of the monument of friendship some Turks were building, the exclusion of the term Armenian when referring to Kars, and a plethora of other CURRENT Turkish policies and actions designed to harm Armenia. Does the author think that somehow “dialog” (what ever that empty word means) is possible under these circumstances? If she does, wonderful, let her fly to Ankara and engage in all the dialog she wants.

Following are my views on her commentary:

1)Turkey’s and most Turks’ rejection of Armenian allegations of propaganda nature have been largely based on their being defined as Armenian “genocide”:There are only poor convincing documented proofs conducive to the Ottoman intention for a genocide exercise on the Ottoman Armenians. Many of the documents, largely circulated for Armenian propaganda all over the world, are either fabricated or false and falsified (Vereschagin’s tableau, Talat Pasa Telegrammes, Morgenthau’s Memories couched by his parochial Armenian secretaries,(invention of Naim Bey); Hitler’s remarks, British war propaganda publication-Blue Book, even Lepsius Documents, and “four million perished Armenian claim” made by the 1919 film-Ravished Armenia.

2)Turkey and Turks, including Turkish patriots- domininatly leftists and Marxists-yet not certain reactionary racist Turkish nationalists, accepted, since the Ottoman period the tragic events that occurred during the practice of the Ottoman Relocation Decree of Armenians in May 1915. They accepted injustices, brutalities that have been done in the process of Relocation, and deeply regretted the sufferings endured by the relocated, however the malpractices had been duly and severely(including execution of many among whom some innocent officials)punished.
3) I find myself in good agreement with Maral’s statements: Therefore, we must always be mindful of how the story is presented, especially when taking into consideration that many of the viewers are Diaspora Armenians who often believe in the idea of an enemy, reunification of historic lands, and war as the rightful method of protecting and obtaining those borders”.

“In the minds of less conscious viewers, the lines between Turkish and Kurdish may become interchangeable, as the majority of both practice Islam and both are associated with the state of Turkey then and now. Therefore, we must always be mindful of how the story is presented, especially when taking into consideration that many of the viewers are Diaspora Armenians who often believe in the idea of an enemy, reunification of historic lands, and war as the rightful method of protecting and obtaining those borders.I believe that “My Grandmother’s Tattoos” will only be the beginning of an attempt to expose the unknown histories of ethnic/historic Armenians, Armenian citizens, Kurds, Turkish people, Assyrians, Greeks, Lebanese, as well as the many other peoples of our shared world. And I truly hope that through this gained knowledge we will be better equipped to deal with one another’s differences in order to make space for all citizens of the world to live in peace, including Armenians and Turks”.

Maral’s voice is like that of Aurora’s to Tithonus. Let the grasshoppers, be it Turk or Armenian, jump in peace and happiness in our beautiful lands.

As for what feels like an attack on the way I write, I would like to jump the gun and say that this is just another way in which you are judging things based on how they should be (or what the “experts” say it should be) and refusing to understand it (which you say you don’t) if it won’t fit the laws of grammar? the English language? language in general?

Which is fine, too. I simply find it hard to relate to people who won’t allow themselves to think/see/understand in ways that they are not used to. (This makes sense given that you are an academic/historian.)

In any case, I appreciate your opinion and I hope the readers will take something from both and all sides.

Oh, and it is ALWAYS about gender.

My use of the word “we” was never meant to include you (another case of jumping the gun) but I did have in mind some of my friends and colleagues who were not terrible impressed with the work either. Like I said, Khardalian would have done a great service to the viewer if she had used her grandmother’s experience as an example of the plight of other women at the time and then used it to speak about other women who underwent similar experiences.

I am a historian. I’ve done research at the archives stored in Britain, France, and Geneva (by the League of Nations) and much of it is presented in a manner which will do anything but bore the reader. The documents found in these archives answer the questions that I posed in my earlier post. Can you answer any of those questions after watching this documentary, assuming that you have little to no knowledge of the topic itself?

Again, you seem to have a penchant for telling people what they are doing when they express their opinions. The presence of a historian or a sociologist is not to “validate” a witness’ story, but to provide everything in greater context, which might not necessarily be achieved through the account of an individual. If Khardalian and others had promoted this as simply a work of art, that would have been fine; but because it was promoted as a documentary that purported to tell the tragic stories of other women who went through such torments, it fails to make the grade.

I disagree with Armen’s comments or opinion on how the film should have been made. I think having the personal stories or personal thoughts of the family members attract the audience to watch the film. And dry documentaries are not always interesting to watch anyways.

Finally, I don’t believe in the credibility of reason to explain ethical and other issues that involve the soul… For me the artists can better demonstrate or shed light on issues like this than sociologists or historians.