The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: definitions

Posted by Jeff (Guest) - Wednesday, January 17 2007, 6:01:00 (CET)
from 69.14.30.71 - d14-69-71-30.try.wideopenwest.com

Commercial -

Windows XP -

Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

TURK!! KURD!! BA'ATHIE!! AGENT!! USURPER!!

pancho wrote:
>Definitions
>
>
>Some key words which keep cropping up in discussions about the condition of Assyrians in the modern world need to be defined, for two reasons. The first is to avoid confusion because opponents are using different meanings without realizing it. The other reason to define words clearly and correctly is to better communicate with the outside world in terms it understands. Since, for present purposes, most of these discussions are taking place in English, in English-speaking countries and since the people we´re appealling for justice, aid or recognition to happen be English-speaking, there should be no question about the need to use standard definitions that are accepted and understood.
>
>Assyrians express the tragic events in their past with the most vigorous words and phrases, such as “martyrdom, “genocide” etc. Words which have already led to concessions and reparations for other people, the Jews mainly. Is it purely uncertainty of their correct meanings that gets these particular words wrong or a deliberate attempt to misuse them in order to benefit, even while knowing they don´t strictly apply. No one is doubting the legitimate tragedies of the Assyrian people, only the motive behind the choice of words used to describe them.
>
>
>Like so much about modern Assyrians there exist several parallels between the Jews and us. We reject the unflattering ones while insisting others apply. The history of the Jews has been one of unparalleled persecution for the most part. We too fasten onto that part of our history that has brought us great suffering, but for which we prefer the word persecution. Jews were sent into Diaspora and we believe the same happened to us. A genocide was inflicted upon Jews and on us too, we say. The Jews suffered a Holocaust and so did we. The Jews have been horribly persecuted and so have we etc.
>
>It isn´t because Assyrians like Jews so much and therefore want to be associated with them that we adopt the same words and imagery the world by now associates with the history of the Jews. The reason we might be claiming that we suffered all these things too, instead of “just” suffered, is that the Jews got a homeland for their claims and maybe we will also…maybe this is how you get your indigenous lands back, when you can´t do it by yourself. Someone else, more powerful, has to get it for us and perhaps the way to get them to do that, as the Jews “figured out”, is to elevate all our sufferings into monumental ones too…ones which can compare close enough to what the Jews suffered, so that we might deserve what the Jews got for their pains….a homeland.
>
>There are all sorts of dictionaries available but for the purposes of this paper one will do. It happens to be close at hand and wasn´t selected for any other reason. It´s published by Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1982 and is tittled, “The American Heritage Dictionary”, Second College Edition.
>
>
>These key words are
>1. Diaspora
>2. genocide
>3. holocaust
>4. martyr
>5. persecute
>6. nation
>7. indigenous
>
>
>Diaspora:
>
>(This word is capitalized in the dictionary. That means it´s a proper name referring to a specific, historical event.).
>
>1. The body of Jews or Jewish communities outside of Palestine or modern Israel. 2. The body of Jews living dispersed among the Gentiles after the Babylonian captivity. 3. A dispersion of an originally homogenous people.
>
>The third definition comes closest to our situation. That is, a general “dispersion” of people not associated with force necessarily. But that is not where the word derives its emotional power.
>
>The word is used, historically, and capitalized to describe the condition the Jews found themselves in when forced to leave their homeland. By “force” is meant violence brought to bear in order to make them leave and not just hard economic times etc. It refers specifically to the Jews and no one else. That could be from the fact that all Jews were ordered to leave their homeland by the Romans and, later, other European countries where they settled. Not for anything they had done at the time, but because of what they were i.e. Jews. A portion of Jews were taken into captivity a few times…by the Egyptians, Assyrians and Babylonians, but the Romans expelled them all in 70 AD as did some European countries later on. It was not a simple dispersion of Jews…it was a forced and total expulsion which left them living among non-Jews where things could only get worse for them.
>
>Since the word proper doesn´t relate to Assyrians but only Jews, we can hardly claim to be in Diaspora. The very fact that many Assyrians capitalize the word and mention how we too suffered a “Diaspora similar to the Jews”, and are still in one, shows we are mistaking the meaning of the word or, deliberately using it incorrectly to gain an unmerited advantage. Assyrians have never been ordered, as a group, to leave Iraq or anywhere else. To this day there are Assyrians welcome and trying their damndest to stay there. Many found life inhospitable in Iraq and left but the majority remained. They may have dispersed all right, but they didn´t go or rather weren´t “sent” into Diaspora. And they are living, when they can choose, among fellow-Christians. Living among fellow Jews in countries controlled by Jews is something no Jew in Diaspora, or in any other context, has ever been able to do, outside the new state of Israel.
>
>
>genocide:
>
>The systematic, planned annihilation of a racial, cultural or political group.
>
>
>To annihilate means to destroy completely. People have certainly been killed by the millions throughout history but every murdered ten thousand, or one hundred thousand or million, can´t be considered a genocide. The word has a specific, not a general meaning. It doesn´t mean “to kill people”, not even a lot of people, not even a lot of people from one group. It means to “systematically and in a planned manner, render nonexistent the members of a specific group…not people at random.
>
>Certainly Assyrians have been killed, even killed in large numbers. But that doesn´t mean they suffered genocide. Not even when a gang, invidual or an army descended on a village, such as Semele, inhabited by members of a certain group, in this case Assyrians, to kill every member in it(which didn´t happen in Semele), but stopped there, without seeking out and murdering every other member of that group living in another villages, was it genocide.
>
>Here again we believe we share something in common with the Jews. There´s no question that the Jews suffered genocide, more than once. But that latest one, at the hands of the Nazis of Christian Germany, was the most well planned and systematic genocide ever. Hitler spelled out what he “planned” to do to Jews and when he was elected head-of-state he created the “systems”, the offices, the personnel, the steps that would be followed by government agencies. This was no raid, no impassioned attack. It was cool, calculated, rational, well planned out and very, very systematic. It´s targets weren´t only the Jews of Germany but of every country of Europe and anywhere else this policy could be implemented. Wherever Jews existed, the German government had a systematic plan, dictated by its head-of-state, to kill them.
>
>
>
>holocaust:
>
>1. Great or total destruction, esp. by fire. 2. a. Widespread destruction b. A disaster. 3. Often Holocaust (capitalized) A massive slaughter, esp. the genocide of European Jews by the Nazis during World War II.
>
>This word is vague enough in its first two meanings that it can easily apply to Assyrians, along with almost everyone else on earth. If you have fifteen villages and all fifteen are wiped out, you certainly suffered a holocaust. Even a single family, if it loses everything it owns, can be said to have suffered a holocaust…a “total destruction” of their home and everything in it by fire or flood etc…which would also be a “disaster” leaving “widespread destruction” behind it.
>
>But neither of these would be a Holocaust because in its capitalized usage it becomes a proper noun referring to the genocide (that world again) of the Jews by the Nazis, a very specific event in time.
>
>martyr:
>
>1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles. 2. A person who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause or principle. 3. A person who endures great suffering: a. a martyr to arthritis. 4. A person who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.
>
>The key word in this definition is “chooses”, not “suffer” or even “death”. Let´s take the case of being a Christian in Muslim lands….a condition we say has led to our martyrdom at times. When Muslims shot us just because we are Christians, our dead became victims of murder, but not martyrs. If great obstacles were placed in front of us by Muslims because we are Christians, without giving us the choice to renounce our faith, and we had no choice, no way out but just to endure, we were not martyrs, no matter how much we suffered. It isn´t the amount of suffering, or numbers killed that meets the definition of “martyr”. It´s whether or not you were given the chance to make the “choice” to suffer. That´s what wins high honor and praise for legitimate martyrs…because they refused to “choose” the easy way out but suffered willingly instead for their religious beliefs.
>
>To be killed “for” your beliefs is not to be martyred. It is simply to be “killed for your beliefs” without the chance to save yourself by renouncing them. It´s an important distinction, but not just in this case. One´s vocabulary should contain a great number of words to allow for the communication of complex thoughts. Words tied to subtle distinctions make not only for complex and varied discussion but allow thought to roam a wide field of experience and not remain bound to fifteen or one hundred words which have to do service for what should be or could be a much more discriminating mind., especially if it seeks to address the world. There are other words to express the horror, sorrow, shock or waste of a murdered life. Martyr is one of many but it has its own specific meaning. To use it indiscriminantly is to water down its impact when we are confronted with the real thing.
>
>persecute:
>
>1. To oppress or harass with ill treatment. 2. To annoy persistently, bother. 3. To pursue, to follow.
>
>Unfortunately neither “harass” nor “ill treatment” conjure up very specific behaviors. Let´s say it has to be pretty severe and unrelenting. Under this definition lots of people may “feel” persecuted, but are they really? Neither “ill treatment” nor “harassment” can be considered justified or deserved. If you´ve committed a crime and have been sentenced to the punishment prescribed by law you can hardly claim to be a victim of persecution. Unless you or the group you belong to is being singled out unfairly.
>
>Where this term is applied to Assyrians who´ve suffered before the Law in Iraq the assumption made is that they did nothing to deserve it but were singled out for persecution because of their religion or Assyrian identity.
>
>For instance, if it is a government policy that all newborn infants must be given officially approved names, as in Portugal, then anyone refusing to do so could claim to “feeling” persecuted. But, since it´s the law and applies to everyone, it isn´t really persecution. If, on the other hand, it´s clear that by not giving Assyrian children Muslim names they might find it hard to get on in society, one could claim to being persecuted…except there is a way out. You can make the Muslim name official but use any name you wish where it does no harm. It´s not the best of all outcomes but hardly a severe form of persecution.
>
>Certainly America didn´t feel it was persecuting anyone when pressure was felt by immigrants to join the melting pot. And although outright force wasn´t used there was certainly the feeling that a good Anglo name like Scott or Jason would be better for purposes of getting on than Abdullah or even Ashurbanipal.
>
>Often what people are really expressing is a persecution “complex” where no real or serious persecution exists but rather a feeling of being “bothered” or unfairly picked upon far more than others.
>
>Assyrians use the word “persecution” to describe the response by the government of Iraq to our “legitimate” demands for a return of our homeland i.e., Iraq.. In making these demands we have used terms such as “usurpers”, “occupiers” and “illegal” when referring to the ruling government, who “stole” the country from its “indigenous” people, us.
>
>To accuse the government of any country of these things is to engage in “sedition”. Sedition is a crime, no matter how true you may think your assertions are, or even if they are true.
>
>Sedition:
>
>1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state.
>
>The case of the Native Americans comes to mind. Certainly no people have a better documented theft of indigenous lands than they do. For one thing it happened only a few centuries ago and many tribes still have signed treaties from the government of the United States promising them other lands as compensation for what was taken from them. Yet they´ve never been able to collect on anything. There isn´t even a mechanism where, by due process of law, they can lay such a claim.
>
>Unfortunately the law of the jungle still persists in international affairs where possession is 100% of the law. If you can steal it and keep it, it´s yours. All modern nations came into existence this way. It´s simply the way it´s been done forever and it won´t change soon. But no government wants to be reminded of this and so they´ve made it a crime to agitate or teach or preach such things, all of which come under the name of sedition.
>
>You may think you´re merely stating facts and history and your rights, but no government will see it that way since there is no way to legally gain redress for your grievences, So that all that is left you is to incite rebellion, which is the only way you´ll force a government to change what it doesn´t want to change. And for that, you will be prosecuted, not persecuted.
>
>nation:
>
>1. A people who share common customs, origins, history and frequently language; nationality. 2. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; country. 3. The government of a sovereign state. 4. a. A federation or tribe, esp. one composed of North American Indians. b. the territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.
>
>The first definition comes closest to describing Assyrians as a nation. But not close enough. Again, for the purposes of accuracy, which is the reason so much time and effort has gone into dictionaries (and the very reason they were ever created), each word in a definition is important, with the last one especially so, as it sets the word apart from others which may, at first glance, appear to be close to it in general meaning.
>
>The first definition given ends with the word “nationality”. While Assyrians may share common customs, origins, history and language, to varying degrees, they do not share a nationality…they are not nationals of an Assyrian nation, in the sense in which this definition uses the word “nationality” to mean a country. Just to make that clear, the second definition ends in the word “country”, so there can be no mistake. The third definition adds “sovereign state” and the very last one mentions “territory”, in case any doubt persisted.
>
>There is no “country”, “sovereign state” or “territory” where exists a, “relatively large group of people (Assyrians) organized under a “single, usually independent government”. In fact there is no Assyrian government in any country. If there was the Assyrians there would have a “nationality”, of that country. The only accepted nationality Assyrians have relates to the nations in which they are born.
>
>And, finally, Assyrians cannot form a government-in-exile having never had a government in any country they left. A government-in-exile can be legitimate when re-formed by the officials of the government forced to flee their country as a result of an illegal takeover. If an Assyrian of Iraq was never a government official, he can´t very well leave the country and have himself “elected” its prime minister or anything else, by his fellows, who are also outside the country.
>
>
>indigenous:
>
>1. Occurring or living naturally in a particular area or environment; native. 2. Intrinsic; innate.
>
>This definition, this word, seems mostly suited to plants which, as far as anyone can know, originated in one locale and were not brought there, or taken from there, artificially, by humans, though animals have certainly helped spread indigenous plants.
>
>Who can say with any certainty which of the various people passing through and settling in the Cradle of Civilization were the first ones? Which of them lived “naturally” in BetNahrain? But since this word has been conscripted for political purposes to define those who felt robbed and cheated, the United Nations ventured to define the word, where people are concerned, as any group living in one place for at least 400 years. By that definition the Euro-Americans just barely qualified as indigenous to North America. But for BetNahrain almost all the groups living there and battling each other are indigenous by now. It´s doubtful if anything useful can come of arguing, next, who is “more” indigenous, or most indigenous.
>
>
>In conclusion it should be said that Assyrians, like anyone else claiming to be in such dire straits, should aim at achieving something tangible to secure their survival and not place such hopes on the willingness of powerful entities to give us something if we can make them feel sorrow or guilty over our losses, “as they do over the Jews”. While Assyrians have suffered, so has everyone else. And as much as we might like to draw parallels between our suffering and the most extreme case we can find i.e, the Jews, we should know that other people, especially the authorities we seek to move, know what the words we use mean. When we misuse them we leave ourselves open, in the eyes of other people, to the charge of either being ignorant and unwilling to learn, or devious in a blatant effort to magnify our suffering to equal what the Jews went through, in order to get what they got. Neither position is helpful.
>
>All of the groups in Iraq today are “indigenous”. While Assyrians have suffered at times for their religion, they have not been as severely “persecuted” as others have been. They are certainly not among the MOST persecuted. While many have been killed for being Christian, there are very few credible examples of them as “martyrs”. There has been no “genocide” of Assyrians and they did not suffer a “Holocaust”. Neither have they been exiled to “Diaspora”.
>
>Clarifying the meaning and usage of these words is in no way meant to trivialize or minimize the losses and suffering of the Assyrians. In fact, it is to keep the statements made about our recent losses free from a charge of deviousness or ignorance that this clarity has been sought for we need to be careful that the last definition given for the word “martyr” doesn´t become the final judgement of history… “A person who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy”.

---------------------

- BACK TO INDEX - REPLY - QUOTE - EDIT - DELETE -

The full topic:

definitions pancho - Tuesday, January 16 2007, 19:40:00 (CET)
- Re: definitions Jeff - 01/17 06:01

Content-length: 21588
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5
Accept-charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Accept-encoding: gzip,deflate
Accept-language: en-us,en;q=0.5
Connection: keep-alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Keep-alive: 300
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?definitions-2Shr.Laci.QUOTE
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20061206 Firefox/1.5.0.9