Tweet
ON A VULGAR AND DANGEROUS TENDENCY
Hayots Ashkharh Daily
Sept 5 2007
Armenia
An extremely vulgar and dangerous tendency is being observed in our
public moods: a tendency of finding fault with one's own country,
outraging it and, what's more, gloating over its failures as well as
the negative assessments made by the others. Listen to the street
rumors and read some newspapers! There is so much "self-criticism"
contained in them!
We are not, naturally, against criticism. We speak about having a sense
of proportion. As well as a realistic character. These are mandatory
for the welfare of the country, society and the people. We are not
against the freedom of speech and democracy. We are the supporters
of democracy, this is who we are. With one difference only - we are
mature. Just like the countries where it has existed for a long time.
Because, those countries do not have anything that reminds of a fanatic
self-criticism. They do not have a specific culture of criticism. They
are restrained and balanced. Whereas we have parties, politicians
and media who exclusively specialize in using bad language in their
country's address.
There are simply no such activists and parties in the West, if we
speak about more or less significant figures.
In this sense, the United States once gave the world a good example.
What initiatives did the authorities undertake when our country rushed
down into the abyss of the Great Depression during the first three
decades of the past century? On the one hand they were trying their
best to mitigate the conversations about the existing misfortune,
and on the other hand - inspire the nation with optimism.
And the slogan was this: the problem does not consist in the
difficulties; the most important thing is not to be afraid of them,
at that time everything will come right. And all the mass media
supported such policy with solidarity.
Without waiting for one another's turn, all the political figures,
under the leadership of President Roosevelt, started inoculating
optimism in public consciousness. During the meetings of the owners
representing the film-producing companies of Hollywood a decision
was made to overflow the country with patriotic films, as well as
contemporary and historical themes.
And instead of mass and nationwide self-exposure - something which
seemed to be imposed by the situation - there began a nationwide
self-praising. Did it help? Of course, it did. And it has served as
a kind of unwritten law ever since.
In other Western countries the situation is similar in many aspects;
public attention, whether past or present, never focuses on "negative
phenomena" in a pointblank manner (or rather, it is never made to
focus on such matters). While here, in Armenia, conversations about
the country's misfortunes and faults is the most common and widespread
topic for discussion. The people will listen to them and even add
something new. The situation in the West is just the contrary: nobody
will make any response to such conversations.
American schools indoctrinate patriotism from the earliest ages.
There is even a special law "on Patriotism". In Western Europe
everything is done in a more delicate manner. But there too, a thousand
of methods are being used to breed pride for the nation.
Yes, we and the West are on different poles in terms of our national
self-consciousness (national self-assessment). What exists in our
reality is self-scourging and self-criticism, while in the West there
is pride for the country and the people.
In our reality, most different people using bad language in the
country's address are sure they are doing a fair job. Only by way of
raising an incessant alarm about the country's negative phenomena will
it be possible to achieve their eradication. Is it so in reality,
however? Whether there is no destructive wave of common hatred,
stemming from the "sea" of self-exposure?
Summing up the above-mentioned statements, we become faced with an
exclusive situation, existing in no other place of the world.
Different sources violently inoculate in public consciousness streams
of negative assessments in our country's address, like colossal and
permanent toxic injections. Those "inoculations" differ from one
another in terms of their contents. But they produce a general,
synthesized result: this country is worth nothing. Wherever you
look and whatever you discuss, there is an abyss, full of negative
phenomena.
This is why, it is so common to us not to see our own shortcomings
the way they are and instead, exaggerate the things; and be driven
to despair on any occasion. Yes, this is a national characteristic,
which, however, was created artificially. The kind of the individual
that has developed in our reality is original and quite common:
one who sees nothing good all around and criticizes everything.
But how long is it possible to look upon one's own country with the
eyes of an ill-disposed stranger?
Hayots Ashkharh Daily
Sept 5 2007
Armenia
An extremely vulgar and dangerous tendency is being observed in our
public moods: a tendency of finding fault with one's own country,
outraging it and, what's more, gloating over its failures as well as
the negative assessments made by the others. Listen to the street
rumors and read some newspapers! There is so much "self-criticism"
contained in them!
We are not, naturally, against criticism. We speak about having a sense
of proportion. As well as a realistic character. These are mandatory
for the welfare of the country, society and the people. We are not
against the freedom of speech and democracy. We are the supporters
of democracy, this is who we are. With one difference only - we are
mature. Just like the countries where it has existed for a long time.
Because, those countries do not have anything that reminds of a fanatic
self-criticism. They do not have a specific culture of criticism. They
are restrained and balanced. Whereas we have parties, politicians
and media who exclusively specialize in using bad language in their
country's address.
There are simply no such activists and parties in the West, if we
speak about more or less significant figures.
In this sense, the United States once gave the world a good example.
What initiatives did the authorities undertake when our country rushed
down into the abyss of the Great Depression during the first three
decades of the past century? On the one hand they were trying their
best to mitigate the conversations about the existing misfortune,
and on the other hand - inspire the nation with optimism.
And the slogan was this: the problem does not consist in the
difficulties; the most important thing is not to be afraid of them,
at that time everything will come right. And all the mass media
supported such policy with solidarity.
Without waiting for one another's turn, all the political figures,
under the leadership of President Roosevelt, started inoculating
optimism in public consciousness. During the meetings of the owners
representing the film-producing companies of Hollywood a decision
was made to overflow the country with patriotic films, as well as
contemporary and historical themes.
And instead of mass and nationwide self-exposure - something which
seemed to be imposed by the situation - there began a nationwide
self-praising. Did it help? Of course, it did. And it has served as
a kind of unwritten law ever since.
In other Western countries the situation is similar in many aspects;
public attention, whether past or present, never focuses on "negative
phenomena" in a pointblank manner (or rather, it is never made to
focus on such matters). While here, in Armenia, conversations about
the country's misfortunes and faults is the most common and widespread
topic for discussion. The people will listen to them and even add
something new. The situation in the West is just the contrary: nobody
will make any response to such conversations.
American schools indoctrinate patriotism from the earliest ages.
There is even a special law "on Patriotism". In Western Europe
everything is done in a more delicate manner. But there too, a thousand
of methods are being used to breed pride for the nation.
Yes, we and the West are on different poles in terms of our national
self-consciousness (national self-assessment). What exists in our
reality is self-scourging and self-criticism, while in the West there
is pride for the country and the people.
In our reality, most different people using bad language in the
country's address are sure they are doing a fair job. Only by way of
raising an incessant alarm about the country's negative phenomena will
it be possible to achieve their eradication. Is it so in reality,
however? Whether there is no destructive wave of common hatred,
stemming from the "sea" of self-exposure?
Summing up the above-mentioned statements, we become faced with an
exclusive situation, existing in no other place of the world.
Different sources violently inoculate in public consciousness streams
of negative assessments in our country's address, like colossal and
permanent toxic injections. Those "inoculations" differ from one
another in terms of their contents. But they produce a general,
synthesized result: this country is worth nothing. Wherever you
look and whatever you discuss, there is an abyss, full of negative
phenomena.
This is why, it is so common to us not to see our own shortcomings
the way they are and instead, exaggerate the things; and be driven
to despair on any occasion. Yes, this is a national characteristic,
which, however, was created artificially. The kind of the individual
that has developed in our reality is original and quite common:
one who sees nothing good all around and criticizes everything.
But how long is it possible to look upon one's own country with the
eyes of an ill-disposed stranger?