A movie about the beginnings of the Armenian Genocide

Since my posting about the upcoming Holodomor film went over so well, I thought I'd post the trailer for a movie written against the backdrop of the Armenian Genocide.

Comments

  1. UnknownMarch 3, 2017 at 8:35 AM

    And to follow up in a similar vein to the brilliant comments on the last movie trailer:

    What a bunch of Turkophobic falsehoods! Was it Turks who carried this out, no it was Ottomans! Is outrage!!

    I guess when we have a non traditionally Orthodox nation carrying out atrocities it becomes easier to accept?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AndreiMarch 3, 2017 at 12:34 PM

      Two things to consider Gregory

      (1) Your snide remark about the previous thread continues the calumny the Russians equal Bolsheviks whereas a great many Ükrainians" were in fact Bolsheviks, who were equal opportunity killers and that the events in question killed a great many more "Russians" than Ukrainians

      That's the first thing

      Now imagine, if you can a Turkish movie about the ethnic cleansings and genocides of the USA - you know maybe a Turkish movie about the "Trail of Tears" where evil white Anglo Saxon Protestants destroy the lives of peaceful Native Americans and move them from their ancient bountiful lands to places for unviable agricultural purposes where the survivors rot

      " Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

      Delete
    2. The Jester of QiMarch 10, 2017 at 10:37 AM

      Good point, Andrei. Since every country perpetrates atrocities, let's pretend none of them ever happened.

      Delete
  2. Ivan S. BogolyubovMarch 15, 2017 at 12:20 PM

    I think the real concern is that had Dame Hillary been elected, this piece would have served well (I will leave aside the question of whether it was intended for this purpose) as a piece of agitprop to further confirm the American public's distaste for Russia, thereby making further aggressions against Russia, even military ones, more palatable. This would have worked, as Andrei points out, because most Americans think the only major atrocity of the 20th century was the Holocaust (hence both these movies will come as close to a history lesson in these other atrocities as most Americans will ever receive) and, again as pointed out by Andrei, most Americans would not be able to delineate Bolshevik/Soviet from Russian. The Soviets were monsters who preyed on the people of Ukraine and Russia proper which anyone can learn by cracking open the Gulag Archipelago and reading for thirty minutes (it will take you much longer to read it, to be sure, but I think 30 minutes will be convincing).

    When it comes to a movie about the Armenian Genocide (an historical event more should relieve themselves of their ignorance of) or the proposed Trail of Tears, I welcome both and would not be so concerned because there is no agitprop potential. No one in America is saber-rattling towards Turkey, nor are many Native Americans looking to pull off a coup d'état. But in America, while the President is more favorable towards Russia, you still have Warhawks like Graham and McCain in places of power and even Mattis referring to Russia as existential threats. This would have been even more volatile if Clinton had been elected. In this case, then, I think it is important to clearly delineate Russia from Soviet, though I am less concerned in our present circumstances than I would be had Hillary won.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ivan S. BogolyubovMarch 15, 2017 at 12:21 PM

    To clarify, the "this piece" referenced in my first sentence was the Bitter Harvest film, not this one about the Armenian Genocide.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sr. Vassa: There's no ontological impediment to priestesses

Image
Is the male-only priesthood a discipline or essential to the nature of being a priest? Sr. Vassa (again unflinchingly taking up a contentious topic by climbing up the ladder to the highest platform and then jumping into the deep end head first) dives right in and says there is no reason beyond personal preference to not have female clergy. You know, when people ask me about women in priesthood, they say, 'Sister, why can't women be priests?' And I say, 'Women CAN be priests. We don't WANT them to be priests.' Because you see, God can do anything, and the Church, by divine authority, uh, can do anything, but, the Church doesn't want to - and that's a legitimate reason. What I don't like is when we TRY to pretend that there are other reasons for this, because it's legitimate not to want something, and there are reasons not to want this - right? - but, we shouldn't pretent that there's some... reason, that, for example, the maleness...
Read more

OCA takes strong stand for canonical Orthodoxy

( Orthochristian.com ) - The primate of the Orthodox Church in America, His Beatitude Metropolitan Tikhon of Washington and All America and Canada, will concelebrate with the primate of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine, in western Ukraine later this week. The Ukrainian Orthodox Diocese of Chernivtsi and Bukovina “awaits the visit of the primate of the Orthodox Church in America on June 1–2, 2024. Solemn services will be held in the Cathedral of the Descent of the Holy Spirit in Chernivtsi, with the participation of both primates.” The Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America formally rejects communion with the schismatics of the “Orthodox Church in Ukraine,” recognizing only the canonical UOC under Met. Onuphry. The Ukrainian primate was the honored guest at the OCA’s 18th All-American Council in July 2015.
Read more

A Response to “On administering Holy Communion in a Time of a Plague”

This was sent to me and deserves a read. You can read the Calivas article here . We can all agree that we are living in unusual times. However, the nature and extent of the illness that we face, and the proper response of the Church, is a matter of much disagreement. We have seen various responses to the COVID-19 epidemic: calls to close our Churches as infectious vectors, and demands to open them as places of spiritual healing. Directives a) ordering the cessation of sacramental life as part of an effort to “flatten the curve,” and cries for access to the divine grace that flows forth from those very mysteries; b) calling for the restriction of “at-risk persons,” and serious questions about the validity of such controls, c) instructions to liturgists to wear personal protective equipment during the celebration of the divine services and the distribution of the holy Mysteries, and uncertainty about the fitness of such practices. Who has been championing what and on behalf of whom? The ...
Read more