About a month ago I met Peter Balakian in a semi-formal setting. I was much disappointed. I had even an unpleasent discussion with him. I found him to be one of the "old guard" and an "arrogant son of a gun." While he certainly has literary and other style and class, his message was much of nothing - "me, me upper-midle class upbringing, my memories, my assimilation, my discomfort,my rediscovery of my identity and my confusion about it" etc. The man has absolutely no vision for this nation and still lacks identity - his Armenian identity is just a result of reverse association with the Turks.

What a mixed bag!

MJ, May 26 2002

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

Balakian is a product of Bergen County, New Jersey USA. The Armenian communty there are the most pompous, arrogant and self-serving bunch I have ever encountered, and this includes many of my own flesh and blood. They are ignorant to boot, dealing only with generalities and knowing nothing of nuance. As for Balakian, just read his book and you will see the forces which formed him.

Khodja

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

After having a conversation with him I have no desire to waist my time reading him - he has nothing to tell that would be of interest to me. Besides, he was very transparent in demonstrating the "forces that have shaped him."

MJ, May 26 2002

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

Reading the works of someone who has upset you is NEVER wasted. I am an unabashed liberal but watch Fox News for many hours every day. I want to see how those I oppose are mind-manipulating the American public. Balakian's book is a revelation for every Armenian-American. Do not blame him for the milieu in which he was raised.

Khodja, May 26 2002

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

Khodja,

Contrary to the approach to life of some of those we know here… I don't make decisions on "what to read and what not to read" based on "if the author has upset me or not." I don't have to let things go through my personal "filters" to have attitude towards them.

As to Balakian – I find reading him not being worth my time, though fighting him and his alike would be a well-spent time, perhaps.

MJ

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

I read Balakian's "Black Dog of Fate" when i was 18, about a year ago. I actually liked his memoir.
I found the book to be interesting, especially the middle part and the ending.

What are these "forces" that you guys are talking about?
I think that he knows a lot about our nation, since he wrote about our history in his memoir, he has been invited to speak in many ARmenian related events and he's also active in Armenian community.
Anyways, i don't really get why you guys are dissing him so much Give him a break.

Arine

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

Peter Balakian

I read Balakian's book about 18 months ago, and found it really boring. I especially couldn't see any point about all the American stuff. There must have been some good points to the book - but I can't remember them now: all I remember is at the end being glad that I had been lent a copy rather than buying it.

Bellthecat, May 27, 2002

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

I also read Balakian a while ago and the only things I remember is that he was a professor, a poet and that he met many in the intelligentsia of NYC West side in the 60s (?).

Light reading. Upper middle class ethnic autobiography.

But he did help to bring Armenia and a few issues to the forefront. That´s enough for me. We should take what we can. Criticizing always, of course.

Boghos

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

Alright, this MJ dumb ass is just an idiot. All he does is criticize people think he's some smart guy or something. Balakian a couple weeks ago was on national TV talking about the Armenian Genocide. What have you done to help people recognize of the Armenian Genocide??? I've made a web-site about it, I've been featured in the nespaper a couple times talking about it, in class my assignments are about it. You are the reverse Armenian or whatever you called Balakian.

Sako_Aper, Sep 4 2003

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

grow up and watch your language.

just because you have a website on the genocide that gets 5 visitors a year does not make you better Armenian than anyone else.

Also, go back and reread the Code of Conduct of this forum one more time before posting here again.

Azat (moderator), Sep 4 2003

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

Sako: Anyone who puts the people before himself, and uses every opportunity to further the Cause, is a great man. I respect you for what you've accomplished, and what you are doing to help us all.

KnightOfArmenia, Sep 6 2003

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

Today I purchased "Black Dog of Fate" in Armenian from Abril bookstore. It is translated and published in Armenia. Even though my Armenian reading/writing so bad that I probably can't read it, I still felt obligated to buy a copy.

Azat, Oct 13 2003

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


I just finished his latest book and I have to say that it is a very good read and most Armenians should pick up a copy and read it.

The Burning Tigris

Azat, Oct 24 2003

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

Peter Balakian

I am in the middle of reading it. Right after midterm exams I will complete it. A very good book, my only criticism being that he ignores my relatives and so many other prominent Armenians to plug his family and the ancestors of the friends of his late physician father's family, as well as, the families of his parents close friends in Tenafly.

America-Hye, Oct 24 2003

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

An old friend of mine (non Armenian) just gave me a call today and mentioned that he heard Peter on the radio (in Seatle) today..and whatever he said (concerning the Genocide) made a positve impression. Aparently the book is now #5 on the NY Times bestseller list! (according to my bud) great news IMO....stil need to pick it up and read it...

THOTH, Nov 8 2003

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

Hey guys i'm from lebanon and i don't really know how armenians in the US think about the armenian cause and question.I think that peter Balakian did a good job in his book "Black Dog Of Fate" and i was touched and his transformation from a typical american into an ARMENIAN american really impressed me.I think we all have this problem for instance in my case i don't feel like a lebanese and the Arabs i guess hate us for that somehow.lebanon is only a temporary place in my life and i hope that someday i'll go and live in armenia 4ever.I hope u do 2.I can't to read his new book.

Sar, Dec 1 2003

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

Holdwater: Sar surely exemplifies the Armenian who historically has felt loyalty for the country nice enough to have them. Richard Hovannisian surely picked an appropriate word when he referred to the Armenian community in America as a "colony." Really, Do Greeks and Armenians Make True Americans?

 

In 2006, the Public Broadcasting Service of the United States, PBS, once again serviced the Armenians by featuring another Armenian Genocide show (by Andrew Goldberg, who has a record of working for Armenian-sponsored propaganda programs.) As Washington PBS affiliate, WETA, featured a rare debate back in 1983, PBS got the idea to produce a half-hour panel discussion in a half-hearted attempt for a more balanced presentation. Since PBS "acknowledges and accepts that there was a genocide," as PBS spokeswoman Lea Sloan was quoted in The New York Times, PBS did not make it a requirement for the affiliates to air the program, leaving the decision to each local station. Naturally, a good many, particularly those bowing to massive Armenian pressure, decided to forego the panel, exposing the masses to the pure propaganda of the program. WETA, ironically, was one.

WNET, the New York station — which reversed its original decision to air the discussion; only two of the top ten markets were open to the idea — had protests of frenzied Armenians in front of its doors, physically joined by a congressman, Anthony Weiner; the ethnic-pandering politician co-wrote a letter of protest with another U.S. Rep, Carolyn Maloney. Four other congressmen "asked all members of the House of Representatives to sign a joint letter expressing their opposition to the PBS panel discussion," as Harut Sassounian described in "VP of PBS Should Be Dismissed For Insulting Armenians " (Mar. 3, 2006.) The activist journalist added, "It is expected that many of the 150 members of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues would sign this letter. The Caucus makes up more than one-third of the entire House, a significant number when the time comes to allocate funding to PBS." Incidentally, the VP whom Sassounian attacked, Jacoba Atlas, was very much in the Armenians' corner, having described these events as "settled history." Sassounian didn't like it when Atlas stated the Armenian matter was not "entirely analogous" to the Holocaust. The unethical journalist also accused Atlas of "being responsible for this misguided decision," but it was OPB — Oregon Public Broadcasting, with whom Producer Goldberg was working — that decided on producing the panel discussion, as evident from a Mar. 6, 2006 article in CURRENT, "Panel Show Riles Rather Than Soothes Genocide Furor." (ADDENDUM, 4-06: My mistake. Atlas bore co-responsibility, along with another PBS programming executive. According to Ombudsman Getler's March 17 column, PBS stated: "PBS's chief programmers, John Wilson and Jacoba Atlas, are responsible for the ultimate decision in this case." Davis appears to have squarely been in the Armenians' corner, as a co-producer of the Goldberg film, and the last thing he would have wanted was an offsetting panel discussion. Yet Davis wound up producing the panel discussion, which predictably sided with the Armenians, in choice of moderator.)

(But we are here to focus on the unethical Mr. Balakian, not the unethical Mr. Sassounian. So let's move on to Peternocchio.)

Peternocchio once again telling a lie

Peter Balakian was so upset over OPB's decision, he wrote a long letter of protest to OPB's V.P. of Programming, David Davis. (Whom Sassounian misidentified as in charge of programming at PBS. Are we back to Sassounian again? It's hard to keep track of untruthful extremist Armenians. This is from his nasty Feb. 9, 2006 piece, "Boycott PBS Stations that Air 'Balancing' Panel on Genocide.") In this November 2005 letter, Balakian contended that the "Armenian Genocide documentary is well-balanced" (brother!) and that there are "more than a half-dozen Turkish voices in the film" (only two of which were offered scant screen time from the "denier" category (ADDENDUM, 4-06: actually, one of the two was presented in film footage, and only as a "set up" to be taken down by the genocide crowd. Effectively, there was only one voice from the opposing camp); the rest were Taner Akcam, Fatma Muge Gocek, Halil Berktay and other genocide "sell-outs." Note how the deceptive Mr. Balakian tries to portray these folks as representatives of the Turkish perspective, concluding that "we have an extraordinary number of Turkish voices already incorporated").

Balakian next moves on to a "scholarly perspective" (a scholar, of course, dispassionately studies all sides of an issue; if there is one person who does not qualify as a "scholar," it is this emotional instructor of English), actually claiming "it’s important for PBS to understand that the Armenian Genocide is not a controversial issue." Is he out of his mind? He justifies this conclusion with "this is the mainstream consensus worldwide," not bothering to add that he actively supported efforts to intimidate genuine scholars away from this debate. As if majority opinion is always an indice for truth, and certainly not in cases where everyone has been frightened away by fanatical pro-Armenians. (He gave the same stupid reason as "evidence" for his genocide, in the New York Times letter, above.)

"Third, I believe it is ethically wrong to privilege deniers..." he goes on to state. Do you also shudder when Mr. Balakian uses derivations of the word, "ethics"? He then mentions that PBS should not fear the pressures of the "Turkish government." What is the genocide-impotent "Turkish government" going to do, I wonder, start rumors that drugs are being sold on Sesame Street? As the reader ascertained from Sassounian's previous account above, all the pressure was being exerted by fanatical Armenians.

But these are typical examples of being unmindful to truth, that we have come to expect from Peter Balakian. Let's move on to his outright lie.

In the CURRENT article, Balakian is quoted once again as stating, "This is morally wrong. It is ethically wrong" (one wonders why he uses every opportunity to state how moral he is. Perhaps he feels if a contention is repeated often enough, suckers will come to believe it... as so many have with "genocide"), comparing the esteemed Prof. Justin McCarthy (one of the speakers on the panel; the ones from the other side were Taner Akcam and Balakian himself) with a "Holocaust denier" or "white supremacist." ("[Featuring those like McCarthy] is no different from having Holocaust deniers on, or white supremacists on following a documentary on slavery,”) The magazine for public broadcasting goes on to tell us:

"However, he said he participated as a panelist unwillingly after he was told by David Davis, OPB’s v.p. of national production, that the documentary wouldn’t air without the accompanying panel discussion. 'The post-show had to be done to save the documentary. The documentary was way too important. They put me in a morally difficult position,' said Balakian."

(If Balakian was going to compromise his "morals" by appearing on the panel in order to "save the documentary," we have then learned the "documentary" was anything but "well-balanced." If this were a true documentary fairly exploring the historical issues, Peter Balakian would not want anyone to see it, let alone desire to save it.)

When I read this passage, I immediately realized Balakian's contention was ridiculous. He must have a super-sized ego, to think there aren't dozens more genocide advocates to take his place, from that "mainstream consensus worldwide" he referred to. If he refused to appear, did he really believe the show would have been called off? Is he that delusional? The article provides Davis' reply:

“I don’t want to address that directly.”

Either Davis was being a gentleman, not wishing to embarrass the emotional and truth-challenged Balakian, or maybe he did not want to give the impression Balakian was an untrustworthy character, putting in jeopardy the credibility of PBS's "balanced documentary." I hope it was the former. Once David Davis learned what a liar Balakian was afterwards, I hope he had second thoughts about the validity of this propagandistic program PBS worrisomely was all too willing a party to air.

Balakian’s lie was confirmed in Sassounian's Feb. 9 piece, where we were informed Fatma Muge Gocek "refused to be on the panel." (Because it wasn't going to add anything, the excuse the refusing PBS affiliates parroted, as well as PBS's "giving in to Turkish State pressure... bound to be hailed as a victory by the Turkish State and their nationalist Diaspora." The lady is so out of touch with reality, it is pathetic. The panel discussion can't even qualify as an attempt at equal time; the best that can be said is that at least it is something, but there is no reason for anyone to "hail" it.)

Gocek's words demonstrate she was in the running to appear, clearly confirming the sky was not going to fall, had Peter Balakian similarly declined the offer. There are plenty more genocide-mad Balakians and Goceks waiting in the wings. Balakian's shameful lie was also confirmed by the PBS ombudsman, Michael Getler ("Coming Soon to Viewers Like You: 'The Armenian Genocide'," March 17, 2006), among questions "submitted to top PBS officials":

Q — Several news articles have reported, according to Colgate professor Peter Balakian, who was also an adviser on the documentary, that PBS threatened to pull the documentary if he and another genocide scholar declined to participate in the panel discussion. True?

A — This is absolutely not true. If Balakian declined, we would have sought out other historians to speak as experts in Armenian history.


ADDENDUM April 2006

Getler later added a March 22 addendum to his March 17 piece, which in good conscience must be included here.

Balakian explained, "That is a false description." What he told journalists was that the Oregon PBS producer David Davis mentioned (three times) that "PBS would not run the documentary if a post-show panel with deniers were not made," as directed by Jacoba Atlas, to whom Balakian had written a "letter in November appealing to her to drop the idea of a post-show on ethical and historical grounds." Balakian was adamant that he "never said nor implied that the documentary would not air if I personally were not on the panel. That would be, of course, absurd. Naturally, PBS would find someone else to take my place. After all my efforts to convince PBS to not produce a post-show failed I decided to go forward with the 'debate' because I have experience in discussing this subject on TV and radio and felt I could help shape the conversation in an ethical way and perhaps a way that would expose Turkish denial more fully for what it is."

[Important: Balakian never "said" the documentary would not air without his presence, but he certainly "implied" it, and strongly. How else could his statement have been interpreted: "The post-show had to be done to save the documentary. The documentary was way too important. They put me in a morally difficult position." That clearly implies that if Balakian did not personally participate, all of his dirty work on the documentary would have have gone up in smoke.] 

But let's apply some logic here. We can see from the above Balakian entry, "A Confrontation with Peternocchio," that our poet gets very emotional when confronted by "deniers." We can imagine his cocky and arrogant self sitting prettily, in full knowledge that friend Andrew Goldberg will produce a "documentary" that is fully supportive of propagandistic views. Suddenly, he gets the news that a panel discussion is a possibility, potentially throwing doubt upon the Balakian dirt. Is it difficult to imagine him going bonkers?

Particularly with his Dashnak-style "the end justifies the means" penchant to say anything and everything to further Hai Tahd, the Armenian Cause?

I believe he flipped out and said exactly what the CURRENT article reported his having said. he was doing the kind of thing his propagandistic role model Vahan Cardashian would do: lash out and throw mud even at Armenian friends like Woodrow Wilson and James Barton, trying to show the world what skunks these people really were, when they had the audacity not to go "all the way" with Hai Tahd. Balakian likely wanted to present the impression that he was the poor, innocent Armenian who had to sacrifice his moral principles because Armenian-friend and now sudden Armenian-enemy David Davis was putting him through the wringer. All Balakian could think of was to show to the world what a dirty rotten scoundrel Davis was by claiming Davis would have "blackmailed" him. He thought he would get away with it, but then this point was focused on in Getler's March 17 column. (I might have had a hand in that; I had sent Getler a message before this column appeared, pointing out the dubious Balakian claim from the March 6 CURRENT article.) Balakian noticed he was caught in the corner like a rat, and he then had to perform damage control with the following: "That would be, of course, absurd. Naturally, PBS would find someone else to take my place."

I would like to support my contention with two pieces of logic. Let's first reproduce the relevant excerpt from the CURRENT article, in its entirety:

"This is morally wrong. It is ethically wrong. It is no different from having Holocaust deniers on, or white supremacists on following a documentary on slavery,” said Peter Balakian, a Colgate University professor who wrote The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response. Balakian appeared in both Goldberg’s documentary and the panel discussion afterward. However, he said he participated as a panelist unwillingly after he was told by David Davis, OPB’s v.p. of national production, that the documentary wouldn’t air without the accompanying panel discussion. “The post-show had to be done to save the documentary. The documentary was way too important. They put me in a morally difficult position,” said Balakian. “I don’t want to address that directly,” Davis said of Balakian’s assertion. “My position would be that PBS and OPB both felt it [the panel program] was a good thing. We made that clear to Peter.”

Note how hysterical Balakian is sounding. (We know from the quotation marks he must have been directly quoted. That is the rule, correct? Just like with Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, the recent edition of which Peter Balakian mysteriously edited... prompting the question as to why a book reprint would need an editor... we just know the awful things put into Talat and Enver's mouths must have been quoted verbatim, since the statements were within quotation marks.)

Here is the twofold logic:

1) Why in the world would the CURRENT article's author, Geneva Collins. have made up the part about Balakian's having been forced to participate unwillingly? Unlike Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, which I was obviously joking about, Collins appears to be responsible, and put quotation marks around the other parts of Balakian's statements, meaning she very likely tape-recorded Balakian's words. Let's put this together: especially with the friendliness and partisanship biased PBS people display in general toward Balakian, there is no reason on earth why Collins would have deliberately made that up. And particularly if she tape-recorded Balakian, it is very unlikely that she would have misinterpreted what Balakian had told her.

It's not only Collins; New York Times reporter Randal Archibold ["Armenian Furor Over PBS Plan for Debate," Feb. 26] interviewed Balakian and Davis separately [Archibold's quote from Davis was worded differently: "PBS did make it clear they felt the follow show was important, and we felt it was important as well'] and here is how Archibold summed up what Balakian had told him: "Mr. Balakian said he participated only because producers told him that PBS would not show the documentary without it." The "blackmail" element is not as strong here, but Balakian is obviously making it seem as though he were "forced." If his "morals" were as strong as he indicated in CURRENT, then he would have gladly stepped aside and allowed another "genocide scholar" in on the gig. The documentary would have been saved in any event. We did not need Peter Balakian to "save" this documentary, as Peter Balakian clearly implied.

2) David Davis was given the opportunity to respond. Being such a huge Armenophile, unquestioningly allowing the Goldberg propaganda complete freedom to make its claims (it was stated in an article that nearly no changes were made), it's evident Davis was being not as protective of Balakian as he was of the production. Balakian, after all, was a key component of not only the propaganda film, but the panel discussion as well. Davis did not want Balakian to come across as untrustworthy. Otherwise, now think about it: Balakian made Davis out to be a monster, twisting Balakian's arm as well as forcing Balakian to compromise his "morality" (why, this was almost as bad as when those nasty Turks forced the poor Armenians to convert to Islam, as Balakian stressed in his horrid book), and the best Davis came up with in his own defense was, "I don’t want to address that directly,” saying basically, Oh, that rascal Balakian. That's what the rest of Davis' response boils down to. (“My position would be that PBS and OPB both felt it [the panel program] was a good thing. We made that clear to Peter.”)

In other words, it sounds like Davis knows how emotional the poet Balakian can be, and accepts that Balakian would have made up the implied story about being blackmailed. Otherwise, when CURRENT's Collins had posed the question to Davis, and if Davis had suspected Collins as being at fault (that is, of having made a "false description," as Balakian charged), wouldn't PBS representative Davis have challenged PBS representative Collins, and asked (at least off the record, just so Davis would know) for Collins to verify the claim? Davis probably didn't even need to ask, because he had a good idea of what that rascal Balakian was capable of. But if Davis thought Balakian was on the level, Davis would have defended Balakian. Davis would have responded to the similar tune of Balakian's claim, that there must have been a misunderstanding between Collins and Balakian. Davis did not; he tellingly accepted Balakian's accusation, and answered in a manner that everything was made clear to Peter, and Peter should have known better.

CONFIRMATION BY HARUT SASSOUNIAN:

Finally, let's get an idea of what Peter Balakian's fellow activist, Courier Publisher Harut Sassounian wrote in a Yahoo group for Armenians; these propagandists work together, and Harut is at the hub. If anyone knows the dope regarding the inner workings of these dirty dealings, it would be Harut Sassounian. The relevant section, from Sassounian's April 22, 2006 entry (note Sassounian is confirming that Balakian was "forced," or at least was told by Balakian that he was forced, a month after Balakian put in his "damage control" disclaimer; the highlighting of Sassounian's words below is my doing):

You seemed to have missed the whole point of the Armenian campaign against the PBS panel discussion. I wrote from day one when the panel was first taped, that I am sure the scholars on our side would devastate the denialists. But that was not the issue. Even Peter Balakian, who participated in the panel (was forced to do it by PBS), was against the panel both before the taping and afterwards, not because he was not sure about his performance. He knew and we knew that he had done a great job. The point is that we cannot accept PBS or anyone else to put on the air denialists who work with the Turkish government whose sole objective is to raise doubt in the minds of the unsuspecting American public who are clueless about the facts and can't follow the twists and turns of what happened in 1915 (they can't even follow what is happening in 2006) and they will only remember afterwards that two "experts" said the Turks killed Armenians and two other "experts" said the Armenians killed the Turks. The Turkish side does not have to win the debate. All they have to do to win is to sow the seeds of doubt in the mind of the viewer.

An in-depth analysis of the PBS show, "The Armenian Genocide," is now available at TAT.

Related:

Peter Balakian's "The Burning Tigris"