The national battle over LGBTQ instruction comes to Armenian schools

This article states that a “debate” is taking place over whether or not it is appropriate to teach children about LGBQT issues. However, instead of investigating the merits of both sides and discussing this debate in the context of Armenian/Diasporan history, Ms. Avedian assumes that one side is correct (her’s, in fact) and that we will all eventually “progress” to the correct conclusion. In fact, for Ms. Avedian, there is no “debate.”

This is not journalism. It is polemic.

Ms. Avedian spoke with “queer alumni, teachers, parents, and administrators” across the USA. That’s very commendable. But, a journalist would also speak with those on the other side of the debate, not merely label them “right-wing” and report on the visceral responses based on “misinformation.” What are the concerns of the vast majority of Armenians on the other side of this debate? Are they all merely irrationally responding to LGBTQ issues? Is there no merit or justification to their side?

Based on her previous writing, it is clear that Ms. Avedian is personally biased. Wouldn’t journalistic ethics suggest that she recuse herself from reporting on such matters, or wouldn’t the Editorial board ask that Ms. Avedian report on other perspectives in this debate, those that don’t correspond with her personal views?

Disguised as journalism, the Editors have given us yet another unquestioning polemic piece extolling “affirmation,” “inclusion,” and “pride” complete with sympathetic and heroic protagonists and irrational and threatening antagonists. The author and Editors seem to believe that “progress” is measured by how supportive the Armenian community is of the LGBTQ movement. How many other Armenians share this idea of “progress” or how they conceive of progress for the Armenian nation seems to be irrelevant.

Progress can only be measured against a defined goal. What is the goal of the Armenian nation? Whither Armenianness in the Diaspora and in Armenia? If the goal is to be inclusive and affirming, then why not welcome our Azeri and Turkish brothers and sisters into our group and promote their behavior no matter how uncomfortable or damaging it is for the majority of Armenians? This example, while deliberately provocative and absurd, points out the irony in the LGBTQ movement: they preach “inclusion” – but only of certain behaviors, “affirmation” – but of selective people, and “pride” – as long as it relates to a minority/oppressed identity.

This attitude has its roots in Critical Theory, a corrosive, destructive, reality re-defining, and currently fashionable (especially among neo-Marxists) ideology. Armenians would do well to skip that intellectual fad and recall what “being Armenian” traditionally means.

To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton: Tradition respects the most obscure of all classes: our ancestors. It is the democracy of the living and the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about alive today, an arrogant oligarchy whose conception of progress is based on uprooting tradition.

Is the LGBTQ movement robust and brave enough to include and be proud of ALL Armenians from ALL times? If it could, then this article would have a different tone: the issue of LGBTQ not being taught in Armenian schools is an incredibly minor one compared to the centuries of history/language/culture/traditions/art Armenians have produced and are still producing today. Why a minority sexual proclivity must be magnified to a level of those other (and more relevant to the Armenian national present/future) topics in our schools is a valid question that Ms. Avedian, the Weekly, and the LGBTQ movement never answer. They merely assume that it’s progressive to do so.

The reason for this magnification of the minority is well known, though perhaps not by the Weekly’s editorial staff: Critical Theory (and its children, including today’s LGBTQ movement) militates against and seeks to destroy tradition in order to re-create individual identity.

An enormous part of traditional Armenian-ness is rooted in Christianity, which may explain (though does not justify) the reaction against the cultural appropriation of the Old Testament rainbow symbol by the LGBTQ movement. Thus, an enormous part of Armenian-ness is irreconcilable with the LGBTQ movement. Critical Theory intends to upend this tradition and uproot the Christian component along with nearly everything else our ancestors have created.

Progress is not merely change; it implies a direction and destination. All Armenians should ask: toward what end should the Armenian nation progress, and will Critical Theory and the LGBTQ movement get us there?