Khachaturian -- what nationality...?

Post by Spence...
Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he
was born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...

I suppose Armenian.
Being born in Tbilisi would not have made anyone being a Georgian.

Gerard

2009-07-02 15:05:53 UTC

Post by Spence...
Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he
was born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...

I suppose Armenian.
Being born in Tbilisi would not have made anyone being a Georgian.

See also:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/316019/Aram-Khachaturian

""Aram Khachaturian
Soviet composer
in full Aram Ilich Khachaturian

born May 24 [June 6, New Style], 1903, Tiflis, Georgia, Russian Empire [now
Tbilisi, Georgia]
died May 1, 1978, Moscow""

It depends on: is "Armenian" an nationality, and if so: since when?
Probably his nationality was 'Russian'.

Spence...

2009-07-02 15:26:46 UTC

Post by Spence...
Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he
was born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...

I suppose Armenian.
Being born in Tbilisi would not have made anyone being a Georgian.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/316019/Aram-Khachaturian
""Aram Khachaturian
Soviet composer
in full Aram Ilich Khachaturian
born May 24 [June 6, New Style], 1903, Tiflis, Georgia, Russian Empire [now
Tbilisi, Georgia]
died May 1, 1978, Moscow""
It depends on: is "Armenian" an nationality, and if so: since when?
Probably his nationality was 'Russian'.

Why is someone born in Tblisi not a Georgian? You don't explain.

I am suspicious of what appears to be a widespread desire to call
Khachaturian 'Armenian' just because of his ethnicity and his cultural
allegiance. In the UK we call people 'British' if they're born here,
whatever ethnic stock they come from. From what I can discover, it was
several decades before Khachaturian even *visited* Armenia...

Sp.

Gerard

2009-07-02 15:34:43 UTC

Post by Spence...
Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to
say he was born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...

I suppose Armenian.
Being born in Tbilisi would not have made anyone being a Georgian.

Why is someone born in Tblisi not a Georgian? You don't explain.

Probably it differs from country to country.
But in many countries (national laws) the place of birth does not define
someone's nationality. The nationality of the parents is decisive.
Further I suppose (I think it is possible) that when Khatchaturian was born the
Georgian nationality was not existant.

Post by Spence...
I am suspicious of what appears to be a widespread desire to call
Khachaturian 'Armenian' just because of his ethnicity and his cultural
allegiance. In the UK we call people 'British' if they're born here,
whatever ethnic stock they come from.

Maybe the UK is the exception.

Gerard

2009-07-02 15:38:34 UTC

Post by Spence...
I am suspicious of what appears to be a widespread desire to call
Khachaturian 'Armenian' just because of his ethnicity and his
cultural allegiance. In the UK we call people 'British' if they're
born here, whatever ethnic stock they come from.

There can be a big difference between "we call people 'British'" and someone's
actual nationality.
Is this British thing not a relic of the "empire thinking"?

A N Other1

2009-07-02 17:16:41 UTC

Post by Spence...
I am suspicious of what appears to be a widespread desire to call
Khachaturian 'Armenian' just because of his ethnicity and his
cultural allegiance. In the UK we call people 'British' if they're
born here, whatever ethnic stock they come from.

There can be a big difference between "we call people 'British'" and someone's
actual nationality.
Is this British thing not a relic of the "empire thinking"?

No, it isn't - you forget Dutch history, Dutch nationals born all over
the Dutch empire (and elswhere).

Gerard

2009-07-02 17:25:31 UTC

Post by Spence...
I am suspicious of what appears to be a widespread desire to
call Khachaturian 'Armenian' just because of his ethnicity and
his cultural allegiance. In the UK we call people 'British' if
they're born here, whatever ethnic stock they come from.

There can be a big difference between "we call people 'British'"
and someone's actual nationality.
Is this British thing not a relic of the "empire thinking"?

No, it isn't - you forget Dutch history, Dutch nationals born all over
the Dutch empire (and elswhere).

Not really.
The subject here was not history, but the UK present time.

Don Phillipson

2009-07-06 21:09:22 UTC

Post by Gerard
There can be a big difference between "we call people 'British'" and someone's
actual nationality. Is this British thing not a relic of the "empire

thinking"?

Apparently not: it is something that evolved in the late 19th and
20th century only when passports and citizenship IDs were
invented. Before then, most people had a racial identity (e.g.
Irish, Welsh, Breton, Flemish) irrelevant to the country or
empire that claimed their loyalty. When passports were
invented the Empire states (e.g. Canada, India, Australia
etc.) issued British passports just the same as the UK's
(which continued up to 1947 in the case of Canada.)
Thus people like Gandhi (born in India) could in 1900 live and work
anywhere in the Empire (e.g. Britain, South Africa) without
restriction by immigration controls.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Gerard

2009-07-06 21:24:49 UTC

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Gerard
There can be a big difference between "we call people 'British'"
and someone's actual nationality. Is this British thing not a
relic of the "empire thinking"?

Apparently not: it is something that evolved in the late 19th and
20th century only when passports and citizenship IDs were
invented. Before then, most people had a racial identity (e.g.
Irish, Welsh, Breton, Flemish) irrelevant to the country or
empire that claimed their loyalty. When passports were
invented the Empire states (e.g. Canada, India, Australia
etc.) issued British passports just the same as the UK's
(which continued up to 1947 in the case of Canada.)
Thus people like Gandhi (born in India) could in 1900 live and work
anywhere in the Empire (e.g. Britain, South Africa) without
restriction by immigration controls.

I can't follow you here.
The way you describe it, it really looks like an "empire thing".
(This was about "we call people 'British' if they're born here".)

Andrew Clarke

2009-07-06 22:09:02 UTC

Post by Gerard
There can be a big difference between "we call people 'British'"
and someone's actual nationality. Is this British thing not a
relic of the "empire thinking"?

I can't follow you here.
The way you describe it, it really looks like an "empire thing".
(This was about "we call people 'British' if they're born here".)-

There's no contradiction. Passports are documents in the name of a
head of state asking that their subjects be granted protection in a
country outside their jurisdiction.

Australia became a Federation in 1901 - the component states had
enjoyed self-government since the 1850s. But Australians travelled on
British passports for many years after that, because the British
sovereign remained the titular head of state, represented by the
Governor-General in Canberra and the six State Governors, as is still
the case. This didn't stop people here calling themselves Adelaideans,
South Australians or Australians according to context. Australia
finally got around to issuing its own passports round about World War
II if I remember correctly.

Meanwhile, Australian citizens of British origin often maintain dual
citizenship, because a British passport gives them the right to live
and work anywhere within the European Union. On the other hand,
travellers to Britain / England / Heathrow on Australian passports
sometimes complain bitterly that they have to exit / enter the airport
with Chinese or Senegalese or Sri Lankans rather than with the Brits
(who may be ethnically Chinese, West African or Sri Lankan of course).

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

Gerard

2009-07-07 06:54:29 UTC

Post by Andrew Clarke

Post by Gerard
There can be a big difference between "we call people 'British'"
and someone's actual nationality. Is this British thing not a
relic of the "empire thinking"?

Apparently not: it is something that evolved in the late 19th and
20th century only when passports and citizenship IDs were
invented. Before then, most people had a racial identity (e.g.
Irish, Welsh, Breton, Flemish) irrelevant to the country or
empire that claimed their loyalty. When passports were
invented the Empire states (e.g. Canada, India, Australia
etc.) issued British passports just the same as the UK's
(which continued up to 1947 in the case of Canada.)
Thus people like Gandhi (born in India) could in 1900 live and
work anywhere in the Empire (e.g. Britain, South Africa) without
restriction by immigration controls.

I can't follow you here.
The way you describe it, it really looks like an "empire thing".
(This was about "we call people 'British' if they're born here".)-

There's no contradiction.

That's what I thought also.
But because Phillipson started his reaction with "Apparantly not", I could not
follow what .. eh followed.

Post by Andrew Clarke
Passports are documents in the name of a
head of state asking that their subjects be granted protection in a
country outside their jurisdiction.
Australia became a Federation in 1901 - the component states had
enjoyed self-government since the 1850s. But Australians travelled on
British passports for many years after that, because the British
sovereign remained the titular head of state, represented by the
Governor-General in Canberra and the six State Governors, as is still
the case. This didn't stop people here calling themselves Adelaideans,
South Australians or Australians according to context. Australia
finally got around to issuing its own passports round about World War
II if I remember correctly.
Meanwhile, Australian citizens of British origin often maintain dual
citizenship, because a British passport gives them the right to live
and work anywhere within the European Union. On the other hand,
travellers to Britain / England / Heathrow on Australian passports
sometimes complain bitterly that they have to exit / enter the airport
with Chinese or Senegalese or Sri Lankans rather than with the Brits
(who may be ethnically Chinese, West African or Sri Lankan of course).

This happens with other - non-British - people who became independent also. And
worse in some cases.
(See e.g. former parts of the Soviet Union.)

Bastian Kubis

2009-07-02 17:22:46 UTC

Post by Gerard
It depends on: is "Armenian" an nationality, and if so: since when?
Probably his nationality was 'Russian'.

Post by Spence...
Why is someone born in Tblisi not a Georgian? You don't explain.

I think that in the former Soviet Union, there was an entry "ethnicity"
in your passport (which could be even further differentiated than what
we know now as independent nations/states formerly part of the SU); I
know this type of entry still exists now at least in one of the
follow-up states. In that sense, I guess there were identifiable
Georgians or Armenians also in the time when Georgia and Armenia were
not independent. So if you want a formal criterion why Khachaturian was
Armenian, not Georgian, other than that his family was of such descent,
maybe it can be found there. [Of course I have never seen
Khachaturian's passport. ;-) ]

Bastian

number_six

2009-07-02 19:43:40 UTC

Post by Bastian Kubis

Post by Gerard
It depends on: is "Armenian" an nationality, and if so: since when?
Probably his nationality was 'Russian'.

Post by Spence...
Why is someone born in Tblisi not a Georgian? You don't explain.

I agree. When he was born, Georgia and Armenia were part of the
Tsarist empire; in the times when he was known as a composer, Georgia
and Armenia were part of the USSR.

Although nationality has often been conflated with ethnicity, I would
say Georgia and Armenia were not "nations" at the time.
Notwithstanding his birthplace, I have no reason to doubt that his
*ethnicity* was Armenian, his cultural and musical soul was Armenian,
and that he did yearn for Armenia to be a nation. There's an
excellent DVD documentary about him. I found it very informative, and
emotionally moving as well.

e are discussing

M forever

2009-07-04 03:30:26 UTC

Post by Bastian Kubis

Post by Gerard
It depends on: is "Armenian" an nationality, and if so: since when?
Probably his nationality was 'Russian'.

Post by Spence...
Why is someone born in Tblisi not a Georgian? You don't explain.

There is actually a Wikipedia article about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_system_in_the_Soviet_Union

From the article:

"The passports recorded the following information: surname, first name
and patronymic, date and place of birth, ethnicity, family status,
propiska, and record of military service. Sometimes the passport also
had special notes, for example blood group.

As mentioned, the internal passports identified every bearer by
ethnicity (национальность, natsional’nost’), e.g., Russian, Ukrainian,
Uzbek, Estonian, Jew. This was on the so-called "fifth record" (пятая
графа, pyataya grafa) of the passport. When an individual applied for
his passport at age 16, his ethnicity would automatically be that of
his parents if they were of the same ethnicity as one another
(verified by the recorded ethnicity of the parents on the applicant's
birth certificate). If they differed in ethnicity (again, based on the
parents' ethnicity on the child's birth certificate), then the
applicant would have to choose between the two ethnicities. In this
way an individual's passport ethnicity was fixed for life at age 16."

Note that the Russian word for "ethnicity" is "natsionalnost". Another
Wikipedia article about the term "nation" says:
"A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common
history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a
particular country or territory...
Though "nation" is also commonly used in informal discourse as a
synonym for state or country, a nation is not identical to a state.
Countries where the social concept of "nation" coincides with the
political concept of "state" are called nation states."

I think that sums up the complexity and shifting usage of terms such
as "ethnicity", "nation" or "nation state" pretty well.
Of course, what makes the whole subject even more complex is that the
concept of a "nation state" is still fairly young and political
borders have shifted countless times, so in areas where many different
"ethnicities" live (or lived) close to each other or amongst each
other, you often find that those borders have shifted in ways which
sometimes make the situation quite complex. Bartók was also mentioned
- he was basically of Hungarian "ethnicity" (his mother was of German
"ethnicity" though) and born in an area in which at the time of his
birth was politically in Hungary and inhabited by Hungarians,
Romanians and Germans and which after WWI went to Romania...That also
illustrates the complexity of this subject.

Post by Bastian Kubis
In that sense, I guess there were identifiable
Georgians or Armenians also in the time when Georgia and Armenia were
not independent. So if you want a formal criterion why Khachaturian was
Armenian, not Georgian, other than that his family was of such descent,
maybe it can be found there. [Of course I have never seen
Khachaturian's passport. ;-) ]
Bastian

Matthew B. Tepper

2009-07-02 15:39:56 UTC

Post by Spence...
Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he
was born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...

I suppose Armenian.
Being born in Tbilisi would not have made anyone being a Georgian.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/316019/Aram-Khachaturian
""Aram Khachaturian
Soviet composer
in full Aram Ilich Khachaturian
born May 24 [June 6, New Style], 1903, Tiflis, Georgia, Russian Empire
[now Tbilisi, Georgia]
died May 1, 1978, Moscow""
It depends on: is "Armenian" an nationality, and if so: since when?
Probably his nationality was 'Russian'.

Why is someone born in Tblisi not a Georgian? You don't explain.
I am suspicious of what appears to be a widespread desire to call
Khachaturian 'Armenian' just because of his ethnicity and his cultural
allegiance. In the UK we call people 'British' if they're born here,
whatever ethnic stock they come from. From what I can discover, it was
several decades before Khachaturian even *visited* Armenia...

Mstislav Rostropovich was born in Baku. Why call him Russian? Béla
Bartók's birthplace is in Romania. Why call him Hungarian?

Nigel Bruce (who played Watson in so many Sherlock Holmes movies) was born
in Mexico. Why call him an Englishman?

--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers

Alan Cooper

2009-07-02 16:17:41 UTC

Post by MatthewÂ B.Â Tepper

Post by Spence...
Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on
to say he was born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not
Armenia...

I suppose Armenian.
Being born in Tbilisi would not have made anyone being a
Georgian.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/316019/Aram-Khachatur
ian
""Aram Khachaturian
Soviet composer
in full Aram Ilich Khachaturian
born May 24 [June 6, New Style], 1903, Tiflis, Georgia,
Russian Empire [now Tbilisi, Georgia]
died May 1, 1978, Moscow""
It depends on: is "Armenian" an nationality, and if so: since
when? Probably his nationality was 'Russian'.

Why is someone born in Tblisi not a Georgian? You don't
explain.
I am suspicious of what appears to be a widespread desire to
call Khachaturian 'Armenian' just because of his ethnicity and
his cultural allegiance. In the UK we call people 'British' if
they're born here, whatever ethnic stock they come from. From
what I can discover, it was several decades before Khachaturian
even *visited* Armenia...

Mstislav Rostropovich was born in Baku. Why call him Russian?
Béla Bartók's birthplace is in Romania. Why call him Hungarian?
Nigel Bruce (who played Watson in so many Sherlock Holmes
movies) was born in Mexico. Why call him an Englishman?

Speaking solely of nationality without respect to religion, this discussion calls
to mind all those famous "Russian" violinists, like Heifetz (b. Vilna, thus
Lithuanian?), Oistrakh & Milstein (b. Odessa, thus Ukrainian?), etc., etc.

AC

Don Phillipson

2009-07-06 21:03:59 UTC

Post by Spence...
Why is someone born in Tblisi not a Georgian? You don't explain.

Born in Ireland, the (English) Duke of Wellington never liked to
be called an Irishman. His rebuttal -- "When somebody was
born in a stable, that does not make him a horse."

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Spence...

2009-07-07 13:22:03 UTC

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Spence...
Why is someone born in Tblisi not a Georgian? You don't explain.

Born in Ireland, the (English) Duke of Wellington never liked to
be called an Irishman. His rebuttal -- "When somebody was
born in a stable, that does not make him a horse."

I see: as expected, *pure bigotry* is the answer.

Well, Wellesley can go screw himself. He doesn't get to decide what he is.

Sp.

w***@tiscali.co.uk

2018-07-31 10:53:11 UTC

Post by Spence...
Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he
was born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...

I suppose Armenian.
Being born in Tbilisi would not have made anyone being a Georgian.

Why is someone born in Tblisi not a Georgian? You don't explain.
I am suspicious of what appears to be a widespread desire to call
Khachaturian 'Armenian' just because of his ethnicity and his cultural
allegiance. In the UK we call people 'British' if they're born here,
whatever ethnic stock they come from. From what I can discover, it was
several decades before Khachaturian even *visited* Armenia...
Sp.

But in the UK we don't call just anyone 'English' if they're from, say, Pakistan. We don't call the Chinese restaurant an English restaurant because it's in England. Do we? Otherwise if you call Pakistanis in England, English then you erase their real ethnic identity AND the real ethnic identity of the English too. So be careful with your desire to be politically correct.

Herman

2018-07-31 11:00:24 UTC

Post by w***@tiscali.co.uk
So be careful with your desire to be politically correct.

well, I bet Spence, who hasn't posted much since 2009, will be much more careful now...

Jerry

2018-07-31 14:52:03 UTC

It may be an old post, but sad to say that the use of English seems now
to be less precise than ever before. There is a TV ad for Ancestry.com that
uses “nationality” when they mean “ethnicity.” These are now commonly
interchanged.

I had always taken the first as referencing citizenship (i.e. passport) and
the second as referencing ancestry (i. e. DNA). I think I am in the minority
on this one.

Jerry

w***@tiscali.co.uk

2018-07-31 10:59:19 UTC

Post by Spence...
Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he
was born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...

I suppose Armenian.
Being born in Tbilisi would not have made anyone being a Georgian.

Why is someone born in Tblisi not a Georgian? You don't explain.
I am suspicious of what appears to be a widespread desire to call
Khachaturian 'Armenian' just because of his ethnicity and his cultural
allegiance. In the UK we call people 'British' if they're born here,
whatever ethnic stock they come from. From what I can discover, it was
several decades before Khachaturian even *visited* Armenia...
Sp.

Why is a puppy born in a stable, not a pony? Why is a bonobo born in a chimp's territory not a chimp? Ethnicity and national identity used to be the same, in this era of mass immigration nationality has become confused with citizenship. And now people like you are trying to confuse it with ethnicity and identity. Are you a Pakistani? Or a Nigerian? Why don't we call black and asian British citizens Scottish or Welsh or English? We call them 'British'...why? Because we can see clearly that a Pakistani living in England is not an Englishman. Being English it being white. Even if you are a resident of England and you were born there.

notesetter

2009-07-02 15:59:35 UTC

Post by Spence...
Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he
was born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...

I suppose Armenian.
Being born in Tbilisi would not have made anyone being a Georgian.

According to Boosey and Hawkes publishers, he was a "Soviet composer
of Armenian background".

Bruce

Spence...

2009-07-02 16:11:15 UTC

Post by notesetter
According to Boosey and Hawkes publishers, he was a "Soviet composer
of Armenian background".

I can see the sense in saying that.
I think there's a bit of an ethnic-nationalist agenda being pursued
elsewhere.

Sp.

A N Other1

2009-07-02 17:14:51 UTC

Post by notesetter
According to Boosey and Hawkes publishers, he was a "Soviet composer
of Armenian background".

I can see the sense in saying that.
I think there's a bit of an ethnic-nationalist agenda being pursued
elsewhere.
Sp.

Seems sensible to me; there was a similar ill-tempered debate
elsewhere about Oistrakh recently.

Gerard

2009-07-02 17:27:55 UTC

Post by notesetter
According to Boosey and Hawkes publishers, he was a "Soviet
composer of Armenian background".

I can see the sense in saying that.
I think there's a bit of an ethnic-nationalist agenda being pursued
elsewhere.
Sp.

Seems sensible to me; there was a similar ill-tempered debate
elsewhere about Oistrakh recently.

If there is such a debate about Khatchaturian, there should be another party
claiming that Khatchaturian has another nationality than Armenian.
I did not see such a party mentioned.

WQGT447

2009-07-02 18:12:58 UTC

Post by notesetter
According to Boosey and Hawkes publishers, he was a "Soviet
composer of Armenian background".

I can see the sense in saying that.
I think there's a bit of an ethnic-nationalist agenda being pursued
elsewhere.
Sp.

Seems sensible to me; there was a similar ill-tempered debate
elsewhere about Oistrakh recently.

If there is such a debate about Khatchaturian, there should be another party
claiming that Khatchaturian has another nationality than Armenian.
I did not see such a party mentioned.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I would think that, however Khatchaturian identified himself, it would
be the proper way to consider his nationality.

If asked, would he have said Armenian? Soviet? Georgian?

Bruce Jensen

Frank Berger

2009-07-02 18:41:23 UTC

Post by notesetter
According to Boosey and Hawkes publishers, he was a "Soviet
composer of Armenian background".

I can see the sense in saying that.
I think there's a bit of an ethnic-nationalist agenda being pursued
elsewhere.
Sp.

Seems sensible to me; there was a similar ill-tempered debate
elsewhere about Oistrakh recently.

If there is such a debate about Khatchaturian, there should be
another party claiming that Khatchaturian has another nationality
than Armenian.
I did not see such a party mentioned.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I would think that, however Khatchaturian identified himself, it would
be the proper way to consider his nationality.
If asked, would he have said Armenian? Soviet? Georgian?
Bruce Jensen

Sometimes one is interested in a person's legal nationality, at other times
in one's ethnic background. Both/either can be expected to exert influences
on one's nature, character and behavior.

WQGT447

2009-07-02 20:01:36 UTC

Post by Frank Berger

Post by notesetter
According to Boosey and Hawkes publishers, he was a "Soviet
composer of Armenian background".

I can see the sense in saying that.
I think there's a bit of an ethnic-nationalist agenda being pursued
elsewhere.
Sp.

Seems sensible to me; there was a similar ill-tempered debate
elsewhere about Oistrakh recently.

If there is such a debate about Khatchaturian, there should be
another party claiming that Khatchaturian has another nationality
than Armenian.
I did not see such a party mentioned.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I would think that, however Khatchaturian identified himself, it would
be the proper way to consider his nationality.
If asked, would he have said Armenian? Soviet? Georgian?
Bruce Jensen

Sometimes one is interested in a person's legal nationality, at other times
in one's ethnic background. Both/either can be expected to exert influences
on one's nature, character and behavior.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Agreed. That's why we American's so often identify ourselves as
"Franco-American", "Polish-American", "African-American", etc., and
our personalities and views reflect those mixtures...but we're all
still Americans.

I'd be interested in hearing his response on both ethnic and
nationalistic counts.

DavidRF

2009-07-03 08:41:21 UTC

Post by Frank Berger

Post by WQGT447
I would think that, however Khatchaturian identified himself, it would
be the proper way to consider his nationality.
If asked, would he have said Armenian? Soviet? Georgian?
Bruce Jensen

Sometimes one is interested in a person's legal nationality, at other times
in one's ethnic background. Both/either can be expected to exert influences
on one's nature, character and behavior.

I think a lot of it also has to do with language. The Armenian,
Georgian and Russian languages are nothing like each other.

A N Other1

2009-07-03 09:35:58 UTC

I think a lot of it also has to do with language. The Armenian,
Georgian and Russian languages are nothing like each other.

A bit like American and English, then.

So, what nationality was Karl Malden?

Taree Dawg

2009-07-03 23:30:21 UTC

Post by DavidRF
I think a lot of it also has to do with language. The Armenian,
Georgian and Russian languages are nothing like each other.

A bit like American and English, then.
So, what nationality was Karl Malden?

He was part Czech.

Ray Hall

A N Other1

2009-07-04 10:06:05 UTC

Post by Taree Dawg

I think a lot of it also has to do with language. The Armenian,
Georgian and Russian languages are nothing like each other.

A bit like American and English, then.
So, what nationality was Karl Malden?

He was part Czech.
Ray Hall

Yes, he was, and part Serbian, though I have a feeling he considered
himself American. And I also have a feeling all those "Russian"
composers and players knew exactly what they were, too. They really do
not need the denizens of RMCR to reclassify their nationality nor
ethnicity.

CharlesSmith

2009-07-04 18:22:59 UTC

I think a lot of it also has to do with language. The Armenian,
Georgian and Russian languages are nothing like each other.

A bit like American and English, then.
So, what nationality was Karl Malden?

He was part Czech.
Ray Hall

It probably wasn't an issue for the composers and players, but it's an
issue now for the new nation states emerging from the soviet empire.
They want to establish their legitimacy as states, and so need a
history and a culture, and that includes having their very own
classical musicians. The Armenians have no problem claiming
Khachaturian, and the Georgians have plenty of culture of their own
and may well not miss him. Giya Kancheli, for example, is never
mentioned without those magic words 'Georgian composer'.

It's the Ukrainians, desperate to affirm their independence, who
appear to be struggling, the 'great' composers born in their territory
being either too Russian or too Polish to qualify for the label of
national composer. If you visit the web site selling CDs of Ukrainian
music you find they have to resort to the likes of Lyatoshynsky and
Kolessa - hardly household names.
http://www.umka.com.ua/eng/catalogue/classical/

Charles

A N Other1

2009-07-05 07:08:53 UTC

Post by CharlesSmith

Post by Taree Dawg

I think a lot of it also has to do with language. The Armenian,
Georgian and Russian languages are nothing like each other.

A bit like American and English, then.
So, what nationality was Karl Malden?

He was part Czech.
Ray Hall

What does Kancheli himself think? Born in the USSR, in Tblisi, perhaps
he wants to be considered Georgian.

Matthew B. Tepper

2009-07-05 18:28:58 UTC

A N Other1 <***@hotmail.co.uk> appears to have caused the
following letters to be typed in news:783dd54e-8f9b-4b97-859c-ce9c59118573

Post by CharlesSmith
It probably wasn't an issue for the composers and players, but it's an
issue now for the new nation states emerging from the soviet empire.
They want to establish their legitimacy as states, and so need a history
and a culture, and that includes having their very own classical
musicians. The Armenians have no problem claiming Khachaturian, and the
Georgians have plenty of culture of their own and may well not miss him.
Giya Kancheli, for example, is never mentioned without those magic words
'Georgian composer'.

What does Kancheli himself think? Born in the USSR, in Tblisi, perhaps
he wants to be considered Georgian.

I can think of another Georgian composer who certainly thought of himself
as Georgian, even to writing an oratorio about Rustaveli. And, unlike the
tiresomely overrated and overrecorded Kancheli, his music does NOT sound as
though somebody is just sitting on a church organ keyboard.

DavidRF

2009-07-04 18:39:14 UTC

Post by A N Other1
Yes, he was, and part Serbian, though I have a feeling he considered
himself American. And I also have a feeling all those "Russian"
composers and players knew exactly what they were, too. They really do
not need the denizens of RMCR to reclassify their nationality nor
ethnicity.

Frankly, as an American, I too am amazed that the ethnicities of
Eastern Europe and the Caucasus survived for centuries under the rules
of the Habsburgs, Romanovs, Ottomans, Soviets, etc. Yet all these
ethnicities were all eager to create their own nations when given the
chance. Here in America, it only took my ancestors only a couple of
generations to completely assimilate and "culturally forget" where
they came from. But for some reason, all the old languages survived
over there which in my opinion is a huge part of how they were able to
maintain their identities.

Yes, Khachaturian knew he lived under Russian rule. He studied at the
Moscow conservatory, taught there, married a Russian and embraced
early Soviet politics. But he also grew up speaking Armenian and he
incorporated Armenian folk music into many of his works. It would be
misleading to only call him "Armenian", but I don't seen any problem
including "Armenian" as part of his description.

Are you suggesting that the denizens of RMCR reclassify people only by
who ruled over them because of Karl Malden's experiences in suburban
Chicago? By that logic, Malden can't be part-Czech because when he
was born, Czech-speaking people were ruled by the Austrians and he
can't be part-Serbian because his Serbian-speaking relatives emigrated
from Herzogovina which was also ruled by Austrians.

M forever

2009-07-04 19:21:48 UTC

Frankly, as an American, I too am amazed that the ethnicities of
Eastern Europe and the Caucasus survived for centuries under the rules
of the Habsburgs, Romanovs, Ottomans, Soviets, etc. Yet all these
ethnicities were all eager to create their own nations when given the
chance. Here in America, it only took my ancestors only a couple of
generations to completely assimilate and "culturally forget" where
they came from. But for some reason, all the old languages survived
over there which in my opinion is a huge part of how they were able to
maintain their identities.
Yes, Khachaturian knew he lived under Russian rule. He studied at the
Moscow conservatory, taught there, married a Russian and embraced
early Soviet politics. But he also grew up speaking Armenian and he
incorporated Armenian folk music into many of his works. It would be
misleading to only call him "Armenian", but I don't seen any problem
including "Armenian" as part of his description.
Are you suggesting that the denizens of RMCR reclassify people only by
who ruled over them because of Karl Malden's experiences in suburban
Chicago? By that logic, Malden can't be part-Czech because when he
was born, Czech-speaking people were ruled by the Austrians and he
can't be part-Serbian because his Serbian-speaking relatives emigrated
from Herzogovina which was also ruled by Austrians.

That didn't make them Austrians though - a common misunderstanding.
Subjects of the British Empire may have been "British", but that
didn't mean they were "English", too.
It's interesting to search the records on the ellisisland.org website.
Look for people from the Austro-Hungarian Empire such as Dvorak and
Mahler.

Gerard

2009-07-05 02:37:14 UTC

Post by A N Other1
Yes, he was, and part Serbian, though I have a feeling he considered
himself American. And I also have a feeling all those "Russian"
composers and players knew exactly what they were, too. They really
do not need the denizens of RMCR to reclassify their nationality nor
ethnicity.

Frankly, as an American, I too am amazed that the ethnicities of
Eastern Europe and the Caucasus survived for centuries under the rules
of the Habsburgs, Romanovs, Ottomans, Soviets, etc.

Probably that's exactly why they survived as ethnicities: because of
suppression.

Spam Stopper

2009-07-05 14:14:06 UTC

A N Other1

2009-07-05 07:01:30 UTC

Frankly, as an American, I too am amazed that the ethnicities of
Eastern Europe and the Caucasus survived for centuries under the rules
of the Habsburgs, Romanovs, Ottomans, Soviets, etc. Yet all these
ethnicities were all eager to create their own nations when given the
chance. Here in America, it only took my ancestors only a couple of
generations to completely assimilate and "culturally forget" where
they came from. But for some reason, all the old languages survived
over there which in my opinion is a huge part of how they were able to
maintain their identities.
Yes, Khachaturian knew he lived under Russian rule. He studied at the
Moscow conservatory, taught there, married a Russian and embraced
early Soviet politics. But he also grew up speaking Armenian and he
incorporated Armenian folk music into many of his works. It would be
misleading to only call him "Armenian", but I don't seen any problem
including "Armenian" as part of his description.
Are you suggesting that the denizens of RMCR reclassify people only by
who ruled over them because of Karl Malden's experiences in suburban
Chicago? By that logic, Malden can't be part-Czech because when he
was born, Czech-speaking people were ruled by the Austrians and he
can't be part-Serbian because his Serbian-speaking relatives emigrated
from Herzogovina which was also ruled by Austrians.

I certainly agree with most of your analysis of AK, but shouldn't it
be USSR/Armenian, not Russian/Armenian?
It was the USSR then; calling them all Russians is rather like calling
all Americans Texans. A small point perhaps, but from personal
experience many people seem to think Britain = England.

Malden's is a simpler case - I wasn't suggesting RMCR's denizens
classify according to who ruled them, by the way, perhaps they do? -
he thought himself American, and that's good enough for me.

As you say, Serbia and the Czech Republic may consider him sons
now.........

M forever

2009-07-05 07:36:15 UTC

Frankly, as an American, I too am amazed that the ethnicities of
Eastern Europe and the Caucasus survived for centuries under the rules
of the Habsburgs, Romanovs, Ottomans, Soviets, etc. Yet all these
ethnicities were all eager to create their own nations when given the
chance. Here in America, it only took my ancestors only a couple of
generations to completely assimilate and "culturally forget" where
they came from. But for some reason, all the old languages survived
over there which in my opinion is a huge part of how they were able to
maintain their identities.
Yes, Khachaturian knew he lived under Russian rule. He studied at the
Moscow conservatory, taught there, married a Russian and embraced
early Soviet politics. But he also grew up speaking Armenian and he
incorporated Armenian folk music into many of his works. It would be
misleading to only call him "Armenian", but I don't seen any problem
including "Armenian" as part of his description.
Are you suggesting that the denizens of RMCR reclassify people only by
who ruled over them because of Karl Malden's experiences in suburban
Chicago? By that logic, Malden can't be part-Czech because when he
was born, Czech-speaking people were ruled by the Austrians and he
can't be part-Serbian because his Serbian-speaking relatives emigrated
from Herzogovina which was also ruled by Austrians.

Strange comparison. Texans don't rule over the rest of the US
population the way predominantly Russians did over smaller populations
of the USSR. Although one could say that some Texans did, from
2001-2009...

BTW, the most populous state in the US is California.

Post by A N Other1
A small point perhaps, but from personal
experience many people seem to think Britain = England.
Malden's is a simpler case - I wasn't suggesting RMCR's denizens
classify according to who ruled them, by the way, perhaps they do? -
he thought himself American, and that's good enough for me.
As you say, Serbia and the Czech Republic may consider him sons
now.........

A N Other1

2009-07-05 10:08:26 UTC

Post by M forever
Strange comparison.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Texans don't rule over the rest of the US

Post by M forever
population the way predominantly Russians did over smaller populations
of the USSR.

Stalin - not Russian

Although one could say that some Texans did, from

Post by M forever
2001-2009...

Good, you got my reference.

Post by M forever
BTW, the most populous state in the US is California.

I know that - I made a deliberate choice re: Texas.

number_six

2009-07-05 14:13:17 UTC

snip <
Stalin - not Russian

Yes, not only was Stalin Georgian, but his nickname -- Koba -- was
taken from a character in a novel he read (in his teens, perhaps). In
Alexander Kazbegi's "The Patricide" (which I have not found translated
into English), "Koba" is a Georgian resistance fighter against Russian
rule.

M forever

2009-07-05 18:53:58 UTC

Post by number_six

snip <
Stalin - not Russian

Stalin was an exception though in the predominantly Russian Soviet
elite. I believe he also furthered Russian nationalism instead of
communist internationalism in the USSR and the Eastern Block.
A number of similarly nationalist politicians were actually from
minorities. Hitler wasn't really from a minority as such but he was
from the smaller of two German speaking nations and put himself in
charge of all of them.
Napoleon was Corsican, not French and his island had just been bought
by France a year after his birth.
All three of them preached nationalism in their host countries in
local accents, not the "high" language. Odd.

A N Other1

2009-07-05 19:22:41 UTC

Post by M forever

Post by number_six

snip <
Stalin - not Russian

Smalll man syndrome taken to lethal ends......

M forever

2009-07-05 19:53:25 UTC

snip <
Stalin - not Russian

Smalll man syndrome taken to lethal ends......

I guess that is part of what's going on here. Also see Osama bin
Laden. He comes from a minority in Saudi Arabia, too.

number_six

2009-07-05 20:02:33 UTC

Post by M forever

Post by number_six

snip <
Stalin - not Russian

An appeal to the "volk" and an expression of anti-monarchism as well?

Besides Djugashvili's nickname discussed above, the adopted name
Stalin tells another part of the story. A man of steel, perhaps, but
more a man of ice. In some ways, perhaps the most immodern of the
three.

M forever

2009-07-05 21:08:54 UTC

snip <
Stalin - not Russian

An appeal to the "volk" and an expression of anti-monarchism as well?
Besides Djugashvili's nickname discussed above, the adopted name
Stalin tells another part of the story. A man of steel, perhaps, but
more a man of ice. In some ways, perhaps the most immodern of the
three.

How so?

number_six

2009-07-05 22:03:31 UTC

snip <
Stalin - not Russian

An appeal to the "volk" and an expression of anti-monarchism as well?
Besides Djugashvili's nickname discussed above, the adopted name
Stalin tells another part of the story. A man of steel, perhaps, but
more a man of ice. In some ways, perhaps the most immodern of the
three.

How so?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Napoleon is a mixed bag, a man of great civil accomplishment and many
ideas that were modern and progressive in his time, although he
ultimately betrayed the ideals of a failed "bottom up" revolution, a
revolution awash in blood. His biographers probably still debate how
much his military campaigns were to defend France from the European
monarchies, and how much they were for his personal ambition. The 100
days may tip the scales, but he remains an extraordinary figure who,
although a conquerer and a tyrant, cannot be pigeonholed as only that
and nothing more.

Of the other two, I've not too much to say, except that of the people
whom they didn't intend to kill, Hitler likely would have put more
technology to the service of ordinary people. Countering that,
perhaps, is the occultism and pseudo-science that were rampant in his
regime. But I must emphasize, my suggesting he was less immodern than
Stalin should not be taken as any kind of praise.

M forever

2009-07-04 18:41:51 UTC

I think a lot of it also has to do with language. The Armenian,
Georgian and Russian languages are nothing like each other.

A bit like American and English, then.
So, what nationality was Karl Malden?

He was part Czech.
Ray Hall

Yes, he was, and part Serbian, though I have a feeling he considered
himself American.

Or rather, he wanted to be considered American by the "real" Americans
which is why he had to change his name. His Serbian name wouldn't have
been "American" enough.

Post by A N Other1
And I also have a feeling all those "Russian"
composers and players knew exactly what they were, too. They really do
not need the denizens of RMCR to reclassify their nationality nor
ethnicity.

Spam Stopper

2009-07-03 14:57:28 UTC

OT: Troll Excreta

Ward Hardman

2009-07-03 20:24:38 UTC

On Jul 3 2009 7:57 am, the fake "Spam Stopper,"

Post by Spam Stopper
OT: Troll Excreta

FAKE "Spam Stopper" posts, such as the preceding,
are posted by the Classical-Music-Hater Troll, using
the fake email address of "wardyhardman(AT)gmail.com".

REAL Spam Stopper posts originate with ignore-***@live.com.

This post restores the original thread subject.

Jonathan Ellis

2009-07-03 23:52:30 UTC

Post by Ward Hardman
On Jul 3 2009 7:57 am, the fake "Spam Stopper,"

Post by Spam Stopper
OT: Troll Excreta

FAKE "Spam Stopper" posts, such as the preceding,
are posted by the Classical-Music-Hater Troll, using
the fake email address of "wardyhardman(AT)gmail.com".
This post restores the original thread subject.

Also note: Spam Stopper posts are, in fact, spam. Please don't bother, it
causes more trouble than it's worth, in that it only serves to create
another post for the rest of us, who despise BOTH sides in the pointless
little e-penis-waving war, to ignore.

Jonathan.

Bob Lombard

2009-07-04 00:13:11 UTC

Post by Jonathan Ellis

Post by Ward Hardman
On Jul 3 2009 7:57 am, the fake "Spam Stopper,"

Post by Spam Stopper
OT: Troll Excreta

LOL. "Little e-penis waving war". When you open your e-raincoat and
'flash', and the only thing to object to is the e-smell, time to retreat
into the woodwork again.

bl

Spam Stopper

2009-07-07 19:22:51 UTC

Post by Ward Hardman
On Jul 3 2009 7:57 am, the fake "Spam Stopper,"

Post by Spam Stopper
OT: Troll Excreta

ditto

Gerard

2009-07-02 19:03:06 UTC

Post by notesetter
According to Boosey and Hawkes publishers, he was a "Soviet
composer of Armenian background".

I can see the sense in saying that.
I think there's a bit of an ethnic-nationalist agenda being
pursued elsewhere.
Sp.

Seems sensible to me; there was a similar ill-tempered debate
elsewhere about Oistrakh recently.

If there is such a debate about Khatchaturian, there should be
another party claiming that Khatchaturian has another nationality
than Armenian.
I did not see such a party mentioned.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I would think that, however Khatchaturian identified himself, it would
be the proper way to consider his nationality.
If asked, would he have said Armenian? Soviet? Georgian?
Bruce Jensen

I don't know, but I do think that it depends on who was asking.
But why would he say "Georgian"?

WQGT447

2009-07-02 19:57:58 UTC

Post by notesetter
According to Boosey and Hawkes publishers, he was a "Soviet
composer of Armenian background".

I can see the sense in saying that.
I think there's a bit of an ethnic-nationalist agenda being
pursued elsewhere.
Sp.

Seems sensible to me; there was a similar ill-tempered debate
elsewhere about Oistrakh recently.

If there is such a debate about Khatchaturian, there should be
another party claiming that Khatchaturian has another nationality
than Armenian.
I did not see such a party mentioned.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I would think that, however Khatchaturian identified himself, it would
be the proper way to consider his nationality.
If asked, would he have said Armenian? Soviet? Georgian?
Bruce Jensen

I don't know, but I do think that it depends on who was asking.
But why would he say "Georgian"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Born in Tbilisi? That's Georgian, right?

Gerard

2009-07-02 20:00:21 UTC

Post by notesetter
According to Boosey and Hawkes publishers, he was a
"Soviet composer of Armenian background".

I can see the sense in saying that.
I think there's a bit of an ethnic-nationalist agenda being
pursued elsewhere.
Sp.

Seems sensible to me; there was a similar ill-tempered debate
elsewhere about Oistrakh recently.

If there is such a debate about Khatchaturian, there should be
another party claiming that Khatchaturian has another
nationality than Armenian.
I did not see such a party mentioned.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I would think that, however Khatchaturian identified himself, it
would be the proper way to consider his nationality.
If asked, would he have said Armenian? Soviet? Georgian?
Bruce Jensen

I don't know, but I do think that it depends on who was asking.
But why would he say "Georgian"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Born in Tbilisi? That's Georgian, right?

A place of birth does not make a nationality (excepted in the UK I suppose).

Don Phillipson

2009-07-06 21:12:11 UTC

Post by Gerard
""Aram Khachaturian
Soviet composer . . .

. . .

Post by Gerard
According to Boosey and Hawkes publishers, he was a "Soviet composer
of Armenian background".

This also reflects USSR documentation, which recorded both
political citizenship and "nationality" or racial affiliation.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Tom Deacon

2009-07-06 22:27:37 UTC

SPAM

Anti-Troll-01

2009-07-07 04:18:16 UTC

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Gerard
""Aram Khachaturian
Soviet composer . . .

. . .

Post by Gerard
According to Boosey and Hawkes publishers, he was a "Soviet composer
of Armenian background".

This also reflects USSR documentation, which recorded both
political citizenship and "nationality" or racial affiliation.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[original thread title restored]

2009-07-07 14:57:21 UTC

SPAM

ansermetniac

2009-07-02 15:33:30 UTC

Abbedd

ansermetniac

2009-07-02 15:40:58 UTC

Abbedd

CharlesSmith

2009-07-02 21:44:18 UTC

Post by Spence...
Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he was
born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...
What should one describe him as...?
Sp.

I think that when you apply an adjective to a composer it's about
their cultural tradition, rather than simply the nation state they
were born in. So Prokofiev, for example, thought of himself as part of
the Russian tradition, and studied in St Petersburg. You wouldn't call
him a Ukrainian composer, even though he was born there. And likewise,
Szymanowsky was a Polish composer, even though he was also born in the
Ukraine.

Matthew has mentioned Bartok, which reminds me of a vist I made to the
museum of Roumanian music in Buchurest a few yars ago. It was all
about Enescu, who they described as Roumania's greatest composer. That
was fine by me, but they had a statement in the entrance that declared
that Roumania was a multi-ethnic society, in which all ethnicities -
Roumanian, Hungarian, Saxon, Moldovan, Romany - were equally valued.
So I asked the nice lady why wasn't Bartok Roumania's greatest
composer, and she of course looked at me as though I was stupid and
said "but Bartok was Hungarian".

So I conclude that the label is about ethnicity and culture - not
nationality.

Charles

Spam Stopper

2009-07-03 01:06:23 UTC

OT: Troll Excreta

Lora Crighton

2009-07-03 01:12:29 UTC

I don't know what you think you are accomplishing, but all you are
really doing is adding to the junk, and there is too much already. If
you must post this crap, please delete the other groups from your
newsgroup line first. Thanks.

Post by Spam Stopper
OT: Troll Excreta

George Murnu

2009-07-07 14:44:00 UTC

Post by CharlesSmith

Post by Spence...
Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he was
born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...
What should one describe him as...?
Sp.

I think that when you apply an adjective to a composer it's about
their cultural tradition, rather than simply the nation state they
were born in. So Prokofiev, for example, thought of himself as part of
the Russian tradition, and studied in St Petersburg. You wouldn't call
him a Ukrainian composer, even though he was born there. And likewise,
Szymanowsky was a Polish composer, even though he was also born in the
Ukraine.
Matthew has mentioned Bartok, which reminds me of a vist I made to the
museum of Roumanian music in Buchurest a few yars ago. It was all
about Enescu, who they described as Roumania's greatest composer. That
was fine by me, but they had a statement in the entrance that declared
that Roumania was a multi-ethnic society, in which all ethnicities -
Roumanian, Hungarian, Saxon, Moldovan, Romany - were equally valued.
So I asked the nice lady why wasn't Bartok Roumania's greatest
composer, and she of course looked at me as though I was stupid and
said "but Bartok was Hungarian".
So I conclude that the label is about ethnicity and culture - not
nationality.
Charles

One answer about Bartok is that when he was born, Transylvania was
still part of the Austro-Hungarian empire so he was actully born in
Hungary even though now the territory belongs to Romania (and let's
not say more about the subject.) Of course, Bartok did a great deal
for the Romanian music with his folklore collection and was a good
friend of Enescu.

Some ethnic-Hungarian composers that were actually born in Romania are
Ligeti and Kurtag, and so is the Greek Xenakis. But of course,
Romania had no clue what to do with them.

Regards,

George

Terry

2009-07-02 23:31:38 UTC

Post by Spence...
Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he was
born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...
What should one describe him as...?
Sp.

Andrea Bocelli was born in Italy. Why call him a singer?

--
Cheers!

Terry

Matthew B. Tepper

2009-07-02 23:52:54 UTC

Post by Terry

Post by Spence...
Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he was
born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...
What should one describe him as...?

Andrea Bocelli was born in Italy. Why call him a singer?

LOL!

Of course, he IS a singer, just not, well....

Spam Stopper

2009-07-03 04:56:51 UTC

[this post only restores the original thread title]

w***@tiscali.co.uk

2018-07-31 10:47:02 UTC

Post by Spence...
Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he was
born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...
What should one describe him as...?
Sp.

If a Chinese man is born in France, does that make him French? If a Scotsman is born in Pakistan does that make him Pakistani? Or vice-versa? There are Pakistanis born in England...are they Englishmen? My advice is to think of it like this. If a dog gives birth to its puppies in a horses stable because the straw is soft and warm, it won't make them ponies.

Juan I. Cahis

2018-07-31 22:23:55 UTC

Post by w***@tiscali.co.uk

Post by Spence...
Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he was
born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...
What should one describe him as...?
Sp.

If a Chinese man is born in France, does that make him French? If a
Scotsman is born in Pakistan does that make him Pakistani? Or vice-versa?
There are Pakistanis born in England...are they Englishmen? My advice is
to think of it like this. If a dog gives birth to its puppies in a horses
stable because the straw is soft and warm, it won't make them ponies.

It depends on the law of both Countries. For some Countries, if you are
born in it, independently of the nationality of your parents, you get the
nationality of the Country you were born ("Jus Solis"). And for some other
Countries, you inherit the nationality of your parents, independently of
where you were born ("Jus Sanguinis").

Latin Countries, like France, Spain, Italy, Latin American, are more
oriented to "Jus Solis". British Countries, like
Britain, USA, etc., are more oriented to "Jus Sanguinis".

--
Enviado desde mi iPad usando NewsTap, Juan I. Cahis, Santiago de Chile.

1947Rogerio

2021-11-17 14:09:21 UTC

Post by w***@tiscali.co.uk

Post by Spence...
Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he was
born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...
What should one describe him as...?
Sp.

If a Chinese man is born in France, does that make him French? If a
Scotsman is born in Pakistan does that make him Pakistani? Or vice-versa?
There are Pakistanis born in England...are they Englishmen? My advice is
to think of it like this. If a dog gives birth to its puppies in a horses
stable because the straw is soft and warm, it won't make them ponies.

It depends on the law of both Countries. For some Countries, if you are
born in it, independently of the nationality of your parents, you get the
nationality of the Country you were born ("Jus Solis"). And for some other
Countries, you inherit the nationality of your parents, independently of
where you were born ("Jus Sanguinis").
Latin Countries, like France, Spain, Italy, Latin American, are more
oriented to "Jus Solis". British Countries, like
Britain, USA, etc., are more oriented to "Jus Sanguinis".
--
Enviado desde mi iPad usando NewsTap, Juan I. Cahis, Santiago de Chile.

Shakespeare would say - "MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING". The place where you were born does not decide your nationality, with apparent exception of UK! I was born in Mozambique (during the colonial era) and I was always considered a Portuguese! Even during the post-independence, the new Mozambican government, even so, gave you during sometime the opportunity to decide whether to be Mozambican, whether to maintain your nationality as Portuguese! In some countries, you can keep a double nationality - that is the case of Brazil/Portugal or in the case you were born aboard an airplane belonging to a nationality different from your parents' one. Some countries are so good, that the newborn/adult/old age, until he decides otherwise, may voyage in that airline for every place in the world without paying a single passenger ticket! As a summary about Khachaturian nationality: Before the dissolution of the USSR he was Russian; afterwards, because he was born in Tbilisi he may be considered a Georgian... but from Armenian ascendance. I happens that Khachaturian is buried in Yerevan (a city from Armenia). Then, were is the problem to consider Khachaturian as a Russian, as a Georgian or as an Armenian??!! He has a triple nationality; something that gives a big pride to Russians, Georgians and Armenians. That's it!

Frank Berger

2021-11-17 15:15:55 UTC