It may well be that our means are fairly limited and our possibilities restricted when it comes to applying pressure on our government. But is this a reason to do nothing? Despair is nor an answer. Neither is resignation. Resignation only leads to indifference, which is not merely a sin but a punishment.
— Elie Wiesel


I am an Armenian and the direct descendent of Armenian Genocide victims. Since the Turkish Government continues to deny the Armenian Genocide, I am seeking as many family histories as we can collect through this site to share with the world. This effort will be part of a larger research book and documentary project.

We hope to find Armenian Genocide survivors anywhere in the world who can provide their personal testimony on audio, video or in writing. We are also seeking the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as well as nieces and nephews of survivors who may have their family members testimony in some form. Photos of loved ones with names, dates and locations (when possible) are very important for this effort.

If you would like to share your time, ideas, referrals to family members or friends, or any information helpful for this research project, please let us know. Since this project will be multi-lingual, if you wish to serve as a translator, we need your skills, so please contact us! Leave a comment on this blog or send an email to:


Our families and the world must never forget the memories of all the innocent children, women and men who died during one of the world’s darkest periods in history.

Thank you,

Sheri Jordan
New York City, 2009

6 Responses to About

  1. Tsolin says:

    Raising Sand Radio, KZSU, Stanford University, Calif.
    Live Monday, Oct. 19, 2009 from 2 – 3 pm Pacific time, FM 90.1

    David Boyajian on Armenia, and Vivien Sansour, Palestinian poet

    David Boyajian is an Armenian-American writer and activist commenting on the recent protocols signed – not yet ratified – between Turkey and Armenia. He reviews the Caucuses and Caspian region and the geopolitics behind US, USSR, EU, and NATO interest in the region as well why Armenians around the world are outraged by the protocols.

    Vivien Sansour is a Palestinian poet, theater director, and activist who shares her poetry and as well as what stimulates her to write,
    create, and act for justice.

    Listen anytime to this program and other archived shows:

    Download and listen


    Raising Sand Radio is a MotherSpeak media grassroots effort to bring lesser heard voices and topics to the airwaves and encourage deeper and more sophisticated discussion for change in our communities. All shows are available for download via the Internet. Not-for-profit radio programs may re-air this show.

  2. Jacqueline Ajamian says:

    If you need to know the story of my family, I would be glad to write it,The only time that my grandmother took me to church is on the 24th of April, to pray for her two sisters who perished during the massacres, I have some pictures of my massacred relatives. My grandmother lost her two sisters Victoria Chakmakdjian and Mayreni with her baby, husband ,father in law and two sons. Grandfather lost his uncle Sarkis Zadikian and his three sons and wife. They were living in the city of Konia , were deported never to be heard from them again.

  3. Boghos says:

    Minister of Parliament Minasyan – Court’s Ruling Has Minimized the Protocols’ Threats

    [ 2010/01/22 | 15:49 ]
    HETQ – Invetigative Journalists of Armenia
    by Natasha Harutyunyan

    At a debate held today between ARF MP Artzvik Minasyan and Republican Party MP Gagik Melikyan, the former stated that the recent Constitutional Court ruling “at least safeguarded Armenia from a minimum of threats that the people are talking about”.

    He went on to say, however, that they would be able to categorically state that the preconditions set down in the Protocols would not take effect only if and when the National Assembly refused to ratify them or if disclaimers where included in the documents.

    “If the ruckus raised by Turkey, following the ruling by the Constitutional Court, was to be expected, then I find the approach taken by some of our Armenian analysts to downplay the significance of the ruling and describe it as an internal matter as peculiar at best,” MP Minasyan noted.

    MP Melikyan stated that the Court’s ruling came as a ‘cold shower’ to many, including the Turkish authorities, who have constantly strived to negotiate with Armenia using a lexicon of preconditions and to interpret them according to their interests.

    “I tend to believe that the Court’s ruling indeed showed that there were preconditions included in the Protocols. I’m also convinced that even if the Court turned the Protocols down, Turkey would have looked for any excuse to link its delay in ratifying them to the Armenian authorities. My opinion is that Turkey was coerced into signing the documents,” added MP Melikyan.

    He argued that the Court’s ruling proved once again that the ongoing process of the international recognition of the Genocide is of paramount importance to Armenia and that any Turkish attempts to force Armenia to take measures counter to the constitution were doomed to failure.

    http://hetq.am/en/politics/minasyan-meliqyan/ =

  4. Boghos says:

    Constitutional Court Limits Protocols’ Damage to Armenian National Interests



    After months of bickering among Armenians the world over about the
    Armenia-Turkey Protocols, the Constitutional Court of Armenia on
    January 12 pronounced its judgment on whether the obligations
    stipulated by the Protocols comply with the constitution.

    The Court’s task would have been relatively easier, if it were to
    simply deal with the legal aspects of the Protocols which would have
    required a yes or no decision followed by a brief explanation. Yet the
    fact that the Court’s verdict was eight pages long and contained
    scores of clarifications, interpretations, explanations, and
    restrictions, indicated that the Justices of the Court had to walk a
    tightrope between safeguarding Armenia’s relations with major foreign
    powers and minimizing the potential damage the Protocols could cause
    to the Armenian national interest.

    Since the Court was apparently reluctant to reject outright these
    badly-negotiated and poorly-worded Protocols, it did the next best
    thing: accept the Protocols after placing a large number of
    restrictions on their legal interpretation and implementation. Thus,
    the Court’s decision partially vindicates all those who have been
    expressing their serious reservations regarding the negative aspects
    of the Protocols.

    Here are some of the main interpretations and limitations that the
    Court placed on the Protocols:

    1) The Court made all clauses of the Protocols conditional on the
    implementation of two main obligations: “establish diplomatic
    relations” and “open the common border.” The Justices thus made these
    two actions a necessary prerequisite for the fulfillment of all other
    obligations to be undertaken by Armenia and Turkey.

    2) The Court narrowly interpreted the “open the common border” clause
    of the Protocols, indicating that Armenia was simply making a
    commitment “to resolve legal-organizational and institutional issues
    connected to safeguarding the normal operation of border checkpoints.”
    Significantly, the Court used the term “checkpoint” rather than
    “border,” thereby indirectly refusing to accord legal recognition to
    Armenia’s present boundary with Turkey. Since it was Turkey that
    closed the border, it alone is responsible for re-opening it.
    Armenia’s obligation, on the other hand, is limited to simply making
    the necessary administrative arrangements to permit passage through a

    3) The Court ruled that only those international treaties that have
    been ratified under the constitution of the present Republic of
    Armenia could be considered legally valid. The clear implication is
    that border issues regulated by treaties pre-dating the Republic’s
    existence cannot be considered valid. This interpretation contradicts
    frequent Turkish declarations that the Protocols reconfirm Armenian
    territorial concessions to Turkey, specifically referencing the 1921
    Treaty of Kars. Indeed, the Court pointedly downplayed the overall
    significance of these Protocols by mandating that all future treaties
    that establish and further develop relations between Armenia and
    Turkey require its specific approval.

    4) The Court countered the text of the Protocols which included
    specific language about multilateral obligations, by asserting that
    the documents in question were “exclusively of a bilateral interstate
    nature.” The Justices thus precluded Turkey from interfering in the
    Karabagh (Artsakh) negotiations and making the improvement of
    Armenia-Turkey relations conditional on the resolution of that

    5) The Court took issue with Turkish statements that the aim of the
    historical commission envisaged by the Protocols is to review the
    facts of the Armenian Genocide. The Justices clearly stated that the
    provisions of the Protocols could not contradict the preamble of the
    constitution which includes a reference to Armenia’s Declaration of
    Independence. Article 11 of the Declaration stated: “The Republic of
    Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international
    recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western

    The key question now is what happens next?

    At a minimum, the Constitutional Court has limited some of the
    damaging aspects of the Protocols by ruling that any laws emanating
    from the Protocols, after parliamentary ratification, cannot violate
    the constitution of the Republic of Armenia.

    Of course, it would be far more preferable if the Parliament were to
    reject these Protocols outright. Regrettably, this is unlikely, as the
    Parliament is dominated by pro-government deputies. If rejection is
    not a possibility, the President of Armenia and the Parliament should
    at least consider specific reservations or changes to these Protocols
    in line with the Constitutional Court’s decision.

    Failing that, Armenians who oppose the Protocols must pin their last
    hope on the Turkish Parliament’s insistence that it would not ratify
    the Protocols until Armenia withdraws from Artsakh. Should the Turkish
    Parliament not ratify the Protocols, it would be highly ironic if
    Armenians had to rely on Turkish actions in order to protect their
    national interest!

  5. pauline barooshian says:

    HI..you should know that the Armenian Library and Museum of America, Main street, Watertown, Massachusetts has a huge collection of oral history from survivors of this genocide. They are in English/ Turkish/or Armenian and possibly other languages depending on which language the survivor spoke. My father, Paul Bilezikian and my maternal grandfather, Levon Apovian, stories are recorded. Paul in english, Levon in Armenian. I have copies of both. Contact ALMA..I am sure they can truly help you out. Stay in touch. Good luck. pauline barooshian

  6. pauline barooshian says:

    PS…I do have a lot of old, old pictures. Fortunately my mother was able to catalogue, date and name these pictures of people/ families. Some back to the late 1800’s. Happy to share with you. Let me know. pauline

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: