on the origins of our tribalism

[ara baliozian]

ARMENIAN LEADERS: PAST & PRESENT

************************************************

The Mamigonians were not statesmen;

they were warlords.

Statesmen unite the people;

warlords divide them.

That’s in the nature of the beast.

A warlord that unites

ceases being a warlord and becomes a statesman.

One does not have to be a prophet or pundit

to see that when you divide a nation

you make it more vulnerable to the enemy.

Therefore, to divide a nation and to dig its grave

might as well be synonymous operations.

If our warlords had behaved like statesmen

and committed themselves to serving the interests of the nation

(as opposed to the interests of their own dynasty, faction, or tribe)

we would now be a major power in the Middle East,

instead of perennial victims of bloodthirsty neighbors

and blood****ing leaders,

some of whom, probably most of whom,

are not even Armenian.

Personally I have nothing against the Chinese (Mamigonians),

Jews (Bagratunis), and Assyrians (Ardzrunis).

But I begin to loathe them

when I realize they did not place the interests of the Armenian nation

at the top of their priorities,

perhaps because something in their own personal make up was missing,

and that something may well have been

kinship and solidarity with the people.

Can an odar identify himself with the Armenian people

to the same degree that an Armenian can?

Can an Armenian identify himself with the country

(say the United States) in which he lives and makes a living

to the same degree that an American can?

I have yet to meet an Armenian-American from the Middle East

who is not anti-American,

and I mean anti-American to the point of being pro-Saddam Hussein.

[MJ]

Good topic, Ara. And welcome to the Forum. Hope you and others will enjoy your tenure.

 

It is obvious that the problem has existed, and it still exists to a large degree. I mean the tribalism. It is also an interesting observation, I think to notice that our last two Kingdoms, outside the Cilician context, have been run by Bagratunis and Ardzrunis. It would be a deviation from the original topic, I think, to analyze what a perfect opportunity have Ardzrunis and Bagratunis had at the time to restore our independence and Armenia's place under the sun.

 

However, I somewhat disagree that the problem in our hands had much to do with the Jewish or Assyrian origins of the two dynasties. Similarly for Mamigonians. Perhaps, after generations of marriages with Armenians, and generations of “public service,” they were fully Armenianized. I don’t think that their policies or attitudes towards Armenia have been any worse than those of other nobility – of purely Armenian origin.

 

I conjecture that the problem of tribalism is resulted from the role and the function of the Armenian Church in our history. The Church has become the axis of national identity, and has neutralized the national self-consciousness of independent and stable statehood. As a matter of fact, the Church has significantly benefited from the absence of the statehood. Under those circumstances, while not being driven by the motivation of establishing a dominant statehood, why should’ve Ardzrunis and Bagratunis united. Each of them has been satisfied with what his side has possessed. "It's better to be first here, than the second in Rome." I don’t think that they could've not tolerated the other’s superiority. Those issues might’ve easily been resolved in old days through political marriages, for example. There was no urge to unite – as simple as that. The national identity of Armenians was defined by the belonging to the Church, and the Church was unified in their times. The rest was a feudalistic category.

 

I think this has been the primary problem of Armenians throughout history. It is present even today – Western vs. Eastern Armenian, Gorisetsi vs. Gyumretsi, Echmiadznakan vs. Antilliasian, Dashnaktsakan vs. Ramkavar, Beirutsi vs. Hayastantsi, etc.

 

What is the unifying concept that has to bring us together? This is what has to be crystallized, in my view. If the axis of unification is not there, what are we going to unify around, and why?

 

 

I suspect this topic is going to become a subject of prolonged discussions in our Forum. So good luck to all, and patience and tolerance.

 

[ March 08, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[alpha]

MJ we are more united than we give ourselves credit for. During the Artsax War every single Armenian in Diaspora and in Armenia united for the liberation of Armenia. At critical times Armenians are always united. In the beginning of century they had many disagreements, but the Battle of Sardarapat brought all the fighting fractions together. Look at other people living in Caucasus. In Georgia, Mengrels literally hate Kalxetis, Svans hate both of them. If I start going on then Georgia would be more like a federative republic. Azeris are also divided. Baku people (Western Azeris) don’t like the Ganja people (Eastern Azeris). That’s why it’s easier to reach a compromise on the Artsax issue with Bakveci than with Ganjaci people. The same divisions exist even in modern Europe. Take the example of Germany or Italy. I remember a few years ago I met a German and asked whether he was a German his reply was, “No I am Silezian”. In Italy there is even a political party who’s goal is independence of Northern Italy. It’s common for people to identify themselves by the province than the country they live in. Take the example of US. In Texas they are more Texan, in California more Californian and in New York they are simply New Yorkers. So it’s natural that we identify ourselves as Yerevanci, Tehranci or Beyrutci.

 

What we lack though is unifying ideals. What unites us is the hatered toward Turkey and grievance for the tragic history. It’s sad but true hatred is unifying us. What I think should unify us is the hope for the brighter future. We should take example from Jews, they are united for the brighter future of the State of Israel. No matter religious or secular, even if they disagree on a lot of things but they are united around the idea of strong Israel. It’s through their unification and efforts that Tel Aviv has become the next Silicon Valley. It’s true that they don’t forget their history and to this day reap huge amounts of money as retribution, but they are not living in history like we do. Let’s move on people, find more unifying ideals. What’s the point of having the Republic of Armenia, and what makes every Armenian proud? Can somebody answer these questions. If one day Turkey admits the Genocide, apologizes for it, even pays a retribution for it, what’s going to happen to us. Are we going to stop hating them? What do you think the unifying idea should be for Armenian nation?

[MJ]

Alpha, I think we both are saying pretty much the same thing.

[alpha]

MJ in your post you said:

 

quote

I think this has been the primary problem of Armenians throughout history. It is present even today – Western vs. Eastern Armenian, Gorisetsi vs. Gyumretsi, Echmiadznakan vs. Antilliasian, Dashnaktsakan vs. Ramkavar, Beirutsi vs. Hayastantsi, etc.

 

Just wanted to point out that we are not as divided as we think. Although I don't agree on issues we unite for.

[MJ]

I think you and me agree on what we, by in large unite around, which we both think is unhealthy. However an element of tribalism and perhaps clannishness is present in the foundations of what divides Western Armenians from Eastern, Gorisetsi from Gyumretsi, etc. Do you deny that it exists?

I do hope that we will unite in the near future around the common dreams and aspirations for Armenia. Otherwise I don't see anything healthy that can bring us together.

Besides, the unification itself is not a goal. If the axis of unification is the Communism, for example, we would rather disunite - I am just giving an extreme example. But you know what I mean.

[Hakob]

I don't know about present historians, but I do know that the Ashkani (Arshakuni) dynasty in Iran had a habit of employing foreigners to rule over parts of their empire. This Parthian empire was a huge and international one composed of all races and with huge volumes of trade unimaginable in its heyday.

[bellthecat]

Wwhy is is that I think Ara's writings, however well crafted and intelligent they are, are never actually written with the intention of getting a proper response or starting a real discussion?

 

Steve

 

PS

Do any actual historians believe that rather dubious Chinese - Mamigonians, Jews -Bagratunis, Assyrians - Ardzrunis stuff?

[Hakob]

And, MJ, many Mamigonians had married with Iranian princesses of either the Arshakuni or Sasani dynasties as well.

[MJ]

Sorry, Hakob, had not seen your comment before.

But what does your observation imply?