The Armenian

[Anonymouse]

Well anonymous jan, let`s take an example on the jews, they live with the past, thanks to that are so succesfull at the present and will have a future. Without the past there is no present and without the present ther is no future. Who we were made us who we are and who we are will  make us who to be in future.!

 

"Jews" are not Hebrews. While they may rely on silly "past" claims ( Biblical ) for their silly land, it doesn't make a difference.

 

The Hebrews were a Biblical people that no longer exist. To claim that Jews are related to Hebrews is a gross exaggeration. Jews are the followers of a religion. Back in the day it was Phariseeism. "Jew" is a modern term. There are many Jews. There are Ashkenazi Jews, which form the bulk of world Jewry, the "European Jew". There are also Sephardic Jews. To claim that they are entitled to Israel is no more valid than a modern "native American" claiming "America" is theirs. Of course everyone knows that the Ashkenazi Jews are "descended" from the Khazars, a Turko Finnish people who converted to Judaism sometime in the 6-8th centuries, of course mixing with the local populations as well. This is why the bulk of European Jewry spoke "Yiddish" as that is the language these "Khazar" Jews molded for themselves, a combination of Slavic, Baltic, and Germanic languages, mostly Germanic.

 

And besides, Israel violates traditional Judaism, which states that only the Messiah's coming will establish Israel. Zionism, is just another silly nationalist movement that spawned out of Europe in the age of nationalism, for remember, Theodore Herzel was a Europeean Jew in Europe when Europeans were building their nation-states.

 

Living in the past isn't healthy. "Jews" are just good at exploiting the past, mythical or otherwise.

Edited January 16, 2004 by Anonymouse

[axel]

Living in the past isn't healthy

 

Sure, passeism leads to fossilization but the opposite attitude (negating one's roots) is the surest path to decadence and cultural/national death.

[Anonymouse]

Sure, passeism leads to fossilization but the opposite attitude (negating one's roots) is the surest path to decadence and cultural/national death.

No one said you should negate your roots. In fact I am as Armenian as they come and I won't marry anyone that isn't Armenian. I like my culture and the past for what its worth. However, it doesn't dictate me, while it is a part of my life and identity. Of course, this isn't what the thread was about, rather it was about "Armenian" in relation to "nation" and how they have changed over time, which perhaps would make them one of the most resilient people, absorbing all different peoples, yet at the same time maintaining "Armenian" language and culture.

[nairi]

Ok guys, enough of the insults and personal attacks. Let's stay on topic. This goes for everyone.

[vava]

Alright - no one is listening. Enough for now. The topic's closed.

[Azat]

I am reopening the topic with all the unrelated material removed.

 

No more insults from anyone.

[Anonymouse]

I am reopening the topic with all the unrelated material removed.

 

No more insults from anyone.

Thank you kind sage.

[hagopn]

Anonymouse wrote:

 

Essentially this is my problem, and the whole reason I started this thread...namely that there is an Armenian nation and its for the Armenian people who are descendents of either Hayk, or Hayasa, or whatever tribes you can think of. This is ahistorical for it ignores history. This little graph will perhaps convey what I am trying to say.

 

Misconception number one, and a definite sign of total lack of familiarity with primary sources that deal with this matter.

 

Hayassa is the toponymic and ethno-linguistic nomencalture for the entirety of Greater Armenian by the Hittites. Hayassa is the ONLY name used by the Hittites, just as Harminuap was the ONLY name used for the entirety of Greater Armenia by the Elamites or Armina by the old Persians, or Urashtu/Urartu (more than likely Ararat due to the syllabic no-consonant writing system used at the time) by the Assyro-Babylonians. Yet in another instance the Assyrians (prior to the ascendency as an imperial power) named the entire Greater Armenian ethno-linguistic group as "Nairi" probably in reference to the "River People," as the Armenians historically migrated an colonized the entirety of Mesopotamia via the Great Rivers.

 

In short, there is no such thing as "Hayassa and other tribes" in any primary source. The individual tribes are still referred to under ONE BLANKET ethnic/geohgraphical term. In the case of Assyrians, allthe various linguistically and ethnically related tribes were named the "Nairi", and were understsood and grudgingly identified as a confedration of a sort.

 

 

R=Roman

P=Persian

A=Arabic

G=Greek

M=Mongol

Ru=Russian

As=Assyrian

 

 

----------R---------------G ----------A ------------- Ru

Hayasa -----------------------------------------------------------------Present

-------As-------------------P---------------------------M

 

This above is arbitrary and makes no conclusion or statement reflecting any reality out there. Individual experiences are irrelevant. We are speaking about a community and its self-identification as such through the eons. Armenians never experienced a break in their legacy in any manner except the political situation, and that is irrelevant to the concept of self-identification as a national identity.

 

The first recorded "assimilationist" in history was, as I have referred to above, Tiglath Pilaser III, (the Assyrians' own Tigran III). He had a consciously implemented policy of uprooting, resetlling, and assimilating entire populations. He outwardly boasted of his success in defacing entire nationalities and ruling them as non-identities. This paved the way for the later age of sectarianism that still plagues us to this day, but the Armenians were exempt from this rul since this policy of assimilation via uprooting and resettlement never succeeded in Armenia.

 

Armenians are, as a consequence, NOT subject to the same sort of "identity" soul-serachign speculative nonsense that the "Enlightenment" opponents are trying to push onto us. I recorded history, we have been Armenians, and we have always been Armenians.

 

Do you see what I am trying to get at? We may have a straight line and say "We descended from Hayk, etc.", but that doesn't take into account all the shifts, and

 

We descended from "Hayk" in the plural ethno-linguistic sense, and the personification of the Ethicity took on hit mythical form. Hayk is more than likely in reference to the Land/People/Deity triad nomenclature that the ancients always used.

 

changes of history. Maybe I descended from a Greek, and you from an Arab, and he from a Assyrian. Thus that is the problem with nationalism in that it projects itself into the past and says "we descended from this". Well maybe so, but no one stays pure, especially not in that region of the Caucasus.

 

That is not likely. Genetic injections due to invasion, rape, and so on are commonplace in such dynamic geopolitical regions, but the self-identification trail is remarkably constant. This is repeatedly illustrated by the existence of old villages and the continual habitation by Armenians who recall actual family lines to the ancient periods. The unfortunate part of the last few centuries is the constant Internal migration of Armenians from one location to another, but, again, this never changed their mode of self-identification.

 

And so Armenia as a "nation" one can argue never really existed, for "Armenian" was an identity constantly changing, since history is not a point in time, it is a process.

 

Change is, as is argued above, irrelevant. I have already covered that. If you wish to bring in new elements to your argument, you are more than welcome, but you are merley repeating yourself and are forcing me to repeat myself.

[Anonymouse]

Misconception number one, and a definite sign of total lack of familiarity with primary sources that deal with this matter.

 

Hayassa is the toponymic and ethno-linguistic nomencalture for the entirety of Greater Armenian by the Hittites.  Hayassa is the ONLY name used by the Hittites, just as Harminuap was the ONLY name used for the entirety of Greater Armenia by the Elamites or Armina by the old Persians, or Urashtu/Urartu (more than likely Ararat due to the syllabic no-consonant writing system used at the time) by the Assyro-Babylonians.  Yet in another instance the Assyrians (prior to the ascendency as an imperial power) named the entire Greater Armenian ethno-linguistic group as "Nairi" probably in reference to the "River People," as the Armenians historically migrated an colonized the entirety of Mesopotamia via the Great Rivers.

 

In short, there is no such thing as "Hayassa and other tribes" in any primary source.  The individual tribes are still referred to under ONE BLANKET ethnic/geohgraphical term.  In the case of Assyrians, allthe various linguistically and ethnically related tribes were named the "Nairi", and were understsood and grudgingly identified as a confedration of a sort.

 

That was in reference to those who like to create mythical tribes such as the Armen tribes, or "Armenoids". There are various theories of ethnogenesis obviously and I lumped them all together for the sake of argument, that no matter what reference point you use, you are nonetheless using a reference point, but I recognize the obvious names given to people by different groups.

 

 

This above is arbitrary and makes no conclusion or statement reflecting any reality out there. Individual experiences are irrelevant. We are speaking about a community and its self-identification as such through the eons. Armenians never experienced a break in their legacy in any manner except the political situation, and that is irrelevant to the concept of self-identification as a national identity.

 

The first recorded "assimilationist" in history was, as I have referred to above, Tiglath Pilaser III, (the Assyrians' own Tigran III). He had a consciously implemented policy of uprooting, resetlling, and assimilating entire populations. He outwardly boasted of his success in defacing entire nationalities and ruling them as non-identities. This paved the way for the later age of sectarianism that still plagues us to this day, but the Armenians were exempt from this rul since this policy of assimilation via uprooting and resettlement never succeeded in Armenia.

 

Armenians are, as a consequence, NOT subject to the same sort of "identity" soul-serachign speculative nonsense that the "Enlightenment" opponents are trying to push onto us. I recorded history, we have been Armenians, and we have always been Armenians.

 

The graph may be arbitrary, yet it is designed to make a point. If you have a straight line of descent of any people, and state "We descended from this", you are making a gross exaggeration. Perhaps in our imaginitive minds we may descend from Hayk, but such things do not take into account the population shifts, and demographic changes and mixtures.

 

The concept of an Armenian nationality was a result of the Russian influence and interaction with ideas from the Enlightenment. There is no escaping this, no matter how much wishful thinking one may engage in. It was under the Russian sphere of influence that the concept of national identity was being created. The thinkers were giving Armenians a sense of meaning. What were religious and linguistic people from different regions were being given this one fixed identity with common interests, nevermind that their history is anything but sticking up for the common interest of the "nation". It assumed that the interests of the "nation" was all the same, much like Marx assumed that the interests of the proletariat were all the same, or at least ought to be. If viewed, Armenians, prior to the concept of nationalism were a religious/linguistic people, and they had no sense of a "common interest". That a Muslim would convert to Christianity and speak Armenian was only indicative of the fungible nature of ethnicity. Thus the Armenians during the time of the Achaemenians referred to as "Armina" were not the same, as the Armenians during the time of the Golden Horde, for this was a different people, and with a different culture, therefore a different sense of who they were with respect to their surroundings. The Armenians of 15th century with their grapar are different from the Armenians of today with their ashkarapar.

 

You are trying to give Armenians some sort of identity that they were group conscious or a nation, before their recognized themselves as a nation. That is not so, since there is no evidence of "national awareness" until the Enlightenment. The people were a people in other words, before they knew itself. The region of the Caucasus is one that is very diverse and has been so since as far back as we can trace its history and the many empires and conquerors that came and went through that area and have left their mark is testament to this. To assert that "Armenian" has been some sort of fixed entity that is unchanging and was conscious of itself is to ignore everything else and make history centric around the concept of Armenian.

 

To understand the world before nationalism, one must acknowledge the existence of empires and religious communities, not national entities or nation-states. So when the nakharar houses allied with Muslim emirs against other nakharar houses, this suggests that these people didn't view each other as "national people" headed for this "common goal" into the future to someday establish an "independent Armenia". In fact, that the Armenians living under Byzantium were loyal to Byzantines, and the Armenians living in the Persian sphere were loyal to Persians, doesn't suggest a people aware of its common "nation". That is the reason why Armenians have historically not been "united", as present nationalists contend. Their actions do not reflect the will of the "people" ( a holistic entity ).

 

What you are in essence implying throughout your whole posts, is that Europeans and everyone else didn't think of themselves as a nation, or nationalities up until the Enlightenment, but somehow Armenians are exempt from that, and the people were a people before it knew itself.

 

That is not likely. Genetic injections due to invasion, rape, and so on are commonplace in such dynamic geopolitical regions, but the self-identification trail is remarkably constant. This is repeatedly illustrated by the existence of old villages and the continual habitation by Armenians who recall actual family lines to the ancient periods. The unfortunate part of the last few centuries is the constant Internal migration of Armenians from one location to another, but, again, this never changed their mode of self-identification.

 

Obviously they self-identified themselves as speaking Armenian, and had the religion of Christianity, just like others identified themselves as speaking Greek, and belonging to the Greek Church. This is no different than many who converted or traded sides, or even adopted Islam as their religion or Arabic, or Turkish as their language of choice. I do not see this as evidence of a national awareness that they were somehow headed for this bright future with common interests. National awareness was created in the 19th century. That is all. If you can't deal with that on its face value, you are trying too hard to believe.

[axel]

Claiming that all members of the nation were consciouly serving the "higher interest of the nation" (which is an abstraction) is a romantic myth. But that is not only true before but AFTER the enlightenment too. The "higher interest of the nation" is always defined by a small elite. The democratic idea of the will of the people expressing the higher interest of the nation is pure propaganda.

 

That said, one should distinguish between abstract/political national awareness (as expressed above) which is reserved to a small elite and "natural" national awareness or national identification. It seems to me this distinction has not been made sufficiently clear.

 

It is true that before the enlightenment and the late formalization of the concept of nation (by the likes of Ernest Renan) and propaganda that followed, europeans shared different affinities and expressed differente allegiances so that there were not clearly-delimited self-conscious national groups but interpenetrating and overlapping sets. Identity was split up between language, religious conscience (the first crusade regrouped men of vary diverse ethnicities), fidelity to a given lord, and "class" who shared the same code of conduct and ethics (as demonstrated by intermarriage between noblemen accross Europe) among others. The preponderance of the Catholic Church and the existence of powerful orders that spanned much of Europe (notably the Templars) are good illustrations of supranational bodies that defined transnational identities.

 

But history is full of conflicts between such entities and actual kingdoms (basically national entities!), occurring well before the enlightenment. One only has to look at Philippe Le Bel's reign. The french kingdom was the embodiment of the national idea. The subjects' loyalty to their kings defined the "national" sentiment (and one cannot underestimate this sentiment). The superior interest of the nation was defined by the king.

 

So even in Europe one cannot claim that actual national awareness (even in its political form) was inexistent prior to the nineteenth century. This might have been true of Germany and Italy who were split up into multiple political entities before their unification (et encore!) but certainly not of France.

 

=> One should not oversimplify and extrapolate european's own historical development which, moreover, is not uniform as is suggested!

 

More generally, one should be careful when trying to apply the same historical model onto different historical objects.

 

Armenia's identity has long been shaped up by its Church. The early split of the latter from mainstream christianity following the concile of Chalcedon made it an auto-cephalous and national entity. This early specificity alone distinguishes it from the european nations. The widespread sense of belonging to the Church was clearly a determinant of national awareness in addition to ethnico-linguistical considerations. That this identification might not have translated into a political reality (unity) is another question. But exhibiting the lack of political unity in order to discredit the idea of national awareness prior to the "enlightenment" is plainly wrong.

Edited January 19, 2004 by axel

[Twilight Bark]

exhibiting the lack of political unity in order to discredit the idea of national awareness prior to the "enlightenment" is plainly wrong.

Very true. Anonymouse often says thoughtful things, as well as not-so-well-thought-out things. The idea behind this thread belongs in the second category. While rejecting the "sameness" and "equivalence" of genders in one thread of thought, he overexerts himself into accepting the sameness of all nations and their evolutionary paths in another, clearly as an article of faith and not as a result of reason.

[Anileve]

Well I’ll be the one to tell you all guys the true identity of an Armenian. Yes I believe that my theory is 100% correct like everyone elses here. I won’t keep you in any more suspense. A true Armenian derives from a land called “Superiority” it existed long before Urartu and a secret society that goes by that name still exists in the underground world of Armenia as well as where there are large communities of Armenians exist.

 

Going back to “Superiority”, starting from the establishment of that nation Armenians are a distinct nationality that exuded an extreme level of superiority (that explains the modern term). It is precisely for that characteristic they were able to survive, each Armenian believed that he was the true “Superior aka Armenian” leader, thus there were always disagreements, since it was impossible to have 100% of the population being leaders. So they ended up splitting into separate kingdoms. In order for Armenians to survive many intrusions by other empires they had to stick with each other, thus not to confuse enemies with their own kind they had to prove their originality by displaying that his/her opinion is more superior than everyone else’s which was so characteristic of their identity! As the nation grew older and survived many the battles and hardships they continued their famous tradition by carrying the well known and characteristic trait of Armenianness. The traces of the “Superiority” empire are evident even in this particular thread where everyone displays their superior opinion! Ta da, mystery solved!

[Twilight Bark]

Well I’ll be the one to tell you all guys the true identity of an Armenian. Yes I believe that my theory is 100% correct like everyone elses here. I won’t keep you in any more suspense. A true Armenian derives from a land called “Superiority” it existed long before Urartu and a secret society that goes by that name still exists in the underground world of Armenia as well as where there are large communities of Armenians exist.

 

Going back to “Superiority”, starting from the establishment of that nation Armenians are a distinct nationality that exuded an extreme level of superiority (that explains the modern term). It is precisely for that characteristic they were able to survive, each Armenian believed that he was the true “Superior aka Armenian” leader, thus there were always disagreements, since it was impossible to have 100% of the population being leaders. So they ended up splitting into separate kingdoms. In order for Armenians to survive many intrusions by other empires they had to stick with each other, thus not to confuse enemies with their own kind they had to prove their originality by displaying that his/her opinion is more superior than everyone else’s which was so characteristic of their identity! As the nation grew older and survived many the battles and hardships they continued their famous tradition by carrying the well known and characteristic trait of Armenianness. The traces of the “Superiority” empire are evident even in this particular thread where everyone displays their superior opinion! Ta da, mystery solved!

And just to demonstrate my self-evident superiority, dear anileve, I'll say that your theory has already been advanced by yours truly. I think it was in a Baliozian thread; I am not sure. Being a superior and super-important person, of course I will not take the time to find where I wrote those precious words.

 

[Nvard]

I just "love" topics like that ..lol

 

For me "Armenian" is no longer something that means ethnic heritage, or a unique Indo-Europian language. It's a state of a mind, heart, beliefe, call it whatever you

want.

I do not deny the fact that our ethnic type has changed, our language has changed, but not as much as some of you say. All those people who became a "salad", and continued to change, called themselves Armenians, they did, because there still was a "union"

 

The modern Tatars look 80% different from what they looked like 200 years ago.So? They are still Tatars, with their language, culture, etc.

 

Because there' s an indea that unites them and makes them a nation

[axel]

I reject the theory of superiority as fundamentally flawed: its enunciation by someone other than myself makes me feel inferior.

[Anonymouse]

Everyone is against me, so I must be wrong.

[Twilight Bark]

Everyone is against me, so I must be wrong.

Measure the correctness of your ideas by reason, and not by correlating it to their popularity directly or in a contrarian way. Both popularity and reverse-snobbery make lousy metrics for truth.

[Anileve]

And just to demonstrate my self-evident superiority, dear anileve, I'll say that your theory has already been advanced by yours truly. I think it was in a Baliozian thread; I am not sure. Being a superior and super-important person, of course I will not take the time to find where I wrote those precious words.

 

And being that I cannot forgo the opportunity of displaying my superiority over yours I shall confidently state that my theory is more precise than yours. Simply because I believe so and due to the fact that I cannot find yours, thus making your theory inferior to my superior opinion.

[Anonymouse]

Very true.  Anonymouse often says thoughtful things, as well as not-so-well-thought-out things.  The idea behind this thread belongs in the second category.  While rejecting the "sameness" and "equivalence" of genders in one thread of thought, he overexerts himself into accepting the sameness of all nations and their evolutionary paths in another, clearly as an article of faith and not as a result of reason.

 

 

...

 

Claiming that all members of the nation were consciouly serving the "higher interest of the nation" (which is an abstraction) is a romantic myth. But that is not only true before but AFTER the enlightenment too. The "higher interest of the nation" is always defined by a small elite. The democratic idea of the will of the people expressing the higher interest of the nation is pure propaganda.

 

That said, one should distinguish between abstract/political national awareness (as expressed above) which is reserved to a small elite and "natural" national awareness or national identification. It seems to me this distinction has not been made sufficiently clear.

 

It is true that before the enlightenment and the late formalization of the concept of nation (by the likes of Ernest Renan) and propaganda that followed, europeans shared different affinities and expressed differente allegiances so that there were not clearly-delimited self-conscious national groups but interpenetrating and overlapping sets. Identity was split up between language, religious conscience (the first crusade regrouped men of vary diverse ethnicities), fidelity to a given lord, and "class" who shared the same code of conduct and ethics (as demonstrated by intermarriage between noblemen accross Europe) among others. The preponderance of the Catholic Church and the existence of powerful orders that spanned much of Europe (notably the Templars) are good illustrations of supranational bodies that defined transnational identities.

 

But history is full of conflicts between such entities and actual kingdoms (basically national entities!), occurring well before the enlightenment. One only has to look at Philippe Le Bel's reign. The french kingdom was the embodiment of the national idea. The subjects' loyalty to their kings defined the "national" sentiment (and one cannot underestimate this sentiment). The superior interest of the nation was defined by the king.

 

So even in Europe one cannot claim that actual national awareness (even in its political form) was inexistent prior to the nineteenth century. This might have been true of Germany and Italy who were split up into multiple political entities before their unification (et encore!) but certainly not of France.

 

=> One should not oversimplify and extrapolate european's own historical development which, moreover, is not uniform as is suggested!

 

More generally, one should be careful when trying to apply the same historical model onto different historical objects.

 

Armenia's identity has long been shaped up by its Church. The early split of the latter from mainstream christianity following the concile of Chalcedon made it an auto-cephalous and national entity. This early specificity alone distinguishes it from the european nations. The widespread sense of belonging to the Church was clearly a determinant of national awareness in addition to ethnico-linguistical considerations. That this identification might not have translated into a political reality (unity) is another question. But exhibiting the lack of political unity in order to discredit the idea of national awareness prior to the "enlightenment" is plainly wrong.

 

First off, what I am arguing for is not a "theory" nor the "sameness" of "nations". No one said that, but then again in the haze of "discussions" and especially when peoples memories and emotions are embedded in their systems of thought ( nationalism ) I expect lots of uneasiness with this topic. The onus is not upon me to prove that nationalism is a recent phenomenon, for it is obvious it is, but rather upon scientific nationalists, for they have been the ones, whether German, French, or Armenian, that have tried to map ethnicity, linguistically, archaeologically, and historically, and they have all failed, resulting in constant conflicts, often in precipitating to genocidal ends, even the recent conflict with Azerbaijan was a result of two nation-States, nevermind that they look more similar to one another than they are to whatever "ancestors" they are said to descend from. When you accept any "ism" which is an already structured system of thought, such as nationalism, you are in essence identifying with that world view, anything to the contrary is wrong or a threat to your system of thought, that is why everyone is so passionate about their said "truths" regarding any of these discussions involving isms. Whether its Marxism,or Fascism, or Nationalism, etc., they all have already structured mechanisms. This is why for Marx "all history is a class struggle", this is why for Hitler all history is a "racial struggle". From the Enlightenment onward, we were introduced to "isms" and from then on, we take our respective ism, and project it into the past, and it is only a matter of will to place past events into an ism, and have it interpret a whole new meaning of the equation. This is why Marx found evidence for his thesis, and Hitler for his.

 

You will find that I would disagree with this on the grounds that "national" or "nationalism" was simply non-existent until the 19th century as an ism and ideology, therefore HOW and WHY do we project ourselves into the past and create these national entities where there was none? Only when any people became a Nation-State, even Armenia, did they begin to adopt this method of historiography which uses the techniques of Indo European philology working in tandem with nationalism to give people claims to lands and ideas of the past. That Armenians began to create for themselves a nation state was only a ripple being felt by Europe, and it was European Enlightenment ideas that they adopted in order to undergo with this. Once the concept of nationalism was sealed, it was up to the thinkers, journalists and writers, and later educational institutions of the respective nation-states to create history and assign language and culture to people of the past assigning mythical claims to people of what language they spoke or what they adopted as their dress. We have little evidence to suggest what language, or better yet what languages, the "people" spoke, since writing and reading was not the forte of the common man and since they outnumbered the educated class in all societies, only a tiny minority "spoke" the language that we have in written evidence, even the Church elite.

 

There were many kingdoms in the areas of "France" and "Germany" or "Lotharingia", not to mention the differeing Dutchies or Lords who were lives unto their own, not different from the nakharar houses. In fact you could find many kingdoms, rivals, speaking the same language, and many others, yet in constant feuds, or allying with other peoples not speaking their language.

 

Trying to make the Armenian case an exception is wrong in my opinion, and I know stating this is going off on a limb within the Armenian community because it is in fact more nationally aware now, than it has ever been before, because of Genocide and constantly being projected into their minds of suffering, of fear and a people and this and that; it permeates into and forms peoples minds. If Europeans went through ethnogensis and changes and mixed, the Armenians did so too, considering the Caucasus is the cross roads of east and west. The Armenians having changed throughout, have also changed meaning and culture. It is not static. Thus the Armenians of the Yervantid Dynasty pale in comparison to who or what the Armenians are these days. In fact, the Armenians of today, look more alike with their Georgian, Turkish, and Azeri neighbors, than they would with the "Armenians" of Hellenistic times. By stating that, prior to nationalism, Armenians were a decentralized people living in many places, a linguistic and religious people, not a national one, for since it's obvious nationalism did not exist. Thus, on the grounds of nationalism, Armenians must hate all Turks, because the Turks tried to wipe out the Armenians. This is the eventual logical consequence of nationalism. That some Turks may have been Armenians before converting to Islam, or have intermarried, matters not. All Turks are Turks and they all descend from the Mongoloid peoples. This is the thinking that is implied by nationalism, since we all descend from this or that people, and have always been a people.

 

As far as awareness, well obviously everyone was aware of what language they spoke, but more importantly what languages they spoke, or what religion they belonged to, or where they lived, no different than anyone today. One must also understand that historiography in the sense that we understand it now, in terms of "national history" is a recent phenomenon which works its way backwards, projecting itself into the past, and creating history. Even now we acknowledge nationalism was created in 19th century, yet try to give Armenians a national awareness prior to the Enlightenment, yet their behavior, as I suggested was anything but "national". And since language based claims to ethnicity are faulty by nature, since language is fungible and people spoke a variety of languages and dialects and people came and went and adopted this or that language, it is not a good measuring stick. I cannot see any evidence to this, since all I see is evidence against the idea of a national awareness or a nation, a "nation" being defined by the Random House Webster's Dictionary as "a body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity, to seek or possess a government peculiarly its own".

 

Language based claims to ethnicity are shady since we often don't know what "peoples" spoke, and evidence suggests that peoples spoke a variety of languages, not just one "national" language. Nor does language correspond to cultural traditions such as dress, pottery, or jewelry. It was only after the rise of nationalism and nation-states that historians began to look for a correspondence between territories, regions, or kingdoms, and ethnic groups who occupied them.

 

But you will more often than not, find people debating endlessly about this or that ism, rather than asking more pertinent questions as to how and why was that particular idea introduced at that particular time, but this particular group to that particular people? For example, how and why, was nationalism introduced in France, by the Jacobins, during the French Revolution and how and why was it so successful in spreading around the world, eventually to be adopted by people as little as the Armenians?

 

I end this treatise.

[Twilight Bark]

First off, what I am arguing for is not a "theory" nor the "sameness" of "nations".

 

You are, implicitly yet clearly, by using various and sandry nations as "examples", when they invariably had incomparable histories.

 

especially when peoples memories and emotions are embedded in their systems of thought ( nationalism ) I expect lots of uneasiness with this topic.

Perhaps you have another audience in mind. Patronizing this correspondent will not further your argument.

 

The onus is not upon me to prove that nationalism is a recent phenomenon, for it is obvious it is

A straw-man argument. As I said, modern european nationalism is modern and european. That has next to nothing to do with the issue.

 

 

, but rather upon scientific nationalists, for they have been the ones, whether German, French, or Armenian, that have tried to map ethnicity, linguistically, archaeologically, and historically, and they have all failed, resulting in constant conflicts, often in precipitating to genocidal ends,

Lumping Armenians with France and Germany so effortlessly illustrates your problem. What has the genocidal tendencies of two European nations got to do with Armenian national consciousness and when it first formed coherently?

 

even the recent conflict with Azerbaijan was a result of two nation-States, nevermind that they look more similar to one another than they are to whatever "ancestors" they are said to descend from.

Sometimes you claim that you don't know how similar we are to the original Hayk, then you sound like you actually know quantitatively how similar and dissimilar today's Armenians are to this or that group. As I explained before, to no avail, Armenians lacked the power and prestige to attract "recruits", whereas the imperial nations such as Greeks, Turks, Persians and the like acted like societal and cultural sponges. It is a simple matter of driving forces, akin to those found in thermodynamics. While the original Armenians surely intermarried with some "newcomers", there has always been little incentive for large groups of others to settle and change into the Armenian identity. Our familial link to the original "tribes" of Hayk does not become questionable when they accept brides or grooms from other groups.

 

When you accept any "ism" which is an already structured system of thought, such as nationalism, you are in essence identifying with that world view, anything to the contrary is wrong or a threat to your system of thought, that is why everyone is so passionate about their said "truths" regarding any of these discussions involving isms. Whether its Marxism,or Fascism, or Nationalism, etc., they all have already structured mechanisms. This is why for Marx "all history is a class struggle", this is why for Hitler all history is a "racial struggle". From the Enlightenment onward, we were introduced to "isms" and from then on, we take our respective ism, and project it into the past, and it is only a matter of will to place past events into an ism, and have it interpret a whole new meaning of the equation. This is why Marx found evidence for his thesis, and Hitler for his.

Yes, yes. Except that the european idea or definition of national consciousness, and whatever Marx or Hitler might have thought have no bearing on when the Armenian national consciousness, as defined by them, became coherent.

 

You will find that I would disagree with this on the grounds that "national" or "nationalism" was simply non-existent until the 19th century as an ism and ideology

Yes, 19th century european nationalism was nonexistent before 19th century, outside of Europe. A profound observation indeed.

 

, therefore HOW and WHY do we project ourselves into the past and create these national entities where there was none?

I don't know which moron you are talking about when you say "we", but you won't catch me projecting "ourselves" into 19th century European idea of anything. I don't care how Europeans (or American mainstream for that matter) prefer to define a "nation", or what kind of monstrosity they turn such a concept into. They can take their self-justifying definitions and insert it where it belongs for all I care.

 

Only when any people became a Nation-State, even Armenia, did they begin to adopt this method of historiography which uses the techniques of Indo European philology working in tandem with nationalism to give people claims to lands and ideas of the past.

That Armenians used the new ideas of the time does not retroactively change when a coherent Armenian self-awareness first formed.

 

That Armenians began to create for themselves a nation state was only a ripple being felt by Europe, and it was European Enlightenment ideas that they adopted in order to undergo with this.

A modern nation-state is modern. That has nothing to do with the time when the first collective self-awareness of Armenians originated.

 

Once the concept of nationalism was sealed, it was up to the thinkers, journalists and writers, and later educational institutions of the respective nation-states to create history and assign language and culture to people of the past assigning mythical claims to people of what language they spoke or what they adopted as their dress.

Since the Armenian language was not deposited from the heavens overnight when they got the wind of "modern" ideas, it is silly to claim linguistic discontinuity. As for pottery, dress, and other material culture, I do agree that they do not define a national consciousness. But what's the point? Just because driving a Mercedes today doesn't define national identity (wait a minute, is that true ) doesn't mean that Armenian collective consciousness does not exist today.

 

We have little evidence to suggest what language, or better yet what languages, the "people" spoke, since writing and reading was not the forte of the common man and since they outnumbered the educated class in all societies, only a tiny minority "spoke" the language that we have in written evidence, even the Church elite.

They could be speaking Luwian for all I care. Did they call themselves Hay? Yes, since at least 1350 BC. It really comes down to what you call yourself. They did not call their collective selves "mart" or "martik". They called themselves "Hay". And I think the word for "nation", namely "azk" (with the plural "k") shouts at us in the name Hayasa-Azzi in the Hittite archives.

 

There were many kingdoms in the areas of "France" and "Germany" or "Lotharingia", not to mention the differeing Dutchies or Lords who were lives unto their own, not different from the nakharar houses. In fact you could find many kingdoms, rivals, speaking the same language, and many others, yet in constant feuds, or allying with other peoples not speaking their language. 

Yeah, we should really care about European duchies, lords, and kings when deducing the the first time Armenian collective consciousness arrived.

 

Trying to make the Armenian case an exception is wrong in my opinion,

I for one am not "trying" to make the "Armenian case" anything. I simply find your thoughtless effort to fit the square of Armenians into the European circle wrong-headed.

 

Thus, on the grounds of nationalism, Armenians must hate all Turks, because the Turks tried to wipe out the Armenians. This is the eventual logical consequence of nationalism. That some Turks may have been Armenians before converting to Islam, or have intermarried, matters not. All Turks are Turks and they all descend from the Mongoloid peoples. This is the thinking that is implied by nationalism, since we all descend from this or that people, and have always been a people.

I don't know which moron you get your definitions from, but the emotions sparked by recent history, justified or unjustified, have nothing to do with when the national self-awareness of Armenians started.

 

As far as awareness, well obviously everyone was aware of what language they spoke,

As you admit, Armenians rarely achieved political unity, or even full independence. Therefore, their linguistic unity must have been due to a true collective self-awareness and cultural affinity, which is the basis of "traditional" Armenian collective feeling (i.e. "Armenian traditional nationalism", and not "modern nationalism"). The linguistic unity is all the more remarkable when you consider that such mountainous terrain is used to explain the extreme variety of Caucasian languages. The Caucasus peoples diverged into little smithereens because of so-called geographical barriers whereas Armenians retained their collective name, and merely produced dialects of the same language. All that despite the lack of a central "Armenian king" demanding loyalty to the "Armenian throne", and molding the various "peoples" into an Armenian identity. The most reasonable explanation of this is a coherent collective identity of a kind that does not need a central authority. It also explains why it survived despite lack of power.

 

 

.

.

.

.

 

particular people? For example, how and why, was nationalism introduced in France, by the Jacobins, during the French Revolution

Yeah, that really relates to when the first collective Armenian consciousness formed.

 

treatise.

You flatter yourself.

Edited January 21, 2004 by Twilight Bark

[axel]

For example, how and why, was nationalism introduced in France, by the Jacobins, during the French Revolution

 

Like you know something we don't.

 

Here is some reading for you:

 

L'esprit du jacobinisme, especially chapter one and seven, the latter makes the distinction between modern (artificial/ideological) nationalism and traditional patriotism quite clear.

 

Jacobin "nationalism" was never an end in itself. It espoused the boundaries of France at a time where the boundaries of France coincided with that of the revolution.

 

La révolution et la libre pensée

[Anonymouse]

That's great if you know, then now that you know, why are you trying to make a case for Armenian nationalism before the ideology of nationalism itself? That is anti-historical and is begging the question. It appears that somehow you are making Armenians an exception to the rule, not due to historical evidence, but due to the fact that you want to feed that ideology imprinted in your mind by Armenian nationalism, that "we have always been a nation". And like I said, that is simply not so. One look at the definition of "nation" would reveal otherwise as well.

 

Clearly this is an example of what axel would refer to as "tautology", therefore by his logic there is no longer a need to discuss this.

 

And Twilight, apparently you haven't read your own Armenian history, for Armenian nationalism was a product of European influence, via Russia. Unless you can prove that somehow Armenians themselves regarded themselves as a "nation" well before the idea of nation building came about, you won't have a case.

 

Citing Khorenatsi and others as 'evidence' is not cutting it, for that ignores the fact that between the time Khorenatsi wrote that and the actual emergence of Armenian nationalism in the 19th century, the peoples who spoke Armenian had transformed and changed throughout in their demographics and make up. You had different people who had mixed and interacted speaking Armenian or what have you. A nation implies that the people have been the same over time, when history is anything but a point in time, it is a process. That is why Armenians were never united, they were different peoples with different mixtures and influences in different parts. Of course my stance is loathed by those who seek to maintain and uphold that image of "We are Armenain and have been so". That is simply not true.

 

This is looking at history backwards, making it fit into our notions of what it ought to be. Thus I would like to see what you can provide that corroborates your view.

[Twilight Bark]

And Twilight, apparently ....

 

.

.

.

What I have written has been flying over your head apparently. You keep repeating the same unsubstantiated hypotheses and irrelevant factoids and examples and then pretend that regarding those burps from your cranium as anything but self-evident truth betrays an emotional block on your critic's part. It must be that you are too much in awe of your inflated self-perception to pay attention to nuanced reason. If shooting from the hip some pseudo-enlightened theory makes you feel smart and you are addicted to that emotion, there is little I can do to cure your affliction beyond what I wrote. In time you you'll probably grow up. And I don't discount the possibility that you may then contribute a properly reasoned and even brilliant thougt to Armenian intellectual life. However, that time has not come yet.

[Anonymouse]

What I have written has been flying over your head apparently. You keep repeating the same unsubstantiated hypotheses and irrelevant factoids and examples and then pretend that regarding those burps from your cranium as anything but self-evident truth betrays an emotional block on your critic's part. It must be that you are too much in awe of your inflated self-perception to pay attention to nuanced reason. If shooting from the hip some pseudo-enlightened theory makes you feel smart and you are addicted to that emotion, there is little I can do to cure your affliction beyond what I wrote. In time you you'll probably grow up. And I don't discount the possibility that you may then contribute a properly reasoned and even brilliant thougt to Armenian intellectual life. However, that time has not come yet.

I find it very funny that those who are defending a certain truth and are absolutely certain of it, are the ones that also respond with childish invectives. When you cannot offer the valid evidence, somehow I'm the one "repeating the same unsubstantiated hypotheses" when the burden of proof is on you, since you are stating the case. I cannot prove a negative. I merely stated there was no nationalism and no nation prior to the idea of nationalism and nationhood. All you've done for "evidence" that has been "flying by me" is exactly the unsubstantiated assertions you keep rehashing and accuse me of the same thing. "Self identifying" yourself as Armenian is no different than someone self identifying themselves as a Mongol, that is in sum and substance nothing relating to nationhood.

 

It's not so much my "inflated self perception" but rather your insecurity with the above subject that you can't fathom. Speaking of pseudo intellectualism, I'm not the one trying to make a case for Armenian nationalism, before the ideology of nationalism itself. That is anti-historical and shows to any person versed in the basics regarding the Enlightenment that you don't know what youre talking about, and to compensate for it, you must respond with childish name calling. When the facts cannot match your idea of what history ought to be, then you respond the way you do. It's sad that you have to voast about adding on to Armenian intellectual life, yet you seem to be adding more emotions and illusions, than you are adding intellect. But, you said it, not me. I bow before your immense knowledge and adamance of how you're right just because you say so. Woe is me.

[Twilight Bark]

As I said ...