Armenian Nationalism

[MJ]

Since we have opened a thread on Turkish Nationalism (in our International forum), I felt compelled to also open a thread on Armenian Nationalism.

 

I am convinced that the Armenian nationalism, much like it has been in the last quarter of the 19th and the first quarter of the 20th centuries, remains the gravedigger of the future of Armenia.

 

In my view nationalism is not characteristic to the Armenian essence and psyche, but is artificially planted in the some Armenians, which has resulted in blurring of the dividing line between nationalism and patriotism.

 

This implantation of nationalistic sentiment has created a state of duality in the Armenian mass psyche, moreover, in the psyche of the ruling circles, and has, in my view, resulted in lose of perspective.

 

As paradoxical as it may sound from the onset, I think that the nationalism and patriotism are two very different categories – one invites disgust, the other one invites admiration.

 

The driving force of nationalism is the hate towards other nations (adversaries or enemies). The one for patriotism is the love for one’s own nation and country.

 

Armenian nationalism, as any other nationalism, by in large drinks from the spring of hate. On such capacity, this feeling doesn’t necessarily imply patriotism. As a matter of fact, the nationalists, as a rule, wouldn’t give damn about our country, as long as Turkey (and Azerbaijan) go to hell.

 

According to my observations, nationalism is more characteristic to the Armenian Diaspora, rather than the population of Armenia. It is resulted from a significant identity crisis among some significant segments of Armenian Diaspora. I recall a statement made in a speech few years ago, on April 24th, by an otherwise moderate Armenian young man, a sociologist, a university Professor, son of a family of renowned Armenian writers for a couple of generations. He said: “Our identity as Armenians derives from the Genocide.”

 

Later in the evening I approached him (our children used to maintain relationship at the time), and told him that my identity as an Armenian derives from the Armenian soil and heritage, and having my ancestors perished equally with his ancestors in the hands of the Ottomans, I don’t define my identity through the Genocide, and I would readily associate my identity with the future of Armenia, rather than its past.

 

However, I thought there was something very symptomatic in his statement.

[Boghos]

Nationalism is usually a petit bourgeois, and sometimes working class, phenomenon that manifests itself when there is a perceived (real or not) threat to a given people. In the Armenian diaspora case, where the petit bourgeoisie basically dominates the "political parties", and especially the ARF, it has been a very strong sort of selling point, or rallying point if you wish.

 

Armenian nationalism as represented by the ARF guards an interesting similarity to Turkish nationalism, they are mostly perceived as a bit of a loony force, but nevertheless reespected for the devotion to the homeland.

 

I do not wish to make this post sound as an attack on the ARF, even though I have made my positions quite clear in the past about this most reactionary organization. But the ARF exhibits the same paranoid behaviour found in Turkish politics.

 

Armenian nationalism has been a destructive force, even in the republic, recently. It has a hateful character. A collection of shopkeepers and other assorted small business people that think that they are better than everybody else.

 

Patriotism for me, as nice as it sounds just masks a nationalist, a sort of travsestite nationalist in apparently respectful clothing.

[Aaron]

I pretty much agree with what you said MJ.

 

I believe armenian nationalism was born with the armenian leaders of late 19th century, the genocide, and was kept alive by the fact that armenians didn't get justice for what happened to them.

I think Armenian nationalism(revolution)came as a natural reaction to the unnatural and unacceptable conditions armenians were living in for centuries under ottoman rule. The first revolutionary leaders cannot be blamed for leaving a permanent nationalist print on most present day armenians, they cannot be blamed for claiming a country of their own, dissing Turkey, nourishing Armenians with hate against the opressor and encouraging them to kill in order to obtain what they want. All of this were the desperate measures of a desperate nation to a desperate situation.

 

I firmly believe that one's contact with his/her land is the first step of developing clean and constructive patriotism. In order to care, work hard, sacrifice and dedicate huge amounts of energy for a country one must know (not by the books)that country, its people and feel attachment to it.

Unfortunately this isn't the case of most diaspora armenians who have nevr been to armenia and don't know much about it besides history and what books tell them.

This could explain the fact that many(not all) armenians have found in nationalism a way of remaining armenian. I don't agree that this same nationalism is destructive, violent and degrading. These nationalist people (most)are not bloodthirsty, vengefull or frustrated, they just have 'turkish reperations' on their list of priorities, and do honestly believe this is what the armenian nation needs the most(perhaps true but very arguable).

 

I don't believe destroying turkey or azerbaijan is appealing to any armenian (over 18).

 

I'll continue writing, but I'm in a rush and have to go.

[nairakev]

Armenian nationalism is somewhat rediculous.
Once I've met an Armenian man. Married, 2 kids. His wife in the same hotel. And he was trying to chat in my room at the national interests and patriotism.
I didn't like this man.
But I couldn't put him out of my room, if my friend didn' invite him beofre I arrived.

After a friendly dinner, we drank and we talked about different issues.
Finally I said that I did sleep with moslims. That news made him turn red and blue and white. He got furious and let all his patriotic feelings go out.

I just was tired and really in a very bad mood.
I opened my door and I asked him to leave my room. No one could say anything. Because they have seen I was very serious...
He got kicked out of my room and I never said hello to this guy. Such an *******.

According to him we should stay pure and real christians.
What an idiot theory! What a useless dogmatism! How cheap and rediculous!!!!
And the worst thing is that idiots like him find sometimes many supporters.

It's our fault that we do not speak out what we do think about our schit.

There are many *******s among us. And we should be intellegint and espacially TOLERANT enough to re-educate them and find some new nation-wide inspirations.

If we'll stay passive we'll loose our identity in between some pure-blooded "ego-centric" lunatics and "feticho" fake-faithful christians. What a company?

I agree with MJ, that it's better to spend some time with a funny and interesting Turk, than to waste some time with an idiot Armenian.

Be patient, please! We have lots of work still to do. Oh, yeah!

[MJ]

Dear Boghos,

I agree that, frequently, nationalists may wear a mask of patriotism, however there is such legitimate and noble category as patriotism, distinct from nationalism.

Aaron,

I agree with most of your statements (except the dividing line between the legal age ones and the older ones ). However, I look forward to the rest of your promised material.

Naira? Where are you? You have become silent? Anything wrong?

[ June 22, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[Aaron]

The real question(as if i know it) is 'is the present day armenian nationalism good or bad for Armenia or Armenians?'.

At first glance nationalism cannot be good, it is responsible for most crimes against humanity during this century (and throughout history), it is the driving force behind racism, and most importantly, it is against modern day principles of ethnic tolerance, globalization of the world and goes against economic progress in general. All of this to say that the present day world is totally unnationalist (or perhaps governments have allways been anti-nationalist for their interests) and that we (armenians or more exactly Armenia) cannot present ourselves to the world as nationalists, even though some of us are like that.

Patriotism is the utopic solution, if every armenian was patriotic, non violent, worked for the wellbeing of Armenia without any bad feelings towards turkey then we would live in paradise.

I don't think that can happen now, frustrations are still alive in diaspora armenians(less than before), and turning this into constructive patriotism directed towards Armenia depends very much on current situation of Armenia or wether Turkey will show some 'big brotherish' comprehensive attitude towards the genocide issue that haunts diaspora armenians(very unlikely).

 

So how to change Armenian nationalism, for the benefit of future Armenia and armenians, to patriotism without losing the people's

sense of identity or attachment to the nation.

Or should nationalism be destroyed (because of humanistic principles and the well being of humans living in Anatolya) regardless of its consequences on Armenia (at the risk of losing the country or a significant number of armenians to the armenian cause)? Seems like a dilemma.

A politician's job i conclude, and my current status as a student does definitely not give me the expertise of advancing my personal idea's on solving the problem.

I'm waiting for others to elaborate and develope the topic.

Due to technical difficulties I'll dive in more aggressively later.

[Kazza]

THANK YOU!

[Kazza]

One of the things, no, THE first thing, I was so dissapointed about when I began surfing armenian forums, is the way they were so extreme in their nationalism. The idfference, of course, between patriotism and nationalism, is loving your country and peoples but the difference is hatred for other peoples. I expected armenians to know better, being such a minority and Armenia's situation. I thought we would know the way it feels and not hate, but oh no, it seems our situation has pushed us the other way. By defending ourselves with our fine history , and then making out like we are better than other nationalities.

[Boghos]

Dear Martin,

 

I understand what you mean by patriotism. But my issue is more with the grey area that exists between patriotism and nationalism.

 

For me everybody that lives in a country in an honest manner is automatically a patriot. No matter if he sings "patriotic" songs or he has a flag in his house. Or if he behaves in a manner that is not accepted or condoned by the majority.

 

A patriot is an honest citizen.

[MJ]

I agree with you, Boghos.

 

One can frequently come across a lot of people who talk on behalf of patriotism, and make exclamations within or outside patriotic songs, but when it comes to practice, they destroy the social fabric of the nation and the country.

 

I have always had trouble with verbal "patriots."

 

In my view, the patriotism starts from the respect to the legal, economic and political structure of the country. If something is wrong with that structure, patriots do not exploit it, but rather try to reform. Needless to say that this is not a universal understanding.

[nairakev]

I agree with you, MJ!
That's why I'am saying we've got lots of job still to do.

Modernise our mentality. Get rid of useless fears and pride. The pride is a relative understanding which doesn't border with patriotism.

I think the limit between a patriot and a fanatic nationalist draws over that fragile thread where patriotism becomes local or worse - regional.

There is one patriotism - the one which helps us survive on every land. Ptriotism for the earth where we live. Earthly things are forgotten by patriots, but badly exploited by "nationalists".

[Aaron]

Since we all seem to agree that nationalism is not necessaraly the best of things than what do you guys think about the Karabagh conflict, the will of Armenians to unite or be independent is to a certain degree(if not completely) a form of nationalism, one that braught a war to the region.

I personnaly am for Karabagh independence, but this seems to create a contradiction between my anti-nationalist stance and war for freedom, or is it that nationalism is sometimes good and necessary !

somebody, illuminate me please.(what i really mean is (nute dak dak dzezenk)

[MJ]

I don’t think that Karabagh straggle is necessarily a manifestation of nationalism. At least, it has not been such manifestation on in its legal capacity. National Liberation Ideals are recognized and validated by the appropriate UN Resolutions as legitimated causes even for armed straggle. About a dozen of years ago I could refer you precisely to the corresponding UN Resolution. These days, I cannot do it without a special research, which I don’t feel is necessary at this time.

 

It is a different matter that the Karabagh movement, which has started as a Parliamentary and constitutional movement, has given rise to nationalistic sentiments from both sides. This is most unfortunate. But it has been resulted from atrocities committed by the Azerbaijani side against the civilians of Armenian origin within and outside Karabagh.

 

At this time, the emotions run high, and there is obvious nationalistic sentiment on both sides of the fence.

 

We have to recognize that Karabagh has acted in full compliance with the International Law. It has conducted referendum, and based on the results of the referendum, the Parliament of Karabagh has declared its independence. Moreover, International Law provides clarifications regarding the procedures and mechanisms of separation of regional units from the larger states incorporating them. The clarifications provided by the International Law come to specify the mechanisms and procedures of implementation of the separation as a process solely defined by the laws of the “host” state. On this capacity, the declaration of the separation of Karabagh has been in full compliance with the latest Constitution of USSR. Therefore, from the legal point of view, the actions of Karabagh have been totally legitimate in the view of the International Law, and the Constitution of USSR, at the time.

 

The escalation of the conflict has resulted not from the absence of a proper legal framework, but from the absence of adequate political will from Azerbaijan and the international community. The political deadlock on the subject of the issue, and the non-willingness of, first USSR, then Azerbaijan, to resolve the problems peacefully have resulted in the military escalation. You may remember that in the Soviet era of the conflict, basically the entire Karabagh, outside Stepanakert, was occupied by the Central Special Soviet forces, and Azerbaijan, which were jointly conducting policy of elimination of Armenians from the soil of Karabagh through their exile. The situation changed as a result of the collapse of the USSR, when Armenians were left face-to-face with Azerbaijan. We know the outcome, now.

 

Clearly, the Armenian forces of Karabagh occupy territories outside Azerbaijan, thus creating a buffer zone. The Armenian side has expressed its readiness to vacate those territories assuming that convincing and adequate securities are provided to the population of Karabagh. The Armenian side has also expressed readiness to accommodate those unfortunate Azeris of Karabagh, which in the process of the military actions had abandoned or forcefully moved from their compact residence inside Karabagh.

 

Unfortunately, at this time, other than some mutual understanding between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, there is not much progress in the settlement of the problem. There is an impression that Azerbaijan is counting on the inability of Armenia to develop adequate economy in the near future, and thus in its inability to take a strong position in the negotiations. I think this is where they make a mistake. This mistake doesn’t benefit either side.

 

Additionally, I think both sides have to work hard on reducing the nationalistic rhetoric in their respective countries, and inside the support domain of these countries. It is a hard task, however, because both regimes have come to power by exploiting nationalistic sentiments, and planting seeds of hatred towards the other party. It is sort of hard to take the opposite position at this time.

 

Therefore, the initiative of reducing the nationalistic rhetoric (which never leads to anything positive) and eliminating the atmosphere of mutual hatred has to come from th ordinary people of both nations.