Tweet
I have a particular problem with Armenian nationalist historians who try to use the past to justify the present and the future.
The idea of an Armenian "nation-state", which seeks to form a homogenous Armenian speaking habitat is not in accordance with history. This implies that "we have always been Armenian for thousands of years all the way from the Yervantid Dynasty to the present State". We project ourselves into the past that for some reason Armenians have always been a nation. That is untrue.
When I see Armenians today speaking of Armenian history and saying "Why couldn't the Armenians have been more united?", well that ignores an integral part of history, which should not be viewed with the lens of isms that reared their ugly heads from the Enlightenment. Whether you are a Marxist like Shahumyan viewing the rest of history with the lens of Marxism, you are no different from someone viewing history through the lens of Nationalism.
When Armenians of the present, seek to compare themselves of the Armenians of the past, and outline a common ancestry or descent and project themselves into the distant past, that is anti-historical. This implies that Armenians ( and this isn't just for Armenains this applies to all modern nations ), have always had a fixed and common identity for all time. What this does is ignore the history of a world before nationalism became a potent ideology. Then after that was established, all history was viewed through this lens. And to that degree, one can say that 'history' was created in 19th century Germany, where nationalism gained a foothold.
The truth is that Armenians of today, or those who claim "Armenian ethnicity" are nothing like what the Armenians of the Yervantid Dynasty were, or the Arshakhuni. Throughout its history "Armenian" has been a term that has changed in meaning. At one point "Armenians" were those who were heavily influenced and interacted with the Greeks, at another it was with the Persians. Many Armenian nakharar houses are of Persian origin as well. Then when the Umayyads attacked Armenia, there was further demographic change. The same applies to the Turkic and Mongol invasions, and then on to the Russian influence. Throughout all its history people have changed. The fact that an a nakharar such as the Bagratunis can ally themselves with an Arab emirate in Armenia, against another "Armenian" nakharar house, show the fungible nature of what it meant to be "Armenian". Likewise if an Arab Muslim can convert to Christianity and call himself "Armenian" suggests the same thing.
Yet acknowledging that nationalism has roots in the Enlightenment, that doesn't deter us from somehow giving ourselves legitimacy that "Armenian" has been a fixed national identity even before they knew themselves as a "nation". To quote Patrick Geary:
"Even today, neonationlists acknowledge that the political self-consciousness of modern nationalism is a nineteenth- or twentieth century phenomenon, yet attempt to claim that while political ethnicity is of recent origin, cultural ethnicity is much more ancient. The people was a people, in other words, before it knew itself and language is both the sign and innermost reality of this immutable identity."
The truth his the people that have been "Armenian" throughout the ages, have changed, and as they have changed, the language has changed also because of different influences. The same applies for "Turks". What is meant by a "Turk"? If it is someone who speaks a Turkic language in modern day "Turkey", then it is implied that he has always had a fixed identity for all time, descending from the Mongoloid invaders. Well, this ignores the fact that the region was heavily populated by Armenian and Greek speaking peoples and they were merely absorbed. That is why today Turks Greeks and Armenians look far more alike with one another, than a modern Turk Greek or Armenian would with people from the 4th - 10th century who claimed to be "Greek, Turk, or Armenian".
I know this isn't a comfortable position to take, especially one that is bound to get me ostracised in my own community. I nonetheless cannot taint history because of ideological bias. Cheers.
The idea of an Armenian "nation-state", which seeks to form a homogenous Armenian speaking habitat is not in accordance with history. This implies that "we have always been Armenian for thousands of years all the way from the Yervantid Dynasty to the present State". We project ourselves into the past that for some reason Armenians have always been a nation. That is untrue.
When I see Armenians today speaking of Armenian history and saying "Why couldn't the Armenians have been more united?", well that ignores an integral part of history, which should not be viewed with the lens of isms that reared their ugly heads from the Enlightenment. Whether you are a Marxist like Shahumyan viewing the rest of history with the lens of Marxism, you are no different from someone viewing history through the lens of Nationalism.
When Armenians of the present, seek to compare themselves of the Armenians of the past, and outline a common ancestry or descent and project themselves into the distant past, that is anti-historical. This implies that Armenians ( and this isn't just for Armenains this applies to all modern nations ), have always had a fixed and common identity for all time. What this does is ignore the history of a world before nationalism became a potent ideology. Then after that was established, all history was viewed through this lens. And to that degree, one can say that 'history' was created in 19th century Germany, where nationalism gained a foothold.
The truth is that Armenians of today, or those who claim "Armenian ethnicity" are nothing like what the Armenians of the Yervantid Dynasty were, or the Arshakhuni. Throughout its history "Armenian" has been a term that has changed in meaning. At one point "Armenians" were those who were heavily influenced and interacted with the Greeks, at another it was with the Persians. Many Armenian nakharar houses are of Persian origin as well. Then when the Umayyads attacked Armenia, there was further demographic change. The same applies to the Turkic and Mongol invasions, and then on to the Russian influence. Throughout all its history people have changed. The fact that an a nakharar such as the Bagratunis can ally themselves with an Arab emirate in Armenia, against another "Armenian" nakharar house, show the fungible nature of what it meant to be "Armenian". Likewise if an Arab Muslim can convert to Christianity and call himself "Armenian" suggests the same thing.
Yet acknowledging that nationalism has roots in the Enlightenment, that doesn't deter us from somehow giving ourselves legitimacy that "Armenian" has been a fixed national identity even before they knew themselves as a "nation". To quote Patrick Geary:
"Even today, neonationlists acknowledge that the political self-consciousness of modern nationalism is a nineteenth- or twentieth century phenomenon, yet attempt to claim that while political ethnicity is of recent origin, cultural ethnicity is much more ancient. The people was a people, in other words, before it knew itself and language is both the sign and innermost reality of this immutable identity."
The truth his the people that have been "Armenian" throughout the ages, have changed, and as they have changed, the language has changed also because of different influences. The same applies for "Turks". What is meant by a "Turk"? If it is someone who speaks a Turkic language in modern day "Turkey", then it is implied that he has always had a fixed identity for all time, descending from the Mongoloid invaders. Well, this ignores the fact that the region was heavily populated by Armenian and Greek speaking peoples and they were merely absorbed. That is why today Turks Greeks and Armenians look far more alike with one another, than a modern Turk Greek or Armenian would with people from the 4th - 10th century who claimed to be "Greek, Turk, or Armenian".
I know this isn't a comfortable position to take, especially one that is bound to get me ostracised in my own community. I nonetheless cannot taint history because of ideological bias. Cheers.
Comment