Armenian "Nation"

[Anonymouse]

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.

[TigranJamharian]

I have thought a lot about what you are talking about Anon.

And I have as yet not come to a conclusion.

Maybe it is my strong nationalistic feelings that keep me from coming to the conclusion that you have. I frankly dont know. But I would like to ignore the fact that we Armenians arent 100% or even 90% what Armenians were 1000 or 2000 years ago. We do probably have some turkish persian russian greek arab blood in us. But the point is that those people who were only part Armenian chose to be part of the Armenian "nation" and not the other nations and I believe that by simply choosing and accepting the culture they are part of the nation as long as they are at least part Armenian.

Other than this i dont know what to say. I just think it is hard for Armenians nowadays to unite because we are all so different and live so far away from each other, but then again look at the xxxs and see how good they work together. But if you take an unbiased look at Armenians today you can see how we are coming closer and finally learning to work together for common goals. The diaspora has finally realized that Armenia is also their homeland and that they have to help improve the country and the Hayastantsis have finally realized that the Diaspora Armenians are the same blood as them and are their brothers and also wish for the welfare of Armenia.

What can I say. I hope we all multiply and increase the Armenian population and make our dear Armenia stronger and better than ever before and put aside our differences and unite under one banner, the Armenian flag.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by TigranJamharian I have thought a lot about what you are talking about Anon.

And I have as yet not come to a conclusion.

Maybe it is my strong nationalistic feelings that keep me from coming to the conclusion that you have. I frankly dont know. But I would like to ignore the fact that we Armenians arent 100% or even 90% what Armenians were 1000 or 2000 years ago. We do probably have some turkish persian russian greek arab blood in us. But the point is that those people who were only part Armenian chose to be part of the Armenian "nation" and not the other nations and I believe that by simply choosing and accepting the culture they are part of the nation as long as they are at least part Armenian.

Of course there was no "Armenian nation", is what I am trying to say. Can you define what is meant by Armenian nation? If it is defined as comprised of Armenians who speak an Armenian language and have similar cultural traditions, then that is not so, since Armenians have always differed. The Armenians in "Greater Armenia" were not as "Greekified" as the Armenians in "Lesser Armenia". Likewise, the Armenians of today are a combination of some people who had been there, others who intermarried or simply others who just adopted it as their "identity". The point I am trying to make is that when we project ourselves into the past, we invariably do so in a nationalistic tone, "For the Armenian nation" which has "survivived" for so long. But it hasn't survived because these people were very "nationalistic" since that concept was alien to them. They survived because they were a resilient people, able to adapt and borrow and interact with other peoples and because of this "Armenian" has changed in its meaning throughout the ages. History is not a particular point in time, it is a process, and we cannot look at any one point in the past and use that as a justification for the present and the future.

I am not suggesting that "Armenian" is non existent. Quite the contrary, I love my people and my culture and in fact will do my best to preserve it. There is an Armenian culture and we are all a part of this cultural consciousness, it's just it has changed over time. This then means that anyone can be Armenian if they are willing to adopt and conform to this culture as others have done, but in the process bringing their own culture into this one. In fact "xxxs" suffer much the same confusion since "xxxs" are like the Armenians in many ways. "xxxs" are not related to the Hebrews. In fact this is one of the greatest misconceptions or frauds of history, however you want to see it. The idea that we, any people, be it Germans, xxxs or Armenians, have a fixed identity for all time, is silly. The creation of Israel is largely based on this myth.

Originally posted by TigranJamharian Other than this i dont know what to say. I just think it is hard for Armenians nowadays to unite because we are all so different and live so far away from each other, but then again look at the xxxs and see how good they work together. But if you take an unbiased look at Armenians today you can see how we are coming closer and finally learning to work together for common goals. The diaspora has finally realized that Armenia is also their homeland and that they have to help improve the country and the Hayastantsis have finally realized that the Diaspora Armenians are the same blood as them and are their brothers and also wish for the welfare of Armenia.

What can I say. I hope we all multiply and increase the Armenian population and make our dear Armenia stronger and better than ever before and put aside our differences and unite under one banner, the Armenian flag.

And it will flourish and it will get better. I have hopes, just give it time.

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Anonymouse 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 only reason why in other languages we are called "Armenians" as opposed to "hyes" is because the root of all of these labels goes all the way back to the times of Ancient Armenia with King Tigran (before Christ). The other NON-Armenians encountered one of our most fearsome genetically advanced tribes, the Armenids. These people during our large empire when we were a lot more than a dot on a map, these people headed out and conqueored. So whatever NON-Armenian state or city-state they invaded upon building their own large empire, they knew them as the ARMENIDS. These others still as of today see and recognize us as just and only those ARMENIDS because that was all they were exposed to at the time. The Haikazs (hyes) remained home in Armenia (which some of the land is still in present-day Turkey.) So, that is why they know US as Armenians as opposed to what we call ourselves in our own native tongue (hye.)

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Nimrod The only reason why in other languages we are called "Armenians" as opposed to "hyes" is because the root of all of these labels goes all the way back to the times of Ancient Armenia with King Tigran (before Christ). The other NON-Armenians encountered one of our most fearsome genetically advanced tribes, the Armenids. These people during our large empire when we were a lot more than a dot on a map, these people headed out and conqueored. So whatever NON-Armenian state or city-state they invaded upon building their own large empire, they knew them as the ARMENIDS. These others still as of today see and recognize us as just and only those ARMENIDS because that was all they were exposed to at the time. The Haikazs (hyes) remained home in Armenia (which some of the land is still in present-day Turkey.) So, that is why they know US as Armenians as opposed to what we call ourselves in our own native tongue (hye.)


You know, while this may be a soothing explanation and provides temporary answers and contentment, it is not however, in accordance with history. "Armenids" or "Armenoids" are simply mythical terms we have invented. These people didn't call themselves such, it is simply us, from our time, projecting ourselves into the past and giving names to give meaning to the past, to tie it in to the future, and fuse things together. That is what court historians and nationalist historians do.

Tigran's "Armenian empire" was not "Armenian" in the modern sense of the word. The term has gone through many changes of what it means to be "Armenian" through history. It was a multilingual and multiethnic empire. Armenians today in their pride assign nationalistic characters to Tigran. Tigran spoke Greek and Persian and was simply a hellenistic conquerer and he for all we know had no idea or sense of what it means to be "Armenian" in the modern sense of the word.

[TigranJamharian]

But how do you know what Tigran had a sense of. I personally think he did have a sense of what it meant to be Armenian just like the Romans knew what it meant to be Roman and the Greeks knew what it was to be Greek. By the way, think about how different Armenia might be today and think about what a different course history might have taken and how much stronger we might have gotten and perhaps become a superpower if Tigran's son had not betrayed his father to the Romans.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by TigranJamharian But how do you know what Tigran had a sense of. I personally think he did have a sense of what it meant to be Armenian just like the Romans knew what it meant to be Roman and the Greeks knew what it was to be Greek. By the way, think about how different Armenia might be today and think about what a different course history might have taken and how much stronger we might have gotten and perhaps become a superpower if Tigran's son had not betrayed his father to the Romans.

What you may or may not think what Tigran had a sense of, has no bearing on history. We know Tigran had no sense of Armenian nationalism, because "nationalism' was not around back then, not until the Enlightenment in Europe in the 19th century did nationalism grow and take over the world.

Tigran relocated many "non Armenian' speaking peoples into his empire. He spoke Greek and Persian and was influenced by Hellenism since prior to him Alexander had conquered the area.

[whitelotus]

most armenians are in denial, they slip out of there minds that we were under the soviet for many years, as a state of the ussr , and not our own country, but some arrogent people basically say we have always been a nation blah blah, but it isnt technically true. Its developed into many things, and now it has been its own free country for the past 10 years or so.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by whitelotus most armenians are in denial, they slip out of there minds that we were under the soviet for many years, as a state of the ussr , and not our own country, but some arrogent people basically say we have always been a nation blah blah, but it isnt technically true. Its developed into many things, and now it has been its own free country for the past 10 years or so.

Indeed, to state otherwise, is mutating history into something it hasn't been, merely to fit into your given ideology of what seems best or justifies present policies or boundaries.

[whitelotus]

yeah well, it comes from the general arrogence and ignorance of the people. we must be number one, we must be the last standing, we were the first born crap.

but we all know it isnt true.

people know the truth and history, but they say otherwise to feel better about themselves and their ethnicity

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Anonymouse You know, while this may be a soothing explanation and provides temporary answers and contentment, it is not however, in accordance with history. "Armenids" or "Armenoids" are simply mythical terms we have invented. These people didn't call themselves such, it is simply us, from our time, projecting ourselves into the past and giving names to give meaning to the past, to tie it in to the future, and fuse things together. That is what court historians and nationalist historians do.

Tigran's "Armenian empire" was not "Armenian" in the modern sense of the word. The term has gone through many changes of what it means to be "Armenian" through history. It was a multilingual and multiethnic empire. Armenians today in their pride assign nationalistic characters to Tigran. Tigran spoke Greek and Persian and was simply a hellenistic conquerer and he for all we know had no idea or sense of what it means to be "Armenian" in the modern sense of the word.

Tigran spoke those as did MANY other rulers. What is your point? Stop trying to guess what occurred in the past when you re simply relying on sources that are taking place in the present. Before Tigran even, as I showed you earlier THERE WERE Armenians and like Assyrians Babylonians we had TRIBES. The Hittites being the oldest I like think. Either way, if you were to put it that way then the Persians were not their own little "nation" either. Their ruler who united their plundering empires was of Armenian descent. Cyrus the great with the "Sassanians" who migrated over to where present day Iran is (Parthia back then) WERE Armenian (i.e. I am saying their BASES are Armenian just of that one tribe though.)The Romans as well; they were a multiethnic empire speaking Latin. I mean you can barely provide proof for your little "theory" as we speak. However, everything we speak of today has all been MIXED at the same time ASSIMILATED. Before the Persians there were the Sumerians then came the Babylonians (I am saying them in order from the ruling powers before Christ) Then there was the Assyrians who were then finally attacked by the Hittites of that region soon enough. Then came Egypt followed by the Medes (mixed tribe of present day Kurds Arabs Persians etc.) then Persia then Macedonia then last but certainly not least, Rome.

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by whitelotus most armenians are in denial, they slip out of there minds that we were under the soviet for many years, as a state of the ussr , and not our own country, but some arrogent people basically say we have always been a nation blah blah, but it isnt technically true. Its developed into many things, and now it has been its own free country for the past 10 years or so.



Not to sound condescending or rude but who really denies that? We were PART of a nation when we were a part of the USSR. That does not account of anything. So was Ukraine and Uzbekistan and etc what is your point? How can anyone deny that? Yes we were a part of the USSR but that means nil to history. I do not think anyone denies that because it is a clear fact, and you should not mistake other people for your misperceptions.

[xBaron Dants]

Originally posted by Nimrod Not to sound condescending or rude but who really denies that? We were PART of a nation when we were a part of the USSR. That does not account of anything. So was Ukraine and Uzbekistan and etc what is your point? How can anyone deny that? Yes we were a part of the USSR but that means nil to history. I do not think anyone denies that because it is a clear fact, and you should not mistake other people for your misperceptions.

Alright, I will agree with Nimrod. I don't get it either. What do these people say? The USSR never existed? Or it was some sort of russian supremacist propaganda? :confused:

But besides that, even in the soviet union, Armenia was still the ArmenianSSR, and our national identity and culture never disappeared.

[Anonymouse]

Nimrod doesn't seem to understand, or simply doesn't want to. Being a part of a nation state such as the Soviet Union, doesn't mean Armenia in itself was a nation-state. It didn't become so until 91, plain and simple.

Beyond that all your rambling is simply a waste of disk space.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Nimrod Tigran spoke those as did MANY other rulers. What is your point? Stop trying to guess what occurred in the past when you re simply relying on sources that are taking place in the present. Before Tigran even, as I showed you earlier THERE WERE Armenians and like Assyrians Babylonians we had TRIBES. The Hittites being the oldest I like think. Either way, if you were to put it that way then the Persians were not their own little "nation" either. Their ruler who united their plundering empires was of Armenian descent. Cyrus the great with the "Sassanians" who migrated over to where present day Iran is (Parthia back then) WERE Armenian (i.e. I am saying their BASES are Armenian just of that one tribe though.)The Romans as well; they were a multiethnic empire speaking Latin. I mean you can barely provide proof for your little "theory" as we speak. However, everything we speak of today has all been MIXED at the same time ASSIMILATED. Before the Persians there were the Sumerians then came the Babylonians (I am saying them in order from the ruling powers before Christ) Then there was the Assyrians who were then finally attacked by the Hittites of that region soon enough. Then came Egypt followed by the Medes (mixed tribe of present day Kurds Arabs Persians etc.) then Persia then Macedonia then last but certainly not least, Rome.

WHAT are you trying to say? I am "guessing" because 99% of history is a guess, since history is written by the victors and tampered and mutated over time, our best even when we put it together is a guess or a microcosm of what really happened. Only an arrogance would assume we know everything there is to completely know.

Simply speaking, you are the one who keeps accusing me of "guessing" yet you yourself do not provide proof. Historiograpgy is based on evidence, sort of like a science in itself. We need evidence to establish whether or not Armenians as we know it speaking "Armenian" existed during the Sumerians. If that cannot be provided it means there is no proof. The onus is upon you to prove this, not the other way around. One cannot prove a negative. Leave it to nationalist historians to try to create history where there is none. Hell, I have seen some Armenians try to project "Armenians" as far back in time, and even go so far as to claim that Urartu was really Armenian, but I haven't had the pleasure of anyone trying to extend and project "Armenianness" as far back as Sumeria.

[xBaron Dants]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Nimrod doesn't seem to understand, or simply doesn't want to. Being a part of a nation state such as the Soviet Union, doesn't mean Armenia in itself was a nation-state. It didn't become so until 91, plain and simple.

Beyond that all your rambling is simply a waste of disk space.

Well of course Armenia wasn't a nation-state until it received independance in 1991.

I think the "misunderstanding" is caused by the fact that many people interpret "nation state" as an independant country, and a "nation" as a group of people.

For example, many Quebecers call themselves "la nation québécoise", although Quebec is not a state. I guess the same example can be applied for Armenia. It wasn't a state from the moment it joined the USSR until 1991, but the Armenian nation was there all along.

[TigranJamharian]

and on top of that it had its own borders within the borders of the ussr.

[xBaron Dants]

Originally posted by TigranJamharian and on top of that it had its own borders within the borders of the ussr.

Yep. Hence what I meant when I said that even in the Soviet Union, it was the ArmenianSSR, meaning that we still had a certain autonomy. If we didn't, then there would be no point for stalin to hand Artsakh to the azeris.

[Anonymouse]

But the Armenian "nation" hasn't always been so, is my whole point of this thread. Only with the perspective of hindsight to we look back at history and project ourselves into the past and call it a nation, for it implies a people who live in a certain country, but throughout time, people changed, so have Armenians, and the meaning of what it is to be Armenian, demographically and its boundaries as well.

[xBaron Dants]

Originally posted by Anonymouse But the Armenian "nation" hasn't always been so, is my whole point of this thread. Only with the perspective of hindsight to we look back at history and project ourselves into the past and call it a nation, for it implies a people who live in a certain country, but throughout time, people changed, so have Armenians, and the meaning of what it is to be Armenian, demographically and its boundaries as well.

I don't think it is debatable that 4000 years ago, you wouldn't find an armenian like the armenians you see today. However, there have of course been certain (or many) similarities between the many "generations" of armenians, if you will.

The links between us and the inhabitants of the fortress town of Erebuni are certainly a lot fewer than the ones between us and the Armenians of 451.

It's all part of the normal process of evolution.

[xBaron Dants]

What I guess I am trying to get to is that despite the changes, we still feel very strong links to the armenians that existed about 16-17 hundred years ago.

Vahan Tekeyan (I'm pretty sure it was him, but I could be wrong), in his poem "Vartanank" wrote "Vasn Hisoosi, Vasn Hayrenyats, Haraach!, Vartani dzayne korats". Many many armenians would be able to relate to these lines, uttered over 1500 years ago.

I think that religion plays a major role in allowing us to relate with our ancestors, which is why we feel "closer" to, for example, Vartan Mamigonian, than we do to the pagans that were there earlier. But we still feel this sort of "connection" with our pagan gods, Vahakn, Tork, yevayln.

Anyways, I am just rambling on, I know...it's caused by confusion. :p

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Baron Dants What I guess I am trying to get to is that despite the changes, we still feel very strong links to the armenians that existed about 16-17 hundred years ago.

Vahan Tekeyan (I'm pretty sure it was him, but I could be wrong), in his poem "Vartanank" wrote "Vasn Hisoosi, Vasn Hayrenyats, Haraach!, Vartani dzayne korats". Many many armenians would be able to relate to these lines, uttered over 1500 years ago.

I think that religion plays a major role in allowing us to relate with our ancestors, which is why we feel "closer" to, for example, Vartan Mamigonian, than we do to the pagans that were there earlier. But we still feel this sort of "connection" with our pagan gods, Vahakn, Tork, yevayln.

Anyways, I am just rambling on, I know...it's caused by confusion. :p

Well, my main focus is against nationalism and "history" that some of these nationalist historians "create", however I do have a fondness and a love for my culture and people ( not the State, since it is evil ), and the phenomenon that I am witnessing is that "Armenians" as we know them are "dying out" because 1) due to the conditions of Armenia, and 2) no unifying force like religion used to play so they avoided dissolution.

I will always hear in my mind what my mom said, "Aryoonuh joor chi darna".

[xBaron Dants]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Well, my main focus is against nationalism and "history" that some of these nationalist historians "create", however I do have a fondness and a love for my culture and people ( not the State, since it is evil ), and the phenomenon that I am witnessing is that "Armenians" as we know them are "dying out" because 1) due to the conditions of Armenia, and 2) no unifying force like religion used to play so they avoided dissolution.

I will always hear in my mind what my mom said, "Aryoonuh joor chi darna".

My main goal is to turn Armenia the unifying force for Armenians. Make it like Israel for the xxxs. I think the Cold War era created this sort of separation between armenians, but we are gradually seeing things getting better. Artsakh, I believe, played a major unifying role too. Diasporans saw in the events of Sumgayt what our ancestors had lived 90 years ago, and it strengthened the link between diasporans and locals.

Cheer up bud, we'll get there :)

[dstyle]

I think the problem with us is when we are left alone we fight eachother. but thankfully lately when others come after us we sort of do unite. Now how do we get Nakhichevan haha

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Baron Dants My main goal is to turn Armenia the unifying force for Armenians. Make it like Israel for the xxxs. I think the Cold War era created this sort of separation between armenians, but we are gradually seeing things getting better. Artsakh, I believe, played a major unifying role too. Diasporans saw in the events of Sumgayt what our ancestors had lived 90 years ago, and it strengthened the link between diasporans and locals.

Cheer up bud, we'll get there :)

Well, what Israel did for xxxs, can be debated, since it is a Zionist State, bent on persecuting those not of the Zionist persuasion. God forbid Armenia turns into that.

If Armenians have always portrayed themselves as sufferers, that would be a drastic change of they themselves having not learned from their own struggles. European xxxs, the Ashkenazim, were always the sufferers from what history appears to tell us, and now it appears they haven't learned anything from their own experiences.

[xBaron Dants]

My point was relating to the fact that xxxs, regardless of differences, seem to let it all drop for the sake of Israel.

Don't get me started on Zionism though! :D

[Anonymouse]

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.


R=Roman
P=Persian
A=Arabic
G=Greek
M=Mongol
Ru=Russian
As=Assyrian


Hayk R G A Ru
Hayasa ---------------------------------------------------------------Present
Tribes,etc. As P M


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

[Tigranes]

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.


R=Roman
P=Persian
A=Arabic
G=Greek
M=Mongol
Ru=Russian
As=Assyrian


Hayk R G A Ru
Hayasa ---------------------------------------------------------------Present
Tribes,etc. As P M


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


Your graph is beyond incorrect. The coons and gooks have left no genetic prints in the middle ages. Their inclusion is absurd.


Here's a correct one:

Pre-history:
90,000 BC to Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic periods.
Shengavit, Metsamor, Kura-Araxes ...

Period 1: Late Bronze Age
(a) Hayassa-Azzi /Hittites
(b) Rise of Hurro-Urartians
(c) Trojan War-Thraco-Phrygian (Armen) migration

Period 2: Separation of Proto-Armenian and Proto-Greek and the
appearance of Proto-Armenian in the northern Areas of Anatolia,
associated with Luwians and Hittites, possibly in the period from
2200-1900 BCE.

Period 3:
The Urartu State
Thenative Hurrian speaking people take the role of Western Peasants to the
Hurro-Urartian Upper Class while Armen peoples seem to be associated with the Nairi.

Period 4: The Scytho-Median overlordship
The destruction of Urartu gives the Armen tribes the chance to
expand and assume the mantle in the power vacuum of the Urartian
state. This is probably the period in which Hayk becomes
acknowledged as the "ancestor" of Hayassa.

Period 5: Persian Period when the name Armeniya becomes acknowledged as one of the Satrapies of the Persian Empire. This sees the
emergence of Armenian eventually as a literate language with an
adapted and modified Aramaean/Greek script, for the first time.

Period 6: Armenian-Roman-Parthian clashes & alliances
At this period many ancient peoples such as Galatians, Bythinians, Cappadocians, Cilicians etc. are assimilated within the Armenian and Greek ethnos.

[Tres Bien]

"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.


R=Roman
P=Persian
A=Arabic
G=Greek
M=Mongol
Ru=Russian
As=Assyrian


Hayk R G A Ru
Hayasa ---------------------------------------------------------------Present
Tribes,etc. As P M


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


Yes. What did unite us and differe us from the list?
It Is the strong sense of national and cultural awareness that armenians have had.

To stay pure in caucasus?? Armenia isnt just caucasus, but have lived in many other countries as well, and that is not just recently...after the genocide.

How come we have churches and communities all the way from India, France, and to Ethiopia? Wich are still running today?

[Anonymouse]

Your graph is beyond incorrect. The coons and gooks have left no genetic prints in the middle ages. Their inclusion is absurd.


Here's a correct one:

Pre-history:
90,000 BC to Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic periods.
Shengavit, Metsamor, Kura-Araxes ...

Period 1: Late Bronze Age
(a) Hayassa-Azzi /Hittites
(b) Rise of Hurro-Urartians
(c) Trojan War-Thraco-Phrygian (Armen) migration

Period 2: Separation of Proto-Armenian and Proto-Greek and the
appearance of Proto-Armenian in the northern Areas of Anatolia,
associated with Luwians and Hittites, possibly in the period from
2200-1900 BCE.

Period 3:
The Urartu State
Thenative Hurrian speaking people take the role of Western Peasants to the
Hurro-Urartian Upper Class while Armen peoples seem to be associated with the Nairi.

Period 4: The Scytho-Median overlordship
The destruction of Urartu gives the Armen tribes the chance to
expand and assume the mantle in the power vacuum of the Urartian
state. This is probably the period in which Hayk becomes
acknowledged as the "ancestor" of Hayassa.

Period 5: Persian Period when the name Armeniya becomes acknowledged as one of the Satrapies of the Persian Empire. This sees the
emergence of Armenian eventually as a literate language with an
adapted and modified Aramaean/Greek script, for the first time.

Period 6: Armenian-Roman-Parthian clashes & alliances
At this period many ancient peoples such as Galatians, Bythinians, Cappadocians, Cilicians etc. are assimilated within the Armenian and Greek ethnos.

Too bad you are too hung up with the 'nationalist' version of history to see the flaw in your pontificating, but I'll ignore it.