Vahe H Apelian
On July 11, 2024, PM Nikol Pashinyan summed up his views about the difference in the “History of Armenia” and “Armenian History”. I dutifully jotted down what he said, which I understood to mean that “History of Armenia” is the history and development of the state of Armenia drawn from history when there was no Armenian state. “Armenian History”, on the other, is history for having an Armenian state, when there was no Armenian state. The PM considers that there is vital difference between the two and stated that “this is a very important and conceptual logic, it is key for us, the strategy to ensure the sustainability of the state” and that, “in the social and psychological spheres, this change must take place first.” He further noted and said; “allow me to say that these changes are taking place today in the Republic of Armenia”. I have attached his statement below (see note 1). I do not want to translate it. Let us face it, we are Armenians separated by the widening gap of the Armenian language both in orthography and in the nuances of the meaning. Those who are interested, may copy it and post it on Google translate and share their views.
The PM is not a lone crusader. He is the spokesperson of a mindset. If any doubt, I invite readers to check the Wikipedia. “History of Armenia” is the English title of the text that is titled in Armenian “Հայոց Պատմութիւն – Hayots Badmoutyoun” - “Armenian History”. I do not know why Wikipedia titled the same text as “History of Armenia” in its English language version and “Hayots Badmoutiun” that is to say "Armenian History" in its Armenian version. Neither title is the translation of the other. It gives the impression that two camps wrote about the history of Armenian people. Each camp wore a different set of goggles. The English language camp opted to call it History of Armenia and view the Armenian history through history of Armenia. The Armenian language camp opted to title it Hayots Badmoutiun – Armenian History, and view the State of Armenia as an evolution of the Armenian history.
Contextually, “History of Armenia” in the Wikipedia is not different than “Հայոց Պատմութիւն – Hayots Badmoutiun» - "History of Armenia", which I quote: “covers the topic related to the history of the Republic of Armenia, as well as the Armenian people, the Armenian language, and the regions of Eurasia historically and geographically considered Armenia.” In the Armenian version of the same text - Հայոց Պատմութիւն – Hayots Badmoutiun -"Armenian History" - I quote in translation: “Armenian history or the history of the Armenian people, is the history of the Armenian ethnos (people of the same race or nationality who share distinctive culture), which is chronologically divided into several centuries.” (see note 1)
Obviously, the undertone is political. I do not mean to imply that there is a political undertone by the PM and the politically like-minded segment of the citizens of Armenia that support him. There is an equal political undertone in the Diaspora by those who politically have positioned themselves against the PM. It’s the two sides of the same coin. I do not think the issue is academic and can be resolved academically.
The problem I see is that there is no one playing field where a game is played under the same rules. It is the same game but the playing fields are different. One is in Armenia and the other is in Diaspora and each has its own sets of rules. The buzz word in the Diaspora is Պահանջատիրութիւն – claimant – of that was taken from us because of the genocide. The Diaspora has moral duty to remain the righful claimant of what was taken away. But understandably the political connotation is different for the State of Armenia. Of course it is not the lack of patriotism or the lack of historical knowledge that has the leaders of Armenia claim that Armenia has no territorial claim from Turkey, and when it came to the Republic of Artsakh, Armenia did not recognize it as a state nor annexed it as part of Armenia. And when it comes to the Genocide, Armenia's position has been «no precondition», which means don't ask and don't tell. Turkey does not ask, and Armenia does not tell. Such are the realities of state relations.
Furthermore, it is a debate that accomplishes nothing, other than political bickering. both in Armenia and in the Diaspora. In Armenia, understandingly its expected political course and has its recourse. But in Diaspora, it has no recourse other than to fragment Diaspora further when, let us face it, save a few pockets here and there, the overwhelming Armenians in the Diaspora are not schooled in Armenian schools, let alone in Armenian history to split hair whether its history of Armenia or Armenian history. Most in Diaspora attend their state schools and many are doing in the Middle East as well. I was surprised to meet two young Armenian persons in Aleppo who spoke fluent Armenian but could read and write in Armenian because they attended local state schools. That would have been unheard of in my days for an Armenian student growing in Beirut and in Aleppo.
I studied Armenian history in my elementary years and maybe early middle schools years. Whenever I hear Armenian history, I am reminded of Simon Simonian's Armenian History textbooks I read with fascination.
Note 1:
“Հայաստանի Պատմութիւնը» պետութեան գոյութեան զարգացման պատմութիւնն է պետութեան չգոյութեան դրուագներով։ իսկ «Հայոց Պատմութիւնը» պետութեան չգոյութեան պատմութիւնն է, պետութեան գոյութեան դրուագներով։ Սա, շատ կառեւոր եւ հայեցակարգային տրամաբանութիւն է, մեզ համար առանցքային է՝ պետութեան յարատեւողութիւնը ապահովելու ռազմաւարութիւնը , նախ դա պէտք է տեղի ունենայ սոցեալ հոգեբանակակ պայմաններում։ Սոցեալ հոգեբանական մէջ պէքտ է նախ ե առաջ այդ փոփոխութիւնը տեղի ունենայ։ եւ թոյլ տուէք ասեմ որ այդ փոփոխու՚թիւնը տեղի է ՚ունենում այսօր Հայաստան Հանրապետութեան մէջ։ Վերջին շրջանի իրադարձութիւնները տարբեր կողմերից հենց այդ են ցոյց տալիս։»
Note 2:
«Հայոց պատմություն կամ Հայ Ժողովրդի պատմություն, հայ էթնոսի պատմություն, որը ժամանակագրական առումով բաժանվում է մի քանի դարաշջրանների։ »
՚