I just finished reading "The Armenians: From Kings and Priests to Merchants and Commissars" by Razmik Panossian. This somehow coincided with jingoistic soccer fans in Moscow starting pogroms, crushing the skulls of passer-bys who look "Caucasian" and shouting "Moscow for Moscovites". The barbarity of my fellow countrymen was particularly disgusting as the book made the feelings of small people always sandwiched between and persecuted by nearby empires all the more vivid. Anyhow, the topic of Panossian book is Armenian _identity_. I usually dislike this approach to historiography as inherently idealistic and nationalistic. However, in this case it may be somewhat warranted as a large portion of the nation existed in diaspora throughout most of its history. Thus, the question of what it means to be Armenian while living in medieval Gujarat or Venice and speaking multiple languages actually makes sense. The introduction, however, is still annoying. Panossian surveys various definitions of ethnicity and nation. He makes himself sound scientific. He, however, butchers Ben Anderson, whom I particularly respect. In his attempt to show Armenian's exclusivity Panossian oversimplifies and then refutes Anderson's description of formation of modern nation states through bureaucracies and print-capitalism. Oh, well. Thankfully, throughout most of the book, especially towards later chapters, Panossian does a decent job describing how historical events influenced and shaped Armenian identity. So his actual treatment of the subject is materialist enough not to be terribly irritating. The interloper that I am, I was just trying to learn a bit about Armenian history. The history is indeed fascinating. Actually, I think there is a close parallel with Jewish history. Here is another nation whose cohesion is achieved through religion and ancient language which makes the community insular and exclusivist. The Armenian plateau was the site of continuous border clashes between Persia (Iran) and Roman Empire (Byzantium, Ottoman Empire) and later Russia. Laying the country to waste was pretty much standard practice. So, a lot of Armenians, similar to Jews, were often forced to move to the cities and capitals of the Empires, act in the roles of non-threatening others, take up urban professions, be second class citizens and be at the mercy of the rulers. And the rulers were often quite unceremonious about them. One Iranian shah liked the silks produced in an Armenian town of Julfa. So he moved the complete city of 300K people to his capital. Half the population died in the process of resettlement. The newly formed quarter of New Julfa became a large center of Armenian diaspora. By the nineteenth century the modern pattern emerged. The Eastern part of traditional Armenia was taken from Iran by the Russian Empire. The Western part belonged to the Ottomans. Russians were not necessarily knights in shining armor: occasionally they tried to take away Armenian church property, close their schools, abridge their religious freedom or just plain sick the nearby azeris (for whatever reason called Tatars) on them. However, the condition of Eastern Armenians were a lot more tolerable than those in the West where they were a second class citizens and, on a good day, just subject to arbitrary taxes and despotism from local muslim rulers and often rape and pillage from semi-nomadic muslim Kurdish tribes. Armenian church was usually playing accomodationist role as Constantinople accorded certain privileges to the priests. Towards the the end of the 19-ieth century, modern Nationalist political parties emerged. They agitated for autonomy and freedoms from oppression. They radicalized the population, procured guns, and occasionally led them to stand up against Kurdish raids and armed warlords. They also used terrorism and assassination of hated authority figures. Naturally, backlash was heavy. The Turks or Kurds just walked into Armenian villages and massacred indiscriminately. The death toll was usually in thousands per revolt. However, even this high price was somehow considered acceptable as long as the cause was furthered. One of the well known events was a brief takeover of the Ottoman Bank in Constantinople by 28 Armenian commandos in 1896. It lasted 14 hours, ended up with 10 Turks and Armenians dead and safe passage for the survivors to France. Within 48 hours pogroms in Constantinople led to the murder of some 6000 Armenians. Despite the horrendous price, this event is now celebrated as a defining moment in Armenian struggle for nationhood. However, all this were a mere precursor to what was to come. The Armenians originally aligned with the Young Turk revolution who restored the constitution and abridged the power of the Sultan in 1908. However, Kemal's leadership had Turkish nationalist goals in mind and it did not mesh well with the rights of the minorities. Things escalated quickly. The Adana massacre in Cilicia left 20,000 Armenians dead. During WWI, most of the Western Armenian population was dead, exiled or forcibly converted to Islam. 1.5 million people were killed which is either half or one-third of the total Armenian population. Western Armenia ceased to exist. Well, after the Russian revolution and collapse of the Russian Empire, the Eastern Armenians, under the leadership of one of the nationalist parties held off the advancing Turkish troops and set up an independent Armenian country. It existed the whole of 2 years. Then, the Communists just walked in and took over. During the Soviet times Armenia did relatively well. Stalinist repression did not touch them any more than the rest of the Soviet population. Armenia industrialized together with the country. Armenians were mostly free to maintain their culture and language. Soviet attempts to create pan-Soviet internationalist identity did not stick or were successfully sabotaged. Armenians did get one raw deal after WWII. The Soviets launched a "repatriation" drive in preparation to annex some of the lands Russian Empire lost to Turkey after WWI. 100,000 diaspora Armenians responded. They came mostly from the Middle east (Syria and Lebanon). They often sold their houses and possessions. The annexation never materialized, the newcomers were not treated all that well. The worst irony is that the arrivals were considered "foreigners" (the local term is aghpar - brother) even by the local Armenians. The division is so deep that even now, when one of the aghpar descendants runs for political office in Armenia, there is a reluctance to vote for him. The recent developments are somewhat predictable. The Armenian diaspora in the Western countries is dissolving: the old political parties are rehashing history and trying to define what it means to be Armenian anymore. The new generations do not speak the language, intermarry and care little for nationalist issues. They are kind of like American Irish: wear kilts on St.Patrick's day. The Middle-Eastern Armenian diaspora communities, under pressure from somewhat hostile muslim host cultures, continue to preserve their identity and the language. The independent Armenia is nationalistic. Panossian sounds excited about it, yet a lot of the goings on there are far from pretty. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, what happened amounts to ethnic cleansing: all the minorities migrated out of Armenia while Armenians from nearby countries either moved to Armenia or to Russia. Panossian proudly states that Armenia became one of the most homogeneous countries of the former Soviet Union. One of Panossian's nationalistic anecdotes comes to mind in its absurdity. Armenians of Kessab, Syria speak a dialect of Armenian that is unintelligible to others. Kessab repatriates to Armenia are so virulently nationalistic about being from Kessab that they insist on speaking it and even requiring their Russian brides to learn it. Nationalism has gone awry indeed.