The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> O's are now quotation marks...""""""

O's are now quotation marks...""""""
Posted by Jeffrey (Guest) - Thursday, September 3 2009, 6:32:36 (CEST)
from 69.14.30.71 - d14-69-71-30.try.wideopenwest.com Commercial - Windows XP - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

After ten years of informal research and exposure to Assyrian national websites plus another thirty spent making, displaying, and selling sculpture in the community and creating the first Assyrian public monument anywhere in the world in the last 2500 years, certain conclusions about the meaning and quality of “Assyrianism” become self-evident. The first two years of interment activity were spent visiting existing sites such as bethsuryoyo, aina, atour and Chaldeans for a typical sampling of rhetoric regarding modern Assyrian/Chaldean history, Christianity/Islam/Arab/Turk/Qurd, losses, persecution, martyrdom and expectations. In all cases this writer was eventually banned from participation for challenging the various administrations and moderators as well as causing consternation among other visitors for what was perceived as a threat to Assyrianism. Or, as one “nationalist” quaintly put it, these were the words of an "enema" of Assyria.

As a result of this inhospitality and panic a new site, "insideassyria" was launched which pledged itself to allow all points of view, even insults and abusive language, a full and fair hearing. In all that time no post was altered, deleted nor was anyone banned. For eight years now this site has lived up to its promise with the final result that no Assyrian “nationalist” cares to write or argue here any longer...not because of any obstacle but simply because their position and points of view turn out to be indefensible with the result that after each exchange the challengers remove themselves rather than continue. At its peak the site received over 3000 visits daily, down to roughly 140 at present.

The following is a survey of different claims made by those who define themselves, primarily, as Assyrian Nationalists:



ASSYRIAN vs. CHALDEAN

Assyrian Nationalists categorically reject all claims by Chaldeans that they are also an authentic and separate ethnicity directly related to the ancient Chaldeans. At least they did before a rather transparent attempt by some in both camps to join forces in an effort to expand their numbers and thereby, hopefully, their influence and status in post-war Iraq. This burying of the hatchet, coinciding with the war against Iraq waged by the United States and others, was attempted in hopes of some political advantage for the, now, larger Christian/"ethnic" minority. This mutual rapprochement was not welcomed by all and soon dissolved among accusations of treason etc.

The basic conflict between the two sides, aside from the validity and historical accuracy of their competing claims to distinct ethnic authenticity, is that Assyrian nationalists seek to wrest an enclave or territory of their own while Chaldeans have traditionally been satisfied with being citizens of greater Iraq. The Assyrians feel abandoned by the Chaldeans when serious confrontation with the Iraqi government over their "right" to a homeland arises... at the same time the Chaldeans feel that Assyrian recklessness in this matter will compromise their own status and success in Iraqi society, something the Assyrians view as akin to treason to the goal of a separate homeland which also depends, in large part, on claims of persecution and abuse by the Muslim majority...a claim Chaldeans reject.


Aside from this largely opportunistic and short-lived attempt at cooperation, both Assyrians and Chaldeans have been at odds for decades over mutual claims of authenticity and direct descent. The Assyrians have reminded Chaldeans at every turn that it is a well known fact that they owe their identity as Chaldeans to the efforts of 16th century popes of Rome to win back "heretical" Nestorians to make up for losses due to the Protestant Reformation in Europe. The newly created Catholic Church and administrative center was built in what was historically known as "Chaldea" so that from the beginning, "Chaldean Catholic" was merely a geographic designation not an ethnic one. In fact those who remained faithful to the Nestorian Church of the East(whose name was only changed to Assyrian in 1976) grew jealous of this new claim to an ethnic heritage and decided that they too would become Chaldeans, only they called themselves Nestorian Chaldeans to differentiate themselves from Catholic Chaldeans. The use of the term "Assyrian" only came about after the archaeological discoveries of the 19th century, after which Chaldeans gleefully pointed out that while they were accused of being discovered by the pope at Rome, Assyrians were discovered, much later by European adventurers and missionaries.

Before the 1800s there was no self-awareness as descendants of the ancient Assyrians among the Nestorian Chaldeans. And all they knew of the ancient Assyrians was gleaned from the Hebrew Bible, and none of it flattering or even admirable given their own Christian morality.

In truth both Chaldeans and Assyrians are on shaky ground when attempting to make any direct link between themselves and the ancients. The Chaldeans, however, do not press the issue to the point of conflict with Iraq. From the Chaldean point of view all of Iraq is their homeland and their willingness to live among and work and cooperate with Muslims has led them to success and stability in their homeland. The die-hard Assyrian nationalists, however, have insisted on separating themselves from their Muslim neighbors and. especially in remote villages, have nurtured a wounded sense of superiority and outrage at having "their" country, which they insist on calling Assyria, "stolen" from them by invading and occupying Arabs. Any cooperation or friendship or even contact with Muslims is anathema.

As a result of these different attitudes towards Muslim society and countries, Assyrians and Chaldeans have approached life in the West better or worse prepared for success, as a group. Building on their eagerness to enter and compete in the dominant culture of their homelands, Chaldeans have arrived in the West , experienced and well-equipped to join in and maneuver for advantage among competing groups, as a group. Hence their communal life and community spirit is strong and well adapted due to their gregariousness and success in Iraq. Likewise their work habits and resourcefulness have been well exercised and tempered in the much more tenuous and combative situations they exposed themselves to by learning early how to compete to advantage, as a minority, in Muslim society. Their financial and cultural success in their homeland, as a group, has allowed them to build a solid community spirit with resulting economic success as well as given them serious political influence wherever they have touched down.


Assyrians, on the other hand, having disdained to mix with Muslims or confront Arabs as equals remained insular and unaccustomed to getting on in the world and succeeding. In addition, unlike the Chaldeans who are all of one religious denomination; Catholic, Assyrians are split among many factions which kept them in constant conflict, even before coming to the West, and has continued them in conflict with one another in the West. The result has been a difficulty in uniting for any common purpose and a festering jealousy at the possibility of one sect prospering over the rest. The Assyrian community in the West remains fragmented and at odds while the Chaldeans have a much smoother path to success as a group and therefore carry more clout and prestige.


Assyrians insist they be honored for their great ancestors' sake, regardless of what they themselves have achieved, while Chaldeans, making no claims based on supposed ancestry, recognize that they must earn respect and create their own opportunities.




RELIGION and ASSYRIANS


Assyrian ideas of what constitutes nationalism, a nation, or even politics are defined and also corrupted by religious fervor and hence peculiar unto themselves. Politics is wisely described as the art of compromise in which no one has all their demands met but must learn to give and take. Likewise, in this day and age, no nation can exist which limits its citizens to one religion. It is inconceivable that, given Assyrian animosity towards Islam, any Assyrian nation would tolerate freedom of religion to the point where Muslim citizens could grow to dominate and thereby constitute a majority to which the Assyrians might become a minority once again. Clearly what Assyrians mean when they demand a country of their own is a religious enclave in which they would always dominate or, at the least, have laws which would allow them to treat their Muslim citizens as a minority, no matter their numbers.


This religious fervor, so entangled in the very meaning of what a modern Assyrian must be i.e., Christian (and of a particular sect to many) spills over into all political debate, bringing with it the passion and intolerance which the deeply religious feel towards "heretical" points of view. Among Assyrians there can be no loyal opposition. All opposition is heresy and therefore political treason as well. Indeed the very definition of "Assyrian" has a religious core and, to most, is the single determining factor...therefor any political, psychological, sociological and even cultural point of view is presented with all the narrow finality and fury of a religious edict over which there can be no compromise for who is authorized to compromise the will and revelations of his God?


The famous observation of Ibn Saud that in political wars compromise is possible whereas in religious wars the opposition must all be killed is instructive. Since the very essence of being Assyrian is a narrow Christian sectarianism, all opposition is viewed as heresy against God and must be opposed in its totality. This is not the sort of nation the world needs more of.



WHAT MAKES an "ASSYRIAN"

Indeed there is no way to define what a modern Assyrian is for the ground rules keep shifting from one criterion to another and back again. Since Assyrians insist that the northern part of Iraq is really still Assyria, they accordingly make their claim to being Assyrians because they were born in Assyria..."like when a person is born in Greece, he is a Greek". It is irrelevant to them to point out that no political entity in the world considers that region to be Assyria. To them, with their religious passions steeped in their belief that all Assyrians converted to Christianity, it will "always be Assyria". But, even granting this, what, then, about non-Christians born in this "nation" called Assyria...can they be Assyrian also? The answer is, "no", because they are not Christian. In which case the argument that being born in Assyria makes one Assyrian flies out the window.


If all Assyrians must be Christian, one asks, can this really be said to be an ethnicity, or even a matter of blood, or even a question of nationality...or is it merely a religious sect? And, can any Christian be an Assyrian, if born in Assyria? In answer to the first part the Assyrian will say that since centuries past, "we know", all Assyrians converted to Christianity. If one points out that many Assyrians who so converted might possibly have converted, again, but to Islam this time, the answer is that those who convert away from Christianity can no longer be Assyrian (but all those who turned away from Ashur, the god of the Assyrians, are now, somehow, the only Assyrians allowed). This would seem to confirm the suspicion that the modern Assyrian identity is purely a religious denomination. But "no", say some "tolerant" Assyrians, Muslims can be Assyrians, if they accept the Assyrian "heritage", by which they mean the modern heritage, the Christian hberitage. But to do so would mean that Muslims would have to, in effect, convert to Christianity since all "Assyrian" customs, holidays and festivals revolve around Jesus. A Muslim, who continues faith with Muhammad, and therefore denies the status of Jesus as a son of God, but only a revered prophet, could hardly find a place in such a heavily Christianized "ethnicity", especially when his religion is blasted as the cause of all Christian miseries and his Prophet called a "devil" and worse..


But, it also turns out that not all Christians can be Assyrians. To the fanatically political/religious Assyrian, only membership in the Church of the East qualifies one for true Assyrian "nationalism". Since "all Assyrians converted" centuries ago to what became the Church of the East, with loyalty and faith in their own patriarch, any subsequent conversions to Roman Catholicism or, much later, Protestantism is heresy. Leaving the Church of the East is tantamount to denying basic Assyrian identity, to the most fervent. The Syriac Orthodox, in addition, use the Arabic language in their litany and to many Assyrians the use of this language is another act of heresy and treason for, they claim, "to forget ones language is to forget who one is"...and, in addition, Arabic is the language of their sworn foes and persecutors while their own Aramaic is the one "Jesus spoke".


This raises the question of all those Assyrians living in the West who no longer speak their language or even belong to the Church of the East...are they still Assyrian? The devoutly religious/political will say "no"...they can no longer be considered true Assyrians for they've forsaken what it "means to be a true Assyrian".


The argument thus shifts and jumps around like a well oiled will-o-the-wisp, much too slippery and never stationary long enough to get a good grasp. If the issue is place of birth, it turns out, however, on further examination that religion matters more....if religion is used as the determining factor, then what happened to place of birth? Is this an ethnic identity or isn't it? Is it merely a religious designation? If religion and place of birth are correct, then what about language? Can one be born in "Assyria", be of the correct religion but not speak the language? "No",again, for to forget language is to "forget identity". Once language is added as a determining criteria, is it enough by itself? After all, anyone can learn the language and even convert to the Church of the East, but "no", place of birth now raises its head for a Muslim can be born in Assyria too and speak the language as well...but in that case his religion would exclude him...but if religion makes an Assyrian, can"t anyone adopt the religion and therefore the identity? "No, once more, because the blood isn't right. But, then can't one with the right blood be Assyrian even if his religion is Islam? "No", again, because all Assyrians must be Christian....but if one is Christian AND born right, AND speaks the language, can't one be Assyrian? "No", yet again, because the blood isn't right but "yes" (maybe) if the sect is right. But if the blood is right can religion exclude a person? "Yes", if it's the wrong religion or sect...and so it goes round and round.


Religion, language, even citizenship are things which may be acquired...but blood, one would think, is immutable and cannot be totally lost. It is "fixed". And yet blood alone will not suffice, if the religion is wrong, or the language, or place of birth, or all the above or any one of them. Indeed, as with all heresies, the heretic is far more condemned by those of his own, forsworn, faith. He is far more hated for having left the group than one who never belonged in the first place. So that if there is such a thing as Muslim Assyrians, as there certainly is, they are hated above all despite their correct place of birth, language or even blood, precisely because of their "apostasy". Therefore a narrowly "correct" religious designation, from all the evidence, is at the core of what really makes an Assyrian.


On top of all of this comes the belief that Islam, being the religion of Arabs, having originated in and brought from Arabia, is not indigenous and therefore any Muslim in Iraq today is descended from the original Arab invaders and should go back to where he and his religion came from. Since Assyrians refuse to believe that any of their number converted to Islam (or if they did "no longer count"), then any Muslim in Iraq today must be a descendant of those "occupying" Arabs and cannot have an Assyrian ancestry....his religion marks him as an Arab, descended from Arabs, which makes him an unwelcome foreigner.


Using this logic, any Christian in Iraq today is really a Jew, since Christianity is not indigenous to Iraq either but was brought from Judea and its creator a Jew. As such the Christian too is foreign to Iraq and cannot possibly have Assyrian ancestry, for his religion also marks him as an outsider. Consequently both Muslims and Christians belong elsewhere and should leave Iraq.


Every "marker" for what makes a modern Assyrian turns out to only partially apply and in unique and limited circumstances. Additionally it matters very much who is determining these things. The Assyrians born in Iran or Syria or Lebanon have a very different set of crtiteria from the ones born in Iraq, or Turkey, or even Chicago and none of them agrees with any other.


Finally, the claim that Christianity "saved" the Assyrians. Clearly what is meant is that once they converted to the Church of the East and lived by its strict rules, especially about marrying outside the faith, all those who joined and only married with each other were, indeed, "saved". That is; they remained a small, homogenous, tribe. Thus it was Christianity that was saved and not the people, since they also claim to have been persecuted to the point of extinction just for their religion. They managed to save the religion at a terrible price to themselves and their families and communities.


But did it keep them together, as a people? Perhaps, if missionaries had never discovered them. Although it separated them from those among them(most likely the majority) who converted to Islam. But, having once converted away from their own religion to Christianity, because of whatever benefits it offered, they were that much more prone to convert again, especially to offshoots of that same Christianity when representatives from Western nations came offering gifts and, it was hoped, the backing of their governments. This shopping-around for benefits and better sects led to jealousy and anger and divided villages and families...as it still can, amid cries of "treason" added to heresy. Truly, a house divided cannot stand, and this has been the sad result of the introduction of Christianity in the first place. The intolerance of the fanatic, even of the merely faithful, meant the beginning of divisions along religious lines which have continued to this day. The result is that it is impossible to speak of politics, or nationalism (in Western languages) with any Assyrian in terms and with definitions which are universally agreed upon and understood. One nationalist responded with, "we have our own dictionary".


It would seem, then, that the adoption of an Assyrian identity by the modern Nestorian community was nothing more than an attempt to apply a political/ethnic gloss over a religious identity. Christians, in the minority, knew enough to know that they couldn't very well demand a Christian enclave, or nation, for themselves, especially not from Muslims and especially not where there was oil. So the idea of asking for a "return" of the lands "stolen by the occupier" took its place. All they wanted, they claimed with a sense of wounded righteousness, was merely a return of what was stolen from them and at that, a very small part. They wanted justice. Surely, no one would begrudge them a fair shake? Further, they claimed, they deserved it as protection from all the abuse and persecution they suffered at Muslim hands...the very same people they were appealing to for justice they were, in the next breath, excoriating as the worst abusers the world had ever known. This could not possibly sit well with Muslims who see no persecution but are reminded, daily, of what they, themselves, are suffering, for real, from Christian nations.


CONCLUSION


The modern Assyrian identity, like the Chaldean, is an artificial designation attached to people who, until the Europeans came and "discovered" them, were content to be what they always knew themselves to be, either Nestorian or Jacobite/Monophysite. The modern Assyrians, more than the Chaldeans, saw a possible advantage in presenting themselves in the new light of a "nation", and a wronged one at that...one that had been "attacked and occupied by Arabs 1400 years ago" and persecuted ever since. Therefor it was not merely as a religious minority that they were protesting their status and seeking their own enclave, but as the proud remnant of a once glorious nation who were merely asking for a little justice. Needless to say this message resonates with no one outside of their own immediate circle and those Christian groups always eager to join in any slander of Islam and lament the "restrictions" placed on their evangelizing.



The proof in all of this comes when confronting, head-on, just what is meant by "Assyrian" in the modern era. On reflection it turns out that a narrow sectarianism is at the heart of this "ethnicity". True Assyrians turn out to be those belonging to the Church of the East, insist its members. The most fanatical "nationalists" derive from this Church. It goes without saying that this is no basis for a "nation" in the modern era, even if their absurd claims were true.



---------------------


The full topic:



Content-length: 23098
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
Accept-charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Accept-encoding: gzip,deflate
Accept-language: en-us,en;q=0.5
Connection: keep-alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Keep-alive: 300
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?screwsd_up-DEIU.CIgl.QUOTE
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.13) Gecko/2009073022 Firefox/3.0.13



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9