Tweet
VICTOR SHNIRELMAN: WHY TO ATTRIBUTE THE DOMINANT VIEWS IN AZERBAIJAN TO THE "WORLD SCIENCE"?
16:55 06/03/2013 Â" REGION
Chief scientific researcher in the Institute of Ethnology and
Anthropology in the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Historical
Sciences Victor Shnirelman responded to the publications of Azerbaijani
authors, who had earlier criticized his book The Wars of Memory: Myths,
Identity and Politics in the South Caucasus (Moscow, 2003). Ð~XÐ~P
REGNUM publishes the article by Victor Shnirelman with his consent.
In February 2009 the administration of the National Academy of
Sciences of Azerbaijan (NASA) together with the directors of a
number of academic institutions convened a session devoted to my
book Wars of Memory. It is hard not to notice that NASA needed
about six years to get familiarized with the book and to hold its
discussion. At the same time the task of giving it a "worthy rebuff"
was assigned to philosopher Zumrud Kulizade: apparently no historians
knowledgeable in the subject under discussion were left in Azerbaijan;
or maybe they were not qualified enough for such a responsible task
(or rather it is more simple than that - the historians understand
quite well what my book is talking about). For that reason they chose
an elderly woman with life wisdom who (unlike of course my naïve self)
knows well about the "politicization of the historical science" and
"the manipulation of public opinion by historiographers". Apparently
the choice of the academic authorities was influenced by the fact
that having possessed such sacral knowledge, this chosen candidate
had refrained from discussing this question both in Soviet times,
when it could have had serious consequences, and in post-Soviet times,
when it became possible.
It is noteworthy that in her extensive critical essay the philosopher
carefully bypasses the question of politicization of the historical
science in Azerbaijan. Apparently Azerbaijan is the only state that
serves as a unique example of devotion to authentic science and the
lack of "manipulation of the public opinion"; apparently this is the
only state in which there is no "reanimation of memory concerning
historical offenses and wars", which allows the philosopher to
furiously attack the "foreigner" who dared to doubt this. The
dear critic does not dispute my statement on that the ideology of
ethno-political conflicts can't but appeal to the past. However, her
"philosophical erudition" does not allow her to conclude that it is
exactly for this reason that the analysis of this kind of conflicts
cannot ignore the images of the past created by local intellectuals.
Moreover, she does her best to present the attempt of a scientific
analysis of the conflict as its "inflation". Aren't the ethno-political
conflicts normally so protracted because of the fact that the local
intellectuals refuse point blank to make a deep and comprehensive
analysis of these conflicts? Instead of making an effort to figure
out the problem of the "social memory", the philosopher, quite in line
with the Soviet style, distorts my words and ideas in the most absurd
manner and ascribes to me those which I have never shared. Indeed,
it turns out to be much easier to refute these ideas since the
philosopher refuses to actually polemicize the main ideas that make
up the core of my book; here is where the Soviet training comes to
help - to speak without saying anything essential.
Like many other critics the Azerbaijani philosopher accuses me of
an "incorrect interpretation of the history of Azerbaijan". But in
my books devoted to the "historical memory" there isn't and there
couldn't be any claim of writing the history of the Caucasian nations
and their culture. The question under discussion is the images of the
past constructed by various intellectuals in this or that historical
period as well as the link between these images and the ethno-political
context, including the Soviet national politics.
However, the philosopher, who mentions the names of such renowned
authorities as Halbwachs and Werth did not understand this: apparently
she knows the works of these authors only by name. It looks like she
hasn't bothered to read my book either; after all, even the titles
of separate chapters of my book are not correctly quoted in her review.
Where and when did I insist that the history of the Caucasus is that
of endless wars and genocides? Where did I write about "the nations
of the given region being psychologically encoded for mutual hatred"
or about the perpetuity of ethnic wars on the Caucasus? Where did I
claim that the "Azerbaijani Turks must be subjected to genocide"? How
exactly is my "negative attitude towards Islam" manifested? And where
do I "present to the reader the past and the present of Azerbaijan
and the Azerbaijanis as a historical nuisance" (unfortunately the
philosopher stays ignorant of the contemporary research on ethnicity;
she is hopelessly confused in the understanding of primordial and
constructivist approaches)? All these are but baseless assertions of
the philosopher who has done everything to avoid discussing the most
important and key problems that are raised in my book. In particular
I would like to ask her why during the 20th century the Azerbaijani
scholars changed the image of their ancestors for five times. This
question is discussed in detail in the book, but the philosopher
considers this issue unworthy of her attention; she simply does not
notice it.
Instead, she devotes the bulk of her review to groundlessly accusing
me in "unprofessionalism" and in "falsifications". It remains quite
unclear what the massive quotes from medieval authors, which she
quotes without commenting, have to do with my book (by the way it
looks like the philosopher is not aware of such science as Source
Studies and the problem of the critique of written sources remains
a grave mystery for her). After all they do not throw any light
whatsoever upon the questions which I dedicated my book to. I would
also like to know who among the multiple medieval authors quoted by
the philosopher called himself an "Azerbaijani". And why, speaking
of "historical compositions... published in Russian and Azerbaijani
languages in the 30s and in the subsequent years of the 20th century"
the author refers solely to the works written at the beginning of
the 20s? It looks as if this kind of "imprecision" is typical to the
philosopher's knowledge of history in general. That is why in her
understanding the Oghuzes lived either at the turn of our era or "many
thousand years ago". She is apparently not concerned with the problem
of strict chronology that lies at the basis of the historical science.
Doesn't this disorient the same audience which my dear critic is so
concerned about?
Kulizade does her best to defend her colleagues trying to shield them
from any kind of criticism. I assume she might be somewhat ignorant
in this regard. For that reason I bring it to her attention that Z. M.
Bunyadov and his followers, while editing the works of the medieval
authors (which she so persistently recommends me to read!) were
systematically engaged in falsifying them, either omitting the term
Armenians from those sources or replacing it with the term Albanians.
Moreover, Bunyadov was caught also in plagiarism when he presented
the translation of two articles written by Western scholars George
Doucette and Robert Hewsen as his own works.
By the way, in 2006 F. Mamedova spoke about the passions that
"patriotism" and the struggle against the Armenian historical presence
in the Caucasus aroused in the modern Azerbaijani science. Unlike
forgetful Kulizade, she also recalled the pressure which in Soviet
times Heidar Aliyev was exercising on the historians.
Neither did the harsh critic address the scientific content of the
concept of "historical myth" or the essence of the contemporary
myth-making based on scientific technologies. While in doing this it
could have been useful for her to get familiarized not only with the
works by Halbwachs and Werth that she mentioned but also with the
works by contemporary authors that she did not mention, such as E.
Cassirer, Anthony Smith, P. Nora, P. Bourdieu and many others who
have studied "social memory", "nationalistic myth-making", "symbolic
politics" (if only she would read these authors rather than borrow
their names from the works of her better-informed colleagues). I am
not at all talking about the "ignorance" of local authors (an opinion
attributed to me by the philosopher) - the problem is in the political
order which, with strict consistency, was and is still exercised
on the historians (it is another question that some might embrace
this, others might oppose, but the latter are incomparably less in
number than the former). One could assume that the philosopher who
had long ago realized in depth the factor of the "politicization of
historical science" was supposed to draw her attention to it. But no,
she categorically refuses to see it. Instead, she is persuading me
to study the ethnogenesis of the Russian or Jewish people (at the
same time she does not come up with anything better than to line up
with the Soviet anti-Zionist propaganda, while resenting the Soviet
anti-Turkic propaganda which is no less "well-grounded"). Furthermore,
she is surprised that I am not doing this in a book on the Caucasus.
One would wish to hope that not all the Azerbaijani philosophers
follow this strange logic.
The philosopher, who accuses me of not paying attention to mythologized
plots found today in Russian science, should have got better acquainted
with the works of the author whom she so arduously criticizes. This,
as well as a thorough study of the works on "social memory" (together
with contemporary research on the problems of ethnicity) would have
saved her from unfortunate blunders and fabrications. Without this the
reasoning of the philosopher, who keeps turning to one and the same
indiscriminate accusations, sounds more like a shamanistic ritual
than a scientific polemic. She seems to be thinking that an endless
repetition of one and the same groundless slanders could make a better
effect on the reader than serious scientific arguments.
The original usage of the term "Azerbaijani" by the philosopher is
also noteworthy - according to her the Persian Empire, the Tsarist
Russia and the USSR were all "Azerbaijani". In this she hasn't gone
far from her compatriots who call the Palaeolithic man, whose remains
were found in the Azykh (Azokh) cave, an "ancient Azerbaijani".
Indeed, she seems to be sure in that Turkic people have lived
on the territory of Azerbaijan always! Misleading the reader the
philosopher also asserts that "the states of Manna, Medes, Atropatena
and Albania...
are recognized... by the world science... as Azerbaijani states". Why
attribute the dominant views in Azerbaijan to the "world science"? One
shouldn't be so explicitly engaged in falsifications, while at the
same time reproaching others for that. She ascribes to me the tendency
to "'each time insert new meaning into the concepts of 'Azerbaijani
nation' and 'Azerbaijani'", while she herself is doing exactly that,
following the long-established tradition in the Azerbaijani science.
As for the term "Northern Azerbaijan", this name is accepted only
in the motherland of the philosopher, who acknowledges that even in
early medieval times, let alone earlier antiquity, Caucasian Albania
was located here; there was no Azerbaijan here in those times. The
reasoning of the philosopher about ancient linguistic situation is
also characterised by the lack of professionalism: she is unaware of
the fact that the North Caucasian language family included a great
number of different languages and this did not at all presuppose
any ethno-cultural unity, which could not in fact have existed in
that antiquity. That is why, contrary to the philosopher, there is
no need to speak about "one and the same languages of the population
of the North and the South". The science today is simply incapable
of determining who had lived in this region before the so-called
"North Caucasians"; there is no data about that. As for these "North
Caucasians", they were not and could have never been "Azerbaijanis"
- this is exactly how the "modern science" approaches this question;
however in Azerbaijan (for quite understandable political reasons)
they prefer to hold a different opinion.
It is of course hard for the philosopher to assess the dispersion
of opinions held by historians. However, it is worth noting that
the historians themselves know it very well whose opinions are
trustworthy and who is not be trusted. That is why the references
by the philosopher on that "there are also other opinions" do not
prove much.
The ideas of pan-Turkism in their turn interest only the marginals;
authoritative historians are not encouraged by these ideas.
Finally, the author, supposedly having profoundly understood the
"universal patterns and peculiarities of ethnic, ethno-linguistic and
ethno-cultural processes" seriously assures us in that ethno-political
conflicts constitute a "universal pattern of the social-cultural
development of the post-Soviet region". By whom, when and where was
this "pattern" established? Maybe it was done by the philosophy which
the author pursues? But doesn't this kind of "philosophy" constitute
an "incitement of animosity"? And the count of which of the warring
parties destroyed greater number of villages in 1905 is hardly an
evidence of author's care for "peace" but for rather determining
who exactly should be presented as an "aggressor". At the same time,
accusing me of the tendency to "substantiate the inevitability of both
contemporary and future ethnic conflicts in the region" the author
simply passes the buck by attributing her own "logic" to me. The
author also reproaches me in that I allegedly "give the reader no
chance to think for himself and make his own conclusions". Why is
that? Wasn't she the one who started "thinking for herself" and came
up with "her own conclusions" (if of course her colleagues didn't
do this for her)? It is true though that these conclusions proved
to be quite weird, if not to say anything else. One would like to
hope that the reader, who, unlike my harsh critic, will read my book
attentively and entirely and will have his own considerations, will
come up with other conclusions. And I do know such readers.
In fact the opus by Z. Kulizade is much more decent than the lampoon
by A. Alekperov, who did all he could to dehumanize and to present
his neighbors-Armenians in a negative light by means of spreading the
dirtiest gossips, monstrous rumors and clearly falsified data. It is
true though that unlike Kulizade, he bothered to familiarize himself
with my analysis of Armenian ethno-genetic myths, but he did that
only for the sake of blaming the Armenians in "fraud". However he
sees no fraud in the works of his compatriots; neither does he want
to recognize the common ethno-centric direction of ethno-genetic
constructions in the works of most diverse national schools of
historians of the Caucasus to which I devoted two of my books.
And this is the same Alekperov who in 1992 in his PhD dissertation
was supporting a ridiculous thesis, not accepted by anyone, on
that the early medieval "sakaliba" and "sklavens" were supposedly
"Turks-Bulgarians" and were not related to the Slavic people. As
for the "Saka-Scythian confederation" (where did he find this?),
he peremptorily characterizes it as Turkic speaking.
Kulizade supposes that my work was an "order". Some Ossetian authors
also wrote the same thing about another book written by me, but they
went even further having hinted at a big payment. It would be good
for all these experts to point to this sponsor more precisely and to
inform me where, how and from whom I could receive this "payment".
However, while Kulizade was working on her opus, her compatriots F.
Alekperli and S. Muradaliev demonstrated with their polemic that,
notwithstanding the assertions of the dear philosopher, the local
intelligentsia had no clear notion about the Azerbaijani identity in
2009 (when the famous session of NASA was convened!) either - some
called themselves "Azerbaijanis", others "Turks". At the same time the
former acknowledged the compound composition of the Azerbaijani nation
while the latter chose the Turks as their ancestors. In other words,
the process of choosing the ancestors, which I analyzed, continues
up to the present day and it still keeps on dividing the nation. But
a "foreigner" is not supposed to know about this and is forbidden
from discussing this issue. One can only hope that this knot will be
successfully untangled by wise Kulizade.
In the meantime, the authorities of Azerbaijan explicitly demonstrate
exactly that what Kulizade tried so hard to disprove. Thus, on 14 Dec.
2005 in his speech delivered on the occasion of the 60th anniversary
of the National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan President Ilham
Aliyev called for the Azerbaijani scientists to get involved in the
program which aimed to prove to the international community that
the Karabakh Armenians have no historical title to the territory of
Nagorno-Karabakh. Aliyev promised to subsidize the united efforts
of Azerbaijani specialists in developing and promoting his thesis
on that "the Armenians came to Nagorno-Karabakh, an integral part
of Azerbaijan, as guests" and thus "they have absolutely no right to
claim that Nagorno-Karabakh belonged to them in the past".
The scientists were apparently enthusiastic about this appeal and
responded to the president with new impressive "findings". For
that reason on 14 Oct. 2010 he already confidently declared that
"present-day Armenia, the territory named on the map as the Republic
of Armenia, is a native Azerbaijani land. This is the truth. Of
course Zangezur and Yerevan khanate are our lands! ... Our children
must know all this; they must know that today's Armenia is located
on native Azerbaijani lands".
For making this indigenousness look more convincing all the
traces of Armenian culture have been being systematically erased
from Azerbaijan. This refers especially to Nakhichevan. From 2003
to 2006 the medieval cemetery of Old Jugha (Azeri Julfa), including
its unique khachkars, was completely destroyed there. On the North of
Azerbaijan they have also destroyed the Avarian cemeteries; as for the
Lezgian cemeteries, they have changed the names of the deceased on the
tombstones adding Turkic suffixes to them. They have also removed the
monuments to prominent Avarian historical figures there (among them
the one to Imam Shamil in 2000) and replaced them with monuments to N.
Narimanov and Heydar Aliyev.
In other words, what I wrote about ten years ago has its continuation
today and there seems to be no end to it. But NASA is not worried
about all this! Instead, they are always ready to fight back the
foreign "slanderer" - it is safer this way.
Source: Panorama.am
16:55 06/03/2013 Â" REGION
Chief scientific researcher in the Institute of Ethnology and
Anthropology in the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Historical
Sciences Victor Shnirelman responded to the publications of Azerbaijani
authors, who had earlier criticized his book The Wars of Memory: Myths,
Identity and Politics in the South Caucasus (Moscow, 2003). Ð~XÐ~P
REGNUM publishes the article by Victor Shnirelman with his consent.
In February 2009 the administration of the National Academy of
Sciences of Azerbaijan (NASA) together with the directors of a
number of academic institutions convened a session devoted to my
book Wars of Memory. It is hard not to notice that NASA needed
about six years to get familiarized with the book and to hold its
discussion. At the same time the task of giving it a "worthy rebuff"
was assigned to philosopher Zumrud Kulizade: apparently no historians
knowledgeable in the subject under discussion were left in Azerbaijan;
or maybe they were not qualified enough for such a responsible task
(or rather it is more simple than that - the historians understand
quite well what my book is talking about). For that reason they chose
an elderly woman with life wisdom who (unlike of course my naïve self)
knows well about the "politicization of the historical science" and
"the manipulation of public opinion by historiographers". Apparently
the choice of the academic authorities was influenced by the fact
that having possessed such sacral knowledge, this chosen candidate
had refrained from discussing this question both in Soviet times,
when it could have had serious consequences, and in post-Soviet times,
when it became possible.
It is noteworthy that in her extensive critical essay the philosopher
carefully bypasses the question of politicization of the historical
science in Azerbaijan. Apparently Azerbaijan is the only state that
serves as a unique example of devotion to authentic science and the
lack of "manipulation of the public opinion"; apparently this is the
only state in which there is no "reanimation of memory concerning
historical offenses and wars", which allows the philosopher to
furiously attack the "foreigner" who dared to doubt this. The
dear critic does not dispute my statement on that the ideology of
ethno-political conflicts can't but appeal to the past. However, her
"philosophical erudition" does not allow her to conclude that it is
exactly for this reason that the analysis of this kind of conflicts
cannot ignore the images of the past created by local intellectuals.
Moreover, she does her best to present the attempt of a scientific
analysis of the conflict as its "inflation". Aren't the ethno-political
conflicts normally so protracted because of the fact that the local
intellectuals refuse point blank to make a deep and comprehensive
analysis of these conflicts? Instead of making an effort to figure
out the problem of the "social memory", the philosopher, quite in line
with the Soviet style, distorts my words and ideas in the most absurd
manner and ascribes to me those which I have never shared. Indeed,
it turns out to be much easier to refute these ideas since the
philosopher refuses to actually polemicize the main ideas that make
up the core of my book; here is where the Soviet training comes to
help - to speak without saying anything essential.
Like many other critics the Azerbaijani philosopher accuses me of
an "incorrect interpretation of the history of Azerbaijan". But in
my books devoted to the "historical memory" there isn't and there
couldn't be any claim of writing the history of the Caucasian nations
and their culture. The question under discussion is the images of the
past constructed by various intellectuals in this or that historical
period as well as the link between these images and the ethno-political
context, including the Soviet national politics.
However, the philosopher, who mentions the names of such renowned
authorities as Halbwachs and Werth did not understand this: apparently
she knows the works of these authors only by name. It looks like she
hasn't bothered to read my book either; after all, even the titles
of separate chapters of my book are not correctly quoted in her review.
Where and when did I insist that the history of the Caucasus is that
of endless wars and genocides? Where did I write about "the nations
of the given region being psychologically encoded for mutual hatred"
or about the perpetuity of ethnic wars on the Caucasus? Where did I
claim that the "Azerbaijani Turks must be subjected to genocide"? How
exactly is my "negative attitude towards Islam" manifested? And where
do I "present to the reader the past and the present of Azerbaijan
and the Azerbaijanis as a historical nuisance" (unfortunately the
philosopher stays ignorant of the contemporary research on ethnicity;
she is hopelessly confused in the understanding of primordial and
constructivist approaches)? All these are but baseless assertions of
the philosopher who has done everything to avoid discussing the most
important and key problems that are raised in my book. In particular
I would like to ask her why during the 20th century the Azerbaijani
scholars changed the image of their ancestors for five times. This
question is discussed in detail in the book, but the philosopher
considers this issue unworthy of her attention; she simply does not
notice it.
Instead, she devotes the bulk of her review to groundlessly accusing
me in "unprofessionalism" and in "falsifications". It remains quite
unclear what the massive quotes from medieval authors, which she
quotes without commenting, have to do with my book (by the way it
looks like the philosopher is not aware of such science as Source
Studies and the problem of the critique of written sources remains
a grave mystery for her). After all they do not throw any light
whatsoever upon the questions which I dedicated my book to. I would
also like to know who among the multiple medieval authors quoted by
the philosopher called himself an "Azerbaijani". And why, speaking
of "historical compositions... published in Russian and Azerbaijani
languages in the 30s and in the subsequent years of the 20th century"
the author refers solely to the works written at the beginning of
the 20s? It looks as if this kind of "imprecision" is typical to the
philosopher's knowledge of history in general. That is why in her
understanding the Oghuzes lived either at the turn of our era or "many
thousand years ago". She is apparently not concerned with the problem
of strict chronology that lies at the basis of the historical science.
Doesn't this disorient the same audience which my dear critic is so
concerned about?
Kulizade does her best to defend her colleagues trying to shield them
from any kind of criticism. I assume she might be somewhat ignorant
in this regard. For that reason I bring it to her attention that Z. M.
Bunyadov and his followers, while editing the works of the medieval
authors (which she so persistently recommends me to read!) were
systematically engaged in falsifying them, either omitting the term
Armenians from those sources or replacing it with the term Albanians.
Moreover, Bunyadov was caught also in plagiarism when he presented
the translation of two articles written by Western scholars George
Doucette and Robert Hewsen as his own works.
By the way, in 2006 F. Mamedova spoke about the passions that
"patriotism" and the struggle against the Armenian historical presence
in the Caucasus aroused in the modern Azerbaijani science. Unlike
forgetful Kulizade, she also recalled the pressure which in Soviet
times Heidar Aliyev was exercising on the historians.
Neither did the harsh critic address the scientific content of the
concept of "historical myth" or the essence of the contemporary
myth-making based on scientific technologies. While in doing this it
could have been useful for her to get familiarized not only with the
works by Halbwachs and Werth that she mentioned but also with the
works by contemporary authors that she did not mention, such as E.
Cassirer, Anthony Smith, P. Nora, P. Bourdieu and many others who
have studied "social memory", "nationalistic myth-making", "symbolic
politics" (if only she would read these authors rather than borrow
their names from the works of her better-informed colleagues). I am
not at all talking about the "ignorance" of local authors (an opinion
attributed to me by the philosopher) - the problem is in the political
order which, with strict consistency, was and is still exercised
on the historians (it is another question that some might embrace
this, others might oppose, but the latter are incomparably less in
number than the former). One could assume that the philosopher who
had long ago realized in depth the factor of the "politicization of
historical science" was supposed to draw her attention to it. But no,
she categorically refuses to see it. Instead, she is persuading me
to study the ethnogenesis of the Russian or Jewish people (at the
same time she does not come up with anything better than to line up
with the Soviet anti-Zionist propaganda, while resenting the Soviet
anti-Turkic propaganda which is no less "well-grounded"). Furthermore,
she is surprised that I am not doing this in a book on the Caucasus.
One would wish to hope that not all the Azerbaijani philosophers
follow this strange logic.
The philosopher, who accuses me of not paying attention to mythologized
plots found today in Russian science, should have got better acquainted
with the works of the author whom she so arduously criticizes. This,
as well as a thorough study of the works on "social memory" (together
with contemporary research on the problems of ethnicity) would have
saved her from unfortunate blunders and fabrications. Without this the
reasoning of the philosopher, who keeps turning to one and the same
indiscriminate accusations, sounds more like a shamanistic ritual
than a scientific polemic. She seems to be thinking that an endless
repetition of one and the same groundless slanders could make a better
effect on the reader than serious scientific arguments.
The original usage of the term "Azerbaijani" by the philosopher is
also noteworthy - according to her the Persian Empire, the Tsarist
Russia and the USSR were all "Azerbaijani". In this she hasn't gone
far from her compatriots who call the Palaeolithic man, whose remains
were found in the Azykh (Azokh) cave, an "ancient Azerbaijani".
Indeed, she seems to be sure in that Turkic people have lived
on the territory of Azerbaijan always! Misleading the reader the
philosopher also asserts that "the states of Manna, Medes, Atropatena
and Albania...
are recognized... by the world science... as Azerbaijani states". Why
attribute the dominant views in Azerbaijan to the "world science"? One
shouldn't be so explicitly engaged in falsifications, while at the
same time reproaching others for that. She ascribes to me the tendency
to "'each time insert new meaning into the concepts of 'Azerbaijani
nation' and 'Azerbaijani'", while she herself is doing exactly that,
following the long-established tradition in the Azerbaijani science.
As for the term "Northern Azerbaijan", this name is accepted only
in the motherland of the philosopher, who acknowledges that even in
early medieval times, let alone earlier antiquity, Caucasian Albania
was located here; there was no Azerbaijan here in those times. The
reasoning of the philosopher about ancient linguistic situation is
also characterised by the lack of professionalism: she is unaware of
the fact that the North Caucasian language family included a great
number of different languages and this did not at all presuppose
any ethno-cultural unity, which could not in fact have existed in
that antiquity. That is why, contrary to the philosopher, there is
no need to speak about "one and the same languages of the population
of the North and the South". The science today is simply incapable
of determining who had lived in this region before the so-called
"North Caucasians"; there is no data about that. As for these "North
Caucasians", they were not and could have never been "Azerbaijanis"
- this is exactly how the "modern science" approaches this question;
however in Azerbaijan (for quite understandable political reasons)
they prefer to hold a different opinion.
It is of course hard for the philosopher to assess the dispersion
of opinions held by historians. However, it is worth noting that
the historians themselves know it very well whose opinions are
trustworthy and who is not be trusted. That is why the references
by the philosopher on that "there are also other opinions" do not
prove much.
The ideas of pan-Turkism in their turn interest only the marginals;
authoritative historians are not encouraged by these ideas.
Finally, the author, supposedly having profoundly understood the
"universal patterns and peculiarities of ethnic, ethno-linguistic and
ethno-cultural processes" seriously assures us in that ethno-political
conflicts constitute a "universal pattern of the social-cultural
development of the post-Soviet region". By whom, when and where was
this "pattern" established? Maybe it was done by the philosophy which
the author pursues? But doesn't this kind of "philosophy" constitute
an "incitement of animosity"? And the count of which of the warring
parties destroyed greater number of villages in 1905 is hardly an
evidence of author's care for "peace" but for rather determining
who exactly should be presented as an "aggressor". At the same time,
accusing me of the tendency to "substantiate the inevitability of both
contemporary and future ethnic conflicts in the region" the author
simply passes the buck by attributing her own "logic" to me. The
author also reproaches me in that I allegedly "give the reader no
chance to think for himself and make his own conclusions". Why is
that? Wasn't she the one who started "thinking for herself" and came
up with "her own conclusions" (if of course her colleagues didn't
do this for her)? It is true though that these conclusions proved
to be quite weird, if not to say anything else. One would like to
hope that the reader, who, unlike my harsh critic, will read my book
attentively and entirely and will have his own considerations, will
come up with other conclusions. And I do know such readers.
In fact the opus by Z. Kulizade is much more decent than the lampoon
by A. Alekperov, who did all he could to dehumanize and to present
his neighbors-Armenians in a negative light by means of spreading the
dirtiest gossips, monstrous rumors and clearly falsified data. It is
true though that unlike Kulizade, he bothered to familiarize himself
with my analysis of Armenian ethno-genetic myths, but he did that
only for the sake of blaming the Armenians in "fraud". However he
sees no fraud in the works of his compatriots; neither does he want
to recognize the common ethno-centric direction of ethno-genetic
constructions in the works of most diverse national schools of
historians of the Caucasus to which I devoted two of my books.
And this is the same Alekperov who in 1992 in his PhD dissertation
was supporting a ridiculous thesis, not accepted by anyone, on
that the early medieval "sakaliba" and "sklavens" were supposedly
"Turks-Bulgarians" and were not related to the Slavic people. As
for the "Saka-Scythian confederation" (where did he find this?),
he peremptorily characterizes it as Turkic speaking.
Kulizade supposes that my work was an "order". Some Ossetian authors
also wrote the same thing about another book written by me, but they
went even further having hinted at a big payment. It would be good
for all these experts to point to this sponsor more precisely and to
inform me where, how and from whom I could receive this "payment".
However, while Kulizade was working on her opus, her compatriots F.
Alekperli and S. Muradaliev demonstrated with their polemic that,
notwithstanding the assertions of the dear philosopher, the local
intelligentsia had no clear notion about the Azerbaijani identity in
2009 (when the famous session of NASA was convened!) either - some
called themselves "Azerbaijanis", others "Turks". At the same time the
former acknowledged the compound composition of the Azerbaijani nation
while the latter chose the Turks as their ancestors. In other words,
the process of choosing the ancestors, which I analyzed, continues
up to the present day and it still keeps on dividing the nation. But
a "foreigner" is not supposed to know about this and is forbidden
from discussing this issue. One can only hope that this knot will be
successfully untangled by wise Kulizade.
In the meantime, the authorities of Azerbaijan explicitly demonstrate
exactly that what Kulizade tried so hard to disprove. Thus, on 14 Dec.
2005 in his speech delivered on the occasion of the 60th anniversary
of the National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan President Ilham
Aliyev called for the Azerbaijani scientists to get involved in the
program which aimed to prove to the international community that
the Karabakh Armenians have no historical title to the territory of
Nagorno-Karabakh. Aliyev promised to subsidize the united efforts
of Azerbaijani specialists in developing and promoting his thesis
on that "the Armenians came to Nagorno-Karabakh, an integral part
of Azerbaijan, as guests" and thus "they have absolutely no right to
claim that Nagorno-Karabakh belonged to them in the past".
The scientists were apparently enthusiastic about this appeal and
responded to the president with new impressive "findings". For
that reason on 14 Oct. 2010 he already confidently declared that
"present-day Armenia, the territory named on the map as the Republic
of Armenia, is a native Azerbaijani land. This is the truth. Of
course Zangezur and Yerevan khanate are our lands! ... Our children
must know all this; they must know that today's Armenia is located
on native Azerbaijani lands".
For making this indigenousness look more convincing all the
traces of Armenian culture have been being systematically erased
from Azerbaijan. This refers especially to Nakhichevan. From 2003
to 2006 the medieval cemetery of Old Jugha (Azeri Julfa), including
its unique khachkars, was completely destroyed there. On the North of
Azerbaijan they have also destroyed the Avarian cemeteries; as for the
Lezgian cemeteries, they have changed the names of the deceased on the
tombstones adding Turkic suffixes to them. They have also removed the
monuments to prominent Avarian historical figures there (among them
the one to Imam Shamil in 2000) and replaced them with monuments to N.
Narimanov and Heydar Aliyev.
In other words, what I wrote about ten years ago has its continuation
today and there seems to be no end to it. But NASA is not worried
about all this! Instead, they are always ready to fight back the
foreign "slanderer" - it is safer this way.
Source: Panorama.am