FPCD Announces the Appointment of Eurasia Scholar Marina Ohanjanyan to the Foundation Team

Marina holds a BA in Liberal Arts from University College Utrecht (Utrecht University) and an MA in International Conflict Studies from King’s College London (London University). Her MA thesis entitled National Identity Formation and Education: the Case of Nagorno-Karabakh entailed a research conducted in the Caucasus on the subject of the representation of the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh and the image of the enemy in middle school books in Armenia and Azerbaijan.


Marina is currently working for the Alfred Mozer Stichting (Foundation) in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The AMS was established after the fall of the Berlin wall and is concerned with social-democratic powers in Eastern Europe, Eurasia and currently also Jordan and Morocco; with other words – the European neighbours. At the AMS, Marina organized – and participated in – some events such as a public meeting dedicated to the political situation in Armenia, and a fact finding mission to Moscow (Russia) to get a clear picture of the post-2008 election political situation in the country by means of bilateral meetings with representatives of political parties, international organizations, NGOs etc.

Please find below an abstact of Marina's research.


National Identity Formation And Education In Post-Conflict Development: The Case of Nagorno-Karabakh

MA Dissertation Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Domitilla Sagramoso

King’s College London, University of London


Although the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan concerning the mountainous region of Nagorno-Karabakh has been frozen ever since the ceasefire agreement in 1994, the issue is still sensitive and present in Armenian and Azerbaijani communities. However, as nearly two decades have passed since the beginning of it, a new generation of Armenians and Azerbaijanis is entering the public sphere. It is a generation that has never met its neighbour in person; a generation that has barely, if ever, even communicated with it; a generation that has only known its neighbour as an enemy. Because of the lack of communication between the two nations, most of what the younger generations know about the conflict and their counterparts is presented to them in the form of official education. This research looks into the image that is created by that education in terms of ‘the self’, ‘the other’ and the frozen conflict. As it is up to those younger generations to eventually re-establish contact, the image that they have of themselves and each other will play a major role in the success or failure of the reconnection. The research found that many similar patterns exist in Armenian and Azerbaijani historic narratives, such as victimisation and ennoblement of ‘the self’ and degradation and dehumanisation of ‘the other’. The major difference is the greater level of emotionality on the part of Azerbaijan. A factor possibly accounting for this difference is the fact that the latter effectively lost the war for now, causing bitterness and, perhaps, a need for self-enhancement at the expense of ‘the enemy other’.


“… уходит наше поколение, кому от 50 до 70 лет,

тех людей в Армении и Азербайджане которые знают друг друга.

Когда придут другие, то они уже точно не смогут договориться.

А война – это самый последний и самый плохой путь.”


“… our generation, those who are 50 to 70 years old,

those in Armenia and Azerbaijan who know each other, are disappearing.

When the others come, they will definitely not be able to find a common language.

And a war, that’s the last and worst possible way out.”


Azerbaijan’s ambassador to Moscow

Polad Bul-Bul Ogly, Ogonek, July 2007





Introduction
The gaining of independence for a country or a people is generally seen as the positive outcome of a usually lengthy and hard struggle against an oppressive, dominant state. There are very few examples in the history of mankind that show a people gaining independence through a smooth and obstacle-free process, and numerous examples of the above-mentioned difficult way ahead for any people wishing it. Most of the recent, newly independent states in modern history were those shaking off the bonds of colonialism, which brings me to the backdrop of the subject of this dissertation: the fall of the last empire, the United Soviet Socialist Republics.
As a result of its crumbling, 15 states gained independence virtually overnight, putting them at the beginning of a long road of nation-building and recovery from the inevitable economic crisis following the collapse of a Moscow based system of economic, political and social orientation. A large part of this nation building for many1, if not all of the newly independent states was the re-defining of their national and, in some cases, ethnic identities as a separate entity with their own traditions, history, customs and ways of life. This process was made even more difficult for some peoples as the collapse of the Soviet Union was accompanied by conflicts erupting both within and between them. One such case, and the subject of this work, is the conflict between the Armenians and Azerbaijanis concerning the mountainous region of Nagorno-Karabakh - a majority Armenian-populated enclave within the republic of Azerbaijan.
As the subject of national identity formation is an incredibly broad one, it will be narrowed down to a specific aspect of post-conflict development that I deem a very important one: post-conflict education encompassing the conflict, representation of the ‘self’ and the ‘enemy other’. To explain the importance of this investigation, it should be kept in mind that the border between Armenians2 and Azerbaijanis has been hermetically closed for 17 years now. Not only physically, but also in terms of communication no contact has been established between the two peoples with a few exceptions3. It is thus that we are able to witness the emergence of a whole new generation within the two peoples that has not only never met their neighbour counterpart, but has, for the most part, never even communicated with it. In fact, the only tangible information the younger generations receive about the ‘other’ and the conflict, except for folklore and stories of the elders, is through official education. It is thus the subject of this dissertation to look into that education and how it represents the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the ‘own self’ and the ‘enemy other’, playing a role in the national identity formation of the upcoming generations among both nations.
The subject, I believe, is an important one, as it will soon be up to those upcoming generations to not only attempt to resolve the conflict but also to re-establish contact and communication afterwards as well as, ideally, friendly relations – or at least friendly coexistence - between the two nations, so necessary for the optimal development of the region. How exactly they will deal with the issue at hand, and how successful they will be will, for a certain part depend on their perception of their tumultuous shared history and of each other; which is why it is interesting to look into the nature of that perception, which is formed largely throughout the impressionable educational years, by the education systems. The link between national identity formation and education is elaborated upon below.
National Identity and Education
Starting with the premise that ‘national identities are, like everything historical, constructed and reconstructed’4 it is not hard to see the role of education in the process. It is through education, after all, that the younger generations are turned into full-grown members of society. And it is through education, amongst other influences, that they get a sense of their national history, their traditional/religious/ethnic backgrounds and a sense of a shared identity through that shared history. Of course it is important not to downplay the importance of other environmental factors contributing to these influences, (e.g. family, friends, etc.). However, education plays a crucial role, as it is not only a large and influential part of the important early years of a person’s development, it is also (presumed to be) enveloping the entire people concerned, providing them all with identical information and views on their communal past: ‘even though intentions may vary with different countries, national education contains the intention to homogenize the constituent members comprising a nation or a country’5. Shortly put, education plays a role in creating and/or strengthening national identities and attitudes, whether or not that is the intention.


The role of education in conflict-affected societies in terms of exasperating the tensions has only started to be examined relatively recently. However, already there is growing concern for its devastating possibilities. For instance, a 2004 UNESCO Colloquium Report speaks of the recent recognition that ‘”weaknesses in educational structure and content may have contributed to civil conflict” and that “an education system that reinforces social fissures can represent a dangerous source of conflict”’6


The significance of education in terms of post-conflict development stems from the assumption that ‘ethnic attitudes are formed early, and that once positive or negative prejudices are formed, they tend to increase with time’7. Education being one of the major influences present in a child’s life can thus be assumed to have the capability to play a significant role in the formation of that person’s ethnic attitudes, self-perception and their view of the surrounding world – including the ‘other’ - which may then play a role in their view and possible participation in ethnic conflicts. This is also why this work will only deal with basic school education, leaving aside the later phase of higher education. The reason for this is twofold. Firstly, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of children attend school, but that some do not continue on to universities from personal preference and financial or other reasons. Secondly, as school pupils are of a younger age they may still be (more) impressionable than school graduates attending university, which makes them more susceptible to the subliminal and overt official versions of the history.

Positive and Negative faces

Education can have a negative or a positive role. To discuss the negative role of education in the present context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, it is important to remember the premise that history is constructed. Similar to the famous assumption that history is written by winners, it is also different for all sides; one and the same event can be told, or constructed, in many different ways by different parties. Depending on whether the goal is to victimise the in-group, to bring some grandeur into its history, to present it as benevolent, merciful, valiant or any other (mostly positive) way, an event can be told in a manner befitting the profile. Certain events get downplayed, while others get stressed8.


It is thus that the ‘negative face9’ of education in the context of inter-ethnic conflicts includes the ‘[frequent expunction of] past histories and current instances of intergroup cooperation and intermarriage [from memory] as the hostilities of the present (…factual and fictional) are projected onto the past’10, presenting the conflict situation as deeply rooted and inherent to the region or the peoples involved.


In the specific case of textbooks, several possible tendencies can be distinguished. One such tendency is militarisation of textbooks: wars and conflict situations occupying a prominent place in the history, taking a foreground to all other historic developments. This can lead to, in a way, habituation of violence and its acceptance as a legitimate way to get to one’s goal, pushing values of tolerance and acceptance into the background11. Textbooks can also contain ethnic stereotypes, representing steps towards facilitation of the exclusion of certain groups12. Another issue is the ‘quantity’ aspect. This refers to the stress put on the in-group characters in history while minimalising the amount of appearances of an excluded out-group.


Thus, the ‘negative’ face of education can mean that ‘educational content, structure, and delivery systems may, in themselves, be catalysts of violent conflict’13 by way of the above methods. In the specific case of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict this could mean that education may play a role in bringing about the renewal of violence and war.


However, education can, of course, also have a ‘positive face14’: just as it can bring about intolerance and xenophobia, it can also be used to build tolerance, acceptance and dialogue. A good illustration of such an attempt in the region in question is the ‘Tbilisi Initiative’, initiated by the Council of Europe, which seeks to produce a ‘supplementary common “Caucasian” history textbook’15. This involves a non-exclusionist version of the Caucasus history, as it is not to be ‘“written in a triumphalist, polemical or even vindictive style,” but rather “neutral and realistic, and free of ideological and political stereotypes”’ while, for instance, military issues, although discussed, will not be given a priority place16.


Also, recently, there have been attempts by the international educational professional community to establish an ‘international set of standards and guidelines for civic education’17, playing up to the necessity to compromise. This proposition includes standards of curriculum content (e.g. presentation of different views and opinions concerning history); identification of different levels of critical thinking (i.e. engage with the subject, debate and argue for or against something, etc.); participation in civics (i.e. managing a conflict, building a consensus etc.); proposed standards of terminologies (e.g. civil society, constitutional rights, private opinion, citizenship obligations etc.)18. The purpose is, in a way, to establish a professional benchmark to which different states can compare their local education.19. However, if followed, these standards would also guarantee a certain minimum of an overview of the ‘bigger picture’ with its different views and perspectives, leading to a better understanding of the overall issues at hand and of each other.


Furthermore, in order to counter the political manipulation of history, students need to be taught to think critically and have the opportunity to question the information provided, both of which requires skills that should, ideally, be taught within the system of education:


Critical historiographic skills are essential if young people are to be able to identify the intersection between their personal stories and larger collective histories. Only when young people realize that histories are constructed rather than given, can they even begin to contemplate challenging and changing the behaviour that poisons inter-group relations20


Similarly, where ethnic stereotyping is concerned, if students are taught of the fallacies and dangers of it they will be made aware of the subjectivity of their own tendencies to engage in them and thus given the opportunity to counter them timely.


The above-mentioned positive potential of education, if used to the fullest, would, at the least, lead to the possibility for the development of more tolerant and multi-faceted generations, conscious of different points of view and versions of history, possessing the academic skills to question dogmas, and be aware of their own position in the bigger picture of history.


Methodology
Turning back to the project at hand, the analysis is divided into two parts: Part I will discuss some background information necessary for a full comprehension of the subject, and Part II contains the actual analysis of the school books. In the case of Armenian school education the job was not too hard as the schoolbooks are still standardised, following the Soviet system, which means that most (if not all) schools – with the exception of foreign ones – use the same school textbooks. Thus, only one set of history school books – the standardized and ministry approved editions of the 8th and 10th grade history textbooks21 - had to be analysed.


The situation becomes more complex when it comes to Azerbaijan. Because of practical and safety reasons, I was strongly advised by everyone I spoke to not to travel to Azerbaijan on account of my Armenian ethnicity. This, of course, made the research much more difficult. However, I was able to establish contacts with some Azerbaijani social and political scientists, who have been incredibly helpful in providing their views and general information. Especially the work of Ilgam Abbassov was used widely, as he has done extensive research into the representation of the conflict and of Armenians in Azerbaijani school education. In fact, part of the motivation for this subject is due to Abbassov’s research on Azerbaijan’s school books, as it begged the question concerning the situation in Armenia. It is his work that I will mostly be referring to as the Azerbaijani counterpart for comparison.


Two aspects were specifically looked into during the analysis:

Language – what kind of language is used in the educational material? Is it emotionally loaded or presented in a factual, 'scientific' way? In what terms are the events/'the other' described? Are those terms emotionally loaded?
Overall presentation: how are Armenians' and Azerbaijanis' roles in history presented? How are disputed events presented? How strong is the favourisation/victimization of the self and the degradation/dehumanization of the ‘other’? Are there any reasons given for the behaviour of 'the enemy'? In other words, is there any attempt to rationalise that behaviour or is the ‘other’ simply demonized?


Throughout the analysis highlighted events and recurrent patterns and images will be discussed. All translations of examples are my own. While translating I have mainly tried to stay as close to the original as possible in order to convey any subtle nuances it may have.




Findings

The findings of the research were that many similar patterns exist in Armenian and Azerbaijani historical narration in schoolbooks. For instance, prominent common threads include the victimisation and self-enhancement of one’s nation accompanied by the degradation and, in some cases, dehumanisation of the ‘enemy other’. Also, in a strikingly similar way, all misfortunes and defeats are blamed not so much on one’s inabilities, as on external powers and pressures, internal destructive activity of the agents of the ‘enemy’ and the devious nature of the adversary’s alliances with one’s greatest enemies.


However, there are some differences as well. The narrative is much more emotional in its linguistics in the Azerbaijani schoolbooks. The animosity is more direct and overt than in the ever more subtle Armenian narrative. While the dehumanisation of and animosity towards Azerbaijanis in Armenian textbooks can be narrowed down to the description of the events of Sumgait and Baku (see Part I and Part II), in the case of Azerbaijan it seems to be constant throughout the schoolbooks. Also, while the Armenian narrative does not invoke religion as a major factor in the animosity, the Azerbaijani narrative does by practically defining the enemy in terms of religion.


A factor that can be put towards explaining this difference in general emotionality and overtness of animosity in Azerbaijani vs. Armenian historic narratives is the former’s loss of the recent war and the ensuing bitterness and need for self-enhancement at the expense of the ‘enemy other’.


Difficulties
It should be noted that my inability to physically travel to Azerbaijan does render some difference between the analysis of the one over the other. Although the research by Ilgam Abbasov is a very thorough one it only presents me with a secondary source on Azerbaijani data, while the information on Armenia is strictly primary source. This, unfortunately, could not be avoided due to logistics, but I am quite confident that it still allows for some comparative analysis.


Furthermore, although I have tried to remain as neutral as possible, I do not believe a person can completely detach themselves from their personal background. Consequently, my Armenian ethnicity may have influenced this work despite my attempts to not let it do so.


Finally, it should be noted that although an attempt was made at a symmetric analysis, the reality does not always allow for it. Differences as to patterns and accents on presentation between Armenian and Azerbaijani schoolbooks did not allow for a strict division of the analysis under identical subject headings for both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Some issues and patterns seemed to be more present in the one than in the other, and were thus accorded a corresponding amount of discussion in this dissertation.


--

PART II: ANALYSIS

Turning to the actual subject of this work, the analysis of Armenian and Azerbaijani schoolbooks will, as already mentioned, be divided into two main sections. Language and overall presentation of the conflict and the adversary in schoolbooks of both nations will be looked at using highlighted events.



2.1 Language
Especially in the area of conflict theory, language, being one of the most important tools of (individual or group) identity construction, contains more than just a clear and simple delineation of terms agreed upon by humankind to be used while referring to certain concepts and ideas. Language carries with it the power of subliminal and overt empowerment and glorification of some and degradation and dehumanisation of others. The famous example of the ‘freedom fighter’ vs. ‘terrorist’ perhaps most clearly demonstrates how one and the same concept, idea, or person can be constructed as intrinsically good, just and worthy of admiration by some, and evil, fear inspiring and barbaric22 by others just through a calculated use of linguistic terms.


When it comes to schoolbooks, it becomes even more important to consider the linguistics with great caution. While adults have been proven to get swept up and influenced by language in the past, it is even more dangerous for children. Whereas some adults will have the intellectual tools and sufficiency of cynicism to wade their way through explicit and less explicit linguistic propaganda, children of an impressionable school age may not even ever become aware of the influence directed at them, which makes them susceptible to the dangers of it. This is why it is important for this analysis to, among others, look at the pure linguistics of the information provided in schoolbooks in Armenia and Azerbaijan.


2.1.1 Armenia
The language used in Armenian school textbooks on national history shows a clear attempt at being ‘scientific’ and ‘factual’. In most instances very few emotional terms are invoked when describing historic events or persons. However, there are, of course, some jingoistic references.


The ‘Self’; Motherland

When describing the Armenian people, an image of unity and brotherly helpfulness is invoked. For instance, the desire of Nagorno-Karabakh to be annexed to Armenia is also always described as ‘the will of the people....’23; showing unity and purposefulness; or that even “the tragedy of Sumgait didn’t dispirit the Armenian people; on the contrary, it unified it even more”24 etc. Another example of an attempted unification is the referral to Western Armenians (the Diaspora) as ‘our brothers’25 when discussing the latter’s help during the 1988 earthquake. This presents an attempt to invoke a strong emotional bond among the entire Armenian nation, especially considering the strong emotive meaning of the term ‘brother’ in the Armenian language/culture26.


External Forces

A different aspect to this self-image of a united people struggling for their cause is created by the representation of Armenians in the light of external influence. With some exceptions27, the outside world is generally presented as having betrayed the Armenian people on many occasions. For instance it is described in the discussion of the Turkish-Armenian war in 1920, how ‘England, France, other allied forces and the USA abandoned Armenia for good, leaving it alone and helpless’28 [my italics], all quite graphic and emotional terms to describe a political decision on the part of the West29.


When referring to the regions at hand (NK as well as others like Zangezur) the stress is continually laid on their being proclaimed ‘inseparable’ parts of Armenia30 thus rendering a crucial necessity to the preservation of the regions in question as Armenian, in a way invoking the territorial axis of the national identity. Although it is not clarified what will happen in the event of (continued) separation, the multiple repeating of this term with regard to the territories can be expected to plant a certainty of belief in the cause, as the alternative almost seems to endanger the wholeness of the national identity not just by way of territoriality, but also in the way of tearing out the essential national heart.


Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis.

An interesting case of the representation of ‘the other’ is presented in the discussion of the Sumgait and Baku events. The following passage about Sumgait will perhaps be best to summarise the general mood in the descriptions:


Realising that political methods will not succeed in stopping the Karabakh movement, the Azerbaijani authorities, with the permission of the SU Central Committee institutions, opposed the movement with brutal force and a policy of violence. From the 27th to the 29th February 1988 a massacre of the Armenian population of the town of Sumgait (25 km from Baku) was organised. According to official data 27 Armenians were brutally submitted to a torturous death on the hands of the barbarian crowd. However, some witness accounts state that in Sumgait somewhere around 100 people died and 300 were injured. The barbaric actions were accompanied by massacres and looting. As turned out later, the Sumgait genocide was thoroughly organised by the Azerbaijani authorities.31


The similar events in Baku are later on referred to as a ‘new genocide’, 32 the latter being perhaps one of the most emotionally loaded words in the Armenian language.


Several things can immediately be noted about these passages in terms of linguistic and emotional representation. The attacks being described in terms of ‘brutal force’ and ‘policy of violence’, including descriptions like ‘brutally submitted to a torturous death’, ‘barbarian masses’, ‘barbaric actions’, ‘massacres’, ‘genocide’ etc. will be likely to invoke a very strong emotional reaction, corresponding with the one that the tragic event has had for the Armenians ever since it occurred. It is difficult to analyse this event in the light of its relatively recent occurrence and undoubtedly tragic character. As the occurrence of it in itself is beyond any doubt, as are the atrocious characteristics of many of the murders, it begs the question of how much emotionality is too much. It would not be sensible for the future attitudes for the texts to be too detached and blasé about any destruction of human life. The situation gets more complicated if we start considering the future influence of these texts on the upcoming generations and the need for them to, at some point, re-establish communication and find a common language with the progeny of those whose parents were referred to as ‘barbarians’ in their schoolbooks. It is especially striking, as the Khojaly killings are not only not referred to in similar terms, but largely ignored in Armenian schoolbooks, as will be shown later.


Thus, although it would be wrong, in my opinion, to downplay the horrors of Sumgait and Baku and the equally horrific acts at Khojaly as the emotional legacy is very much present throughout the Armenian and Azerbaijani populations respectively, and would be better off out in the open, it would perhaps be wiser to present a fuller picture. In the case of Sumgait and Baku that picture would, for instance, include the many Azerbaijanis who risked their lives to save their Armenian friends and neighbours. This would help avoid the present generalisations, presenting Azerbaijanis not quite as a homogeneous mass, and, simply put, human. As it is now, no mention is made of these counterparts of the ‘barbarians’, inevitably causing the conclusion that the entire Azerbaijani people were out to murder Armenians under the leadership of the official authorities.


As to the organised nature of the massacres, although many theories have been put forward with regard to it (e.g. the phone lines of the Armenian residents cut off, hardly or no emergency services available etc.)33, it has not been proven. This, however, is not mentioned in the schoolbooks, where the authorities’ organisation is presented as fact.

2.1.2 Azerbaijan

In Azerbaijani schoolbooks the patterns are quite similar although much more emotionally loaded and obvious.


The Enemy; Armenia and Armenians

For instance, terms used in the description of people and events include ‘perfidious foreigners’, ‘traitors and cheaters’, ‘drowned in blood’, ‘new massacre’, ‘the lost sweetness of freedom’, ‘the bloody wound of a border’34 and others35. In the meantime, the Azerbaijani people are described as being the victims of these threatening foreigners, the leaders of Armenians, Georgians and other ‘infidels’ who wanted to lead the Turkic bravehearts to self-destruction by sowing disputes among the Turkic brotherhood36.


Oftentimes, the central image of The Enemy is connected to the so-called ‘infidels in black’37. In the 5th grade (approx. 12 yrs old) textbook it is at some point clarified that the ones thus referred to are none other than Armenian and Georgian feudal lords. After that the concept of the ‘infidels in black’ is mentioned several more times, until completely blending in with Armenians38. It is interesting to note the attachment of religious differences to the conflicts. While, according to Ilgam Abbasov, the actual Islamisation of Azerbaijan is not lingered on39, the religious differences of the adversaries are stressed by the above denomination. This is quite striking, as the author believes that the reasons for the active construction of this enemy image of the ‘other’ is the recent war over Nagorno-Karabakh, which, while consistent with the constructed image of the enemy being overwhelmingly Armenian, had nothing to do with religion40.


The 1918 Baku pogroms, lead by Stepan Shaumyan (Armenian in origin) are referred to as genocide - perhaps as a retort to the Armenians’ manifold use of the word - and remembered annually on the 31st of March, becoming a communal trauma for Azerbaijanis.


‘Armenian bandits’ are also blamed for the Baku revolt of 1920, which, we are told, had as its goal the distraction of the Azerbaijani forces from its northern borders leaving them undefended. ‘The infidels in black had done their black deed yet again...’41 This is another example of almost a fairy-tale-like evilness of the ‘infidels’, who, as already mentioned were mainly seen as being Armenian.


The enemy appears again in the 7th grade (approx. 14 yrs old) textbook, for instance in the title of a sub-chapter: ‘the reflection of the struggle of our nation against the “giaours42 in black” in the Dastana43”, with the notable change of ‘infidel’ into the even less neutral ‘giaour’. Again the same explanation is given as to the ethnic background of the ‘giaours in black’ and their cause of disintegrating the Turkic brotherhood from the ancient past onwards44


Finally, this image is completed, nicely fitting into the conspiracy theory that is drawn back into ancient times: ‘during many centuries our enemies the ‘infidels in black’ – Armenians and their patrons – have used many a perfidious and foul scheme to weaken and isolate our state’. 45 This suddenly puts Armenians at the core of the causes of Azerbaijan’s historic problems.


Furthermore, from interviews conducted by Ilgam Abbasov with pupils, it becomes clear that when asked about ‘the enemy’, the pupils automatically associate it with Armenians46. In fact, the author notes that the words ‘Armenians’ and ‘enemy’ have practically become synonyms47, which perhaps goes to demonstrate the effectiveness of the educational policy.


Azerbaijan and the Azerbaijanis

After a discussion of unification of the Azerbaijani community under the commonality of Islam the authors conclude that ‘finally, a united Azerbaijani people was formed’. In the conclusion of the formation of the Azerbaijani nation, the authors of the 5th grade textbook say that this united people inherited the traditions of the Oguz48, adding the old saying, that ‘an old enemy cannot become a friend’49.


Ilgam Abbasov notes how national heroes often play the role of national martyrs, and are glorified for it: ‘those who sacrificed their lives for their motherland, for the freedom of their people, died for a just cause – they will not be forgotten’50


External Forces

Armenians are further referred to as the ‘side-kicks of [Russian] Tsarism’ who ‘maintained direct contacts with Russia and promised to help her occupy South Caucasus, including … Azerbaijani territories’51


Considering all of the above, the terms used to refer to (mostly) Armenians and, in some cases, Russians and other ‘giaours’ have a very clear dehumanising role, defining the adversary not only as different in a degraded sense, but also as a treacherous, deceitful, conniving entity out to cause disruption among the Turkic brethren and take away their historic lands, dating the conflict back into the murky waters of the ancient past.



2.1.3 Comparison

Looking at both Armenian and Azerbaijani education in terms of the linguistics of the representation of the conflict, the self, and the other, several things can be noted. The most obvious similar pattern in both is the victimisation of the self as a nation. The own nation is furthermore presented as brave, valiant and inhabiting its ancient lands that are thus rightfully its own. However, the well-being of the in-group nation and attempts at preserving the historic motherland are met with the treacherous, deceitful ‘other’s’ undertakings pointed solely at the destruction of the in-group through any means and any allies possible.


There is, however, a difference in the level of emotionality and bitterness in the narration. The Azerbaijani narration seems to be more emotionally loaded and direct in its linguistics, not slinking from offensive terms and open and direct verbal assault throughout much of its texts. The representation of the ‘enemy’ is slightly subtler in the overall Armenian schoolbook narrative, mainly limited to the descriptions of the Sumgait and Baku events.