Taub 1 DIASPORIC IDENTITY in ARMENIAN AMERICAN and JEWISH AMERICAN LITERATURES the Jewish People and the Armenians Are Two Separ

DIASPORIC IDENTITY IN ARMENIAN AMERICAN AND JEWISH AMERICAN LITERATURES The Jewish People and the Armenians are two separate cultures that both live under diasporic conditions. While the cultures themselves are not too similar, they share many other parallels with each other due to their mutual diasporic circumstances. Chief among these similarities is a shared struggle with issues of identity as a result of living in diaspora. The Armenian and Jewish peoples’ respective histories offer the prototypical models for diaspora, each similarly the many different qualities usually connoted by that term, both positive and negative. For both groups, the United States serves as the major site for diasporic activity. Due to its unique history and multicultural make-up, the U.S. allows these diasporic peoples the unprecedented opportunity to achieve a hybrid identity. What this means is that they are not considered by others or themselves as simply Jews and Armenians who happen to live in America, or even as exclusively Americans, but rather as Jewish Americans and Armenian Americans. This newfound hybrid identity offers these diasporic communities the opportunity to no longer live in forced exile, but rather to voluntarily decide to establish a new home in diaspora, while at the same time maintaining connections with their respective homelands, both of which are now sovereign nation-states (Kalra 30). This diasporic condition is reflected greatly in the literatures of Jewish and Armenian Americans. The hybrid identity found in diaspora is often portrayed in these literatures as contributing to a fragmentation of self-perception and identity, often accompanied by dual, and dueling, loyalties with respect to the homeland and the adopted hostland. These mixed feelings are exacerbated by the influences of assimilation and alienation in the hostland experienced by Jews and Armenians as members of diaspora. However, the authors portray that people living in a diasporic condition may attempt to retain their heritage and ethnic Taub 1 identity by holding onto cultural memory, which is contained in the diasporic community’s history, religion, language, and also in the family unit. Definition(s) of Diaspora In brief, the term diaspora may be defined as “the collective forced dispersion of a religious or ethnic group, where the group’s cultural heritage is nevertheless preserved and the historical fact of dispersion is retained in its collective memory” (Chaliand and Rageau 3). In addition, diaspora communities usually retain an idealized memory of the original homeland, and they often feel “alienated and insulated” from their adopted location in the hostland. (Safran 83-4). The Jewish Diaspora provides the original example of diaspora, and as such it is often referred to as the “ideal type” or archetypical standard. The diaspora most often described as the closest parallel to the Jews’ is the Armenian Diaspora (Safran 84). The word “diaspora” itself goes back to ancient history. Etymologically, the word derives from the Greek verb, diaspeirein, which means to scatter or strew about like seeds (dia = apart; speirein = to scatter) (Shirinian, A-NAL 25). According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word’s original usage was in the Septuagint (written in Greek in the third to second century B.C.) translation of the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy. Following the Exodus, Moses warns the Israelites of the dire consequences of disobedience: “thou shalt be a diaspora in all kingdoms of the earth” (OED 321). Given the origin of the term, along with the fact that the Jewish case is the first example of diaspora, it is obvious why the Jewish Diaspora is seen as the classic model for diaspora, with the Armenian case right behind it in terms of endurance, size, and influence. There has been some debate about whether diaspora should be viewed positively or negatively. In its original Biblical connotation, it seems clear that diaspora is meant to be seen as a curse and a forced exile from one’s homeland (Mishra 22). While some researchers today still Taub 2 attribute all the evils suffered by communities such as the Armenians and Jews to their diasporic situation, a positive view of the subject has recently gained support. Proponents of a positive interpretation claim that communities living in the diasporic condition are able to become more involved in world affairs and exhibit greater influence, all while symbolizing the growing trends of globalism and transnationalism (Ages 21-22; Tölölyan 4). Diaspora communities themselves are often unable to agree on a singular outlook of the diasporic condition, and this can be seen in the varying relationships between homelands and diaspora communities, as well as between the communities themselves. The multi-faceted view of diaspora life helps to explain why it is so common for members of diaspora to suffer from a fragmented sense of identity. Armenian History Jews and Armenians can claim two of the three oldest diasporas on human record (the Greek Diaspora being the second oldest). While the Armenian Diaspora is not as old as the Jewish case outlined below, it has been around in some form or another for nearly a thousand years. The history of the Armenian people themselves dates back much further to over three thousand years ago, when the Nairi people and the Kingdom of Urartu established sovereignty over the Armenian Highland. These two groups, with connections to the Hittites, Mitannis, and other ancient peoples, co-mingled and brought about the ethnogenesis of the Armenian people. This culminated in the establishment of the Armenian Kingdom around 700-600 BC (Pattie 4). Being over three thousand years old, Armenian history is very rich, and it is one of the main sources of shared identity for modern Armenians around the world. Another strong unifying force among Armenian is religion and the Armenian Apostolic Church. Armenia was the first nation to accept Christianity as the state religion. It did so around 315; Rome followed in 335 (Sourian xv). The Armenian Church subscribed to the Council of Nicea, along with the Taub 3 Catholics and the Greeks, but the Church split and went its own way after the Council of Chalcedon in 451. This caused the Armenian Church to become a major, unique cultural marker for the Armenian people that helped to unify and sustain a distinctive identity. Furthermore, since religion and politics were so closely associated during those times, one might argue that if there had been no argument over theology during the beginnings of the Armenian Apostolic Church, there might not even be an Armenian identity today (Sourian xvi). The Armenian Church contributed to the perpetuation of Armenian identity in another aspect besides religion. It was largely to fulfill ecclesiastical, as well as national, needs that the Armenian government chose to pursue a campaign of “linguistic standardization through the development of a uniquely Armenian alphabet” (Stone and Stone 45), resulting in the creation of one in 404. The invention of the Armenian alphabet sparked the beginning of the independence of Armenian Christianity and culture. For Armenians in the diaspora, language has become “a symbol for the existence of a transnational unified Armenian community” (Yazedjian 45). Even though the language may not be spoken today as widely as it was in the past, it remains a strong component in the definition of Armenian identity. The continuing use of the Armenian language fosters a sense of unity among Armenians and delays the process of assimilation in hostlands (Stone and Stone 45). The Armenian Diaspora dates back to around the eleventh century. Due to Armenia’s position in Asia Minor between the Mediterranean, Black, and Caspian seas, it was essentially at the center of the heavily traveled trade routes between east and west. As a result of this prime location, rival empires often sought to conquer Armenian land, prompting numerous invasions, massacres, and migrations. Since the eleventh century, all or part of Armenia has been under the control of foreign powers, such as the Byzantine, Persian, Greek, Roman, Mede, Georgian, Taub 4 Syrian, Russian, and Ottoman empires (Yazedjian 40). Although there was an Armenian Diaspora of sorts during these times prior to the Armenian Genocide of the 20th century, it was nowhere near as widespread or severe as the renewed Diaspora caused by that ruthless massacre. Western Armenia fell under the control of the Ottoman Empire in the fifteenth century. The Ottoman Empire was run through a millet system, whereby millet status was designated to minority groups on the basis of religious affiliation. This was used as a means of effectively administering control over them. Minority groups under the millet system were allowed to operate under their own religious law, but had to ultimately answer to the Ottoman Empire (in the way of taxes, political affiliation, etc.) (Suny 221; Yazedjian 40). Until the latter half of the nineteenth century, the Armenians were regarded as the "loyal millet" by the Ottoman government. Nevertheless, between 1894 and 1896, the Ottoman Empire’s Sultan, Abdul Hamid, ordered the massacres of approximately one hundred thousand Armenians. The goal of Hamid’s massacres was not aimed at exterminating the Armenian population, but rather at ensuring their continued subservient position as a minority group under the Ottoman Empire (Yazedjian 40). Abdul Hamid was overthrown by the Young Turk Revolution in 1908. At first, many Armenians supported the Young Turks and their calls for change. However, between 1908 and 1913, the Young Turks’ promises of reform gave way to a Pan-Turkic ideology that sought to unite all Turkic peoples. These nationalistic assertions stemmed from the idea of modern nation- states that emerged during that time period, ultimately leading to the First World War. In 1913 a triumvirate representing the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) came to power in the government.

Load more