2024-02-14 07:56:29
The “Fact” interview with Turkologist, YSU Faculty of Oriental Studies Dean Ruben Melkonyan.
– Starting from September, the new Armenian history textbook is being discussed, especially for the 7th grade. Are you familiar with the book and what is your opinion about that textbook?
– Of course, I am not a specialist in Armenian history and I am not familiar with the contents of the textbook, I am familiar with the reviews that were published on social networks and in the press, and I have no reason to doubt the concerns of specialists who raise this issue. I also followed the comments of the author of the book, which show that there are really serious problems here, because the author of the book constantly states that if there are mistakes, then they are bugs. But they are such errors that change the essence of the entire textbook and distort the historical facts to the detriment of the historical past of the Armenian people. It is obvious that it is a problematic textbook, and the concerns raised by the scientific community should not have been accepted with bayonets, but the corresponding reaction shows that these textbooks are crippling, or there is a danger that future generations’ knowledge of our history, our cradle will be crippled.
– A project has been put up for public discussion, that Armenian history should be replaced by the history of Armenia. What is your opinion?
– Here it seems like a language game: the history of Armenia is the history of Armenia, that is, the history of Armenia also includes the history of Armenia. Apart from that, there is a serious gap in interpretation by the authorities, that is, it is not stated what they really want, and the statements that are sometimes non-political, recently Pashinyan also said in his speech that in the history of Armenia, there is also the history of not having the statehood of Armenia. and they want to present the history of Armenia’s statehood, which is quite vulnerable, because Armenian history is the way it was. During that time, there was a period of statehood and a period of absence of statehood, a period of power and decline, and no government can edit history. It is similar to dictatorial countries, where history is adapted to their own goals, but all the same, over time, these ordered histories fail to become dominant. We can see many such examples, such as the history of a certain period of the Soviet years, which is not a source for any serious researcher. The other one that the authorities find it difficult to explain. what does the history of Armenia mean, geographically, that is, we have taken out the history of Cilician Armenia from there, are we limited to the history of which Armenia, only the current Armenia, which reaches 29,800 square kilometers, or the history of other Armenia? Or, if we talk only about states, a very serious question arises. In this region, after 1045, after the fall of the Bagratuni kingdom, statehood was restored in 1918. What happens to those few centuries, is it pushed out of the textbooks, how do they present it? So, the problem itself is already wrong, and the lack of clear explanations from the authorities is added to it, a valid explanation that makes the essence of the problem even more difficult. I also see that the government’s interpretation is not present in the discussions of the issue, which deepens the suspicions and heats up the discussions.