Hanuni said:
It is very unconvenient for you to draw parallells between identity and a certain nation's parties. Not every Assyrian can be a nationalist but it is the people's duty, both nationalists and non-nationalists to make sure that the only flag that is risen by Assyrians as an entity will be the Assyrian flag.
The point is that there are other flags within our community, and other groups within our community (ie. Chaldeans and Syriacs) would object to waiving the Assyrian flag, but would rather raise their own flag. What would you tell them?
The problem is: our people aren't really united. We're largely divided based on which Church we affiliate with. Therefore, before we begin to argue about petty things like flag waving, we should do something about uniting our people when they're so largely divided. I'm aware of many Chaldeans and Syriacs who feel that they're side-stepped and overlooked by many Assyrians, thus they would be hostile towards waving an Assyrian flag. We should work to close the gaps among our own community. To assume we're all united and that waving the Iraqi flag will only divide a 'united' community is erroneous. The waving of a particular flag is not the tool that can be used to unite us.
Hanuni said:
We do not see Kosovar Albanians waving the flag of the Serbia, even though their flag was created way after.
What I'm arguing is that Assyrian is an ethnicity; being Iraqi is a nationality. There's no inherent contradiction between raising the Iraqi flag to show your nationality, or contrastingly, raising the Assyrian flag to show your ethnicity and heritage. I can understand how that may be a problem for an Assyrian-nationalist, but by and large, there are Assyrians from Iraq that have no problem waving a flag of the country they were born and raised in. Again, what's important is that they remember and focus on their Assyrian heritage. Waving an Iraqi flag does not impede on one's love and gratitude for their Assyrian ethnicity and community.
Hanuni said:
Both the Chaldean and Syriac flags are rooted within the Assyrian history. The Syriac flag is even based on an Assyrian relief of Gilgamesh in northeastern Syria. I do not find it appropiate to compare our divided people's flags with foreign flags.
But this is largely whether you consider the Iraqi flag to be 'foreign'. Some would, some wouldn't. Again, some would just be happy to live in peace in Iraq. Also, the half million Assyrians living in Iraq call it their nation and their home. To them, the flag is not 'foreign.' There are people that have only ever known and lived within Iraq. You cannot, however, claim that Assyrians are only nationalists. Perhaps the more passionate ones will tend to be Assyrian-nationalists, yes. But that is not an indicator of who is and isn't a 'true' Assyrian.
Hanuni said:
You fail to realise that it is now our chance has come. When Iraq is stable, Assyrians will find it very hard to find support for the creation of a province in the north.
You should distinguish between stability in relation to the North (the areas administered by the Kurdish Regional Government) and the rest of Iraq (which is administered by (Arabs) in the Iraqi provinces. The North at this point is quite stable (I was there last summer. I'd definitely know if this is true or not). In any case, how would Assyrians particularly find
less support when Iraq is
more stable, and contrastingly find more support when Iraq is less stable and there is more hostility towards Assyrians?
Hanuni said:
Along with the creation of a province; peace and sustanability will be achieved. Assyrians will be run by Assyrians. You just have to look at the KRG today and at the days of Saddam.
How would Assyrians be able to negotiate a province, and eventually, a homeland if their numbers are continually decreasing? What good is an idealistic approach towards an Assyrian homeland if it has no inhabitants? Which is why I'm continually suggesting that peace and security for Assyrians must be the first and top priority. You cannot negotiate a province or a homeland if your people aren't even secure in their own location. In any case, I believe that it is considerably more difficult to secure a province or a homeland than it is to slowly begin to afford protection and security to the Assyrian people living in Iraq. When there is a guarantee that we can handle and patrol our own villages and towns, we would be in a greater position to negotiate.
Hanuni said:
And when you focus on an Assyrian homeland, you automatically in most cases think of the wellbeing of our people in the area. Assyrian parties claiming a province are doing it as they believe it will benefit us, not the other way around. Apart from that, I agree with you.
I see your point. But again, I'm sure we can both agree that peace and security for Assyrians is very important. And that in order to properly negotiate provinces to be controlled by Assyrians themselves, the Assyrians must actually be in a safe environment. We can't physically fight our way into creating an Assyrian-administered province, or a homeland (because our people are very few in Iraq in comparison to the rest of the population and we do not even maintain a militia); it must be negotiated.
Hanuni said:
I hope you are aware of the fact that we are today considered a diaspora people.
Yes, it's why I continually mentioned the 'Assyrian Diaspora' in various parts of my last post.
Hanuni said:
I also hope you are aware of the fact that a people outside of it's territory is considered to be able to live 150 years with their identity until the assimilation is partly completed. Assyrians survived in Assyria as we were of a different faith and persecuted and kept on to our language. We are not persecuted in the west and will assimilate sooner or later. You just have to look at Assyrians in America and compare them with Assyrians in Europe to understand that parallell.
You definitely bring up an interesting point. Which is why it's absolutely important for Assyrians to continue to teach their language and culture to their offspring. If it's true that it takes 150 years for a culture to assimilate when it is not living within its own territory, then it should be important to ensure that the actual population in Iraq does not continue to decrease, and in order for that to happen, we must push for greater protection and security for our people before we begin to idealize an Assyrian homeland. Unless conditions in Iraq for Assyrians get better (and even if they do, but are not as well as the conditions in which Assyrians in the diaspora live), I doubt we will see a mass migration of Assyrians back to where they originally lived. The Assyrian population in Iraq is diminishing...but it doesn't have to. There must be greater efforts to first ensure the protection of Assyrians Christians, and secondly to then be able to negotiate Assyrian administered provinces when Assyrians are no longer living under persecution.
Hanuni said:
The term Assyrian does indeed represent a nationality and nation.
Historically, yes. We once had a nation. But we're in the 21st century. Times have changed. We no longer have a nation (granted that nation in this context does not refer to a culture of people, but rather to a nation-state with distinct borders, and territory). I accept the fact that we have an Assyrian nation in the sense of having a common culture, and a large community. But a nationality refers to citizens of an actual recognized country; not an imagined country, or a an ethnicity/culture/community. The sense of nation (as a community, and not a sovereign nation-state) cannot be reduced to mean a ?nationality.?
We're considered a people without a home for a reason. We may exist metaphorically or spiritually as a nation, but we are, first and foremost, an ethnicity. Ethnicities and cultures precede nationalities.
Hanuni said:
Your thinking is western oriented which is exactly what the state you are living in wants you to think.
I don?t see how my statement, about ?nationality? referring to membership in a particular independent country, is particularly ?western oriented.? It?s quite basic. If you are a citizen of a country, then that is your nationality. If you aren?t, then you cannot claim your own ethnicity as a nationality. I can understand your argument that there is an Assyrian ?nation? in the sense of an Assyrian community but your argument that being 'Assyrian' can also refer to a nationality is not very convincing. If every ethnic group decided that their ethnicity can count as a nationality, then the term ?nationality? would lose its distinction and would essentially become meaningless. In turn, there would be no need to differentiate between ?ethnicity? and ?nationality?, but clearly, the distinction is quite important and many recognize this.
Thus if we?re strictly speaking about definitions and their meanings, then it?s inaccurate to label Assyrians as a nationality. At this point, it almost seems as if you?re either failing to distinguish between what is an ethnicity and a nationality, or you deny that Assyrians are an ethnic (rather than a national) group of people. And again, Assyrian-nationalism does not refer to Assyrian as a ?nationality.? It refers to the promotion and struggle for Assyrian independence, self-determination and the creation of an Assyrian homeland (and since there is no homeland, the term ?nation? in this context cannot refer to ?nationality? but merely an ethnic ?community'). You should be able to distinguish between the two.
Hanuni said:
Assyrians were represented as a nationality in peace conferences of major powers in WWI, if we were not a nation and nationality we would be able to have leaders in those conferences.
Assyrians that were scheduled to participate in the Paris Peace Conference (assuming that?s what you?re referring to) were from three main delegations: the American delegation, the Mesopotamian delegation and the Iranian delegation. They were being represented as an ethnic group (and a community), not as a nationality (since they belonged to different nationalities), unless you can produce a reputable source to back what you?re claiming.
