The authors of the report Coverage of general history of Russia and post-soviet nations in the school History textbooks of newly independent states, A. A. Danilov and A. V. Filippov write the following:564
“The reasoning behind the antiquity of the national history can reach ridiculous proportions. <…> The ancestors of Azerbaijanis are made out to be the contemporaries of Sumerians: “The first written accounts of the tribes of the ancient Azerbaijan are given in Sumerian epics and cuneiform writings”. Heralding the ancient Azerbaijanis as Sumerian contemporaries seeks to shore the allegations that the modern Armenia came into being on the territory of the ancient Western Azerbaijan.
…
The exemption from the scientific rigor opened ample opportunities for blending entirely diverging concepts. A part of the soviet historians claimed that the ethnogenesis of the Azerbaijanis originally occurred on the Turkic basis with contributions from Persian-speaking and Caucasian tribes; later, the ethnic composition progressively became homogeneous and entirely Turkic. Another group of scholars claimed that the ancestors of the Azerbaijanis might speak varying languages in different periods of time, yet undergoing no ethnic changes. The Turkic language rooted itself in as late as the X–XI centuries, but the Turkic people themselves were assimilated by the local population. Both concepts were united in their alignment to the theory of indigenous origin, but were divided in their treatment of the language as the basis of a unified culture.
In this sense, the authors of the modern Azerbaijani textbooks saw no problems whatsoever: “The formation of the Turkic people of Azerbaijan resulted from the amalgamation of Turkic ethnic groups known under different names, such as Azeri, Gargars, Albans, Huns, Khazars, Sabirs, Oghuz and others, which populated this vast territory from the antiquity and migrated there on regular basis”. However, it is known for sure that the most ancient of the listed tribes – Azeris and Albans – have nothing to do with the Turkic people. To this, the authors produce the following answer. “According to historical legend, approximately in the 2nd century B.C. Albania was ruled by Aran… Because of the ruler’s mild character, he was given a nickname Agu (good, kind), and the country came to be known as Aguan (Albania). It is clear that both the name and nickname of Albania’s first ruler are of ancient Turkic origin”. Thus, both concepts of the Azerbaijani ethnogenesis have been mechanically fused together which allowed addressing the antiquity problem, the linguistic unity problem as well as the problem of uninterrupted ethnogenesis and culture. The only drawback of this truly brilliant scheme is that it is anti-scientific through and through. But on the other hand, it allows substantiating a point of paramount importance: “The modern Armenia came into being on the territory of the ancient Western Azerbaijan”.
In this context, threats of obliterating Armenia and Armenians as well as the claims to the Western Azerbaijan which are voiced in various venues invoking the common Islamic factor come across as quite natural.
I have always supported the idea that the Karabakh problem should be made international, that it should be incorporated into the common Islamic problem so that Azerbaijan could lean upon general Islamic support in addressing the problem and ending definitively the Armenian occupation and the consequences of its aggression.<…>
They were brought there by the tsarist empire in the aftermath of wars with Turkey and Iran in the 19th century. Therefore, this issue, the problem of the Armenian occupation of the Azerbaijani lands including Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent regions of Azerbaijan must be resolved drastically. <…>
As a matter of fact, I believe that Armenia as a state has no place in the South Caucasus. It was artificially created and exists on the territory of our Azerbaijani khanate of Irevan. And the khanate of Irevan must be restored as an integral part of the great Azerbaijan <…>.565
19. Armenophobia in the Azerbaijani literature
Do you know the importance of the childhood impressions?
A mere good habit and inclination in childhood can become a virtue at mature age.
Fiction and academic literature represent one of the most extensive forms of propaganda and indoctrination of ideology.
The literature, particularly the children’s literature, is at the core of shaping the world outlook, moral principles and set of values at the very outset of life. It shapes the sense of morality and appraisal, the code of moral conduct and instills aesthetic perception.567
The assessment of the values underlying the future-oriented Azerbaijani society of our day calls for a scrutiny of the literary works which shape certain attitudes, views and ensuing line of conduct in respect of Armenians.
The factors of the territorial vicinity and a long history of coexistence secure a central place in the Azerbaijani literature for the subject of the relationships between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. A comparison of literary works on the subjects of the relationships between Georgians and Azerbaijanis, Azerbaijanis and Russians, Azerbaijanis and Iranians as well as Azerbaijanis and Armenians reveal the salience of the latter in terms of sheer numbers and representative variety. Over recent years, the number of works containing a negative appraisal of Armenians has noticeably increased.
The inculcation of armenophobia occurs in 2 ways: direct and indirect methods.
The direct method represents an open and unabashed propaganda and a straightforward hate speech. Its incidence increased in recent years compared to the rule of Heydar Aliyev, the father of the current president in office.
The indirect method represents a method that does not explicitly designate the ethnic origin in its depiction of the image and its distinctive traits, but makes the reader guess to whom the reference is made based on the events of the narration and the signature style.
Leyla Sayfutdinova who studied specimens of the modern Azerbaijani literature discerned certain patterns. The author notes that the literature draws a very clear borderline between Armenians and Azerbaijanis: “I don’t recall a single case when the national identity of an Armenian character remains unknown or is absolutely irrelevant to the story and therefore, to the relations between Armenians and Azerbaijanis”.568
The author notes that there is a distinction not only in terms of contrasting Armenians and Azerbaijanis, but also in terms of tagging them as “good our” and “bad other” Armenians, which comes to mean those who live in Azerbaijan and visitors, respectively. “Good” Armenians are those who live in Azerbaijan and are fond of their Azerbaijani friends. “Bad” Armenians are their opposites. Most frequently, foreign Armenians, i.e. Armenians who came to Azerbaijan and Caucasus from other places are portrayed as “bad”.569
The study of 22 latest literary works dated after 2008 made it clear that the image of “our” Armenians is portrayed as “pretenders”, and their sincerity raises doubts or calls for vigilance. Thus, the children’s story entitled Spy by Shabnam Kheyrulla570 is quite illustrative in terms of the educational process; the plot contains the character of aunt Aliya, an Armenian woman portrayed through the prism of the Azerbaijanis characters, through the eyes of children and the author herself.