EXPRESSION OF HATRED: HOW AZERBAIJANIS SPEAK ABOUT ARMENIANS IN THE BLOGOSPHERE
by Arzu Geybullayeva
times.am
06.02.12, 11:35
International Alert, an NGO based inLondonworking on conflict
resolution, did a study on how people on opposite sides of the
conflicts in theSouth Caucasusperceived each other. Balcanicaucaso.org
presents an article which focuses on how Armenians were depicted in
online discourse inBaku. This is an insiders’ look into the dark side
of the Azerbaijani blogosphere.
A group of scholars, researchers, and specialists was selected to
examine a range of sources, from history textbooks, to the media and
blogosphere, as well as speeches made by politicians to understand
better the dynamics behind the conflicts in theSouth Caucasus. The
aim of this research, “Myths and conflict”, was to identify key words,
narratives, and other innuendos that reference the concept of “us vs.
them” or “friend vs. enemy”. I was part of the research team. In my
research, I looked at the Azerbaijani blogosphere in order to identify
systemically-used stereotypes and propaganda to dehumanize Armenians
andArmenia. The results of this research will be released in early
2012 and should be available through International Alert’s website.
Dehumanizing the ‘other’ The tone used to talk about Armenians in
the online media – possibly even more than in traditional media – is
clearly one of hate. This is part of a process of dehumanization of the
enemy that is characteristic of conflicts in general. Communication
and media analyst Karim Karim suggests that “hate-mongers can then
‘justify’ acts of violence and degradation because they have denied
the humanity of their victims”.
This definition fits the rhetoric of hate-oriented blogs inAzerbaijan.
In fact, dehumanization is at times combined with belittling,
name-calling and other degrading comparisons in the majority of posts
targetingArmeniaand Armenians. As a result one can clearly see the
extent of bitterness, anger, and adverse attitudes that exist between
the two countries not only in traditional outlets but also in the
parallel world of online content. In this parallel world, hate 2.0
is taken to a completely different level with no strings attached
and no responsibility taken for what is said, illustrated, and written.
Azerbaijani blogosphere Though the Azerbaijani blogosphere is barely a
decade old, blogging has become more popular inAzerbaijanonly in the
last two to three years. According to the most recent Freedom House
report, there are in total about 27,000 blogs operating on various
blogging platforms.
Topics vary extensively with authors writing about art, movies, food,
society, tradition, politics, social issues, and more. Of course,
among the most widely-discussed themes in blogs and popular blogs
are the Karabakh conflict, relations betweenArmeniaandAzerbaijan,
and negative perceptions of Armenians. Let us call them “hate blogs”.
The most common theme for hate blogs is mutual perceptions. It is
also the most explicit and acute theme in terms of the language used,
analogies made, and the overall attitude. Being a blogger myself
who works in the conflict resolution field, reading these blogs
was unpleasant to say the least. The appalling descriptions used in
reference to the “other” – such as descriptions portraying “them” as
thieves, liars, drunks, prostitutes, and cave propagandists – later
appeared to be “kind” when compared to some of the analogies that
were simply beyond my ability to comprehend. It was almost as if the
authors were reassuring themselves and their readers that the “other”
was no longer a human and that it was ok to humiliate them, belittle
them, kill them, let them die, and get rid of them all together.
In a post about the shooting death of an Armenian civilian – a shepherd
– by the Azerbaijani military forces on the border, an Azerbaijani
blogger concluded “In any case, there is one less Armenian and this
is the happiest part of this news story” [Post originally written in
Azerbaijani]. The post expressed no regret about the actual death,
and even championed the incident.
In another post, the author comparedArmeniato a disease that should
be eradicated. “Yeah, almost forgot, the worst flu I am referring to
have a similar name to that of bird flu and swine flu, in our language,
we call it “Armenian flu”. The symptoms of this flu include hypocrisy,
fraud, and double standards” [Post originally written in Azerbaijani].
In an additional spin to the post, the author proudly added: “We are
sick with this Armenian trash! […] Hypocrisy they have, terror they
have it […] Now I think, will we even find a vaccine against this
dangerous flu? Let’s not forget: to find a vaccine is written only
in our destiny.”
These and other examples that were used for the purpose of this
research indicated an important factor: youth are also becoming deeply
affected by the negative relations between the two countries that
are reflected in the media, general political statements, and the
overall attitude of the government. The clear annihilation messages,
the overall tone of the posts, and the bloggers’ hostile attitudes
were in no way creations of these bloggers but rather the results
of decades-long policy and measures taken by the local government to
further embed anger and hatred.
Future of hate 2.0 No doubt, this research only reveals the tip of
the iceberg. This is just another example of the fact that in spite
of its extremely powerful liberating potential, the Internet is not
intrinsically good.
It can be used to strengthen stereotypes and can contribute to shaping
public opinion in the favour of conflict.
As the research shows, many young people inAzerbaijanhave very strong
positions regarding the conflict that are unsupportive of the peace
process to say the least. It also indicated the amount of work that
needs to be done as well as the pressing need to take concrete steps
in gradually shifting these negative attitudes, building positive
relationships, fostering dialogue and creating space for mutual
understanding rather than hatred betweenArmeniaandAzerbaijan. More
importantly, the research underscores the need to start this work to
promote mutual understanding among youth in particular.
Perhaps, hate 2.0 inAzerbaijanis here to stay. But there is a chance
that online communities with access to first-hand accounts of the
‘other’ will instead mostly contribute to changing attitudes for the
positive in the region as a new, tech-savvy generation grows. Sure
enough, alternatives to “hate 2.0” exist and are possible. The online
world is the world of opportunities, after all…