The latest opinion piece on Hujådå/Huyada tries to make it seem as though a Syriac Orthodox church is doing something provocative simply by using its own established terminology in its communication. But the further one reads, the clearer it becomes that the issue is not really about exclusion, but rather an unwillingness to accept that people actually identify themselves differently than others may wish.
The entire argument is built on the idea that Syriac institutions must publicly include the word “Assyrians” in order to be perceived as respectful. Yet the same demand is never made in the opposite direction. Assyrian organizations use their own terminology, symbols, and flags without simultaneously adding “Syracs (Arameans)” to their texts or contexts. No one seems to expect that from them either.
That is where the double standard becomes very clear.
This is therefore not about principles or inclusion, but about control over language and over how other people are allowed to define themselves.
Perhaps the most ironic part of the article is the statement that “this is not a football club,” while the entire argument is characterized precisely by that mentality. Every word is scrutinized as though it were about rival supporter groups where everyone must signal the correct loyalty. The church’s communication is treated as an arena where certain people believe they have the right to decide which words others may use about themselves.
It becomes even stranger when the phrase “other Christians” is presented as proof that Assyrians are regarded as a different people. That is a very far-fetched and constructed logical leap. The phrase was obviously used as a broad category in a specific context, but it is portrayed as though the church had made an official ethnic disassociation. It resembles more a hunt for insults than a genuine attempt at dialogue.
Even the section regarding the comment thread says quite a lot about the level of the debate. The questions were not asked in order to understand or engage in dialogue, but to pressure people into making a public ideological statement. When the bookstore responded that they use the designation “Syriacs (Arameans)” for their people, the matter should really have been settled. They described their own self-identification. Not anyone else’s. Not an attack on Assyrians and not a prohibition against Assyrian identity.
But that answer was not accepted, because the purpose was never truly dialogue. The purpose was to force them to submit to a particular form of language. When that did not happen, the confrontation continued until the comment thread was removed, which was then portrayed as censorship, even though it was rather about individuals attempting to turn the church’s social media into an arena for identity-political conflicts.
The Demands for “Inclusion” Only Go One Way
The most revealing aspect of this entire debate is, in fact, the obvious double standard. Assyrians are completely free to use their terminology, double names, symbols, and flags without anyone demanding that they adapt their language to include others. No one launches campaigns against Hujådå or other Assyrian actors because they do not use the term “Syriacs (Arameans)” in their texts or display Syriac flags in the name of inclusion.
Yet the tone changes immediately as soon as Syriac institutions use their own established terminology. Suddenly, they are expected to add double names, legitimize other people’s identity definitions, and adapt their language so as not to be accused of division. That is where the argument loses its credibility.
The day Hujådå and similar debaters themselves begin consistently using double terminology and actively work for the same “inclusion” they demand from others, perhaps then the reasoning can be taken more seriously. As long as the demands only go one way, this is not about principles or unity, but about controlling how other people define themselves.
The same double standard is also visible in the issue of flags and neutrality within church spaces. When Syriac symbols are discussed, people suddenly refer to the Patriarch’s words that only the cross should dominate the church. But where is the same indignation when Assyrian nationalist flags wave in other church contexts, for example in the Church of the East? If the principle truly is that only the cross should represent the church, then it should reasonably be applied consistently and not depend on which symbols or identities are being used.
Otherwise, it becomes difficult to see this as anything other than yet another attempt to determine which identities are considered acceptable and which are constantly expected to defend their existence.
When people use the designation Syriacs (Arameans), they are constantly expected to explain themselves, defend themselves, and adapt in order not to be accused of division. That is ultimately where the entire opinion piece collapses under its own logic.
One claims to defend respect, yet shows very little respect for people’s self-identification. One claims to fight division, yet turns every word choice into a conflict. At the same time, one argues that the church should not be political, while personally demanding that the church formulate itself according to a particular nationalist template.
The truth is far simpler than this rhetoric of conflict attempts to suggest. People use different designations because people genuinely identify differently. That will not change through more aggressive articles in which Syriac institutions are expected to apologize for using their own names.
That time is over.
Antokia Bokhandel