timucin

Martin, Thank you for your kind words; whatever makes you happy. But just one question: when you seemed to be understanding me perfectly previously, during some other discussions, which are naturally on record in this forum, were you pretending? You were not bad, you fooled me. take care t.

Martin, I think the discussion is getting out of control. Are you sure you are having this discussion with me, or is there another Timucin somewhere here? I am either doing a terrible job in presenting my case, which is possible since I have done it before, or we belong to separate mindsets so different from each other that we cannot even understand each other. I am assuming the second one is the case, and therefore, with your permission, I will throw in the towel. Let me give you a couple examples. About blackmailing, I actually had the Turkish side in my mind. It never crossed my mind that I could blame the Armenian side for it. While at it, you should have picked up my other posts that I wrote against the Turkish state. So, you would see how I feel about it. Another example was the Turkish state being run by others. I do not really know how you got that. No wonder you find it absurd. You perhaps needed to know what the ‘Devlet’ thing is about. I thought you knew enough about the situation in Turkey that I did not see the need to go into explaining what I meant by this concept. My fault. I should have guessed it. A few things before I go: I do not see myself as a victim. That is your assumption. I did not say such a thing anywhere in my post, and in fact, if I recall it correctly, never in my posts. Perhaps, you are making me part of some ‘we’ I am not part of. Secondly, I am not a psychiatry major. Before I go, you mention that you took my ‘try to be a human being for once’ statement as an insult; it was not meant to be an insult. There was again a point there that you missed. I know you are a human being; I do not think you are anything else. I was simply trying to point out to the fact that most of us, almost all of us, are still not able to get out of our ethnic identities, to see that these are actually imagined and constructed identities. Of course, this is my opinion; you do not have to agree with it. Why should I try to insult you anyway? But, I apologize anyway. So, in order not to cause further misunderstandings and more insults or so-called insults, I think it is better to quit this discussion. I cannot go on with it anyway, when almost everything I wrote is being misunderstood (I only gave a couple examples). But, the war and infantry part was the funniest. I used them as metaphors. I don’t expect anyone to grab weapons and start shooting. Anyway, thanks for whatever it was worth. I got myself a valuable lesson. t. [ September 08, 2001: Message edited by: timucin ]

Ali, The work was an interview made with Aron Rodrigue on 'Difference and tolerance in the Ottoman Empire' in Stanford Humanities Review, 5.1, 1995: 81-90. I was talking about the Ottomans only, not the conditions in the present day Turkey. There I agree with you. I think you are a bit more mixed than I am; I do not have slav, french, and I think neither Afsar, nor Kayi. Did you get my private message. It was my first time using it, so I want to make sure it made it. Even though you may be answering my other post, I am not so sure if I can in detail, since I may be busy with something else in coming days. But, I will still try to say a few things. t.

Ali, Thanks for the input about my forum. It is actually a personal brain storming area for me, so I do not much care about making it a major forum. I like hye forum too, but I do not have the forum technology they have. The Balck background coler may be a problem, you are right. I will try other options. About organizing it better, it seems that the main contributors of my place, which are not too many, sort of voted for that arrangement. Otherwise, I am also organizing it a bit better, but then I have a problem with rigid lines, tables and the like. Sometimes I enjoy chaotic arrangements more. But, then, the Hye forum is a collection of many mini-forums with a high volume of participants. I am just a mini-forum with an identity problem. anyway, thanks for the input again

Dear Martin, I am not so much becoming part of the academia either. That is why I stressed the difference between academicians and intellectuals. And, in the world of intellectuals, I did have enough experience. I hope you are not assuming that I am about to start my life just now, fresh from the college. The only reason I am even slightly considering academic life is because I can have access to some sources. That is it. I already know what it is and that I know I do not want to part of it. By the way, I thank you for offering to provide me with your experience of the academic life, but I plan to do it, if I ever, in Turkey. With all due respect, at this point, I do not think I will go on discussing the genocide issue any further. I simply do not have the time, and owing to our different backgrounds and contextual conditions, I do not think we will really be able to get anywhere. I can discuss here for hours about the Ottomans, Turkey’s responsibility, non-political aspects of the Genocide issue, various historical approaches, and we will probably not get too far. I have observed quite a few Turks over the years in these forums, and in other dimensions of life in Turkey on this issue and I have seen many that were able to change in a positive manner. I am yet to see equal number of Armenians, perhaps with the exception of one person, okay, maybe two, to show anything in similar terms. Under these conditions, I do not think much will happen between our respective groups. I have still not seen a special discussion in a Turkish forum devoted to proving or showing the genetically messed up nature of the Armenian race. Perhaps, there is, I do not know, although I have seen quiet many Turkish forums. Your ‘court’ example is most interesting, and thanks for giving us the right to say that we can plead guilty or not guilty. I am touched, but there are a lot of questions I can ask about this example. Of course I forgot, I am not allowed to question, but I will do it any way. Who makes up the jury for example? And, why the jury system anyway? And, what happened to the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty? Or, what about not influencing the jury, keeping our mouths shut until the case is resolved? Give me a break. The whole thing became a political struggle, a struggle in which considerations of time, interests, cornering the other side, blackmailing became important tactics. I wish this was not the case, but unfortunately it is. My personal feelings and convictions unfortunately do not count a bit in this mess. I will of course go on saying what I believe is the right thing, but I hardly think, especially in line with some of the posts Steve wrote here, I can really make even a smallest difference in this craziness. You, I guess, still do not get it: the genocide is neither an Armenian nor a Turkish property. It belongs to us, the whole humanity. It is our failure as humans, the failure of the modern project, and the most obvious signal that we need to explore other options. The Genocide convention and various attempts to supposedly correct the wrongs based on this convention or other modern legal concepts is simply another way of not dealing with the problem, but creating excuses for it. Can you for a minute imagine yourself as a human being and see myself not as a Turk, which is not a very correct approach in my case anyway, but just as a fellow human being. Turkish state is a Turkish state in your mind. In fact, it is just another state happened to be run by people who call themselves Turks now. This means nothing. It is the ‘Devlet’ (state) as we Turks say it. You guys, my apologies for the undue generalization, make it an ethnic thing. What am I saying here? Give up the whole thing? I guess not. There is this dimension of the whole thing which is us about not giving it up. We will continue with what we think is the right. But, there is also the other dimension of the same thing which is about us not even getting close to hiding the problem right on the target by sticking to what we think is the right approach, and because of this we will fail. There is one thing, however, you are correct about: time is not working for neither of us, if we see things in terms of two separate nations. The solution of the problem perhaps lies in opposing the Turkish state, the ‘Devlet’, but there is simply no movement that has taken this as its goal at the moment. And, without such movement, nothing is going to happen. You may bomb the enemy in the field, but eventually you need to send in the infantry. Where is the infantry? It is nowhere to be seen. You want a war to bring down the Turkish State then you make one, and if you cannot make one then the rest is simply b.s. The simple truth is that the Armenian side is not making a war. A lot of talk, but no action. Let us go to the French parliament, let us go to the American Congress, or lobby this congressperson or that one. Good luck. Let us have a movie with Akcam and Dadrian, where Dadrian tells the whole world that he cannot do research in Turkey because he is afraid of getting killed there, yeah, as if all these things are going to accomplish anything. Perhaps more will be accomplished, if Dadrian would just go to Turkey and appeared in his hometown. Okay, you may ask me how come I am not doing anything of this sort. Well, I simply do not care. I have realized that Turkey is the most democratic country as long as you do not mess with anything, like any other country. I do not see any reason why I should mess with anything. Perhaps, when my daughter grows up, and perhaps, like me in past, gets involved in political struggles, and perhaps gets herself in jail, tortured and even killed, then I will probably become a vigilante of some sort. Perhaps nothing of the sort will happen, my daughter will meet the world of drugs, fun and sex. Or, perhaps she will fall in love, decide to come back to the States, where she was born, live somewhere in LA happily and forever. Life is funny. Just a couple weeks ago, I was attacked on the streets of San Francisco, while doing my job; nothing serious. I could have beaten the shit out of the attacker, I am actually capable of doing it, but I did not, because I though about my job, the possibility I might have lost it if I got involved in this incident, the fact that my daughter’s life depended on my being a normal citizen, not a hero, and many other things. Twenty years ago, I would not have even thought for a second. The simple fact is that the Turkish State will never do anything to me, unless I get myself involved in certain activities that will target its very existence. You may have the idea that the evil Turkish state is after everyone in Turkey, but that is simply not the case. As long as you do not pick up a fight with it, you can have your own life without nothing happening to you. When I go back to Turkey I may get myself into the academic life, become a teacher in a university, teach a few classes, and occasionally pretend to be a cool guy by making anti-establishment statements in the class, and in summers go down to my hometown by the Aegean Sea, Bodrum, spent some beautiful weeks, get on a boat, have a cruise, and come back to my simple existence, get paid and go on. Or, I might set up my own business in my hometown, chat with friends, do a little drinking, a few trips here and there, read a little, get on the forums, if I still find them interesting, and live happily. This is a fact, simple as that, and as long as this is the fact for quite many people nothing will change. Well, this is it. Perhaps, there is not much coherence in what I have just written. Take it anyway you like. It is perhaps a discourse of and by an anti-hero. By the way, I was not trying to mail you the Dadrian paper. I though I had made this clear. And, my point was that Ali might have been in surprise for what he thinks the Armenian side says about the Hamidian massacres and the genocide of 1915. There is actually a disagreement on this point as Dadrian has developed his theory that the Hamidian massacres were not simply massacres to fix a few problems in the Empire, but were preparatory exterminatory measures, testing the grounds type, the outcome of which was 1915, the final solution. And, the reason I had mentioned that Dadrian had evolved was not because I see anything wrong with this kind of behavior, but that he (Ali) should read at least all of his major works in order to be in a better position to reach conclusions. As far as I know there are three major works by him, not including the exchange between Turkish and Armenian historians. I have read all of them, and am now in the process of going over in detail the History of the Armenian Genocide. It was interesting to read that you are friends with Suny. I have read at least one of his other works on some other ethnic stuff, not Armenian Genocide, and I admire some of his thoughts. t.

Thorny, Katliam is what Ali said, not 'soykirim'. And, I am not so sure if the Ottomans really cared much about destroying an ethnic group. In any case, the 'soykirim' is a new word. The actual word, one that is the closest in Turkish to the concept of killing in greater numbers is 'kiyim'. But, since there was the idea of group punishment in the Ottoman Empire, I am not sure how negatively or positively they approached the issue. The evolution from the group to the individual responsibility in punishment starts with the 19th century reforms. And Ali, I am not so sure if one became a Turk by converting in the Ottoman Empire, but a Muslim. All the studies I read in this respect, especially one I would really recommend, talk about becoming a Muslim, not a Turk. Being a Turk was impossible, it was just for a few chosen ones. Just kidding, that is, with the last sentence. t.

quote Dear Martin, I gave you the reference. It comes from the 1998 summer issue (no 2) of Armenian Forum. I am sure you know this journal by Vincent Lima, Ara Sarafian and other Armenian scholars. This was the issue about that ‘exchange’ between the Turkish and Armenian scholars of R.G. Suny, E.D. Akarli, S. Deringil, and V.N. Dadrian. I do not think I linked Sultan Hamid to the CUP in my post, but if you are interested in such a link you should probably refer to Dadrian’s ‘The Armenian Genocide and the Pitfalls of a “Balanced” Analysis’, written in reply to Suny in the same source I just mentioned and from which I took the previous quote, and read on page 76 the section titled ‘The Consultative Relationship Between Abdulhamid and Ittihad’. I believe you will find enough information about such a link. I wish I could write the whole thing here, but I am too lazy. Unfortunately, I cannot mail the only copy I have either. However, there is nothing alleged about this statement. If you need the address of the journal it is the following: The Gomidas Institute, PO Box 208, Princeton, New Jersey 08542-0208. Ph: 609-883-9222. t.

Dear Ali, First, I would like to start with some manners. Don’t worry nothing is wrong with your manners, but mine. I forgot to greet you, to say a simple hello. Well, by profession I am a sailor, and hence some bad manners. Anyway, I am pleased to meet you. It looks like we do not have too many disagreements here, except with a few points. (1) I did not try to say that the sufferings of the other groups were not recognized. However, these recognitions were actually done in relation with some other goals and agendas. By the way, I am aware of quite a few studies in this area. It is a very interesting topic, and it is not necessarily connected to fixing old crimes. There is also the issue of the creation of new identities and histories, and when looked closely, one will see that the genocide discussions, the so-called fixing up old crimes, coincide with the emergence of identity politics, which roughly correspond to the 80s. And, even in this limited fashion, the justice is still not done as much as one would expect it. As soon as these western nation-states get their acts together, and form new histories and identities, my guess is that we will not hear of genocide arguments anymore. In fact, if the Turkish State even agrees to a token of recognition, the whole thing will go down. But of course, if Turkish State denies it long enough the whole thing may again go down anyway, since unfortunately nobody today has the power to coerce Turkey into a recognition it does not want. And, when even the Armenian Patriarch cannot show the bravery the Armenian cause requires from him, perhaps for very good reasons, what is the Armenian cause to accomplish? Yes, the Armenian side says that the Patriarch in Turkey is under coercion, unable to talk freely. Now, let’s pause here for a second. If I was the Patriarch and felt deeply about this issue, I would not hesitate for a minute to talk even if it was to cost my life. In 70s and 80s, quite many Turkish scholars and intellectuals did not hesitate to talk about the State even though good numbers of them were gunned down, but they did not give up. So, this argument does not make sense, and the Patriarch is probably able to see certain things better than the majority of us: the fact that the Armenians and other third class countries like ours and like Armenia may be for another treat as they were before by the greater powers. . I am not trying to establish another conspiracy theory here, but simply trying to point out some other parameters that were in existence 80 years ago and they still are. Although Dadrian makes use of this topic quiet a lot I think he does not go all the way with it. He is probably thinking deep down that this is the only chance the Armenians have. I think the opposite. I am afraid the whole thing will be thrown outside the window in a few years, and actually, I do not want this. I want to go all the way with this and expose those other parameters and perhaps start dialogues that will lead to better cultural configurations. (2) Not every group needs to show the same reaction in case of massacres and genocides. One of the solutions is forgetting what happened and getting on with the business. Some groups go for this solution. However, even among the Caucasians and some Balkan descendants started, just recently, feelings of getting even with those guilty ones about what happened to their ancestors. I in fact have such ancestors, but personally, I feel nothing. Then again, good part of these newly emergent political attitudes has more to do with the spread of neo-nationalistic feelings almost everywhere. We are in another nationalistic phase. This forgetting of old wounds by these Muslims was also greatly helped by their chance to work their traumas and sufferings through Armenians and Greeks inhabitants of Anatolia by simply killing and stealing from them. A very strong and responsible government was needed at the time, but it was nowhere to be found. People who were mostly the migrants from Balkans and other areas the Muslims were kicked out were running the state. The Ottomans had no means of dealing with the problem. In 1860s, within a few years, 1 200 000 landed in Eastern Black sea harbors of Trabzon, Samsun and others. One account talks about 80 000 hungry, homeless and sick people in Trabzon who destroyed most of the trees and fields to find something to burn so they would keep warm, something to eat so they would stay alive, so they would feed their kids. The ones who could get out of this winter had to struggle with Malaria. Finally, they were put in the carts, not trains, sent to various places in Anatolia, where they found plenty of people they could clash with. I am only talking here about the Circassians. Since some of those survivors I am here today, the topic is of personal interest for me. But, the exodus from Balkans was not much different either, and it did not happen only in 1923. It started more like around 1820s, and continued until the end of the Second World War. Now imagine how would the Ottoman State be able to deal with these numbers that would create nightmares even today for most governments. Try to land 1.2 million of Mexican immigrants in Los Angeles or San Diego, or in Amsterdam, or in Oslo, in a few years. I am not trying to justify anything by the way. I am not trying to say that these people had every right to kill and steal from the Christians of Anatolia. Not at all. But, without a strong government, and especially with a nationalistic one, one that had its own leaders traumatized from the events, the things were bound to get bloody and they did. There was no United Nations to send in to go between extremely polarized groups. I read once this account in a book by a Serbian historian in which this particular scholar quotes an Ottoman ***** telling a European statesman that he would not advise messing up the balance in Balkans, since nobody would be able to fix it for a hundred years. It has been nearly 120 or years, the problems in Balkans are still not fixed. One may go on blaming everything on the Ottomans, or see things in a larger context, while not getting apologetic or justificatory on anything, to have a healthier analysis and consequently solution to the present day problems. (3) At any rate, there are at least two dimensions to every genocide problem in my opinion. One is the experiential/ psychological dimension and the other one is what I would call the discursive/logical dimension. Both dimensions need their own type of solutions. The discursive/logical solution is never sufficient to deal with the psychological dimension, since, because of the nature of the genocidal acts, we are actually dealing with the non-logical side of humans. Someone kills my daughter in the most brutal way, let us say, my logic will simply stop functioning there. Being unable to produce an emotional counter-response to the situation, I will most likely revert to discursive/logical ways and create justificatory or vigilante style discourses or anything of the sort. I do not really have a ready-made solution for this kind of psychological situation, and so far the scholars I went through did not either. In fact, there is really no full recovery from a trauma, the original kind. However, the generations following the original one do have a choice and ways to deal with these discourses or create their own ones. I am perhaps not making sense here, but the main point I am trying to convey here is that there are two dimensions to this subject. What I see is that the demand is for psychological healing, but the method is a discursive/logical type. In the area of psychological healing, I see, in crude terms, in not so sophisticated terms, two options: you may kill or you may meet. An apology or recognition of the institutional and very general form, the one between states, I believe, will not bring the desired psychological effect, although it may, if done carefully, prepare the groundwork for the latter option of meeting. (4) There is also the issue of the Turkish State that needs to be resolved, and in this, in blaming the Turkish State for its denial of the Genocide, I am very much with most people. However, the subject in this area is not so easy to deal with either. And realistically, without a movement of any kind, which certainly does not exist in Turkey anymore, I do not see how feasible such a subject of going against the Turkish State is. It is hardly more than attacking windmills. Well, I am too tired to get into this subject, but if you are interested Ali, and perhaps you too Martin, I have written quite a bit on this subject of the Turkish State in my own forum. In fact, I would like to invite you Ali, although it is nothing like this one, and perhaps even boring in some ways – definitely a slow moving forum. I am not inviting you Martin, because I suspect you already know. In case you do not, you are more than welcomed. My forum is http://network54.com/Forum/129843 t.

Martin, Everything is questionable, and must be questioned before taken in intellectually. I guess this has been my motto all my life, since the day I read about the French Revolution when I was I think eleven or twelve. It doesn’t matter anymore whether French Revolution was really about this principle or whether they succeeded. To me this has been one of the most important principles in my life, causing me to resist quiet many ‘we’s (Snif, sniff, I am touched; where is my handkerchief, tears are rolling down my eyes). I have heard ‘Let the academicians deal with these issues’ quite many times. Personally, I do not understand why you even made this statement, since if you did not know or want to say anything about the subject you could simply choose not to make any comment at all. But, you chose to make a comment and you chose to make this particular comment in the name of some not very clear ‘we’. Though this ‘we’ may amount to nothing, it still somehow points out to a deep down desire or satisfaction to be part of a particular ‘we’. Anyway, just a point to keep in mind, and to remember it, when we are perhaps back to the topic of being members of our respective sick nations, which you euphemized yours as being ‘deeply wounded’. What happens to a collective consciousness, to a collectively created and shared psychological substratum, when deeply wounded, would certainly make an interesting subject, especially if this substratum has still not gotten its chance to work out and/or through this wound…The answer is simple: it stays not healthy, unhealthy, disorderly, sick, ill, and yes, very wounded. What I may say about these subjects is actually not so much important from the perspective of my own personal interests, other than receiving a personal intellectual satisfaction of some sort: a plaque here or an interview there – perhaps a move of my own. I mean simple stuff. In fact, I thought I had made this clear by saying that I was going to skip this subject. The real beneficiary in the discussions of these issues is really are those who are actively pursuing political and long-term cultural ideals as you and perhaps the ‘we’. For if there is any weakness in this area that could not resist to a few questions then I would think that it would make sense to explore this weakness in order to remedy it before it is found by others. Closing the channels of communication to certain ideas/questions, and especially hiding behind overused and not-so-smart excuses such as ‘let us leave it to the academicians’ will only worsen this weakness. The efforts to ban or fine anti-genocidal or anti-holocaustal statements, discussions or theories in certain countries are already well known, and one can wonder how far these clearly undemocratic practices will go. After all, if the concept of genocide is a secure concept then there should be no reason to be afraid. But of course, I forgot, these are in the name of the truth. What was it? Certainly, one may answer me back by saying that I am one among many and many believers. Perhaps, but then, there were a very few who questioned the Bible, the Quran, and God. … The modern era, and the societies that came with it, is build upon the idea of the public engagement in discussions of all sorts. This was at least the spirit of the early modern era. It is nice to have experts, but the main idea in the modern societies is that the public must get involved in discussions so the preservation of what arrives at the end of these discussions will be very much permanent and/or much more stable. Take the public away, remove it from certain discussions, do this in the name of the idea that some discussions are well beyond the capacities of the public, or are not needed by it, and then there will be other occasions from which the public will be excluded in time, and soon will come the end of democracy. Democracy is not about some rights on some paper. It is a practice by the public, before it is of and for the public. And, this practice starts from and with very small examples. What is the power of the public? It is a simple numbers game. Academicians are humans too, and like most humans they are as easily susceptible to certain conditions I would call, because I cannot come up with a better term, social diseases such as fundamentalism, racism, extreme nationalism, conservatism (the last one is somewhat questionable). The public is not the smartest, in fact, I hate its average-ness (perhaps deep down I am one of those conceded jerks who thinks who is the gift to humankind, who knows), but the fact remains that they also represent the best means for ensuring long term stability by getting rid of some of serious problems right from the beginning. The accumulation of knowledge in certain hands must constantly be checked, and one effective method, at least one we have been able to come up with so far, is public discussions. If ten people discuss a subject they may reach an agreement on a bad idea, but if a million people argue about a subject, the chances are extremely little that the bad idea that may control small numbers easily will control everyone, that is, if they are allowed for public discussions freely, without restrictions. This is kind of elementary knowledge, since Mill presented it in detail in the 19th century, but perhaps there is need once more to bring it up. You may perhaps find it advantageous for yourself or your ‘we’ that certain discussions are left to the academicians. I see the same kind of tendency on the Turkish side. And honestly, if I agree with your argument then I will also have to agree with the Turkish proposal that the discussion of the Armenian Genocide must be left to the historians. Furthermore, there should actually be no discussions on this subject, since we definitely have academicians, professionals and experts in the field of politics, too, and we should let them discuss for us. But, it is most ironic that we can refer to the Genocide definition of the Genocide Convention, make use of it in our arguments (somehow we do not need academics to do these), but when it comes to questioning the concepts found in this definition, especially when even a simple glance at this definition will be enough to show that anything can be classified as genocide according to this definition, and therefore something may be wrong with the definition itself, then we have to start looking for academicians, scholars, and people of that sort. Before I quit, and I think I should since this is not the actual topic, I must remind a couple things. First of all, not every academic is an intellectual –there is actually a scary specialization and market-ization in the world of academia, and for that reason we should think twice about leaving everything to its ‘able’ hands. Moreover, not every intellectual needs to come from the academic world, either. We need intellectuals rather than academics, although we need them both. The second thing is that I am a novice (an apprentice) academic, though not a Dadrian, and from what I understand, Ali also is, or was. So, I guess, in line with your argument, at least Ali and I are allowed to have such discussions, and you should probably just listen to it. The listening will of course also include those times when we would say something not so much in your interest, but something tells me that when you are not so comfortable with what the academics are saying you will definitely ignore your initial proposal that ‘we should leave certain things to the academia’. Otherwise, we would not have this forum and this particular discussion. I strongly believe that genocide discussions are not only about some recognition or compensation. They represent a door, a sort of door that may open new possibilities and dimensions for us humans, and as far as the perspective is this, it belongs not only to the Armenians but also actually to the entirety of the humankind. After all, before Armenians died in 1915, humans of all sorts died. The reasons of it in all dimensions of knowledge and experience needs to be discussed without restrictions, and more importantly the ways of making these discussions both accessible to and participatory by the immediate public must be found and insisted upon. You may certainly go through with the short term and more restricted agenda of a nationalistic, as opposed to humanistic, as in covering all the humans, recognition. However, the solution is not there in my opinion, and this is what I have been arguing for all along. Damn it, another long post, and I was trying to make it a short one too. I will come back to other points as much as I can. I think I got myself in trouble, since I certainly was not expecting so much material to read. t.

Dear Ali, To be honest, I was not expecting a barrage of Armenian Genocide 101. Considering that you are a professional historian, I was expecting something more sophisticated than what I already know and heard many times so far. Perhaps, you have the idea that I have just recently encountered the subject, and therefore, you thought not to be so harsh on me by starting from the ABC of the Armenian Genocide and the subject of genocide in general. Well, I thank you for being so considerate. To start with, I am not denying the Armenian Genocide, although I find quite many theoretical difficulties, especially approaching from anthropological and psychological levels, in maintaining and believing in some of the positions on some key concepts. For example, what is genocide? Is it complete annihilation of a culture, a people, a language or all of these things? The funny thing about this subject is that neither the Jews nor the Armenians were completely annihilated as opposed to some other groups who were. If a group is completely eradicated from the face of the earth then there can be nobody to say that there was a genocide. So, we need not so complete genocides in order to have genocides. There were some groups, for example, some American Indian nations, or to some extent, at least one Circassian nation, who were erased from the face of the earth to the point that there is nobody today even to bring up their cases. But, I will skip discussing this subject right now, and instead concentrate on some of the points in your post. The outcome of the events in Anatolia at the end of the Great War was definitely genocidal, whether or not there was such an intention. Here I agree with you, and this has always been my starting point in analyzing the Armenian Genocide. Because of the genocidal character of the outcome, I use the term genocide. I am not obsessed with the subject of proof at all. The people who know me from my previous many discussions on this subject can tell that I have almost never discussed documents to prove if there was genocide. Since I start from the outcome, I actually do not need any documents to prove my case. To me, what is important is that regardless of what various personalities may have intended the outcome was the annihilation or removal of enough number of Armenians from the locality they perceived as their homeland to the point that the result was the eventual lack of effective population for Armenians to be able to reproduce themselves both culturally and physically in this particular locality as Armenians. This I call genocide or a genocidal outcome, if not a true genocide by definition. Therefore, I do not need documentary proof to show that there was a genocidal attempt against the Armenian nation. On the other hand, documentary proof is needed, if our intention is to figure out who the responsible party for this genocidal outcome was. It is even more needed, if the intention is to find a guilty people, an ethnic group for the crime. So, these genocide discussions are in some ways not altogether about proving there was genocide of the Armenian nation, but about proving that a particular nation, the Turkish nation, which at the time of the crime did not even exist as a mature nation in the modern sense, but as a religious group, was responsible for this crime. And, the assumption is that by receiving their apology, the Armenian nation will be magically get themselves out from the trauma brought by the memory of the genocide, or rather, by the secondarily produced and reproduced memory of the original event. Is this going to be reliving in different terms or coming to terms with what happened? The trauma that we are supposedly be dealing with may not even be the continuation of the original trauma in some cases, but the creation of a secondary one through interactions with the existing justificatory discourses with the original trauma. At any rate, the claim Taner Akcam makes that the Turkish nation is sick may actually be that we have two sick nations, and coming to terms with the genocide may end up curing, although in a limited fashion, both nations. An apology issue is actually not a very easy one, when there are good number of extremely nationalistic bunches on both sides. An apology may prove very effective and beneficiary for personalities like, I do not know, MJ, Winston, you, some others, and I, but there are also many others who may take the whole issue of the apology in many different ways. As we all know, after the Germans were made to accept their so-called crime for the Great War, more than 40 million people died. And, when we look at the increasing numbers of racial violence especially in the Northern European countries, including Germany, the issue of apology becomes even more important and difficult to deal with. There is the issue of working this apology business into a new cultural discourse or meta-narrative. This can be done in many ways. In the above case of Germans, it was done in one particular way that ended up costing the lives of millions of people. On the other hand, The ideology of communism, through its brotherhood of peoples and cultures, chose not to get into this subject, other than repressing the old late medieval and early modernist meta-narratives, and now we have people killing each other both in Balkans and Caucasus. For example, when I apologized my almost five-year-old daughter just yesterday for something that was my fault, her reply was ‘apology is not enough’. Yes, it is not enough; it is simply not going to create wonders by itself. I am running out of time, so I have to cut this short. Another point: when you start reading Dadrian, you are going to be disappointed with your claim that , “refer to the killings of 1915 as the armenian genocide, and not, for instance, the killings by sultan abdulhamid ii in the 1890s? atrocious though they were, the killings of abdulhamid were designed to "reprimand, chastise" (tedip etmek) the armenians, and not to exterminate them.” For example, Dadrian tells us that “First of all, the Abdulhamid-era massacres were the first Ottoman attempt in modern times to launch, on a massive scale, exterminatory massacres against a non-Muslim subject nationality” (Armenian Forum – Summer 1998 – Armenians, Turks and the End of the Ottoman Empire, by R.G. Suny). If you can get your hands on this source I would definitely recommend it, especially since it also includes perspectives by some Turkish historians. At any rate, you will have to read all of Dadrian’s works, since his ideas evolved in time as well. And, you will see that he is not really about separating these two sets of massacres qualitatively, and his ideas do count very much among the Armenians. When I said that everyone in Turkey accepts that Armenians were killed in great numbers, I was simply trying to say what I said, none of the stuff you posted. They of course do not accept that it was a genocide. Only the very educated ones accept is partially true, as there are very educated ones on the other side who do not accept it. By the way, this ‘educated’ thing is kind of funny, since the Armenians were killed, namely the designs to get rid of them, which led to their being killed, were done, by the very educated lot at that time. Genocide is a crime that belongs to not so-called primitive cultures, but to the so-called educated and civilized cultures. There is also the topic of the Muslims who were removed forcibly from various places in the Empire at the end of the Ottoman Empire. You go by those last names maraslian, sivaslian, demircian in presenting your case, but is not this a bit weak argument, since there are also a lot of last names in Turkey showing us that the carriers of these last names came from localities outside the present day Turkey such as ‘koprulu’, serezli, selanikli. What about this? Should we declare this a genocide, too? By the same token, we can also say that there were many Muslims living in outside of Anatolia in numbers that were in millions, but today they are in thousands. Was this a genocide, too? By the way, when one is comparing numbers about a particular genocide, one should use the numbers before and after the genocide. You are using numbers before the Armenian genocide and the ones that are from our time. Are we to assume by this that the Armenian Genocide lasted until, let us say, 1980s? I will have to stop here, as I have to go to work now. It is very likely that I will continue, but in case I may not I would like to clarify that I am not denying there was a genocide, although it might be denied if we really want to get technical about the definition. I have posed a few questions here in order to present some different dimensions of the whole thing. By the way, the numbers are important in genocide discussions and definitions. If you kill 10,000 people out of a population of 1 billion, it is not a genocide. But, if you kill 150 people out of a population of 200, it is a genocide. t. [ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: timucin ]

Nice presentation, but if I am not mistaken nobody in Turkey really denies what you have written here Ali. What is denied in Turkey is the interpretation that says this whole thing was a genocide. Interestingly enough,I think, again if I am not mistaken, you do not use the word genocide in your presentation, either. So, I am left wondering where is the difference between your and the official Turkish appraoches, since they also do not deny that Armenians were killed. Perhaps, you are a step ahead of them by recognizing implicitly,even explicitly at some sections, that they were not killed because they attacked first, but because some groups thought that they had to go in order for some plans to work out. I am not sure things were even as simple as seeing the whole thing as resulting from Turkish nationalism alone, but I will not get into this right now. There is also the issue that what if your assumption that mostly an apology based on sincere recognition of what happened could be enough to solve the problem, or at least to start the reaction that will result in resolving the whole issue, is simply wrong. I know some 'nice' Armenians keep repeating that this is the case, but there is also the other group, the nationalistic bunch. Whatever, I do not want to cause much headache here. I just wanted to bring up what I believed to be some contradictions in your post. For example, the assumption that Ataturk had nothing to do with the whole thing because he was in Canakkale fighting the enemy is another problem. He might not have had anything to with the whole thing physically, but, using your own argument, he was as guilty as, and perphaps, because of his position, even guiltier than, the avearage citizen, since he knew about the whole thing and did not take any action, although he was in the position to do so. Since he was one of the 'aga's in this period, should I assume that you also may be suffering from the 'small Anatolian village mentality'. I guess I will stop here. I did not say much about my own appraoch, but it is basically that I see the age and the idea of nationalism as the sole responsible party for what happened. I do not appraoch it as 'great nations make great mistakes'. It was not an accident; it was bound to happen eventually either in Anatolia or somewhere else. Well, I got to go now. t.

Who said I was reading them? As soon as I realized I was not dealing with a serious historical account, I gave up looking at these posts. By the way, it seems like you are the one who is really enjoying them in a sense that is actually not easily comprehendible by, well, relatively normal human beings. The early modern pseudo-historical writing is full of accounts like this one; you will be busy for a while. Have fun! t.

With all due respect, is not this the history section? Or, is there confusion about the present meaning of what history is supposed to be, as opposed to the 19th century practice of what we today call creative writing? At any rate, as novel writing, this is very good, as history writing nothing,it is nothing to be taken seriously. t.

Culture is diaologic in character; that is, it takes at least two to have culture, to communicate. At the very base of human cultures is our ability to communicate with each other. We do communicate about evil and violence. And, both of these have been part of human cultures up until today. You may have a very diffrent definition of culture Ara, but culture encompasses everything we socially create. Turn on the TV and catch a few shows, you will see violence and evil. Catch up with a grandma and listen to some folkloric story, you will see violence and evil. Check past mythologies or those Greek marvels of the ancient age, the friezes on the temples, you will see violence and evil. We talk about these things and they are part of our human culture. So far there have been spotted two animals in the animal world who kill their own kind for group gains, for reasons other than being hungry: chimpanzees and humans. We kill others of our own kind and combine such acts with cultural motives either to ease the process or justify it. t.

Mixing with certain groups, routing for them, having pride in belonging to such a group are natural for humans. We do not have to learn this; we will naturally go and associate with others. Yet, we do need to learn the ways, definitions and approaches to this whole group thing. Nobody is born a nationalist or a culturalist. Leave the kids alone and they will associate with kids from other cultural and ethnic backgrounds until their mummies and daddies come and separate them, if they believe the whole thing was not appropriate for their kids. There are, however, regional cultural differences. For example, Eastern Turkey is very much different in many cultural ways from where I come from. Although supposedly we are part of the same Turkish culture, I see major differences culturally. These are simply regional cultural differences as it is the case, for example, between southern and northern European countries, or Far Easterners and, I don’t know, Mediterranean. Can we do the same thing with the nations, if we take out the language, religion and historical narratives? No, unless they have been isolated from each other intentionally and there are considerable distances between them. I may go route for a Turkish soccer team. This does not mean I am a nationalist. I get similar feelings, when in the middle of nowhere I find a Greek restaurant; I feel at home. Am I a Greek nationalist? No. I am simply looking for what I am familiar with and getting happy when I find it. On the other hand, let us think about this pride business. When do we feel pride in something? I guess when we are made to feel like shit for so long that when we find something that we can associate with either because we speak the same language or supposedly share the same culture/ethnicity, we feel pride in this person or achievement. Is pride a normal human characteristic? I don’t know. I know from my kid that there is the ‘me, me’ thing or ‘let me do it’ thing. I have still not observed the ‘we, we’ thing yet, although she started associating herself with her own kind physically, but in terms of group loyalties. I still do not observe in her being proud of something else that she has not done it herself but she is somehow related, although she tends to get proud of her own achievements. The only difference she is aware of now is the color thing. I know a few months ago she put people in different categories based on different skin colors: she called them white and brown, not black. But, she has not created an exclusivistic approach based on color. Her friends do still come from both colors. She is almost five; so this pride thing in her group or culture thing is still not there. I suppose we learn it later on. This pride thing, the special version of it, the kind that is not about yourself directly, is somehow related to excluding others, not sharing a particular achievement/value/thing with others and eventually coming up with the implication that whatever it is you feel proud about is something that is about your culture and it cannot happen with others. I think this pride thing eventually encourages exclusivistic group attitudes. It is sometimes very difficult to figure out who is being nationalistic and who is not. For example, I may discuss the Armenian Genocide and I am sure many will call me a Turkish nationalist. Yet, I may not be acting as a Turkish nationalist, but being perceived as such by those who I would call Armenian nationalists. Can nationalists get outside of their framework? Not really. In their world, there are only nations. If you are not from his nation then you belong to another nation – simple as that. They cannot even read past histories where there were clearly no national feelings without imposing their own world on what they are reading. Most Turkish nationalists would have lost their heads immediately, if they were living in those beloved past Turkish states of theirs and talking about Turkishness. Becoming a non-nationalist is a different a way of living and approaching things. It needs to be learned as being a nationalist does; it does not come naturally, although I believe it would if our education systems were not based on exclusivistic/nationalistic approaches. So, it eventually comes down to choosing between the two. Of course, one will never be so non-nationalistic in the beginning; nothing wrong with this either. I believe I have chosen the right path and have done away mostly with nationalistic attitudes, but I will of course be a Turk to those who are eager to explain everyone in nationalistic terms. I am not perfect of course, but when one looks at my posts one will see a clear difference between my style and others. By the way, you are classifying me as a Turk, not me. But, based on what are you classifying me as a Turk other than the language I speak. People come to you and ask where you are from. What are you supposed to do? I usually pause for a few seconds, thinking how I should answer this question, and then usually end up saying ‘I am from Turkey’. For a while I was saying I was culturally Turkish, but I gave up on that. People want to know where you are from, because they think in nationalistic terms, and so far I have not been able to come up with an answer of the non-nationalistic sort. t.

I do not see much difference between cultural nationalism and political nationalism in the long run, especially when it is widely known that most nationalist movements, almost all of them, started first as cultural nationalisms. Political nationalism can be briefly defined as taking cultural nationalism to the platform of us versus them, but such nationalism, the political type, can never come into existence if the explanation and definition of the ‘us’ is not formulated in cultural terms with the sometimes not so explicit claim that there is an ‘us’ that is different and deserves more attention from other ‘us’es. Whereas the political nationalism is the application the cultural nationalism is certainly the theory of this application. You are probably proposing controlled nationalism, and I am asking how this is going to work. How can you control the claim that we are different from others and need more attention therefore? We have been living with the concept of difference for a long time. We know that we are different from each other. But, the ideology of nationalism puts value on this difference by creating a hierarchal structure of differences, on the very top of which is usually the ‘us’, the special one. This vertical structuring eventually brings in its political counterpart. If we are different and somewhat worthier than the others, then why should we not rule the others? This kind of thinking exists today in almost all the modern nations, including the United States. What is cultural nationalism anyway? Cultures, especially among those who live either with each other or next to each other, are very similar. With languages I can understand, but how can one come up with different cultures between those very similar ones? Get rid of the language and religion and I bet nobody will be able to tell the difference between Armenians and Turks by looking at their day to day cultural activities. So, what makes Turks so different from Armenians in their cultural traits that we can actually talk about two different nations in cultural terms? When we start coming up with answers to this question we will actually be moving into the realm of the political nationalism, not cultural nationalism. Cultural nationalism is simply nothing, but another example of euphemism for political nationalism. Nationalism of any sort must go. t.

I beg to differ here. Your nationalistic and tribal critiques ned to change places. It is usually the nationalist critique that does what you seem to think the tribal does. Perhaps, the triabal is just being used metaphorically here, but even in this, there is the implication that gives more credence to the idea of nationalistic approach as if it was a step better than what the tribal stood for. What is crucial to understand here, in my humble opinion, is that the tribal can embrace in better ways a multiplicity of national feelings in it than the national can ever hope to do, and turn these into the goal and agenda of the tribal. At the end, you do certainly have the good of the tribe as many examples from the history of the tribal nations can show rather than an inherent trait in this group. But, when this good is turned into the good of the nation, the transformation is actually from something that can be changed in accordance with the conditions to one that is condition-free, above the conditions, to something that is inherently shared and unchangeable. Whereas the tribal can actually go ahead with the daily requirements of the conditions, the national actually needs to concentrate on other nations in order to work on the preservation and believability of those so-called inherent qualities. So, every nationalistic appraoch or critique must, sooner or later, create its bad nation, the nation they are not, the nation they should not be, and the nation they should continue fighting against. Just some comments t.

I could not agree more, but it looks like you are not going all the way to the end. Being against nationalism, or certain expressions of it, as if it can be kept tamed for good, should in my opinion bring the issue of believing in nations. Nationalism may be the end of nations, but is it possible to prevent from reaching such end as long as the idea of nation is kept intact. What do you, in other words, propose, when you criticize the ideology of nationalism? As long as nothing is proposed, as long as the idea of nation is not dealt with, isn't it a kind of sure thing that this very idea will eventually end up in some form of nationalism? Perhaps, the idea and reality of difference needs to be given a different form? In order not to have our respective nationalisms destroy our respective nations, perhaps, we should destroy our own nations to come up with something better, something that will work better. t.

If this argument is about the Turks and Armenians, and looks like it is, I think we should start thinking in terms of those values that actually started emerging as new values for both groups at the end of the 18th century. The actual clash, the one that is releveant for us, actually starts with the emerging of these new valuse and their different treatment and assimilation of them by various groups, and most importantly our respective groups. The attacker and vicitm roles are created in the network of the multiplicity of the action-reaction sets in these in the interactions that emerged afterwards. I do not think there were very clear attacker and victim roles that could be associated with Turks and Armenians, respectively. I think both groups unknowingly took turns for these roles, perhaps not physically in some cases, but certainly in the sense these roles were perceived from the other side. t.

I am not so sure about the survival of the value part. The argument is still about the survival of a value that is inherent and non-changing. We are still basically reducing the thing whatever that may be between the perpetrators and victims to a clash between inherent, to some degree, so-called ethnic/cultural values, disregarding another component in the whole thing,the context in which the clash that may be emerging may be emerging with something entirely new, but not in the spirit of the continuation of some old values. Being unable to recognize the new and analyze it accordingly, I think it is us who come up with some survivalist ideologies about the new thing. t.

Good to see you too, Martin. I think it will be a positive experience. I have been reading the posts for a while as an unregistered guest - interesting ones. I especially liked the discussion Imasdun and you had on the subject of pan-Turkism while ago. Too bad I missed it. Anyways, nice forum. see you around t.

Gamavor, Thanks for the warning, but, I hope yo realize it, I was not the one who brought up the subject. Why are you directing your warning only at me? I did also not know that in this forum there was strict adherence to certain policies. My apologies. By the way, I do not understand why such subject should be in the Genocide section anyway. History - I understand. If you do not like to see this post of mine here, you can remove it - I do not care. t.

A few quick comments: quote Filiz, do you mean here that Hungarians came to the conclusion that they were not even eligible for Turanism. If so, they might have eventually; I do not have much information on this later development. However, in the beginning Magyars were included in the concept of Turan. Turks were a latecomer to this concept; as I understand you imply this point anyway. Here, we might see some racist perspectives, since pan-Turanism does not survive very long among Ottomans and becomes pan-Turkism. Also, in reply to Steve, since Turan is about a geographical area, a piece of land, I think the development of Turkish nationalism, and to some extent racism, which was not a very uncommon phenomenon in those years all around the world, went hand in hand with efforts of defining this new concept, the land. quote Turan is about an attempt to define a homeland. Similarly, the transformation of the word 'vatan' from its original Arabic meaning to something that meant the land of a particular nation, in this case, first the Ottoman nation and later the Turkish nation, had already started by Namik Kemal in the 19th century. In fact, the develoment of the concept of 'vatan', (motherland) preceeded the concept of a nation made from one race. Moreover, during the Emancipation or Independence War of Turkey, the greater emphasis was on 'vatan', the motherland, the land of the present-day Turks than the Turkish race to the point that pan-Turkist were ignored and persecuted in the early Republican era. Although it is difficult to put boundaries on these different currents, one important characteristic of Kemalism in the early Republican era is its emphasis on land rather than blood and attempts to produce historical narratives and ideologies to show that Turks were already in this particualar land thousands years ago. If you are, however, talking about universal contempt towards some abstract notion of land by the people in our land, in Turkey, then that is a different story, and I do not know how much it makes sense. Mostly common people do not really think about these matters as deeply as we do. But, this would not mean that they have contempt towards their land. If you get down to the language they use in relation to their land, to their songs, their traditions, you will see that they have as deep attachment to their land as any other people on this planet. They mosly peasants after all. I suppose you were, however, talking about this nation-motherland thing. Well, if that is the case, you are very much wrong. I wish Turks had less of this thing, so that the solution of certain problems would be easier. If you get down deep into Turkish people's feelings you will find out that they are ready to die for 'vatan' (motherland) most of the time, not for 'millet' (crudely put, people, nation). See, in Turkey, we "vatanimiz icin oluruz, milletin agzina sicariz" (we die for our motherland, but, literally, shit in the mouths of our nation, people). I personally never heard anyone reverse this formulation. When we have to shit in our 'vatan', the word becomes either 'memleket' or 'ulke', both of which mean country. Also, for us 'vatan' is motherland not fatherland, and, as most people would figure it out quickly once they are in Turkey, you do not mess with mothers. This might have some psychological (even Freudian)dimension to the whole thing. When you get into historical anthropological details, you will find out things like 'Canakkale gecilmez' (Dardanelles cannot be passed) in our tradition. The emphasis was again not on the nation, but the land, the vatan, that was in danger, and in everyone's obligation to die for land regardless of anything else. There are no Canakkale studies in Turkey yet, but I think it should be, since I belive it is one of episodes of utmost importance in our recent history that shaped our present mentality. Similarly, the Yemen folk song in Turkey: similar theme. Or, the experession vatan-millet-sakarya, where vatan comes first. Or Namik Kemal's 'Vatan yahut Silistre' (motherland or Silistre(a place in Bulgaria)). It was not the 'nation or Silistre'. I would like to make one last comment without much explanation about it for now. You (that would be Steve) are making a rather wrong assumption about the ancient Turks from at least two perspectives. First of all, their concept of nation, which is the so-called 'budun' of these ancient Turks , was not the same thing with our nation. It was not based on an understanding of racial, ethnic and even linguistic unity, or one-ness. Secondly, for nomadic groups, it is the land that is most important to them. True, they may be happy with any region, but they still need a piece of land with specific conditions, not any land. And, once they have it, they protect it dearly, because you take their land then their herds have no place. And, when their herds do not have any place they perish. In fact, one may argue that this is why the Turkic states were based on expansive territories, not city states. Abother logical point would be that greater emphasis on one's ethnicity would greatly diminish one's chances of survivial in espcially Central Asian conditions. Nomadic gorups, that would also be those groups of hunter-gatherers and pastorilists, do not reproduce at the rates that are found among farming communities. In fact too many people around is not very desirable for them. Anyway, some thoughts. But, even in your translation of that old Turkish statement, we have the sky and the land as the preconditions for the existence of the Turkish budun (people). Between those two exist the Turk, which, in ancient Turkish, had the meaning of mature human being, one who is in the prime of his youth, life, by the way. So, the whole symbolism makes sense to me from the perspective of those people who were living in the midst of nature. Some say it also meant 'strong'. It is possible that it might have meant 'strong' in the sanse that one who is in the prime of his youth, fully developed. Anyway, we should not jump to the conclusions about these concepts. These people lived many centuries ago, and it is highly possible that they did not use these concepts in the same way we do today. There are now some very interesting comments about the symbolism asscoated with these old Turkic groups. Aslo, shit, I can simply not stop, when one understands what 'budun' (people) actually meant in those times, then one understands why those Turkic khans (rulers) are talking like that in these inscriptions. And, one more thing, some of those Turkic rulers did not have Turkic names as in Bumin. regards t.

Hi Steve, Could you elaborate more on this master-race thing and its relationship to the Orkhun inscriptions, if it is not too much trouble? Or, could you perhaps quote the part where this master-race idea is found, again, if it is not too much trouble? I would like to look into it. t.