Check This Out! Bastards!

[Sasun]

So, people like Gamavor aren't making worst what the Turks are thinking of us, people like Gamavor are just used by the Turks to justify themselve of the already negative image they have of us.

Yes, very true... didn't mean to repeat what you had said already.

[Armat]

P.

I judge people individually period! Perhaps you are too sensitive about politician correctness. Domino and Sasun raised some great points. Domino touched something really profound and accurate about Turkish collective psyche. I would strongly advice you to stay clear of trivializing the Genocide issues by what Gamavor or anybody else says about the Turks.

[phantom]

So, people like Gamavor aren't making worst what the Turks are thinking of us, people like Gamavor are just used by the Turks to justify themselve of the already negative image they have of us.

Yes, very true... didn't mean to repeat what you had said already.

Sasun, both you and Domino made an interesting point, and it is one that I will definitely think about. But in any case, I can't tell people what do to do or how to act. I can only say that I for one am not going to stoop to the level of generalizing and stereotyping every Turk or any other ethnic group or nationality for that matter. In my world, every individual is innocent until proven guilty. Every Turk is good until he proves otherwise. Furthermore, I don't think my attitude trivializes the Genocide in any way. The Genocide did happen, the government of Turkey will admit it eventually, just as the rest of the educated world has and will continue to do, and just as some Turks have already done. I don't need to hate all Turks or make nasty statements about them to prove that I am a good Armenian on which the Genocide of my people has had a profound impact.

[Sasun]

Sasun, both you and Domino made an interesting point, and it is one that I will definitely think about. But in any case, I can't tell people what do to do or how to act. I can only say that I for one am not going to stoop to the level of generalizing and stereotyping every Turk or any other ethnic group or nationality for that matter. In my world, every individual is innocent until proven guilty. Every Turk is good until he proves otherwise. Furthermore, I don't think my attitude trivializes the Genocide in any way. The Genocide did happen, the government of Turkey will admit it eventually, just as the rest of the educated world has and will continue to do, and just as some Turks have already done. I don't need to hate all Turks or make nasty statements about them to prove that I am a good Armenian on which the Genocide of my people has had a profound impact.

Phantom, fortunately you are open to reason, we would all benefit to take an example from you. You are right, one needs not show hostility or intolerance to Turks to be a good Armenian or good person.

I wish you all the strength and patience in your efforts. I also hope that Turks will not abuse your objectivity and good will

[yalpa]

Domino (sorry for the length),

 

Not all the Turks have a bad image of the Armenians. In fact, most Turks in Turkey have a relatively good image of the Armenians, and it used to be even better. Yes, the Turks who are not much into history and are somehow aware of the official version of what happened in 1915 consider the Armenians as traitors now. To you this may be enough, but the Armenians in Turkey are also known for many other qualities. Most people in Turkey, such as the small businessman, the worker, the peasant, do not interact with the Armenians with the knowledge that they were traitors, as most people in Turkey do not show much interest in reading about history. In that case, they will mostly say nice things about the Armenians. For the Turkish Armenians are generally honest, talented, friendly and hard-working people.

 

The situation is, however, different both for those who have been exposed to the official historical discourse or the ultra-nationalistic ideologies. For a long time, the official historical discourse did not present a negative image of the Armenians, since they simply chose to present no image of them at all. Most people grew up knowing nothing about the Armenians, let alone the genocide. During this time, the sources of knowledge one could use to know something about the subject of 1915 were of local nature. For example, I found out about the Armenian Genocide through my great-grandfather who was a young man at that time. However, with the activities of Asala, this situation started changing. Seeing that ignoring the whole subject was not the way any longer, the Turkish state started developing its own denialist discourse. Since the Turkish citizens had started having a different image of the Armenians because of the Asala attacks on Turkish consulates and etc. the state found its job a bit easier. Today, the denialist discourse has made it to the schoolbooks. It is a very recent development, as I did not grow up with such books.

 

 

The ultra-nationalistic ideologies have, on the other hand, always had a negative image of the Armenians as they have of every non-Turkish group. Unfortunately, most of your experiences about Turks have been mostly with these people. One of the forums you have mentioned is a type of forum that most liberal or radical minded Turkish people would not be part of. My wife keeps wondering why I even bother to write there from time to time. There are of course some exceptions in that forum, too, but overall, it is a very right wing (nationalistic) environment. It is sad that most of your data about the Turks come from this forum. You should probably try some other Turks before you make your rather negative generalizations about the whole culture. For example, you have known me for a while. I also know that another Turk in that forum, whom I think you also know, had a very good image of you (He is not there anymore). If you were to visit me in Turkey and associate with people around me, you would probably have a very different image of the Turks. Perhaps, you would even consider the possibility that the Turkish society is not a monolithic bloc of nationalists.

 

Having said all this, I am not trying to give the impression that everything is just fine for the Turkish Armenians. Although they have all kinds of rights on paper, they experience various difficulties when it comes to using these rights. Especially in the areas of politics and cultural recognition, they are discriminated against by all of the state agencies. Yet, on the other hand, there are private organizations and individuals such as newspapers, books, publishers, writers and scholars that struggle against these negative images of and policies against the Armenians. In other words, in Turkey, the Armenians currently have multiple images rather than one. The state is doing better in this image war, since they have better means. It is, however, interesting that you do not see the importance of this image war at least for those Armenians who live in Turkey and also for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

 

Finally, you should also not assume that the issue of apology is the same in every culture. This is not to say that the Turks do not apologize. They do. You are simply wrong there. Even in Tukey.com many people apologize. You probably missed these occasions, as you have no knowledge of Turkish. How and when one apologizes in one culture does not have to be same as how it is done in another culture. Although you are right in that you did deserve an apology or many apologies during your experiences in Turkey.com, this does not necessarily mean that you can reach the generalization that the Turks cannot apologize just because those people in that or the other forum did not. To most of these people you have encountered so far, you represent the enemy. The enemy does not get an apology in Turkey. But, it is interesting that in Turkey, in any kind of verbal encounter between strangers, generally the side that loses at the end will not apologize verbally. He will accept his mistake using either bodily gestures or some expressions. The same will be the case if the party expected to apologize is much older or has a much higher status. He or she will not apologize, but will show that he or she sees and accepts his/her mistake. If the other side insists for a verbal and open apology the situation may get worse. Apologies are definitely much easier and happen much more, if the parties are friends, from the same group or live in the same neighborhood. In general, the stress is more on showing and using gestures and future histories rather than verbal statements. Most Turkish people will look down upon verbal apology, since they will find it difficult to believe that a simple ‘I am sorry, it was my mistake’ will be sufficient. In fact, there is a Turkish saying that there is now more rudeness since the term ‘pardon’ became part of the language. At any rate, one does not have to say one is sorry in order to accept one’s mistakes. Mistakes are accepted in every culture, but the ways to express these acts may be different. If I am not mistaken the word apology derives from the Greek word ‘without knowledge’. The Turkish term for apology does not have a similar history, and therefore it may have different connotations for us than the same concept has in other cultures. In short, you should not jump to some rather discriminatory or even derogatory generalizations before you study the culture in question in more detail and especially through physically living in it.

 

At any rate, don’t be so pessimistic. By the way, I have another post in my forum. Are you planning to continue with that discussion? I will continue posting.

[DominO123]

Hi Yalpa!

 

First of all, yes! I do wish to continue in your forum, I do have many things to write, but I do not know how to start it, as well some personal things these days are restricting my time. There is another thing, I feel isolated in your forum, afteral, there is only you and me there. Right?

 

Now about the view the Turks have of the Armenians, Turkey.com is just a bad experience among many, and when I say "The Turks" I do not imply all Turks, but from my view the majority of them. Of course I never have been to Turkey, and for sure my opinion could be erronous, but every Turkish forums I accountered I have seen the same thing, exept one, and it is the forum run by Soysal, where there is many participants that were sympathic... but unfortunitly for me, neither of them knew English, I had to communicate or in Turkish or in German, so I was forced to leave there.

 

Turkey.com in the past was a great forum, there was respects between members, and of course there was many sympathic persons, and I know whom you are refering to. But thats the whole problem yalpa, that person was already open minded from the start, you were, Artun was, those Turks are already open to accept, if you present some facts, they are ready to accept if the evidences are strong, so if they change their mind, it is rather because they can separate their nationalism and ethnicity from the simple fact that above all we are all humans. The other Turks I have accountered are not like that, you can present him/her all his/her claims one by one counterargument and prove him/her wrong, he/she will stop arguing about that, change the subject, days later starting again the same pseudo-argument. How possibly you can even try with such person, in all those years, I have seen just one nationalist denialist Turk change, and the worst of all, is that abroad Turks are even more close minded than those in Turkey, while you can understand why the Turks in Turkey would be close minded, there is NO justification for those outside Turkey.

 

Reading ataa or other Turkish organizations, reading all those stuff, you don't imagine how I boil, I do not boil really because of the denialism(that I can counter), I more boil about the way Armenians are pictured, and that even the genocide itself is genocided and above all JUSTIFIED. I know I become pessimistic, but just show me a little hope if you can, just recently the Turkish government introduced new measures, the denialist is increasing more and more, they even allegedly find mass graves in area's where the highest Armenian mortality has been observed, and "proving" how Armenians exterminated the Turks... I would wait the day where studies are made about those graves in Igdir, Igdir that was under allied control and a center of relief for the Armenian refugies ending there and dying in mass of diseases and starvation... and even more, the Turks have even build a genocide monument in the memory of their victims "exterminated" by the Armenians there. How any Armenians are supposed to feel, when those monuments are even apparent from the republic of Armenia?

 

I just don't see anything, a single little hope, that would permit me to even believe that the Turkish society could change in regards of the Armenians... I don't know if you have seen the movie Ararat, there is a moment, after Raffi heard Ali justifying the genocide to Saroyan(played by Aznavour), say to Saroyan, why he has not answered... Saroyan answered that the thing that causes the most pain was not that all those people have been lost, the land that has been lost etc... but the hate by the Turks, the denial of this hate, while hating us even more etc...

 

I just see that the only thing to do, is document the event, if both people should decide to make peace, the first step must be done by the Turks, after all this, there is no reason for the Armenians to believe the Turkish society, it is to the Turkish society to try to convince us Armenians that they want to make peace with us.

 

regards

Edited September 19, 2003 by Fadix

[Armat]

The ultra-nationalistic ideologies have, on the other hand, always had a negative image of the Armenians as they have of every non-Turkish group.

Yalpa

Interesting post, although your post was not addressed to me I would like to ask you a question since we seldom have opportunity to exchange views.

You say that most nationalistic Turks view Armenians as traitors. This statement fundamentally is inaccurate but besides that what percentage of Turks living in Turkey are nationalistic. I suspect great majority with some exceptions mostly educated students and human rights workers. I may be wrong; this is my prejudice coming from reading numerous data on Turkey but actually never lived there.

[yalpa]

Domino,

 

I am just getting ready to go to bed, so I will come back to your post later. But, about the other discussion, my forum is not really a forum. I am using it as a site for some of my serious arguments and papers. If you feel isolated there we can continue here. I can re-post here what I posted there. I do not care where I go on with the discussion.

 

Armat,

 

I will also come back to your questions.

[THOTH]

Hello there Yalpa - remember me? Its been awile - though I have been meaning to contact you. I have recently come accross someone who very much shares many of your interests/passions (and if anything greater knowledge...at least that is my perception...regarding certain things) and he is very interested in discussing some of this with you (her? don't know - but on your "forum" I would think yes...how can we arrange for this. And believe me - i think you will want to tallk with this guy.

 

I am also interested in restablishing some contact with you - interested in your future plans - if you have acted on any that you were talking of a year or so ago (or longer0...sailing & such...anyway we should catch up - perhaps Domino knows your email and can pass it along...don't know if i still have it handy...or perhaps you can PM it to me or such...

 

And welcome back to Hye forum...as usual - your posts are thought provoking - and I can agree with much of what you have said (did I tell you I have recently returned froma few weeks in [Eastern] Turkey? I'll have to tell you a bit about the (very nice) trip at some point...

[gamavor]

Thoth you should have stayed there! Eastern Turkey? What is Turkey?

[yalpa]

Armat,

 

I would not know the exact percentage of the Turks who are nationalistic. It is difficult to say, for we first need to agree on a definition. Nearly everyone in this world is nationalistic to a certain extent. Almost everyone is proud of his/her country and almost every country has its own share of nation-state myths that are presented as national-histories-based-on-‘true-facts’. To me, all these people are nationalists. But, if I go by this approach I will have very few people left whom I can define as non-nationalistic. Therefore, nationalism I talk about tends to be, or used to be, the ultra-nationalism of the gray wolves of Turkey. But, the situation has been changing recently.

 

A new sort of nationalism or rather a new sort of nationalistic alliance has been developing. Old leftists and rightist started combining forces in the name of protecting the country from imperialism or its new variant. The Islam in Turkey, likewise, developed into something different with its own who knows what concept of nationalism. I seem to detect two major conceptual components in this mess. One of them is the idea that Turkey is a strong country in her region, and therefore, must play a bigger and more aggressive role. This one is a new idea. The second one is the good old we are surrounded by enemies and they are trying to take away our independence (the Sevres syndrome).

 

It is interesting to note that the old Turkist attitude has been replaced by the idea that Turkey is strong and needs to become a regional power. This new phenomenon can be seen as the adaptation or mutation of the old ideology to the newly emerged regional and international conditions. However, whereas the old ideology of racial superiority had never attracted a strong support (ıt has always been a minority movement in Turkey as opposed to Kemalist nationalism), the new ideology does appeal to many in Turkey.

 

When the subject is history, it seems that almost everyone is a nationalist in Turkey. History, or rather the field of heritage and justification production, plays an interesting role in this nationalist mess. The latest move in this field seems to be towards a history that is dominated by the Ottomans. The Central Asian Turkish history, ‘the roots’, has, in my opinion, moved to a secondary place. The stress is no more on the pure Turkishness (though the factions who emphasize such notions are still around), but the grandeur and power the Ottoman Empire once possessed and how successfully it used to administer without major problems the countries that are now situated in the troublesome world of the Middle East and the Balkans. The only problem that arises in this new ideology is the inability to come up with convincing arguments to back the notion that the Ottoman Empire was a Turkish one. But, this inability is compensated by appealing to the Turkist feelings of the population and the historical myths that were installed by the Kemalist ideology. Thus, there seems to be at least four political positions in Turkish history: (1) pure Turkism, (2) Ottoman Empire-ism mixed with Turkism with minor Islamism, (3) Multinational past-ism, (4) history-must-have-nothing-to-do-with-all-this-ism. By its nature, the last one has no political effect. The third one represents the smallest crowd politically. The other two represent the rest of the country.

 

Politically, most people are nationalist in the sense that they want the good of the ‘Turkish’ Turkey. The ‘most people’ includes, I would say, even the majority of the Kurds. Among this group represented by the most people, the regionalists (becoming a major power in the region Turkey is in), I believe, represent the majority over the Turanists (the union of all Turks). Culturally, nearly everyone is Turkist one-way or other (either Ottoman-Turkist, Ottoman-Islamist-Turkist or Turanist). The non-Turkists represent a very small minority in Turkey. However, historically, the worst subject for the Turkish people has always been history. Having very little interest in intellectual matters for reasons still not clearly understood, the people in Turkey, regardless of what ethnic group they come from, have always showed very little interest in historical matters, discussions and different interpretations. This situation helped greatly to the spread and acceptance of the Kemalist history as the only and unquestionable past. In an environment like this, the subaltern, counter and non-nationalistic historical works in form of books, seminars and organizations have stayed as a very small minority. The majority of the developments that could be defined as anti-Kemalist or anti-Turanist have come from the Ottomanist-Turkist and Islamist groups. But, this takes us from one form of nationalism to another one. The problem and one of the major reason why most people are nationalistic is because of the inability to convince people that not long ago they lived in a non-nationalistic multicultural world and that it is okay to be non-nationalistic. Perhaps, this is a problem shared by most of the countries in the region.

[yalpa]

Domino,

 

There is so much to discuss in your post … so many questions. I will try to do my best.

 

I know Soysal’s forum. See, you have encountered at least one forum so far. Considering that the nationalists are the majority, this reflects about the right proportion.

…

You are entirely correct and right about the situation in Turkey.com. However, the mentality you described and criticized seems to be the most active in and aggressive about the subject of the Armenians and the Armenian Genocide – just an observation. I have encountered a similar situation among some Greeks and Armenians, when the subject is either the Turks or the Ottomans. Overall, there seems to be two groups of people: in simple words – open minded and closed minded. It is difficult to be an ultra or conservative nationalist if you are not close-minded at least to some arguments. Two important points to keep in mind: first of all, this is not a Turkish problem. The same problem exists among the Greeks, the Armenians, the Americans and the others. Secondly, it is usually difficult or very difficult to realize that one’s own group also suffers from the same problem. We tend to think that it is always the members of the other group.

…

Most Turks outside of Turkey are more close-minded than the ones who want stay in Turkey. Let’s start with the ones who go outside. If they are non-nationalistic, have no terrible need for cultural support, can exist as humans first and Turks later, then they will not necessarily look for their own kind, own organizations and other needs to strengthen their links with their ethnic identity. Therefore, you will seldom encounter individuals from this group. If they are nationalistic the opposite will be the case. When they are outside of Turkey, all by themselves, they will feel lonely and in need of stressing their ethnic identity even more. For the worst kebab in their lives, they will travel for miles, just because a Turk owns the store. To this group we may add another type of individual, the type who changes his/her name because he/she is discriminated against and therefore does not want to be known neither as a Turk nor a Muslim, but is so ashamed for changing his/her name that he/she becomes more Turkish than most nationalists in Turkey. This person will take every opportunity to prove that he/she is very Turkish.

 

Let’s now get back to those who stay behind. The ones who truly do not want to go back will have no problems with their identity, and since they are among their own kind they will have no reason to feel inferior about anything. You should also remember that one needs to undertake serious amount of reading in order to know about the opinions from other groups about his/her own group. This is the case in every society. You need to spend more money and/or have more time. Very few people do such a thing. Therefore, most Turks are not exposed to the opinions and critiques from other groups. Therefore, they do not need to be defensive. The situation changes, when one travels to other countries. You should also remember that the news about the Armenian genocide or the Armenian efforts in other countries are within the category of news that reach to the average reader in Turkey. The average reader, the one who is not so intellectual and not an academic, will usually limit his/her reading with the newspapers and the popular magazines. Interestingly enough, the situation was probably very similar in the 19th century, during the time of the Ottoman Empire, as well.

…

 

I entirely agree with your feelings about the methods used by the denialists, the monuments erected by them. Still, don’t be pessimistic. I believe this is the third or fourth generation since the genocide. Imagine those Africans, Native Americans or Asians whose identities, biologically and culturally, whose rights, in every possible area, and whose pasts and sufferings were denied for generations and generations, and still are in some ways. How pessimistic an African-American must have felt in the early 19th century. Yet, the things did change eventually.

…

It will be a long road. But still, this is no reason to give up from both objectives and principles. Some things just take too long and do depend on consistent work for generations. However, the real problem is not the long wait, but not being able to go beyond the Turks versus the Armenians type of approach.

 

You believe, wrongly in my opinion, in the notion of collective mentality. Taner Akçam uses this same notion to build his thesis upon. As I mentioned it in my previous post, the only kind of organic knowledge about the Armenian Genocide that exists or had existed was of local nature. The only collective whatever that exists is not some sort of mentality, but discourse. In this collective discourse, the Turkisn discourse, what exists is not a collective guilt associated with some terrible crime, but the so-called victory over those who tried to divide and annihilate the homeland and the nation that resided on it. It is crucial to define the problem correctly. The discussions I have been having with you are for such a purpose. Once the problem is defined correctly, we should then move on to the next stage of solving it together. However, it does not look like that apart from a small minority, nobody from the either side is interested in solving the problem together and for the sake of both sides.

[yalpa]

Hi Thoth,

 

I of course remember you, but since I am done for today I will get back with you tomorrow.

[Armat]

Yalpa thanks for your response. Unfortunately I work a lot in the weekends, which leaves me with no time to reflect. I will get back soon when I do squeeze some time.

[Armat]

the worst subject for the Turkish people has always been history. Having very little interest in intellectual matters for reasons still not clearly understood, the people in Turkey, regardless of what ethnic group they come from, have always showed very little interest in historical matters, discussions and different interpretations. This situation helped greatly to the spread and acceptance of the Kemalist history as the only and unquestionable past. In an environment like this, the subaltern, counter and non-nationalistic historical works in form of books, seminars and organizations have stayed as a very small minority. The majority of the developments that could be defined as anti-Kemalist or anti-Turanist have come from the Ottomanist-Turkist and Islamist groups. But, this takes us from one form of nationalism to another one. The problem and one of the major reason why most people are nationalistic is because of the inability to convince people that not long ago they lived in a non-nationalistic multicultural world and that it is okay to be non-nationalistic. Perhaps, this is a problem shared by most of the countries in the region.

Thanks again for your intelligent answer. You did shed some light on matters that most Armenians concern with mainly history.

In the environment that you described it seems Armenians are better off supporting Turkey’s inclusion into EU membership. Genocide recognition and along with minority rights issues can find more fertile ground under EU Turkey then the present. It may become shocking to lot of Turks that history may be different then Kemalist version due to unavoidable exposure to these kinds of literature, which is freely available in the Western Europe.

In my opinion AG recognition is beyond nationalism or land issues. It is inherently deeply moral one in which I can not find any rational reasons to derail my feelings that Armenian Genocide must become a historical fact in Turkey.

[MJ]

Undoubtedly, the acceptance of Turkey into EU is in the best interests of the Republic of Armenia.

[DominO123]

Yalpa, I just wanted to write those few words, to tell you that I did not forget you. Be patient and you will have my answer. I guess you already are habituated to wait to have my answers.

[yalpa]

Thoth,

 

I sent you a PM. I hope you received it.

[THOTH]

Yes I did Yalpa...thanks - and sorry for not getting back to you - been a bit busy...but I'll try to send you something later today if possible...

[Nikephoros_Phokas]

I do not buy Yalpa's theory about the opinion of Armenians being favorable until the emergence of ASALA. The Turks have always had an unfavorable view of Armenians from the genocide until now and even before. If there was a favorable view of Armenians from the start there would not have been and could not have been an Armenian genocide. To have the Turkish state teach nothing or almost about Armenians until ASALA is much worse or better depending on your viewpoint. It is much better in that it completes the genocide removing the Armenians completely or almost completely physically from Anatolia and removing them from the collective memory as well, so for the Turkish state it is good in a way. But it is also bad for the Turkish state in that if the Turkish state tried to deny the existance of Armenians and deny the genocide that way no person educated in the region's history would entertain this.

 

Now something must be said about the attitude of the Turks towards their non-Turkish neighbors. The Armenians of the Ottoman Empire before the genocide would have been happy if they had their second class status removed, but all Turkish reforms to this end were only really meant to fool the European powers "pushing" for these reforms, the European powers themselves were disinterested in these reforms as well and were more concerned with playing a power game over the Ottoman Empire with other European powers a game they made the Christians still under Ottoman dominion a part of. A minority of Armenians wanted indepedence and this minority in my opinion was correct because the Turks not only in the past with the Armenians but in the present treatment of the Kurds today show they are not willing for pluralism. The same can be said for the Greeks of Asia Minor who did not gain independence like the Greeks of the Balkans and other Balkan Christians, that most just wanted to be treated decently under the Ottoman Empire and few wanted independence. The premise of the Ottoman state and its treatment of Christians was that they were second class rayah, an insult meaning they were cattle. Today Turkey is trying to get into the European Union and one of the conditions the European Union says it wants but does not really mean is improving the status of the Kurds who are not really allowed to develop a formal culture under Kemalist rule. The way Turkey handles this issue is the same way the Ottoman Empire handled the reforms meant to improve the lot of the Christians and other non-muslims with dishonest disinterested reforms. The EU is not interested in this issue either it is just concerned with politely never letting Turkey but keeping influence over Turkey with a very long membership process.

 

To compare the Turkish discourse on the Turkish minority Cyprus and the treatment of the Armenian minority reveals alot about Turkish views to their neighbors. Now most Armenians just wanted some semblance of equality and to not have to worry about massacres and the such. Few wanted independence and they certainly unlike the Turkish Cypriots were not deluded enough to insist they were not a minority in Anatolia, the Turkish Cypriots say they are not a minority because they are using pscyhological projection. By this I mean that Turks do not like minorities because minorities of the Ottoman state but geographic majorities like the Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs won the independence from this Ottoman state while the Turks had to take up arms against these minorities and this hurt the already weakened Ottoman state and caused damage to their society because they society was not willing to adapt to either equalizing the status of these Christians or just allowing them their independence. Also look at what is happening to the Kurdish minority in Turkey, how the Armenian minority was genocided, etc. So the Turks of Cyprus are motivated to say they are not a minority when they clearly are because they hate minorities and do not want to be labelled as a minority. The Armenians used to be a geographic majority in the East of Anatolia even after the massacres of the 19th Century dwindled their population but the Turks of Cyprus were not such a geographic minority, it could be said they were a majority in this village or in this sector of this village or in this sector of Nicosia. Many of the Turkish Cypriot leaders were very open in their demands for Taksim or independence and they had the support of Turkey in this as evidenced by the two Turkish invasions in 1974. Also when the Turkish Cypriots say they are not a minority from reading the translations of their press on Cyprusmedianet they clearly mean that want the Turkish Cypriot community to have equal rights as the Greek Cypriot majority. They want things like the quotas on government positions like the old British backed Cyprus constitution that was and still is unworkable that forms the basis of the Anan plan. The Turkish Cypriot "progressives" seem to want a state where the Greek Cypriots make up most of the population and pay most of the state budget but where the Turkish Cypriot community has a disparate share of the politicial power for its share of the population, this is their view of "equality".

 

This is nationalism, how one group relates itself to its neighbors. Look at the Christians of Anatolia who just wanted true equality, legal equality, not the Turkish Cypriot "progressive" brand of equality, a confederation where a minority community has veto, quotas on government positions above their population percentage in government posts, etc. The Ottoman government was not willing to give Armenians status as anything other than rayah subordinate to muslims this being a deepseated premise of the Ottoman state. So since they were not willing to do this given enough time with this inability of Turkish state and society for pluralism soon the Armenians would have went the route of Balkan Christians, because I doubt if they would have accepted to be rayah forever. Now it would have been more economically beneficial to keep the Armenians alive and tax them, but with the Empire disintegrating and the disinclination to give Armenians the status they wanted, how long could they have taxed them before they went the route of the Christians of the Balkans? This is part of the reason why genocide became a solution during WWI to the "Armenian problem". The pieces fell into place, the Young Turks and Kemalists wanted to create a new political community doing away with the millet system of nations and create a Turkish nation which the Armenians did not fit in.

 

I do not think the dialogue between Armenians and Turks will do much good since this dialogue will end up being dishonest given the average Turk does not recognize the Armenian genocide and neither does their government. Turks consider Armenians for the most part as anything but equals but more as subjects. You will notice that the chauvinist fascist Turks in denying the Armenian genocide pretend to care for Armenians. This is sick to me, but to Turkish society I doubt this is considered abnormal since they do not view Armenians as polticial equals and this is why such dishonest concern for Armenians that anyone can see through permeates through their denialist discourse. I satirizied this well in my "So called Holocaust" post where I took the Turkish subject view of Armenians, pretending I was a German who wanted Jews to recognize German suffering during WWII, treating Jews as subjects and not equals. The dialogue that needs to happen is Turk to Turk, and Turks need to ask why they treat their neighbors more like subjects and less like equals. Why do they not apply the standards they want for Turkish Cypriots to other groups? Maybe because they know these standards Taksim or the dishonest equality are unfair and they would not want these standards applied to themselves.

Edited October 3, 2003 by Nikephoros_Phokas