Tweet
Zaman, Turkey
May 6 2005
Getting Acquainted with an Armenian...
NIHAL B. KARACA
05.06.2005 Friday - ISTANBUL 17:51
Debates on the Armenian issue have now been attached to the show of a
Swiss attorney, who sued Yusuf Halacoglu, because he said there was
no genocide. This incident has such a nauseating effect similar to
spooning a soup of flies, even for those who really want to question
history. We can't see the soup because of the flies.
However, it depends on how well the Armenians and Turks share this
soup in order to solve their problems. Whether it tastes good or bad;
this should be "our" problem, "our" meaning the Armenians and Turks.
The issue now rests on whether we did it or didn't do it; however,
reading history is largely a political activity. Even opening the
archives is important from a "political" stance; otherwise, while one
of two historians looking at the same document would say that the
document does not prove the existence of genocide, the other might
see evidence of genocide in it. I do not also think that there is an
ontological difference between historians defending the official
perspective and the "independent" historians. As a matter of fact,
how can an "independent" category exist? No one, whose perception of
an event is matured enough, one way or the other, is independent
enough. Such a sinister history can only be objectively read by a
"robot" and this is not possible. While history is such a notion
intermingled with reading thorough an idea, how come asserting an
idea becomes a crime? Really, I would like to ask what kind of a
Europe we are trying to accede to: Expressing a negative opinion
about homosexuality causes a scandal, bringing some "excessivenesses"
of colored people to the agenda is a taboo, uttering a word about the
number of people killed in Auschwitz is a reason for excommunication,
saying "we did not commit genocide" is a crime. If the scope of the
freedom of thought and freedom of opinion is not limited to a space
as narrow as diet lists or the dentist rates, then what a
contradiction to label a nation's "opinion" about itself, whether
right or wrong, as a crime!
Those, who act "as if nothing happened" from the Turkish side and
defend the state's official theses as a priori truths, need to be
addressed as well. Even reminding those, who believe that the state
can kill people only if it is facing hardship, of the executions by
the Independence Courts, events that occurred in our recent history,
would be enough, I suppose. The cost of creating a "Turkish nation,"
deadlocked on the same goal, affected a lot of "Turkish" "medresa
hodjas" (religious scholars), who were hanged because they did not
wear modern "hats". All the defense indicating that all that was done
was "necessary," might perhaps be used for what was done to the
Armenians. The system always exceeds its bounds to protect itself.
The history of today's noble nations is full of such "massacres."
Everyone knows what Catholics did to Protestants in France and the
French Catholics have not apologized to Protestants yet. Similarly,
Europeans have not apologized to local Mexicans and Indians in the
name of what their grandfathers did. This list can go on and on.
The issue is deadlocked over the margin the world attributes to a
mentality, on which it stands, that "power belongs to its holder." If
you are a powerful country, it is in fact easy for you to produce
fascism and present yourself as something other than what you are. If
you are a weak society with an "identity problem"- we are sorry -,
you should have been a "collector" soul, become as obsessive as
noting how many times you have been beaten since the Treaty of
Karlofca (26th January 1699), make them memorized by pre-school
children, organize campaigns for each separately and include your
name into "Rules of Hatred." Thank God; however, Turkey has a
consciousness of existence condemned to losing a race by deducing
prestige from unjust treatment. The same Turkey; however, is
unfortunately a country, whose relations with history is atrophied
and has become a victim of a pre-republican "amnesia." Many people
are hearing about the Teskilat-i Mahsusa (the Ottoman secret service)
because of the Armenain issue today.
It appears as if Turkey and Armenia can only surmount this problem
only making "politics." The way to stop the Armenian issue from
becoming an ammunition for the European Union (EU) countries, is by
establishing "relations" between the peoples of both countries. Not
getting stuck on legal advantages or disadvantages, but opening the
border gates slowly and slowl... Because getting acquainted with a
Turk will change an Armenian's perspective. Similarly, getting
acquainted with an Armenian might also affect a Turk. It is only then
the climate will change.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
May 6 2005
Getting Acquainted with an Armenian...
NIHAL B. KARACA
05.06.2005 Friday - ISTANBUL 17:51
Debates on the Armenian issue have now been attached to the show of a
Swiss attorney, who sued Yusuf Halacoglu, because he said there was
no genocide. This incident has such a nauseating effect similar to
spooning a soup of flies, even for those who really want to question
history. We can't see the soup because of the flies.
However, it depends on how well the Armenians and Turks share this
soup in order to solve their problems. Whether it tastes good or bad;
this should be "our" problem, "our" meaning the Armenians and Turks.
The issue now rests on whether we did it or didn't do it; however,
reading history is largely a political activity. Even opening the
archives is important from a "political" stance; otherwise, while one
of two historians looking at the same document would say that the
document does not prove the existence of genocide, the other might
see evidence of genocide in it. I do not also think that there is an
ontological difference between historians defending the official
perspective and the "independent" historians. As a matter of fact,
how can an "independent" category exist? No one, whose perception of
an event is matured enough, one way or the other, is independent
enough. Such a sinister history can only be objectively read by a
"robot" and this is not possible. While history is such a notion
intermingled with reading thorough an idea, how come asserting an
idea becomes a crime? Really, I would like to ask what kind of a
Europe we are trying to accede to: Expressing a negative opinion
about homosexuality causes a scandal, bringing some "excessivenesses"
of colored people to the agenda is a taboo, uttering a word about the
number of people killed in Auschwitz is a reason for excommunication,
saying "we did not commit genocide" is a crime. If the scope of the
freedom of thought and freedom of opinion is not limited to a space
as narrow as diet lists or the dentist rates, then what a
contradiction to label a nation's "opinion" about itself, whether
right or wrong, as a crime!
Those, who act "as if nothing happened" from the Turkish side and
defend the state's official theses as a priori truths, need to be
addressed as well. Even reminding those, who believe that the state
can kill people only if it is facing hardship, of the executions by
the Independence Courts, events that occurred in our recent history,
would be enough, I suppose. The cost of creating a "Turkish nation,"
deadlocked on the same goal, affected a lot of "Turkish" "medresa
hodjas" (religious scholars), who were hanged because they did not
wear modern "hats". All the defense indicating that all that was done
was "necessary," might perhaps be used for what was done to the
Armenians. The system always exceeds its bounds to protect itself.
The history of today's noble nations is full of such "massacres."
Everyone knows what Catholics did to Protestants in France and the
French Catholics have not apologized to Protestants yet. Similarly,
Europeans have not apologized to local Mexicans and Indians in the
name of what their grandfathers did. This list can go on and on.
The issue is deadlocked over the margin the world attributes to a
mentality, on which it stands, that "power belongs to its holder." If
you are a powerful country, it is in fact easy for you to produce
fascism and present yourself as something other than what you are. If
you are a weak society with an "identity problem"- we are sorry -,
you should have been a "collector" soul, become as obsessive as
noting how many times you have been beaten since the Treaty of
Karlofca (26th January 1699), make them memorized by pre-school
children, organize campaigns for each separately and include your
name into "Rules of Hatred." Thank God; however, Turkey has a
consciousness of existence condemned to losing a race by deducing
prestige from unjust treatment. The same Turkey; however, is
unfortunately a country, whose relations with history is atrophied
and has become a victim of a pre-republican "amnesia." Many people
are hearing about the Teskilat-i Mahsusa (the Ottoman secret service)
because of the Armenain issue today.
It appears as if Turkey and Armenia can only surmount this problem
only making "politics." The way to stop the Armenian issue from
becoming an ammunition for the European Union (EU) countries, is by
establishing "relations" between the peoples of both countries. Not
getting stuck on legal advantages or disadvantages, but opening the
border gates slowly and slowl... Because getting acquainted with a
Turk will change an Armenian's perspective. Similarly, getting
acquainted with an Armenian might also affect a Turk. It is only then
the climate will change.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress