Tweet
Serovpian to Akcam: Cemal Should `Listen and Understand' Before Lecturing
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2009/11/2 6/serovpian-to-akcam-cemal-should-listen-and-under stand-before-lecturing/
November 26, 2009
By Marga Serovpian
On Nov. 18, Hurriyet Daily News published the English translation of a
column written by Hasan Cemal in Milliyet on his talk at Harvard
University. Below, I comment on some of the things he said in the
column. Some of my comments also address the Mouradian-Akcam
discussion on Cemal's lecture in Watertown.
`I said the biggest mistake while seeking peace is to give into sorrow
and the past.' (H. Cemal)
And I, and others, say that seeking peace without first dealing with a
denied genocide is bound to fail - that is, if `seeking peace' is your
priority (there may be other desirable priorities). Being against
violence and hostility doesn't imply wanting peace at all costs (at
the cost of justice, truth, and respect for the dead and their
offspring).
I would like to humbly suggest that Hasan Cemal - and other Turkish
citizens who claim they are knowledgeable enough to `explicate Turks,
Armenians, and pain' - instead of determining what is needed with Hrant
Dink's posthumous blessing, and conveying it to an Armenian public
that has so many reasons to feel cheated and exasperated, they simply
ask ordinary Diaspora Armenians of various generations `to feel at
peace with us/me, to have a sincere, quiet, friendly relationship with
us/me, what do you need?'
What do you do in everyday life when you detect suffering and are
genuinely concerned? Don't you ask your depressed child or sibling
what makes him or her suffer, and what could help, instead of asking
them to understand your divorce or your stomach ulcer? This is partly
an answer to Taner Akcam, who says that Cemal is able to listen and
understand. He is welcome to listen and understand, but it might be
wise to do so before giving a lecture or writing an article,
especially on such issues.
***
`I added that we need free discussions. With that, I mean, through
cultural dialogues, Turks and Armenians will get closer. For this
reason, focusing over genocide discussions wouldn't help. That would
even put free talks into a deadlock and only fanatics and nationalists
on both sides would be happy.' (H. Cemal)
We know the tune of `fanatics and nationalists on both sides,' so no
comment. But does Cemal realize that even if the genocide is left
aside during the free cultural discussions he advocates, in most if
not all cases (I cannot speak for everyone) it is constantly there, at
the back (or the fore) of the minds of Armenians, Assyrians,
Chaldeans, and Greeks? We can't help but think: Why is Cemal meeting
Armenians at Harvard instead of in Erzerum or Smyrna? What are we
doing, speaking of dolmas with a Turkish journalist or professor in
Paris, Los Angeles, or Buenos Aires, if not living the very physical
consequence of the genocide - which mustn't `be focused on,' not because
`it wouldn't help' (come on), but because it is denied? And what can
stop this uncontrollable awareness in most of the descendents of the
dead, except the recognition of the crime, which can allow it to
finally find its place in history and in the past, instead of being
our present?
My experience is that only with Turks who recognize the horror can I
almost instantly focus on other subjects. Otherwise, while we are
politely chatting about cuisine, music, tourism, or Marxism, I am
constantly at odds with these sweet `intellectuals.' I personally see
them as `opinion makers' who, though they may have several agreeable
activities on their agendas, are aiming to avoid recognizing the
genocide - unlike Akcam. By the way, if Cemal admires Akcam that much,
why not follow his example or that of other Turkish and Kurdish
scholars? Many have seen how, once acknowledgement and recognition of
the genocide is clearly uttered, friendship, even a certain closeness,
develops almost immediately - and logically. For, if in the current
political context I can trust a Turk on such a critical issue as the
genocide, how could I not trust him or her with lesser subjects, like
family life, children, health problems, etc.?
Joint cultural events, pleasant evenings, encounters, and
conversations are all useful, but only as an addition to the very
basic thing - recognition - that is needed, and has so far been largely
impossible to get. These intellectuals are not very useful if their
only purpose is to feel good (`See, I am a Turk who speaks and drinks
with Armenians') or to show that `Look, Armenians and Turks speak
together and no one has drawn a knife, so leave the genocide issue to
the civil society - for yet another century.'
As others have stressed, genocide recognition is not an obstacle to
peaceful relations, and it is disturbing to hear people suggest that
it might be.
I now wonder: Is it commonplace in Turkey that when someone harms you,
he suggests friendship without recognizing what he did, without
apologizing, and without offering some compensation, and you are the
bad guy if you want all of the latter before shaking hands and
accepting his coffee and baklava? Is this how Turkish society
functions?
***
`Dear Hrant had said: `Understanding comes first, not denial or
acknowledgment...'' (H. Cemal)
Sorry, but so what? Hrant Dink, who is not allowed to rest in peace,
said a lot of things, and it was his right to do so. But as some of us
remarked when he was still alive, he was not appointed by millions of
Armenians to speak in our name. Nor have others, like the Catholicos,
Charles Aznavour, party leaders, Armenia's president, NGO
representatives. They haven't been elected by the masses. The fact
that Hrant Dink was another Armenian assassinated by a Turk earns him
respect and empathy, and still hurts, but it doesn't automatically
make him everyone's spokesman.
Besides, if the Turkish intellectuals (whose statements many of us
question) were so sure of the ethical foundations of what they are
doing and saying, would they need to use quotations from Hrant Dink
(conveniently an Armenian)? Whatever the context surrounding the words
above, it is a fact that denial has come first, and is still there - in
Turkish schools with Sari Gelin, and imported in European and American
schools and universities. Now, not yesterday. So for many Armenians
(if not for certain politicians) yes, acknowledgment must come first,
just as it probably would in a one-to-one relationship with a
neighbor. (Just try to apply this rhetoric to other cases. Take a nice
Japanese journalist, send him to make a similar speech to Korean
`comfort women,' and let's see if they applaud.)
I don't have a problem with Cemal as a person; rather, I have a
problem with what he says and does. He is certainly a kind man, who
liked Hrant Dink sincerely, and I appreciate the fact that he visited
the Genocide Museum in Yerevan. However, the destruction of a people
and of the future of its offspring needs something different. Before
addressing Armenians, he might use his reputation and his pen to
demand that Talat's Mausoleum be destroyed, that no streets be named
after Talat, and - why not - that his government face the past. There is
no doubt that his actions will be more relevant within Turkey, as
other readers of the Armenian Weekly have pointed out.
Finally, I don't agree with Akcam that Cemal `paid for others.'
Especially after reading Cemal's own column, I think he `paid' for
what he himself said, for which he and he alone is responsible. I have
no doubt that as a columnist and a `public person,' he is able to take
responsibility for what he says, and to accept criticism. Cemal also
`paid' for not learning from so many similar occurrences in the past.
I won't name names but many other Turkish opinion makers (and that's
the problem - they speak to a public, not to one or two individuals)
have made similar statements before and have gotten similar responses.
So the responses, not just Khatchig Mouradian's, were perfectly
predictable, if, that is, one were really willing to listen and learn.
And the next one who asks Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians (who, it
seems, have been forgotten thanks to the protocols) to `understand'
Turkish pain first or drink raki first, will be welcomed with even
more frustration indeed. In addition, I don't believe that Mouradian's
frustration is with `Turkish intellectuals,' but with certain Turkish
intellectuals. And I find it perplexing that several of the
journalists who deal with the Armenian-Turkish issues do so while
being in the process of learning (we hear); and yet they are the ones
educating a Turkish audience! Is this supposed to be normal? Imagine a
first year medical student `who is still in the process of learning'
writing columns in national newspapers to explain what to do in case
of a heart attack, or epilepsy, or when you suspect your baby has
appendicitis? Would you like your children to be taught how to drive
on a motorway by an instructor who himself is still in the process of
learning how to drive?
How can anyone be able to `explicate Turks, Armenians, and pain' when
they are still learning? Again, the problem is not the person; it is
what is said, written, published, and disseminated. Maybe the next
article will be just great, who knows?
And now, a very simple question: Suppose tomorrow morning, Turkey
wakes up and discovers that during the night, the Turkish president
and prime minister have officially recognized the `Armenian, Assyrian,
Chaldean, Syriac, and Greek Genocide carried out in the Ottoman
Empire.' Imagine they have apologized for it publicly, have pledged to
examine the compensation issue and to remove all denialism from
textbooks. (Just think of the money Turkey would save!) Then suppose
Cemal is invited to speak to Armenians again. (And the same for other
Turkish opinion makers, especially the designers of the apology
statement.) Would they repeat the same things, word for word? `Medz
Yeghern,' `mutual suffering,' `Balkan Turks'?
***
In a book called Dialogue sur le tabou arménien, by Ahmet Insel and
Michel Marian (Liana lévi, 2009), Ahmet Insel says, `Dans 20 ans, dans
2 ans, dans 6 mois, un jour, j'utiliserai peut-être le terme génocide
parce que j'aurai de nouvelles informations. Tu sais, j'ai déjà pas
mal évolué.' (pp. 123-4). ('In 20 years, in 2 years, in 6 months, one
day, maybe I'll use the term `genocide' because I'll have new
information. You know, I have already progressed quite a lot!'). This
too is an indirect answer to Akcam and others: What Insel is saying
is that until he finds that last bit of information, he is going to
continue teaching his audiences and his readers that `it' was a lot of
awful things, but not genocide.
Yet in an interview to Nouvelles d'Arménie Magazine
(http://www.armenews.com/article.php3?id_ article=54617) he conceded
that according to Lemkin's definition, what happened in 1915-16 was
genocide, but added that the word `blocked' discussion in Turkey. He
did not say, however, that he needed more information.
One is amazed: every 6 months, or 2 months, depending on Ahmet Insel's
changing views on the matter, should the Turkish public learn a
different lesson about a historical event that concerns its past and
present? Should the very fact of what Ottoman Christians were
subjected to change like the pictures of a kaleidoscope? A little
twist, and the `events' become `incidents,' another one and you have
`massacres,' then `crime against humanity,' then a `Great
Catastrophe,' and another effort, oh, OK `genocide'... and two months
later, again a twist and what? `Disaster'? `Big inconvenience'?
Do Turkish journalists deal with everything - biology, economics, law,
cars etc. - in this way?
***
I leave you with one last thought over `Turkish intellectuals' and
`leave it to the civil society': I don't know what the judiciary
system is like in Turkey, but in the west, the most serious crimes are
judged by a jury of `ordinary' people, not by professional judges. If
a mechanic, a nurse, or a grocer is competent enough to examine a
criminal case and sentence someone to life in prison, he or she must
also be competent to have an opinion about the killing of an entire
population. I do not understand why `civil society' seems to exclude
such people, whose sensitivity and ethics may be as fine-tuned as
those of university graduates - provided they do not teach others what
they haven't yet learned.
The last word to Cemal: `If we really want peace and calm, let's not
be afraid of history.'
OK, but hurry up.
Marga Serovpian is a Weekly reader based in Marseille, France.
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2009/11/2 6/serovpian-to-akcam-cemal-should-listen-and-under stand-before-lecturing/
November 26, 2009
By Marga Serovpian
On Nov. 18, Hurriyet Daily News published the English translation of a
column written by Hasan Cemal in Milliyet on his talk at Harvard
University. Below, I comment on some of the things he said in the
column. Some of my comments also address the Mouradian-Akcam
discussion on Cemal's lecture in Watertown.
`I said the biggest mistake while seeking peace is to give into sorrow
and the past.' (H. Cemal)
And I, and others, say that seeking peace without first dealing with a
denied genocide is bound to fail - that is, if `seeking peace' is your
priority (there may be other desirable priorities). Being against
violence and hostility doesn't imply wanting peace at all costs (at
the cost of justice, truth, and respect for the dead and their
offspring).
I would like to humbly suggest that Hasan Cemal - and other Turkish
citizens who claim they are knowledgeable enough to `explicate Turks,
Armenians, and pain' - instead of determining what is needed with Hrant
Dink's posthumous blessing, and conveying it to an Armenian public
that has so many reasons to feel cheated and exasperated, they simply
ask ordinary Diaspora Armenians of various generations `to feel at
peace with us/me, to have a sincere, quiet, friendly relationship with
us/me, what do you need?'
What do you do in everyday life when you detect suffering and are
genuinely concerned? Don't you ask your depressed child or sibling
what makes him or her suffer, and what could help, instead of asking
them to understand your divorce or your stomach ulcer? This is partly
an answer to Taner Akcam, who says that Cemal is able to listen and
understand. He is welcome to listen and understand, but it might be
wise to do so before giving a lecture or writing an article,
especially on such issues.
***
`I added that we need free discussions. With that, I mean, through
cultural dialogues, Turks and Armenians will get closer. For this
reason, focusing over genocide discussions wouldn't help. That would
even put free talks into a deadlock and only fanatics and nationalists
on both sides would be happy.' (H. Cemal)
We know the tune of `fanatics and nationalists on both sides,' so no
comment. But does Cemal realize that even if the genocide is left
aside during the free cultural discussions he advocates, in most if
not all cases (I cannot speak for everyone) it is constantly there, at
the back (or the fore) of the minds of Armenians, Assyrians,
Chaldeans, and Greeks? We can't help but think: Why is Cemal meeting
Armenians at Harvard instead of in Erzerum or Smyrna? What are we
doing, speaking of dolmas with a Turkish journalist or professor in
Paris, Los Angeles, or Buenos Aires, if not living the very physical
consequence of the genocide - which mustn't `be focused on,' not because
`it wouldn't help' (come on), but because it is denied? And what can
stop this uncontrollable awareness in most of the descendents of the
dead, except the recognition of the crime, which can allow it to
finally find its place in history and in the past, instead of being
our present?
My experience is that only with Turks who recognize the horror can I
almost instantly focus on other subjects. Otherwise, while we are
politely chatting about cuisine, music, tourism, or Marxism, I am
constantly at odds with these sweet `intellectuals.' I personally see
them as `opinion makers' who, though they may have several agreeable
activities on their agendas, are aiming to avoid recognizing the
genocide - unlike Akcam. By the way, if Cemal admires Akcam that much,
why not follow his example or that of other Turkish and Kurdish
scholars? Many have seen how, once acknowledgement and recognition of
the genocide is clearly uttered, friendship, even a certain closeness,
develops almost immediately - and logically. For, if in the current
political context I can trust a Turk on such a critical issue as the
genocide, how could I not trust him or her with lesser subjects, like
family life, children, health problems, etc.?
Joint cultural events, pleasant evenings, encounters, and
conversations are all useful, but only as an addition to the very
basic thing - recognition - that is needed, and has so far been largely
impossible to get. These intellectuals are not very useful if their
only purpose is to feel good (`See, I am a Turk who speaks and drinks
with Armenians') or to show that `Look, Armenians and Turks speak
together and no one has drawn a knife, so leave the genocide issue to
the civil society - for yet another century.'
As others have stressed, genocide recognition is not an obstacle to
peaceful relations, and it is disturbing to hear people suggest that
it might be.
I now wonder: Is it commonplace in Turkey that when someone harms you,
he suggests friendship without recognizing what he did, without
apologizing, and without offering some compensation, and you are the
bad guy if you want all of the latter before shaking hands and
accepting his coffee and baklava? Is this how Turkish society
functions?
***
`Dear Hrant had said: `Understanding comes first, not denial or
acknowledgment...'' (H. Cemal)
Sorry, but so what? Hrant Dink, who is not allowed to rest in peace,
said a lot of things, and it was his right to do so. But as some of us
remarked when he was still alive, he was not appointed by millions of
Armenians to speak in our name. Nor have others, like the Catholicos,
Charles Aznavour, party leaders, Armenia's president, NGO
representatives. They haven't been elected by the masses. The fact
that Hrant Dink was another Armenian assassinated by a Turk earns him
respect and empathy, and still hurts, but it doesn't automatically
make him everyone's spokesman.
Besides, if the Turkish intellectuals (whose statements many of us
question) were so sure of the ethical foundations of what they are
doing and saying, would they need to use quotations from Hrant Dink
(conveniently an Armenian)? Whatever the context surrounding the words
above, it is a fact that denial has come first, and is still there - in
Turkish schools with Sari Gelin, and imported in European and American
schools and universities. Now, not yesterday. So for many Armenians
(if not for certain politicians) yes, acknowledgment must come first,
just as it probably would in a one-to-one relationship with a
neighbor. (Just try to apply this rhetoric to other cases. Take a nice
Japanese journalist, send him to make a similar speech to Korean
`comfort women,' and let's see if they applaud.)
I don't have a problem with Cemal as a person; rather, I have a
problem with what he says and does. He is certainly a kind man, who
liked Hrant Dink sincerely, and I appreciate the fact that he visited
the Genocide Museum in Yerevan. However, the destruction of a people
and of the future of its offspring needs something different. Before
addressing Armenians, he might use his reputation and his pen to
demand that Talat's Mausoleum be destroyed, that no streets be named
after Talat, and - why not - that his government face the past. There is
no doubt that his actions will be more relevant within Turkey, as
other readers of the Armenian Weekly have pointed out.
Finally, I don't agree with Akcam that Cemal `paid for others.'
Especially after reading Cemal's own column, I think he `paid' for
what he himself said, for which he and he alone is responsible. I have
no doubt that as a columnist and a `public person,' he is able to take
responsibility for what he says, and to accept criticism. Cemal also
`paid' for not learning from so many similar occurrences in the past.
I won't name names but many other Turkish opinion makers (and that's
the problem - they speak to a public, not to one or two individuals)
have made similar statements before and have gotten similar responses.
So the responses, not just Khatchig Mouradian's, were perfectly
predictable, if, that is, one were really willing to listen and learn.
And the next one who asks Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians (who, it
seems, have been forgotten thanks to the protocols) to `understand'
Turkish pain first or drink raki first, will be welcomed with even
more frustration indeed. In addition, I don't believe that Mouradian's
frustration is with `Turkish intellectuals,' but with certain Turkish
intellectuals. And I find it perplexing that several of the
journalists who deal with the Armenian-Turkish issues do so while
being in the process of learning (we hear); and yet they are the ones
educating a Turkish audience! Is this supposed to be normal? Imagine a
first year medical student `who is still in the process of learning'
writing columns in national newspapers to explain what to do in case
of a heart attack, or epilepsy, or when you suspect your baby has
appendicitis? Would you like your children to be taught how to drive
on a motorway by an instructor who himself is still in the process of
learning how to drive?
How can anyone be able to `explicate Turks, Armenians, and pain' when
they are still learning? Again, the problem is not the person; it is
what is said, written, published, and disseminated. Maybe the next
article will be just great, who knows?
And now, a very simple question: Suppose tomorrow morning, Turkey
wakes up and discovers that during the night, the Turkish president
and prime minister have officially recognized the `Armenian, Assyrian,
Chaldean, Syriac, and Greek Genocide carried out in the Ottoman
Empire.' Imagine they have apologized for it publicly, have pledged to
examine the compensation issue and to remove all denialism from
textbooks. (Just think of the money Turkey would save!) Then suppose
Cemal is invited to speak to Armenians again. (And the same for other
Turkish opinion makers, especially the designers of the apology
statement.) Would they repeat the same things, word for word? `Medz
Yeghern,' `mutual suffering,' `Balkan Turks'?
***
In a book called Dialogue sur le tabou arménien, by Ahmet Insel and
Michel Marian (Liana lévi, 2009), Ahmet Insel says, `Dans 20 ans, dans
2 ans, dans 6 mois, un jour, j'utiliserai peut-être le terme génocide
parce que j'aurai de nouvelles informations. Tu sais, j'ai déjà pas
mal évolué.' (pp. 123-4). ('In 20 years, in 2 years, in 6 months, one
day, maybe I'll use the term `genocide' because I'll have new
information. You know, I have already progressed quite a lot!'). This
too is an indirect answer to Akcam and others: What Insel is saying
is that until he finds that last bit of information, he is going to
continue teaching his audiences and his readers that `it' was a lot of
awful things, but not genocide.
Yet in an interview to Nouvelles d'Arménie Magazine
(http://www.armenews.com/article.php3?id_ article=54617) he conceded
that according to Lemkin's definition, what happened in 1915-16 was
genocide, but added that the word `blocked' discussion in Turkey. He
did not say, however, that he needed more information.
One is amazed: every 6 months, or 2 months, depending on Ahmet Insel's
changing views on the matter, should the Turkish public learn a
different lesson about a historical event that concerns its past and
present? Should the very fact of what Ottoman Christians were
subjected to change like the pictures of a kaleidoscope? A little
twist, and the `events' become `incidents,' another one and you have
`massacres,' then `crime against humanity,' then a `Great
Catastrophe,' and another effort, oh, OK `genocide'... and two months
later, again a twist and what? `Disaster'? `Big inconvenience'?
Do Turkish journalists deal with everything - biology, economics, law,
cars etc. - in this way?
***
I leave you with one last thought over `Turkish intellectuals' and
`leave it to the civil society': I don't know what the judiciary
system is like in Turkey, but in the west, the most serious crimes are
judged by a jury of `ordinary' people, not by professional judges. If
a mechanic, a nurse, or a grocer is competent enough to examine a
criminal case and sentence someone to life in prison, he or she must
also be competent to have an opinion about the killing of an entire
population. I do not understand why `civil society' seems to exclude
such people, whose sensitivity and ethics may be as fine-tuned as
those of university graduates - provided they do not teach others what
they haven't yet learned.
The last word to Cemal: `If we really want peace and calm, let's not
be afraid of history.'
OK, but hurry up.
Marga Serovpian is a Weekly reader based in Marseille, France.