Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Dec 19 2012
Brotherhood by homeland
CENGİZ AKTAR
Four years ago, around this time of year, we were upside down. In a
country where no one was able to recall for decades the massacres
against the Armenian citizens of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th
century, 31,000 citizens presented a public apology for not being able
to remember and share the pains of their fellow Armenian citizens.
Four years is a very short time for such a protracted unconsciousness.
However, I believe that visible progress has been achieved since that
time to better understand what happened in the past. Of course,
efforts to remember did not start with the apology campaign. The Belge
and Aras publishing houses, the Agos daily, Hrant Dink himself and the
2005 Conference on Ottoman Armenians were key milestones towards
addressing the wall of ignorance and indifference. But through the
apology campaign, the call to remember acquired a public character.
What progress since then? It is hard to even keep track of all that
has happened in terms of recollecting the Armenian tragedy. Our
citizens and our society have assumed the biggest share in carrying
out the remembrance efforts. Pious people are now at the forefront of
these endeavors. Public authorities, though they lag behind and react
to societal initiatives with stately reflexes, have stopped short of
blocking them, at least, and have even sometimes lent their support.
The restoration of the Ahtamar Church in Van with public funds is of
that nature. Yet there is still a long way to go.
It is a well-known fact that when they get excited, politicians make
hefty references to brotherhood and national unity. In Turkey, the
exaltations go like this: "I see every ethnic element in this country
as an asset. All ethnic groups, including the Turks, the Kurds, the
Laz, the Circassians, the Abkhaz, the Bosniaks and the Arabs, are all
alike and equal. We fought together in Malazgirt. We fought
shoulder-to-shoulder in Kosovo, Sarıkamış, Yemen, Çanakkale and the
War of Independence. All people from different ethnic backgrounds are
our brothers."
Religious identity defines the politicians' embracive approach
regarding nationality and citizenship. In the definition of national
unity, the politician refers to the ancient and more recent
ethnicities of Anatolia with the exception of non-Muslims. Have you
ever heard a politician, after listing the Turks, the Kurds, the Arabs
and the Circassians, name the Armenians, the Greeks and the Syriacs?
There is no reference to non-Muslims in defining nationhood simply
because the Turkish nation is inherently defined by Islam.
Accordingly, non-Muslims are not included in the definition of the
Turkish nation. Everyone in the republic is a citizen with the
exception of non-Muslims.
Let me invite you to think about this matter by recalling what a wise
man, Ahmet Mithat Efendi, wrote about hundreds of years ago. The
excerpt is from a book by Fazıl Gökçek called "Osmanlı Kapısında
Büyümek -- Ahmet Mithat Efendi'nin Hikye ve Romanlarında Gayrimüslim
Osmanlılar" (Non-Muslim Ottomans in the stories and novels of Ahmet
Mithat Efendi). Aware of the damage caused to the social fabric by
clashing national endeavors in the late Ottoman Empire, Ahmet Mithat
Efendi wrote the following in his Tercüman-ı Hakikat daily two months
after the promulgation of the constitutional monarchy on Sept. 17,
1908:
"Establishing brotherhood with our Christian citizens does not mean
our submission to them; it means avoiding the tricks that create such
a submission. But we should leave these political considerations aside
and let us think about the meaning of brotherhood with Christians. We
need to do this because we live together with them in a city or town.
The rising sun bestows life upon all of us. The pouring rain feeds us
all. Natural disasters, including earthquakes, affect us all. We enjoy
the weddings of one another. We feel pain and sadness because of each
other's sickness and funerals. In essence, we are to be considered as
partners in the same civilization. Considering that all these factors
create a sort of brotherhood between us and given that we cannot call
it brotherhood by religion nor by blood, will it be catastrophic if we
call it brotherhood by homeland?"
As I said, there is still a long way to go, even to reach the wisdom
of Ahmet Mithat Efendi.
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnistDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=301633
From: Baghdasarian
Dec 19 2012
Brotherhood by homeland
CENGİZ AKTAR
Four years ago, around this time of year, we were upside down. In a
country where no one was able to recall for decades the massacres
against the Armenian citizens of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th
century, 31,000 citizens presented a public apology for not being able
to remember and share the pains of their fellow Armenian citizens.
Four years is a very short time for such a protracted unconsciousness.
However, I believe that visible progress has been achieved since that
time to better understand what happened in the past. Of course,
efforts to remember did not start with the apology campaign. The Belge
and Aras publishing houses, the Agos daily, Hrant Dink himself and the
2005 Conference on Ottoman Armenians were key milestones towards
addressing the wall of ignorance and indifference. But through the
apology campaign, the call to remember acquired a public character.
What progress since then? It is hard to even keep track of all that
has happened in terms of recollecting the Armenian tragedy. Our
citizens and our society have assumed the biggest share in carrying
out the remembrance efforts. Pious people are now at the forefront of
these endeavors. Public authorities, though they lag behind and react
to societal initiatives with stately reflexes, have stopped short of
blocking them, at least, and have even sometimes lent their support.
The restoration of the Ahtamar Church in Van with public funds is of
that nature. Yet there is still a long way to go.
It is a well-known fact that when they get excited, politicians make
hefty references to brotherhood and national unity. In Turkey, the
exaltations go like this: "I see every ethnic element in this country
as an asset. All ethnic groups, including the Turks, the Kurds, the
Laz, the Circassians, the Abkhaz, the Bosniaks and the Arabs, are all
alike and equal. We fought together in Malazgirt. We fought
shoulder-to-shoulder in Kosovo, Sarıkamış, Yemen, Çanakkale and the
War of Independence. All people from different ethnic backgrounds are
our brothers."
Religious identity defines the politicians' embracive approach
regarding nationality and citizenship. In the definition of national
unity, the politician refers to the ancient and more recent
ethnicities of Anatolia with the exception of non-Muslims. Have you
ever heard a politician, after listing the Turks, the Kurds, the Arabs
and the Circassians, name the Armenians, the Greeks and the Syriacs?
There is no reference to non-Muslims in defining nationhood simply
because the Turkish nation is inherently defined by Islam.
Accordingly, non-Muslims are not included in the definition of the
Turkish nation. Everyone in the republic is a citizen with the
exception of non-Muslims.
Let me invite you to think about this matter by recalling what a wise
man, Ahmet Mithat Efendi, wrote about hundreds of years ago. The
excerpt is from a book by Fazıl Gökçek called "Osmanlı Kapısında
Büyümek -- Ahmet Mithat Efendi'nin Hikye ve Romanlarında Gayrimüslim
Osmanlılar" (Non-Muslim Ottomans in the stories and novels of Ahmet
Mithat Efendi). Aware of the damage caused to the social fabric by
clashing national endeavors in the late Ottoman Empire, Ahmet Mithat
Efendi wrote the following in his Tercüman-ı Hakikat daily two months
after the promulgation of the constitutional monarchy on Sept. 17,
1908:
"Establishing brotherhood with our Christian citizens does not mean
our submission to them; it means avoiding the tricks that create such
a submission. But we should leave these political considerations aside
and let us think about the meaning of brotherhood with Christians. We
need to do this because we live together with them in a city or town.
The rising sun bestows life upon all of us. The pouring rain feeds us
all. Natural disasters, including earthquakes, affect us all. We enjoy
the weddings of one another. We feel pain and sadness because of each
other's sickness and funerals. In essence, we are to be considered as
partners in the same civilization. Considering that all these factors
create a sort of brotherhood between us and given that we cannot call
it brotherhood by religion nor by blood, will it be catastrophic if we
call it brotherhood by homeland?"
As I said, there is still a long way to go, even to reach the wisdom
of Ahmet Mithat Efendi.
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnistDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=301633
From: Baghdasarian