Tweet
Turks Must Be Smoking Their Own Poppies
BY GAREN YEGPARIAN
So disconnected from reality is an article I just read from a Turkish
source, that I thought I had found the explanation for why we no
longer hear (since the 1970s) about opium from Turkish poppies being
shipped to the west' the Turks are smoking it all, with none left for
export.
A friend who had attended the ANCA-Western Region's Grassroots
Conference on Thanksgiving weekend met a Turkish participant, Bahar
Senem Çevik-Ersaydi, who is an Assistant Professor at Ankara
University. She's the author of the article, `The Armenian Diaspora
and the Need for the `Other'' (published in Issue no.09/2011 of `Gazi
Akademik BakıÅ?') that betrays where the bulk of Turkish intellectuals
(let alone society) are stuck when it comes to Armenian issues, and
particularly, the Genocide.
This article, based partially on discredited Freudian psychological
theories, posits that the Armenian Diaspora uses `Turks' as the
`other' which serves as a `reservoir all bad elements'. Why? Because,
it seems, according to Çevik-Ersaydi, this is at least one of the main
ways (if not the way) the Diaspora sustains its identity. We allegedly
teach kids to hate Turks for this reason.
Of course it seems to escape our `learned' author that any human
learning of the type of horrors inflicted by the Turks on our
families, would, as a first reaction, hate the perpetrator of such a
crime if her/his family were the victim.
It is precisely the horror and magnitude of the crime of genocide that
understandably leads the Turks of today not to be able to even
consider that THEIR families could have been guilty of such a crime.
Yet, not only consider, but accept it they must.
The article is laced with the usual Turkish denialist narrative. First
off, not once is the term `genocide' used. It is `events', `historical
enmity', `sense of being victimized', etc. Then we have the usual
attempt to equate the Armenian and Turkish experiences of the era in
question, perhaps best manifested by this sentence from her
conclusion:
`These two groups which are so much alike in terms of eating-drinking
habits, dressing, culture and music have identified each other as
their archenemy due to past experiences with each other and various
external provocations.'
Of course you'll notice the attribution of Armenian-Turkish antagonism
to `external' factors. Naturally, the de rigueur reference to Armenian
terrorism is present, and taken to the laughable extent of somewhat
anachronistically describing Ashod Yergat (whose 1870 birth-date she
notes), one of our revolutionary-period heroes, as a `terrorist.' This
is all standard-issue Turkish jargon used to discredit our efforts to
restore justice to our nation.
Then we have the attempt to give this `polite' denialism the veneer of
legitimacy. Of course the article is a study in `political psychology'
published in an academic journal. She references Armenian sources'
Hrant Dink, Viken Yacoubian, Donald E. and Lorna Touryan Miller, even
`Haytoug'' the AYF-Western Region's publication, along with others.
Various sources are cited in the first half of the article where a
theoretical construct is assembled to help in the effort to explain
away, minimize, Armenians' responses to the Genocide.
My friend, who had mentioned me to Bahar Senem Çevik-Ersaydi,
suggested I talk to her before writing this piece. After reading her
article, I'm glad I did not, because she is still far too lost in the
jungle of denialism for me to give her a hand so she can cross over
into the land of human decency.
Nevertheless, I would not object to meeting with her, as long as our
discussion was recorded, since I would not want to be misquoted or
cited out-of-context. I also laud her attendance at the Grassroots
Conference, though I am a bit suspicious of her motivation and the
prism through which she perceived what was presented and discussed
there.
Instead of trying to explain away Armenian attitudes through abused
psycho-babble (`chosen trauma' is what she calls the Genocide, a
farcical term in all but her extremely narrow context), Çevik-Ersaydi
should perhaps look into herself to discern what motivates her to
engage in `polite' denial of the Armenian Genocide. Let's all help her
if she asks for it.
http://asbarez.com/117149/turks-must-be-smoking-their-own-poppies/
BY GAREN YEGPARIAN
So disconnected from reality is an article I just read from a Turkish
source, that I thought I had found the explanation for why we no
longer hear (since the 1970s) about opium from Turkish poppies being
shipped to the west' the Turks are smoking it all, with none left for
export.
A friend who had attended the ANCA-Western Region's Grassroots
Conference on Thanksgiving weekend met a Turkish participant, Bahar
Senem Çevik-Ersaydi, who is an Assistant Professor at Ankara
University. She's the author of the article, `The Armenian Diaspora
and the Need for the `Other'' (published in Issue no.09/2011 of `Gazi
Akademik BakıÅ?') that betrays where the bulk of Turkish intellectuals
(let alone society) are stuck when it comes to Armenian issues, and
particularly, the Genocide.
This article, based partially on discredited Freudian psychological
theories, posits that the Armenian Diaspora uses `Turks' as the
`other' which serves as a `reservoir all bad elements'. Why? Because,
it seems, according to Çevik-Ersaydi, this is at least one of the main
ways (if not the way) the Diaspora sustains its identity. We allegedly
teach kids to hate Turks for this reason.
Of course it seems to escape our `learned' author that any human
learning of the type of horrors inflicted by the Turks on our
families, would, as a first reaction, hate the perpetrator of such a
crime if her/his family were the victim.
It is precisely the horror and magnitude of the crime of genocide that
understandably leads the Turks of today not to be able to even
consider that THEIR families could have been guilty of such a crime.
Yet, not only consider, but accept it they must.
The article is laced with the usual Turkish denialist narrative. First
off, not once is the term `genocide' used. It is `events', `historical
enmity', `sense of being victimized', etc. Then we have the usual
attempt to equate the Armenian and Turkish experiences of the era in
question, perhaps best manifested by this sentence from her
conclusion:
`These two groups which are so much alike in terms of eating-drinking
habits, dressing, culture and music have identified each other as
their archenemy due to past experiences with each other and various
external provocations.'
Of course you'll notice the attribution of Armenian-Turkish antagonism
to `external' factors. Naturally, the de rigueur reference to Armenian
terrorism is present, and taken to the laughable extent of somewhat
anachronistically describing Ashod Yergat (whose 1870 birth-date she
notes), one of our revolutionary-period heroes, as a `terrorist.' This
is all standard-issue Turkish jargon used to discredit our efforts to
restore justice to our nation.
Then we have the attempt to give this `polite' denialism the veneer of
legitimacy. Of course the article is a study in `political psychology'
published in an academic journal. She references Armenian sources'
Hrant Dink, Viken Yacoubian, Donald E. and Lorna Touryan Miller, even
`Haytoug'' the AYF-Western Region's publication, along with others.
Various sources are cited in the first half of the article where a
theoretical construct is assembled to help in the effort to explain
away, minimize, Armenians' responses to the Genocide.
My friend, who had mentioned me to Bahar Senem Çevik-Ersaydi,
suggested I talk to her before writing this piece. After reading her
article, I'm glad I did not, because she is still far too lost in the
jungle of denialism for me to give her a hand so she can cross over
into the land of human decency.
Nevertheless, I would not object to meeting with her, as long as our
discussion was recorded, since I would not want to be misquoted or
cited out-of-context. I also laud her attendance at the Grassroots
Conference, though I am a bit suspicious of her motivation and the
prism through which she perceived what was presented and discussed
there.
Instead of trying to explain away Armenian attitudes through abused
psycho-babble (`chosen trauma' is what she calls the Genocide, a
farcical term in all but her extremely narrow context), Çevik-Ersaydi
should perhaps look into herself to discern what motivates her to
engage in `polite' denial of the Armenian Genocide. Let's all help her
if she asks for it.
http://asbarez.com/117149/turks-must-be-smoking-their-own-poppies/