Tweet
NO ONE IS A "TURK"... EXCEPT FOR TURKS
October 4 2013
In the first half of 90, the Dashnak papers called the first president
of Armenia a "Turk". This image (or, if allowed to say, "mythologema")
is also used later; remember, for example, in 2000, the Leon in "Grand
Tobacco" funded cartoon is driving a train in a Turkish fez. In 90s,
this campaign fell on a fertile soil, when I used to say "street
people" that the Turks are a nation, and it should not be used as
an invective, especially against the first figure of the state, my
interlocutors were saying, "he had destroyed this marvelous country,
shut down the factories, plundered, switched off the lights to bring
and sell diesel, he has made all people a hawker or a refugee, what
else he can be called, if not a Turk." In short, a bunch of fairy
tales, which justifies the swearword of a "Turk". Now, the young
Republicans call Zaruhi Postanjyan a "Turk", allegedly, she had no
right to raise Armenia's internal political problems at PACE. In fact,
in terms of content, I do not agree with it, she had the right. It's
another issue that she, in my opinion, should have appeared just with
political questions, and the topic of casino seems very frivolous and
caual. In response to the Republican Party, the oppositions are saying,
"No, Serge is a Turk, because he had plundered, he had made all people
become refugees" and so on. Let's not go into details to know which
of these allegations are correct, and which are wrong. The matter
is that MP, publicists and commentators are using the word "Turk" as
an abusive, insulting, and a very negative labeling. In other words,
it is done not at the level of domestic but of public debate. Those
who are in favor of such labeling bring up to two arguments 1/
other nations, including Europeans, are also using the work "Turk"
in the abusive context, as well as "Armenian" in the same negative
wording, 2/ is that the Turks are bad? Both are very possible. But
I do not care about other nations in this context. I care about us
with our mythology, and our complexities. Let others be involved in
their complexities. The complexities with regard to a "Turk", to my
understanding, disturb us in general, and especially disturb us to
understand the real Turks. Let's agree that none of us, Armenian,
is a "Turk". Only people belonging to given nationality are Turks.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/10/04/161882/
October 4 2013
In the first half of 90, the Dashnak papers called the first president
of Armenia a "Turk". This image (or, if allowed to say, "mythologema")
is also used later; remember, for example, in 2000, the Leon in "Grand
Tobacco" funded cartoon is driving a train in a Turkish fez. In 90s,
this campaign fell on a fertile soil, when I used to say "street
people" that the Turks are a nation, and it should not be used as
an invective, especially against the first figure of the state, my
interlocutors were saying, "he had destroyed this marvelous country,
shut down the factories, plundered, switched off the lights to bring
and sell diesel, he has made all people a hawker or a refugee, what
else he can be called, if not a Turk." In short, a bunch of fairy
tales, which justifies the swearword of a "Turk". Now, the young
Republicans call Zaruhi Postanjyan a "Turk", allegedly, she had no
right to raise Armenia's internal political problems at PACE. In fact,
in terms of content, I do not agree with it, she had the right. It's
another issue that she, in my opinion, should have appeared just with
political questions, and the topic of casino seems very frivolous and
caual. In response to the Republican Party, the oppositions are saying,
"No, Serge is a Turk, because he had plundered, he had made all people
become refugees" and so on. Let's not go into details to know which
of these allegations are correct, and which are wrong. The matter
is that MP, publicists and commentators are using the word "Turk" as
an abusive, insulting, and a very negative labeling. In other words,
it is done not at the level of domestic but of public debate. Those
who are in favor of such labeling bring up to two arguments 1/
other nations, including Europeans, are also using the work "Turk"
in the abusive context, as well as "Armenian" in the same negative
wording, 2/ is that the Turks are bad? Both are very possible. But
I do not care about other nations in this context. I care about us
with our mythology, and our complexities. Let others be involved in
their complexities. The complexities with regard to a "Turk", to my
understanding, disturb us in general, and especially disturb us to
understand the real Turks. Let's agree that none of us, Armenian,
is a "Turk". Only people belonging to given nationality are Turks.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/10/04/161882/