konferans hakkında
Q: How do you know the work presented at your academic conference is timely, relevant, and likely to have an impact beyond the walls of the ivory tower?
A: When four dudes from the Turkish embassy/consulate show up two days in a row and try to bully their way in, so they can monitor what the twenty-odd graduate students inside are saying.
[Redacted: the rest of this post, due to mild paranoia about the identifiability of some of the people mentioned within it--including myself. Email me if you'd like to read about the conference on "Historical Continuities, Political Responsibilities: Unsettling Conceptual Blindspots in Turkish and Ottoman Studies" and I'll share the account with you. I will say, though, that these days, I'm gladder than ever that US citizens can get Turkish visas at the port of entry, rather than applying ahead of time through consular staff abroad!]
A: When four dudes from the Turkish embassy/consulate show up two days in a row and try to bully their way in, so they can monitor what the twenty-odd graduate students inside are saying.
[Redacted: the rest of this post, due to mild paranoia about the identifiability of some of the people mentioned within it--including myself. Email me if you'd like to read about the conference on "Historical Continuities, Political Responsibilities: Unsettling Conceptual Blindspots in Turkish and Ottoman Studies" and I'll share the account with you. I will say, though, that these days, I'm gladder than ever that US citizens can get Turkish visas at the port of entry, rather than applying ahead of time through consular staff abroad!]
posted by kitabet at 7:12 PM
8 Comments:
wow, this is amazing. {{{shiver}}}
Dear Elizabeth, I read your ideas with great interest. I am an American citizen of Turkish origin, living in Houston since 1985. Although I was born in Istanbul, my father belongs to the nomadic stock of Cilician Tauruses, peaceful neighbors of Armenians there; and my mother was a Turcoman/Kurdish mix from Erbil in Northern Iraq. Her family was heavily involved in the Naksibendi line, for which her father and grandfather were both executed (unjustly) at Menemen by the Kemalist regime. Despite all these familial connections, I still do not understand the struggle of many against the geographic integrity of the Turkish Republic. Kurds complain of oppression and discrimination, although the oppression and discrimination are directed against the lower classes by the ruling upper classes. What is ironic is that the ruling class contains both Turkish and Kurdish elements; and the oppressed class also contains both Kurdish and Turkish elements. Therefore, it is not an ethnic struggle, it is a class struggle. Ethnicities are only being used by the American Imperialism to divide and conquer. PKK, Barzani and Talabani are but instruments of colonialism. By the same token, Armenians demand recognition of a genocide, whereas they, themselves have committed crimes against humanity of equal if not bigger proportions against the Muslims in those years of chaos. Even their own leaders like Boghos Nubar Pasha and Kachaznouni admit to this. Ottoman and Allied censuses clearly indicate that the Armenian population was less than 1.3 million at the time; that only 700,000 were relocated; and, of this, Ambassador Morgenthau, the arch-Armenophile himself, admits that 490,000 have been accounted for post-bellum, in Allied-held territories. Plus, non-combatant Muslim losses amount to 1.5 million during WWI, of which 600,000 is at Armenian hands. So, genocide becomes a relative term, and the numbers circulating today become highly questionable in the light of historical data. Unfortunately, more and more people jump on the bandwagon of Genocide. Now, the world is hearing claims of Pontus genocide, Bulgarian genocide, Assyrio-Chaldean genocide, Cretan genocide, and so on and so forth. But nobody talks about the genocide of the Crimean Tatars by Russians; Serbian, Macedonian, Greek and Bulgarian Turks' genocide by the Balkan Christians before WWI; Azerbaijani genocide at Khocaly by the Armenians in 1992; and the still on-going Ahiska Turks' genocide by the Georgians, or the Uighur genocide by the Chinese in Eastern Turkestan. What is more, no one is mourning what Britain has done in India and Sudan; France in Algeria; Belgium in the Congo; Scotch-Irish, Spanish and Portugese in the Americas; and the list goes on. Ironically, France passes a law that makes it a crime to deny the Armenian genocide. I view all this concerted effort against the unity and integrity of Turkey as a neo-imperialistic plot to weaken a nation-state of much geo-political importance; a plot in which ethnicities are being taken advantage of just like they have been at the hands of rival empires for time immemorial. It took 2 world wars and innumerable little wars before and after to shrink empires into nation-states. That was a necessary and evolutionary step. But to further smash nations into ethnic states carries the danger of de-stabilizing the entire world. Imagine how many Ethnic-States would come out of Spain, France, Germany, England, Russia, US, Italy, etc. And in Africa? Or South America? I think minority ethnicities in existing Nations should join the on-going class struggles and try to ameliorate life standards for all citizens of that Nation, instead of falling into the imperialistic trap and trying to shatter the host Nation into infinitesimally small ethnicities, none of which would have the economic strength to survive on their own and, naturally, would become prey to salivating colonial powers. I thing enlightened people like yourself should see the big picture, start respecting the Nation status, and stop reacting to the State apparatus (e.g. "embassy personnel") so much. After all, why deny "auditory privilege" from certain people?
This comment has been removed by the author.
thariel: welcome to my world, babe.
kamurun: hosgeldiniz.
First, I don’t want this to turn into a debate about the historiography of the genocide. As a matter of fact, I agree with you about the problem of “genocide inflation”—genocide is a legal term, and I use it here because my close reading of the historical record (based on works by Ottomanist scholars working in Ottoman archives) leads me to believe 1915 meets the criteria for that legal definition.
But I so take issue with your implication that to insist on studying this history today is tantamount to “the struggle of many against the geographic integrity of the Turkish Republic.” This is the mistake the nationalists, and the Turkish state today, make: conflating honest and critical inquiry into the history of minorities in Turkey, and the treatment of those minorities today, with a “neo-imperialist” project to break up the republic. There is not another Sevres in the making when some historian writes a book about the Armenians, or when some activist dares demand a public inquiry into the forced displacement of Kurdish villagers in the 1980s. People who insist on the importance of human rights are not the equivalent of the PKK. I have no desire to see the destruction of the Turkish republic, quite the opposite: I want to see it flourishing as a healthy, open, democratic society that respects the rights of all the citizens within its borders, be they Turkish, Arab, Alevi, Kurd, Armenian, Laz, Circassian, secular, religious, leftist, nationalist, or anything else.
It is the refusal to examine the history, engage in that discussion, that makes it possible for France and others to use historical events that took place in the Ottoman period as a weapon against modern Turkey’s reputation. The problem is the denial, the silence—not the past itself.
I secon thariel. That does sound amazing. I would have loved to have heard a lot of those papers being presented.
Also, still waiting for your take on option (a) of the blogging by request list.
And I'm sure you must as grossed out as me by the fact that Sarkozy was elected.
Merhaba Elizabeth, I'm wondering if there is any way I might be able to learn more about the presentation on the ethnomusicologist's account. I am interested in the ever-popular hybrid musical performances in Turkey today - not exactly the same subject, but still somewhat relevant, I think.
Dear Elizabeth,
Thank you so much for honoring me with a reply. I must admit that I, too, hate to prolong the discussion on irrelevant tangents, to occupy your space, and to waste your time. But, please allow me to write one last note, as I think some of my ideas were misunderstood.
First, I did not say that “studying this history today” is tantamount to the struggle of many against the geographic integrity of the Turkish Republic. I just wished to point to the double-standard of many in treating this subject today. So many States have committed genocides in the recent past, and so many are still committing it today; yet no one is uttering a mea culpa. They all get together to accuse Turkey. It is as if the Muslim deaths of the past and of today do not count. France, which committed the Mother of all Genocides in Algeria, dares to let politicians (politicians, mind you, not even historians) pass judgment on Turkey. By the same token, I do not object to “some activist demand a public inquiry into the forced displacement of Kurdish villagers in the 1980s”. I simply ask the same activist to object to the “Kurdification” of Kerkuk and Erbil today, by the forced removal of Turcomans who lived there for a millennium.
Don’t get me wrong, I am neither religious nor nationalist. I just object to the flagrant use of double-standards to promote neo-colonialism.
Were I opposed to “studying this history today”, I wouldn’t know a fraction of the information (all archival) I wrote you in my first letter. Not only that, I wouldn’t continually invite scholars on the other side of the debate to face me or others in balanced scientific panels (I am routinely turned down). I’ll copy verbatim my correspondence with Professor Balakian:
Dear Mr. Kadipasaoglu,
I received your email, and I must decline your invitation. I and most other scholars in genocide studies find it ethically problematic to engage in a panel discussions with scholars who deny genocide in the face of conclusive evidence. The two attached Open Letters from the International Association of Genocide Scholars (the major body of scholars who study genocide) speak to these ethical and scholarly issues. I hope you will read them and forward them to Mr. Djerejian.
Sincerely, Peter Balakian
On 11/14/06 4:03 PM, "Kamuran" kamuran@asiaminorart.com wrote:
Dear Professor Balakian,
Greetings from Houston.
Following a recent lecture on Genocide, by Professor Samantha Power at Rice University’s prestigious James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, I had the pleasure of conversing with the founder and Director of the Institute, The Honorable Ambassador Edward Djerejian. We discussed the possibility of hosting, at the Institute, a panel discussion on the Ottoman-Armenian relationships at the turn of the century. Ambassador Djerejian was favorable to the idea, but warned me that he wants nothing less than a scholarly and orderly program, lest the prestige of the Institute be tarnished. He accepted my suggestion that he should moderate the panel himself. He also expressed his belief that such events would serve well the potential of rapprochement between the two countries for a mutually satisfactory solution.
In the interest of having a balanced discussion and, out of respect for the openness principle, such an important American value, I would like to extend an invitation to Professors Taner Akcam, Guenther Lewy, Fatma Muge Gocek, Richard Hovannisian, and Justin McCarthy, as well, along with the present letter of invitation for you. Should your answer and that of the other invitee’s be positive, I will make an attempt to discuss the matter further with the Honorable Djerejian and, hopefully, you will receive a formal invitation from the Director’s office once a date is agreed upon. For now, April 2007 seems fitting and appropriate.
I am looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Warm regards
Tell me, Elizabeth. Am I the one in “refusal to examine the history, engage in that discussion”? Am I in “denial, in silence”?
Second, you say your “close reading of the historical record based on works by Ottomanist scholars working in Ottoman archives lead you to believe 1915 meets the criteria for the legal definition of Genocide”. I respectfully invite you to produce “one single” archival example from the work of “one single Ottomanist scholar” that proves the “bare malice” and “centrally planned action” aspects, the sine qua non, of the legal definition of Genocide. But please do not mention the Andonian Letters; even Prof. Libaridian admits they are forgeries. And please do not tell me about victims’ and their descendents’ testimony. For each Armenian account, there are two or more Muslim accounts of atrocities. Just show me the copy of “one single page” from Ottoman archives, that shows that the machinery of the Central Ottoman Government ordered the cold-blooded execution of those Ottoman subjects for no other reason that they were Armenian. In return, I invite you to peruse the original documents at the website www.turkishpac.org , with a scientifically detached eye.
People lie, Elizabeth. But documents don’t. You and I are both scientists. Like Popper said, we must seek to “disprove”. Show me raw data... and “audiatur et altera pars”.
I apologize for the long letter. I promise this will be my last.
Respectfully
Kamuran A. Kadipasaoglu, Ph.D.
Executive Secretary, TurkishPAC
secretary@turkishpac.org
hi you - i think you'd first recommended Dalrymple's FROM THE HOLY MOUNTAIN to me. I'm only now reading it and enjoying it much. Though the bits about Turkey really did not endear the country much to me. See pages 82-88, for example. What sort of cosmopolitanism is it when it requires a cleansing out of everything different in its inception?
[But then this is hardly specific to Turkey. The whole world is a damned disappointing place, if one delves even a little into history. And if doesn't focus on the havens, the exceptions.]
Love,
S
Post a Comment
<< Home