Recently there have been meetings on the Armenian Question held in Germany and America.  The meetings in America were mainly held behind closed doors.  They were secret.  No one but the participants knows what went on in these meetings.  Some few meetings have allowed the public to listen, but have never included speakers who have doubted the existence of the "Armenian Genocide."  Nevertheless, these meetings have been widely publicized, because there have been both Turks and Armenians at these meetings.  The Armenian nationalists say, "You see, Turkish scholars agree with us."

Who are these Turks?  They are those who have passed a test before they are allowed into the club.  Before they can be a part of the gatherings, the Turks must agree that there was an Armenian genocide.  The Armenian nationalists will not meet, or even speak, with anyone who disagrees with them.  So these meetings are not scholarly inquiries.  They are political gatherings of those who wish to condemn the Turks, and some of those who condemn the Turks happen to be Turks themselves.

There is nothing strange in this.  I need not tell you that there are Turks whose ideology drives their historical judgment or that there are Turks who honestly disagree with the large majority of other Turkish scholars.  It is a good thing to have disagreement, because wisdom comes out of debate.  That is the problem with these meetings—they are not debates.

 

Azg/Mirror On-Line 03-22-2000

By Daphne Abeel
Mirror-Spectator Staff


ANN ARBOR, Mich. - In 1998, Prof. Ronald Grigor Suny, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, traveled to Koc University in Istanbul to lecture on the Armenian Genocide. That trip and the ensuing contact with Turkish scholars was the genesis of a three-day workshop this past weekend (March 17-19), held at Wilder House, University of Michigan. "What was so extraordinary and unexpected," said Suny, in an interview following the workshop, "was that within just a few minutes into the first panel, there was a discussion on the highest level, free of political bias. This is what we had sought - the creation of a community of scholars who could talk openly about these issues. The Turkish participants, except for
one, used the word 'genocide' repeatedly."

Titled "Armenians and the End of the Ottoman Empire," it brought Armenian and Turkish scholars together for the first time to engage in an open discussion of how Armenians contributed, adjusted, and, ultimately, felt victim to the transformation from Ottoman Empire to the modern Turkish republic.

Said Suny, "My trip to Istanbul had excited me about the possibilities of engaging with Turkish scholars." With the assistance of his academic colleagues at the University of Michigan, Kevork B. Bardakjian, Fatma Muge Gocek, Stephanie Platz, and Kenneth Church, a broad invitation was issued to
scholars in the Armenian and Turkish communities to come together. "We got a good response, even from Turkish scholars in Turkey, although there were some from the Armenian community who did not feel ready for this type of discussion," said Suny.

The workshops attracted participants from Istanbul, Germany, New York City, California, Minnesota, Boston, and Princeton, N.J.

Suny, in his opening remarks, praised the participants' courage, saying, "This is a small, humble and historic meeting. It is the first time scholars of different nationalities, including Armenia and Turkey, have gathered to present papers and discuss, in a scholarly fashion, the fate of the peoples of the Ottoman Empire as that state declined and disintegrated."

While the workshops touched on the fates of Jews, Circassians, Arabs and Greeks, Suny said, "The principal focus was on the people and events that have been elided- the massacre and deportations of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire, which constituted the first genocide of the 20th century."

Suny singled out several speakers for comment. Among them was Dr. Gerard J. Libaridian, an historian based in Boston, who served as senior advisor to the former president of Armenia, Lebon Ter-Petrossian. Libaridian participated on a panel titled "The Young Turks and the Armenians." and opened his remarks with the reading of a poem, "The Crossroads" by Eghishe
Charents. Using the poem as a touchstone for his talk, he said, "It is important not only what happened, but what we make of what happened. Why do some people like the problem and not the solution? We share a common past that has been hijacked by the nationalists."

Suny also reported on the comments of several Turkish scholars. Salim Deringil from Bosphorus University in Istanbul said, "This was the most difficult paper I've written in my life. Venturing into the Armenian crisis is like wandering into a mine field." Suny praised Deringil for producing "wonderful documents relative to the situation of Armenians and Turks in the Ottoman Empire."

Engin Akarli of Brown University called for "a dialogue with the documents and the need to move away from universally normalized concepts like the nation-state."

Halil Berktay of Sabanci University in Istanbul presented a paper in which he explored "the stereotypes of others presented in Turkish literature during the World War I period."

Borrowing a term from another Turkish scholar, Taner Akcam, Berktay spoke of "a collapse panic" in the Ottoman Empire and said, "Today, there are illusions about Turkish Armenia. It looks as though Anatolia is normal territory for the Turks. But in 1915, Anatolia was unknown by the Turks, a backward place. The Turks had to reoccupy it after World War I."

Suny reserved special mention for Akcam, who is affiliated with Stiftung zu Forderung von Wissenschaft und Kultur in Hamburg. Akcam, a radical student leader who opposed the Turkish military regime and escaped from a prison in Ankara was "the first important Turkish scholar to study the Armenian Genocide and to use the word 'genocide'," said Suny. During his presentation, Akcam used Turkish documents to pinpoint the actual decision
to carry out the deportations early in March 1915, after the defeat of the Turkish army on the Caucasian front.

To his Turkish colleagues, Akcam said, "I am so happy to be here. I don't feel so alone now."

Encouraged by the content and participation in this workshop, Suny said that plans for additional workshops and discussion were in the making. "We should go on and invite others to join us. It is so important that we not think of ourselves as Armenian or Turkish historians, but as scholars who are coming together for a mutual discussion."

The tentative title for the next workshop is "World War I and the Ottoman Empire: Imperial Dissolution in a Transnational Conjuncture."

"Several universities have expressed interest. I have high hopes that this dialogue will continue," said Suny.

Holdwater: "Akcam said, 'I am so happy to be here. I don't feel so alone now.' " Yep, makes sense, Mr. Akcam. Birds of a feather stick together. Unfortunately, the feather in question has less to do with being Turkish and more to do with being Armenians in Turkish clothing.

Seems like all the "Turkish" participants are from the handy-dandy Turkish Turncoat list, above. It's too bad this was not a true forum, where legitimate scholars got together... like the one Levon Marashlian attended: those with differing views. I see none of the REAL Turkish scholars from that particular conference participating in this one. No, all of the ones here had to "have passed a test before they are allowed into the club," as Professor Justin McCarthy put it; I'm sure none of the real scholars were even asked.

Just as long as the end result is that the unwary could see these participants as "Turkish scholars." Exactly like this particular news account puts it: "Turkish Scholars Acknowledge the Genocide."

How disgustingly dishonest.

First Prof. Suny is reported to have been behind "a broad invitation ... issued to scholars in the Armenian and Turkish communities to come together." Suny comments, "...There were some from the Armenian community who did not feel ready for this type of discussion," making it seem like this meeting would have been too impartial for Armenians to feel comfortable, since we know Armenians can't genuinely contest the actual facts. Then Suny is quoted as saying, "The principal focus was on...  the massacre and deportations of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire, which constituted the first genocide of the 20th century." So the "genocide" is already accepted as a fact. What a stupid charade. And how disingenuous of Prof. Suny to make it sound like Armenians would be uncomfortable. The whole business sounds tailor-made for the Armenians.

And why not? Professor Suny happens to be, according to his page at the University of Chicago web site, a member of the Armenian Assembly Committee for the Holocaust Museum and The Zoryan Institute, both extremely partisan Armenian "genocide" associations, and the Genocide Project Oversight Committee, which sounds like another Armenian hang-out. He is on the editorial board of the Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, The Armenian Review, Journal of Armenian Studies, Armenian Forum, a contributing editor for Armenian International Magazine, and part of the Society for Armenian Studies since 1978 (serving as chairman a couple of years). He worked as the "Alex Manoogian Professor" in the University of Modern Armenian History from 1981 to 1994. (Unsurprisingly, Suny also happens to be an ethnic Armenian.)

By the way, that's the Alex Manoogian behind the financing of most of the PBS Armenian programs. The late auto-parts Detroit businessman who saw his company mushroom to annual sales of $3 billion emigrated from Turkey in 1920, and later was joined by his parents, his brothers Charles and George, and sisters Margaret and Aghavni. Sounds like the whole family joined, and... hey. Weren't the Armenians supposed to have been "annihilated" in the Ottoman Empire?

Get a load of this paragraph, on Halil Berktay:

Borrowing a term from another Turkish scholar, Taner Akcam, Berktay spoke of "a collapse panic" in the Ottoman Empire and said, "Today, there are illusions about Turkish Armenia. It looks as though Anatolia is normal territory for the Turks. But in 1915, Anatolia was unknown by the Turks, a backward place. The Turks had to reoccupy it after World War I."

"Turkish Armenia"? Is Halil Berktay so much in bed with the Armenians that he even agrees with them to the extent of surrendering his own national soil to the Armenians? Wow.

"Anatolia was unknown to the Turks" in 1915. Anatolia is the heartland of Turkey, and was the heartland during the Ottoman Empire..! If Turks weren't living in Anatolia, where were they living?

Is Halil Berktay out of his mind?

 

"The Weak Reed- East European Intellectuals at the Turn of the Century" was a study of the intelligentsia in crisis. Two of the panelists, Gyory Csepli of the Institute on Ethnic and Minority Studies, Budapest, and Halil Berktay, of the University of Bosphorus, Istanbul, used the event as an opportunity to pour out all of the disappointments and frustrations with trying to change society. At the age of fifty or so, both of these sad gentlemen announced their retirement from politics.

(The Gyory Csepli part has been edited out.)

Halil Berktay

Berktay spoke for twice his allocated length of time, and probably would have spoken even further if the chairperson hadn't kept making a T with her fingers, as in your time is up. He gave a litany about the mess that the Turkish left created in the 1960s. Sectarianism and dogmatism dominated the scene. Boy, aren't we lucky that this was only a problem in Turkey. In the universities, different departments were the rival turfs of pro-Soviet parties or Maoist parties, etc. Everybody had the goal of destroying everybody else. Sometimes this literally meant murdering your opponent.

In the mid 1980s, there was the possibility of forming a unified socialist party, but each faction refused to subordinate its own narrow interests to the good of the broader movement. The movement then imploded. Today the Turkish left consists mostly of people who want to turn the clock back to the 1960s dogmatism in the hopes that this time they can get it straight. This thinking is embodied in Jim Hillier's crossposts from the Turkish Maoist movement. It is also reflected in the Trotskyite manifestos which we still get from time to time on the Spoons lists. Nothing changes for these comrades.

Berktay is upset because he has just turned 50 and his life on the left has produced little of lasting value. He has spent time in prison for his beliefs. He also has had to struggle for academic positions. He is through with politics, however. He wants to spend the last 20 years or so of his life sitting by the side of the rose tending to his garden.

In the discussion period, I told him that there was a new Turkish left as embodied in the Workers Educations Centers and the interest that comrades like Zeynep (I didn't mention her by name) have in a non-sectarian and non-dogmatic Marxism.

He belittled the Workers Educations Centers. They are only 1% of the Turkish left and are stuck in a neo-Althusserian mode of re-reading Capital and other fundamental works. He then continued in this vein for what seemed like an eternity. They didn't understand this and they didn't understand that. His tone of voice was that of a professor correcting an errant student. This is a no-no with me.

Since I was hung-over and didn't feel like being lectured to, I got up from my chair and headed toward the door. The chairperson reprimanded me for being rude. Although I didn't plan on justifying my retreat, I simply said that I don't enjoy being lectured to in such a patronizing fashion. I also said that Berktay sure still seems to have plenty of things to tell the Turkish left even though he has announced his retirement from politics. I only hoped that he would learn to adopt a less authoritarian style if he changes his mind and decides to give young activists the benefit of his wisdom. His current style reminds me too much of the style of the 1960s, which he found so self-defeating. With those words I split.

Louis Proyect

From www.columbia.edu

 

WHY MEHMET ALI BIRAND IS ACCUSED OF IT, AND WHY I BELIEVE HIS ACCUSERS

Mahmut Esat Ozan



Generally speaking, it is rather hard to define the act of betrayal, and very hard to understand why a person commits it. After all, betrayal is another way of saying treason. And everyone knows that treason is simply aiding and abetting the enemy. To go against the precepts of national sanctity and pronounce hurtful statements should not be considered exercising one’s freedom of speech. How can one tell if the pronouncement of some words are tantamount to a betrayal? As it is in the case of one of the members of the US Supreme Court, who was asked once, how he could define ‘pornography.’ He said : “I cannot define it, but I’ll know it when I see it..”

It is unfortunate that we have come to this. But we might as well tackle the sad case of Mehmet Ali Birand now, and make it an example not to be repeated by others in the future. For those who are not aware of the troubles of this well-known journalist, the presentation of a thumbnail sketch of events is in order . As a journalist, Mehmet Ali Birand comes from a decent family. He went to the best schools, became a radio and TV Personality. He writes regularly for the largest publication of Turkey, the Istanbul daily ‘Hurriyet.’ His columns are frequently translated into English and are reprinted in “The Turkish Daily News.” Another newspaper known as ‘Posta Gazetesi’ has been giving him ample space on its pages for his articles. In fact, it was in this newspaper that Birand wrote on the 14th of January 2001, his now infamous article which created a huge propagandistic polemic, whose reverberations are still continuing to date.

Mehmet Ali Birand

Mehmet Ali Birand was speaking about the perennial alleged Genocide issue. He said in gist and in a paraphrased form, that the Turkish government should relax its attitude vis-à-vis the genocide issue, and accept the fact that this was already considered a ‘fait accompli.' He wrote further and said that the whole world had accepted this holocaust as such, and that it would be difficult to make the nations of the world to change their beliefs on this issue. He urged Turks, therefore, to apologize forthwith from the Armenians. He also hazarded an opinion of his own and suggested that the Turkish authorities produce filmed documentaries of various lengths and distribute them worldwide,. Another one of his recommendations was to erect several monuments commemorating the Turkish as well as the Armenian dead, as casualties of the period of 1914-1923. His further proposals would deal with the writing of sufficient amount of articles and stories in all kinds of publications, to keep these changes alive and viable for the whole world to see and to learn the ‘truth’ from them.

In the past we were made aware of the existence of some domestic so-called historians, who wholeheartedly supported the Armenian Genocide. Among them we had heard of the names of Ahmet Insel, Bulent Peker, Salim Deringil, and of course, the most ‘esteemed’ professor of history from the Sabanci University, Halil Berkay.

From Germany the names of Ercin Kursat Ahler, Ali Ertem, were often mentioned, and the infamous ‘genocide expert’ Taner Akcam was always at the head of the perfidious gang. Taner Akcam, himself and some others had escaped from where they were incarcerated and fled the country . They were serving time for having committed crimes against their own country. The United States of America is no exception in this regard. Here among us we have also a few of these deviates, living and ruining the good name of Turkey and Turks every time they have a chance. Among these expatriates we see another name Peker, this time a Murat Peker, perhaps a dear relative of the other Turcophobe Bulent Peker. He is followed by a Fatma Muge Gocek, Engin Akarli, Koray Caliskan, Dilek Kurban, Yunus Tuncel are the most prominent turncoats.

They, of course, have one thing in common among themselves. They are all traitors, and betrayers of anything and everything sacred for Turkey and Turks. Unfortunately, they were all born in the bosom of the Turkish Republic, from different ethnic spectrum, and foreign and alien ideologies. Nevertheless, they all had a mother and a father, and kin and friends. Supposedly, they went to the same type of Turkish schools, and studied under the same system of education which always tried to make its young citizens learn to love their country. A country which succeeds to in achieving this goal ninety-nine out of hundred per cent of the time. But as everyone knows a single rotten apple can easily spoil the whole bushel or crate of fruit in them.

In the United States some would argue with you and say that Birand was using his constitutional right to free speech. What they may be forgetting is that America has a tradition of democracy and in the USA the usage of constitutional rights go all the way back to 1776 and earlier. America is surrounded by friendly neighbors, and on top of it is the only existing super power left on the planet, whereas the fledgling Turkish Republic is in its infancy compared to the United States and furthermore it is surrounded by deadly enemies at every corner ready to inflict pain and damage on her.

Even though the citizens of today’s modern Turkish Republic are the indisputable masters of a reduced territorial land space which they inherited from the Ottoman Empire and reshaped by the great Kemal Ataturk; they are still vulnerable to all kinds of ruse, deceit and chicanery their detractors keep handy to be used against them. In this day and age to rely on the accolades bestowed on Turkey and Turks by writers of the past is not enough. The fact that the famous French writer Pierre Loti calling once his friends, the Turks: “the noblest of all nobles,” and then reiterating later on in his book, entitled Fantome D’Orient” by saying that :“This high nobility is not artificial or showy, it is the gift of nature,” won’t help anyone.

Our enemies, the Armenians and the Greeks, don’t believe in the Turk’s nobility anyhow. They wouldn’t even care for it. They want our land . They want reparations from us. They want to hear the sound of our last breath on earth. They wouldn’t give a wooden nickel for Pierre Loti’s continuation of his words where he says:…” the Turks’ Orient is the land of dreams and legends. The Turk is the eye, the tongue, the light and the truth of that magic land.” For our enemies the truth will only be realized when they could gouge out the Turk’s eyes, cut off his tongue and let his lifeless body rot under the hot summer sun as the Armenians did to our brethren in the Eastern Anatolia and in the Caucasus of 1919 where Turks were in majority in the city of Yerevan. They were all murdered one by one. Armenians also put to knife 40.000 Muslims in one week in the city of Van. The despicable Armenian General “DRO”, Drastamat Kanayan bragged once that there was not a single Muslim Turk remaining in the Caucasus. He should know .He was known as the “butcher” of 2,5 million Turks, Circassians, Tatars and Kurds. The Soviets hated him and expelled him out of Russia in the early Twenties. He lived and died in exile in Massachusetts ten years or so ago. His body was taken to Armenia for reburial there with great fanfare and pomp and circumstance as the greatest hero that country has ever had. Why? Because he had ethnically cleansed Armenia from the ‘dreaded’ Turks whose country once treated him and the likes of him as ‘Milleti Sadika’ meaning in its English translation: “Most trustworthy Citizens.” This ‘butcher of Turks’ name adorns the walls of museums in the Armenia of Robert Kocharian nowadays.

What is so sad about Mehmet Ali Birand is that he happens to be a fellow GS graduate of mine. In 1973 at a G./S. Pilav in Beyoglu he was introduced to me by a former classmate who was the Ambassador to Jordan at the time. Then he seemed to be a nice fellow. But now that he has sided up with the Armenians and wants to apologize to them and is thinking of recompensing them with monuments to be built in their honor, I am deeply ashamed. There are accusations now that he was a leftist, and that he harbored sympathy for the Kurdish movement in his heart. I would say this, he could keep whatever he has in his heart, but when he comes out with an unfathomable statement and says that, as Turks, we are the perpetrators of the vilest and the cruelest of all crimes against humanity, genocide, I am not on his side, and I could never be again. 

 

END-2005 ADDENDUM: Holdwater has subsequently come across "genocide" articles by Mehmet Ali Birand, and they sounded fair. We can all be guilty of writing passionately one moment, only to revise our views the next. Prof. Ozan can fall into this "passionate" trap himself, as with the bloated figure of victims, attributed to Dro. (Ozan was not deliberately lying about this; he noted this claim that has been plastered over the Internet, and must have accepted its truth because of an emotional need... after constantly being barraged by Turcophobic slander. I have since written him and told him he was wrong, and he has stopped making this particular claim.) And there are certainly earlier writings of my own on this site that I look at and think, "Man! Did I go overboard."

There are many Turks who believe there was a genocide of the Armenians. Turks who have come to America, not having been exposed to this topic at home (the idea was to prevent perpetuation of hatred, and to look ahead in brotherhood), in their gullibility, ignorance and sense of fair play, have easily fallen prey to relentless Armenian propaganda. These are not "Turncoat Turks." (In fact, I rarely use that term anymore, as I had written this page when I was more "emotional." My preferred description is "Opportunistic Turks.")

I'm now aware that the gullible brand of Turk has gone as far as to include academicians from Turkey. Yes, you would think Turkey's educated crowd would at least be aware of the dirty politics behind the genocide matter, but these "intellectuals" can be just as susceptible to swallowing the propaganda as the layman. (A testament to the universality of humanity, since more than enough professorial "intellectuals" from the rest of the world have lazily accepted the claims of Armenian propaganda as well.) That does not mean these Turks do not love their country and wish the honor of their nation to suffer harm. No, these Turks have simply arrived at a point where they believe they have discerned the truth.

The so-called "Turncoat Turks" are those who have studied the issues, and have made a point of solely accepting one side of the story, no differently than the Armenians... becoming purposeful propagandists. They do this for personal gain, in terms of career advancement for the most part (such Turks are the darlings of the biased Western world), or because they have a chip on their shoulder about their country (i.e., they simply don't like Turkey), or because they have a hidden ethnicity that command their true loyalties, or a combination of the above. It is important to make this distinction.

See also:

Fatma Muge Gocek: Responsible for the Armenians' Genocide

The Taner Akcam Page