On Nov. 6, 2005, UCLA's Prof. Richard Hovannisian, brought Gocek, Akcam and newcomer Shafak together as those "among the growing number of Turkish intellectuals who seek to crack the wall of official Turkish denial. They are prepared to challenge the state-sponsored narrative of events and thereby advance the quest for truth..." If Hovannisian were really interested in "quest for truth," a request by the UCLA Turkish Student Association to include a representative with the differing historical perspective would have been allowed. Of course, Hovannisian has long demonstrated his penchant for monologue, not dialogue. It is only through dialogue that the evolving process for truth may be ascertained.

Harut Sassounian, publisher of the California Courier, reported (in "Turkish Scholars Expect TurkeyTo Acknowledge Genocide by 2015") that Gocek "stunned the audience by estimating that there may be up to 2 million Turks who are partly of Armenian ancestry!"

If the Armenian audience was stunned, they should be ashamed for shirking their propaganda-studying duty. That claim has been around in Armenian web sites for the longest time, sometimes presented as 1 million. (This is how estimates of the worldwide Armenian population go up from the probable 7 million to 10 million.) How revealing that Gocek would go with the higher end. While naturally there must be Turkified Armenians with all the centuries of co-minglings, and those who converted to Islam, how could anyone put a figure to the total? Anyone can "make up" a figure, especially those with little concern for the real facts.

(Gocek spelled out her sources in the later "Horizon Weekly" interview, where she was quoted with the following: "I can tell you that Hrant Dink of Agos newspaper is especially interested in this matter; the 1-2 million figure I mentioned is based on my conversations with him. I just learned that it was Etyen Mahcupyan, the prominent Turkish Armenian intellectual, who estimated that there are probably 1.5 million such families." I'm sure these Armenian-Turks got this information from Armenian sites already in existence; the diaspora was working long before Armenians in Turkey began their familiar agitation process.)

One Picture: Worth One Thousand Words

Fatma Muge Gocek, Richard Hovannisian, Elif Shafak, Taner Akcam strike a pose at the 2005 UCLA conference. It's one thing if the Turks in this picture hate Turkey and want to see their native land dragged through the mud. It's one other thing if they honestly believe their backward and oppressive country calls for their enlightened help, and through their noble efforts Turkey will finally become a model among civilized nations. Whatever their true motivation$, the one thing you do NOT do is join the team of an arch-enemy like Richard Hovannisian, who has worked so diligently to hurt Turkish honor for many years, through his activism and dirty propaganda. His efforts toward wresting "Western Armenia" from Turkey are not going to help the nation of these three stooges in any conceivable manner.

Even the slightest sign of sympathy toward what was regarded as America's arch-enemy, Soviet Russia, brought practical ruin upon those such as Charlie Chaplin and Paul Robeson. A young Armenian fan from this conference gushed over how Fatma Muge Gocek joked about her father's friends seeing her as a traitor. As the headline says, one picture can truly be worth a thousand words.

On November 21, 1970 Jane Fonda declared to 2,000 students at Gocek's University of Michigan: "If you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become communist." Everyone is entitled to their peculiar views, but differences between Gocek and Fonda are that Gocek's position is supposed to be coming from the standpoint of a "scholar"... and at least Fonda was REACTING to a a perceived ill, not representing forces CAUSING the ill. In 1972, Fonda went to Hanoi, and allowed herself to be used by the enemies of her country, seated at this anti-aircraft gun in North Vietnam. Col. Alan Brunstrom said, "We felt that any Westerners who showed up in Hanoi were on the other side. They gave aid and comfort to the enemy, and as far as I'm concerned, they were traitors."

Even though contemporary thought tells us the actions of the USA in Vietnam were wrong, for the naive actress to have "joined the other side" is still not seen as commendable. That was not the correct way to protest, regardless of her idealistic beliefs; she helped put the lives of her countrymen in jeopardy. Fonda has expressed her regret in later years ("It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have done"), but many Americans will never forgive her. (As late as 2005, a Kentucky theater owner refused to show her film, "Monster in Law.")

Gocek and the others are similarly providing "aid and comfort to the enemy." Genocide-crazed Armenian youth may not be turning to their guns as they did in the 1970s and 1980s — fanatics whom those like Prof. Hovannisian happily agitated with propagandistic history, resulting in much murder and misery — but impressionable Armenians are doing their worldwide utmost to keep blackening the honor of the Turkish people. They are committing "Rufmord," another kind of murder.

  If these two "historians" were true to their craft, they would accept the legal document Armenia signed at the end of the 1920 war that they had provoked (according to First Prime Minister Katchaznouni himself; Armenian propaganda tells us Turkey and Russia worked together to pick on poor, innocent Armenia) with the Turks. As Dashnak Critic Arthur Derounian wrote, referring to the Gumru/Alexandropol Treaty: "Highly significant Is Article 8, wherein Dashnags agreed 'to forego their rights to ask for damages... as a result of the general war,' thus closing the doors FOREVER to reparations for the enormous destruction of Armenian life and property."

Looks like Gocek is trying to slip "Hai Tahd" through the back door. If those two million Armenians surface from within (there's a name for these folks, according to a recent article: "Crypto-Armenians"), then "Hai Tahd" will be one step closer to the dream of capturing "Western Armenia." The only trouble with this plan is, who is going to determine where these two million Armenians are? For example, most of the white people in the United States are of German stock. Mixed in with other "breeds" over the years, few have pride in their German origins. It would be quite a trick to get these long lost Germans to discover their roots, and allow this new identification to supersede their feelings and pride of being American.

How odd that a critic of Turkish nationalism (everyone who disagrees with Gocek must be a "nationalist," of course) has no problem in trying to invigorate Armenian nationalism among these sleepy, purported Armeno-Turks.

In armeniangenocide.com, a 23 year old student from California (who signs his posts, "The Armenian Genocide of 1915 will never be forgotten!") named "Tongue" went wild: "[T]hey weren't expecting this huge crowd. So many young people... people were amazed. It was great! So they opened another lecture hall and had the rest of the attendees sit there (and there were still people left outside) and once Tener Ackam was done in the first room, he came to ours. His main focus was on the Turkish documents and that not only they don't dismiss the genocide, but they actually prove it."

There is not one document that "proves" the genocide. If anything, the Turkish documents prove the central government had the safeguarding of Armenian lives in mind. (Although issuing decrees from far away Istanbul was one thing, and controlling locals with different ideas was another. For example, Talat Pasha needed to keep issuing new orders to reinforce his first one in August 1915 commanding the Armenian resettlement [i.e., "genocide"] to halt. Source: Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, 2005.) If this example of impressionable Armenian youth is so gaga over his genocide, Akcam and Gocek ought to be proud of their stirring the fires of hatred.

Elif Shafak

This young man reported that Elif Shafak "said it's amazing how young Armenian teenagers that she sees and talk to have a memory of an old survivor... but Turkish teenagers, same age, their memory starts from 1923." That's the difference between Armenians and Turks Shafak and all Turks should be proud of, not complain about. Does Shafak think her forebears suffered no less? The difference is, they chose the humanistic standpoint, not the selfish "feel sorry for me" one. They could have easily instilled hatred upon their own youth, for the hideous crimes the Armenians perpetrated, as too many Armenian parents and churches have done with their own. This is why a 23 year old Armenian-American, far removed from "Armenia," finds a sense of belonging. Hitler made good use of such unifying power, at the expense of a scapegoat.

"And Fatma Muge Gocek, very funny lady," Tongue further wrote. He is correct, Gocek can be a pretty funny lady.

A couple of Fatma Gocek's other books stress nationalism.

"She said some of her fathers friends consider her a traitor, and she said I tell my dad, I'm a scholar. I read alot — probably more than I should. Ask your friends to read my books and I'll be happy to discuss it with them but after they read my writings. She said she never hears from them again. haha."

Non-historian Gocek would have no difficulty finding more than her match with genuine scholars, taking all sides into account, knowing real history. Judging by the closed door workshops and conferences she chooses to be a part of, this hypocrite does not appear to accept many invitations for true debate. What would have been the harm in bringing in a "denialist" scholar to this UCLA affair? What was she afraid of? (Granted, she did not make the decisions for this one. Yet she could have insisted to Hovannisian.)

For example, in a University of Michigan web page giving the lowdown on the second of Gocek's workshops with Ronald Suny ("Contextualizing the Armenian Experience in the Ottoman Empire: From the Balkan Wars to the New Turkish Republic"; Mar. 7-10, 2002), we are told through a paraphrased Gocek that the scholars' "intent had not been to prove or disprove a particular political stand, but to gain a better understanding of the events." Here is the way to "Prove Intent," in this case: one doesn't gain a better understanding by inviting only like-minded advocates. How terribly insincere.

Interestingly, Tongue also pointed out, "Elif Shafak, didn't say the word 'genocide' once! I'm not saying she meant to do that, but it's just something little that I noticed... Both Taner Akcam and Fatma Muge Gocek spoke about how they believe the Genocide will be recognized by the Turkish government by 2015..."

Fatma Gocek likes to say in her interviews that she avoids using the word, "genocide." It appears, since Tongue did not also single her out, that she had no qualms in using the word before this genocide-batty Armenian audience. (No wonder, as Sassounian wrote, the "speakers were repeatedly interrupted with enthusiastic applause.") If one desires to be perceived as following a practice with the avoidance of a particular word, the stand becomes a lot more meaningful if one makes that stand wherever one may go.

Gocek elaborated on her word-avoidance in "U hosts conference on Turk, Armenian violence," by Elizabeth Dunbar, The Minnesota Daily, Mar. 31, 2003: "I do not personally use the term 'genocide' to describe what happened to Armenians, but not because I don't believe it wasn't... 'Genocide' is too political a term. They'll stop listening to you when you use it..."

Note the "They" are exclusively the Turks, since Armenians have a Mardi Gras when they hear that word. This means she is taking calculated steps in hopes of getting one particular group to listen, instead of presenting her scholarly findings to everyone equally. Could she have made her role as an advocate for a cause more clearly? If a scholar really believes "genocide" is the accurate description, would a real scholar care about taking sneaky, political steps to convince others? A real scholar would lay it on the line, not caring about where the chips may fall.

How pitiful for this trio of Turks to become such accomplices for the cause of Armenian propaganda.

 

 

Fresh on the heels of this Armenian-heroine worship, Fatma Muge Gocek popped by the "International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies," a division of Vahakn Dadrian's Zoryan Institute in Toronto, on Dec. 2, 2005. (Naturally, the sanctimonious sounding name would be more accurate if called "Studies of SOME Humans' Rights"... or even more accurate, One Particular Brand of Human).

Tom Cruise going ape as Oprah feigns amusement.

Fatma Muge Gocek is becoming like the publicized "new" Tom Cruise. Earlier, the actor characteristically behaved in a "dignified" manner, befitting of a popular movie star. New management then advised him to go wild, like jumping on Oprah Winfrey's sofa. The idea was to attract attention and to create "buzz." (Cruise toned it down after being ridiculed.) Similarly, Gocek appeared to make a point of maintaining SOME dignity in the past, at least by working quietly in the background. Lately, she seems to be in a tizzy to declare she can lie prostrate before the Armenians as much as her pal, Taner Akcam.

This is the one where she dramatically declared, in deliriously full attention grabbing fury:

“I, as an ethnically Turkish citizen, am not guilty, but am responsible for what happened to the Armenians in 1915.”

That's rich. She wasn't around at the time, and she feels she's responsible. I suppose I should similarly hang my head in shame for my country's misbehavior with Indians, Mexicans, Filipinos, Spaniards and others.

(Of course I am free to criticize my country in historical chapters I believe my country has gone wrong. That does not mean I should feel personally responsible.)

By contrast, in a published "Aztag" interview with Khatchig Mouradian (which will be up next), Gocek stated: "Whenever I told Armenians I was a Turk, I was immediately asked to account for killing all those Armenians; I'm still telling them that I honestly had nothing to do with it!"

She was being honest then; not so much now. The new idea by these pro-Armenian advocates is to instill "shame" upon the Turks. Peter Balakian lectured on the concept in a 2005 television show appearance, and Taner Akcam made sure to include the word in the title of a forthcoming 2006 book. In line with this policy, Gocek is telling Turks they must feel "shame" and be responsible for events taking place long before many were born.

That's fine, but the only fly in the ointment is that in order to feel shame, first the alleged crime must be proven to have been committed. If one makes accusations that a crime has been committed without factual evidence, and in the pursuit of a political agenda, the only ones who need to feel "shame" are unethically misleading partisans such as Gocek, Akcam and Balakian.

She's a fine one to lecture on the concept of the weak point of the Armenians, "responsibility"; if Gocek feels such responsibility, it would be more appropriate for her to feel responsible toward the truth. To wit, note what this article, appearing as a Dec. 12, 2005 press release through Zoryan's "Human Rights" arm, goes on to tell us:

"Prof. Göçek stated that while she does not use the word 'genocide' to refer to what happened to the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, she affirmed that 'It certainly is so by the definition accepted by the United Nations.'"

Israel Charny

No, it is not. Who does Gocek think she is, an expert on genocide like "genocide scholar" Israel Charny? (Momento! Charny also claims the 1948 U.N. Convention defines the Armenian matter as a genocide in, for example, his June 16, 2005 open letter — which followed his April 6, 2005 open letter — to Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan. Looks like Izzy can't get anything right.) It would be helpful if one familiarized oneself with the Convention's guidelines, before making inaccurate claims.

There are a series of reasons why the U.N. Convention does not apply to this episode (you can read more on this page), at the head of which is that "INTENT" must be proven. One does not prove intent by coming up with dime-a-dozen theories, like Muslims hating Christians or Pan-Turanism. For example, Taner Akcam appears to dismiss these in favor of his own flawed theory. Anyone can come up with a theory. What is needed are pure facts.

Ms. Gocek explains the reason why she does not like to use the word "genocide" (except when she is evidently in a room of cheering Armenians) is "because the term ‘genocide’ has become politicized by the Turkish state, as well as by certain segments of the Armenian Diaspora in such a manner that I think it hinders the discussion that needs to take place to get Turkish state and society…to understand what happened in 1915."

How do you like that. The chief culprit is once again that never-can-do-anything-right "Turkish state." As if Turkey and the Turks would give two beans about this genocide madness were it not for the obsessed Armenian diaspora and their supporters, repeating this deep slander, based on hearsay, every chance they get. And note how Gocek, as one of their champions, doesn't pin the blame where it belongs; no, she only singles out "certain segments" of the Armenian diaspora. And what are the segments that have not politicized the word? Where is the Armenian who publicly states the 1915 events were not a genocide?

"Most of the world, except for Turkey, has accepted what happened to the Armenians as at least a massacre, if not a genocide."

Wrong again. Turkey does not conceal the fact that some Armenians were massacred by local revengists or criminals who took matters into their own hands. Perhaps Ms. Gocek is confusing the Turks with the Armenians. It's the Armenians who rarely admit the Armenians massacred Turks, and in the rare times they do, usually with the unsympathetic explanation that these took place in revenge mode, and that the Turks deserved what they got. The fact of the matter is, the Armenians generally ACTED by firing the first shot, and the Turks REACTED. It was the same pattern since the terrorist groups formed in the late 1800s; Armenians massacred Turks in hopes of inciting the same, to encourage European intervention. Of those who died during WWI from both groups, more "Turks" were killed outright by Armenians (some half a million, equaling approximately the total of Armenians killed from all causes) than the other way around (in 1977, "Le Figaro" figured 15,000, only 1% of the usual 1.5 million claim; and these were from "shootings, sickness and deprivation on the march," not just massacres), with the bulk of the deaths occurring in both groups from famine, disease and combat. It's likely the Armenians who were murdered outright did not surpass 50,000, which is about one-tenth of the slaughtered Muslim victims, and, again, about one-tenth of all Armenians killed from all causes.

If most of the world sides with the pro-Armenians, there are reasons, beginning with a deeply seated "Terrible Turk" bigotry in place since the Crusades, added to Armenian obsession and dirty tactics to frighten off neutral academicians. The way to make one's case is not to point to a flat-earth claiming majority agreement. There is simply no way around proving a claim than by coming up with the hard evidence.

History teaches that the Armenian Nationalists will not stop their claims if the Turks forget the truth and say there was an Armenian Genocide. They will not cease to claim Erzurum and Van because the Turks have apologized for a crime they did not commit. No. They will increase their efforts. They will say, "The Turks have admitted they did it. Now they must pay for their crimes." The same critics who now say the Turks should admit genocide will say the Turks should pay reparations. Then they will demand the Turks give Erzurum and Van and Elazig and Sivas and Bitlis and Trabzon to Armenia.

Dr. Justin McCarthy at the Turkish Grand National Assembly, March 24, 2005

"She then added that what she and other intellectuals strove for was to make sure that there is public space in Turkey for everyone to make their views heard, regardless of whether or not they are critical of the state."

How very dishonest. If this were the case, the Istanbul conference would have made sure to invite speakers with views different than their own. For example, Prof. Turkkaya Ataov, even if this group would wrongly accuse him of working for the Turkish state, should have been allowed to speak (given his considerable background on the subject), as I understand he wished. He was turned down. So space was not made available for "everyone" to make their views heard. Space was only made available for genocide advocates, like Gocek and Berktay.

Can she name one speaker who came from the "denialist" point of view? From all that I have heard, I don't believe she can. Even the audience members were screened against the "denialists." This is a fine example "Lady Fatma the Enlightened" provided for her totalitarian state, while breaking her own rules.

"The purpose of the conference was to discuss and debate issues," she goes on to mislead. There can be no debate when everyone is of the same opinion. Gocek also charges that "the Turkish nationalist identity... views the Armenian Diaspora as a vast monolith." Could that be because, as far as the "genocide" is concerned, the Armenian diaspora is a vast monolith? That doesn't mean Armenians don't exist who know this genocide is a big fraud. However, because of the "Armenian Curtain of Fear," few dare to say so publicly. [The penalty? Destruction of reputation, and worse. The controlling force of the diaspora, and the nation of Armenia, currently is the Dashnagtzoutiun. The Dashnaks have not strayed far from their terroristic origins.] Aside from the late Edward Tashji, does anyone know of a non-Turkish Armenian who has made a point of publicly going against the genocide industry? If no names come to mind, then that means everyone else is of the same mentality. That is the definition of "monolith." (Let's see... how does my dictionary define the word. Oh, here it is. "Massive, solid, uniform." That's the diaspora, all right, in regards to their genocide.)

"Finally, the conference helped them realize the extent of the fear inside Turkey, the lack of confidence and the lack of knowledge on the Armenian issue as a whole."

Indeed I, not in tune with the nation of Turkey and believing at least the Turks knew the ins and outs of this genocide arena, have come to learn how woefully ignorant the Turks are. Add to that Turkish gullibility and the Turkish desire to play fair, and we have a hazardous cocktail that make the Turks the perfect pigeons for this hateful Armenian propaganda. What a coup for Gocek and her cronies in succeeding with such infiltration as this one-sided genocide conference, within the nation itself. Get the Turks themselves to start believing in these false genocide claims, and the path will soon be carved for the dishonest genocide industry to have won.

All the Turks need to do is devote themselves to real historical knowledge. (Which would take doing, as Turks can be very indifferent.) If there is any "fear" and "lack of confidence," there is nothing like the truth to boost one's courage. (This would be the truth the genocide industry is in short supply of, since time and time again, they demonstrate the "lack of confidence" to engage in honest debate.)

"We have to make the Turkish public aware that recognition has to take place, not only because it is moral to do so, but it is also necessary for the democratization of Turkish society."

The lady's got nerve, we can say that much. The only way that recognition will take place is if the Turks are brainwashed into believing this horrible propaganda represents the truth. As clueless as too many Turks seem to be, there is a long way to go before that happens. Furthermore, who appointed Gocek as the Grand Marshall of Democracy? Who does she think she is, to determine the democratization that is necessary? Especially after her tendency of spitting upon democracy, when it comes to her own genocide conferences, prohibiting those with different views from attending. (And we won't yet go near her qualifications in judging what is "moral.") As I said... the lady's got a lot of nerve.

  Gocek Interviewed in the Armenian "Aztag"

Therefore, when Gocek is quoted as stating that "Armenians I talked with were so hurt because of this awful thing that had happened in the past; they were not able to mourn it properly because it was not recognized ("On the Foundations of Turkey," interview conducted by Khatchig Mouradian, www.aztagdaily.com/interviews/gocek.htm), is she satisfying a psychological need within herself by tending to the wounds of people obsessed by a genocide that "warps them emotionally," as she goes on to state? And because Turks have chosen the path to forgive and forget, not allowing future generations to become warped, does that mean the Turks' suffering should be ignored? This is not being part of a "humane community," as Gocek tells us. It is being humane to the humans who are exclusively designated as worthy. Selective humanity is not genuinely humane.

In this interview, she tells us Turks responded by becoming angry, which did not grab her sympathy as much as the boo-hoo'ing Armenians. Why did these Turks become angry? Most likely because they were aware of the imbalance of the equation in this prejudiced world, and the last thing they needed was a possibly naive propaganda advocate to lecture them.

The anger made her "realize how much the official historiography there had left out what had happened in the past." In other words, she determined the stories by those who tugged her heartstrings must have been more valid than the story made up by her fascist Turkish state. Perhaps Fatma Muge Gocek provided the best explanation as to why sociologists in general, concerned with the welfare of humanity (or in the case of certain sociologists, "selective" humanity) don't make for competent, dispassionate historians.

She "got the best education Turkey had to offer" before coming to the U.S., unaware of "what happened, because there are no sources that I could have read and critically studied other than the ones that presented the Turkish State's version of history."

Is she presenting the notion that every history book written in Turkey bore the stamp of her evil Turkish government? Is this supposed to be a Stalinist, Nazified government where nobody is allowed to distribute independent research, and whose people are prone to thought control? Perhaps the "Freedom of Speech" laws were and are not as liberal as those in the USA, but the same is the case for "modern, enlightened" nations such as France and Switzerland, where one can be taken to court for questioning genocides.

The late Kamuran Gurun, shortly before his passing

Armenian propaganda discredits anything not in line with their agenda, as we all know, and Kamuran Gurun's "The Armenian File" gets the usual "smear" treatment because Gurun was once a diplomat. Ergo, Gurun must have been a dishonest agent of the evil Turkish government, lying through his teeth.

(Gocek did not mention Gurun by name; I'm pointing to him as an example. I myself generally do not rely on Turkish historians — their books aren't easily available in the USA, for one thing, and their potential bias is not a factor to ignore — but Gurun is one of a handful I have come to trust.)

Just as when Gocek gave her talk at the Zoryan Institute, and an attempt was made to include a "denialist," who were they going to call? There is practically no one, because the neutral academicians have been frightened away. Even in previous years, during the 1970s and 80s, before the campaign to intimidate neutral academicians went into full swing, there simply was practically nobody to represent the "Other Side." The diplomats, like 1980s Ambassador Sukru Elekdag in Washington, were forced to become "historians."

By the time Gurun wrote his book, no longer working for the government as I understand (and even if he were, the research is always the final determinant of credibility), he had learned (as a diplomat) enough of this history and the terrible and unfair prejudice throughout the world toward his nation and people; nobody needed to "bribe" Gurun to write his book. He wrote that book because he believed 100% in what he was writing.

So here's a book based almost completely on Western sources and internal Ottoman documents never meant to be publicized and therefore could not be construed as propaganda. There is no "Turkish propaganda" in that book. If anything, with the emphasis on Western and Armenian sources, it could be more ironically said the book is better filled with "Armenian propaganda."

Dadrian claims it was this book that changed the mind of the venerable scholar, Prof. Bernard Lewis (whose reputation was a lot more untainted at the time, before the pro-Armenians took an A.R.F. style stab at him). Yes, before the book, Lewis relied on the omnipresent Armenian propaganda, and was yet another genocide believer.

This is my drawn out way of explaining to the reader that ... does anyone believe this book, if it were an instrument of the evil Turkish state, could have turned around the mind of Prof. Bernard Lewis? (Interestingly, Gocek revealed in an unpublicized letter that Lewis happened to be a "mentor." If this book was good enough for Lewis, how curious that she would disrespect her own mentor's conclusions.)

"The Armenian File" (which came out in 1985, while young Gocek was putting the pieces together; she is reported to have arrived in the USA four years prior, at age 24; as an added note, in the unpublicized letter, Gocek claimed she only started intensively digging into the "genocide" since 2000) is an example of works that Fatma Muge Gocek tells us was not worthy of consideration because it "presented the Turkish State's version of history."

(From that unpublicized letter, two other mentors that she feels "honored" — in the current, and not the past tense — to have learned from were Heath Lowry and Halil Inalcik. I confess ignorance of the latter, although I've heard the name. However, I believe he would belong in the "denialist" category. Would he not be one of those Turks who "presented the Turkish State's version of history," the kind that she could not trust and left her "unaware"? That is the opposite of what "mentor" means, which in my dictionary is defined as "a wise and trusted counselor or teacher." So I am confused. If these three professors have come upon radically different conclusions, I suppose what Gocek really meant was that she trusted them once in her doe-eyed innocence, until discovering through her own research that either they were incompetent, or that they diabolically tricked her, and she is being polite by still paying homage to them. At any rate, at least we have come to learn Gocek is not the best judge of mentors.)

Nevertheless, anyone who reads The Armenian File can plainly see the case is made through non-propagandistic facts. It's not as if some government flunky sat down and wrote his "opinions"... the kind of opinions that comprise the base for Armenian Genocide evidence.

(Maybe that's why Gocek rejected this book; it's devoid of the "opinions" she prefers.)

She complains that "the translation of those Ottoman sources into Latin script has been controlled by the government as well." Now that the Ottoman archives have been open, have there been any Ara Sarafians or Hilmar Kaisers who have proven translations were inaccurately performed? (Sarafian pointed out errors in Gurun's book, for example; the Armenian scholar appeared to be looking for "cracks in the wall of denial.")

If anything, it is her side that misrepresents Ottoman translations, as provided by this example, where Sukru Elekdag gave a piece of mind to Halil Berktay's interpretation of an Ottoman telegram, back in the year 2000.

(Taner Akcam also had issues with the "crime" of Turkish historians manipulating translations.)

 

Alex Haley

Gocek explains that once she "established" herself as an academic and received tenure, she figured the time was right to hop aboard the genocide train. "Of course, the first thing I had to do was to prove that I really was not an Armenian." She performed an "Alex Haley," and traced all her ancestors to see if there was one part which was Armenian. She discovered her Sunni family arrived into Anatolia from the Caucasus in the 16th century.

But hold on a minute. Since Gocek herself now brings up the notion that there are up to 2 million "secret" Armenians in Turkey, how can we be absolutely sure? How do we know a member of her family did not want to mix it up with someone of that pure Aryan blood, in order to jack up the genetic soup that the primitive Mongol Turks are said to have deliberately engaged in, to boost the quality of their inferior sub-human race, according to Gocek's favored Armenian propaganda?

I'm only kidding, of course. Just an example of Gocek shooting herself in the foot. If she's telling us there are so many Armenians in the midst, and since genealogy is not an exact science, there is really no way to be certain, is there?

Gocek goes on to report:

"Another thing that I tell audiences here is that recognition of what happened in 1915 will be very cathartic for the Armenians, but for the Turks, it will be the beginning of a very long process, an arduous process because there are many other social groups in Turkish history that have also suffered; there are the Greeks, the Assyrians, of course, the Kurds, and, at certain junctures, the Islamists. Turkey has a lot to come to terms with and it is going to be a very long and difficult process."

It seems the only ones who escaped suffering were those eternal victimizers, the barbaric Turks. This woman offers more than simple catharsis to the Armenians. This woman is like a god.

Ronald Suny

She goes on to tell us that the workshops she held with Suny, closed to the public (because of the "politics around the subject"; I'd think the controversy should serve as the very reason not to hide behind closed doors. She elaborates they did not "want participants marching in and declaring what we should be doing," but that kind of thing could happen regardless of the openness of doors. Unless, of course, the participants were all of a like mind), fought against the idea of declarations needing to be written "stating that we are recognizing the Armenian genocide," because Suny said, "look, we are scholars and that goes against the nature of scholarship."

(Incidentally, from a private letter of a pro-Armenian professor from Germany, here's a line where the professor attempted to explain his "genocide" views: "I'm not an historian, I'm a political scientist and as such I'm primarily interested in the public discourse itself." Wasn't that honest? Suny is similarly a professor of political science. Because someone is a "scholar" does not automatically make them historians, and qualified to judge history.)

While I didn't meticulously examine the background of participants in these workshops (from Internet accounts I've come across), and there were names that were unfamiliar to me, it sounded like everyone involved was in agreement that there was a genocide. These workshops appeared to follow the typical genocide club rules, despite impressions presented to the contrary. Gocek implies there was such balance, the workshop was confused with the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC); but there would have needed to be "denialists" in the crowd for that to have happened, wouldn't there?

"...[B]oth the Armenians and some of the Turks I talked to thought that I was inviting them to this place where we were going to advocate the views of the Turkish State." If that's true, it goes to show how little known Gocek was known as a proponent of the Armenians' genocide, and few will ever make that mistake again. And since only "some" of the Turks were worried about this (these would likely have been of the Taner Akcam variety), I wonder which Turks didn't care? In other words, who were the "denialists" in this crowd? Were there any? (For example, a Leyla Neyzi, from Halil Bertktay's Sabanci University, was a participant in the 2002 show. Since she was identified as being from the presumably apolitical anthropology department of her institution, and she might have been among those Turks who didn't have reason to make a stink, does that mean she could have been from the Turkish State-supporting denialist crowd?)

These Workshops of Armenian-Turkish Scholarships, or WATS's (as in "Whatsis?"), that Suny and Gocek have been holding the last few years, are not based on honesty. At the time of this writing, Prof. Gerard Libaridian [once head of the Zoryan Institute, and currently residing in Gocek's University of Michigan, worrisomely from the "history" department] has made the announcement for the fifth one, to be held in New York University, in mid-May 2006. Their partner is Dr. Paul Boghossian from NYU's Philosophy Department. The theme: "The Boundaries of Genocide: Intentions, Histories, Peoples." Libaridian specifies: "We are inviting scholars interested in the various dimensions presented by the theme to submit proposals for papers to be discussed at this meeting." What does that mean? It means genocide is a foregone conclusion, and "denialists" [or actual Turkish scholars, among others], Stay Out. Yet, the facade is maintained that there is an equality between Armenians and Turks, and no politics are involved.

NYU, by the way, has a newly constructed separate building devoted to Near East Studies, named after its wealthy benefactor: the "Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies." (Not that this has anything to do with WATS, but just to give the reader an idea; why has this rich Armenian decided to plunk perhaps millions of dollars down on a platform for teaching history... and how many others are there like him, donating their big bucks not as openly? Another wealthy Armenian ("the Arsham and Charlotte Ohanessian Chair in the College of Liberal Arts") supported, at least in 2003, Stephen Feinstein's "Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies," affiliated with Taner Akcam's University of Minnesota.)

"The organizers will pay for travel and room and board expenses..." Imagine the pull among some journeyman, starry-eyed Turkish academicians in Turkey to get away to glamorous New York City and be part of a "scholarly" crowd, stepping away from anonymity, and into the world of potential accolades and recognition. ("We can expect a relatively large participation by... the press.") No wonder there has been no shortage of Turkish opportunists; here is a good example of what was referred to in the opening paragraph as "the profitable genocide pie." ("The total number of attendees will be limited to 45 persons maximum." Multiply 45 times the cost of worldwide travel, plus sky-high New York City hotel and food expenses... zowie! Up against this kind of high financing, the "denialists" can't stand a chance. And this is only one example of conferences held by the "genocide club," worldwide.)

Since Gocek declares herself to be an "Ottoman specialist," at one time she thought herself qualified to draw up a historiography beginning in the late 1800s. The subject of reform came up in 1878 (this, of course, was at the end of a disastrous war with Russia, a highly dangerous time for the empire, when the empire's arm was being twisted and the first Armenian terrorist groups were forming), and that's when the troubles started:

"...[T]he first incidents were seen as the subjects being unhappy with the situation and initially there is no rhetoric that developed against them. The hostile stand against the Armenians developed later when they gradually started to be portrayed as 'the other'."

By "incidents," she must be talking about massacres. Note how our historian makes it sound like a racial animosity was developing toward the Armenians, like the Jews of the Nazi regime, for no reason. No mention of the terrorist groups inciting violence, emboldened by their land-grabbing, European-supported Orthodox cousins in the Balkans. No mention of Armenians like this man, permitted in power positions in the years leading to WWI. When CUP and later, the Turkish Republic, tried to "justify what was going on," Gocek explains they were being "proto-nationalist," in other words, straying from fact and stressing the propaganda.

But who becomes the real propagandist by leaving out key components of "historiography"?

We must affirm a basic principle: Those who take propaganda as their source themselves write propaganda, not history.

Dr. Justin McCarthy at the Turkish Grand National Assembly, March 24, 2005

Has Gocek Read "Death and Exile"?

Armenian fan "Tongue" earlier recorded Gocek as stating that she was a scholar and had "read a lot." A true scholar reads perspectives that go against the scholar's personal grain, not just works the scholar is in agreement with. At this point, the true scholar applies science, not emotion. A true scholar must be prepared to rid herself of previously held beliefs or prejudices if the evidence against those beliefs prove solid. This is exactly what Prof. Bernard Lewis was forced to do, once he read "The Armenian File." Since then, he has been vilified as a David Irving-level "revisionist," within unscrupulous genocide circles. Yet, it is the duty of every true scholar to become a "revisionist," as better facts come along.

Now, of course, Prof. Justin McCarthy is equally vilified as a "denialist" by the Armenian Genocide club to which Gocek whole-heartedly belongs. Since Gocek is not a real scholar, considering only one side of this story as she does (which puts her credibility at risk in everything else she produces), perhaps she was not able to bring herself to read McCarthy's works, such as "Death and Exile."

Whether she has or not, it is obvious she suffers from a lack of understanding on the general psychology of her people, when it comes to the ways Turks, in general, culturally deal with "mourning."

Prof. McCarthy’s “Death and Exile” offers a telling footnote from page 97, referring to the fate of the Balkan Turks, at the hands of murderous Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians and Montenegrins... all of whom truly carried out a policy of systematic extermination, in an effort to frighten the rest of the Turks into leaving their lands (a policy also carried out by Armenians in the Anatolian East with the exception that the Armenians killed more for killing's sake, and not to force the rest into fleeing; and to a lesser "murderous" extent, with the idea of forcing the rest to flee, in 1992 Karabakh):

"One might be pardoned if, on reading of the various atrocities visited upon the Balkan Turks, it seems as if the atrocities were invented, or at least much inflated, by those who allegedly suffered. One answer to this is the type of confirmatory evidence provided by the European consuls, reporters, and other observers. I believe, though, that the evidence drawn from Muslim refugees was generally reliable in itself. Those who in 1876-78 had long dealt with Turks avowed that Turks were very unlikely to overstate their suffering. Quite the opposite was true — Turks were unlikely to mention their defeats, or to underplay them, and the massacres of the Balkan Turks were a horrible defeat. British Consul Blunt at Edirne spoke of the difficulty of getting Turks to speak of their sufferings, because of the ‘habitual reluctance of the Turks to speak of indignities to which any among them have been subjected. (It is this very policy, I may add, which induced them to conceal from public knowledge, rather than denounce the mutilations constantly practiced by the Montenegrins on their Turkish victims.)’ " (F.O. 195-1137, no. 90, Blunt to Layard, Adrianople, 6 August 1877.)

Instead of applying Americanized concepts such as, "there, there, poor child; you must mourn and feel sorry and sad and basically miserable in order to be free," maybe there are people who seek freedom by cutting the mourning short, "forgiving and forgetting," and moving on with their lives. Not everyone needs to dwell on century old events, especially to the point of having the events take over their lives... as some other ethnic groups sadly swear by.

"Nations usually come to a point in their histories when they are able to face their past and undertake such mourning in order to heal for a healthier future."

Really? Which nations have been doing that, exactly? Do the British think of the crimes their nation committed during the Boer War, for example? Do the Spaniards harp on grounding South American civilizations to dust? Do the French care about the Algerians... or when they think about Napoleon, do they stress the untold suffering he caused? And forget about the Russians, their list of historical wrongs would go on and on. How about Belgium? Is the Congo on the minds of Belgians these days? How many Australians consciously hang their heads in shame over Tasmania? And what about the United States? The last thing on Americans' minds are the many wrongs that were committed from slavery to Cambodia.

Everyone knows slavery was wrong, but who wants to think about it? After all, it's done. Nothing can be done to change it. I feel no guilt as far as the slavery business, and I certainly don't feel "responsible" for it either. (Some Ottomans were also on the receiving end of the mostly pre-U.S. American slavery racket, during the 16th-18th centuries, perhaps explaining the beginnings of the Melungeons.)

One nation that has been hit with a big guilt trip is Germany. Germans will never be let off the hook on the reason why. Not long ago, "Hitler's Willing Executioners" revived the notion that the ordinary German is predisposed to persecute, just like Vahakn Dadrian tells us the ordinary Turk is predisposed to kill. The mourning process, it seems, will be forever required of the Germans.

But aside from the Holocaust, is the average German aware of, say, the wrongs committed by the Teutonic Knights?

Where does this end? Is the idea to wallow in the past? Or to look to the future? Seems like the latter bodes much better for a "healthier future."

Who does Fatma Muge Gocek think she is? So she wants to shove this huge "Armenian Genocide" lie down the throats of her countrymen and women, and then everything is going to be hunky-dory? Turkey is going to be more grown-up and democratic as a result? Does she really expect people are going to swallow this kindergarten level analysis?

At the time of this interview from a few years back, we learn Gocek had translated a novel of Elif Shafak's. And thus the seeds of their friendship were planted. How curious that soon afterwards, Elif Shafak grew to be a practical carbon copy of Gocek and Akcam.

 

Why rely on Ottoman archival accounts to write history? Because they are the sort of solid data that is the basis of all good history. The Ottomans did not write propaganda for today's media. The reports of Ottoman soldiers and officials were not political documents or public relations exercises. They were secret internal reports in which responsible men relayed what they believed to be true to their government. They might sometimes have been mistaken, but they were never liars. There is no record of deliberate deception in Ottoman documents. Compare this to the dismal history of Armenian Nationalist deceptions: fake statistics on population, fake statements attributed to Mustafa Kemal, fake telegrams of Talat Pasa, fake reports in a Blue Book, misuse of court records and, worst of all, no mention of Turks who were killed by Armenians.

Dr. Justin McCarthy at the Turkish Grand National Assembly, March 24, 2005

 

She goes on to explain about herself and those like Akcam being regarded as traitors. Again, the usual blabber: "The media, public opinion as well as popular culture in Turkey have all been very successfully controlled by the state up until now," and it's those mindless nationalists at work again. No regard as to whether her efforts are truly in the interests of the Turkish nation, or against it.

(Incidentally, is there a country where the media is not controlled? Here in the USA, the world's model for democracy, all major media is in the hands of a few conglomerates.)

"Why the Turkish state remains so intransigent in its recognition of the Armenian tragedy in spite of the overwhelming historical evidence ..."

Repeat after me: "hearsay" and "personal opinions," along with "forgeries," as "overwhelming" as these might have been thanks to the many bigots from the period who did not regard the Turks as equal human beings, do not count as "historical evidence." Gocek might only be slightly accused for not understanding this, since her background is not in history.

Gocek actually refers to "a 'layering of denial' that spans from the last decades of the Ottoman Empire into the Turkish nation-state to the present." How do you like that; at least current day denialists can be proud they are continuing an old Turkish tradition.

Gocek predicts a "reorientation" that "will end up discrediting many individuals and institutions to destabilize the existing power structure in Turkey." I predict that once the truth of this falsified genocide becomes slowly accepted by the prejudiced world, many individuals will wind up becoming discredited. But these individuals won't come from the camp Gocek is pointing to.

"The Armenian diaspora will need to work with both the Turkish and Armenian states and societies and hopefully help both sides shed their nationalistic stands on this issue to eventually reach reconciliation."

Yes, the Armenian diaspora can certainly be counted on as a voice of non-nationalistic moderation to set these two nations straight. Already the Dashnak controlled diaspora has spread their poison to Armenia (Ter-Petrossian, the first Armenian president since the Cold War's end, was chased away by these hysterical diasporan voices), and thanks to their Turkish pawns, the Armenians' sights are also set upon Turkey itself.

As "Tongue" stated earlier, Fatma Muge Gocek can be a pretty funny lady.