Fatma Muge Gocek is another
sociologist, like her friend Taner Akcam
(whom she sponsored all on her lonesome, so the story goes, to enter the USA
as an undistinguished academic immediately to get a job at an Armenian hotbed
university where Gocek works, in Michigan; this is the base of Dennis
Papazian's "Armenian Research Center"), and his mentor Vahakn
Dadrian. They have all become recognized as "historians," to one
extent or another, advocating the one-sided view of Armenian propaganda. Gocek
has been overshadowed by Akcam as the first Turk to have openly sided with the
powerful Armenians, opening the floodgates to a plethora of opportunist Turks
who want a piece of the profitable genocide pie.
Now, by "profitable," we don't
necessarily mean these people are financially supported in an open manner by
the Armenian genocide industry (as Gocek was falsely charged by some Turks,
accepting $7,000 or so for speaking engagements), although some, like Akcam
(reportedly, via the Cafesjian Foundation), evidently are. The benefits come
by becoming the darlings of the anti-Turkish West, thus opening the doors to
previously unavailable opportunities, from university positions to book
contracts. (For example, Gocek's new soul sister, Elif Shafak, has already come a long way in a short three
years, getting her start similarly at Gocek's University of Michigan.) In our
celebrity-worshipping worldwide society, notoriety goes a long way in
establishing personal and professional success. Gocek has been trying harder
of late (it is now January 2006) to get her slice of the pie; maybe she felt
it unfair that Akcam was getting most of the attention, after her
behind-the-scenes efforts in "sponsoring" him. These days, it seems
like she is popping up everywhere.
Let's try to examine where Prof. Gocek is coming from.
Gocek, as a proud representative of the Armenian Genocide Industry, performed her level
best to allow these tentacles to infiltrate her homeland. There has been a much publicized
conference originally slated (in May 2005) at Bogazici University in Istanbul, where like
all other conferences held by the genocide club, only those who agreed to the genocide
were allowed entry. The difference is, the attendees and speakers appear to have been
exclusively composed of Turks and those of Turkish sounding names... so large has the pool
of genocide-supporting Turks grown.
Turkish Minister of Justice Cemil Cicek must have felt as if it wasn't bad enough to have
Turkey's image blackened worldwide by these tireless advocates, via a falsified version of
history, the fact that they were now trying to have their dirty work mold gullible Turkish
minds was the last straw; in the parliament, he justifiably remarked the participants were
'stabbing the nation in the back.' Things got hot, the liberals (including more than a few
naive academicians) within the nation got in an uproar (I understand Cicek actually got
hit by a lawsuit), and the episode served as an opportunity for high-minded Europeans to
once again tsk-tsk the primitive ways of the Turks. The organizers of the conference
voluntarily decided to bow out. I don't understand what they were afraid of; they could
have hired extra security if they felt the barbarians were poised to attack. Regardless,
their decision conveniently made it seem to outside eyes that the Turkish government
outlawed the conference.
In two shakes of a stick, the conference was rescheduled a few months later, this time at
Bilgi University. (A "Horizon Weekly" interview had Gocek explain the
interesting involvement of the toadying Turkish government: "When September 2005 came
around , [the ruling] AK Party expressed its desire that the postponed conference ought to
actualize before the EU accession talks on October 3rd.") It was hailed as the first
time the genocide issue was allowed as part of a conference in Turkey (this 1990 affair was naturally forgotten; the actual
mold the Istanbul conference broke was that it was the first one completely from the
pro-Armenian perspective), and those like Halil Berktay had a field day in presenting
Armenian propaganda to those who mainly shared the same views. Gocek reportedly stated in
a Nov. 6, 2005 UCLA appearance, similarly overfilled to capacity by cheering
pro-Armenians, that 3,000 Turks wished to attend, but there was room for only 120. A few
from the other side of the camp did sneak in, such as Fatma S., and polite, brief clashes
with the propagandistic views reportedly surfaced.
The other side of the camp (i.e, the "Denialists") organized their own
conference shortly afterwards, an imperfect one at times straying from the Armenian story.
Regardless, in democratic fashion, room for the Berktay-Gocek types was made. As with the
1990 Ankara conference (where only Levon Marashlian had the courage to attend), almost all
reportedly declined, including Halil Berktay. (If these people are secure in their
historical views, why would they not jump at the chance? It doesn't take courage to preach
to the choir.) A few, like Fikret Adanir, reportedly got mildly shell-shocked in light of
the real historical evidence genocide advocates rarely consider.
This in-depth analysis will look at Gocek's latest appearances and a couple of interviews.
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
Sassounian reported: "'Armenians
have been wronged, but have not been able to mourn their losses, because of the Turkish
denials,' she said. Dr. Gocek concluded by advocating that Armenians be given Turkish
citizenship and the right of return."
This is what comes from avoiding real history. Yes, Armenians caught in the middle were
wronged (although they have been making a religion of mourning their losses ever since),
but who is to blame? When the Armenians "fired the first shot" as
aggressors, few would not be able to agree with Prof. McCarthy as he concluded (in his
brilliant essay by the same name): "The
guilt is on their heads." The Armenians chose to go to war with their Ottoman
nation at the moment the nation was threatened with extinction; Boghos Nubar said it flat out: "The Armenians have been
belligerents de facto, since they indignantly refused to side with Turkey."
Of course, if the innocents were systematically murdered via a genocidal policy in
retribution, the fact that Armenians fired the first shot could not serve as an excuse.
But if they died though normal "war" circumstances — including crime,
corruption, lack of resources that were similarly affecting everyone else as far as famine
and disease — then, c'est la guerre. Turks were wronged at least as much, since more Turks were outright murdered by Armenians
than the other way around. How interesting Gocek appears to show no sympathy for the Turks
who were wronged. (Even while addressing such a highly partisan audience, the truth-teller
could not, in good conscience, avoid this very important other side of the equation.)
And what a wonderful advocate of Armenian propaganda this woman proves herself to be, with
the "right of return" idea. The Armenians were given several opportunities to
return, the last being the Lausanne Treaty. "[E]very Armenian who had once been an
Ottoman citizen had until July 24, 1925 to come to Turkey as a Turkish citizen with the
same rights as other Turkish citizens." (Feigl, "The Myth of
Terror," 1986, p. 116.) Instead, Armenians, numerically plentiful at war's end in
what was left of the Ottoman Empire, based on the claims of the Armenian Patriarch himself
(1,260,000 in 1918, as provided by the
Armenian Delegation, and 644,900 in 1921), chose to leave. Some left because of
their usual reasons of belligerence (the exodus
to Cilicia under French protection; the new Armenian homeland didn't work out), and didn't
dare to return. Some chose the greener pastures of Christian nations that sympathetically
opened their doors to the poor, innocent Armenians.
While the following notion is no longer as popular in contemporary times (not in the
"what's in it for me" USA, anyway), many still believe if you have made a
decision, then you have to bear with the fall-out. If you chose to go along with your
leaders and betrayed your nation, then you have to accept the consequences. (Even if you
personally didn't like the idea, but didn't do anything to stop it, or if you only
passively approved.) If you're granted a right that has an expiration date, and if you
decided not to take advantage in time, then the failure to do so becomes your
Armenians appear to have trouble doing this. When something goes wrong, it's got to be the
other fellow's fault. As First Prime Minister Hovhannes Katchaznouni honestly put it: "To complain bitterly about our
bad luck and to seek external causes for our misfortune — that is one of the main
aspects of our national psychology." If Fatma Muge Gocek wishes to apologize for
the Armenians' inadequacies while serving as a proponent for Hai Tahd (The Armenian
Cause), that is her choice. We all must accept the responsibility for our choices. But she
does not have to be so completely like them, avoiding genuine history, concluding the
Armenians have been "wronged," in desperation to find a fall guy. Especially if
the fall guy happens to be her own nation.
Taner Akcam spoke of Turkey's "paying compensation and making restitution," and
Prof. Hovannisian "promised to the audience that a future conference would deal with the
issues of reparations and territorial demands from Turkey."
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."
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
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.
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.
couple of Fatma Gocek's other books
"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
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
|“I, as an ethnically Turkish citizen, am not guilty, but am
responsible for what happened to the Armenians in 1915.”
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).
Cruise going ape as Oprah feigns
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,
This is the one where she dramatically declared, in deliriously full attention
“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.
As wild as Gocek might have been with her
declaration, leave it to the unending stream of Turkish opportunists to outdo
even Fatma Muge Gocek!
Ozcan: "Turks... bad!"
Journalist Yelda Özcan
was interviewed by Yevrobatsi,
an Armenian publication from France, and asked what she thought of Gocek's
declaration of feeling responsibility but not guilt. Her reply, in part:
"I find a Turkish scholar’s conviction that she is responsible but not
guilty at least not timely. Frankly I am ashamed of belonging to the side of
the perpetrators, of the amnesia in contrast to the painful memories of my
Armenian friends, of the ongoing crimes of the descendents of perpetrators, of
the fact that non-Moslems still live like hostages in Turkey..." WHEW!
This lady is making Fatma Muge Gocek to be a comparative right-wing Grey Wolf!
She was also present at a mid-November 2005 Swedish conference, this time
honoring the Assyrians and their hopes to be pitied as genocide victims.
Özcan was covered in the Assyrian-American Zinda Magazine :
"'I am sorry that I have to speak to you in the language of those who
killed you'. She also said that she is ashamed of being Turkish and continued
listing the Turkish atrocities against the minorities."
Naturally, this sort of Turk-hating Turk is pure gold to Turk-hating forces;
we certainly would not be hearing about Yelda Özcan if she did not join the
profitable genocide club.
(Can't resist adding this segment from Zinda's coverage: "The Armenian
professor Dadrian did not mention the name of the Assyrians once during his
speech. And when asked whether Armenia should become the first state to
aknowledge the Assyrian genocide he replied 'It is a good question but I can’t
give you an answer, because we do not know much about your experience'. This
statement, some Assyrian observers concluded, shows that there remains a
reluctance towards the recognition of the Assyrian genocide by the armenian
scholars." If the Assyrians are hoping to get sympathy from Vahakn
Dadrian, they are barking up an impossible tree.)
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.'"
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.
Why do so many in my country and Europe believe that the
small group of Turks who accept the Armenian Nationalists' beliefs represent Turkish
scholarship? Why is it believed that these Turks speak for the real beliefs of Turkish
professors? Part of the reason is prejudice. Prejudice against Turks has existed for
so long that it is easy for people to believe that Turks must have been guilty.
Another reason, however, is that few in Europe and America know that real Turkish
scholarship on this issue exists.
Dr. Justin McCarthy at the Turkish Grand National Assembly, March 24, 2005
The article explains that Gocek "made clear that their opposition to the official
state discourse does not in any way imply opposition to the existence of the Turkish
state. The Turkish Republic should be proud, she insisted, that it has produced a group of
scholars who are willing to criticize the state and society with the purpose of making it
a better place for all of its citizens."
Criticizing the state and society serves an honorable purpose, since governments across
the world have a tendency to forget they are representing the people. Turkey, however, is
surrounded by hostiles, from within and without, that have in their best interest to
weaken the state. In other words, Turkey does not have the advantage of stability, as do
Germany and the USA. Even the friends of Turkey, like fair weather European friends and
the United States, don't wish to see a strong Turkey. In this risky environment,
individual Turks don't need to abet their nation's enemies by contributing to the forces
that love to make Turkey their favorite whipping boy. If the Turkish state needs to be
more open to criticism, the way to do it is by picking issues where the state really
deserves blame... in areas where the people are not getting their due, economically,
educationally (not enough universities to meet demand, for example), socially,
politically. You don't pick an issue that has had a time honored tradition since before
WWI to be used for the purpose of splitting Turkey apart... a tradition that continues, as
Richard Hovannisian made clear above with his goal of "reparations and territorial
demands from Turkey." You don't pick a controversial issue supported by worldwide
Turk-hating forces who work night and day to demonstrate what a monster Turkey and the
Turkish people are. And you certainly don't pick an issue that is simply unproven and not
based on fact.
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
"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
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
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
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.
"...[W]hatever the European Union demands, I have faith in
the honor of the Turks. What I know of the Turks tells me that they will never falsely
say there was an Armenian Genocide. I have faith in the honesty of the Turks. I know
that the Turks will resist demands to confess to a crime they did not commit, no
matter the price of honesty. I have faith in the integrity of the Turks. I know that
the Turks will not lie about this history. I know that the Turks will never say their
fathers were murderers. I have that faith in the Turks."
Dr. Justin McCarthy at the
Turkish Grand National Assembly, March 24, 2005
The article/press release goes on to tell us a Turkish Embassy man was allowed a few
minutes, "In keeping with the principle of providing space for alternative points of
view, as Prof. Göçek advocates, he was granted several minutes to make a speech of his
own, even though the forum was purely academic." This is the first time I've heard of
an interjection of a counter-view, in the conferences Gocek has participated in, and it's
to be commended. If Gocek really was a stickler for "providing space for alternative
points of view," she would have insisted in the two former examples we've covered,
the Istanbul conference and UCLA forum. And, really, how much can be said in "several
minutes"? (Of course, it's better than nothing. After these several minutes, by the
way, the Armenian ambassador had his turn.)
It is a near certainty the initiative did not come from the Zoryan
Institute; the Turkish Embassy must have contacted them, just as the UCLA Turkish Student
Association contacted organizers of the Hovannisian event, and Canadians are generally
more civil and open-minded than Americans. The Zoryan directors perhaps felt an obligation
to cooperate with societal mores, when it came to considering a request from official
channels; it is a great rarity for an Armenian conference to make room for a "denialist,"
and this article was not being sincere by making it appear as though such were a routine
The Turk allowed to speak, Counselor Yonet Tezel, was very polite and did not appear to
get into historical issues (based on what the article revealed, anyway), one reason why an
exemption might have been granted. He was diplomatic, stressing the commonalities of
Armenians and Turks, and stating the study of this matter was on the rise in Turkey, and
that the Istanbul conference was good in making Turks aware of the seriousness of the
genocide charge. Here's the best defense he was able to come up with, against Gocek's
blather: “However, the people of Turkey do not feel they are the grandchildren of
perpetrators of genocide.” That was quite the knock-out blow, wasn't it?
Of course, the author of this article was not going to let the "denialists" get
away even with this ineffectual soap sud. Why, hadn't Prof. Göçek differentiated between
guilt and responsibility? (Yes, but that had nothing to do with the point. Gocek looks at
the genocide as a fact and wants Turks to feel responsible and ashamed. The embassy man is
basically saying there was no genocide. No crime means no feeling of responsibility.) In
addition, didn't Gocek "articulate" that many of the genocide perpetrators
became members of the first Turkish government? Quote the Gocek:
"'I did an analysis of the Deputies of the first National
Assembly,' she explained. 'I have found enough documentation that implicates about 25-30%
of the Deputies of having participated in the massacres against the Armenians….Not only
was there no accountability and no punishment for those who committed crimes against the
Armenians, but many of the perpetrators unfortunately then became leaders of the Turkish
Republic. Significant among these, for example, were people like Ismet Inunu [sic] and
Celal Bayar…who came to occupy significant posts, such as either the President, Prime
Minister, or Ministers of the new Republic…. So the perpetrators of the past became…the
heroes of the present and the future, and this made it extremely difficult, I think, for
Mustapha Kemal, who himself, actually, was chosen to lead the independence struggle,
because he did not at all participate in any of these crimes."
Well, those like Rudy Rummel and Levon
Marashlian would disagree, as the "Armenian Genocide" is often listed as going
on until 1923, and the "Kemalists" are also charged with being perpetrators of
genocide. (But there are limits as to how far Gocek and Akcam will go; they realize their
agenda among fellow Turks would become endangered if they don't let Ataturk off the hook.)
But wasn't the above exciting? We got a taste of "Gocek the Historian."
And I'll bet it was she who sat down to perform this original historical research, like
these "facts" weren't already examined inside and out by Dadrian's Zoryan
Institute, and the like. All she likely had to do was dip into the vast reserves of the
Armenian Propaganda Industry.
Isn't it wonderful how "she" was able to determine the guilt of genocide
perpetrators like Ismet Inonu? Good thing we have Fatma Muge Gocek as judge and jury to
determine who the criminals were. Of course, we don't know what kind of material has been
dug up to "implicate" 25-30% of these men. All that's necessary for
agenda-ridden propagandists is for someone to point a finger and say, "He dood
it." (There was plenty of finger-pointing by accused parties at the Allied
occupied 1919-20 Ottoman kangaroo courts,
knowing they were one step away from the noose.)
Armenians in Turkey gave a plaquette of gratitude to Ismet Pasha (Inönü) who was
the chief Turkish representative at the Lausanne International Peace Conference. The
Conference ended on July 24th, 1923, The plaquette was dated July 24, 1923 as a
tribute to the date the Lausanne Peace Conference had ended. The inscription on the
plaquette that was given to Ismet Pasha reads:
“May God grant you a long life, The glorious and victorious warrior, The symbol
of heroism and genius, The great savior of our holy country. This is the eternal
gratitude To his Majesty Ismet Pasha by the Armenians in Turkey.”
It's highly immoral for conclusions of "criminal" to be made through hearsay.
Fatma Muge Gocek wouldn't like it if she were accused of a ruinous crime without evidence
to back up the charge. Even if someone frivolously accused her of writing a bad check, she
wouldn't like it. Why is this great moralist doing the same with people no longer around
to defend themselves?
Especially when she does not possess the concrete proof. We know she does not, because the
British tried desperately to come up with the goods, during their two-plus year
investigation leading to the Malta
Tribunal. (This would be around the time the British and their allies pronounced a
death sentence upon the Turkish nation in May of 1920, via the Treaty of Sèvres. That is,
the Brits were out to get the Turks, and were as unfriendly as can be.) The British were
desperate enough to research the archives of the United States in 1921. Washington's
British embassy indicated the uselessness of the archives, the bread and butter of the
genocide foundation, concluding the reports boiled down to "personal opinions."
In point of fact, this very standard charge (unpunished genocidal maniacs going on to rule
the new Turkey) is one that Akcam himself had made during a radio interview in early 2005.
It is one that has been around for a long time. So it wasn't like there was "no
accountability and no punishment" for these alleged perpetrators, The one thing there
was plenty of was "no evidence." The reader is advised to tune in to this section to see what British P.O.W.
Harold Armstrong had to say about some of these men who finally were released, without
being proven guilty. If these innocent men patriotically went on to serve their devastated
country, that makes it doubly intolerable for a Turk like Gocek to point fingers of
hearsay at them.
At least during the war some attempt was made by the Ottoman government to
who had committed crimes against Armenians. (Taner Akcam pathetically tried to prove otherwise in a mid-2003 article appearing
in a Turkish newspaper, you know, the country where the "genocide" is a
"taboo.") If anyone got off scot free, with "no accountability and no
punishment," it was the dreadful murderers, terrorists and sadists like Dro, Antranik,
Armen Garo, Soghoman Tehlirian, and so many others, glorified by Armenians today, who did
their best in killing for killing's sake, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent
and defenseless people. The Zoryan Institute conference's audience members were
"touched," the article tells us, by Gocek's "message that it is the scholar’s
responsibility to emphasize the human dimension, and that we as humans should be morally
responsible and share the suffering of others regardless of political
considerations." Then why does this humanist rarely utter a word for her own being
killed so savagely and comprehensively? (At least she's mum about the Armenians as
perpetrators, and apparently sparing with the rest.)
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.
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
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
"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 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
|If only Gocek
would "Go check" her facts and figures
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
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.
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
(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.)
"Finding common ground is
professor's specialty," blared the headline of a September 2, 2004 article by Geoff
Larcom, Ann Arbor News, regarding Gocek. "She is a voice of reason
and compromise," gushed Howard Kimeldorf, chairman of her department.
ground instead of finding common ground is more the case, at least when it
comes to this genocide matter. Irrefutable historical facts that declare this
genocide to be a myth, far from making someone "a voice of reason"
allows one to be an unreasonable pharisee. This is particularly unforgivable,
when the someone is supposed to be an unprejudiced scholar. (Michael Kennedy
instead vouched for Gocek as "a dedicated scholar, committed to the most
important historical questions." Unfortunately, she's even more committed
to the one-sided answers to some of those historical questions.)
political protests that marked her college days stirred her interest in social
issues, as did her bilingual upbringing and a grandfather who recalled the
tremendous kindness of Jewish neighbors during hard times years ago," the
article informs us. We don't know the second language she spoke while growing
up, in a household that originated from the Caucasus in the 16th century, but
we do learn Gocek knows seven languages, impressively confirming her obvious
intelligence. She's such a softie, grandpa's thumbs up on the kindly Jews made
her decide to raise her kids with that particular faith.
incidentally, the man she "hosted"
to come to the U.S., Taner Akcam, was an active participant during those days
of political protest, sometimes to the point of "Imbedded Violence," as Gocek might put it, as you'll
Suny was in the
University of Michigan at the time Gocek entered the waters, and off to dinner
they went. "Turks and Armenians have historically been enemies, so the
meeting was a bit awkward at first," Suny was quoted as saying, as they
went on with the "pretense of ordering dinner." (Now the general
Turkish way of thinking in this situation would be to look at the glass as
half full, and stress the centuries of brotherliness, instead. Most Turks
would regard the Armenian or Greek as a friend, and the only awkwardness —
on the Turk's part — would come from not knowing yet the degree of that
friend's potential hatefulness. [A few paragraphs later,
Gocek will provide from her own experience this very knee-jerk hostility.])
broke the ice with, "Well, what do you think about the Armenian
Genocide?" (Likely translation: "Depending on the answer, you will
pass our test on whether we will consider you as a friend or not.")
calmly explained that night that she understood what had happened and had no
problem dealing with it as a scholar." Rather vague. I suppose it means
Gocek tearfully explained her people are just no good, and that she felt
responsible for the millions of poor, innocent Armenians who were all
murdered. Since Suny went on to say her "move" resulted in their
long friendship, I suppose that clinches it.
Once again, the
rosy picture is painted, where their collaboration "brought Armenian,
Turkish... scholars together in a series of workshops... to research the
events of 1915." Once again, the deceptive notion that these handful of
opportunist Turks represent mainstream Turkish scholarship; and then we're hit
with, "The project has been attacked both by Armenians and Turks,"
confirming the deception. Yes, perhaps some of the more hardcore Armenian
propagandists, like Vahakn Dadrian, might have spoken derisively of Suny,
because Suny is comparatively more "reasonable," but WHAT
genocide-obsessed Armenian would not gladly recognize these workshops for
being the purely Armenian endeavors that they are?
her approach: "If we don't account as a society for what we did in the
past, it will keep repeating itself," in a twist on the mantra of the
genocide scholars, George Santanya's quote. (Or misquote.) "Violence is imbedded in our
society," she goes on to say, perhaps referring to the society of the
United States — since this was for an American newspaper — or just about
any other society in the world. I have a feeling no matter how much my country
repents for its highly violent ways throughout history, the violence simply is
not going to go away. However, if Gocek was, by chance, referring to Turkey,
she must have forgotten Ataturk's "Peace at Home, Peace in the
World" principle that has been faithfully followed, except in 1974,
in a legal and pre-emptive move against potential extermination, along with the few times Turkey hoped to
prove what a reliable ally she can be
to the West. How many wars since 1923 has the USA been involved in, by
comparison? For that matter, how many Ottoman wars were started by the
Ottomans after the 16th century, as they were constantly fending off attacks
from the rest of the violence-imbedded world?
"I want to bring home the message: We are all ultimately the same."
She has a funny way of proving it, by telling the world her people are nearly
always the killers, and the Armenians have not been capable of at least the
same tendency to kill.
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
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
Here is some insight on her frustrations:
"Well I also get distressed at times. We hear of Turks living in the US who think
people like me are 'turncoats'; that we are out to destroy the Turkish Republic. There are
these nationalist Turkish-Americans out there, mostly professionals dying to be the
mouthpieces of the Turkish State, who know nothing about the Armenian issue other than
what the State has instructed them to believe, or who have maybe read at most one
propaganda piece on the topic, but are of course sure everything in there is correct
because they have no scholarly training to assess its quality. Then they have the guts to
get out in public and denigrate you without even bothering to read what you have
Maybe there are some folks who fit into these categories. However, from the "denialists"
I've gotten to know through correspondence, I don't get the slightest hint that the
Turkish-Americans care to be "mouthpieces of the Turkish State." That is not
what motivates them. Since Turks are notoriously indifferent, the few who keep at it are
driven only by the villainies from Gocek's camp that are all too real. The professionals
among these folks carry at least a promise of intellectualism, and living in a Western
nation, they are aware of the many injustices and anti-Turkish prejudices that drive these
issues. None of them need the "State" to instruct them what to believe.
"1984" Orwellian connections become especially easy to sever once away from the
influence of the "State." What a foolish summation, that these Turkish-Americans
are at it because they are brainwashed, or because they're after some sort of gain.
And is she serious about these Turkish-Americans being unable to assess the scholarly
quality about the "denialist" point of view? Living in a nation where the
populace is bombarded almost exclusively by Armenian propaganda? It's not difficult to
separate the sources with the conflicts of interest versus the ones that are not.
She herself gives an idea of this pattern, from her own experience, in a later interview
from "Horizon Weekly" that will be referred to below: "Personally,
I was most struck by how, when I was in Turkey, I had not even been aware there was an
Armenian question; we were not taught anything about it in school. When I came to the
United States for my dissertation work, the opposite held true: I was constantly
confronted by Armenians who were often hostile to me for having killed their
ancestors." This means the Turkish-Americans who were schooled in Turkey also did not
get the opportunity to be "brainwashed" by the "State." In fact, I
know from personal experience, if any brainwashing takes place in the minds of these
Turks, it happens after they come to America. But the propaganda encountered in the
"States" happens to be Armenian propaganda.
Gocek has several books out, but one needn't look far to see where she is coming from.
Hobnobbing with the likes of Hovannisian and Papazian (the latter, potentially since 1988,
when she got her start as an assistant professor at their highly pro-Armenian Michigan
university; she might have seriously begun studying this topic in 2000, but it would
appear her influence started further back), and reading her comments on the Internet give
enough of an idea that her intentions are not those that will make her homeland stronger.
I don't believe she is out to "destroy" the Turkish Republic, but she has
blatantly set camp with those who would love nothing but. It's highly ingenuous of her to
make it appear as though she's looking out for the interests of her native country. Those
who are working to cause harm to their country, in a world that is looking to sustain its
weaknesses, cannot be termed a loyalist.
"Turkey has not had the chance to mourn either. I think because
of building this new nation on new Republican principles, the Turkish people themselves
have never had the chance to come into terms with the traumas in their own past."
This is the first time I'm running into a little equal time for Turks as suffering humans,
Yet note how presumptuous she is. What makes her think Turkey is looking to
"mourn"? Culturally, Turks are the "strong and silent" type.
They don't advertise their tragedies. The only reason why word of the Turkish dead has
been surfacing (and ignored; Prof. McCarthy's "Death and Exile" has come
out in 1995, and there are no "genocide scholars" willing to give the Turks
status as victims) is because the cry-babies slanderously keep harping on what horrendous
victimizers the Turks have been. Not everybody in the world has to abide by modern
psychological concepts such as "Dr. Phil" and "closure."
"The dignified silence of the
Turks against the mounting unjustified attacks and mean slanders can only be
explained by their pity for the blind. …How beautifully this attitude of theirs
answers the undignified calumnies.”
Pierre Loti, “Fantome d’Orient” (1928)
Gocek is like the missionaries who stirred up the otherwise content
Armenians by telling them how superior they were as Christians, and how much better their
lives could be. By doing so, the missionaries opened bigger cans of worms for the
Armenians. Now Gocek is assuming the role of "Don't worry, I know what's best for
you." What unbelievable arrogance.
I'd like to bring up a caveat before the reader considers the discussion below. Unlike
what Gocek's Turk-hating propagandistic forces tell us, Turks are people, too. Individual
Turks also can suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome. When Armenians committed some
of the most unimaginably heinous crimes (with descriptions not uncommonly found throughout
Armenian propaganda. Armenians have shown a tendency to perform a crime, and then blame
Turks with the same crime. Not to say Turks did not massacre Armenians, but more than a
few Armenians who reported these horror stories to missionaries and others must not have
had to work hard in inventing the unusually sadistic deviltries), as the reader may get a
taste of here and here and here,
how could anyone who came out of these nightmares not have been affected? The documentary "Sari
Gelin" had a few filmed testimonials, and it's striking to see some of the old
men emotionally going to pieces. That's because these Turks bottled the memories inside,
in order to cope, and would have died with the memories — had a few interviewers
fighting against Armenian propaganda not decided to do some last-minute footwork. So yes,
Gocek's "catharsis" is not a concept to be belittled. But Gocek is referring to
a national catharsis, from the standpoint of coming to terms with her mythological
genocide, and in 'fessing up to a criminal past. The kind of catharsis that really matters
in this case, individual catharsis, is irrelevant. Almost all of these Turkish sufferers
are now dead.
Has Gocek Read "Death
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
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
“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):
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
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."
Avv. Augusto Sinagra
"After 80 years, an account of
the so-called Armenian Genocide is requested. Now, as an Italian, as an heir
of the Roman Empire, right or wrong, should I be responsible
for what [African Cione]* did in Carthage?
80 years, 800 years, or 1,800 years;
they are all the same to me."
Prof. Augusto Sinagra, Nell
University, Rome. "Sari Gelin"
* Scipio Aemilianus Africanus
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.
|Gocek Interviewed in Yet Another Armenian Publication
Gocek was featured in a more recent interview in December 2005's "Horizon
Weekly" ("Horizon is the largest Canadian-Armenian paper"), conducted
by Aris Babikian, entitled, "It would certainly be wiser for the Turkish
government to come to terms with its history." Good grief.
The article begins by telling us, "The Istanbul
Conference, in Bilgi University, was a turning point in breaking the taboo of discussion
on the Armenian Genocide in Turkey." Sheer nonsense. This "taboo" was
openly discussed for years beforehand. As mentioned before, many of the bigwigs of the
genocide industry were invited to the 1990 Ankara Conference, for example; this one was
decently covered in the press at the time, as evident from Levon Marashlian's own account.
Armenian shill Robert Fisk wrote an article about Taner Akcam's pushing the genocide on
Turkish television for six straight hours, in early 2001. (In an article entitled, "All
the Heroes Deserve Remembrance," where Akcam pleaded, "Ask forgiveness from
the Armenian people.") So where does the writer get off saying, "Dr. Fatma
Muge Gocek is another one of these honest and righteous Turks who have stood up to the
might of the Turkish Government and establishment." There were plenty who tested
these waters before Fatma Muge Gocek. Once again, the notion of the lone and heroic Erin
Brockovich up against an insurmountable institutional force, which in Gocek's case, simply
does not apply.
poses with her interviewer
Gocek elaborates on why the "Turkish diaspora,"
free from control of the state, exercise their free will and become even more conservative
than the Turks of Turkey. She gets into the most convoluted and ridiculous theories, such
as "those who migrate to a new country bring with them the political framework of
their country of origin at that particular juncture."
What Gocek is not taking into consideration is that the Turks who immigrated years ago
assimilated into American society, often turning their backs on their "Turkishness,"
unlike many Greeks and Armenians.
Immigration policy was generally restrictive in America toward non-professional Turks
until the 1970s, when a new wave began to pile in. The children of this wave have grown
up, and some are now fighting back with proficient English, a force the genocide industry
never had to reckon with before.
"She seems unaware that the social science literature she quotes explains
perfectly the psychological state of Armenians in the U.S. It is they who are stuck
in the past. Turkish immigrants in America don’t fit the stereotype of other
immigrants here or Turkish immigrants to European countries where they went in large
numbers when labor was in short supply in Europe and jobs lacking in Turkey. We are
mostly middle to upper income people of high education. We are scattered throughout
the land. There are no Turkish neighborhoods in American cities like earlier
immigrants had when they came in large numbers and required networking with each
other to get a start in the new country. For these people, the old country lived on
in the new country. Not for us. We are fully aware of what goes on in Turkey and we
suffer no anxiety or insecurity as immigrants. We may not all have a Ph.D. in front
of our names but most of us are very much like Professor Gocek herself."
Ali Ferda Sevin, in an
essay entitled "Hate Speech," January 12, 2006; the reference is to
this very interview.
Since Gocek is so completely mistaken as to the factors driving most
Turkish-Americans, preferring to apply general socio-babble to a people she should have
firsthand knowledge about, one now needs to wonder about the caliber of her sociological
While the majority of these Turks are indifferent and are busy being Americans, the ones
who have looked into this insanity are not influenced by the Turkish government. Speaking
for myself, I don't know much about Turkey. I don't care about what the Turkish government
says, I am not a "nationalist," and I certainly wouldn't be bothered by
criticizing the Turkish government for committed wrongs any more than I would criticize my
The only thing... I repeat, the ONLY thing... that is influencing me, and I presume, the
others (older and younger generations alike) is that I know a con job when I see one.
Truth becomes the only guiding force. Gocek can hardly say the same, caught with her pants
down constantly with her repeating of Armenian propagandistic claims.
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
"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.