...It is a term describing a group of
people who have formed their collective identity around the hatred of a race,
ethnic or religious group. A certain form of it, Turkophobia, is especially
common in the Middle East and Balkans. Small proto-nations, or tribal
collections of people have been found to develop hatred of Turks into a
semi-religion and almost an art form thus establishing and verifying their
very own identity and character. There is almost no cure for this evil
bacteria. A lust for blood, preferably of Muslim or Turkish, is the most
obvious symptom. A runaway strain of this illness recently has caused much
death and destruction in the Balkans. Researchers are still trying to find a
Guestbook comment, author
I'd rather be a dog than a Turk.
I'd rather be the scum of the world than a Turk.
I'd rather be conquered by everyone and not be a Turk.
I'd feel blessed not to be a Turk.
Hellektor, armeniangenocide.com/forum/, Jan. 18,
The many years of exclusively
reported anti-Turkish negativism have had the desired effect.
The article below is not as revealing as a lecture I saw
on video once... with Professor Justin McCarthy. He referred to another poll,
one that asked which ethnic group was the most disliked in America. The Turks
made Number One on that list.
For lack of that *, the following "1995 Poll" with less sensational
findings will have to suffice... just to give an idea of how all the negative
reportage leaves people with a clear bias. This is why Greek, Armenian
and other Turk-hating groups get jittery whenever anything positive is
reported about Turkey. They are quick to write letters to newspapers whenever
the rare, favorable account shows up... reminding of all the many genocides the Turks
have perpetrated in their hateful eyes. Whenever something promising about Turkey is announced,
letter-writing campaigns of intimidation
seal their doom. Turk-hating forces within the media are quick to sabotage anything about
Turks that might leave a favorable impression. And then Greeks and
Armenians laugh in their web sites that nobody likes the Turks.
Here is a passage by Justin
McCarthy I subsequently came across, as reported by Levon Marashlian:
...In surveys conducted in American universities
concerning attitudes toward various peoples, "the Turks always come out
as the worst," because of "all these prejudices built in." He
stated that he recently conducted the survey at his own university among 300
students, and "the Turks came out worse than Cambodians, worse than
Colombians, just down the line, worse than Russians, and Germans . . ."
But when asked how much they knew of Turks, McCarthy explained, the students
"who disliked the Turks the most were the ones who admitted that they
knew nothing about them at all. . . . they said, I don't know anything about
them, but I hate them. This is prejudice, and only over the next 10, 20, 30
years can we hope to defeat that prejudice, and that's what we really have to
|1995 Poll Suggests 26% Rates Turkey Favorable in U.S.
Washington, D.C., May 4--A nationwide poll conducted by the John
Zogby Group International on April 19 through 24 for Asharq al Awsat, a Saudi Arabian
daily based in London, found out that only 26 percent of the American public opinion rates
Turkey favorable whereas 24 percent rates it unfavorably. 50 percent of the poll showed to
be indifferent towards Turkey.
The purpose of this nationwide poll, with a sample of 1,004 adults, was to find out more
about the attitudes towards Islam and the Middle East in the United States. Ironically,
the poll was begun just as Americans were receiving news of the Oklahoma City bombing
The poll had a margin of sampling error of +1-3.2. The sample was slightly weighted by
gender, race, and party, and the sample was stratified by region to represent population
patterns. The majority of the respondents had at least high school education (93.8%), were
older than 30 years old (82.3%) and white (80.3%).
Among the major findings of the poll were:
• Nearly half (48%) feel that "there is a tendency to discriminate against Muslims
in the U.S."
• Pluralities agree that "Muslims tend to
lead clean and respectable lives" (37% to 24%) and "the vast majority of Muslims
hate terrorism" (35% to 25%).
• Egypt has a better favorable to unfavorable
rating (45 % to 17%) than any Middle East country, including Israel (49% to 22%).
• Majorities agree that the US should continue
to ensure the security of Saudi Arabia (55%), Kuwait (56%), and Israel (53%), while a
plurality favors the same for Egypt (46%-34%).
• A plurality (39%) feels that the US should
"pressure Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty".
• A huge majority (78%) feel that sanctions
against Iraq should not be lifted.
For a copy of the report please call John I Zogby at (315) 853-3598.
The article above was reported in
The Turkish Times May 15, 1995
"Racism originates from a
mind-set that regards 'them' as different from 'us' in ways that are permanent and
unbridgeable...What is being denied is the possibility that the racializers and
the racialized can coexist in the same society."
George Frederickson, Racism:
A Short History
“The Turks are aware of the prejudice against them that exists in Western
minds, and are inclined to despair of the possibility of overcoming it”
I have heard believing Western Christians, in comparing the Turks with the Near
Eastern Christian peoples, stigmatise the former as ‘incapable of progress.’
These same Christian Westerners would be horrified at the doctrine that negroes,
or women,1 have no souls. Yet this is only a theological form of the proposition
which they make, with regard to the Turks, without hesitation. It is not the
first case in which theological prejudice has led estimable people to count
fellow human-beings among ‘the beasts that perish.’ Western statesmen are
little better, for though they have recently become more chary of religious
allusions, the other current defamations of the Turks could hardly have been
more pithily formulated than they were by the Allied Governments in a note dated
the 11 th January 1917 and addressed to President Wilson, in which they
enumerated, among their war-aims, ‘the expulsion from Europe of the Ottoman
Empire, which has proved itself so radically alien to Western civilisation.’
...These are the three false antitheses of Christianity and Islam, Europe and
Asia, civilisations and barbarism. They are so deeply rooted in Western minds...
Arnold Toynbee, The Western Question in Greece and Turkey, 1922; Footnote 1: But I have heard this doctrine as regards women attributed
by them—I believe with no foundation whatever—to Islam. The doctrine about
Negroes was, of course, propounded by Protestant divines in the Southern States
of the American Union before the Civil War. The Turks, like other Moslems, are
free from prejudice about colour.
The Effect of the Image of the Turk
on the Armenian - Turkish Conflict
In Canada and the
United States, the Armenian-Turkish Conflict has generally been understood as a
simple matter of Turks killing the Armenians, as a matter of course. Several factors
contribute to this understanding including religious and racial prejudice.
The prejudice against Turks originates from ethnic and religious stereotyping and
wartime propaganda. The stereotyping of Turks is more difficult to wipe out compared
to most other groups, since there have been few Turks living in North America until
the second half of the 20th century. Because prejudice against Turks is also rooted
in older religious biases against non-Christians, it is especially difficult to
During the Crusades, a time of intense European Christian hatred of Muslims and
Islam, Turks became known in Europe as the strongest Islamic warriors. They became
the focus of religious hatred. Later when the Ottomans began to conquer Christian
countries, hatred was intensified by the fear. For 300 years Ottomans remained a
threat to Europe. Three hundred years were more than enough for a stereotype of
Turks to form in the West. The familiar image of the "Terrible Turk " was
The stereotyping and prejudice against Turks are evident when one examines the
dictionaries commonly used in the West. The following are some examples of how
dictionaries define "Turk":
Webster's International Dictionary
"One exhibiting any quality attributed to Turks such as duplicity, sensuality
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary- "One who is cruel or tyrannical"
Concise Oxford Dictionary- "Ferocious, wild or unmanageable person"
Random House Dictionary:- "A cruel, brutal or domineering man"
Turks were portrayed for centuries as evil in European folk culture and art; in
paintings, plays, books and cartoons. No wonder Europeans and later North Americans
were always willing to believe the worst of the Turks.
Effect of Religion:
In the 19th century almost all the information on the Armenian-Turkish conflict that
came to North America originated with missionaries who, by nature, only told of
Armenian suffering; never of the Turkish suffering.
The Muslims of the Ottoman Empire were often described as fanatical in their
religion and this was frequently given as the motivation for supposed attacks on
Christians. Yet the Ottoman Government has a long tradition of religious tolerance
and had allowed Christian and Jewish groups to retain their religious practices.
When Christians conquered Spain and attempted to forcibly convert all
non-Christians, it was the Ottoman Empire that welcomed the Jews of Spain.
The missionaries in Anatolia 100 years ago were imbued with a sense of Christian
religious superiority and Armenian racial superiority that coloured all their
observations. They felt a very practical need to support the Armenian cause.
Missionary reporting of events in Eastern Anatolia was deeply influenced by the fact
that the American Mission was a Mission to the Armenians. Without the Armenians the
Protestant Church in the Ottoman Empire would not have existed.
The Armenians were more susceptible to conversion to Protestant belief than any
other group in Anatolia. Missionary efforts to convert the Greeks and Jews met with
little success and the Muslims were uninterested. Once the Armenian Rebellion,
motivated by the ideas imported from Europe began, there was real fear that the
failure of Armenian conversion might mean the end of missionary activities. Not
suprisingly, missionary reports listed and often exaggerated the death of Armenians
but did not mention the deaths of Muslims.
The most vocal support in North America for the Armenian cause, aside from the
Armenians themselves, came from Protestant clergymen. In 1878 one of the themes
emphasized by such clergymen was that " the unspeakable Turk had ruined the
countries over which he had ruled and that the Turks had no business in Europe
because the Turk was never properly Europeanized; he only pitched his tent in
Constantinople". It appears the same view is held in the West even today, as
evidenced by the European Union's rejection of Turkey in December 1997 from its
expansion plans as the only Muslim country, while including all the countries under
the former communist regimes, despite the fact that Turkey had been a candidate for
full membership since 1964.
Effect of Newspapers
In the latter half of 19th century large number of Armenians migrated to North
America. They formed significant and vocal populations in several important U.S and
Canadian cities including New York, Boston, San Francisco, Montreal and Toronto.
There was no similar group of Turkish immigrants to write to American congressmen or
Canadian members of parliament and to newspaper editors. Over a period of time the
non-Armenian public was bound to be affected by the only viewpoint they were able to
hear or read.
An opinion expressed over and over by Armenians in Canada and the U.S. in the early
parts of the century, was that the Ottoman government had a plan to exterminate the
Armenians and wipe out all Christians. Such accusations found ready ground among a
public which already believed that good Muslims killed Christians merely because of
their Christianity. It made no difference that the episodes of massacre were set off
when Muslims were killed by Armenians revolutionary organizations. In Canadian or
American public opinion, any claim became acceptable so long as they were directed
against the Turks.
The influence of newspapers in the early twentieth century was far greater than
today, as the only source of news for the public. The few sources of information on
the Ottoman Empire for the Canadian and American newspapers were the missionaries
and Armenians living in North America. Because of prejudice, lack of familiarity
with the Ottoman system and language barriers, reports seldom considered soliciting
the Turkish position. During World War I these sources were supplemented with
reports from the British who were themselves at war with the Ottomans. Such reports
were never objective and were embellished with wartime propaganda.
As a result of centuries of prejudice and decades of propaganda, Turks were thought
to go around routinely killing Armenians. It was literally impossible for a Canadian
or American to find the truth on events in Eastern Anatolia. Following the lead of
the missionaries, Armenians and the clergy, the press routinely slandered Muslims as
murderers and Turks as barbarians.
Although Turks had controlled Eastern Anatolia for more than eight centuries and
Muslims were a majority in every province, Armenians felt an historical claim to
this territory. The claim was accepted by the Western press and was reflected in
references to "Armenia" as if Armenia represented a definite country with
particular boundaries. The actual makeup of the population which was overwhelmingly
Muslim, was never reported.
In more recent times, the well respected National Geographic magazine in its June
1978 issue, published an article entitled "The Proud Armenians" which
included a map of Turkey showing almost all of Eastern Anatolia as the
"Armenian Homeland". The same magazine, unbelievably, in its August 1992
issue published an article entitled" Struggle of the Kurds" which included
a map of Eastern Anatolia, showing virtually the same territory as
"Kurdistan"! It is as if Turks never existed in Anatolia.
The English propaganda machine during the First World War churned out stories of
atrocities against both Germany and its ally Turkey to aid its war effort both at
home and abroad. The Western nations needed to believe and promote Ottoman stories
of atrocities in order to excuse their own plans to annex the Turkish lands. The
proposed carving up of the Ottoman Empire and the assignment of lands to various
European Powers, were a favorite pastime of intellectuals, diplomats and
politicians. The justification for these nations to take Ottoman territory and expel
or obliterate the Turkish presence from Anatolia, was that the European conquerors
would bring civilization and Christianity.
The preceding article was written by Ay Dogan
For further insight on the
of Turks in the West, please visit the "Media" section.
(Black bar on the right.)
"Turks Unfairly Remain a Hated People"
Godly go-ahead for hate from 16th century Pope
Roots of Anti-Turkish Prejudice