User talk:Jerzy/Top Arc Turkey

This page contains my Topical Archive re Turkey (often re Armenians)
 * In /Top Arc Turkey (19 kB, 2004 Oct 26)
 * 1st increment: 15 kB, 2004 Oct 26
 * 2nd increment: ~4 kB, 2004 Oct 26 ["Counter Apology", embedded within first increment]

Mount Ararat name
Hi Jerzy. I didn't mean to offend you or anybody else with my tone or with the things I have said regarding the order of names in Mt. Ararat article. I am still not sure if I offended you, but if I did please accept my apologies. I had the impression you expect me to respond, but I really do not know what part of your comment you expect me to respond, so I decided I would post here and give you a chance to post to my talk page if you want me to write back. ato 18:27, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Counter apology
[Retrieved from User talk:Ato (Revision as of 19:45, 2004 Jul 1), as he doesn't seem to have archived it.] Hi, Ato, yeah, i came on pretty strong, but no, i do not think there is reason for you to apologize to me, and the "offense" involved is a quite abstract one.

And everything else i may say belongs in this context: your temperate response makes clear that you are, as the expression goes "a gentleman and a scholar": very responsible, polite, and "professional" in the higher sense that applies to the best of both amateur and literally professional scholars. And in case i left any doubt about it, in what i wrote, i am very glad you're here; welcome to our community of scholars.

I maintain a little of a split personality in this Armenian-genocide matter, with something of a wall between the professional and the political.

I consider that you and i share a common culture, modern culture (which owes a disproportionate amount in the last 5 centuries to west and central Europe, and also has as important aspects much, for instance, from the heyday of Islamic culture and from 20th-century Turkey). Politically (and personally) i am horrified by the official Turkish position, and seek to contribute to an atmosphere in our culture that pressures the Turkish state, Turkish society, and individuals participating in Turkish society toward the (really tough) task of coming to terms with (instead of denying) what is in their "heritage". (I suppose that psychologically i am unusually sensitive to such issues from the knowledge that my own ancestors include people ethnicially associated with each "side" of a genocide (not the Armenian one).) So, as i say, i would expect not to be able to like you, because the tension between what is no doubt your  winning personality, and my desire to see you transcend your background at least far enough to be embarrassed to talk about Turkish citizens as a whole, would  amount to an enormous conflict of interest for me. If we were working together in the same city, i would find someone else to go out for chai with.

On the other side of the wall, our respective political outlooks are irrelevant to our scholarly task, because we are here to do an NPoV thing, and our setting aside our politics in what we produce normally makes our politics invisible.

I took the liberty of bending that scholarly rule by expressing my sympathy with the resentments of the (apparent) ethnic Armenian whose edits you reverted, in order to acknowledge the legitimacy and (more to the point) depth of those feelings, and thereby avoid the impression that my support for you was a denial or passive dismissal of that legitimacy and significance. IMO it was worth hoping that that clarified the situation for that one editor, despite the risk of offending you, but it's a subjective question and i am receptive to criticism of my decision.

So did i want a response from you? Ideally and on the politicial side, of course, i'd be pleased to find you grappling with the issue of how to talk about Turkish-Armenian relations. But i regret any interferance with our neutral political point of view, and (within the limits imposed by all i've already said, which would make an "unreserved" or "unqualified" apology an ugly pretense), i hope you'll accept my apology for my breach of scholarly courtesy, and understand my insistence on refusing your apology on the grounds that, between scholars, you have nothing to apologize for.

Ya know, i talk too much; hope i'm not driving you crazy. Thanks for writing. [smile] --Jerzy(t) 19:45, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)

Thoughts on Armenian Genocide
Hi Jerzy, First I have to admit that it is very hard for me to write about the (alleged) Armenian Genocide for various reasons:
 * I do not have enough information. Being Turkish, I was preferentially exposed to one side of the argument. Even though I try to read the other side, it would be ridicilous if I claimed impartiality.
 * This is a political issue. Most of the information out there is politically biased and it is hard to seperate facts from speculation. This is valid for everyone but the people who lived through those times, and those people are either close to their death or already died.
 * This is not a straightforward case, as you might be thinking. Because genocide happened before does not automatically mean all allegations of genocide are true. I of course acknowledge some of them are true. There has been discrimination against muslims, in particular against Turks, for a long time in Europe. This is still going on in many European countries, just check the arguments given by some political parties in Germany againt Turkey's joining European Union. The information being fed by the Christians about the Christian/Muslim affairs can be far from fair. I can back these words up.

This being said here are my thoughts. I am sure I will regret going on record about this issue, and will probably refuse to discuss it much further. Even if I have more things to say, I might choose silence.

I will concentrate on events around 1915, as my knowledge of other events is even less. First of all, there are the following undisputed facts:
 * There was an order of immigration given by Sultan of Ottoman Empire but Ittihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti was in power. For sake of argument I will refer to them as Young Turks. They are the ones responsible for the order.
 * Many Armenians died during this period.

The question is then whether we call these events a genocide. To answer this the following should be answered: Which of course leads to more "pragmatic" questions:
 * What was the reason for the immigration order? In particular: Was the reason to get rid of Christians/Armenians, based on their religion/race?
 * What were the other reasons for Armenian deaths?
 * How does the death toll compare with the loss of other ethnic/religious groups under same/similar conditions? Could these be results of the war in the region?
 * Is there any responsibility of Republic of Turkey?
 * Even if there is no direct responsibility on its part, should Republic of Turkey acknowledge that the events took place qualify as a genocide and issue an apology since it is the direct descendant of Ottoman Empire and arguably benefited from the outcome of these events?

This is how I would approach the events, but I cannot answer the questions I pose, because of the reasons I mentioned. Let me try to partially answer some of them though. I will of course present a mostly Turkish point of view.

First of all, we need peace. Turkey and Armenia should stop being hostile to each other. History is history, today is today. Without peace, we cannot resolve anything, we certainly cannot resolve this issue.

It does not make sense that the immigration order was given on solely the Armenians' race or religion. They have been living in Ottoman Empire for a long time, there must be additional reasons. The reason is that the Armenians were 1) supporting the enemies of Ottoman Empire at that time, and 2) were trying get independent and in the process attacking the Ottoman army as well as the Turkish and Kurdish villages. Looking at it now, it might look as a noble cause "independence", but at that time Ottoman government must have felt something should be done about it. Note that, in the parts of modern Turkey where these uprisings happened, Armenians were not majority. I will not try to answer if uprising or support of enemies justifies an immigration order. But if this was the reason, the term "genocide", in my opinion, would not apply.

There was a war in the region, and a lot of people on all sides (except maybe the British which was definetely a side) died. Yes, a lot Armenians died, during those times. There are Armenian churches in eastern Turkey, which are empty now. The people who used those churches are either driven out or killed. However, there are also mass graves in eastern Turkey, full of people killed at those times, allegedly by Armenians. Turkish villages were emptied as well. My own father's grandparents had to leave eastern Turkey, to escape from the Armenian gangs' harassment. I honestly do not know if Armenians were targeted for their race or religion, but there was a lot friction in that region. If they were targeted as such and this was all a coordinated effort by Young Turks, how come the British could not evidence for these charges against any of them for two years while they were kept in Malta? Some people claim that the British were making these up to remove influential politicians from the picture, and there was no planned mass murder, hence no genocide.

Whether Republic of Turkey should accept responsibility and apologize. This I can answer firmly: No. First, we don't know what really happened. Even the events of Musa Dagh, which is maybe the most celebrated piece of Armenian propaganda, are not clear. An Armenian who lived through those times says "there was no fighting" but historians say otherwise. I say we do not know. Second, "Countries do not apologize". You should know this as an American. Do I approve such policies? "no". Would I apologize if I was head of state of Republic of Turkey? "no". Why? This brings me to my third reason: I am afraid this will turn into a holocaust industry. I do not want the borders of Turkey to be disputed (which you seem to accept as natural) or to pay monetary compensation for things done in Ottoman era. I would not accept any comprimise on any other issues either, so Republic of Turkey would be forgiven.

Again I will repeat, we need peace. If you want to make a comparison with other events, how about this: From beginning of 19th century to beginning of 20th century, 5 million Turks were killed in and another 5 million were driven out of Europe. Should we shout "genocide!" as well and blame the European countries, or shall we come to peace with each other? Where will hatred take us? Whereever it is, I don't want to go there.

Have fun. ato 04:23, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[Request for consultation, w/ comments]
Ato Tk RK Tk Jerzy, I turn to you for insight on a subject that I know is very dear to you. Recently there is a revert war going on History of Turkey page, regarding mentioning of Armenian Genocide. There are many sidelines to the discussion of course but IMHO the most important point that needs to be decided on is whether this should be mentioned at all. I am quoting from the talk page:


 * This article is supposed to be about history of Turkey, rather than Ottoman Empire, as is stated at the beginning of the article. Only things that are related to current Republic of Turkey should be kept. WWI and the treaties at the end directly shaped Turkey's borders, hence their inclusion is justified. actions of Ottoman Empire during WW does not statify this criterion.


 * This is a major part of Turkish history, which occured directly preceding the establishment of the state, and which the Turkish state has spent a great deal of time and money trying to deny. This is all well documented, and clearly the Republic of Turkey feels that it is indeed very relevant to it, or else it would just ignore the whole subject or brush it off saying it happened before our time.  It doesn't.


 * Turkish history is different from history of Republic of Turkey. The article clearly states it is about the history of Republic of Turkey. We cannot continue before we agree on this point. at0 04:00, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As you know I am Turkish and hence biased on this issue, so I seek a third opinion. Even though we have a disagreement on this issue, I think we have a mutual understanding and respect. I will keep an open mind for your or other arguments. Note that it is not the authenticity of the claims or the importance of the issue I need to be convinced on, but rather the relevance to this article.

I would appreciate a speedy response if possible as I am seriously considering asking for protection for this article.

Best regards,

-- at0 04:46, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aha, now I understand what you were trying to clarify, Ato. Well I too would certainly appreciate an outside opinion. If you are going to mention anything pre-Republic, then the genocide is certainly top five, along with arrival of Turks en masse 1,000 years ago, the fall of Constantinople, and the defeat in Vienna. (I am not sure what I would round this top 5 out with).

That having been said, I am quite curious how this topic is dear to Jerzy. And now to go off on a bit of a tangent (since this conversation is now all over the place anyway), having read what you wrote waaay above on this page about the genocide. Why would you say even if it happened you would be against reparations? Wouldn't you feel exactly the opposite? Want to make amends? In any event, I do appreciate that the whole discussion has been civil, and am curious also if you are going to consider Jerzey's ruling final if it is not what you hope for...

--RaffiKojian 11:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jerzy's Pseudo-Solomonic Response
I'm sorry not to have lived up to my promise of a faster response than this.

I understand the question that has been put to me as being equivalent to "Should an article on the history of the Republic of Turkey link to Armenian Genocide?" The simplest answer to that is "of course", because justly or unjustly, several of that state's long-term problems are
 * 1) an insurgency that, to my recollection, for more than a few years managed to make assassination of Turkish diplomats abroad a "dog bites man" kind of news story, and which i presume cites those events prominently in its justification;
 * 2) a reputation (IMO a justified one), among most of the industrialized world's international-affairs devotees,
 * 3) * for its own brand of holocaust- (or genocide-) denial, and
 * 4) * (among many of them) for having explicitly demonstrated to Hitler that the world will let you get away with genocide; and
 * 5) (given that it seems widely agreed the future of Turkey rests largely on its relationship to Europe -- or to the rest of Europe if you prefer--) a body of Western popular-cultural assumptions about Turkey and Turks that specifically influences political decisions such as EU participation. (The portion dating from the Crusades to the fall of Byzantium probably is mostly leftover propaganda and involves improperly equating Turks and earlier Muslim rulers, and even the historical portions up to Greek independence are probably under-examined as to whether their relevance continues. But the opinions of foreign fools are an important factor in the life of a state. The overall history -- current, early 20th-century, and perhaps still earlier -- of treatment of ethnic Armenians under Turkish control is inextricably entwined with these assumptions, both as premise and conclusion.)

However, i should add that i think that is a question mostly irrelevant to your dispute, and largely for that reason, an illegitimate one. IMO -- and i think you will find almost all of our history-of-a-country articles will probably fit this pattern -- the "history of a state" is a reasonable unit of study only for specialists in political science, or for popular books looking for "new" angle to promote. Such articles may be viable in WP, but only as articles secondary to the history of the corresponding country. The title History of Turkey cannot be "hijacked" for use as a History of the Republic of Turkey article any more than the history of a head or of a set of genitalia can pass for a biography. I assume our history of Russia is not a history of the Russian Federation, but goes back to the Kievian Rus, and that our history of America (even if it's named History of the United States) goes back to Jamestown and Plymouth, if not to the social and political ferment of 16th- to 18th-century England. In law, the Turkish republic is the "successor state" to the Ottoman Empire, and the biggest reason for that is that either is mostly just a different political bottle to contain the same national wine. In short, IMO the passage about "primarily about the history of the Republic of Turkey" should be removed, and energy found for laying the groundwork to make sense of the republic by describing the continuities and changes within the career of the Ottoman Turks, preferably from their conversion and the early transplantation of some of them to the Islamic power centers of their time.

I don't think the scope of the request put to me really offers me much chance to look even-handed, so i hope Ato won't imagine i'm trying to suggest i'm proving even-handedness with the following small matter. But IMO this bears saying for its own sake: if Raffi wants the high points in Ottoman history, Suleiman, the arts and sciences of their realm, their relations with their Balkan subjects (not necessarily to the exclusion of those with other non-Turkic or non-Muslim peoples), choosing a side in WW I, Gallipoli, and the early career of Mustafa Kemal probably should all be higher on his list, and those omissions are IMO a big hint that he should study more before presuming to judge just where on the list of crucial topics the Armenian genocide ranks. (Frankly, i'd argue explicitly what i think i imply above: it is more important to the history of the Republic of Turkey than to that of the Ottoman Empire!)

Thank you for inviting my comment. Either of you who feels it would enlighten the discussion you're already involved in should of course feel welcome to copy my response to that discussion's location. Fruitful and happy editing, --Jerzy(t) 04:32, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

[Response to Same]

 * Thanks a lot! This is exactly why I asked for an outside opinion from you. I will copy your response over to the article's talk page and respond to/expand your points there when I find the time. I would like to point out, in my objections I did stress the reference in its form made by Raffi was inappropiate at this level of detail, but of course there is no need to keep this level of detail in the article. I hope you will participate in the further editing of this article, even though you seem to be busy with other stuff. Thanks again for finding the time for your comments. -- at0 16:01, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)