Murder in Turkey, or the Tears of a Hypocrite

They killed Hrant Dink. Apparently because the editor and commentator steadfastly claimed that almost a century ago, Turkish forces carried out a genocide against the Armenian population, an assassin shot him in the head in Istanbul yesterday, in broad daylight.

Dink's murder was probably intended to serve two purposes: to eliminate a gadfly, and to send a message to others that if they speak out, they're next. Regrettably, such intimidation often works like a charm.

Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan says he won't let that happen, stating that the brutal execution was an "open and heinous provocation" that ought to be repulsive to all Turks.

He's right.

So now Mr. Erdogan should put his lira where his mouth is. It might behoove him, for starters, to wipe the incendiary law off the books that has made Dink and others, such as Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk and noted novelist Elif Shafak, the frequent target of zealous prosecutors and hatemongering ultra-nationalists alike.

What are these writers guilty of? The country's legal authorities charge that they've "insulted Turkishness."

Yep, as ridiculous as it sounds, that's a grave legal offense in Turkey, punishable by up to three years in prison.

Interestingly, by most accounts, Mr. Erdogan isn't the least bit concerned about that vile, cretinous law. In fact, the prime minister is perfectly happy to sic his prosecutors on his domestic and foreign critics, including the cartoonist Musa Kart and the artist Michael Dickinson. Oh, he also wants insulting Islam to be a crime.

So which future Turkey does Mr. Erdogan favor? A modern republic where writers and artists enjoy a modicum of protection from the powers that be? Or a quasi-theocracy that, by insisting that criticism of the state or the Muslim faith cannot be tolerated, tacitly encourages violent extremists to kill dissidents?

Mr. Erdogan wants his cake and eat it too. The West should do what it reasonably can to deny him his hypocritical feast.

Comments

[Martin Owens]

Turkey is being seriously considered for membership in the EU. I wonder what will happen it they're admitted- will European Parliament members face arrest or death threats for remembering Armenia? Will Turkish citizens get one free murder if they can prove the victim "insulted Islam"?

[tarran]

The Turkish state is one of the many problems caused by Wilson's 14 points in World War I.

Essentially, in post World War I Europe, the victors were looking for an excuse to break up the multi-ethnic AustrioHungarian empire. To this end, they made a big deal of the idea of "ethnic self determination" whcih translates to each ethnic group having its own state.

The Ottoman Empire was not split up so, but rather divied up by the victors.

The modern Turkish republic was founded by a young fascist general named Mustafa Kemal (known generally as Attaturk). He selected the borders of modern Turkey based on defensibility. However, to justify these borders, he hit upon the idea of declaring that the new republic would really be the homeland of ethnic turks. This is kind of laughable in that so many different ethnic groups with a wide variety of ancestry call themselves Turks. The original Turks, a nomadic tribe in the Asian steppe are long lost to history; they were given financial support by the Chinese to attack the Mongols, which they used to conquer lots of land. Every group they conquered became known as Turks.

But Attaturk wanted to make the Turkish state look legitimate, so everyone who lived within the borders was declared to be a Turk. A history was manufactured to "prove" this "fact", and all sorts of propaganda and threats were advanced to make this a cultural reality.*

Anyone who questioned this mythology was challenging the legitimacy of the government and was, in effect, committing treason.

That is why the state really goes after these revisionists.**

* I attended first and second grade (1976-1978) in a state school in Ankara, and I recall a significant portion of the curriculum was concerned with inculcating the propaganda into us.

** As a big fan of Murray Rothbard, I think revisionists are just great. Often (though not always) they expose inaccuracies in commonly accepted narratives of history.

[derya]

Ok, a few things to point out... it's not Attatürk but Ata-türk. it's a surname, this is how it is written. you would know if you really attend a state school in ankara, no way to escape it, it's even on the banknotes. he's like a semi-god.

secondly, calling a person who was born in thessaloniki a "fascist", who sings in greek when he is having drinks with friends, who said "turkishness is being a citizen of turkish republic" (which is a concept derived from "frenchness" in France), is interesting though. He quit the army as he started politics, and it had a logic - cos he was labelled as "betrayer of the nation" by the Ottoman Empire as he was also against the Empire (the one in rule in 1915, remember?). So, no way to stay in the army. then he gave the war of independence as the "highest general" but quitted the title as he became the president. for us (I'm talking about a secularist Turkish here), he was a universal humanist, who never insulted greeks or armenians or kurds. reason? it would be against his policy- he is trying to unite a nation as in the example of France (turkish laws were based on contemporary French and Swiss law). example? once a person laid a Greek flag in front him and said "please walk on it" thinking it'd be a gesture for Atatürk. he did not, he said "this is the respected flag of our neighbours" and told off the man politely. He founded the "Institution of Archeology and History" so that the "real" past of the Asia Minor could be understood, meaning Hittites, Ionians etc. He even said "This time, Troy is safe" when he defeated the British in Gallipoli. Today, he is labelled by extreme right-wing as not being "turkish enough", as a possible greek decendent or whatnot (as if it is an insult). He was what we call "a leftist nationalist" - but it is another discussion.

thirdly, for information, yes i am turkish. i think i am... i'm not sure. i dont know half of my family's background, like most of the people in Turkey. some are Turks from bulgaria and greece (came by the population exchange) some are from asia minor. I have greek relatives through marriages. last 3 generations are supposed to be muslim turks from Istanbul, but surely not "hardcore". I've been raised by hearing "Turkey is not what you read in textbooks" cos my mum never believed in being a "minority" or "majority" - for her, everyone was an equal citizen, or ought to be one. When i critisized the textbooks in highschool, including the discourse on armenians, i was mostly told off by teachers, cheered by classmates. As adults, i think we all agree that education systems are political tools. it does not necessarily reflect what people think but rather "shape" it.

anyway, what i'm trying to say is that, yes, there is surely an extremely turk-ist discourse in the textbooks and whatnot. Many people are becoming increasingly conservative. but it became like this after having 3 military take-overs in 30 years, 1980 being the worst. We recall the more peaceful days in 1930-40s. It's even getting harder for me to express myself sometimes. too militarist, too conservative, too shallow minds, prejudices... it happens.

but there are also many muslim people who go and pray in a church when it's Easter time or Chirstmas, lighting a candle; who make a wish and climb the hill of Hagia Yorgi Church in Prince Island. did u ever go to a mosque in Ramadan to pray? Do you know how to pray in a mosque? I prayed in at least 12 different churches and synagogues on special occasions, with my family or my friends, it's a habit. I prayed in a mosque only when there was a funeral, meaning 3 or 4 times. yep, i'm not that religious maybe, even closed to be an deist. but my mother's religious (muslim) cousin was the one who took me to these churches every year.

But these muslim turks are not represented by the current government - which got 30% of votes but holds 66% of seats in the parliament. there are people who dont care if their friends are called Eleni, Ayşe, Yorgo, Mehmet, Agop or Rojda. these people are not THAT few, honestly. these people are the ones who really cried after Hrant from the heart. I am one of them, i cried for him just like i cried for other journalists assasinated for speaking the truth. I cried for the term "insulting turkishness", i cried for its existence - which was included in the law in 1983, after military rule. I dont care what my government claims to do in my name. i dont see him as my prime minister but a rent-seeking opportunist that abuse religion. as many does. believe me, it's not only armenians or greeks feeling "betrayed", it also hits us. i fail to understand the mind set of many turks, whatever a turk means. i can follow their logic, but it really does not make sense. i dont have the hatred, i dont understand. all i see is lack of education. that's all. brainwashing.

I would agree on every criticism as long as it is fair- I dont have a naive picture of my country. but it is not the hell, thank god, not yet. This guy u defined to be "fascist" founded a republic, a secular republic from the ashes of an empire that used to classify its citizens on the basis of religion. When he tried to go "multi-party" system, the opposing party started to call for Islamic rule (which now means something to West, but has always been a threat to secular republic of Turkey) and so the parliament shut the party down. With Republic, the Caliphate was abolished, today we recieve threats from bin Ladin for that. It's the latter governments that always misread Atatürk, who included islam more than ever in schools and daily life, who underlined "turkish" ethnicity more than ever and they claimed to do it due to Atatürk principles. 6-7 September events, Wealth taxes... all happened after his death. pity, Atatürk turned upside down in his grave probably. he was for a "paternalistic" state, as any european state was in 1930s, but the Jewish academicians that escaped Nazis founded universities in Istanbul where they were welcomed and they were my grandma's professors. What Fascism?

whatever... what i'm trying to say is that, nothing is black or white. really it's not. I'm not claiming to be objective cos everyone has a bias of education, experience or whatnot, but the virtue is to be critical. i am trying hard to express myself, hopefully it sounds like that. Atatürk was the only good thing happened to this country in the last century. honestly. I'd critisize him for imposing top-to-bottom reforms etc, but never for being a fascist. sorry.

When we were against "Mr"Erdogan, many Western politicians were cheering for him, celebrating the example of "good democratic islam" over the "bad Taliban islam". well, we are not a islamic republic, we are secular, wrong comparison - sorry!!! He was in jail cos he called for Sheria rule in a public speech when he was the mayor of istanbul -- and said "i was in jail for reading a poem"!!! now, his sick mind is revealing itself, he IS a hypocrite. he is not speaking for me - he never did, he never will and i'm proud of it. he sees "turks" and "foreigners", i see "people of Anatolia". He attacks secularists in such insulting words that i wouldn't translate into English. hopefully, this will be over in a year. I cannot stand an extra 4 years with him -- or with any other right-wing.

cheers. sorry for keeping it too long.

Derya

[tarran]

Mr derya,

First, I apologize for the misspelling, I have never gotten around to figuring out how to do umlauts on my Linux system.

As to Mustafa Kemal's fasscism - he really was a fascist in the clinical sense. In modern days, when someone is called a fascist, everybody imagines a Hitler, or a Pinochet, but fascism is really a form of socialism.

The 6 fundamentals of Kemalism are absolutely fascist: The state regulates all aspect of life. The government tightly controls the economy while it is nominally in private hands. The government demands that people substitute its goals for their own "selfish" ones. Yes, Turkey is not imperialistic and expansionist, however it's nationalism is quite militaristic.

Now, you may argue that United States has at times met these criteria. I would agree with this. Between 1929 and 1948, the U.S. was a fascist country. Some sectors of its economy retain significant portions of the fascist organization of that era.

[bago]

Taking this at more than wacko level is unwise IMHO. Turks, like most people, are more primarily interested in getting by, than any ideological frame. The most effective defense against idealists is common sense/skepticism. Eliminitionary propaganda should be treated ast the pre-AD nonsense it is.