The Armenian Weekly On-Line
80 Bigelow Avenue
Watertown MA 02472 USA
(617) 926-3974
[email protected]
http://www.a rmenianweekly.com
The Armenian Weekly; Volume 74, No. 29; July 26, 2008
Commentary and Analysis:
1. Halacoglu Packs Up
What does Yusuf Hoca’s Departure Mean to Turks and Armenians?
By Khatchig Mouradian
2. Bikes
By Garen Yegparian
3. Letters to the editor
Interview with Baskin Oran generates discussion
***
1. Halacoglu Packs Up
What does Yusuf Hoca’s Departure Mean to Turks and Armenians?
By Khatchig Mouradian
WATERTOWN, Mass. (A.W.)-On July 23, Resmi Gazete (Official Gazette)
announced that Yusuf Halacoglu, the head of the Turkish Historical Society
(TTK) since Sept. 21, 1993, was dismissed from his position.
Halacoglu had become notorious following a number of issues that were highly
publicized-at least in Turkey-like his denial of the Armenian Genocide in
Switzerland and the investigation against him in that country; his debates
with and challenges to genocide scholars Taner Akcam, David Gaunt, and Ara
Sarafian; and, most recently, his $20 million offer to the ARF to open its
archives here in Watertown (better known in the Turkish media as the "Boston
archives").
For years, progressive Turkish scholars have urged Ankara to replace
Halacoglu. In off-the-record interviews I conducted on July 23, several of
these scholars said they were very happy with the decision.
According to the Turkish daily newspaper Hurriyet, Halacoglu-who is called
Yusuf hoca (teacher) by many in the TTK-said he is currently on vacation (in
Bodrum) and the developments took place without his prior knowledge.
Halacoglu added, "This is something that can happen any time. One of the
Seyhulislams [a title of superior authority on Islam] says, ‘We are people
who are used to pack up and be on our way. We can go anywhere anytime.’ I
believe the same. Today you do this duty for the state; tomorrow you
continue as a scientist. These are normal things. I perceive these things as
normal."
Turkish commentators and political analysts I talked to generally agreed
that Halacoglu’s contract was terminated because the ruling Justice and
Development Party (AKP) wanted to appoint someone close to the AKP.
Halacoglu was very close to the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), an
ultra-nationalist party that has 71 seats in the Turkish parliament.
According to some sources, his ties to what is known as the "Deep State" in
Turkey may have contributed to the decision of not renewing his yearly
contract as well.
It is also likely that the AKP was not happy with the extreme radical and
confrontational course Halacoglu had taken on the Armenian Genocide and the
Kurdish issue.
Whether this signals a change of policy regarding the Armenian issue-in the
current, generally positive atmosphere between Turkey and Armenia-is not
clear, however. Many think that although the AKP may have been unhappy with
Halacoglu’s confrontational approach regarding the genocide, the party is
not prepared to face off with the army nor the bureaucracy either on the
Armenian issue. Therefore, no major change in its policy should be expected.
Dr. Ali Birinci, a prolific scholar called a "conservative," "Islamist," and
nationalist" by those who know him, will replace Halacoglu. Although most
commentators and researchers I spoke to say that in all likelihood Birinci
will not take the TTK in a completely new direction-at least as far as the
Armenian issue is concerned-it is expected that he will at least not employ
Halacoglu’s sensationalist tactics.
Scholars familiar with Birinci’s work consider him a serious researcher who
has sometimes challenged the "established" historical knowledge in Turkey.
Although Birinci does not have publications on the Armenian Genocide, one
Turkish-born scholar expressed a "minute hope" that he would employ his
training and experience to gradually challenge the fossilized denialist
rhetoric on the genocide issue.
So what will become of Halacoglu? He will retain his position at Gazi
University and probably continue publishing works on what he calls the
"alleged Armenian genocide." There are a few-very few-scholars who believe
that recently Halacoglu, having realized how untenable his position was, had
begun to work on publishing more credible research and to venture into what
one scholar called "constructive cooperation" with researchers who
acknowledge the genocide.
Judging from the experiences of Gaunt and Sarafian, however, this sounds
highly unlikely. Yet if he was, indeed, contemplating a fresh start, it is
never too late. Either way, we have not heard the last from Yusuf hoca, who
kept the Turkish-and, to a lesser extent, Armenian-media busy for years.
***
2. Bikes
By Garen Yegparian
Time to get with it. Between greenhouse gases (increasingly referred to as
GHGs-learn the jargon since we’ll be seeing ever more of it) and gas(oline)
prices, more and more people are smartening up. Part of those smarts are
manifested in switching to riding a bicycle.
By all accounts, the number of bikes on the streets is increasing.
Newspapers are writing about it, I’m personally observing it, the bike shop
I frequent (along with others across the country), is selling more bikes and
experiencing a big surge in old bicycles being brought in for tune-ups.
Meanwhile, understandably, car-bike interactions of the unpleasant kind are
increasing. You probably heard about the incident on Mandeville Canyon Road
in Los Angeles. Two cyclists initially riding side-by-side pulled to the
side of the road to let a car pass. It did, then proceeded to slam the
brakes on in front of the riders causing them serious injury. The driver
was, of all things, a doctor!
While this is an extreme case, I’ve experienced milder forms of the same
anger. In one case, I was stopped at a light and a car pulled up to my
right. The driver, very irate, started haranguing me about how I ought not
be where I was. Of course there are the honks, insults, and other caustic
behaviors exhibited by car drivers. And, given that much of the street
riding I do is in Glendale and Burbank, many of these offenders are our
compatriots.
What many don’t realize is that vehicle codes give bicycle riders and car
drivers essentially the same rights and responsibilities. So learning to
share the road is going to become very important. If a bike is in the middle
of a traffic lane, it’s not because the rider loves the adrenalin rush
caused by cars passing while straddling the rider’s and the next lane to the
left. It’s because no one wants to get doored-having a car door flung open
right the bike’s path by someone getting out of his/her car. Bicycles in
many jurisdictions are not supposed to be on sidewalks, a common
misperception to the contrary notwithstanding.
Part of this problem will be ameliorated by the establishment of more
dedicated bike paths, bike lanes, and markings for bike routes. New York
City is converting parts of Broadway into bicycle and pedestrian lanes. Los
Angeles is in the early stages of its most recent bicycle planning process.
Burbank plans to have its Bicycle Master Plan updated by year’s end, and
will add an important stretch of bike path with a $7 million grant it just
received.
Push and pull are present. Bicycles for commuting to work, shopping,
visiting, exercise, and play will be ever more present as more are purchased
or rent-a-bike systems are put in place. We as a community should embrace
this. Most of the Armenians I’ve seen on bikes have tended to be in the
mountains. In fact, one is in the leadership of a mountain biking group. But
the everyday life usage is something we should be aware of and plug into as
various government agencies lay out their plans for the reemergence of the
bicycle as a major component of the United States’ transportation system.
Let’s get involved, plan, learn, and take some of that experience to
implement in Armenia.
Snow biking on Yerevan’s streets anyone?
—————————————— ———————————
3. Letters to the editor
Dear Editor,
I read with interest your interview with Professor Baskin Oran (Armenian
Weekly, July 12, "An Interview with Baskin Oran"). As Mouradian writes, Oran
is "far from a genocide denier" as well as "an outspoken critic of the
Turkish state’s denial of the suffering of the Armenians." Oran’s dedication
to democracy and minority rights in Turkey is praiseworthy. What a shame,
then, that his comments were marred with various inaccurate and offensive
remarks that appear to be based on false notions of, in particular, "the
Armenian diaspora."
Oran seems to view the Armenian diaspora with distaste. The diaspora, like
the Turkish state itself, interferes with his and other Turkish democrats’
work, he says, and prevents them from teaching their fellow Turks about what
happened to the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. The diaspora’s insistence
on using the word genocide causes Turks to "block their ears." Oran even
cites his friend, the late Hrant Dink, to bolster his argument. But Oran
must surely remember that Hrant Dink spoke about the Armenian Genocide (and
used "the g-word") and was put on trial for this "insult to Turkishness."
One can only imagine how little discussion about 1915 there would be in
Turkey if not for the efforts of members of the Armenian diaspora to keep
the issue from being buried under decades of denial. If it had been left
solely to Turkish democrats to educate the Turkish public about the Armenian
Genocide, would anyone be talking about it in Turkey today?
Oran makes some sweeping generalizations about Armenians. Remarkably, he
states that he "understands the Armenian state of mind"-because he knew
Hrant Dink. This "understanding" leads him to declare that "for the
Armenian, ‘genocide’ means one thing: 1915." In fact, one would be
hard-pressed to find an Armenian who believes that Armenians have been the
only victims of genocide and that genocide means only 1915.
On the other hand, according to Oran, for "the Turk, ‘genocide’ means one
thing also: 1933-45." This, too, is a broad generalization, and does not
take into consideration those courageous Turks-even if they are few in
number-who have come to speak openly about the Armenian Genocide and do not
shrink from calling it by name. But surely someone with Oran’s learning must
know that the term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin not only for the
Holocaust but also with the Armenian case in mind. Lemkin made this clear on
a number of occasions. And, of course, virtually all scholars of the
Holocaust and genocide in general do not limit the applicability of the word
genocide to "1933-45."
However, let us assume that Oran is accurately describing how most Turks
think. Who will get them to think differently? Is it the Armenians’
responsibility to stop using the entirely accurate word genocide? Or is it
the responsibility of academicians and progressive thinkers like Oran who
have the ability to teach people and raise their level of knowledge? Is this
not what he has done, apparently with some level of success, regarding the
other highly contentious issues that he discusses in the interview? Or is
the problem that Oran simply does not think that genocide is the right term
for 1915? This, of course, is his right. But he is out of line to blame the
Armenian diaspora for the state of ignorance in Turkey regarding what is
genocide and what is not.
Oran states in the interview that "the diaspora" employed "terrorist
tactics" that ended after the Orly bombing. Only then did "Armenian bills"
start getting introduced. He seems quick to think the worst about the
Armenian diaspora and to make the part equal the whole. Thus, the actions of
ASALA and JCAG become the actions of the entire diaspora. Such thinking,
seemingly rooted in the notion that all Armenians think alike, should be
beneath him.
Moreover, he has his facts wrong. The Orly bombing took place in 1983, while
the first "Armenian bill" was passed by the House of Representatives in
1975. The cause-and-effect relationship he asserts does not exist.
Oran’s work as a democrat and human rights advocate reflect well on his
bravery and commitment. It is regrettable that some of his statements also
reflect how fossilized his perception is of Armenians, especially the
Armenian diaspora.
G. Hagopian,
New Jersey
***
Dear Editor,
What Baskin Oran, as one of the most prominent representatives of the
Turkish left, has to say about the neglect of the Turkish state and society
to face its genocidal past gives good insight into how Turkish liberals-the
non-nationalist and "enlightened" Turks, so to speak-think about
Turkish-Armenian relations and the challenge of coping with 1915.
For Oran, the real source of the problematic relationship that Turkey has
with its past is the Armenian diaspora and the EU. By killing Turkish
diplomats, his argument goes, the militant wing of the Armenian diaspora
confronted Turkey all at once with the dark past of 1915. The political wing
of the diaspora followed by alienating Turkish society with its "endless
tape"-as Oran depicts the acknowledgement politics of Armenian diaspora
communities-and hence made Turkish people feel like Nazis.
For Oran, it is this incompetence on the part of the Armenian diaspora to
develop a "more sophisticated discourse" that prevents Turkish democrats
from teaching the Turkish people the historical facts about 1915. But how
sophisticated is this Oranian discourse that puts the blame of denial of
1915 on anything and anyone except Turkish society itself?
Seyhan Bayraktar,
University of Konstanz
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
