Three Turkish Voices At UCLA, November 6

[karoaper]

Racism has a very strict meaning. It means that a person is forming an opinion, often negative and discriminatory, of another person based on no other factors but the other person's race. When the Europeans went to Africa to pick slaves, that was racism. They chose to enslave Africans because of their race. The way the British oppresed the Indians, that was racism.

To distrust the turks for an Armenian is not racism, because our opinion of them is formed through many centuries of bad history. It could be racist for Armenians to distrust and hate all altaic and turcic people for example.

[winoman]

Of course these people are Turkish and of course it is significant that they have broken out of the denialist mold and have had the courage and insight to speak up and attempt to move this issue and Turkish society foreward. They should be commended and the fact of their "Turkishness" is indeed relevant. Anyone but a stick up their a$$ dolt would understand this.

[karoaper]

In your book maybe, but race has nothing to do with it here and your original usage of "racism" implies race, therefore it is misplaced. That's all.

Being of a certain ethnicity is not necessarily tied in with race.

Is every instance of "reasonable" generalization racism. Me thinks not. In this case, it is reasonable to outline these three scholars as extreme exceptions to the general rule concerning turkish ideas/convictions. It could have been racist to alltogether ignore them just cause they're turks. Obviously that't not the case and these three "individuals" are allowed to share their thoughts irrelevant of the fact that they're turks.

[Anonymouse]

I would have preferred "Three Scholars with an interest in Turkish History". The ethnic origin of the three is entirely irrelevant, and it is offensive to see it mentioned in that poster. UCLA are, by stressing the importance of their race, implying that because a person is from a particular ethnic group they must (regardless of truth or facts) automatically believe what that ethnic group is stereotypically held to uniformly believe. That is racism in my book.

In your book maybe, but race has nothing to do with it here and your original usage of "racism" implies race, therefore it is misplaced. That's all.

Being of a certain ethnicity is not necessarily tied in with race.

[TomServo]

Tom the stinky, flea-ridden hedgehog.

Damn straight.

[bell-the-cat]

bell-the-anal-cat.

Tom the stinky, flea-ridden hedgehog.

[TomServo]

bell-the-anal-cat.

[bell-the-cat]

Would you have been happier if say, they wrote, "Three Turkish Scholars..."? I agree there are no uniform views among Turks, but I think it wasn't meant to be probed in that deep. They could have done a different title, but I particularly did not see that implication, because as you said not all views are uniform.

Furthermore, how do you jump to stating that it as "racist"? Perhaps maybe a bit jingoistic, xenophobic or ethnocentric, but hardly "racist". I'm tired of that word which is really nothing more than a tarbrush.

I would have preferred "Three Scholars with an interest in Turkish History". The ethnic origin of the three is entirely irrelevant, and it is offensive to see it mentioned in that poster. UCLA are, by stressing the importance of their race, implying that because a person is from a particular ethnic group they must (regardless of truth or facts) automatically believe what that ethnic group is stereotypically held to uniformly believe. That is racism in my book.

[TomServo]

I'll be there too, especially since Prof. Hovannisian is organizing this. One of my favorite of my old professors.

You stay away.

[Anonymouse]

This summer I met Prof Göçek on the road to Varagavank monastery - (she didn't look anything much like her photo in that poster though).

However, I would call a "Turkish voice" the voice of someone who was actually living in Turkey - none of them are, I don't even think they are Turkish citizens.
This whole "Turkish voice" thing is a rather racist concept anyway, it is implying that there is one near-uniform "Turkish voice", determined by blood rather than by state propaganda, and that these three are the rare deviants. But what do you expect from people who don't even seem to know how to type Turkish letters in their DTP program!

Would you have been happier if say, they wrote, "Three Turkish Scholars..."? I agree there are no uniform views among Turks, but I think it wasn't meant to be probed in that deep. They could have done a different title, but I particularly did not see that implication, because as you said not all views are uniform.

Furthermore, how do you jump to stating that it as "racist"? Perhaps maybe a bit jingoistic, xenophobic or ethnocentric, but hardly "racist". I'm tired of that word which is really nothing more than a tarbrush.