Elif Safak

[Joseph]

Turkish Daily News
Sept 25 2005

Istanbul conference on Ottoman Armenians
Sunday, September 25, 2005

Opinion by Elif S¸AFAK

On May 23, 2005, I arrived in Istanbul from Berlin to participate in an event that was going to happen for the first time in Turkey: A conference on the Ottoman Armenians. Having thus arrived at Istanbul airport, I grabbed my bags and hailed the first cab waiting in line.


`Look at this mess! Traitors!' remarked the cab driver as soon as we took off. He was listening to national radio and when he realized I had no idea what he was talking about he turned the volume up. All of a sudden a fuming voice thundered inside the cab that belonged to Cemil Çiçek, Turkey's justice minister. He was delivering a speech about the upcoming conference. I flinched in my seat as I heard him declare that such a malevolent gathering could not possibly be permitted since it was tantamount to "treason." Then he added: `These so-called intellectuals are stabbing our nation in the back. If only I had the authority to prosecute them I would do so without any hesitation whatsoever. I urge the Turkish nation to watch the conference proceedings closely...'

`Could you please turn that thing down,' I asked the cabdriver when I could muster my courage and voice. `Actually, why don't you turn it off completely? The minister is talking nonsense.'

The driver, a young, hefty man with astute eyes looked at me in the rear view mirror from which a glittering Turkish flag, a miniature Koran and the picture of his baby boy were dangling side by side. His face was marred with incredulity and disappointment. `How would you know? You just walked off the plane?'

`I know because I am one of those traitors he just mentioned,' I heard myself mutter, as if that needed to be revealed. A deep silence ensued in the cab as we inched our way through the snaky side streets of one of the most beautiful cities in the world. For more than 10 minutes we did not exchange a single word. I sat there uncomfortably fearing being kicked out of the cab with my suitcases.

Finally, at a red light, he said to me: `You guys are playing with fire. What you are doing is detrimental to the interests of the Turkish state. If you accomplish this meeting it will mean you accept the Armenians' allegations of genocide. Is that what you want? You guys are educated thanks to our tax money. We expect you to help this nation. However, what do you do instead? You ruin it!'

He uttered these words as effortlessly and easily as if we were having a chat about the weather. It took me some extra seconds to fully sense the fury buried within.

`We want to organize this conference because we believe it is essential for the development of Turkish democracy,' I replied, trying not to sound either patronizing or enervated but failing in both, adding: `What does the minister know about this conference? We never circulated our papers. I myself do not know what the other participants are going to say. How can you call something a crime that has not as yet even occurred? Why is it such a taboo to talk about the deportation and killing of Armenians in 1915? Did it not happen?'

The driver softened a bit. `Look, you intellectuals are famous for being naïve. You live in your books. Nevertheless, the real world is different. You will be exploited by the great powers, the capitalist media, the CIA and all that,' he said.

It was precisely then that I received a call on my mobile phone. It was from a colleague in the conference organizing committee. The cab driver became all ears without even pretending not to overhear. `We should all draft a petition to protest at this infamous attack on academic and intellectual freedom,' my colleague and I agreed before I hung up.

`Intellectual freedom! I'll tell you what boils my blood,' the cab driver said, adding: `You are free to say whatever you want as long as you say it here in your motherland. However, our writers and scholars always do the exact opposite. They keep quiet here in Turkey and talk a blue streak abroad. Why is that?'

`Well, if that's what you think then isn't it better that we have this conference here in the heart of Istanbul,' I asked as we pulled aside, having arrived at the address.

There came no answer. I reached out for my purse getting ready to pay.

`I have decided I am not going to take your money,' the driver said calmly.

The rest is history. As everyone interested in the subject now knows, the conference was postponed.

---

On Sept. 23, I came to Istanbul again. On the same day at 5:00 p.m. we learned about a legal maneuver to stop the conference. Back to square one! As in every state mechanism within the Turkish state, there is a reactionary line against every endeavor that might disturb the status quo. Challenging the official historiography is a struggle and it is not an easy one. Nevertheless, thank God things are not as black and white as Westerners tend to think sometimes; there are other shades in Turkish civil society, and other cab drivers in Istanbul...

[Joseph]

Article II

The Washington Post
September 25, 2005 Sunday
Final Edition

In Istanbul, a Crack In the Wall of Denial;
We're Trying to Debate the Armenian Issue

by Elif Shafak

ISTANBUL

I am the daughter of a Turkish diplomat -- a rather unusual character in the male-dominated foreign service in that she was a single mother. Her first appointment was to Spain, and we moved to Madrid in the early 1980s. In those days, the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, known as ASALA, was staging attacks on Turkish citizens -- and diplomats in particular -- in Rome, London, Zurich, Brussels, Milan and Madrid; our cultural attaché in Paris was assassinated in 1979 while walking on the Champs-Elysees. So throughout my childhood, the word "Armenian" meant only one thing to me: a terrorist who wanted to kill my mother.

Faced with hatred, I hated back. But that was as far as my feelings went. It took me years to ask the simple question: Why did the Armenians hate us?

My ignorance was not unusual. For me in those days, and for most Turkish citizens even today, my country's history began in 1923, with the founding of the modern Turkish state. The roots of the Armenians' rage -- in the massacres, atrocities and deportations that decimated Turkey's Armenian population in the last years of Ottoman rule, particularly 1915 -- were simply not part of our common historical memory.

But for me today, and for a growing number of my fellow Turks, that has changed. That is why I am in Istanbul this weekend. I came to Bosphorus University to attend the first-ever public conference in this country on what happened to the Ottoman Armenians in and after 1915. As I write, we are fighting last-minute legal maneuvers by hard-line opponents of open discussion to shut the conference down. I don't know how it will turn out -- but the fact that we are here, openly making the attempt, with at least verbal support from the prime minister and many mainstream journalists, highlights how far some in my country have come.

Until my early twenties, like many Turks living abroad, I was less interested in history than in what we described as "improving Turkey's image in the eyes of Westerners." As I began reading extensively on political and social history, I was drawn to the stories of minorities, of the marginalized and the silenced: women who resisted traditional gender roles, unorthodox Sufis persecuted for their beliefs, homosexuals in the Ottoman Empire. Gradually, I started reading about the Ottoman Armenians -- not because I was particularly interested in the literature but because I was young andrebellious, and the official ideology of Turkey told me not to.

Yet it was not until I came to the United States in 2002 and started getting involved in an Armenian-Turkish intellectuals' network that I seriously felt the need to face the charges that, beginning in 1915, Turks killed as many as 1.5 million Armenians and drove hundreds of thousands more from their homes. I focused on the literature of genocide, particularly the testimony of survivors; I watched filmed interviews at the Zoryan Institute's Armenian archives in Toronto; I talked to Armenian grandmothers, participated in workshops for reconciliation and collected stories from Armenian friends who were generous enough to entrust me with their family memories and secrets. With each step, I realized not only that atrocities had been committed in that terrible time but that their effect had been made far worse by the systematic denial that followed. I came to recognize a people's grief and to believe in the need to mourn our past together.

I also got to know other Turks who were making a similar intellectual journey. Obviously there is still a powerful segment of Turkish society that completely rejects the charge that Armenians were purposely exterminated. Some even go so far as to claim that it was Armenians who killed Turks, and so there is nothing to apologize for. These nationalist hardliners include many of our government officials, bureaucrats, diplomats and newspaper columnists.

They dominate Turkey's public image -- but theirs is only one position held by Turkish citizens, and it is not even the most common one. The prevailing attitude of ordinary people toward the "Armenian question" is not one of conscious denial; rather it is collective ignorance. These Turks feel little need to question the past as long as it does not affect their daily lives.

There is a third attitude, prevalent among Turkish youth: Whatever happened, it was a long time ago, and we should concentrate on the future rather than the past. "Why am I being held responsible for a crime my grandfather committed -- that is, if he ever did it?" they ask. They want to become friends with Armenians and push for open trade and better relations with neighboring Armenia . . . . as long as everybody forgets this inconvenient claim of genocide.

Finally, there is a fourth attitude: The past is not a bygone era that we can discard but a legacy that needs to be recognized, explored and openly discussed before Turkey can move forward. It is plain to me that, though it often goes unnoticed in Western media, there is a thriving movement in Turkish civil society toward this kind of reconciliation. The 50 historians, journalists, political scientists and activists who have gathered here in the last few days for the planned conference on Ottoman Armenians share a common belief in the need to face the atrocities of the past, no matter how distressing or dangerous, in order to create a better future for Turkey.

But it hasn't been easy, and the battle is far from over.

Over the past four years, Turks have made several attempts to address the "Armenian question." The conference planned for this weekend differed from earlier meetings in key respects: It was to be held in Istanbul itself, rather than abroad; it would be organized by three established Turkish universities rather than by progressive Armenian and Turkish expatriates; it would be conducted completely in Turkish.


Originally scheduled for May 23, it was postponed after Cemil Cicek, Turkey's minister of justice, made an angry speech before parliament, accusing organizers of "stabbing their nation in the back." But over the ensuing four months, the ruling Justice and Development Party made it clear that Cicek's remarks reflected his views, and his alone. The minister of foreign affairs, Abdullah Gul, announced that he had no problem with the expression of critical opinion and even said he would be willing to participate in the conference. (As it happens, he has been in New York in recent days, at the United Nations.)

Meanwhile, the Armenian question has been prominently featured in Turkish media. Hurriyet, the nation's most popular newspaper, ran a series of pro and con interviews on this formerly taboo subject, called "The Armenian Dossier." The upcoming trial of acclaimed author Orhan Pamuk, charged with "denigrating" Turkish identity for talking about the killing of Kurds and Armenians, has been fervently debated. Various columnists have directly apologized to the Armenians for the sufferings caused to their people by the Turks. And stories have been reported of orphaned Armenian girls who saved their lives by changing their names, converting to Islam and marrying Turks -- and whose grandchildren are unaware today of their own mixed heritage.

All this activity has triggered a nationalist backlash. That should be expected -- but organizers of the Conference on Ottoman Armenians were nevertheless surprised last week by a crafty, last-minute maneuver: a court order to postpone the conference pending the investigation of hardliners' charges that it was unfairly biased against Turkey. The cynicism of this order was clear when we learned that the three-judge panel actually made its decision on Monday; it was not made public until late Thursday, only hours before the conference was to begin.

Organizers said they would try to regroup by moving the site from Bosphorus University, a public institution, to one of the two private universities that are co-sponsors. We were encouraged by the immediate public reaction: Not only did some normally mainstream media voices denounce the court order, but Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in televised interviews, repeatedly criticized it as "unacceptable." "You may not like the expression of an opinion," he said, "but you can't stop it like this." Foreign Minister Gul, in New York, lamented what effect this would have on Turkey's quest to join the European Union: "There's no one better at hurting themselves than us," he said.

Whatever happens with the conference, I believe one thing remains true: Through the collective efforts of academics, journalists, writers and media correspondents, 1915 is being opened to discussion in my homeland as never before. The process is not an easy one and will disturb many vested interests. I know how hard it is -- most children from diplomatic families, confronting negative images of Turkey abroad, develop a sort of defensive nationalism, and it's especially true among those of us who lived through the years of Armenian terrorism. But I also know that the journey from denial to recognition is one that can be made.

[Joseph]

AP INTERVIEW: Celebrated Turkish novelist recounts struggle with ultranationalists

The Associated Press

Published: September 7, 2006



ISTANBUL, Turkey For best-selling Turkish author Elif Shafak, September promises to be a month of joy and tribulation.
Nine-months pregnant, the University of Arizona literature professor is set to give birth to her first child. Another important date looms: the start of her trial on charges of "insulting Turkishness" in her novel that deals with the waning years of the Ottoman Empire.
In a quiet cafe in the backstreets of Istanbul's historic Beyoglu district — where Turks, Armenians, and Jews once lived in harmony — Shafak reflected on the peculiarities of a case in which it is nothing she said herself that is being put on trial, but words she gave to a fictitious Armenian character.
"I think my case is very bizarre because for the first time they are trying fictional characters," Shafak, a striking woman with unruly locks of blond hair, told The Associated Press.
If convicted Shafak, who divides her time between Tucson, Arizona, and Istanbul, could face three years in prison. Turkey has refused her request to delay the Sept. 21 trial because of her pregnancy.
The case will be closely watched by the European Union, which has repeatedly insisted that Turkey abolish laws that limit freedom of expression if it is to fulfill its dream of joining the elite club of nations — which sees itself both as an economic bloc and a beacon of liberal, democratic values.
Shafak said the law on insulting Turkishness "has been used as a weapon to silence many people. ... My case is perhaps just another step in this long chain."
That chain includes Turkey's best known novelist Orhan Pamuk — a perennial candidate for the Nobel Prize in literature — and dozens of other writers and intellectuals forced to defend themselves against charges of "insulting Turkishness."
Shafak says he has received hate mail from nationalists calling her a "pawn of the enemies of Turkey."
Although most of the cases have been dropped for technical reasons — such as the case involving Pamuk — and no one has ended up in prison, the trials have raised serious questions about whether Turkey is ready to embrace European values.
To Shafak, the trials, brought forward by a coalition of ultranationalist lawyers, are an attempt to resist EU-inspired changes toward a more democratic and pluralistic Turkey that some see as a threat to the powerful central state, which has strong ties to the military.
Yet Shafak sees reason for hope: The surge in nationalism, she says, is a clear sign that Turkey is truly undergoing a momentous transformation.
"This ultranationalist movement is taking place not because nothing is changing in Turkey, but just the opposite, because things are changing," said Shafak. "The bigger the transformation, the bigger their panic."
Shafak's novel, "The Bastard of Istanbul," touches upon the massacres of Armenians during the final years of the Ottoman Empire, telling the tale of a Turkish and an American-Armenian family whose lives become intertwined.
The book also deals with other taboos — domestic violence and incestuous rape — which are rarely discussed in this conservative, predominantly Muslim country.
But it was the fictional Armenian-American characters in the book who are sending Shafak to court. In one passage, a character is deeply concerned about the prospect of his niece being brought up by a Turkish stepfather.
"What will that innocent lamb tell her friends when she grows up?" the man asks. "(That) I am the grandchild of genocide survivors who lost all their relatives to the hands of Turkish butchers in 1915, but I myself have been brainwashed to deny the genocide because I was raised by some Turk named Mustapha!"
Later, a radical Armenian-American blogger who goes by the name of Lady Peaxxxx/Siramark writes: "Do you think (the Turks) are going to say: Oh yeah, we are sorry we massacred and deported you guys, and then contentedly denied it all."
Turkey insists that the mass evacuation and deaths of up to 1.5 million Armenians during World War I was not a planned genocide. Labeling it as such can be considered a criminal offense. The book has sold 60,000 copies since it was published — considered a big hit in Turkey where readership is low.
The daughter of a female diplomat who raised Shafak alone — her father left when she was young — the novelist said she first became aware of the Armenian issue after Armenian militants killed dozens of Turkish diplomats in the 1970s and 1980s.
"My very first acquaintance with the word Armenian was so negative, it just meant someone who wanted to kill my mother," Shafak said. "I then started to ask questions, 'why so much hatred against Turkish diplomats? What is behind this?'"
She does not take sides on the genocide debate, but criticizes Turkey for what she calls a "collective amnesia" of the atrocities.
"Turks and Armenians are not speaking the same language," she explained. "For the Turks all the past is gone, erased from our memories. That's the way we Westernized: by being future-oriented... The grandchildren of the 1915 survivors tend to be very, very past-oriented."
The English version of "The Bastard of Istanbul" is to be published next year.

[Zareh]

It was just a matter of time that this young intellectual came face to face with the ugliest segment of the Turkish society. She has always pushed the envelop so I'm sure she was not surprised about the outcome. I would go as far as saying she welcomed the nationalist reaction. For her I think the best way to fight against an idea is to push for a reaction, she has succeeded. I have been reading her articles in the Turkish Daily News for a while now and have come to respect her views and her intellect. She writes as it is, simply and clearly. She touches upon many aspects that Turks rather not talk about. Besides the Armenian issue, she blasts the Turkish society for not doing enough to stop the so-called honour killings, male chauvinism and treating women as second class citizens and so on. She truly wants and writes about the need for fundamental change in Turkey for Turkey's sake. To me she is a true patriot, the kind that Armenians need in a neighbour. Only a society that can truly reflect and criticize the past can be a safe neughbour for Armenia.

I wonder if Turks realize that she may be the best thing that happened to Turkey.

[Hovik]

Well said Zareh, welcome to the forum...

[Joseph]

It was just a matter of time that this young intellectual came face to face with the ugliest segment of the Turkish society. She has always pushed the envelop so I'm sure she was not surprised about the outcome. I would go as far as saying she welcomed the nationalist reaction. For her I think the best way to fight against an idea is to push for a reaction, she has succeeded. I have been reading her articles in the Turkish Daily News for a while now and have come to respect her views and her intellect. She writes as it is, simply and clearly. She touches upon many aspects that Turks rather not talk about. Besides the Armenian issue, she blasts the Turkish society for not doing enough to stop the so-called honour killings, male chauvinism and treating women as second class citizens and so on. She truly wants and writes about the need for fundamental change in Turkey for Turkey's sake. To me she is a true patriot, the kind that Armenians need in a neighbour. Only a society that can truly reflect and criticize the past can be a safe neughbour for Armenia.

I wonder if Turks realize that she may be the best thing that happened to Turkey.

Welcome Zareh

[Zareh]

Thank you Hovik and Joseph!

[Hovik]

Novelist Tried For Insulting 'turkishness'

NOVELIST TRIED FOR INSULTING 'TURKISHNESS'

UPI
September 17, 2006 Sunday 1:04 PM EST

A Turkish female novelist who is nine months pregnant goes on trial in
Istanbul this week accused of insulting "Turkishness" in a best-selling
novel.

Elif Shafak, 34, who is expected to give birth any day, will be
tried because a character in "The Bastard of Istanbul" describes the
massacres of Armenians in the late Ottoman Empire as "genocide."

Most of the world accepts that description of the mass killings. But
the Turkish government claims the deaths of hundreds of thousands
of Armenians from 1915-1917 were a result of inter-ethnic strife,
disease and famine.

While other Turks have faced charges for referring to the massacre
as genocide, Shafak is the first to be prosecuted for words spoken
by a fictional character, The Times of London reports.

"Shafak's novel is not a work of literature. It is Armenian
propaganda," said lawyer Kemal Kerincsiz of the ultranationalist
Union of Jurists, which initiated the case.

Shafak said she was determined to face the charges, despite her
pregnancy.

[Hovik]

http://www.armeniangenocide.com/forum/showthread.php?p=20420#post20420

[Joseph]

Elif Shafak Interview

Talking Turkey: A Conversation with Elif Shafak

By Khatchig Mouradian

The Armenian Weekly

https://www.armenianweekly.com

September 23, 2006


On October 21, a Turkish court acquitted best-selling author Elif
Shafak for `insulting Turkishness,' citing a lack of evidence. An
outspoken critic of Turkey's official policy of denial of the
massacres of 1915, Shafak faced 3 years in jail over quotes from her
recent novel `Baba ve Pic.' Below is an interview conducted with
Shafak earlier this year. Excerpts from this interview have appeared
in an article published on ZNet. The Armenian translation of this
interview has appeared in Aztag.

Khatchig Mouradian: Tell me about how you became interested in the
Armenian issue. I understand that your mother was a Turkish diplomat
in Europe in the `80s, Turkish diplomats were being targeted¦

Elif Shafak: That's correct. I was raised by a single mother, and I
think this had a role in my worldview. We were in Madrid, Spain, at
the time when ASALA [Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of
Armenia] started targeting Turkish diplomats.

KM: So, in your mind, the word `Armenian' was associated with people
trying to kill diplomats for some reason.

ES: Yes, the equivalent of the word `Armenian' was `a terrorist who
wants to kill my mother.'

KM: And how did this definition of the word `Armenian' evolve as the
years passed?

ES: I have to say, I am against all sorts of terrorist activity,
whatever the motivation. So I have always remained against the
activities of ASALA. However, I did not become nationalist and
pro-state like most children of diplomats tend to become. Perhaps this
is because I have always been `curious,' interested in asking the
simplest question: Why? Why was there so much rage?

So, after that emotional genesis, I started to read, and the more I
read about 1915 the more curious I became. But it was especially after
coming to the USA that I started to fully concentrate on this subject
and further my research.

I was always fortunate enough to have good friends who shared their
family histories with me. I think oral stories and microhistories are
as important as written documents when tracing back a nation's
history.

KM: What was your mother's reaction when she saw you get involved in
the Armenian issue?

ES: My mother is worried. She respects my mind and heart, and yet she
is extremely worried that I will be prosecuted, harassed or taken to
court because of my views. She is supportive and, at the same time,
keeps telling me `to be careful.'

KM: You give a great deal of importance to oral histories. Much has
been recorded and written about the Armenian survivors'the
grandmothers and grandfathers of the current generation. What would
the grandparents of the people living in Turkey today have to say?
What importance does their account have in bringing about awareness in
Turkey?

ES: I think grandmothers can play an extremely important role, which
has not been fully acknowledged by either side yet. As you know, there
were hundreds and thousands of Armenian girls orphaned after
1915. Many of them stayed in Turkey, where they were converted to
Islam and Turkified. Many people have Armenian grandmothers but they
have no idea; it is important to bring out those stories both out of
respect for those women and also because they can blur the nationalist
boundaries and bridge the gap.

Nationalist Turks who are angry at `outsider' scholars might listen
when they hear the same story from their own grandmothers, from the
`inside.'

KM: Even a few years ago, it would have been unthinkable to speak so
openly in Turkey about Islamized Armenians, let alone publish books or
write articles on the subject. Can you speak a bit about the changes
Turkey has undergone in the past decade?

ES: There are very important changes underway in Turkey. Sometimes, in
the West, Turkey looks more black-and-white than it really is. But the
fact is, Turkey's civil society is multifaceted and very
dynamic. Especially over the past two decades, there have been
fundamental transformations. The Armenian Conference in Istanbul (in
2005) was the outcome of such a process. During those days, one major
newspaper had the headline: `They even uttered `the G word' but the
world has still not come to a stop.' Another newspaper said: `A big
taboo is shattered.' After the conference, public debates have not
ceased; people are discussing this subject like they never did
before. The problem is that the bigger the change, the deeper the
panic of those who want to preserve the status quo.

KM: But the current changes are often interpreted as part and parcel
of a greater trend to change Turkey, so that it aligns itself with the
EU. How has the prospect of EU membership facilitated this process?
Would a conference like the Istanbul conference have taken place
otherwise?

ES: Turkey's bid to join the EU is an important process for
progressive forces both within and outside the country. I am a big
supporter of this process and I want Turkey to become part of the
EU. The whole process will definitely reinforce democracy, human
rights and minority rights in the country. It will diminish the role
of the state apparatus and, most importantly, the shadow of the
military in the political arena.

KM: What allows an accomplished academic/writer to venture into a
realm that is taboo in her country? I mean, you receive hate mail and
threats. Many intellectuals would rather conform to the status quo, or
at least try to change it gradually. What made you become so committed
to go against the flow?

ES: I am a storyteller. If I cannot `feel' other people's pain and
grief, I better quit what I am doing. So there is an emotional aspect
for me, in that I have always felt connected to those pushed to the
margins and silenced rather than those at the center. This is the
pattern in each and every one of my novels; I deal with Turkish
society's underbelly.

I also have to say that, for me, 1915 is not an isolated case in
itself. In other words, the recognition of 1915 is connected to my
love for democracy and human rights. I follow the Eastern thinker Ibn
Khaldoun in his premise that societies have a life cycle'they are
born, they pass a childhood phase, they become older, etc. Turkish
society will never be able to become mature if it cannot come to grips
with its past. Collective amnesia generates new sorts of atrocities
and violations. I think memory is a responsibility. It is the outcome
of my conscience as much as an intellectual choice.

KM: Your latest novel, The Bastard of Istanbul, deals with the
Armenian issue. What are the main messages you want to convey through
that novel to the reader?

ES: the novel is highly critical of the sexist and nationalist fabric
of Turkish society. It is the story of four generations of women in
Istanbul. At some point their stories converge with the story of an
Armenian woman, and thereby an Armenian-American family. I have used
this family in San Francisco and the family in Istanbul as
mirrors. Basically, the novel testifies to the struggle of amnesia and
memory. It deals with painful pasts, both at the individual and
collective level.

KM: I am sure you encounter many Armenians who ask you questions; it
is a cathartic experience for an Armenian to speak to a person of
Turkish origin who can show understanding of the pain suffered by
their grandparents. How do you usually respond?

ES: I am always surprised by the tone of `gratitude' that I encounter
in the e-mails and letters I receive from Armenians in the Diaspora. I
have received deeply inspiring, moving feedback. Sometimes they start
by saying, `I have never wanted to thank a Turk before...' Or I
receive e-mails where the subject is, `Never written to a Turk
before...'

More and more Armenians have started to attend my readings and
lectures, and almost always there is slight tension with the Turks in
the room, but also very interesting debates are taking place. For me
what really matters is to open the channels of dialogue. I truly
believe we have so much to learn from one another.

But there is one more thing I'd like to add. Sometimes, Armenians come
to me and say: `You criticize all sorts of nationalism, but Armenian
nationalism is different than Turkish nationalism.' I respect the
differences. However, for me, all sorts of nationalist ideologies end
up in the same place. I do not believe that the solution to one form
of nationalism is another nationalism. In other words, I do not
believe that Turkish nationalism can be counterbalanced by Armenian
nationalism or vice versa. I think what we truly need is a
cosmopolitan, multicultural democratic approach that eventually
challenges all sorts of nationalist and religious boundaries.

KM: I would like us to speak a bit about the issue of identity. How is
Turkish identity perceived in Turkey, and how should that be
challenged?

ES: `Turkishness' is said to be a supra-identity that covers all sorts
of ethnicities and minorities. The Kemalists claimed that as long as
you say aloud that you are a Turk, it is enough. Hence, Turkish
nationalism is very different than, for instance, German nationalism,
where race is more important. In Turkey, the French model is
closer. We had a policy of cultural assimilation. We Turkified the
culture, we Turkified the people and we Turkified the language.

I am one of the few authors who openly refuses to accept the
Turkificiation of the language. I do not use `pure' Turkish; I bring
back the words that the Kemalist reformists took out of our language,
which is why they are very angry and bitter towards my novels. They
accuse me of betraying the national projects. Of course, culture
building was such an important task for the Turkish reformist elite.

KM: And as you often cite, a lot was lost during this process of
Turkification. Would you agree that embracing the past, with it
`bruises' and `beauties,' would give Turkey its cosmopolitan image?

ES: Embracing the past both with its beauties and bruises will give us
a sense of continuity, first of all. Today we are a nation built on
rupture. How can you have a solid foundation when there is a rupture?
Many Kemalists wanted to start history in 1923, the day they came to
power. When there is continuity, knowledge can flow from one
generation to another. You can become more mature and derive lessons
from your mistakes.

Turkey's transition to a modern nation-state has been a transition
from a multiethnic, multilingual past to a supposedly homogeneous
nation-state. Now it is time to enter a third stage: recognizing the
losses and starting to appreciate cosmopolitanism again.

KM: Nationalists, however, would argue that facing the past,
especially the bruises'for instance, recognizing the Armenian
Genocide'would shake the foundations of Turkey. What's your take on
that?

ES: If we had been able to face the atrocities committed against the
Armenian minority, it would have been more difficult for the Turkish
state to commit atrocities against the Kurds. If we had been able to
openly discuss the violations against human rights after each coup
d'etat, it would have been more difficult to repeat those. A society
based on amnesia cannot have a mature democracy.

KM: Some call Noam Chomsky `America's most useful citizen.' However,
he is often considered a person who is anti-U.S., when, in fact, he
speaks for a better U.S. and a better world. In your own experience,
what do you feel when you are called an enemy of Turkey?

ES: The nationalist discourse in Turkey, just like the Republican
discourse in the USA, thinks that if you are criticizing your
government, you do not like your nation. This is a lie. Only and only
if you care about something will you reflect upon it, give it further
thought. I care about Turkey. It hurts me to be accused of `hating my
country.' There are essays and editorials in the Turkish media
attacking me and calling me a `so-called `Turk.'' It is so
ironic. They are used to saying `so-called `Armenian Genocide.'' Now,
they are also saying `so-called `Turks.''

KM: As someone who has lived both in Turkey and abroad, who has
studied Turkey's past, and who is living in its present and actively
working for its future, what does Turkey mean to you?

ES: This is a difficult question. I feel connected to so many things
in Turkey, especially in Istanbul. The city, the customs of women, the
enchanted world of superstitions, my grandmother's almost magical
cosmos, my mother's humanism, and the warmth and sincerity of the
people in general. All these are so dear to me. At the same time, I
feel no connection whatsoever to its main ideology, its state
structure and army.

I think there are two undercurrents in Turkey, both of which are very
old. One is nationalist, exclusivist, xenophobic and reactionary. The
other is cosmopolitan, Sufi, humanist, embracing. It is the second
tide that I feel connected to.

KM: What is the Turkey that you would like to see in 2015?

ES: A Turkey that is part of the EU. A Turkey where women do not get
killed on the basis of `family honor.' A Turkey where there is no
gender discrimination, no violations against minorities. A Turkey that
is not xenophobic, homophobic, and where each and every individual is
treated as valuably as the reflection of the Jamal side of God, its
beauty.