Tweet
Originally posted by Eti
-
I see.Thanks for the answer. -
eti,
i agree to most of ur points
''And also most of the problems that you wrote about Turkey are common and shared by most of the countries all around the world.''
i totally agree
there are countries much worse than turkey
in the past we were also like turkey
but turkey is a country that wants to be EU ,wants to be western.
is iran a democratic country or something? not
is israel? not
i never said that its only turkey
but our topic is turkey.
''Your opinions just lead us that there is no real democracy on the world.''
i said in the previous page that i don't consider a full real democracy greece neither
but we are far more democratic than turkey, aren't we?
about ecevit, i knew that he was a poet
about the turkish invasion u should know that what showed the real intentions of turkey is the fact that they remained in the island (occupation) and brought settlers
if they invaded and left after the collapse of the coup as they had said ,then nobody would accuse turkey for imperialism
ecevit had the chance to solve the problem in 1974
makarios offered federation system
ecevit agreed but demanded the 34% of the land to be controlled by t/c
this would mean that more than 120000 g/c would be like subjects of another country!
makarios offered 25%, turkey disagreed
note that annan plan gave the 28.5% to t/c
probably the next will give less
this means that 30 years for what?
u know,
a reporter asked him
'You were writing poets for children ,why you made a war'
he answered that with the 1974 ''landing'' he not only saved the t/c but also the g/c that were killed by eoka
!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!
anyway we know what jerks ALL politicans are...
indeed seljucs is something sooooo old
leave this behind
f**ck the seljucs
we talk about modern things
my question for hatay is
how turkey can take decitions for parts of other countries?
how can turkey annexes parts of other countries without asking these countries?
why turkey has this right, but greece and armenia don't?
no, M. kemal didn't solve the problems
because e dreamed a turkey for the turks and only for turks
something that means that the rest whether they must become turks or they have no reason to be in turkey
the problems will probably be solved slowly in the future
and i hope EU will make turkey do it fasterComment
-
They were not that much scattered for they knew what was waiting for them unless they stick together. mostly they were living in enclaves surrounded by g/c. On the other hand, there were municipalities and villages predominantly t/c like Kaymakli Hamitkoy and Gonyeli.g/c as we had said ,and we know were the majority in the island. Not in one region, u could find more t/c than g/c
the t/c were scattered.
Then why the g/c used violence since they had population advantage?What this means? That the g/c could rule the island simply through democratical means (votes).
Even with a referedum ,the enosis could happen. I say this for a simple reason.
If what you are driving at is simply the "t/c should accept the will of g/c in favor of enosis because they are minority compared to them", then one basic question:
Why Ireland is divided ? You know that there is entity called North Ireland which is predominantly Protestant whereas the republic of Ireland is predominantly Catholic.
Overall, on the whole island the catholics are majority.
Despite the fact that they are BOTH IRISH and CHRISTIAN, these communities could not live together and North Ireland BROKE AWAY from the South. Even inside the North Ireland, there was much violence due to IRA and Protestant counter-groups.
Now t/c are ethnically related to TURKS and g/c to GREEKS.
Their religion is DIFFERENT so is their CULTURE and LANGUAGE.
And the whole world and EU dumbxxxxs are trying to paste these two together into a form called "united republic of cyprus".
The g/c said "Oxi" to Annan plan , a plan which was prepared by the U.N which does not recognize the t/c as as separate state but only as a commmunity at the beginning of talks.
the g/c on the other hand, at the onset of negotiations, they already have a state and enjoy diplomatic recognition.
Now, are you telling me that the plan was biased in favor t/c under these conditions that is why it was rejected ? LOOOL...
Why the U.N (USA and Britain) would favor t/c ?
If they had sided with t/c, they would have iniated sanctions against the refusing party (g/c).
Since you are so in good terms with wikipedia as a source, look at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Cyprus.
Note particularly the following sentence: "historian of the Cyprus conflict Keith Kyle noted that "there is no doubt that the main victims of the numerous incidents that took place during the next few months were Turks.."
Irish people don't want to live together... Catholic Irish against Protestants..
In spite of both countries being member of E.U, this membership did not solve their problems.
In Belgium the Flemish speaking people don't want to cohabit with french speaking Vallons, that is why the Vlaams Belang party could grow stronger. If they reach a majority in the parliament, you will see what will come next.
You know that Czechoslovakian republic was split into Czech republic and Slovak republic.
Yugoslavia was broken down into pieces and we all know what happened in Bosnia I suppose. The muslim bosnians and serb bosnians warred against each although BOTH were ethnically SLAVS.Only religion was different.
Look at what happens in Kosova, Macedonia. We are witnessing the birth of many micro-states everywhere.
If people of different ethnicity can not live together, then let them go.
I agree that Turkey should have let people of Hatay decide on their fate.
I suppose if kurds in turkey one day decide to form their own state or turkey becomes a federal republic, then Cyprus re-unfication dreamers will find it extermely difficult to defend their position.
BTW,I am not talking about the past I am talking about the present.
Do you know how many attacks on t/c have occurred and still occurring in the south since the borders opened ? A couple pick-niking on Trodos mountains were attacked by Hrysi Avgi (Golden Dawn) thugs.
Masked gangs raided a british school to beat up school's t/c students.
A young boy was stabbed to death in Limassol.
Fanatic Apoel supporters attacked and tried to burn a car with a t/c family in.
Cars visiting from the north are constantly vandalized.
The g/c police confiscated a puppy brought in from the north and they did not bother to put it into quarantine.
They burned the poor doggy alive.
So much about Hellenic civilization.
NOw, I defy you to collect the figures and compare the number of attacks against other community in both sides.
The republic of cyprus was based on equal partnership rights in 1960.What really makes me upset is that you want so many rights and power for t/c but what about ur minorities?
this is the root of the problem
turkish cypriots are used by britain and turkey as a tool
but at the same time turkey considers ilegal anyone to even talk about minorities
isn't this ironic?
how can a particular minorit enjoys so many rights and power when other don't have
t/c is the only minority in the world that wants more rights than the majority!
read the racist annan plan and u will understand
Now if the g/c find these rights as excessive for t/c , then better separate their roads.
My friend, you know that kurdish issue is untenable in turkey and in the near future a federal system is unavoidable.when i ask why minorities in turkey have no rights and they seek for their own in other countries the answers are 'the kurds are happy', 'the kurds are terrorists', 'its different', 'the turks are great nation' (gray wolf answer why t/c should take their state but minorities in turkey should not)
Even the fascist general Kenan Evren, in a recent interview recognized the federal system for kurds.
For your info, kurds are represented by their own party in the turkish parliament.
They are at odds with each other as to whether they join barzani or form a sepearte entity.
that is correct.the root of the problem is not at any case the t/c themselves
but the root of the problem is the fact that great powers use the t/c for their own good
turkey before 1960 has claimed that whether the island must be annexed to turkey or remain to britain
turkey threatened to divide (cooperatinf with uk) the island in case that independence is declared.
the istanbul pogrom happened so that the greeks are afraid and understand that turkey is willing to use any means
(note that this pogrom happened before violence against t/c is used)
If g/c and t/c could reconcile, then turkey will withdraw some of the troops not ALL.
eoka, tmt, the coup, even the invasion are past
but the occupation is not past
it happens
there is not embargo against the t/c but blockade of an occupied territory by a foreign country
if there wasn't blockade then the t/c wouldn't even think re-unification
turkey must decide whether is pro-intergnity or pro-independencies
whether is pro-minority rights or not
After all, a country which starts accession talks with EU, can not forever keep its troops in EU.
BTW, amazing that you have no objection against Britts having two bases in the south: Dikelia and Agrotur. What the hell they are doing in cyprus?
Are there a british cypriots as well ?
Sorry, the next plan coming after annan plan won't be totally responsive to neither to g/c nor to t/c.
I am for TOTAL recognition of minority rights for every communities in turkey be it christian, muslim or atheist or any ethnic group.
Greeks/Armenians should be allowed to re-settle in their ancestral areas if they wish so for it won't be threat for turkish society nor upset population balance (they will be always minority).
but, the g/c coming to north cyprus in large numbers is totally diffferent. They can quickly become a majority in north as well and this will upset the balance.
Then what is the use of bi-zonal, bi-communal federal cyprus in this case???Comment
-
Exactly. Right...To The Point...I admit that there are a lot of problems in Turkey mostly because of Ottoman inheritance. Those problems were tried to be solved by the some acts of M. Kemal. The heritage of Ottoman Empire still causes those problems to continue in some ways and AG or whatsoever is one of them. Turkey could have handled those problems if there had not been some mistakes done by mostly rightist politicians after the late 1940s.
The minority rights, the A.G issue and many others are simply stemming from the simple fact that turkey's democracy has been right-wing oriented.
The rights politicans who wrecked turkey are the at the root of those issues.
What Greekaiser does not know or does not want to know that not only minorities, but turkish citizens themselves have been victims of their own governments ruled by conservative, right wing, reactionary parties.
Only a leftist majority-a truly leftist-not nationalist-minded leftist embracing universal values and a progressive structure, stressing culture and education and a social state can handle these issues.
Greekaiser does not understand that turkish left has been ruthlessly crushed by reactionary elements.
Until then there is no hope..Comment
-
albatros,
''They were not that much scattered for they knew what was waiting for them unless they stick together. mostly they were living in enclaves surrounded by g/c. On the other hand, there were municipalities and villages predominantly t/c like Kaymakli Hamitkoy and Gonyeli.''
what i am trying to make u understand here is that, the t/c since they were scattered they couldn't form any independent or autonomous region ,except with the population exchanges. But these exchanges would happen only through use of force as it happened. (1974)
In contrast the g/c didn't need to use force and to move populations to be the majority in one region of cyprus. The reason that this was done is probably to frighten the t/c and make them leave or bow to the demand of enosis.
As for the divisions you are talking about large ethnical minorities inside other countries. In Cyprus we have 82% greeks and 18% turks who (turks) were not majority not in one place. This means that an independence of turks can come only through the removal of greeks from their homes.
Yugoslavia was a country that had different people in different areas. Cyprus was a small country that had 2 main groups together in the same place. That's the reason why it must not be divided.
Its very funny saying that kurds will have their own state but kurds right now don't even have their own schools.
''The republic of cyprus was based on equal partnership rights in 1960.
Now if the g/c find these rights as excessive for t/c , then better separate their roads.''
this is what i cannot understand.
Why a minority of 18% must have the same power with the 82% majority. This is fascism. Why a t/c must have 4 times a g/c vote? Why?
If u believe that this is ok then in turkey the system should be
10% armenians
10% greeks
10% turks
10% kurds
10% laz
...
for the 10 biggest minorities
but i see 100% turks (practically) since the smaller minorities cannot have parties (practically) (barrage 10%, remember?)
why the t/c must have all these rights and armenians ,maronites ,latins of cyprus must not? All these cooperate with g/c (same religion) ,and they have no problems with g/c. The president of Cyprus Parliament is armenian not greek.
A g/c must have the same rights with t/c and this means the same right of vote. This is one major reason why the g/c feel the annan plan as unfair.
''If g/c and t/c could reconcile, then turkey will withdraw some of the troops not ALL.
After all, a country which starts accession talks with EU, can not forever keep its troops in EU.
BTW, amazing that you have no objection against Britts having two bases in the south: Dikelia and Agrotur. What the hell they are doing in cyprus?
Are there a british cypriots as well ?''
there will be no solution as long as turks want the army to remain forever. This would mean permanent occupation of cyprus.
as for the british ,who said to u that we want them there?
You cooperate with them and they keep their bases. You! not us. Your ''foreign minister'' said that is unacceptable the g/c to talk about removal of bases. The only reason that the bases remain is because of turkish-british cooperation.
The reason that we care more about the turkish troops is that the british still hold part of cyprus but at least they don't attack the rest neither they expand or something. The turkish army is permanent threat and they will never leave.
If every country was like cyprus then the tibetans should have the 33% of power in china, the turks and mongols 33% also and the rest 33% should be chinese who make up the 80%...
if every country was like cyprus then in every act against minorities there should be wars and different states. I wonder if turks would like a permanent armenian army in vans, a greek in pontus, a greek in smyrna, a greek in constantinople, an assyrian in cilicia, .....
''o you know how many attacks on t/c have occurred and still occurring in the south since the borders opened ?''
who are u kidding?
how many g/c have been killed from gray wolves?
does this mean that all turks are responsible?
at least we don't vote the golden dawnies! they don't even dare to make an official party. They would get less than 0.5%. Your people are who vote for gray wolves (18%), denktash (gray wolf), the t/c party 'Cyprus is turkish'
if for every attack that ur fascist make, someone invaded ur territories then there would be no turkish state.
You cannot forgive the turks for their own crimes and suggest that the turkish people are innocent but at the same time to demonize all greek cypriots.
If you put all massacres that greeks had done against you there are 100000 or something. Well only the period 1914-1922 you had killed 500000 greeks in anatolia (the ''traitors''). So this is the reason that t/c must cease to claim more and more because of the eoka actions. You must cooperate to find a really fair solution that will
-remove settlers to turkey
-remove troops in stages
-allow cyprus to take her own decisions, not having parents
-respect the fact that g/c are the majority
if you want the t/c to be respected ,then should you respect the g/c?
or the g/c worth 4 times less as turkey believes?
Did you know that with the constitution of 1960 the civil service should be made up by 40% turks and 60% greeks. As you can understand this meant that the greeks would have only a small chance to be hired and the turks had always job. (same for police)
also now according to annan plan every decision must be approved by t/c and some deicisions must be approved by turkey! Also turkey will control the airspace of Cyprus and will have economical privilleges in the waters around cyprus! If you call these rights of turkish cypriots....
The turkish cypriots will gain little from this. Turkey will.
When and if u see turkey divided with turkey having lost the 60% of her land (if u consider all minorities and u put some ++ as the turks did in cyprus (18%-37%))
when more than 1/3 of ur people are refugees, when they will accuse u for fascism because u don't accept a plan that says that in senate the kurds must have more representatives than turks then come and talk about cyprus problem. Because cyprus is really the only case that a minority will worth 4 times more rights than the majority.Comment
-
As for the divisions you are talking about large ethnical minorities inside other countries. In Cyprus we have 82% greeks and 18% turks who (turks) were not majority not in one place.(Did you know that with the constitution of 1960 the civil service should be made up by 40% turks and 60% greeks. As you can understand this meant that the greeks would have only a small chance to be hired and the turks had always job. (same for police)if u consider all minorities and u put some ++ as the turks did in cyprus (18%-37%))
1. How come t/c could claim 40% of the civil service if they were merely 18% of the population according to 1960 constitution ?
2. When Cyprus republic was founded in 1960, all these % were arranged on the basis of the communities population share,meaning that t/c must have had closer to 40%.
3. I can not think otherwise, or else why Greece (as one of the guarantors) and Makarios (on behalf of g/c) would accept and sign the agreement and allow the foundation of ROC under these conditions???
4. Were they stupid ? Were they threatened at gunpoint?
They would have simply said “OXI”, "we don’t accept" and say “either revise this and lower it down to 18% “(what you and g/c administration is trying to make us believe) or "we don’t agree".
5. As for this 18% balloon, I will tell the real story behind this issue in a later post.
6. Even if g/c had 100% of civil servants positions, there would still be unemployment among them.
Explanation: Island economies always produce emigrants, no matter how developed they are, there can never be enough jobs and positions for all people as far as islands are concerned
BTW, Get the facts that the proportion of t/c has not dwindled to this ratio by a natural process, if it has ever.
What about Bosnia then? Bosnian muslims against Bosnians orthodox serbs.Yugoslavia was a country that had different people in different areas. Cyprus was a small country that had 2 main groups together in the same place. That's the reason why it must not be divided.
Were they not living in the same place ??
And Kosova albanians against Kosova serbs ? Were they not living in the same place ??
We cooperate with them ?? See the following link my dear.(Greek sources not Turkish)as for the british ,who said to u that we want them there?
You cooperate with them and they keep their bases. You! not us.
Also this:Your ''foreign minister'' said that is unacceptable the g/c to talk about removal of bases. The only reason that the bases remain is because of turkish-british cooperation.
Now who is signing a memorandum with who? See what britts have been doing to us?
And they are supposedly ON OUR SIDE ? What a joke.
Let me clarify this: Our foreign minister objects to removal of ALL bases from the island.
Then the only rationale for our foreign minister to object to the removal of british bases would be: if such thing happen, Turkey will be alone and have no justification for keeping Turkish bases on the island.
Then it will difficult to defend Turkish position. Am I right?
But why make turks happy?
Suppose the g/c administration takes a unilateral decision and tell britts to pack up and go.
Then turn to Turkey and to the world and say “look, we have sent them and now it is turk’s turn to make a move”.
But they wouldn’t do that, would they?
Now that a memorandum (see link above) was signed with comrade Christofias, why britts would go??
Since 1974, when Turkey has expanded on the island ? You, yourself confessed that Makarios offred 25% land share to a population of 18%.The reason that we care more about the turkish troops is that the british still hold part of cyprus but at least they don't attack the rest neither they expand or something. The turkish army is permanent threat and they will never leave.
Then he must have understood that the island had to be divided.
Otherwise why would he offer a territorial % ?
I said, after borders opened (post 2003) … not before.who are u kidding?
how many g/c have been killed from gray wolves?
does this mean that all turks are responsible?
I meant what harm came to g/c from t/c ?
Don’t try to quote me Solomos Solomou or Tasos Isaac incidents, these happened during border clashes (1996) and before borders opened.
And no t/c was implicated in these killings.
at least we don't vote the golden dawnies! they don't even dare to make an official party. They would get less than 0.5%.Your people are who vote for gray wolves (18%), denktash (gray wolf), the t/c party 'Cyprus is turkish'
the t/c party 'Cyprus is turkish' is defunct long time ago. Denktash is no more in power either for your info.
1. FYI, There aren’t any gray wolves among t/c and the only party locally representing ultra-nationalists of Turkey here hasn’t won a xxxxing single seat in TRNC parliament so far .
2. And this result above despite all these liptalk about settlers controlling the votes…
3. If ultras (MHP) have won 18% in Turkish parliament, that is Turkey’s problem, not t/c’.
4. By the way, MHP is in opposition now and actually in no way to dictate any (foreign) policy to the government.
5. The t/c can not be held responsible for what happens in Turkey.
China has occupied Tibet and unlilke Cyprus case they were no xxxxing chinese living in tibet to justify this.If every country was like cyprus then the tibetans should have the 33% of power in china, the turks and mongols 33% also and the rest 33% should be chinese who make up the 80%...
What about Falkland islands case ? Or in spanish, "Islas Malvinas" case remember ?if every country was like cyprus then in every act against minorities there should be wars and different states. I wonder if turks would like a permanent armenian army in vans, a greek in pontus, a greek in smyrna, a greek in constantinople, an assyrian in cilicia, .....
This is an island so close to Argentina but presumably belonging to Britain and inhabited only by a meager percentage of britts.
Argentina one day occupied Falkland islands and immediately britts came from 10000 miles away to get the island back.
But greek cypriots or greek junta should be free to wipe out and crush an entire turkish cypriot community from an island for the sake of enosis (whatever xxxx it is) and nobody should give a damn, right?
Hellenic fascists almost erase the minority turks from Rhodes and fromif for every attack that ur fascist make, someone invaded ur territories then there would be no turkish state.
Crete and Turkey even didn't lift a finger.
Still, the turkish community of western thrace is being severely repressed by EU member greek state.
When ROC was founded in 1960, it used to have 3 guarantors for the integrity of the island: Britain, Greece and Turkey.also now according to annan plan every decision must be approved by t/c and some deicisions must be approved by turkey! Also turkey will control the airspace of Cyprus and will have economical privilleges in the waters around cyprus! If you call these rights of turkish cypriots....
The turkish cypriots will gain little from this. Turkey will.
Now, the two former are EU members.
Moreover, now -turkish Cypriot free- ROC has joined the EU club.
That means these 3 countries can enact any cooperation and agreement between themselves extending to mutual economic interests by way of common EU membership.
But Turkey is out…
Greece as a EU member has become a natural partner for ROC and as such already enjoys economical privilleges in the waters around cyprus!.
So, does U.K.
But Turkey can not ! And should not because it is not EU member.
How just and egalitarian is that ? Leaving out a stakeholder on the island.
On the other hand, involving Britts, a people who have got no justification for being on the island anymore other than extending their colonial rights by way of common EU membership.
Nice "Pan-European" mentality...
Annan plan implements the return of around 40.000 settlers (excluding those who are married with a t/c of course).You cannot forgive the turks for their own crimes and suggest that the turkish people are innocent but at the same time to demonize all greek cypriots.
If you put all massacres that greeks had done against you there are 100000 or something. Well only the period 1914-1922 you had killed 500000 greeks in anatolia (the ''traitors''). So this is the reason that t/c must cease to claim more and more because of the eoka actions. You must cooperate to find a really fair solution that will
-remove settlers to turkey
-remove troops in stages
-allow cyprus to take her own decisions, not having parents
-respect the fact that g/c are the majority
if you want the t/c to be respected ,then should you respect the g/c?
or the g/c worth 4 times less as turkey believes?
When and if u see turkey divided with turkey having lost the 60% of her land when more than 1/3 of ur people are refugees, when they will accuse u for fascism because u don't accept a plan that says that in senate the kurds must have more representatives than turks then come and talk about cyprus problem. Because cyprus is really the only case that a minority will worth 4 times more rights than the majority.
but, even this is not enough to satisfy the lust of hellenic "megalo idea" for the island.
Greekaiser, you are still trying to spoonfeed me with what turks have done in Turkey here and there.
For your info, I am concerned with what happens on the island of Cyprus and the acts and deeds of mainland turks is no excuse for the cruelty and savagery inflicted on us, that is on turkish cypriots.
In a later post ; I will quote you what a level-headed greek who post in this forum thinks about cyprus problem.
He(she) is not a traitor nor a renegade, but confesses sincerely what greeks and gereek cypriots have done against my people.
Everytime I try to elucidate cyprus, you come up with what turks have done, thus trying to equate injustices here with turkish injustices elsewhere.
We will get nowhere in this case.
If you ever keep on telling me what turks did to other people here and there, then you should wait and be a bit patient and understanding until turkey becomes a truly democratic state and finds the correct way.
I told you in my earlier posts that I objected to none of your remarks as to what turkey should do in her domain (area).
As a matter fact, as a citizen of turkey, I went through all the hardships and nefariousness in Turkey, not you.
It is easy for you, sitting in the reconforting EU environment to preach democracy and civilization from you far-flung post in greece.
But, cyprus is not turkey's area of influence, nor it is an area of influence for either greece, or EU or britain.
Until this is understood by all parties, I am afraid one has to wait for the solution for a long time.Comment
-
First off, I am a turk, from Turkey.
I know that my ban is just a button click away, and I do not care on how much you hate me or dislike me or distrust me or whatsoever.
I am ethnically 1/4 Turkmen(Romanian Turkmen), 1/4 Tatar, 1/4 Circassian and 1/4 Laz.
This is my answer to number one:
Given that I have 4 different ethnic makeups, on which basis am I going to represent myself?
As Laz?
As a Turk?
Tatar? Circassian?
I choose to represent myself as a Turk for a number of reasons.
The term "Turk" as it is used in Turkey is used for two different cases.
One, as an ethnic term,
two, as a national term.
My nationality is Turkish, so, I call myself a Turk, but I do have other ethnicities in my ethnic makeup aswell.
This does not bother me somehow, or I do not feel bad about it.
In fact, my non Turkic relatives identify themselves as turks aswell, but also cherish their Circassian heritage, they all know turkish, and speak circassian or laz or tataric on various occasions.
Of course I didnt bother to learn those languages though I very much would like in the future.
About the barrage.
The other leftists parties that are represented within the turkish democracy are usually have a communist ideology, or are poorly developed parties which do not have an obvious viewpoint on the current issues of my country.
The other parties that are said to represent the minorities are notably from the Kurds. The current party DTP who passed the barrage is in the parliament, but is also known with being a supportive of the Kurdish Guerilla, the PKK.
They still are active until now, unless they do get involved in actions that are not permitted by the law.
But, given the current situation, I'd say that the Kurdish party is not even a thorn in the eye of the turkish goverment, but the greater threat comes from the islamists, who founded parties in the past, and the current party AKP is a milder version of the past islamist parties. It gathered 47% of the votes through their cunning policy of deceiving the masses through provisions and propoganda.
The other islamist parties have no representatives within the parliament thanks to the barrage, but if we lover the barrage to a minimum of 3% I'm sure that they will be founding parties over parties, in a desperate hope to raise their numbers within the parliament.
My answer to number two:
My suggestion.
I don't think that the greeks that settled over in greece will leave everything behind and come to Turkey just to find that their homes were replaced by badly designed apartments, but if they do, I want the same for the Turks that were kicked out of greece during the population exchange between the countries.
About article 301.
The article 301 is not just about Orhan Pamuk or the Armenian Genocide.
I have several suggestions.
Ok, you can talk about the Armenian Genocide(not just refuting it, you may also claim that such a thing existed) or whatever you want to talk about, unless;
-It has something to do with Kurdish seperatism. I strongly oppose this as many of my fellow turks do.
-Islamist propoganda. It poses one of the greatest threats except the PKK.
The Islamists spread their wicked plans through booklets, videos and many other things that one couldn't even think of.
-Desecration of the Turkish flag. I will not stand for it, nor will any self respecting turkish citizen.
-Dispute about national boundries. Though it is futile to dispute the boundries set by the Treaty of Lausanne, and the ones that do are generally to be ignored, this too might spark things that could bare results that lead to seperatism.
Other than that, I do not think that anyone living within the Borders of Turkey would ever think of insulting the Turks, their national identity or their pride, as they do live side by side with these people in their daily lives, but if they do, I suggest that we do not let the authorities handle this, but the people, because no one, but no one could show his face amongst the people he just insulted.
Just as the black people in america would not accept a KKK member amongst themselves, so wouldn't we.
Though, not through violence, but through peaceful responses by TV, radio or public statements.
About the Grey Wolves.
If you ask me, the grey wolves are greatly overrated.
As a person living in Turkey, I could say what the Grey Wolves are good for.
80% of the members do not know what the Grey Wolves stand for.
That 80% do not know Alparslan Türkeş or any of his works, they do not know Turkish history enough to talk about it. They do not know the History of the other Turkic nations worldwide, they do not have a clue about the Cultures of the Turkic nations worldwide, as they do not know anything about turkic mythology, the symbolism of the Wolf sign they make, or anything about what Turan, or Pan-Turkism is about.
The Grey wolves are not political or a terrorist organisation as you describe them, but they are a pack of thugs that they gather around High Schools.
People go there to drink free tea, play Tavla or just Cards, exchange video games and p*rn. Other than that, the Grey wolves society serves as some sort of a brotherhood where they take refuge when they get into serious fights with other people.
The Grey wolves gather around "Ocak"s, which are places where the grey wolves members gather around to do the things I mentioned above.
These Ocak's are usually rivalling with themselves, fight eachother.
They do more to eachother than to the ethnic minorities of Turkey.
About the Authonomy of Imbros, well, there are not many greeks left on that Island as you see, and it is a small island to be granted authonomy, but since the greeks are officially recognized as minorities in Turkey, I'm sure things could be worked out, in means of preserving the greek culture of the Island also, but one must not forget that also Turks are living there.
About the Patriarch.
The patriarch is seen as the religious leader of the Greeks in Turkey.
The Russian Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, the Armenian Orthodox Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church and the other Orthodox Churches except the Greek Orthodox Church as far as I'm concerned do not accept the direct jurisdiction of the Patriarch, unlike the Pope which has power over the whole Catholic church.
Given the facts that the Orthodox Church does not exist as a whole community, I do not think that he could be considered as ecumenical when we look at the whole picture.
About the school, well, my thoughts are that the school should be operational.
It wouldn't hurt.
Now, to the Kurds.
First off, the treaty of Lausanne accepts the minorities of Turkey as such:
the Greeks, the Armenians and the Jewish community.
They have officially the right of opening schools, and to receive education in their own language.
The Kurds however, were not included given the fact that the treaty was merely based on the Religious affiliations of the people.
Since the crushing majority of the Kurds are Muslims(sunni or alevi),
this seems legimate according to the treaty.
The Kurds were not permitted of opening their own schools, because of certain reasons.
Thanks to the outstanding(!) educational laws of the Ottoman empire, the schools in rural areas and in cities were resricted to Maktabs, where only Islamic theology, law and and arabic language and writing system were told.
The Teachers in these Maktabs consisted of the local population where in a place where Kurdish people resided the Teacher would be Kurdish and taught the children the things they had to know in Kurdish, whereas in Turkish areas the language of education was Turkish.
So, thanks to this, the most Kurds in rural areas did not bother learning Turkish, except the people within administration.
After the Turkish Republic was founded, lingual unity was sought. Because the turks did not know kurdish, and kurds did not know turkish.
So schools were opened in the hope of teaching these people Turkish, in order to make administration and the other reforms easier, such as the alphabet reform, but the Kurds did not look like they were ready to send their children to schools, though they did not even know what modern education is.
This system was partially successful, but partially.
Still, in rural areas, there are people that do not know turkish, or people that do know turkish but do not send their children(notably girls) to school, and prevent them from getting a decent education.
Since the PKK terror has claimed many lives and also resulted into the destruction of school buildings and the lives of School teachers, the people stayed uneducated and ignorant.
The current goverment and the other goverments also payed less attention to the issue of education than they had to.
So, since Turkish education has failed to archieve its purpose, how better could Kurdish education actually do?
Kurdish has no place in administration, and other people of Turkey are not bilingual, the majority of Turkey, does not speak Kurdish.
The Kurds in the Western areas of Turkey, do not speak the Kurdish language with the people that they usually come in contact with.
So, the Kurdish language does not have much of a purpose in the more civilized areas of Turkey.
But you said that it should be recognized as the 2nd language of Turkey.
Well, this is not an easy thing to ask for.
This requires massive changes, in everything.
And, also, it will bring up massive contraversies, amongst the people, and also amongst politicians.
Also, granting authonomy to the eastern regions of Turkey, is also a not healty issue if you ask me.
Together with the Kurdish seperatism, this could result into the Kurds eventually declaring their independence, if the administrations are filled with kurds, and Kurdish being 2nd language as you ask it for, it wont be long until they eventually say their farewells.
This goes against the Law of the Turkish republic, mainly the constitutional law, and will most likely result into bloodshed I'm afraid. I personally would not stand for a kurdish authonomy, or Kurdish being the second language of Turkey.
About the Kurds learning their language and history.
Again, Kurdish education requires significant effort, since new teacher schools must be opened, a whole new curriculum for schools must be set, school books must be rewritten or translated into kurdish, and new schools must be opened. Since Kurdish has different dialects, an official Kurdish dialect must be elected to be the main language of Kurdish education.
Requires lots and lots of work to do.
And requires lots and lots of funds too.
IF all of these are going to be done by Kurds themselves, please Go ahead.
And since it requires that much effort and funds, I believe these schools will be private and will require money, which the Rural Kurds do not have plenty of.
Maybe the richer kurds will afford to send their children to these schools, but the other kurds will most likely result to the Turkish schools where education is free.
But,
if the Kurdish language becomes the 2nd official language, all of these must be funded by the goverment, which will require a bulk of the Budget, which we turks cannot afford to lose.
Recognizing all muslim minorities will most likely not result into the same thing as the Kurds, as none of these minorities uttered that they want to open schools of their own and want education in their own language, or authonomy.
BUT,
founding organisations regarding of preserving these cultures is of course important.
This does not go against the law, or promote lingual confusion in education.
My third answer:
The minorities have all the rights which a turkish citizen has.
They have all cultural rights.
They have all religious rights, they also have all economical rights.
They also have their own newspapers, by all means.
But this is only true for the recognized minorities of Turkey, the Greeks, Armenians and Jews.
All of these minorities do have a better life standart then most Turkish citizens of Turkey.
Most of them are Rich or are of the middle class.
About symbols.
Which symbols do you speak of? Explain please.
Those mentioned above are recognized by constitution, else, they would not have those rights.
My Fourth answer:
I will not talk about the nature of these genocides or if they are to be considered as one or not, since you will refute my arguments, and I will refute yours, or I will be banned until I could respond to you, but I want to say that we could let the Historians argue on the Historical desputes, where the Archives of these countries will be opened and the reality comes out.
By all means, I wish for this, nothing more.
I think we are forced into accepting something serious as a genocide without being able to say something by ourselves.
If you are certain of the nature of the genocides, you could call upon the Turkish historians to come and settle this issue, since you claim to have enough evidence to prove your claims.
Before reperations, you first have to prove your claims to the Turkish goverment, and to the Turkish people.
All these above are true for the Armenian Genocide.
The Pontic Greek and Assyrian Genocide are not recognized by any country I know of, so if those historians do want to bring up more genocide claims upon us, they are most certainly welcome to dig.
My fifth answer:
I will answer all of them seperately.
"-turks must not claim that greeks had a plan to exterminate the armenians, until turks came and saved them from the 'bad' greeks."
We never had such a claim. At least not that I've heard of, not in school books, nor any official claims made by historians.
"-turks must not claim that they peacefully and without massacres took over all minor asia"
We never claimed as such. We came, we slashed and burned. Asiatic nomads always work that way. Genghis Khan worked the same way. Timur Leng too. I never refuted that. But, this happened 1000 years ago when we came to anatolia, and after the battle of Manzinkert Turkish expansion was unavoidable.
"-turks must not claim that the christians were considered equals to the muslims during the ottoman period"
Well, according to the Shariah, the christians are not to be considered equals of the Muslims. But regardless of that, most of the Administrative Buisness was in the hand of the christians. The devshirme never took from the muslims.
The muslims of anatolia were used as the blunt weapon of the army, whereas the christians were not required to go to war. The turks and other muslims were thrown into war, where the christians used to own Tavernas and the Jews the only banks in the Ottoman empire.
"-turks must stop claim that ancient anatolians were proto-turkics that were massacred by greeks and armenians (not all turks believe that but some do)
http://www.youtube.com/user/TurkishCivilization"
We never claimed that.
Proto Turkic history has its roots in Mongolia and central asia.
I do not believe that Turks originated in Anatolia or whatsoever.
"-turks must stop claim that there was always a conspiracy to destroy the 'great' turkish nation"
Again, I dont have a clue what the hell you're talking about.
"-turks must admit the genocides"
The fourth answer of mine.
"-turks must admit that the greek landing on smyrna was legal."
Yes, according to the Treaty of Sevres. Never claimed that it was illegal.
But it sure doesnt mean that we had to abide it.
"-turks must stop claim that they are real turks and must admit that they are turkified ppl of anatolia"
Well I sure am of Turkish ancestry. Tataric and Turkish(Turkmen, which are of Oghuz ancestry)
I also have Laz and Circassian ancestry aswell, and I'm proud of each of them.
But I sure am not "Turkified" or whatsoever.
"-turks must admit the reality that all muslim minorities are being victim of cultural genocide"
Cultural genocide eh?
You want to see true cultural genocide? Go to America. See what cultural genocide and assmilation is all about.
"-turks must admit some realities on cyprus issue"
If you ask me, the greeks can have that damn island. We never should have helped those Turkish Cypriots anyway. Turnacoats and whiners, that's what they are.
-turks must stop considering Mustafa Kemal Ataturk as the greatest hero of all ages but probably they should look at his crimes against humanity and minorities
Oh yea, the Big bad Mustafa Kemal.
His crimes against humanity and minorities.
Well, which crimes against humanity are you talking about?
Without him, there would be no Turkish State.
For me, he is the greatest hero of all ages because he gave me something to live for.
He gave me a future, and a country.
My sixth answer:
Militarism is not the issue in Turkey.
Militarism exists in Somalia. And in Myanmar.
BUT,
the Issue in Turkey is as such. Whenever the anti secularists are on the rise, the Army will warn them to take a seat.
I will tell you as much as this. Without the army, Turkey would have been the 2nd Iran by now.
And I dont think we will reduce the military expenses where we still have terrorism within our own lands.
My seventh answer:
My view on the Cyprus issue is as this. Do whatever that suits you.
the Annan plan was not accepted by the Greek side.
According to the official members, the Greeks are the majority within the country, so why the worries.
If they ever emerge, I'd hope for a "peaceful" emerge.
My eight answer:
Well, I hope the issue will be settled by both sides through UN.
I dont think it will come to a war, but it would be very unfortunate if it does.
Ninth answer:
True, the economy is not going too well.
and thanks to tha AKP regime it doesnt seem like it will recover for a long time.
Tenth anwer:
Well, the tourists here are usually not threatened by racist attacks, but by other issues like pickpocketing, or simple robbery or con,
the same thing you'd face if you'd be at holiday in an eastern european country.
Women rights...Oh boy.
This issue is primarily the issue of the uneducated bulk of the population, mostly of the kurds, who practice honour killings over anyone else in Turkey.
In rural areas, rape is common, and the kurds simply refuse to send their children to schools, leaving them uneducated and ignorant.
The people are as much as in fault as the goverment is.
eleventh answer:
There is nothing to settle.
Hatay officially belongs to Turkey according to the national borders.
If Syria wants Hatay that badly, they could come and get it.
We threatened Syria with war only once.
When they hid the infamous Terrorist leader Öcalan within their own borders and refused to give him back.Comment
-
Is Turkey a 'mistaken republic?'
Saturday, July 19, 2008
According to Sevan Nişanyan, Turks need to face and question their history. 'Unlike Portugal or Spain,' he says, 'Turkey has not come to terms with its totalitarian past'
Mustafa AKYOL
You should meet Sevan Nişanyan. A Turkish citizen of Armenian decent, he studied philosophy at Yale, political science at Columbia, and now teaches Turkish language and history at Istanbul’s Bilgi University. In the past he has written several books about tourism in Turkey that were all well received by everyone who read them, but his recent title made him a public enemy in the eyes of Turkey's staunch Kemalists. Mr. Nişanyan, with all his boldness, argues that Kemalism is, in essence, what we commonly know as fascism.
The book I am speaking about is titled "Yanlış Cumhuriyet: Atatürk ve Kemalizm Hakkında 51 Soru" (The Mistaken Republic: 51 Questions about Atatürk and Kemalism). Throughout its 440 pages, Mr. Nişanyan deconstructs and refutes many commonly accepted and hardly unquestioned maxims in Turkey. At the very core of his historical revisionism lies the shivering argument that Turkey’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, willingly established a dictatorship and never aimed at building a democracy. The Republic of Turkey, in other words, was a “mistaken” one right from the very beginning.
Historical revisionism:
Mr. Nişanyan’s book became famous especially after he gave a full-page interview about a month ago to journalist Neşe Düzel of daily Taraf, whose work has always been thought provoking and news making. “In Turkey, the Republic was a transition from the Sultanate to modern dictatorship,” he said to Ms. Düzel, “and it had nothing to do with democracy.” In fact, a democratic system had started to evolve in the last decades of the Ottoman Empire, whose parliament welcomed different ideas, identities and political parties. What the Kemalist regime did was to get rid of not just the Sultan, but also all sorts of political opposition, and establish one-man rule.
“I have read all the speeches and interviews Atatürk gave after establishing his power,” Mr. Nişanyan notes, “in those thousands of pages, democracy is mentioned only six times: two are in his statements to foreigners and others are ‘democracy is good, but…’ type of comments.”
But was Turkey ready for democracy at that time? Wasn’t the nation an ignorant, backward, “unenlightened” one that needed an autocratic modernizer? Wouldn’t Turkey be something like Afghanistan had it not been “saved” by the Kemalist revolution?
That is the standard argument you hear from the Kemalists, including some fellow commentators who write in these pages. But Mr. Nişanyan disagrees. “Turkey had been the most developed, strong, and Western-influenced part of the Islamic world since the 14th century,” he notes. And he points to the impressive achievements of the Ottoman, i.e. pre-Kemalist, reforms during the 19th and early 20th centuries: From the feminist movement to the incorporation of Western science, technology and law, “80 to 90 percent of the reforms that modernized Turkey were rooted in the Ottoman era.”
Of course, Atatürk aimed at and pushed for further modernization, but some of the steps he took, according to Mr. Nişanyan, were wrong. The “language revolution,” for example, impoverished Turkish culture. The Ottoman language, thanks to its imports from Arabic and Persian into nomadic Turkish, was very sophisticated and complex. The Kemalist effort to “cleanse” the language from these “foreign” elements soon led to the shrinking of vocabulary – and thus the shrinking of minds.
Mr. Nişanyan also criticizes the despotic nature of the self-styled secularism that Atatürk and his followers established in Turkey. He thinks that in one sense it is similar to the Soviet model because it uprooted all religious institutions. But the Kemalists also wanted to use religion for the state’s purposes; therefore they enacted a state-controlled religion. “The real purpose was not secularity,” Mr. Nişanyan argues, “It was the achievement and consolidation of absolute political power.”
The same goal led the Kemalist regime to what Mr. Nişanyan defines as the grounding of citizenship on the acceptance of a political credo:
“Those who accepted the Kemalist credo were embraced as citizens, others were deemed traitors. This approach, also known as ‘Atatürk’s nationalism,’ is in fact the classical fascism of the 1920s. The regime in Italy in those years was very similar … Atatürk’s nationalism also lies behind the usurpation of the properties of non-Muslims and their expulsion from Turkey. In the 1930s even biological racism was added to this nationalism.”
Then perhaps it is not an accident that the most Kemalist party in today’s Turkey, the main opposition People’s Republican Party, or CHP, is also a fierce opponent of any reform toward granting broader rights to Turkey’s non-Muslim communities. Many people consider this xenophobia of the CHP a deviation from Atatürk’s “modern” way. But if Mr. Nişanyan is right, then not just today’s CHP but also the very political tradition it refers to is problematic.
Facing up to the past:
But if that is the case, then how can Turkey evolve? How can she head toward liberal democracy? According to Nişanyan, we Turks first need to face and question our history. “Unlike Portugal, Spain or Greece, Turkey has not come to terms with its totalitarian past,” he reminds us. “That totalitarian past, perpetuated by the cult of Mustafa Kemal, still lives on.”
Yes, it is still alive and very much kicking. Political parties that dare to deviate from the mistaken roots are closed down, and the intellectuals who question these taboos are slandered. Mr. Nişanyan, for example, has become the target of ad hominem attacks in the Turkish media since his book came out. Kemalist pundits focus not on his arguments but on unpleasant things they discovered in his family life. The same pundits depict other critics of Kemalism as traitors, “Soros-funded” provocateurs, servants of “imperialism,” and anything you can imagine.
Alas, if the republic was really a “mistaken” one, then one could well say that its “children” are on the “correct” track. They just live up to their father’s legacy.General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”Comment
-
-
Very good post Joseph. Coming back to Turkey after growing up in another country when I was a kid I pretty much found the blind obsession with M.K.A. pretty much Stalinist; even at that age. The statues, forced memorization of some of his speeches was very wierd and sometimes frustrating, maybe because I did not know Turkish back then.
But having read much about him, mostly from foreign sources I got to appreciate the man the way, I believe, many Turks are not able to but should be able to. He was not the perfect, ideal, holy, all true great man that classical Turkish education teaches you but a much greater historical figure with his rights and wrongs and accomplishments and failures. I think he deserves a much more humane approach instead of the shallow worship he has been getting all these years.Comment
Comment