Thursday, October 12, 2006
Pamuk and France
Turkey turned out to be in two very big news stories today, and I guess that makes now a time as good as any for a little editorial.
First, my congratualtions to writer Orhan Pamuk for winning the Nobel Prize in Literature. Pamuk was talked about as the dark horse canidate last year and has risen in notariaty since with the release of last year's "Istanbul". I have only begun to read most acclaimed (and politically touchy) novel "Snow", so I cannot assess whether or not I agree with the Swedish Academy's choice. There are many things that stand out about this author in this country, and that I feel relatively qualified to talk a bit about. He is perhaps the best-known Turkish author since Ataturk (who was indeed quite prolific), but many here believe he has alienated his country through a European education and quite controversial views of religion and the arts that have set many a politician here on edge, indeed he was arraigned on the charge of "offending Turkishness", as have a few other authors recently, for admitting to an Armenian Genocide in a Swiss paper, but was eventually let go. Certainly feelings here are mixed as the first Turk to win the Literature prize, yet many still resent some of his opinions of the, as the academy describes ,"melancholy" city and nation he has imagined.
On a related note, the lower house of the French parliament today passed a bill that will put any person in jail for up to year along with a hefty fine for denying the Armenian Genocide. This bill was spurred on by the 500,000 plus Armenians that live in France, and has met with disagreement from the PM, as well as much of Europe (not the least of which, Turkey). This is an incredibly touchy subject for many reasons, I can only try to explain them. In the flailing last years of the Ottoman Empire there was a vast movement of peoples throughout the Empire which had the loose aim of exporting christians from the Anatolian stronghold and importing Muslims from the faltering provinces. In the case of Armenia, as they claim, some two or three million of their people were relocated to present day Armenia, and along the way almost half of them (1.5 M or so) died. The legitimacy of this claim is something no two historians of the region can really agree on, mostly because the records of this event are scarce. This event was definitely unlike that of the Nazi Holocaust, there were no "death camps" and the systematic destruction of the Armenian race throughout the world was definitely not the objective of the Ottoman government. A large group fo historians do agree that this was a vain last ditch attempt to homogenize the Empire in order to save it from destruction at the hands of European powers. Also failed to be mentioned by many that support this cause is the fact that at the same time thousands upon thousands of Muslims died both at the hands of nationalist-terrorist groups in the Balkans (such as the Macedonian group KRO) and at the hands of revolting Armenians in the East. In the last years of the Empire a few million people died, Greeks, Jews, Muslims, Armenians, Turks and Arabs. That in and of itself is an awful fact. To say, however, that the Armenian situation was unique to the time period is simply not a settled fact (note to anyone who might try and arrest me in France: I am not necessarily denying the Armenian Genocide, merely pointing out the apparant academic disagreement over the subject). For sure the Turkish and Armenian governments exaggerate whatever figures they have. This is an important quarrel in the world today that must be solved, however, I believe the best way to solve it is for Turks and Armenians to come together and solve it like civil human beings, not for third parties such as France (who have plenty of genocidal type skeletons in their closet like Algeria in 1945) to deal with. This present situation is bad for Turkey and Armenia, but in fact worse for France. No doubt trade relations with a growing Turkey will be damaged by the eventual passing of this bill, and not to mention the hypocrisy of the EU as it pressures Turkey on free speech. In the end this is a job to be left up to Turks, Armenians and their respective historians, who, might I add, are often scared away from even breeching the subject (one of my current teachers Prof. Stanford Shaw had his Los Angeles home bombed while teaching at UCLA in 1977, and even in a Turkish environment is shy to cover the topic of Armenia). I know I've expounded a lot, but I just want to emphasize that this is a very important issue that must be dealt with delicacy and respect, and maybe by treating other nations as equals on the field of diplomacy, maybe we can actually get something accomplished.
First, my congratualtions to writer Orhan Pamuk for winning the Nobel Prize in Literature. Pamuk was talked about as the dark horse canidate last year and has risen in notariaty since with the release of last year's "Istanbul". I have only begun to read most acclaimed (and politically touchy) novel "Snow", so I cannot assess whether or not I agree with the Swedish Academy's choice. There are many things that stand out about this author in this country, and that I feel relatively qualified to talk a bit about. He is perhaps the best-known Turkish author since Ataturk (who was indeed quite prolific), but many here believe he has alienated his country through a European education and quite controversial views of religion and the arts that have set many a politician here on edge, indeed he was arraigned on the charge of "offending Turkishness", as have a few other authors recently, for admitting to an Armenian Genocide in a Swiss paper, but was eventually let go. Certainly feelings here are mixed as the first Turk to win the Literature prize, yet many still resent some of his opinions of the, as the academy describes ,"melancholy" city and nation he has imagined.
On a related note, the lower house of the French parliament today passed a bill that will put any person in jail for up to year along with a hefty fine for denying the Armenian Genocide. This bill was spurred on by the 500,000 plus Armenians that live in France, and has met with disagreement from the PM, as well as much of Europe (not the least of which, Turkey). This is an incredibly touchy subject for many reasons, I can only try to explain them. In the flailing last years of the Ottoman Empire there was a vast movement of peoples throughout the Empire which had the loose aim of exporting christians from the Anatolian stronghold and importing Muslims from the faltering provinces. In the case of Armenia, as they claim, some two or three million of their people were relocated to present day Armenia, and along the way almost half of them (1.5 M or so) died. The legitimacy of this claim is something no two historians of the region can really agree on, mostly because the records of this event are scarce. This event was definitely unlike that of the Nazi Holocaust, there were no "death camps" and the systematic destruction of the Armenian race throughout the world was definitely not the objective of the Ottoman government. A large group fo historians do agree that this was a vain last ditch attempt to homogenize the Empire in order to save it from destruction at the hands of European powers. Also failed to be mentioned by many that support this cause is the fact that at the same time thousands upon thousands of Muslims died both at the hands of nationalist-terrorist groups in the Balkans (such as the Macedonian group KRO) and at the hands of revolting Armenians in the East. In the last years of the Empire a few million people died, Greeks, Jews, Muslims, Armenians, Turks and Arabs. That in and of itself is an awful fact. To say, however, that the Armenian situation was unique to the time period is simply not a settled fact (note to anyone who might try and arrest me in France: I am not necessarily denying the Armenian Genocide, merely pointing out the apparant academic disagreement over the subject). For sure the Turkish and Armenian governments exaggerate whatever figures they have. This is an important quarrel in the world today that must be solved, however, I believe the best way to solve it is for Turks and Armenians to come together and solve it like civil human beings, not for third parties such as France (who have plenty of genocidal type skeletons in their closet like Algeria in 1945) to deal with. This present situation is bad for Turkey and Armenia, but in fact worse for France. No doubt trade relations with a growing Turkey will be damaged by the eventual passing of this bill, and not to mention the hypocrisy of the EU as it pressures Turkey on free speech. In the end this is a job to be left up to Turks, Armenians and their respective historians, who, might I add, are often scared away from even breeching the subject (one of my current teachers Prof. Stanford Shaw had his Los Angeles home bombed while teaching at UCLA in 1977, and even in a Turkish environment is shy to cover the topic of Armenia). I know I've expounded a lot, but I just want to emphasize that this is a very important issue that must be dealt with delicacy and respect, and maybe by treating other nations as equals on the field of diplomacy, maybe we can actually get something accomplished.
