2464) It Is Official: Taner Akcam Is Paid By Armenians

It is documented now: Taner Akcam, one of the most ardent supporters of the official Armenian position on the Turkish-Armenian conflict, is a paid Armenian agent. (Please see the letters below.)

One of the first Turkish academics to acknowledge and openly promote the Armenian Genocide, the “poster boy” of sorts for the Armenian lobby, turns out to be a gun-for-hire, after all. Well, well, well… What do you know?

Surprised? Not really sure. I have always suspected that but never really had the concrete proof. Not until I received a letter from the legal counsel of the University of Minnesota, that is, responding to a query of mine (below.) It is an established fact now; Armenians are paying Akcam. And you can take that to the bank—like Akcam is taking Cafesjian and Zoryan checks to the bank, thank you.

Here is a little inside joke: like most Armenian names, ending with “ian”, Cafesjian is also Turkish. “Cafes”, or more correctly, “kafes” means “cage” in Turkish, most commonly the one used for fowl and “Cafesji”, a cagemaker. It looks like the Armenian “cagemakers” finally “caged” a good one.

Akcam is here, he is there, he is everywhere. One week in Long beach, California, next week in New Orleans. Then New York, Toronto… All this, of course, begs the question: how does Akcam ever manage to find time to critically read all those books listed page after page in the references part of his books, let alone commenting, debating, correcting, teaching, researching, and other such scholarly chores? Assuming Akcam reads a book a week—which is extremely fast for critical reading of a scholarly work—Akcam would need at least two human life-spans to complete his reading list.

Since it is a well known fact that Akcam was engaged in Marxist-Leninist terrorism in 1970s in Turkey (where he was caught, tried, convicted, imprisoned, and escaped from his prison cell into Germany;) and seeking asylum followed by higher education in Sociology (not history) in Germany in 1980s and until mid 1990s, he must have been able to devote only the last decade or so of his life to conduct research in his newly discovered passion: history of the Turkish-Armenian conflict, or more correctly, the official Armenian version of it. How did he manage to fit two life spans into the last 10-15 years of his life? He really must be a superman!

For a sociologist-playing-historian, where then does Akcam get the academic authority to try to discredit the life-long-painstaking-works of a formidable array of genuine historians, researchers, and/or others such as Stanford Shaw, Bernard Lewis, Justin McCarthy, Heath Lowry, Norman Stone, Andrew Mango, Halil Inalcik, Yusuf Halacoglu, Kemal Cicek, Sina Aksin, Esat Uras, Kamuran Gurun, Turkkaya Ataov, Erich Feigl, Bilal Simsir, Sam Weems, Sadi Kocas, Yusuf Ziya Bildirici, Erdal Ilter, Azmi Suslu, Mecbure Eroglu, Hamit Pehlivanli, Kemal Ermetin, John Dewey, Hocaoglu, M., Meray, S. L., Turkozu, H. K., Salahi Sonyel, Robert John, Lamsa, George M. (a Christian missionary), Langer, William L., Leonard Ramsden Hartill (a researcher-writer), Niles, Emory and Sutherland, Arthur ( two U.S. Army officers), Adm. Bristol (an American soldier-diplomat), Hovhannes Katchaznouni (the first PM of Armenia), Arto Derounian (as John Roy Carlson), K. Sdepan Papazian, Boghos Nubar (the confessing Armenian leader), Migirdic Agop, Gwynne Dyer (researcher-journalist), Jean-Paul Roux, Georges de Maleville, Gilles Veinstein, Mayewski (Russian diplomat), Basar, H. K., Perincek, Twerdokhleroff (Russian officer), H.J. Pravitz (Swedish officer), Shimon Peres (Israeli leader), and many others, simply too long to list here?

Where does Akcam, sociologist-playing-historian-on-Armenian-payroll, get the audacity, for lack of a better word, to belittle, dismiss, or ignore the massive body of meticulous data concerning the Turkish-Armenian conflict in 19th and 20th Centuries, represented by the magnificent men and women partially listed above?

OK, maybe Akcam could not have possibly critically read in 10-15 years all those sources listed as references in his many books, but isn’t it at least possible that he perhaps critically read the Armenian-written ones? Well, the answer is still no because even that would probably take about a lifetime. How can anyone pack a lifetime in 10-15 years?

If Akcam claims he is a fast reader and he has read the Armenian-written books in the last 10-15 years—which is humanly not possible unless Akcam has also invented 25-hour-days—could that be considered objective, scholarly, or fair? Reading only one side, that is? If one considers Akcam’s incredibly one-sided stand on the “alleged” Armenian genocide issue, this theory of Akcam’s super-fast book reading and writing capabilities might actually make sense (just kidding.)

Or could it be that Akcam perhaps just “skimmed” those books, not exactly critically read them? If this is the case, then this might explain Akcam’s (and Dadrian’s) many errors, omission, misinterpretations, and outright distortions.

We know Akcam’s English is poor by college standards and his Ottoman-Turkish is insufficient to properly interpret the many nuances contained in the Ottoman archives. But if his German is like his English or his Ottoman-Turkish, then I would not bet on the accuracy of Akcam’s research, would you? Be honest, now, would you?

All this boils down to this: what sources does Akcam really read and how much does he understand when he reads them?

Judging by his blind prejudice against scholarly Turkish objections to official Armenian propaganda claiming genocide, I have serious doubts about his capability to conduct proper research in Ottoman or even English archives. This is what I think. I also respect the opinions of those who may disagree with me on this if they can substantiate their belief with non-partisan, verifiable facts. I am willing to change my opinion if properly convinced.

Which brings us to Dadrian’s Zoryan Institute, a notoriously anti-Turkish propaganda house. Isn’t it possible that Dadrian, Akcam’s mentor by Akcam’s own admission, may have told him way back when not to worry about doing research or anything as it is mostly done for him? And that "they" could arrange the publishing of all that “research” under Akcam’s name? And that all Akcam has to do is “know enough to be dangerous”, as the saying goes? This would not exactly be illegal, I agree, just distasteful and unscholarly, would you agree? The similarities between Dadrian’s and Akcams’s works fuel this nagging suspicion of mine. But, then again, what do I know? Mine is just an opinion, a guess, a hunch. ..

How can Akcam, sociologist-on-Armenian-payroll-playing-historian, possibly have enough time in his busy schedule of dog-and-pony shows to do critical reading, writing, researching, fact-checking, editing, debating, lecturing, teaching and more? Does he have a large staff? (A UM research assistant with a large staff? Not very likely.)

And this brings us the next point: Akcam is not even employed by the University of Minnesota as an associate professor, as he seems to claim—please see the photo below where Akcam deliberately misrepresents himself to the unsuspecting audience as an UM associate professor. This photo is precious, in my opinion, as it shows Akcam’s face and his claim to UM associate professorship in the same frame, closing the window of deniability to him permanently. This photo was taken by one who attended his “scholarly” lecture, weeks after the UM legal counsel Benrud’s letter was penned where it is clearly stated that Akcam is employed as a research associate, not associate professor. Having a Ph.D. does not elevate one automatically associate professorship and Akcam surely must know that. Why does he, then, clearly continue to misrepresent himself?

If this is not “A Shameful Act”, I don’t know what is!

© This content Mirrored From TurkishArmenians  Site armenians-1915.blogspot.com

The photo here was taken on Feb 28, 2008,in UNO LIB Room 407 at a lecture organized by the World Affairs Council of New Orleans titled: “The Armenian Genocide of 1915: Relevance and Ramifications for US - Turkish relations and EU membership”. Curiously, there were no speakers presenting the Turkish views. Consequently, only anti-Turkish views were represented.

Akcam-the-paid-Armenian-agent now wants to get a green card and stay in America permanently. What do you think? Should he be allowed to continue to misrepresent himself to unsuspecting, hard-working, tax-paying Americans?

If he is misrepresenting himself, I wonder what else is he misrepresenting? Akcam is applying to the Immigration & Naturalization Service to permanently stay in the U.S. (also known as "green card.") Would Akcam, perhaps, care to share his application form for green card with my readers here in the name of openness, honesty, and truthfulness ? The information on his green card application is personal and private, I agree, but how else can we put our suspicions and fears about his questionable activities to rest? If he rejects my request, I’ll understand, but then I will continue to distrust him and his work defaming my proud Turkish heritage. As one popular academic saying goes—for the genuine research work of real professors—Akcam has to either “publish or perish”.

Why should he do that you ask? Well, for one thing, there are some very sensitive questions on those forms and I wish to know, in the most innocent manner possible, how he responded to those questions. Here are some of those questions:

Have you ever been convicted of felony? (The answer for Akcam must be “Yes”, in Turkey, in mid 1970s.)

Have you ever been a communist? ( Again, the answer for Akcam must be an unequivocal “Yes”, also in 1970s, also in Turkey.)

Have you ever worked against the interests of the United Sates? (In my humble opinion, Akcam, by virtue of belonging to Marxist-Leninist groups in 1960s and 1970s which publicly and many times have violently protested the arrival of the 6th U.S. Fleet to Turkey, issuing anti-American commentaries, letters, and press-releases in the newsletters/brochures/magazines that Akcam's groups have published, hanging anti-American and anti-establishment posters around major cities, attacking Turkish police during illegal demonstrations, bombing American ambassador’s Komer’s limousine in 1969, and many other such violent and/or questionable activities, must have worked against the interests of the U.S. So Akcam’s answer to this question, too, has to be “Yes”, purely in my view. I agree, years pass and people change and we can forgive. But for that to happen, Akcam has to come clean first and issue a public apology saying he is sorry for his “illegal and/or terrorist acts of 1970s in Turkey” and that he is a changed man now. If he issues such a comprehensive public apology and means it, then there is no reason why I, too, should not forgive him. But hiding his past, misrepresenting his current title, discriminating against scholars and/or lay people who oppose the official Armenian position on the alleged genocide, not disclosing his conflict of interest which can be interpreted as taking Armenian money to promote Armenian views, and deliberately defaming his (and my) Turkish heritage to appease his Armenian bosses is no way to seek and receive forgiveness. )

Any “Yes” answer above would raise eyebrows at the INS and perhaps even cause his application to be rejected. These are my sincere thoughts, of course, and I do not have rock-solid evidence about his answers to INS questions. That is why I am asking Akcam to provide that information here for the benefit of the public. All of the above shady deals and questions lead me to harbor a sneaking suspicion that perhaps some of his sponsors might have “pulled an Andonian” on the INS… By totally ignoring Akcam’s criminal past in Turkey, that is, and basing Akcam's green card application on Akcam’s German papers only which presumably do not mention Akcam’s arrest, conviction, imprisonment, and escape from prison in Turkey in 1970s.

I wonder how Akcam responded to the three INS questions above. At a time when America is involved in a bloody global war against terrorism, don’t you think a former terrorist—whether benefited from a general amnesty in Turkey later on to clear his name in Turkey, or not—should come clean before he is allowed to permanently live in the U.S.? Where is the remorse? Where is the apology? What kind of deals are being made behind closed doors to “launder Akcam’s dirty past”? Don’t I have a right to know, as a hard-working, tax-paying American?

I want to know if any falsifications were made in the INS application forms, just like those infamous Andonian- fabricated-Talat-telegrams, or that bogus Hitler quote alegedly on Armenians, or that fraudulent use of Verashagin’s painting of skulls allegedly depicting an alleged genocide, or that “doctored” photo of Ataturk where a dog happily lying at his feet was replaced with some gory, severed “Armenian” heads, and many more instances of pure fraudulence… The tricks in the “Andonian culture” never end. Could Akcam’s INS application be the latest?

To be fair to Akcam, though, I declare here that I shall allow him access to my column by sharing any verifiable and reliable evidence with whivh he will provide me, in efforts to allay my serious fears, suspicions, and concerns listed above. And if he really did answer “Yes” to all those INS questions, and INS still awarded him with a green car, then I promise to issue a public apology to my readers here. My intention is not to attack him but only to expose the hidden facts. Fair enough? Just like I am providing here verifiable, reliable evidence of the facts

1- that Akcam is actually paid by the Armenians, and

2- that Akcam is employed by the UM as a research associate, not as associate professor,

I expect Akcam to share with me his proof that he was not a convicted-terrorist in Turkey in 1970s, or that he did not escape from prison in 1970s, or that he is actually a historian, not a sociologist, or that he is actually a professor (showing me how he deserved and got that title, what panel gave it to him, after what kind of academic work for how long, at what university, etc.)

Then there is this: our sociologist-on-Armenian-payroll and researcher-playing-professor, somehow manages to get “invited” by some history departments which happen to employ at least one Armenian academic and/or a “genocide scholar” with organic ties to the lucrative Armenian genocide industry. The hosts, again coincidentally, I am sure, never seem to wonder the other side of the story as they never include dissent in their genocide “panels”. If this is not conflict of interest, I don't know what is.

Why is it that these “Armenian or pro-Armenian hosts” resist passionately to the idea of including responsible opposing views when requested to do so? At institutes of higher learning across the nation, such militancy and single-mindedness is truly surprising. Don’t these public institutions feel they owe it to the unsuspecting public to present both sides of controversial issues, before manipulating the public opinion with misleading monologues? Or choruses of “genocide scholars” (almost all non-historians?) Why such intolerance towards dissent? It seems we are witnessing such masquerade with ever increasing frequency in campuses across this great nation.

Why is this such a big deal ? Isn’t this a free country? Yes, of course.

Cannot anyone be hired and paid legally by any legal entity, Armenian or not? Yes, of course.

But concepts like academic objectivity, honesty, truth, fairness, openness, and others require one to disclose such deals well ahead of time, before one starts brainwashing unsuspecting listeners for years, wouldn’t you agree?

It is like truth and honesty in lending policies where lenders must disclose (by Federal law) that one cannot be turned down for credit on account of one’s race, color, ethnicity, nationality, language, religion, gender, age, etc. I want Akcam—and his Armenian bosses—to come clean and tell all that scholarly views, genocide-dissent included, cannot be turned down just because they are Turkish. And say it they should like they mean it as I would like to take Akcam to task on this by proposing a public debate with Akcam and/or his Armenian bosses.

Another reason why Akcam-on-Armenian-payroll is so important is because Armenians chose to make it that way. They intimidated, harassed, and discredited other professors (bona fide ones) just because one of them, for example, advised a Turkish ambassador on how to respond to a genocide query or another one appeared at Turkish universities for scholarly panels. These professors, who totally disagreed with the official Armenian government version of history and diaspora position on the alleged genocide, were quickly labeled “paid-Turkish-agents.” Internet still features Armenian defamations of scholars who received payment from the Turks, government and/or non-governmental sources, real or imagined, and declared them paid-Turkish-agent to damage their credibility. When a scholar produced historical evidence disputing the bogus Armenian claims of genocide, s/he was intimidated and harassed with choice words like “denialist”, “paid agent”, and more and Armenian letter campaigns to his/her university president demand his/her dismissal. That scholar is discredited, not because of his/her scholarly work, but because of his/her acceptance of payment, true or not, from the Turks.

Is honorarium for a lecture a bribe? Or is it illegal? Aren’t Armenians also paying honorariums to Akcam and those pro-Armenian-non-historians called genocide scholars? If considered an agent-maker, then all honorariums and other payments should be banned by the universities coast-to-coast.

And what about the book deals? Book signing tours? Hotel, food, travel, event payments? Are they all agent-makers? If they are, then they should not be allowed in the universities and colleges, either. But we all know that all universities and colleges do it and I find nothing wrong with them. So why did the Armenians attack those scholars who may or may not have received payments from Turkish sources? Why did Armenians pay Akcam if it was so wrong to pay a scholar for his services or employment?

Some of those professors who successfully refuted Armenian allegations of genocide were so frustrated by these Armenian attempts to smear them, that most chose silence, while some changed fields of interest or retired. Please note that when these were happening, one leading Armenian professor was acting as advisor to Armenia’s president and his son served Armenia’s foreign minister. Can you believe this arrogant double standard? On the one hand, advising a Turkish ambassador is enough to be labeled a foreign agent, on the other, advising to an Armenian president or serving as Armenian foreign minister is not. This is Armenian culture of justice and fairness for you. Need I say more?

What the Armenian lobby seems to forget that popular American saying: “What goes around, comes around.” Or how about this one: “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” If Armenians viciously attack legitimate professors for refuting genocide claims by falsely accusing them of being paid-Turkish-agents, the Armenians must expect others to return the favor one day by exposing the Armenians’ “poster boy”.

Here is the plain truth: I really, truly, don’t care who pays whom for what as long as it is above board, the payee does not twist the facts to appease the payer, and the final product of such relationship is the truth, not manipulations. Is that fair enough?

If the Armenians didn’t make such a big stink about money, maybe I would let Akcam go with his seemingly secret deal with the Armenians. Akcam would have done well to have come clean about the Armenian money supporting Akcam’s lifestyle BEFORE Akcam's money dealings with the Armenians were exposed. It is too late now. The jig is up. AKCAM BLEW IT!

Akcam always tried very hard to convey this image to his unsuspecting audiences of an impeccable scholar with honest, genuine research who can even defy his own country and people of heritage, in the name of truth, not money—although his research looked awfully similar to Dadrian’s work who happens to be the director of Zoryan Institute who pays a part of Akcam’s salary. Go figure.

Aren’t terrible smells coming out of this relationship where the employee passionately promotes the message of his boss? I don’t know about you, but in my opinion, this level of intrigue should not be acceptable in honest scholarship. It may be legal, but I just don’t find it honest. And I don’t like it. Do you?

If you read the UM-Councel Benrud’s letter carefully, you will note that Akcam is not employed as a visiting professor by the UM as Akcam claims to be (see the photo taken at his 28 February 2008 lecture in New Orleans.)

P1011434 Now, if this is not “A Shameful Act”, I don’t know what is.

Is it an acceptable conduct for any scholar to represent himself as being employed by a major university as a an associate professor when, in fact, he is employed as a “research associate”? Is it truthful? Is it honest? Is it ethical?

The high and mighty associate professor, it seems, turns out to be no more than a research associate paid by the very Armenians whose tune Akcam plays. How about that?

What I don’t understand is why Akcam wanted to keep this case of conflict of interest from his unsuspecting audiences all these years. After all, does any reasonable person think that Akcam would still be paid by the Armenians if Akcam dared to dispute the OFFICIAL ARMENIAN HISTORY on the alleged genocide? After all, he who pays the piper calls the tune,right?

Please read both letters below and then come to your own conclusion:

Part I : My letter to the UM-President Bruininks dated December 13, 2007
Part II: The response I received from UM-Counsel Benrud dated January 17, 2008.

It all makes sense now, doesn’t it?


December 13, 2007

Robert H. Bruininks, President, University of Minnesota, bruin001@umn.edu

Cc: Brent P Benrud: benr0001@umn.edu, James A Parente Jr: paren001@umn.edu, Eric D Weitz: weitz004@umn.edu

Re: 1) Erkin Baker’s letter to President Bruininks dated 8/6/2007

2) Counsel Brent P. Benrud’s response on Pres. Burinink’s behalf to Erkin Baker dated 8/31/2007

3) College of Liberal Arts Interim Dean James A. Parente, Jr’s response on Pres. Burinink’s behalf to Erkin Baker (with copy to Professor Eric D. Weitz, Chair, Dept. of History) dated 9/19/2007.

4) Erkin Baker’s response to Liberal Arts Interim Dean James A. Parente dated 10/19/2007

Dear President Bruininks:
I am indebted to Erkin Baker for sharing with me her correspondence with you and responses on your behalf she received from Counsel Benrud and Dean Parente Jr. (latter with a copy to Chair Weitz.) I would like to present my views. Please allow me to organize my thoughts under the following headings:

I am aware Dr. Akcam receives his share of praise, but this must be observed in the context of political correctness and prejudice. The area of genocide scholarship has become powerful, and not many are willing to question their claims, for fear of being intimidated and labeled as Holocaust deniers .

In addition, there exists an age-old prejudice against Turks, making the claims of Dr. Akcam all the more acceptable, by people unwilling to study the issues objectively. Dr. Akcam has certainly not proven that there was a genocide conducted against Armenians, nor has anyone else; many legitimate historians disagree with this conclusion, as the evidence for genocide rests upon hearsay and forgeries. Even a few scholars have faulted Vahakn Dadrian, the mentor of Dr. Akcam, with distortions questioning his scholarly ethics. More importantly, since Dr. Akcam's research seems to contain too many similar manipulations, is it a recycling of Dadrian's work?

While Dr. Akcam may have a rudimentary knowledge of Ottoman language, a rich and complex amalgam of Turkish, Arabic, and Persian, steeped in Islamic religion and age old customs, Vahakn Dadrian does not seem to have even that much. In any case, neither gentlemen’s ability to accurately handle the Ottoman language and interpret the intricacies contained in the Ottoman documents can be claimed to satisfy the academic standards meticulously observed by Turkish experts in Ottoman language and history. This lack of mastership of Ottoman language may help explain, but not excuse, Dr. Akcam’s misinterpretations of Ataturk’s words in his last book (see the reference below.) This may also explain why Vahakn Dadrian has not been seen pouring over the Ottoman archives in Turkey, while researchers from 80 countries have. Yet, these obvious deficiencies somehow do not seem to stop neither gentlemen from making outrageous and unsubstantiated accusations against the Ottoman Empire, as well as Ataturk and Turkey. One would surely expect higher standards of scholarship from “genocide scholars”.

If the Armenian genocide claim is a politicized one, equating Turks with Nazis leads to further prejudice and hatred against Turkish people. If the University of Minnesota supports highly selective source materials, akin to Ku Klux Klan literature attempting to present a portrayal of blacks and Jews, that is a matter all honorable people need to be concerned about.

Counsel Benrud has written that "…the University conducted a thorough review of Prof. Akcam's academic credentials, and his eligibility...", but I am wondering about the thoroughness of this review.

My understanding is that a visiting professor needs to have a home university to be visiting from, lasting on average a relatively short duration, no more than a few years, after which the professor is expected to return to his home university. It does not seem like he was ever part of a university's faculty, before arriving in the United States from Germany. Does Dr. Akcam have a home university to return to?

Furthermore, it looks as though Taner Akcam was groomed by Armenian activists; his Ph.D. was co-approved by Vahakn Dadrian (as well as one other person, a cooperative genocide scholar), who was not affiliated with any university at the time. This is troubling on several levels. For one, it brings to mind many questions - if Akcam's books serve as examples: Was the thrust of his Ph.D. unoriginal? Was it relying heavily on the work of Dadrian himself?

Dr. Akcam was brought into the United States through the University of Michigan's Armenian Research Center, and appears to have lost his job there, probably after this university was made aware of its "visiting professor" rules being violated. Dr. Akcam was called a "visiting scholar" when he first arrived, and it is very curious as to how his title was changed to "professor." In Germany, one doctorate is not sufficient to earn the professor's title. It seems fair, therefore, to ask the following questions:

Is Dr. Akcam's position being subsidized by an Armenian foundation directly or indirectly?

If this is the case, is there not a conflict of interest involved, endangering the credibility of the University of Minnesota?

Are the "visiting professor" rules of the University of Minnesota being violated now by Dr. Akcam’s status, credentials, record, and/or qualifications?

Does the American public have a right to know if the University of Minnesota’s rules are being violated?

Furthermore, Dr. Akcam admitted in a Turkish newspaper interview (Milliyet, January 11, 2002) that he had collaborated with the PKK in the early 1980s, designated as a terrorist organization by our own government in Washington D.C., by Europe, and by The Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Israel (www.ict.org.il ) PKK is responsible for deaths over ten times the toll of 9/11. Taner Akcam was involved with other violent organizations in Turkey during the 1970s as well, including one with PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan. Abdullah Ocalan, who is in a maximum security island-prison in Turkey since his capture with U.S. help in 1999, responded to Dr. Akcam's interview in the January 19, 2002 edition of Ozgur Politika, an organ of the PKK, where the terrorist leader claimed that Taner Akcam had "…caused heavy casualties..."

"…The ability to explore and discuss such issues in a reasoned, scholarly manner…",as Counsel Benrud has written, is to be encouraged, but to provide an outlet for vicious propaganda by biased scholars with dubious research, spreading racism and hatred, is another matter entirely.

While some amongst us may be forgiven for taking the blatant and ceaseless Armenian propaganda at face value and believing Armenian falsifications merely because they are repeated so often, it is difficult and painful for someone like me, the son of Turkish survivors on both maternal and paternal sides, of yet untold, unfairly dismissed, or prejudicially ignored massacres of Turks during the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 (which preceded the World War I of 1914-18 and the Turkish Independence War of 1919-1922.) These seemingly endless “War years” of 1912-1922 brought wide-spread death and destruction to Ottoman Muslims as well as others. Those nameless, faceless victims are killed for a second time today with politically motivated and baseless charges of Armenian genocide.

Allegations of Armenian genocide are racist and dishonest history. They are racist because they ignore the Turkish dead: about 3 million during WWI; around half a million of them at the hands of Armenian nationalists. By ignoring the suffering of one side completely, any war, including the American civil war, may be made to look like a genocide.

And the allegations of Armenian genocide are dishonest because they simply dismiss “The Six T’s of the Turkish-Armenian conflict”:

1) Tumult (as in Armenian armed uprisings)
2) Terrorism (by Armenian nationalists and militias)
3) Treason (Armenians joining the invading enemy armies)
4) Territorial demands (where Armenians were a minority, not a majority)
5) Turkish suffering and losses (i.e. those caused by the Armenian nationalists)
6) Tereset (temporary resettlement) triggered by the first five T’s above and amply documented as such; not to be equated to the Armenian misrepresentations as genocide.)

Armenians, thus, effectively put an end to their millennium of relatively peaceful and harmonious co-habitation in Anatolia with Muslims by killing their Muslim/Turkish neighbors and openly joining the invading enemy. Turks were only defending their home like any citizen anywhere would do.

It may be said that hundreds of thousands of innocent Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilians offered none of the harm to America in 1945 that the whole of the Armenian community treacherously performed against the Ottoman Empire, between the late 19th century and 1915. Yet, the Ottomans responded only by Tereset, temporarily resettling some of the Armenians, not all, to other parts of the Empire and only when the last straw broke the camel’s back (i.e. after the bloody Armenian revolt in Van.) Nevertheless, not too many people in America today consider accusing the U.S. of committing genocide with those atomic bombs, although the intent to exterminate the entire population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a matter of uncontested record.

Consider that all this carnage came over and above the wholesale Japanese-American relocation of 1942 which was based on a hunch, a probability of fifth column activities by some Americans merely because of their ethnic origin. President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, except for those in internment camps. In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, removal, and detention, arguing that it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when there is a "pressing public necessity." During the period of 1939–41, the FBI compiled the Custodial Detention index ("CDI") on citizens, "enemy" aliens and foreign nationals who might be dangerous based principally on census records. Upon the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Presidential Proclamations 2525 (Japanese), 2526 (German) and 2527 (Italian) were signed. Many homes were raided using information from the CDI, and hundreds of aliens were in custody by the end of the day, including Germans and Italians (although war was not declared on Germany or Italy until December 11).

Contrast the above absolutist American acts against the American citizens and Japanese citizens with the Ottomans’ flexibility and tolerance. The latter did not move the Ottoman-Armenian citizens out of Istanbul, Izmir, Edirne, Aleppo and other places, even after blatant Armenian treason elsewhere, thus separating “probable threat” from “proven threat”.

Consider further that all absolutist American actions mentioned above came decades after the Tereset of 1915. If temporary resettlement was so wrong, then why did the U.S. resort to it and worse? How come no one is charging the U.S. with the crime of genocide? How can anyone honestly explain these double standards in academia?

If you truly believe in freedom of speech, then please don’t silence people like me who disagree with you and/or others in your university on the characterization of the Turkish-Armenian conflict. Not giving responsible opposing ideas a place in genocide panels is a form of censorship and does violate my freedom of speech as an American. Include the other side of the story in your genocide panels. I would be more than happy to participate as a speaker, for example, in one of your future “genocide panels” to offer the benefits of the other side of the story to unsuspecting attendees. You can perhaps convince the organizers to allow the showing of the 45-minute documentary “Armenian Revolt 1894-1920” during such panels. Freedom of speech should be honored by such “solid deeds”, not simply by “hollow words” in clichés.

As a university president, I believe you have a responsibility to ensure that the public is given a fair chance to hear all sides of a controversy and that “partisan accounts” are not promoted as “settled history”. I coined a new term back in 2003, my humble gift to the English language, to describe the stance of the Armenian-funded genocide scholars vis-à-vis the Turkish-Armenian conflict: “ETHOCIDE”, a brief definition of which is “deliberate and systematic extermination of ethics via malicious mass deception for political and other benefits.”

President Bruininks, fairness, objectivity, and truth are all that I ask.

Son of Turkish-survivors from both maternal and paternal sides

Reference: http://ataa.org/reference/pdf/akcam.pdf ; The Assembly of Turkish American Associations, Public Outreach Program, Position Paper No. 1, April 2007, Book Review : A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and theQuestion of Turkish Responsibility, by Taner Akçam. New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt & Company, 2006. x + 376 pages. Notes to p.464. Index to p.483. $30.00 (hardback). ISBN 0-8050-7932-7.

This content Mirrored From TurkishArmenians  Site armenians-1915.blogspot.com

Yuksel Oktay
* Excellent commentary Ergun. I hope the so-called Turkish scholars who defend Taner Akcam will read this, including Ara Sarafian. Great work and thank you.