2859) Are The Turks Europeans ? & Comment by Sukru Aya

Part 1. Preface and a chapter on "Europeans"

(GoogleTranslated from Russian. Please contribute a better translation)

FOREWORD

«Are The Turks Europeans ?» - This issue Otham David begins his book «The Turks» (Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Moscow, 1972).. This book was published relatively recently, in 1972, and of course, would be unnoticed, because it is not scientific and, therefore, outside scientific scrutiny. The book that could be called the essay a journalist who is keen that the Turks were Europeans and that they take their rightful place in Europe. . .

In our view, the task the author has failed, and he just said: «The Turks are not Europeans, Asians are the same, what were its most bloody era, but, alas, they give us, the Europeans needed».

However, lacking scientific value of the work Othama very interesting and relevant from the viewpoint of a subject. Indeed, Europeans Are the Turks? This question is interesting, but not in the plan, which tries to solve his Otham. First of all, you need to say that it the question already contains the answer. The point is that the author might not be so clearly that his reproach in this, but still quite frankly, that is not a mistake, admits for Europe and European culture, something higher, as compared with the East. And if he proves that the Turks, Europeans, it does so only because he wants to give the people of appreciation, or more accurately, wants to tighten «backward» Turks and «civilized» European. This in itself is not taught, because the problem of the relationship of East and West is still one of the most complex and unresolved issues. And so hasty identification shall Turks to the Europeans, when the debate of whether the Europeans are Russian, are the Russian, who gave birth of Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Solzhenitsyn, at least not serious.

Oh, if the author of the book «The Turks» like to convince his readers that the Turks are worthy of the European Parliament, the European market and European culture, it must be based on the rhythmic world history, at least identify and describe the essence of European culture, to identify its distinctive features, and then only to reckon in this culture of any peoples.

In the question: «Are Europeans the Turks» is another important and interesting party. If the Turks, Europeans, then they may become later. Is this possible? And the question we can answer only after a clearly defined: what is a European?

This is necessary to know not to axiological point of view, but from the viewpoint of the essence of European culture. And if you reckon that some people in any culture, it is not to humiliate him or aggrandizement, but for scientific truth.

Are there any ideas to change the character and culture of the people? European culture, like any culture, is a set of values and ideas that guide people in their daily material and spiritual life. Can the ideas and values, one born to the people, to impose another people, that is make the other people take it to the hitherto unknown form of behavior?

We all respond in the affirmative when it comes to the so-called backward peoples ideas and values of so-called advanced nations. We both have not solved the contrary, as this would mean that the «back» people will never be «good». This does not argue, and all unanimously believed that good ideas (democracy, equality, humanism, etc.) are «poor» people do «good». In other words, we, or many of us believe that a change in, say, a totalitarian regime to democratic, the country will end the corruption, violence and human rights violations.

Adhering to generally accepted views, we also will not deny that good ideas can fix people. But what about the reverse problem? Can «bad» for corrupt people? And as far as crimes committed by entire peoples, can explain the ideas of crime or criminal leaders? In this area, we can talk more openly, since there are many hunters to defend the idea that people are not able to resist the influence of evil ideas. A good example for our purposes would be a Russia, which as a result of the October Revolution had committed a sharp jump from one idea to another, from one jurisdiction to another.

Peru professor of Russian history, the former head of research center at Harvard, Richard Pipes has a brilliant analysis of the influence of Russian national character of the events taking place in Russia since the beginning of the October Revolution. The analysis of this issue, Professor Pipes permeate through the holds many of his works on Russian history. We believe it would be useful in the preface to generalize his point of view, because it sheds light on the problem, which affected Otham and which is thoroughly reviewed by Dr. Myunnish. Viewpoint Pipes all the more interesting that in the 10 th chapter Otham involves the issue of possible communism in Turkey, while the 12 th chapter - the problem of ties between Russia, Turkey and the West.

Unlike those who see the causes of the Soviet conduct solely on the influence of Marxist ideology of Russia, Professor Pipes is looking for these reasons primarily in Russian historical experience. Anti-Soviet Russian foreign countries set up basically denies any connection between Russia before 1917 and after, at least in this respect, they act in concert with the official Soviet point of view. This is very strange, because it is right to argue about the extent and nature of political succession in Russia before and after the revolution in October 1917, but denied that any succession was manifestly absurd. It is inconceivable that the people occupying the same territory, manufacturing the same ground, speaking the same language, and inherited the same thousand-year history, has developed two political systems that do not have anything in common between them. Even the most violent in nature, mutations do not create a completely different biological organisms, of course, and the stories may not be such a phenomenon. Professor Pipes feels fantastic idea, that one hundred million company with thousands of years of history behind him could completely transform only due to the fact that there was something «bad idea» influenced him.

Is true that Marxism contains the seeds of totalitarianism, but why is this doctrine, born in Western Europe has not led to totalitarianism in its home country? Why «Communist Manifesto» does not lead to a communist tyranny in Germany, a country whose language he had written? Why does no other country but Russia, the least industrialized of the major powers of that time, the country to which the theory of Marx seem least applicable, succumbed to his revolutionary gospel?

Professor Pipes responds to these questions is: do not give birth to the idea of major political and social change, at best, promote them, ie they produce effects only where soil and climate are favorable for them). The validity of this view becomes apparent as soon as we look at the fate of Marxism in Western Europe. In Western Europe there is a tendency to reject the violent and totalitarian elements of the doctrine of Marx, but to maintain the reformist and liberal constituent marksovskoy doctrine. In Germany, for example, the Social Democratic Party, the oldest and at one time the most powerful Marxist organization in Europe, a model for the Russian Social-Democratic Party, has rid itself of the Revolutionary burned long before the late 19 th century, and thus turned into yet another democratic party.

Even in Eastern Europe, where communism was imposed by the Soviet Army, his expression almost everywhere is softer and more humane than in Russia. And in Yugoslavia, has not built like a totalitarian. All this suggests that even the most totalitarian ideas can bear different regimes, which greatly depends on the local political traditions, which in the case of Europe are more liberal, as in the case of Russia and the East more totalitarian.

Ideological explanations of their own failures are very popular among Russian conservatives and Turkish scholars. They recall the interesting analogy of the historical experience of other societies. Because people notice that their world is crashing, it is difficult to admit to themselves that the crash could be caused by internal structural defects and national, and therefore they prefer to seek explanations in the external causes, among them "evil ideas" and "evil intentions" of other most favored.

So, when Rome, after a century after the adoption of Christianity as a state religion, he fell to the barbarians, many Latin authors valili blame for the abandonment of the old gods.

After the French Revolution, conservatives such as Joseph de Mestre, are the primary cause of the disaster in the ideas of philosophers, notably Rousseau, to whose "Social Contract" he looked just like today, Russian conservatives look to the "Communist Manifesto".

But all this - the search for a justification. Much more friends of a people need to take those who show weaknesses in the national character of the people and critical of the way of historical distance, than those who stop the shortcomings of national character, and traversed the entire historical path sees besprent upper room furnished with flowers and carpets. Much great friend of the Turkish people could become Otham, if it were shown that the present non-European Turks stemmed directly from their non-European past. And that the past is that, from what you need as quickly as possible to give.

When we asked the doctor Myunnisha write a critical article about the book Othama «Turkish», he replied that it would do with pleasure, but will not so much to criticize, but re-express their own views on the topic raised. Institute of Problems of Armenian author expresses deep gratitude for his cooperation with the institute.

Doctor Z Dr. Ward Oganesyan,
Director of the Institute of Armenian Problem

Europeans
Many think that there is a science of culture, which can be classified as a culture and with geometric precision to hold the line dividing the different cultures. But this conviction is based solely on too long and not always justified faith in science. In fact, cultural studies, as a scientific discipline, is still in its infancy, and we still have relatively little to say about the internal engines of cultural processes.

Yet we know that quite a lot so as not to draw the line section of cultures very much at random. At least now aware of the fundamental bases on which could be built within the scientific method of culture. To do this, first of all must be resolved on the subject of culture. Every culture is so clearly expressed in the personal nature of that world history should be regarded as the life of a number of complex interaction of social identities.

Speaking of culture, should be found not impersonal "something" that reflects a system of ideas, but a living and active carrier of ideas, creativity, and perceived around the world showing on this basis, one or another culture. Only recognizes the personal nature of the team, a nation can be overcome dovleyuschuyu many historians of the concept that the historical process is a spontaneous flow inevitably flow from one phase to another. Just recognizing that culture is not subject to flux, and live social identity, we can see that the wheel is not stories, which revolves almost under the laws of celestial mechanics, and creativity of the free individual and collective identities. Only in a personal approach to history, you can put an end to arbitrariness in the classification of cultural phenomena and to establish their true basis.

In an attempt to disclose the spiritual characteristics of the culture should be made primarily to find answers to the questions: "What you believe?" and by the? The first issue is ideological in nature. Whether finite world? Managed whether it Divine? Reign there in the world automatic pattern? The answers to these questions determine the warehouse worldview thinking creator of culture.

The answer to the second question relates to the world of values and determine the ethnic character of culture, her mental attitude to the world.

One could put a full stop here and just point out that European culture is based on Christianity: the Christian faith and Christian values. No representative of the world of Islam, including the Turks, in principle, can not fit into European culture until he was waived Mohammedan Mohammedan faith and values, which, naturally, did not the Turks.

However, this approach would not sufficiently persuasive, and to see the distinctive features of European culture, it is necessary to dwell on the process of its formation.

Socio-logical approach to the stories first and foremost requires clarifying the nature of media culture. The famous German philosopher and historian Walter Schubert in his remarkable book "The Soul of Europe and the East" (Brinton, C. The Shaping of Modern Thought. Rome, 1971.) Distinguishes four prototype media culture: the harmonious personality. Heroic personality. Ascetic personality and messianic identity. The social identity differ in their basic forms of behavior in contrast to the universe.

Harmonic person experiencing the universe as a cosmos, animated inner harmony, which is not subject to any human guidance, no registration, and which should be only contemplate and loved. There is no thought about evolution, but there is only a static idea of peace. World from the goal. So feel Homeric Greek, Chinese Kung-Ttse Christians Gothic period. The heroic person sees the world in chaos, which it must make its organizing power. Here, all in motion. The world has the goal defined by man. It felt ancient Rome, Roman and Germanic peoples in the beginning of this century.

Ascetic personality feels life is confusing on which it runs in the mystical essence of things. So feel Hindus or Greeks neoplatoniki.

Finally, the messianic identity feels to establish on earth the supreme divine order, whose image it is a fatal way. She wants to rebuild around him that harmony which feels in himself. So felt the first Christians and the majority Slavs.

The four prototype "can be defined as harmony with the world, rule over the world, escape from the world and the lighting world. The classification of social identities on the prototype can not be considered strictly scientific, because it is based on Buddhist teachings Klapy on the teachings of the Persians and Hindus on the four world ages . Nevertheless, this classification is the real way and is very useful in addressing the many historical problems, including when considering the subject of culture. European culture is rooted in the Gothic era, and its bearer was a harmonic person. Gothic era grew from the spiritual turmoil XI-th century and lasted until the XVI-ro-century. The whole imbued with a feeling of eternity, black man brought up his green eyes. More and more prayers raised his temples to the sky. Gothic man was busy only salvation. Earthly case of little interest. GOTHIC AGE WITH ITS Harmonic PROTOTYPE SOCIAL PERSON TO CREATE spiritual unity of Europe, European culture. This culture was Christian by faith and in the hierarchy of values.

However, between 1450-1550 years, tremendous changes taking place in the nature of European culture. From a culture of harmony, it turns into Promethian culture carrier which is a heroic prototype of social identity. The new man drew his gaze to the ground, in the broad to give all the land, rather than the endless sky, as it was before. Only then are the possible major geographical discoveries. New people are already focusing their attention not to save souls, but to master the world. He wants to be lord of the earth, but because God he was not very necessary. Man wants to create a world of their own volition. But what is this desire? Here is manifested the essence of European. During his back harmonic culture, behind his back Christian values, where a man with his spiritual needs is at the center of culture.

And if the new person wants to remake the world, only in the direction of justice. This is not about how the world actually able to do just the Europeans, we are talking about his intentions. But the intention of this was really worthy of attention. All social theories, including modern socialism and the teachings of Marx, were inspired ideal of social justice. But without God, social harmony and justice can only excel in the legal community. And this has created a European society. This is his most fundamental essence. Throughout the world, no one else can create an ordered society, where the law so thoroughly replaced God and religious morality. Thus, in the last millennium has European harmonic and heroic era that shaped his character.

Different era and were in many ways, they influenced European. But they created a holistic Europeans and European culture. To emphasize the influence of two different eras, remember that Rome and Ellada are part of the same grekorimskoy culture. This is especially emphasized sensational author of the book "The Fall of Europe" Spengler. But if you try to penetrate the essence of the Greco-Roman culture, we see that Ellada represents a harmonic, and Rome - a heroic prototype. Grek feels organically, Roman is seeking to mechanization. Roman legal thinking and the strictness of the rules clearly do not correspond to the Greek spirit. Greek and Roman city of the empire should not lead to the same denominator. The architecture reflects both the peoples of the opposite zhizneoschuschenie. Greek architecture in its horizontal position fondly pressed to the ground and seemed to breathe it. Roman round arch, kingly bending over land meant power over her.

The Romans, Greeks, in contrast, has not raised any philosophy, they are lawyers, even when dealing with the philosophy. Yet no European nation can not be understood in its modern guise, without Roman influence. Conversely, people who are not experiencing the Roman influence, can not be called European.

All European nations are the features of Roman influence. Although not all the same. Italy inherited circumlocution, France - the acuteness of mind, Germany - drill, and England - greed. Britons known as the modern Romans, the Romans believed Hitler modern Prussian. Legitimate heirs of Rome, Napoleon saw in the French and Mussolini - in Italians.

Each of these views may be protected, because each of them partially justified. Rome spirit have a strong impact on European poslegoticheskoy era through the Roman law. Along with the Reformation and Renaissance Roman law was the third large cultural process that has changed the outlook of Europeans.

Thus, the history of European culture - a history of Greek culture, with the harmonic conversion of the Roman scientific and legal culture. What can we say about a truly permanent feature or features of European culture? Here we want to call the former head of the department of general history, Harvard University Professor Kerin Brintonu. In his capital work "The History of Western thought" (Fisek, K. Turkiycdekapitalizmmgelismesi veiscesinifi. Ankara, 1969.), He writes: "Some broad generalizations about the intellectual climate of the West possible. First, it should be noted that in any other culture of the natural Science is not reached the flowering, which they reached in the West. However, increasingly, representatives of other cultures are beginning to make very significant progress in various sciences, but science in its modern form has clearly influenced the West, where it was developed. Yes, it is could be developed only in the western atmosphere, marked by opposition between the real ideal of the world - the world differently. a complete absorption of the spirit world would make science impossible. Science needs not only in the interest in the material objects it needs and to develop the intellectual apparatus of the incredibly complex classification of objects, which we call science. At the outset, it needs a long training in the use of reason. This training provided us with Greek and medieval philosophy and theology, despised naive logical positivist. Thrust to scientific knowledge is part of the western system of values.

The first generalization that we can do on the western thinking, in general, is as follows: starting with the Greeks and medieval Christians to educators past and present, it has the conviction that human confidence in the availability of property is a vague consciousness of the world organization. This organization is not clear to unreflecting people unprovable scientific methods, never fully postigaema even the best and wise people. Nevertheless, it is - good organization, not chaos. In the course of centuries, the most obvious indicator of consciousness served as the term "natural right", a term interpreted in different ways stoic, scholastic philosopher, or XVIII century, it nevertheless means for all three faith in the essence of the desired order of things. The very concept - a natural right for the Europeans meant that the gap between real and ideal, between what we have, and those which aspire to, actually - do not divide, the gap is not, and communications.

Secondly, the entire spiritual history of the West marked a recognition of the "human dignity" that people should not be treated like animals. However, changing area, which acted this notion, as varied and groups, among which it occurred. In ancient Greece the term was in some respects limited group of Hellenistic closed. It is obvious that it was limited to a closed group of the early Jews. Greek stoic and biblical prophets to make this idea on the weight of humanity. For Christianity, all people are equal because they possess immortal souls. Fundamental democratic slogan "Liberty, equality and fraternity" are an integral part of the heavenly city of the XVIII century. In our modern world view, this slogan - a direct reflection of the direct successor to the Christian notion of equality of souls before God. The main Western culture clearly separates the human from the rest of the universe, which it denies in a privileged position, resulting from participation in a moral struggle. Animals in the submission of the West do not have souls. Pantheism and even less faith in the resettlement of souls are not typical Western scholars. And Hindus, who believe the Europeans barbarians, said that the Europeans without remorse refer to their brothers, the animals.

And thirdly, it should be noted very continuity of Western ideas on the happy life in this world. At the heart of this concept is way of life, serving the ideal of the artistic culture of Greece - the ideal consisting of rejection of all the excessive, the ideal of the golden mean. In other words, as a further generalization of European culture should be recognized for her self. Crane Brinton believes that it would be risky to look beyond these generalizations, which disappointed adherents istoriosofskih schemes. He acknowledged that he could not answer the question why Western society has proved most successful in the entire history of humanity, but our answer to this question and are not interested. We have enough to note the success of European culture and to highlight some of its distinguishing features.

Thus, the development of science, the Christian recognition of human dignity and self from over-represent the essence of European culture. All these features have already been finalized, when in Europe there were Turks. They have not caught harmonic era, they only saw the beginning of the heroic era, when the Europeans were on the road to the creation of legal societies.

Chapters: "The Turks, Turkish-Russian-European.")

TURKS
The ancestors of the modern Turkish - Oguz nomadic tribes - the first time entered into Anatolia from Central Asia in the XI century during the Seljuk conquest (Gem, I. Turkiyede geri kalmisligin tarihi. Istanbul, 1971).. In the XII th century to the Seljuks conquered maloaziatskih lands an Ikoniysky Sultanate. In HSH century under the onslaught of the Mongols migration of Turkic tribes in Anatolia, has increased. However, the Mongol invasions in Asia Minor Ikoniysky Sultanate split into feudal principalities, one of whom managed to Osman-Bey. In 1281-1324 years he turned his possession of an independent principality, which became the name of Osman Ottoman. Later it became the Ottoman Empire, and the tribes inhabiting this State, was named the Turkish Ottomans. Sam Osman, the son of the leader of a tribe of Oguz Ertogula. Thus, the first State of the Turkish Ottoman State was Oguz. Who are Oguzes? Tribal Union Oguzes arose at the beginning of VII-th century in Central Asia. The prevailing situation in the Union were Uighurs. As I X-th century Oguzes, tesnimye Kyrgyzstan, moved into the territory of Xinjiang. In the X century in the lower reaches of the Syr Darya is created the State Oguzes centered on Yanshkente. In the middle of XI century, this state was ransacked came from the east Kivchagh. Oguz, together with the Seljuks moved to Europe. Unfortunately, nothing is known about the public order Oguz, and today it is impossible to find any link between the State and the Ottoman Oguzes, but we can assume that the Ottoman government was built on the experience of Oguz state. The son and successor Orhan Osman-Bey in 1326 have won the Byzantines Bruce, making it their capital, and then captured the east coast of the Marmara Sea and entrenched in Galliopolskom island. Murad I (1359-1389), which had had the title of Sultan, conquered the entire eastern Thrace, including Andrianopol, which moved the capital of Turkey (1365), and eliminated the autonomy of some principalities in Anatolia. When Bayazide I (1389-4402) the Turks conquered Bulgaria, Macedonia, Thessaly and came to Constantinople. Invasion of Timur on Anatolia and rout the troops Bayazida in the Battle of Angora (1402) at the time stopped advancing Turks in Europe. When Murad II (1421-1451) the Turks resumed their offensive in Europe. Mehmed II (1451-1481) after polutoromesyachnoy siege took Constantinople. Byzantine Empire ceased to exist. Constantinople (Istanbul) became the capital of the Ottoman Empire. Mehmed II abolished the remnants of an independent Serbia, conquered Bosnia, most of Greece, Moldova, Crimean Khanate, and completed the subjugation of almost all of Anatolia. Sultan Selim I (1512-1520) conquered Mosul, Syria, Palestine and Egypt, followed by Hungary and Algeria. Turkey became the largest military power at the time. The Ottoman Empire did not have internal ethnic unity, and yet, in the XV century ended with the formation of the Turkish nation. What was this young nation of their shoulders? Experience Oguz States and Islam. Together with Islam, the Turks perceive the Muslim right, which is as markedly different from that of Roman law as it has been opposed by the Turks Europeans. Long before the arrival of Turks in Europe, the Arab Caliphate only legal code was the Koran. However, the legal subordination of the more developed nations has led caliphate faced significant challenges. In the VI I century is a list of tips and commandments Muhammad, which is supplemented with time and soon reaches a few tens of volumes. A set of these laws, together with the Koran was the so-called sunnu, or "righteous path" (Hairenik Daily. Boston. January 16, 1980.). These laws and the rights of the vast nature of the Arab Caliphate. However, conquerors gradually acquainted with the laws of conquered peoples, mainly from Roman law, and have the same laws as Muhammad conquered deliver. In VIII century Abu Hanifa (696-767) founded the first law school. He was a Persian by descent, and managed to create a legal line, which is flexibly combined strict Muslim principles and necessities of life. In these laws, Christians and Jews were given the right to use their customary laws.

It seems that the Arabic Caliphate went on the road to becoming a legal society. However, this did not happen. Neither the Arabic Caliphate, nor any subsequent medieval Muslim states have not established an approved state laws. The main essence of Islamic law is the existence of a huge divide between the legal and actual rights. Authorities Muhammad was theocratic in nature and was in itself a divine or political beginning. However, according to the covenant Muhammad, the new caliph should have been either elected at the general meeting or appointed before the death of the previous Caliph. But in reality, the power-Khalifa has always passed by inheritance. According to Mohammedan law, the legal community, especially the community of the capital, had the right to remove Caliph with a bad conduct discharge for mental disability, or loss of eyesight and hearing. But the Caliph has absolute power, and the whole country was considered his property. Violates the laws and in the opposite direction. According to the legal laws of a non-Muslim had no right to participate in the governance of the country. He not only had no right to be at court, but could not control the area or city. In reality, the caliph, at its discretion, appoint non-Muslims to the highest public office. Thus, if the Europeans in the transition from a harmonic of the heroic era, was replaced by the God of Roman law, is held in Central Asia a harmonious period, future magometane in the heroic era of the right, along with religion turned into a toy, the ruler of Caliphate, which was a legislator and executor and a judge.

Something like we saw in the Soviet Union during the Stalinist government. This form of government is inherent in all oriental despotism and radically different from European forms of government. This form of government gives rise to unbridled luxury of the rulers with the harem, bondage and violence. It generates a catastrophic scientific, technological and economic backwardness of the people. Today, many sociologists and economists, and especially in Turkey itself, trying to find out the causes of economic backwardness, the Ottoman Empire, which survived to this day, despite a number of so-called revolutions in the country. With criticism of the Turkish past are many Turkish authors, but none of them dares to criticize the roots of the Turkish regime and backwardness of the Ottoman Empire. Maybe, except you can recognize the work of the Turkish Communist Khalis Ohana development of capitalism in Turkey "(Hotham, D. The Turks. London, 1972.), Which came into light in the Bulgarian language. The approach is the other authors in the history of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, is fundamentally different from the approach of modern historical science. Turkish authors, first of all, trying to prove that Turkish history has its specific features that are absent in the histories of all other peoples. This point of view, in particular, is a historian Sendzher (Los Angeles Times. June 8, 1980.). He writes: "Historians studying the social order the Ottoman Empire, not only did not try to compare it with the general historical laws, and laws, but, rather, were forced to show what Turkey and Turkish history are different from other countries and from all other stories." According to another author, Cem (Nersesyan AM Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire. Yerevan, 1966.) Ottoman social order was very convenient and good for the Turks, and the empire has developed its special way until the turkey is not got a European influence . He believes that under the European influence of an economic liberalization, legalized the right to ownership of land, freedom of trade and a number of other activities, all of which devastated the empire. In other words, according to the author, the Turkish empire devastated as a result of penetrating into the European principles. This view was defended many authors, in particular, the historian Barkan, (Ohan, H. Rozvitie kapitalizma v Turtsii. Sofia, 1961), sociologist chips (Pipes, R. Soviet Strategy in Europe. New York, 1976), partly Sendzher and other . But there is a contrary view, which is widely held by public figures, academics and the arts. Their views reflect Mumtah Dr. Targan (Sach, E. Mohammedanisches Recht nach Schafutischer Lehre. Stuttgart), who believes that the cause of underdevelopment and the Ottoman Empire, modern Turkey - low Europeanization of Turkey. Of course, this view deserves more attention. However, it does not provide an answer to a question: Could the European culture is more to cover the Turkish society?

As indicated in the previous chapter, the characteristics of European culture have been right, self, development of science and respect for the individual. In contrast, in Islamic law, we saw the unlimited power of the ruler, which is not to put a person and generates unbridled luxury. Give faith and passions society, almost completely neglects the sciences and, therefore, is a primitive economy. There is a substantial difference whether the two cultures made it impossible for them to union, much less a synthesis?

Crane Brinton has already been cited in our paper writes: "Even the most idealistic-minded cosmopolitan obliged to reckon with the possibility that in the next generations of the rest of the world pereymet the West, at least its physical demands, and that Ford, the installation of artificial climate and serial cartoons newspapers replace Confucius, Lao Tzu and Buddha. " But this did not happen. On the contrary, we have seen in Iran collapsed on the European model constructed building, along with Ford and serial cartoons, and Europe took the place of displaced 80-year-old Ayatollah Khomeini, who ordered the women to close the face scarves. Both women have closed. It's hard to judge which is better: private individual or mini-skirts and sex movies. Difficult to assess what is better: the prohibition of alcoholic beverages or alcohol-free. But one is clear - these prohibitions do not have anything in common with European culture and the rule of law. It turned out that all attempts to "Westerners" Iran inculcate host European culture have been inconclusive.

Emerging in the second half of XVI century, signs of internal decay of Turkey by the middle of XVII century, it is clearly evident in all areas of economic, financial, government and military affairs. The threat of complete disintegration and death of the Ottoman Empire gave birth to a certain part of the Turkish ruling circles of the desire to reform. The first serious attempt of this kind was made in the reign of Sultan Selim III (1789-1807). The promise of reform known as "the new system." And despite the extremely limited nature of these innovations, they have aroused strong opposition to the Muslim clergy. "The new system has failed. The collapse of the new system showed that Turkey is not able to accept European norms of behavior. In 1826 Sultan Mahmud II also had some of the reforms. He in particular has replaced the military administrators of the civil officials, established a ministry, founded the first Turkish newspaper. These events paved the way for the so-called tanizma, which was the most serious attempt by means of reforms to make the Turkish empire viable. But this attempt failed, as has been very stable in non-European part of Turkey.

In 1876, Turkey has a coup, which resulted in the Sultan Abdul Aziz was overthrown and the power actually shifted into the hands of Midhat and New Osmanov. Abdul Hamid II promised Midhat Constitution modeled on the European countries. In fact, Abdul Hameed addressed the Constitution as a diplomatic maneuver. He proclaimed the Constitution in 1876 on the eve of the opening of an international conference on reforms in the Balkans, but in January 1877 as soon as the conference closed, he was ousted Madhat pashu from the Great Vezirov and disbanded parliament, which was established on the basis of the Constitution. This is the Europeanization of Turkey's attempt ended in failure.

At the end of XIX century in Turkey emerged mladoturetskoe movement. The participants were intellectuals, military officers, doctors, minor officials. The main political organization was the Young Committee "Unity and Progress." In 1908 mladoturki came to power. They have made the restoration of the Constitution and the convening of Parliament, but have led policy of brutal suppression of freedoms and in particular the freedoms of non-Muslims in Turkey. About how mladoturki been far from the European forms of government, it shows Talaat Bey, in a secret meeting in Thessaloniki before the Committee of Unity and Progress "(Schubert, W. Evropa i Duma Vostoka. Frankfurt, 1947). According to the English Vice - Consul Arthur B. Henry said in the speech Talaat said: "You know that under the constitution has been confirmed by the equality of Muslims and giaour, but you all together and individually know and feel that it is impracticable ideal. Shariat, the whole our past history, the feelings of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and even a sense of themselves giaour, stubbornly resisting any attempt ottomanizirovat they represent formidable barrier to the establishment of effective equality. We have made unsuccessful attempts at treatment giaour loyal osmantsev. Any such efforts would always fail until the while small, independent Balkan state have the opportunity to spread separatist ideas among the population of Macedonia. Therefore, there can be no question of equality until we do not succeed in our task ottomanizatsii.

In other words, Talaat once observed that "all of them together and individually" were not the Europeans, for the Shari'a and all their past history, together with feelings of hundreds of thousands of Muslims have nothing in common with Europe.

During the First World War, the rulers of the Ottoman Empire organized the first genocide of the twentieth-first century, victims of which were about a half million Armenians. Numerous papers (Sencer, M. Turk toplanmanin tarihde evrimi. Istanbul, 1969) show that the brutality of the so-called "progressive Turks" far surpassed the brutality of the Sultans, and more constitutional Turkey away from Europe. In 1979, the UN Commission on Human Rights recognized the genocide of the Armenians - the first genocide of the twentieth-century (Spengler, Zakat Evropy. Munchen, 1968).

At the end of World War I Ottoman Empire collapsed, and its wreckage of General Mustafa Kemal tried to build a legal Turkish society. He laid the foundations of the modern state of Turkey.

It is a European state is a modern Turkey? It should be recognized that in this direction Mustafa Kemal made a great deal. Born in the flames of World War I and storms in the Russian revolution, the Turkish Parliamentary republic has all the appearances of the state. Turkey's Constitution, adopted in 1924, with small changes in force until the present time. The supreme power of Turkey by a unicameral parliament - the Grand National Assembly (Majlis), directly elected by citizens of both sexes. Moreover, in legal terms Turkey is much ahead of its great neighbor - the USSR, with which and through which she was born. The citizens of modern Turkey are free to travel abroad, can create different parties, to publish any newspapers, to organize strikes, etc. Nevertheless, Turkey, the European form, the content is far from a European country. First of all, it should be noted that Kemalistskoe movement was initiated not for the purpose of the Europeanization of the country, and in order to rescue Turkey from the political section, which was scheduled Sevr contract. You need to pay tribute to Mustafa Kemal, who really saved Turkey. Before the Europeans, he perfectly played the card of Europeanization and democratization of the country, as with Lenin, he played in socialism, and as a result deceived both. Once in power, he first shot the Communists, then it started to education, which was the rejection of Islamic law. All of his reforms, most notably the introduction of Latin characters, were fleeing from the Koran. But democracy itself was not. Remained single, and the power was actually in the hands of the army.

Only in 1945, İsmet İnönü announced a multi. And only then discovered that Kemal was unable to move away from Islamic law. Democratic Party of Menderes, playing on the religious sentiments of the people, was able to come to power. Here's what happened is that today can be described as "an Iranian phenomenon." Just as religious adherents of Ayatollah Khomeini almost without a single shot smashed all the seemingly inviolable, machine check, and in Turkey, shortly after Kemal, an overwhelming majority came to power, those who re-established law on the wearing of women covered, entered the prayer for Arabic and repaired everything that even further away from Turkey to Europe.

The military coup of 1960, which resulted in the Menderes was on the gallows, can be regarded as another attempt to dissociation from the Muslim law. However, despite the fact that the military has acted as followers of Kemal, this time they are more likely to realize that Turkey is not ready for democracy. Subsequent events showed that they were right. Already today we are witnessing the fact that over the past two years in Turkey, there were more than 3000 political killings (Targan, M. Carpililasmanin nercsindeyiz. Istanbul, 1961). Economically, the country literally dilapidate. The only source of its existence is its geographical location, because of its strategic importance which is fed up some, then others. That is why in Europe it is totally unreliable ally. At any moment it can flash at a camp where she was better paid, and the Soviet Union is known to be able to pay. Nothing has changed in the lives of people. 70% of this so-called European countries engaged in agriculture. In the provinces, kept polygamy, blood feud and the informal power mullahs. Multiparty system is only a formality, since the real power is in the army, which invisibly governs the country.

All of this suggests that the attempt to enter Turkey Kemal to the family of European peoples, like all previous attempts failed. Moreover, it is impossible to do so in the near future, when Islamic law is beginning to experience rebirth. Maybe it is time when the Europeans do not be so honorable as it was once. And here it is in this context is interesting to consider the problem: Turkey, Russia, the West.

Turku - Russian - European
The bearer of a culture of the people. However, one of the main parties to a culture defined by the fact, what layer is the carrier. European culture - a culture middle. Its carrier is the middle class. Its virtues - poise, education, the subject, the desire to avoid excesses. European to the extent that he even gives a value of religion, seeking to transform it into a tool and an instrument of order. The state becomes God, and service of the State of social debt.

Turkish culture is vulgar culture, the culture of the illiterate religious fanatics. Such a culture and character of the people are in close relationship. Culture of delaying the development of people and poor people attached to the culture of resistance. Unlike the middle of European culture Asian culture - the culture of extremes. Its principle - arbitrariness, lack of self-care and order, riot passions. However, it contains a non something spiritual, even at the level of fanaticism. Russian culture is the culture of the elite. Her support has always been a favorite company of Russian intellectuals, and people in general are within the orthodoxy. Among Europeans, the poor will never look at the rich with envy. Among the rich Russians often look at the poor with shame. While the European striving to seem larger than it really is, not only Russian frankly acknowledged their mistakes and weaknesses, and even exaggerates them. Out of a sense of guilt of the idea of sacrifice grew into a central idea of Russian ethics. Without death there is no resurrection without the victim there is no rebirth. The bearer of such a culture could only be elected society. In all countries, the so-called educators begin with, the culture took a grass roots and to make it surface. Peter the Great of Russia, the Shah in Iran, Mustafa Kemal in Turkey tried to do so. In Russia, this seems to be possible. In the Muslim world, it seems, has nothing goes. And yet, the way this is likely the only one. And if one accepts the correctness of the path, then the conclusion: if Turkey ever to become a European country, the way this is likely to take place across Russia.

Russia lies between Asia and Europe, and apparently it is to solve the problem of reconciliation with East West. In 1855, because of the threat of war in Afghanistan created a clash between England and Russia, a book publicist Sergei Yushakova Anglo-Russian conflict, where the author predicted that the clash between the peasants and bourgeois cultures is inevitable. Russian peasant - the hope of Asia, and it its wake, - concluded the author. He was right, and Russian peasants actually woke Asia. In 1912, the Futurists movement in Russia was a strong rebellion against the European culture. However, Russia greedily grabbed the ideas of modern Europe and brought them to the Asian extremes. In a sense, it has become bridge between Europe and Asia, ie, world order, which is the way of all Asians who want to Europe. That is why, first, the Turkish communism possible. It is possible, because communism is everywhere where there is political chaos, economic ruin and cultural backwardness. However, communism does not know how to solve any of these problems, but it appears inevitable in this situation. It is in this situation is a modern Turkey. We need to acknowledge that European culture is unfeeling. It did so in the sciences, which are almost completely taken away from the European religion. But the universal problem of worldly goods in the sciences have been unable to solve. Has never been a culture that, like Europe, with such energy and one-sidedness has sought to achieve material happiness, preziraya concerned about saving souls, and has never been a culture that would make people so unhappy and poor, as a modern European culture. In order to achieve its goal, the modern European man has created a world that we call civilization. Since the case was full of a European great power. But what is more mechanized, so. is a growing dissatisfaction with the culture. More and more European feel starts that Europe on the wrong path. The artificial world, more and more relieved of its creator, grows over it and starts to operate under its own laws. Modern European schemyaschim oppressed feeling the lack of freedom and losers created its own technical body. In such a situation, the European culture is becoming less attractive, and it refused to many people.

European culture in need of spiritual fertilization, which can occur under the influence of Russia or any other religious culture. In this regard, and Turkey could contribute to the spiritual European culture. But for this it needs above all a difficult path of self-purification. All civilized nations have been this difficult path, condemning all the bad in their past history. Could the colonial system collapse if slavery would not have been convicted in principle? Englishmen, Germans, Americans, Belgians, Russian and many other nations to build a modern morality to criticize the past. Only the rulers of Turkey are hesitant to revise their attitude to the bloody history the Ottoman Empire. Instead, the only correct way of self-Turkish public and the idea is trying to whitewash itself in the eyes of world public opinion ridiculously naive distortion of history.

In August 1979 in Ankara was the 4 th exit on the south-eastern Europe. The Convention was attended by about 700 scientists from the USSR, France, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, the United States, Britain, Canada and many other countries. And at a representative congress of the Turkish historians have proved that in the Ottoman Empire, the peasants were free, both legally and socially. Moreover, they condemned all the liberation movements that were directed against sultanskogo regime and have created a crisis in the empire. They also refused to recognize the Armenian Genocide. All this suggests that public opinion in Turkey is still in captivity unbridled glorification of his past, where there is no culturally or legally there is nothing worthy of praise. With such attitude to the past has been difficult for Europeans. To become a Christian or a Mohammedan, you must renounce ognepoklonstva. To be a European, it is necessary to abandon the principles of non-European. We have seen a strange thing happens. In the race against the Turks have long since ceased to be Turkish. The system of polygamy, in harems which were mainly Greek, Armenian and Jewish, has made a second-generation children of Turkish notables half. And in the 10 th generation of Turks biologically nothing, and they really do not resemble their skulastyh m-eyed fellow from Central Asia. But spiritually, in a culture of the Turks remained without change, because did not reassess the value. Does it? Do not take judge. But one, at least, is obvious: TURK IS NOT European.

Part 3. Chapter: "The Armenians")

ARMENIANS
Armenian problem affects Otham chapter "Byzantium, the Kurds, the Armenians." The problem is much harder than it introduced the author, and the Armenian people deserve far more attention than it has given Europe and the civilized world.

Armenians - one of the most ancient inhabitants of Anatolia. They can safely say that they lived there at home in Armenia, always. This talented people have 2000 years of national identity and is the first Christian nations of the world.

Points of origin of the Armenian people and its prarodiny are always interested in the scientific world. However, consideration of these issues is complicated by the fact that the data of anthropology, ethnography and cultural history does not coincide with those of linguistics. Anthropologists have indicated that the identified in the territory of the Armenian plateau as a result of archaeological excavation of human skulls, dating from the fourth millennium BC, belong to a group armenoidov. Researches the history of the development of culture, in turn, pointed out that, since ancient times, the Armenian Plateau and has been continuously developing a unified culture. Armenian Legends and epic show that Armenians have been neighbors of Assyria and Babylon. All of this suggests that the Armenians in the fourth millennium before Christ had lived in the Armenian highlands. However, crucial data are linguistics. And now the Soviet scientist, Professor Ishkhanyan, recently published an article which sheds some light on this problem. Here we present the main conclusions of Professor Ishkhanyan.

Speaking about the Armenian people, we primarily have in mind people who speak Armenian. Revealing their secrets of millennia, the Armenian language was supposed to show: if he had long sounded in the Armenian highlands? As is known, the Armenian language belongs to a group of Indo-European languages. Many linguists assume that the homeland of Indo-Europeans was in the northern part of Europe. Then the researchers went to the valley of the Danube to the Balkans. Then they began to express assumptions about the time when the Armenians came to the Armenian Highland. Finally, recent studies have shown that the first Indo-Europeans lived on the territory of the Armenian plateau, and that the ancient homeland and culture Indo-Europeans in the area of Kuro-Arakskoy culture. Lingvisticki and the newest archaeological discoveries confirm the data of anthropology, ethnography and cultural history, that the Armenians - the Armenian upland indigenous Aborigines. Armenia - one of the oldest countries in the world, with its remarkable monuments. The largest Armenian culture connoisseurs believe that the history of Armenia is noteworthy, in the same way as the history of the greatest people that have made their own contribution to the culture of mankind, not excluding any Egyptian or Hellenistic or Roman or modern European nations.

Monuments of Armenia covers the period from the Paleolithic to the present day. Excavations Shengavita, Elara, Metsamor and other Armenian sites provide rich data on agriculture and animal husbandry work in Armenia as early as the third millennium before Christ. In the second millennium before Christ a great development of culture were bronze and iron production, which contributed to strengthening economic ties between the tribes and the education of tribal alliances Urartu, Nairi and others. One of the most ancient tribes were armeny. In the early first millennium before Christ to the Armenian Plateau state-education.

Already in the I-X century before Christ appeared Tushpa ancient state of Urartu (Van). At various times the major economic and political centers of the state of Urartu were Erebuni (Yerevan), Argishtihinili and Teishebaini. Living in western parts of the Armenian highlands; Hayee and armeny were allied tribes, have much in common in everyday life, traditions and language. Gradually, the two tribe entered into a general union and became the basis of formation of the Armenian people as an ethnic community. Already at the beginning of VI century BC, after the fall of Urartu Armenian state emerged - Arminia Bielefeld, which became a milestone in the history of the Armenian people. According to Xenophon (V century BC) in Armenia was a high level of agricultural crops grown grain, grapes, etc. In the villages prepare beer and other drinks. In the cities of developing skills and building equipment.

In 189 BC Armenian king Artashes I became a founder of the dynasty Artashesids, Artashat which became the capital of Great Armenia. Soon, the city has become a major economic and cultural center of the country, the nodal point of international transit trade. In the reign of Tigran II (99-55) Armenia has made significant economic and cultural development. It has played a marginal role in the development of Hellenistic culture. In the 80 BC Tigran II founded a new capital - Tigranakert. In the construction of the major administrative and cultural center was attended by the best craftsmen from other countries. According to Roman historian Appian, from many cities in the Hellenistic Tigranakert and other cities of Armenia were resettled 300 thousand inhabitants. Surrounded by high walls and decorated with magnificent palaces and buildings, Tigranakert was one of the most beautiful cities in the world. By the middle of the first century BC Tigran monarchy gained considerable influence in Asia Minor and made rival Rome.

When the son of Tigran II Artavazd II of Armenia has received a special flowering of Hellenistic theatrical culture. On stage Artashat Theater staged the Armenian and Greek drama. It should be noted that the slave system in Armenia has not received a classical form, as in Greece and Rome. Already III-IV century, during the reign of Arshakidov, in Armenia, fueling a feudal society. This process will accelerate the adoption in Armenia at the beginning of IV century Christianity as state religion.

Together with a feudalism feudal fragmentation and internecine war that led to economic and political weakening of the country. Using these, the 387 year Byzantium and Persia divided Armenia among themselves. In 451 the Armenian nation, led by commanders Vartanov Mamikonyanom up to the religious war against Persia and defend Christianity. And in the years 481-484 people, led by Vaganov Mamikonyanom and Sahak Bagratuni began the liberation war, after which the Persian king was forced to make peace with the Armenians.

A special role in the development of the cultural life of the Armenian people belong to Mesrop Mashtots, established in year 405 Armenian alphabet. Historian Horensky he believes that the Armenian people to enjoy this alphabet of other people and had its literary monuments. But with the adoption of Christianity, these monuments were killed. In Armenia, opened the school in which the training was conducted in the native language. Expanding translated and original literature on the history, philosophy, science, religion, etc. The Armenian language classic works of Greek authors: Aristotle, Zeno and other thinkers of antiquity. In V-VII centuries to the historic arena got a whole galaxy of well-known representatives of the Armenian science and culture. Among them special place is occupied by historians Koryun, Faust Byzantine, Agafangel, Yeghishe, Moses Horensky, Lazar Parpetsi, Sebeos, philosophers David irresistible, Erznik Kohpatsi, mathematician Shirakatsi Ananias and others, played a prominent role in the development of science and culture.

Meanwhile, Armenia began to threaten the new conquerors. In the year 640 on its territory invaded by the Arabs, who with fire and sword have become desolate towns and villages. Only in the Dvina 12 thousand people were killed and taken prisoner by 35 thousand people. Almost 100 years with varying success Armenians fought Inozemtsev, but at the beginning of VIII century, the Arabs managed to take possession of Armenia, and finally establish its dominance over it. Arabs were unable to force the Armenians nor their religion, or culture. Yes, and administratively to the Armenians so often raised the rebellion that eventually, in the 922 year Caliphate was forced to make concessions. He sent the Armenian king Ashot II crown, and declared him the title of "Prince of Princes" in Armenia. In X and XI in the early centuries Armenia has made significant economic and cultural recovery. The capital of Armenia became the city of Ani. the ruins of which still are amazing architectural masterpieces.

Economic and cultural development of Armenia was suspended Seljuk invasion in 1064. They destroyed a blossoming Armenian capital of Ani. Much of the population has been destroyed, and who survived the flight moved to the western areas of Byzantium, and in Cilicia. In Cilicia Armenian state was founded, which lasted until 1375 and which fell under the blows of the Egyptian troops Sultan. Once there were Turks in Anatolia, Armenia became the scene of endless wars between Persia and Turkey. On one of the Turkish invasions Pechevi historian wrote in 1533 (today it is not written): "Sultanskie troops, as the ants attacked the country. In the area Shoragyala they made such a rout that the homes were compared with the land. Wherever passed Sultan's troops, all they left behind the ruins and ashes. They alone to cause the evil plague of people taken captive, but who can not walk - those killed. "

In 1639 a treaty on Tigranakertskomu Armenia was divided between Turkey and Persia. Western Armenia ceded to Turkey, Eastern - to Persia. Since then, the Armenians are divided into East and West, and from that time until 1918, Armenians were deprived of their statehood.

However, it should give them - lost a statesman, they transferred the functions of church and state were able to maintain national identity, national unity and national independence in a culturally appropriate. But subjected to harassment of both western and eastern Armenians. Especially cruel was the oppression of Armenians in Turkey. Social and national oppression of the Western Armenians took the most disgraceful and disgusting forms. The wild arbitrariness sultans had no boundaries. Armenians have been constantly under the threat of pogroms and massacres. Russian General Lihutin, who visited in the years 1854-1855 in Western Armenia, wrote: "The fate of the Armenians and other Christians of Turkey, is regrettable. I saw a few Armenians and the cut off ears and noses that had been made not to prosecute, but the rich and the arbitrariness influential foreman. The Armenians are in troubled condition. "

In these circumstances, among the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire certainly had the will to freedom, to fight for their rights. In the quest for salvation from the unimaginable oppression, Armenians resorted to self-defense. The release of the Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians from the Turkish yoke with the help of Russia and encouraged the Armenian people. As for the western, eastern and among the Armenians, it is of course Russian orientation, which is very costly to the Armenians. Sultanskoe the Government acted with fire and sword. Armenian national problem already on the agenda, but for the settlement of the Turkish government was aware of only one path - the path of massacres and the physical destruction of people.

Sultan Abdul Hamid, after the Berlin Congress has been cynically said that to solve the Armenian question you need to destroy the Armenian people. In 1882, the office of Russian Vice-Consul in Vienna, said the Ambassador in Constantinople: "The most senior officials openly expressed, that the Armenians are preparing a second Bulgaria and that they, the Turks, trained bitter experience, be able to stifle hurtful to their government element, and therefore to forever put an end to the Armenian question. "

Since the policy of destroying the Armenian rulers of the Ottoman Empire began in the 90's of the last century, talks about the carnage that was caused by the betrayal of Armenians during the First World War, did not have any soil.

In 1894, in Sasun 10,000 Armenians had been destroyed. In 1895 in Constantinople, Trapezunde, Erzurum, Marash, Sebastia, Van, Diarbekire and in other cities were destroyed around 100,000 Armenians. But all this was only the beginning of the tragedy. The real tragedy took to coming to power mladoturkov. This tragedy was a terrible, rare in the annals of world history. In dogitlerovsky period there were few people who have suffered such a great sacrifice, as the Armenians, and few countries in which it shed so much blood was shed as in Armenia.

Already in April 1909 in the city of Adana mladoturki destroyed 30,000 people. German Ambassador Vangeygeym who had close contact with leaders mladoturkov, 7 Jun., 1914 convey to his Government that the Turkish government really has to destroy the Armenian people.

Mladoturki massacres of Armenians carried out with unprecedented ruthlessness. French writer Henri Barbie, who visited in 1916 in Western Armenia, in his travel notes says: "He who now drives for devastated Armenia, can not help but shudder, so much talked about these unusually long have ruins and death. There is no tree, no cliff, not a single piece of moss, which is not defiled blood flow. There is no river or stream, which does not suffer to the eternal oblivion of hundreds of thousands of dead bodies. Met a single propasgi, no valley, which nebyli to open graves sky, in the depths of which no Belela would open piles of skeletons, as well as almost anywhere murderers not given neither time nor labor to bury their victims. In these vast areas that were once vibrant flowering Armenian settlements, there is devastation and bezlyude today. "

Genocide belongs to the historical tragedies that do not require a socio-historical analysis of the causes. There are crimes which by nature are absolute, and therefore do not require any proceedings, much less search for mitigating circumstances. Such crimes should be tried strictly and comprehensively.

But this has not been done either by the Turks, neither of mankind. ARMENIAN NUREMBERG did not take place, - writes the German historian Peter Lane in his book "The first genocide of the 20 th century." And he is right. Until now, the first genocide of the 20 th century, have claimed 1.5 million victims remain without condemnation. Maybe if at that time Armenian genocide would be tried just as strongly as it was done in relation to the second, the Jewish genocide, perhaps the second could have been avoided?

The Armenians were forced to arrange their own Nuremberg, organizing the assassination of almost all the main perpetrators of genocide. And this interesting detail. In Berlin, an area of Sharlotenburg from the hands of Armenian terrorists kill a former Turkish Minister of State Talaat-pasha.

The murderer was acquitted by a German court. But after Kemal dead murderer Minister transferred to Turkey and there shall be made to honor the earth. Is not this very fact indicates that Turkey is not only not condemned, but even where it attempted to justify the complete destruction of the Armenians. But not able to destroy the Armenians. Deploying the banner of national liberation war, Western and Eastern Armenians joint efforts in 1918 won a major victory over the regular Turkish troops under Sardarabadom and on May 28, 1918 proclaimed an independent Armenian Republic, which after several years was sovetizirovana and that there is still a part of the USSR .

Soviet Armenia occupies a territory of 30000 square kilometers and home to its territory, 3 million people, 90% of whom are Armenians. In the Soviet Union out of 1.5 million Armenian lives of Armenians - mostly in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Russia.

Abroad, home to about 2 million Armenians. They are concentrated in Lebanon, Iran, United States, Canada and South America.

Is there today Armenian question? Of course, it exists, in both moral and political sense. With regard to the moral side of it relates to condemnation of genocide, as by the leaders of modern Turkey, and from the leaders of other countries and the UN. The political side of the issue related to the (albeit symbolic) loss incurred by the Armenian people, and seeking the return of Armenians to their original historic land. In the end there the Armenians were not able to acquire real home, they continue to be persecuted people. The exception is the Soviet Armenia, which, however, and because of the regime, and because of the lack of territory, not in a position to take all the Armenians of the world, of which about 6 million and who want to live together.

Of course, the Armenian question today exists only for the Armenians themselves. But this is the most important and at the same time, the most dangerous. If you live in the nation, and if you live the people, sooner or later it will make itself felt, people will find themselves allies and enter into the struggle for a solution to this problem.

Before our eyes, Armenian political thought begins to experience revival. You are raising the political literature, there have been mass protests and even terrorist acts, aimed at drawing attention to Armenian issues. Do not be with them can not. Sooner or later the leaders of Turkey will have to reconsider its attitude towards the Armenians. The sooner they do, so on more favorable conditions, they will be able to make peace with this talented and hardworking people, who largely could help Turkey to withdraw from the economic crisis.

Are Turks Europeans? No, not the Europeans. Do I have them try to be Europeans? No, you do not. But to be an equal member of the family of European peoples, the Turks is essential. And for that they need to reconsider their attitude towards the Armenians, Kurds, and to its past history which is full of blood. It is not easy to do this, but this way - the only one. Only sincere repentance can open the way to the cultural, economic and political progress in Turkey.

(c) 2008

---

---

Are Turks European? by Bülent Şenay
Interrupted Identitites, Hybridity and Islam in Turkey

Here in this talk, I shall attempt to speak of the `contemporary Turkish Muslim identity` as an `interrupted and hybrid identity`, then leave the conclusion to you. It will not claim to present a `conclusive academic argument`, but an educated interpretation of the `in-betweenness of Turkish and Muslim identity in the context of EU-Turkey relations` as indicated in the title of this panel.

Last October, the European Commission issued a report in Brussels on Turkey's compliance with the Copenhagen criteria. At a summit in Amsterdam two months later on December 17th, Europe's 25 countries will decide whether to "give a date" (as the E.U. jargon has it) for full Turkish accession. No candidate that has "gotten a date" has ever been rejected, not even the corruption-plagued slackers of southeastern Europe. The E.U. must now ask itself whether Turkey is a rare hybrid society, possessed of the "moderate Islam" that statesmen of the world over have a duty to reward when they find it, or whether it is yet another secular state in the Islamic world that is about to tip back into theocracy. That is another myth entertained by the Western intellectuals about Islam.

The complex and enigmatic relationship between Turkey and Europe has been a source of continuous debate and controversy for many years. The debate has intensified in recent years, however, following the latest wave of the European Union's enlargement process toward the east, which incorporates the formerly communist Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) liberated from Soviet control and influence in the aftermath of the revolutions of 1989. As a Historian of World Religions, not a political scientist, I leave the analysis of this history to the experts in the field.

From what I perceive from the European Media, majorities of the public in all E.U. states oppose Turkish entry into the union. Their reasons are numerous and considerably more specific than those of Europe's political leaders. There are four main ones:

1. First are various population issues. Since passing its guest-worker laws in the early 1960s, Germany has acquired several million Turkish residents. More through Germany's fault than Turkey's, these newcomers have proved extremely endogamous and hard to assimilate. Turkey has 69 million people, and its population is growing at developing-world rates. Should Turkey get admitted, Turkish minorities in Europe will by that time be considerably larger than any of Europe's other countries. This means the possible influx of tens of millions of Turks into a Europe saddled with structural unemployment-and a voting bloc in the European parliament so enormous that no one could do anything to stop it.

2. Second are related economic questions. Turkey's per capita GNP is growing, but is still only $3,400. A banking collapse in early 2001 was contained, thanks to the largest IMF loan ever, but gigantic payments will soon come due. The current government has been rigorous in following the IMF plan, and inflation has fallen close to single digits for the first time in decades. (The Turkish lira, which 20 years ago was in the same logarithmic neighbourhood as the dollar, is now worth 1/13,000th of a cent.) ….. Turkish accession will not be cheap. Europe's leaders argue that in a global economy, it is unrealistic for Turkey to expect the billions in "development funds" that eased the accession of new members-even turning Ireland and Spain into developed economies. Turkey's leaders say they understand. But such assurances mean nothing. Once Turkey enters the E.U., the continent's voters will be offered a stark choice between paying for economic opportunity in Anatolia and welcoming a large fraction of the Turkish labor market into their cities. Wisely or not, they will probably choose the former. They will probably get both.

3. Third is the question of security in its various guises: The bombings in Istanbul last November were sobering to Europeans, who may flinch from belonging to a political union that borders on Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Europeans might also ask how they will treat the Kurdish aspiration for independence, once it becomes a domestic problem. A geostrategist might weigh these liabilities against an asset: Turkey has a vast conventional military capability that the other European states lack, including a larger battle-ready army than any on the continent. But this is not the way European publics like to think.

4. There is, finally, the question of Islam. Turkish Islam is indeed in many ways the moderate construction that people say it is. We are talking about a country where modern, communitarian, Islam with its emphasis on education and citizenship is the mainstream …. Also, a country where the current prime minister says `in the Office I am a democrat; at home I am Muslim`.

For all that, polling done by the European Values Survey and published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung finds yawning differences between Europe's basic values and Turkey's. Eighteen percent of Europeans (39 percent in Eastern Europe) agree that "politicians who do not believe in God are unfit to hold political office," a view held by 62 percent of Turks. To the question whether they would mind having a homosexual as a neighbor, 19 percent of Europeans say yes, versus 90 percent of Turks. 80 percent of Turks think women should be left to themselves to decide for themselves if they want to wear the headscarf. Because the way a woman dresses is her own business. If what she dresses, in her mind, is part of her lifestyle, who are we to tell them whether they can or cannot wear hijaab.

Now, based on this sporadic introductory comments, I would like to speak of the contemporary identity of Turkish culture. As I said in the beginning, I shall attempt a brief reading of the cultural identity of Turkey as a hybrid text. Hybridity in Turkey may be located, first, in its complex, rich and culturally interactive history. Turkish identity survives with its "unrefined but still existing" faces with the examples of combining different layers of cultures (cultural, religious, etc.) with the help of theoretical search for dynamic definitions of its identity. In this context it is important focus on the ways religion has affected, and still affects, the culture and cultural attitudes of Turkish people in the making of their ‘modern-glocalised’ identity. If one can consider `globalization` as a process of hybridisation – as against homogenisation, standardization, cultural imperialism, McDonaldization etc., and as against the “clash of civilisation”. How powerful a force is Islam in determining the ‘hybrid’ identity of Turkish-Muslims in the process of globalisation? The identities of Europe's Muslim populations are also not fixed but vary in both the short term and historically. So is the Turkish-Muslim identity, a bricolage perhaps. This is where Turkey stands on now.

Turkey, the post-Ottoman modern ‘secular’ Republic, has been a land of crossroad for empires (Byzantine and Ottoman), continents (Europe and Asia), religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism), immigrants from all neighbouring countries, capital and trade, and finally for diverse cultural interactions and productions. When one moves to urban spaces to find out the roots of ‘hybridity’, one has to start with Istanbul. If cities are crossroads for dense traffics, some cities, for geographical and historical reasons, have more potentialities for hybridity. That is what I call spaces of transition. Istanbul is a typical city of the scenes of hybridisation; it carries the cultures of societies through time and space like a river ground. So is Turkey as a country.

In modernity, the construction of identities became an individual task and responsibility, as in a lifelong project, which required a reliability of cultural contexts in which the whole was greater than the self. Cultural contexts today are extremely interconnected and entangled with each other, reflecting the process of globalization. Lifestyles and identities are constituted within a multitude of intracultural and global networks. Religion and culture have always been closely linked. Culture, understood as `all learned and shared behaviour and ideas`, refers to a learning process which by definition is open-ended. The religious attitudes and understandings inherent in our histories affect our judgments, our governments and social policies, and indeed affect the way we interpret the world outside our own culture. The religions of our histories have shaped our cultures and our worldviews, and continue to shape our interpretation of current events. Islam, in this sense, has enough experience of providing a `modus-vivendi`, `living together with the religious other`.

One can continue speaking of various examples of hybrid identities. Let us say, in Germany, for example, where there are almost 4 millions Turks, one can speak of the dilemma that the Turkish-Muslims experience of maintaining one's cultural-religious origin or roots in Germany, and of a future of hyphenization, hybridity, and syncretization. Can one suggest that a 'Euro-Islam' (as a sociological category of definition not a theological one), or European form of Islam is on the way to emerge in which case it could turn into a ‘hybrid’ form of identity juxtaposed between spaces? It is exactly here that the identity of Turkish-Muslims becomes an issue of hybridity. (And here I disagree wth what is called `Euro-Islam project` prooposed by Bassam Tibi… I f there is no Euro-Christianity or Turco-Christianity…..)

Modern Turkish identity in Turkey is a product of various negations. The Ottoman Empire had been characterised by a spirit of cosmopolitanism; by ethnic, linguistic and religious mixture and interchange. The Turkish state that emerged out of its collapse was fundamentally opposed to such pluralism of identity. The new state aimed to transform Turkish identity “through uniform incorporation, connecting the concept of citizenship with that of social-cultural-linguistic assimilation”.1 Religious attachment was seen as a subversive force, also posing a threat to the modernization and nationalization process in Turkey. According to Richard Tapper, the secular alternative, however, was no alternative to Islam in providing identity and organising principles of life. At the public level, it was no substitute for the divine laws of Islam; at the individual level, it could not meet intellectual needs for an ethics and an eschatology, and its values were inadequate and thin.2 So now emerges `hybrid, half-secular Muslim identity which welcomes the plurality of the other in post-modern rethoric of multiplicity of truth-claims.

In the field of post-colonial cultural studies, the term hybridity becomes very useful in the interrogation of the highly complicated webs of cultures and identities. In Homi Bhabha’s writing3, the concept of hybridity as a descriptive term on the question of identity, is initially used to expose the conflicts in colonial discourse, then extended to address the various ways of living with difference, cultural or religious. Hybridity becomes an interpretative mode for dealing with what Bhabha calls the juxtapositions of spaces. Bhabha is referring here to the cultural and political fields in which the colonized culture takes elements of the colonizing culture. Hybridity "is the sign of the productivity of colonial power, its shifting forces and fixities". Turkish identity is not a product of ‘colonial’ power in the common sense of the word. However, ‘cultural colonialism’ (in a Gramscian analysis) is a category in which the Turkish-Muslim identity can be described to have moved towards a hybrid character under the statist nationalism.

Turkish-Muslim identity in this context is a hybrid identity dislocated between its Muslim past and its ‘self-assumed Europeanness’. ‘Europeanness’ of Turkish-muslims appears to be an ‘imagined identity’. Turkish-Muslim identity has its own history and civilisational tradition. When, however, it attempts to redefine itself in terms of a different history and civilisational tradition, it falls into the clash of ‘interrupting identity’, interruption with the civilisational, historical and religious past. One major reason for this ‘interruption’ has been the modern Turkish statist policy of creating an idea of ‘Turkish-Islam’ in order to cut the cultural ties of people of Turkey from the so-called Arab Islamic cultural heritage’.

While Turkey has been a country of hybrid and interrupting identities, European collective identity extends from Vladivostok to San Francisco. Even Kiev and New York are included in Europeanness.4 What is Europe then? According to Dirk Jacobs and Robert Maier from Utrecht University, positively Europe can be defined as a jagged and ragged end of the Eurasian landmass. But there is no agreement at all where this part begins, and to call it a continent is certainly an abuse of language. To situate Europe geographically is therefore already problematic, but it is even more difficult to define Europe historically and culturally. For example, the question if teh Mediterranean space should be considered as European has been answered in many ways. No original founding principle for Europe can be identified. Grek and Roman origins are situated in th eperiphery and, anyway, these sources precede what can be called Europe. The Christian principle originated in Asia, and will only be developed fully after a millennium.5 After all, if the Prophet Muhammad (pbuH) was born in Makkah, Jesus (pbuH) was not in Brussels or Rome or Paris. He was born in Jeursalem taht is al-Qudus. Aagin, according to Jacobs and Maier, at present, there are thre conflicting projects for a future Europe within the institutional framework of the European Union. The first one wants Europe to be (again) an important power factor in the world. The second one, in partial opposition to the first one, conceives a social Europe underlining human rights and democracy. A third one, in opposition to both former projects, attempts to defend the existing national states or would even prefer to strengthen them. Departing from different logics and specific projects, the policies aiming at comnstructing a sense of Europeanness start off with different objectives, and result all in hybrid entity. It is clear that Europe is a very vague notion with uncertain frontiers. This being the case, then it becomes even harder to define the Turkish identity as European.

Here therefore, I propose the term Eurasian to define Turkish identity not in racial or ethnic but cultural terms to refer to a hybrid identity that brings together thecultural elements of three geographical-cultural areas, namely Central Asian, Middle Eastern and Mediterranean (that is the European dimension). In other words, it denotes people of mixed Central Asian (ethnic-cultural Turkish roots), Middle Eastern (Islamic-cultural roots), and European (Mediterranean connection) cultural background. I am well aware of tehfact that in order to refer to this term in terms of `identity definition`, one also has to deal with postcolonial diaspora theories.

But mytalk is not ambitious. Here I am not talking about `diasporic hybridities`, but rather speaking of `cultural hybridities` only. This is where the Turkish Muslim identity fits into the European Union debate….

For example, according to Stuart Hall (the famous theorist of `diasporic hybrid identitites`), diapsoroc hybridity demonstrates that identities and cultures are not essentially located oin ethnicity or culture but are the affect of history and culture forged through memory, fantasy, narrative and myth. Identities cannot, therefore, be straightforwardly preserved or even lost, in processes of acculturation, assimilation, pluralism, and multiculturalism. However, Hall is aware that migration may persuade some people to question the `truth` and `certainty` of identity and culture, but it does not automatically do away with stable identities. Likewise, the hybrid identity of Turkish culture well provides tehcomfortable ground for teh Turks to both remain loyal to their `civilisational roots` and also absorb new values and cultural understandings into their `stable identities`.

Homi Bhabha's theory of cultural hybridity (on which my argument is based) recognises that all cultural relations are ambivalent, subversive, transgressive and hybrid. 'Hybridity' challenges the assumption that cultural encounters invariably establish hierarchical dominator/dominated relationships. From this perspective, Eurasian identity of Turkish Muslims does not yield in front of the Western cultural imperialism. It takes and gives at the same time. In this approach to Eurasian identity, one cansay that hybridity is not a moment of change, but a process. It does `not comprise of two original moments from which the third emerges`, but gestures to an ambivalent `third space` of cultural production and reproduction. What is important about hybridity and `third space` is not the `culture` that emerges from two original moments, but the nameless space taht is inadequately understood through received wisdom. This space displaces the dogmatic histories, allows other positions to emerge, establishs new structures of quthority and social-political inititatives. Therefore, hybridity is a useful way of conceptualising theambivalent, in-process transgressive potential of Eurasian identity. This is what the Turkish Muslim identity is all about: a Eurasian identity taht is hybrid identity combinig Central Asian, Middle Eastern and Mediterranean cultural values.

As the Turks have ruled many parts of broad Eurasia and others areas, totalling about 25 to 30 million square kilometres in the last 15 centuries and lived with various diverse peoples (ranging from Sino-Tibetans to Ural-Altaians, from Siberian natives to Indo-Europeans, Semitics to Caucasians, etc.), it is simply not possible to create a highly civilised culture by maintaining a “pure blood unity” of a tribal group! We have no example in history that can contradict this opinion.

If you just view the facial features of the Turks living in Anatolia, Iran, Caucuses, Crimea, Volga-Ural region, Turkestan (Central Asia), Siberia, you can easily tell apart the various diverse physical characteristics: in Anatolia and Azerbaijan, you would find distinct Caucasian facial features, while in Volga-Ural region (among the Tatars and Bashkirs) a mixture of Uralic and Mongolian facial appearances, and this Mongolian facial and stature features will increase if you view the Kazaks and Kirgiz, but Aryan (iranian) features will boost among the Uzbeks and Uyghurs, the Yakuts (Saha) Turks in Siberia have facial appearances resembling of the sub-original Siberian peoples! You can’t see a single “Turkic” racial or facial type, but many distinct and diverse types of faces among the Turks from Edirne (in Turkey) to Yakutsk in Siberia, from Kashgar in Eastern Turkestan to the Karays (Karaims) in Vilnuis in Lithuania.

Therefore, Turkish-Muslim identity is claiming to be ‘Euroasian’ with its hybridity in terms of civilisational belonging. However, ‘euroasianness’ is not a universally recognised category yet. Will Europe then allow this ‘hybrid’ identity to live side by side or within itself? This is a crucial question as historically and culturally Turkey is as much part of Europe as the heartland bordering the Rhine for through this Europe of historical multiculturalism and multilingualism run the life lines that went into the making of European universalism. Once upon a time, European elites turned Ottoman culture into an accessory of their repertoire. ‘Turcomania’ involved dressing up in Turkish costumes for parties and portraits, drinking Turkish coffee, attending operas and plays with a Turkish motif – witness Mozart, Voltaire and Goethe. But now Turks look up Europe. As a matter of identity, one possibility for the future is greater acceptance of a more balanced orientation between East and West. This is necessary especially if European citizenship is regarded to be a complement and not a substitute to Eurasian-Turkish national citizenship either.

Conclusion

In concluding, one can say that the Turkish Muslim cultural identity and hybrid experience with stable root in Islamic values system will certainly be the Bridge everyone (except the clashists) is looking for. So let us allow ourselves to let Turkey be or continue to play its Eurasian Role as a bridge between Europe and Asia. That is if we want to construct a new civilisation of peace without the clash of civilisations and ethnic-racist ideologies… for this, what we need is not another Enlightenment theory but a worldwide approach of Mercy, Love and Compassion for the Other. Thank you.

1 Robins, Kevin ‘Interrupting Identities: Turkey/Europe’ in Stuart Hall & Paul du Gay (1996) Questions of Cultural Identity, London: Sage Publications, 61-86.

2 Tapper, Richard (ed.-1991) ‘Introduction’ in Richard Tapper (ed.-1991) Islam in Modern Turkey: Religion, Politics and Literature in a Secular State, London: I.B. Tauris, 7.

3 Bhabha, Homi (1994) The Location of Culture, London: Routledge, 58, 177, 185.

4 O. Köhler (1986) “Europa”, Josef Hofer & Karl Rahner (ed.) Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 2nd ed., Freiburg/ Br., colt 1187; Jansen, T. (ed.-1999) Reflections on European Identity, http://europa.eu.int/comm/cdp/working-paper/european_identity_en.pdf, s. 9.

5 Dirk Jacobs and Robert Maier `European identity: construct, fact and fiction` in Gastelaars, M. & de Ruijter, A. (eds.) A United Europe. The Quest for a Multifaceted Identity. Maastricht: Shaker, pp. 13-34.

---

---

Comment by Sukru Server Aya
1 June 2009

I have read with great dislike your posting # 2859, and basically a racial argument, if “Turks are Europeans (civilized) or barbaric.”

I find the arguments hypothetical and short of logic, almost equal to arguments of religions and faiths.

Whether Turks (or any other nation) is worthy of European Parliament is a naïve argument all by itself. If “all Europeans were civilized and not barbaric” who butchered each other in the Hundred Years wars? Was the Inquisition civilized or the raids of North and South America and true massacre of all people, as well in Africa justified by the merits of European culture and humanist values? Was Nazism the result of “nomadic behavior and lack of European culture”? Sirs, you are discriminating people by race, nationality instead of “individual merits, ethics and humane values”! I will not feel “elevated and superior” if I were to have a European passport. There are good, ignorant, bad, barbaric, educated, tender, charlatan etc. persons in every race or nation, and the color of the skin or shape of eyes or the place of birth or living is not detrimental factor. Turks have enough of their own “onward and backward culture” as a result of their existence and absorbing some of the habits of the areas they ruled. I see no logical reason, why some Armenians should make an argument of this detail, unless they find a rat-tail to hang on. Dear Sirs, you fly over the clouds in your fantasies… Get down and step on the ground, like the rest and respect the “leverage of the economic potential” or wealth of the person or the country!

Professor Ishankanian’s article lays down more details on “twisted logics, mentalities” or distorted realities. The writer goes back to Christ and “Armenian Plateau education (?)” and claims ownership to the Urarts. After a quick and biased summary of the Armenia’s bright history (of city states), we learn that the “Armenian capital of Ani was destroyed by Sultan’s troops”. The writer is unaware that the Seljuks did not destroy any of the monumental churches, and built their own mosque among them. However, due to the “various earthquakes in the area”, I would ask the writer but to show “only one Moslem monumental building (or any Moslems) left in Armenia! From the very old times, the victors would level down the pagan monuments and “use the stones to build their own temples” as a common practice! Was this done in Ani? Why does the present Armenian state operate the quarry just 2 kilometers across Ani, and every time they blow dynamite, the resonance cause damage to the old buildings? Are there no other “rock sites in Armenia” or is the one across Ani, useful in preservation!

Regarding the biased statement of Russian General Lihutin, the writer is apparently unaware of the restrictions in Russia for Armenian schools and churches. Let me remind the writer of what National Geographic wrote in Oct.1915, p.356-357: “ In 1903 the Russian government de-spoiled the sanctuary of Etchmiadzin, carrying away coin and plate and taking over farms and lands belonging to the church all over the land; furthermore Armenian churches were closed and their services forbidden”!

The writer again goes on lot of empty words and poetic sentences such as “Genocide belongs to historical tragedies that do not require socio-historical analysis of the cases “(!) The writer claims that “there are absolute crimes by nature that do not require any proceedings…” and endorses the justice of lynching”!

The slanders and distortions continue with other poetic sentences the first genocide of 20th century and Peter Lane’s book where he claimed 1.5 million victims remain without condemnation. I invite both writers to glance through pages 4-5-8-9 of the “Near East Relief Report” (in your Library) and explain to me if I am to believe the US Congress-Senate report claiming that in early 1922, 1.414.000 are alive or 1.5 million dead out of a total population of 1.3 to 1.5 millions! Who is the liar Sir?

The writer again speaks of a major victory over Turkish regular troops (confess they were at war with Turks) at Sardarabad and on May 28, 1918 Armenia proclaimed independent (?) Armenian Republic! The writer makes two important omissions namely:

1- I would like to receive an explanation as regards the meaning of “refinements of cruelty” reported in General Harbord’s report of 1919, see : (final section IV Atrocities)

2- The writer omits to say that after the foundation of the Republic on May 28, 1918 they lost all fights and signed a Peace Treaty with Turks in Batum on June 4, 1918 accepting all terms and borders and becoming a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire! The writer fails to disclose that a delegation by Aharonian and Hattisian was received by the Ottoman Sultan in Istanbul on Sept.6th, 1918 and that they cabled to Kachaznuni on Sept. 9th about the “friendly warm reception by the Sultan”! This much of hypocrisy or shallowness of historical knowledge no longer surprises me, because this is the parole of the diaspora; attack, blame, claim and slander… The World believes in what they hear so much!

The article ends with a conclusion about “Turkish Muslim Cultural identity” with Islamic values (which is true to an extent) and suggests a “Eurasian Role or bridge” (without an explanation of the meaning).

I share and applaud the last sentence of the writer’s for a worldwide approach of DECENCY and ETHICAL VALUES first, followed by Mercy, Love and Compassion for the others.

I have taken the trouble of writing this commentary because I do not debase any nation, race, or person for how he was born and where. I am proud of having known too many friends of also Armenian ethnicity with whom I share many values of sincere friendship and one reason for that happiness is that we do not look into each other as “other nation, other religion, other race” and the rest of dividing factors.

The way to compassion and reason, is to learn and accept the truths first, then shake hands and live in togetherness as we do in Turkey providing jobs to some 40.000 illegal “tourists who work to support their families in Armenia”. They understand, we understand but those “out of the game do everything to disturb the waters” and provoke antagonism. That should be avoided! The Turkish Armenians Site is dedicated to this “tolerance and togetherness” by claiming no revenge, for whatever happened in the past by the mistakes or conditions imposed on our forefathers. We must look into the future of our grandsons and stop bragging and slandering!

---