Turks Must Be Smoking Their Own Poppies

Garen Yegparian

BY GAREN YEGPARIAN

So disconnected from reality is an article I just read from a Turkish source, that I thought I had found the explanation for why we no longer hear (since the 1970s) about opium from Turkish poppies being shipped to the west— the Turks are smoking it all, with none left for export.

A friend who had attended the ANCA-Western Region’s Grassroots Conference on Thanksgiving weekend met a Turkish participant, Bahar Senem Çevik-Ersaydi, who is an Assistant Professor at Ankara University. She’s the author of the article, “The Armenian Diaspora and the Need for the ‘Other’” (published in Issue no.09/2011 of “Gazi Akademik Bakış”) that betrays where the bulk of Turkish intellectuals (let alone society) are stuck when it comes to Armenian issues, and particularly, the Genocide.

This article, based partially on discredited Freudian psychological theories, posits that the Armenian Diaspora uses “Turks” as the “other” which serves as a “reservoir all bad elements”. Why? Because, it seems, according to Çevik-Ersaydi, this is at least one of the main ways (if not the way) the Diaspora sustains its identity. We allegedly teach kids to hate Turks for this reason.

Of course it seems to escape our “learned” author that any human learning of the type of horrors inflicted by the Turks on our families, would, as a first reaction, hate the perpetrator of such a crime if her/his family were the victim.

It is precisely the horror and magnitude of the crime of genocide that understandably leads the Turks of today not to be able to even consider that THEIR families could have been guilty of such a crime. Yet, not only consider, but accept it they must.

The article is laced with the usual Turkish denialist narrative. First off, not once is the term “genocide” used. It is “events”, “historical enmity”, “sense of being victimized”, etc. Then we have the usual attempt to equate the Armenian and Turkish experiences of the era in question, perhaps best manifested by this sentence from her conclusion:

“These two groups which are so much alike in terms of eating-drinking habits, dressing, culture and music have identified each other as their archenemy due to past experiences with each other and various external provocations.”

Of course you’ll notice the attribution of Armenian-Turkish antagonism to “external” factors. Naturally, the de rigueur reference to Armenian terrorism is present, and taken to the laughable extent of somewhat anachronistically describing Ashod Yergat (whose 1870 birth-date she notes), one of our revolutionary-period heroes, as a “terrorist.” This is all standard-issue Turkish jargon used to discredit our efforts to restore justice to our nation.

Then we have the attempt to give this “polite” denialism the veneer of legitimacy. Of course the article is a study in “political psychology” published in an academic journal. She references Armenian sources— Hrant Dink, Viken Yacoubian, Donald E. and Lorna Touryan Miller, even “Haytoug”— the AYF-Western Region’s publication, along with others. Various sources are cited in the first half of the article where a theoretical construct is assembled to help in the effort to explain away, minimize, Armenians’ responses to the Genocide.

My friend, who had mentioned me to Bahar Senem Çevik-Ersaydi, suggested I talk to her before writing this piece. After reading her article, I’m glad I did not, because she is still far too lost in the jungle of denialism for me to give her a hand so she can cross over into the land of human decency.

Nevertheless, I would not object to meeting with her, as long as our discussion was recorded, since I would not want to be misquoted or cited out-of-context. I also laud her attendance at the Grassroots Conference, though I am a bit suspicious of her motivation and the prism through which she perceived what was presented and discussed there.

Instead of trying to explain away Armenian attitudes through abused psycho-babble (“chosen trauma” is what she calls the Genocide, a farcical term in all but her extremely narrow context), Çevik-Ersaydi should perhaps look into herself to discern what motivates her to engage in “polite” denial of the Armenian Genocide. Let’s all help her if she asks for it.

Authors

Discussion Policy

Comments are welcomed and encouraged. Though you are fully responsible for the content you post, comments that include profanity, personal attacks or other inappropriate material will not be permitted. Asbarez reserves the right to block users who violate any of our posting standards and policies.

5 Comments

  1. Perouz said:

    …what motivates her to engage in “polite” denial of the Armenian Genocide.”

    One motivation is that if she uses the big G word, she will no longer be a professor. She will be charged under article 301. She knows what side her bread is buttered on.

  2. Random Armenian said:

    Wow. Turks have been using Armenians as “others”. This has been the psychology of the Turkish republic and its denialism. The Turkish author, it would seem, is projecting onto Armenians how Turks have dealt with their own history and minorities.

  3. GB said:

    Hitler prepared his brainwashed SS and Gestapos, in their very young age, long before 1940s, and once they have reached to their adulthood in 1940s, they became Jews haters and Hitler propagandists machine in Europe!! Same events happening in modern Turkey. Turkish new leadership is fully aware of Christian Genocide of Ottoman Turkey, therefor it is their holy duty to guide their own demoralized population to cheat their own history, and brainwash Turkey’s innocent young children, label Christians, especially Armenians, as traitors, terrorists or bastards…the deep state Turkey is a typical modern fascist, fake Islamic nation!!

  4. Vahe said:

    Personally, it can sometimes be a good thing for some naive or unread Armenians to hear Turkish denialists as it may allow those Armenians to produce counter-arguments.
    But as to why this denialist was invited (or did she invite herself?) that is another question.

  5. EM said:

    Much love and respect to my good friend, Garen Yegparian, but wholly disagree as to the contents of this article.

    There’s so much in terms of collective experience (not of Turks and Armenians, but of Turks) that is not accounted for in your article, and assumptions that pave the way for your conclusions that aren’t necessarily supported. In a sense, and almost ironically, this article makes the same mistakes or allows for the same shortcomings that it is accusing Senem of making. Also, Senem isn’t a denialist. Senem’s exposure and experiences may have been limited in some context or another, through no fault of her own, and the conclusions and/or deductions she draws from her exposures and/or research may benefit from further information and/or illumination on this or that point, but I consider it in poor taste to question her motives simply because you question her methodology and conclusions.

    Vahe, please go ahead and consider me as a “naive” or “unread” Armenian insofar as it serves your purpose, but keep in mind that your willingness to label others as “naive” and “unread” is incredible arrogant, which, ironically, is pretty naive, and a whole-lot-a “unread” to boot.

*

Top