OPINION

• MUSTAFA AKYOL

Thursday, July 29 2010 19:52 GMT+2

Your time is

Ahmet Davutoğlu: Yet another crypto-Armenian?

Font Size: Larger|Smaller

Friday, January 8, 2010

Mustafa AKYOL

Ahmet Davutoğlu, the former academic who has been mastering Turkish foreign policy since 2003, is a remarkable man. First as an adviser to the prime minister, and recently as foreign minister, he really transformed the way Ankara does business in the world. His strategies of “zero problems with neighbors,” “pro-active engagement,” or “multi-lateral foreign policy” made Turkey a much more influential actor in its region. You might like or dislike the results of this new paradigm, but it would be only fair to acknowledge the depth and creativity of its vision.

Yet some opposition figures in Turkey have a simpler way of explaining why Mr. Davutoğlu is such a revolutionary man. One of them is Ensar Öğüt, a member of Parliament. He is also a member of the Republican People’s Party, or CHP, the bastion of “Kemalism,” the ideology that comes from Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish Republic.

The trouble with impure blood

A few weeks ago, Mr. Öğüt gave a press conference, in which he angrily bashed Mr. Davutoğlu for not being nationalist enough. He first showed a map aired on an American TV program and which defined eastern Turkey as “Kurdistan.” Then he asked why in the world the foreign ministry doesn’t protest this heinous conspiracy against Turkey. He then personally called on Mr. Davutoğlu:

“What do you, man, as Turkey’s foreign minister? What do you really do? What is your surname, Davutoğlu or Davutyan? Are you really Turkish? Why then do you not protest?”

Now, for those who are not well-versed in the linguistic intricacies here, let me explain: The suffixes “oğlu” and “yan” both mean “the son of.” But the first one is in Turkish, while the latter is in Armenian. So, asking whether Davutoğlu is actually “Davutyan” implies that he is a crypto-Armenian. (And being an Armenian, apparently, is a very bad thing in the eyes of Mr. Öğüt.)

If he were the only Kemalist with this attitude, I wouldn’t worry that much. But, alas, the paranoia about Turks-who-are-not-real-Turks is a popular Kemalist theme. About a year ago, Canan Arıtman, another CHP deputy, had made headlines by claiming that President Abdullah Gül was a “secret Armenian.” Otherwise, she claimed, why would the president be so friendly to Armenia?

Armenians are not the only scapegoats, though. Two years ago, a die-hard Kemalist author, Ergun Poyraz, produced a series of “investigative” books claiming that Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan and other prominent names in the “Islamist” Justice and Development Party, or AKP, were actually crypto-Jews conspiring against Atatürk’s Republic hand in hand with the “elders of Zion.” The books remained bestsellers for months, giving us a clue about the popularity of insanity in this country.

Besides the AKP folks, many liberal intellectuals as well have been accused by the Kemalists of being “kanı bozuk,” which literally means, “whose blood is impure.” I see similar suspicions raised against myself, too, in some of the comments that come to the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review. A few commentators openly argued that I couldn’t be “a real Turk,” for that I fail to properly acknowledge the spotless wisdom of Atatürk, “the father of all Turks.”

But, alas, where does this obsession with ethnicity and “purity of blood” come from?

Well, one answer can be found in the teachings of none other than the father of all Turks. He has a famous “Address to the Youth,” which every school child in Turkey is made to not just memorize, but also internalize during the 11-year-long “national education.” In it, Atatürk warns his young followers against the “enemies within and without,” and orders them to fight relentlessly to save the Republic from these bad people. In the very final line, he proclaims this gem:

“The power you need exists in the noble blood in your veins!”

This implies two things:

1) The followers of Atatürk, the “Turkish Youth,” have a special bodily fluid (a “noble blood”) that gives them some special power.

2) The “enemies within” lack the same blood, and that is one reason why they “combine their personal interests with the political ambitions of the occupiers,” as the "Address to the Youth" also nicely explains.

Please don’t address the youth

Like every other Turkish child, I grew up by reading the “Address to the Youth” in every textbook, seeing it on every school wall, and reciting it out loud on every national day. I just had to grow up a little more to realize that all this brainwashing was a part of a totalitarian agenda to make every Turk a Kemalist. If you fail to be a Kemalist, the same discourse defines you as an “internal enemy” whose blood is not of the noble one that only Turks have. You must be Armenian, Jewish, Kurdish, Circassian, or something – but not a Turk.

This archaic ideology, this relic from the ’30s, can’t help modern Turkey, if it really wants to become a democratic country. Kemalism, of course, has the right to be an ideology among other ideologies, and compete with them within the rules of the democratic game. But it does not have the right to remain as the official doctrine and impose itself on every citizen.

One good step towards democratization would be to remove the “Address to the Youth” from textbooks and schools. The “Youth” have learnt more than enough about the “noble blood” in Turkish veins. What it really needs to learn is democratic values such as tolerance and respect to different thoughts, faiths and identities.

93 Comments PRINTER FRIENDLY

READER COMMENTS

Guest - The casual Observer
2010-02-16 00:54:37

VMr. Mustafa Akyol, thank you for a timely article on ethnicity smear as tools in political life, that more or less you ascribe to beginning of Turkish Republic ca. 1923 and Kemal Ataturks speaches and remarks. I am sure some of it may be true. I , as a Yabanji, do very strongly admire Ataturk and would like to examine and if possibly evaluate the events in the timeframe of the occurences. But first permit me to comment on FM, Mr. Davutoglu,who is folloing his own form of Matternich's Realpolitic and is doing a goodenaugh job to survive thos barbs of political arena. Who is Kemal Ataturk, he is a product of the Ottoman Empire that had a history of 600 years of inceasant wars, an entity that lost more wars in the 19th century than any other country. The Empire was ripe for picking and only thing that was proping it up was adroit political maneuvering on its part as well as international jealousies of then Great Powers. Having been participant on the loosing side in WW1 Ottoman Empire capitulated and the Victors, particularly Britain and France, in glee licked their chops and the feast began. The French, dreaming of another colony, employed their proxy, the Armenian Legions, 24 thousand strong, to whom they promissed to re-create the old Armenian Empire from Adana all the way to Armenia and Black Sea. Thus they dreamed of projecting their power all the way into Caucasus and borders of Russia. All their dreams fell apart as the Legions they recruited were not an efficient or disciplined fighting force, French Army dishonorably discharging them by the droves, up to 400 mren at at time, culminating in the defeat at Marash and French withdrawal. The British, smarting from their defeat at Galipoli, used their proxy, the Kingdom of Greece, whose agents were busy distributing their passaports to Greeks, living and prospering in Ottoman Empire for centurie. Then of course the Kingdom of Greece had to come to the aid of their "Citizens" and liberate them by invading Anatolia. These were the obstacles that were facing Kemal Ataturk and his camrades, such as Ismet Pasha of the Battle of Inenue fame, Marshall Fewzi Chakmak and many, many able and famous Officers of all ranks and thousands upon thousand nameless soldiers , civilian men and women whom Ataturk inspired to fight and die for their homeland. The armies of Kingdom of Greece were soundly trounced, the previous treaty of Surrender were torn up and the Victors negotiated a new treaty recognizing the new Republic of Turkey. I am sure that all the individuals who read this article are aware of above factds, I'm just listing them to remind you of the gargantuan task that was faced by Ataturk and his camrades in creating the Republic. Many slogans, speeches, interviews, remarks and actions were needed to keep this diverse population together that had freely immegrated into the Empire. For instance let's take the most famed slogan: "Joy to all, who can call himself a Turk". Is there a mention of gender, ethnic origin or blood line? None. Who was a Turk? I would say a Citizen, pure and simple. One can parse every word uttered by Ataturk into many meanings. In closing, in my humble opinion to heal the country of this dangerous chasm, to stop casting unfounded dispersion on the founder of the Republic, a All Country Congress should be called,to accept "one"Ataturk. The input should be from all segments of population and institutions, with equal weight to all. The result of such assembly could be made into Motion picture (presently most effective way of distribution) for all the world to see and share, the main purpose being to stop the back-biting and selfdestruction. In present day climate of Turkey. The Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) is the guardian of Ataturks Legacy and therefore it would fall uppon the TSK to initiate such action and sound the call.

Guest - Hairenakitz
2010-01-21 02:47:17

Mustafa AKYOL, ------- As an Armenian; I haven't seen anything pro-Armenian, or pro-Other in your articles. Instead all I've seen in your articles is balanced, humane, democratic and open discussions to benefit democratic Turkey. To tell the truth, as an Armenian I'm also jealous that Turkey can benefit from bright people like you.

Guest - Basil
2010-01-17 08:12:22

Turkey is a melting pot. It has been for many centuries. Turkey has the ancestors of the Seljuk and Osmali Turks who came to Turkey plus that of the Hittites, Greeks, Byzantine Romans, Crusaders in the southeast, Kurds, Armenians, Persians, Albanians, Slavs, Bosnians, Circasians, Indo-Iranian Abkhazians and people related to Georgians near the Black Sea. As far as the General Sherman saying the Arabs are not related to Caucasians, that sounds ridiculous. In Syria, the president is tall, light-skinned, has brown hair and blue eyes. Anyway, what does it matter? People are mixed and that's the way it is. Many Turks have some Armenian ancestors, Greek ancestors, Arab ancestors, Seljuk ancestors, Albanian etc.... It is better to have good relations with your neighbors than bad ones. War is expensive! Ask America and England about that!

Guest - Hovsep Mardirossian
2010-01-16 07:25:51

Mustafa AKYOL must be complimented and congratulated for having written a fantastic piece ! In matters of vision and broad perspective, his article is a lucid, forward looking and a thoughtful description of the path Turkey should take to develop as a truly democratic republic wedded to the respect of rights of all its component communities. That we have such a discussion at all in a newspaper article shows how progressive thinking men and women are shaping the future of the country and are constantly challenging past nationalistic perceptions and prejudices that were harmful and jingoistic. Thank you Mustafa Akyol !

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-14 02:26:36

poster, you are wrong, wrong, and wrong. Neither Arabs, Iranians, or Kurds are even remotely descendant from the Eurasian lineage that lead to Caucasians. However, both the Central Asian and Anatolian ancestors of Turkiye are descendant from that Eurasian lineage. Look at the haplogroup map and you will see that the ancestors of the other groups you mentioned follows a different path. Even if you considered the Turks to be 70 % "caucasian", the arabs, kurds, and iranians aren't even 1 % "caucasian". Central Asians themselve are more "caucasian" than arabs, kurds, and iranians. https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/atlas.html Check out Haplogroup P (M45). "The M45 Central Asian clan gave rise to many more: the man who was its source was the ancestor of most Europeans and nearly all Native Americans." The reason you're having difficulty following is that you're using classifications that have been rendered useless as a result of genetics. For example, aside from having slanted eyes, modern genetics has determined that Central Asians have almost nothing in common genetically with groups traditionally considered "oriental" such as japanese, korean, or chinese.

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-14 01:53:52

armen, you will notice that in the link I sent you that Bernard Lewis says that the deaths of hundreds of thousands of armenians as well as Turks are regrettable. However, there is no way that you can qualify the relocation as genocide. The sources you mention cannot explain the basic gaps in the logic of the armenian allegations that Bernard Lewis brings up. He's the preeminent Western authority on 20th Century Middle Eastern history. Princeton University history professor, Bernard Lewis stated on April 14, 2002, at the National Press Club on C-Span 2: “[T]hat the massacre of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was the same as what happened to Jews in Nazi Germany is a downright falsehood. What happened to the Armenians was the result of a massive Armenian armed rebellion against the Turks, which began even before war broke out, and continued on a larger scale. But to make this a parallel with the holocaust in Germany you would have to assume the Jews of Germany had been engaged in an armed rebellion against the German state, collaborating with the allies against Germany. That in the deportation order the cities of Hamburg and Berlin were exempted, persons in the employment of the state were exempted, and the deportation only applied to the Jews of Germany proper, so that when they got to Poland they were welcomed and sheltered by the Polish Jews. This seems to me a rather absurd parallel.” http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/Bernard-Lewis-Armenian-Genocide http://www.armenian--genocide.com/2007/10/professor-bernard-lewis-condemns.html

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-14 01:31:30

john, there was a large non-greek non-armenian Anatolian population and they even disliked the greeks. There is no way that even the numbers suggested by the greeks and armenians (1.5 million) for those "massacres" can account for as large a number as 12 million for the Anatolian population OVER A THOUSAND YEARS AGO. Again, one cannot seriously suggest that this population of 12 million OVER A THOUSAND YEARS AGO consisted mostly of greeks and armenians. Again, even, by their own likely grossly overexagerrated estimates there are only 18 million greeks and 11 million armenians in the world right now. Again, when you consider that the bulk of these populations originated from greece and armenia, it means you are suggesting that their were more greeks and armenians in Anatolia OVER A THOUSAND YEARS AGO than there were in greece and armenia. That makes no sense. Read this: "Anatolia was home to many different peoples in ancient times, including the Carians, Lydians, Lycians, Cappadocians, Cilicians, and scores of others. The presence of many Greeks, especially along the coast and Hellenization gradually caused many of these peoples to abandon their own languages in favor of Greek, especially in cities and along the western and southern coasts, a process reinforced by Romanization. Nevertheless, in the north and east, especially in rural areas, many of the native languages continued to survive.[1] Even by the eleventh century, when Turks first appeared, "Greek culture was little more than a veneer so far as the mass of the people were concerned."[2] Especially along the frontiers, the Byzantines persecuted local populations for Christian heretical beliefs, causing these areas to have little sympathy for Greek culture.[2] Byzantine authorities routinely conducted large-scale population transfers in an effort to impose religious uniformity and the Greek language." "Turkic pastoralists remained only a small minority, however, and the gradual Turkification of Anatolia was due less to in-migration than to the conversion of Christians to Islam, and their adoption of the Turkish language. The reasons for this conversion were first, the weak hold Greek culture had on much of the population, and second, the desire by the conquered population to "retain its property or else to avoid being at a disadvantage in other ways."[7]" ^ Mitchell, Stephen. 1993. Anatolia: land, men and gods in Asia Minor. Vol. 1, The Celts, and the impact of Roman rule. Clarendon Press. pp.172-176. ^ a b (Langer and Blake 1932: 481) ^ Charanis, Peter. 1961. "The Transfer of Population as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire." Comparative Studies in Society and History 3:140-154. ^ (Vryonis 1971: 172) ^ (Vryonis 1971: 184-194) ^ (Langer and Blake 1932: 479-480) ^ (Langer and Blake 1932: 481-483) Also, you are still unable to account for the lack of the negroid/semitic haplotypes in the Turks of Anatolia that were already present in the greeks when the Turks arrived from Central Asia. Also, Ankara predates hellenic history and istanbul has pre-hellenic history too. Only when it was made the capital of the Turkish Republic did Ankara's population increase from the tens of thousands. Istanbul is technically the city with the most kurds in the world, but this does not mean that it has a kurdish history, just that many kurds moved to istanbul in recent decades. Pointing out the cities isn't even relevant when you consider how people move their looking for work, conquerors can kill or drive out the local people, and population exhanges.

Guest - poster
2010-01-12 20:19:54

General Sherman, What happened was the Turks didn't like the study I cite because it showed them 30% oriental. Hence, they did their own study out of a Turkish university and put mostly Turkish scholars on it to get the 13%. Arabs, Iranians, and Kurds are more Caucasiod than the Turks.

Guest - armen
2010-01-12 20:06:18

In regards to Bernard Lewis mentioned the Armenian Genocide in his 1961 book The Emergence of Modern Turkey, referring to it as a "terrible holocaust." He contradicts himself. Good books about the genocide are written by Turkish author, Tanner Akcam. Over 20 countries recognize it. The Association of Genocide Scholars also recognize it.

Guest - John
2010-01-12 19:48:09

General Sherman, There are less Greeks and Armenians today because many were massarced during WW1 in Turkiye, and prior to that. There are less Greeks and Armenians in Turkiye because they were driven out of Turkiye. The 2 biggest cities in Turkiye are of Greek orgin: Istanbul and Ankara. Most of these groups you mentioned, weren't around during the Byzantine Empire: Assyrians, Hattians...Hittites, Pelasgians, Phrygians, Thracians, Medes. The only way Turks can be related to them is through mixing with the Greeks and Armenians,who were in Anantolia then.

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-12 18:06:31

To john, you seem have trouble understanding that there were many local ethnic groups who did not vanish into thin air. When we consider the consider the high frequency of negroid and semitic haplotypes already present greek genes by the time the Turks arrived, the fact that these haplotypes are rarely present in the Turks of Anatolia eliminates the greeks. Despite how much you may resent the fact, there was a large well-populated stretch of land between any significant population of greeks or armenians. "During antiquity Anatolia was a cradle for a wide variety of numerous indigenous peoples as...Assyrians, Hattians...Hittites, Pelasgians, Phrygians, Thracians, Medes and others. Later during the late Roman Period, prior to the Mongol invasion, the population of Anatolia had reached an estimated level of over 12 million people ." You cannot seriously suggest that this populaton of 12 million OVER A THOUSAND YEARS AGO consisted mostly of greeks and armenians. Even, by their own likely grossly overexagerrated estimates there are only 18 million greeks and 11 million armenians in the world right now. When you consider that the bulk of these populations originated from greece and armenia, it means you are suggesting that their were more greeks and armenians in Anatolia OVER A THOUSAND YEARS AGO than there were in greece and armenia. That makes no sense. "Until the early 20th century, Greeks were uniformly distributed between the Greek peninsula, the western coast of Asia Minor,..." The western coast makes up only a small percentage of the population and area of Asia Minor. http://www.answers.com/topic/turkification http://www.answers.com/topic/genetic-origins-of-the-turkish-people http://www.answers.com/topic/greeks

Guest - john
2010-01-12 11:09:05

To General Sherman, you wrote that Turks come from Hittites and Lydians, but they weren't around when the Turks came from Mongolia. The Byzantines were. They were mostly Greeks and had some Armenians there. Hence, Turks are mostly of these groups. "Its multi-ethnic (although not multi-national) nature remained even though its constituent parts in the Balkans and Asia Minor contained an overwhelmingly Greek population. Ethnic minorities and sizeable communities of religious heretics often lived on or near the borderlands, the Armenians being the only sizeable one." http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Byzantine_Empire

Guest - Jerry
2010-01-12 10:42:13

Jews and Turks have a common ancestor "52 percent of Levites of Ashkenazi origin have a particular genetic signature that originated in Central Asia, although it is also found less frequently in the Middle East," according to a new report. "The ancestor who introduced it into the Ashkenazi Levites could perhaps have been from the Khazars, a Turkic tribe whose king converted to Judaism in the eighth or ninth century." Source: Geneticists Report Finding Central Asian Link to Levites By NICHOLAS WADE New York Times: Published: September 27, 2003

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-11 23:02:46

papken, you can't be serious. If you want to claim 30%, it doesn't affect anything I write in any way. I point out 3-13 % as an average of all the studies I've seen with outliers of less than 1% and 30%. Also, I see you're one of the genocide automatons. What does the foremost authority on the subject, Bernard Lewis, have to say about the armenian allegations? http://www.armenian--genocide.com/2007/10/professor-bernard-lewis-condemns.html Do you realize how ridiculous you sound completely ignoring the hundreds of thousands of Turks and other Muslims murdered by armenians in the first place? Be serious, you're going to blame Pan-Turkish/Grand Turanian movements, which have only really had any backing in recent decades, for a relocation during the ottoman empire where the basis for primary citizenship was religion? All of this has been known for a while and it doesn't matter anyway when you consider that the Anatolians were Turkified in less than a century. For the vast majority of the millenium long Oguz Turkish presence in Anatolia, the Turks as you know them ARE the descendants are Anatolians. For example, take the russians. The russians are probably the typical group associated with slavic people and are the primary proponents of pan-slavicism but recent genetic studies show that most ethnic russians are actually slavicized ugraic peoples with a small amount of central asian and slavic mixed in. I don't see you complain about the ridiculousness of russian support for pan-slavicism. Also, in light of the armenians being at least 30% Turkish (in the Central Asian sense) I don't see you asking the armenians to support the MHP 30% of time. Also, while you complain about pan-Turkism when it is actually a positive goal for Turkic peoples around the world, especially those in russia and former soviet republics who suffered because of communism, slavicization, and pan-slavicism, I don't see you condemning pan-slavicism when it results in the largely non-slavic russians supporting the murderous regime of slobodan milosevic.

Guest - samos
2010-01-11 22:01:22

I agree with you James. Many turks are of Christian descent such as Greeks, Assyrian, and Armenians. In Ottoman times, it was very difficult being Christian. Christians were 2nd class citizens. They paid more taxes. Their property was taken away. They were threatened with death if they didn't convert. Hence, many did to save themselves. Hence, they became Turks. Like the Hemshen, who are Muslim but speak Armenian.

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-11 21:50:15

James, that 50-70 thousand are illegal immigrants. While there may be people with armenian heritage it would only be in the Far East in the country and their number probably isn't even a million. The Mediterranean ancestry of the Turks in Anatolia is mostly derived from ancient Anatolian peoples, not armenians.

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-11 21:28:28

armen, I hate to break it to you but the armenian samples were gathered by armenians. The geneticists in the study I cite didn't even have to gather it. They asked for and used the data from other well-known studies so you cannot claim that their method is biased or anything. They just had to look for for Alu-insertion polymorphisms that are common in Central Asians and they found that they occur in high frequencies in Armenians. Now you can either sit there and deny that they are there, which is akin to saying the sky isn't blue or you can give me an explanation as to why genes that are not present very much outside of Central Asia are present in such a high frequency in armenians? I suppose you are going to claim they hopped out of people in Turkmenistan and flew all the way to armenia. Or are you going to claim that the Turks are being aided by the armenian geneticists themselves in a conspiracy?

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-11 21:14:29

poster, all you are doing is repeating the same nonsense over and over again. You are so in over your head that one doesn't know where to begin in correcting you. First off, Hungarians are known as Macars, or Magyars, and while they do have ancestry going back to Ugric peoples in Central Asia, the Huns themseves were a Turkic race and not Ugric. Also, if you are going to claim that Ugraic and Native Americans are "oriental", then you have to do the same with regard to most Europeans as they are all from the same Eurasian lineage that is separate from that of East Asians. The National Geographic Genographic Project shows this. Stop lying. The link works fine. The study I cite (more recent than yours) was also in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology and uses better and more sampling and all of their non-Turkish samples are from other studies and are compiled by people who aren't Turkish. Again, nobody is disputing that 3-13% (from lesss than 1 to 30 % in an older study) of the genetic contribution to Anatolia is from Central Asia. But why you have why do you problems accepting the results of the National Geographic Genographic Project, one of the largest collaborations of geneticists worldwide? Stop lying, the link works fine. https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/atlas.html Check out Haplogroup P (M45). "The M45 Central Asian clan gave rise to many more: the man who was its source was the ancestor of most Europeans and nearly all Native Americans." The Mongolians on the other hand are derived from Haplogroup C3 (M217). Do you realize that terms like oriental/mongolian are now avoided in academics because they are rendered useless by studies like the one I pointed out here. Genetics has demonstrated that slanted eyes most definitely does not equal related. Everybody knows about the Orkhon scripts. But do you really believe that because the first known Turkic groups are traced back to what is preset-day Mongolia means that they are Mongolian, even though in history they have been two neighboring groups who have fought with eachother and interacted? I suppose because armenians were living next to persians two thousand years ago, they are automatically persian? Finns and Hungarians themselves are surrounded by peoples who they don't share a heritage with.

Guest - armen
2010-01-11 20:19:13

Hey General Sherman, Show me that Armenians are 30% asian? Provide a link? Was that the study that came out of a Turkish university?

Guest - James
2010-01-11 19:50:18

How many modern "Turks" are actually Armenian? its said that 50-70 thousand Armenians are in modern Turkey... but only the Hemshen population is 400k and they are Armenians... All the boys who were turkified and put in janissary the devşirme system All the orphans after the Genocide who were taken in by Turkish families and raised as Turks.. 50-70k... No... Several million Armenians are in Turkey today, some of them know it, some are slowly finding out the truth..

Guest - poster
2010-01-11 19:22:11

To General Sherman, "Turkic tribes are first noted among the subject Xiongnu peoples in Mongolia and in neighbouring regions in the early 2nd century bc." Your link didn't work. Hence, couldn't find that quote. Hungarians also have oriental heritage too. The name of the country comes from the "Huns." American Indians also have oriental heritage. Why do you try to discredit this study,"DNA diversity and population admixture in Anatolia?" It was written by most non-Turkish authors. It was peer reviewed. It was in AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY. Does it bother you that 30% of Turks have oriental heritage?

Guest - G.
2010-01-11 18:53:29

Fanaticism leads to war and close mindedness. I am Armenian and have no negative inclinations towards Turkey. There were and are many Armenians who felt equally Turkish as their muslim turkish neighboor. Some of them in America still call themselves Turkish Armenians. We have lived in the same land together for 800 years. Calling one Armenian does not mean the individual is Anti-Turkey over generalizing makes you look ignorant.

Guest - ME
2010-01-11 15:13:02

It appears that the "brainwashing" of Turkish school children was unsuccessful in Mr. Akyol's case. What a shame. His brainwashing was obviously done by the AKP. There is nothing wrong with Nationalism. Extremism or fanaticism is always bad in any case. If you were born in Turkey, then be proud, you are a Turk. I truly wish that Ataturk still lived today so we could hear his opinion on current issues. It would be a pleasant change from all the propaganda attributed to him when he cannot defend himself.

Guest - Sima
2010-01-11 15:05:12

He could very well be Armenian, since so many Armenians were forced to Turkify their last names.

Guest - Papken
2010-01-11 13:15:15

GeneralSherman, "You guys are really too funny. According to some of you, Turks are complete outsiders with more than 30% of their ancestry from 'foreigners' while according to some of you they are not Central Asian at all in origin...What I find most funny is the blatant denial by some of the armenians here in the face of clear evidence that they have genetic commonality with Turks in Central Asia", there is no contradiction here. Generally speaking, Armenians are not racist and do not buy into the whole pure blood stuff. In fact, the key event in the ethnogenesis of Armenians is the merging of the Armenian Tribes (which is where the name for Armenians as they are known to the world comes from) and the Hayasa Tribes (which is where the Armenian Language word for Armenians, "Hay," pronounced more like Hye in the words Hay and Hayasa, comes from). But back to the point, it does not really matter to Armenians if Turks are genetically from Central Asia for not. What matters highly to Armenians is that culturally, Turks most definitely are Central Asian and some of their more "creative" forms of high culture include racist Pan-Turkish/Grand Turanian propaganda that is responsible for the Armenian Genocide of the past century and the dual blockade of today's Armenia by Azerbaijan and Turkey. This is what most Armenians mean when they say Turks are Central Asian. When Armenians say Turks are not Central Asian but Anatolians who were forcibly Turkified, they are highlighting the humorous fact that such nationalist zeal is totally misplaced. By the way, that study you keep citing, I googled it. What does it even exactly say? It's in some anthropologists journal and you have to pay to see it. Are you some kind of Anthropologist that has access to these materials, or is one of your pass times spending money online to view genetic studies?

Guest - Papken
2010-01-11 12:19:10

GeneralSherman, "Seriously think about it. If they were biased, would Turkish researchers want to lower their common ancestry with the Turkmens in their study?" Yes, absolutely, because Turkey has two types of nationalism that overlap in many ways, yet are distinct from one another. They are roughly represented by the MHP and the CHP. Nationalism as advanced by the MHP does focus more on Central Asian roots of Turks and these people are most likely to advance contemporary (feasible) forms of a Grand Turan (economic unions, etc). CHP nationalism on the other hand does not deny Turkish heritage, but rather wants to see Turkishness interpreted as one of the handful of, lets call it, sub-civilizations that make up Europe. CHP nationalists thus aren't bothered (and in fact quite happy to) by claiming European descent because it doesn't change the fact that Turkic culture (language is the best example) is dominant and would remain dominant in Turkey (a "Euro culture" is still very undeveloped in comparison to national cultures). Also because there is a idea in Turkey and many parts of the world (which is part reality and part perception) that Europe=good/successful/advanced/prosperous/etc and if the CHP nationalists can convince Europe that Turkey=Europe than suddenly Turkey=good/successful/advanced/prosperous/etc. So as far as CHP nationalists as concerned, which those people you cite may very well be, Turkishness with Europeanness is really still Turkishness, just generally better.

Guest - Vural Korkmaz
2010-01-11 05:48:57

Mustafa Akyol: Why don't you quit writing at Hurriyet and take up a janitorial job. You would be more productive, and less destructful.

Guest - poster
2010-01-11 04:48:55

Your study you use is mostly written by Turkish authors and comes out of Turkey. Statistics can be manipulated by "choosing your subjects."

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-11 03:00:17

poster, why do you problems accepting the results of the National Geographic Genographic Project, one of the largest collaborations of geneticists worldwide? https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/atlas.html Check out Haplogroup P (M45). "The M45 Central Asian clan gave rise to many more: the man who was its source was the ancestor of most Europeans and nearly all Native Americans." The Mongolians on the other hand are derived from Haplogroup C3 (M217). Do you realize that terms like oriental/mongolian are now avoided in academics because they are rendered useless by studies like the one I pointed out here. Genetics has demonstrated that slanted eyes most definitely does not equal related. Everybody knows about the Orkhon scripts. But do you really believe that because the first known Turkic groups are traced back to what is preset-day Mongolia means that they are Mongolian, even though in history they have been two neighboring groups who have fought with eachother and interacted? I suppose because armenians were living next to persians two thousand years ago, they are automatically persian? Finns and Hungarians themselves are surrounded by peoples who they don't share a heritage with.

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-11 02:06:47

It appears Mr. Akyol's deliberate misrepresentation has fooled many here who are mostly foreigners. Mr. Ogut is probably well aware of his (probably non-armenian) Mediterranean ancestry. It's very to convenient to paint his opponent as an armenian because, let's face it, the armenians still haven't come to grips with the fact that the borders of the Turkish Republic will never change. I think it was unnecessary to question Mr. Davutoglu's Turkish citizenship but I do think as a foreign minister it is his responsibilty to insure Turkiye's territorial integrity is not questioned. Too many of you think Ataturk's idea of Turkish citzenship as a measure of how much of your ancestry can be traced to Central Asia. In reality, it was the as-is inclusion of the mostly Muslim ethnic groups with some rare non-Muslims who were devoted to defending the Turkish Republic against foreigners. Some of the most proud Kemalists I know are Laz or Circassians (who found refuge in Turkiye). I myself have no ancestors who were living in the borders of Turkiye before the 1880's, was not raised in Turkiye, but I will tell you that Ataturk was a greater man than all of the greeks and armenians trying to undermine Turkiye's territorial integrity combined times twenty. Also, it's hypocritcal how some of you condemn Mr. Ogut's statement but are in outright denial of a genetic correlation between central asians and armenians.

Guest - poster
2010-01-11 01:14:37

To General Sherman, Remember when the Chinese and the Turkic people (the Uygurs in CHina) had racial conflicts recently? The original Turkic people are oriental/Mongloid. They live in Mongolia and China. The 1st Turkic language was found in Orkhon Valley in Mongolia. Why do you have problems accepting this?

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-11 00:34:23

poster, the study I cited has been peer-reviewed and is a result of international collaboration with mostly non-Turkish scientists. Also, it's seven years newer and uses larger samples than the study you posted, and is therefore less subject to sampling errors. Also, your study also includes a similiar proportion of Turkish scientists so does that mean it's flawed? There are many studies done in this respect. I mention an average of about 3-13 % because there are a mutitude of them where it drops to less than 1 %. Also, the group they were comparing to in the study you mentioned was not "mongolians/orientals" as you so callously wrote but Turkmen in Central Asia. Seriously think about it. If they were biased, would Turkish researchers want to lower their common ancestry with the Turkmens in their study? They would look at it as a positive thing. Your older study does nothing to dispute the results of mine, and in fact agrees with it in many ways. In fact, Turkish nationalists would probably prefer yours. You guys are really too funny. According to some of you, Turks are complete outsiders with more than 30% of their ancestry from "foreigners" (however foreign somebody who's been living there for a millenia can be) while according to some of you they are not Central Asian at all in origin and therefore should ease down on the nationalist rhetoric. What I find most funny is the blatant denial by some of the armenians here in the face of clear evidence that they have genetic commonality with Turks in Central Asia such as Turkmen, Kazakhs, and Uzbeks. Gee, I wonder how that happened?

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-11 00:05:17

john, you will note that I said 3-13 %. It varies from study to study. If you want to assert that the Turks of Anatolia are even more Turkish than some of the other folks here by all means go ahead. Also, the similiar genes in the Hurriyet article are obviously the Alu insertion polymorphisms. How do you explain that the comparisons in the study I showed were done not between Turks in Anatolia and armenians but were done between Turks in Central Asia and armenians? :)

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-10 23:55:00

kevin, you will notice that I write that the Turks of Anatolia are probably mostly descendant from Mediterranean peoples who have been living in Anatolia for thousands of years. However, you seem to have trouble accepting it's NOT derived from greeks, kurds, or armenians as shown by genetic studies. If there was a relationship to the greeks, you would see the semitic and negroid admixture that was already in the greek genes by the time Turks arrived from Central Asia and the greek presence in Anatolia was limited to coastal regions so that eliminates them. The kurds are completely different and are more akin to persians. With the armenians, you have right now an ironic situation where the Turks of Anatolia have 3 to 13% of their genetic background derived from the Turks of Central Asia while armenians have at least 30% of their genetic background derived from the Turks of Central Asia (not as a result of the ancestors of the Turks of Anatolia but the Mongol-Turkish invasions of the region about eight centuries years ago) but aside from that there is little in genetic commonality. There was many non-greek, non-kurdish, non-armenian Mediterranean peoples in Anatolia who were assimilated into the dominant Turkish culture. See "Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans" and "http://www.answers.com/topic/turkification". Also, despite linguistic ties (a poor genetic indicator) and interaction, geneticists have been unable to link Turks and Mongolians. According to Spencer Wells, the Mongolians are part of the East Asian lineage with includes Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese while Central Asians are part of the Eurasian lineage that includes Hungarian-Finnic peoples, Native Americans, and European peoples.

Guest - Newropean
2010-01-10 23:45:38

Very nice article, I can see the damage that the utterly nationalistic education did whenever one of my Turkish friends gets all irrational and national during a normal conversation about politics.

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-10 23:28:18

Major Pat, from your comment, it's obvious that you did not read any of my comments.

Guest - poster
2010-01-10 22:45:16

General Sherman, that study you posted is flawed. That study was done by Turks to minimize the oriental genes in them. Turkish people have 30% Oriental/Mongol genes in them. Look at this study, "DNA diversity and population admixture in Anatolia,"by Di Benedetto G, Ergüven A, Stenico M, Castrì L, Bertorelle G, Togan I, Barbujani G.

Guest - john
2010-01-10 22:32:34

General Sherman, why do you minimize the Turkic genes in Anatolia? It says 13%, not 3%. The Armenians and Turks have similar genes according the article on the Hurriet, "Turks, Armenians share similar genes, say scientists"

Guest - nyoped
2010-01-10 20:54:40

Ataturk's "Address to the Youth" is a declaration of warning just like those of Thomas Jefferson (about the bankers) and Eisenhower (about the military-industrial complex). Jefferson was not a communist (he was a free market leader) but knew enough not to let bankers rule the country. Eisenhower did not hate his own army (in fact he was a military hero and a retired general) but knew enough to warn against the military-industrial complex. Similary, Ataturk warned us against the powers (islamic fraternities and feudal lords) who would try to undermine our freedom. And time proved all these men right. Bankers and militray-industrial complex have been damaging American democracy just like Islamist interest groups have been undermining secularism and democracy in Turkey. The "Address to Youth" simply asks the Youth to be prepared to take action against any attempt to attack our independence and the Republic (something almost all American presidents have warned against). It ends with the lines "you will find the strength you need in your veins", which emphasizes the fact that every individual is already equipped to watch out for her own freedom -one does not need to belong to an islamic fraternity nor a feudal cult. All one needs is herself to take action against those who try to undermine her freedom.

Guest - Hakan
2010-01-10 20:37:51

Ozgur - Thank you for your thoughts & endorsement, much appreciated. 'scepticalyabanci' - Thank you also for your comments and views, I agree that sometimes my views may come across as strong and you are right that Mr. Akyol has a right to write this article within the confines of Turkish Law, but sometimes the response to such individuals has to be 'as it is' because that is the only response they will understand and deserve. I stand fully by my remarks especially with regards to his attack on 'Address to the Youth'. One should consider why such attacks are made, the reason is that visionary oration such as the 'Address to the Youth' forewarns the potential dangers that might be faced by the Republic at any given time by external and 'internal' threats and underlines the sacred duty of every citizen to stand up and face such threats. It it is this truth that is creating unease amongst certain groups in Turkey; a truth that they do not want the public to be enlightened with; as the saying goes 'The Truth Hurts' and only those who are affected by the truth will attack it. You are 100% right when you state that the AK party is using the Democracy train to get to their destination of making Turkey an Islamic state, one which is controlled or open to the influence of foreign powers. You are also right that a third way is needed in Turkey to stop the country from sliding into turmoil, what that third way should be I do not know but a new way of thinking is needed for sure.

Guest - Generalissimo
2010-01-10 20:10:15

GeneralSherman, Firstly, stop reading fiction and start education in facts. Secondly, Mustafa Akyol is talking about modern Turkish mentality rather than ethnicity. It is about today's Turks' attitude which equates the word "Armenian" the same manner the word "nigger" was equated with African-Americans in the past century, (and still does in parts of America).

Guest - Major Pat
2010-01-10 18:24:59

@General Sherman- your bizarre and obsessive interest in determining the purity of 'Turkic Genes" would make even Heinrich Himmler blush!!

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-10 18:17:50

kevin, you seem to have trouble accepting that the Mediterranean ancestry of the Turks of Anatolia isn't derived from greeks, armenians, or kurds. Genetic studies show that the Mediterranean ancestry of the Turks of Anatolia isn't from greeks, armenians, and kurds. In the case of the greeks, we don't see any of the negroid or semitic admixture that would already have been in greek genes by the time the Turks from Central Asia arrived and it's documented that the greek presence in Anatolia was limited to coastal regions so that eliminates that. The kurds are way off and are more akin to the persians. Also, there is a lack of genetic commonality with the armenians who are more Turkish in the Central Asian sense (al least 30%) anyway. This is not due to the Central Asian ancestors of the Turks of Anatolia but the Mongol-Turkish invasions of armenia that occured centuries ago. In any case, that eliminates that. There were large non-greek, non-kurd, non-armenian Mediterranean peoples in Anatolia who were assimilated into the dominant Turkish culture very quickly. See "Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans" and "http://www.answers.com/topic/turkification". By the way, geneticists have had difficulty linking Central Asian Turks and Mongols despite linguistic ties centuries of interaction. According to Spencer Wells, Mongols are derived from the East Asian lineage which includes Japanese, Koreans and Chinese while Central Asian are derived from the Eurasian lineague which includes Hungarian-Finnish, Native American, and European peoples.

Guest - Christoph
2010-01-10 18:09:28

Nyoped, unfortunately Turkey has a historical record of persecution of minority groups up to the present day. The imfamous state sponsored 1955 Pogrom is but one example. The Democrat party in the USA has no corresponding ethnic persecution such as this. Nor have far-right military groups planned assasinations of religious and ethnic minority groups in the USA. Governments in Turkey have used the 'disloyal minority' ruse many times on the public when economic issues had agitated people against the ruling party. It's always a sure-fire means of uniting Turks and focussing their anger on some innocent group instead of on the government. This sort of viewpoint from Mr. Akyol needs to be stated again and again, until the final vestiges of extreme nationalism and ethnic hatred are purged forever from Turkish society. Kudos to you Mr. Akyol for your courage!!!

Guest - orhan
2010-01-10 18:05:31

Modern day Turkish society resembles a genetically-mutated laboratory creature masterfully manipulated and brainwashed by its original founder and his doctrines. This so-called "creature" is happy to aimlessly run around in circles in its clinical Plexiglass home experiencing nothing but the posterior view of the creature before it, unbeknownest to them that there is a free-world beyond the confines of their minds. I would much rather see a society that is more concerned to guard against insulting one's intelligence than insulting their Turkishness nonsense. It is very simple -- Turks are the very children of many ethnic minorities that they have the greatest conflict with today. It's like denying your own mother and father, killing your own brother, raping your own sister and and abusing your own child under the guise that somehow Turks are this separate and special people dropped from another planet in Anatolia and surroundings with no trace of Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, and others. Wake up my friends. Broaden your thinking and try to jump out of the confines of this plexiglass home and have the courage to bite off the hands of your "lab=government" handlers and ultra-nationalist hardliners as they try to feed you with perpetuating morsels of lies.

Guest - hayuhi
2010-01-10 18:02:56

Yes, GeneralSherman loves playing with words. Perhaps after his "retirement" from the army, that's the only thing left for him to play with.What a pity that both his "introduction" and "conclusion" always proves to be wrong.Please don't let this little faux pas stop you from enriching the other readers mind from your "mine" of information.

Guest - hayuhi
2010-01-10 17:51:50

A thought provoking article. Some of the comments expressed here are even more "thought " provoking.

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-10 17:40:42

papken, I used the the term "Central Asian" so you would not confuse them with the Turks of Anatolia. By the way, I hate to break it to you but the armenians did not resist Turkification all. In fact, I would say that among non-Turkic groups they showed the least resistance to Turkification. The truth is reall that armenians are actually, on average, more Turkish than the Turks of Anatolia. By "ancestors" I suppose you mean the ancient Anatolians but the point you made doesn't make sense as genetic studies show that the armenians have at least 30% of their genetic background in common with Central Asians while the Turks of Anatolia have about 3-13 %. Check out: Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans papken, I used the the term "Central Asian" so you would not confuse them with the Turks of Anatolia. By the way, I hate to break it to you but the armenians did not resist Turkification all. In fact, I would say that among non-Turkic groups they showed the least resistance to Turkification. The truth is reall that armenians are actually, on average, more Turkish than the Turks of Anatolia. By "ancestors" I suppose you mean the ancient Anatolians but the point you made doesn't make sense as genetic studies show that the armenians have at least 30% of their genetic background in common with Central Asians while the Turks of Anatolia have about 3-13 %. I see you don't hve a genetic studies to back up your claims while I do. Check out: "Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans"

Guest - Mehmetcik
2010-01-10 17:02:06

I do not always agree with Akyol and even now have to think it is extreme but I think many Turks can make things racial when it is not. We are a mosaic whether we like it or not. Our grandmother and grandfathers are from many peoples.

Guest - Terranova
2010-01-10 16:40:51

The Turks, Greeks, Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians, Persians, Arabs of Asia Minor are all heavily mixed. The Turks also have Slavic bloodlines from conquered peoples in what is now Serbian, Bosnia, Croatia, etc. The Turks (the Seljuks being the first arrivals) came as warriors only, the intermixed with local populations so that eventually their physiology changed (they no longer resemble or have much genetically in common with their so-called Turkic cousins in the Altai region of Central Asia.) Language connections of course remain. Perhaps the only Turks who have a connection the Central Asia are the Yuruks. Before the Turks there were of course Hellenes ( with Lydians and Ionians polictical entities). The Armenians emerged from Hittities (later Urartrians), Phyrigians, and a tribe that moved east from Thrace. The Assyrians also emerged from Anatolia. The Turks have the bloodlines of all their subject peoples. Why should this be a point of contention? Turkey should truly embrace all these cultures; Greek, Armenian, Assyrian, Kurdish, as well as Central Asian. It's interesting to see Turks who correct people when the claim that a Turks is anyone who call oneself a Turk yet at the same time not recognizing that a "Turk" is a somewhat recent phenomena; the ancestors were mainly from the local populations the found there, who had lived there for several thousand years before the arrivals of Seljuk and later Osmanli warriors.

Guest - Bek nyc
2010-01-10 14:27:39

Mustafa. Keep the good work up. Your the Man. Thats the best and most truthfull reading i'v done in a long time about time someone showed some balls.

Guest - kevin
2010-01-10 14:07:42

General Sherman, the Hittite also contributed to Armenians. If you look at the ancient maps of Armenia and the Hittite empire, they are the same areas. In regards to the Greeks: Before Seljuks, Anatolia was under the rule of Eastern Romans but was mainly inhabited by people of Greek origin for nearly two millennia (Toynbee, 1970). Hence, Turkish people are more in common with the original inhabitants of Anatolia than the Turkish people in Asia. Hence, there are no real Turks in Anatolia. They have more in common with Greeks, Armenians and Kurds than Turkic people in Mongolia. Also, most Turkish ancestors were Christians.

Guest - Papken
2010-01-10 12:34:33

GeneralSherman, you are playing with words to draw your false conclusions. You are correct in saying that Turks are not really Central Asian but much more Anatolian. I have said it before and still find it quite amusing that the country that very easily produces the most "Grand Turanian," Pan-Turkish, Turkish nationalist ideas is the least Turkish of them all! Your play on words however is in reference to the Armenians sharing many genes with the Turks. You replace the word "Turks" which you yourself argue are not really genetically an Altaic people and substitute it with "Central Asians" and than claim that Armenians are in fact Central Asians, when the truth really is that Armenians resisted Turkishification whereas your ancestors basically did not.

Guest - Papken
2010-01-10 12:22:28

Nyoped, your comparison between Kemalists and the Democratic Party is misleading. Modern Kemalism in Turkey is comparable to the Democratic Party before the success of the civil rights movement in the United States. In other words, I am saying Kemalists are indeed very racist. As some other commentators have pointed out, perhaps one day the Kemalist movement will truly move toward becoming a center-left/social democratic movement, but as of right now, they are very different from the modern Democratic Party in the United States.

Guest - Jacob.
2010-01-10 10:59:47

Yacoub's comments are utter utter b------t. I have never heard such rubbish until now. I am surprised that the Daily News have published these comments.

Guest - scepticalyabanci
2010-01-10 10:53:45

Hakan, Mustafa Akyol has the right to say what he likes, and as Hurriyet has published his article, then clearly there is nothing in it that breaks any laws. His claim that ethnic minorities have suffered persecuion is not an issue of rights at all, it is rather an issue of truth., i.e. are his claims true or false? Argue with him, challenge his views with alternative views, but do not undemocratically question his right to hold and express those views. Imagine what the newspapers and history books would by full (or perhaps I should say ‘empty’ of), if peole like you were controlling them, Hakan! However, I do agree with the sentiment you move towards at the end of your comment. Despite being one of the most well-informed, intelligent and indeed courageous of current high profile Turkish journalists, Mustafa Akyol has, in my view, bought into the AKP PR rhetoric that tells us that AKP’s challenges to the legacies of the Republic’s past are motivated by a desire to make Turkey more democratic. They are not. Democracy is the train they are riding to their destination, and that destination is a more Islamic Turkey. There is an alternative, if CHP could reform itself sufficiently, or if a new democratic secular party could capture public imagination to a sufficiently high degree as to be able to become the leading opposition. What is needed is a secular party truly committed to the principles of democracy and progressive liberal democatic government. That can only happen when secular Turkey wakes up to the present reality. Stop fighting the ideological battles of the twentieth century; AKP have already persuaded enough of the population that their’s is the one better suited to leading Turkey in the twenty-first century. A secularist vision for the twenty-first century is what Turkey cries out for. A third way, if you will. No more Islamicization by stealth from the one side, and no more ‘how dare you say this about Turkey?’ secularist ultra-nationalism anti-democratic authoritarianism from the other. There really is another way. Embrace the principles and values and the mindset of real democracy and follow that third way.

Guest - Citizen
2010-01-10 10:16:13

look how armenians & greeks & fundemantalist praise you... what do you have common with them? or let me ask this way, what good they've done to us.

Guest - Nejdet
2010-01-10 09:58:34

I can't believe people still have the same mentality as does the CHP party. What a shame.

Guest - wolf
2010-01-10 09:40:16

Hakan, I get very sad when I read something like what you have written. You really want to limit the freedom of expression, dont you? You really think we should support further extreme nationalism (you call it patiotism, but that is not what you are asking for). Are you in UK for example not allowed to critizise Winston Churchill, elected leader of the century? What kind of a society do you want to live in? The last thing we need in this country is to further trigger extreme nationalism.

Guest - ozgur
2010-01-10 08:40:31

@hakan, mate u are brilliant. @yacoub, who are you to call us genetically Armo, Greek or Kurds. Get to know your history prior to wriring such rubbish. @RICK AU, mums will always lose their sons at war.War has been around since time began, it will sill be here one you and me leave too. So mums willalways lose sons. You mention "we" as turks in your comments. I beg to differ if you were turkish. If you read about your history or just ask your grandma about those days when the french, british and rest of the world tried invading and taking whats left of now turkey, im sure you will have a better understanding. Stop learning your history from such rubish articles my friend..............)

Guest - raz
2010-01-10 06:53:32

I am surprised by this lack of good sense of the author here... Firstly, Mr Minister Davutoglu does not need the help of Mr Akyol. His work speaks very well . Secondly, the armenians have the right to live normally- and i am hapyy for the recent developments marking an opening in relations. They can have this right , now, in Turkey... And also i believe they can be positively discriminated- after all , they have lost , and suffered much ... But they are not just simple victims- there were times when they tried to apply ethnical cleansing on others in their areas, and they learned it from the "good neighbours - the greek and russian" and from the Preachers of "Rwandan Games".... Maybe history evolves into something more good - but past history must be understood well... If the turks were to not resist and to let themselves frightened and massacred by the greeks, armenians... maybe nowadays , a person like Mr Akyol, would have been some "thing"' , much like the palestinians... Its not the place for probabilistics- its just that history tends to repeat itself ... but thanks to some "noble blooded" efforts, Mr Akyol has very luckily now the possibility to express his honourable and modern "point of view"... I agree that Turkey must continue democratic reforms- this new Turkey is needed by all its neighbours... And firstly by the turkish people. A democratic Turkey can be a source of stability for all around. Kemalism as ideology may be too rigid for our time or for Mr Akyol- but patriotic thoughts are such a burden for Mr Akyol? Or "archaic"? Where and how can he make the difference? Writing in european character, after he learnt in a school, maybe his mother was educated also, his sisters if he has are going to school.... Maybe Mr Akyol has his reasons to consider kemalism "archaic" and a "relic" - but the achievements brought to Turkey are very clear ... Mr Akyol must pray to God he has nothing to do with this "bad people" - like some other unfortunates : bosnians, albanians.. "bad people" is not the name of a game for entertaining of the turkish....

Guest - nyoped
2010-01-10 06:44:22

This is yet another petty attempt by Mr.Akyol to bash Kemalists in Turkey. Calling Kemalists in Turkey 'almost racist' based on a few isolated incident is no different than calling Democrats in the US racist just because Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid once referred to Barack Obama as a "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect." As a Kemalist who live in the US, I can assure you that neither Kemalists in Turkey nor Democrats in the US are racists. In fact, if you are planning to move to one of these two countries you would definitely end up living in a neighborhood populated mostly by these welcoming folks. If you try to live in a place where Mr.Akyol's political leaning (Islamist) is prominent and people vote for Davutoglu's party best case scenario you will be 'tolerated' but never be accepted fully. In other words, while Mr.Akyol talks about tolarating other religions, Kemalists live, sociliaize, make friends, fall in love, marry, start business with each other (regardless of ethnicity, religion, etc). I grew up in a very diverse neighborhood in Turkey where people of all religions and ethnicities not only live together but also socialize with each other. And that neighborhood is one of the Kemalist strongholds in Turkey. And now I live in a very diverse neighborhood called NYC which is a Demcoratic stronghold. Mr.Akyol has been trying to bash Kemalist for a long time now. He, being a creationist, would usually blame Kemalist being materialists elitist (ring a bell?) just becasue Kemalist prefer to rely on science such as Darwin's theory instead of fairy tails. Recently he has cherry picked a few incedents to portray us Kemalist as racist. P.S. My condolences to those who lost their friends and family in the recent terrorist attacks.

Guest - Turk
2010-01-10 03:43:03

It's always kind of strange when the right wing fanatical habits and attitudes of Turkey's neighbors (both sides of the fence) are not considered to be at all important or noticeable ... For all those crying foul about Turkey's misgivings, so called suppression of "minorities", dwindling democracy, right wing attitudes etc etc , I do believe the best solution would be a new unified state (no borders) or federation of Greece, Turkey, Armenia, and of course we'll have to probably include Azerbaijan into this.. We could then have a referendum on this new democracy (a majority decision for those who don't know) ... on what the new flag would look like and what the national anthem should be, not to mention the official language of this new state..Any Greeks, Armenians living in Turkey or abroad in favor ??

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-10 02:43:50

yacoub, while nobody in Turkiye is probably 100 % Turkic, genetic studies have shown that the Mediterranean ancestry of the Turks of Anatolia isn't derived from any of the groups you mentioned (greek, armenian, kurdish). They're likely the descendants of the Hittites or Lydians. Also, interestingly armenians have on average 30% of their genetic background in common with Central Asian peoples. :) Look it up: "Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans."

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-10 02:41:04

I hate to break it to you kevin but while nobody in Turkiye is probably 100 % Turkic, genetic studies have shown that the Mediterranean ancestry of the Turks of Anatolia isn't derived from any of the groups you mentioned (greek, armenian, kurdish, arabic, assyrian). They're likely the descendants of the Hittites or Lydians. Also, interestingly armenians have on average 30% of their genetic background in common with Central Asian peoples. :) Look it up: "Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans." Also, while they have linguisic ties, geneticists have been unable to find a link between Turks and Mongolians who are distinct ethnic groups. According to Spencer Wells, Mongolians are closer to Japanese, Korean, and Chinese while Central Asians are gentically grouped with Native Americans, Finno-Hungarian, and European peoples.

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-10 02:39:52

I hate to break it to you giorgos but while nobody in Turkiye is probably 100 % Turkic, genetic studies have shown that the Mediterranean ancestry of the Turks of Anatolia isn't derived from any of the groups you mentioned (greek, armenian, kurdish, arabic, assyrian). They're likely the descendants of the Hittites or Lydians. Also, interestingly armenians have on average 30% of their genetic background in common with Central Asian peoples. :) Look it up: "Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans." Also, while they have linguisic ties, geneticists have been unable to find a link between Turks and Mongolians who are distinct ethnic groups. According to Spencer Wells, Mongolians are closer to Japanese, Korean, and Chinese while Central Asians are gentically grouped with Native Americans, Finno-Hungarian, and European peoples.

Guest - GeneralSherman
2010-01-10 02:32:58

I hate to break it to you christoph but while nobody in Turkiye is probably 100 % Turkic, genetic studies have shown that the Mediterranean ancestry of the Turks of Anatolia isn't derived from any of the groups you mentioned (greek, armenian, kurdish, arabic, assyrian). They're likely the descendants of the Hittites or Lydians. Also, interestingly armenians have on average 30% of their genetic background in common with Central Asian peoples. :) Look it up: "Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans." Also, while they have linguisic ties, geneticists have been unable to find a link between Turks and Mongolians who are distinct ethnic groups. According to Spencer Wells, Mongolians are closer to Japanese, Korean, and Chinese while Central Asians are gentically grouped with Native Americans, Finno-Hungarian, and European peoples.

Guest - nostro
2010-01-10 02:21:45

Could this article be anymore anti-chp...what exactly is your problem with a democratic turkey. Ataturk brought democracy to turkey, he took the power from the sultan who was a puppet of imperial england and gave it to the people. And for some reason you have a problem with that! And you talk about this as brainwashing, the only brainwashing here is being done by you. Your articles sound more and more like akp propaganda and a very poor and juvenile attempt at that. Davutoglu was criticized for not taking a stand against a very disturbing trend of continuosly dividing turkey into other nations. That channel later apologized. But to somehow find the blame in all of this with how he was criticized, when clearly the more disturbing events are these continuous insults to the soverignty of turkey as a whole nation. Just because you are not patriotic to your nation doesn't mean it's a bad attribute, and to find the problem not with the questioning of the soverign integrity of turkey (you know that land where you live and work and went to school) but instead with those who would defend it, what does that say about you?

Guest - Vagabundo
2010-01-10 00:35:12

On the subject of Ataturk. If the great man, the staunch moderniser, the man always bravely ahead of his time, were to come back today; what would his views be? Is it possible he might be a lot less 'Kemalist' than some present day Kemalists? Or would he too have his head rigidly buried in the past, clinging on to old certainties, afraid of new ideas and new approaches? Discuss...

Guest - Reader
2010-01-09 19:52:55

On one occasion I have mentioned that the very existance of Article 301 of Turkish panel Code suggest that ther is or could be reasons for "insulting Turkishness" as in no other nations you can find such an Article: for example for "insulting the Frenchness or Englishness", etc. With the same talken, if the State advocates its Youths that they must consider themselves as Nobel, ther is a deep susspecion about the Nobelity of them, as again there is no such a prictice in any other country. The conclusion remains what the Arabic saying says - by saying halwa your mouth will not get sweetened.

Guest - Hakan
2010-01-09 19:47:27

Reading such articles just strenghthens to show the sad reality of the dire situation in Turkey, when authors have the audacity to question and openly disrespect, in a sarcastic way, turkishness and the principles and foundations laid down by Ataturk. With what right do you claim that ethnic minorities are persecuted or segregrated within Turkish society for not being considered a 'Turk'? Correct me if I'm wrong but was not Turgut Ozal a Kurd? A Kurd who became the President of Turkey? How many MP's are there in the Turkish Parliament that are of Kurdish Origin? Are not the Armenian and Jewish communities in Turkey one of the most affluent and prosperous? What are you talking about Mr. Akyol? Are you joking with the readers of Hurriyet Daily News or insulting their intelligence? I have lived in London, U.K., for almost all of my life and do you know what I find to be the most lacking thing over here? It is the sense of being a nation, the affiliation of people with being 'British'. At a time when the U.K. Prime Minister is calling on more people to be patriotic we in Turkey are questioning or own patriotism; with some seeing it as a crime altogether. This is the basis upon which countires are weakened and preyed upon. What is astonishing and the most appalling of all is the assertion that the 'Address to the Youth' is considered as an instrument of Kemalistic brainwashing. Who are you to make such a statement? Did you help save and create a nation against unimaginable odds? Did you defeat entire armies comprised of the then Worlds Superpowers from literally having almost no resources at your disposal? Did you then go on to create a 'Democratic' Republic, one that enshrined the principles of minority rights? No you did not. The one man who did all of these things, the one man who is considered a genius by the world, the one man who's militaristic prowess are still taught at America's West Point Military Academy to this day, is Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Don;t forget that the next time you decide to write an article in yet another crypto-AKP fashion.

Guest - B. Baronian
2010-01-09 19:24:38

Mr. Akyol , interesting and informative article...I'm surprised at your courage to write these articles...but thank you for doing so...I am even more surprised that the Turkish authorities haven't thrown you in jail yet.

Guest - SenBen Writes:
2010-01-09 19:24:04

Atatürks idear was to build a nation for all ethnics and religions under the flag of a turkish nation." Yes and this "idea" was implemented by the deracination and massacre of every ethnic minority in Anatolia (except for the Kurds). Then, for about 80 years after that, a Kurd could be thrown in jail for simply uttering the words "I'm a Kurd". Once again, bravo Mr. Aykol. It takes a brave man to shine a light on the utter hypocrisy and unabashed pyschosis that's prevalent within Turkey's "blueprint of a Country".

Guest - yacoub
2010-01-09 18:23:24

There were no Turks in Anatolia some 800 years ago. The current Turkey was occupied by Greeks, Armenians, Kurds and Assyrians. After the invasions, the formed Yenicheries were just the children of Christian inhabitants who were taken away with force. Beside, the invaders abducted Christian girls from their villages. Yes, the country now is called Turkey, however, the Armenians and Greeks have invaded the genes and concoured the blood. There is no real Turkish anymore. Genetically all are either Armenian, Greeks or Kurds. In fact, Turkey is more Armenian with its culture, music and genes than anything else. It is a matter of accepting who our origins are.

Guest - LDG
2010-01-09 17:54:04

Very good article. I'am a stranger living in Turkey, with a wife and her mother who are turkish. I have very much difficulties to express my opinions on that type of subject, i'am immediately named traitor or like i don't love the country where i live. This is not true, but i can't understand sometimes what i hear. "A real turk is not from armenian or greek origin and must be muslim (sunni)". This is shocking me. For me each citizen who has a turkish identity card is a turk. Speaking from purity of the blood is absurd, racist.Just stupid or bad intentioned people can speak like that. Already today most of europeans speak like we are europeans and nationality is secondary. The youth is growing with messages from 70 years ago. The world changed, maybe it's time to review the content of school books.

Guest - Suleyman
2010-01-09 17:47:16

WOLF was exactly correct in his analysis below. Kemalism has morphed into ultra-nationalism, with it's continual focus on 'enemies from within' and 'who is a pure Turk?' nonsense. Turkey is strong enough to deal with the everyday noise and issues that every modern Democracy has. We need not fear the 'messiness' of Free Speech, Free Press and the rights of people to protest in public. Those are marks of strength, not weakness!!

Guest - ali
2010-01-09 17:25:42

@SenBen, I completely agree with you. I shall also protest and not read again this distorted reasoning. Insulting Ataturk and Turksh Nation in every article seems to become a great pleasure to Mr Akyol, thus reading his comments do not to bring any value to our knowledge. Enemies of Turkey and anti-turkish front can do their masturbation by reading these Baker girl's stories.

Guest - wolf
2010-01-09 16:05:12

I think we have to separate 1) Ataturk movement in the 1930's from 2) Todays extreme rightwings. During the 1930's the issues we can see around Ataturk were common all over Europe with building stonger national states, social engineering etc. But what we have seen is that Europe has moved on towards something else, whereas the "war atmosphere" still remains and have even become stronger in Turkey with comments like the ones above in the article. This constant talk about "enemies" in today's Turkey is rather strange. We dont have anyone likely to attack us, and so it has been for a very long time. Still, Turkey seems to believe that we are under siege and the enemies are everywhere. This mentality has certainly damaged Turkey and made life difficult for a lot ot people, created extreme nationalism (which the authoritites have not at all attempted to reduce but rather support), created problems with our neighbours, Europe etc etc. So, I can fully understand, support and admire the attempts of Ataturk to modernize the country, but I am very reluctant to how the Kemalists today are acting and speaking and view crucial areas such as human rights, freedom of speach etc.

Guest - SenBen
2010-01-09 14:04:57

Mr Akyol are you a non-critical Journalist who publishes exactly what the governemnt wants? Atatürks era is over and a neo ottomanism starts? You only shoud mention that the TR never really realised the points of Atatürk and that some politicans and elites misused his name. Like some politicans and elites misuses the Koran. The idear of "turkish" had nothing to do with a race or clean blood. Atatürks idear was to build a nation for all ethnics and religions under the flag of a turkish nation. You completely forgot the time as Atatürk made this. It was the time of nation building. You compare the idear of Atatük with the idears of Hitler of German aryans. Atatütk didnt killed kurds, armenians, arabs and other non turkish ethnics in concentration camps. Its a shame how you put his noble work to create a nation for all into that ugly spot. Is this the new step of the AKP agents to destroy the next statue of Turkey: Atatürk? Nevertheless, your articles are going now closer and closer to AKP propaganda and i will not read them anymore. To close my comment: Opening the cooking books with the intention to create a new foreign policy is 1 thing but cooking with war criminals and dictators like Bashir, Assad and Ahmendinijad is another thing. Have fun in your new world and new friends.

Guest - Achmed
2010-01-09 12:31:20

Millions of Turks have Armenian ancestors, my grandma was Armenian too, without the Armenians Turkey would not have developed the way it did. We must be thankful to the Armenians and give our appologies for the terrible Genocide we committed! It is a shame...

Guest - Rick. AU
2010-01-09 12:21:43

Guest ozgur Do you really think ataturk saved us then why did hundreds of thousands of mums lost there sons. İ think we need to give recognition to those who sacrificed there lives and i also believe if ataturk was better organized we would have not lost so many lives.....

Guest - nuretto
2010-01-09 10:21:42

The anthropologists describe the physiognomy of the Turks; mid sized in height, with wheat colored skin and slanting eyes. It is very rare to see anybody living in the present modern Turkey fits in this description. In reality, the so called real Turks live in Turkistan of Russia and China. The ancestors of the people of Turkey are the Ottomans with multi-racial, non-moslem wives where their subjects used to speak 70 plus languages in their vast territory. The people of Turkey are also of multi-ethnic backgrounds, including CHP and it's members and leaders. After they deceased we learned that Mr.Ecevit and Mr. Inonu were of Kurdish ancestry.

Guest - kevin
2010-01-09 10:15:13

I hate to break the news to you Turks, but there is NO one in Turkey that is 100% Turkic. If they were they would be oriental/Mongloid. Turks are "crypto" of many of the original inhabitants of Anatolia: Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, Arabic, Assryian, etc.

Guest - Christoph
2010-01-09 08:03:45

Using the 'crypto-Armenian' (or Greek, Kurd, Assyrian...) allegation against a Turkish official is an old ploy in Turkey. Attempting to tarnish an officials motivation by suggesting he's not a 'pure Turk' is a pretty childish tactic, but oft used in Turkey. It's effective among the masses as well-ethnic and religious minority groups have been portrayed as subversive groups in Turkey for centuries. This kind of nationalist nonsense needs to end in Turkey immediately. It has motivated ugly incidents, as the assasination of Hrant Dink attests.

Guest - Ozgur
2010-01-09 06:08:36

with all due respect towards your thoughts...you my friend have no idea. And i have no idea why this paper/internet site gives you this coloumn. I wonder where you would have been now if it wasnt for that brainwasing man...probably a greek or a pommy or better yet a french i reckon.

Guest - Ahmet
2010-01-09 03:58:26

The paranoid delusions here are getting out of control. For a country that claims that Turks are a mosaic of different ethnicities, people like Öğüt, Oymen, Arıtman make us look foolish and as liars.

Guest - GIORGOS K
2010-01-09 03:53:35

After reading this article I am seriously starting to be afraid whether I am a crypto-Turk since my parents are Greeks...born in Istanbul....I will have to ask my grandpa again the next time i will visit him in Istanbul!

Guest - Seda
2010-01-09 03:51:34

I agree with you Mr. Akyol but I know you'll catch hell for this and be called a traitor. It seems that to some people there is but one way to express yourself politically in this country; either as an ultra-nationalist or be considered a traitor. This is so archaic, paranoid, and foolish and not good for Turkey at all. We are also hypocritical when we decry the nationalism show by other peoples but stubbornly hold onto our own.

Guest - Rick AU
2010-01-09 03:14:49

Thank you so much Mustafa for bringing this subject to light if only more Turks could see the light we as a whole would be much better offf. Wake up Turkey ataturk is not going to save yous. Stop brainwashing our youth.

Guest - Rick AU
2010-01-09 03:13:32

Guest - khalid
2010-01-09 01:36:06

I have said this before, and i will say it again, the problem with Kemalism is that it has racial connotations. This is so explosive in a region, Anatolia, where it has had lots of racial mixing through out its history, and more so inhabited by a people who has various racial characteristics from alpine to semitic to mongoloid. Ataturk came from the Thrace side, just like most Muhajirs after the balkan wars. These muhajirs took over the turkish government during the late 1800 and their vision of being turkish only fits those who came from that part of the world ie brown/blond hair and colored eyes. Just look at the pictures of ataturk and how they stress on showing his glaring blue eyes in lots of his pictures in public places. Look at turkish movies, especially the old ones, you would think that you are witnessing a Swedish movie, all blond with blue eyes. These nordic looking people only make 3 percent of turkey, yet they dominated the Turkish cinema. Reminds me of bollywood indian and old iranian movies, you think u are watching an italian movie, ie all are with a very white skin and yet 99 percent of indians and iranians have a brown skin.

Guest - Dinos Plassaras
2010-01-09 00:47:50

Dear Mr. Akyol. It is entirely plausible that occasional lapses of finesse by the opposition might give you a strong podium to direct your thunderous remarks at those unfortunate targets of your indignation. However the bottom line remains that at the present moment internal politics are fractious when instead they should have been united and homophonous. I am the last person to have an opinion on Turkey's internal affairs, yet the issue that I care the most - namely a just and lasting solution for Cyprus - remains hostage to the lack of political consensus. I was wondering if instead of taking satisfaction at bashing this and that and the other issue, you could instead direct your considerable journalistic talents in forging an internal consensus. It might be the mature thing to do because a united Turkey is needed if we are to effectively address Cyprus and other bilateral issues.

Guest - Zonkey
2010-01-09 00:16:40

I agree with this article. I also feel the same way about teaching kids about religious beliefs as if it were fait accompli as well. As the author is someone who writes very openly but also makes no secret of his own religious conviction, I would be interested in Mustafa's opinion on this ............

WRITE A COMMENT

Once a nation where children learned their country was self-sufficient, today's Turkey is a land where farming is in a state of despair. "Bitter Harvest" is a three-part series on the state of Turkish agriculture. Vatan is a sister newspaper of the Daily News.

OPINION

MOST POPULAR
MOST COMMENTED

Bankruptcy hurts Turkish Cyprus tourism

15 released pending trial in massive ID theft in Turkey

Political tensions fueled violence in Turkish towns, experts say

Turkey's pro-Kurdish political parties divided over referendum

The CHP’s foreign policy stance

Excavations restarting at İkiztepe in northern Turkey

Spanish tourist missing after tour boat sinks off Turkey

Turkish-owned Albanian bank BKT looks to expand

Are İnegöl and Dörtyol incidents rousts?

Turkey's first five referendums: A look back

The next big thing: Turkish separatism

German FM pledges to support Turkey's EU bid

Greek villas hit as crisis devalues island homes

Bananas in place of rakı; men in place of women

Israeli PM seeks Jordanian support for direct peace talks

Turkey's Elvan golden after Barcelona success

Bankruptcy hurts Turkish Cyprus tourism

Turkey, Britain vow to boost relations

Turkish FM says 'no crisis' with US now, or in past

Export recovery not enough, report warns

Verification code	Write the code above. (Can't read code? Refresh)
Display Name:	(required)
Your Email:	(required)
E-mail is required in case we need to communicate with you. It will not appear on the website and will never be used for any other purposes.

Ahmet Davutoğlu: Yet another crypto-Armenian?

READER COMMENTS

WRITE A COMMENT

Previous Articles

Once a nation where children learned their country was self-sufficient, today's Turkey is a land where farming is in a state of despair. "Bitter Harvest" is a three-part series on the state of Turkish agriculture. Vatan is a sister newspaper of the Daily News.

OPINION