|
​Choices for the Armenians and AGOS

I have a preference for discussing the problems of the Armenian community within the scope of the general democratization process of Turkey, and at the same time touch on specific issues in due concerns. I consider that this is the correct approach. The problem in the Kurdish question can also be resolved that way. While the attempt of the state continues with all of the energy it collects from the demands for the rights of the disadvantaged groups, a certain type of implemented reform is relaxing all the disadvantageous communities in the country. The best example that can be given  regards removing the obstacles to mother tongue education, which is not only solving the problems of Kurds but others as well. For instance, recently the Syrian Mor Efram Kindergarten was opened. Last year, certain obstacles were removed for opening the Gökçeada Greek Primary school.


 


While in this way the discriminative reason state was abandoned, both certain ethnic identities were not made targets through positive discrimination and a positive climate were created in the pursuit of becoming a society.  The current government is cooperative and open to negotiation.  This is a political authority, which does not consider the pressure of the demands for rights as a threat, but rather an advantage.   


 


This situation is not only a statement of purpose, but it is rather a new thing in Turkey in being successful. 


As a matter of fact, just like citizens of Turkey, Armenians have benefited from the general democratization process for the last 12 years.  


 


However, Armenians went through two unfortunate situations in 2007-2008. The first one was, of course, the murder of Hrant Dink. The other was that Turkey’s Armenian Patrick, Mesrob II, was discovered as having a severe brain disease. Therefore, two politically significant columns for Armenians collapsed.  Even though these two effective persons mostly disagreed with each other, the discussions were refreshing the community, pushing it to be extraverted, and gradually rendering it as a subject.


 


After his best friend, Hrankt Dink was murdered; Etyen Mahçupyan took on a great responsibility and sustained AGOS. I have also been personally contributing to this process since 2008 to the best of my capacity.

 


 


Fairly speaking, in that period of time certain socialist names such as Aydın Engin and others did their best in giving support. Of course, AGOS would have changed after Hrant Dink. And to miss the AGOS of Dink would be righteous, but not a fair thing. The important thing was that a worthwhile environment such as AGOS continued its function in producing a democratic reasoning. Coming from a leftist background, Dink proved that democratic, fair and effective publishing could be possible. 


 


From my perspective, at the time being the result didn’t or couldn’t occur to be as so. It was a very hard period, in fact. There are some strong reasons to look for, but none of them justifies a hasty editorial attitude for a precious environment such as AGOS. The abandonment of the Dink case to the parallel structure’s initiative and the negligence of estimating the murder’s spiritual leverage effect are the primary reasons.


 


 


Therefore, through the Dink murder, first the newspaper and then a part of the community was taken hostage or they were ready to surrender. The choice of AGOS as such seems to have stemmed from perplexity and anger, with the total desire for a reply concerning the encouragements of surrealism and activism by its creator, the leftist sectarian-romantic leftist group who circulated the newspaper and the association.


 


In terms of AGOS besides the Dink case, I think the Gezi incident is more effective. Because the breaking point expedited at that point. We owe it to the mistake that secularism is an acceptance of an ideology and to the overlapping with the narrow commentary of life styles


 


The leftist side of the Armenian intellectuals set an agreement with the Unionist Party in Turkey at the turn of the 20

th

century. What made them get closer was that they went under the same process and thus had the western paradigm in common. On the other hand, ninety percent of the Armenians were peasants and they were a religious community with interests of going along with its local sociology and not their revolutionary logic or irredentism. Yervant Odyan’s book, “Comrade Panchuni”, describes the superficiality and the opportunism of the leftist group. Now there are label names. Now, every nicknamed figure (Turkish, Kurdish, and Armenian) has been turned into a Comrade Panchuni code. Now they are playing the Comrade Panchuni role.


  


However, we are talking about a small newspaper; the effect and representation should not be exaggerated. No one has actually tied the arms of Armenians so they don’t produce and have an alternative idea center. Just because Armenians are not active, this cannot be billed to any other active environment. They have the liberty to act as they please, even if that type of liberty leads to objectification.



At this point, we don’t know exactly what the tendencies of the Armenian community are like. I observe that the Gezi is quite influential in the young generation and this is quite a normal thing. However, the support of the community for the last 12 years of change is not like below the average level of Turkey. I am sharing this information based on my own broad observation. Therefore, to categorize the Armenian community, while assuming that it is consisting of the Comrade Panuchis, would be repeating another mistake that was made at the beginning of the 20
th
century especially in view of the conservatives. 

 


A new country is being established. Armenians do not owe anything to Unionists, their B quality leftist and Kemalists, Kemalist leftists and especially not to those “enlightened” elites who exploited the victimhood for their colonization project.


 


For a whole century, hundreds of thousands of souls are owed. Their trivial authority fight is not the issue of Armenians. In the story, in which they carried their obsessions, haughtiness through until now, Armenians were not only the first to lose. Why would they take a side in history with those who bid farewell to history with shame?

 


What would recover Armenians is not a project or the object of any alliance that would impede the establishment of a new country.  It goes through stamping this foundation.  Therefore Mahçupyan said, “Is this a project or are you going to be the founder-subject.” Thus, he was touching upon a highly controversial issue.

  


In short,  I believe that my first home, AGOS, will pick up itself and the small Armenian society instead of becoming the small community of Birgün, which lies in a relatively smaller community’s needs to become an original party of the new media which is in need of it. 


 

#Turkey
#Armenians
#Agos
#Hrant Dink
10 yıl önce
​Choices for the Armenians and AGOS
Can Daesh save Israel?
Is World War III about to break out?
Demographic shift in Türkiye...
The real war is being waged on social media platforms...
A call to the wealthy...