Turks
Unfairly Remain a Hated People
By
Shelomo Alfassa
(May
23, 2007) The Ottomans experienced their highest point
of strength during the 16th century, as Turkey was trampling
across Europe gaining victory after victory. As the
Ottoman soldiers pushed into new areas of the continent,
the Europeans increasingly became fearful of the Turks.
Yet, even after the Ottoman Empire lost its great status
and became the "Sick Man of Europe," a hatred
and dread for the Turkish people remained. This was
a lingering of ethnic and religious loathing against
a people of unknown background; It was a vile revulsion
by Christians against the Muslim Turks-a people that
did not profess a belief in their man-god. "The
Turk is a great barbarian," stated 16th century
German humanist John Adolph Muelich. In the German language,
turken ("to Turk"), still means "to hoax,
to deceive."
The
18th and 19th centuries witnessed Christian missionary
adventurers roving the Orient probing for new victims
to entice into their fold. In addition, Western intellectuals
and pseudo-intellectuals traveled to Asia in search
of undiscovered ancient worlds, and throughout their
voyages into Ottoman lands, wrote profusely about the
Turks-the less than human savages. In an early account
about Palestine, an American wrote that the Turkish
army provides a "severe beating" to its new
soldiers, including those which were "sick."
He documented that "some of the new recruits die"
and that "the whip of soft, flexible, stinging
leather, which seldom leaves the Turkish officer s hand,
was never idle."
In
a popular 19th century British travelogue, the Protestant
author calls the Turkish people both "savages"
and "cunning misbelievers." In this same volume,
the office of the Sultan is referred to as "faithless."
The author writes, "The Turks abated nothing of
the cruelty in which their race has always taken in
delight." This Christian author also uses the term
"stubborn." The term stubborn is one that
was frequently used by Christians against non-Christians.
It is essentially a slur, which dictates that there
is something wrong with the non-Christian for not accepting
the Christian faith. We repeatedly see the use of the
word stubborn used against the Turks, as well as the
Jews for not believing in Jesus. This word has been
employed by Christian missionaries both in centuries
past, as well as present. Hugh Latimer, the chaplain
to King Henry VIII wrote in one of his sermons, that
the Turkish people were not only stubborn, but he wrote,
"It is a great ignominy and shame for a Christian
man to be bond and subject unto a Turk." Reformist
Martin Luther himself wrote extensively about the "Turkish
problem" and considered the Turkish people "servants
and saints of the devil." Turkish people were so
vilified and associated with negativity, that the term
Turk was (and is) itself used as a slur, even when not
talking about Turkish people.
The
Republic of Turkey is a nation that over the past sixty
years has become a truly modern nation. And as their
society seeks entrance into the European Union, it continues
to struggle because of persistent age-old negatives.
For Turkey to be viable as a member state of the EU,
the civilized world must expunge old stereotypes. The
world must also recognize that the Republic of Turkey,
although principally a nation made up of people born
into the Muslim faith, is not an Arab nation with discordant
goals and attitudes like those that fester inside the
Arab world. In April of 2007, when over one million
Turks marched in the streets against a potential pro-Islamic
Turkish government-we were once again assured that Turkey
remains a free and modern nation.
As
Turkey aims to enter the EU, the other major obstacle
it faces, are claims by the Armenian genocide lobby.
Because the Turks deny there was an organized attempted
genocide against the Armenians, Turkey remains a villain
among international political circles. This begs the
question, why should the modern government of the Republic
of Turkey accept blame for the result of warfare between
the Ottomans and the Armenians anyway? And, since it
has been established that this was a brutal and tragic
war, and that both sides suffered greatly, why are the
Armenians fostering a political claim? Even without
answering these questions, the never ending ranting
by the Armenians against the savage Turks has fallen
upon the ears of the Western world and has been responded
to in knee-jerk fashion. The Armenians have not only
gained the support of the Christian world, but also
the main stream Jewish establishment. Even when esteemed
historians with no Ottoman or Turkish allegiance, such
as the late Prof. Stanford Shaw (UCLA), Prof. Bernard
Lewis (Princeton University), and Justin McCarthy (Univ.
of Louisville), all agree that the so-called Armenian
genocide was no genocide.
The
saddest truth in this whole matter is that without deep
investigation or analysis, many people have emotionally
and completely sided with the Armenian Christians against
Turkish Muslims. Recently, a (Jewish) US Congressman
spoke at a pro-Armenian rally in New York City, where
he claimed the Jewish people "all supported"
the recognition of the alleged genocide; this was not
the first time a Congressman spoke out on the issue,
nor the first time a Congressman was mistaken. The establishment
should not allow their emotions dictate their responses.
They must realize that because Armenian Christians accuse
Turkish Muslims of committing genocide, it does not
mean that it actually happened.
In
1989, as Armenian lobbyists were making headway in the
Congress for the US to recognize their genocide claim,
Los Angeles based Rabbi Albert Amateau (1889-1996),
an orthodox rabbi, attorney and social activist, told
that as a young man in Turkey, he was mistakenly considered
a Christian because of his French name. Because of this,
Armenian students felt that they could freely discuss
their membership in Armenian secret societies around
him, and openly discusses their active participation
in secret military exercises to prepare themselves for
military duty in their planned subversive war against
the Ottoman Empire and nation, in alliance and collaboration
with Czarist Russia. In a sworn statement, Amateau told
that he was: