Mayner Shtetl… what’s Winchester in Yiddish?

Yes, I hear you cry- no! He can’t possibly be writing another article on something Semitic! Moshe Dayan save us! But yes. I am, dear friends. Before you traipse away muttering under your breaths as to how things used to be, let me decant some old style Wessex knowledge into your proverbial goblets.
Ever been to Winchester? No? Well, I have. Well, I live here, so of course I have. On my early days as a Winchestrian/Wykhamist (will someone please tell me which one is correct, please?) I stumbled across the *now refurbished* city library, and the warren of streets extending behind. Therein I found Green’s, whose coffees often lie in temptation’s way whenever I happen to walk down Jewry Street.
Strange name, I wondered to myself, in a county who the rest of the South percieve as a fox-hunting land of white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants. But as well as the first Catholic Church to be built in England after the reformation, Winchester had quite a few good yiddischer mensch in its time.
My local Shul is Bournemouth. As a friend of mine once said (and I quote, so don’t pull a Pope Benedict hater on me, guys!) ‘So you go to synagogue in Bournemouth! Ha ha, it’s a test of faith!’. Not that I agree with him. Well, admittedly Bournemouth is 95% geriatric, but overall it’s a good little place. Now I’m rambling. You see why it’s called The Musings Various? You get your pennies worth here, children.
So, Jewry Street. The Jewry of Winchester extended all the way from Westgate to Friarsgate and around the City Walls. That’s roughly an eighth or thereabouts or the Old City, if I’m not much mistaken. Sadly there’s not much left, which is surprising for a town which has a named street after the Jewry- thereby stating that it must have been pretty substantial. A brief look in the City Archives was interesting, and revealed that there was a Synagogue there, but it was destroyed in the 13th century. Guess I’m just eight hundred years too late. Sad. Either way, we Winchestrian Jews have decreased from a whole district to eight families. And me. Geven Amoz Iz A Shtetl. And no, that’s Yiddish, not some real-ale fuelled unintelligible Hampshire dialect, for those of you not *shrieks in League of Gentlemen voice* local!

Mehmet. 12.

No Pasaran! Anarchism surrounds us!

‘!No Pasaran!’ I say- without of course the upside-down Spanish exclamation mark which Microsoft Character Map refuses to give me. Bourgeois bástards! After reading Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia I became quite interested in how anarchism can possibly be an organised political movement- so I looked up the CNT. Anarchist brigades dressed in red scarfs and cloaks impaling Fascists in the dusty valleys of Murcia- forward, comrades!
Anarchism seems to have disappeared as a political movement these days. It seems that the anarchist principle was just Balkanisation- to an incredible degree. Anarchist ruled territories in Spain in the 1930s were so decentralised that more or less every village had its own comittees which were responsible for everything the local people needed. Of course, distrust of centralised government led to a lack of unity, divisions which have plagued the left since Marx and Engels started writing, and the Anarchists fell apart. Even the Communists and Socialists in Spain fired on Anarchist positions. Poor people. The idea of greatly decentralised ‘government’ is a noble one, but what happens with agressive foreign powers? With competition in the market economy? With diplomacy- how do you debate with a rabble of leaderless vigilantes who distrust the very government you represent- or indeed any government?
Anarchism taken to the extreme would, I suppose, be a commune of working people without a leader who rely on their morals to keep them from falling upon one another. Perhaps it was the anarchist leader, Buenaventura Durruti, who said ‘the only Church that illuminates is a burning one‘. You see, even high profile leaders making violence-inciting statements causes a common belief- in this case, that the Cardinals should burn- and therefore unifies ‘anarchists’ and crushes dissenters. Anarchism is about dissent, however. That’s why one could call the Levellers early Anarchists- or at least, the building blocks for the movement. It’s a good question- why should any human being consent to the rules of a government if they haven’t had a say what its policies are. Then, we work ourselves into the argument that democracy will always leave out the wishes of the minority then where are we left?- we’re left with a confusing blog post mehmet the twelfth will not himself even understand when he rereads this. So, we bring this onto the back burner. And move to Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge for humankind of the digitised labyrinth of techie acronyms that is the twenty-first century.
Uncle Wikipedia tells us: ‘ there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, beyond their rejection of compulsory government’. Now I see.
A further look at the word ‘anarchy’ tells us that it derives from the Greek ‘an + archon’- meaning- rule without leaders. So there we go. Rule without leaders. So why is Durruti described as an anarchist leader? My brain is now severely addled.
According to Kropotkin, anarchist societies would automatically produce all goods common to society. But where does this lead economic competition? Where does this lead the free market economy? This is called anarchistic communism but if these two words rang true, then the communism part would eventually entail the leaders of this ‘production-for-the-good-of-all-people’ rise up and become, gradually, the autocrats- and Marx’s zig-zaggy diagram of how society operates would actually prove true. Ending in the proletarian revolution, in which the proletariat, intelligensia and workers would overthrow the autocrats and live in blissful socialist harmony. This does not explain the presence of this- arguably successful anarchist ‘leader’- in Ukraine in around 1919.
Nestor Makhno (a well-groomed chap with a fine head of hair) led independent anarchist brigades in Ukraine in the Russian Civil War and secured a large slice of the Ukranian cake (or Rye-Bread or whatever it is Ukranians eat) for himself. Makhno and his associates were tolerated by the Bolsheviks, who later betrayed them and sent Makhno fleeing to Paris. Probably the problem with the anarchists in actual military conflict is the fact that hierarchy shouldn’t exist in an anarchist army. Which leads us on to how anarchist soldiers can possibly be led. Thus explaining why the badly led anarchists standing in temptation’s way for the Bolsheviks were such a pushover after their leaders fled. We see the period from around 1919 to 1945 as a huge global fight between Fascism and the allied forces of Communism and Social Democracy. Throw in anarchists such as Makhno and these things get more interesting. Were they communists? Or were they anything? If Uncle Wikipedia can’t define it without correcting himself, then I’m certainly stumped.
Anarchism in literature is another thing. I recently heard of the author BS Johnson, whose major work in progress was so controversial that he committed suicide when it wasn’t well reviewed- this book is now regarded as a wonderful addition to anyone’s shelves. I say book, but I really mean… pamphlets? Book-box? This book, BS Johnson’s The Unfortunates is two bound pages of an introduction to the novel, and the rest of the pages are loose in a box. The box is shuffled, and aparrently in any way they’re moved, the story can still be read- albeit with a more surrealistic sense. Genius. Pure literary anarchism. Only problem is, it’s out of print. There is a copy on amazon.co.uk for the princely sum of £19, and I am tempted. If you hear from me again in the next week, assume I haven’t bought it

Mehmet10 + Mehmet 2

Herzl in mein Herz

Yesterday, whilst attempting to understand an infuriating equation for a Geography assignment in my school’s IT room, I overheard two people a couple of years younger than me having a political discussion about the Israeli-Lebanese War, which they had to mention in some current affairs homework for PSE or something.Anyway, as I was sitting opposite them, the conversation developed to the usual anti-Israeli rhetoric which most Middle Eastern discussions devolve into. The girl asked why Israel declared war on Lebanon, and was told by her friend that it was because the Lebanese ‘took two of their soldiers or shit like that’. This friend then went on to say ‘what assholes’ the Israelis were for declaring war on Lebanon at a whim like that, and the girl replied, describing the entire event on ‘fucking tight for the Arabs’.
All we need to do is read between the lines. Even the BBC seems to be biased these days. I think maybe I should seek a career change in future- BBC correspondent, Sderot, perhaps? When you have Hezbollah militants firing missiles into your territory and massacring civilians, what choice has any nation to do but force them to cease? After all, among the duties of any civilised nation is the moral obligation to defend its citizens- that is what I believe Israel was doing during its invasion of Lebanon. Which begs the question ‘oh, but Hezbollah are not representative of the Lebanese government, are they?’. Well, I think in most of the Arab states that border Israel, neither are the people whom they’re supposed to represent. Hezbollah do have a degree of control in the Lebanese Parliament, another third of which is pro-Syrian. I think all we need to do is listen to the rhetoric of a certain Bashar Al-Assad to ascertain that the Syrians aren’t exactly head over heels with the idea of Israel’s continued existence either. As for Iran, any president who openly states that ‘we should wipe Israel off the map’ is dangerous and should be treated with extreme caution. If the Iranians are discovered to possess nuclear weaponry, the Israelis have every right to a pre-emptive strike. And even more right to call it retaliation against Iranian aggression. Is it just me, or is it only Jews or those of Jewish heritage who are at all pro-Israeli? Israel is pictured as Goliath in Palestine’s titanic struggle against Israeli occupation- the reality is somewhat starker and much different- the 6 million Israelis are surrounded by five hostile Arab nations committed to its destruction, backed by a further 200 million Muslims in those countries who also remain vehemently anti-Israeli and in many cases anti-Semitic as a result.
I must point out here that I do not by any means equate being against Israel as being anti-Semitic, but am firmly committed to the belief that the majority of holocaust deniers, for example David Irving, are (he was more than happy to share a stage at Oxford with a BNP candidate, it’s important to note).
I’m also certainly not anti-Muslim. I have several close Muslim friends and lived in Turkey for four years- it certainly made me more open minded but in a manner of speaking I think we need to see the blunt facts- Israel is a nation under siege. It is a foregone conclusion that if Egypt, Syria, and Jordan had occupied Israeli territory after the Yom Kippur or any other war against Israel, they would not have employed the Geneva Protocol to the Israelis living under their rule. Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, home to some one million Israeli Arabs and Druze (who are represented fairly in the Knesset) and the region’s only MEDC.
Anti-Israelis will also make the point that Israel’s foundation was illegal. How can people who inherently rely on supporting Palestine’s cause through UN doctrine and laws then call a legal UN mandate a farce?
If one examines the amount of land controlled by Israel in 1948 after the mandate, it was a fraction of what it is today. I do not condone the actions of the Irgun and the Kibbutzim’s rapid expansion into legally Palestinian lands during that period, but it has to be stated that Mapai Party rule at the time was at best weak, with a poor economy and little diplomatic recognition. How can a nation fight for its survival if it has to also stop subversive and radical elements within its own populace? Deir Yassan was an atrocity. I admit that. But why should the Israel of today be blamed for that? Why should the Americans of today be blamed for My Lai, or the Germans of today be blamed for Ravensbruck or Auschwitz? The difference is that we should not forget. With events such a long time ago, the main crime is simply covering them up and insulting the memories of those who died or survived (for let us remember, for example, Holocaust victims who survived were traumatised and therefore were still victims).
That is why I did not feel any sympathy for David Irving in his Austrian prison cell. It was because he mocked the memories of other families and over twelve of my extended family who died in concentration camps.
But questioning the existence of Israel is not what we should be doing- Holocaust recognition did speed up nations’ recognising its existence, but many view Israel’s problems as rooted in the holocaust. I remember a quote from a German academic that ‘a German should never have to be in the position to point a gun at a Jew again’. That is the wrong attitude to take. If that Jew happens to have committed mass murder, the German, Hungarian, Austrian, or whoever has every right to order them to surrender at gunpoint. Not that I think anyone should even need to point guns at anyone, I hasten to add.
Israel’s lands did expand during the ensuing wars, but I think we do need to remember that it was, and still is, a relatively small area of land. Most of its widest area is taken up by the Negev Desert in the South, and during the early 1950s, the border with Jordan was within twenty miles of the Mediterranean Coast. Tel Aviv was within the sights of the Jordanian artillery gunners. It’s a miracle that Israel has survived- if we stopped our support for Israel, we’d be butchers. The State of Israel has had some pretty odious leaders- Golda Meir and Menachem Begin to name a few, but then again, I don’t recall them making any statements which can be paralleled with General Nasser’s famous ‘we will throw the Jews into the sea’.
The Palestinian rejection of every peace plan offered to them began in 1949 with the Mufti of Jerusalem’s constant rejection of any settlement from his residence in Cairo. Without any realisation of the suffering his obstinacy was causing his people, Hajj Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, a great admirer of Hitler and founder of the Bosnian SS division during the Second World War, sewed the seeds of discord which culminated in the situation we see today. Like uncle, like nephew. Yasser Arafat, the nephew of the Mufti, continued this process of constant rejection, and totally undermined Palestine’s cause in the Middle East. During his leadership, he embezzled $900 million from Palestinian state funds to his own personal wealth, supported the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and funded terrorist operations in Khartoum against Western diplomats. Two Palestinian mayors were assassinated after stating that they would rather their towns were under Israeli jurisdiction than Palestinian, and countless private radio stations and newspapers were shut down. Peace process wise, I am certainly in favour of a two or three state solution. Jerusalem can never be a totally peaceful city whilst Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Muslims both inhabit it, so the only way forward for it must be independence, rather than a wall, as Mr. Sharon seemed to think was the best way of ‘breaking down barriers’. Whilst the West Bank must of course become Palestinian at some point in future- (the settlements are an abomination, I have to say) it would pose a distinct military threat to Israel. Yes, even in today’s world of chemical warfare and stealth fighters, Sun Tzu’s rules still apply in that whoever controls the highest land is more likely to ultimately win the battle.
Palestine’s ownership of the West Bank might mean its military alignment to Jordan. Then Israel really would be in trouble. Especially if Palestine continues to be led by Hamas, whose raison d’être is the destruction of Israel, I do not believe that Palestine and Israel can ever make peace. If the Palestinians really do want peace, next time they probably shouldn’t vote for Hamas in a democratic election. This kind of undermines the entire argument for a peace process involving any Palestinian delegations at all.
It would be nice to know that most people mean what they say when they talk of everyone ‘just making peace and getting along’. It’s an incredibly idealistic notion- if only it were as simple as the conflicts the League of Nations sorted out in the 1920s between Finland and Sweden, and Bulgaria and Greece.
With Israel, I wish the political parties of Balad, Hadash, Meretz-Yachad and to an extent Likud the best of luck. But to at least consider some small things. Like maybe moving the capital back to Tel Aviv, for a start.At the Basel Conference in 1897, Herzl was off by only one year when he predicted the establishment of a Jewish state in the following fifty years hence. People complain that the Israeli ideal of maintaining a Jewish majority in Israel is racist. Maybe one could say that, but the fact of the matter is that Israel is the only place where Jews can truly not fear anti-Semitism (at least, not from their own countrymen *Palestinian suicide bombers*). If the Jews become a minority in Israel, a secure Jewish nation will never ever happen. In that case, the Jews will have to kiss a life in safety from racist thugs goodbye.

The British Superiority Complex

Package Holiday to Verkhoyansk

Right. That’s it.
Forget Spain or Greece. Call me a madman, but Siberia is where I want to go. The bitter frost and vast distances will just add to the excitement! Not that I have enough money for a Aeroflot flight to Magadan or Magnitogorsk, but I really must go sometime.
Siberia seems kind of like the Wild West of Russia- though in Soviet times the Sheriffs were the Peoples’ Commissars and the Indians lived in Yurts. What with an area comprising one twelfth of the world’s land area, it must take ages to travel between. Mainly my interest was due to some strange banknotes I came across a-leafing in the albums of a Numismast’s shop I used to frequent in Istanbul. Far Eastern Republic, they said. Cheap, they were. Far Eastern Republic?
So I looked it up in good old wikipedia and there we have it. Huge nation, 1919-1925 or somesuch, and yet nobody has ever heard of it. Strange. Where a Civil War can cause dearth, famine, disease, and more vices among ill-paid troops than you can shake a Cossack’s hat at, for collectors of Paper Money and Stamps, it’s a positive boom. Must be like being an insurance salesman, I suppose. The worse the likelihood of disaster gets, the more money you’re likely to make. Though in my case, most of it hasn’t been legal tender for eighty years, of course
Anyway, I began to read up on all things Siberian from Amur to Zhigansk, and I came across some really interesting things. As well as having the largest autonomous area on the planet (Sakha), Siberia has:

•  A nation which was independent from 1922 to 1945, and is technically still at war with Germany (Tannu Tuva)- sorry it’s Wikipedia, but the best sites about Tuva are all in Russian or Tuvinian.
• The coldest city on the planet (Verkhoyansk)
• The site of a mysterious fireball which ravaged areas of forest larger than Wales (the Tunguska Fireball)
• A people whose system of writing is probably more complex that the Pictographic Script used by Chinese (the Yukagir)- Will scan in example of Yukagir script
• What could have become the homeland of the Jewish people if Stalin had had his way (the Jewish Autonomous Region at Birobidzhan)
• The ’second Ukraine’, set up by Ukranian Partisans during the Russian Civil War and attempted independence (Ukranian ‘Green’ Republic  of the Far East)
• The remains of a Buddhist Monk whose interned body in 1927 appeared as if it had been dead for only 36 hours when exhumed in 2002. (Dashi-Dorzho Itilgov, from Buryatia)- Warning, freaky pictures.
• Some extremely unique, but strangely calming, throat singing. (Khöömei, from Tuva)

The Tuvan singing, I must admit, did cause a ringing sensation in my ears at first, but then I grew to like it. No, I don’t have tinnitus. The band Hun Huur Tu is probably the most famous of Tuvan throat singers- listen to their site for samples. Shame Rough Guide Music CDs don’t have an issue for Siberia out yet.
Anyway, catch you in Ulan-Ude!
And a jolly new year to all. Ho ho ho.

Мэхмет12

RIP, Benazir Bhutto

I couldn’t believe it when I heard it. It was the same kind of reaction I had when I was around twelve and saw on the TV sceen the events of 9/11.
What will Pakistan do for democracy now? It’s either Musharraf or nothing. Plus, this is a nuclear power we are dealing with here too- but I don’t understand why they did it. First the majority of Pakistanis seem to rebel against Musharaf on the grounds that he is ‘un-democratic’, then they rebel against Bhutto. That most learned newspaper (sarcasm most definitely intended), the Dail Mail, stated it was Al-Qaeda who were responsible. Not that they know, of course.
Far be it for me to accuse the last hope Pakistan has ever had of democracy of corruption, but I do think in the last years of life we did attach a bit more democracy to Bhutto than the truth actually states. When she was in office, she knew perfectly well that her father was one of the main reasons for her popularity, and she did use this fact to its maximum advantage- people needed to respect her for who she was and not for her father’s fame. Nelson Mandela also, though of course a great leader and fighter against apartheid and racism, was corrupt in many cases. Chiang Kai-Shek, who the US would have us see as the true face of ‘free China’ was to all intents and purposes a Fascist himself. He didn’t believe in democracy and the Nazis actively supported his regime with Von Falkenhausen before the Japanese complained to them.
Bhutto and Musharraf, even in joint rule, would have had a difficult time ruling Pakistan simply for the fact that one could call it a failed state. The government does not even maintain authority over 70% of its allocated territory and the ethnic diversity of the nation cannot help in any power-sharing agreement.
After General Zia and Musharraf, perhaps one could say that Pakistan, like Russia, could suffer from that evil cycle of having an autocratic centralised government or none at all, leading to Balkanisation and foreign intervention.
Bhutto’s assassination was an act of suicide for the Pakistani who did it in bringing down the entire future of the Pakistani nation. Now, it’s down to Deobandi Islamic Fundamentalism or Musharraf. And the West doesn’t look like its public consensus would prefer either at the moment. I personally will be watching Pakistan very closely over the next few months. And I dare say the Islamic fundamentalists will be looking at its nuclear warheads very closely too during the same period.
Benazir Bhutto would also have been a major help in stopping some of the opression of women which goes on under Islamic Fundamentalism in Pakistan.
I don’t think it’s just India that needs to worry among the international community these days- we all need to. And the domino effect, if it didn’t work with the Cold War, certainly may with the rising tide of fundamentalist bombings and assassinations. Let us just hope that Islamophobia doesn’t rise with the same fervour.
Mehmet12

No response, so I’ll try again

Whilst sifting through the many virtual reams of emails that is my Microsoft Outlook outbox, i found a little something I wrote around a year ago to Holdwater, the admin and creator of the site www.tallarmeniantale.com, a site dedicated to disproving the Armenian Genocide during which one and a half million Armenians are believed to have been massacred by Ottoman forces in around 1915. Using the pseudonym Michael Rozenthal, I sent a lengthy email to the website’s author in the hope he would at least respond to it. I get nothing. Gar Nichts.
So, some eleven months later I’m looking at the website and here with the express purpose to reveal some of the fallacies in Holdwater’s arguments. Unlike many Turks on the subject of the Armenian Massacres, he is engaging, well-read, and thought provoking. But wrong in many points. Here are but a few:

‘and every church in that city [istanbul] is still standing‘

Sorry, Mahmut. Just not true. In 1970 when Ataturk Bulvari was built, close to twelve historic Byzantine Churches were destroyed. Also, I think the riots of the 1960s destroyed a great deal of the ecclesiastical heritage ‘that city’ has. I think maybe next time you’re in Istanbul, take a visit to the formerly 80% Greek district of Fener. I’m not a Muslim and don’t profess to know as much about Islam as I’d like to, but most original  mosques don’t have apses and naves in their architecture, do they?

‘Turkish children are actually taught to respect Armenia’

Sure, sure. And Hitler was a Communist. Of course Turkish children aren’t taught to respect Armenia. There are reports from some travel writers of Turkish children who had been taught to believe that the Aghia Sophia was built by Seljuk Turks. The Turkish curriculum inspires a god-worship of Ataturk and latent nationalism which does not do Turkey any favours. No wonder so many Turks are still willing to hold up the apalling Article 301 of the Turkish constitution.

‘I don’t know anything about the city called ANI. There is no city in Turkey of that name’

You wish, huh? As someone who’s actually visited there, I can very much say that Ani exists. Right on the Armenian border, one had to obtain Turkish military permission to visit there until relatively recently- now, the government has realised that its anti-Armenian idealism will bring the impoverished inhabitants of that reason no bread on the table, and have since opened it up for tourists to encourage development. Acceptance of these Armenian monuments, of which there are several thousand all over Eastern Turkey, is a must if any steps are to be taken.
In the valley of Khtzonk, near Ani, there used to be five churches. Now there is one? Why- well, let’s just say the Turkish army had some fun with dynamite back in the 1980s. Just like when the Ataturk Dam was created back then- a fortune in Turkish Lira was spent in saving Muslim monuments, whilst Christian sites were left to be flooded.

‘There was, however, one nation where the Jews did not have to endure the large-scale persecution characterizing their entire existence. This haven was Turkey’

and

‘Unfortunately, many Jews are ignorant of the good historic deeds of one of their very, very good historic friends. Their ignorance and prejudice helps many of them believe whatever their fellow genocide sufferers the Armenians tell them’

Now these two excerpts quite frankly disgust me. Is this goy a learned meshuggah? I think not. Basically, he’s telling Jews all over the world to shut up and be greatful to the Turkish consuls to Rhodes and Marseilles for saving them from the Nazis. Somehow, this means that Jews cannot stand up for their beliefs if that means agreeing with Armenians.
Jews are likely to unite with their fellow diaspora races- notably the Armenians and Assyrians (who also have a genocide claim against Turkey- the Safyo). Turkey did do good for the Jews, but this is quite frankly irrelevant to the Armenian Genocide, and Holdwater just uses this as a way to save face from the accusations of the Armenian Genocide. Someone can be racist to one group but not another- even if a nation is capable of not being anti-Semitic, that doesn’t mean it can’t be Anti-Armenian.
In fact, during the Second World War, many Jews had their property confiscated by the Turkish Government which was under intense pressure from Axis and Allied powers alike. There were also riots against the Jews of Turkey during the 1950s and 1960s- why do you think there are hardly any left in Istanbul nowadays? Turkey is far from a haven for Jews (Neve Shalom Syangogue, 2005?). Its government may have been very noble in being the first Muslim one to recognise Israel, but why label Turkey as Muslim, Holdwater? You’ve just praised the extent of its secularism for half your website and now you go back on that? Oh well. Turkey’s secularism (or lack thereof) is another matter entirely. But this is a secular nation which demands its citizens to put their religion on their identity cards. Funny, that.

‘many Armenians even fought for the SS Divisions during the Second World War’

And? That, my friend, is quite an absurd ground for argument. Armenians were killed in 1915, you admit, but you state that that this was merely the actions of some groups not affiliated with the Ottoman government. I dare say the same is true of these Armenians who fought with the SS. Oswald Mosely was an admirer of Hitler’s, but that doesn’t mean that all Brits were fascist. This argument is misguided and irrelevant- and does not become you, judging from some of the interesting and incisive points you have made in Turkey’s defence elsewhere on your website. Practically every area of the USSR which was taken over by the Nazi forces raised some collaborators. The Ossetians, Georgians, Kalmyks… you name it. But that doesn’t blame entire ethnic groups and gives you no right to whatsoever. There was even a Bosnian Muslim SS division (founded by Hajj Amin Husseini, Arafat’s uncle) during WWII, but that doesn’t label all Bosniaks as intolerant and Anti-Semitic. Or do you believe that only Christians can only be anti-Semites?

‘A Massacre at Van- not well translated but no less chilling- one family’s ordeal in Van in 1915 at the hands of the Armenians‘

The same again. The phrase ‘one family’s ordeal’ cries out. Especially the word ‘one’.

‘Opression of Eastern Turkestan by the Chinese- the Turkic Uyghurs are yet another International Irrelevance’

No. Ever heard of Rebiya Kadeer? I’m not going to post them all, but this site of disproving the Armenian Genocide has turned into Turkish propaganda. Other categories on the same page include ‘Greek Human Rights Abuses’ and the ‘Circassian Genocide’. Why are these relevant? I’ll tell you why- as a way of trying to prove that Turkey is absolved from all blame from the Pontine Greek Genocide, Armenian Genocide, and Safyo, as well as the chilling idea that ‘other genocides have happened so live with it’. This quickly mutates into taking a stab at the Greeks to defend Turkey’s honour. Holdwater also asks why ‘Turkey is so heterogenerous whilst neighbouring Armenia is 100% ethnically pure’. Fact is, Armenia isn’t. There are Yezidi, Kurds, Assyrians, Russians, Arabs, and plenty of other nationalities in Armenia. There are plenty of other nationalities in Turkey, but not as many Armenians as there would be. The facts are shockingly simple. 1.5 million Armenians. Where did they go? It’s also interesting how all the minorities named who are oppressed are either Turkic or Muslim. Do I detect the teeniest smear of Turanism here?
Holdwater also admits that ‘it is not the purpose of this website to get to the Kurdish issue’- if so, then why do you mention many other totally irrelevant genocides and events to have a good old stab at Turkey’s old enemy Greece? You can’t have your cake and eat it. Either you make it ‘tallarmeniankurdishgreekassyriantale.com’ or ‘tallarmeniantale.com’, not both.
And no, the Kurds aren’t a ‘double standard with Spain’s Basques’. The Basques have autonomy, the right to use their language in public and to be taught it on the government’s expense in Basque schools, and the right to fly their flag. I’ve been to Van, in the Kurdish heartland of South-Western Turkey, and what did I see. Plenty of posters advertising how to be a good mehmetçik, no doubt, but not a smidgen of Kurdish did I see written anywhere. In a city which is 90% Kurdish and Zaza. Oh, and there are around 15 million Kurds in Turkey, and 2.5 million Basques in Spain. So no, there is no double standard between the two.

‘naturally, in recent decades it’s not the Kurds the Turks have had an issue with’

Oh no? So why are all Kurdish political parties banned and their TV and radio stations made illegal? Come on, we know the Turks have an issue with the Kurds, not just the PKK. Part of the reason Turkey was so against the invasion of Iraq was because that it knew that if the Kurds in Iraq gained autonomy, the Kurds in Turkey would want it too. Which leaves me to ask, why is there such a big problem with Kurdish autonomy?
I suppose a vast Turkish slogan painted on the side of a rocky outcrop outside Van answers that for me- ‘the state will never be divided’. Autonomy doesn’t mean division for the state.

I’m not a scholar of the Ottoman Empire or Armenia. But one thing I think is a little strange is the Turkish refusal to even admit that any anti-Armenian massacres took place, even if they refuse to realise the possibility of a genocide. And when irrefutable proof is given that massacres occurred, the ‘treachery’ of the Armenians is always mentioned as if it is an excuse.
I’m confused myself now. But one thing I am sure about are two things:

1.) Orhan Pamuk’s prosecution is a chief example of the Turkish unwillingness to even listen to other points of view other than the government’s own. Fair enough if the Turks want to prove that the Genocide didn’t happen, but to ban the opposition’s right to argue? Not cricket, I’m afraid.

2.) Hrant Dink and his assassination. What was the cheering all about? Why was he treated as a hero by the Istanbul Police? There obviously is racism against Armenians in Turkey. And it is folly to say otherwise.

Just a little disclaimer I feel I ought to make- I lived in Istanbul for a number of years and found Turkey a very friendly and engaging country. Definitely one of my favourites because of its history and culture. So, any Bay or Bayan who happen to chance upon this article, don’t call me a racist. Just a realist. The two words are very similar, so please don’t mix them up.

And lastly, an Armenian proverb I think quite appropriate here:

Արևն ամպի տակ չի մնայ – The sun won’t always be hidden in the clouds

He of the unusually Turkish username:

Mehmet12

 

‘Ballots’ rather than ‘Bullets’ (Americans, Serbs and Salman Rushdie)

You know, I recently read the book by Salman Rushdie, The Jaguar Smile about Nicaragua under Ortega’s rule and the American hypocrisy which surrounded their planned invasion of it. In layman’s terms, the bandit was playing the sheriff- I was pretty apalled when I read that Reagan had his ambassador tell the Nicaraguan president to ‘just do what we say’. Plus, the elections were the fairest in all Central America at the time and America violated international law by funding rebels from Honduras and killing thousands of innocent civilians for voting for a leftist party during the Cold War. The Peruvian Poet Mario Vargas Llosa said he’d rather have ‘ballots than bullets’. The US is a superpower, sure. And any tiger will roar occasionally. But compared to Britain, France, or the USSR, the USA doesn’t have any tact when it roars. This is quite the problem. Colonialism is never good, but if it is ever done, such a process ought to be administered by a pipe-smoking, moustachioed, monocled gentleman in Pith Helmet rather than a loudmouthed, tactless bible-basher. American Imperialism. Quite an odd thing from the nation of liberty, isn’t it? Guam, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Hawaii, all were forcibly seized by the US at some point.
Oh, or should I instead call this United States Imperialism. As I dare say all the Bolivians, Canadians, Venezuelans, Peruvians, Paraguayans, Surinamese, Guyanese, Ecuadorians, Colombians, Brazilians, Chileans, Panamanians, Nicaraguans, Costa Ricans, Belizeans, Salvadoreans, Guatemalans, Hondurans and Uraguayans would certainly agree. All too often, I believe, do we forget that the USA is not America. If it was, we wouldn’t need to use the genitive case for the United States of America now, would we?
As for imperialism? Pah! Last thing I noticed in the Serb-Kosovo affair was that the EU offered to speed up the application process of Serbia into the Union if it didn’t make a fuss over Kosovo. Ha! That’s not the EU’s place now, is it? Surely the men and women in Brussels beneath their spiffy blue and yellow starry flag should be worrying about Belgium, and whether they’ll be Walloons or Flemings, rather than something which is frankly for the Serbs and Albanians to sort out.
The Balkans becoming Balkanized? Whatever next? Sliced bread?
No. What we need is an independent Cornwall and Wessex. Celtic Power!
Mehmet ap 12

Zappa Rinses

Found this excellent video on Youtube this morning of Frank Zappa in the Crossfire discussion show in 1986. The subject is how far records should be censored by the government. What I love about it is that, at the distress of the interviewer/interrogator, Uncle Frank remains calm and collected whilst John Lofton, evidently attempting a kind of proto-Paxman attitude to his questioning, veers off topic and shows no respect for any of the panel. Zappa’s famous quote ‘The most plentiful ingredient of the world is stupidity‘ holds stead here- he states that the lyric censoring boils down to America slowly veering to a Fascist Theocracy. How right he would be thirty years later. Lofton seems to use religious moral arguments in order to justify his case for the nanny-state he wants to implement, continually personally attacking Frank Zappa for his own lyrics and wealth.

Lofton (sarcastic): How much money have you made, Mr Zappa, from peddling this garbage?
Zappa: Many millions of dollars indeed, Mr Lofton.

I never before realised what an excellent debator he was- in the face of being accused by right-wing zealots such as Lofton as an ‘anarchist’ and ‘compromising family values’, Zappa just asks whether Lofton thinks he’s protecting anybody by censoring seven words from a record. Also, it brings to light a very important issue which many conservatives and religious fundamentalists do not understand- by allowing free speech, we do not advocate any of the statements made by those who make good use of it.
One thing is for sure- only a Deep South conservative American such as Lofton would consider telling Zappa he needed to ‘get out more’, to which Zappa retorts ‘I love it when you froth like that’.
It’s quite incredible how during a forty-minute interview, somebody could have assumed that Zappa of all people was ‘advocating incest’ because he defended the right to mention it in music. When asked what the founding fathers would have thought, Zappa should have responded the simple word, ‘freedom’.

 As Zappa told the US senate in 1985:

‘The PMRC [Parents' Music Resource Centre] proposal is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children, infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children, and promises to keep the courts busy for years dealing with the interpretational and enforcemental problems inherent in the proposal’s design. It is my understanding that, in law, First Amendment issues are decided with a preference for the least restrictive alternative. In this context, the PMRC’s demands are the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation. (…) The establishment of a rating system, voluntary or otherwise, opens the door to an endless parade of moral quality control programs based on things certain Christians do not like. What if the next bunch of Washington wives demands a large yellow “J” on all material written or performed by Jews, in order to save helpless children from exposure to concealed Zionist doctrine?’

It is quite alarming to inform Americans just how bigoted and closed-minded a lot of the Puritan founding fathers were, and those who signed the American Declaration of Independence later on- Benjamin Franklin in particular, good old Uncle Frank reminds us.
For a man who named his children Moon, Dweevil, Ahmet, and Diva, this is an important thing to remember.
Oh, if only we could all be like the Muffin Man or Sheikh Yerbouti

MehmetXII

Thirty more proletarian minutes for the masses

Upon checking BBC News this morning, I was quite amused to discover that Venezuela has created no less than its own Time Zone. Of course, it’s seen as a great political motive by Chavez for Venezuelan independence from any Western-approved system. Although some of the development he seems to have done for the Education in Venezuela has proved to be effective, his foreign affairs leave a little to be desired. Why a leader so blatantly socialist needs to maintain weapons deals with Iran- which ideologically ought to be its nemesis- serves no other purpose than to antagonise Bush Junior and his cronies in the White House.
Whilst some sources such as this forum deliberately view the new Venezuelan time zone as off-topic and humour, I can see where they’re coming from. BBC had a statement from Chavez this morning about his motives for it, in which he stated that ‘an earlier dawn will make the performance of the country improve’. To hell it will. I don’t care whether when I get up on the weekends is 2:30 PM or 3:00, it’ll still be far too late to do anything constructive save for this blog!
Of course, our favourite little Tories at the Telegraph entitled their report on this ‘Socialists left looking silly’. As incisive a title as we could expect from the Torygraph, but there we go. Chavez puts up with a lot of stick from the rightist press, even, as I learnt with a shock- the National Geographic. I stopped buying that ‘impartial glory’ of a magazine not a few months ago- one of the reasons was the obvious propagandist stance it maintained against Chavez, with the majority of those interviewed being Upper Class, cosmopolitan Venezuelans from the leafy suburbs of Caracas. Impartial? I beg to differ- anyone in their position with as many taxes levied to make the National Services in Venezuela up to scratch are bound to not be all smiles when it comes to mentioning their President. Other reasons were simply the fact that it was run like a multinational, not an independent magazine voicing concerns, and was deliberately dumbed down for many of the American public. Despite the fact that National Geographic is actually sold all over the world (I’ve seen copies in Turkish, Russian, and Thai), issues such as Global Warming seem to be deliberately ignored, and many articles follow an extremely American bent which doesn’t seem appropriate for what is an international magazine.
Personally, I prefer the Geographical a lot more. It may be a British magazine, but it’s not internationally sold (except in Borders’ magazine imports), so probably has more of an excuse if it’s quite Anglo-centric.
Anyway, Geographical Magazine rants aside, this move was Chavez’s first electoral defeat in nine years, with fifty-one percent of Venezuelans voting a resounding ‘NO!‘ to the (I believe) highly eccentric measure.
Chavez also changed Venezuela’s flag in 2006, by adding one more star and changing the direction of the galloping white horse in the coat of arms at the top left. His motive for this was [insert Bolivarian, libertarian rhetoric here]- seems more trouble changing the flag when there are doubtless so many more changes Venezuela could do with.
Maybe we should describe Chavez as 70% idealistic, 30% realistic.
Anyway. A Las Barricadas!
Mehmet XII