Who is Recep Tayyip Erdogan?

He is a man with dreams, but without vision. He is a man of desires, but no ideals. He is a man with guidance, but without principles.

He is not a democrat. Though he can act like one. He doesn’t mind democracy as long as he is in line with the majority, or the majority is in line with him. The direction also doesn’t matter. He probably never internalized democratic concepts, but he does believe in some of them. Some of them he secretly resents, but within time learned to put up with.

He is not cultured. When stuck he resorts to his shopkeeper and footballer derived examples. Both of which he had actually been in the past. Would not be a problem, if he were able to use some other examples from time to time or as necessary; but he is just not able to. He is willing to learn, but it is probably too late for him – just not enough time, too busy being a politician for a long time now. You might run into him trying to use concepts from game theory or international relations, with no theoretical background. So, he tries. And mostly fails. As he never truly, deeply understands what he actually says.

Some in the world thinks he is an oppurtunist and pragmatist. He probably is. He probably should be. He is a politician and prime minister of a country in the world in 2011, what were you expecting? Not more than Berlusconi, not more than Sarkozy, not more than Cameron I can assure you.

He declared he cannot be secular, only a state can be secular. He also declared as a prime minister he will do whatever is expected of a prime minister of a secular country. He does not and will not say he is secular because he believes a true believer of Islam cannot seperate worldly things and religion in his personal life. Yet, he thinks he can act like one as demanded by his title? He is conflicted. He is confused. Again, he does not truly understand or is capable or open enough to conceptualise secularism; so resorts back to the learnings of his past, which is heavily influenced by Islam. But in a world where Bush and Obama quotes the Bible and UK has a queen who is crowned in a church, is his behaviour or standing outrageous? I doubt so.

So, is he an Islamist as some claims? Might have been one at some time in the past. Although I even doubt that. Probably grew out of this idea, as it is not primary to his desires and ego.

For years, when he was younger, he ‘followed’ a heavily Islam guided politician, namely Necmettin Erbakan. He, then, in a way again to be explained by his desires, cut ties with him. Changed some of his political conduct and declared he has changed. Probably did. But his ability and possibility to follow someone with religious dictations, still stand true. This scares many Turkish people. But again, it is too late for him to change again. It also probably does not suit his bigger desires and his ego to act under his religion based desires.

He is not a tolerant person. Has clear oppressive behaviour and anger issues. Though within years thank to his well fed ego and feeling of superiority, backed up with quite some power, he does indeed act and learned to act more and more tolerant. But it is not a quality of his character, but more of an accident of who he has become.

He is a man of honour, I guess. But his honour is not to principles, righteousness or justice; his honour is to his loyalties – his loyalties in decreasing order are to his family, to people who act with him and within his directions, to his countrymen as he describes them and to people from his religion, again as he describes it.

When he talks out of pre-prepared text he simply stumbles. Only if the topic can be resolved within his own basic morality he might be able to hold tight. Or maybe if the topic is something he talked about from prepared text many times before. He is clever – probably better defined as savvy; he is definitely not wise, probably a little above average intelligence.

While he was a politician, using his influence, he bought shares from a chocolate company’s distribution chain. Sold them when he became prime minister. Still, earned millions and millions of dollars. Used his influence to get scholarships and work for his children in the US. He is a trader, more likely a shopkeeper, with good connections. Many claims he earned lots more from lots of more different connections. Yet, since he became prime minister it can be said corruption decreased consistently. People who were corrupt under his rule were somehow disconnected from the party, although not punished or prosecuted.

Is he charismatic? I have to say so. Have to, because his charisma does not influence me but it clearly influences many. A lot of people who are not unintelligent, crazy, naive or clueless. Though his charisma is simplistic, a voodoo juju, it still works fine.

He has beliefs. He is a strong believer. His beliefs are varied, and old fashioned and hard to change. Beliefs, most of which are probably not formed through his own thinking but his upbringing. He believes in a more peaceful world. He believes when he says that Israel is wrong in his actions against Palestinians. He believes that Turkey can become a great country, and he certainly believes he can be the one to achieve that.

He does not have good manners. He can easily be sexist or racist or just simply vulgar. He doesn’t have a true compassion. All his compassion, his singing and crying (which he does from time to time) are reserved for people of his loyalties. He is not a man of diplomatic capabilities. He is not a man of empathy.

So is he a good statesman? He is above average. Probably better than most of the previous ones Turkey had. Still, Turkey does deserve better. Has a particularly reasonable team of advisors that help him. Has a reasonably competent group of ministers that support him. He acts in accordance within realities dictated by the global world. He does the least, but still does, of what is dictated by the changing desires and improvement of general Turkish public. All these, together with his ability to work hard, balance his bad qualities so that he can act as a proper statesman. And probably in the end, did contribute quite a lot to Turkey.

Many in Turkey, more than in the rest of the world, might claim he is evil. Is he? He is not. He is just one man with some underdeveloped, half realistic dreams, desires and wants. He has a big enough ego to help him work towards these goals, and a conscience barely enough to keep him crossing the line, whatever that line is, while trying to achieve his dreams.

He is a man of this world of this age. Nothing glorious, nothing significant. A man, that circumstances and some characteristics led to his significant position today. A position he uses to do some good in his own understanding, and some good for himself, and mostly no good because he is mostly no good.

He is just a man, who for the time being, from time to time, forgets he is just a man.

Remember him not being a tolerant person? He sues people who criticises him. Hopefully and thankfully I am out of his radar. These are merely my observations. My only reservation is that he is a man full of surprises (some caused by him, some just happens around him), so he still might suprise me or prove me wrong. And I might be wrong in the first place. But I can assure you this ‘analysis lookalike commentary’ is closer than those biographies of grandeur or evil that you might read in the world renown publications or in politically motivated comments that follow them.

The clash of understandings of Arab Spring and the illusion of Turkey as an exemplifying reason

This illusion, or illusions, is that of Turkish and people who are trying to illustrate Turkey to their fellow compatriots of non-Turkish. Therefore it is a rather insignificant illusion. Yet it is interesting to note, to have the chance to know something as well as I can being a Turk; that changes, not only because it also changes in reality, but the world’s – and I use world in its most commonly used sense as in world is composed of Europe and its former baby, now champion US – illusion, conception, understanding and judgement about it changes as well. So, I would rather say it ‘truly’ changes as the truth seems to become the truth only when it is acknowledged by the ‘world’.

And to prove this point one doesn’t have to look far as the Arab Spring is at our convenience right now. There, you can see how things do not truly change, at least not until, the ‘let’s wait and see’ if the ‘support’ will bear its fruits, or will the Arabs – not as a culture but as a conception – just fall back to their winter period, is over. Meanwhile without a glimpse of doubt it is thought without ‘support’ it will definitely fall back, but unfortunately and despite this support it might still fail. Fail, because that is the way of the Arabs. And yet there is nothing the ‘world’ can do to achieve what is right for ‘these’ people despite themselves. And yet they still try through America, in Iraq or Afghanistan. And it is their ‘duty’ as some politicians might claim to do so.

Yet Turkey is changing, because contrary to the belief and to the surprise of the ‘world’ it is becoming wealthier as a result of its own accomplishment. Is it surprising that the ‘world’ is ready to acknowledge such success, a success that can be measured in money? And they are ready and afraid and willing and trying to change their conception of some other countries as well; China? India? Brasil? Any country that can become rich, even if through the support and leading of the ‘world’ but still managing to make it look like it is their own doing deserves an applause. Indeed a huge applause, especially as it was not too long ago (and yes, a person of the ‘world’ might quickly notice, they still have many problems) they were so corrupt, unable and doomed. Much like the Arabs and Africans of today.

However, the more I talk about the ‘world’s’ conception of things it looks like I get further away from the illusion and am stuck in just pointing out examples of the well established concept of orientalism. My example is still the illusion of Turkey: A country that is tried to be fit into a role model for their next-of-kins Arabs by the ‘world’. Why? Because ‘although’ it is predominantly ‘Muslim’ it can still function as (at least resemble) a ‘true’ ‘Christian’ democracy. Ironic, that the foreign relations intellectuals in Turkey are also warning:  even if we do want to become a role model we should do so without acting like one, and we should not remind them of our leadership (or as the Arabs would like to see, domination) during the Ottoman era. How fitting it is for both sides; the ‘world’ and the Turkey within their own illusions, to think how to save the poor Arabs.

The Turks’ illusion of Turkey is that it has become a country to lead. And it might be the illusion of the ‘world’ that Turkey stopped being a country to be led or of insignificance or of encumbrance and became a country of usefulness. Illusions all around. And yet there is nothing to be said for the reasons of these illusions and the changes in the illusions, in the past or now, other than that it solely depends on money. Coming from someone who first of all tries to explain all foreign policies and ongoing conflicts in the world through the motivations of economy, what does this mean? It means that the money is the closest thing to rationally explain the reasons for these illusions whether they are close to truth or not; but many other explanations are found, some very misleading and disturbingly effecting the actualities of the future.

Other day on a Turkish TV channel a Turkish guy, at his convenience, summed up the two dominating philosophies of the world right now: One, he says, are people that only look to the last 100 or 200 years – the period after industrialization – and tries to explain the world through it and the second, who looks at the world since its beginning and sees how much the East has also contributed to the civilization. The first ones, he says, tries to explain the world by clash of civilizations; whereas the second tries to lead the world to peace.

Here is a little test: Looking at Arab Spring how do you explain what has happened there and what will happen? Did you resort to one of the two ‘philoshophical views’? But let’s forget that typical TV simplification of things. Did you resort to history? Is not it possible for anyone; European, American, Turkish or Arab alike, to try to explain what is going on in the Arab countries right now just looking at the people who are doing it and what these people are themselves? What do they want and what they are; but not what they have become and where they are coming from? Or is it just too convenient for the ‘West’ and ‘East’ similarly; to look at Arabs and say they always have fought, look at financial crisis in Greece and say they were always lazy and corrupt, and look at Turkey and say they are improving and becoming influential because they were an Empire once and dominated Balkans, North Africa, Middle East? If you think I’m exaggerating try to find an article that explains the new Turkish foreign policy without the Ottoman inheritance. Is not this approach simply just looking at the things of the past that are able to explain the result. And yet if things were going bad for Turkey I am sure there would be millions of historic explanations deriving again from the failure of Ottoman Empire itself. And if Greece had been doing great it could have been explained through how present Greeks resembles their great ancestors of ancient Greeks.

It is actually the struggle not the wealth in these countries that are truly changing. The struggle of people in Turkey, China, India, Brazil and many others that does start with the ambition to get rich, but will go through the improvement of ideas, life, philosophies, science and unfortunately, will probably end in the struggle to get and stay rich again. The ‘world’ struggled to get rich and meanwhile they produced ideas and science and now they ended up in only trying to stay rich and wealthy. And if a oriental was to foresee the future of the East through the simplification of how the West tried to explain the East, and looked at West to make sense of what will happen to the East as it is the West it started to resemble (applaused and confirmed by the West) would not he conclude that one day the East will end up in a position where their only aim is to get rich and stay rich and satisficing with the rest of their lives?

Or will the ‘world’, through observing the changes in East, understand how content they have become with the fruits of their past struggle to get rich; namely representative democracy and capitalism with a hint of state supported socialism?

So far I, myself, am quite irritated by the way I have depicted the alleged dominant view in the West, even if I did it for a reason. It is my allegation guess and I will still stand by my point that it is a dominant view, or at least a view that dominates the base of many other views. But, how simply I classified the ‘world’ into people content with their lives, only money oriented, prejudgemental, orientalist fools and how wrong was it. I know there are many people, anywhere in the world, that think and struggle to improve the world and do not perceive the rest of the world through this limited approach. So, if so far you have been disturbed by my depiction of the ‘world’ just take it as an example of how easily you could do it for the rest of the world. And if you have not been disturbed by it, think how easily you can do the same thing you blame other people for doing.

However, despite all my misconceptions of how the ‘world’ sees the rest of the world, the following question can still be rightfully asked: Will the Arabs, Turks, Chinese, Indians be let alone to have their own struggle in their own way – as they had before the Europeans have their own – to contribute to the well being of humanity as they did before; or will they simply be forced to concede to the dictations of the ‘world’?

The most dangerous illusion of Turks about Turkey is how much they think they have started to resemble and are similar to the West. And the two differing, yet equally dangerous illusions of the ‘world’ about Turkey are, first, how much they think Turkey started to resemble themselves and second, how much Turkey does not resemble themselves.

What gives anyone the reason to think that the best Turkey or China or India or Brazil can achieve is to copy the countries, that are for now, relatively and presumably in better condition? Anyone, including the Turkish, Chinese, Indians and Brazilians themselves as well.

There is an oppurtunity. The oppurtunity to improve through the differences, through the people who are struggling even if they are not struggling for the right reason. This is not to say that we have to embrace and tolerate the differences, it is to say it is the difference from each other that will end up improving all of us. It is not the differences of their pasts or simply the differences of their religions, but the differences of their future that makes them truly different. And Turkey or China or India or Brazil might fail in doing so as there are many reasons to. They might not be able to change at all or they might change into the same thing we, as humans, already have and tested. But yet, they might not. And the world might improve; even if the ‘world’ think it cannot or already has.

Watching Ararat, thinking Turkey

There comes a time in every Turk’s life when he has to form an opinion about the (alleged, if you are Turkish) Armenian genocide (or issue, again if you are Turkish). However, this is much more than an opinion and a huge part of almost every Armenian’s life; to learn and acknowledge and if possible to defend, to spread this ‘truth’. Their different involvement in this issue only starts here…

To phrase the question alone, the question to answer – in a way to start to think about the main problem at hand, is difficult in itself. To phrase it objectively is almost impossible. It is not impossible, because it is an abstract idea, a philosophical question or a matter of belief. It is, in its foundation, a historical question. Did Turks commit genocide against Armenians? But, no, the question has long since ceased to be historical, thanks to both Armenian and Turkish side. Now the question is sentimental. It is a question of belief. And will continue to be one until some rational, objective Armenian and Turkish historians come together, with the support of their countries and public, to settle the account. To clarify once and for all. Is this possible?

I do not have the courage nor the willingness to go into this mess of a debate centered on proofs and eye witness accounts and no-proofs and exaggerated memories of the past at the same time, both claiming that each side of the story is true. Believe me I would like to. I would like to delve deep into the issue, read all that I can about it; read journals, eye witness accounts, communications, old hand written letters. And I tried to. But this is also not possible, not anymore. Currently there is almost no existing debate. Each side has collected as much as they can to prove they are right and they are firmly standing their ground, not needing to improve or change their position (or you might say, their beliefs).

And yet, as the issue is not limited to its historical context, it is becoming more related to what one feels about it. Do you or do you not think (but actually the operative word here is believe) a genocide happened?

As I said the involvement of a Turkish and an Armenian in this matter is worlds apart. Take the movie Ararat. Or many other documentaries and websites Armenian produced to make the ‘truth’ be heard. Go to wikipedia and see how the pages about the genocide are dominated by Armenians, with almost no room left for discussion. And go to the discussion pages of this topic and try to get a sense of the differing involvement. How much the Armenians work to keep the page up there and how much the “patriotic” Turks try to tear it down. And you start to understand how much more important it is for Armenians.

Think about all the parliementaries and EU Parliament that ‘ruled’ that it was a genocide, mostly due to the endless Armenian efforts. A most common question asked in Turkey about this is, how come politicians rule about what happened in the past in a different country that does not even involve their own country? Not surprisingly, the biggest and most consistent involvement in the genocide debate for an average Turkish citizen comes at 24 April, Genocide Rememberance Day, when the news agenda for the day is set every year: What will the US senate rule about the issue and how will the president will address it? And the US president goes on year after year refering to the matter, with an everchanging adjective, that neither pleases Armenians nor Turks. Year after year a politician goes on to define a historical issue and both Armenians and Turks care about it, care so deeply to work all year around it – to make it happen or prevent it from happening. Millions of dollars from both side are spent on lobbying. And year after year the president of the same country uses a differing adjective about a historical event that is not changing at all. And this is only one of the examples why this debate is almost impossible to be considered historically, scientifically and rationally.

The Turks are far from producing a movie about what happened in Eastern Anatolia during and after 1915; whatever happened. First of all, we are not involved in the issue as much as Armenians are. But probably there is also no pleasent movie to be made about it.

However, Atom Egoyan’s movie is far from historical facts as well, is not it? And you get the sense that he deliberately built the movie around it. At one point the director of the movie (an Armenian director who used to be world renown 20 years ago, clearly symbolising Egoyan himself) replies the art history professor who tells him that Mount Ararat can’t be seen from Van:

–        Well, yes, I thought it would be important.

–        But it’s not true.

–        It’s true in spirit.

And later in the movie’s subplots you get the sense that Egoyan is trying to tell a different story. When he shows how differently characters perceive the truth behind another character’s suicide. And the history of that particular event is so different to each of them and yet none of them have proof, and both of their historic perspective is still true to themselves.

In another subplot, Raffi, an Armenian who is coming back from Turkey is confronted by David, a police officer at the airport:

David: What are we going to do? There is no one I can contact. There is no way of confirming that a single word you’ve told me tonight is true.

Raffi: Everything I told you is exactly what happened.

This scene cuts to 1915, to show Armenians walking in barren lands without any dialogue or explanation. And when the movie returns to Raffi and David it turns out that he was actually lying. But he did not mean or intend to lie about it is what David concludes.

And then you see a denialistic Turkish perspective thrown in the movie, who comes from a man who plays “a very, very bad man” Turkish in the movie within the movie. He says to the director that he has never asked his thoughts about the history and goes on to tell what he thinks. The director interrupts him and says it does not matter. And turns and walk away. Refusing to debate. Refusing to talk.

At this point in the movie you start to think that Egoyan is trying to tell something to us. He is trying to show what the matter have become, that it is no longer about confirming the facts and debating. That what is going on now is only about how we perceive the past. But…

But the movie first shows you the Turkish actor himself moving to an indifferent, non-caring, even somewhat ruthless position.

Raffi: Were you serious about what you told him?

Ali, actor playing Jevdet Bey: What?

Raffi: That you don’t think it happened?

Ali, actor playing Jevdet Bey: What, the genocide?

Raffi: Yeah.

Ali, actor playing Jevdet Bey: Are yuo gonna shoot me or something? Look, I never heard about any of this stuff when I was growing up. You know? I did some research for the part. From what I read there were deportations and lots of people died. Armenians and Turks. It was World War 1.

Raffi: But Turkey wasn’t at war with the Armenians. I mean, just like Germany wasn’t at war with the Jews. They were citizens. They were expecting to be protected. That scene you just shot was based on an eyewitness account. Your character Jevdet Bey, the only reason they put him in Van was to carry out the complete extermination of the Armenian population in Van. There were telegrams, there were communicators…

Ali, actor playing Jevdet Bey: Look I’m not saying that something didn’t happen.

Raffi: Something…

Ali, actor playing Jevdet Bey: Look, I was born here. So were you right?

Raffi: Yeah.

Ali, actor playing Jevdet Bey: This is a new country. So let’s just drop the fucking history and get on with it. Noone’s gonna wreck your home. Noone’s gonna destroy you family. Hmm? So let’s go inside and uncork this thing and celebrate. Hmm?

Raffi: Do you know what Adolf Hitler told his military commanders to convince them that his plan would work? “Who remembers the extermination of the Armenians?”

Ali, actor playing Jevdet Bey: And nobody did. Nobody does.

It is hard to believe that Atom Egoyan or any sensible person will throw in a Hitler quote into an argument, almost reminding Godwin’s Law that every internet discussion will at some point use a Hitler analogy. However, this is a movie about genocide and how can you not use Hitler when you are making a movie about genocide, right?

By the way, this is almost all the account given, given weakly – only to be destroyed, suggesting that a genocide did not take place.

Later on, the movie concludes with scenes where Turkish soldiers rape Armenian women in front of their children, shoot them in the head – execution style, kill children as well and make Armenian women dance naked before they burn them alive.

The last thing to see on screen is:

1) The historical events in this film have been substantiated by holocaust scholars, national archives, and eyewitness accounts, including that of Clarence Ussher.

2) To this day, Turkey continues to deny the Armenian Genocide of 1915.

So what you might have thought earlier seems unrelated by now.

What is there to take away from this cinematically and plot wise well done movie?

My biggest realisation is how much and in what style Armenians carry their emotions about the (alleged) Armenian Genocide (issue). They live with it, and they suffer for it. And not because it directly affects their lives anymore, nor they are looking to reclaim their land or money. As the director of the movie within the movie puts it:

“Young man, do you know what still causes so much pain. It’s not the people we lost or the land. It’s to know that we could be so hated… Who are these people who could hate us so much? How can they still deny their hatred? And so hate us… hate us even more?”

And this is where I think I should jump in, and for the first time in this article, contribute something original, something of my own to this issue.

We definitely do not understand Armenians. We only understand they seek to uncover the reality of the hideous things that happened in and after 1915 in Eastern Anatolia. And I, for one, understand this. I don’t need anyone to tell me the Turkish government is trying to cover some ugly historic facts. Which country in the world doesn’t? I don’t need anyone to tell me Ottoman Empire or even Turkey (specifically referring to the deportation of non-muslim citizens starting from the 30s that continues through the 60s) has committed some hideous crimes and wrongdoings in its past. Which country in the world didn’t?

However…apparently, they do not understand Turks either.

I don’t see anyone hating Armenians in Turkey. Except, only and only for their efforts to continously humiliate and defame Turkey in the international community.

Turks will never get to believe that their ancestors hated one ethnic group so much, especially if it cannot be proven. They will always ask themselves, and I will too, how come Ottomans who ruled and lived together with Armenians, Jews, Arabs, Greeks, Bulgarians, Balkans and so many other nations peacefully for hundreds of years will come to hate so much any or one of these ethnicities? If there was not a peaceful life spent together for hundreds of years, how come these nations still have their customs, and most of them happen to live in their own country and land, especially if they had a country formed before they were conquered by the Ottoman Empire? How come Armenians and only Armenians become the target of an ethnic cleansing or holocaust? And why in 1915? And why not before? And how come an ethnic cleansing was carried out, with the overseeing of the government and not any of our ancestors even discreetly, secretly tell us about it? How come none of our grandfathers tell us they did kill Armenians, and Armenians only, and just because they are Armenians?

Turks will tell themselves, but I won’t, all these happened during World War I. It was a matter of war. These people were threat to Ottoman so they were deported, and it was rightful to deport them. All the populations around the world do move and get deported and forced out of their lands, otherwise everybody would still be living in the same place and there would be no USA or any latin country. And only Armenians in the East were deported, hence there are still so many Armenians living in Turkey even now. And they will remind themselves, and I will too, the treaty of Serves is an actual proof that this threat was real.

Many many Turks, so many that it is becoming harder and harder to silence them, do demand an investigation and a complete research into these killings. Some hoping that it will prove nothing happened, while some hoping it will prove that something happened but it is not a genocide, and some hoping that it will prove that it was, indeed, a genocide. But the point is Turks are ready to discuss this issue. The Turkish government may not be. But the Turks, some Turks but the Turks that care, are willing to discuss this issue.

Armenians might keep asking how is it possible that Turks still deny the genocide. And yet I don’t see any way that any human being – that has at least a level of compassion, empathy and humanity in him – not denying that he or his ancestors committed genocide. How can a Turk reach a point in his life to say my ancestors did kill Armenians deliberately, and not only killed them but killed them only because they were Armenians?

Do Armenians understand this about Turks? Do they care about understanding this?

I do “believe” one day the killings and the exceptional massacres that happened during that era, to that particular Armenians will surface; through science, rationality and proofs. And I hope that it will lead not only to the compensation of the grandchildren of these Armenians, but to the acknowledgement of their suffering and pain. Moreover, I hope that these people will be again granted Turkish citizenship and it will be made possible for them to live in their ancestral homeland. I wish this could become true not only for Armenians, but for Greeks and other minorities that once lived together with our ancestors, in these same lands.

Is this what Armenians want as well? I don’t know. As I said I can only partially understand them. But sometimes I cannot help but think the word ‘genocide’ is more important for what they have become right now. That, they are looking for a magical explanation to stand for what had happened to them, what caused their pain in the past and even what causes their pain and misfortunes now.

Watching Ararat I think about all these things. And yet, I feel like all I can do is to wait and see and hope. For peace and understanding and love.

Edit on 19 December 2011: Although I still stand by the most of my thoughts in the article and still find it hard to believe, and consider it as almost impossible that it is possible not to pass on stories or hide these stories of an alleged genocide this size (I am talking about the stories of the possible genocide doers, aka, Turkish grandparents.); I still cannot help but become uncertain about my following statement, included in this article. The reason for this change, is all the news and testimonies that come out for the 1938 Dersim Massacre, and how they were hidden for such a long time. Although the scale of two events are not comparable, it still casts doubt on the following statement:  “And how come an ethnic cleansing was carried out, with the overseeing of the government and not any of our ancestors even discreetly, secretly tell us about it? How come none of our grandfathers tell us they did kill Armenians, and Armenians only, and just because they are Armenians?”

Edit on 24 April 2012: An obvious day to revisit the article. This article will now stand here (mostly) as a reminder of my ignorance and naivety and the power of brainwashing and propoganda.