Thursday, March 18, 2010
Breaking News in Turkey
Spring has sprung
Heart to Heart
I had an interesting conversation with a student about her time as an Erasmus exchange student in the Czech Republic two years ago. She talked about how she and her peers were treated by other Europeans during her time there, and I have to say that the picture wasn't very flattering. Many of the Europeans asked why some Turkish girls didn't wear scarves while others did, they didn't understand why the girls drank alcohol when the Koran forbade it, and they expressed surprise in general at the girls' overall modernity.
But the questions weren't the difficult part, it was the assumptions: that Turks ride camels (come on!), a serious belief that Turkey had no skyscrapers (haven't they ever seen a picture of Istanbul?), and a general misunderstanding about how strictly Turks follow the Koran. The girls were ostracized quite a bit, and generally only hung out with each other, even though their English was pretty strong. Some of my other students who lived in Belgium for some time had teachers that treated them like second-class citizens because of their nationality, and made comments about camels and skyscrapers as well. More than anything, all of my Turkish students have been shocked at how little people know about their country, and the level of cultural prejudice people have for their nation.
A lot of Turks really think that Americans don't like them either. I went to meet some local high school students the other day to give a presentation about my trip to Egypt. At the end of the presentation, after several questions about whether I was married and what people like to eat in the United States, etc., a young girl raised her hand and said, "Do Americans hate Turkey?"
I was flabbergasted.
It surprises and saddens me, because it highlights the misinformed perceptions so many people have about Islamic nations, and Turkey in particular. My student mentioned something her Prime Minister had said about Turkey, something to the effect that Turkey is the far east of the West, and the far West of the East, a variation of the often used comment that Turkey is between the East and the West. Though it may be cliché, I do find it to be true. And I suppose this makes both sides wonder where exactly Turkey stands on certain issues, even while many Turks struggle to create a solid identity for itself out of this dichotomy.
Regardless, I'm really disappointed that so many Europeans are so uneducated about Turkey. Despite its tenuous leanings sometimes this way, sometimes that way, Turkey is a part of Europe geographically, and it's time Europeans learned a bit more about their culturally rich and diverse neighbor, whether they're part of the EU or not.
But the questions weren't the difficult part, it was the assumptions: that Turks ride camels (come on!), a serious belief that Turkey had no skyscrapers (haven't they ever seen a picture of Istanbul?), and a general misunderstanding about how strictly Turks follow the Koran. The girls were ostracized quite a bit, and generally only hung out with each other, even though their English was pretty strong. Some of my other students who lived in Belgium for some time had teachers that treated them like second-class citizens because of their nationality, and made comments about camels and skyscrapers as well. More than anything, all of my Turkish students have been shocked at how little people know about their country, and the level of cultural prejudice people have for their nation.
A lot of Turks really think that Americans don't like them either. I went to meet some local high school students the other day to give a presentation about my trip to Egypt. At the end of the presentation, after several questions about whether I was married and what people like to eat in the United States, etc., a young girl raised her hand and said, "Do Americans hate Turkey?"
I was flabbergasted.
It surprises and saddens me, because it highlights the misinformed perceptions so many people have about Islamic nations, and Turkey in particular. My student mentioned something her Prime Minister had said about Turkey, something to the effect that Turkey is the far east of the West, and the far West of the East, a variation of the often used comment that Turkey is between the East and the West. Though it may be cliché, I do find it to be true. And I suppose this makes both sides wonder where exactly Turkey stands on certain issues, even while many Turks struggle to create a solid identity for itself out of this dichotomy.
Regardless, I'm really disappointed that so many Europeans are so uneducated about Turkey. Despite its tenuous leanings sometimes this way, sometimes that way, Turkey is a part of Europe geographically, and it's time Europeans learned a bit more about their culturally rich and diverse neighbor, whether they're part of the EU or not.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Salep!
It all began in Egypt, when I tried my friend Mark's saleb, a warm, creamy and sweet milk drink. It was so fabulous that I had to try the Turkish version once I got back home, so I organized a posse of my sophomore girls to go try it with me. We went and found a local vendor and sat outside his little shop and drank the salep (as it is spelled in Turkey) while we shivered in the cold. It was perfect.
What is salep, you ask? Well, salep is made from salep four, which--ready for this?--is made from orchids! I had no idea! (See the botanical picture below.) Anyway, they dry out the orchid tuber and use the flour. For the foodie geeks out there, salep flour apparently has some nutritious starch-like polysaccharides--plus the guy at the stand told us it helps with lactation. (I'm glad there were Turkish women there to translate--the body gestures would have been interesting for that one.)
Salep is made by adding water to the salep flour, and then adding milk and sugar. The result is a thick drink with the consistency of warm milk thickened with cornstarch, with cinnamon (optional) added on top. Or maybe it's more like warm, slightly thin, vanilla pudding. Apparently there is also a salep pudding and salep ice cream made from the powder.
There is a downside though...the popularity of salep has led to a serious decline in the population of wild orchids, and it's now illegal to export true salep out of the country. Why is everything yummy bad for the planet?? Anyway, I had better enjoy it while I can...even if it makes me feel a little guilty.
Bowling in Isparta
It was the most fun I'd had in weeks (I don't get out much). I have to say, I really love my students.
Gluten-free Pasta
Usually the Turkish post is quite good, but I have heard of some packages getting completely hijacked. For example, one of my colleagues sent himself a box of American paraphernalia to share with his students (magazines and the like) and ended up receiving a box of pots and pans, in the same box. Someone had literally opened his box, removed all the materials, and then refilled his box with pots and pans.
I mean, do they have a stock of these things for such situations? And what exactly was so contra band in that box that they had to empty it? And why not just keep the box--why send him kitchen ware as some kind of consolation? Or...is that the Godfather equivalent of the horse head in your bed here? This might be something to look into...
Anyway, I was getting nervous three weeks after she'd shipped it, but when it finally arrived I almost cried. (Actually, I think I wept a little. Seriously.) I ate the box of crumbly gluten-free cookies within one week (showing immense restraint), and I have been eating a small square of Swiss Dark Chocolate every day since (I still have 1/3 a bar left--even more immense restraint). I've made a yummy creamy mushroom pasta dish, and tonight I had a simple tomato and spinach topping for my fake fusilli.
But one of my favorites was something I would almost never have back home, but was oh-so-good here. And that's gluten-free mac and cheese, baby! Pictured here, in all its glory. I sat in front of my bedroom window on a cloudy day and enjoyed every bite.
Just goes to show you never know what you'll miss or crave when you're far from home. The best part of all though, I must admit, was the birthday card Melanie and her two-year old made for me. Thanks, Mel, for sending me a slice of home--I needed it. I have to admit it; I miss you all way more than gluten-free pizza--and that's saying something.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Earthquake in Turkey
An earthquake with a magnitude of 6.0 just hit the eastern part of Turkey, leveling several villages clustered around the epicenter in Karakoçan near the city center of Elazığ. According to recent updates, 57 were killed and 71 injured (changed from 41 dead earlier today and 100 injured). My heart goes out to those affected by the quake.
To read more, check out an article here.
To read more, check out an article here.
Friday, March 5, 2010
More on the Armenian Genocide
I've read a whole lot of articles lately about the Armenian Genocide decision that was narrowly passed yesterday by a House Panel, 23 to 22. I'm trying to figure out how best to distill everything for those of you who aren't as likely to read all the articles, but might like to know a little more about the situation. Now, I am no expert, mind you--so remember that as you read. But I do feel a little bit responsible to introduce you to some of these issues since I'm here, and you're...well, there. (Excepting my ELF counterparts, of course).
So, I am hoping I was pretty clear in my last post, but basically, here's the issue with the genocide decision. The problem is that historians do not completely agree on whether or not the enormous amount of Armenian deaths that took place during 1914 and 1922 (approx) were a genocide or not. Genocide requires a premeditated intention, wheras Turks argue that the deaths were casualties resulting from an internal civil war and the numbers of those who died were inflated by biased historians.
But let's look at the history. During the end of the Ottoman Empire, various political groups formed a coalition called the Young Turks, which were working towards the reformation of the Ottoman Empire's administration, particularly in response to the authoritarian Sultan Abdul-Hamid. The term Young Turks generally referred to members of the society that were liberal progressives and opposed to the status quo, and many members of this coalition were not only politicians, but also artists, scientists, administrators, etc. The Young Turks were led by three men who were sometimes referred to as the Three Pashas (Pasha=a civil or miltary official).
The Young Turks envisioned a secularist, constitutionalist state (unlike their current Islamic empire, ruled by a Sultan), ruled by a select group of elite individuals (not necessarily elected democratically, though). Their political activism and intellectualism helped pave the way for the revolution eventually brought about by Mustufa Ataturk, the founder (and national hero) of present-day, secularist and democratic Turkey.
During this tumultuous time (around 1913), an umbrella organization, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP, )operated at the center of several progressive groups, including the Young Turks. It is CUP's agenda that is under a lot of scrutiny today. At one point, over 20 Christians were a part of their organization. But later, some historians say that CUP began to distrust the Armenians, who were also Christian, accusing them of siding with the Russian cause.
It was the Young Turks who were in power when Turkey aligned itself with Germany in World War 1, in March of 1914. The Turks attempted to attack primarily in the East, hoping to capture what is now Baku, Azerbaijan, in an attempt to make a major blow against the Russians. They were defeated. Most historians agree that during this time, there were some Armenians who formed guerilla groups within Turkey and cooperated with the Russians, including the brief takeover in 1915 of Van, an eastern Turkish city near the present-day Iranian border.
And then the big event happened, in April 24, 1915, a day Armenians commemorate year after year. In response to these small pockets of Armenian rebellion, several hundred Armenian intellectuals were rounded up, arrested, and executed. This was the beginning of what the Armenians refer to as the Armenian genocide.
What happens next is where the debate starts. According to many historians, Armenian soldiers were rounded up and sent to labor camps or murdered. Armenians were forced to turn in their weapons and their material wealth, and most had to flee their Turkish homes. Many were driven into the mountains where they starved or froze to death.
But the question is this: Was this an intentional campaign ordered and executed by the Young Turk regime? Or was it the result of a nation in war-time chaos, disparate groups acting out against the Armenians without any specific "intention"? Remember that intention is required to qualify the deaths as genocide.
Turks do not deny that Armenians died during this period. What they fight against is that pre-meditated intention; or in legal terms that we're familiar with, they argue that it wasn't first degree murder. There is also debate about how many Armenians were actually killed, as the number would determine the label as well. If there were many less murdered than the Armenians claim (they say that about 1.5 million died as a result of a Turkish campaign), then it's much easier to argue that the deaths were not a systematic attempt to wipe out the Armenian population, but the results of the civil war.
The American ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during that time had this to say about the situation: “When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these [Armenian] deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.”
Though the CUP party was eventually dismantled, some of their philosphies formed what remain the current Turkish approach towards Armenia. Kazim Karabekir told Russian peacemakers that Armenians would not be allowed back into Turkish lands as they had died of "a rebellion of their own making". Another disturbing quote comes from a Turkish historian who specializes in the Armenian conflict, Taner Akçam. Akçam identified four definitions of Turkey during Ataturk's rule, which he posits have been passed down through generations. The second of those rules is: "Turkey is a society without ethnic minorities or cultures." Akçam is one of the few Turkish historians who believe that the Armenian deaths should be labeled a genocide.
Part of the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation would involve both countries opening up their archives, really examining both country's records, and coming to an agreement about exactly what happened. Armenia will likely not be satisfied until this issue is fully settled, but it's quite possible that Turkey would never admit to genocide, no matter what the evidence. But while 20 European countries do refer to the deaths as a genocide, I still think that the House Panel was unwise to proceed with the vote at this moment. It's important to let Turkey and Armenia work through this process without too much American intervention. I personally think this is a task for Armenian and Turkish historians to sort through--not one for politicians to decide.
That said--I won't deny that Turkey's relationship with its minorities is disturbing at times. I will never forget the other day when I did a lesson on the civil war. I talked about slavery and the struggles African Americans went through to fight for their freedom.
One of my students mentioned the deaths of the Native Americans in our country, and then said: "Teacher, Americans sure have a lot of problems with their minorities."
I laughed, thinking about how simple the statement was for the complexity of our ethnic reality in the States. "Oh and Turkey doesn't have any problems with minorities?" I asked, thinking of Turkish tensions with Jews, gays, Kurds, Armenians, etc.
My students just shook their heads and said no.
"Oh really?" I said, then stopped, not sure what to say. "That's...interesting."
And they all laughed knowingly--as if they were all in the joke, but could never admit the truth out loud.
So, I am hoping I was pretty clear in my last post, but basically, here's the issue with the genocide decision. The problem is that historians do not completely agree on whether or not the enormous amount of Armenian deaths that took place during 1914 and 1922 (approx) were a genocide or not. Genocide requires a premeditated intention, wheras Turks argue that the deaths were casualties resulting from an internal civil war and the numbers of those who died were inflated by biased historians.
But let's look at the history. During the end of the Ottoman Empire, various political groups formed a coalition called the Young Turks, which were working towards the reformation of the Ottoman Empire's administration, particularly in response to the authoritarian Sultan Abdul-Hamid. The term Young Turks generally referred to members of the society that were liberal progressives and opposed to the status quo, and many members of this coalition were not only politicians, but also artists, scientists, administrators, etc. The Young Turks were led by three men who were sometimes referred to as the Three Pashas (Pasha=a civil or miltary official).
The Young Turks envisioned a secularist, constitutionalist state (unlike their current Islamic empire, ruled by a Sultan), ruled by a select group of elite individuals (not necessarily elected democratically, though). Their political activism and intellectualism helped pave the way for the revolution eventually brought about by Mustufa Ataturk, the founder (and national hero) of present-day, secularist and democratic Turkey.
During this tumultuous time (around 1913), an umbrella organization, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP, )operated at the center of several progressive groups, including the Young Turks. It is CUP's agenda that is under a lot of scrutiny today. At one point, over 20 Christians were a part of their organization. But later, some historians say that CUP began to distrust the Armenians, who were also Christian, accusing them of siding with the Russian cause.
It was the Young Turks who were in power when Turkey aligned itself with Germany in World War 1, in March of 1914. The Turks attempted to attack primarily in the East, hoping to capture what is now Baku, Azerbaijan, in an attempt to make a major blow against the Russians. They were defeated. Most historians agree that during this time, there were some Armenians who formed guerilla groups within Turkey and cooperated with the Russians, including the brief takeover in 1915 of Van, an eastern Turkish city near the present-day Iranian border.
And then the big event happened, in April 24, 1915, a day Armenians commemorate year after year. In response to these small pockets of Armenian rebellion, several hundred Armenian intellectuals were rounded up, arrested, and executed. This was the beginning of what the Armenians refer to as the Armenian genocide.
What happens next is where the debate starts. According to many historians, Armenian soldiers were rounded up and sent to labor camps or murdered. Armenians were forced to turn in their weapons and their material wealth, and most had to flee their Turkish homes. Many were driven into the mountains where they starved or froze to death.
But the question is this: Was this an intentional campaign ordered and executed by the Young Turk regime? Or was it the result of a nation in war-time chaos, disparate groups acting out against the Armenians without any specific "intention"? Remember that intention is required to qualify the deaths as genocide.
Turks do not deny that Armenians died during this period. What they fight against is that pre-meditated intention; or in legal terms that we're familiar with, they argue that it wasn't first degree murder. There is also debate about how many Armenians were actually killed, as the number would determine the label as well. If there were many less murdered than the Armenians claim (they say that about 1.5 million died as a result of a Turkish campaign), then it's much easier to argue that the deaths were not a systematic attempt to wipe out the Armenian population, but the results of the civil war.
The American ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during that time had this to say about the situation: “When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these [Armenian] deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.”
Though the CUP party was eventually dismantled, some of their philosphies formed what remain the current Turkish approach towards Armenia. Kazim Karabekir told Russian peacemakers that Armenians would not be allowed back into Turkish lands as they had died of "a rebellion of their own making". Another disturbing quote comes from a Turkish historian who specializes in the Armenian conflict, Taner Akçam. Akçam identified four definitions of Turkey during Ataturk's rule, which he posits have been passed down through generations. The second of those rules is: "Turkey is a society without ethnic minorities or cultures." Akçam is one of the few Turkish historians who believe that the Armenian deaths should be labeled a genocide.
Part of the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation would involve both countries opening up their archives, really examining both country's records, and coming to an agreement about exactly what happened. Armenia will likely not be satisfied until this issue is fully settled, but it's quite possible that Turkey would never admit to genocide, no matter what the evidence. But while 20 European countries do refer to the deaths as a genocide, I still think that the House Panel was unwise to proceed with the vote at this moment. It's important to let Turkey and Armenia work through this process without too much American intervention. I personally think this is a task for Armenian and Turkish historians to sort through--not one for politicians to decide.
That said--I won't deny that Turkey's relationship with its minorities is disturbing at times. I will never forget the other day when I did a lesson on the civil war. I talked about slavery and the struggles African Americans went through to fight for their freedom.
One of my students mentioned the deaths of the Native Americans in our country, and then said: "Teacher, Americans sure have a lot of problems with their minorities."
I laughed, thinking about how simple the statement was for the complexity of our ethnic reality in the States. "Oh and Turkey doesn't have any problems with minorities?" I asked, thinking of Turkish tensions with Jews, gays, Kurds, Armenians, etc.
My students just shook their heads and said no.
"Oh really?" I said, then stopped, not sure what to say. "That's...interesting."
And they all laughed knowingly--as if they were all in the joke, but could never admit the truth out loud.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Speaking about the Unspeakable
They only bring it up in hushed voices, if at all. You're not really supposed to talk about it, and someone might say one thing in front of one group of people and then admit an entirely different opinion to you over tea in their office, behind a closed door. There's one word that you don't mention around here outloud, and that's the word "genocide." You don't talk about the fact that in 1914, many historians say that there were approximately two million Christian Armenians living in Turkey, and that by 1922 there were fewer than 400,000. Were 1.5 million Armenians murdered in Turkey from World War 1 (1914-1918) through the early 1920s? Armenians want Turks to finally accept the blame.
A House panel is voting today on whether or not the death of those 1.5 million Armenians will be referred to as a genocide by the U.S. If the vote passes then it'll go to a full House vote, meaning it could be implemented into American foreign policy. Turkey has warned the U.S. that if this vote goes through, already weakened ties will be further strained with the U.S., a threat that has defeated the measure when it's gone to the House in the past. But Obama's silence on the issue (unlike Bush and Clinton who did not support the label) confuses Turks and Americans alike--will he support the measure or will he refute it? Is it possible that the U.S. would be willing to weaken its ties with Turkey over a simple word?
I'd understand if you thought as I did before I came to Turkey: What's the big deal? It's just a word. It was during an atrocious war and the dissolution of the Ottoman empire--it occurred even before Turkey, as we know it today, was an official nation. (Or maybe you don't know even that much, and your protests stop after "It's just a word.") But the fact is that Turks are very proud of their heritage and don't want such a horrifying historical act--a genocide--applied to them. Who wants to be compared to a Nazi?
What is genocide, exactly? According to Oxford (and it's all about semantics in this argument), genocide is the "deliberate killing of a very large number of people from a particular group or nation." So the question everyone is asking is, was the death of those 1.5 million Armenians deliberate or not? Was there a planned attempt to wipe Armenians off the Turkish map? Or was it the unfortunate, but accidental result of a devastating European war and the dissolution of an Empire?
A New York Times article says that it's considered a crime in Turkey to "even raise the issue of what happened to the Armenians" because it "insults Turkishness." I can't verify the legality for sure, but it is certainly an offense of the highest order here in Turkey, and an issue that (as a foreign teacher) you really don't want to bring up to anyone, unless you want all of your university to know.
What remains in question: Were there actually over two million Armenians in Turkey before WWI? Is that number correct? Some historians say there were many less Armenians in Turkey than that at the time. And how can one prove if it was systematic, or the fault of a destabilized country, the masses acting separately from any premeditated dictate from above? And does Armenia deserve that moral high ground when they drove one million Azeris (residents of Azerbaijan) out of its disputed region Karabagh? Will the U.S. also pressure them to budge on that issue? Azeris are closely tied to Turkey (they call themselves a sister country) and the Azeris I know refuse to do anything but spit out the word genocide like a swig of bad tea.
But the facts are recorded in history, label or not: Women were raped and murdered. Armenians were driven into the mountains and left to starve. Dissenting Armenian intellectuals were rounded up and executed. Members of the army were disarmed and transferred into labor batallions where they were either killed or worked to death.
This is no easy deicsion. If the House of Reps votes yes on this bill, it severely threatens its relationship with an important ally, and bows down to a claim in a way that may be overtly politically motivated since historians are not all in agreement on this issue. I honestly think it would be a foolish decision, despite what I might think about whether or not it was a genocide. The event happened in the past, before Turkey was an established nation, and I'm not sure I see the point in the U.S. getting so intimately involved.
Yet to vote that the deaths were a genocide would also provide a vindication for millions of Armenians, who have a very strong lobby in the U.S., and who still feel pain over the suffering their ancestors went through.
It will be interesting to see what Washington decides...and how the results trickle down to my little university. Until then, I had better stop writing about the issue from my office...it makes me a little uncomfortable, if you know what I mean.
For more info, you can read a historical account (I'm not saying it's unbiased though) from the NY Times here.
Here's a more recent account of the decision in the Wall Street Journal.
And more articles in a Turkish online paper here and here.
A House panel is voting today on whether or not the death of those 1.5 million Armenians will be referred to as a genocide by the U.S. If the vote passes then it'll go to a full House vote, meaning it could be implemented into American foreign policy. Turkey has warned the U.S. that if this vote goes through, already weakened ties will be further strained with the U.S., a threat that has defeated the measure when it's gone to the House in the past. But Obama's silence on the issue (unlike Bush and Clinton who did not support the label) confuses Turks and Americans alike--will he support the measure or will he refute it? Is it possible that the U.S. would be willing to weaken its ties with Turkey over a simple word?
I'd understand if you thought as I did before I came to Turkey: What's the big deal? It's just a word. It was during an atrocious war and the dissolution of the Ottoman empire--it occurred even before Turkey, as we know it today, was an official nation. (Or maybe you don't know even that much, and your protests stop after "It's just a word.") But the fact is that Turks are very proud of their heritage and don't want such a horrifying historical act--a genocide--applied to them. Who wants to be compared to a Nazi?
What is genocide, exactly? According to Oxford (and it's all about semantics in this argument), genocide is the "deliberate killing of a very large number of people from a particular group or nation." So the question everyone is asking is, was the death of those 1.5 million Armenians deliberate or not? Was there a planned attempt to wipe Armenians off the Turkish map? Or was it the unfortunate, but accidental result of a devastating European war and the dissolution of an Empire?
A New York Times article says that it's considered a crime in Turkey to "even raise the issue of what happened to the Armenians" because it "insults Turkishness." I can't verify the legality for sure, but it is certainly an offense of the highest order here in Turkey, and an issue that (as a foreign teacher) you really don't want to bring up to anyone, unless you want all of your university to know.
What remains in question: Were there actually over two million Armenians in Turkey before WWI? Is that number correct? Some historians say there were many less Armenians in Turkey than that at the time. And how can one prove if it was systematic, or the fault of a destabilized country, the masses acting separately from any premeditated dictate from above? And does Armenia deserve that moral high ground when they drove one million Azeris (residents of Azerbaijan) out of its disputed region Karabagh? Will the U.S. also pressure them to budge on that issue? Azeris are closely tied to Turkey (they call themselves a sister country) and the Azeris I know refuse to do anything but spit out the word genocide like a swig of bad tea.
But the facts are recorded in history, label or not: Women were raped and murdered. Armenians were driven into the mountains and left to starve. Dissenting Armenian intellectuals were rounded up and executed. Members of the army were disarmed and transferred into labor batallions where they were either killed or worked to death.
This is no easy deicsion. If the House of Reps votes yes on this bill, it severely threatens its relationship with an important ally, and bows down to a claim in a way that may be overtly politically motivated since historians are not all in agreement on this issue. I honestly think it would be a foolish decision, despite what I might think about whether or not it was a genocide. The event happened in the past, before Turkey was an established nation, and I'm not sure I see the point in the U.S. getting so intimately involved.
Yet to vote that the deaths were a genocide would also provide a vindication for millions of Armenians, who have a very strong lobby in the U.S., and who still feel pain over the suffering their ancestors went through.
It will be interesting to see what Washington decides...and how the results trickle down to my little university. Until then, I had better stop writing about the issue from my office...it makes me a little uncomfortable, if you know what I mean.
For more info, you can read a historical account (I'm not saying it's unbiased though) from the NY Times here.
Here's a more recent account of the decision in the Wall Street Journal.
And more articles in a Turkish online paper here and here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)