> I think this is pretty scuzzy. Hakki has never articulated a Turkish
> chauvinist attitude as far as I can remember. So attacking him for the
> policies of the Turkish government is just a way of attacking him for
> his race (much as I hate to throw around that accusation, which tends to
> fuck up all discussion).
I seem to recall Hakki downplaying the violence committed by his government against the Kurds on the grounds that the Kurdish resistance is not led by the greatest of people, and that it, too, is responsible for atrocities. I'm sure this is true, and it's up to Hakki, among others in his country, to decide how this affects his thinking, if not actions.
As for the race card, well, what can I say? If you think I'm racist, then I am, right?
> For the record, America did more than finance the Turkish state's war
> against the Kurds, but the overthrow of democratically elected
> government in that country back in 1980 - with Nato exercises going on
> on the other side of the Bosphorous. . I think it is right to say that
> thanks to that intervention, Turkish people - Hakki amongst them I
> assume - are still subject to extensive political repression.
Yes, and I've said nothing to the contrary. I think what my government has done in the region is disgraceful and criminal, especially when it comes to Turkey. But the US didn't invent Turkish chauvinism, nor did it teach the Turks how to kill and repress their enemies. And for Hakki to say it's all America's fault is a bit disengenuous and ahistorical.
> I don't know whether Dennis Perrin is arguing that the US government is
> less reactionary than the Turkish. If he is he is mistaken.
"Less reactionary" how?
DP