Pamuk is arguably one of the most famous Turkish writers and in 1999 was offered the title of “state artist” – an honor the writer refused. This “honor” was really an attempt to silence Pamuk and essentially buy him off, because the author has been a loud and vociferous critic of the Turkish government.

Pamuk has stated publicly that thirty thousand Kurds have been killed during the Turkish push against Kurdish separatists. Pamuk also asserts that one million Armenians were killed in Turkey by Ottoman forces between 1915 and 1917.

Such comments by the writer has placed him in the line of fire, not only from government officials, but also from Turkish ultranationalists, who have actually threatened to kill him.

On September 1 of this year Pamuk was indicted by a district prosecuter for the crime of having “blatantly belittled Turkishness”. This is incredible. Such an indictment would seem more appropriate during the medieval period, to be followed post haste by public stoning or ritual immolation on the stake.

How in the name of God do Turks intend to assimilate with the a larger European society predicated on freedom of expression when they practice this type of primitive justice and attempt to shut the mouth of a man of such genuine literary stature?

Such an indictment reflects the presence of a deep streak of extreme nationalism that verges at times, to be frank, on fascism. Consider the abuse that Michael Moore has heaped upon the head of Bush, in both oral and visual form. While many Americans and Europeans find this repulsive, it is quite another thing to prosecute Moore for his views.

There perhaps needs to be a social revolution in Turkey before they enter into a union with Europe. Despite the fact that Turkey has ratified both the UN and European covenants on human rights, this country persists – like some remnant of the Ancien Regime – in imposing an archaic penal code and subjecting artists to the worst type of human rights abuses. This is frankly disgraceful, and speaking as an artist, I have no desire whatever to embrace a country that refuses to confront this profound injustice.

According to International PEN records and the statements of Salman Rushdie, more than 50 writers, journalists and publishers presently are awaiting trial.

In my opinion, Turkey is only presenting a “cosmetic face” to the West in hopes of leveraging an arrangement that will prove economically advantageous. The EU however is about a lot more than economics – it is about shared values, and most importantly the respect for human rights and the freedom of artists to express their opinions without fear or censure.

As matters stand, I for one have no wish whatever to see Turkey become a member of the larger democratic community in Europe.

But I agree with socioeconomics that Burak’s popularity does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the majority of Turks. My original entry does not prove that, nor does socioeconomics’ comment disprove it.

The quote I gave in response to his comment can serve as an additional element in understanding Burak’s popularity.

this is an ignorant statement

You do realize that your quote is actually an implicit critique, not support, of socioeconomic’s comment? He was asserting that Burak’s texts were not representative of Turkish discourse whereas you claimed that, indeed, they were in fact quite reflective of it.

Aidan:

Why were you suprised? Even mainstream Turkish broadsheets (Cumhurriyet, Milliyet, Hurriyet, etc.) are filled to the brim with anti-European and, in equal quantity, anti-American (and anti-Armenian even more so) paranoia. You should check it some time. Reality is never as beautiful as fantasy.

Antoni:

Again, I don’t want to talk about genetics. It doesn’t matter what Luigi Cavalli Sforza’s books say – race qua genetics is irrevelvant to the topic at hand. I was talking about ethnicity as cultural practice and descent, and not about such irrelevancies as primary haplotypes and mitochordrial groups. Why do these matter again?

I am reminded that I should read Andrew Roberts’ Aachen Memorandum. (It’s not meant to be very good.)

I’m afraid this is all I’ve got so far.

I can find no reference to this on Amazon or Google. Can you provide a ISBN or more details about this book so that I can track it down?

Indeed. As per this quote (see link at the end of the entry about Metal Fury, emphasis mine):

“But Metal Storm can hardly be blamed for creating “anti-Americanism” among the Turks. Rather, the fact that the book is so popular should be seen as more of a rare barometer of not only public opinion but also imagination. After all, if people didn’t love high-firepower, cloak-and-dagger geopolitical thrillers, how could authors from Ian Fleming to John Le Carré to Tom Clancy have made industries out of their works? No one thinks twice when the enemies in such a book (the Western “good guys” are always a given) happen to be dastardly Soviets or North Koreans, Arabs or Cubans or whoever. And, if the reader also finds works in which their nation is an actor more relevant, why shouldn’t the Turkish imagination be struck by a book which features their own country?”

Period.

Many people in Turkey, like others in different countries, like reading political fiction, but that doesn’t mean that the views represented by Turna are those of the majority.

Nor does that mean that all his readers take fiction seriously.