Last week I received a lot of e-mail from Turks living in various corners of Europe after my article entitled “Turkophobia.”

Almost all of them expressed concern about anti-Turkish movements on the rise recently in some European countries; and they want this subject to be written about more.

My mind got caught up on the language and style used in these letters. Disappointed, offended, reproachful, but equally angry and reactionary…

There is another matter that caught my attention. The authors of these e-mails are almost entirely third-generation Turks. In other words, they are individuals of Turkish origin born in European countries who carry citizenship of those countries, the descendants of immigrant families. But now they don’t see themselves belonging to those countries. At best, they feel rejected and they believe they have been done an injustice.

One Zaman reader from France wrote: “If they pass this genocide law, we should respond in the same way. If we memorialized France’s violations of human rights in Algeria, I wonder how they would feel. I wonder just how democratic the ones who are giving us lessons on democracy really are.”

Another reader wrote: “Your article opposing the genocide law had a big impact here, because you were tried under Article 301, on the Armenian issue in particular. This is the way it is in the eyes of the French. If we criticize what France has done, they won’t listen to us. But if you and writers like you criticize, they will listen to you. Please explain to the French what Turks feel.”

In addition to letters containing these kinds of requests, there were also those who are just angry. For example, one reader rebuked “well-off white-Turkish intellectuals,” including me.

“You held out an olive branch to the Armenians; either with good intentions or out of carelessness, I don’t know which. Here are the results… You are welcome to what you see. We have a saying: If you give them your hand, they’ll take your arm. If you give your hand to the Armenians, they will want your arm.”

It’s obvious that this reader is looking at the world and humanity from the perspective of “us” and “them.” He is generalizing. All Armenians are “them” and that makes them different from himself or the “us” group.

One letter used a style quite different from the others: “Actually, you talk about ARAF (ed. Purgatory); we are just like that… Neither here nor there… We have been living in limbo for years. When we go to Turkey, we are foreign; here we are in a no-win situation. Now they have imposed the genocide law. The treatment we get hurts a lot.”

The genocide law currently before the parliament in France is extremely worrisome. To begin with, this law is going to obstruct individuals’ most basic right: freedom of expression. It will use history as a political tool. Movements against Turkey will incite Turkish nationalism. The field of action for enlightened people will be curtailed, the arena will be left to those who are inspired by dialectics of patriotism, and unfortunately the possible bridges of friendship between Armenians and Turks will be worn away.

Within this framework, of course the Turks in Europe are right in showing a reaction. Of course the person who has been hurt will vocalize his pain and condemnations.

Nonetheless a very important crossroads awaits us and the Turks in Europe. Is the rising Turkophobia going to be answered with Turkish nationalism? Should reaction be answered by reaction and obstinacy with obstinacy? Should hardline nationalistic rhetoric be responded to with similar hardline nationalistic rhetoric? Is it better to become angry and turn our backs, or, believing in dialogue, using democratic platforms to make our voices heard.

If Turkey turns its back on Europe, who will benefit? What else will be gained from answering patriotism with patriotism other than buttering the bread of those who believe in the “clash of civilizations,” claims that Islam and Western democracies can’t live side by side?

Can we not develop another way that sincerely opposes the curtailment of freedom of expression in Turkey and in France? One that is ready to question every kind of hardline nationalistic dogma, that believes in human rights, and that doesn’t deviate from democracy?

Until now, whenever Turkey has developed ultra-nationalistic/emotional/ reactionary dialectics on this subject, it has lost many things in the international arena and in internal politics. We don’t have to make the same mistake. There is a crossroads in front of us.

10.11.2006