[MGSA-L] May 10, 1956: The anniversary of the execution of two Greek freedom fighters

[Allen, Peter S.]

I perhaps misspoke when I said it is “irrelevant.”  Of course, self-identity is important, but it is only one element in the larger universe of “identity.”  As I also said in my post, identity is very tricky and can be situational, can be mercenary, can be opportunistic, etc.  There are lots of factors.  The point I was trying to make is that one’s self identification is not the last word.  At the risk of provoking Mr. Caratzas’s wrath for using another extreme example, I would point out that there are people on this planet who claim to be aliens from outer space. We would be ill advised to take that self-identification at face value.  Likewise, we always have to subject any self-identification to scrutiny.

Peter Allen

Peter S. Allen
Department of Anthropology
Rhode Island College
Providence, RI 0290
401-456-9639
Fax: 401-456-9736

From: Kyriakos Nalmpantis [mailto:knalmpan at kent.edu]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 4:27 PM
To: Loring Danforth
Cc: Allen, Peter S.; MGSA-L LIST
Subject: Re: [MGSA-L] May 10, 1956: The anniversary of the execution of two Greek freedom fighters

This is an interesting conversation but I would like clarification on one small detail from either Professor Allen or Professor Danforth.  Dr. Allen stated above that "It is irrelevant what they called themselves (I can call myself Chinese, but that does not make me Chinese)."  However, it seems Dr. Danforth disagrees with this generalization in his most recent post when he states "...quotation marks are used to deny that the people so designated are “really” what they claim to be."  So what then determines identity?  Are there a set of criteria or does it in the end really just come down to a claim?
I ask not to cause dissension.  I really find this question in particular intriguing and would like some input from scholars who have wrestled with such topics at length.

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Loring Danforth <ldanfort at bates.edu<mailto:ldanfort at bates.edu>> wrote:
Mr. Caratzas attempts to justify his use of quotation marks around the
term “Turkish” by noting that “there is a valid historical set of
questions as to when a "Turkish" (vs. Ottoman, Muslim etc) identity
developed.” I would emphasize that there is an equally valid set of
questions as to when a “Greek” (vs. Romios, Christianos, etc.)
identity developed. This does not, however, lead Mr. Caratzas to use
quotation marks around the term “Greek” as he does around the term
“Turkish.” The use of quotation marks by Greek scholars around terms
of identity used by others (like “ “Macedonians,” ” ie. Macedonians in
quotation marks) has a long history. (See the work of Evangelos
Kofos.) In such cases quotation marks are used to deny that the people
so designated are “really” what they claim to be. It is equivalent to
the use of the phrases “so called” or “alleged” as in the expression
“so called or alleged Macedonians” (legomeni or dithen in Greek). I
agree with Mr. Caratzas that much scholarship has political edge, but
as Clifford Geertz has observed, just because “a perfectly asceptic
environmnent is impossible, does not mean one might as well conduct
surgery in a sewer.”
Like Prof. Allen, I am well aware of the 1974 Turkish invasion of
Cyprus. It goes without saying that the invasion is a subject
eminently worthy of scholarly attention. The implication that I am
interested in censoring research on the topic is absurd.
Loring Danforth
_______________________________________________
List-Info: https://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/mgsa-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://maillists.uci.edu/pipermail/mgsa-l/attachments/20140512/0eed0f10/attachment.html>