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

[Dimitris Papanikolaou]

I had written a long email explaining my extreme unease with some of these comments. But then, I thought, what for? Some things will never change... I am only sending, therefore, a link that contains the gist of what I had to say in response to Mr Caratzas's informative exposition.
Here it is:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRUIava4WRM


Respectfully

Dimitris Papanikolaou


________________________________
From: mgsa-l-bounces at uci.edu [mgsa-l-bounces at uci.edu] on behalf of Aristide Caratzas [acaratzas at gmail.com]
Sent: 12 May 2014 20:48
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

The issue as to self designation-definition is a complicated, hence interesting subject; Mr. Danforth is right, the terms Achaios, Hellen (Έλλην), Romios (Ρωμηός or with an iota), Graecus (Γραικός) all have a long history, and punctuate stations in the development or refractions of identity.

The same cannot be said of the Turkic-speaking people, especially within the Greek world; the original number of Ottomans that settled in Asia Minor in the 14th century probably was not more than some tens of thousands within a population base of some millions. Recent DNA studies confirm this as about 3% of "Turks" have genetic imprints reflecting Central Asian origins (another 1% has Gypsy imprints, i.e. north Indian).

Thus the vast majority of the population of Turkey has evolved from multiple (?) identities, largely Greek- or Armenian- or even Syriac-speaking all Christian, over the last seven hundred years, into Turkic-speaking and Muslim. Speros Vryonis' monumental work on the subject of the cultural transformation begins to outline the processes in question.

The point is that the primary identity for this group was Muslim and Ottoman. The idea of a "Turkish" identity was linked either to rather primitive Turcoman tribes during the Ottoman period, and then began to gain definition under Kemal Ataturk (the name-title is not coincidental), with German tutelage (i.e. late 19th century nationalist ideas, and 1920s-1930s fascist formulations). Thus the issue of a "Turkish" identity is much more fluid at present, given that Erdogan and Davutoglu have been trying to position themselves as heirs of the Ottoman Caliphate, which included other Sunni Muslims, mostly but not exclusively Arabs. Indeed Erdogan's political success derives from this association.

By the way, and given Mr. Danforth's interests, an analogous phenomenon, and certainly that should be studied, applies for (Slavo-) Macedonian identity, which began to assume its present form under Ivan (Vancho) Mihajlov's VMRO in the 1920s-1930s, again influenced by nationalist and fascist constructs — it is not an accident that Georgievski and Gruevski, that last two Skopjan prime ministers, referred to the "historic VMRO" as their political and ideological (i.e. nationalist) starting points of Macedonism. It would be interesting to hear your take on Mihajlov Mr. Danforth, as you certainly have studied the identity issue of that group.

ADC


On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:16 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



--
Aristide D.Caratzas
acaratzas at gmail.com<mailto:acaratzas at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://maillists.uci.edu/pipermail/mgsa-l/attachments/20140512/ddd1ceeb/attachment.html>