Massive Lynchs and Racism on the rise in Turkey

34 posts / 0 new

mikail firtinaci

Offline

Joined: 16-12-06

Jan 8 2010 18:19

Turkey is a country where racism at least against the Kurdish population never gained ground before. The simple reason was -according to a recent survey- half of the kurdish population and 1/3 of the turkish population had family ties with each other. However this situation is changing since one or two years. There are several massive lynch mobs are gathering and attacking to the kurdish students and workers. These are especially happening in the small western towns/cities of turkey where Kurds have only immigrated after 1990's. However big lynchs are also happening in big cities like İstanbul and İzmir. these crazy mobs are attacking kurdish gettos with guns and swords. People who are speaking kurdish in public or whose phone rang with a kurdish song in a place like bazaar can easily be the target of an insane racist lynch mob. In one recent example a fascist group in a university beat a student simply because he was from hakkari (a city from north kurdistan, south east turkey) Just in 2010 there occured racist lynch attacks 4 times. In the lates of these in town called manisa a huge crowd of "citizens" (this is how turkish media name attackers) attacked a gypsy district and the state had to move the whole district to another town to prevent further incidents.

I think this gives an idea about the general situation of the turkish working class.

here is a turkish link;

http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=RadikalDetay&Date=08%20Ocak%202010&ArticleID=973378

gypsy

Offline

Joined: 20-09-09

Jan 8 2010 18:26

that is seriously fucked...

mikail firtinaci

Offline

Joined: 16-12-06

Jan 8 2010 20:33

Quote:

that is seriously fucked...

yes it is... And this is not only a west Turkey phenomenon. Recent months saw huge demonstrations in the south east part of the country also. The protestors were mainly Kurdish people. The reason was the anniversay of the foundation of PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party), and the improsenment conditions of its leader (Abdullah Öcalan). One student has been shot to death by the police and a small shop owner in a small city in the south east opened a fire to a protesting crowd with a machine gun, killed two people wounded many.

If you ask about what is happening in the middle regions of the country I can say that they are not populated much and they were already ethnically and religiously homogenised in various genocides and cleansings...

The situation in Turkey is really fucked right now and personally I think it might on the verge of a civil war. The working class on the other hand is divided. As I tried to explain in another discussion on libcom, the working class kurds living in the western part of the country are working in the most terrible jobs and I don't think that turkish workers can not easily break the nationalist chamber around them consisting of unions, parties and the state. Afterall the unions, fascists and kemalists are portraying the effects of crisis as something AKP (the ruling party which holds a combination of liberal, islamic and nationalist views) did. Main Kurdish political party (DTP) on the other hand, which was banned recently, is struggling within itself. As far as I could observe there is a radical, extra-parliamentary wing and a milder pro-legality wing in it. And the first is getting stronger day by day.

I fear the worst; a kind of civil war situation to start again. However obviously this does not only depend on the internal situation...

gypsy

Offline

Joined: 20-09-09

Jan 9 2010 12:03

Thanks for updating us on the situation there. Sectarianism makes it hard to unite the working class and the way it is ingrained into peoples minds from an early age makes it such an obstacle. I have read about the various genocides and cleansings in the past- in turkey, im hoping this does not repeat itself.

"Main Kurdish political party (DTP) on the other hand, which was banned recently, is struggling within itself. As far as I could observe there is a radical, extra-parliamentary wing and a milder pro-legality wing in it. And the first is getting stronger day by day."

Im interested in the radical, extra-parliamentary wing.Does this wing consider the PKKs tactics legitimate? Also does the supposed 'success' of kurdistan in Iraq, increase the confidence of Kurdish seperatists in Turkey?

mikail firtinaci

Offline

Joined: 16-12-06

Jan 9 2010 17:28

Here is a video showing an attack by a relatively small mob to a leftist group;

http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=RadikalDetay&ArticleID=973612&Date=09.01.2010&CategoryID=77

the group is trying to read a declaration against an arrest of some of its members in the town the video have been shot. And this town is not conservative at all. It is called Edirne which is at the western edge of the country ironically at the greek border... The leftist group on the other hand is one of the biggest leftist groups in turkey. In first of may demo's they form one of the most crowded group etc. (You see in turkey stalinist left still exists). AndtThey are not even pro-Kurdish nat. lib.

-------------

Allybaba;

your questions are very important but unfortunately I do not know much about the contemporary situation of PKK/DTP much.

Quote:

Im interested in the radical, extra-parliamentary wing.Does this wing consider the PKKs tactics legitimate?

Actually DTP is linked with PKK. And the parliamentray wing -after the closure of their party and 2 MP's of them banned from political activity, declared that they will resign as a group from the turkish parliament. This would have mean a radical break with turkey. However the "imprisoned leader", Öcalan told them not to resign. Probably he is trying to show that if AKP really wants to make democratic reforms than it can not neglact him. So he wants to be a part of negotiation process with the Turkish State. On the other hand I do not think that there is a real support to PKK from other states. In that situation it does not seem to be a viable option for PKK to start the guerilla war again.

Quote:

Also does the supposed 'success' of kurdistan in Iraq, increase the confidence of Kurdish seperatists in Turkey?

At the base level I think the general feeling is a hate towards turkish state. Barzani and Talabani is not very popular. The base of PKK/DTP is fixated with Öcalan. For them he is the most important issue right now and according to them everything is tied with him.

I know that I could not help much but the situation is too complex even for me. My general impression is that turkish state is really on the verge of bankruptcy and unfortunately working class is not in a position to benefit from that for its own advantage. I think only the working class of europe and east asia can create examples and direction for the turkish/middle eastern proletariat but still unfortunately the working class movement in world is not in such a haste.

Devrim

Offline

Joined: 15-07-06

Jan 13 2010 21:38

I feel that talk of civil war really bears no reality at all to the actually situation. Yes, there have been some racist attacks and incidents, but not actually that many if you compare to European countries, such as the UK:

The Independent wrote:

More than 61,000 complaints of racially motivated crime were made in 2006-07, a rise of 28 per cent in just five years, with increases reported by most police forces in England and Wales. Officers classified 42,551 of the complaints as racially or religiously aggravated offences. Nearly two thirds were offences of harassment, 13 per cent wounding, 12 per cent criminal damage and 10 per cent assault.

If you look at a country with a similar political situation in that an armed nationalist movement was fighting the state, the level of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland is much higher than the level of conflict between Turks and Kurds in Turkey, yet it must be remembered that although the paramilitaries and I presume the British state actually made contingency plans for the possibility of civil war, even in the worst years of the Irish 'troubles, in the early 1970s, open civil war never actually broke out.

The situation in Turkey is nowhere near as tense today as the situation was in Northern Ireland then. I don't really think that civil war is at all on the agenda here despite the fact there seems to be a lot of talk of it nowadays, much of it scaremongering coming from the fascist groups themselves.

Devrim

mikail firtinaci

Offline

Joined: 16-12-06

Jan 13 2010 23:12

The point you miss is that these are not some marginal groups attacking minorities and leftists. These are situations where lower class neighboorhoods attack each other.

I think there is enough basis for a civil war. However obviously for it actually to occure a serious unnegotietable gap btw. ruling class fractions and an international support for these are necessary. That is something I do not know have much idea on.

your comparison the more or less stronger and stable countries like England and Ireland is not very relevant. Middle east context is not like that.

Finally you said;

Quote:

I don't really think that civil war is at all on the agenda here despite the fact there seems to be a lot of talk of it nowadays, much of it scaremongering coming from the fascist groups themselves.

.....

Devrim

Offline

Joined: 15-07-06

Jan 13 2010 23:22

mikail firtinaci wrote:

The point you miss is that these are not some marginal groups attacking minorities and leftists. These are situations where lower class neighboorhoods attack each other.

Much as happened in Northern Ireland.

mikail firtinaci wrote:

your comparison the more or less stronger and stable countries like England and Ireland is not very relevant. Middle east context is not like that.

I think residents of Northern Ireland would be very surprised to hear their country described as stable.

The point is that there is a huge difference between an increase in ethnic tension, which is possible, up to and even including pogrom, and the outbreak of civil war.

Devrim

(Reply to #7)

mikail firtinaci

Offline

Joined: 16-12-06

Jan 13 2010 23:31

Quote:

The point is that there is a huge difference between an increase in ethnic tension, which is possible, up to and even including pogrom, and the outbreak of civil war.

now a classic from Devrim;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

#10

mikail firtinaci

Offline

Joined: 16-12-06

Jan 14 2010 01:04

Quote:

The point is that there is a huge difference between an increase in ethnic tension, which is possible, up to and even including pogrom, and the outbreak of civil war.

there was already a civil war in turkey for 25 years Devrim. The only people who denied the existance of it were fascists. The problem today is whether it starts again by getting extended to the west...

#11

Caiman del Barrio

Offline

Joined: 28-09-04

Jan 14 2010 01:41

Devrim wrote:

I feel that talk of civil war really bears no reality at all to the actually situation. Yes, there have been some racist attacks and incidents, but not actually that many if you compare to European countries, such as the UK:
The Independent wrote:

More than 61,000 complaints of racially motivated crime were made in 2006-07, a rise of 28 per cent in just five years, with increases reported by most police forces in England and Wales. Officers classified 42,551 of the complaints as racially or religiously aggravated offences. Nearly two thirds were offences of harassment, 13 per cent wounding, 12 per cent criminal damage and 10 per cent assault.

Not meaning to fall on one side or the other, but relying police records as a stat is problematic. I'd imagine that a much higher proportion of racist attacks are reported in the UK than in Turkey. Moreover, individualised spats or personal conflicts in which race is used as a weapon are not the equivalent of organised attacks on groups.

(Reply to #6)

#12

gypsy

Offline

Joined: 20-09-09

Jan 14 2010 10:41

Caiman del Barrio wrote:

Devrim wrote:

I feel that talk of civil war really bears no reality at all to the actually situation. Yes, there have been some racist attacks and incidents, but not actually that many if you compare to European countries, such as the UK:
The Independent wrote:

More than 61,000 complaints of racially motivated crime were made in 2006-07, a rise of 28 per cent in just five years, with increases reported by most police forces in England and Wales. Officers classified 42,551 of the complaints as racially or religiously aggravated offences. Nearly two thirds were offences of harassment, 13 per cent wounding, 12 per cent criminal damage and 10 per cent assault.

Not meaning to fall on one side or the other, but relying police records as a stat is problematic. I'd imagine that a much higher proportion of racist attacks are reported in the UK than in Turkey. Moreover, individualised spats or personal conflicts in which race is used as a weapon are not the equivalent of organised attacks on groups.

I agree with caiman. Statistics, like this by the police does not tell of people who get attacked and abused but don't go to the police. Even in the Uk. I imagine in some parts of turkey its worse as the police would not be very sympathetic to a kurd trying to get some justice after a beating.

(Reply to #11)

#13

mikail firtinaci

Offline

Joined: 16-12-06

Jan 14 2010 11:10

Quote:

I agree with caiman. Statistics, like this by the police does not tell of people who get attacked and abused but don't go to the police. Even in the Uk. I imagine in some parts of turkey its worse as the police would not be very sympathetic to a kurd trying to get some justice after a beating.

There is a law about "insulting to turkishness" in turkey. And what a government minister said after a recent attack against a kurdish getto is, "people can get emotional so these unfortunate things can happen". There is no real legal channel for the "attacked". There is no illusion of democracy here. That was what I meant by stable. What stronger british burgeoisie can afford weaker "Turkish" burgeoisie can not. Imagine a country where at the third biggest city's center (İzmir) of it a fascist group can campaign for the sterilization of Kurdish people... The problem is not the existance of fascists. The problem is the public legitimacy they find. Turkish fascists have the third biggest party in the parliment and the second biggest party, the party of "founder of the republic" (Republican Peoples' Party) sees the massacre of kurds after an uprising as legitimate and correct.

You can expect a third world country to be as such. That is not abnormal. I am not arguing for anti-fascism here. However it can not be neglacted that this is exactly the situation which is increasing the anti-fascist/fascist sentiments among workers. The problem is, this division among turkish and kurdish proletariat is a real and threatening issue. Though I agree with the ICC that there is slow but continous increase in the worker's combatitivity, what ICC calls as "decomposition" is relatively deeper in the middle east and african contexts. This is a fact that should not be neglacted...

#14

Devrim

Offline

Joined: 15-07-06

Jan 14 2010 11:17

Caiman del Barrio wrote:

Not meaning to fall on one side or the other, but relying police records as a stat is problematic. I'd imagine that a much higher proportion of racist attacks are reported in the UK than in Turkey. Moreover, individualised spats or personal conflicts in which race is used as a weapon are not the equivalent of organised attacks on groups.

allybaba wrote:

I agree with caiman. Statistics, like this by the police does not tell of people who get attacked and abused but don't go to the police. Even in the Uk. I imagine in some parts of turkey its worse as the police would not be very sympathetic to a kurd trying to get some justice after a beating.

I wasn't trying to make a direct comparison between the number of attacks in the UK and Turkey. Though I would certainly agree that people would be more likely to report an attack to the police in the UK than in South Eastern Turkey.

I was trying to point out that Turkey is not the only country where there are racist attacks and that unfortunately they are common everywhere. When you analysis those statics, it shows that there is an average of just over 20 attacks a day, which involve wounding, which is an absolutely shocking statistic.

However, despite this, and despite talk of race war from the far right after the riots in the Northern towns, and despite the fact that when I visited the UK for the first time in a decade a few years ago the rise in nationalism that had taken place really shook me, I think it would be ludicrous to talk about the possibility of civil war in the UK.

Events like the attacks on Gypsies are shocking, but having lived in Central Europe, where it is socially acceptable to hate gypsies, I wouldn't say that they are out of proportion to things that happen in other countries.

Wiki says this about Hungry for example:

Wiki wrote:

Hungary has seen escalating violence against the Romani people. On 23 February 2009, a Romani man and his five-year old son were shot dead in Tatárszentgyörgy village southeast of Budapest as they were fleeing their burning house which was set alight by a petrol bomb. The dead man's two other children suffered serious burns. A member of the Hungarian government admitted that a dozen attacks with Molotov cocktails and weapons against Romanies over the past 12 months had taken place, but none of the perpetrators have been found.

What happened in Manisa in Turkey was terrible, but I don't think that the working class, or society in general is particularly more racist than other places I have lived. Although it is extremely nationalist, my personal opinion is that it is actually less racist.

On the general question of civil war, I think that it is important to understand what it means. I don't think the term 'civil war' covers the campaigns of armed nationalist groups, such as the PKK, IRA, or ETA, but describes a situation similar to that which took place in ex-Yugoslavia, or in Lebanon, and in my opinion, Turkey is nowhere near that situation.

Devrim

(Reply to #11)

#15

Devrim

Offline

Joined: 15-07-06

Jan 14 2010 11:27

Yes, very briefly, it was the time that I first met you in London, and to me the general mood seemed to be more nationalistic than when I worked there as a young man in the 1980s. It is hard to put into words as it's just a feeling, but things such as the amount of national flags that were flying, things in the media, and conversations that I had with people just gave me that impression.

Devrim

#16

mikail firtinaci

Offline

Joined: 16-12-06

Jan 14 2010 11:42

Quote:

I don't think the term 'civil war' covers the campaigns of armed nationalist groups, such as the PKK, IRA, or ETA, but describes a situation similar to that which took place in ex-Yugoslavia, or in Lebanon, and in my opinion, Turkey is nowhere near that situation.

Devrim I wished that was true. However the PKK's military operations and ETA and IRA's is hard to compare. PKK could hold cities in Turkey, had real division and even now in its weakest time it still control towns in Iraq, it has military bases in northern Iraq. Unlike IRA or ETA it was not a usual "urban guerilla" movement. Turkey sometimes in winters lost the control of whole regions in the civil war.

Similarly throughout the civil war after 1980's, turkish army burned down whole villages, killed tens of thousands of people, forced whole region's to migrate. These waves of migrations actually created the contemporary division inside worker's since kurdish migrants who came to big western cities had to work in the shitiest jobs with the lowest wages.

Tribe leader warlords that were either alligned with Turkey or PKK practically ruled the region for a long time...

I don't think that this situation can be compared with the situation of IRA and ETA in 1980's and 1990's... It is however -I think- comparable with ceylon or nepal...

#17

Devrim

Offline

Joined: 15-07-06

Jan 14 2010 12:10

MF wrote:

However the PKK's military operations and ETA and IRA's is hard to compare. PKK could hold cities in Turkey,

Irish nationalists held part of Derry, the second city in Northern Ireland between August and October 1969 with the British army camped outside. The PKK has never done anything like this.

MF wrote:

Turkey sometimes in winters lost the control of whole regions in the civil war.

The British army lost control of South Armagh from 1975 until the late 1990s to the point that it couldn't use the roads and supplied its bases by helicopter.

MF wrote:

turkish army burned down whole villages,

Between August 1969 and February 1973, around 60 000 Belfast people (around 10% of the population) were forced to leave their homes by burnings out.

MF wrote:

killed tens of thousands of people

Between 1969 and 2001, 3,526 people were killed as a result of the 'Troubles'. True this figure is considerably lower than the 30-40,000 that is usually quoted as the figures killed in the conflict between the Turkish state and the PKK, but when you consider it as a percentage of the population (Northern ıreland's population stands at 1,685,000 roughly the size of Diyarbakır's), it is actually a higher death toll.

Devrim

#18

mikail firtinaci

Offline

Joined: 16-12-06

Jan 14 2010 12:52

Devrim do you really think that proves there was not a civil war in turkey? You can say that "civil war" arguement was defended by the left and PKK. However there is a strong element of truth here. I am still not convinced that northern Ireland and southeast Turkey can be regarded as that similar. Of course both group were nationalists and the struggle they waged were burgeois.

Don't you see that southeast turkey was ethnically more "homogenous" compared to Norhtern Ireland?

Don't you see that it was a overly peasant populated region?

Quote:

Between 1969 and 2001, 3,526 people were killed as a result of the 'Troubles'. True this figure is considerably lower than the 30-40,000 that is usually quoted as the figures killed in the conflict between the Turkish state and the PKK, but when you consider it as a percentage of the population (Northern ıreland's population stands at 1,685,000 roughly the size of Diyarbakır's), it is actually a higher death toll.

Well you have a point here. However Diyarbakır was not always in the same population. You should better take into consideration the rural population. Because Diyarbakır's population is also a result of migration from the rural caused by the civil war. It was considerably lower before.

Also Ireland as far as I know is not a mountaineous country that could enable such a warfare as it happened here.

I am not going to say anything about your other responces. This is becoming a meaningless debate. I don't think that northern ireland was not also in a similar situation. It is also clearly an example of nationalist destruction and barbarity. My aim to compare was to show the difference between the two cases in terms of their military character. And the only reason that I don't consider north ireland case as a civil war is just because I trust what you say about it. Here the question arises what a civil war is;

Quote:

A civil war is a war between organized groups within a single nation state,[1] or, less commonly, between two nations created from a formerly-united nation state.[2] The aim of one side may be to take control of the nation or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies.[1] It is high-intensity conflict, often involving regular armed forces, that is sustained, organized and large-scale. Civil wars result in large numbers of casualties and the consumption of large resources.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war

The whole turkish economy was organized for the civil war effort of the state for a long period. There was constant periods of either large scale guerrilla or more conventional warfare periods.

Usually nationalists tend to argue that the state was not waging a civil war, that the enemy was only a marginal group of terrorists that do not really have local support... They even tended to say that there was not such a thing as kurd and it was only name for "mountain turks" etc. However as the war intensed in a vicous circle it became more intense and extended turning into a civil war that affected a region maybe even two times bigger than ireland.

#19

Caiman del Barrio

Offline

Joined: 28-09-04

Jan 14 2010 16:28

Devrim wrote:

Yes, very briefly, it was the time that I first met you in London, and to me the general mood seemed to be more nationalistic than when I worked there as a young man in the 1980s. It is hard to put into words as it's just a feeling, but things such as the amount of national flags that were flying, things in the media, and conversations that I had with people just gave me that impression.

If it's the time I think it is, wasn't that summer 2006, right before the World Cup?

(Reply to #16)

#20

gypsy

Offline

Joined: 20-09-09

Jan 14 2010 19:16

Caiman del Barrio wrote:

Devrim wrote:

Yes, very briefly, it was the time that I first met you in London, and to me the general mood seemed to be more nationalistic than when I worked there as a young man in the 1980s. It is hard to put into words as it's just a feeling, but things such as the amount of national flags that were flying, things in the media, and conversations that I had with people just gave me that impression.

If it's the time I think it is, wasn't that summer 2006, right before the World Cup?

English are generally twats when it is world cup time.

(Reply to #20)

#21

Caiman del Barrio

Offline

Joined: 28-09-04

Jan 14 2010 20:48

The Scottish and Irish however, with their mean-spirited, envious tactic of "support whoever England play cos we're too shit to ever be a serious player at a World Cup. Fuck, we can't even qualify anymore" are absolutely great about it though.

#22

gypsy

Offline

Joined: 20-09-09

Jan 14 2010 20:57

They are cunts too.

#23

Devrim

Offline

Joined: 15-07-06

Jan 15 2010 08:13

mikail firtinaci wrote:

This is becoming a meaningless debate.

Well yes it is, and I don't intend to continue it any further. I basically just wanted to put across a more realistic analysis than 'Turkey is about to fall into civil war' for people who aren't familiar with the situation, and might have taken it seriously.

People can judge for themselves, from the discussion and of course time will show us who is right.

Devrim

#24

Devrim

Offline

Joined: 15-07-06

Jan 15 2010 08:16

Caiman del Barrio wrote:

If it's the time I think it is, wasn't that summer 2006, right before the World Cup?

Yes, I think it was 2006 but it was spring not just before the World Cup. Maybe you can pin part of it on that, but in which case the build up started very early.

Besides they used to have World Cups when I lived in England too, and it wasn't that bad.

Devrim

(Reply to #20)

#25

mikail firtinaci

Offline

Joined: 16-12-06

Jan 15 2010 10:16

Quote:

Well yes it is, and I don't intend to continue it any further. I basically just wanted to put across a more realistic analysis than 'Turkey is about to fall into civil war' for people who aren't familiar with the situation, and might have taken it seriously.

Oh I see... Yeah your realistic analysis that turkey has not saw a civil war and is absolutely not socially divided in a conflictiual situation between ethnical lines that can lead to a civil war again just saved turkey and world right on time... Hope you will not fall into the big black holes of pragmatism and a-historicity in your analysis..

#26

gypsy

Offline

Joined: 20-09-09

Jan 15 2010 10:27

I have found this discussion interesting. So thanks for all the information comrades.

#27

communal_pie

Offline

Joined: 18-10-08

Jan 15 2010 19:37

I haven't particularly heard about a rise in nationalism or racism in Turkey, if anything, the reflection of the Turkish community here in north London would indicate that it is actually more tolerant than before..

Between 2002 and 2006 I can say that you would easily hear phrases like "dirty kurds" and what not, I have more involvement with Turkish people in general here now and can honestly say that it's died down a lot, thankfully. This is just my personal experience though.

As for an increase in English nationalism, I can see some truth in this. There is a real hysteria in enclaves here about certain ethnic minorities, it has filtered through to the non-white communities as well; it is really all too common to hear 'illegal immigrants' being attacked, whereas it wasn't quite that bad before, not even during the Bradford race riots, in London at least.

#28

Attila Turkoglu

Offline

Joined: 14-02-10

Feb 14 2010 15:28

Ridiculous Kurdish propaganda...

#29

mikail firtinaci

Offline

Joined: 16-12-06

Feb 14 2010 21:27

This atilla türkoğlu is a tukish fascist. So please ban him.

#30

Attila Turkoglu

Offline

Joined: 14-02-10

Feb 14 2010 21:38

I'm not fascist. If I was fascist I will embrace the Kurds that are anti-PKK. However I see all Kurds to be same; enemy.

#31

Yorkie Bar

Offline

Joined: 29-03-09

Feb 14 2010 21:40

Attila Turkoglu wrote:

I'm not fascist. If I was fascist I will embrace the Kurds that are anti-PKK. However I see all Kurds to be same; enemy.

Please apply:

(Reply to #31)

Massive Lynchs and Racism on the rise in Turkey

Featured

Featured threads

Posting guidelines

Log in for more features

blog

news

library

history

libcom.org