From: milson@gauss.math.mcgill.ca (Rob Milson)
Subject: Re: Men Are Like That
Organization: McGill University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:36:30 GMT

Continuing the discussion of Mutlu's quotes from "Men Are Like
That"...

Please excuse the delay; last week there was no time to generate a
follow-up to my earlier post. The latest Mutlu quote under discussion
is:

p. 118.

"Slowly the train of oxcarts lumbered along through the snow, the cart
 jolting and the loads swaying. Boys ran along the line of oxen,
 encouraging them with shrill Tartar cries, and belaboring the beasts
 with sticks.  In the carts, the women, veiled as is the Tartar way,
 held children in their arms.  Wrapped in blankets and huddled among
 the goods that burdened the carts they sought protection from the wind
 and cold. A few old men plodded along on foot.

 Across the road through the ravine a barrier had been thrown. The
 leading oxteam reached this barrier and halted. The gunmen and other
 ruffians concealed among the rocks opened fire. Women and children
 leaped and scrambled from the carts, screamed, ran and sought vainly
 for safety.

 This massacre was not complete. The Armenian soldiers in the near-by
 barracks, hearing the firing and the turmoil, hurried to the
 scene.... That same day the abandoned Tartar quarter of Alexandropol
 was looted and completely destroyed."


Last time, I directed everyone's attention to the ellipsis in the last
paragraph.  Exactly what text has been omitted there?  I asked Mutlu
to fill in the missing piece, but predictably he did not.  So here it
is.  The omitted text is enclosed is square brackets.

 The Armenian soldiers in the near-by barracks, hearing the firing and
 the turmoil, hurried to the scene [ and drove the butchers away in
 time to save some few of the Tartars.]


Mutlu's 'cleverly' chosen omission is supposed to make one think that
the Armenian soldiers took part in the attack on the Tartars, rather
than rushing to their rescue.  You may ask yourself, "Why does he do
things like this?"  I can only answer, "Would he be Mutlu if he did
not?"  After all, he has not had the decency to address even one of
the inconsistencies in his quotes that I pointed out.  He is even bold
enough to continue to use some of them; I mean the quotes on pages 19
and 20.  Mutlu, I have already pointed out in my preceding post that
the events described in these quotes occurred in 1905 and not in
1918-1920.  Surely you don't think your audience (if you have an audience)
is that stupid?

Mutlu's one response to my criticisms has been the demand that I
address his quotes from pages 202 and 203.  To understand why, it is
necessary to examine the criteria by which Mutlu chooses his
propaganda.  His two basic guiding principles are to vilify the
Armenians (offensive propaganda) and to discredit and neutralize any
criticism of Turkey (defensive propaganda).  Here are a few things to
keep in mind:

- In a propaganda war, as in other types of conflict, the best defense is
often a strong offense. That is why Mutlu gives so much emphasis to
the accusation and slander of the Armenians.  Now matter how
ridiculous his posts, no matter how much they are discredited, these
posts are still effective propaganda in that they direct attention and
discussion away from Turkey and it's conduct during WWI.

- In choosing material with which to slander the Armenians he relies
on two strategies: fabrication and redirection of emphasis.  The above
passage about the Armenian soldiers is an example of fabrication;
Mutlu changed the meaning of the quote with a well-chosen deletion.
This strategy will, of course, backfire if anyone chooses to check the
material in question.  The other strategy is more subtle and more
difficult to combat.  Historical reality, especially war-time reality,
is composed of complex, sometimes conflicting information.  With a
sufficiently rich historical material at hand, an unscrupulous
propagandist can weave and stitch together whatever tale will suit
his purpose.  The most effective lie is the half-truth.

That is why Mutlu wants me to address certain of his quotes.  He wants
to emphasize those incidents when certain Armenians behaved wrongly
towards their Moslem neighbors.  Needless to say, I would rather not
play his game.  I read your book Mutlu and yes, it recounted some
persecution of Moslems at the hands of Russians and Armenians.  The
book also recounted the unbelievable suffering of the Armenian people
during WWI and its aftermath, and this of course you choose to ignore.
The book also talks about the annihilation of the Armenian population
in Turkey.  This too, perhaps more than anything else, you choose to
ignore.  Finally, in the very way in which you present your evidence,
in the way you choose your quotes, I see a sure indication that you
are a deceiver.

You want me to address the quotes on pages 202 and 203?  Very well.
How about this one?

p. 203 (first paragraph).

"A soldier succeeded in driving his bayonet through the Tartar. I saw the
 point of the weapon emerge through his back. ...Another soldier seized a rock 
 and pounded the Tartar's head with it... The Armenian who had bayoneted him
 sprang to his feet, wrested the weapon from the Tartar's body, and, raising
 it to his lips, licked it clean of blood, exclaiming in Russian, 'Slodkey!
 Slodkey!' (Sweet.)"


Look!  It's there!  The old Mutlu ellipsis - the three little dots
that are a sure sign of Mutlu's despicable craft.  Are those barbarous
Armenians drinking the blood of their enemies again?  Let's ponder
this passage for a while.  Let's savour its mutilated meaning and then
compare it to the meaning of the unedited passage in its full context.

To be continued...

Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish,soc.culture.greek