Haluk Bilginer’s ignorance of language and history

The response given by the famous theater and cinema artist Haluk Bilginer a few years ago to a question asked of him, saying, “Let’s not say Turkish cinema, let’s say Turkey cinema,” became a topic of discussion. It is clear that as a successful artist, Bilginer, who has earned a well-deserved reputation with the awards he has received, his stage performance, the films he has acted in, and his excellent command of English, does not possess knowledge commensurate with his competence in the field of art when it comes to knowledge and awareness of language and history. It is sad, of course. And surprising, too. 

Unfortunately, this ignorance is not unique to Bilginer. It is very widespread. It is widespread on an organized and institutional scale in politics, academia, bureaucracy, bar associations, trade unions, the media, professional chambers, and democratic mass organizations. This situation also applies to the former diplomat, retired ambassador, critic, and writer Oğuz Demiralp, because he wrote “Turkish-language literature” instead of Turkish literature, and it also applies to another famous artist, Oktay Kaynarca, because he said, “I am from Turkey.” İletişim Yayınları and Birikim magazine are already like this institutionally. This is, as it were, their reason for being. 

This ignorance is, of course, also fueled by political insidiousness and political cunning. Some make these remarks to engage in politics within the DEM Party, to rise in KESK or Eğitim-Sen, to receive the support of liberal, neoliberal, and liberal-left circles, and to keep their relations with them good; others make such statements to curry favor with the government when resolution processes come to the fore in politics. We are talking about people from whom we would not expect a strong character, a solid backbone, or a clear stance when it comes to high-paying jobs such as landing roles in TV series, hosting programs on state television, acting in commercials, or doing voice-overs. We read, see, and watch what people do to sell their series, scripts, projects, and films to the Netflix platform. Because Netflix also stands out as one of the platforms that loves and highlights identity politics the most. 

Besides the ignorance dimension of the issue and the political cunning dimension, there is also a hypocrisy dimension. How are we to explain it if a former diplomat who writes “Turkish-language literature” instead of Turkish literature says French literature, says German literature, and says English literature? Should we complain that you don’t write English-language literature, German-language literature, or French-language literature? Or should we throw your double standards and ignorance in your face? The latter, of course. We will do the same when it comes to Bilginer and Kaynarca. 

Why, you ask? For the following reasons. 

First, what they do and say is very artificial and fabricated. It has no historical, scientific, social, cultural, or logical basis. 

Second, the Turkish Nation is a nation that has its own language, has established its own state, and lives in its own homeland. Its language is Turkish, the Turkish language. Its literature is Turkish literature. Its culture is Turkish culture. 

Third, Turkey is the name of the state and the country. The name of the state is the Republic of Turkey. The name of the country, the homeland, the nation is Turkey. 

Fourth, Turk is the name of the citizen and the nation; Turkish citizen, Turkish nation. What is meant by Turk here is not the name of a race, but the name of the nation. It is the name of the overarching identity, the common identity, the national identity, the national identity. This is so from a historical perspective, just as it is from a political perspective, and it is also so from a legal perspective. 

A BRIEF REMINDER FOR THE IGNORANT 

Let us provide a few more brief pieces of information for the ignorant who call a German a German, a Russian a Russian, and a Japanese a Japanese, but cannot call a Turk a Turk. Let us remind those ignorant people who do not call a German “a person from Germany,” a Russian “a person from Russia,” a Frenchman “a person from France,” or a Hungarian “a person from Hungary,” but call a Turk “a person from Turkey,” of the following. 

Long before the Battle of Manzikert (1071), Oghuz tribes of Turanian origin came to Anatolia from Central Asia. This information is written in Georgian, Armenian, Syriac, and Arab chronicles from the 8th–11th centuries. The settlement of Turkish nomads by the Abbasid caliphs in Southeastern Anatolia, which was the Byzantine border region, began in the first quarter of the 9th century and continued until the end of the 11th century. Matthew of Edessa, who emphasizes in his chronicle that Oghuz migrations intensified starting from the year 1010, wrote that the cavalry of Tughril Bey, who raided the Van basin in 1018, frightened the locals with their bow weapons and flowing hair. (Necdet Sakaoğlu, When Did the Turks Enter Anatolia?, NTV Tarih, February 2009, page 87).

There is more. The Turks did not take the name of the geography they lived in. They gave a name to the geography they lived in. In other words, there was no situation for the Turks like calling a US citizen an American, which is even beyond living on the American continent. There was no situation like calling someone living in Australia an Australian. 

If there were, someone living in Anatolia would be called an Anatolian. They were not. They were called Turks. The name of the homeland, the country, was called Turkey, and the name of the state was called Turkey. As emphasized in the book “Turkish Identity” (Ministry of Culture Publications, Ankara, 1993) by our teacher, the teacher of teachers, whom we remember with mercy, Prof. Dr. Bozkurt Güvenç, after 1174, when the German Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, who participated in the Third Crusade, reopened the road to Konya, the Christian world began to refer to Asia Minor, to Anatolia, as “TURCHIA.” It should be remembered that the famous traveler Marco Polo (1254–1324) also referred to Anatolia as TURCOMANIA in his Travelogue. 

SHOULD WE TAKE THE IGNORANT OF LANGUAGE AND HISTORY SERIOUSLY?

No matter how famous they are, no matter which universities they graduated from, no matter what profession they practice, there is no need to take these ignorant people seriously. What needs to be done is to expose their ignorance and list the sources from which they can acquire knowledge. 

Why, you ask? For the following reasons. 

First, Turkey’s nationalists, national-minded people, Republicans, Atatürkists, Kemalists, patriots, revolutionaries, and leftists should not waste time with these artificial agenda topics. 

Second, those who have high knowledge and awareness of language, history, and culture know that Turkish nationalism is a nationalism with high self-confidence and ambition. Turkish nationalism is not a nationalism that was shaped during the Cold War years, that tries to bring order to the region on behalf of the USA, and that highlights opposition to the USSR and communism rather than the claim of the Turkish Nation. It is a populist, enlightenment-oriented nationalism that made a revolution, established a state, fought the War of Independence, and defeated imperialism. 

Third, there is a relationship between nationalism and the nation-state. There is a relationship between nationalism and the homeland, that is, the country, on which one lives. There is a relationship between nationalism and historical consciousness. The name of the Faculty of Language and History – Geography, established within Ankara University in 1935, is important in this context because it contains the three basic elements of nationalism. For that reason, the young Republic attached great importance to studies related to history, geography, language, archaeology, and anthropology. The ignorant people whose names we mentioned above are unaware of this. They need to learn. 

Finally, intellectuals of countries with strong national memory, solid state tradition, and high ideological clarity and conceptual awareness do not make such artificial and fabricated statements. The ignorant group that makes these statements is not intellectual. It is a group of pseudo-intellectuals trying to be different, to stand out, and to look cute to certain centers. In the definition of my late master Attila İlhan, they are export surplus. One should not be fooled by their fame and titles.