In Turkey the 'brothers kiss' is very common among good male friends - that means on taking your leave you shake hands with your friends and mutually exchange three kisses on each others cheeks.
I wrote about my nightly acquaintance with the guys in front of the minimarket on a forsaken street in Alanya, while I was waiting for my friend to pick me up. When he arrived I took my leave and shook hands. One of them offered me abrothers kiss, a great sign of esteem and respect and I was glad to accept it, but as I was about to perform it, he laughed and told me to use the right upper part of the head instead of the cheeks. I took it as a variation of the usual greeting and bothered no more.
Yesterday I had a conversation with the brother of my Turkish room mate. As I told him this story, he glared at me with big eyes and open mouth and told me: "For your own sake, don't you ever do this again with anybody else!" In Turkey there's a minority of nationalists, xenophobic racists -
ülkücü. (As you will see, the neutrality of the linked article on wikipedia is disputed, but I think it'll give you an idea.) Or the Grey Wolves as they are known outside of Turkey, in Germany and elsewhere, through many newspaper paragraphs.
They are a violent group and despise the fact that Turkey consists of a multitude of ethnicities, Turks, Kurds, Laz, Armenians, Greeks, Arabs to name a few, as well as different religious confessions such as Sunni and Alevi. Tourism obviously is a target of their hatred as well.
The
ülkücüler form more than a small narrow minded political minority, they're an organized mafia - And this greeting is an actual
ülkücü sign of recognition.
In my situation this was more or less harmless, as I don't think that those young blokes were paramilitary combattants. Many Turks are passive supporters of their cause and I take it more as a sign of acceptance by an actual Turkish nationalist as "one of them" and not another one of those "filthy foreigners" that keep stalking around in Alanya and contradict supposed Turkish and Muslim morals.
My friend is Kurdish and he was particularely vexed by this story, as many people would be in Turkey, because in my eyes one out of three are not "purely" Turkish. The "Turkish 'race'", as the nationalists oftenly like to see it, is in fact an idea, a construct, since an ethnicity of Turks does not really exist. Inspite of that the "real Turks" occupy key positions in politics, they form the major part of the executive forces as well.
I am in fact touching a very delicate topic in Turkey's society. Bringing forth this problem in any discussion would cause very fierce emotional reactions, indeed I never met anybody so far, with whom a reasonable and critical discussion would be actually possible. As the ethnical conflict in Turkey always was very concrete and violent and rarely on a theoretical base, this is not hard to understand. Too much went wrong, to much blood has been shed.
People's minds are filled with biases and stereotypes. I'd ask a friend of mine who says he's a real Turk. He's somewhat liberal, worked at the liberal newspaper Cumhurriyet. But upon asking him if he'd like Kurds, he'd say "No, they're racists." I replied that, in my eyes this was genuinely racist too what made him admit that he'd like the few Kurds that not racist, of course. I feel stuck in the middle of this problem, not knowing who to believe. I've been occupying myself a little with these questions before my arrival in Turkey and adapted very clear opinions about some of them, for example the open and inflamed wound of the Armenian massacres 1915-23. There is a very fierce debate going on in middle Europe, connected with the Turkish aspirations of EU membership. The situation of middle European historians is quite clear: It was a massacre led by the Turks where thousands of Armenians died a violent death. Well, here in Turkey the opinions are quite different and the middle European version is diffamed as a shameless and ignorant lie. "It was war", they would say "and many Turks died too." The former version is oftenly attributed to a certain "Armenian lobby" outside of Turkey. The Armenians however, would most decidedly oppose to this.
The same situation is with the still very actual "Kurdish question", as the public formula goes. The PKK is seen by one side as cruel terrorists, by the other as freedom fighters and both of the sides bring very resonable arguments, although they have to admit, that on both sides filthy things happened and are happening. Here, more than ever I came to realize that history is always written by some interest group and you cannot rely on it as an undisputed source. My problem now is simply, what should I think? I lost faith in any of the sides, since it seems nobody knows what really happened or is really happening and when they know, they only say what is right or opportune in this situation.
I'm stuck in the middle. And I'm not the only one it seems. As much as I wondered about the staticness of ideas and beliefs here, I'd like to believe to understand now. I believe I've got an idea why people here cling so much on Kemal Atatürk and yearn for the "Golden Days" under his leadership. His counterfeit is to be found anywhere, bills, buildings, pins, newspaper headers and so forth. The situation in Turkey is so mixed up and misty, behind anything there's a multitude of mafia and lobbies and the strong government of "those days" is long gone and replaced by those groups. I've got the impression that in this ocean, people stick to convictions, as cotnradictory they might seem to call at least a little bit of certainty their own. And those are the locals that have been living here since their birth and generations before them did and I ask myself to what degree I could even claim insight on the status myself or if me myself am not clinging to some island myself. I assume the latter.