"Questionable Tactics," July 11, 1998
The GreekAmerican

Well, it's happened again. Instead of finding legitimate ways to
express our perspective on certain Greek concerns, to protest
certain media representations, historical or other, instead of
becoming part of a larger, rational dialogue with our neighbors
on certain issues, certain 'factors' in our community once again
launched a questionable media campaign in the service of Greek
'interests.' London's ”Daily Telegraph• ran a story on July 2
reporting that Spanish actor Antonio Banderas had withdrawn from
a large©scale film project that was to be based on British
historian Lord Kinross' 1964 biography of Kemal Ataturk.
According to the ”Telegraph• article, ”•Banderas withdrew from the
project, a British©Turkish co©production that is to be directed
by Bruce Beresford of ”Driving Miss Daisy•,”• because of a flood of
threatening "hate mail" he and his wife, Melanie Griffith,
received from Greek American quarters. The mailing campaign was
apparently organized by a Greek "media watch©dog group" based in
New York and other parties in the Greek American community.
One's first impulse is to cringe in embarrassment ©© first and
foremost because of the lack of any critical historical sense
behind the campaign. Kemal Ataturk is, without a doubt, among
this century's significant political personages. To a degree that
is difficult to exaggerate, he is the pivotal character in the
formation of modern Turkey, and the Turkish cliche that he "saved
the country" is only a bit of an overstatement. The fact that he
is also a deeply problematic figure, to say the least ©© that his
charisma politics were fascist; that he established the pervasive
statism that still characterizes Turkey; that his modernization
campaign seems naive today; that it involved the curtailing of
basic human rights, and effected the strange maiming of Turks'
cultural heritage that is at the heart of their strange identity
issues; that he set up an official secularism as doctrinaire and
repressive as any religion; that he continues to be the object of
a childish personality cult in Turkey that is excessive even by
old Soviet standards; and, that as much as he is the "Founder of
Modern Turkey," his legacy may now be crippling for that complex
and complicated country ©© is something that Turks have to deal
with in as probing and carefully dialectic a way as possible. In
as far as the Kemalist heritage affects our relationship to
Turkey, or has affected Greece, Greeks or Hellenism, it is our
duty as well to examine it as seriously as we can.
All©out demonization is not serious. Ataturk was not per se
responsible for the displacement of Anatolian Hellenism, as the
organizers of the mailing campaign claim ©© the pervasive logic
of nationalism was, a logic to which all parties involved at the
time ascribed, and a logic which could see whole©scale
displacement and exchange as the only solution to the 'problems'
of plurality. Talk to old ”Polites•, in fact, and they remember the
Ataturk years of detente with Greece as a peaceful period when
minority rights were staunchly protected, as opposed to the
treatment they received under subsequent Turkish governments. The
point is not to defend Ataturk. But calling him a "massÜjÜmurderer," as some of the Banderas correspondence has, or holding
him responsible for the "Greco©Armenian genocide," is inaccurate
and distorting. Calling him a "child©molester" (whatever that
means) and "an alcoholic" is just irrelevant and dumb.
But the ”real• issue is not even Ataturk. On our level of concern,
this is an in©house affair. The problem is the methods and
general tenor some members of our community use to get their
point across. Beginning with the outburst of neo©nationalist
fervor that the Macedonian issue created in the early 90s, a
group of quasi©lobbying groups and "watch©dogs" appeared on the
Greek American scene. Some are student©based. Some are fairly
serious and their efforts should be applauded. Some ©© like the
anti©Semitic group that nearly broke up a panel at last year's
"Greece in Print" conference at New York University ©© issue
semi©illiterate releases that are frightening in their fascist,
racist content. With admirable energy all these groups scour the
media for any remark that can be considered anti©Greek ("antiªHellenic" is what they usually prefer) and immediately send
responses and press releases to all interested and concerned
parties. While their concerns are often legitimate, their
responses are often unprofessional in their tone, historically
simple and propagandistic, and tiringly defensive. The end result
is to make us look like ethnic hysterics, with these groups'
objections usually showing up our own chauvinism and narrowªmindedness more than anything else. If we fire off homophobic
protest to ”Village Voice• columnist Michael Musto, because he
makes a tongue©in©cheek connection between George Michaels'
gayness and his Greekness, then when the ”Wall Street Journal•
prints a flippant editorial encouraging the recognition of
Turkish©occupied northern Cyprus, no one will listen to our
complaints. ”• 
The Banderas campaign, especially, was totally over the top.
Harassment does not make anyone look good and advances no cause.
The effrontery of intruding on the man's personal life even
further, by encouraging people to write to his wife as well, is
truly reprehensible. (The "watch©dogs" now suggest we write to
Banderas and Griffith congratulating him for withdrawing from the
project ©© ”Bravo, yie mou•). Such tactics only discredit us and
our concerns and interests. And tit©for©tat reactions generally ª© if they fetishize Ataturk, we have to villainize him ©© are
just unproductive. Sober, informed responses will get the wider
world's attention, not pushy polemics. Ataturk is central to ”ti
esti Tourkia•. We have to understand him to understand Turkey, a
country, people and society that ©© whether some of us like it or
not ©© we have to deal with. The thing to do is stop interfering
with art and let the film get made. Then, if we think it's
simplistic, if we think it's propagandistic or hagiographic, we
can say so as part of a productive, critical discourse on the
issue ©© maybe even with the large number of Turks who are surely
just as concerned with such a portrayal. But that suggestion is
way beyond the imagination of most "Hellenes”•."
We should certainly leave Mr. Banderas alone. Anyone who wants to
send him a letter of apology can contact ”The GreekAmerican• for
his address.