A Brief Review of Ethnicity Studies in Turkey

Iran and the Caucasus 14 (2010) 407-418

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/157338410X12743419190467

A Brief Review of Ethnicity Studies in Turkey

Çak ır Ceyhan Suvari Yüzüncü Yıl University, Van

Abstr act

As is known, the racist worldview rising in Europe, particularly in Germany of the 1930s, affected also the socio-political realities in Turkey, and became in effect a part of the official policy of the country. Many theories of obvious Turkist nature, such as Güne Dil Teorisi (Sun Language Theory), were even shaped by the govern-ment and introduced into the university programmes. In this framework, the an-cient Near Eastern states were declared Turkish, and the idea about the primordial presence of the Turks in Anatolia and Mesopotamia became a sort of axiom or ab-solute truth. From anthropological perspective, thousands of Armenian and Greek graves were opened and examined for the purpose of determining the real Turkish type; the skulls taken from these graves were compared with those of the contem-porary Turks. The racist ideology defeated in Europe as a result of World War II, was correspondingly overthrown in Turkey too; even some sanctions were imposed to its defenders. However, since the 1980s, the similar ideas have been brought to the agenda again via the project of “the re-discovery of the proto-Turks in Anatolia”. Moreover, some Turkish academics have argued that the non-Muslim and non-Turk peoples, such as the Pontus Greeks, the Armenians, and the Assyrians are, indeed, of Turkic origin. This paper examines the recent publications by several Turkish authors who vehemently advocate the above summarised views, which, at the same time, are shared and embraced by a clear majority of the academics studying identity and ethnicity issues in Turkey. The introductory part of the paper discusses the theo-retical aspects of ethnicity again with a focus on the relevant literature published in Turkey.

Keywor ds

Ethnicity, Identity, Turkism, Primordialism, Constructivism, Turks, Kurds, Zazas, Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians

INTRODUCTION: ETHNICITY AND IDENTITY There are two different basic approaches to the problem of ethnic iden-tity that of emic (self-identification, i.e. how a group defines itself), and etic (i.e. how a group is defined by others). A third perspective

Ç. C. Suvari / Iran and the Caucasus 14 (2010) 407-418

408

combines the previous two in a balanced manner (Aydın 2003: 277). Definitions, characteristics and names provided by groups within them-selves, and given by others differ largely (Somersan 2004: 23).

The primordialist perception is based upon the idea that identities are essential, narrow, closed, and unaltered, while the constructive percep-tion accepts them as situational, inclusive, clear, flexible, and changing. The first considers identity as an already shaped construct, which is completed; the second views it as a dynamic phenomenon, which is al-ways in a generating process and cannot ever be fully completed (Lar-rain 1995: 217). While essentialist perceptions intend to consider iden-tity as an expression of a substance, the constructive approaches sug-gest it is devoid of substantial reality and is a product of construction (Bilgin 2007: 59). Those who regard the ethnic identity as a situation, underline that it is established according to social, economic, and cul-tural conditions and is changeable and pragmatic (Küçükcan 1999: 41).

Cultural and ethnic identity perceptions are mostly primordial. They exist since many centuries and have reached up today without consid-erable changes in their qualities. For instance, the statements “We are Turks because our ancestors were Turks from Central Asia”, “Chinese were our enemies, and now the Greeks are our enemies” have become a cliché defining self-identification of an ordinary or educated Turk to-day;1 or the priests in any Assyrian Church in Mardin who guide you through the visit, begin their talks with the statement that “We are liv-ing in these lands for five thousand years”. According to Smith (2002: 38), one of the avid proponents of the primordial approach, since the ethnicity has a largely “mythical” and “symbolic” character, and myth, symbol, memory, and values are transferred by forms and styles of very slowly changing activities, it tends to keep its existence for generations or even centuries to display a unique continuity under normally chang-

1 The political testament of Nihal Atsız, a fanatic Turkish nationalist, addressed

to his son can be a good example to this statement. He writes: “Ya mur, my son! …I finished writing my massage and leave it as an official remembrance to you. Take my advice well, be a good Turk. Communism is our enemy. Learn this by heart. Jews are the enemies of all the nations. Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and Greeks are our enemies form the past. Bulgarians, Germans, Italians, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Ar-

abs, Serbs, Croats, Spaniards, Portuguese, and Romanians are our new enemies. Japanese, Afghans, and Americans are our future enemies. Armenians, Kurds, Cir-

cassians, Abkhazians, Bosnians, Albanians, Pomaks, Lazes, Lezgins, Georgians, and Chechens are our enemies on the inside. We should prepare ourselves to fight against so many enemies. May God help you!”. (http://atsiz.org/hayati/goster.a.php?

tab=hislife&articleid=1002)


409

ing conditions by creating “patterns” within which social and cultural processes will emerge.

Contrary to Smith, Bayarth (1999: 89) approaches identity as a situ-ational and contextual phenomenon; there are no identities, he says, there are only identity diagnosing functions.

The following criteria are in general traditionally suggested for any group to be defined as ethnic (see, e.g., Smith 2002: 47-55, Altunta 2002: 20-21, Küçükcan 1999: 46, Aydın 1998: 55-56, Fawcett 2000): 1) a common name for the whole group (ethnonym); 2) a common real or putative ancestor (lineage belief); 3) common historical memories (social mem-ory); 4) common cultural traditions (elements); 5) traditional ties with a given land (ethnic territory); and 6) common self-perception of be-longing to a specific group, implying also a solidarity feeling and endog-amy preferences.

People do not think much in their daily lives about these references, which constitute their identities; they are remembered during planned events, especially ceremonies, rituals and celebrations, or in the cases when extraordinary conflicts and tensions occur within the group or between groups and are applied while reconstructing and sustaining the identity. As a matter of fact, the identity references are realised and revived in the situations when a clear opposition (peaceful cultural or antagonistic) arises towards other groups.

Ethnicity is a multi-faceted term, which is defined by various criteria that may change according to time and space. The fact that it is used as a synonym to such terms as nation, race, ethnic minority, and even eth-nic identification, it has become a potential subject to different types of disputes and debates (Eriksen 2004:15-16; Aydın 1998: 53).

As underlined above, constructive approach considers ethnic identi-ties not as substantial selves, which have historical continuity, but as social categories shaped by social processes. According to Barth (1998: 15ff.), the elements determining the belonging to a certain ethnic group are not the objective differences but the differences that are formed during the social process. He suggests that if a group of people feel themselves belonging to an “A” group rather than to a “B” group, no one can prevent this definition no matter how different the people are in terms of behaviour (ibid.). The same author (ibid.: 11) also considers the ethnic identity as a social category formed as a result of definitions that people make regarding the groups within which they live; it is a flexible formation depending on change rather than being a given, sta-ble and non-changing identity.


410

Ethnicity is a device of “othering”, which starts with the perception of differences (Eller 1999: 9). While peoples or communities bring their own differences to the foreground in most identity demands, the same peoples or communities are forced to remain with their differences in cases of discrimination. In the first case, the expression “I am/we are different from you” prevails, whereas “You are different from us” pre-vails in the second case (Bilgin 2007: 33). However, these differences are variable, that is, each ethnic group may use any cultural element as ref-erence in identity formation and maintenance process. From this point of view, ethnicity is a subjective identity for groups who are considered to share historical or cultural elements.

According to Tapper and Hann (apud Aydın 1998: 116), the ethnicity is not an objective phenomenon. It is a “subjective” situation starting at the point, which is considered by a person or a group as discriminating for themselves or “others”. This subjective situation is determined by religion or affiliation to a ruler, family or dynasty, by lifestyle, the place of living, the place of arrival or by language sometimes. By Eriksen (2004: 15-16), the concept of ethnicity defines the relations between the groups, which define themselves as culturally different and also defined by others accordingly. He suggests (ibid: 27) that for the ethnicity to emerge, the communities must have minimum contact with each other, and it is also compulsory for them to perceive each other’s ideas as dif-ferent from others in cultural terms. It means ethnicity is being shaped as a result of mutual relations; so, at least, two groups need to be in con-tact with each other for that. Since the groups themselves and relations between them change constantly, identities can never be defined com-pletely. They are continuously being shaped as a never ending subjec-tivity (Altunta 2002: 3), constantly established and re-established in ac-cordance with the experiences, relations, current symbols, and ideas. The fact that the symbols and ideas used in defining an identity repeat themselves, does not mean that their meanings will be the same all the times or they will not change within new practices (Larrain 1995: 223).

De Vos (apud Eller 1999: 8) defines ethnicity as a subjective phe-nomenon that is formed by bringing to the foreground any element of the culture symbolically to differ groups from each other. Providing ex-amples form Cyprus in terms of usage of ethnic symbols, Volkan (1999: 132) has observed that Greek men have been wearing blue sashes (one of the colours of Greece flag), and Turkish men have been wearing red sashes during the periods when the ethnic tension in the island was in-creased. While the usage of mentioned symbolic colours is not impor-tant during “normal” times, it has been stated that a Cypriot Turk


411

would prefer to die instead of wearing a blue sash (Volkan 1999: 132). Similarly, Azerbaijanis who used the accordion in all their feasts and events before Karaba War, have developed a negative attitude against this instrument, because they think it is an Armenian musical device. Now, Azerbaijanis consider the use of accordion in the weddings and other festivities as high treason, preferring instead the Russian gar-mon’.2

Human beings establish their identities under pressure, various in-centives, or in free conditions (Huntington 2004: 22). The formation of identities involves elements from history, geography, biology, produc-tive or production-oriented institutions, collective memory, personal fantasies, religious revelations, and so on. But the individuals, social groups, and societies process all these elements through the social structures around themselves (Castells/Climo 2002: 14). Especially eco-nomic and political interests feed on the above-mentioned elements and play a leading role in the increase of ethnic consciousness (Fawcett 2000: 7).

The statement that the formation of identities is a permanent proc-ess does not mean at all that they are meaningless, unimportant and unnecessary. Identities shape human behaviour, they display what we are thinking of ourselves, and what we would like to be. In these terms, the identities are not some simple labels. People have psycho-social in-vestments changing according to their identity views, time, and envi-ronment.

On the other hand, particular ethnic groups are never homogenous within themselves. Each group is formed of classes, layers, and sub-identities (Somersan 2004: 39). This quality results in continuous crea-tion of new ethnic formations. From this perspective, every single eth-nic group has left a larger community, indeed (Küçükcan 1999: 46).

STUDIES ON ETHNICITY IN TURKEY

Racist sentiments, which started to rise in Europe during the 1930s, par-ticularly in Germany, have also influenced Turkish socio-political reali-ties. Turkist views on history have been recognised as the only relevant ideology for the country. The theories, such as the Güne Dil Teorisi (Sun

2 Unlike the Azerbaijanis in Kars who consider accordion their own “national”

instrument.


412

Language Theory),3 were developed and promoted by the government and introduced into the primary and higher education programmes. During this period, the primordial presence of the Turks in Anatolia and Mesopotamia has become an axiomatic truth in the Turkish society, re-sulting in Turkification of the ancient Near Eastern civilisations. In this respect, many ancient Near Eastern peoples, like the Hitites, Sumerians, Hurrians, Urartians, and Scythians were simply declared Turks by ori-gin.4 In order to determine “the pure Turkish type” in anthropological terms, tombs of many Armenians and Greeks have been re-opened, and the extracted skulls have been compared to those of contemporary Turks (see Maksudyan 2005).5 The racist ideology, which has died away following the end of World War II in 1945, was also taken down in Tur-key and, in parallel with this, even some sanctions were imposed on its defenders. Physical anthropology, the most effective tool of the racist ideology, also fell into disfavour.

Turkist views on history, which had been shelved for a long time, were brought to the agenda again during the 1980s with the project of “re-discovering the proto-Turks in Anatolia”, using Aydın’s (2004) ex-pression. Besides, the claims of being ancient, defended during the 1930s, have now been carried to Mesolithic and Neolithic ages, to such an extent that the prehistorical cave paintings have been declared to be the first written texts in Turkic. This view on prehistorical petroglyphs as a purely Turkic creation, expressed in a more pronounced form by Necati Demir (2009), currently has many followers in various circles of the Turkish society.

On the other hand, some non-Turkic Christian peoples, such as Pon-tus Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrinians were declared to have Turkic

3 This theory, claiming that Turkish is one of the most ancient languages in the

world, was supported and developed by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk personally during the 1930s.

4 See Aydın 1995 and 2004 regarding the issue of politicising the Turkish iden-tity.

5 For example, the tomb of famous mediaeval architect Mimar Sinan, who is known to have an Armenian origin but converted to Islam after being taken away from his family by the Ottomans, was opened by a council assigned by Turkish His-torical Society to measure his skull. The aim here was to show that Mimar Sinan was a Turk, not an Armenian. It has been stated in the report prepared by Dr. evket Aziz Kansu that Mimar Sinan’s skull has typical brachicephalic parameters, i.e.89-90. Following that event, Sinan’s skull has been stored to be displayed in Anthropology Museum to be established in the future. Sinan’s skull is not the only one that is stored; many skulls gathered form Anatolia are being kept in storage (http://www. habervaktim.com/haber/48536/mimar_sinanin_kafatasi_nicin_kayip.html).


413

roots. One of the first Turkish authors generating this idea was Kırzı-o lu (1953), who then became a constant source of inspiration for Turk-ish historians. The style, logic, and system of argumentation usually re-mind those of Kırzıo lu. Cf. the following statement from a recent pub-lication on the related subject: “The fact that a considerable part of the Armenians living in Anatolia do not speak a language other than Turk-ish, and that they are similar to Turks in their traditions and customs, as well as because they belong to the Turkic race they must be regarded as Turks, although they are Christianised … After all, all the sources indi-cate that the Armenian King Tiridat and Gregoir (i.e. Grigor the Illumi-nator) who Christianised Armenia were Parthians, and it is stated (?!) that these Parthians were Turks” (Küçük 2003: 19-20).

Today, Türkdo an (1999), Göka (2006), Önder (2007), and Volkan (1999) are the major proponents of the so-called “Turkish Historical Thesis”, implying a Turkist approach to historical studies. The first three follow the primoridialism in its Turkish version. They consider ethnicity, especially Turkishness, as an unaltered, substantial and al-most genetically transferred constant. However, unlike Smith (2002), all their analyses are based on contradicting statements, deprived of his-torical authenticity, but in line with nationalist ideology; their writings abound with inconsistencies and lack proper methodology. According to these authors, for instance, Turks in today’s Anatolia are the same as Turkic groups who had left their ethnic territory one millennium ago. Moreover, Göka (2006: 140) claims that the behavioural patterns of the Turks have also remained unchanged throughout history. As a psychia-try doctor, Göka (ibid.: 137, 140-141) explaining kin interest of the Turks to picnics (“a limitless passion to picnics”) and their “dislike of having bath” by the old Turkic shamanistic beliefs and dendrolatry in the first case and by the veneration of water as a holy substance, which, according to the Central Asian ancestors of the contemporary Turks, must not be polluted by the human dirt in the second.

One of the popular topics in modern Turkish ethnicity studies is the search for the genetic affiliation of the Kurds and the Zazas who, never-theless, are generally regarded as Turks, or sort of Turks with various modifications.

Orhan Türkdo an, in his monograph on ethnic sociology (1999), as-serts that most of the ethnic groups in Turkey, including Kurds and Zazas, have in fact a Turkic origin. The interesting thing here is that he considers only the Kurds living in Turkey to have Turkic descent; the Iraqi Kurds, according to this author, are of Arabic and, accordingly, the Kurds of Iran are of Persian (sic!) origin. However, even in such a rea-


414

soning, there are many inconsistencies; for instance, he claims that the Kurds are, indeed, Turks, and Kurdish is a dialect of Turkish (ibid.: 120), but later (p. 286) he states that the Zazas are Turks because they are not Kurds, and their language is like Turkish.6 Kurdish is declared as a hy-brid language consisting of Arabic, Persian, and prevailing Turkish ele-ments.

Unlike Türkdo an and Göka, Tayyar Önder (2007: 1-2) has made a constructive definition of the ethnic identity, which is also adopted by me: “Ethnic identity is not a genetic, biological or race-specific quality that is earned by birth. It can change according to the variables in cul-tural environment and may vary during the history due to many rea-sons”.

Again, unfortunately, the work of Önder suffers from contradicting statements, particularly concerning the role of language in ethnicity (ibid.: 167-168), and a clear tendency to turkify the Kurds. On one hand, he rightly criticises the etymological determinism in ethno-genetical studies in case of the Zazas with regard to their ethnonym Diml refer-ring to the homeland of this people in Daylam (ibid.: 248), but, on the other hand, he arguments the alleged Turkic origin of the Kurds by analysing their ethnonym Kurmanc considered by the author to be a Turkic term (ibid.: 173).

It is a generally accepted idea that an “other”, which is negated all the time and creates concern, should ultimately exist, and intergroup or intragroup conflicts and experienced pain play an important role in the establishment of identities by means of social memory. The “other” mentioned here may be the old ones, which are re-interpreted accord-ing to time, space, and political needs or are brought back to the agenda repetitively, or they may be the new ones produced inside or outside. So, it is not surprising at all that Europeans consider Turks and Muslims in general as “others” most of the time.

Vamik Volkan’s views regarding the concept of “Turkish identity” are generally in conflict with variable and constructive identity theory he defends. He particularly asserts that identities of all the groups, ex-cept for Turks, mostly depend on traumas. According to Volkan (1999: 65-100), the Turkish identity is almost “without others”, natural, and

6 A similar manipulation regarding the same subject is also displayed by Ba bu

(1984: 3-4, 13-14) who defines the Kurds as Türkkürtleri (Turkish Kurds). He says, the Kurds are derived from the Scythians who, according to a widely accepted view (sic!), were Turks; then there is no way for the Kurds except for to be Turks. As for the Zazas, they are not Kurds because they come from the Scythians, who were Turks, etc.


415

without any conflict within itself. However, the West has always been perceived as a feared “other”, which creates concern since Crusades. It is considered in Turkey as the only source of “immorality", “disease”, and “corruption”7. Even in Turkish National Anthem, which is one of the most important symbols of national identity, the West is mentioned as tek di i kalmı canavar (a monster with one tooth). Especially the “secularist” (“nationalist”) authors who are against European Union, oppose the process in the fear that the West will disrupt Turkey’s “own identity/self” and divide the country reviving the Sèvres Treaty in short (cf. Laçiner 2007: 3-7).

SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS

Turkism became a prevailing identity-marker with the declaration of the Turkish Republic established upon a secular and Turko-centric ide-ology. However, despite the declarative claims of the Republican regime on the homogeneity of the country’s population, there were still a number of significant non-Turkic and even non-Muslim groups. Moreo-ver, Turkist sentiments were not developed even among the communi-ties, which defined themselves as Turks and were affiliated to Islam and the Ottomans. The first steps of the government directed to create a homogenous social entity were, along with various forms of the propa-gation of Turkist ideology (establishing halkevleri, public houses; raising politically educated youth, introducing respective programmes into the primary and higher schools, etc.), the construction of a historical back-ground for the ideology itself and for strengthening the Turkish iden-tity. In other words, there was a need to build a history showing that Turks were primordially present in the area, particularly in Anatolia, long before 1071. Although the search for ancient roots, resulting fur-ther in the Turkification of almost all the Near Eastern civilisations, has lost its reputation in Turkey at the end of World War II with the collapse of the racist ideology in Western Europe, again it was brought into agenda in the 1980s. The military coup of September 12th 1980 has adopted “Turk-Islam Synthesis” as its official ideology. The Islamist tra-ditions coming from the Ottoman Empire and the Turkism established by the Republican regime have been very quickly and easily synthe-sised.

7 The Prime Minster Tayyip Erdo an, addressing the students sent abroad for

postgraduate education, said: “We did not get the science of the West; unfortunately we got their immoralities” (see http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=245471).


416

Currently, the Turkish nationalism has had to face such challenges as the Kurdish, the Cyprus, the Alevi, the non-Muslim, and the Arme-nian problems. In parallel with this, Turkist sentiments are being in-creased, and nationalist statements are carried on to be developed. The claims regarding the autochthonous nature of the Turkic element in the area are already taken back further to the Mesolithic and Neolithic ages. Petroglyphs drawn during these periods in Asia, Europe, and Africa are considered to be the first written Turkic monuments.

The above-mentioned Turkish authors are very popular in the pre-sent-day Turkey. Their publications are considered reliable and objec-tive by the public opinion, with a large circle of readers and supporters. Leaving aside the opposition of primordialistic and constructivist views to ethnicity and ethnic identity, Turkism remains the prevailing ideol-ogy in the scholarly publications on ethnicity and historical issues in Turkey today. Most of the literature on the related topics produced in recent decades, pursuing generally political objectives, is created with-out strict methodology and academic system of argumentation, with its own style and specific method, basically different from those commonly used in the social sciences in the world.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altuna , Nezahat (2002), Türkiye’de Etnik Kimlik Farklıla masında Din-Mez-hep Etkisi ve Siyasete Yansıması, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bi-limler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamı Doktora Tezi.

Aydin, Suavi (1993), Modernle me ve Milliyetçilik, Ankara. ———— (1995), Etnik “Bir Ad Olarak ‘Türk’ Kavramının Sınırları ve Geni -

letilmesi Üzerine”, Birikim Dergisi: 71-72. ———— (1998), Kimlik Sorunu, Ulusallık ve Türk Kimli i, Ankara. ———— (2003), “Etnisite”, Antropoloji Sözlü ü, Ankara. ———— (2004), “30’ların Tezlerine Geri Dönü : Anadolu’da ‘Proto Türk-

ler’”, Yeniden Ke fi, Toplum ve Bilim Dergisi 96.

Barth, Fredrik (1998), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference, Prospect Heights.

Ba bu , Hayri (1984), Zaza ve Kurmanclar, Ankara.

Bayarth, J. François (1999), Kimlik Yanılsaması, çev. Mehmet Moralı, stanbul.

Bilgin, Nuri (2007), Kimlik n ası, Ankara.


417

Castells, Maria G.; Climo, Jacop J. (2002), “Meaning in Social Memory and History: Anthropological Perspectives”, Social Memory and History Anthropological Perspectives, Jacop J. Climo; Maria G. Castells (eds.), New York: 1-36.

Demir, Necati (2009), “Rock Petroglyphs and Scripts as Source of Turkic History and Culture”, Journal of World of Turks, vol. 1, No. 1.

Eller, J. David (1999), From Culture to Ethnicity to Conflict, Michigan.

Eriksen, T. Hylland (2004), Etnisite ve Milliyetçilik, çev. Ekin U aklı, stan-bul.

Fawcett, Liz (2000), Religion, Ethnicity and Social Change, London.

Göka, Erol (2006), Türk Grup Davranı ı, Ankara.

Huntington, Samuel P. (2004), Biz Kimiz? Amerika’nın Ulusal Kimlik Arayı ı, çev. Aytül Özer, stanbul: CSA Global Yayın Ajansı.

Kırzıo lu, Fahrettin (1953), Kars Tarihi, I. Cilt, stanbul (?).

Küçük, Abdurrahman (2003), Ermeni Kilisesi ve Türkler, Ankara.

Küçükcan, Talip (1999), Politics of Ethnicity, Identity and Religion. Turkish Muslims in Britain, Aldershot.

Laçiner, Ömer (2007), “14 Nisan Mitingi: Korkular ve Tehditler Galerisi”, Birikim Dergisi 217.

Larrain, Jorge (1995), deoloji ve Kültürel Kimlik, çev. Ne e N. Domaniç, stanbul.

Maksudyan, Nazan (2005), Türklü ü Ölçmek Bilimkurgusal Antropoloji ve Türk Milliyetçili inin Irkçı Çehresi 1925-1939, stanbul.

Önder, A. Tayyar. (2007), Türkiye’nin Etnik Yapısı Halkımızın Kökenleri ve Gerçekler, Ankara.

Smith, Anthony D. (2002), Ulusların Etnik Kökeni, çev. Sonay Bayramo lu ve H. Kendir, Ankara.

Somersan, Semra (2004), Sosyal Bilimlerde Etnisite ve Irk, stanbul.

Türkdo an, Orhan (1999), Etnik Sosyoloji, stanbul.

Volkan, Vamık D. (1999), Kanba ı Etnik Gururdan Etnik Teröre, stanbul.

Copyright of Iran & The Caucasus is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

A Brief Review of Ethnicity Studies in Turkey

Documents

Transcript of A Brief Review of Ethnicity Studies in Turkey