(AINA) -- The transcript of the correspondence between AINA and Today's Zaman, regarding the word Assyrian.
The individuals are:
Peter BetBasoo, chief editor, AINA
Bülent Kenes, Editor-in-Chief, Today's Zaman
Okan Udo Bassey, Celil Sagir and Fatma Demirelli (Web), managing editors, Today's Zaman
E. Baris Altintas, Correspondent, Today's Zaman
From: AINA
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 4:12 AM
To: Udo Steven Bassey; Celil Sagir; Fatma Demirelli; Bülent Kenes
Subject: Article on Assyrians
Dear Sirs:
This is Peter BetBasoo of the Assyrian International News Agency ().
On September 26 you published an article (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-258035-discriminative-discourse-in-history-textbooks--upsets-assyrians.html) exposing anti-Assyrian bias in a Turkish history book used for 10th grade classes. The original title of the article was "Discriminative Discourse in History Textbooks Upsets Assyrians in Turkey." On October 3 we noticed the article had been revised and all references to Assyrian/Assyrians had been changed to Syriac/Syriacs. No explanation was given on the web page for this change.
We are pleased with the content of the article and glad that your newspaper brought this issue to the attention of the Turkish public.
We are puzzled, however, as to why the proper name Assyrian was changed to Syriac. Will you please tell us why this was done?
As you may know, Syriac is the technical name of the dialect of neo-Aramaic that Assyrians speak (neo-Syriac, to be precise). It is the name of the language, not the ethnic designation of the people. The proper term used to identify the Assyrians, in English, is Assyrians. In their own language (neo-Syriac) the self-designation is "atoraya/ashoraya" or "soraya" (by dropping the initial "a", which is very common in neo-Syriac), from which derives the English form "Assyrian" (via Greek then Latin).
We look forward to your reply.
Thank you.
On 10/5/2011 2:59 AM, Baris Altintas wrote:
Dear Mr. BetBasoo,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I was the one who changed it, as we have generaly used the word "Syriac" to refer to the people (and have treated the word Assyrians as the nation that existed 3,000 years ago).
I apologize if our change has offended you or your community.
I am talking now to our chief copy editor about possibly changing it back. We are really confused, but looking into it.
E. Baris Altintas
Correspondent, Today's Zaman
From: AINA
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 2:19 AM
To: Baris Altintas
Cc: Celil Sagir; Bülent Kenes
Subject: Re: Article on Assyrians
Dear Mr. Altintas:
Thank you very much for your prompt reply.
The "Syriacs" of today are the Assyrians of 3000 years ago. They are the same people. Assyrians take great pride in their culture and heritage, which span 7 millenia (the current Assyrian year is 6761).
There is no need for confusion. You are perfectly correct in using the word Assyrian. As a matter of fact, there is no other choice because that is what Assyrians call themselves. It is a simple matter of self-identification.
But you have not adequately explained why you changed the word 7 days after it was originally posted. Were you contacted by groups or individuals claiming to represent Assyrians and asked to change the wording? I am referring to "Aramean" or "Syriac" groups, such as the Aramean Democratic Organization (ArDO) or the Syriac Universal Alliance (SUA).
It should be obvious that these groups or individuals do not represent Assyrians. We Assyrians have no problems with these groups or individuals, but they cannot speak on behalf of Assyrians, they can only speak on behalf of "Arameans" or "Syriacs."
If you wish to contact legitimate Assyrian organizations, I can refer you to dozens in Europe, America, and Australia, as well as in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria.
Regarding the article, the textbook is discussing Assyrians (Süryanis in Turkish), it does not use the word "Syriac," so as a matter of journalistic integrity, the word Assyrian should be used, because that is the equivalent term in English.
Please let us know what you plan to do because AINA is writing a story on this wording change, but the story may be moot if you decide to change the wording back to Assyrian.
Thank you very much, Sir!
On 10/6/2011 1:32 AM, Baris Altintas wrote:
Mr BetBasoo, (I think?)
For one thing I am a woman,
Secondly, I don't know what you find "inadequate" about my explanation that "I thought that was our editorial usage." I can't be clear enough about this: We had no idea about these distincitons/different groups, so if you are implying that we have an ulterior motive in changing the word, you are laughably wrong.
I am, personally, hugely offended and angered by you suggesting that I am lying about the reason behind the word change. I am not going to sit here and read another e-mail by you accusing me of dishonesty. So if you plan to do that, please write to somebody else in TZ, not me.
Thirdly, go ahead and write your article. We have decided to use the terminology in EU reports and they mostly say Syriacs.
E. Baris Altintas
Correspondent, Today's Zaman
From: AINA
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 12:56 AM
To: Baris Altintas
Cc: Celil Sagir; Bülent Kenes
Subject: Re: Article on Assyrians
Dear Mrs. Altintas:
My apologies for confusing your gender, as I am not familiar with Turkish names and could not tell. In English one assumes the masculine when it is not certain.
I do not question your editorial usage, and I am most certainly not calling you dishonest or a liar. Also, I am not implying that you have an ulterior motive. I said none of these things.
I am just trying to understand what happened. The article ran for 7 days using the Assyrian terminology, and then after 7 days the terminology was changed to "Syriac." That is what I don't understand. If it is your editorial policy to use "Syriac" then why was not that used from the beginning?
That is what I meant when I said the explanation was inadequate. "Inadequate" does not mean dishonest nor does it suggest an ulterior motive.
I am sure there is an explanation, I am just trying to understand what happened without making any assumptions, that is why I am asking you. It would not be be fair to impute anything on you.
You say you have decided to use the terminology in EU reports, which is "Syriac." Can you give me a reference to those EU reports?
Assyrians in and out of Turkey use the correct term, "Assyrian," about Suryani and Asuri in Turkish, as do scholars all over the world. The small part of the Assyrian nation that calls itself "Syriacs" or "Arameans" in English when referring to the Turkish Suryanis are members of the Syriac Orthodox Church who have created an identity out of their religious belief (in Turkey are known as Suryani or Suryani kadim and mostly have their heritage in Anatolya).
The only time Suryanis can be referred to as Syriacs is when organizations officially use "Syriac" in their names, and therefore only in that context (and as the name of the language, of course). There are no "Syriac" people.
No other news agencies in the world use the word "Syriac" to describe the ethnic identity of Assyrians. Assyrians are routinely covered in the New York Times, AFP, BBC, CNN, al-Jazeera and others, and all of these agencies use Assyrian, not "Syriac."
Thank you very much for your consideration and I look forward to your reply.
P.S.
Yes, I am a man. Peter is always a masculine first name.
On 10/7/2011 1:36 AM, Baris Altintas wrote:
Dear Mr. BetBasoo, (--The earlier question mark was not intended to question your gender, but your last name as your previous letter had not been signed. This was but one of the many of the points you failed to understand yet still, decided to "educate" me in that didactic tone of yours. Explaining me Peter is a male name? Why? Because you think I am an idiot. I really can't take this patronizing tone as I mention below).
Ehem, anyway,
Dear. Mr. BetBasoo,
Thank you for your earlier letter. It is most certainly delightful to hear from you AGAIN. I know you didn't imply IN ANY WAY that I was being dishonest when you said that PERHAPS the word had been changed after us getting PHONE CALLS from people, in response to me telling you that I THOUGHT the writer had used the editorially wrong word. Yes, I see how that doesn't question my explanation AT ALLL.
Really, also thanks for explaining me the word inadequate, and many other details of English and how we should correspond with people whose genders we don't know. Thank you for sprinkling some of your worldly knowledge on me. I am illuminated, I have seen the light.
You could be a nice person. I don't know. I just can't take the smart-alecky, obnoxious and ultimately disrespectful tone. I really regret now having replied to that first e-mail. I will not let anyone talk to me in that patronizing and condescending tone. I am not a child. I am sorry. You have completely lost my interest in the Assyrian/Syriac debate. I really am not interested any more.
I can't get into a debate with someone who I feel thinks I am an idiot. I would rather talk to my "equals."
Thank you,
E. Baris Altintas
Correspondent, Today's Zaman
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 02:26:46 -0500
From: AINA
To: Baris Altintas
CC: Celil Sagir, Bülent Kenes
Subject: Re: Article on Assyrians
At this point I will not communicate further with Baris Altintas because she has shown herself to be completely unprofessional and has gratuitously escalated her tone to belligerence. I have been polite and respectful, but she has been chosen to be confrontational rather than cooperative.
I respectfully address my questions to Celil Sagir and Bülent Kenes, which have been CCd in this correspondence.
My question to Celil and Bulent is this: why did the article run for 7 days with the Assyrian terminology, and after 7 days it was changed to "Syriac?"
If none of you can answer this question, then I request the names and emails of your superior(s), and I will take the matter up with them.
Thank you for your consideration.
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 02:26:46 -0500
From: AINA
To: Ekrem Dumanli [CEO]
CC: Baris Altintas, Celil Sagir, Bülent Kenes
Subject: Re: Article on Assyrians
Dear Mr. Dumanli:
This is Peter BetBasoo, editor of the Assyrian International News Agency (aina.org).
I have attempted to get an answer to a question about an article that ran in your online edition, but I have not been successful. The woman who responded to me was emotional, irrational and unprofessional. Below please find the complete correspondence (in reverse chronological order, please read it from the bottom up).
My question is this: why did the article (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-258035-discriminative-discourse-in-history-textbooks--upsets-assyrians.html) run for 7 days with the Assyrian terminology, and after 7 days all references to Assyrian were changed to "Syriac?"
That is my simple question. I would greatly appreciate your answer.
Yours Cordially
Peter BetBasoo
or register to post a comment.