Cenk Uygur, the Genocide denier



all my warriorsWhat if you were someone whose success had been gained by how you were seen by your fans? Wouldn’t you be someone who  obviously did not deny what happened to the 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children who were brutally murdered in 1915 were as “Genocide?”

Knowing, the original “young Turks”  justified the killing of thousands of Armenians, in a failed attempt to clear all Armenian lands of non-Turkish elements so their pan-Turanian goals could become a reality, wouldn’t you be somebody who would not name their show after them, right?   You would be someone who would not have anything in common with the original “young Turks.”  right?

In that case, you’d be someone other than a Turk, named Cenk Uygur.  

On the other hand, I’d be viewed as someone unfair, biased, and hate-inspired, that is if you were someone like this guy, Uygur.

Yes, I am very familiar with a genocide denier’s retort, and defense.   As if he can be viewed,  as a good person, and a genocide denier at the same time.

As if I can be viewed as the bad guy for bringing his genocide denial to the world’s attention.

Armenian Genocide of 1915, painting by dzaet

Did you ever wonder about the kind of people it takes to tolerate or defend a Genocide denier?  Oh, I suppose they’d be the kind of people who call themselves a fan of Cenk, or the Young Turk’s show.  It is only logical that the people he can contribute his success to are people who feel the denial of a Genocide is not such a big deal and will argue that till they are blue in the face or the ones who are genocide and holocaust deniers themselves.  Of course, there is probably a good part of his fan club that isn’t even aware he is a genocide denier that is worth mentioning.  Hopefully, they will read my articles and then do the right thing.

It is just deplorable when people find the denial of human suffering an unimportant detail in a person’s character. What don’t people get about this?  It’s not rocket science.  If he can easily disregard historical facts for his own personal agenda, imagine how many other facts he has not acknowledged.  Humanity just fails when a guy like Uygur can make a living with opinions that imply genocides are deniable.  He is lucky in one way, Armenian voices like mine are very few because today our population is fewer than it should, millions less than it rightfully should be thanks to what he cautiously denies ever happen and the result is the ones on denial are not often enough asked to defend it.   

That is how denial has survived in Turkey for almost 100 years.   Turkey is convinced of something that allows them subconsciously to feel superior in the world without ever having to accept the fact, they based it on a faulty, and invalid misconception.  

 Cenk’s denial statement..

Below is a letter Uygur wrote that clearly supports his genocide denial.  

” Is Cenk from The Young Turks an Armenian Genocide Denier?”

Is that a trick question or something?

I am a Turkish-American and I am sure my views will also be looked upon with a certain wariness, but I do not subscribe to the idea that I am disqualified from objectivity by my ethnicity.”

Cenk-Turkish Denialist

“First, at the very beginning of the article, you seem to reach a conclusion — “The central Armenian experience of the 20th century, after all, was the death of as many as 1.5 million Armenians …”Every neutral scholar agrees that the Turkish position is propaganda.     “Turkish Denialist The United States helped to sponsor war propaganda against Turkey during World War I as part of an official campaign to smear its enemies, as it did with Germany. Part of this propaganda was the evil butchery of the Turks against the defenseless Christian Armenians. This is what has been rooted in the popular memory of America, with very few Turkish-Americans to combat the insinuations of savagery, yet this is not propaganda?”  Cenk – Turkish Denialist

The US did not enter the war till 1917, this was years after the bulk of Armenians had already been killed. The relevance of propaganda being a reason either way about what happened to Armenians on a scale of 1-100 would be “0”  relevance. Turks were simply killing Armenians how America was portraying the Turks had very little emphasis on the impact.  Holocaust had its share of propaganda but I have yet heard any argument that it was a reason on how the world viewed the nazis. Anyway, propaganda circulating in America being thousands of miles away from Armenians and Turks is very irrelevant in support of denial.  Many credible people like Henry Morgenthau the American ambassador to Turkey then used reliable communication devices of the time period to keep America informed with correct and factual accounts of what was happening. AlanaKalanian

“As far as I could see from the article, every non-Armenian scholar in the field believes it is an open question whether this event was a genocide. Is it the claim of the article that all of these people are tainted by the tentacles of the Turkish government? If not, then why is it not pointed out that no one outside of the “Armenian position” believes it is a genocide? Why is it assumed that the “Turkish studies side” has the burden of proof in overturning the verdict of Turkish guilt? It is because of the underlying assumption that despite what these people in “Turkish studies” say, there must have been a genocide.” Cenk – Turkish Denialist

This guy is way too busy trying to bag everyone else for being against Turkey and he angrily lashes out at those for trying to depict Turks capable of wrongdoing.  Not much different than how I would respond to any German trying to pass off the same arguments about the nazis there –  “Don’t waste my time.” AlanaKalanian

“I once asked a professor of mine who taught a class on the laws of war and war crimes at Columbia Law School to deprogram me from all the propaganda I had received growing up Turkish. I asked him to please find me evidence of the genocide by neutral scholars so I cold know the truth.” Cenk- Turkish Denialist

Tanar Akcam who is a Turk, is not neutral enough for him?

“After investigating the issue, he came back and said that he could not find one non-Armenian scholar who believed this was a genocide, but since “it looked like a duck, it walked like a duck and it talked like a duck, it must be a duck.” If that’s not the product of excellent propaganda, I don’t know what is.”  Cenk – Turkish Denialist

Amazing, ever heard of http://genocidescholars.wsg.net/about-us/iags-resolutions-statements/ There are so many non – Armenian historians/scholars (Google is an amazing tool -ever try it) that have recognized.  I’m shocked he makes such an obviously ignorant statement – a guy who must have at least one bumper sticker that reads ” I have some intelligence please, please follow my blog.”

Why is it that Turks feel they are able to deny a Genocide simply because they want to..    They are perfectly content with the fact they have nothing substantial to base their denial on.  Other than a few unreliable references and a couple of racist websites, that BTW they seem to have no shame in using,  it comes down to having nothing.

There is not one solid fact revealed in Uygur’s letter that he could base his denial on and yet he rather have an opinion he can not support over one he can. Does that even sound remotely rational?  The bottom line, Cenk is just wasting time hoping it all goes away.   He is biding his time by hiding in his wretched denial, avoiding being questioned at all coasts because he is quite aware he is unable to defend it. 

So, remember always Uygur is no different from any other genocide or holocaust denier.  The difference is he isn’t exploiting what he is so we can all be not reminded of it.  So should he be an exception?  Should he not be held accountable for the hundreds of reputable historians, scholars, countries, and organizations who recognize the Armenian genocide he indirectly calls a liar with his non-recognition.  I think not.

Mr.Uygur, in conclusion I’d like to say that in America  “insulting Turkishness” is considered freedom of speech, but denying a genocide is not. 

Pennsylvanian Article

In TYTBlog by Cenk UygurApril 22, 201629 Comments


Today, I rescind the statements I made in my Daily Pennsylvanian article from 1991 entitled, “Historical Fact of Falsehood? When I wrote that piece, I was a 21 year-old kid, who had a lot of opinions that I have since changed. Back then I had many political positions that were not well researched. For example, back in those days I held a pro-war rally for the Persian Gulf War. Anyone who knows me now knows that I am a very different person today.

I also rescind the statements I made in a letter to the editor I wrote in 1999 on the same issue. Back then I had a very different perspective and there were many things that I did not give due weight. On this issue, I should have been far, far more respectful of so many people who had lost family members. Their pain is heart-wrenching and should be acknowledged by all.

My mistake at the time was confusing myself for a scholar of history, which I most certainly am not. I don’t want to make the same mistake again, so I am going to refrain from commenting on the topic of the Armenian Genocide, which I do not know nearly enough about.

Thank you for being patient with me on this issue, though I might not have always merited it.



22 thoughts on “Cenk Uygur, the Genocide denier

  1. What the fuck is WRONG with you? Do some research before going off half-cocked like this. The name refers to a younger generation taking the leads from an older generation – a fully accepted everyday use of the term. Do you also make accusations against Rod Stewart for having a SONG called “Young Turks” which has as much to do with genocide as The Young Turks show does? Talk to his co-host, Ana Kasparian, an ARMENIAN. Get her on record – oh, that’s right! She already IS on record though you choose to ignore it. She has had to speak on this matter on more than one occasion. Here’s a link to her thoughts from 2007: http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2007/10/26/124637/27/news/The-Young-Turks-From-an-Armenian-s-Perspective-

    Your irrational anger is evidently more important than getting to the truth. What a shame.

  2. This is the most hysterical rant, based upon nothing, that I have seen in a long time. Uygur’s show, other than its name (which he states to be innocuous and unrelated) has nothing to do with 1915 Armenian history. The first clip shows him expressing anguish over the incident. Your evidence only shows that his Columbia professor cannot find non-Armenian sources that describe it as you do, not that Uygur actively denies it (and certainly not repeatedly or directly, like Ahmadinejad actively denies the Holocaust). Moreover, you say that his contrition is not sufficient unless he calls it a “genocide,” but you don’t present any evidence that he doesn’t feel this way (and maybe just didn’t use your terminology).
    Your second clip does more damage to your case than it helps you. While your rant implies that Uygur does not criticize Turkey because of his nationality, he flatly says that he does not support Turkey’s leadership. While your rant implies that it is nearly impossible to rationally see Turkey’s government as anything but Islamist, and quasi-terrorist, Uygur’s statement that they have gone to regional leaders to discourage fundamentalism is true and specifically combats this view. You also say that the video should have included a greater showing by Perry and less by Uygur. But the clip is from Uygur’s show, a political analysis show. He isn’t interviewing Perry and affording him time to speak–Perry’s clips lasts as long as the answer he gave. What blatant unfairness on your part. Also, you might agree with Perry that Turkey should be isolated from America and considered a “terrorist state,” and you might agree based upon Erdogan’s recent activities or based upon a genocide decades before any of us were born. But to assume Perry’s position is one based upon nuanced, sane geopolitical analysis is absurd. Not only does Perry probably not know anything about Turkey (based upon his comment about aid, as well as his numerous misinformed comments about foreign and domestic policy throughout his campaign), but prevailing Republican wisdom in America is DEFINITELY that most or all Muslims are terrorists, and would certainly be painted as such during a debate where the goal is to saber-rattle as loudly as possible to ignorant Republican voters. Prevailing wisdom is that the flotilla somehow attacked Israel and killed Jews (when the exact opposite occurred) and it is political suicide by any politician in America to not stand 100% with absolutely everything Israel says, claims or does against any country, including an ally like Turkey. You ask for evidence that Perry thinks Muslims generically equate to terrorists, but the link is not only clearly drawn in that answer but in the answer of every single Republican candidate for president (perhaps excluding Paul) in every debate that mentioned our Middle East policy. Even if they have a more nuanced position (which they don’t–more out of not caring than out of ignorance, but with a generous supply of both), they would get booed off the stage stating their nuanced position that there are noble, moderate Muslims in the Middle East that can have a valid disagreement with Israel without being our enemy.
    Lastly, you state several things as “your opinion”, which is fine–it is your blog. But it is Uygur’s show, and he has the same rights to his opinions, opinions that seem far less objectionable when you show his clips than this hostile vile monster you portray him as. Uygur is an agnostic secularist and you practically claim him as an Islamist apologist. Uygur intentionally tried to absolve himself of his Turkish biases during the Columbia class–he told his professor to tell him the hard truth, and you paint him as someone who acts “superior in the world” and won’t accept countering evidence. Uygur’s position is clearly one of resolving conflicts (in both clips), and you twist it so that he is the one with the “tricks, diversions and unethical tactics,” posing such an aggressive threat to you that you have to have your gun loaded to stop him. You sound more militant than Erdogan with comments like those.
    Your rant is very long and impassioned, but not convincing on a single point. At most, you disagree with Uygur that Turkey has become slightly more religious that he thinks it is. You can have that as a separate debate and it might be a valid one. But you go 10 steps too far in every single charge, as though to make it seem like Rick Perry, who actively wants to fulfill the Biblical prophecy that almost all Jews and all Muslims are slaughtered in the great reckoning in Relevations, is somehow a hero to people of Israel and Armenia, and that Uygur, who is more of a pacifist than any other party in this entire blog, is actually the cruel, hateful demagogue.

  3. Dear idiots above me: So you would deem it normal if I started a program on TV and called it “The Nazi Party” or “Destroy America At All Costs” and covered stamp collecting? Speaking of “hysterical rant”, how about an “Idiotic Rant” compliments of Steve?

    Rod Stewart also made his song at a time when Genocide education was not wide spread, and the song was so titled based on young people in rebellion, not Turks, and there is the difference. Don’t compare apples and oranges. The Young Turks program is by a Turk and for Turks, and idiots. And included in that is that clueless idiot Ana Kasparian who is merely a desperate cockroach who wants attention and a job, even coming from a Turkish racist neo-Nazi.

    1. No, if you had a program called “The Nazi Party” and it was about stamp collecting, and every episode brought something ingenious and creative and informative to the world of stamp collecting and in no way referenced Nazism, I would say “That’s a very interesting show with a contemptible name. You should probably change the name.” Would I flip out for 14 paragraphs about how evil the show was because of the name? I’d mention the name, my disapproval of it, and then talk about the unrelated content. You are so far over the top in your blind rage that you don’t even follow a logical path of argument. As I mentioned, Cenk’s show is not particularly friendly to Turkey, in the clip YOU PRESENT he criticizes its leadership, and the show covers topical issues–it virtually never delves into Turkish or Armenian history or ANY history before the stock market crash of 1929. So what you have is a name you don’t like. Write about it for 2 sentences and then discuss content instead of your lunacy about an agnostic, Progressive news analyst secretly being a militant Islamist-coddling zealot. I’m sorry, Alana–it takes courage for you to put your strong opinions out there for criticism, and I do not regard this endeavor lightly, but your argument is an embarrassing one and totally devoid of empirical analysis of a typical “Young Turks” broadcast.

      1. Steve, for the record this surely goes beyond any name issue, but I think I did make that quite clear..

        Like I said at the beginning of my post, if he had recognized the Armenian genocide then there certainly wouldn’t be any similarities between him and the same young Turks who committed the Armenian genocide and therefore the original “young Turks” and him would have nothing in common, and so who should care about minor technicalities in this world like a name except maybe “Fred” there when we have so many major ones to be concerned about first.. Do you actually believe that I would be strongly opinionated on it at all if he was not in denial? Do you think I would write a 15 paragraphed post on it just to depict a name he chose for his show without having any substantial argument to show a link between him and the name?

        Steve, not once in my post did I say anything about the name having any significant importance to what you refer to as “my embarrassing argument”, no, but it was his denial of a historical factual event that I seriously depict as having a link to the name as not only an embarrassing one but unacceptable one for a guy trying to make a buck off people believing he has something truthful to say..

        What I believe Steve is you needed to twist what you could so you could attack it, something you couldn’t do without doing so..

        Thanks for your response, have a good day. ~AlanaKalanian

  4. The show is for Americans of all ethnic backgrounds. Watch it and you will see. Your description is as fallacious as Alana’s.

    It’s telling that you use a name synonymous with a caveman…

  5. You said nothing to address my issue. Again you fail to address my question, is it alright if I made a TV program entitled “Rape MedfordTim’s mother and sister and kill the rest of his family” and covered stamp collecting? That’s what “Young Turks” are known for – genocide perpetrators. And cavemen are infinitely more civilized than these modern-day genocide celebrating Turk fascists. Armenians are at fault for letting racist a**holes like Cenk Uigur get away with such a name for a “harmless TV program” – his intentions are all too obvious – to downplay the true meaning of ‘Young Turk’. He could have easily named the program something like ‘Modern Turks’. And fools like you aid and abet these terrorists, and anyone supporting this TV show is a vile fascist supporter of Turkish terrorism.

  6. Wow, it must have been really painful for the pseudo-writer here to be schooled so badly at making actual sense by viewers of Cenk Uygur under her sorry rant, so that she had to come back under a fake name to swear at them. Nothing further to be said. Wow, talk about embarrassment.

  7. 1. “Young Turks” are known as “up and coming go-getters; the next generation” to millions upon millions more people than relate those words to a WW1 tragedy.
    2. While some (if not most) people of Armenian descent might still think of “genocide perpetrators,” very few other people have this as a reference point. See number 1.
    3. The show is not, never has been, nor ever will be aimed at a primarily Turkish audience. It is aimed at a YOUNG audience. “Modern Turks” might be a great name for a sit-com but it doesn’t resonate with the theme of THIS show.
    4. Fuck you for calling Cenk a terrorist. You should be ashamed of yourself.
    5. It’s fairly obvious that you have never watched or listened to the show. Maybe you ought to try doing that so you have some basis in your beliefs rather than wild rambling imaginary conspiricys.
    6. Your “issue” of names and content aren’t WORTH commenting on. They are ridiculous for the reasons stated above and previously. You are making a connection which doesn’t exist.
    7. Have a nice day.

  8. Oops! #8. I see YOU don’t know how to spell Cenk’s name any better than Alana.

    Again, telling…

  9. MedfordTim – Steve – Barney all Turkish clowns trying to justify a neo-nazi name for a tv program. You are all probably the same person, and yet nobody cares, you are just one big loser.

  10. Perry was right, Turkey is a terrorist country hiding behind a “modern” mask. This Chink character is also an agent for them, looks like a damn butcher who’d rather slice up humans than animals.

  11. No wonder the world is in such a mess after reading these comments. There is absolutely no respect or debate in Alana’s blog just swearing and handbags at 50 metres.If I was Alana I would have trashed most of those comments. The post is her opinion and should be addressed as such. Alana a fine piece of work. Take care. Ralph

      1. Alana. You worked hard on that post and whether your views were right or wrong doesn’t matter. What matters is the dignity and respect in making the comments a debate worth working through. That was horrendous what happened in your comments area and really distasteful. If those people are from my country I apologise for them. We are not all the same so I am sorry it happened in your blog. Whether I understand the issues or not I know that you must have put a lot of thought and time into this work and you should be praised for that. Look after yourself and have a nice weekend Alana. Ralph

  12. I’ve been exploring for a little bit for any high quality articles or blog posts in this sort of house . Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this web site. Reading this information So i’m glad to exhibit that I’ve an incredibly good uncanny feeling I found out exactly what I needed. I so much for sure will make sure to do not fail to remember this web site and give it a look on a constant basis.

    1. Alana, can you please check out when Taner Akcam first published his work? I have heard that since looking at Akcam’s published work Uygur has rescinded his previous opinions, which were made when he was a Republican and a young undergrad, so quite a long time ago now. As you maybe aware Ataturk introduced the Latin alphabet to Turkey and this means thatmost modern Turks cannot read the old Ottoman documents. as I know that Taner has been helped in his research by the release of documents over the last few years which proved the genocide – eye witness accounts from very credible sources. The American government has held onto such documents for many many years, and other governments too have failed to release these important pieces of evidence from their archives. Henry Morgenthau the American Ambassador to Turkey at the time of the genocide, provided many eye witness accounts and sent these to America, yet America failed to release them for political reasons. Please remember that TYT was launched in 2002 by which time Uygur had already become a Democrat. As I understand it he had changed his opinion and accepted this as a genocide by then. This coincided with the election of the AKP in Turkey and the road to democracy looked clear in 2002. This was not the case sadly. In 2007 a young Armenian Turkish journalist was assassinated for airing the genocide publicly. The perpetrator of the crime was caught but never prosecuted. After this Uygur started to refer to the issue as massacres again, hedging direct questions.So when the political situation in Turkey was heading towards a proper democracy ie between 2002 and 2007 he did talk of it as genocide. He has family in Turkey and under the current regime their lives would be at risk if he carried on talking about the genocide. The murder of Hrant Dink, the Armenian-Turkish journalist assassinated in 2007, reinforced the danger of talking about this as a genocide in Turkey at that time. Dink once said, “To the Armenians I say, Try to see some honor in the Turks’ position. They say, ‘No, there was no genocide, because genocide is a goddamned thing that my ancestors never could have done.’ And to the Turks I say, Dwell for a moment on what the Armenians are saying and ask yourself why they insist so much.” Are you aware of the I apologise campaign in Turkey and that those who want true democracy in Turkey demonstrate on 24th April every year to demand the Turkish Government admit the genocide and apologise? They believe that this would be the first step in the journey towards democracy in Turkey, a political aim that Uygur shares. Journalist Hasan Cemal, Ahmet Cemal’s grandson (one of the Three Pashas who perpetrated the genocide), is a major voice calling for Turkey to understand what happened to the Armenians. Most Turks’ denial was learned in school as a result of the National Turkish Thesis of Education programme and reinforced by various media emphasizing the treachery of those Armenians who backed the invading Russians, foreign powers’ manipulation of Ottoman minorities, conspiracy, possible loss of territory to “Greater Armenia,” greed for reparations and the dozens of murdered Turkish diplomats killed by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia. Are you also aware that the original Young Turks were not the perpetrators of the genocide – they opposed it and tried to stop it. It was carried out by the Three Pashas who were empowered by their German allies. Last but not least the events that occurred in 1992 at Zhojaly where it is recorded that Armenians massacred Turks is clear evidence of poor relations between the two nations at the time when Uygur held his genocidal denier views. Bias may therefore be somewhat explained by this as these events were used to support the National thesis view of the events of 1915 and on. I am not a fan TYT or Uygur but think the complete historical context should be looked at in order for a fair picture to emerge. Since 2007 Uygyr has indeed hedged the question and talks of massacres rather than genocide, this is understandable given the historical context of the matter. He is after just the host of a commercial channel not a dedicated protester in the name of democracy in Turkey. I personally share the hopes of Hrant Dink that the two peoples will grow more tolerant of each other and understand each others views more readily. When there is true democracy in Turkey the events will be recognised as Genocide I am sure. This is why the “I apologise” campaign has been started among young Turkish democrats who have braved all in their demonstrations and is doubtless why the channel was called TYT in 2002 in memory of the aims of the original Young Turks, the constitutionalists who wanted democracy in Turkey and opposed the reign of terror of the nationalist Three Pashas who hijacked the movement and the democratic aims of the founders of The Young Turks.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s