Crescent and Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds

Stephen Kinzer’s rambling walk through the saga of modern Turkey will delight the ordinary reader with an interest in this ‘bridge nation’, while occasionally distressing the historian.The dedication of this revised version (‘To the People of Turkey’) signals that Kinzer writes 51aed7hll-_sx331_bo1204203200_from the heart and with affection rather than from the discipline and precision one expects of the historian. This is not a criticism of Kinzer’s formidable work but rather an attempt to define its genre. Those who came to Kinzer’s writing—as this reviewer did—through his superb treatment of the Nicaraguan conflicts (The Blood of Brothers) will anticipate the bent of Kinzer’s method.Kinzer, the erstwhile Istanbul Bureau Chief of the New York Times, does not hold back his own views and even prescriptions for the nation that has become his subject. The book’s earliest pages telegraph this. Published in 2008, the book’s introduction observes that ‘(A) new regime has emerged in Turkey that is likely to govern for years to come. This is good, because this regime draws its strength from the people’s will, but it is also disturbing.’ The first chapter’s opening line introduces us to a personal preference: ‘My favorite word in Turkish is istiklal.’This is not a bad thing, for Turkey and ‘the Turk’ have been referents of oddness and even incarnate evil for Westerners since Medieval times. A Western writer who can be forthrightly described as turkophile is well placed to be a sympathetic and even accurate guide into this unfamiliar people and its complicated composition. For Western observers—as for the Turks themselves—ambiguities abound: Is Turkey a Middle Eastern country? Or is it European? Is Turkey Muslim? Or secular? Is the nation comprised of a single ethnicity that represents turkishness? Or is Turkey a composite state with large and venerable minorities whose adherence to the national mythology is tenuous?Kinzer’s introduction of many of Turkey’s hard-wired enigmas is often channeled through a conversation with one friend or another. This adds an appealing personal hook for the non-expert reader (a group to which this reviewer manifestly belongs). The author effectively personalizes issues that are difficult to grasp in the abstract.One emerges from Crescent and Star impressed with several facets of Turkey’s challenges and opportunities that are not independently unique, but that—in combination—profile Turkey as an exceptional nation.First, one senses that events of the 20th and 21st century have left Turkey a conflicted nation. The coming to terms with its past has been uneven, leaving the Turks deeply divided as to the answers to difficult questions and even to the degree to which those questions can be permitted consideration. For example, what exactly happened to the Armenians? What would Turkey’s heroic paterfamilias, Ataturk, think of Turkey’s governing Islamic party?Second, Turkey oscillates between a xenophobia that was for generations practically prescribed and a longing to join and be respected among the community of nations. A deeply existential variation of this theme turns on the place in the world outside of Turkey’s boundaries in which the nation most naturally belongs. Is it the complex of Muslim nations in its neighborhood? Or is Turkey’s belonging place rather the frustrating and often humiliating European family?Third, who are the appropriate custodians of Turkey’s identity and well-being? Is it the generals, who have stepped in ‘to restore order’ so often as to constitute in some minds a backstop against political and cultural experimentation gone wrong? Or is it the Turkish people more generally, their will channeled through democratic process? Or ought trust in the guidance of Islamic centers of guidance be the nation’s modus operandi, no matter how ‘undemocratic’ this option might turn out to be?Fourth, what is to be expected of Turkey’s minorities, preeminently the Kurds? Can a stateless people whose population straddles multiple nations in the region be entrusted with the challenge of becoming one component of a Turkish state? Or is independence—and therefore separation from and rebellion against the Turkish state—an irremediable instinct that must be suppressed? And who gets to say? Kurds or non-Kurds? And if Kurds, which ones?The mere partial enumeration of these questions shines a light on the appropriateness of the book’s subtitle: Turkey Between Two Worlds. The phrase is patient of more than one application.Turkey emerges from Kinzer’s wide-ranging description as a country between. As I write this review eight years after the publication of Crescent and Star’s 2008 revision of a 2001 original, news of a failed coup and the suppression of dissent with which it has been met have barely faded from the front pages. A 2nd revision would doubtless add even further texture and color to the nation’s between-ness.But Stephen Kinzer has moved on to other things, and it would would be too much to ask of him a life-long chronicling of Turkey’s wrestlings with its betweens.What he has given us is an impressionistic portrait of a nation that can confuse, but can also be loved, a people that is in the midst of drafting its own future, a state that must decide the purpose toward which it governs, a place and a people of disturbing beauty.

Before saying anything else, you should know that this is an excellent book: five stars. It's not a typical politics book, but more of an ex-New York Times Istanbul Bureau Chief's personal quest to come to terms with modern day Turkey. There are about ten chapters with short "meze" observations in between each chapter. ("meze" is the Turkish term for "appetizer") Each chapter covers a topic, such as the Kurdish problem, the military, religion, Armenians, the foundation of modern Turkey, etc.Unfortunately, and I have a hard time saying this because I don't want to give the impression that the book is anything but excellent, but from the very beginning I suspected that Kinzer's book was overly biased in favor of the current Erdogan administration, perhaps because of the author's love of the Turkish people and country, perhaps because of his subconscious desire to maintain journalistic access to Turkish leaders. I frequently found myself wondering what he was not telling the reader. Kinzer clearly makes the case that Erdogan has been good for Turkey, but many have also had serious reservations.The book is extremely engaging and well written. The author's own observations based on interviewing and following the key figures in Turkish politics are on target, spot-on. I started reading this book while on vacation in Turkey and frequently found the book explaining to the core things I had observed.Only in the very last chapter did Kinzer addresses the concerning Islamic leanings of the Erdogan administration. These concerns are now more important in light of the Gaza flotilla and Erdogan's repudiation of the Israeli Prime Minister at a big international meeting. These events happened after Kinzer updated his book (originally written 2001, substantially revised and updated 2008), but were clearly on the minds of everyone involved when the book was written.

As Turkey seems to veer ever closer to becoming an Islamist state with a strongman in charge, I wonder if author Stephen Kinzer would wish to revisit his thesis in this 2001 book, revised 2008, that Recep Tayyip Erdogan's accession to power over the past dozen or fifteen years represents a long-delayed flowering of democracy in a moribund oligarchy. Kinzer's book accurately portrays the current tensions in Turkey between Kemalists and Erdoganists (for lack of a better word for the AKP and its supporters), but I often found his descriptions of the former veering toward caricature and the latter tending toward hagiography. (You can't get far into the book without knowing where Kinzer's sympathies lie.) The truth is that both points of view have some validity, and there are conscientious voices on both sides. Kinzer's book is an accessible general guide to modern Turkey's problems (albeit with only six years since its revision it seems a bit dated, especially given Erdogan's recent election to the Presidency), and gives enough history and perspective that the general reader can better appreciate what he reads in the newspapers. The book also has many charming and illuminating anecdotes from Kinzer's many years of exploring Turkey - and those made me envious, as I have greatly enjoyed my two brief visits to Turkey, and have always wished I could spend more time there.

The author explores several issues of contemporary Turkish history - Atatürk's reforms, the Armenian genocide, the Kurdish question, the role of the military, etc. He writes in a highly readable and informative style. But it is good to keep in mind that he is not a historian, but rather a journalist. That is reflected in the fact that there are some inaccuracies about his references to older history. But its most obvious consequence is that the book is not at all nuanced in its description of what is happening and what according to the author "ought" to happen in Turkey. The author has his own clear opinions on what is right and wrong for Turkey and the Turks and he never hides these. I would say: The book is definitely a good and informative read, but you should keep a critical spirit while reading it.

Another very interesting book by this author. Great read

Dieses Buch wird jeden erfreuen, der eine profunde Analyse der modernen Türkei sucht. Der Autor ist amerikanischer Journalist und als Korrespondent nach Istanbul gekommen. Dort hat er einige Jahre verbracht und sich dabei ein Bild der Türkei gebildet. Grundsätzlich sieht Kinzer ein Defizit an echter Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit, weil zum einen Militärs und Bürokraten, zum anderen Politiker und einflussreiche Kreise kein Interesse an einer echten Öffnung des Landes für Demokratie haben.Gleichwohl ist Kinzer der Meinung, dass die Türkei ein Modellstaat für Demokratie, Menschenrechte und einen modernen Islam werden könnte. Er sieht das Land sogar auf einem guten Weg dorthin. Nichtsdestotrotz kommt die Türkei nicht aus dem Griff der sozialen Machtgruppen raus und kämpft sozusagen mit der Modernisierung, die Kemal Atatürk einst durchsetzte und auf den Weg brachte.Seine Betrachtungsweise, dass radikale Demokratisierung und Rechtsstaatlichkeit für einen langanhaltenden Modernisierungsschub ausreichen würden, ist durchaus zu kritisieren. Rund 30 Prozent der Türken leben unterhalb der offiziellen Armutsgrenze und immer mehr soziale Gruppen haben nicht mehr den gleichen Zugang zu Bildung und sozialem Aufstieg. Muslimische Gruppierungen streben nach einer gesellschaftlichen Islamisierung und Aufweichung der Westorientierung des Landes. Der Premierminister Erdogan war gar einst selber Islamist und musste dafür eine Haftstrafe verbüssen. Also, ich teile Stephen Kinzers Meinung nicht. Ich würde aber sagen, dass dieses Buch anregend und konsequent die Probleme und Stärken der modernen Türkei analysiert und jeden einzelnen Stern damit verdient hat.

Both my husband and I found this book interesting and informative. We didn't know much about Turkey before our recent (and wonderful) trip there.