Orhan Kemal writes:
-- "Our language is full of racist remarks."
Every language contains racist remarks, because every nation has racist people. That does not mean that an entire nation is racist, however.
-- "For example, Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party, is called an “Armenian seed” (Ermeni Dölü)."
Ocalan is seen as a traitor, as are Armenians due to the massacred Turks and rebellious activity in WWI to try to create their own state. This expression is not a typical expression, used in daily life. Attempts to relate "Armenian-ness" with Ocalan is not derogatory to Armenians, but is a descriptor of his treason. While it may be difficult for Westerners to understand, the fact that Armenians slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Turks between 1914-1920, gives them a bad name in the same way that the word "Nazi" gives Westerners bad vibes.
-- “Jews are cowards!”
I've never heard this one.
-- “Arabs are back stabbing people”!
I agree with the explanation give by AGH on this one.
-- "I observe that Turkish people who use racist remarks either as a part of their ultranationalist identity or inadvertently, as a part of their protest against the “games of Imperialist” powers in this country, also have a strong sense of being a victim. They are Kunta Kintes, not the white guy who has the whip in his hand! All this anger and hate arises from this feeling of being the victim – a victim of imperialism, a victim of conspiracies! Where does this distorted identity come from? We have never been colonized, never been captured, none of the Turkish states formed on this territory have been broken up by foreign forces ever! On the contrary, the Ottoman Empire once was the most powerful and feared political entity on the planet!"
The Ottomans WERE the most powerful empire, but about 400 years ago. In our most recent history, the Ottoman Empire was crumbling, failing to take care of her own citizens, rife with unreast, and unable to deal with the insurrections within. The Balkans fell to the Slavs and Greeks, causing a huge influx of refugees. The 1912 Balkan wars caused more Turks to flee the area back to Anatolia, and many were massacred as this victorious Slavs strove to ethnically cleanse and Slavify the area. This left only a pocketful of Turks in Bosnia, Albania, Greece and Bulgaria. Mosques were destroyed, evidence of Ottoman history wiped out. In Hungary, a church was built over the memorial of where Sultan Suleyman died. You won't find any remnants of Ottoman architecture, they've been wiped out. Greece denies the very Turkishness of the Western Thracians, who they call "Muslim Greeks." Bulgarian Turks were persecuted in 1980, resulting in another wave of migration to Turkey. On the eastern front, Turks in the Caususes were also driven back, and the plight of the Iraqi Turkmen under Saddam and the Kurdish regime is well-known, at least in Turkey. There is a feeling of loss, of being unable to protect one's own family. And the feeling gets worse because Istanbul was occupied by the British, Western Turkey was overrun by Greece, Southern Turkey occupied by France, and Northeastern Turkey invaded by Russians and Armenians. Were it not for a miracle, the Turkish Indpendence War, the nation would be relegated to Serves, a shadow, a ghost of what Turkey is today. We would not even have Anatolia as a safe haven, and a majority of the Turkish population would be ruled by a foreign power. In the process of all this turmoil, 2.5 MILLION MUSLIMS WERE KILLED (1914-1923). That is a huge loss of life, and we barely saved ourselves from annihilation. So why do we feel like we are victims? BECAUSE WE WERE, BUT THE WEST - WHO CAUSED ALL THIS LOSS AND PAIN - DENY THIS, STILL HATING US FOR BEING MUSLIM AND TURKISH. But we don't forget..

And as far as article 301 is concerned; there are many Turks who feel the law is misapplied. But again this is a voice Orhan Kemal fails to hear.

Orhan Kemal is described by Amnesty International as a "lawyer, human rights defender and newspaper columnist." He should be reminded that furthering human rights is NOT accomplished by gross generalizations and by accussations which clearly reflect that the author has no understanding of the very nation he claims to live in. Human rights is furthered by working WITH fellow citizens to weed out the "bad weeds" - not by claiming the whole field is nothing but weeds.

There may be racists in Turkey, but Orhan Kemal has fallen much below the bar required to prove that Turkey is racist.
I wonder, what does he hope to accomplish by prejudicially labeling an entire nation?

My next comment is to AGH. Your initial rebuttals about the misinformation presented in Orhan Kemal's article is good. But your subsequent "analysis" and derogatory outlook on Orhan Kemal's ethnicity and religion in and of itself only provides an example of racism itself, and you therefore, defeat your own purpose.

AGH wrote: "Orhan Kemal Cengiz, seems to be extremely hateful and racist himself towards Turks in his article, by making assumptions, by fabricating rumors about Turks, and exaggerating Turkish behavior."
Making wrong assumptions and exaggerations is not necessarily a sign of hatred, but one of misconstrued logic. Of trying to mold facts to fit a story. Thus, I understand why AGH would be interested in examining Orhan Kemal's "real intentions." But the fact is that if you go down this path, you will end up only bashing ones person, rather than providing informative counter-arguments to the misinformative statements. In other words, it is a path that leads you to make the same mistakes as Orhan Kemal, and leads you away from scientific, logical analysis.

-- "It seems like his perspective is exactly identical to Armenian writers who create diatribes about Turkish hate and Turkish people to portray them as "evil" or "genocidal maniacs" or "barbarians" all to further push their point of view of the Armenian Genocide."
So what? Let's not mix apples with oranges.

-- "It is indeed possible that Orhan Kemal Cengiz is actually a nickname of an Armenian activist who is trying to push a political and nationalistic agenda that "Turks are inherently evil"."
Sure, it is also possible for aliens to invade earth, but what good is possibilities without proof?

-- "A quick look at other websites, it appears that many others suspect him of being a racist Armenian (not to say that Armenians are racist, they are good people, so please do not assume I am generalizing)..."
Who care's what other people "suspect" - again, don't deviate from facts. The moment you do so, any judgements derived from suspicions only leads to unfounded speculation.
-- "Another group of bloggers also seems to have met him in Turkey, and suspect him of criminal acts."
Again, without facts to back up such statements, this is nothing but mudslinging.
-- "Apparently, he was also involved in being a defense lawyer for Christian missionaries, because of his own Christian Protestant background. Seems there are a lot of dark skeletons in Orhan Kemal Cengiz's closet."
Yes, he is a defense lawer for Protestant Christian organizations. So what? He may have Christian background, and this may affect his perseption of certain issues in Turkey, but I'd hardly call that a "dark skeleton." In fact, refering to one's religion as a dark skeleton is in itself a racist statement.
-- "Conclusion: Orhan Kemal Cengiz is a propagandist, most likely of Armenian descent, and is known to be a Protestant Christian with some deep hatred of Turks and Islam."
You have given no proof that he is a propagandist, is Armenian or Christian. And even if he were, what difference does it make? Reasonable people should reply to the statements in his article, not resort to personal attack. Unless you can prove he is the member of a propaganda organization, these aspects only show his point of view, and cannot be used to discredit his article.
-- "He is giving a bad name to Armenians and to Christians and should not be listened to simply because he has a Turkish name."
Again, irrelevant. Let's stick to facts.

My CONCLUSION: Orhan Kemal's article contains gross generalizations of the Turkish people, misconstrues and exxagerates the statements of individuals, and shows that he has no understanding at all of Turkish history, and very litle of society in general for that matter. The factual aspects of AGH's rebuttal, especially visavis the historical issues, is quite good, but the subsequent remarks about Orhan Kemal as a person are themselves racist and borderline paranoic. Let's stick to facts and positive defense of our nation, rather than repeat the same mistakes of those we criticize.

No where was AGH racist towards ones' religion or beliefs. What we established was the possibilities that one may not have thought about, such as him being an Armenian activist intent on proving the Turks as an 'evil ethnicity'.

There is nothing wrong with being a Christian Protestant, and nothing of that sort was implied by the article. It said that this would explain his sympathy for Armenian propaganda and very obvious attacks on Turks, because he might be a Christian. It is pure speculation, but is backed up by the gross exaggerations made by Orhan. It's a skeleton in his closet because he seems to pretend he is a normal Turk with no unique characteristics and yet he's criticizing Turks and pretending to be self-critical of his own nation, when he is an outside party.

This is a forum article, hence why it is laced with point of view and speculation. The user is welcome to draw his own conclusion. If you're worried about speculation and point-of-view, then you should indeed become a Wikipedian, because wikipedia is filled to the top with speculation.

"In fact, refering to one's religion as a dark skeleton is in itself a racist statement."
It is a dark skeleton in context to the fact that he is promoting hatred against Turkish Muslims. And of course, if we assume all this from an outside perspective, with the idea that he is a Turkish Muslim himself, we would take his word for it. However, if one were to know that he is indeed a Christian, then it is possible for him to be anti-Islamic or anti-Turkish if he identifies himself with some other group. However, why don't you note the many statements said in the article that DISCOURAGE racism and prejudice: "not to say that Armenians are racist, they are good people, so please do not assume I am generalizing".

The article speculated on his background, and the possibility of him having alternative points of view. It is speculation, some may claim unfounded but there is quite a lot of evidence in his initial arguments.

Now you're right that speculation is wrong, but this is a forum, and we are discussing whether he is or he isn't. I will edit the article because of your suggestions and advice.