Istanbul
for public and academic audiences alike, also promoted voluntaristic na-
tionhood and used the widely prevalent term “tribe” to denote ethnicity,
common descent and history, and communal and group consciousness,
although in a positive sense. Such pockets of tribal communities, how-
ever, became a thorn in the side of nationalists who could not tolerate
plurality, and for whom such differences stood in the way of national
unity, which demanded the forfeiting of tribal identities and loyalties.
To overcome their objections, people like Lazarus and Yalman argued
that nations are not given or objective, but made and subjective, created
by those, even diverse tribes, who consciously and voluntarily help build
them.^73 For Lazarus, German Jews had proven themselves on the battle-
field, served in parliament, in the judiciary, hospitals, and universities.
For Yalman, the Dönme had also served the nation at a crucial juncture
in its formation.
One is tempted to argue that rather than promoting strategies of as-
similation or dissolution, Rüştü and Yalman wanted to be seen opposing
Dönme separatism, when in fact they were adopting false personas, masks
of secularism, the appearance of disappearance, in order to hide their true
identities, maintaining their duplicity to protect the community. Rüştü’s
early declaration that “When people told me I was a Jew, I took it as a
painful insult, sharp as a knife. Thankfully, the Turkish Republic has been
established. The time is ripe. That is why I openly declared myself a Mus-
lim” can be interpreted in this fashion.^74 So can his final public assertions
that all Dönme had completely assimilated. Secret adherence to Dönme
customs could be immediately disavowed when necessary. Promoting the
separation of religion and state could theoretically free minority groups
from being hindered in their religious practices, as a tactic to create more
freedom of religion in the private sphere.
Turkey maintained distinctions between groups in order to perpetuate
the rule of one group. Where groups found themselves in the position of
minorities, they had to explain who they were. If they kept their ethno-
religious identities, they might have negated their welcome in the new
state, but they may not have wanted to or could not abandon their iden-
tity, accept an ambivalent position in a new national civil society, or com-
pletely disappear.^75 For a group that was “not fully accepted by the Turks
[Muslims] and rejected by the Jews,”^76 it may have been most tempting to
maintain Dönme identity. Yet how could Dönme maintain a separate cul-
ture while incorporated into a nation whose defining characteristics were