"We are all Hrant, we are all Armenians," the approximately 100,000 people attending the funeral procession chanted, the slogan echoed on the placards they carried. The slogan was a reaction to the ultranationalist motives behind the killing and an affirmation of ethnic and religious tolerance and solidarity. This has not been without consequence. Already, Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahçeli has voiced his annoyance with these slogans, thinking that it is not appropriate for a Turk to say "I am an Armenian" no matter what the reason.Yeni Şafak's Fehmi Koru directs harsh criticism toward those who are disturbed by these slogans. Koru asserts that one has to be either blind or deaf in order not to see that those slogans did not contain a religious or national message. He explains that everyone's religion or ethnic background is special to him or her and that people cannot change such things all of a sudden. Such slogans do not imply a desire for such a change or transformation. Such slogans imply a message for another change, one for an understanding the "other." Koru asserts that it is really absurd to look for an ulterior motive behind these slogans at a time when we should be ashamed of ourselves. "Those who chanted slogans or carried banners reading 'We are all Hrant, we are all Armenians' did not turn into Armenians or Christians. Some people are even able to infer discrimination from gestures that were made for solidarity," concludes Koru.
Another columnist from Yeni Şafak, Ali Bayramoğlu, is also very critical of those who were disturbed by these slogans. He comments that Turkey has not cried this much for any of its Armenians, it has never been so shaken over the death of an Armenian. Bayramoğlu calls this a "turning point" for Turkey. He claims many Turks harbor a feeling of shame and embarrassment, or at least a feeling of pity, in their hearts. The turning point, he says, is the soul-searching here, but the most important thing is the social reaction to a man's unjust killing and the radical nationalism and racism behind it. Bayramoğlu urges that these slogans should be considered in this respect. He harshly criticizes those who derided the reactions to Dink's death as "Hrantmania." "This is completely immoral. This is a mentality that values a human being not because he is a human being but according to his ethnic or religious identity," he asserts.
Vatan's Okay Gönensin shares the same view in that some people just reacted to these slogans instead of pondering the messages they contain. He accuses such people of lacking confidence. "Only those who are suspicious of their Turkishness, who are suspicious of the honor of being a Turkish citizen, could be disturbed by these slogans. As a matter of fact, the champions of street nationalism were disturbed," he explains.
Milli Gazete's Zeki Ceyhan is at odds with the other columnists and feels that the reactions expressed during Dink's funeral were exaggerated. He suggests that the people chanting these slogans did not consider the possible outcome of their remarks and characterizes such slogans as "foolish." Ceyhan thinks Dink's funeral was a good opportunity to get to know some people better. "Who is who was revealed," he says.
