Let's try and get 1,000,000 replies to this post
- Thread starter The Ancient Mariner
- Start date
Moon Child
Ancient Mariner
He is the king of all the land, in the kingdom of the sands of a time tomorrow.
A number of things that you did not mention. But let's roll this up:
There's little I can bring up against that, that was no doubt the case.
I have indeed studied the Treaty of Sèvres intensively, and can only admit that it was an incredibly imperialist and even racist act towards the Turks.
Pars pro toto, I'll get into history a bit here. No doubt the war was a matter of honour and integrity for the Turks, but have you ever tried to look at it from the perspective of the opponents the Turks were fighting at the moment? Just as the Turks were humiliated by the course of the First World War and the Treaty of Sèvres, the Greeks still felt humiliated by the centuries of Ottoman rule and the loss of territories that had belonged to them. The Armenians had never known such a thing as national independence in modern times. I understand that to the Turks fighting against them, the Armenians were traitors because they allied with foreign powers to fight against what in the eyes of the Turks was their own country. But they didn't fare particularly well towards the end of Ottoman rule, and in the end you will ally with anyone who promises you what you want.
But I'm not going to fall into the cliché of an European do-gooder and argue against Atatürk on the grounds of his politics towards the Greeks, Armenians and Kurds. I am sure you have heard it all, and that you are tired of it.
What happened in Turkey in the 20s and 30s in terms of modernisation is indeed quite impressive. It is certainly the merit of Atatürk and his surroundings that he managed to use the scant resources available to him to maximum efficiency. In the wars, he has proved himself a capable military commander - perhaps the only one at Ottoman and Turkish disposal. I will not doubt that it is an impressive trait to successfully transfer your military abilities to domestic measures.
I think it is a cliché predominant among intellectuals in many Muslim countries that it was strict religiosity and traditionalism that kept them from advancing. The Ottoman Empire was crippled by a decline that had begun two centuries before the First World War, when it was still a relatively modern state that more or less kept up with the developments in Europe. I think that many factors contributed to the initiation of this decline and its steady process, including the hostilities between Ottomans and Europeans, the overstretching of Ottoman resources, the almost constant state of war against Austria, Russia and Persia, and the immense heterogenity of the Ottoman realm. Just how are you going to keep an empire together that is so diverse enough to include metropolitan areas like Istanbul, isolated rural regions like the mountains of Kurdistan, intensely irrigated Mesopotamia and the pastoral Balkans? All that spread between Algeria, Yemen, the Caucasus and the Puszta? It's bound to fail.
Naturally, the regressive nature of the Ottoman Sultanate did not help the situation very much, and an emperor who prefers to donate to Mecca instead of taking care of imperial infrastructures does not have his priorities straight. I'm not saying religion did not play a role, but it was far from being the only one. I think the main reason for Ottoman decline were the closed doors towards Europe that prevented the Ottomans from catching up with industrialisation. When the sultans did see that they had to do something to modernise their country, it was obvious that the Europeans would only share their secrets for a high price. But did that make the Ottomans puppets of the West? If yes, then how do you explain the costly wars against Austria and Russia, or the terrible choice of alliances in the First World War?
This is one of my biggest beefs with him. I don't call it a "modernized fashion", because it was really a nationalistic fashion in a time when he could already have known it better. Historical research is worthless if it is done under an ideological banner, whether you call it "modernistic", "nationalistic", "Kemalistic" or "Turanistic". I know that Turkey is far from being the first or only country to have historical and cultural studies undertaken under the premise of nationalism, but that does not make it good or correct. I have witnessed Turkish students trying to interpret virtually everything of importance in cultural history as something inherently Turkish. The proof, if existent, is usually outrageous, such as a passing resemblance in Turkish and Celtic grammar that any serious scholar can prove to be coincidental. Again, this is not a purely Turkish thing - Iranians love to do things like that as well - but it is not necessary. The science and scholarship introduced under Atatürk was already outdated, almost old baggage that European universities were glad to drop off.
And here, "modern" means "Western". I find it ironic that you call out western influence when you don't like it, but don't lose a word of it when you consider it "modern". Of course you can say that introducing "modern" clothing is a good thing, but it went hand in hand with banning the fez and the veil, which stands in stark contrast to what you said about people being able to choose their own religion. I know the intention Atatürk had with it was good, in the sense of abolishing old and regressive traditions that in his eyes crippled the country, but I find that banning something is not the optimal solution, and certainly not the democratic one.
As for the alphabet, I wonder if it really did more good than harm. Introducing the Latin alphabet was really just the most visible aspect of a radical and unnatural language policy. The Turkish language was "pruned" of all words and sounds that were deemed "un-Turkish". Arabic and Persian words were replaced by ones that were perceived to be inherently Turkish, and taken from a study of ancient and contemporary Turkish languages spoken in Central Asia. Phonems such as the qaf and gheyn were abolished completely, and the Arabic script was banned. The essential consequence was that any text written prior to the age of the Turkish Republic gradually became unreadable and unintelligible to anyone but scholars specifically educated in reading them. The Turks lost access to the sources of their own history. Have you ever wondered if those Ottoman manuscript may say something other than what you were told? How are you going to find out?
So I'm not going to say that Atatürk did not do a lot of good stuff for your country, but I think that many of those policies related to culture and education were wrong (plus others which I said in the beginning I won't get into). One of the most pivotal necessities of a civilised country is self-reflection. A country needs to be able to look at itself critically, look at its past and re-evaluate its own perceptions of triumphs and wrong-doings from time to time. In a democracy, this is the duty of any educated citizen, no matter what he is trained for. History needs to be read critically and evaluated critically. An official version should never be believed until you have other, independent sources that confirm this picture.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
I doubt it. In Turkey there has been too much silence and silencing about these atrocious crimes. Blinding many Turks in the process. With so many blood on his hands, the rest is of inferior value. Unless one really does not care shit about humanity.
Since Flash said he's talked to other foreigners about Atatürk, I am sure this point has been addressed. I'm not saying it is not important to me, but I want Flash to see that I take him and his political opinions seriously before I ask him about touchy subjects such as these.
I apologise if you took offence at that. I was only pointing out two examples directly related to the Turkish War of Independence, in which Bulgaria to my knowledge did not play a major part, although I admit that my knowledge is incomplete. I hope you don't interpret this as disrespect towards the Bulgarians.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Alright. Point taken. And my last sentence was a bit over the top perhaps. Let's say that I agree fully that people should be able to criticize their own country('s history) as you described.
I am sure she doesn't!
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
So basically, Perun, you only disagree with his policies against Greek-Kurdish-Armenian people and his policies on education and cultural research ?
The reason why I revile against West is the political reasons and the reason why I consider them modern is that they were miles better than Ottoman Empire at technology and science. The modernization in clothing has certainly helped Turkish people, not by erasing their traditional clothing styles but to be a part of modern fashion style.
Since I consider Arabic influence and Islamic influence the main enemy of the Turkish progress as a nation, dissing off those influences to come up with a fresh, Western way mixed with traditional Turkish influences is totally fine with me. Ottoman Empire's fall started as soon as Selim I conquered the hejaz and became the caliphate. But in regards to researching the history, I think you're overstating. Not every Arabic influence was banished. In fact, we have so many Arabic, Persian words in our language today. Probably even more than pure Turkish ones. About educational system, the whole thing was brand new. It's was impossible to come up with a perfect educational system due to lack of technology but it was a bright start to it, again, shame, we couldn't keep up.
In Turkey we do hear about those things against Greek-Kurdish-Armenians or Bulgarians or whatever you want to add. We talk about them, we research about them. There has been so many misconceptions, lies about this matter. It's known that Armenians tortured Turkish people around "made-up genocide" era. It's known that Greeks and Armenians killed thousands of Turks in accordance to Wilson's Fourteen Points, to be able to create governments on places they had more population.
The reason why I revile against West is the political reasons and the reason why I consider them modern is that they were miles better than Ottoman Empire at technology and science. The modernization in clothing has certainly helped Turkish people, not by erasing their traditional clothing styles but to be a part of modern fashion style.
Since I consider Arabic influence and Islamic influence the main enemy of the Turkish progress as a nation, dissing off those influences to come up with a fresh, Western way mixed with traditional Turkish influences is totally fine with me. Ottoman Empire's fall started as soon as Selim I conquered the hejaz and became the caliphate. But in regards to researching the history, I think you're overstating. Not every Arabic influence was banished. In fact, we have so many Arabic, Persian words in our language today. Probably even more than pure Turkish ones. About educational system, the whole thing was brand new. It's was impossible to come up with a perfect educational system due to lack of technology but it was a bright start to it, again, shame, we couldn't keep up.
In Turkey we do hear about those things against Greek-Kurdish-Armenians or Bulgarians or whatever you want to add. We talk about them, we research about them. There has been so many misconceptions, lies about this matter. It's known that Armenians tortured Turkish people around "made-up genocide" era. It's known that Greeks and Armenians killed thousands of Turks in accordance to Wilson's Fourteen Points, to be able to create governments on places they had more population.
Ariana
Black-and-white leopard
Oh no, I wasn't offended.
I was merely referring to a broader time frame, not just the beginning of the 20th century. Maybe I reacted a bit hastily.
My home town is situated very close to the Bulgarian-Greek border and it remained under Turkish rule until the Balkan War in 1912, a long time after the rest of Bulgaria declared independence. The people there were severely punished by the Turks because of that. I'm sure I'm very biased here, so I'll try to stay out of this.
I was merely referring to a broader time frame, not just the beginning of the 20th century. Maybe I reacted a bit hastily.
My home town is situated very close to the Bulgarian-Greek border and it remained under Turkish rule until the Balkan War in 1912, a long time after the rest of Bulgaria declared independence. The people there were severely punished by the Turks because of that. I'm sure I'm very biased here, so I'll try to stay out of this.
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
Greeks, Armenians were emboldened by imperialist countries in their hopes to have their respective government. Greeks and Armenians were puppets. I don't blame those nations for the things that occured, I blame the big brothers.
By no means I'm defending Ottoman Empire's policies, I'm only defending Atatürk's policies.
By no means I'm defending Ottoman Empire's policies, I'm only defending Atatürk's policies.
"Only" is quite a statement. I think those are major issues.
From the points you raise, I see that we have a very asymmetric interpretation of your country and its history. Basically, the way I see it is that you have a very Turk-o-centric view, which is obvious. You are being educated in Turkey and you naturally have primary access to indigenous studies of your history. Now I'm not going to blame you for this, but I would really like to ask you to broaden your view. You say that there have been many lies. Now, who told you they were lies? What makes you so sure that others lie about your country, but those in your countries don't lie to you? Would you be ready to read an English, French, German or American book on Turkish history without preconceiving that it tells you misconceptions or lies about your countries? Would you be ready to accept the possibility that it may tell you the truth?
Oh no, I wasn't offended.
I was merely referring to a broader time frame, not just the beginning of the 20th century. Maybe I reacted a bit hastily.
My home town is situated very close to the Bulgarian-Greek border and it remained under Turkish rule until the Balkan War in 1912, a long time after the rest of Bulgaria declared independence. The people there were severely punished by the Turks because of that. I'm sure I'm very biased here, so I'll try to stay out of this.
No, I would actually like to hear your opinions on this matter. We have a Turk here who knows history based on what he is being told in Turkey; a German who knows history based on what he is told in Germany and countries of the Western world; I think you could offer us a very interesting third perspective, coming from a country that is associated with Turkish history, but is not Turkey itself.
And to Serbians too. Also, to pretty much all nations that lived in Balkans.
Dude, you're really shining tonight
I agree with everything you said on this subject so far 
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
I'm trying to read stuff from other countries that deal with Turkish history, yes. I'm not totally basing my opinions what I learn here in Turkey, most of the time I'm using my senses. We all know there are so many misconceptions in history itself, knowledge can be subjective since it's a prime chance to manipulate people with.
I don't believe in everything they teach me here. For example, they talk about Ottoman Empire in a honorable way almost every time. I don't. They say Suleiman I was a great leader who spent his time on wars. I say he's the reason why Ottoman Empire fell apart since he didn't care about geographic explorations, Renaissance and enlightenment of Europe, broadened the Empire way too much (in efforts to spread Islam, which takes us back to the point I made before, the effects of Islam to Turks) and made awful decisions in the economical department, giving capitulations to France etc. There's so many examples like that I can't even list them all. So, no, I don't represent the general Turkish view and I'm open to any proof and opinion.
And you need to consider that your opinions are also biased like mine, especially those whose fathers lived under Turkish rule.
I don't believe in everything they teach me here. For example, they talk about Ottoman Empire in a honorable way almost every time. I don't. They say Suleiman I was a great leader who spent his time on wars. I say he's the reason why Ottoman Empire fell apart since he didn't care about geographic explorations, Renaissance and enlightenment of Europe, broadened the Empire way too much (in efforts to spread Islam, which takes us back to the point I made before, the effects of Islam to Turks) and made awful decisions in the economical department, giving capitulations to France etc. There's so many examples like that I can't even list them all. So, no, I don't represent the general Turkish view and I'm open to any proof and opinion.
And you need to consider that your opinions are also biased like mine, especially those whose fathers lived under Turkish rule.
Ariana
Black-and-white leopard
I already said I'm biased, that's why I don't want to discuss the topic.
I am taking that into consideration, and I know that I can't be entirely objective. Admittedly, my opinions are not based on the créme of sources, only on what I've been taught in courses at the university, basic scholarly literature on those matters, and various conversations with people from Turkey and its neighbouring countries; although I would like to point out that I have spoken to Kemalists, Islamists, Kurds and Greeks alike, and took note of their differing opinions. But of course, I have not had any education on the subject in Turkish schools or read Turkish textbooks, so my knowledge is incomplete.
Still, I have a degree in history and oriental studies. They didn't just give that to me because I have a lovely smile, but because I have received a long and thorough education as an historian, and have been trained to work with sources and evaluate them critically. I have been taught to not just believe everything I find written in a German or American textbook or newspaper article, but the same way, I have been taught to be cautious in using primary sources from the area - any area - I am studying. So while I fully appreciate that my opinions are subjective - and they always are, because that's what make them opinions - I still like to think of them as well-founded because I have been very scrupulous in my use of the source material.