Was he really all that great? Did he realy save constantonaple from the dirty hellens and create Turkey or is he just a cool guy.
Printable View
Was he really all that great? Did he realy save constantonaple from the dirty hellens and create Turkey or is he just a cool guy.
It's nice to hear that you show interest in Ataturk but it would be more appropriate if you could edit your first post and find something more suitable instead of "dirty hellens". Hellenes and BP are surely to be wandering around, and that definition even irritates me, mate. Please let's try to keep the place informative rather than argumentative. Thanks :bow:
Well, you'll find a lot of historical info on the web about Ataturk. So I'll personally try a brief one..
Istanbul was not saved through any real battles there, it was the result of the victory of Turkish War of Independence. He was so confident of his nation that he reacted the invasion of Istanbul with this quote : "They'll leave the way they came here". So did they.
He was a great commander who proved out his military genius in Canakkale defence of WWI against Anzac, British and French forces and through whole War of Independence provided the enthusiasm and talent of his comrades and soldiers.
However he did build a new state indeed, paying off his rebellion as being sentenced to arrest by the Ottoman government, that was under the noose of the Allies. He raised a new government based on nationalistic fundamentals rather than the religious ones. Such basis is essential in the political concept of "building a state". So he can not be accused of what way he chose -something generally shown as a flaw, by people against him today.
He was a true revolutionist, what's more a succesful one. What he built today still stands on strong feet. He was the one to be writing the geometry book to be taught in schools after Turkey's foundation while he was the one showing women respect and believing in their vital and active contribution to the society, giving them the right to elect and vote in republic's very early years. Turkey owes its quasi-Western position where mullahs can not rule to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.
Here are some links yielding historical information about him. I tried to choose some foreign sources as long as I was able to find in order to create a clearer idea about him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk
http://www.ataturk.com/
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/tsa/ata/halman.html
http://www.mrdowling.com/608-ataturk.html
http://lexicorient.com/cgi-bin/eo-di....o/ataturk.htm
Hope that helps.
I'll stay with the positives (don't wanna LEN to whack me for pointing out the very nasty part in the man's character and doings).
He did singlehandedly create a "Turkish nation".
He did create a state for the Turks and a much larger than what the Entente had planned for the offspring of the Ottomans
He did lay the foundations for the (extremely effective) international policy of Turkey
He did start the process of bringing the ex-ottoman state into the 20th century. A particularly admirable feat.
Well, he does deserve the "Great Turk" (Father of Turks is more appropriate) label.
I'd like to hear, RosaRedux.Quote:
I'll stay with the positives (don't wanna LEN to whack me for pointing out the very nasty part in the man's character and doings).
For the time beeing, let's stick to the positives and let the discussion evolve. After that, we may discuss the negatives, in a civilized manner of course ~D
intresting.
He is also responsible for the introduction of the Latin alphabet to Turkish, rather than Arabic, if I'm not mistaken.
Yep. That was a booster in how many people were able to write and read.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
Is Arabic really that hard to learn?Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
For Turks it is. :laugh4:
Personally I dislike the guy and the attention he gets. He wasn't even born in Turkey. He is an Ottoman from Thessalonica. Isn't there a dispute over his ancestry?
Ok, I'de rather it had remained the Ottoman Empire and developed into a constitutional monarchy like England. Turkey has a lot of traditions I admire, but the ultra-nationalism and modernism that Ataturk started sickens me.
I would argue (and believe me, I never thought I'd defend Kemal but... life is full of surprises...) that the Ottoman tradition was too deep rooted in the multinational society that was the predesessor for modern Turkey to be removed by half-cooked attempts and semi-effective measures. He did the only thing he know would work: introduce a full-fledged nationalism, one that was fitting with the international environment (at least the side of it that produced the Italian, German, Japanese neo-ultra-nationalism) and one that would leave no opportunity for the old Ottoman tradition to survive. A radical approach, nevertheless, but it's not his fault that it survives up to day and in most instances even enhanced. It's the fault of the subsequent generations of Turkish politicians and especially the Army that were unable to understand how times have changed and how what was a great idea in the 20s is a living relic in the 2000s.
Kemal was fixed on modernizing his states and under that light the current citizen of Turkey should be eternal gratefull to him. He had several shortcomings, as I said, and I think we'll have the opportunity to talk about those too.
I believe he wanted Turkey to compete in the modern world and rightly realised that the Latin alphabet was needed to help Turkey develope in industrialization and government.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
He also banned the Fez, as he saw it as a sign of backwardness. :book:
Selanik (=Thessalonica) had a serious Turkish population by the year he was born there. It was quite time since Greece was conquered by 1881, and you know Selanik is located in the north eastern part of Greece hence making it a good place for Turkmen emmigrants to settle down in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
His father Ali Rıza Efendi is from Söke, Aydın -where I am born and is the homeland of a lot of yörüks, nomad Turkmen tribes, all of them having green or blue eyes contradicted to the general Turkish look. His mother Zübeyde Hanım is from Konya, and that is the central part of Anatolia. He has major Turkish ancestry for sure.
It is from a different branch of languages, has quite difficult grammatical structure making it the most powerful language on the planet while doubling its complexity.Quote:
Is Arabic really that hard to learn?
Edit:
Can you admit Greece is as nationalistic as Turkey ? One simple question.. Personally I think so and that's where harsh conflicts here and anywhere else is yielded.Quote:
Turkey has a lot of traditions I admire, but the ultra-nationalism and modernism that Ataturk started sickens me.
LEN, could we please drop the Greece vs Turkey thing from this discussion? Kemal is an interesting personality and one that could spark a nice debate, no need to start the "we are better than you" crap that surfaces in every such topic.
I didn't want to imlpy that Turkish and Arabic are related, I know they are not. I hear both languages often enough to notice the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
But I meant, can't you use Arabic letter in other languages, like the Latin alphabet? I mean it is after all phonetic.
Of course, if it was in Arabic both as in letters and language, then I understand the conversion as it makes little sense to write differently from how you speak.
Didn't he also modify the Ottoman turkish language a bit, I think he did, removing some persian and arabic words and replacing them with turkish ones. I'm not really sure about this though.
As for introducing the latin alphabet, I think it was for "westernizing" the country, not having an easier alphabet. Anyway, didn't he also enforce "western" dress?
Done, my pleasure. :bow: Since BP revealed about such points, I tried to reach an agreement, not to start an argument that's never gonna end. Well, nevermind that question then please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux
You told it yourself, it's after all phonetic and Arabic does not suit Turkish phonetics. You are surely aware that you can use the letters of any alphabet to speak your language however it surely does limit or make it harder to speak your own words. Arabic has so complex notations that a word is written differently when it is at the beginning or in the middle or at the end of the sentence -if I'm not mistaken of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Randarkmaan, the modernized alphabet served both purposes. Our calendar and other measurement means were modernized in Western way so that Turkey could adopt the world outside as well.
:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
I'm not very well versen in the Arabic alphabet, so I won't comment on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
But with the Latin alphabet, pretty much every language adapts it to it's form. For instance the word 'chance' is pronounced in Danish 'sjangse', in French 'syaangs' and in English 'tjans'. Get what I mean?
In any case it doesn't seem that is possible because of the conventions with Arabic (uncorruptable ect ect). I just applied what I thought was a global ability of phonetic alphabets.
Oh, yeah, forgot about that. That seems a little silly to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
No, that's wrong. The words aren't modified by their position in the sentence, but the letters in the words are. I don't think the change to the latin alphabet was done due to convenience (or at least this wasn't the main reason), it was more of a stage in the westernization process.Quote:
Arabic has so complex notations that a word is written differently when it is at the beginning or in the middle or at the end of the sentence -if I'm not mistaken of course.
After all, arabic has served many different languages and most large groups of its users have modified it a bit to suit their needs. Ottoman turkish did that as well, AFAIK.
In the end, it's all about how accustomed one is to each system. I 'm sure children who learn arabic won't be needing much more time to memorize the 3 forms of each letter (some of them have only one tho, I think they 're 6 out of 28), and no small case letters as well. I remember that a couple of years ago I had learned most of the letters over the course of something less than a week, using a system similar to this one, I 've heard it's quite popular lately (shows only the basic forms):
https://img239.imageshack.us/img239/...bjad0ao.th.jpg
And japanese kids do learn 2 different alphabets of 48 letters each (similar to a significant degree tho), apart from the kanji/ideograms.
Maybe Turkey lost some of that "exotic" feeling along with the abolition of the arabic alphabet. OTOH that made the language much easier for westerners to learn, getting down straight to grammar, syntax and vocabulary.
Modern Turkish language still includes a lot of Ottoman words, the "purification" was mostly about the alphabet, not the language itself. And this contributes to the language's richness a lot, at least I have no problem with Farssi and Arabic-origin words we still use today in Turkish.
L'Impresario, thanks for correction. :bow:
Talking about purification, wasn't ataturk rather good at that too?Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
..meaning ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Romanus
Sorry I don't really no much about the man, but uh... wasn't he a genoecidal maniac?
LOL a genocidal maniac? Nah, not really... He didn't have to do much, most of the "dirty work" has been done already by Enver & gang (Armenian genocide) and the stupidity of the Greek leadership (that brought the destruction of the Greeks in Asia Minor) dealed with the "Greek issue" as well (with the mutual population exchange).
But Kemal was fixed on creating a "Turkish Nation" and he did initiate a series of ethnic cleansing campaigns, mostly aiming at asimilating the 100s (literaly) of different ethnic groups residing in the lands of the young "Turkish republic" into one 'Turkish nation'. Most assimilated, but those that didn't (Pontic Greeks, Kurds, for instance) were subject to more... drastic measures. I wouldn't call it "genocide", but it was ethnic cleansing for sure. So,yes, he was "good at purification" as Romanus puts it... before Kemal only the young Turks spoke about 'a Turkish nation'. With Kemal, there actually a Turkish nation was created. Downside is that it had to absorb every other nation living inside the once Ottoman land of Asia Minor...
He wasn't an angel, that's a given, but he wasn't "a genocidal maniac" either... just a ruthless, extremely intelligent, very fixed on realpolitik nationalist leader.