| FORUM | LIBRARY | ARCHIVE | E-BOOKS |                     | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Taboo of Mustafa Kemal
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Taboo of Mustafa Kemal

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 889
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Taboo of Mustafa Kemal
    Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 14:26
Meanwhile in Turkey...

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk has a statue in EVERY school, EVERY court, EVERY other government building, his picture is in EVERY classroom (even in private ones, it's mandatory), EVERY government office etc. His name is given (directly by government of course) to a school in each district (there are 800+ plus districts and cities exluded). Making critism of him effectively banned with law (Atatürk Protection Law. Act Number: 5816. Accepted: 25/7/1951). AND still people get offended when someone call him as a dictator.

He is the one who disbanded founder assembly of 1920 when war was won in 1923 and replaced them with his marionettes.

Kemal to journalists:
"
Please gentlemen, this is not a monarchy, make our critic."
Three months later:
"Law for the Maintenance of Public Order" - Which effectively silenced all media opposition.
He had a good dark humour LOL

Back to the my main point... If someone has all power within himself we simply call him a dictator. It's a latin word nothing related with good or bad. It is just a description of a form of autority. Of course you can't see that kind things in democracy like Kemal did just slaughtered thousands of people only because they refused wearing hat. And he ordered a warship to bombard my home province for same reason. Just hat... Hat... LOL


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 22 Mar 2012 at 14:41
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4399
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Mar 2012 at 23:58
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:



Back to the my main point... If someone has all power within himself we simply call him a dictator. It's a latin word nothing related with good or bad. It is just a description of a form of autority. Of course you can't see that kind things in democracy like Kemal did just slaughtered thousands of people only because they refused wearing hat. And he ordered a warship to bombard my home province for same reason. Just hat... Hat... LOL


Wha...? Huh!?

Over a hat!

Could you clarify your point please? Confused
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 889
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Mar 2012 at 08:36
Independence Tribunals, established in 1921. Supposedly to jugde whoever escaped from conscription, committed pillaging, spying, stealing army material etc... But in fact they acted as revolutionary courts. Whoever didn't embraced revolution executed. Thousands of people... Kemal banned everything made us Turks. He abolished and banned our writing system, our legal system, our clothes, our music etc...

Quote
Source: Time Magazine (USA), January 9, 1933, page 64:

Squinting skyward last week, Turks looked for the new moon. When they should see it Ramadan would begin. Ramadan the mystic month in which the Koran was revealed to Prophet Mohammed. This year the first glint of the new moon had a special, dread significance. Turks had been ordered by their stern dictator, Mustafa Kemal Pasha who made them drop the veil and the fez (TIME, Feb. 15, 1926 et seq.), that beginning with Ramadan they must no longer call their god by his Arabic name, Allah.


No godly man, Dictator Kemal considers that there is no reason why Turks should not call Allah by his Turkish name Tanri. There is no reason except centuries of tradition, no reason except that Turkish imams (priests) all know the Koran by heart in Arabic while few if any have memorized it in Turkish. Strict to the point of cruelty last week was Dictator Kemal's decree that muezzins, calling the faithful to prayer from the top of Turkey's minarets, must shout not the hallowed "Allah Akbar!" (Arabic for "God is Great!") but the unfamiliar words "Tanri Uludur!" which mean the same thing in Turkish.



Quote
Source: Grey Wolf, Mustafa Kemal: An Intimate Study of a Dictator, H.C. Armstrong, 1933

He was drinking heavily. The drink stimulated him, gave him energy, but increased his irritability. Both in private and public he was sarcastic, brutal and abrupt. He flared up at the least criticism. He cut short all attempts to reason with him. He flew into a passion at the least opposition. He would neither confide in nor co-operate with anyone. When one politician gave him some harmless advice, he roughly told him to get out. When a venerable member of the Cabinet suggested that it was unseemly for Turkish ladies to dance in public, he threw a Koran at him and chased him out of his office with a stick.


Quote
Source: Ataturk, The Rebirth of a Nation, Lord Kinross, 1965, page 437:

For Kemal, Islam and civilization were a contradiction in terms. "If only," he once said of the Turks, with a flash of cynical insight, "we could make them Christians!" His was not to be the reformed Islamic state for which the Faithful were waiting: it was to be a strictly lay state, with a centralized Government as strong as the Sultan's, backed by the army and run by his own intellectual bureaucracy.
page 470:
The cleavage in his musical tastes emerged in Istanbul, where he once had two orchestras, one Turkish and one European, brought to the Park Hotel. He listened with constant interruptions, commanding one to stop and the other to play in turn. Finally, as the raki (an alcoholic drink) took effect, he lost patience and rose to leave the restaurant, saying, "Now if you like you can both play together." Another evening, incensed by the sound of the muezzin from a mosque opposite, which clashed with the dance-band, he ordered its minaret to be felled - one of those orders which was countermanded next morning.


Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 01 May 2005
Location: Melbourne, Aus
Status: Offline
Points: 7772
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Mar 2012 at 09:09
Quote For Kemal, Islam and civilization were a contradiction in terms. "If only," he once said of the Turks, with a flash of cynical insight, "we could make them Christians!"


This very much reminds me of Hitler's attitude towards Christianity (viewing it as weak and flabby) and how he toyed with the fantasy of the people of the Reich benefiting from embracing a more masculine religion like Islam. It seems the grass always appears greener on the other side.
Nullius in verba
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 889
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Mar 2012 at 11:07
Kemal percieved Islam as weak too.
"Whoever have religion/faith and honour/morals, cannot prevail. They are sentenced to remain poor." - Mustafa Kemal

Despite vast number of documents proving Kemal didn't had a religion still most people refusing to believe so. Even he was very hostile towards religion. During his reign they actively tried to annihilate religion, very similar to Stalin era Soviets. A thousands mosques turned into stables and having a Quran in home was dangerous that times. At best you would get out with book throwed into toilet by soldiers. This trend later turned to utilisation of religion. As they see they can benefit from "martyrdoom" and other practices.
Everyone know what's gonna happen if once taboo is breached.  And I already see some cracks on the walls of Fort Kemalist Dogma... LOL


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 25 Mar 2012 at 11:11
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4399
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Mar 2012 at 04:08
Thanks PoH. I always thought Kemal's secular policy was the main stabilizing factor for Turkey as compared to the other Islamic countries to their south.
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 889
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Mar 2012 at 11:43
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Thanks PoH. I always thought Kemal's secular policy was the main stabilizing factor for Turkey as compared to the other Islamic countries to their south.

Yes, if you supress all opposition with all available means, country will become stabilized at cost of justice and pluralism.
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 20 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1357
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Mar 2012 at 12:28
To me, there is a certain contradiction in the principles of the "Turkish republic".
On one hand, they tried to convert the country into a European-style secular nation and play down the role of religion; on the other, they expelled all ethnic minorities whose religous heritage was not Muslim, or at least discouraged their inmigration.

Asia Minor had once been home to large Christian communities, most of which had emigrated after the proclamation of the Turkish republic.
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 889
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Mar 2012 at 13:10
Because nationalism is greatest enemy of multiculturalism. Kemal seek to exploit Islam as a non-official state religion. So they set up an office named "Presidency of Religious Affairs". Which is only for Hanafi school of Sunni sect. Other Sunni schools neglected (like Shafi, most Kurdish follows that) not to mention Alevi (some sort of Shia sect) and non-muslims forgotten all together.

This is not only thing Kemalism contradicts within itself. If it requires so democracy is nothing but toilet paper for them. Common people are stupid and uneducated to not understand secularism for them. Thus people must be overseered closely.

Also they writed a charade named official history. According to them;
*Huns = European Huns, Xiongnu = Huns. (Bullocks)
*Most of Anatolians came from Central Asia. (Exact reverse actually)
*Turks are a superior warrior race. Establishment of Turkish Land Forces dates back to BC 2nd Century. (I'm not kidding, they are using this as amblem of Turkish Land Forces[1])
*Many mixed Mongol-Turkic states was clearly Turkic states. (Controversial)
*A lot of fictional and controversial Xiongnu stories... (Not worth to speak...)
*Last Padishah of Ottomans was a traitor. (In fact the one who commissioned Kemal and gave him large funds to start a resistance in Asia Minor.)
*Kemal was a genius level commander, he won all battles he particiated. (He was a decent to mediocre commander but never took command of critic duties except in Palestine Front against British. Before that his rank was low, he was a one star general in Battle of Gallipoli. In late war he took command of an army group which witdrawed to present day Syrian-Turkish border but armistice concluded. Later in Greco-Turkish war, he took command of army when Greeks start to root and all he had done is chasing job.)
*Turkey fought against British, French, Italians, Russians, Greeks, Armenians etc. between 1918-1923. (Greatest mith of official history, British only stand in straits, there was some irregular skirmishes in French occupied territory, Italians withdrawed, Soviets actually supported with money and equipment, rest was minor nations and ethic groups.)

It is a long list but this will be sufficient.

[1] M.Ö. 209 = BC 209




Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 26 Mar 2012 at 13:32
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 20 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1357
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 07:53
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:


*Huns = European Huns, Xiongnu = Huns. (Bullocks)
*Most of Anatolians came from Central Asia. (Exact reverse actually)


Swaying slightly off-topic, Huns and Xiongnu were certainly related, with the former probably being an off-shoot of the latter.
Prior to the Xiongnu migration to the west in the 3rd century A.D., much as Central Asia were inhabitted by Iranic-speaking and Tocharian-speaking peoples.
The Huns were described as having Turkic or Mongolic features (as well as the Avars, Bulgars, Gokturks and other peoples), so the most likely explanation is that they descended from the Xiongnu.

Many Turks of Turkey today regard themselves as the direct descendant of the Gokturks and other ancient Turkic nomad empires of Central Asia. Ethnically speaking, probably the only element that ties Turkey to the Gokturks is language, nothing more.
The true descendants of the ancient Turkic khanates of Central Asia would more appropriately be the Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, Turkmen, Uzbeks, or Tatars, who conserved a far greater share of the nomad traditions. 


Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 889
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 10:00
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:


*Huns = European Huns, Xiongnu = Huns. (Bullocks)
*Most of Anatolians came from Central Asia. (Exact reverse actually)


Swaying slightly off-topic, Huns and Xiongnu were certainly related, with the former probably being an off-shoot of the latter.
Prior to the Xiongnu migration to the west in the 3rd century A.D., much as Central Asia were inhabitted by Iranic-speaking and Tocharian-speaking peoples.
The Huns were described as having Turkic or Mongolic features (as well as the Avars, Bulgars, Gokturks and other peoples), so the most likely explanation is that they descended from the Xiongnu.

We don't have enough knowledge to concluding that. We have nothing but a few names from Hunnic language. And please pay attention sir, they are calling Xiongnu as Huns.


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 27 Mar 2012 at 10:01
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 889
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Apr 2012 at 17:30
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Quote For Kemal, Islam and civilization were a contradiction in terms. "If only," he once said of the Turks, with a flash of cynical insight, "we could make them Christians!"


This very much reminds me of Hitler's attitude towards Christianity (viewing it as weak and flabby) and how he toyed with the fantasy of the people of the Reich benefiting from embracing a more masculine religion like Islam. It seems the grass always appears greener on the other side.


These people seems to be having some fun...




Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 09 Apr 2012 at 17:33
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Apr 2012 at 18:25
Kemal's "dictatorship" was a joke compare to the real tyrannies like in Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. 

He certainly was a great historical figure who transformed a disintegrating backward society into a relatively modern dynamic state.

Definitely, he deserves recognition for all the progressive things he did for his country.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Apr 2012 at 18:52
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Kemal's "dictatorship" was a joke compare to the real tyrannies like in Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. 
 
Yes it was a joke compared to these guys, but he is just as bad as Franco in Spain in terms of destruction of society cohesion. Is Franco also a joke?
 
 
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:


He certainly was a great historical figure who transformed a disintegrating backward society into a relatively modern dynamic state.
 
Anatolia and Eastern Thrace were probably the most homogenous parts of the empire anyway.
 
Plus Turkey was just as backward in 1938 as it was in 1914 if not worse off (in some vital stats it was indeed worse off). Compare that with the USSR which was at an even worse situation back then yet was far more advanced in 38 than Turkey despite having 10 times the population and 25 times the size.  
 
 
Only during Inonu and especially Menderes eras did Turkey truely began to advance at a dramatic pace thanks to NATO and the cold war war.

Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:


Definitely, he deserves recognition for all the progressive things he did for his country.
 
Other than women rights there is not a single progressive thing that came from him.
 
He respressed everyone. People quote his secularism forgetting that it was he, not the Ottomans nor the people after him who annihilated christianity out of existence in Turkey closing all but a few Istanbul churches and forcing most of the remaing 1 million or so christians (according to census in 1925 I believe) to flee the country. Muslims couldn't celebrate their own holidays for God's sake untill he died and were punished for that.
 
He repressed people's freedom to wear things he didn't like, to speak a language other than his own version of Turkish, to take a surname other than a set of surnames he chose.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 889
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 May 2012 at 21:04
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Other than women rights there is not a single progressive thing that came from him.

A feminist organisation called "Turkish Women's Union" founded after decleration of second constutitional era (1908). When women started to demand rights, Kemal closed their foundation... Like he did to every single bit of opposition... He gave suffrage rights to women 7-8 years later, only when he solidified his position... Of course, only as a political move...


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 07 May 2012 at 21:04
Back to Top
David Greenwich View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Location: London UK
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote David Greenwich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jul 2012 at 17:50
The Caliphate was a slave empire that only made sense in the era of aggressive war and slavery.
 
I think Kemal deserves some credit for trying to drag Turkey into the modern era and decisively break with its slave empire history.
 
As for the myths and so on, all countries have their myths that don't stand up to rational scrutiny. You could start with the USA's founders who claimed the rights of liberty for all men while owning slaves. 
 
The UK has the myth of being a single people: "Britain" when in reality there are four quite distinct nations: England,Wales, Scotland and Ireland.   There never was a "Britain".
 

 
What is past is not necessarily settled.
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 889
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Aug 2012 at 02:54
Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

The Caliphate was a slave empire that only made sense in the era of aggressive war and slavery.
 
I think Kemal deserves some credit for trying to drag Turkey into the modern era and decisively break with its slave empire history.
 
As for the myths and so on, all countries have their myths that don't stand up to rational scrutiny. You could start with the USA's founders who claimed the rights of liberty for all men while owning slaves. 
 
The UK has the myth of being a single people: "Britain" when in reality there are four quite distinct nations: England,Wales, Scotland and Ireland.   There never was a "Britain".
 

 

Your opinions do not represent any reality. Continued wars weakened Ottoman treasury and caused significant amounts of inflation. Wars didn't do any good for Ottoman financial stability. Ottoman treasury largely depended on taxes from farms, merchants and tariffs. FYI, as you may not be aware of it, Ottomans were not steppe nomads.

Actually one sentence would be enough for you. "You get all your information based on Orientalist sources."


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 14 Aug 2012 at 11:30
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13257
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Aug 2012 at 11:13
Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:


 The UK has the myth of being a single people: 
No it doesn't. That's why it is called the united kingdom - diverse people united under a single monarch.

If anything the founding myth of modern Great Britain is of a mélange of different immigrant populations - rather like the US but longer ago.
Quote
"Britain" when in reality there are four quite distinct nations: England,Wales, Scotland and Ireland.  
The national mix of Great Britain has nothing  much to do with the political frontiers. In recorded history (forgetting pre-history Britain's original population was Celtic in  two varieties - Gall and Gael, the rivalry between which is commemorated in the Arthurian myth. Overlaid on that are the Angles and Saxons (etc) occupying but not displacing completely the Galls in the eastern parts of the main island. Throw in the Normans in political England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland where they join with the Viking residues, Flemings, Huguenots, Jews and the rest and you get  a much more complex picture.

England, Scotland, Wales are merely the residue of feudal land assignments with nothing to do with nationality or race.
Quote
 There never was a "Britain".
 
More accurately there were many at different times under different names. There isn't one at the moment because the island is called 'Great Britain'. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Aug 2012 at 20:19
Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

The Caliphate was a slave empire that only made sense in the era of aggressive war and slavery.
 
 
The Ottoman empire was not a slave empire nor did it ever have a slave economy. Even the people who hate the Ottoman empire the most never made such a claim. Plus slavery in the Ottoman empire was a prevalent in the 1800s as it was in England in the 1700s (it was outlawed in steps finally by 1882).
 
Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

I think Kemal deserves some credit for trying to drag Turkey into the modern era and decisively break with its slave empire history.
 
Again, there were no slavery to speak of. In fact the Ottoman empire was finally on the path of industrialisation by the 1900s. The CUP idiotic rule and wars (4 wars in 5 years with disasterous losses) destroyed it.
 
Turkey during Kemal's rule didn't progress a bit. It was weak on all fronts by the time WWII started despite the Soviet union began at a much greater disadvantage its outgrew Turkey (or any other country for that matter) because of strong ruthless leadership.
 
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.230 seconds.