ATATURK!!!

The Turks were yearning for leadership that would take them out of the malaise of corrupt Ottoman officials. The Balkan countries got their independence. The Europeans even tried to provide independence for ethnicities on Ottoman Anatolian soil. The Turks were just sitting there watching there lands get carved up and allocated to others. The man who stepped in to stop such nonsense was Ataturk. He knew all along that religious leaders sold the country down the tubes and would not be trusted. They might make a good figurehead to pacify the masses but they would not be allowed to run the country again. As Ataturk said, "Sovereignty is not given, it is taken" and "Sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the people."

Iran under the Shah Reza Pahlavi, was also a child of war. Yet he was influenced by the dictaqtes of other nations. WWII Germany or the Allies would present terms that suited them best. A Royal monarchy. There are similarities between the two leaders too. Iranian voting rights for women in 1963, fighting illiteracy. These were laws that both men created for their citizens.

In the end the Shah of Iran was looked upon as a puppet of the US. His heavy secret service created fear and paranoia. He marginalized his opponents to the point of making his regime quit undemocratic. The peoples discontent grew to the point of rebellion. Then the Islamic revolution filled a void that was suppressed originally by the Shah. Now it seems to be going in the opposite direction again.

Knowledge is not repressive. Ataturk knew this. He also knew that Turkey's true master was the peasant. He would travel village to village to promote education. "Teachers, the new generation will be your legacy". "Our true mentor in life is science".

Ataturk did not promote or copy westernism because of political gain. Quite the contrary, people were often or were unfamiliar with his views. He shocked the system. But he was successful. He succeeded in battle, in politics, and in winning the hearts of his nation. He fostered intellect and self-esteem. He taught one to be proud of his heritage and encouraged history and science. By all means try as some might, most will not understand or appreciate the unique admiration by one people for their leader as do the Turks of Turkey for Ataturk. 

Let me start by explaining the history part. For the 600 so years the Ottmans ruled, the Turks then didn't know their history either. The elite in the Ottoman class had that privilege. The Turks were a warrior class  whose only affinity to learned history was through customs (culture) and stories. This is a far cry from scholarly education. With a language change from Arabic to Turkish latin, many new students of history will have difficulty reading old Ottoman manuscripts. They will need to learn the Ottoman (Arabic, Persian, Turkish) language. On the other hand, witten knowlege was not left to the privileged anymore. Eventually a peasant would learn to read and write. It just won't be in Arabic. Maybe this is a cultural trend of nations. The Turkic republics have also gone through language change after the demise of the Soviet empire.

Religious reforms would revolve around the duties of the Grand National Assembly. This was the prime domain of elected officials. Whatever religious support for a Caliph or Sharia law there was. It was not as large as the votes gathered from Ataturks party and later parties.

Hijabs can be worn anywhere but not by Government officials. This point has been mentioned before. It is not hard to remember.

Islamic prayers fluctuated between Arabic, Turkish then Arabic again. My belief is that a personal prayer should be in the language that one best understands. But a group prayer or recitation of the Koran should be in Arabic. Therefore it is imperative for the believer to understand its meanings. Though this may take more time and become more difficult.

Turkey considers itself a Republic with no offical state religion. Now we all know that the majority of citizens are moslem. And that businesses will lobby the government to join organizations around the globe that best fits there needs.

Ataturk did not create an identity problem for Turks. He redefined it. The identity confusion comes from the non Turks. Ask most any Turk and they will present a confident view on what they believe in. Turks would rather have an important figure of their past help define them than a foreigner with no shared interest.

Well my first post was in response to someone else. My second to you. Maybe I did not understand you properly though.

When you say reform can you be more specific? There were many different reforms. If you mean religious reforms only then we could stop focusing on my previous discussion on history and language.

So lets get the questions straightened out before judgements. Of course I cannot say yes or no without clarifying the above.

They are just in between... It's been never like before. Ataturk didn't try to create an atheist people. Secularism was put into the constitution in 1937, just one year before his death. He tried to secularize the government and it is secular, though some discriminatory practices may happen when Islamists come to government. Majority of the people are Muslim, but people who want to be governed by an Islamic government consist a small minority.

Result: Ataturk wanted to secularize the state, not the people and he was successful in secularizing the state instruments...

ok did these reforms succeed or not? do the "parties" who participate in Tukey's policy consist of all the Turkish population or there is something like 30% are ignored and considered "Taliban" even though they are as Turkish as the rest?

he did discourage the wearing of Hijab didnt he?

many turkish women still wear that.

he did ordered people to pray in Turkish didnt he?

majority of Turkish who pray pray in Arabic still.

he did wanted Turkish language be more unique with less non-turkish words didnt he?

there are many persian and arabic words in turkish still.

----

so from a simple common sense question and answer as above, its clear that such reforms weren't successfull.

or its like any other dictatorships in the world, making failures sounds like a success to the population ? as an example Saddam for 11 years made the iraqis belive that they won the war while the fact is that they were the biggest loser in that war.

i think there were some misunderstanding and i'll try to make my point clearer.

Originally posted by Seko ok did these reforms succeed or not? do the "parties" who participate in Tukey's policy consist of all the Turkish population or there is something like 30% are ignored and considered "Taliban" even though they are as Turkish as the rest? I assume you mean Erdogan's religious party. How can they be ignored if they are the majority of the coalition?

no i dont mean Erdogan's religious party. as far as i know there is around 30% of the Turkish population are considered islamist and that the Army isn't allowing them to participate in the government.

iam not talking about what the government is doing or did, iam talkin about the reform itself. he did discourage the wearing of Hijab? the answer you gave was YES.

ok

this wasn't a question i asked its a fact that there are many womens who are Turkish in Turkey do wear hijab.

the point iam trying to make here is that the reform above and the below is what is happening now.

you took both as questions as i can see.

so it was like this

he discouraged the wearing of hijab BUT many women still wear Hijab.

from that its clear that this particular "reform" about discouraging hijab wearing weren't That successfull. that the government had to make Rules for women not to wear hijab in the governmental institutions.

iam talking about the reform itself not about what happened NOT why these reformed were made.

, what i mean is that he made a reform ok? this reform will be considered successfull if it was followed right?

iam proving that this particular reform regarding prayers didnt succeed as you said it was forced for a period of time and went back to what it was and THAT was NOT what attaturk wanted. or am i wrong?!

this belong to the above statment above and its not a question. its like the first one.

here iam saying that he wanted prayers to be in Turkish and what he wanted regarding the prayers isn't followed by the Turkish.

which mean this particular part of the reform didnt succeed. why? because it is not being followed. as simple as that.

that was a question and you answerd YES.

what i wrote below is what is happeneing now. the Turkish language still has many non-turkish words.

dig up what? this wasnt a question what i wrote here is my proof that this particular reform regarding the language didnt succeed as he wanted.this is a fact that turkish language DO has lots of non-turkish words.

from this a unique Turkish language reform didnt succeed much and the proofs are that there are many non-turkish words still in the turkish language.

by question and answer i meant the examples i gave above who you treated as all were question which is weird.

and how can these policies successfull if there aren't even practiced by many turks?!!

well the system still prohibit any hard type of criticisim to Ataturk and his reforms and Schools and media are keeping the people undert the imperssion that All Attatruks reforms were perfect and the rest of the things which maintained in Turkey.

if someone from his childhood untill he is a 70 years old been told that attaruk is great and what he did was perfect and we are advanced better than the backward rest of the islamic world who envey us and the rest of the propaganda. this person will Belive in these things and will teach his childern the same and all will treat Ataturk as a porphet whos any criticisim against will be considered a TABOO.

and about the 2nd part of the last statment you wrote, as i tried to explain in my last posts, you are not answering my questions about how successfull were these reforms and what you did is explaining why these reforms took place . iam not asking why these reforms took place . iam asking are they been followed?? if NO then these reforms were a failure. if yes some are and some aren't then these reforms were not that Successfull as many Turk may think.

lol nice battle between 2 global moderators its seko vs azimuth, this is getting seriuos

wers my popcorn... oh damn im fasting