I have never been able to come to grips with myself over Kemal Atatürk. I cannot help but admire his energy and commitment, and he helped save Turkey from the fate of most Middle Eastern Countries. On the other hand, I am disturbed by his often extreme nationalism, and could not help but scoff at the Cult of Atatürk I saw in Turkey.
It hardly helps that almost all information is either Greek (ant-Kemal) or Turkish (pro-Kemal) propaganda.
I was wondering what other Hatrackers thought.
Please be civil.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It seems to me that if he wasn't actually involved in the Armenian genocide, he at least knew about it. It further seems that he more than knew about it but did participate.
Whatever else he may have done in his life, the mass starvation and slaughter of civilians is a crime against humanity which must, in fairness, stain his reputation and that of the Turkish state forever.
If he directly participated in some phase of it (which seems probable given his position among the "Young Turks"), he is doubly damned, imo.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have never been able to come to grips with myself over Kemal Atatürk.
I have resolved to take this as my motto.
"Tom," idle passers-by will ask, "what's on your mind?"
"I," I shall reply, "am continuing to attempt to come to grips with myself over the matter of Kemal Ataturk."
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
You forgot those two little dots over the u, Tom. That's bound to confuse some of your listeners.
Pelegius...why bother with the dotted u when the name is a transliteration from another language altogether? Seriously, I'm not asking to be rude. I just wonder why it seems necessary to use it in this case.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Becouse it isn't in a translation from another language. The Turkish Mustafa Kemal Atatürk = the English Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. We could spell it differently, but I don't really see the point. Japan may be a bastard transliteration of ??, but the fact that it is a transliteration gives some permit, Turkish is generaly not transliterated as its alphabet is essentialy Latin, albeit with several extra letters, which my mac refuses to type.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks...how is it pronounced? I was going with:
at - uh - terk
(which is how I'd pronouce it without the ü)
Is that correct?
By the way, I found a fascinating Wiki on the Turkish alphabet. The modified Latin one was (as you no doubt know) introduced by Atatürk in 1928. Prior to that, Turkish had been written with an Arabic alphabet.
Since prior to this I was mostly familiar with old sources of Turkish writing, I didn't realize that there had been an official switch. I really did think this was a transliteration. Thanks for the correction, especially since it lead to an interesting bit of reading.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I maintain that it is easier to come to grips with Ataturk without any dots over his vowels, in umlaut form or otherwise. This is true of most things.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"at - uh - terk"
Yes. Curiously the name Turkey is one of the few Turkish words to be transliterated, from the Turkish" Türkiye." Of course, it has been known as Turkey since well before the 1923 alphabet.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
So, why'd they name their country after a delicious bird that isn't even native to that part of the world?
It just BEGS to be made fun of.
And as for you, Tom, I would appreciate it if you, henceforth, pronounce my name as:
Bôb_Şčôpąŧz
This is just a silly affectation on my part, but I intend to have my successors build a cult of personality surrounding it.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Why did they rename Constantinople? I think I read somewhere that Istanbul means "the City"... is that true?
I also read that some Greeks had/have an almost "Zionist" dream of reclaiming the City.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
"Why did Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks'."
- Istanbul (not Constantinople).
I always assumed it must have to do with not wanting to immortalize a hated conqueror. I can't account for calling the place Istanbul -- also a name begging to be made fun of on the open market -- but at least the general populace's antipathy toward Constantine, and Rome in general, might account for wanting any name change.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Istanbul means "in the city." I cannot be certain, but my guess is that the Muslim Ottomans did not want to commerate a famously Christian monarch. Turkey then being more religious than now.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I maintain that it is easier to come to grips with Ataturk without any dots over his vowels, in umlaut form or otherwise. This is true of most things.
Thıs beıng so, why do you ınsıst on putting that sılly dot over all your ı's?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I myself am undecided about spots.
7 triva points for the source.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I have no use for triva points.
- Bôb_Şčôpąŧz
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :