Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by beloch 4620 days ago
To put things in perspective, you really need to take a look at the past to appreciate modern Turkey. The Ottoman empire was ruled by Sultan's who wielded absolute power, much like the leaders of other Arab nations today. Prior to the Sultan's were the emperor's of the Holy Roman empire, who wielded power so absolute that even medieval Europeans would have found it unsettling. Much of the symbolism used by European royalty was copied wholesale from Constantinople in attempts to achieve a similar measure of control.

Ottoman society, like many Arab societies today, was heavily inclined towards absolute rule by "strong men". Where most of Europe gradually weaned itself off of absolute rulers by gradually limiting or subverting the power of monarchs over several generations, Turkey literally went from absolute rule to democracy in a single generation. Kemal was an officer during the first world war, which Turkey was on the wrong side of and wound up being partitioned by the allied forces. He played a huge role in reunifying Turkey through armed conflict that expelled the occupying forces. The last Ottoman Sultan was opposed to Kemal and called for his death, but the unification forces instead abolished the sultanate and declared a democracy. Kemal was held in such esteem that he was easily elected to lead this new democracy.

Here's where things get interesting... Kemal's revolution and declaration of democracy are hardly novel. Many nations have undergone similar transformations, and many of the newly elected leaders soon turn into despots. Cultures that favor "strong men" tend to encourage this. Kemal introduced reforms intended to westernize Turkey. Western dress, even hats, were heavily encouraged while his "Hat Law" banned turban's and fezzes (No, the doctor would not have been a fan of Ataturk!).

The new alphabet, seen in light of this wave of westernization, is particularly interesting. Ankara, Istanbul, and many other Turkish cities are full of monuments covered in arabic scrip proclaiming the awesomeness of various Sultan's. It's not unlike how Washington D.C.'s Lincoln memorial, etc., glorify the U.S. system of government, only the Ottoman empire had been accumulating such monuments for a lot longer. The Sultan's of the Ottoman empire lived in the shadow of Constantinople's emperors, so they tended to play themselves up rather a lot.

If you tour Turkey today, your university educated tour guides (practically every guide in Turkey has a degree or two) are extremely unlikely to be able to read a word of arabic script. The new alphabet effectively severed Turkish citizens from centuries of extremely high quality propaganda that the Ottoman empire had accumulated to support the sultanate's rule.

Kemal's legacy is not without it's dark spots, but the "strong man" culture of the Ottoman empire has largely abated. Obviously, it takes time, as people change slowly. Turkish citizens today are more likely to revere Kemal himself as they would a Sultan rather than their prime minister or president. The military has historically seen itself as the guardian of Ataturk's legacy, which has led to some truly unusual coups that, bizarrely enough, have probably kept Turkey on the course of democracy, although recently the power of the military has been gutted.

The Turkish alphabet might be interpreted by some as a form of oppression, but it's adoption was more about breaking with the past and embracing democracy and the west. Compared to it's Arab neighbors, Turkey is astoundingly western and unusually democratic.

5 comments

Apologies for making a pedantic meta-comment, but may I recommend that you read this: http://www.apostrophe.org.uk/page2.html

Your comment was otherwise well-written, but you misused apostrophes nine times (thrice in the first three sentences), which made it quite painful to read. I'm sure that your writing will be taken much more seriously if you fix this one glitch.

What a helpful, constructive, and non-judgmental comment. Upvoted both nkoren and beloch as examples of why I keep coming back to HN.
> The Turkish alphabet might be interpreted by some as a form of oppression, but it's adoption was more about breaking with the past and embracing democracy and the west.

Maybe that was the primary motivation, but Turkey has also been unusually brutal about trying to force minorities to embrace Turkish culture.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I used to know a Turkish journalist that was forced to flee after repeated death threats from the regime because he wrote about the problems the Kurds ran into. These problems ran from not being allowed to even call themselves Kurds for a long time - the regime insisted no such thing as Kurds existed. They were not allowed (and still isn't other than in private schools) to learn their own language in school. Along with a huge range of other restrictions.

That makes it hard to ignore the effect of the alphabet restrictions as yet another part of the cultural oppression.

I don't quite understand why minorities have to have everything in their native language if they chose to live in a foreign country.

I'm a German-born Turk who lives in Germany (Berlin) and I don't have a problem that I had to learn German at school. For me, it's self-explanatory that I have to learn German sooner or later if I plan to live in Germany. It's the same case for everyone who prefers to work and live in a foreign country.

Firstly, they are not immigrants. Turkey is home to a substantial Kurdish minority that predates the establishment of the Turkish state.

Secondly, this is not about having all things in their native language, but about the fact that in many situations using Kurdish will land you in prison, even when speaking to other people whose primary language is Kurdish.

Until recently, a political party that dared distribute material in Kurdish risked being banned from elections, and people involved risk going to prison.

And a 2010 report I linked to elsewhere points out that Turkish officials that dare to use Kurdish in official communication - even if in a Kurdish area, communicating with Kurds - risked prison just a few years ago.

None of that is the case in Germany. In fact, specifically to the Kurds, you will find quite a few Turkish Kurds in Germany who enjoy a lot more freedom to use and learn their language in ways that would at least until recently have put them at risk of prison in their ancestral homes in Turkey.

Further to your school example, it is well established that being given the opportunity to learn your primary home language well is critical to learning another language at school. As such, forcing kids that speak Kurdish at home to learn only Turkish at school places them at a severe disadvantage. If the goal is to give these kids a the best possible chance of getting good at Turkish, the best way of achieving that is to offer them training in Kurdish too.

Yes, but the Kurds in Turkey aren't immigrants. Their families didn't choose to be minorities in an oppressive state, Turkey decided to take their land. They didn't land on plymouth rock, plymouth rock landed on them.
I don't quite understand why minorities have to have everything in their native language if they chose to live in a foreign country.

I guess it comes down to how the minority group ended up where it is, and how one would define a "foreign country". If a group of people migrate voluntarily, the receiving country would have a legitimate expectation that they'd learn the language, and adopt at least some aspects of the dominant culture.

If a group is conquered (or enslaved), or through some accident of history ends up a minority, I personally don't believe they should be coerced into adopting the ways of the majority. It would be compounding an injustice.

I'm not sure where the Kurds fit in to this - did they really "choose" to live in modern Turkey, the way that Turks who migrated to Germany did?

It's not a foreign country, though - they're not immigrants.
A correction,

Ottomans started talking about having a constitutional monarchy in early 19th century and first constitutional government officially started in 1876. However this was short lived and constitution changed 2 years later to weaken the parliament. Second constitutional era starts in 1908 and ends with the collapse of the empire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_of_Deputies_(Ottoman_Em...

So first steps of a republic was already in place before Ataturk was even born, democracy was the natural choice for the new Turkey.

Sorry but I found most of the other claims you say rather bizarre as well..

Interresting! That's the time when in Bulgaria (part of the Ottoman empire then) started the April Uprising to liberate itself - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Uprising - and later in 1878 leading to independence for some of the territory, while full one was gained much later.
The Holy Roman Empire was where Germany is today, prior to the Ottoman Sultan Turkey & territories were known as the Byzantine empire aka eastern Roman empire (and before that simply the Roman empire before it split into west & east).
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is that you?