That's it. It seems I AM wasting my time.
Funny, I've been thinking the same thing...
But all I have to do to demonstrate the "cult of personality" involving Ataturk is to refer to the Turkish constitution, where HIS NAME is directly referred to in that document in it's preamble.
What other nation's constitution directly refers to a particular leader's name in it's constitution, thus forever enshrining the legacy of said leader in the very foundation of its creation, and citing his beliefs as the very underpinning of said document? Can any American envision the names of the John Hancock, Sam Adams, or George Washington being cited in its constitutional preamble??
The recognition that no protection shall be accorded to an activity contrary to Turkish national interests, the principle of the indivisibility of the existence of Turkey with its state and territory, Turkish historical and moral values or the nationalism, principles, reforms and modernism of Atatürk and that, as required by the principle of secularism, there shall be no interference whatsoever by sacred religious feelings in state affairs and politics; the acknowledgment that it is the birthright of every Turkish citizen to lead an honourable life and to develop his or her material and spiritual assets under the aegis of national culture, civilization and the rule of law, through the exercise of the fundamental rights and freedoms set forth in this Constitution in conformity with the requirements of equality and social justice;
Or how black and white pictures which included him were retouched to show he ALONE, in color:
cbc.ca
His philosophy came to be known as the six 'arrows': nationalism, republicanism, secularism, populism, statism, reformism. He was the first Turk to receive a last name: Ataturk - father of the Turks. In 1938 he died, still in power. His cult was in full flower. Photos of him striding in military uniform through crowds were retouched. Ataturk walked in colour; all others were in black and white. The photos are still on sale.
So come off it Zonder... Admit that the average Turks perception of Ataturk is a bit overboard. The very fact that we refer to him as Ataturk, and not Mustafa Kemal (HIS REAL NAME) is clear evidence of thus cult of personality that was formed around him, during and after his life...
It's tantamount to Americans only referring to George Washington as "father of our country", rather than using his name. I can only imagine if the former Federal holiday "Washington's birthday" was called "Father of Our Country" day..
Why not tone down the indignation a notch or two... Whenever I hear someone state "I'm wasting my time" when someone presents logical and documented facts and opinions, it immediately indicates to me that they merely don't want to face inconvenient realities.
And if you're perceiving that somehow I'm denigrating Kemal's place in Turkey's history, you're also sadly mistaken. Obviously he was a visionary who took some tremendous risks, and exercized tremendous will to reshape Turkey into a viable modern state. And for that, I applaud him.
Just as maybe you might think about applauding Pinochet for doing what HE BELIEVED WAS NECESSARY to create the current economic and political stability in Chile.
Because Kemal and his "Young Turks" were often just as brutal to those who opposed their goals of a secular Turkish state, Muslims, Armenians, and Christians alike..
And I thought this was interesting as well.. It seems Antonio Banderas turned down a role playing Ataturk in a movie that would have denied the "genocide":
ahmp.org
And another biographical site that should help tone down your exhuberant apparent deification of Kemal:
guidedones.com
Kemal was a man. A man with considerable will, powers of persuasion, and probably a good deal of luck. But he was just a man.. Just as George Washington was just a man (who had dentures made of wood.. :0)
So forgive me if I don't stand in utter awe of Ataturk..
Hawk |
