The November 10th Tribute to Ataturk in Turkey

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,783
USA
Ataturk also seized the land and all the property left over from Armenians and gave them Turks. I think this wasn't considered legal or okay even back then. Ataturk is a pragmatic guy, and he had no love for Armenians. It doesn't mean he is going to condone the poor relocation conditions and slaughter of many, but do not portray him like something he isn't...
If true, what this shows is that the hatred against Armenians and Christians was rampant among the Turks. It was a religious hatred. No wonder Turkey is less than 1% Christian today. It provides more proof that Turkey should acknowledge ethnic cleansing and genocide of its Christian citizens. All this Turkish hate of Christians was the result of the tribal theology of Islam.

Christians were the most civilized and the most progressive people in Turkey. They ran almost all the businesses in Turkey. "All the civilized life in Ankara had gone with the Armenians and Greeks." What is ironic about all this is that so many Turks ended up migrating to the Christian Europe to make a better living, after cleaning their lands of Christians. What a hypocrisy!
 
Last edited:
Mar 2016
806
Antalya
55% of our Worlds population has access to the internet. Its a matter of time before one comes across Ataturk. As for what Solidare is saying about Ataturk being revered by non Turks..I would like to say I dont think non Turks or even Turks view Ataturk as a God but the point I was making was that Ataturk is known worldwide and I feel safe to say that most of those that know of Ataturk have a positive view of the man. There is no need To be against Ataturk whom along with common people worked to bring equal rights for men and women to Turkey, religious freedom and a improved economy. Throughout this thread the points have been provided that show how Ataturk was liberal in nature and clearly brought liberal values to his people. And liberals come in all stripes, it is right and proper to view Ataturk as Liberal because due to Ataturk his people(of various religions and backgrounds) experienced an improved social life that cannot be denied.

World Internet Users Statistics and 2018 World Population Stats
You are on a hopeless mission, because as demonstrated by the poster you are responding, historical grudge and nationalism is a bar to appreciation of a historical figure. The posts in this thread "screams" nationalism, the dude literally said Ataturk fought against Greeks, why should he revere him, and people still think "but it's not because nationalism". I do not hate Alexander the Great as a Turk and I find Polish Winged Hussars cool. What we have to consider here is average human and how their world views are shaped. Similar in Turkey, probably similar in Greece. Not everyone has capacity to consider brilliance to be something out of national bounds.

What is even more shocking to me that people with historical grudge, or in other words, the people that are pissed by history, dwells in this forum. Like if you are annoyed by history, why are you even here?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JoanOfArc007
Mar 2016
806
Antalya
If true, what this shows is that the hatred against Armenians and Christians was rampant among the Turks. It was a religious hatred. No wonder Turkey is less than 1% Christian today. It provides more proof that Turkey should acknowledge ethnic cleansing and genocide of its Christian citizens. All this Turkish hate of Christians was the result of the tribal theology of Islam.

Christians were the most civilized and the most progressive people in Turkey. They ran almost all the businesses in Turkey. "All the civilized life in Ankara had gone with the Armenians and Greeks." What is ironic about all this is that so many Turks ended up migrating to the Christian Europe to make a better living, after cleaning their lands of Christians. What a hypocrisy!
It looks like your only mission in this forum is bashing Muslims :).
 
Mar 2013
1,441
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
Ataturk is admired, or revered or well received worldwide. One just does not see statues of figures throughout the world as we do with Ataturk.
He is not. Two from Denmark, one from Serbia, one from Bulgaria and one from Greece have all confirmed that he is not admired or revered or even known to start with.

It is by the way not usual that statues are raised by various statesmen acroos the globe. Even Garibaldi have it:

Giuseppe Garibaldi - Wikipedia



Im of Italian and Irish background.
And we both know it is suspicious since historum have experienced cases where banned user(s) have returned back and claimed new ethnicities and religion in order pursue and fail their agenda.


Ataturk is a figure that anyone with the most basic history of knowledge of any world events or subjects would know especially in todays internet age. For those that merely surf the net, its a matter of time before they will run into the name Ataturk.
If that is the case then why do 90-95% of Norwegians, Swedes and Danes not know him? Having access to internet really does not mean that one will automatically know who a Turkish nationalist leader is.


Throughout this thread the points have been provided that show how Ataturk was liberal in nature and clearly brought liberal values to his people. And liberals come in all stripes, it is right and proper to view Ataturk as Liberal because due to Ataturk his people(of various religions and backgrounds) experienced an improved social life that cannot be denied.
That is nonsense just as when Muhammad, in which you once called your "hero" by a freudian slip, recommended to drink camelurine.

"improved social life" or being secular have nothing to do with "liberalism" or "liberal values". Even dictatorship can improve "social life" and being secular.

As already explained in my post 28 and in 31 Liberalism is a philosophical idea that there should be no absolutism (authoritarian rule gathered in one person’s hand) and that arbitrary imprisonments should be ceased and each citizens should have basic rights. It started and spread around 1700 or so in England/France. It is not the historians’ impression that Ataturk imposed democratic multi-parties-system or that he granted the “Mountain Turks” rights, or that he did not have dictatorial power.

But in (almost the whole) Muslim countries many people tend to have a skewed perception of what democracy and liberalism are, and that is the reason why many Muslims think that Dhimmi-rule or the Devshirme-system were fantastic for the Christians. So, I am not surprised that you are confused and are connecting Ataturk with liberalism.;)

From the Economist Intelligence Unit for year 2018 where dark green is high degree of democracy while dark red is the opposite:

2018.png



I ask again: What do you think about the Turks’ genocide denial about the famous Armenian Genocide that even have been more researched than Holocaust the last decade due to the attention the Turks' denial has fostered? - You only reluctantly want to give an answer, right?
 

JoanOfArc007

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
3,810
USA
If true, what this shows is that the hatred against Armenians and Christians was rampant among the Turks. It was a religious hatred. No wonder Turkey is less than 1% Christian today. It provides more proof that Turkey should acknowledge ethnic cleansing and genocide of its Christian citizens. All this Turkish hate of Christians was the result of the tribal theology of Islam.

Christians were the most civilized and the most progressive people in Turkey. They ran almost all the businesses in Turkey. "All the civilized life in Ankara had gone with the Armenians and Greeks." What is ironic about all this is that so many Turks ended up migrating to the Christian Europe to make a better living, after cleaning their lands of Christians. What a hypocrisy!

Surely you can see the fact that Islam as a religion is practiced peacefully by the many Muslims that live with Christians, Hindus and other non Muslims. In Catholic Majority Rwanda in Africa, where 95 % of the population is Christian there are also Muslims. In speaking with a Rwandan Immigrant(she was very attractive and intelligent she was 5"10 tall just a few inches shorter then me) to my area in the USA, she said that in Rwanda there is respect for each others religious traditions and there is a growing tourist market. Islam is a liberating religion that supports equality among man. Its why Muslims today are the 2nd biggest religion and contribute in the Science and medical fields. There over 50 Muslim majority countries in the world, and there is also Lebanon which is half Muslim half Christian. It is a fact that in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq that Muslims, Jews, and Christians and more work together in the military, in hospitals in the police force, etc. A Its the first hand experience of people and history that show us both Islam and Christianity are religions that support freedom. Crime otoh which includes intolerance is a worldwide issue and there have been bad Christians and bad Muslims throughout history but one simply cannot deny how today that Christianity is the most followed religion and Islam the 2nd most both religions peacefully gaining adherents everywhere in the world. Every day someone makes it their own choice to join Islam or Christianity. And yes perhaps everyday a Muslim freely leaves Islam, and a Christian freely lives Christianity.



The very fact of the matter is that today Spain is 2 % Muslim, Spain of course had a rich Islamic history see the Golden Age of Islam in Spain. And Turkey today sees a 1 % Christian population. The USA used to be a Pagan entity before the European Christians arrived. Today the USA is some 80+% Christian but 1500 years ago the masses had a different religion. History shows us that things change, and often the change brings with it more liberal values. If anything all the more reason for you to side with Ataturk and with Islam even. Any Muslim can go and visit Spain, and any Christian can visit Turkey. Sure each group has its controversial history that being said we can clearly see that Spaniards do not hate Muslims. And Turks do not hate Christians. Also where Turkey prevails ahead of all other middle eastern countries is in terms of its social life, intermarriage and inter dating is allowed in Turkey as it is in Spain. Today while Spain is 2 % Muslim, one can find Mosques in Spain. In Turkey one can note Catholic Mass Ceremony celebrated in Sunday in Ankara for example.

5 Most Impressive Historic Mosques in Spain - History Lists

5 Most Impressive Historic Mosques in Spain - History Lists

One can be glad that it is Ataturk that is respected in Turkey and that the perhaps most famous Turk of all time to the world is Ataturk. Would you rather Ataturk not have existed?

Ataturk did bring women the ability to vote in Turkey in a time when some Christian majority countries did not allow women to vote. In Switzerland for example, women did not get the right to vote until the 1970s. In Turkey under Ataturk a women could dress as she pleased.. Those that oppose these basic types of rights of the people of ISIL and AQ is that the types of people you would have rather had led Turkey?
 

JoanOfArc007

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
3,810
USA
He is not. Two from Denmark, one from Serbia, one from Bulgaria and one from Greece have all confirmed that he is not admired or revered or even known to start with.

It is by the way not usual that statues are raised by various statesmen acroos the globe. Even Garibaldi have it:

Giuseppe Garibaldi - Wikipedia





And we both know it is suspicious since historum have experienced cases where banned user(s) have returned back and claimed new ethnicities and religion in order pursue and fail their agenda.




If that is the case then why do 90-95% of Norwegians, Swedes and Danes not know him? Having access to internet really does not mean that one will automatically know who a Turkish nationalist leader is.




That is nonsense just as when Muhammad, in which you once called your "hero" by a freudian slip, recommended to drink camelurine.

"improved social life" or being secular have nothing to do with "liberalism" or "liberal values". Even dictatorship can improve "social life" and being secular.

As already explained in my post 28 and in 31 Liberalism is a philosophical idea that there should be no absolutism (authoritarian rule gathered in one person’s hand) and that arbitrary imprisonments should be ceased and each citizens should have basic rights. It started and spread around 1700 or so in England/France. It is not the historians’ impression that Ataturk imposed democratic multi-parties-system or that he granted the “Mountain Turks” rights, or that he did not have dictatorial power.

But in (almost the whole) Muslim countries many people tend to have a skewed perception of what democracy and liberalism are, and that is the reason why many Muslims think that Dhimmi-rule or the Devshirme-system were fantastic for the Christians. So, I am not surprised that you are confused and are connecting Ataturk with liberalism.;)

From the Economist Intelligence Unit for year 2018 where dark green is high degree of democracy while dark red is the opposite:

View attachment 15813



I ask again: What do you think about the Turks’ genocide denial about the famous Armenian Genocide that even have been more researched than Holocaust the last decade due to the attention the Turks' denial has fostered? - You only reluctantly want to give an answer, right?
The point about the Armenian Genocide has already been responded to, 3 times perhaps. No my friend its in your head that I want to reluctantly give an answer Turkey has a controversial history as does every country. Do you bring up the ills of a countries past in all the other threads?

Your also Talking about Camel Urine, you are apparently trying to tell me that I am not of Irish or Italian background. And you expect a response. You are 100 % out of line here my friend. I am Catholic, of Italian and Irish background and I am a citizen of the USA. Maybe you just can not handle the fact that many Christians and Muslims admire each other. And when perhaps you hear or read of a Catholic praising Islam, you cant take it, that is your loss my friend its on you to perhaps be more liberal in your outlook of Turkey, Ataturk and Islam.

As a liberal I refuse to be like ISIL or KKK type conservatives whom use bullying tactics to criticize others based on their religion or looks. So I ask to you to please refrain from personal suggestions and attacks against specific religions. The topic of this thread is about Ataurk not Camel ##(and I assume this Camel *** label you use is some sort of anti Arab or anti Muslim slur why do you talk like this) Today Turkey is a country where a Christian can freely visit just as A Muslim can freely visit Spain. Turkeys liberal values of today are here in large part due to the legacy of Ataturk.
 

JoanOfArc007

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
3,810
USA
You are on a hopeless mission, because as demonstrated by the poster you are responding, historical grudge and nationalism is a bar to appreciation of a historical figure. The posts in this thread "screams" nationalism, the dude literally said Ataturk fought against Greeks, why should he revere him, and people still think "but it's not because nationalism". I do not hate Alexander the Great as a Turk and I find Polish Winged Hussars cool. What we have to consider here is average human and how their world views are shaped. Similar in Turkey, probably similar in Greece. Not everyone has capacity to consider brilliance to be something out of national bounds.

What is even more shocking to me that people with historical grudge, or in other words, the people that are pissed by history, dwells in this forum. Like if you are annoyed by history, why are you even here?
Its really something responding to some of the hardcore nationalist types. I would hope these folks at least mean well. I for one am for freedom of religion, there are Atheists in The USA and in Turkey. In fact I know a Turkish Muslim that left Turkey a few years ago for the USA because she could not wear her religious garbs in public.

Fwiw I sort of feel the same way of Edward Longshanks of England as you may wrt Alexander The Great.

And yes this thread can remind us of perhaps those few Americans still saying hey we fought the Brits not once but twice, so why should be admire any Englishmen?

In both Turkey and Greece, European football is admired. People of our world all share similarities for that matter. Turkey has also produced some high quality basketball players some have made it to The NBA. I can say that I have had conversations with at least one dozen people that were either Turkish and or of Greek background. One was of both backgrounds. And these people were liberals, they drank, enjoyed wearing fine clothing, these were successful people. None of this last paragraph is needed for the most part in our world....but there are still a few people in our world whom despise others based solely on religion or looks as opposed to character. I personally feel most people of our world are peaceful and liberal, but I feel it is needed to still remind those few intolerant people of the world that we can find contributors to Democracy and Freedom such as Ataturk all throughout history and from diverse places.
 
Mar 2013
1,441
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
The point about the Armenian Genocide has already been responded to, 3 times perhaps. No my friend its in your head that I want to reluctantly give an answer ....
No, you have not responded to the allegations of the Armenian Genocide and the behavior of the Turks who deny it unless you are forced to it, and even when forced then you only do it reluctantly and with precautions.

We both know that you have praised the Dhimmi-system and Devshirme-system and idiotically asserted that it was good for the Christians.

We both know why. ;)


Turkey has a controversial history as does every country....
Not every country have “controversial history” in such a degree to outright deny the genocide, sponsor genocide denial and create museums to deny the genocide as the Turks do. Turks are particularly famous for it, hence why the Armenian Genocide has replaced Holocaust as the most researched topic the last 10 years due to the attention Turks’ denial have caused.



(....)Turkeys liberal values of today are here in large part due to the legacy of Ataturk.
No, Turkey don’t have liberal values, never have, and even these days Turkey jails more journalists than Iran does.

Ataturk caused modernization and secularism. Not liberalism or "liberal values".


Your also Talking about Camel Urine, you are apparently trying to tell me that I am not of Irish or Italian background. And you expect a response. You are 100 % out of line here my friend. I am Catholic, of Italian and Irish background and I am a citizen of the USA. Maybe you just can not handle the fact that many Christians and Muslims admire each other. And when perhaps you hear or read of a Catholic praising Islam, you cant take it, that is your loss my friend its on you to perhaps be more liberal in your outlook of Turkey, Ataturk and Islam.

As a liberal I refuse to be like ISIL or KKK type conservatives whom use bullying tactics to criticize others based on their religion or looks. So I ask to you to please refrain from personal suggestions and attacks against specific religions. The topic of this thread is about Ataurk not Camel ##(and I assume this Camel *** label you use is some sort of anti Arab or anti Muslim slur why do you talk like this) Today Turkey is a country where a Christian can freely visit just as A Muslim can freely visit Spain. ....
You have been destroyed both historically and logically and your meltdown shows it.
 

Solidaire

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,598
Athens, Greece
You are on a hopeless mission, because as demonstrated by the poster you are responding, historical grudge and nationalism is a bar to appreciation of a historical figure. The posts in this thread "screams" nationalism, the dude literally said Ataturk fought against Greeks, why should he revere him, and people still think "but it's not because nationalism". I do not hate Alexander the Great as a Turk and I find Polish Winged Hussars cool. What we have to consider here is average human and how their world views are shaped. Similar in Turkey, probably similar in Greece. Not everyone has capacity to consider brilliance to be something out of national bounds.

What is even more shocking to me that people with historical grudge, or in other words, the people that are pissed by history, dwells in this forum. Like if you are annoyed by history, why are you even here?
You have probably misread my post, or simply misunderstood. For easy reference, here it is, read it again:
Why on Earth would someone think that Kemal is, or should be, revered outside Turkey? Not only such a claim is much detached from reality, it also makes no sense at all. "Revered" is a strong word, reverence is reserved for very few individuals that have a far and wide influence on people, transcending group interests and characteristics, and touching core, panhuman values of the very essence of mankind. Very few people would qualify for the term, in my opinion. Admired, yes. Acknowledged as important or great, yes. Not revered.

Kemal Ataturk was without a doubt the most important statesman of Turkey in the 20th century, he transformed the country in a most profound way. Essentially, he is the founder of modern Turkey. He is, understandably, admired and even revered by a great many Turks. But what panhuman value did he promote for non-Turks to feel for him? Recognise a great historical personality that affected so profoundly a whole nation, yes, at least by people interested in history. But beyond that, what else should be admired? Liberalism was mentioned, and not in jest. How is liberalism compatible with nationalism and the turkification process that Ataturk initiated, forcing minorities to become incorporated in an effort to create an ethnic Turkic state? I can understand his incentives, trying to stabilise his country by promoting a strong sense of Turkish identity, but again, this might be good for the Turks themselves. Not so good for the people whose culture was forced to comply. Why would I, as a Greek, be happy for the loss of even the Greek toponyms of Asia minor, let alone the solidification of the end of more than 2500 years of Greek presence in the area?
Where did you read that I hate Ataturk, or even dislike him? Didn't I stress enough his importance as the greatest statesman of Turkey in the 20th century? My first objection was to the term "revered" which is a very strong word implying almost religious admiration. And I ask again, why should Ataturk be revered outside Turkey? What did he offer to humanity as a whole? Do you "revere" Winged Hussars, or Alexander the Great, or Venizelos for that matter? He was, after all, the greatest statesman of Greece in the 20th century. And my second objection was to the notion that he should be glorified as a champion of liberalism, and I pointed out examples of why he wasn't the liberal it was claimed by Joan. I do not understand why you feel so hurt that Ataturk is not "revered" by non-Turks, he is your national hero and a great man, an important historical figure of the 20rh century. But are you serious that I should revere Ataturk, or else I'm a nationalist and I'm annoyed by history? These personal attacks do you injustice, one might misunderstand that you are the nationalist you claim others to be, feeling so hurt that others do not "revere" Ataturk as we probably should in your opinion. No, I'm not happy about his turkification policy, nor am I happy about the loss of thousands of years of Greek presence in Asia minor. Should I be? Would you be? This doesn't mean that I bear grudges or whatever, I pointed it out as an example of why Ataturk was good for Turks, not necessarily so for foreigners or humanity as a whole, and hence his importance was on a local level. Is this untrue? Ataturk was above all a nationalist, a "father of Turks". You have every right and reason to admire, glorify, even revere him. Non-Turks can reasonably acknowledge his importance, even admire his skills as a nation-builder and a reformer. But "revere"? Why should they, in your opinion?
 

Solidaire

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,598
Athens, Greece
Its really something responding to some of the hardcore nationalist types. I would hope these folks at least mean well. I for one am for freedom of religion, there are Atheists in The USA and in Turkey. In fact I know a Turkish Muslim that left Turkey a few years ago for the USA because she could not wear her religious garbs in public.

Fwiw I sort of feel the same way of Edward Longshanks of England as you may wrt Alexander The Great.

And yes this thread can remind us of perhaps those few Americans still saying hey we fought the Brits not once but twice, so why should be admire any Englishmen?
If you're referring to me as a "hardcore nationalist" type, as turing suggested, you're insulting the wrong person. Frankly, it gets tiresome and annoying getting branded this or that because you disagree with someone. I have no problem with any foreign nationality, my first and best friend on this forum is a Turk. As I have said, I have no problem with Ataturk because he is a Turk, or because he fought against Greeks, good for him and for his country. I'm merely saying that Ataturk is the most important figure of modern Turkish history, but has limited impact on world history as a whole. Read my above post, no need to repeat myself.