3 ms·

Also on the subject, sadly, no matter his visions and good intentions, he was a victim of perfectionism and elitism. No matter what the outcome is, Ataturk was

by afsina 11y ago

Also on the subject, sadly, no matter his visions and good intentions, he was a victim of perfectionism and elitism. No matter what the outcome is, Ataturk was totalitarian at the end and some of his reforms were either unnecessary or executed terribly. Besides, what is the point? Why are we comparing those two again?

acqq 11y ago
You asked "What makes you the "reasonable" and others "ignorant fundamentalists" again?" I'm answering that the division exists and is important and I agree with you that there are better names for the same groups. But I surely don't want to disqualify the report of a somebody who writes from there only because his report doesn't use what in other environments would be assumed politically correct language.
- afsina 11y ago
  What I am against is that OP, perhaps indirectly, calls Turkish people who votes for/agrees current government as "ignorant fundamentalists" and himself as "reasonable". I think this is degrading and elitist. Maybe I misunderstood him.
  - acqq 11y ago
    It's not name calling if he really believes that those who he names are ignorant. You can discuss with him about what he believes they don't know. Just using the word isn't wrong in itself.
gkya 11y ago
You're right in your point that M. Kemal was a victim, but he was not a victim of perfectionism and elitism. He was a victim of some blind nationalism, his admiring of the Occident and his dismissal of the parity of different cultures. He and other people thought that the Europe was better than the other, whereas in fact it was merely different. The revolutions were top down, fascistic, and forced. As you will see, if you read in an objective manner, some history, nearly none the revolutions have changed the things for the better for all. There are still many turks that sustain that Kurdish the language was invented in the 70's, that all the languages descended from turkish, that American indigenous people, Italians, Sumerians and other ancient people of the asia minore were of Turkish descent, that Armenians are the ones that made a genocide at the beginning of the 20th century, etc. People identify themselves basing on lies here. What gives a totalitarian person room to do what he wants? A bunch of hero-gazers that have nothing to base any thought on. See that I do not call people stupid or smart, many ignorant are smart. It's good when one knows that he knows or that he does not know, but the evil is the ignorance of the ignorance, which is our ill as a community of the Near east.
- afsina 11y ago
  Oh we do agree in the blind nationalism issue, no objections here. I do agree ignorance of ignorance is a terrible thing as well. However, unlike you I try to refrain blanket statements on people of near east, or any other place.
  - gkya 11y ago
    Doesn't the fact that I'm a person of the near east justify me trying to reflect upon my people? I mean, given that I live here, I get to, and have to interact with this people, that I walk among real islamic fundamentalists, real PKK terrorists, real corrupt politicians and their actual supporters? I agree that it's not reasonable to make blanket statements, but I do indeed show the people I make statements about. All I do is to reflect upon the society that I belong to, that I live within and that affects me in the most direct manner.
    - afsina 11y ago
      I live in Turkey.
    - noskynethere 11y ago
      Not if you seek objectivity. You have your own biases, which do not go away because you live/interact there. It is common for people closest to a subject to have the biggest blind spots. the wonderful nature of our own biases, perceptive and cognitive, is that it very difficult for us to see them.
      - acqq 11y ago
        There is another direction too: farher people should also be vary of not ending with thinking "let them eat cake," from the position of somebody not directly affected by the real problems of those who live them.
duaneb 11y ago
> No matter what the outcome is, Ataturk was totalitarian at the end Pointing out you're replacing all his achievements with the fact that he was a totalitarian. This ignores a whole host of subtly. Nixon started the EPA. Ghengis Khan raped and murdered uncountable ancients, but kicked off a trade network (hell, global economy) and international dialogue that arguably continues today. There's no black and white at all in history.

by afsina 11y ago

acqq 11y ago

You asked "What makes you the "reasonable" and others "ignorant fundamentalists" again?" I'm answering that the division exists and is important and I agree with you that there are better names for the same groups. But I surely don't want to disqualify the report of a somebody who writes from there only because his report doesn't use what in other environments would be assumed politically correct language.

afsina 11y ago
What I am against is that OP, perhaps indirectly, calls Turkish people who votes for/agrees current government as "ignorant fundamentalists" and himself as "reasonable". I think this is degrading and elitist. Maybe I misunderstood him.
- acqq 11y ago
  It's not name calling if he really believes that those who he names are ignorant. You can discuss with him about what he believes they don't know. Just using the word isn't wrong in itself.

gkya 11y ago

You're right in your point that M. Kemal was a victim, but he was not a victim of perfectionism and elitism. He was a victim of some blind nationalism, his admiring of the Occident and his dismissal of the parity of different cultures. He and other people thought that the Europe was better than the other, whereas in fact it was merely different. The revolutions were top down, fascistic, and forced. As you will see, if you read in an objective manner, some history, nearly none the revolutions have changed the things for the better for all. There are still many turks that sustain that Kurdish the language was invented in the 70's, that all the languages descended from turkish, that American indigenous people, Italians, Sumerians and other ancient people of the asia minore were of Turkish descent, that Armenians are the ones that made a genocide at the beginning of the 20th century, etc. People identify themselves basing on lies here. What gives a totalitarian person room to do what he wants? A bunch of hero-gazers that have nothing to base any thought on. See that I do not call people stupid or smart, many ignorant are smart. It's good when one knows that he knows or that he does not know, but the evil is the ignorance of the ignorance, which is our ill as a community of the Near east.

afsina 11y ago
Oh we do agree in the blind nationalism issue, no objections here. I do agree ignorance of ignorance is a terrible thing as well. However, unlike you I try to refrain blanket statements on people of near east, or any other place.
- gkya 11y ago
  Doesn't the fact that I'm a person of the near east justify me trying to reflect upon my people? I mean, given that I live here, I get to, and have to interact with this people, that I walk among real islamic fundamentalists, real PKK terrorists, real corrupt politicians and their actual supporters? I agree that it's not reasonable to make blanket statements, but I do indeed show the people I make statements about. All I do is to reflect upon the society that I belong to, that I live within and that affects me in the most direct manner.
  - afsina 11y ago
    I live in Turkey.
  - noskynethere 11y ago
    Not if you seek objectivity. You have your own biases, which do not go away because you live/interact there. It is common for people closest to a subject to have the biggest blind spots. the wonderful nature of our own biases, perceptive and cognitive, is that it very difficult for us to see them.
    - acqq 11y ago
      There is another direction too: farher people should also be vary of not ending with thinking "let them eat cake," from the position of somebody not directly affected by the real problems of those who live them.

duaneb 11y ago

> No matter what the outcome is, Ataturk was totalitarian at the end Pointing out you're replacing all his achievements with the fact that he was a totalitarian. This ignores a whole host of subtly. Nixon started the EPA. Ghengis Khan raped and murdered uncountable ancients, but kicked off a trade network (hell, global economy) and international dialogue that arguably continues today. There's no black and white at all in history.