Why is his legacy dead?
>>363150
hi, OP
>>362976
Nope. CHP is still around and one of the big 2 parties in Turkey.
>>362976
They caught the coup before it happened. Truly tragic.
>>362982
>>363150
was he a jew or not?
alot of people tell me he was raised by a single jewish mother, others tell me he wasnt influenced at all
>>363436
>prominent anti-theist leader
>not a jew
>>362976
Because Islam is what makes the Turk. You can't uphold the Turanist delusion for too long.
>>363449
It's an ethnoreligious identity which doesn't require you to be practicing
>>362976
>Ottomans during WWI
Nationalist mudslimes
>Turkey during Ataturk
Nationalist mudslimes
>Turkey today
Nationalist mudslimes
>>362976
Because he was a genius and not a single person around him really understood how (and in fact, if) they were supposed to carry his work. Counter-reforms and pussyfooting started with his immediate successor, İnönü. This man was one of his closest aides and longest time companions, and a distinguished commander himself, and not even he was able to build up on his legacy.
This is probably at least partially due to Atatürk himself as it can be said that he overestimated both his friends and his people. The rest is because the aforementioned people were unable or unwilling to meet the standards he set.
It has nothing to do with Islam itself by the way because Atatürk never publicly declared himself to be a nonbeliever and he wasn't planning to turn everyone into fedoras (he himself actually wasn't a fedora but closer to an agnostic); what he wanted was to simply root out Islamism, to keep religion outside of administration and to ensure that people would be well educated enough to make free choices about their beliefs instead of being tricked by authority figures.
>>363217
CHP has been a kek party for a long time now. Just because it was his party doesn't mean that people today still actually follow its original ideas.
Yes. His legacy is dead. His nationalist secular society idea is replaced with islamic populism.
Because whoever is control now (can't remember his name) is a Islamic dictator, although Attaturk wasn't much better, he pretty much wanted to wipe out every minority in Turkey
>>365557
Erdogan is more of a a pan-nationalistic autocrat rather than a theocratic-based despot tho.
>>365573
autocrat and despot are almost the same and he is both theocratic and nationalist
>>364379
>he himself actually wasn't a fedora
You sure?
>>362976
Erd*gan
>>366821
Spotted the Arm*nian
>>364712
How can a man be so based?
Seems to be. Secular Turkey is pretty much gone at this stage, a real shame.
>>362976
Because Turks gonna Turk. He was too good for them, he gave them a way out of their stupid religion and set them on a path that would have made them a part of successful first world society, but they just couldn't do it because muh Islam.
>>364712
HAHAHA source please?
It's fucking impossible he would have said such a thing. The religious masses throughout the nation would have raged the fuck out.
Or maybe he said this later in his life and it was suppressed really, really well not to piss off people.
But I doubt it's a real quote.
The way I see it, he was pretty ingenious and pragmatic in that he made sure not to piss off *any* potential allies and provided lip service to all parts of the nation, with differing ideals, to make sure they can at least temporarily unite to fight off the invaders.
But I actually know jack shit about history, that's just how it felt to me from all the contradictory stuff I always felt he seemed to have said. (Strong secularism on one hand, preaching Islam on the other hand; anti-racism on one hand, nationalism on the other hand; ...)
>>366812
He made a lot of contradictory statements about religion, some were more intolerant like this, other less. Since here for example he says that there's no problem with worship provided it falls within certain guidelines, it distances him from being fedora.
>>371589
AFAIK the source comes from Islamists or Turanists. So most probably bogus.
Leaving the issue of masses flipping out aside, it is most probable that his immediate entourage and nearly all of the nation was at some level connected with Islam. Before the current government took power, when religion was an extremely personal affair compared to today, actual atheism was rare. I'd have to ask my parents about how it was in older times but I personally know very few "fedoras", and not a single person who believes in a God-less religion in Turkey, among any generation. The rest is divided among shit tier Muslims (Islamists or posers), devout Muslims (very "muh islam" but doesn't act against others), casual Muslims (believes in a God and respects prophet and book, doesn't really do anything other than that), agnostics, New Agers and spirituals. I'd be surprised if the situation was any different back in Atatürk's time (aside from there being less groups of course).
As for nationalism it was about extolling and praising the people but without involving disdain and rejection for others.
>>363238
This.
>>371589
Do you remember this part in Rousseau's Social Contract about how you need a mythic hero that stands above petty democratic considerations to unite the country and give it a constitution?
>>363449
>not knowing the difference between a cultural and religious Jew
oy vey
He tried to replace religion with nationalism and failed. Read Machiavelli. Thats all there is to it. His legacy is not dead, for it to be dead it would have first have to succeed. It never did. Maybe if he spent less time drinking himself to death and staying alive longer and taking care more of the people who would follow him, it would have been better.
>>372511
>for it to be dead it would have first have to succeed
Do you think convincing Durkas about creating a secular state is not a success?
>>373616
He didn't convince anybody. He just killed anyone who opposed him.
>>373882
That's a success for me
>>364712
Source?
>>362976
It will be when the Russians turn Turkey into gravel
