We visited Anıtkabir this morning to pay our respects to the father of Turkey. I'd had a bit of a laugh before coming after I read that guests were not required to remove their shoes in the mausoleum (the traditional show of deference in Islamic holy sites), but they were required to remove their hats (the traditional show of deference in Christian holy sites). Cheers for Westernization.
I came to Anıtkabir expecting ridiculous levels of nationalism and secularism, and by and large I wasn't disappointed. The complex surrounding his tomb features a series of museums detailing the exploits of the early Turkish Republic, housed in such humble and propagandaless buildings as the Towers of Independence, Liberty, National Pact, Revolution, Republic, Defense of Rights, Victory, and Peace. I read through a description of each next to a scale model in the Tower of Independence and learned about the various relics secular historical artifacts housed in each. Was any of this religious? No, surely not. Preserving hairs from the Prophet's beard is religious. Preserving Ataturk's toothbrush is merely due diligence to the Anatolian historical record. I did a double take when I came to the description of the Tower of Victory's contents, however.
Inside the tower the cannon car carrying Ataturk's holy corpse from Dolmabahce Palace to Sarayburnu is on display here.Well there's no talking around that one.
This, of course, forced me to reevaluate the admittedly shaky understanding I had of the Republic's secularity. The simple summation, that Ataturk and the Republic are SECULAR, can't really be squared with the explicitly religious overtones at Anıtkabir. I think I've worked out an alternative - it is the philosophy of the Turkish Republic that the purpose of religion is to strengthen the state, not subvert it. As such, religion, even state-sponsored religion, is permissible, or even desirable, so long as it encourages a strong government control and doesn't conflict with Kemalist philosophy. Revering Ataturk's cadaver, or referring to him as Gazi, or referring to military casualties as şehit, is entirely in keeping with this.
Armed with a greater understanding of realpolitik we went through the attendant museums depicting the Ataturk's campaigns and reforms during the early years of the Republic. The museum was fascinating both as a display of Ataturk's reforms, which I'd never actually seen listed out before, and as a display of the official party line on said reforms.
Ataturk's optimistic 'Peace at home, peace in the world' philosophy was a big hit at the museum. Yet how can that be achieved when the state commissions huge oil paintings reminding the Turks of Greek Orthodox priests leading a horde of barbarous Greeks in raping and pillaging their way through Izmir? Is that what leads to peaceful and comradely relations with Greece? Nationalism has never really lent itself to positive propaganda about neighboring countries, yet rubbing more salt in the Greek-Turkey relations wound seems excessive.
Other information presented in the museum was fascinating because I'd never heard it before. For example, during the Hat Law reforms all Turkish women Westernized their dress willingly. Oh! What a relief! We've been having this silly headscarf argument over nothing!
Also, periodic Ataturk quotes provided the proper context:
"To write history is as important as to make many history. It is an unchanging truth that if the writer does not remain true to the maker, then it takes on a quality that will confuse humanity."Let us repeat, there was no Armenian genocide.
No comments:
Post a Comment