Jump to content

Nutuk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DriedGrape (talk | contribs) at 21:08, 26 January 2022 (Undid revision 1067370961 by Սեաւ Պարտէզ (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nutuk
Mustafa Kemal presenting the Nutuk at the Assembly, 1927.
Background (Calligraphy): حاكميت ملتكدر Hakimiyet Milletindir means "Sovereignty Belongs to the People"

Nutuk (Modern Turkish: Söylev; The Speech) was a speech delivered by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk from 15 to 20 October 1927, at the second congress of Republican People's Party. The speech covered the events between the start of the Turkish War of Independence on 19 May 1919, and the foundation of the Republic of Turkey, in 1923. It took thirty-six hours (on a 6 day span) to be read by Atatürk, and became a foundation of Kemalist historiography.[1][2][3][4] Nutuk marked a turning point of Turkish nationalism by introducing a series of new myths and concepts into the vernacular of public discourse, such as republic, democracy, sovereignty of the nation, and secularism. Atatürk designated these concepts as the 'most precious treasures' of Turkish people, the 'foundations' of their new state, and the preconditions of their future 'existence' in his speech.[5]

Speech

Mustafa Kemal begins his speech by describing the situation of the Ottoman Empire when he landed at Samsun to start the Turkish War of Independence in 1919:

"Gentlemen,

I landed at Samsun on the 19th May, 1919. This was the position at that time: The group of powers, to which the Ottoman Empire was one, has been defeated in the Great War. The Ottoman Army has been surrendered in all directions and an armistice with harsh terms has been signed. During the years of Great War, the people were exhausted and driven to poverty. Those who had sent their nation to war have now escaped, their only anxiety being their own welfare. Vahdettin, the one carrying the titles of Sultan and Caliph, degenerated; only dreaming of the ways to save his thrown [sic]. The government under the grand vizirate of Damat Ferit Paşa, without honor, frightened and incompetent, under the command of the sultan and in the same boat as him, ready to accept anything for the sake of their lives."

"The Entente Powers did not consider it necessary to respect the terms of the armistice. On various pretexts, their men-of-war and troops remained at İstanbul. The Vilayet of Adana was occupied by the French; Urfa, Maraş, Antep, by the English. In Antalya and Konya were Italians, whilst at Merzifon and Samsun were English troops. Foreign officers and officials and their special agents were very active everywhere. At last, on the 15th of May, that is to say, four days before the following account of the event begins, the Greek Army, with the consent of the Entente Powers, had landed at İzmir."[6]

He argues that the Ottoman Empire is on its death throes by 1919. The people and the army keep loyal to the Sultan who was guilty of treachery, due to centuries old traditions and dogmas:

"The enemy states were attacking the Ottoman State materially and psychologically; they were determined to partition it. The person carrying the titles of the sultan and caliph was only anxious to save his own life. The government was behaving similarly. The people left without guidance waited in darkness, anticipating an unknown future. Those who began to understand the horrible situation were contemplating the ways of salvation, turning to those tools familiar to them. The army existed only in name. The officers were exhausted after the Great War, while the terrible situation before them was tearing their hearts out, and still they were searching the ways to salvation. Here I want to stress one important thing. The army and the people were altogether unaware of the treachery of the sultan-caliph. They were attached to these institutions by their soul, an affection based on a tradition of several centuries. The people could not even consider their salvation without the guidance of the sultan-caliph."[7]

He asserts that Turkey can only be respected by other powers if she achieves independence:

"I took my turn to speak and I declared loudly: Gentleman, power and sovereignty are not given from one person to another by scholarly debates or polemics. Sovereignty is taken by force. The Ottomans took the sovereignty of the Turkish people by force. These usurpers managed to rule 600 years. Today the Turkish Nation has reclaimed that sovereignty for itself. This is an accomplished fact. There is no need to discuss this further. It is quite desirable that those present here can accept this truth. Otherwise some heads will roll during this process."[8]

Criticizing certain predominant ideas among the Ottoman populace regarding the continued existence of the Ottoman state, particularly about favoring being either an American or British protectorate, he explains his rejection to such ideas and puts forward his reasoning for the founding of a Turkish state:

"Now, Gentlemen, I will ask you what decision could have been arrived at under such circumstances for salvation? As I have already explained, there were three propositions that had been put forward:

1. To demand protection from England;
2. To accept the United States of America as a mandatory Power.
The originators of these two proposals had as their aim the preservation of the Ottoman Empire in its complete integrity and preferred to place it as a whole under the protection of a single Power, rather than allow it to be divided among several States.
3. The third proposal was to deliver the country by allowing each district to act in its own way and according to its own capability. Thus, for instance, certain districts, in opposition to the theory of separation, endeavoured to remain an integral part of the Empire.

Others holding a different opinion already appeared to regard the dismemberment of the Empire as an accomplished fact and sought only their own safety. My above explanations are inclusive of the leading motives of these three kinds of propositions. I did not think any of these three proposals could be accepted as sagacious, because the arguments and considerations on which they were based were groundless. In reality, the foundations of the Ottoman Empire were themselves shattered at that time. Its existence was threatened with extermination. All the Ottoman districts were practically dismembered. Only the fatherland, affording protection to a mere handful of Turks, still remained, and it was now suggested also to divide this. Such expressions as: the Ottoman Empire, Independence, Padisah-Caliph, Government - all of them were mere meaningless words. Whose existence was it essential to save? And with whose help? And how? Therefore, what could be a serious and correct resolution? In these circumstances, one resolution alone was possible, namely, to create a New Turkish State, the sovereignty and independence of which would be unreservedly recognised."[9]

Analysis

According to Turkish historian Hakan Uzun, Nutuk is an embodiment of the core values of the nation that Atatürk has embraced. The speech covers the importance of national unity to both the National Movement and the republic. The National Movement, with the goal of achieving independence and unity through the pursue of sovereignty, has done so with a defensive position rather than an aggressive one via a lawful foundation.[10]

According to Turkish sociologist Fatma Müge Göçek,[11][12][13] the speech was "adopted as the official Turkish national narrative and became sacralized by the state". Göçek stated that, because the law criminalizes insulting Atatürk, Turkish historians have been unable to analyze the speech critically. She said: "It is evident that the text commences the birth of the Turkish nation with 1919, removing in the process the demise of the Armenians in 1915 through state violence to the realm of Republican prehistory."[14]

Historian Marc David Baer wrote:

The main themes of the speech—and of the official discourse on the Armenian genocide—are silence, denial of the genocide, general amnesia about past violence (unless presenting Turks as the real victims), identifying with the perpetrators, never questioning the great prophetic and infallible leader (Atatürk), and promoting the racial purification of the land in the face of a life-or-death Darwinian struggle with minorities.[15]

British Historian Perry Anderson states that, "The speech he gave in 1927 that became the official creed of the nation dwarfed any address by Khrushchev or Castro. Extolling his own achievements, it went on for 36 hours, delivered over six days, eventually composing a tome of 600 pages: a record in the annals of autocracy."[16]

References

  1. ^ Yelbasi, Caner (2019). The Circassians of Turkey: War, Violence and Nationalism from the Ottomans to Atatürk. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-83860-017-4.
  2. ^ Göknar, Erdağ (2013). "Turkish-Islamic Feminism Confronts National Patriarchy: Halide Edib's Divided Self". Journal of Middle East Women's Studies. 9 (2): 32–57. doi:10.2979/jmiddeastwomstud.9.2.32. S2CID 162122141.
  3. ^ Zürcher, Erik Jan (1986). "Young Turk memoirs as a historical source: Kazim Karabekir's Istiklal Harbimiz". Middle Eastern Studies. 22 (4): 562–570. doi:10.1080/00263208608700681.
  4. ^ Dogan, Gazi (2016). The establishment of Kemalist autocracy and its reform policies in Turkey (PhD thesis). abstract.
  5. ^ Morin, Aysel; Lee, Robert. Constitutive Discourse of Turkish Nationalism: Atatürk's Nutuk and the Rhetorical Construction of the "Turkish People". p. 486.
  6. ^ Alaranta, Toni (2008). "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's Six-Day Speech of 1927: Defining the Official Historical View of the Foundation of the Turkish Republic" (PDF). 9. University of Turku, Finland: 117. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  7. ^ Alaranta 2008, p. 118.
  8. ^ Alaranta 2008, p. 126.
  9. ^ "Mustafa Kemal, Speech to the Congress of the People's Republican Party" (PDF). University of Delaware.
  10. ^ Uzun, Hakan. Atatürk'ün Nutuk'unun İçerik Analizi. Hacettepe University. pp. 142–149. (PhD Thesis) (In Turkish)
  11. ^ Nahmiyaz, Medi (2018). "Turkey: Greeks and Armenians in History Textbooks (1930–2010)". Multiple Alterities: Views of Others in Textbooks of the Middle East. Springer International Publishing. pp. 333–353. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62244-6_15. ISBN 978-3-319-62244-6.
  12. ^ Mazlish, Bruce (2009). "Global Humanity". The Idea of Humanity in a Global Era. Palgrave Macmillan US. pp. 17–29. doi:10.1057/9780230617766_2. ISBN 978-0-230-61776-6.
  13. ^ Galip, Özlem Belçim (2020). New Social Movements and the Armenian Question in Turkey: Civil Society vs. the State. Springer Nature. p. 37. ISBN 978-3-030-59400-8.
  14. ^ Göçek, Fatma Müge (2011). "Reading Genocide: Turkish Historiography on 1915". In Suny, Ronald Grigor; Göçek, Fatma Müge; Naimark, Norman M. (eds.). A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire. Oxford University Press. pp. 42–52. ISBN 978-0-19-979276-4.
  15. ^ Baer, Marc D. (2020). Sultanic Saviors and Tolerant Turks: Writing Ottoman Jewish History, Denying the Armenian Genocide. Indiana University Press. p. 82. ISBN 978-0-253-04542-3.
  16. ^ Anderson, Perry (2008-09-11). "Kemalism". London Review of Books. Vol. 30, no. 17. ISSN 0260-9592. Retrieved 2021-12-09.

Further reading



Flag of TurkeyHourglass icon  

This Turkish history-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nutuk&oldid=1068141161"