How Happy is the One Who Says I'm Turkish (1)

What could be the purpose of this word?

I know very well that Atatürk's unforgettable motto "Happy is the one who says I am a Turk", which caresses our souls while saying it, always creates a flood of emotions in people who are connected to this country with a sense of belonging.

In this series of articles, I would like to convey to you what I saw from my own window, with a 'philosophical' approach, in the light of my research, why Atatürk said the word "How Happy is the One Who Says I Am a Turk" and what his goal is.

Asking questions and making analysis are at the forefront of the unchanging features of philosophy in its nearly three thousand-year-old tradition. With the views and perspectives it presents from time to time, philosophy can make even those who love philosophy doubt and shake their beliefs. But this is not the aim of philosophy, of course. The sole purpose of philosophy may be to arouse suspicion in people in order to overthrow dogmatic ideas. As it is known, this is a necessary prerequisite for the determination of development, change and the right one.

"How happy is the one who says I am a Turk" is a magic word, it is a small piece of ice that remains on the water. In the past, there was a big red curtain on the theater stages, and when this curtain was opened, the whole stage would be visible. Request; this magic word seems to me like a red curtain that covers the stage before the stage opens. I see it as a screen that reflects the Republic and its gains in the first place.

Could it have been said with a racist or Fascist understanding?

This statement certainly did not aim at a fascist approach or an ethnic discrimination in the conditions of that day. At a time when unity and integrity were sorely needed, discrimination could not be out of the question anyway. The aim, on the contrary, could have been unification.

When evaluated in the light of the values ​​attributed to today's active point of view, the expression "How happy is the one who says I am a Turk" can be seen as a phrase produced to serve the nationalist propaganda today, and thoughts in this direction can be put forward. It is normal.

However, I think that we need to envision the founding days of the Republic of Turkey, where this word was spoken, and think a little about why Atatürk felt the need to say such a word under the conditions of that day. I think it will be enough to fully reveal the value of the word if we look a little deeply, not superficially.

Considering the conditions of that period, nationalist movements and their strong effects immediately draw attention as a historical phenomenon. As a matter of fact, we know that nationalist movements played an important role in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, it can be thought that this word was uttered under the influence of these currents. Because at that time, there was a nation that was under pressure, wanted to be destroyed, and whose historical achievements were ignored. It was not just the Ottoman empire that was wanted to be destroyed; In fact, a whole nation was wanted to be destroyed, which was the Turkish nation.

As you know, it was mainstream Islamism that was valid within the borders of the Ottoman Empire until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The fact that the Balkan societies, especially under the Ottoman rule, fell in love with "nationalism" with the effect of the wind blown by the French Revolution of 1789, emerged as the greatest danger to the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire. The torch of Islamism was lit as an official ideology under the leadership of the state in order to hold together the main backbone outside the Christian and Jewish nations against the nationalist movements. As a result, in 1908 II. With the declaration of the Second Constitutional Monarchy, it was well understood that this understanding of Islamism could not save the Ottoman Empire, especially with the Libyan, Balkan Wars and finally the First World War.

Nation's Understanding of the Treaty of Lausanne:

The Treaty of Lausanne, in a way, built the understanding of nation on 'religion'. Therefore, the exchanges within the scope of the treaty were also made in line with religious belief, and it was decided to make population changes in a religious-oriented nationalism line. Thus, Anatolia started to host a Muslim population, besides the Christian and Jewish communities in Istanbul. There are no Turks in this treaty. Only the Christian and Jewish minorities were counted. Turkish, Kurdish, Laz, Circassian, Arab etc. there is no national discourse. All the rest were accepted as Muslims, and they acted with the foresight and thought that there was a society consisting of people who were all equal to each other.

At this point, the founder of the new Republic, Atatürk, with a unitary state construct, saw and wanted to see the Muslim people living within the borders of Turkey as the core of the nation-building process. It may come to mind why the word 'Turk' is used here. However, I think it should not be forgotten. Anatolian lands were also known as Turchia by the people living on these lands and by the Western society at the same time, that is, its name was already Turkey. Because the majority of the population consisted of numerous relatives who saw themselves as Turks in the modern sense. Being Turkish was a reality shared by the majority of the society and an integrating phenomenon. Therefore, by expressing that the people who founded the Republic of Turkey were Turks and saying "How happy is the one who says I am a Turk", Atatürk found it necessary to emphasize that the basic element that holds the people living in these lands together is Turkishness.

"How Happy is the One Who Says I'm a Turk" as a Cement Concept

There is no racism here, there is nation-building at its core. If there was racism, wouldn't it be necessary to say "How happy is the one who says I am a Turk" instead of "How happy is the one who says I am a Turk"? However, the priority of Atatürk and his friends was to develop a sense of belonging in these lands as soon as possible. It was unity and solidarity. The founding staff of the Republic did not want this people, who had lived together for centuries, to be separated from each other in terms of race. A population that was already declining (around 13 million) had to struggle to re-exist in unity and solidarity in these vast lands. There was a need for these people to be held together, to file the possible points of separation between them and to bring them together on a common ground. The new cement was adopted as “How happy is the one who says I am a Turk”.

Because Atatürk is a leader who personally experienced that the Ottoman Empire shrank and that only Anatolia remained for the people who migrated from the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Middle East as the last stronghold, and who established the "new Homeland", which is expressed in the national pact. He is a Commander and a statesman who did not remain a bystander to the destruction of his nation and pioneered the revival of the Turkish existence for this cause. The New State initiated a strong nation-building process to keep the people living within its borders together, to protect their common past, to keep their language and culture alive, to ensure that they preserve their traditions and customs as a part of their lives, and to enable these people to rise to the level of contemporary civilization. It has focused on providing social and economic development with the awareness of nationalism and ultimately making Turkey a part of the civilized world.

(To be continued)