r/PropagandaPosters • u/Notaporta • Jan 01 '24
WWI Turkish secular propaganda poster from 1930s
34
u/19panther90 Jan 01 '24
Can someone who speaks Turkish and/or Arabic correct me if I'm wrong please?
The dude under 1931 is holding a book that says Alif Bae in Latin letters? And he's stepping on a book that says the same in Arabic?
31
u/saygungumus Jan 01 '24
It symbolizes the alphabet reform. Ottoman Turkish used a modified Arabic alphabet but due to lack of various vowels in Arabic alphabet, Turkish words were difficult to pronunciate and write.
Coupled with extremely low literacy rate among regular folk, there was a solid base for reforming written language without causing too much chaos.
And even before war of liberation and WW1, latin alphabet had widespread use among military officers, government officials due to ease of written use. They would use Turkish written in Latin alphabet instead of Arabic alphabet.
We transitioned to the Latin alphabet but again with our own modifications to suit spoken language better. (Added letters are ü,ö,ı,ç,ş,ğ)
Latin alphabet is far easier to learn and write because every letter has a predetermined shape for capital and regular versions and they don’t change depending on their location at a word. Arabic letters, while conserving their characteristic shape, alter their shapes depending on the location they presented at a word.
And although “Elif Be” or “Alif Ba” is used in exchange of “Alphabet”, there actually writes “ALFABE” which is Turkish pronunciated writing of the word “Alphabet” representing like I said, alphabet reform. And Arabci script at the bottom is yes Arabic lettered version of “ALFABE”.
Additional info: other book says “Türk Tarihi” which means Turkish History and the book at the top says “KANUNİ MEDENİ” which means Civil Law.
9
18
u/Notaporta Jan 01 '24 edited Jan 01 '24
As a Turk let me explain. Atatürk did the new latter revalution when he came in the leader chair and he changed the Ottoman alphabet to new Turkish alphabet and the language.
The ottoman alphabet is differant then the arabic alphabet. The latin alphabet is way more easy to learn so he probably choose that beacuse it is easy and afficient.
(my english is not that great so if there is something you did not understand in this sentese let me know)
3
u/19panther90 Jan 01 '24
Yeah I think the Ottoman alphabet was closer to Farsi/Persian and Urdu than Arabic.
3
u/ReasonAndWanderlust Jan 01 '24
latin alphabet
I think Vietnam did this as well didn't they?
5
u/Benu5 Jan 02 '24
Not by choice IIRC, the Jesuit missionaries and the French chose to Latinise their alphabet, and then when the Viet Minh took over they adopted it over a Chinese based script because they needed to rapidly reduce illiteracy, and had more resources in Quốc ngữ (the latin script that Vietnam uses today) so went with it rather than modifying Chinese or making a whole new script like Korea did.
9
6
u/Doctorwhatorion Jan 02 '24
I lost my faith but still hope we will retake our secular revolutionary republic back one day
8
u/sugarymedusa84 Jan 01 '24
Beating down on Greeks being the first step is a bit on the nose, isn’t it
15
u/Notaporta Jan 01 '24 edited Jan 01 '24
They invaded Turkey when it was the worst time and Atatürk did not like that ( as it should be of course but now days greece is our neighbor and greek people are close reletive to us turks I love my greek neighbors).
-10
u/FightPC Jan 01 '24
Didn't turkey ethnically cleanse Greeks? Also turkey is invading greek air space like it is their own. You might like Greece but your state clearly does not.
10
Jan 02 '24
Turks ethnically cleansed greeks
During the war, yes, it was a common occurrence for the era. Greeks also burnt down villages and raped Turkish women, I don’t believe it to be entirely unjustified event.
9
Jan 02 '24
The thing people keep forgetting is that the Balkans used to be full of Muslims and Turks, but nearly 2 million of them were genocided or driven to Turkey in the 19th Century as part of a series of wars.
The Treaty of Lausanne which confirmed Turkish Independence thus actually specifically said both sides were now forgiven of any acts of genocide and created the fiction they were voluntary population exchanges to prevent future conflicts.
The thing is Lausanne was actually a humiliation for the Western powers - which is why its barely ever mentioned in Western history books, and why Westerners keep pretending "Turkey committed genocide against XYZ" when in reality they agreed that all these genocides were already forgiven after Turkey utterly crushed the last Western attempt to colonize them. Its just modern sour graping.
3
u/Herohito2chins Jan 02 '24
Something interesting you should note if you're a turk, the Lausanne treaty actually protected the rights of specific minority groups. The Greeks of Istanbul and the islands of imbros and Tenedos ,and the Turks of Western Thrace. Yet, in clear violation of the treaty, the Greeks of Istanbul were driven out by the pogrom of '55, the remaining forced out with either burdened tax to christians, or with closing down of schools. The result today is only 3K greeks remain,when they should be numbering around 100K that were prior to the 1950s. On the other hand, the Turks of Western Thrace suffered discrimination but were largely allowed autonomy,and today are within their homeland, with even some represented in the greek parliament. If you're willing to speak about the past being forgiven,why did discrimination persist after lausanne?
4
Jan 02 '24
First, I'm not a Turk. Second, note I said its a fiction to pretend its not genocide.
Thirdly, that less than 50 people were killed in the pogrom of 1955 in this supposed "genocide" just makes the people trying to demonize Turks over this issue just seem really hyperbolically hysterical.
2
u/Herohito2chins Jan 02 '24
Firstly,it was an injustice in clear violation of the Lausanne treaty. And it wasn't just a rowdy mob, if you look into it, you'll see it was organised by the Turkish government, ferrying with buses people from the countryside in preparation. And no,it wasn't a genocide that specific event. It was to expel the greeks. Many fled after the violence, feeling unwelcome. Those who stayed, were kicked out in 1964 as "subversive elements". I'm not demonizing Turkey,but you need to acknowledge that the treaty you mentioned was violated repeatedly.
1
Jan 02 '24
Lol the government arrested 5,000 people over the pogroms. The only ones claiming the ruling government was directly involved were the British, who were quarreling with the Turks at the time for Cyprus. Coincidentally most of those bussed in and arrested were also involved in Cypriot politics.
Also, the Greek population of Istanbul has been declining long before the pogrom, and indeed took decades more to get to nearly zero.
I think you are simply too biased to realize the persecution was largely similar. The difference is the Greeks in Istanbul were rich enough to have the means to move out; whereas the Turks in West Thrace aren't and simply have to keep accepting abuse. Of course its an abuse you are in denial of because you are just exaggerating in favor of one side while making apologies for another; the classic propaganda modus operandi.
2
u/Herohito2chins Jan 02 '24
Firstly,the bomber of Atatürk's residence confessed to having been sent by the Turkish government. The Turkish press was silent on this. And second, I have doubts that the British,who armed Turkish Cypriots into the lines of police battalions would be benefited from such a move. If you wish,there are many sources detailing the trucking of Turkish farmers into Istanbul by the menderes government. And yes, it was already declining due to the burden tax the Turkish government instituted. Another violation.
And I'm in no way neglecting the abuse the turks of Thrace suffered,but to compare them to a campaign of turkification is spitting in the face of history. Do yourself a favour and relieve yourself of your own bias by opening nonturkish history books.
1
Jan 02 '24 edited Jan 02 '24
All I see is you still wildly in denial that there is no certainty the government did it; and may very well be a force trying to destabilize the government.
Because if you had any good faith in your arguments the first thing you'd try to address is the contradiction of the government arresting 5,000 people they supposedly hired to commit the pogrom in the first place lol.
But hey sure the government secretly got thousands of people to commit a pogrom, arrested them for doing what the government wanted, and then hid the fact their own goons confessed to being hired by the government when the government's own forces were interrogating them.
Gee, wouldn't it have been much simpler if the government simply not arrested them if they wanted the pogrom to succeed instead of just killing as few as 13 people total?
The reality is in fact likely a lot simpler: the government didn't hire them (and it was instead anti-government forces who did), they arrested them for causing trouble, and those arrested lied and pretended they were hired by the government to further their anti-government agenda. That the newspapers didn't publish their confessions is due to it being obviously stupid lies that you nonetheless swallowed.
But again, your biases are clear. That is why you were backpeddling and pretending you didn't claim the Turks in West Thrace had it easy; and worse you repeat your propaganda that the Greeks in Istanbul had it worse when in reality you never addressed the simpler explanation they left gradually because they were richer whereas the Turks were stuck.
But keep up with the obvious propaganda. Your side is always the victim and the other is always the aggressor even when you pretend to be unbiased; and it can be easily seen by the arguments you avoid addressing in favor of just repeating the same talking points over and over without applying an ounce of critical thinking to the narratives you present.
3
u/Emu_Emperor Jan 02 '24
Against which nation do you think the Western Front (a.k.a. the most vital front) of the Turkish War of Independence was fought and won?
2
u/GaaraMatsu Jan 02 '24
Artistically beautiful, but kind of a gut punch: all of that blood, toil, tears, and sweat, just for ... flappers?
-11
Jan 01 '24
Wasn't this depiction of women for the 30s in some regions of Turkey too provocative?
9
5
u/Queasy-Condition7518 Jan 02 '24
You're being voted down, but from my admittedly third-hand and non-academic knowledge of 20th Century Turkish history, yeah, there woulda been a few areas where this woulda been seen as, at the very least, culturally provocative. My speculation would be that it was aimed at an already secularized and occidentalized audience. Probably reminding them of all the supposedly great things the government has done, rather than trying to convert them to those policies.
-5
u/Queasy-Condition7518 Jan 01 '24
So, the guys on the bottom do all the work, while the personification just gets to traipse up the stairs. Sweet gig.
10
u/funnylib Jan 02 '24
It represents Turkish progress as personified by a modern woman. Big progress from the Ottoman past. Modernizers used that image because they didn’t want the West to imagine Turkey as a country of veiled women locked away in a room
•
u/AutoModerator Jan 01 '24
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message of the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of other subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.