Why reforms of Kemal were more effective then Reza Shah
There are four main reasons why the reforms of Mustafa Kemal "Attaturk" were more effective then Reza Shah. First, Kemals reforms were already under way in the Ottoman Empire. In Turkey, Mustafa Kemal was merely expanding on the ideas of Ottoman reforms, while in Iran Reza Shahs reforms were much more novel. Second, Kemal was able to creat a state and government Simultaneously while in Iran Reza Shah created a new government within an already existing state. Third, Kemal was successful in rising through the ranks by way of popular revolution while Reza shah took power in a military coup d'etat. Finally, Kemal "Attaturk" became independent of foreign power/influence, which also allowed Turkey (A loser in World War I) to negotiate on there own terms. By doing so, Turkey was able to get what they wanted post World War I. Reza shah struggled constantly with foreign powers and influence throughout his rule.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Blog #9
Compare and Contrast Reza Shah and Mustafa Kemal "Attaturk"
There are many similarities and differences to be made between these two famous Middle Eastern leaders. Both of these leaders wanted to Westernize their respective countries. This meant reform in not only the government but culture and life style as well. Both leaders forced their women to unveil. This would inevitably draw praise and negative criticism from different sections of the population. While popular with some people unveiling was vastly unpopular amongst the religious figures of the country, or Ulema. Both leaders decided to reform education. Secular education was the route that both leaders chose to take in this reform. Both leaders also mandated that the citizens of the country to take new last names.
Differences in the reforms are also clearly visible throughout their history. Reza Shah decided to implement a french civil code while Mustafa Kemal instituted a Swiss civil code. Reza shah mandated a new mens style of cloathing while Mustafa Kemal gave women the right to vote. Another major theme, in my opinion was the downplay of religion for different reasons within the two empires. While I believe that Reza Shahs main goal during the downplay of religion was in order to gain more power from the Ulema, Attaturk chose to down play religion more for the purpose of culture and in order to nationalize Turkey even further from their Ottoman roots.
There are many similarities and differences to be made between these two famous Middle Eastern leaders. Both of these leaders wanted to Westernize their respective countries. This meant reform in not only the government but culture and life style as well. Both leaders forced their women to unveil. This would inevitably draw praise and negative criticism from different sections of the population. While popular with some people unveiling was vastly unpopular amongst the religious figures of the country, or Ulema. Both leaders decided to reform education. Secular education was the route that both leaders chose to take in this reform. Both leaders also mandated that the citizens of the country to take new last names.
Differences in the reforms are also clearly visible throughout their history. Reza Shah decided to implement a french civil code while Mustafa Kemal instituted a Swiss civil code. Reza shah mandated a new mens style of cloathing while Mustafa Kemal gave women the right to vote. Another major theme, in my opinion was the downplay of religion for different reasons within the two empires. While I believe that Reza Shahs main goal during the downplay of religion was in order to gain more power from the Ulema, Attaturk chose to down play religion more for the purpose of culture and in order to nationalize Turkey even further from their Ottoman roots.
Blog #8
Ottoman Empire Post WWI
After the end of World War I the Middle East became a region of great complexity and controversy. The great criticism that I would like to address involves the fragmentation of the Ottoman Empire into 6 entirely new states. These states would essentially emerge out of thin air in the interest of European powers without the consent and support of the local population. These states included Turkey, along with five Arab states that included; Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Jordan. In addition to these new nations, Saudi Arabia and Yemen also broke through as distinct countries. European powers manipulated and lied during numerous diplomatic correspondences during and after World War I in order to ascertain what they wanted from the Middle East. England and France both established spheres of interest in various regions so that they control such things as Oil and the Suez Canal. Later these “spheres of influence” turned into mandates that stated if any power took control of another country that the foreign controllers must prepare that land for independence. Two examples of political exploitations during World War I where either two European powers collaborated in taking advantage of Middle Eastern countries or one power abusing a single Middle Eastern country are the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Husayn-Mcmahon correspondences. In the Sykes-Picot agreement, France and England agreed to share both direct and indirect control of Arab territories without the intention of preparing the land for independence. In the Husayn-Mcmahon correspondence Sherif Husayn of Mecca was tricked into revolting against the Ottomans during WWI for the Allied powers. Husayn was promised territory after the war even though Mcmahon had no intentions of giving the land away.
After the end of World War I the Middle East became a region of great complexity and controversy. The great criticism that I would like to address involves the fragmentation of the Ottoman Empire into 6 entirely new states. These states would essentially emerge out of thin air in the interest of European powers without the consent and support of the local population. These states included Turkey, along with five Arab states that included; Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Jordan. In addition to these new nations, Saudi Arabia and Yemen also broke through as distinct countries. European powers manipulated and lied during numerous diplomatic correspondences during and after World War I in order to ascertain what they wanted from the Middle East. England and France both established spheres of interest in various regions so that they control such things as Oil and the Suez Canal. Later these “spheres of influence” turned into mandates that stated if any power took control of another country that the foreign controllers must prepare that land for independence. Two examples of political exploitations during World War I where either two European powers collaborated in taking advantage of Middle Eastern countries or one power abusing a single Middle Eastern country are the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Husayn-Mcmahon correspondences. In the Sykes-Picot agreement, France and England agreed to share both direct and indirect control of Arab territories without the intention of preparing the land for independence. In the Husayn-Mcmahon correspondence Sherif Husayn of Mecca was tricked into revolting against the Ottomans during WWI for the Allied powers. Husayn was promised territory after the war even though Mcmahon had no intentions of giving the land away.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Blog #7
The Ottoman Bill of Rights (1856)
The Ottoman Bill of rights is a prime example of the growth of civilization. Though the Ottomans were always much more pro-active in giving various political and religious freedoms to a great majority of its people, the 1856 Ottoman Bill of Rights only expands on these principles. I definitely believe the the Ottomans took initiative and followed the way the United States set their Bill of rights.
The very first thing that the Ottoman Bill of Rights re-affirms is their tolerant stance on religion stating: "All the Privileges and Spiritual Immunities granted by my ancestors..., and at subsequent dates, to all Christian communities or other non-Muslim persuasion established in my Empire under my protection, shall be confirmed and maintained." This is not something new to the Ottoman Empire as we have seen very early on that the Ottomans were very committed to a freedom of religion. Even the Jizya tax was placed to help non-Muslim communities establish and maintain their own places of worship. The Bill also states that entire non-Muslim communities would not be barred from establishing places of worship, schools and cemeteries.
The most Important part of this Bill to me has to do with Education. "As all forms of Religion are and shall be freely professed in my dominions, no subject of my Empire shall be hindered in the exercise of the Religion that he professes...No one shall be compelled to change their Religion...and...all the subjects of my Empire, without distinction of nationality, shall be admissible to public employments...All the subjects of my Empire, without distinction, shall be received into the Civil and Military Schools of the Government...Moreover, every community is authorized to establish Public Schools of Science, Art, and Industry. " Having this strong of an attitude for education is also not a new thing for the Ottoman empire, but the re-affirming of this in their new Bill of Rights was still very important.
The Ottoman Bill of rights is a prime example of the growth of civilization. Though the Ottomans were always much more pro-active in giving various political and religious freedoms to a great majority of its people, the 1856 Ottoman Bill of Rights only expands on these principles. I definitely believe the the Ottomans took initiative and followed the way the United States set their Bill of rights.
The very first thing that the Ottoman Bill of Rights re-affirms is their tolerant stance on religion stating: "All the Privileges and Spiritual Immunities granted by my ancestors..., and at subsequent dates, to all Christian communities or other non-Muslim persuasion established in my Empire under my protection, shall be confirmed and maintained." This is not something new to the Ottoman Empire as we have seen very early on that the Ottomans were very committed to a freedom of religion. Even the Jizya tax was placed to help non-Muslim communities establish and maintain their own places of worship. The Bill also states that entire non-Muslim communities would not be barred from establishing places of worship, schools and cemeteries.
The most Important part of this Bill to me has to do with Education. "As all forms of Religion are and shall be freely professed in my dominions, no subject of my Empire shall be hindered in the exercise of the Religion that he professes...No one shall be compelled to change their Religion...and...all the subjects of my Empire, without distinction of nationality, shall be admissible to public employments...All the subjects of my Empire, without distinction, shall be received into the Civil and Military Schools of the Government...Moreover, every community is authorized to establish Public Schools of Science, Art, and Industry. " Having this strong of an attitude for education is also not a new thing for the Ottoman empire, but the re-affirming of this in their new Bill of Rights was still very important.
Blog #6
The British Occupation of Egypt:
After reading this section of the Cleveland book, I found it very interesting that it was so hard to define Britain's Relationship with Egypt. The most important factor in British occupation of Egypt was, "In order to safeguard the Suez Canal, to restore Egypt's political and Financial Stability, and, in context of the imperial competition of the era, to prevent France from occupying it first." This quote was very startling to me. My reasoning for this reaction is because it paints the English as protectorates of Egypt, when in fact, it seems that the sole reason for their presence in the country is to make some profit off of the Suez Canal in order to prevent the French from doing the same. The British also claimed that they could not define their relationship with Egypt as a colony or a protectorate. However, they do state in the section that Evelyn Baring, and later Lord Cromer presided over the occupation with "absolute authority for its first quarter." These political figures were colonial administrators with many years of service in India. So if the absolute authority of a country is given to political figures who had been the "colonial administrators" of another country, how can you call Egypt something other than a colony of Britain itself at that point in time?
After reading this section of the Cleveland book, I found it very interesting that it was so hard to define Britain's Relationship with Egypt. The most important factor in British occupation of Egypt was, "In order to safeguard the Suez Canal, to restore Egypt's political and Financial Stability, and, in context of the imperial competition of the era, to prevent France from occupying it first." This quote was very startling to me. My reasoning for this reaction is because it paints the English as protectorates of Egypt, when in fact, it seems that the sole reason for their presence in the country is to make some profit off of the Suez Canal in order to prevent the French from doing the same. The British also claimed that they could not define their relationship with Egypt as a colony or a protectorate. However, they do state in the section that Evelyn Baring, and later Lord Cromer presided over the occupation with "absolute authority for its first quarter." These political figures were colonial administrators with many years of service in India. So if the absolute authority of a country is given to political figures who had been the "colonial administrators" of another country, how can you call Egypt something other than a colony of Britain itself at that point in time?
Blog #5 Zayni Barakat
I found the book, "Zayni Barakat" to be a very interesting read. A fictional account of the Mamluk Empire, I chose to focus on the fact that had Zayni Barakat been appointed a part of the Ottoman government once the Mamluk Empire had fallen, he would have excelled at this opportunity. Reading Zayni Barakat was a very interesting change for a History class because I had never studied a time period using a fictional book as a source. I found it to be a welcome change of pace and in the end after writing our class paper, I found that it helped to enhance my understanding of how people in this time period lived. It also helped me to understand what sorts of problems governments had to face in these particular regions. My favorite part of the book included the five excerpts from the Venetian Traveller Visconti Gianti. This person, according to the book, visted the Mamluk empire while Barakat was in different positions on five separate occasions. I am very eager to get further into the class because during our colloquium one person mentioned that the book was a parity of the way the Egyptian government was being ran on a separate occasion.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Blog #4 2/9/09
Conflict: Uncertain Boundaries of Power
I thought that the most interesting section of this weeks readings were in Leslie Pierce's book "The Imperial Harem." The section was entitled, "Conflict: Uncertain Boundaries of Power," and connected the powers of the valide sultan to the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. The valide sultan was literally, the Sultans mother and her power was directly connected to the power of the sultan. Though obviously the valide sultans power did not touch the equivalence of the sultans, the valide sultan, "acquired public status and a claim to legitimate authority in government." I also found it extremely interesting that Pierce noted the tensions that were formally fused between father and son were transferred to mother and son. I thought that this was amazing because it showed that the Ottomans not only had great tolerance of religion but also were capable of allowing female prescence in important government positions. Even though Pierce noted that there was tension between the valide sultan and sultans relationship, I was slightly confused when Pierce commented, "The most difficult task of a sultan was surely to recognize which of his intimate advisers offered counsel that was most beneficial to the stability and the well-being of the Empire and thus to the security of his throne." This is because even though the valide sultan claimed some power and thus may have created tension between the sultan and herself; I beleive that there still should be a huge amount of trust and confidence between the two powers.
I thought that the most interesting section of this weeks readings were in Leslie Pierce's book "The Imperial Harem." The section was entitled, "Conflict: Uncertain Boundaries of Power," and connected the powers of the valide sultan to the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. The valide sultan was literally, the Sultans mother and her power was directly connected to the power of the sultan. Though obviously the valide sultans power did not touch the equivalence of the sultans, the valide sultan, "acquired public status and a claim to legitimate authority in government." I also found it extremely interesting that Pierce noted the tensions that were formally fused between father and son were transferred to mother and son. I thought that this was amazing because it showed that the Ottomans not only had great tolerance of religion but also were capable of allowing female prescence in important government positions. Even though Pierce noted that there was tension between the valide sultan and sultans relationship, I was slightly confused when Pierce commented, "The most difficult task of a sultan was surely to recognize which of his intimate advisers offered counsel that was most beneficial to the stability and the well-being of the Empire and thus to the security of his throne." This is because even though the valide sultan claimed some power and thus may have created tension between the sultan and herself; I beleive that there still should be a huge amount of trust and confidence between the two powers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)