Not all schools, apart from maybe Korea or Cuba, have a leader-glorifying attitude. I mean, everywhere peiople learn about history and people who made it. Don´t Turkish textbooks usually start with a picture of Ataturk and a poem praising him or a fragment from his speech? There´s a difference, you´re failing to observe, between talking about history and national heroes and worship. If you don´t consider bombarding children from a very young age with slogans, pictures and ideas of how great a person was and, at the same time prevent access to information that may spoil the perfect image, what is it if not propaganda and brainwashing? Apparently our dictionaries differ here...how does brainwashing work according to you?

You fail to understand that this is the history of these people and their sons. If you want young-aged children to learn how he was drinking and smoking, how he was a casanova or something like that, it does not fit our system of morality unfortunately if you mean information like this which may spoil the perfect image. In fact Atatürk himself preferred his ideas to be discussed instead of his private life. If you call it brainwashing, so be it.  Do Americans teaching their young-aged children how they extincted the Native Americans? Anyway after Atatürk short sighted leaders were failed to follow his path, they just made a ggod show by praising him, this is not the fault of Atatürk of course, actaully his revolutions remained uncompleted till now.

Again, I am not disturbed just interested, as I come from a country that has been exposed to propaganda for decades, and still it didn´t work on us I mean, it did work on some people, others followed for fear of their life but in the end, those that didn´t buy the crap won...it might be a difference in character, we seem less likely to accept ideas without questioning them. I´m not saying which way is better, just pointing out the difference

Yeah Turkish people showed their character in the war of independence, but unfortunately they lost it a lot now, I think they questioned a lot and held same path with imperialists as you said instead of following the path that Atatürk. 

In a way they did. Not in the form of war of independence, but they changed the economy, internal and foreign policy and had the same way of dealing with people who disobeyed them. And yes, all founders of new states are murderers, especially those who work by means of revolution. I mentioned tzar Peter the Great before, in order to modernise his country he´d cut off the beards of members of Duma (kind of a Russian national assembly), the members of Duma who didn´t want to cooperate lost their beards together with their heads. Isn´t it more or less what Ataturk did? he wanted to modernise Turkey, turn it into what you call an "imperialist" country. Don´t make me laugh that people who spent their whole lives in a fez gave it up without fight. People do not change easily. Ataturk´s revolution had blood on its hands, because all revolutions do. You´re justifying it saying that the previous regime was more bloody. Maybe. But, if my neighbour is a thief, it doesn´t mean I am free to steal from him, does it? Ie, the fact that others commit crimes is no excuse to commit them. Sure, history is written with blood. And it goes for all countries, not just Turkey! What´s the point of hiding it or justifying it? Murder is murder. And tyrant is a tyrant - I see you consider it to be an insulting word. How else would you call a person who makes his own rules and makes everybody either follow his way or kills them? According to my imperialist dictionary it´s a tyrant...

Too much of a word salad to justify the word "tyrant" . Is the word "tyrant" not insulting? So which words you use to insult or belittle leaders in your imperialistic dictionary? According to this point of view, one cannot able to find a world leader or a politician who is not a tyrant. Too bad people are always choosing tyrants. Then they are tyrant as well, all of us tyrant.

To be brainwashed, I´d have to be told that for years. And I haven´t. As far as I can remember my schoolbooks, I don´t think Turkish history took more than one page, if any. We did learn about the Ossman Empire and probably had a short text about independence movements across Europe at the beginning of 20th century - it must have included Turkey. but, to be honest, I don´t remember the name Ataturk from school. The first time I came across it was when I went to Turkey for the first time. So, sorry - no brainwashing here. Just an observation. Sorry to disappoint you but children in the imperialist Europe do not start their day with learning about how terrible Ataturk was and how they should hate him

Same in TR children firstly learn their history rather than world history. Mostly they learn world history by themselves. Of course they are not taught how evil imperialist westerners are to brainwash in schools ..

Oh, and I see my comaprison of Ataturk to Stalin and Hitler seems hard to digest for some people. Well, they were all leaders in autocratic regimes, they all wanted what was best for their countries at the time, regardless of cost in life, they all had their cults, poem written about and children being taught at school about how wonderful they were. They all had charisma to inspire crowds and all are responsible for numerous deaths. That´s for similarities, but surely there are differences: Ataturk´s scope was more limited, Hitler and Stalin had bigger territories to deal with, Hitler and Stalin were opponents in the war, one´s loss was the other´s victory. They both fought for dominance in Europe, Ataturk was not as expansive. Finally, both Hitler´s and Stalin´s regimes fell (fortunately!) - Hitler lost because he was too weak to conquer the whole Europe, Stalin well..ok..his regime didn´t fall until years later, but it was judged only after it had! Ataturk´s regime still holds, most probably because it wasn´t as expansive as Hitler´s or as rigid as Stalin´s. But, most importantly, it was better for those who followed him than what had been before him.

Your comparison is ridiciolus, that is futile you write to many words to explain because meaningless in the first place when the roles of leaders are different, as i explained Atatürk was defending his people against tyrants who occupied the lands of Turks. And yes Hitler and Stalin lost because they were attacking other countries, in the end other tyrants won... 

Anyway, the point of my posts was not to judge Ataturk as i don´t think any historical figure can be perceived as totally good or totally bad

I think you are one of the people whom I call "blind"

You are unable to understand me!

You are the one whom I call "yanar döner". And in fact i understood your paradox very well

Why should i need to çevir kazı yanmasın?

DD´s claim is that Atatürk was a tyrant, no different than Hitler and Turks worshipping him like God, and you said you agreed with her mostly in your post. That is why I asked that question and I got my answer, thanks...

You didn´t even understand why i touched on so called genocide. It was a reply to DD´s that claim "You still have no problem with Kurds or Armenians or Christians...neither did Ataturk, right?"

Atatürk´s ideas about these issues was clear, so I passed it in order not to devaite the subject. 

Armegon its true criticising Ataturk in Turkey is a taboo.

Atatürk´s ideas was started to be discussed and criticized when he was still alive by his close friends, followers and of course people.  It is not the fault of Atatürk but the fault of  following leaders.

Because, the people like you just learned to blame the ones who seek the truth.

People like you, let us know when you reach the truth so that people like me can check if it is compatible with the truth of people like me. 

Ataturk was not an angel, but he was the leader of our indipendence war.

Once again who said the opposite?

Armegon its true criticising Ataturk in Turkey is a taboo.

Because, the people like you just learned to blame the ones who seek the truth.

Ataturk was not an angel, but he was the leader of our indipendence war.

Armegon - somehow you managed not to refer to any of the points I made. can you please explain the difference between brainwashing and learning? Or tyrant vs democratic leader?

Don´t you really see the difference between teaching children that Ataturk smoked and telling them they have to love him? Do you think it´s either love madly or hate? Why not go for a balanced non-worshipping but rather objective education? Children in Turkey are taught to love Ataturk before they know who it is - that´s not brainwashing, right? But a foreigner, who has never been told a singe thing about Ataturk in her school, is brainwashed when she suggest a ridiculous claim he was a human being with all flaws and virtues Really?

Daydreamer, our thinking system and perception very much differs. Yours based on individuality, mine based on the benefit of the society I live, I am in the second plan. Turkish people at first taught to love the country and its people in school or by their parents instead of ownselves, I think this is one of the lesson experienced through the history of Turks, if it fails, state also collapses. In our time it is very much deformed by politicians. Anyway then children are taught how their country was founded and under which circumstances and there they are introduced to Atatürk. As far as I know all regimes follow similar education to ensure the unity of the country or some try to make their nation stand by money.

Children in TR are taught to love Atatürk by their parents or in school of course he is the one who established the country they live in, just like how they introduced the religions of their parents or others people with a little knowledge. In future when they learned more, they choose their path. And as for you ridicuolous claim that Atatürk was a human being, sorry who claimed the opposite? I maybe asking this for the the third time I guess, no one answered. Buda was a human bein too, Muhammad, İsa as well...

Why does Turkish government see it as threat that some people see things differently? With today´s access to information across borders it´s pointless to try to make Ataturk´s private life a taboo subject. It´s a losing game. If writers in turkey cannot write about his life, directors are treated like traitors because of their films and poor girls are ostracised when they say they don´t love Ataturk then maybe the worship has gone a bit too far?

Why are you so concerned with his private life? His private life should not be the issue but his thoughts. If you slander and insult him out your a** and say it was a criticism of his private life, of course wome people will reply to your claims. And regarding the videos on net criticizing or insulting him whatever it is the law that the government invented, in my opinion it is just nonsense..

Why not teach children about Ataturk´s achievements and his role in the formation of Turkey and let them decide whether to love him or not? Would that be too risky? What would happen if they decided to stay indifferent? Could that threaten Turkish nationalism? Maybe army would not play such a big role in Turkish "democracy"? maybe then inconvenient questions would have to be answered using reasons and not the "because Ataturk wanted this way" slogan?

Are they not deciding whether they love the formation of TR that Atatürk created? Of course they are, it seems they do not like it, if so TR would not be like that.

You´re saying he was not a tyrant. Let´s see...the decision to turn Turkey into a modern, non-Islamic state was the result of a national vote? And majority of people voted yes? Well, that would surely explain why there was no bloodshed Oh, and army was not a method of imposing his will on the nation. happy days, I say. Even chosing his surname and forbiding others to take it shows he was less of a servant to the nation, and more like a ruler.

It is the decision of Turkish people, perhaps Atatürk brainwashed them not to be a slave. What could he done without the support of people? Nothing. People believed in him and followed him if not revolution would not take place. Who do you think army consists of other than Turkish people? Not fit the definition of a tyrant?? 

You´re asking about tyrants in the west, well..all kings surely were so and so were (and are) all totalitarian leaders.

I was just ridiculing your word salad description of "tyrant", not asking you about the tyrants...

Anyway, it´s late and I´m bored so let´s call it a day

Armegon its true criticising Ataturk in Turkey is a taboo.

Because, the people like you just learned to blame the ones who seek the truth.

Ataturk was not an angel, but he was the leader of our indipendence war.

There´s no point continuing this subject as we´ll never see eye to eye. Like you said, the difference lies in individualism vs nationalistic. For me being instructed to love someone is brainwashing, to you it´s normal. To me criticising somebody is natural, I don´t believe in "holy cows" to you there are people who should be talked to in superlatives only because of their input in the society. You consider him unique, I find him just like any other revolutionary. Finally, you agree with limiting people´s access to international websites because they publish material unfavourable to your national hero, to me it´s ridiculous. To you the claim that Ataturk was a human being may seem ridiculously obvious, to me the way his memory functions in the society is not that of a human being, but a god.