Turkish pop music

Today's topic is going to be lighter than previous topics. Turkish pop music has really made an impression on me as far as what I listen to in Istanbul. I like Turkish pop music because I think that the flow of the language really compliments the music. Turkish has an amazing ability to be drawn out for emphasis or chopped up speed.

My favorite singer is Hande Yener. She's had a career going strong for 10 years and listening to her earlier music and comparing with with her recent songs, I understand how she can be so popular. Her first breakout hit was in 2000 with a song entitled "Yalanın Batsın." The song is reminiscent of early 1990s music, Ace of Base comes to mind when I listen to this song. Moving later, her song "Aşkın Ateşi" combines a traditional Turkish sounds with fast paced dance. Among the Turks I have spoken with, this song is well liked. My personal favorites are: Arsız, Romeo, Hipnoz, Pinokyo, Yasak Aşk, Unut, Kibir, Ok Yay. I recommend listening to them if you like a combination of dance/pop and traditional Turkish sounds.

Of course Tarkan is another favorite of mine. Simarik is a classic, but my favorite Tarkan song is Kuzu Kuzu. The video shows his talent of sheer performance as he dances and sings. Another good song is Her Neredeyse. Like Hande Yener, Tarkan has enjoyed a very long career that has morphed with the times. That's the secret of their success, they have careers that when looked at in their totality, demonstrate a range of sounds, techniques, and approaches to music. Of course it doesn't hurt that both Hande Yener and Tarkan are easy on the eyes as well.

Mustafa Sandal along with Sertab Erener are also good to listen to. Sertab Erener's Everyway that I can song was a hit and won the Eurovision Contest, a first for Turkey. Sertab's Shut Up and Dance demonstrates a easy listening sound that is just as good as any pop song she sings. Mustafa Sandal's Indir and Karizma are both addicting. He is particularly talented at singing lyrics very fast.

Other favorites include Manga's "We could be the same," and Badem's "Sen ağlama." Manga won second place in the Eurovision Contest this past year. Their song, in my opinion, was so much better than Lena's. I also love Pinar Aylın's Bekletme.

Osmanlı Rüyası by Nuray Mert

For today's post I would like to discuss an article we read in our okuma class. It was a op-ed written by Nuray Mert for the newspaper Radikal. The piece is dated 04/28/2009.

Nuray Mert is certainly an author I want to research in depth. For my thesis on Atatürk, she seems to be a good source to quote. This particular piece she wrote is called Osmanlı Rüyası, or "Ottman Dream." I posted yesterday some thoughts on the Ottoman Empire, and touched on nostalgia felt for it by religious conservatives. Mert, however, goes into detail on the subject of "Osmanlı nostaljisi." Something that she sees as fake and rooted in emotion rather than historical fact. The article makes me question my observations I espoused yesterday.

Mert's language stands out. Her tone is satiric and witty. Using old Ottoman Turkish words (of Arabic or Persian origin) she satirizes the nostalgia felt on behalf of religious conservatives (Mert calls them 'muhafazakar' a word noticeablely of non-Turkish origin) for the Ottoman past. According to Mert, there are two ideologies competing for power in Turkey: republican ideology (she is careful not use Ataturk's ideology or Kemalist ideology) and what she describes as 'Osmanlı mirası" or "Ottoman legacy." The aims of the neo-Ottomanists according to Mert is "to build a society bound by religious culture in place of [one that is] modern and secular."

Her main argument is that for the muhafazakar, the Ottoman empire has become a symbol of an Islamic "golden age." The muhafazakar see the Ottoman state as "an island of civilization, a tolerant heaven, a symbol of justice, a heaven on earth."

Mert expands on this point to bring up some realities of the Ottoman state. She asks, "where were women's rights in the Ottoman empire." She answers by saying that for the average person in the Ottoman empire, there were no rights. The sultan's word was law. Mert also goes into some discussion about the "Ottoman woman." Though she doesn't believe personally that women in hijabs in Turkey want to return to that status, she does point out the irony that they champion a system that afforded women no rights.

For me personally, I think I would like revise my thoughts on muhafazakar. Yesterday I stated that I was in the secular camp but that I thought that the muhafazakar were harmless. After reading Mert's article, I have doubts now. I admire her uncompromising commitment to secularism and modernism. And I agree with her point, that all of this is a mere "dream." I look forward to reading more of her articles.

The Ottomans/Turkey's future

There's an aspect of Turkey that I have barely mentioned until this post. Mainly because my area of interest is Kemailist Turkey. But I would like to take some time to talk about the Ottoman Empire and its achievements. The photo is of me standing in front of Dolmabache Palace, the final resisdence of the Ottoman Sultans until Atatürk abolished the Sultanate in 1922. I believe he was right to abolish the Sultanate and declare Turkey a republic. The times had demanded it.

But that does not take away from the marvel that is Ottoman history. The Ottomans managed to build an empire, become the leaders of the Muslim world, become a haven for religious tolerance in their realms, and solidify Anatolia's link with the Middle East and Europe. Phenomenal achievements!

1451 say the conquest of Constantinople by Sultan Fatih Mehmet. The Turks conquered the city bringing an end to the ancient Greek Byzantine Empire. Constantinople became the jewel in the Ottoman crown. Curiously enough, the prophet Mohammad is said to have predicted that the Muslims would conquer Constantinople. Fatih Mehmet is a legendary figure, still revered by the Turks. In his conquest, Fatih Mehmet personally had the Christians in the newly conquered realms protected by law. There's even on decree from him staying that a monastery and the monks living in it are under his personal protection.

In a time when Europe was torn apart by religious strife, the Ottomans were known for their religious tolerance. Of course, Islam was the state religion, but there were autonomous communities of Christians and Jews who played an important role in the society of the Ottoman Empire. Many religious Turks I have spoken with always cite the toleration of the Ottomans for other religions. That's the importance of the Ottoman empire, because I believe it gives us a glimpse into how the religious Muslims want to be. People say Turkey is in danger of becoming the "2nd Iran." I don't belive this is true.

I believe that the Ottoman nostalgia that many religious Turks share is based on what made the empire great: tolerance and openess. They look to a time when Islam was indeed about peace, progress, and most of all innovation. The Ottoman empire was great because it was innovative, it reinvented itself many times. It's static periods resulted in its decline.

I would count myself in the secular camp. But I am starting to understand the religious Turks' point of view. Our image of Islam in the west: terror, oppression, violence, is not what religious Turks want. In fact, terrorism would be something completely alien to the Ottomans. The religious Turks, from my experience, don't want radical change. They want a society that recognizes their religious rights while still maintaining its open and democratic character. I'm not clear what they believe about secularism. But a very good friend, who is religious, told me that it is not desirable nor probable that the constitution will be changed in favor of a religious state. I don't think so either. I think Turkey is unique in that it will balance secularism and Islam, it has the national character to balance these two ideas. In that, the Ottomans are to be respected. They left a legacy of religious piety without religious extremism. They truly created a pragmatic synthesis.

Kandiliniz Mübarek Olsun

Today is a religious holdiay in Turkey, called Mıraç Kendili. It celibrates the ascent of the prophet Mohammad to heaven. The photo with this post is a picture of kendil simidi, which is eaten during this holiday. At night, I will walk along the Bosporus and see all the mosques lit up for the holiday. The holiday also marks a month before the fast of Ramazan starts. I don't know whether or not I will be in Turkey for Ramazan, if so, I will leave soon after it starts.

Today I went to Simit Sarayı, and asked for Kendil Simidi. I was given a box and had it along with some chai tea. It was delicious. What was also interesting was that they workers seemed to really appreciate that I acknowledged this holiday by asking for a box. Holidays such as this are a good indication of culture. They don't seek dominate the landscape, they are just a subtle reminder of a certain aspect of the Turkish character. In many ways, the Turks preserve their identity by holidays such as this. While I am certainly in favor of a secular, open society in Turkey, I really feel there is a place for Islam in Turkey. After all, the Kemalists want Turkey to perserve its heritage and identity while being modern and advanced at the same time. Holidays such as this are a good medium to achieve this.

How funny that I am listening to Mustafa Sandal while writing a post on Kandil. But it reflects the dual nature of Turkish society: the modern and the traditional. A nature that keeps me fascinted. A nature that I see in myself as well.

Anti-Post Modern

This is a painting by a famous Ottoman painter named Osman Hamdi Bey. Though I had seen the painting before, I was not aware of it's creator of of the general dialog that it is associated with. Today, our program had a lecture on 'How to be an Orientalist: the Case of Osman Hamdi Bey." By using examples of his work, the lecturer tried to make the case that Osman Hamdi Bey represented a Ottoman Orientalist, who created his works based solely on the Orientalist notion of the 'static' east. I must admit I was not convinced, as overall I am starting to have doubt about the Orientalist discourse and post-modernism as a whole.

First of all, post-modernism has infiltrated the field of history. It has sought to expose hidden symbols and discourses. This of course is not unique to post-modernism, though some claim it is. Post modernism in my mind has exposed nothing particularly new or innovative. Michel Foucault's pan-opticon for example is a given it seems. Of course societies are set up to self regulate. The Ottoman millet system was a deliberate way to regulate the empire through self government. This is nothing new, in fact, self regulation has been a conscious goal. Foucault himself is ageist, if such a word exists. He assumes that pre-modern societies were based on violent demonstrations of power by the monarch. This is not the case, it's unhistorical. Therefore, what is an unhistorical hypothesis doing in the field of history!

Now on the the Orientalist dialog. I buy parts of it, certainly. This painting for example is something romantic, and by its nature depicts idealism over reality. Does this mean that it's necessarily Orientalist? If Said's original idea of Orientalism meant a power relation of the West to subjugate the east, then how can you lump a eastern Ottoman artist in the Orientalist camp? Yes, he may have produced art for the sake of wowing the Europeans, and yes, the art may have been unhistorical and highly romanticized, but does it necessarily demonstrate the same 'power relation' that Said was speaking of?

Nostalgia is not equal to Orientalism. This painting is nostalgic. Perhaps Osman Hamdi Bey painted it as a nationalist nostalgic longing for a time when the Ottoman Empire was stronger. Also, religious Turks and Turks who idealize the Ottoman empire have and admire copies of paintings such as these. So though scholars attempt to group paintings such as these into a movement that 'dominated' the east, it does not necessarily ring true. Paintings such as these are admired today and are used as symbols for a generation or a time that once was. This painting is in many ways like the film Gone with the Wind. Both are idealistic/romantic depictions of what the artists thought the age in question was like. Does that mean that they are connected with reality? Well, there could very well be aspects of reality as much as there are aspects of fantasy.

Orientalism is Orientalist! It assumes that the all encompassing 'West' HAD the power to dominate every aspect of the east. It assumes the east was a passive player in this process. Which 'east' are we talking about here? China, Japan, the Ottomans? And which west: Britain, France, Portugal, Spain? And why do we limit it to modern times, what about the Caliphate in Spain, the Persian Empire, Greece, Rome, India. This 'domination' is not unique to the west, and 'subjugation' is not unique to the east. Most major empires/civilizations throughout history have 'dominated', most peoples have been 'subjugated'. But domination/subjugation themselves are not able to be commonly applied.

Empires were a fluid system. The people in Empires where a fluid people. There was a negotiation between the ruler and ruled. There was overlap (as I spoke about yesterday) between domination and subjugation. And most importantly, there was participation on behalf of the rulers and ruled. This reality works against the meta narratives of both post-modernist and Orientalist dialogs.

There is no exact common experience to history. Each case and each time has to be studied and researched individually. There are certainly patterns over time, but that does not mean that patterns breed commonality.

Issues of Overlap

Who would you guess the woman in the photo is? She's fashionable, she's reading (an indication of being educated), she's allowing herself to be photographed (an indication of openness). The woman in the photo is Princess Hadice Hayriye Ayshe Dürrühsehvar, the daughter of the last Caliph of Islam before the abolition of the office in 1924.

In Turkish history, the Kemalist regime is seen as the great modernizing regime and the Caliphate is often characterized as a backwards institution that held the Turks back from complete modernization. Is this necessarily true? After all, the Tanzimat movement was a product of the Ottoman Sultans' need to modernize. The princess' father, the Caliph of Islam, believed deeply in women's education. The princess herself believed in employment for women and an abolition to the segregation of women from men.

Was modernity in Turkey a foregone conclusion? If so, then the two camps differed in what respect modernity would be implemented. The Kemalists completely abolished the Caliphate system, but did not try to eradicate Islam itself. They merely sought to bureaucratize and institutionalize it within the secular state system. Had the Caliphate survived, secularism would probably not have been eradicated either but bureaucratized and institutionalized within the religious state system.

People see Turkey as struggling with opposing forces: Islam and secularism. But the reality is, both are institutionalized in society and in government. It's not necessarily an issue two opposing forces so much as a issue of overlap. Where do the two meet? Where do the two diverge? Did Ataturk create something unique, or did he finally synthesize what Sultan Mahmut II, Abdulmecid I and the CUP created which was a state where secularism and Islam overlapped?

Misafirperverlik

I have just come back from Taksim square. It's late and I have yet to do some of my assignments for tomorrow. But I have chosen to write this blog because in many ways what I experienced tonight is more important that any assignment could ever be.

I went drinking with two Turkish buddies of mine and experienced Turkish hospitality. Of course, this is not new to me, after all, the notion of hospitality (or in Turkish, misafirperverlik) is widespread. But I am amazed at the extent to which the Turks are so open, so warm to their guests. Last night, I stayed the night with Erhan, my roommate in Lubbock, and his sister and her roommate. They were open with their home, even insisting that I sleep in one of their beds (they of course, doubled up on a couch!!). Then tonight, I was treated to beer, fries, and great conversation with some other Turkish friends of mine. The reason: I'm their "guest."

The Turks, as a society, are selfless. They go to great lengths to make guests feel welcome, in this they sacrifice a lot. It has been my experience that they want nothing in return. But misafirperverlik also makes me want to engage with them in a more open and honest way. The Turks truly love great conversation, with complex subjects like politics or religion. I find myself fascinated as to what they have to say, I am content just to listen.

We have a stereotype of the east, but this stereotype is nothing but the product of ignorance. The Turks are assertive, quick, knowledgeable, and patient. Their sense of humor also compliments them. Another thing about Turkish hospitality is that it is not expected to be paid back. But I will pay Turkey back for its enormous hospitality, I will work all the harder to learn the language, to become a better listener, and maybe one day, to give the Turks another medium through which they can tell their history.