| ||||
Wednesday, 2 December 2015
POETRY: GÜLBAHAR
SOCIO-POLITICAL: THE GLORIOUS LEGACY OF THE OTTOMANS
THE GLORIOUS LEGACY OF THE OTTOMANS
AND TODAY'S TURKEY
AND TODAY'S TURKEY
Muzaffer Katar
Abant Izzet Baysal University,
Abant Izzet Baysal University,
Introduction: A General View of the Study
To succeed of an objective study on such a sophisticated and often misinterpreted case like the Ottomans necessitates having not only knowledge, but also insight and ability in philosophy. Another necessity is to overcome the typical conditionings about the case, and the emotional approaches peculiar to most of the Islamic countries like Turkey. Objective propositions should be voiced regardless of conventional studies, which are generally populist and practical for self-seeking ethnic, religious and political ideologies. Blessing of inspiration by God for one's wisdom and virtue always has its supreme and respected place all in thankfulness though.
Turkey (3) was the successor of the great Ottoman Empire in the head and heartland of the Empire. Therefore, there is no chance to think of the two states of having very different possessions and diverse characteristics of values, institutions and culture. Haim Gerber explains this as "The past was not simply swept away with the fall of the Ottoman Empire but remained hidden and potent in all sorts of niches, institutions and memories, many of which still elude us"(4). Diversities of the two states would generally be due to changing standards of human life and society in course of the time in general. However, we must say that Gerber's theses could be proved only from a negative point since we, as the inheritors of the Ottomans, have great doubts and heavy sighs about the situation of today's Turkey in all aspects.
The legacy for today's Turkey of the Ottomans who executed a detailed mission in the history despite all its polygenetic and multi-disciplined order has great potent to study in a very wide range of scientific categories. This great potent may inevitably turn the study into ‘the high Ottoman legacy that the new State has not been able to inherit, and criticizing today's Turkey as a modern state from the perspective of the Ottoman legacy'. Therefore, what aimed in this small but very precious article is to discuss the most crucial concepts from a possible comparative point of view, and to make any new contribution to the readers with their insight of the issue of the Ottomans, Turks, Turkish Republic, and their interrelated roles played in the history and today.
How to Understand the Ottoman Case
First of all, who were the Ottomans, appeared all of a sudden just in the junction of the east and the west, developed such a great civilization on a seemingly Islamic fundamentalist structure behind of which all a human virtue and wisdom lied, and survived so long in spite of its complex structure? Within its heterogeneous character, where does the name ‘Ottoman' belong to or come from? Is it an ‘Osman', if ever of original Turkish, an ‘Ottoman', or a German ‘Otto-man', or an ‘Othman'? Did they implement a cryptic or occult office with the fate of "circumcised Turks"(5) "who were almost to perish"(6) in the course of the history; or with the holy land, Anatolia, home of the promised peace? Since they were obedient believers of the Islamic religion, appeared in Holy Mecca, why did they not ride over the Arabian Peninsula, but ride over Europe and make the Byzantine Constantinople the center of the Islamic Empire? Whose agents were these glorious but humble people: of the west or the east, of the Turks or the Rome, or of a unique divine mission?
Alternatively, at the crossroads of the east and the west, and on the headland of the Asia, did the Ottomans stop the era of "savage invasions"(7) and save the west from the invasions of eastern vandals? Otherwise, as a cryptic mission, did they change the quality of the barbaric methods of production of life, soften them slowly slowly, and introduce peace and beauty of the settled life to the last vandals of the east who were driven, or rode away to the west?
This brainstorming does not initiate to be negative with the any of the sides. It is sure that Ottomans did not spoil the law of the enlightenment of the heavens under the flag of Salem/Islam religion; the scepter had not been departed from brave Turks over all Asia for a couple of millenniums; Islam had been the lawgiver for many centuries since Muhammad(8)/Machammaddim(9) of the Holy Salem religion, and the seal of the prophets has arrived; and many Judaic and Christian people around the Ottoman territories happily hurried up to gather under the peace flag of Islam, which were composed of ‘three crescents' together symbolizing Holy Islam/Salem religion.
It was a great success that we Turkish nomads, having ridden from the Mongolian steps, established one great Ottoman Empire and civilization in the 13th century AD on the eastern lands of the wild Romans a hobby of whom was to give alive men to lions; and also "developed a powerful fleet in Aydin"(10), a city on the coast of the Aegean Sea.
Many popular conventional writers have assumed the Turkish and the Ottoman concepts of being the same and always put forward subjective, populist, shallow and conventional propositions within ‘Turk and Ottoman' studies as the case is hardly ever so easy but some misinterpreted from this perspective. Therefore, instead of a couple of populist, shallow, and practical theories, which generally deny the virtue and heritage of Ottomans on ‘the foundation of Turkey'; or of those which exalt the Ottomans blindly without realizing any of their real meaning, we must be able to make some new, meaningful, and perceiving references about the identity of the Ottomans and their impacts on modern Turkey.
How to Identify the Ottoman Ancestors of the Turks
Turks were one subject of the heterogeneous Ottoman structure, but what was the dominant character of the Ottomans? Before writing about the Ottoman legacy for today's Turkey, we are first to try an attempt to understand ‘whose heritage were the Ottomans' to mean a sense with both the owners of the Ottoman civilization and the study.
That the most people, learned or not, propose that ‘"the state language was Turkish"(11), so were the Ottomans' is not true, or they do not know any language because nobody can say that the language the Ottomans used was Turkish, nor was half of it. In spite of the fact that there was a frame of Turkish grammar in use, most of the means, words, groups etc. of the Ottoman language were not Turkish, but Persian and Arabic, the sister of Hebrew whereas the original Turkish language never developed and lost its power. It is interesting that the Ottomans, whose intellectuality was formed by Hebrew and Greek culture, used a Turkish sentence frame within their language. Thus, the circumstance leads us to ask another question: What was the reason of Ottomans to use Turkish sentence frame(12)?
To have a clue about the origin of the Ottoman dynasty, we may first try a simple onomastic study of the first four names of the Dynasty, that anyone who has some awareness in Turkish and languages in general can easily notice that the origins of these so-called Turkish names are not originally Turkish at all.
The origin of the name of the founder of the Ottoman Empire, ‘Osman' must be a very Germanic, Christian name: ‘Osmond' or ‘Osmund', which means ‘god protector' from old English os ‘god' and mund ‘protector'(13). The origin of ‘Ertugrul', Osman's father must be the very Roman, Germanic, European, and Christian name: "Arthur, Artur, Arturius, Artio"(14). The origin of ‘Hayme', the mother of Osman is a certain Hebrew name of which origin is ‘Hayim/Haim', which means "life"(15). And, the origin of ‘Orhan', son of Osman must be "Or-khan" or "Or-Cohen" as the most possible variants (16).
Besides these traditionally Judao-Christian names, none of the names of the later Sultans were of original Turkish. It is also known that almost all their friends, the ranked officials like pashas, commanders, and high ulema/the learned scholars of the Empire were not Turkish, but converted, or seemed so, from Christianity or Judaism into Islam. They whether wanted to be honored by being Turk, or burdened and realized a cryptic mission with Turks.
Also, both the Islamic flag of Ottomans, which has three crescents, as the symbol of ‘Papa, The Holy Spirit and the Son', and the flag of Turkey, the legacy of Ottomans, composed of a five-ended star and a crescent on red background are designs of Judao-Christian teaching.(17) You can see many examples like these within the world of the Ottomans.(18) ‘Roman' Mawlana Jalaladdin was the world-wide famous philosopher of the Empire who gave beautiful samples of mystics with his ufo-like ‘whirling dervishes', while the worldwide famous architect of the Empire was originally a "Christian Greek"(19) ; Architect Sinan, beauty of whose also ufo-like Islamic mosque tombs were as fabulous as the Christian Church tomb of the Hagia Sophia built by Christian architects.
Millions of Jews have been transferred to Anatolia from all Eurasia during both the Ottomans and the Republic.(20) According to Yalçin Kucuk, "Jews were the natives of this land."(21) It also calls our attention that Ottoman Sultans never got married to ethnically Turkish brides to have heirs from for the throne.(22) Another debate about the identity of our Ottoman ancestors may be: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples."(23)
In addition, some ‘privileges' for Turks do not elude us such as the "duty of being soldiers"(24) while non-Moslems were not taken for military service, whereas the bureaucrats were all chosen from non-Moslems; what give us clues about the Ottoman Empire. We also find, as in the sample miniature on the cover of ‘The Ottoman Empire (2002) by Colin Imber', that artists also characterized in detail the human identity of the Sultans, and the ethnicity of the devoted subjects.
Nevertheless, that ‘the origin of the Ottomans was doubtful in terms of Turkishness does not intend to blame them by any way. The purpose of the discussion is to provide the readers with a new perspective about ‘who really Turkey and its people have inherited the legacy from'. Under the enlightenment of all this clear data given above, ‘the legacy of Ottomans for today's Turkey' can now be discussed in a more meaningful ambient.
The High Legacy of the Ottomans, and Turkey as the Inheritor
The case has varied characteristics depending on many vertical and horizontal factors like time, ethnicity, religion, area and conditionings. The same circumstance has different meanings for different people. For instance, the Ottomans do not appeal a Turk, while it appeals a crypto Greek because Turks were of a degraded subject of the Ottomans, and Greeks were more effective. On the other hand, a Moslem Turkish citizen loves Ottomans because he finds the Empire to be Moslem even without knowing the meaning of ‘three crescents' and that Turks were almost lost from the Earth on long lasted Jihads. Today there are thousands of debate matters like these in Turkey. For this reason, the legacy will be studied concentrating on the most objective and crucial aspects of the case beyond the local matters.
First of all, it must honestly been accepted that Turkish State itself is a strategic and political heritage from the Ottomans. The Ottomans, yet who had a huge and complex body, showed great resistance for one or two centuries against the open and secret aggressions of global states of the time. Despite some judas kisses, an issue stemming from its multi ethnic structure, the Ottomans always had consciousness to defend the Empire and their nation whereat resulted in the foundation of Turkish State at the end as an Ottoman gift for Turkish People. It must be assessed that Turks would not have been able to found the Republic of Turkey out of the initiation of the Ottoman Empire; and being in the same context, institutionalization of values of Turkishness has also been an Ottoman legacy for the nation.
The founding leader of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal was a commander and pasha of the Ottoman State. His colleagues, the other distinguished pioneers of the independence war of Turks and foundation of the Turkish Republic, formally or not, came from the Ottoman school. Even if there is no document proving the initiation of the Ottoman Empire within the establishment of the Turkish Republic, it should nonetheless be accepted that it was the Ottoman consciousness, decision and faith that initiated the foundation of the Republic. First of all, how would unorganized Turks be successful in creating a state in Anatolia if it was not controlled by the Ottomans? Therefore, it can be said that the Ottomans did not defraud their degraded but most devoted subject-Turks, who had given their blood for centuries for the bright Ottoman light, and stood for and with Turks during the collapse, gifting them a blessed opportunity for their surviving. This gift by Ottomans, and of heavens, not only gave Turks a chance to change their damned fate of destruction and exhaustion, and almost being lost in nearly 2000 year-lasted wars, one of which was the biggest ‘war trap' at Canakkale in 1915(25), but also presented them the beauties of the modern life and society by the policy of the new Republic.
On the other hand, the legacy of the Republic of Turkey by the Ottomans, has its political and strategic subordinates for the Turkish State as well on the territories of the Empire, namely Anatolia, Balkans, Caucasus and the Middle East, which may be said to be inherited from the long-lasted, and still dreamed ‘Caliphal' structure of the Empire. The action of Turkey on the former Ottoman territories improves or decreases depending on the strength of Turkey. If Turkey does not have power to control these territories, its existence and sovereignty might even be in danger.
The claim that the Turkish Republic and people reject the Ottomans cannot be true. It must be reasoned as the rejection of being lost with the formal end and collapse of the Ottoman Empire rather than the total rejection of the Ottomans including their high existence, virtue and civilization. Furthermore, the rejection of the dying body of the Ottoman Empire after the collapse and the accreditation of Turks, the formerly degraded subject, as the heirs of the Empire, was even interestingly an initiation of ‘the high Ottoman faith and mind'. It was the end of the legend of the glorious and humble Ottomans with the rise of nation states, and introduction of Turkishness and Turks as the inheritors of the legacy of the Ottoman country: The constancy of Constantine city. It is sure that the continuation of the Ottomanism instead of replaced Turkishness would have been the end of Turkishness in the Asia Minor.
However, as the live witnesses, can we say that the State of Turkey has been worthy of this high legacy of the Ottomans, and also Ataturk's as the last Ottoman, including their virtue and wisdom? Has the new State fulfilled the state and public essentials in any field relatively better than the Ottomans, and been able to create a nation out of the subjects of the Empire of diverse roots by building a correct state structure? All this chaos and seduced psychologies of the good citizens of the country of any category from Jewry to Sunnis, or from the rich to the poor for many decades, since the foundation of the Republic, drives you to deep thinking about the state.(26) While quite a big lot of the nation of any category experience, complain and are convinced about the despotism of the new State today, there are also ideas that the Ottoman state structure was a "centric-despotic one"(27) whereas there are other scientists who claim counter ideas that the "Ottoman State was not a despotic country"(28). "Amy Singer makes a convincing argument that the Ottoman state was a paper lion rather than a real form of despotism".(29) Anyway, it must be reasoned that despotic actions at the Ottoman era were just against the developing Turks here and there, generally by non-Moslem natives of the land, who did not like Turks to improve themselves as a community in time. Despotism was no way an aspect of the Ottomans or the Ottomanism.(30) Even the Sultans would complain and stand against the occasional oppressions of the state bureaucracy.(31) But in today's Turkey, normal and innocent citizens of this country are scared to tell what they are, what they believe in, even what color they like in fear of the despotic system guarded on so-called a law which does not generally bear any meaningful human and social aspects, and seduces the logic and psychology both because of its content and the unjust applications by using police force. The modern Turkey is beyond the range of understanding that it is impossible to produce justice by unjust and lawless, so-called laws.
Though the Ottoman Sultans ruled the country under the sacred Islamic law of God, the Shari'a, they always acted in faith, virtue and just in fear of God, as well understood from documents and their biographies, and did not frustrate their people in their trust of the Ottoman ruling. Even the Judaic and Christian elements of the Empire even trusted the the Ottoman ruling and the so-called Islamic law because their natural human rights of any category were guaranteed by the law; whereas today, from Moslem to Alevis and to Judaist, or from the rich to the poor are suffering due to the lawless laws and the chaotic state the Republic. Non-Moslem subjects were so pleased with the Ottoman Islamic law that they always contributed to the Empire by presenting her their most successful children and works in every field from music, or poetry to the beautiful ‘ebru-ebrew' art, or architecture; such as magnificent ‘Divan Literature' or the originally Christian, Hiram-like architect Mimar Sinan who built world-wide famous great works over all the Ottoman country. How a man of the good would serve an order of all corrupt, injustice, darkness, oppression and degradation.
The Turkish State could not pitifully develop a really human and modern order, which meets the needs of its citizens, and necessities of the modern state as in the western terms like the one which Ataturk had intended. For example, the Ottoman state organs did not practice open and hidden sick operations and sanctions with one of its subjects, who would later be the sole supporting and sister people of Turks, like changing their names of their own culture, prohibiting them of speaking their own mother tongue, and obliging them to migrate by purposefully created bad conditions against them.
The circumstance was quite positive for Christian, Jewish and Roman communities during the Ottoman times, which lived better than the degraded subjects of the Empire. The "Christian and Jewish communities enjoyed legal autonomy in intra-communal matters, under the aegis of their own religious leaders".(32) At the time of the Ottomans, non-Moslems were free to divulge what they are, not killed or blamed for they were non-Moslem, and the Empire Inzibats/disciplinary offices most probably would not welcome the murderers in cheerful hugs. In our opinion, the Ottoman Kingdom would not itself found and approve provocation organizations to kill any innocent member of the nation; and the unknown provocations would not be the source of all of the contradictions and problems among the ethnic, religion, or political groups. But "the Ottoman State was the only political organization of the middle ages and the modern era, which recognized different religions and guaranteed a common and harmonized life together with its ethnic groups".(33) As well as understood from the long lasted multi religious and national structure of the Ottomans that secular life practice was a legacy for Turkey of the Ottoman culture of the middle ages. Witnessing Turkey of hostilities, fights, murders etc., it is possible to say that State of Turkey have not been able to inherit the secular consciousness of the Ottomans as a republic and public policy and principle.
Judaic and Christian subjects, or rather lords of the Ottoman Empire were socio-economically much better and civilized than Moslems and Turks, which may be due to that non-Moslems started ‘settled life' long before Turks who whereat have not been able to develop abilities needed for an urban life and community. Turks were only villagers, nomads, and soldiers who went on wars, and died for the Islamic jihad for centuries, which were almost being the end of Turks. With the Turkish revolution as a legacy of the Ottomans under the leadership of Ataturk and his colleagues, among distinguished leaders of which there were also many non-Moslems, the new state started to improve Turks together with the all nation for all good values and gifts of human being and civil society. But just after Ataturk died, the political leaders, or rather state organs of Turkey have not been able to create a logical and acceptable state structure and social system for the nation and country, but have led to a non-human, corrupted and illogical structure. This blasphemy of the state caused the distinguished dominant groups of the Ottomans and the feverish pioneers of the new state to feel of deception, disappointment and alienation about the new state. Having driven alienated, their concentration went away from the country, and turned into themselves; that but resulted in having the leading socio-economic place naturally in the corrupted system of Turkey.
In the contemporary Turkey, as a social case not formally practiced with the Ottomans of the old times, members of other ethnics or religions, even of politics would be more beyond stress and pressure in today's Turkey as long as they have the standard behaviors the State and fundamentalists expect them to exhibit. Therefore, what expected, for the rose garden, of non-Moslems and other ethnic, religious or political groups to do is just to behave in the fixed standards of the perception of Turkishness, or ‘the citizen'; not to disturb the nationalist feelings and psychology of ‘the people'; and obey the ‘law of Turkey'.
As well as the practice shows, the law of the Ottomans, when compared in their self-standards, can be said to have presented more justice and had more empathy with its citizens, and did not produce more doubt, frustration, fear and suffer than today's Turkey that even non-Moslems were happy with the Ottoman law. It is subject to questioning today if prosecutors work on a logical base within a correct philosophy of the ‘state, people, the individual, and the rights'. On a witnessed case, the judge of Turkey would ask the prosecutor and she would sentence a judgement together with him.
The judge presides the court ‘formally'. Both prosecutors and the judges operate under the same board: ‘The Board of Judges and Prosecutors'; and they are selected by the government from ‘the bar of lawyers'. The bar and the board altogether produce very nice justice: ‘Seduction of Justice'. Erdo?an Saracoglu defines the language "as each tribe is a system of secret agreements, there are as many languages as tribes upon the earth".(34) In the Ottoman Empire, except for the Sultan's occasional interventions as the king and the ‘faithful successor of the order of God', "the judge did not depend on the government".(35) How interesting it is that judges, prosecutors, and lawyers of modern Turkey are so happy with such an unjust law and do not take a stand, brave or not, against the law of the corrupt in every field, and are judging through such a law.(36) The other elements of the Trinitarian system sustain the Turkish nation in prosperity are the army and the intelligence.
It was due to the high consciousness and faith of Ottomans that the policy of the Empire was to avoid from unjust laws which would otherwise have restricted the most natural human rights of individuals and communities (as well as standard civilization and tradition sufficed). This consciousness led so many different groups lived together in peace for many years,(37) whereas today's modern Turkey has not been able to inherit and practice any of the approach. In today's modern Turkey, self-conditioned and self-approved approaches of any kind, which you are not to make any negative, and cannot make any positive comment on, is accepted to be good, and imposed to be made the norm for all. People of any upper or lower category suffer in this country. The oligarchs of Turkey are not only disable to understand the problems and to lead to a really modern, collectivist and happy country but also shush the most advanced children of the country since Ataturk died. Being unable in successfully inheriting the legacy of the high wisdom and virtue of the Ottomans; behaving some other group as secondary citizens, thereby seducing the people's and individuals' psychologies; and primitiveness and injustice have inevitably caused great pains, conflicts, and chaos in the country.
It is certain that the Ottoman perception of individuals' freedom is not like that of today's. "It was rather a concept of ‘justice' beyond the individual freedom"(38), whereat "the basic element of the Ottoman state ideology was the concept of justice"(39), and as the Ottoman historians stated "the state cannot be without justice".(40) "Justice was the base of the ‘mülk'/ruling"(41) for the Ottomans.
The Ottomans, a monarchy of old times, succeeded such a state system that accomplished the missions of legislation, jurisdiction, economy, army, public services, etc., which functioned as one unified power codified and defined by the sacred law of God, called the ‘Shari'a' of which sanctions were equal for all; but which were controlled by the wisdom, virtue and deep faith of the prophetic Ottoman Sultans. That there was no separation of power resulted in more sensible and stronger governance, whereas today's modern Turkey succeeded ‘great democratic attacks', failed in all its state office of very important affairs, the law as the most important, separated all its power of the country: An occasion causing very important disunity in decision making and governing processes of the state.
Among the nation, secular culture was one of the most crucial cultural aspects of the Ottomans of the medieval ages, whereas people in Turkey have not been able to establish a secular life among them in the later process. Most people of different faith groups today judge others who are naturally different from them. Even in many recent times, it is known that some organized groups have murdered many people of some other category. There are also so many events witnessed that even the state officials themselves behave in very unfair and hostile ways to members of some certain groups of any category, ethnic or political. As it is very pitifully seen, both civil people and the state of Turkey lack of most general human values and rights which the Ottomans had both as the state and the nation.
The Ottoman monarchic state was also very positive to support the nation's economic and social necessities. People were allowed to establish many social associations for their social or group needs and for improving themselves, most of which had a religious base in correlation with the standard civilization, whereas today people are afraid of grouping on any human or social need. The Ottoman State was able to manage its foreign affairs all on a positive base, and its domestic affairs all in empathy for people. The Empire did not of course stand for centuries on an Islamic Jihad. Today Turkish people are still conditioned that ‘Turks has no friends other than Turks'. It is a pity that many of the good intentions, practices, and the bright apostolic light of the Ottomans have all died after Ataturk because uneducated, bad-spirited, weak and incapable governors have been entrusted with the State that did not have any slight bit of high wisdom and faith of Ottomans and Ataturk. A failure that has resulted only in chaos and tribulation with both domestic and foreign affairs of the State, and in seduction of the psychology and civil, social and economic lives of the people.
The Ottomans successfully sustained the standard civilization of the era, and then passed it to the West that has developed and brightened the light of civilization; whereas today's modern Turkey has not been able to convey of any. Instead, the State has established a wild capitalist, all speculative and oligarchic system under the mask of ‘a secular and democratic republic': A system which was designed to serve only for some capitalists and their servants holding the system who possess the most of the national production and income as well as having the fruit of modernity, welfare and the law. Today's so called modern Turkey has left its poor people to the elite or rich people's feelings of compassion instead of promulgating the most basic, contemporary, human and collectivist approaches needed in the modern era, whereas the Ottoman ruling always had empathy with people of any category and acted to provide means to solve the possible problems of the nation as a state approach.
Failure of the modern Turkey in establishing an auspicious order, and exploitation of the good virtues, values and wisdom of the Republic would have normally caused vexation and reaction of the most commonsensical and enlightened children of the nation, against the strong State, who would all be demolished and destroyed afterwards.
Despite any possible human mistakes of them, all of the Ottoman sultans were higher people of virtue, wisdom, divine discipline and a prophetic faith. They always behaved in fear of God, and in a divine discipline in state and public affairs. They always had an effort for and recognized the rights of others coming from their high human creation and nature. The highest virtue and wisdom owned by the sultans were gradually being distributed into all state and civil staff and affairs affecting the state and people positively. After Ataturk, whose deed was also prophetic, the leaders of the state have somehow not been of the same high capacity in state and public affairs so the state and people had very important problems and degraded in every field of state and human life, and Modern Turkia could not have reached the highest ideals it had during its foundation.
In spite of some ideas, we do not agree that resolving problems of Turkey "requires reconciliation with the Ottomans"(42), nor the problems of Turkey have arisen because Turkey did not accept the formal inheritance of the Ottomanism. The agony of the Republic of Turkey has not arisen from the reason that Ottomanism was left, but rather because faithful and learned leaders, like the ones in the era of the Ottomans, have not been grown and charged with the state departments like army, intelligence, and the judiciary as the most important, after Ataturk. Hence, the state has not been able to establish a good, right and peaceful system for the people and the country. The Ottomans, under the leadership of the Sultans did the best of the time with their unique civilization, culture, institutions, virtue and wisdom, which the successors unfortunately have not been able to be worthy of, inherit, and continue.
Ottomans succeeded in such a successful synthesis of the qualities of different poles of many groups and from many social categories, thereby who lived, even growing, in peace for many years until Turks also naturally showed a little bit socio-economic development in its last centuries what Greco-Roman elements did not like, and thus prepared the end of the Empire. It can be said that Turkey has had this legacy from the Ottoman times of treacherous Greco-Roman agents by realizing their important contribution to the chaos since the foundation of Turkey. It must be confessed that most of the Turks still have their Islamic Jihad spirit they have as a legacy of the Ottomans, by the effect of which Turks lied to Greco-roman lands under the leadership the Ottomans.
Nevertheless, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire by its enemies could not prevent the foundation of Turkish Republic and institutionalization of Turkishness as a nation; by the time sooner when incapable and bad state staff that drove both the state and the nation into great tribulation took the young Turkish Republic. In this process, the unreasonable and corrupted practices, which were never seen with the Ottomans, of the incapable so-called ‘democratic' state of Turkey offended, frustrated and drove into rebellion not only the successors of the crypto pioneers, who founded the Republic by the inspiration they inherited from the high Ottoman faith, but also the logical people of the country regardless of whatever category they are from. What engrossing is that the corruption has been based on a law and got a ‘forcing' character and that the people of ‘the low' and ‘the lie' are so happy with ‘the law' of the corrupt. Moreover, evil state executives of the multi-party democratic system are so foible to realize the simplest wrongs. The system killed not only many of human and social ideals, but also national values of Turkishness, which never means a racist sense.
Modern Turkey almost loses every kind of the legacy of the Ottomans from abstract to concrete. Few people realize neither the meaning of the spirituality nor the concrete values of the Ottomans. Today some people censure the high works of Divine music of the Ottomans while they do not see the great prosody mistakes within the Turkey's national anthem Turkey.
The State of Turkey has pitifully not been able to solve the potential problems of the Turkish people and the beautiful country inherited from the Ottoman times. That one accepts ‘the state is still up is a success' is another idea.
Conclusion:
The legacy of the humble but all glorious Ottomans is great for not only Turks but also the humanity. From the most advanced groups to the underdeveloped ones, people were introduced and developed a way of life in peace under their just reign fully in their supreme faith of God, the Light, and the Turkish Sultan on the throne, who fought like a lion with his head under his arm on his white horse.
When the Empire wounded severely in the 1800s, and when Turks were almost destroyed in the early1900s, the Ottomans healed them by initiating the foundation of the Turkish Republic on the account of the blood of Unknown Soldier of the Turks under the leadership of the great Ottoman Pasha, Mustafa Kemal of Thessalonica. The Ottomans, when burned left alone, erected Turks and the Republic of Turkey from their own ashes as their legacy for their most devoted subject, which presented Turks of surviving, a beautiful country, and the latest gifts of the modern human civilization altogether with the whole nation. Ottomans who adopted, accredited, and thereby became ancestors of, the Turks. Together with the Turks from the east, facing to the west, Ottomans, whose funny white tiaras on their heads were as clean as the Black Sea, also led a holy mission with not only Turks but also non-Moslems by introducing them to each other for a heterogeneous togetherness.
Nevertheless, after the death of Ataturk, the state has been captured by incapable, uncivilized, and undeserving oligarchs, who were not able to inherit the high wisdom, virtue and merit of Ottomans, and who corrupted the state, seduced the existence and psychology of the people including that of Recep Tayyip Erdogan's, one of the most beloved sons of the nation: and drove the Republic into such an agony, chaos and unhappiness.
It is a great pity that some ‘devoted' Kemalist thinkers slander the Ottomans of being corrupt and the last Sultans to have been disloyal to the country, whereas on the other hand, some ‘devoted' Moslem ideologists, without being able to realize the real merit of the Ottomans and that the Turkish Republic itself is a legacy of the Ottomans, slander that Turkish Republic is a blasphemy. Neither groups are able to see their fruit, nor recognize them at all.
The principles, ideals and the actions of the founding leaders of the Turkish Republic, who had grown at the Ottoman school, were all just of virtue and wisdom. In a very short time, they provided the Republic and the nation with great development in every field by the time when, all of a sudden, the State started a corruption called ‘multi party democratic system', which later on would be the reason of every harm in every field: separation of the unity of the country, people and power of the state. The unworthy, if not treacherous, state officials were not able to read the role models in the west as a state system, and has caused the country to be degraded, and many decades wasted and the nation suffered a lot.
The legacy of Ottomans was not a corrupt order, degradation and exploitation; provocations with its own people, separating people into pieces through complots, and forcing people upon primitive and non-human laws that seduce people's good feelings and psychology. It was not building people some deliriums of any kind, and mines bedded under some group of her own citizens feet; thereby causing the most devoted children of the nation to wish a mandate in feelings of revenge for their sufferings and hopelessness of their state. It was not also the legacy of Ataturk and his colleagues who founded The Turkish Republic. The legacy was not of the grail turning to the grave, and the crown to the clown.
The State of Turkey is no way, pessimistic. Today thousands of promising assistant researchers and assistant professors, most of whom are young and successful ladies, are transforming Turkey into a faculty and scientifically analyzing Turkey from every point; by whom we believe that the country will solve most of its problems of a couple of centuries.
(katar_m@ibu.edu.tr)
FOOTNOTES
(1)The Qoran, (Neml, 27:30)http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/names.htm, http://www.behindthename.com/name/osmond.http://phelafel.technion.ac.il/~orcohen/cv_orcohen.pdf.http://www.sinanasaygi.com/i/eserler/b/77_2004.jpg
(19)Dennis Sharp, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Architects and Architecture, ( Quatro Publishing, New York, 1991) p. 141
POETRY: C’est pour toi que je pleure
Samson pleading Delilah, the most sinful betrayer:
"How could you betray me?"
(1886 work by the British painter Solomon J. Solomon)
C’est pour toi que je pleure
C’est pour toi que je pleure . Pour ton sorire dedaigneux . Pour le regard que tes grands yeux Viennent de lancer tout a le heure C'est pour toi que toujours je pleure C’est pour d ton dedain que je pleure. Pour ton grand air fier et hautain. Quand je te implore mais envain. En te apportant de belles fleurs. C’est pour ton dedain que je pleure Ce est pour ton rire que je pleure Pour ton rire aux eclats sonores Pourquoi rire toujours encore Ton rire me fait mal au coeur Ce est pour ton rire que je pleure La Fin |
Muzaffer Katar
|
POETRY: to Elizabeth, the Fallen Angel..
To Elizabeth, the Fallen Angel
(Acrostic Poem)
ELİZABETH Elizabeth... Elizabeth...! Light was what all you had Iesus was chrestos, and the seth. Zingaros! Come sing for her, A song of the best! Believe of her devotion, Evil is no occasion... Thou are the Queen of Jana Thalia, Hallelujah! ! ! Hallelujah! ! ! |
Muzaffer Katar
|
Monday, 30 November 2015
METHODOLOGY: An Evaluation on Scott Foresman English
“A Functional Notional Approach To Language Teaching
A TEXT BOOK EVALUATION
A TEXT BOOK EVALUATION
by
Muzaffer KATAR
CONTENTS
Pages
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................
PRIMARY CHARACTERISTICS OF A LANGUAGE BOOK........................................
AN IDEAL CONTENT OF A GENERAL ENGLISH BOOK...........................................
SCOTTFORESMAN ENGLISH SERIES..........................................................................
THE APPROACH EMPLOYED BY THE BOOKS IN THE SERIES...............................
OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................................
INSTRUCTIONS..............................................................................................................
EXERCISE TYPOLOGY...................................................................................................
STAGING OF THE LESSONS.........................................................................................
EVALUATION..................................................................................................................
PAGE LAY OUT...............................................................................................................
IN GENERAL....................................................................................................................
LACKINGS.......................................................................................................................
INTRODUCTION
Scientists of linguistics all over the world are trying to discover the methods and techniques to teach the language the best.
It must be pointed out that, in a lot of different sicientific studies in many study areas in linguistics and in the complexity of every-day changing and abundance of method, approaches, designs and techniques, teachers get confused and sometimes don’t know how to teach or act.
We can never completely deny any one method; therefore, a general approach towards methods should be to take the useful facets and to leave the useless ones of them.
Books are in the significant place in language teaching whatever method you use. All books are designed in different characteristics and tried to be designed according to a method. Is according to whatever method a book designed, it should characteristicly cover the following last developments reached at in language teaching.
PRIMARY CHARACTERISTICS OF A BOOK FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING
COGNITIVISM: A book must be designed caring “COGNITION” of the students. The foreign language material in the book must let the students to cognize fast and put the learning material in mind fast.
COMMUNICABILITY: The book should allow the students to offer what learnt with the book of the course to other people as communication material. A good book would allow the students to set up successful communication with others.
FUNCTIONALITY: The grammar elements included in the book must be functional and useful for the students to use them in their lives and social affairs.
Only by having the characteristics defined above, a book might be written according to any one approach, for an apropriate language teaching activity.
AN IDEAL CONTENT OF A GENERAL ENGLISH BOOK
As it is clear to me, many of the general English books do not have an ideal, appropriate content. The order of the topics or grammar structures is not from the easy to the difficult. And also you can see many extra structures which are not formally included in the syllabus studied by then. A very good example on this problem is seen on page 57 in SIDE BY SIDE I. In the reading on the mentioned page, there is the sentence,
“They are upset because there aren’t many people shopping in their stores in the center of town”. “A modifying verb” is seen here. By the unit in which the above sentence takes place, “modifying verbs” aren’t included in the syllabus. In this case, the teacher will either give the meaning and pass or will study a new structure that will indispose him or her from the actual unit and that will cause study more than one subject at a time what is not defended in language teaching.
Sometimes a structure is seen in the earlier units but the sturcture is included in a later unit in the syllabus (Side by Side: Singular /Plural).
It seems to us that an ideal content of a general English book will include these elements in order.
· Nouns- Singular/Plural and Pronunciation of “-s”
· Demonstrative Adjectives + Sentences with “is” + questions and negatives.
(Optional: Simple questions with the question words etc.)
· Noun Phrases (to be sentences) (Positive, negative, questions)
(Optional: Occupation names or any notion which can be studied with this structure like prepositions or time-telling etc.)
· There is/are. (some, any, how much/many)
(Optional a few,a little, a lotd of etc.)
· Simple Tenses (optional: frequency Adverbs; when, while, etc.)
· Modals (and many other elements towards a notion or function etc.)
· Compound sentences (noun, adjectival and adverbial clauses and many other notional-functional aspects, etc.).
(Nearby these topics, the other language elements, notions, functions etc. will be taught).
SCOTTFORESMAN ENGLISH SERIES
In this study, the books of SCOTTFORESMAN ENGLISH SERIES are taken to criticize its positive and negative aspects. They have been written by C. Raht, B. R. Denman, N.E.-Lavie and S.J. Briggs and printed in the Illinois, U.S.A. The series consists of three two-book programs.
In Contract, Level 1 and 2
On Target, Level 1 and 2
In charge, Level 1 and 2
Together with Student Book, each level of the series contains the components, “Workbook”, “Audio Cassettes” and Teacher’s Edition.
THE APPROACH EMPLOYED BY THE BOOKS IN THE SERIES
First you must accept that the structural approach is superior to all of the other approaches due to the reference the name alludes to. Since, with all methods and approaches, we base on and teach “the structures.” If they mean sometihng else with “ the structural approach” then, they should take another call to refer to what they intend, or there might be a terminological confusion.
No doubt that the SCOTTFORESSMAN SERIES is written basing on a mixture of notional, functional and communicative approaches because we see many notional, functional arrangements studied through very nice communicative designations. You can understand it when you look over the book and even from the contents. Here are the evidences:
1- The units in the series are all towards our actual and daily communication affairs and needs.
For example, the first unit in the first book is “Greetings” and the last unit is “Describing People”. They are all towards teaching “functional grammar”. However as I said before, we can never deny the structures which are the body of the functioning or energy; so the book also gives frames of structures we need when we want to produce verbal functioning on these subjects.
2- The titles of the units are all functional terms (Unit 2: Business or Vocation. Unit 11: Plans and Predictions) There is no grammatical title like “Simple Past Tense”. The learners get ready psychologically to study a social or communicative affair when they see the title.
3- The visual aids designed in the units are all about a function: (Unit 4: The topic is “dressing” and “colors” so the pictures include people wearing different clothes in different colors. Two different functions are in the same unit here: “Clothes” and “Colors”.
4- We don’t see monotonously designed dialogues as those in the grammar or structure teaching approaches. The sentences of interaction of the heroes are not generally measured, but free. They are like in real life communication: (Page 55, First book).
TED- Do you want a drink? They have juice-orange, apple or grape.
SUE- Yes, I’d like some apple juice. Thank you. How often do you come to the health club, Ted?
TED- Oh, I come every day! I like the Fitness Club.
SUE- Me, too! What do you think Alona?
ALANA- Good-by TV and hello Fitness Club!!
5- We understand that the design-pictures, dialogues, drawings in the units are to make the students aware of the functional purposes.
OBJECTIVES
Every book of which purpose is to teach English should have some general objectives like speaking, writing, reading and listening for comprehension. So the design, prosedure, dialogues and other activities of a book should direct the learning and teaching phase towards this aim.
SCOOT FORESMANN BOOKS having characteristics of functional, notional and communicative approaches also attains the aim of communicative skills towards functions and notions preferred by the authors. In the books there are “student speaking and listening”, “reading” “writing” and also “tape listening” parts to realize the communication objectives.
We should accept that the students are in the center in teaching using these books. All of the dialogues, exercises, reading passages, listening and speaking parts are exactly towards the students. The teacher’s books are also formed and aimed for a student -centered teaching. If the teacher carries out the directions prepared by the authors to direct the teachers, the students will surely attain the communicative skills. The very well arranged practices in the work-books are also to reinforce the students’ communicative skills and to cognize the structures in terms of selected functions.
What told above are to be the objectives which are linguistic in depth and they are very clear to both the students and the teacher by the design and instruction. There are symbols defining the parts, to make the learners and the teacher realize about what objective they are after at that moment.
Since every unit is for a social function, the books also has socio-functional objectives. To attain such objectives, as mentioned before, the units have been carefully designed and accompanied with very maningful pictures and ordered carefully from the easy to the difficult.
Just at this point we have to talk of a few example in the first unit, since, English teachers will know, the different pronunciations of “letters used alone and used in words” confuse the learners. And Exercise 6 (p:9): What is six and two? -Six and two is eight. To write the numbers as in this shape is wrong. This kind of shape of adding is wrong. It causes a confusion or a little chaos in brain nerves because lingual directing on the brain nerves is horizontal (six and two are eight) but related visual directing on the brain nerves is vertical . “The authors are not neurologists of course.” In addition to these mistakes there are some idioms used only in the U.S.A., which is thought to be unnecessary by me.
The studying items direct the students to critical thinking skills as classifying, sequencing. Making inferences and drawing conclusions thereby allowing them to learn effectively.
To get the students to realize what the unit objective is, lesssons start with a general talk about pictures in the past “warm up”.
INSTRUCTIONS
Instructions have been carefully formed in general. The words in the instructions are very common. They don’t get tired trying to attain the meanings of the instruction. When they understand the instructions, they are more motivated to study the practices and exercises.
Examples: 1. What are the numbers?
2. Fill in this form for Kenji.
3. Work with a partner. Who is talking? Who are they talking to?
(Several answers are possible).
About the last sentence in the last instruction: They haven’t yet learnt the words “several” and “possible”. Then teacher will teach to the meanings of the words. As seen the author doesn’t prefer the sentence “several answers may be given”. In this case, even the sentence may seem easy to the teacher, it will not be easy for the students because there are two structures here which haven’t been studied yet by then, and enough to confuse the learners.
It is also a fact that the most disadvantagous part of the SCOTTFORESSMAN Books is also about the instructions.
1- There are ten activity parts in every unit.So there are ten instructions including sub-instructions.The lot of instructions make the students tired unconciously, howsoever.
2- Some instruction sentences of the “speaking”, “reading”, “writing” and “speak out” parts are very long, and are like a reading passage. So it demotivates the students.
3- There are instructions, few even, which include four sentences which are in different letter sizes and colors.
EXERCISE TYPOLOGY
Practices and exercises in SCOTTFORESMAN ENGLISH are very easily understood. When the students read the instructions, they know what to do. Most of the exercises have an “example” first. Together with the workbooks, practices and exercises are enough to learn the related subject (We know that real life experiences are needed to learn a subject better).
When you see the exercises, you see that they are effective in terms of both procedure and objectives of the units. Exercises in the book are towards developing children’s four communicative skills. They are not dogmatic and cramming (or mechanical). (I believe also the use of mechanical exercises since such exercises make the records of the studied “true” linguistic materals in the related nerval part of the brain).
The exercises in SCOTTFORESMAN books are communicative and meaningful. They make you think and do in very realistic communicative and meaningful examples. There is not any mechanical exercises in these books.
Exercises generally provide enough guidance for both the learners and the teachers, but there are a few of them of which guidance are not enough and the teachers falls into a difficult position in the classroom. I remember it from my experiences in the classroom.
Exercises leave room in general for various learner and teacher strategies. They are also varied and in content and task type.
Example: (Page 22 in Contact one).
EXERCISE 2: Can you Sing?
Work with a partner. Ask and answer questions.
A- Can you sing?
B- Yes, I can. Can you drive a bus?
A- No, I can’t.
There are 14 pictures near which there are 14 verbs in a column style. Verbs are not written under the pictures. They can find the verbs from the column or remember looking at the pictures. Even they can cover the verbs and only use the pictures. They are quite meaningful and of pleasure. They are not to give one answer. They think their position and answer relating to their own lives.
The types of the Exercises.
I. Listening - Comprehension Exercises
II. Substitution Exercises
III. Conversation Exercises
IV. Pronunciation Exercises
V. Question- Answer Exercises
VI. Matching Exercises
These exercises are certainly meaningful, communicative and productive by the design of them in the SCOTTFORESSMAN Series.
Also these exercises at every stages of the lesson such as presentation stage (Listening, Conversation, Question and Answer Exercises), Practising Stage (Listening, Conversation, Pronunciation, Matching Exercises), and Production Stage (Conversation and Question-Answer Exercises).
The exercises in the book direct the students to develop their listening, writing , reading and speaking skills in meaningful and communicative arrangements. Therefore the exercises are enough and appropriate for a good way of teaching.
STAGING OF THE LESSONS
As I noticed, there is not a clear separation between the stages; presentation, practice and production. Students are very active and in the centre of every stage. While the teacher is presenting a subject, he always takes help of the students thereby causing the student practice the language more. So we can say every stage provide students with communicative skills.
A unit in SCOTTFORESMAN Books consists of these stages:
WARM UP: Units open with the part “Warm Up.” This part involves the students in the theme of the new unit. “Warm Up” parts also include very nice visuals which helps for a better interaction.
CONVERSATIONS: After the part, Warm Up, there is one or two parts of conversation selected through the target topic and which appears on the Audio Cassettes. You need or listen to them first.
After reading conversations, there are comprehension questions.
VOCABULARY: After conversations, a list of new vocabulary is given together with a vocabulary testing exercise “Vocabulary Check”: You put the right word to the blanks.
WORD FOR WORD: This part is for words which can be under a special categorization like “prefixes”, “suffixes”, “-ed adjectives”. There is also an exercise here.
There is a very big mistake here. The title of the part “WORD FOR WORD” is an idiomatic phrase. The verbal translation of the idiom makes no sense for the students. So it is nothing more than confusing mind. It would be better to put the title “special” or “special word” or something like this.
GRAMMAR: Studied grammar structure is given here in scheme together with a number of exercises.
LISTENING: From tape-recorder and with an exercise.
PRONUNCIATION: If there is a problem sound it is taught here with a number of exercises.
SPEAKING: There is a topic to speak about with a partner. A guided exercise.
READING: Together with an exercise part.
WRITING: A study of the frame of the unit function.
SPEAK OUT: This part is an integration of all the studied material. They try to realise the task in speaking with a partner.
Note: The instructions for the parts Speaking, Reading, Writing and Speak Out are too long and tiring. So because the students are away from reading such instruction, they get bored and demotivated.
EVALUATION
To evaluate the success we or they attained with the target, there is a self-test part after every unit in the workbook. They do this activity to check themselves, teacher record their scores. This is a pleasing activity because students want to see at what degree they are successful.
Also you can give “dictations” to see their mistakes.
In addition in a relaxing manner, their communication skills are evaluated.
PAGE LAY OUT
This is one of the most important and affecting characteristics of a foreign language book.
In the case of SCOTTFORESSMAN Books, there are both very-well designed and very badly designed page lay outs. But in general the design of the pages, the inter-relative proportions of passages, pictures, schemes and frames are quite good. The dimensions or measures of the pictures are perfect; What meant is that they are not so big or small, and they are not boring but nice and lovely.
It must be though confessed that instructions of some parts are a little bit "confusing" (p:33 listening).
IN GENERAL
To conclude, the SCOTTFORESMAN English Teaching Books are very carefully designed books and with a great effort and self-denial. They are attractive and motivating for both the teachers and the students. Positive possessivenesses of the series are quite more than its slight negative possessivenesses. While the series is quite interesting and motivating the confusing elements can be given only by numbers. There is not even one crucial non-appropriacy in the book other than little lackings in the design.
LACKINGS
* We often meet idioms used in the U.S.A., idioms confuses the students in general, they necessitates more time to learn and we don’t use them every time in the real life. It would better not to put such idioms in the book.
* Some instructions are in forms of idioms. They are demotivating and not understandable. Like;
WORD FOR WORD
TALK IT THROUGH
ON THE TIP OF YOUR TONGUE. (On target 2).
* An example part of syllabus in the book, in Contact 1, Possessive Nouns are studied, examplified by the help of the verbs “have, has”. This is, may be, the greatest mistake of the book (P:26).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)