From: hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish
Subject: Ziya Gokalp  1/3
Keywords: Turkism, Turanism, Nationalism
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:24:23 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.



Ziya Gokalp is known variously as the father of Turkish
nationalism, Turkism and Turanism. I got a hold of his book and
translated various sections from it, particularly those referring
to Turkism, nationalism and Turanism.

Translations provided as a public service to USENET.

Note on translations: Some words in Turkish require several in
English, and vice versa. Where such difficulty occurs, I tried to
indicate it. Furthermore, I provided the Turkish version, for
those who want to translate it or correct my translation. No
warranty on the accuracy of the translation is implied :-).



[Ziya Gokalp, Foundations of Turkism, written in the early
1900s.]


p.21	   Turkculuk Nedir ?

/Turkculuk Turk milletini yukseltmek demektir. O halde,
/Turkculugun aslini anlamak icin, ilk once millet adi verilen
/toplulugun neden ibaret oldugunu tesbit etmek gerekir. Millet
/hakkinda cesitli gorusleri inceleyelim.

p.21	  What is Turkism ?

Turkism means to improve/elevate [yukseltmek==cause to be
elevated/cause to progress] the Turkish nation. Thus, in order to
understand foundations of Turkism, it's first necessary to
clearly understand what comprises the community called  nation.
Let's examine the various views on [what constitutes a] nation.

/1. Irki esas alan Turkculere gore, irk millet demektir. Irk
/kelimesi gercekte zoolojiye ait bir terimdir. Her hayvan cesidi,
/anatomik nitelikleri yonunden birtakim tiplere ayrilir. Bu
/tiplere irk denilir. Mesela, atin Arap irki, Ingiliz irki, Macar
/irki adlarini alan birtakim anatomik tipleri vardir.

1. According to Turkists who accept irk [race] as a basis, race
means nation. The word irk [race,species] is a term that, in
reality, comes from zoology. Every animal irk [species] gets
divided into various types due anatomical reasons. These types
are called irk [race,species]. For example, horses get divided
into Arabian irk [species], English irk [species],  Hungarian
irk [species].

[Note: As can be seen irk in Turkish is  used for several in
English, race and species.]

/Insanlar arasinda da, eskiden beri, beyaz irk, siyah irk, sari
/irk, kirmizi irk adlari ile anilan dort irk vardir...

Among humans, from olden times, there existed four races; white,
black, yellow and red...

/Antropoloji ilmi, Avrupa'daki insanlari kafa yapilarinin bicimi
/ve saclari ile gozlerining renklerini dikkate alarak uc irka
/ayirmistir. Uzun kafali kumral, uzun kafali esmer, yassi kafali.

The science of anthropology, taking into account the shape of the
head, and the color of the eyes and hair,  has divided the
peoples of Europe into three separate irk [races]. Long-headed
fair, long-headed brunette, and flat-headed..
[There are Latin terms for these but I'm translating directly.]

/Bununla beraber, Avrupada hic bir millet, bu tiplerden yalniz
/birinden olusmaz. Her milletin icinde cesitli oranlarda olmak
/uzere bu irklara mensup kisiler vardir. Hatta ayni ailenin
/icinde, bir kardes uzun kafali kumral, diger kardesler uzun
/kafali esmer ve yassi kafali olabilirler.

Despite this, no nation in Europe is comprised wholly of one of
these types. Every nation has, in different proportions, all of
these irks [types]. One can even find, in the same family; one
sibling long-headed fair, the others long-headed brunette and/or
flat-headed.


/Gerci bir zamanlar bazi antropologlar bu anatomik tiplerle
/sosyal davranislar arasinda iliski bulundugunu ileri surerlerdi.
/Fakat bircok bilimsel elestirilerin ve ozellike bizzat
/antropologlarin arasinde en yuksek mevkide bulunan Manovrier
/adindaki bilginin, anatomik niteliklerin sosyal karakterler
/uzerinde hic bir etkisi olmadigini ispat etmesi bu eski iddiayi
/tamamen curuttu. Irkin bu sekilde sosyal davranislarla hic bir
/etkisi kalmayinca, sosyal karakterlerin toplami olan milliyetle
/de hic bir ilgisi kalmamasi gerekir. O halde milleti baska bir
/alanda aramalidir.

Actually, at one time, some anthropologists asserted that there
existed connections between these anatomic types and social
behavior/attitudes. But many criticisms and especially the proof
by a well-known anthropologist Manovrier that there is no effect
of anatomical [physical] qualities [properties] on social
character, has now made such old ideas bankrupt [rotten]. If race
has no effect on social behaviors/attitudes, then of necessity,
it has no effect on a nation which is nothing but the sum total
of social character [of people.]. Therefore, we must seek
nationality in some other area [not irk].

/2. Kavmi esas alan Turkler de milleti kavim toplulugu ile
/karistirirlar. Kavim ayni anadan babadan uremis, icine hic
/yabanci karismamis ayni kandan bir topluluk demektir.

2. Those who think that kavim [clan/people/tribe] is the basis
[of nation] confuse the two. Kavim is a community descended from
the same mother and father without mixing with any outsiders.

/Eski toplumlar, genellikle saf ve yabancilarla karismamis birer
/kavim olduklarini ileri surerlerdi. Oysa toplumlar, tarih oncesi
/zamanlarda bile, kavmiyet bakimindan saf degildirler. Savaslarda
/esir alma, kiz kacirma, suclularin kendi toplumlarindan kacarak
/bask bir topluma girmesi, evlenmeler, gocler, yabancilari
/kendine benzetme ve baska bir topluluk icinde erime olaylar,
/daima milletleri birbirine karistirmisti. Fransiz bilginlerinden
/Camille Julian ile Meillet, en eski zamanlarda bile saf bir
/kavmin bulunmadigini ileri surmektedir. Tarih oncesinde bile saf
/bir kavim bulunmazsa, tarihsel donemlerdeki kavimsel
/karismalardan sonra, artik saf bir kavmiyet aramak sacma
/olmazmi?


Old communities  used to assert that they were a pure and unmixed
kavim [peoples]. In reality, communities, even in prehistorical
times, were not pure peoples. Communities always mixed with
others as a result of capturing slaves in war, kidnapping women,
criminals escaping their communities and joining others,
marriages, migrations, assimilating outsiders and assimilating
into others. The French scientists Camille Julian and Meillet,
assert that no pure kavims existed even among the earliest
peoples. If no pure kavims existed even in prehistorical times,
isn't it ridiculous to look for pure kavims now ?

/Bundan baska, sosyoloji bilimine gore, kisiler dunyaya gelirken
/sosyal niteliklerden hic birine sahip degillerdir. Yani sosyal
/duygu ve dusuncelerden hic birini beraberlerinde getirmezler.
/Mesela dil, din, ahlak, estetik, siyaset, hukuk ve ekonomik
/alanlardaki hicbir duygu ve dusunceyi beraberlerinde
/getirmezler. Bunlarin hepsine sonralari egitim yoluyla toplumdan
/alirlar. Demek ki, sosyal davranislar dogum yolu ve kalitim ile
/gecmez, yalniz egitim yoluyla gecer. O halde kavmiyetin milli
/karakter bakimindan hic bir etkisi yok demektir.

In addition [to this], according to the science of sociology,
when individuals are born, they do not possess any social
qualities [properties]. In other words they are not born with 
any social duygu [sense, sentiment, feeling, perception] or
social ideas. For example, they are not born with [do not
genetically inherit] any ideas in the linguistic, religious,
moral, esthetic, political, juridical or economic fields. They
assimilate them later through egitim [socialization,education].
Clearly, it means that social attitudes are not transmitted via
birth or genetically; only via education. Thus, kavim has
absolutely no effect on national character.


/Kavimsel saflik hic bir toplumda bulunmamakla beraber, eski
/toplumlar, kavmiyet ulkusunu izlerlerdi. Bunun sebebi dinsel
/idi. Cunku o toplumlarda tanri, toplumun ilk atasindan ibaretti.
/Bu tanri, yalniz kendi dolunden bulunanlara tanrilik etmek
/isterdi. Yabancilarin kendi tapinagina girmesini, kendisine
/tapilacak tapinmalarina katilmasini, kendi yasalarina gore
/yargilanmasini istemezdi. Bundan oturu, toplumun icinde, cesitli
/cocuk edinme yollariyle girmis olan bir cok kisiler bulundugu
/halde butun toplum yalniz ilahin dollerinden meydana gelmis
/sayilirdi. Eski Yunan sitelerinde, islamliktan onceki Araplarda,
/eski Turklerde, ozetle henuz ilk devrinde bulunan butun
/toplumlarda bu yalanci kavmiyeti goruruz.

Even though kavim [tribal/clan] purity never existed, the old
communities held onto the kavim ideal. The reason for it was
religious. Because in such communities, their god in essence, was
the original [first] ancestor of this community. This god only
wanted to be the god of its own community.  It did not want
outsiders to join the community, the religious ceremony or to be
judged according to its laws. Because of this, although that
community might have had people from the outside, they were
considered to have been descended from the same god. We can find
this sense of false-community [false sense of tribal/clan
cummunity]  among the ancient Greeks, ancient Turks, pre-Islam
Arabs and even today among the more primitive cultures.

/Surasi var ki, sosyal gelismenin o basamaginda yasayan milletler
/icin kavimcilik mefkuresini izlemek normal bir hareket oldugu
/halde, bugun icin bulundugumuz duzeye oranla sakattir. Cunku, o
/duzeyde bulunan toplumlarda, sosyal dayanisma, yalniz dindaslik
/bagindan ibarettir. Dindaslik, kandasliga dayaninca, tabiidir
/ki, sosyal dayanismanin dayanagi da kandaslik olur. Bugunku
/sosyal durumda is, sosyal dayanisma kulturdeki birlige dayanir.
/Kulturun nesillere aktarilma araci egitim oldugu icin
/kandaslikal hic bir ilgisi yoktur.

And we should rembember that although it would be normal to
expect such attitudes to persist among the peoples at that level
of social development, according to today's standards it is
sakat [invalid,unsound, defective]; the reason being that in
societies at that level [of development], the social fabric is
comprised solely of  religious bonds. When religion becomes tied
to pedigree [blood-lines], of course, social ties then become
based on blood-lines. Today, society is based on cultural unity.
Since culture is transmitted to the generations via education,
it's not related to pedigree [blood-lines] at all.      


/3. Cografi yapiyi esas alan Turkculere gore, millet ayni ulkede
/oturan halkin tamami demektir. Mesela onlara gore bir Iran
/milleti, bir Isvicre milleti, bir Belcika milleti, bir Britanya
/milleti vardir. Oysa Iranda, Fars, Kurt ve Turk'ten ibaret olmak
/uzere uc millet, Isvicre'de Alman, Fransiz, Italyan'dan ibaret
/olmak uzere yine uc millet, Belcika'da Fransil asilli
/Vallonlarla, Cermen asilli Flamanlar vardir. Buyuk Britanya
/adalarinda ise, Anglo-Sakson, Iskocyali, Galli, Irlandali
/adlariyle anilan dort millet vardir. Bu cesitli toplumlarin
/dilleri ve kulturleri birbirinden ayri oldugu icin hepsine
/birden millet adini vermek dogru degildir.


3. According to Turks who base nationality on geography, a nation
is comprised of the people who live in the same country. For
example, according to them, there is an Iranian nation, a Swiss
nation, a Belgian nation, a British nation. In reality, Iran is
comprised of three nationalities[peoples], namely Farsi, Kurdish
and Turkish; Switzerland, of German, French and Italian
nationalities; Belgium of Waloons and the Germanic Flemish. The
islands of Great Britain have four nations consisting of Anglo-
Saxon, Scotts, Galli [Welsh?], and the Irish. It is not correct
to call these groups a single nation since their languages and
cultures are different.

/Bazan bir ulkelerde cok sayida milletler oldugu gibi, bazan da
/bir millet degisik ulkelere dagilmis bulunur. Mesela, Oguz
/Turklerine bugun, Turkiye'de, Azerbaycan'da, Iran'da, Harzem
/ulkesinde rastlariz.

/Bu topluluklarin dilleri ve kulturleri bir oldugu halde ayri
/milletler saymak dogru olabilir mi?

Just as it is possible for one country to have several nations,
it is as well possible  for a single nation to be spread  over
several states. For example, the Oguz Turks are, today, spread
over Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Khwaresm.

Is it correct to count these groups who share the same culture
and language to be different nationalities ?

/4. Osmanlicilara gore millet, Osmanli Imparatorlugun'da oturan
/butun vatandaslardir. Oysa, bir imparatorlugun butun nufusunu
/birtek millet saymak buyuk bir hatadan ibaretti. Cunku bu
/karisimin icinde ayri kulturlere sahip milletler vardi.

4. According to the Ottomanists, the nation consists of all the
citizens who lived in the Ottoman Empire. In reality, it was a
mistake to count all these peoples as one nation. Because this
mixture consisted of separate nations with their distinct
[separate] cultures.

/5. Islam Birligi'ni savunanlara gore, millet butun muslumanlarin
/toplami demektir.

/Ayni dinde bulunan insanlarin butunune ummet adi verilir. O
/halde muslumanlarin butunu de bir ummettir. Yalniz dilde ve
/kulturde bir olan millet ise, ummetten ayri bir seydir.


5. According to those who defend the Unity of Islam, millet
[nation] means the total/sum of all the Muslims.

The word for people belonging to the same religion is ummet. So,
all the Muslims constitute one ummet. Nation [millet], which
means a unity of language and culture, is different than ummet.

/6. Fertcilere gore, millet bir adamin kendisini icinde saydigi
/her hangi bir toplumdur. Gerci kisi kendin gorunuste su veya bu
/topluma bagli saymayi hurriyet sanir. Oysa, kisilerde buyuk bir
/ozgurluk ve bagimsizlik yoktur. Cunku insanlardaki ruh,
/duygularla  fikirden ibarettir. Yeni psikoloji bilginlere gore,
/esas olan duygu hayatimizdir, dusunce hayatimiz ona
/asilanmistir. Demek ki, ruhumuzun normal bir halde bulunbilmesi
/icin, dusuncelerimizin, duygularimiza tamamen uygun olmasi
/gerekir.

6. According to the individualists, a nation is whatever group to
which a human considers himself to belong. In fact, an individual
considers the capability of belonging to whatever group [he
wants] as freedom. In reality, there exists no such freedom of
choice among humans. Because, in humans, ruh [soul, spirit,
essence] consists of [rational/logical] ideas and duygu [sense,
sentiment, feeling, perception]. According to contemporary
psychologists, our real existence is our emotional life [ruh] ;
our [rational] thoughts are grafted onto it.  Thus in order for
our emotional life [ruh] to be normal, it is necessary for our
[rational/logical] ideas to match [to be in harmony with] our
ruh [soul,spirit,essence].

/Dusunceleri duygularina uymayan ve dayanmayan insan ruh
/bakimindan hastadir. Boyle bir insan hayatta mesut olamaz.
/Mesela duygu yonunden dindar olan bir genc, kendini fikren
/dinsiz sayarsa, ruhsal bir dengeye sahip olabilir mi? Suphesiz
/hayir!

Those whose ideas [rational existence]  and duygus are not in
harmony are mentally ill. Such a person can never be happy. For
example, if a young person who is pious by sentiment
[emotion/feeling] , considers himself an atheist rationally, can
he be mentally stable. Without a doubt, no !

/Bunun gibi, her kisi duygulari araciligi ile belirli bir millete
/mensuptur. Bu millet, o kisinin, icinde yasadigi toplumun butun
/duygularini egitim yoluyla almis, tamamiyle ona benzemistir. O
/halde bu kisi, ancak bu toplumun icinde yasarsa mutlu
/olabilir...

Similarly, every person belongs to a nation by virtue of his ruh
[soul,spirit,feelings/emotions]. This nation, has acquired the essence of
[his] culture via education and transmitted it to him; thus this
person can only be happy if he lives as a part of this nation...
-- 

	mark	


   hubey@pilot.njin.net                   hubey@apollo.montclair.edu
 ...!rutgers!pilot!hubey                  hubey@logos.montclair.edu