Customer Reviews

Turkey Unveiled: A History of Modern Turkey

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

More than any country Turkey has been almost deliberately misunderstood in Europe and in the United States. Some of the misunderstanding comes from lazy thinking, much is ignorance and the rest predjudice combined with politics. Nicole and Hugh Pope, who speak Turkish as well as several other languages, have lived for the past decade in Instanbul. Their clear-eyed understanding of Turkey's promise and problems is clearly conveyed in this well written book. It is a "must read" for anyone who wants to understand the reality of this complex and fascinating country.

It's difficult to think of a country in a more complex neighborhood. Turkey has borders with Greece, Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Turkey's relations with each brings a different set of complexities. Ironically Turkey's most strained relations are with it's NATO ally, Greece. Internally Turkey's relations with its Kurdish minority, creates a tension with no signs of easy resolution yet are less hostile than many in the west realize. The Popes explore and explain with a depth of understanding and feeling that can only come not only knowing the language and the people but from having the energy and curiosity to travel widely and interview citizens at all levels of society.

This is not a travelogue but a serious history of modern Turkey. Still one wishes they'd found a way to mention the joys of walking through both the rich and poor neighborhoods of Istanbul where a foreigner can see and experience first hand the Turks righly famous hospitality as well as the dynamic tension inherent in a rapidly changing society where you can see traditionally garbed mothers walking with short skirted, lipsticked daughters.

Since Mustafa Kemal Attaturk the Turks have dealt with adversity. The Popes describe a country that is at once moving towards modernity, and possibly prosperity, while at the same time is rediscovering its past. Turkey is a work in progress. The Popes do a masterful job of describing the progress to date, warts and all.

The title is unfortunate; the subtitle not quite accurate. "Modern Turkey" usually means starting in about 1800 and trailing off somewhere in the last generation; this appears to be another once-over that familiar ground, but it is not. Instead, the Popes (a wife-husband time), in a well-written and reliable account, devote three quarters of their study to the years since 1960. Chapters deal, in a sympathetic but always critical manner, with such issues as the military coups, the Cyprus issue, the Kurdish problem, domestic economic developments, the newly-liberated Turkic republics, the Tansu Çiller fiasco, and the Islamist phenomenon. Throughout, the Popes blame much that they find in Turkey on the modern state's founder, Kemal Atatürk, including the "repression, the intense national paranoia, the shortcomings of its democracy and the over-reliance on the army."

Perhaps most interesting is their account of Türgut Özal, the man who dominated Turkish politics between 1983 and his death in 1993. He was "the catalyst for much of the breathless pace of change that revolutionized Turkey" during that decade-long period. His influence extended to much of Turkish public life: "Undermining the Kemalist bastions of state dominance of business and the media, flamboyantly popularizing a new ideology of the market and international trade, irreverently breaking taboos about the military, Islam and the Kurds, Türgut Özal became Turkey's most influential political personality since Atatürk." The authors catch his contradictions ("for all his Muslim piety, [he] liked to finish off a bottle of his favorite Courvoisier brandy") and his foibles ("He is like a piece of soft iron. Whatever magnet he sees, he sticks to"), without undermining his outsized and constructive role.

Middle East Quarterly, December 1999

Don't think this book is completely useless. But it's not a serious resource about Turkey. If you already know a lot about this country (I mean if you already read for exemple Kalaycioglu's Turkish Dynamics or at least Zürcher's History of Turkey) Popes' book may be interesting in order to understand how foreigners see Turkey, Turkish people and turkish politics.
However, I saw much better exemples of this kind of "journalistic account" books such as the "The Turks" by David Hotham (published 40 years ago), or the recent Crescent and Star by Kinzer. I think Mango's The Turks Today is the best, altough Mango prefer to not deal with some "sensitive" subjects.

Popes' book is heavily biased, especially in some parts. Their style remembers me some orientalist authors who were against the idea of modernization of the east. Still, some people are disapointed by discovering a modernizing country in Turkey, instead of an oriental one, where people ride camels while girls are doing belly-dancing. So I call this type of text "neo-orientalistic".

Another point is, just as it is with some other foreign journalists working in Turkey (especially french), they still think in terms (and paradigms) of the country from where they are; and they are tended to suggest "solutions" for everything. Their country is the correct one, and others are "deviations". When reading Turkey Unveiled, you can see that the authors can't stop seeing things that way. So they just misundertand some important facts and make very subjective comments. That's what french call "donneur de leçon" attitude ("lesson-giver").

Another very important point: yes there is a bibliography at the end but almost no references inside !!! We can't understand if what they wrote is from a real source or just a rumor.

---------------------------------------------------
ATTENTION ATTENTION ATTENTION SECOND "REVIEW" ADDED
---------------------------------------------------

Dear Amazon Users,

I decided to write a second "review" in order to get your attention to the following facts:

1) Most of the positive reviews like "...I didn't read the book yet but I will definitely buy it" are ANONYMUS !!!

2) A person has 2 separate positive reviews, one on this page, the other at the page two (click "next" to see)

I believe this 2 and most of the other (+) reviews are just advertisement. I suspect that the person who managed wrote 2 reviews is probably a friend of the authors.

You can think and say what you want about Turkey and Turks, but please try to read serious authors : (in English) Feroz Ahmad, Eric Zürcher, Ersin Kalaycioglu, Caglar Keyder, Tim Jacoby, William Hale (in French) Paul Dumont, François Georgeon, Stephanos Yerasimos, Jean Paul Burdy, Semih Vaner, Jean Paul Roux...

Yes some are turkish but non of these are "Turkish-lovers" and they don't hide their critics about a lot of issues including armenian massacres, cyprus, kurdish question, human rigths and democratization issues...

Read and decide by yourself !

Thanks.


----------------------- December 2010 Update-------------------------------------------------

4 years after my first comment, I'm still defending the same point of view about this book. I regret to have given more than 25 USD to it; and I'm asking the same question again: WHY ALL THE POSITIVE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY " A CUSTOMER" (anonymous user) ??? WHY THOSE WHO SEEM TO BE FALLEN IN LOVE WITH THIS MASTERPIECE DO NOT WRITE THEIR NAMES DOWN???

CAVEAT EMPTOR !

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder as the saying goes. But if eyes can't see beauty is lost just the same. This book demands eyes of minds be unveiled to appreaciate the majesty of an honorable country and its people.

To be sure British authors seem to have a knack to educate people--indeed Turks themselves--about the Turkish history and her culture. The Popes' book "Turkey Unveiled" is no exception to this trend. It reads as though it is a sequel to Lord Kinross's masterpiece "Ataturk".

Each chapter begins with a short proverbial quotation by a Turkish politician, a storyteller, or a Turkish newspaper editorial. One such quote by Suleyman Demirel in particular seems to represent the entire Turkish politics since time immemorial: "You can take power with a bayonet. But you can't sit on it." Time and again Turkish politics have been wrought by the Turkish military, a double-edged sword of the implacable Kemalist ideology.

Popes share with the reader the good, the bad, and the ugly side of Turkish politics since the early days of the Turkic tribes from Central Asia all the way to modern-day Turkey. There is greater attention paid to the latter.

As any Turk would relate to the "melancholy, long-drawn-out ballads of their ancestors." So would he relate to "cartoon stories about the cowboy Lucky Luke"; strangely enough the Popes never mention "Lucky Luke" is known in Turkey as "Red Kit". They should add this footnote in the next edition.

The book is witty, objective, and heavily supported by verifiable references. If you need to learn about Turkey, this is an excellent book. If you are a Turk, this book is a must.

In the continual maelstrom and barrage of international news, it is hard to keep focus on any place that is not the site of wars or natural disasters. Even elections that make the front pages for a day or two soon disappear forever---the changes incurred thereby never apparent until a few years later, when the next election comes around. Modern Turkey, which has not participated in any external wars (except for its Korean War soldiers) or suffered invasion since the 1920s, often gets shortchanged. Earthquakes have shattered lives from time to time, the last major one in 1999. Though non-specialists like me may be more or less aware of the slow progession from Ataturk's radical reforms and remaking of the Turkish nation to the industrial, financial power of today with strong European aspirations, the details are not all that well-imprinted in our minds. We cannot look back on decades of consistent news coverage. So, I was very glad to find the Popes' book four years ago. I thought it would fill in the large gaps in my knowledge. I've just read it. It definitely filled in some gaps.

Authors can write modern histories in many ways, but it probably helps if they are historians and like to use broad brushes. Certainly, modern Turkish history has some wide themes---the modernization process in the economy; the slow transformation of culture from traditional Turco-Islamic to one more mixed with European elements; solving the question of whether Turkey is a mono-ethnic state or a multicultural mosaic; Turkey's relations with her neighbors, with the great powers, and with the new Turkic nations of Central Asia; the absorption of Turkic refugees from many places; the struggle between secular and religious politicians and its corollary, the struggles between left and right, and between military and civilian; the opening of the country to foreign influences of all kinds. There may be many more. I cannot say that the authors of TURKEY UNVEILED ignored these questions. On the contrary, you will find considerable material on all of them. However, what I found difficult, and ultimately disappointing, was that they retained the style of political reportage throughout. They observed Turkey through a tight screen of political detail, not as well-edited as it might have been. You are caught in a blow-by-blow description of Turkish politics from the early 1940s up to the end of the 20th century. While this might be great for someone who wants to know all the comings and goings of Turkish politicians---Inonu, Menderes, Evren, Ecevit, Demirel, Ozal, Turkes, Ciller, and Erbakan---not to mention a host of lesser figures, the trees definitely blocked the forest in this volume. I felt that all the main issues got lost in detail which at times descended to trivia. While I felt sure that the Popes had a lot of Turkish experience, I also felt that the task of changing data into history overwhelmed them. On top of this, history is not only about people at the top and national issues. It used to be, but times have changed. Daily life (and changes in daily life) for the average Turk is almost completely absent. We focus on the bigwigs. I think a major book on modern Turkish history in English for non-specialists, taking us to the end of the century, is still to be written. And by the way, Turkey was unveiled in 1925. It doesn't have to be done again.

This book is probably one of the best books to read about modern history of Turkey, which commonly starts from 1923, the establishment of Turkish Republic. Some date it back to 1908, the year the Constitution was reinstated for the second time and after when Committee of Union and Progress had been really dominant in Turkey's governance. Some might date it back to 1876, recognition of the First Constitution the by Ottoman Sultan, or to 1839, when Tanzimat Ferman was declared in Gulhane Park. Whatever it dates back to, Popes give some background on second half of the 19th century of Turkey, which lays the basics to understand the years of the new Turkish Republic.
The authors distinguish mostly what the facts are and what their thoughts/critisisms are on certain important issues, and the book has a notes section in the end for each chapter, in which they explain more in detail. To compare, I didn't feel like they had penetrated well into the Turkish society as much as a Stephen Kinzer did, but felt like they followed the events and the media very well. Overall, this is a good work, and definitely worth reading for people who are interested in modern Turkish history.

I enjoyed the book as a Turkish person knowing most of the history of the country, however, I thought that the book had major problems:

1- If you don't know the basics of the Turkish history in the last 50 years, you'll be lost. Too much detail in politicians and parties.

2- The authors portray that somehow, the founder of The Republic of Turkey, Ataturk, and his ideology is guilty of most of the problems that Turkey has today. That is far, I mean FAR, from the truth. If it was not Ataturk and his comrads, we either would not have existed, or, would have been a neglected colony of the West (since there is no oil in Turkey) like Afghanistan. A compelling majority of Turks today, excluding the islamists who wants to turn the country into an Islamic Theocracy, regard Ataturk as the saviour, and feel indebted for life.

3- The book gives so much sympathy to the Islamists.
4- The book barely touches the "touchy" subjects, such as the minorities.

I have read Popes' book with great enthusiasm initially, but I must confess that I ended up in disappointment since I could not find in the book the nice and necessary touch to this highly complicated issue.

The content of the book is not as academic as its title asserts. It is written very much in a journalistic style in terms of its outline and the quotations, which is fine. However, when it comes to the quality of the work within academic criteria, it lacks referencing some cornerstone work in the field, including some of Feroz Ahmad, Serif Mardin, Etienne Copeaux, Ilhan Tekeli, and many more. Without most of these references, I believe, a historical analysis of the modern Turkey remains incomplete and unfruitful.

The authors definitely seem to know a significant lot about Turkey and they have a good grasp of the political scene in the country from the start of the Republic. Accordingly, I have found the book successful in presenting chronological information, which is a good contribution. Though having some minor chronological mistakes/typos, this book could be referred as a nice guide for people who have not been to Turkey or have not been exposed to the Turkish culture, of course, given that the personal views of the authors are not taken as granted. Because the ideas asserted in the book are mostly not proven analytically with the tools used by a historian or a political scientist. In this respect, I believe the book stands far from being a serious reference for an academic study.

I have lived and worked in Turkey for 27 years. The work I was involved with, allowed me to meet all the Prime Ministers and Presidents of Turkey. The current President, Suleyman Demirel, was a powerful Prime Minister during a portion of my time there.

This book tells it like it is. The current bickering with the Fundamentalists is well founded. When Erbakan, a Fundamentalist Prime Minister,was in power, it was apparent that his party wanted to turn Turkey into another Iran. The Constitution states that Turkey will be maintained as a secular State. This provision allows the military to enforce this. Erbakan was given an ultimatum to get out or the Military would take over. Living under the fundamentalists regime, was extremely dangerous and difficult. During this period most Turkish people prepared to leave the country. Dollars were sort after, Passports were in demand and many families transferred their funds out of the country.

The Popes' description of the current politics is current and correct. Turkey, as a secular State, can flourish and share the economic trappings of the West. American products are now regularly seen on the store shelves. Metros are being built in all the major cities. The new Istanbul-Ankara Turnpike, now cuts this travel to 4 hours, rather than the 8-9 hrs it took before. Dollars and other currencies are exchanged everywhere. The internet has taken hold and everyone, and I mean everyone, now use cell phones as often as we do.

So this book is an accurate up-to-date account of the state of Turkey. It was refreshing to read and well recommended for those interested in Turkey.

I have read extensively on Turkey and this one has
been the most disappointing of all.
I completely disagree with other reviewers that the
authors know, understand and love the Turkish and their
land. There were glaring mistakes, and a very
superficial understanding of the Turkish culture.

For those who want to have an understanding of the
political scene in Turkey I would read Marline Howe's
Turkey. She is an American writer who delivers her
subject fairly, and evenly.
I can't recommend Stephen Kinzer's Crescent
and Star as it is full of redundancy. To understand
Ataturk and his impact on Turkey, the book would have
to be Andrew MAngo's Ataturk.