"I asked them if they could find any government in the world that likes the things I say."
A New History for a New Turkey: What a 12th-grade textbook has to say about T... - 1 views
-
Rather than simply serving as crude propaganda for Erdoğan’s regime, Contemporary Turkish and World History aspires to do something more ambitious: embed Turkey’s dominant ideology in a whole new nationalist narrative. Taken in its entirety, the book synthesizes diverse strands of Turkish anti-imperialism to offer an all-too-coherent, which is not to say accurate, account of the last hundred years. It celebrates Atatürk and Erdoğan, a century apart, for their struggles against Western hegemony. It praises Cemal Gürsel and Necmettin Erbakan, on abutting pages, for their efforts to promote Turkish industrial independence. And it explains what the works of both John Steinbeck [Con Şıtaynbek] and 50 Cent [Fifti Sent] have to say about the shortcomings of American society.
-
Turkey has long had competing strains of anti-Western, anti-Imperialist and anti-American thought. In the foreign policy realm, Erdogan’s embrace of the Mavi Vatan doctrine showed how his right-wing religious nationalism could make common cause with the left-wing Ulusalcı variety.[5] This book represents a similar alliance in the historiographic realm, demonstrating how the 20th century can be rewritten as a consistent quest for a fully independent Turkey.
-
Ankara is currently being praised for sending indigenously developed drones to Ukraine and simultaneously criticized for holding up Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership. Contemporary Turkish and World History sheds light on the intellectual origins of both these policies
- ...20 more annotations...
The new wave of NOTMWTS - by Mic Wright - 0 views
-
“No one tells me what to write.” “No one tells me what to say.” And, of course, their mirror twins: “No one tells me what not to write.” “No one tells me what not to say.” These are incantations of the British media, phrases that readers, listeners and viewers are expected to receive as articles of faith. Those assurances are trotted out so often that Noam Chomsky’s retort to Andrew Marr in an interview from 1996 has become a cliche, shared on Twitter as an almost autonomic response to the performative ignorance. Asked by Marr how he knew the interviewer was “self-censoring”, Chomsky replied: I’m not saying you’re self-censoring; I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.
-
the idea that not being explicitly told what you can and can’t say is any kind of defence or even a description of how media organisations work needs revisiting often
-
There are layers that contribute to knowing what can and cannot be said without the need for anyone to tell a reporter explicitly where the red lines are
- ...8 more annotations...
1 - 4 of 4
Showing 20▼ items per page