The “Speak Turkish Campaigns” and the Jewish Community During the Reformation and Nation Building Process of the Early Turkish Republic, 1928‐1938’

AKDOĞAN, Nuran Savaşkan. ‘The “Speak Turkish Campaigns” and the Jewish Community during the reformation and nation building process of The Early Turkish Republic, 1928‐1938’. Jewish Migration: Voices of the Diaspora. Raniero Speelman, Monica Jansen & Silvia Gaiga eds. ITALIANISTICA ULTRAIECTINA 7. Utrecht: Igitur Publishing, 2012. ISBN 978‐90‐6701‐032‐0.

SUMMARY

In the first years of the Turkish Republic, as it made its way to becoming a nation‐state, the “Turkification” of language and the “Speak Turkish” campaigns were significant policies. The shift from the millet (nation), based on Islamic rule, which was a system constructed by the Ottoman Empire, to the ‘one nation ‐ one state’ policy of the secular modern Turkish Republic affected the various ethnic groups residing in Turkey, in the sense that all nations had enjoyed the same status under the protection of the Ottoman Empire. In the new nation state, however, these groups were no longer considered millets within the Republic; in fact, this new system presumed all individuals living in Turkey to be Turkish citizens according to its policy of building a homogeneous nation. This new approach sparked a revolutionary spirit, and initiated a process of modernization leading to an evident socio‐economic transformation. These changes affected alls level of society, and specifically impacted minority groups (non Muslims) and antagonists to this new regime. The linguistic revolution and the “Speak Turkish” campaigns applied much pressure to minority groups, the most obvious of which was the Jewish community. The “Speak Turkish” campaigns resulted in the need for the Jewish community to re‐draw the community boundaries that defined its cultural identity.

KEY WORDS

Speak Turkish Campaigns, non‐Muslim minorities, Jews, Turkification, language revolution, nation‐ state

The proceedings of the international conference Jewish Migration: Voices of the Diaspora (Istanbul, June 23‐27 2010) are volume 7 of the series ITALIANISTICA ULTRAIECTINA. STUDIES IN ITALIAN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE, by Igitur Publishing. ISSN 1874‐9577 (http://www.italianisticaultraiectina.org).

THE “SPEAK TURKISH CAMPAIGNS” AND THE JEWISH COMMUNITY DURING THE REFORMATION AND NATION BUILDING PROCESS OF THE EARLY TURKISH REPUBLIC, 1928‐1938*

Nuran Savaşkan Akdoğan Public Administration Institute for Turkey and the Middle East

Recent developments in world politics, the prevalence of national movements and identity politics and a focus on ethnic problems have given rise to questions about the future of nation states based on majority politics. As a result of these questions, the situation of refugees, migrants, and minorities have become prominent discussion points. Turkish minorities1 have become increasingly vocal as a result of changes in legal, civil and human rights brought about by Turkey’s desire to be part of the European Union. In the aftermath of the Elza Niyago event in 1927, the Turkish‐Jewish community became accustomed to withholding public reactions to social, political and economic decisions enforced by the government that impacted its status.2 However, almost a century later, recent developments in information and communication technology, discussions about cultural identity, and new policies have stimulated a new openness. The weekly newspaper Şalom, the Gözlem publishing house, various web sites, and foundations such as the 500. Yıl Vakfı have broken the community’s silence in the Turkish public sphere. Turkish minorities have traditionally muffled their reactions to government policies and the events brought about by them. Traumatic events of the past may partially explain this silence. Another reason can be traced back to the beginning of the twentieth century and the development of the nation state. Prior to that, the administrative regime was based on a multiethnic structure in which many different ethnic groups coexisted under the millet (nation) system.3 However, the transition to a nation state system was based upon a homogeneous citizenship policy, which accepted all as equals and sought to eliminate the differences such as religion, language and race. The shift from the millet, based upon Islamic rule and a system of the Ottoman Empire, to ther secula modern Turkish Republic’s ‘one nation ‐ one state’ policy, affected all ethnic groups ‒ i.e. all nations and subjects living under the protection of the Ottoman Empire, that were no longer to be considered millets within the Republic ‒ but presumed all living in Turkey to be Turkish citizens (Hobsbawm 1990). Furthermore, this shift brought about radical ideological, administrative, and policy changes including: the abolition of the Sultanate (1922), the Caliphate (1924), Sharia Courts (1924) and Madrasas (1924) and the unification of education (1924). These

reforms sought to create a new system of state along with a new lifestyle based on secular and Western thought. This resulted in a sweeping social change, from language to fashion, from the legal system to economic life. In the light of this, the first fifteen years of the Turkish Republic can be called an era of reform and nation building. One of its most prominent aspects was a linguistic revolution in which the Ottoman language was banned from official and public spheres. In its place, the Turkish language, written in a specially developed version of the Latin alphabet, was institutionalized within the remarkably short span of three months. The spirit of the era and the success of these reforms fostered its rapid spread. The language revolution affected all literate Turkish people. The language revolution and “Speak Turkish” campaigns compelled the various ethnic communities to alter their modes of communication to Turkish in the public sphere. Among the minorities whose mother tongues were not Turkish, the most affected group was the Jewish community. The remainder of this article focuses on the impact of the linguistic revolution and the “Speak Turkish Campaigns” between 1928 and 1938 on Turkey’s Jewish community. This investigation has relied upon a thorough study of the period’s daily newspapers.4 Ultimately, this study investigates the new boundaries of Jewish identity drawn within that of a Turkish identity.

LANGUAGE UNIFICATION

It was in 1928 that the Early Turkish Republic eschewed its Ottoman heritage and implemented the Language Revolution, a policy that aimed at a national language and cultural unity. Prior to this, under the Ottoman Empire’s millet system, non‐ Muslim minorities enjoyed the rights to freely speak and publish in their own languages. The Republican elites aimed to build a nation state that was blind to differences in language and religion. This project was based upon “one language, one ideal, one culture” nationalism. For Rıfat Bali, the minorities of that period clashed with this national project (Bali 2000, V), whereas the ruling elite sought to quell symbolically all economic and political foreign pressure (capitulations) experienced during the Ottoman Empire. As the Jewish community was the largest non‐Muslim group that resisted learning Turkish, it gradually became the linguistic campaign’s main focus. For example, while the Jewish community did not integrate linguistically, the Armenian and Greek groups did.5 Furthermore the Armenian exile (1915) and the population exchange (1923) between Turkey and Greece led to a decline in the population of these groups. Parallel to this, written Arabic was not permitted in the Ottoman Empire, as it was considered to be sacred to the Koran (17).6 In any case, the Turkish Jews resisted the linguistic policy, and persisted in speaking other tongues: Ladino and French. Meanwhile, the Jewish community retained its thriving economy, which in its isolation thwarted the Early Republic’s economic agenda of carving out a local

bourgeoisie. Partially compelled by these economic motives, the government would harbor no tolerance for deviation from the reform movement. According to Levi (1998, 66), Turkish newspapers in the 1920s regularly attacked the Jewish community in claims of its privileges, dominant economic role, and resistance to the Turkish language.7 Meanwhile, the Lausanne Treaty permitted minorities to speak their own languages and entertain the rights to education in their native tongues.8 In Bali’s opinion, this right was only reluctantly tolerated by the government: “You, Turkish Jews, insisted on speaking Spanish even though they expelled you 450 years ago. […] You did not use Turkish. So, you are ungrateful people” (2000, VII). In 1927, 97.3% of the total population was Turkish‐Muslim. This situation, for Shaw & Shaw (1983), provided a convenient basis for conducting national policies by the institutions as Republican People’s Party (RPP‐Cumhuriyet Halk Fırkası)9 and Turkish Hearts (Türk Ocakları)10 (1983, 446). Among the 16.157.450 Turkish citizens during the 1930s, 13.899.073 spoke Turkish. As reflected in the below table, the rest of the population spoke Kurdish dialects together with 22 other languages (Çağaptay 2002, 258).

1935 POPULATION on the basis of religion or belief TOTAL 16.157.450 Muslims 15.838.673 Greek ‐ Orthodox 125.046 Jews 78.730 Armenian Gregorian 44.526 Catholic 33.155 Protestant 8486 Christian11 4725 Atheist 559 Other 12.965

Besides the founding of the Turkish nation state, a secondary aim to abolish a perceived negative view of Turks became apparent. A strongly nationalist approach proliferated. The acceptance of Turkish as the official language paralleled this approach. The Turkish History Institute (now Türk Tarih Kurumu) was established in 1931, followed by the Turkish Language Institute (now Türk Dil Kurumu) in 1932. A Turkish History Congress in 1932 articulated two main theses: (1) the Turkish language was the first language and source of the other indigenous languages, and (2) Turks were representatives of the Aryan race (“Tarih Kongresi Açıldı Münakaşalar Oldu”, 1932: 1, 6). These Congress discussions surpassed the stated expectations, resulting in the Sun language Theory, which claimed that the origin of all languages came from

Turkish. In September 1932, the first Turkish Language Convention was organized to develop these ideas (“Dil Kurultayı Dün Toplandı”, 1932: 1). These developments in the linguistic sphere should be evaluated within the context of a nation state building process. There is a close connection between Speak Turkish campaigns and the language revolution. Speak Turkish campaigns were used to disseminate a new alphabet and language throughout the country.

LANGUAGE REVOLUTION

The language revolution was introduced on November 1, 1928. For Atatürk, the new Turkish language was seen to provide a platform to realize national culture, freedom of thought and national consciousness (“Harf İnkılâbı”, 1928: 1). In fact, the language reform movement had started almost 150 years prior to that, during the late Ottoman period, when intellectuals advocating Westernization and modernization, began to question the Arabic Alphabet, Elifba. In the nineteenth century the development of journalism and new literature trends appealing to the public forced intellectuals and literate Turks to write pure Ottoman Turkish (Ercilasun 2004, 13‐15). For these intellectuals, the Arabic alphabet was very problematic for the Turkish language, and this fact lowered the literacy rate in Ottoman society.12 For instance, after the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1927 the general literacy rate was 8,16% (Tongul 2004, 117).13 There were several reasons for the language revolution, the first of which had to do with general literacy. Modernist Ottoman intellectuals accepted and implemented it in order to increase the literacy rate and to create a simpler and purer language.14 Atatürk just after the language revolution, gave a speech on Vakit newspaper: “The great Turkish nation will rescue itself from illiteracy with less effort in a short cut by such a medium that is convenient to its beautiful and original language. This key to reading and writing is the Turkish alphabet acquired from its Latin essence” (“Bu millet’ in asırlardan beri”, 1928: 2). The new Turkish alphabet, for Atatürk, would tackle the illiteracy problem and in this way, the rate of literacy and intellectual capacity would be raised. Another reason for the language revolution lay in a desire to break down class divisions. Under the Ottoman Empire it was not compulsory for the people to learn an official language. Ottoman was the elite’s language. This division created a gap between the elite and the populace. The new Republic assigned a duty for Turkish citizens to learn the new alphabet, wanting to break the division between people and ruling class according to the principle of populism. The language revolution, in addition to this principle, symbolizes the Western perspective of Kemalist ideology. The language revolution and secularization changed the state’s perspective from Arabic‐Persian (symbolizing religion) to Western civilization (symbolizing secularism) (Savaşkan Akdoğan 2010, 38‐44). It marked a shift from Eastern to Western culture, which brought about an identity‐

searching process informed by Turkish‐Anatolian and Western systems (Bingöl 2004, 30). Changing the alphabet served the Republic’s secular aim, severing a nine hundred year bond tying language and religion; any connection to Islamic culture was brought to an end (Savaşkan Akdoğan 2010, 38‐44).15 The language revolution also had a great symbolic value. It aimed to radically clear previous state experience by cutting cognitive ties and by creating a new social memory. All negative events and emotions of the past, such as occupation and humiliation by the Western powers, wars, and collapse of the Ottoman Empire, would be symbolically erased from social memory by its success (38‐44). Linguistic and other reforms supported the overarching project of the foundation of a Turkish nation state and a homogeneous Turkish identity. Identity formulation of Turkish subjects, with a special focus on minorities, was the secondary aim at the initial stage of the nation‐state formation. Waves of Armenians and Greeks left the country leaving the Jewish community as the largest minority. After the definition of Turkish citizenship, the minorities were compelled to adjust to the new boundaries of Turkish identity. All population of Anatolia was accepted as Turkish. Language unification should be evaluated under these circumstances: the 1930s were the years of the definition of the Turkish nation. While for the Turks, Western states were “the other” against which the Turkish identity could be set and contrasted, it was this very emerging new Turkish identity against which non‐ Muslim minorities attempted to construct the boundaries of their identity. Besides the construction of a national culture and language there were also efforts to create a national economy. The Speak Turkish Campaigns were paralleled by economic campaigns organized by the National Turkish Student Union (Milli Türk Talebe Birliği)16 serving this aim: “Domestic goods mobilization” and “Savings and local goods week”. The first campaigns aimed to support the use of domestic products, keep the capital within the country and support national entrepreneurs. According to one newspaper advertisement, its aims were as follows: “This campaign forces us to undertake a big economic war. Our aim is: Turkey belongs to Turks, the food (bread) primarily belongs to the Turks, Turkish goods and Turkish production are used in Turkey, Turkish money is supreme in Turkey” (“Vatandaş Vazife Başına”, 1929: 3). The stated goal was to create a national economy. The government, via civil organizations, delegated certain duties to the citizens for the nationalization of the economy. For instance, an advertisement from 1933 (“Muhterem Vatandaşlar”, 1933: 24) stated: “To consume national goods is a duty of citizenship. Turkish citizens put on clothes made of Turkish silk and Turkish wool!”. Tensions ranh hig when dealing with issues relating to economy, language, history. According to Guibernau (1996, 61), only two possible situations result when “nation” and “state” do not unify: first, “the assimilation of different nations living in the same territory”, and second, armed struggle. The first years of the Turkish

Republic most closely match the first outcome. A wide umbrella term, all “other” Ottoman millets were subsumed by the policies and ideology aiming to serve the new policy and to create a homogeneous Turkish identity.

SPEAK TURKISH CAMPAIGNS AND REACTIONS BY THE JEWISH INTELLECTUALS

The Turkish language problem of the minorities was a prominent issue in the Turkish Hearth conventions. The conventions – organized in 1924, 1926, 1927 and 1928 – aimed to fashion Turkish as a common language (Okutan 2004, 182‐183). In the 1927 assembly, discussions were centered on the use of Turkish by minorities. At the conference, MP Besim Atalay proposed that municipalities in Istanbul, when necessary, should warn people who did not speak Turkish to do so. On January 13, 1928, the Law School Student Association initiated the “Speak Turkish Campaign”. Rıfat Bali states that “this campaign opened a new page for the Turkification of minorities” (Bali 2001, 135). The leader of the association argued that “to speak another language in Turkey means there is not enough respect for the Turkish Law” (135). In order to promote Turkish, the group asked permission from the Home Office to organize public demonstrations. After permission was granted, statements were posted on the walls. Apart from these demonstrations, it was decided to publicly post signboards and organize conferences at schools to spread this ideology (Bali 2001, 135‐136). Not only minorities but other Muslim ethnic groups as well reacted to the campaign. They staged sit‐ins beneath the posters and emphatically spoke their own languages before tearing down the posters. Violent events erupted and the campaign transformed from a peaceful to a threatening one. Tensions led to fights that in turn led to legal cases against minority groups claiming that their protests had in fact been assaults on “Turkishness” (Bali 2001, 136‐137). As the campaign intensified, minorities began to seriously be concerned about their situation. This led to concessions on their part; they attempted to speak Turkish even within their own associations (Bali 2001, 140). Minorities responded to press articles, with the claims that the persons who had torn the posters had not behaved in the name of their communities. Meanwhile, newspapers stated that, in their campaign, students had behaved anxiously and impatiently, and suggested that they temporarily abandon this issue (142). Their activities were supported, but their method overtly criticized. After severe and unexpected repercussions, the central delegation of Turkish Hearth took a distance from the campaigns, decrying the use of violence (142). So did the Vakit newspaper, fearing for harm to the Turkish image abroad. Eventually a draft law proposed in the National Assembly made speaking Turkish compulsory. Unless people obeyed this rule, they could be sentenced. This proposition was not accepted, yet the point was made. Jews and Greeks reacted by avoiding speaking Ladino and Greek outside their houses, and Turkish Hearth

offered Turkish language courses for minority groups, before the campaign’s sudden end in April 1928 (147). After these events, two Jewish intellectuals, Avram Galanti and Munis Tekinalp, published books to defend their community. In 1928, Avram Galanti, Professor of Ancient Near Eastern History at Istanbul University, aimed to explain the historical context of the Jewish linguistic isolation, and to moderate the public opinion, in his book Citizen Speak Turkish (1928) (2000). Another Jewish intellectual, Munis Tekinalp (Mois Kohen), a lecturer at Istanbul University as well as a lawyer, published a book on Turkification in March 1928 (2001). Apart from sharing thes idea of Galanti, Tekinalp went further and attempted to convince the Jewish community to end its linguistic isolation. As a result of this movement, Turkish and Jewish intellectuals established the National Culture Alliance17 on 1928, March 10, which aimed to incorporate Jews in Turkish culture. Tekinalp’s18 Turkification argues that Turkish should be adopted by the Turkish‐Jewish community. Although they lived and worked in Turkey, Jews had remained indifferent to Turkish culture. His aim was to “adopt these elements [Jews] which were apathetic to Turkish culture” (2001, 1). In this way he was a firm supporter of Gökalp’s “one language, one culture and one ideal”.19 According to Tekinalp, among the cultural elements which could divide the nations, the two main elements were language and religion. As the Republic was secular, the language inherited from Ottoman and Islamic tradition should be revised and modernized. For him, the first stage in Turkification was to make Turkish the common language (61). For Tekinalp all “the elements who want to be Turkish should adopt the Turkish language as a mother tongue, not as an official language” (62). As part of his approach, Tekinalp prescribed a recipe for the Jews to adapt themselves to Turkish culture. With reference to the Ten Commandments of Moses, he formulated ten proposals to become Turkish:

Tekinalp’s 10 Commandments · Adopt your names to Turkish · Speak Turkish · Pray in Turkish in synagogues, at least in some prayers · Teach Turkish in schools · Send all children to state schools · Be part of the country’s affairs · Socialize with the Turks · Eradicate the spirit of community · Contribute to the national economy · Know your rights. (75)

For Tekinalp, by following these commandments, Jews would assimilate within Turkish society. “Jews could be French in France, English in England, Italian in Italy, so that there was no reason for Jews not to be Turkish in Turkey” (2001, 72).

The book garnered praise by a number of famous writers and intellectuals of this period. However, the book did not leave a positive impression on Jewish intellectuals. According to Avner Levi, these Ten Commandments had no influence upon the Jewish community (1998, 90). The owner and writer of the El Tiempo, David Fresko, criticized the ten commandments. Since Turkish society discerned Jews as foreign, and the press continued to nourish prejudicially negative feelings against the Jews, this book was written to be received by totally ignorant and illiterate people. Furthermore it unfairly and improperly reflected the Turkish Jews’ societal position (Bali 2001, 153). Avram Galanti discusses as well the historical, social and political context of why minorities would not be able to speak Turkish. Galanti wrote several books on this issue between 1927 and 1953. After the book Citizen Speak Turkish, there were still prejudices against the Jewish community. Developing the concepts of this book further, he wrote Turks and Jews (1932). In Levi’s view (1998, 90) Galanti apologetically defends the Jews, motivated by anxiety and by his agenda to gain sympathy for the Jewish community. In Turkish Culture and Turkish Jews (1953), Galanti emphasized that the main issue was not eth Jewish situation but rather Turkish culture’s recognition of the Turkish Jewish Community as an entity. He saw the appropriation of Turkish culture as only a matter of time; Turkish Jews would eventually follow the trails of all Jews in the world and become Turkish (1953, 3‐4). In Citizen Speak Turkish, Galanti draws a picture of Jews’ education in Turkey. For Galanti, if a language was actively in use, it could not be forgotten. Greeks and Armenians in Kayseri and Konya adopted Turkish, as did Circassians and Albanians. When Jews migrated to Turkey they brought with them the printing press. As they used Spanish in their publications, they kept their language alive during the Ottoman Empire. In response to this, the Turkish government aimed to establish “a school educating in the majority language” to motivate Jews to speak and write in Turkish (5). For Galanti, there are three periods inh whic to disseminate a language (2000, 5‐6): 1. Actual Phase: Those who privately speak a different language from the general public should be informed about the linguistic difference, specifically their mother tongue’s divergence from that of the national language. Accordingly, they should be requested to learn the language commonly spoken in that country. 2. Transmission phase: Linguistic training stage at school. The languages spoken by the children privately are not to be affected. They should, however, receive an education in their country’s official language. 3. Complementary future phase: Practical stage. The language, requested to be spoken and learned, has been adopted at home. Parents who learned the language teach it to their children as a mother tongue.

Galanti offers an example of this assimilation policy, which was directly related to the impact of Francophone, Turkish‐Jewish Alliance schools on Ottoman Jews. For Galanti, if the Turkish system of education had been effective, Jews would have been speaking Turkish instead of French (2000, 6). French Jews in the nineteenth century founded the Alliance Schools (Baer 1998, 57). Its language of education was French. Before the Alliance school, the mother tongue of the target groups was Ladino. The generation that graduated from the Alliance school was Francophone. The following generation had practically forgotten Ladino. The third generation of this group spoke entirely in French. Galanti offered this as a model for a Turkish system: were the same path of the Alliance Schools to be followed, this situation could be as valid for Turkish as it was for French. After drawing a general picture, Galanti reminded his readers of the responsibility of the Turkish government to teach Jews the official language. For Galanti, in the Ottoman Empire, although Jews were eager to learn and use Turkish language, Ottoman education policies limited the widespread learning of Turkish among the Jews. After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the Turkish government sought to tackle eth language problem by opening schools where teaching was exclusively in Turkish. However, as Jewish communities remained intact and isolated, as specified above, they retained their traditions and customs20 (Galanti, 1953) and it was only in the Republican period that learning Turkish became of vital importance. Galanti points out that the policies of the later Turkish Republic required Jewish schools to Turkify within five years (2000, 38). However, before the Republic there were no Turkish schools in Galata at all, while the Alliance Schools were French‐speaking. Job perspectives for Alliance School graduates were healthy; French was sufficient for the community’s livelihood. Galanti asked what should be done to bring about Turkification in general. He called for stimuli to bring about assimilation. He viewed official schools whose education language was Turkish as being vital and called to encourage learning Turkish. If these policies were implemented, he claimed, all would learn the language in half a century (2000, 47). Tekinalp and Galanti tried to explain Turkish language problems specific to the Jewish communities. They both proposed certain procedures of how to teach the language in order to help Jewish communities acclimate to the new conditions, and in doing so they also tried to show loyalty to the new Republic. Neither Galanti nor Tekinalp criticized the policies of the government; rather, they exhibited acceptance, and perhaps apologized, for not speaking Turkish in order to safeguard the Jewish communities.

OTHER SPEAK TURKISH CAMPAIGNS AND REACTIONS

After the first Speak Turkish campaigns in 1928, similar campaigns continued in intervals until the 1940s. While the first campaign was well organized, the following

campaigns were less. The main idea behind these campaigns was to turn Turkish into a spoken language throughout the country. The Hronika Event which took place on March 1929 had a catalytic impact on the Speak Turkish Campaigns.21 When daily newspapers printed news of this event, tension against minorities grew. Immediately after the Hronica Event, the National Student Union demanded public authorities in Istanbul to recommence campaigns for the use of local goods, and sought to organize a conference empowering the Turkish language. During the campaign, the Union suggested that all billboards at tram stops, cinemas and shops etc. should be written in Turkish. It was also demanded to use only Turkish in the public space (“Her Türk Yerli Malı Tercih Etmelidir!”, 1929: 1). Furthermore, the Union emphasized that some Turkish companies and their employees were foreign. As foreign companies became the target of the Union, the government demanded companies to submit a list of their employees to determine the number of foreigners employed (“Türkler Şirketlerde” 1929: 1). This action later gave way to a law that specified what kind of jobs could not be done by foreigners (“Ecnebiler Ne İşler Yapamaz”, 1929: 3). These actions are best understood in context of the Republic’s economic agenda. A high unemployment rate, the Great Depression of 1930’s and attempts to nationalize the economy led to questioning the situation of foreign companies. Meanwhile the Hareket Newspaper (“Vagon‐Li Şirketi iki Türk Genci Yerine…”, 1929: 2) published an article about the mistreatment of Turkish civil servants working in Doyçe Orient Company (Deutsche Orient Bank) in İstanbul. Xenophobia, specifically in the press, was on the rise. For instance, a teacher from Çanakkale suggested in Hareket Newspaper that “there are communities fighting with alcohol, tuberculosis, why do we not have a community fighting with Jews?” (“Köylerde Türk Hocası Nasıl Çalışıyor?”, 1929: 3). Atatürk’s speech in Adana in 1931 put much emphasis on language: “If a person who cannot speak Turkish claims he belongs to Turkish culture, it is not correct to believe this” (Okutan 2004, 181). Jewish communities in Anatolia reacted defensively to this, initiating their own Speak Turkish campaigns (Çağaptay 2002, 159). Meanwhile, in İzmir, the Jewish community followed suit. The community, 10% of the local population, was not only the only non‐Muslim population left in the city, but also an economically powerful minority. In 1930, the community put itself behind the Free Party, the first oppositional party in Turkey (“Yahudiler Niçin Rumlardan ve Ermenilerden Ziyade Gayrimemnun?”, 1930: 3).22 This exacerbated the general prejudice and negative attitude toward the Jewish community, which motivated it to initiate their own Speak Turkish campaign. According to Cağaptay, Speak Turkish Campaigns were implemented in all provinces inhabited by Jews, from Kırklareli to Ankara. For instance, the Kırklareli Rabbi Sir Moise, said in February 1933: “From now on I request from you to speak the valuable language of the honorable Turkish race, the owner of the country we

live in” (Çağaptay 2002, 259). Similarly, the Bursa Jewish Association UHUVET declared: “if someone speaks any language other than Turkish at the boundaries of the association, he or she should pay a fine” (392). Jews of Ankara declared that they should internalize the Turkish language (405). The Rabbi of the Diyarbakır Jews invited the members of his community to baptize (sic!) themselves with Kemalist belief (410), and the Jewish community in İstanbul participated in the Turkish language campaign, when Mois Kohen changed his name to Munis Tekinalp on November 23, 1933. Not only the campaigns but also the dissemination of Turkish was an important policy from 1931 through 1932. This goal was specified on the first page of the Milliyet newspaper on October, 7 1932: “A new campaign starts today in the country. We will make Turkish our language as soon as possible”. In the following days, in Milliyet, a “language corner” was initiated, requesting suggestions for new Turkish words. Meanwhile, in order to enrich the Turkish language, a “Regulation for the word collection” was implemented (“Dil Seferberliğimiz Fiilen Başlıyor”, 1932: 1). A new definition of the Turkish citizen articulated on January 21, 1932: “a Turk was someone who liked being Turkish and who accepted Turkishness” (“İsmet Paşa’nın Söylediği Mühim Nutuk”, 1932: 6). Apart from the above mentioned events, the Compagnie Internationale des WagonsLits, in which a company in the Beyoğlu district of Istanbul banned the use of Turkish, ignored the Speak Turkish Campaigns in 1933 (Bali 2001, 164).23 As a result of the “Vagon Li” case, the National Student Union attacked the company on February 25. Just after this event, Mahmut, MP of Siirt, wrote in the Milliyet that “Ottomans never felt xenophobia, not even during the capitulation period. They welcomed people who liked our culture and our national identity. Youth can get excited from time to time”. The MP argued that this event was not an example of xenophobia but rather of youthful excitement (1933: 1). After the Vagon Li event, the Union initiated another campaign (“Talebe Mitingi Bugün”, 1933: 1). This time, the campaign was harshly implemented in Mersin. Youth in the People’s House meetings in 1933 demanded that non‐Turkish speakers should be beaten and forced to speak Turkish (Çağaptay 2002, 260). Speaking Turkish was still an important policy during 1934. MP Şeref Aykut, in a speech delivered at the Grand National Assembly on 1934, June 7, regarding minority groups, specifically Jews, stated: “as if it was not enough that they would not be able to speak Turkish, they have been speaking a language that does not belong to them” (Çağaptay 2002, 259). His speech articulated a new definition of the ideal Turkish citizen and his duties. Turkish citizens simply had to speak Turkish. This duty not only covered non‐Muslim minorities but also various Muslim groups. The Jews, along with these groups remained public targets. On 1934, September 11, Ahmet Şükrü wrote about the minorities who diverged from the mainstream by means of language, religion and race. On 1934, September 17, he stated: “The new state puts very heavy burdens on all citizens. While the majority happily tolerates these burdens, even if minorities were to comply, if they do so without exhibiting

100

signs of interest, it is impossible for citizens to not feel enmity toward these communities”(1). On 1934, July 21, small businesses were legally compelled to employ Turkish employees; this law became compulsory on 1934, August 11. Additional incidents occurred in 1934, such as the “Trakya” events. These events triggered a wave of Jewish emigration from Kırklareli, Çanakkale and Edirne to Istanbul.24 Prime Minister İsmet İnönü spoke at the fourth congress of RPP in 1935 creating a new wave of Speak Turkish Campaigns. Again, the edict was that all Turkish citizens were required to speak Turkish. Subsequently, the National Student Union initiated a new public campaign. As in previous campaigns, the main focus was again on the Jewish population (Çağaptay 2002, 260). Tension increased in 1937. Ahmet Emin Yalman wrote a severe article in Tan Newspaper (1937: 1):

Municipalities in different places of the country banned the speaking of any languages other than Turkish. Such a ban is not imposed in Istanbul. Although to ensure speaking Turkish in public is not the duty of the municipality; municipalities in different places of the country have become the translators of the public sentiment, and have dealt with issues related to language. There are citizens in Istanbul whose mother tongue has not been Turkish. Their youth learn Turkish at schools. There are older generations lacking either the ability to speak Turkish or who are only capable of speaking a small amount of Turkish. […].

If there are subjects whose values differ from those of the nation, it would be ill advised and inefficient to react with oppression and extremeness. The best way is to open the door and say: “Enter, if you want”. However this can only happen if citizens seriously accept themselves to be Turks, to share in Turkish common life, and to try to be useful to the country […].

The Jewish case The situation regarding language is different for each minority group; among that of all the groups, the Jewish situation is the most delicate. There is no country in which the Jews have settled where they have not adopted the country’s language as mother tongue. It is very strange ttha the only exception is Turkey, which is a country that has treated the Jewish community kindly for ages and has not tolerated extreme movements against it […]. Here, when Jews speak Spanish and French as their mother tongue, they position themselves as foreigners in this country.

He states that, according to his conversation with the governor, there was no obligation to speak Turkish in public. After this, Jews broke their silence and responded for the first time in the Turkish press. As a reaction to Yalman’s article, Marsel Franko, a spokesman of the Jewish community and Tekinalp’s point of view, stated in the Tan Newspaper they made propaganda to develop Turkish among the Jewish community. 50,000 Jews had been living in İstanbul alone. If these people started to speak Turkish, it would be a tremendous event for the Jewish community (4 March 1937, 2).

101

Franko25 sent a letter to the Tan Newspaper, on 6 March 1937. Marcel specified the problem as follows: “the actual issue is not just to speak Turkish, but to think like Turks and feel like Turks”. There were some adaptation problems for the Jewish community:

First, pure Turks, living in Galata and Beyoğlu districts where Turkish Jews live, “consider it a talent to be able to answer a “Turkish hello” in French”[…] Second, this job must be the state’s duty. All applications must be organized by the state. Any other approach would fail. […] Third, Adaptation of Turkish Jews is not dependent upon that of other minorities. […] Fourth, it is misleading to conceive any type of state interference as oppression. (5)

As a result of these issues, the Jewish community sought solutions, and expected certain policies to be developed by the government, such as equal treatment for all citizens in the new secular state, better adaptation of schools to new policies and acceptation of Jewish children in state organizations. Tekinalp, who was introduced in the newspaper as an authority on language and culture, reacted to Yalman’s article indicating that “Turkish Jews are not a minority” (1937, 1). First his relationship with Ziya Gökalp, his books on Turkishness and Panturkism and a book on Kemalism were introduced, followed by an interview. Journalists asked him whether he had read the text written by the chief rabbi. He responded that he had read the news, and that Jews were mature enough for Turkishness. But, for him, he did not let the cat out of the bag. He behaved in a conservative way according to an old Ottoman habit, which was not suitable for Kemalist principles. From the start of the Speak Turkish Campaigns, despite the silence and conformity of the Jewish community, it encountered silent resistance. From the first campaign in 1928, to 1929, 70,000 people migrated (Bali 2001, 231). It was not only the Speak Turkish policies but also the Turkification of economic life and restrictions on employment that triggered this migration. Despite the expression of loyalty in every situation and opportunities, the Jews’ loyalty to the country remained under constant suspicion by the majority.

CONCLUSIONS

The Turkification of language and the Speak Turkish Campaigns were significant policies in the first years of the Turkish Republic. In the enthusiastic embrace of the revolution, traces of modernization and the roots of a new socio‐economic life became apparent. These changes affected all people’s lives, and specifically impacted minority and opposition groups. The language revolution and the subsequent campaigns caused pressure on these minority groups, mostly on the Jews. The Kemalist revolutions were organized and implemented in order to create a homogeneous nation‐state and to execute a complete social transformation. The minorities which inherited the Ottoman legacy remained distinct from the rest of

102

society. Melting these groups into a Turkish identity proved to be a challenge. The main definition of Turkishness, i.e. Turkish citizenship, was based upon language and religious unification in the nation‐state building process. Religious unification was impossible. This complicated situation had to be tackled with a solution that would treat all citizens equally. On the other hand, the policy rigidly held that minorities had to earn their citizenship by adopting the Turkish language. The Jewish community was very silent after the successive events such as the Alphabet Revolution, the Speak Turkish Campaigns and other reforms. Later, in order to show loyalty to Turkey, it formulated a stance on reforms for Turkish education. The Campaigns caused Jews to re‐draw community boundaries previously defined by a distinct Jewish identity. They silently monitored social, political and economic transformation in the country. The Jews lost their millet status and became citizens, protected by rights granted by the Lausanne Treaty, changing and blurring some aspects of Turkish‐Jewish identity. In order to protect itself, the Jewish community adopted a conciliatory approach with which it attempted to prove permanent loyalty to the state and thereby to preserve its status within Turkish society. There were also economic reasons behind the Speak Turkish Campaigns. The minorities feared that a perception of them as foreigners would lead to the loss of jobs and economic power. The government’s attempts at nationalization threatened not only their social autonomy but also their economic existence. Despite the silent reaction during the first years of the Republic, Jews did adopt Turkish after the Speak Turkish Campaigns. Subsequent generations became very competent in the Turkish language, conforming to Galanti’s estimation of what would happen in the third stage of language acquisition. Turkish has by now become the mother tongue of Turkish Jews. As a result of traumatic events, Jews kept feeling under threat leading some to take measures such as adopting pseudonyms. Despite the ongoing fear, a strong theme ran within their silent reactions: We too are children of Turkey and, as such, we wish to continue living in this country.26

NOTES

* This study was published with a different content as an article in Kimlikler Lütfen Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nde Kültürel Kimlik Arayışı ve Temsili (2009) edited by Gönül Pultar, METU Press: Ankara. This article has been revised and re‐written in English.

1 The Turkish government officially accepts non Muslims as minorities according to the Lausanne Treaty (1920) as a founding treaty of Turkish Republic, which drew the country’s boundaries and made all allied countries accept the sovereignty of the country. Only three minority groups, Jews, Greeks and Armenians, were implicitly recognized by the Turkish goverment as minority groups which could benefit from the rights indicated in the Treaty even though these groups were not referred to specifically in the Treaty (Oran 2004: 36‐41, 54).

103

2 A young Jewish woman, Elza Niyego was killed by an ethnically Turkish man on 1927, August 17. The perpetrator was motivated by unrequited love for Niyego. After the murder, Jews marched in the streets, alleging the government had been inefficient in the event’s investigation (Cağaptay 2006, 27). Eventually this murder became emblematic to the Jewish community as an example of the “hostile campaigns to Jews” (Levi 1998, 85). As a result of a ten to twenty‐five thousand people’s demonstration, according to Borakas (8 March 2006), Turkish officials had decided to “bring Jews down to heel”, and in response “eight insolent Jews were sued for ‘abuse of Turkishness’” (http://www.salom.com.tr/news/detail/914‐Ilan‐Halimi‐ve‐Dr‐Yasef‐Yahya.aspx).

3 The political and social multi‐ethnic structure of the Empire was called the millet system. For Andrews, millet refers to “the old Ottoman denomination by which the semi‐autonomous minorities were known, rather than ‘nation’ in the modern sense”. There were Muslim and Non‐Muslim populations in Ottoman society, specifically non Muslims which were integrated into the system by being given ‘dhimni’ (protected) status. Armenian, Greek and Jews’ legal status in Ottoman society was also organized in detail. They were paying a special tax (cizye). They had their religious freedom and autonomy in conducting their own affairs as second class subjects (Göcek 2006, 69).

4 Some of the journals published in Istanbul by minorities such as D’Orient, Stamboul, Le Journal and resources written in Ottoman before 1928, are not directly included in this study. Instead, secondary sources are used. Furthermore, most of the resources used throughout this article are originally written in Turkish.

5 For Galanti, some of the Greeks knew Turkish as their mother tongue. They wrote Turkish in the Greek alphabet. Some Armenians spoke Turkish while they knew no Armenian at all (Galanti 2000, 17).

6 While the Jewish community had mastered the printing press in 1492, the first Turkish text was printed in 1729. Greeks published Anatolia (1866), a Turkish newspaper with Greek letters. Armenians had Takvim‐i Vakai, a Turkish newspaper with Armenian letters, and Jews Şarkiye (1867), a Turkish newspaper with Hebrew letters. They were not allowed to use Elifba (the Arabic alphabet) because of the sacredness of the Koran letter (Galanti 2000, 195).

7 For Levy, the attitude towards Jews changed when Jews “voluntarily” gave up some of their rights specified in the Lausanne Treaty (1998, 66). First the Jews (8 October 1925), three weeks later the Armenians, and finally the Greeks (7 January 1926) renounced the right of having an own juridical system and declared they were subject to Turkish civil law.

8 Article 39 specifies that each Turkish national – regardless of religious and ethnic origin – has the same rights. All citizens are accepted as equal before the law. According to this article “Notwithstanding the existence of the official language, adequate facilities shall be given to Turkish nationals of non‐Turkish speech for the oral use of their own language before the Courts”. Furthermore, there is no restriction in the use of language “in private intercourse, in commerce, religion, in the press, or in publications of any kind or at public meetings”. Article 42 states that “The Turkish Government undertakes to take, as regards non‐Moslim minorities, in so far as concerns their family law or personal status, measures permitting the settlement of these questions in accordance with the customs of those minorities” (http://www.hri.org/docs/lausanne/part1.html).

9 The Republican People’s Party (now: CHP) was founded in 1923 and ruled the country as a single party until the 1950 elections. RPP’s aim was to conduct national sovereignty according to democracy, to modernize the country and make a sovereign rule of law for the country (Tunçay 1983, 2019).

10 The Turkish Hearth Association (Türk Ocakları) was founded by Turkish intellectuals including Ziya Gökalp. Based on Gökalp’s ideas of Turkism, Islamism and modernism, the association wanted to promote Turkish nationalism. It was closed in 1931. Instead, a new establishment, People’s Houses (Halk Evleri) was founded. Please see Lewis 2002 and Üstel 2004.

104

11 Çağaptay has not specified in the article who was Christian. However in his book Islam, Secularism, and Nationalism in Modern Turkey he uses the same phrase with an explanation: “including various Eastern Christians” (2006, 16). Therefore the term “Christian” refers to Eastern Christians, such as Assyrians.

12 There are certain intellectuals advocating the Arabic alphabet in the late Ottoman period. While some of them defended this old alphabet, others suggested to reform and improve it (Akçay, 2007). Avram Galanti in Arabic Letters is not an Obstacle for the Understanding (1927) was a strong defender of the Ottoman language. He discusses in the book why the Turkish government should not leave the Arabic Alphabet Elifba. The Baku congress discussed the transition from one alphabet to another, in Azerbeijan. For Galanti, this transition would make the language poorer rather than richer (1995, 12). For him, “we should not start reforms by changing the Arabic alphabet (elifba), but instead by changing the language from within (first the language and then the letters). The Latin alphabet would be useless apart from helping to cause backwardness of the country” (14).

13 According to İbrahim Necmi [Dilmen] from the Ministry of Education, these rates were increased by national schools teaching in Turkish at the first decade of the Republic. The literacy rate increased from 3% to 16%. The number of people in primary schools doubled; pupils in secondary schools increased seven times; in higher education rose five times; in universities doubled (1933, 41). When these numbers are compared with today’s literacy rate, the result is very encouraging: the literacy rate is now approximately 90% according to the Turkish Statistical Institute.

14 For Gellner, literacy is a minimum requirement for citizenship in modern society (1964, 158).

15 During this period, apart from the acceptance of the Latin alphabet, all foreign linguistic elements were eliminated from schools’ curricula. Turkish intellectuals created new words according to Turkish morphology.

16 The National Turkish Student Union had been established by the Union and Progress Party in 1916 to spread the ideology of Turkishness among the university students. The Union actively participated in the activities of Turkish Hearts. The Speak Turkish Campaign was its most important activity. This nationalist and turanist movement ended in 1936.

17 In 1928, Nissim Matsliah and Dr. Samuel Abrevaya, together with several non‐Jews as Yunus Nadi founded an association, the National Cultural Union (Milli Hars Birliği), in order to improve the case of the Turkish language (Galanti 1953, 25). In 1934 the Association of Turkish Culture was founded, with the same goal as the National Cultural Union, by Tekinalp, Hanri Soriano and Marsel Franko (26).

18 For detailed information about Tekinalp (Moiz Kohen), please see Landau 1984, and Behmoaras 2005.

19 For Tekinalp, one of the most important indicators of Turkishness was to say “being Turkish with all heart” (2001, 25). If there was an ideal for being Turkish, Turkification would not have any trouble (29).

20 They usually were in charge of commerce; they had just learned the languages of the groups that they traded with. Even after 1800, Jews had started to learn Ottoman gradually (2000, 38).

21 The word “agriyotera” was used in a Greek newspaper’s serial on “After the Anotalian defeat, how the 1922 Greek Revolution has been realized and how it has become so successful?”. The owner of the Greek newspaper, Madam Eleni, was accused of defamation of Turkishness and she was sentenced for three years. Afterwards the decision went to the appeal court and she was found innocent (“Darülfünun Gençliği Rumca Gazeteden İzahat İstiyor”, 1929, 1).

22 Efforts to establish a multiparty system only lasted for three months. The Free Party was shut down.

105

23 According to Cumhuriyet Newspaper (“Vagon Li Şirketinde Çirkin Bir Hadise”, 1933: 1), the French director of the company warned an officer to speak French. As a result of this warning, a Turkish officer said “I am Turkish. The Country’s official language is Turkish. You also have to learn Turkish”, after this answer he was fired.

24 Events started first in Çanakkale. Jewish tradesmen were boycotted. Then events spreaded in Kırklareli and Edirne including physical violence against the Jews (“Resmi Tebliğ”, 1934: 1).

25 Marsel Franko was introduced as the leader of the Jewish Community (Musevi Cemaati Reisi) in the newspaper.

26 Claudia Clemente edited this text. Thanks for her valuable contribution.

WORKS CITED

Ahmet Şükrü. ‘Museviler ve Türkçe’. Milliyet. 11.09.1934: 1. ‐‐‐. ‘Ekalliyet Haklarının Himayesi’. Milliyet. 17.09.1934: 1. Akçay, Yusuf. ‘Osmanlı Dönemi Alfabe Tartışmaları Bağlamında Dr. İsmail Hakkı Bey ve Islah‐ı Huruf Cemiyeti’. Uluslararası Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Kongresi Bildirisi. Erzurum, 2007. Andrews, ,P. Alford. Ethnic Groups in the Republic of Turkey. Wiesbaden: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1989. Article 39, 42 Lausanne Treaty. HR‐NET – 25.10.2010 http://www.hri.org/docs/lausanne/part1.html. Baer, Marc David. ‘Hasköy’de Judeo Espanyol, Fransızca ve Türkçe İstanbul Yahudilerinin Değiştirilen Dili’ transl. Esra Özyürek. Virgül 9 (1998): 57‐60. Bali, N. Rıfat. Bir Türkleştirme Serüveni (1923 –1945): Cumhuriyet Yıllarında Türkiye Yahudileri. İstanbul: İletişim, 2001.

‐‐‐‐. ‘Önsöz’. Vatandaş Türkçe Konu ş! Avram Galanti. transl. Ömer Türkoğlu İstanbul: Kebikeç, 2000. V‐ Vİİİ. Bingöl, Yılmaz. ‘Kimlik Tartışmaları Işığında Türk Dil Politikası’ Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi 59‐1 (2004): 27‐58. Behmoaras, Liz. Bir Kimlik Arayışının Hikâyesi (Quest, the Story of an Identity), Remzi Kitabevi: İstanbul, 2005. Borakas, Yakup. “İlan Halimi ve Dr. Yasef Yahya”. [8.03.2006] Şalom Haftalık Siyasi ve Kültürel Gazete – 10 October 2010 http://www.salom.com.tr/news/detail/914‐Ilan‐Halimi‐ve‐Dr‐Yasef‐ Yahya.aspx. ‘Bu milletin asırlardan beri’. Vakit. 2.11.1928: 2. Çağaptay, Soner. ‘Otuzlarda Türk Milliyetçiliğinde Irk, Dil ve Etnisite’. Milliyetçilik Modern Türkiye’de Siyasi Düşünce dizisi. cilt 4, ed. Tanıl Bora, İletişim: İstanbul, 2002. ‐‐‐. Islam, Secularism, and Nationalism in Modern Turkey, Who is Turk?. London & N.Y.: Routledge, 2006. ‘Darülfünun Gençliği Rumca Gazeteden İzahat İstiyor’ Vakit. 3.03.1929: 1. ‘Dil Kurultayı Dün Toplandı’ Milliyet. 27.09.1932: 1. ‘Dil Seferberliğimiz Fiilen Başlıyor’ Milliyet. 25.12.1932: 1. ‘Ecnebiler Ne İşler Yapamaz’ Milliyet. 29.05.1929: 3.

106

Ercilasun, Ahmet B. ‘Tarihi Akısı Sürecinde ve Cumhuriyet Döneminde Türk Dili’. BAL‐TAM Türklük Bilgisi 1 (2004): 11‐23. Franko, Marsel. ‘Dil ve Kültür Davası: Musevi Cemaati Başkanı Diyor ki.’ Tan. 6 March 1937: 5. ‐‐‐. ‘Önce Türkçeyi Öğretmeliyiz!’. Tan. 4.03.1937: 2. Galanti, Avram. Arabî Harfleri Terakkimize Mâni Değildir. 1927. Yeni baskı: transl. Fethi Kale. Galanti’nin hayatı ve bibliyografyası: Rıfat N. Bali. İstanbul: Bedir, 1995. ‐‐‐. Vatandaş Türkçe Konuş! 1928. Yeni baskı: transl. Ömer Türkoğlu. Rıfat N. Bali’nin Önsözüyle. Ankara: Kebikeç, 2000. ‐‐‐. Türk Harsı ve Türk Yahudisi: Tarihî, Siyasî, İçtimaî Tetkik. İstanbul: Fakülteler Matbaası, 1953. ‐‐‐.’Türkiye Yahudileri ve Dil Meselesi.’ Virgül 5 (1998): 60‐61. ‐‐‐.Türkler Ve Yahudiler. 1928. Yeni basım: İstanbul: Gözlem, 1995. Gellner, Ernest. ‘Nationalism’ in Thought and Change. Weidenfeld and London: Nicholson, 1964. 158‐ 69. Guibernau, M. Montserrat. Nationalisms: the Nation‐ State and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. Polity Press, 1996. Göcek, Fatma. ‘Türkiye’de Çoğunluk, Azınlık ve Kimlik Arayışı’. Türkiye’de Çoğunluk ve Azınlık Politikaları AB Sürecinde Yurttaşlık Tartışmaları. TESEV Yayınları: İstanbul, 2006. ‘Harf İnkılâbı’. Vakit. 1.12.1928: 1. ‘Her Türk Yerli Malı Tercih Etmelidir!. Milliyet.’ 26.03.1929: 1. Hobsbawm, Eric J. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality, Cambridge UP: Cambridge, 1990. İbrahim Necmi [Dilmen]. ‘Türkiye Cümhuriyetinin Kültür İnkılâpları’. Milliyet. 29.10.1933: 41. ‘İsmet Paş a’nın Söylediği Mühim Nutuk’. Milliyet. 21.01.1932: 6. Landau, Jacob M. Tekinalp, Turkish Patriot, 1883 1961. Istanbul and Leiden: Nederlands Historisch Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1984. ‘Köylerde Türk Hocası Nasıl Çalışıyor?’. Hareket. 21.09.1929: 3. Levi, Avner. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nde Yahudiler: Hukuki ve Siyasi Durumları. İstanbul: İi let şim, 1998. Lewis, Bernard. The Emergence of Modern Turkey. 3rd edition. New York: Oxford UP, 2002. Mehmet Emin [Yurdakul]. Vikipedi Özgür Ansiklopedi – 15.11.2010 http://tr.wikipedia. org/wiki/Mehmet_Emin_Yurdakul. ‘Muhterem Vatandaşlar’. Milliyet. 29.10.1933: 24. National Turkish Student Union. Vikipedi Özgür Ansiklopedi – 16.10.2010 http://tr.wikipedia.org /wiki/Mill%C3%AE_T%C3%BCrk_Talebe_Birli%C4%9Fi_(1916). Okutan, Ç., Milli Türk Talebe Birliği (MTTB) 1916 – 1980, İstanbul: lİstanbu Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2004. Oran, Baskın. Türkiye’de Azınlıklar: Kavramlar, Lozan, İç Mevzuat, İçtihat, Uygulama. TESEV Yayınları: İstanbul, 2004. Price, Clair. The Rebirth of Turkey, New York: Thomas Zeltzer, 1923. ‘Resmi Tebliğ’. Milliyet 15.05.1934: 1.

107

Savaşkan‐Akdoğan, Nuran. ‘‘Madamlar Yavaş Yavaş Ortadan Kayboluyorlar’: Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Kampanyaları ve Yahudi Kimliği’. Kimlikler Lütfen Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nde Kültürel Kimlik Arayış ve Temsili. ed. Gönül Pultar. METU Press: Ankara, 2009. ‐‐‐. ‘Modern Ulus‐Devlet Olma Yolunda Harf İnkılâbı ve Uygulaması’, Amme İdaresi Dergisi 43/3 (2010): 33‐61. Shaw, J. Stanford., & Shaw, Kural. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ve Modern Türkiye, Vol. 2 Reform, Devrim ve Cumhuriyet, Modern Türkiye’nin Doğuşu 1805 ‐1975. translated by Mehmet Harmancı. E yayınları: İstanbul,1983. Siirt, Mebusu Mahmut. ‘Ecnebi Düşmanlığı.’ Milliyet. 5.03.1933: 1. ‘Talebe, Mitingi Bugün’, Milliyet. 13.03.1933: 1. ‘Tarih, Kongresi Açıldı, Münakaşalar Oldu’. Milliyet. 3.05.1932: 1, 6. Tekinalp, Munis. Türkleşdirme. 1928. Transl. Özer Ozankaya. Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, 2001. ‐‐‐.Kemalizm. İstanbul: Cumhuriyet Gazete ve Matbaası, 1936. ‐‐‐. Türk Ruhu. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1944. ‐‐‐. ‘Türk, Musevileri Bir Azlık Değildir’. Tan. 9.03.1937: 1, 10. Tongul, Neriman. ‘Türk Harf İnkılâbı’, Ankara Üniversitesi Türk İnkılâp Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi 53‐54 (Mayıs‐Kasım 2004): 103‐130. Tunçay, Mete. ‘Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (1923‐1950)’. Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiye Ansiklopedisi. Editörler Müçteba Anğ ve diğerleri. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1983 (8): 2019‐2024. ‘Türkler Şirketlerde: Bir Kısım Şirketlerde Hiç Türk Yok.’ Milliyet. 26.03.1929: 1. Üstel, Füsun. İmparatorluktan Ulus Devlete Türk Milliyetçiliği: Türk Ocakları (1912‐1931). İletişim: İstanbul, 2004. ‘Vatandaş Vazife Başına’. Milliyet. 17.12.1929: 3. ‘Vagon‐Li Şirketi İki Türk Genci Yerine Yunanlıyı Tercih Ediyor’. Hareket. 12.06.1929: 2. ‘Vagon Li Şirketinde Çirkin Bir Hadise’. Cumhuriyet. 24.02.1933: 1. ‘Yahudiler Niçin Rumlardan ve Ermenilerden Ziyade Gayrimemnun?’.Vakit 17.10.1930: 3. ‘Yeni Seferberlik Başlıyor: Dilimizi En Kısa Bir Zamanda Türkleştireceğiz’, Milliyet, 7.10.1932: 1. Yalman, Ahmet Emin. ‘Umumi Yerlerde Türkçe’. Tan. 4.03.1937: 1, 8.

108