"Countries" were neither colonized nor colonizer?

 

Well, with one difference,Turks had settled in Anatolia but also designated Anatolia as their new hometown.

 

Now compare that to others...British colonization in Africa and Asia, French in Africa,Spanish in South America and the rest...

 

You gotta see the difference...It was more a conquest than a colonization.

But it is more or less exactly like British colonisation in North America, Australia, New Zealand. And not too different from the Spanish in South America, actually.

 

Well, Anatolia have been colonized (or settled) since ancient times by various peoples and civilisations. The most successful ones were the first IEs (Hittites, Pala, Luwians), then Greeks and finally Turks. So it was natural for the locals to get used to being assimilated...

 

But the thing is, if you are to compare Turks settling in Anatolia as a whole with later colonisers (like British, Spanish etc.) or earlier colonisers (like Greeks, Phoenicians), you should mention how they sound similar to you. Turks have settled but have been assimilated "in" Anatolia, that's why we don't live in nomadic tents or make shoarma with horse meat now. But after the British colonisation, what's left from Northern American native culture and civilisation, except a few state names?

 

But if you are to blame Turks with colonisation (actually invasion), you may refer to Balkans, Arabia, Egypt etc., despite that is not called colonisation, but invasion. If that is colonisation, than there's no nation in the world except a few extinct ones who have never colonised anywhere.

 

when was Turkey first called 'Turkey' (or some equivalent)?

 

I guess after the first crusaders arrived in Anatolia. But nobody calls America as Britain, Paraguay as Spain or Palestine as Greece today. Actually colonised places doesn't get the name of their colonisers, I guess the only exception is Magna Graecia.

 

 

Just because a select few Greeks and Albanians held high positions in the Ottoman government, that doesnt' mean that their respective peoples were not occupied and economically exploited by a foreign government. Are we going to get in yet another debate about supposedly how egalitarian the Ottoman government was?

 

Just accept it: the Ottomans were colonizers just like the British and the Russians. Simply the term "Empire" should be a strong indication of that...

 

Lord Beaverbrook comes immediately to mind as the most politically important.

 

However there are number of people from the former colonies now in Parliament and in the present government.

 

(And that's not counting the Scots .)

 

 

Those were written by Komnenos, but as I agree to his views, I will reply too...

 

About Algiers,you are right, that can be mentioned as a colony,though for my view, a colonised area is a place without a land connection to the borders of that empire...Therefore, for specific examples of Russia and Ottoman Empire, I believe the places they invaded are more like "conquests" than colonies...

 

About the second part, can you define the meaning of motherland if Anatolia was a colony for Turks, Africa was a colony for Vandals..Then Spain was a colony for Visigoths, Italy was for Ostrogoths, Britain for Anglo-Saxons etc.

 

Originally posted by Kapikulu Originally posted by gcle2003   All known definitions of "colony" also imply a substantial geographical distance from the "motherland".     Like say, Istanbul to Algiers? Or isn't that substantial enough?    To speak of Anatolia as a Turkic colony is nonsense, as much as it would be if you  call the Vandal kingdom in North-Africa a "Germanic" colony.   True they are very similar. But it's quite sensible to call both of them 'colonies'.   Pretty well everything in the world is, in point of fact, an African colony.        Those were written by Komnenos, but as I agree to his views, I will reply too...   About Algiers,you are right, that can be mentioned as a colony,though for my view, a colonised area is a place without a land connection to the borders of that empire...Therefore, for specific examples of Russia and Ottoman Empire, I believe the places they invaded are more like "conquests" than colonies...

 

So you wouldn't have considered Indo-China a French colony? Or Macao a Portuguese one?

 

The very oldest example I can think of of a place that was actually called a colony and still has the name is in Germany. And the self-designated colonisers were Romans. Land all the way.

 

I don't see that land connection or distance have anything to do with it. The essential character of a colonial situation is that one group of people have come from somewhere else and taken the place over, and are ruling it, possibly but not necessarily settling there.

 

 

About the second part, can you define the meaning of motherland if Anatolia was a colony for Turks, Africa was a colony for Vandals..Then Spain was a colony for Visigoths, Italy was for Ostrogoths, Britain for Anglo-Saxons etc.

Edited by gcle2003 - 19-Jun-2006 at 14:35