Countries� contributions to European civilisation

Hi Isk,

Iskenderani wrote:

"So , nationalism , in itself is NOT something to be considered bad. How can it be bad , either for u or me , when both of us are trying to serve our countries best interests ??? The extreme forms of nationalism , are what we have to avoid. So , please , dont start form the begining  acusing me for being nationalist or anything , What i do is to protect my country's interests , as i understand them , the best way . Which is exactly , what you try to do yourself."

I think that we should differentiate between nationalism and patriotism. I have a respect for patriotism but not for nationalism. Of course a man should love his country, his people and serve them; but nationalism requires thinking that your nation is superior than others. I think ethic principles are more important. For example, for me, an ordinary honest Greek man is superior than a Turkish fascist. I'm respectful to those Greek men who defended their country (also a Turkish revolutionist, Mihri Belli; fought along with them) against Nazis. However, as I said before, nationalism has a different dimension. It requires an imaginary unique, homogeneous and monolithic "nation" disregarding the natural mixage of peoples. Nation building enforces to lose the existing differences between different peoples within the so-called "national boundaries". It requires unique language, unique beliefs, etc. For ex: in the second half of the 19th Century, when the "national unity" of Italy was accomplished, only 10% of Italy was speaking Italian. Together with the nation building process, this language dominated the country. Also, as far as I know, both Greek and Turkish were Hellenised and Turkicised, respectively, throughout their nation-building processes. In short, I think that nationalism tries to homogenise the peoples and destroys their natural and beautiful differences. Also it enforces the thought of superiority; therefore I don't like it. But I am respectful for patriotism. 

Iskenderani wrote:

"As u may see , the topic is NOT about culture , but about civilisation.Civilisation , usually speaking , is exactly the scientific and philosophical achievements , on which , nations take as a base , for their advancement and progress. Of course there are different levels of culture , like worshipping , like food , like trading ...but these levels , always existed between people and commerce , was the tiding bond that existed for all people of the known world. But , food , or music , hardly ever influeced a country towards its political , philosophical , or industrial evolution...."

There isn't a unique definition of civilisation. I think culture is also an integral part of civilisation. When we talk about Hittite civilisation, we also talk about their everyday life. 

Iskenderani wrote:

"Where are the palaces on which the pashas lived ?? the beautiful gardens , the universities , the great mosques ??. They simply never existed. IF they had once , somebody would have written something of apraisment about them..."

I saw some of them in the Balkans but for now, I don't have eonugh source together with me; but if you have time, come to Eastern Thrace and Istanbul-Konstantinopolis (If you count them in Europe). In Edirne- Adrianopolis, which is very close to Turkish-Greek border, there are many. Also, I have to say that Ottomans built their such admirable monuments in Istanbul-Konstantinopolis; come and see. I'll be glad to accompany you (Of course, in an appropriate time). We can drink together.

Iskenderani wrote:

 "I agree , but not completely. Yes it had a strong central power . But the pashas that ruled in all areas , were exactly the equivalent of the counts and dukes in Europe. Maybe the Turkish central power was stronger than the power that the French king had over his counts , but the pashas still existed and ruled absolutely in every corner of the Ottoman empire."

There was one big difference: The sultan always had the right to dismiss the pashas and to confiscate their properties. In fact, the devshirme system was established to continue this absolute authority of the sultan; most of the pashas were devshirmes and it was easy to dismiss them, who had no family; but if he were from a large Turkish clan, it would be hard to dismiss him. This is also the reason why Ottomans didn't want to enforce Turks in the empire.

Iskenderani wrote:

"dissagree on this too. They , maybe , were called reayas , but they were not equal. For example...A greek mounted on a horse, donkey , mule , when cris-crossed with a Turk , mounted also in a horse, donkey , mule , was obliged to dismount , and bow his head , as long as the mounted Turk passed...IF a Turk , killed a greek reaya , he was judged by a Turkish court of law...and there is NOT one written example that a Turkish court of law EVER judged in favor of a greek reaya in a Greek-Turk dispute...So , that they all considered subjects to the sultan , did not gave them equal rights.The people of the occupied nations , were citizens of second class , used in the same way of manner , as the heards of goats and sheep."

The Ottoman Empire was a traditional Islamic empire and of course there wasn't equality. The taxes of the non-muslims were higher, Muslims claimed superiority over non-muslims. However, it wasn't the era of social state. No muslims could live under Christian governments; for example in Spain. In the Ottoman Empire, the non-muslims were subject to their own laws among themselves, ex: between Christians. Also there are some records in the biographies of some kadis(judges) that they were so just that they didn't discriminate between Muslims and non-muslims. But of course I admit that there wasn't a very "lovely" environment for the non-muslims.

Iskenderani wrote:

The gold and capital that the pashas , had were not put in use as it was put in Europe . In Europe a duke , would built a castle , a great church , a city anything to let his name to be remembered for the following ages. In the occupyied lands , the pashas kept the gold to themselves ... Until today , there are gold findings in wells or buried in ruins here in Greece.

As I mentioned above, there was the threat of confiscation. Also the pashas were soldiers; so trade was forbidden to them; but there are many mosques and bridges in the Balcans with the pashas' name and some built by pashas but without their name. Some examples: Mosque of Sufi Mehmed Pasha-now the Church of Seven Disciples in Sofia, Bridge of Mustafa Pasha in Svilengrad, Bridge of Inegollu Ishak Pasha in Nevestino and the Mosque of Mustafa Sherif Pasha in Shumen.

Iskenderani wrote:

 "As i see , your best excuse , or explanation , is that the scholatism of Islam is the reason for all evil that fall upon Turkey , the Ottoman Empire and the subject nations ... A hard to accept explanation , from me at least .As a Greek , and a follower of Greek Philosophy , i do not accept such an influece from religion....Of course it did happen in Europe and in the history of the Byzantine empire , but it was a phenomenon that didnt last long.There were always voices of rebellion and change. And the result was that usually the church ( religion ) was not ruling but rather cooperating with the ruling powers of the European countries.."

The scholasticism in Christianity lasted very long, indeed. Almost the whole medieval age was dominated by it. Only after the Crusades the Europeans met the Islamic Civilisation and learned many things and re-discoverd the antic Hellenic works from their translations from the Arabic language. Inqusition survived a lot and oppressed rationality and science in the medieval times.

Iskenderani wrote:

"Why ?? Nobody asked from u to make any discovery ....You were in possesion of the Arab Peninsula , and the Red sea was open to u to explore Africa , the Mollucas , China , India , the Indian Ocean .... But u didnt ....What has oppression to do with commerce and the Discoveries ?? Were is , or was your fleet of the Indian Ocean ?? Where are ur explorations ?? Sorry , but this excuse , that u r giving , does not hold.The explanation that holds more ground , is that you were a nomadic people , people of the land , you expanded , you had the human subjects to do as you ordered , therefor you were not interested in anything else.You were satisfied with what u had achieved... a great empire in 3 continets ..."

First of all, please don't say "u" or "you", because I'm not an Ottoman! This example was to show the reason of the backwardness of the Ottoman Empire. Of course the Ottomans weren't forced to discover the world, because they already held the traditional commercial routes. The Europeans tried to find a new way to the far Asia and they accidentally found the New World! They found new mines of gold and silver, easily captured them and accumulated huge amouht of capital. This created the basis of the formation of bourgeoisie and the improvements in science.

Iskenderani wrote:

"I agree on that. But this was the Ottoman empire at its early stages , lets say until the end of 1500 or the early start of 1600 ,After that ?? Do not tell me that it was Islam who , stopped you from exploring the Indian ocean. You were not only masters of the Balcans....you were masters of Egypt , Libya , the Arab Peninsula , down to Akaba , and so on....Nobody , in no place did anything.And Islam , is also a poor excuse. Arabs were muslims too , but they have left monuments of beauty , they have advanced math , algebra and chemistry , and in general were hundreds , if not thousandsof times more progressive than you."

On the contrary, in those early ages science was very strong in Ottomans, but afterwards it deteriorated. Mehmed II the Conqueror supported many scientists in mathematics, astronomy, and arts. He knew many languages, icluding Greek, Latin, Arabic and Persian as well as Turkish. Islamic civilisation went through a deterioration period through long centuries. Arabic contribution in progress was in early ages (In the last ages of the 1st millenium). Deterioration started with the Crusades and slowly went on. At the same time progress started in the Christian world. When the Ottomans were in power, scholastism was emerging in Islamic thought, which was suspicious in scientific progress. Many scientists were disabled by the intervention of the Islamic ulema (clergy). That's why, it isn't a little excuse and scientific progress isn't a thing about races, but about  the historical and social circumstances.

Iskenderani wrote:

"Sorry, but i dont agree with this.... Danemark didnt have to have any "evil" other one ...So is Sweeden , Norway , Netherlands , Belgium , Italy ... as u see i exclude France and Germany because of the rivalry they had on each other... This is more common in the Balcans . In Europe , they had a lot of common things , like religion , and common ancestries...So their disputes and fights were more to be considered as fights in a family , than fights with a neighbor. In the Balcans it was different . There was a gap in between religions , and the "invader" , was a total stranger from another part of the world...There was nothing in common between the oppressors and the oppressed . This is a great difference and a crusial point to today's rivarlies"

My intention was to identify the Balcan nationalism and you are right in this case; but in a general identification, nationalism recquires something common and common pain is much more reliable in this case. So, the "evil other" is very important in nation building. When the Ottomans first meet the Balcan people, I admit that they were very different and the religion is still very different; but after 500 years, in everyday life, especially with Greeks, there are many things in common. Personally, I feel much more comfortable with Greeks than with a German or English or French. But I do understand the Balcan feelings against Ottomans.

Iskenderani wrote:

"This is a question that i often ask ....Wasn't it natural for a number of people with common language , common religion , common history , to revolt against the ( i will not characterise the Turk as "evil" ) "different Turk" , who oppressed them ??
How is possible Turks today to believe that their Greek subjects betrayed them ???"

It was very natural. I don't question that. However, you should also understand that the Ottomans tried to save their state. In the 18th and 19th Centuries there were many attempts to save the empire and provide better conditions for the people. For example in 1839, the Imperial Edict of Taanzimat declared that every was equal and also the the lives and properties of non-muslims were under the warranty of law. In 1876 the Constitutional Monarchy was declared. Until 1878 and after 1908 In the Assembly, all peoples and ethnicities within the Empire were represented. There were such attempts to save the Empire, however the imperialist system and nationalist movements weakened it. Until the Balcan wars, the official ideology of the Empire was Ottomanism. It tried to unify all subjects of the Empire, regardless of their ethnic identities. However, nationalism was the rule of the era and this project was only a dream. The ongoing events destroyed the huge Empire and in the Treaty of Sevres only a little piece of land in the middle of Anatolia was left to the Turks. This was a horrible trauma for the Turks; so they see the nationalist movements of the former subjects as "betrayal". Of course this wasn't a betrayal, but as I said it was a trauma and understandable with empathy. Today, very few people thinks in such a way...

Iskenderani wrote:

"whom u still threaten with war IF he tries to exercise his rights ...."

Be sure, except some very few extreme nationalists, noone wants a war in Turkey. There is a problem of trust between two countries; it should be resolved and no war is needed. No war will take place...

By the way, thanks for your contribution in the "first flying men" thread...

kotumeyil...  

### Not so fast....In here we do not , or i hope that we do not talk about extremists ...So as i gave you a link to "nationalism" , so i am giving you a link for patriotism.

-- @ Patriotism and politics
Patriotism can be both for or against the current government of a nation. Supporters of the current government may hold the opinion that patriotism implies support of oneernment's policies amounts to treason. But in other instances, rebellion against a corrupt or tyrannical government may be justified as an act needed to save the nation, and thus is likewise motivated by patriotism.

In politics, the words patriotism and nationalism are often confused. Patriotism is loyalty to the land and people. Nationalism is loyalty to a nation or government. Therefore a rebel who is against the government and not a nationalist, can be a patriot if he is loyal to the people. Even unoppressive governments confuse the two words.###

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism @

So , as you see , its better not to confuse your way of thinking between the two of them .On the other hand , i understand that there always must be an ugly "witch" , on whose back we pin whatever we dont like , or whatever we cant explain and Nationalism is perfect for this .Unfortunately this is for the masses that do not understand the differences between  Nationalism , and extremism and this is exactly were communist propaganda was based . Matiomalism , is not about nation superiority , or ethnic superiority. Its about serving national interests , the best possible way . ###

Your definition of patriotism is exactly what I mean by patriotism. I'm fond of that but not of nationalism. Be sure I'm not confusing them. Also I don't believe in the notion of "national interest". Until today many imperialist wars, racism, exploitations, bans on trade-unions, etc. were always tried to be legitimised by this notion. The attack on Iraq is also legitimised by it in the USA. "National interest" implicitly implies that for every nation there's one definite interest and they clash with each other. However, within a country different classes have different interests. For example, in the USA, the bosses of military and oil industries have an absolute interest in the war on Iraq. However, American people from the lower classes has no interest in it. Many "national" economic policies are against the economic interests of the lower classes.

By the way what's your problem with the communist propaganda? 

Iskenderani wrote:

### I dont know , why you use extreme examples. For a nation , to have unique lang. , is not something bad , or to have unique religion , as long as it tolerates the differences that other people residing in it may have. I cant see how Greeks and Turks were Hellenised and Turkicised . If you mean , in certain food , or musical areas , well yes they did , it was inevitable . But in philosophy , i cant see how Plato , or Aristoteles influenced Turks and were this influence can be seen.As for nationalism , it certainly tries to keep the people homogenised not because of fear of losing something , but for the simple purpose that a homogenised people are difficult to be controled . A nation with lots of minorities , is easy to control , by manipulating one minority against the other , or two of them against a third....A homogenic , nation is harder to be controlled..As for superiority ..... It has to be shown , not said.And IF people are pushed to achieve more , in every level , thus becoming superior of any meighbor that they may have , then tis is called progress , not nationalism...Nationalism , is maybe the cause , or the driving force for progress , not the means.###

You totally misunderstood me. When I spoke of Greek and Turkish I meant the languages. As far as I know, the Greek language was "Hellenised" the "foreign" words were taken out and an elite language based on the antic Greek was formulated and this artificial language was taught in the schools. Also Turkey imitated this and many "foreign" words were taken out of the Turkish language. I think this is an unnatural and wrong workof nationalisms. These works try to form an artificially homogenised nation. I'm against this artificial construction. I read about a Greek man who supports taking the Turkish words out of Greek language and his surname is Dizikirikis (man with a broken knee, in Turkish)! Today, what we took from each other are the beautiful colours of our cultures. Also there are very beautiful Greek words in Turkish. I'm  against losing them for being a more "pure" Turkish!

Iskenderani wrote:

" i just felt pity for both cities.Not from their modernisation , but for the condition of the non-Muslim antiqities"

Also I feel pity for those. Before, you said that some Ottoman monuments in the Balcans were destroyed because "they represented an era of oppression". Also in Turkey some nationalists destroyed or harmed some Christian monuments because they represented the invader Greeks. This is nationalist reasoning and it is bullsh*t! All anticities should be saved...

Iskenderani wrote:

Come on...it was exactly the same in Europe with the kings and dukes and counts and barons..exactly the same

No, absolutely it was different. There wasn't serfdom (serfs bought and sold with the land and obligated to produce a proportion of surplus for the lords' own) in the Ottoman Empire in the western sense. In the west, the lords were nominally subject to the king with very weak threads; they were so strong that in England they forced the king to declare Magna Carta Libertatum, which limited the authority of the king in favour of the lords. However, in the Ottoman Empire, the sultan always had the authority to decapitate the pashas and confiscate their land. Also Ottoman farmers didn't work for the pashas, but they paid taxes to the Ottoman sultan. These are BIG differences in shaping a society.

Iskenderani wrote:

### All this is understandable. The strange thing is that it also applied to muslims too , for example Arabs . It is the underline , why Turks were not liked by any of their subjects. ###

You are wrong. In the Ottoman Empire, Turkish nationalism didn't take place until the first decade of the 20th Century. Main ideology was ummetism,i.e. being from the same religion; there's no record of discrimination against Arabs until the emergence of Turkish nationalism; which emerged only in the last two decades of the Empire.

Iskenderani wrote:

By the way. You , as many of your people have the tendency to differentiate between Turks and Ottomans. Sorry , but i cant accept that the inhabitants of what is today Turkey , slept one night as Ottomans , and woke up the next day as Turks , because Ataturk signed a paper denouncing the name Ottoman.For me , and the majority of the world , Ottomans were Turks and Turks , are Ottomans. ###

I meant that I and none of today's Turks were citizens of the Ottoman Empire. I wasn't on the world at that time and so I didn't hold 3 continents in my hand! Also the name "Turk" wasn't used by the Ottomans to define themselves. On the other hand, of course we are the grandsons of the Ottomans. If you want to blame me, you have to blame me because of my current deeds.

Iskenderani wrote:

### Not so. Christians have met Islam in Spain from very early 400 years before the crusades and it was there , in Spain , that the Arabs did their most important work . In Toledo , there were in certain cases as many as 200 copiers , who copied books , at the same time , when some one was reading loud and clear from the prototype .Also , it was Toledo , i think , around 900 which was one of the three cities in whole world that was lit by night . 10.000 oil lamps were lit every night in all streets . The other two cities , were Konstantinopolis and Peking...i am not sure about all this ...but i think i have read it somewhere. ###

You are right, but Christians were mostly influenced after the Crusades. 

Iskenderani wrote:

### The main difference in what you say above , is that scholastism was the main reason that progress was almost halted in the Ottoman Empire. Same happened in Europe too . Remember Gallileo , and Giordano Bruno...But in Europe there was always a strong progressive movement , which the church was , at the end , not able to control . What i make out of what you say , is that in the Ottoman empire , there was never such a movement .And if there was not , then the explanation must be very different than the usual blame to religion. I think that the absence of this progressive movement lies in the structure of the Turkish society itself.###

You should understand that the Ottoman society was shaped by Islam and Islam had a downwards inclination AT THAT TIME. I'm not totally accusing Islam, because once it had the upward inclination and it served as a basis for Islamic contribution in the progress. I2m talking about facts. There are historic conditions. The late Roman Empire was Christian, medieval Italy was Christian, France in the 18th Century was Christian and today the Great Britain is Christian. Now compare: Are the effects of Christianity on progress in these examples the same? Then apply it to Islam: compare the progressive contributions of the Arabs in the end of the first millenium and the Arabs in the end of the secon millenium. What do you see? If you speak of Ottoman oppression on them, you should see that after their independence they had enough petrodollars to compensate it. No other comments. 

 Iskenderani wrote:

### I have already expressed my objections to this "nationalistic" reasoning . So i will keep to the present. Religion is still a difference , and this is more on the side of the strict Islamic laws. On the other hand , between Greece and Turkey , there is still in existence a blood line and this is not of the remote past. It is 55 years old . While in Western Thrace , the remains of Turks , recognised officialy as Greek Muslims , never had their homes put on fire , or killed , or beaten to death , or driven by force out of Greece , this is NOT what happened to Greeks in Turkey. Although , in every day life , as i have seen we may have no big , or so important differences , there is still this mistrust , between us. ###

I don't approve the maltreatments, which took place in the past, on the Greek citizens of Turkey. However, this doesn't justify the problems of Turkish minority in Greece. Don't bring sterile conversations to me. Also a Turkish nationalist can bring violences from Cyprus before 1974 to here. Turks killed Greeks and Greeks killed Turks, so what? Shall I hate you?

Iskenderani wrote:

### Come on...u acuse of "extreme nationalism" , the whole parliament of yours who accepted the casus beli ???.... shame on you...You may be condemned to exile in Rhodes , or Samos ....for life... 

It's a different thing. Accepting it and actual fighting are different. Noone wants hot clash.

Menippos wrote:

"Well, having to recover from the economic inexistence in which the Greek state was after the Ottoman occupation is still an ongoing struggle. Therefore, no money --> no creation. As gypsies say in my country, a starved bear does not dance."

 We use that, too! I'm not accusing modern Greece for its situation but I'm jocking about always accusing Turks and act as if the modern Greeks are the only inheritors of the ancient Greeks!

Menippos wrote:

 "Yes, the influence of the Ottoman administration can be clearly seen in modern Balkans: Corruption, laziness, immobility, inflexibility, nullification of each and every progressive attempt, absolute disregard for the well being of the citizens, mishandling of state funds and peoples' monies, misrepresentation of the countries' interests and so on. What a great gift the Ottoman administration was to the Balkans!"

Oooh poor little angels! I'm very sorry for that!

Originally posted by Menippos Originally posted by kotumeyil Oooh poor little angels! I'm very sorry for that! Oh you are so compationate - I will make you a tray of baklava next time I see you

Thanks, I like it very much!

english please and the reasons are obvious

at least provide transilations

This is tulumba

Being always willing to help:

http://www.turkishcook.com/food-recipes/Tulumba_tatlisi.shtm l