Do christian turks exists
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ethnic History of Central Asia
Forum Discription: Discussions about the ethnic origins of Central Asian peoples. All topics related to ethnicity should go here.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13469
Printed Date: 29-Apr-2024 at 03:54
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Do christian turks exists
Posted By: The pathan
Subject: Do christian turks exists
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 05:17
|
Is there any clan of turks who practice christainity as turkistan and turkey both are muslim |
Replies:
Posted By: Urungu Han
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 05:24
|
There are 17 Turkish republic,most of them are mslim including Turkey and Trkistan.
Europe Huns accepted christainity,and gagavuz Turks(today they live in gagavuz m.c.)
|
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 06:56
|
yeh gagavuz a pretty much the only one's you could count the bulgars. But most bulgar turks ae muslim ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Urungu Han
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 07:01
| Yes ı forgot them |
Posted By: Suevari
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 07:05
|
The Hungarians are not Turks, they - along with Finns - are Altaic's who converted from Tengrism (old Turkic religion) and Shamanism to Christianity whereas Turks converted mostly to Islam. The Gagauz Turks are Christian, the Chuvash Turks are Christian and we could include the Csangos (catholic) in Romania too. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 07:10
|
The Gagauz Turks have an autonomous state in Moldova. They are followers of the "Turkish Orthodox Church". What is interesting about the Gagauz-Gok Oghuz is the importance they hold to their anscestory and the Oghuz Turk legends. Due to them not being Muslim and living in remote areas they didn't really have many other influences. To this day the most importance literatures they hold are the Oghuzname, the Legends of Oghuz Khan, the mythology of the Grey Wolf...
Gagauzia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gagauzia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gagauzia
http://img473.imageshack.us/img473/5271/image222237xe.jpg">
 http://img162.exs.cx/img162/5603/gagauzi.jpg">
 "> http://www.kangar.org/resim/bayrak/0018.gif">
 http://www.ozturkler.com/data_english/0007/0007_17.htm - http://www.ozturkler.com/data_english/0007/0007_17.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gagauz - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gagauz ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Urungu Han
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 07:11
Hungarians have Turkic(huns),slavic and fin blood.
|
Posted By: Suevari
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 07:14
No they don't. It is a common mistake simply because of the name HUNgarian and HUN. The modern Hungarians are descendants of Arpad who crossed from the Carpathian mountains AFTER the huns. Arpad replaced the Huns and founded the Hungarian state ontop of the old Hunnic kingdom. But today many Hungarian look to Attila dn the Huns as equals to Arpad, even though there were not DIRECTLY related to them. Finns are Finno-Ugric and Hungarians are Finno-Ugric also, but there are some big differences. ------------- |
Posted By: Urungu Han
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 07:19
| Hmm,very interesting.I must look for that,thanks. |
Posted By: Suevari
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 07:22
|
No problem :)
------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 07:36
|
One of the interesting Gagauz customs is to greet each other using the sign of the Wolf, a sign today also used in various Turkic countries but not for the same reason.
Among the Gagauz Turks its like shaking each others hands, they will make this sign to greet each other.
 Here is Jeno Reno demonstrating it, don't ask me why he's doing it
  Thats somewhere in Iran.
Also Baskhortistan use it as a greeting aswell.
------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Urungu Han
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 07:39
| Grey wolves were our warfriends and totems in ancient asia many years ago(Timurs were the last who used grey wolves in battle). |
Posted By: Suevari
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 07:47
|
I htink it's a shame how nationalists have adopted the sumbol and made it almost Fascist in Turkey.
------------- |
Posted By: Nestorian
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 11:18
|
Christians in TUrkey would be surviving remnants of Christians from the Byzantine era??? I don't think there would be much conversions from Islam to Christianity under Turkish rule in Asia Minor. So I'm assuming that its those who have kept their faith over centuries but are stilll considered Turks and proud ones too. |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 11:27
|
Turks accualy asians in general aren't that strict on religious matters. ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Suevari
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 17:55
Most Christians in Turkey are Greeks, Armenians etc, but there is an increase in conversion among Turks. Religion in Turkish society is decreasing in its role - thank GOD! ------------- |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 18:17
I don't think there is a significant Christian population in Turkey, perhaps except for Greek and Armenian Orthodoxs of Istanbul. Modern missionary activities are incredibly overrated and probably have no effect at all. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 19:01
|
Suevari
Religion in Turkish society is decreasing in its role - thank GOD!
There is nothing wrong with religion in society, its actually beneficial and important for emphasis on community, morals, family, helping the poor and need and trying to refrain from going down the wrong path etc etc
Religion in Pollitics is what is wrong, it triviallises and abuses religion for personal power.
The Grey Wolf salute looks cool  I also heard that the Baskurtistan Turks use the Wolf Totem and salute?------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Feramez
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 20:51
That pic of Jeno Reno is from a movie called 'Empire of the Grey Wolves', look it up, it's not that great and another movie that doesn't make Turks look good either. Wow, I love this, I had no idea that Gagavuz and Baskurts used the GreyWolf symbol as a greeting, this needs to be spread through more of the Turk World. As for the Christian Turks, Gagavuz are Christian, I heard a some hand full of them in Turkey are Muslim. Some Cuvas Turks are Christian, I think most are but not all. Also, some South Siberian Turks have converted to Russian Orthodox, but not many. ------------- For Turks, the homeland isn't Turkey, nor yet Turkistan. Their country is a vast, eternal land: Turan! -Ziya Gokalp- http://groups.myspace.com/TurkWorld - TRK DNYASI Forum, join today. |
Posted By: Feramez
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 23:52
How do you know this? Where did you get this information from? ------------- For Turks, the homeland isn't Turkey, nor yet Turkistan. Their country is a vast, eternal land: Turan! -Ziya Gokalp- http://groups.myspace.com/TurkWorld - TRK DNYASI Forum, join today. |
Posted By: Suevari
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 07:07
Hey, i didn not say it beingin society is wrong, i said its ROLE in society in decreasing - meaning i like seeing it becoming less of a guidliene to abide by. Religion in politics is always stoked by apopulation depending on how much religion is a part of their lives, the two are related. DO you really think that a pious populace would be content with a secular government? not exactly.. Therefore it's good that the manout of people relant on religion to function daily are decreasing. Grey wolf symbol IS cool yeah, i on;y said i am disappointed it's been hijacked by rightists. You need to read posts better. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 07:57
|
DO you really think that a pious populace would be content with a secular government?.
Ofcourse, why not? if a government allows freedom of religion, allows religion to be practiced, helps the institutions, centres of religous learning, religous celebrations etc etc why would the populace have a problem. Infact according to the religion if all aspects of being able to live in accordance to the guidelines of the Holy Kur'an are in place then the government is in appliance with the religion anyway. In other words there is no need for a change in the ruling system as altough the state doesn't mix religion with pollitics its not a "jacobite secularist state" and is instead a religously tolerant and accepting yet at the same time non-theist state. If you read more into this great religion you will see the logic in it, don't let extremists and biggots as you say "Yobaz"
 put you off or let you be decieved into thinking they represent religion.Grey wolf symbol IS cool yeah, i on;y said i am disappointed it's been hijacked by rightists
There is nothing stopping everyone from using it, its an old Turkic custom, you cannot blame rightists who actually go around the Turk world, research and study their history, customs, traditions and go to meet their people. If they hadn't of started reviving these traditions they may have been lost alltogether. After a while there will be a movement to bring these kinds of things back into the mainstream, the important part is that these traditions are not dead and have been saved wether you agree with them or not by those orientated more to the right.
------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Nestorian
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 02:30
|
I think any conversions of Turks to Christianity would be offensive in Turkey wouldn't it? Not so much from a religious point of view, but from an identity point of view. Would it seem as a betrayal to one's heritage?
I've noted that conversions take place when a Turk is isolated from their main societal group, but it really shouldn't be that surprising anyway because of the lack of peer pressure of societal expectations. Wu'er Kaixi, a Chinese dissident of Uighur ethnicity is one of the lesser known converts to Christianity in America.
|
Posted By: Suevari
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 04:29
|
Bulldog, The 'pious' population here voted in a government that has continuously questioned the secular policies of the state and the population STILL supports them as a majority. I know all religion has the capacity to be great, but from my personal experience and from looking at history I do not want a thing that causes so much hate, war and arrogant narrow mindedness being prevelent in the mindsets of my people as an ever-simmering platform for extremism to launch off. I can perfectly distinguish the quietly faithful and the religious fundamentalist, but that does not stop me from supporting the growth of logic and scientific reason replacing religion as the main guide to life amongst the masses. My grandfather is the perfect example of the ideal relationship between religion ond secular, scientific progression, he prays once a week in a private room and does not talk to anyone about his religion unless asked - he is modern, progressive, secular and open-minded. But ordinary people who can live with the 2 things well are rare. As for the wolf symbol, I know there is nothing stopping me using it dammit, i do! What's your problem? I AM blaming it on the rightists for giving it fascist connotations. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 08:11
|
Bulldog, The 'pious' population here voted in a government that has continuously questioned the secular policies of the state and the population STILL supports them as a majority.
This is called Democracy but also maybe a problem in the voting system the government didn't exactly get a real majority vote did it
, if the government solved the issues it was voted in for it wouldn't be needed anymore, why do you think it doesn't change the main things it was voted in for? if it did, it would loose votes as it would have no purpose anymore.Also blaming this all on the people is totally wrong, the more secular governments have all screwed up, when one system doesn't work people will try another one, if this one doesn't work they will again try a different one. Instead of blaming the people its better that the ideologies and pollitics be questioned.
I know all religion has the capacity to be great, but from my personal experience and from looking at history I do not want a thing that causes so much hate, war and arrogant narrow mindedness
This is not religions fault but people who use and abuse it for their own personal power. Communism has killed more than any religion and its athiest. It shows that stopping religion altogether doesn't work either infact it causes more death and war.
I can perfectly distinguish the quietly faithful and the religious fundamentalist, but that does not stop me from supporting the growth of logic and scientific reason replacing religion as the main guide to life amongst the masses.
Islam encourages logic and scientific reason. people do.
------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Suevari
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 08:32
|
I knwo it's democracy but this is just my opinion, stop relentlessly telling me im wrong. As for religon.. I am well aware it's not religion fault - which is why i said it has the capacity to be great because it was designed with peace in mind etc. But the fact that most of the time it is abused does not dimish the fact that religion has acted as a platform for "hate, war and arrogant narrow mindedness" Again, yes Islam encourages all those things like all religions - but the reality is often different so again it does not detract from the reality that religion is acting as a platform for insularity etc despite it's forward looking attitude on paper. ------------- |
Posted By: Nestorian
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 10:57
| Distortion of religion is the cause of conflict methinks |
Posted By: Pacifist
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 22:46
------------- |
Posted By: Pacifist
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 22:51
------------- |
Posted By: Suevari
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 05:56
Ok, don't misunderstand what i said. I didn't say "religion is decreasing" I said it's role as a rule of life is decreasing - in other words it's place as a key thing that guides people in their life is not as prevelent. I say this because I see and know many middle-class people who are living their lives without continued reference to religion, comparable to how religious the average Englishman is. I say again, the kind of peasant mentality where religion no.1 thing in their lives is on the decrease and it is making society more pluralised. ------------- |
Posted By: Nestorian
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 06:16
|
To Pacifist, I applaud ur banner! You represent the kind of forward thinking that most Arab states lack. Lack of recognition and lack of acceptance of reality of Israel's right to exist is the cause of Arab-Israeli conflict. A lamb kebab for you!!
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 07:32
|
Pacifist
You know what I find absurd? Secular people/kemalists are equally suspicious or afraid of Christian minorities/non-Muslims, as Islamists... it's a contradiction to their own beliefs.
You know what I find absurd? Why everyone had to be categorized and put into boxes, just because a person holds a view regarding a certain matter a label is attached to them. This is just divisive, isolotory and excluding. Why must people be one or the other? cannot one be religous yet also an admirer of AtaTurk, cannot one agree with AtaTurk and at the same time follow Islam. I know religous people in Turkey who not only respect AtaTurk but say that the leader actually did alot for the countries muslims and in-contrast to the theory that it was restricted they say it was promoted and the deviants trying to use it for its power were banished. The religion was allowed to return to its roots.
For example, AtaTurk printed the Holy Kor'an in Turkish and distributed it around the country for free along with all other Islamic knowledge. This was the first time that the average or working class Turk had a chance to really understand their religion in their own language. There are those who complain that prayers were read in Turkish and so was the Ezan. Islam encourages people to understand the religion in their own languages, its a shame some people have these hang-ups and think it is only for Arabs as if Arabic is a holy language.
Maybe you could read the below and translate some of it, my friend translated it all into English and I was amazed at two things, One is the amount of lies I was told about AtaTurk like that he banned religion alltogether, totally disregarded and hated it etc etc and Also that he studied Islam, appreciated its importance in society and encouraged that is was understood in its true form by the masses and not understood by just the elite and taught in a corrupted way to the masses.
I was very impressed
 http://www.atamizindeyiz.com/01/resimler/10.jpg - http://www.atamizindeyiz.com/01/resimler/10.jpg ">
http://www.atamizindeyiz.com/01/ata10.htm - http://www.atamizindeyiz.com/01/ata10.htm
http://www.bilimarastirmavakfi.org/html2/yayinlar/ataturkvedin.html - http://www.bilimarastirmavakfi.org/html2/yayinlar/ataturkvedin.html
http://www.harunyahya.org/kitap/dindar_ataturk/dindarataturk1.html - http://www.harunyahya.org/kitap/dindar_ataturk/dindarataturk1.html
------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 07:26
| many Yakuts are Orthodox Christians. some Khakass and Altayans too, but not the extent like the Yakuts. |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 07:38
|
Pacifist
You know what I find absurd? Secular people/kemalists are equally suspicious or afraid of Christian minorities/non-Muslims, as Islamists... it's a contradiction to their own beliefs.
Infact I find absurd that kemalist are more suspicious from christian minorities. Just compare akp and state(army and other state organizatıons). AKP is absolutely more liberal.
|
Posted By: Mordoth
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2007 at 22:52
|
We - the Kemalists - are afraid of minorities ?
They could not even burn a fire of their own if there is no Turks next to them :)
Ridiculous statement .
- Yes , Magyars and Finnish people are Christian Hunnic brothers of ours .
Finnic Tartars are still living in Finland .
Gagauz ( Gokoguz ) people still live in Moldovo - Romania .
And they are Christianized .
There are also Judaist Turks ,living next to Caspian Sea . ------------- If Electricity Comes from Electrons ; does Morality come from Morons :| |
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 03:05
|
And dont forget Karamani 's guys. They were the Christian Turks of Anatolia untill 1920s. All of them living in Greece now. ------------- |
Posted By: karajoz
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 03:26
|
i just want to bring forward that the christian minority in turkey stabed us in the back once,so no one can missjudge if we are a bit sceptic about armenians and other christ in the modern state of turkey
just to remind,if someone doesent know the history of turkey.
the armenians killed turks and claimed our land,after they saw ottomans losing the war,they hoped of help with russia back then.
kurdish and turkish corps could defiet them afterwards succesfully.
 ------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 03:26
|
They could not even burn a fire of their own if there is no Turks next to them :)
Be serious, they still cannot open their churchs.
|
Posted By: karajoz
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 03:31
|
its okey, i lived in switzerland all my live, turks cant open their own mosqus there either...so ... me personally... i dont want to see any churches in my country. this is turkey.
if you want go to a church go to greece or armenia... ------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 09:35
So you believe that only the majority of a certain religion in a country is allowed to worship? As far as I know, Turkey is a secular state... But a state that only allows one religion is not very secular at all, is it...
Many churches in Turkey are older than the mosques... Are you suggesting these ancient buildings should be torn down because you do not like christians? Dont know about Switzerland, but in many countries churches and mosques are allowed side by side. Even in muslim states like Pakistan churches are allowed freely... why should the secular state of Turkey not allow them? ------------- 
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 10:11
 You are soo ignorant. Ok maybe Turkey is not secular enought, but atleast its not sheriat either. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 10:23
What do we have here? A novice who insults whole communities and religions doing so with no conerns of the CoC. Read this or forever make your peace: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6512&FID=3&PR=3 - AE Code of Conduct & Terms of Use ------------- |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 10:25
|
To understand correctly, is it being suggested that Churches are not allowed to open in Turkey? or new churches are not allowed to be founded? ------------- |
Posted By: Lord Ranulf
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 10:27
| Whooooooooooooo thank goodness. I thought for a moement i'd have to get my Star of David arm band back out and put it on. Thank you Seko. |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 10:36
|
Sic regio ergo religio
If I may say so... cool it just brings us back 350 years backward! ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: bleda
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 11:00
|
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=308489 Churches in Turkey.some of old some new ------------- |
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 11:01
I think that explains your lack of knowledge about Turkey. And to those who try to understand Turkey through Karajoz's intellectual capacity: Turkey is a secular country, and she has proved this many times in the past. Always keep in mind that Turkey was the one that destroyed traditional Islamic political system, including Caliphate and the strongest medrassahs.
Just like the European working class that is Islamophobic, most of the Turkish mediveal agricultural class is Christianophobic, both of which are a shame, of course.
|
Posted By: bleda
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 11:01
|
and ın touristıc area for examples marmaris and fethiye lot of new church opened
------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 11:04
|
To understand correctly, is it being suggested that Churches are not allowed to open in Turkey? or new churches are not allowed to be founded?
New churches.
and ın touristıc area for examples marmaris and fethiye lot of new church opened
Offically, they are not churchs.
|
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 11:09
|
Ok maybe Turkey is not secular enought, but atleast its not sheriat either.
Funny, but there are a lot church comes from ottomans and their sheriat.. So, pls be more objective.
Turkey is not enough sheriat even.
|
Posted By: bleda
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 11:09
yes they are offiacally chuchs. ------------- |
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 11:25
For me Turkey is not enought secular.(Yeap better than other muslims but could be better than this)
Otherwise how could you explain ''Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı''(Religious Affairs Ministry). The state pays Sunni imams salaries with our taxes, but same state does not doing anything for Alevis, Jews and Christians. İs that secularism? ------------- |
Posted By: Lord Ranulf
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 11:52
| (quiet voice) probably not. |
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 12:14
|
It's still secularism (French Laicism by the way), Erkut. Believe me. I have thought it for ages that whether Turkey is really secular or not. The problem is due to our uneducated villagers who might actually be quite jihadist and who might tend to believe that the west was evil.
So,
Turkey doesn't have millions of industrilized liberal citizens who are also secular and do know what secularism really means.
Turkey does have millons of poor villagers whose religious thoughts are dreadfully traumatic.
So
Religious affairs must be controlled.
If Turkish people respect American people, this is because of this.
|
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 13:55
|
Otherwise how could you explain ''Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı''(Religious Affairs Ministry). The state pays Sunni imams salaries with our taxes, but same state does not doing anything for Alevis, Jews and Christians. İs that secularism?
I agree, but than who will state control islam? and who will teach(be sure there would be valuenters islam to people)?
Turkey is nationalist, not secularist or other thing. They use islam for their aims.
Hidden face , please to stop belittling poor villagers. It is becoming boring. when did fanatism related with education?(Look at cumhuriyet newspaper, so much educated so much fanatic.)
I should also add, It is still nationalism who is against others.(No matter what they are)
True, we have not muc liberas, but this has no relation with education, richness or becoming at city or village. We are what state wanted. Nationalists. All of us, leftist, rightist or religious people.
|
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 13:57
| Also where the hell that cihadist you talk? I am not aware of them. |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 14:22
|
'Kyl milletin efendisidir' (Villagers are the gentlemen of this nation)
Ghazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha AtaTurk
Stop belittling villagers, you can sit and whine about them all you want but I find them more warm-hearted, hospitable and able to deal, live and cope with life far better than some bigotted city dwellers who have become lost, materialistic and disatisfied with life.
Go to a village in Turkey, they'll give you all they have to look after and feed you and feel offended if you try to offer money as thanks, all they want is for you to be pleased.
This is what Ibn Battuta wrote about Turks.
This country ... is one of the finest in the world; in it God has brought together the good things dispersed throughout other lands. Its people are the most comely (handsome) of men, the cleanest in their dress, the most delicious in their food, and the kindliest folk in creation. Wherever we stopped in this land, whether at a hospice or a private house, our neighbors both men and women (these do not veil themselves) came to ask after our needs. When we left them they bade us farewell as though they were our relatives and our own folk, and you would see the women weeping out of grief at our departure." [Gibb, p. 415 - 416]
"We stayed here at the college mosque of the town... Now in all the lands inhabited by the Turkmens in Anatolia, in every district, town and village, there are to be found members of the organization known as the ... Young Brotherhood. Nowhere in the world will you find men so eager to welcome strangers, so prompt to serve food and to satisfy the wants of others... The members of this community work during the day to gain their livelihood, and bring ... what they have earned in the late afternoon. With this they buy fruit, food, and the other things which the hospice requires for their use. If a traveler comes to town that day they lodge him.... and he stays with them until he goes away. If there are no travelers they themselves assemble to partake of the food, and having eaten it they sing and dance. On the morrow they return to their occupations and bring their earnings to their leader in the late afternoon."
Go to Turkish villages and towns and this is how you'll be treated even in small cities but in the big cities its not as common.
------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 14:40
|
Mortaza that's what I said. If you say that there's no jihadism in Turkey, then thanks to our Religious Affairs Ministry, which has always been saying that tolerance and human rights are the basis of Islam. Therefore there's a wonderful -Muslim and at the same time democratic and humanist- community in Turkey. At the Ottoman ages, We did Jihad against Europe for almost 600 years saying "Kuffara kiyamet. (doomsday for Infidels!") Thanks to our Seyh-ul Islams, who were saying that "infidel west" must be destroyed.
Today, we realised that any type of "holy war" is terrible and must go to hell.! Republic period of Anatolia is the most peaceful period compared to the whole history. And then take a look at the misery of those "jihadist" middle eastern people and compare it with our situation.
Religious Affairs Ministry did a great job since secular Turkey republic.
And agricultural societies are inferior to industrilized socities. Science says this.
And guys, let's ignore this Bulldog's post, please.
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 14:48
|
Why, are you ashamed of your countries villagers? What's a "Jihadi", as far as I know its a term used by Islamophobe's on anti-muslim hate sites.Ottomans were hardly as you describe, they funded Protestantism and had the support of Netherlands, France and Protestant states.
And agricultural societies are inferior to industrilized socities. Science says this.
There is no "inferior" or "superior" society, science changes daily and really this isn't a scientific equation. ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 14:52
| I must calm down, and ignore this. |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 14:55
|
Mortaza that's what I said. If you say that there's no jihadism in Turkey, then thanks to our Religious Affairs Ministry, which has always been saying that tolerance and human rights are the basis of Islam.
Sufism does not come with Diyanet. Even people who dont follow diyanet(and be sure, diyanet is not so much respected by religious people.) are not jihadists.
Therefore there's a wonderful -Muslim and at the same time democratic and humanist- community in Turkey.
you are talking about which people? AKP?
At the Ottoman ages, We did Jihad against Europe for almost 600 years saying "Kuffara kiyamet. (doomsday for Infidels!") Thanks to our Seyh-ul Islams, who were saying that "infidel west" must be destroyed.
Pls you should know it better. Every enemy of ottomans were infidels, not only west but east too.(Shia.) Ottomans claimed jihad even against fellow muslims.
By the way, I should also add, Infact that ottomans were much more tolerant to christians than secular humanist turks.
Today, we realised that any type of "holy war" is terrible and must go to hell.!
all of our wars were holy, most probably all of our wars would be holy too.
can you tell me an unholy war we fought? this is called as brainwashing(Not only turkey do, but every countries do it.) No matter what we do, we are making a holy war.
Republic period of Anatolia is the most peaceful period compared to the whole history.
do you want to tell me ottomans fought so much war because of their religious society? Pls. do you believe this bullsh*t?
And then take a look at the misery of those "jihadist" middle eastern people and compare it with our situation.
Look at iran, do you see a lot jihadist? but they supported evil armenians against shia azeris. So, dont close your eyes and minds to others. It is still money and politics people follow. It is not important how much religious they are.
I should also add, which part of Turkey are you talking about? some part are better and some part are worse than arabic countries.
Religious Affairs Ministry did a great job since secular Turkey republic.
That is true. If we have same type of education ministry, we would be realy a peaciful country.
|
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 14:57
|
And agricultural societies are inferior to industrilized socities. Science says this.
By the way, do you have a link about this? or is this science only your idea. (are we talking about richness or tolerance?)
education is a good thing, If aim of education is good.
|
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 15:15
|
Finally you agree with me
And İ agree with you too
But atleast educated ones are better
That kind of things was happening at the age of Batuta bro. Time changed peopels.
Economy Politic says agricultural societies are inferior to industrilized socities ------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 15:22
|
Finally you agree with me :) why not? I dislike diyanet much. They should built an organization for every people(sunni, alevi, christian), or they should not built any organization. why do you think, I prefer to take my religious service with non-muslims money?
But atleast educated ones are better
why? Infact, I dont see much difference between an uneducated fanatic religious people, or an educated fanatic cumhuriyet reader. Both are close minded.
Economy Politic says agricultural societies are inferior to industrilized socities That is why I asked question. are we talking about richness or not. It is a known fact cities are more rich than villages.
|
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 15:34
İ agree with you again.
Well uneducated fanatic religious peoples throw bombs to cumhuriyet newspaper, they kill danıştay members, they kill nonmuslims(Santoro for ex.) or Alevis(Dont you remember howmany Alevi they killed in Sivas). But did you ever heard a cumuhuriyet reader bombed zaman newspaper or a mosq, did you ever heard they killed an sheyh or a fanatik muslim?
Not just richness actualy because money also changes social structure. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 15:39
|
You seem to have this idea that us in the UK or other Western European countries still have a late Victorian mind-set. This prejeduce mentallity is now redundant and frowned upon. Here alot of people would like to live in a small town or village, they like to protect their heritage, local architecture and customs especially in Itally.
People in big cities are not "superior" to those in villages and towns. Infact poverty levels and the lives of the less privaleged are actually worse in big cities. In town, small cities and villages the families are large and their unit is strong, they work together and help each other, they don't go hungry and have land.
Erkut
That kind of things was happening at the age of Batuta bro. Time changed peopels
Really? well last time I went to Turkey it was actually similar to Ibn Battuta's descriptions.
This country ... is one of the finest in the world; in it God has brought together the good things dispersed throughout other lands. Its people are the most comely (handsome) of men, the cleanest in their dress, the most delicious in their food, and the kindliest folk in creation. Wherever we stopped in this land, whether at a hospice or a private house, our neighbors both men and women (these do not veil themselves) came to ask after our needs. When we left them they bade us farewell as though they were our relatives and our own folk, and you would see the women weeping out of grief at our departure." [Gibb, p. 415 - 416]
We went to some villages and small towns, the locals always asked us to drink their tea, they bought us so much food even gave us shelter. We didn't know them for long but it felt as if we knew them for ages. Anything they had they let us use, they treated us as an equal, when we left the woman poured water over our car and were upset.
Battuta noted that Turkish men and woman were equal in Turkish society, even alot of woman don't veil and men don't bother them if they do or don't.
"...A remarkable thing which I saw in this country was the respect shown to women by the Turks, for they hold a more dignified position than the men. ... I saw also the wives of the merchants and common [men]. [Their faces are] visible for the Turkish women do not veil themselves. Sometimes a woman will be accompanied by her husband and anyone seeing him would take him for one of her servants."
Diyanet is a continuation of Seyh-ul-Islam under a different name, their essential as a regulatory body and not to allow Wahabbi money to infiltrate every mosque in the country. ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 15:40
|
Well uneducated fanatic religious peoples throw bombs to cumhuriyet newspaper,
Bombs were taken by army. It looks life, after cumhuriyet hear it, they stoped their propoganda.
they kill danıştay members
who? someone drink alchol? is this religious one? please.
But did you ever heard a cumuhuriyet reader bombed zaman newspaper or a mosq, did you ever heard they killed an sheyh or a fanatik muslim?
My friend, cumhuriyet is supporting a coup, they are trying to incite army. So It is absolutely not so innocent newspaper. Do you aware of thread?
Not just richness actualy because money also changes social structure.
Well so? Of course It changes social structure. |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 15:55
|
Guyz looks like you are heavily deviating from the original question maybe you should open a new thread in current events
------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 16:08
|
Ok i will follow our actual topic
Yeap any comments about Karamanis?
------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 16:18
|
I am curious, If they are ethnically turks or only asimilated turks.
But well, I think I will never learn it.
|
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 16:24
|
Mortaza;
The Ottoman empire was a feudal agricultural empire which was based on war economy, and whose motive was based religion, which made her citizens awfully religious, whose literacy rate was 1%. What you wrote about the Ottomans also proves my statement.
Turkey is worse than the West, guys, not the middle east nor the Ottomans.
|
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 16:36
|
The Ottoman empire was a feudal agricultural empire which was based on war economy halfly true, pls what type of empire can survive 600 year with war economy. I think you are to much effected with our tale-history.
whose motive was based religion, which made her citizens awfully religious,
sorry? do you have proofs or just again we are talking about your ideas? Ottomans gave christians more freedom than Turkey. Ottomans made their politics with mind not with religion. They allied christians against muslims or otherwise.
whose literacy rate was 1%
so tell me, when did literacy rate began to rise?
Turkey is worse than the West, guys, not the middle east nor the Ottomans.
Hmm? about what issue? We have same gdp with iran or If I am not wrong saudi arabia.
|
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 16:53
|
Then again Mortaza,
The Ottoman Empire was:
a feudal (not liberal)
agricultural (Not industrilized)
empire (Not republic),
which was based on war economy(not modern liberal economy)
what type of empire can survive 600 year with war economy?
Simply, an empire that is based on war economy. The Ottomans fought for 600 years, non stop. For more information, see the history of the Ottoman Empire.
Modern Turkey is the answer of your question about literacy.
Turkey is better than all of the middle eastern countries, in terms of industrilization, urbanization, westernization, modernization and so on.
but I won't discuss this in here
|
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 16:58
Well but you just said agricultural. So its not just war economy there was also a feudal agricultural system and trade ofcourse. ------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 17:06
|
The Ottoman Empire was:
a feudal (not liberal)
agricultural (Not industrilized)
empire (Not republic),
which was based on war economy(not modern liberal economy)
Hidden pls, we are talking about ottoman empire and history. Not modern times. At that times, economy mostly means, agriculture, trade and small shops. Ottomans have all of this.
will you accuse ottomans, because they have computer too?
Simply, an empire that is based on war economy. The Ottomans fought for 600 years, non stop. For more information, see the history of the Ottoman Empire.
so you think, ottoman empire have more bloody history than other empires?
Modern Turkey is the answer of your question about literacy.
modern turkey? or modern times? what do you think literacy rate at london at 1800 and istanbul?
You are looking history with the windows of modern times.
|
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 17:06
|
Of course, Erkut. But that agricultural system drove empires to fight, anyway. |
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 17:10
|
Then again, Mortaza;
The Ottoman Empire was:
a feudal (not liberal)
agricultural (Not industrilized)
empire (Not republic),
which was based on war economy(not modern liberal economy)
This is why the Ottomans were called "the sick man of Europe."
In 1800, the literacy rate in Britain (The motherland of Industrilization) was, without a doubt, higher by far than the literacy rate in the Ottoman Empire. |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 17:49
|
Hidden_Face
The Ottoman empire was a feudal agricultural empire
There are many books dedicated to the economic system of the Ottoman State, it was not simply a feudal agriculture, it had a large feudal agricultural population but your neglecting the Ottoman trade routes, its proffessional class, its exports and produce.
For example, Bursa was not just one of the richest states in the region but in the entire world due being a centre of textiles.
The Ahilik system based on Central Asian Ak Saqalik, the Charshi/Bazaars and so on are evidence against your claims.
HiddenFace
agricultural (Not industrilized)
Let's not forget how colonialist empires like the Brittish or French aquired such immense wealth. They were also largely agricultural and relied on feudal land lords.
The economic advantage they had was "America" and "Slavery". If the Ottomans had state authorised the slave trade like Western European powers did she also would have benefitted from it in the same way.
As inhumane as it sounds, Ottomans missed out economically speaking not being a part of the slave trade.
The Western European powers had tooken possession of which fertile lands and in addition a huge workforce of slaves which were regarded "property" and hence not paid for work.
Imagine having hundreds of acres of land and have it worked for free, unimaginable capitol was made from this.
With all this finance they could fund an industrial revolution much more easily than the Ottoman's could.
However, the Ottomans did start to industrialize, they had factories, were building a train network and modernizing from the early Tanzimat period.
Hidden_Face
In 1800, the literacy rate in Britain (The motherland of Industrilization) was, without a doubt, higher by far than the literacy rate in the Ottoman Empire.
The Brittish Empire or just Britain? how can you compare a province of an Empire to another Empire.
In main Ottoman cities literacy rate was not below that of Britain, in the 1800's there were primary schools, colleges, universities for most city
Hidden_Face
Turkey is better than all of the middle eastern countries, in terms of industrilization, urbanization, westernization, modernization and so on.
What has Westernization got to do with anything, being Westernized doesn't make anybody "better" or "worse", infact many Arab regimes are more Western in organisation than Turkey is, many African states are highly Westernized but not very prosperous or advanced in comparison to non-Western modern nations like China, Indonesia and so on.
p.s United Arab Emirates is one of the wealthiest, most modern and advanced regions in the world ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 18:01
| Bulldog, why are you talking about something you don't know clearly? |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 18:05
|
I do believe that about 1% of the Turkish population claims to be some type of Christian sect. Most of the Orthodox Christians were last forced out in 1955 and 1960-1. The few Protestant converts in Istanbul keep low profile and have limited religious freedom.
Remember, I was in Turkey and I met Christian converts and yes they have to keep low profile about their faith. They do not have the same freedom of religion that is found in the west, especially the US. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 21:41
|
There are many books dedicated to the economic system of the Ottoman State, Well funny enough I was talking precisely about that with a couple of Turkish Economic Historian complaining that there was almost no literature on premodern ottoman economic history because of the double barrier of the language and the type of sources that could be found. But most likely you know better. it was not simply a feudal agriculture, it had a large feudal agricultural population but your neglecting the Ottoman trade routes, its proffessional class, its exports and produce. The ottoman empire was late technicly wise since the beginning. One example: the arsenal of Istanbul is usually singled out as an achievement of the ottoman industries but it was actually a mere agregate of workshops whereas the Venetian Arsenale was more of an assembly line (ie organisational advantages). What did the merchants (most of them non Turk) bought in the Empire? Primary products and re-exports, non comparative advantage for the Ottoman industries (which existed at a large scale by the way).
For example, Bursa was not just one of the richest states in the region but in the entire world due being a centre of textiles.
produced in Iran. Take Venice as a comparison: it was a big port and a major industrialized city as early as the 13th century.
The Ahilik system based on Central Asian Ak Saqalik, the Charshi/Bazaars and so on are evidence against your claims.
What's that? Let's not forget how colonialist empires like the Brittish or French aquired such immense wealth. They were also largely agricultural and relied on feudal land lords.
England was not a feudal state after the 13th-14th century and France got rid of the last big lords in the 16th-early seventeenth century. Ie before the imperial and industrial expansion.
The economic advantage they had was "America" and "Slavery". If the Ottomans had state authorised the slave trade like Western European powers did she also would have benefitted from it in the same way.
True for America but merely because it provided land. Concerning slavery please refer to my reading note http://clio.frbb.net/Periodes-historiques-c3/Periode-moderne-f7/FL-Angleterre-et-traite-negriere-England-and-the-slave-trade-t61.htm - here (Also for a different point of. There was no clear correlation slave trade/wealth. See Portugal for instance, it went on for ages and never managed to threaten the English world domination, same is true for France. view see this http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/vforum/03/kennethPomeranz_lecture/ - video around the 25th minute but for you to know the man is specialist of China not the Atlantic trade)
As inhumane as it sounds, Ottomans missed out economically speaking not being a part of the slave trade.
A third or so of the Algerine population was slave never became a powerful state. Imagine having hundreds of acres of land and have it worked for free, unimaginable capitol was made from this.
The slaves in the antebellum Souther US states costed 90$ a year on average, while a white labourer costed 110$ in the North hence they were saving the faboulous amont of 20$. Reference: CARVILLE, Earle and HOFFMAN, Ronald (Dec., 1980), The Foundation of the Modern Economy: Agriculture and the Costs of Labor in the United States and England, 1800-60, The American Historical Review, 85/5, p.1055-1094.
With all this finance they could fund an industrial revolution much more easily than the Ottoman's could.
Right the fact that England's growth started in 1600 is not a problem for you and neither the fact that the true effects of the industrial revolution started in 1850 (bit late for slavery no?). http://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/page?_pageid=36,164276&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&item_link=lect-clark2002.htm - see video #2
However, the Ottomans did start to industrialize, they had factories, were building a train network and modernizing from the early Tanzimat period. So were Qing China and late Tokagawa/Meiji Japan and Japan did much better.
The Brittish Empire or just Britain? how can you compare a province of an Empire to another Empire.
In main Ottoman cities literacy rate was not below that of Britain, in the 1800's there were primary schools, colleges, universities for most city
You started by comparing London and Istanbul. Be my guess. I have a vague idea for London (around 85% by 1830 of the Londoner could sign by something else than a cross and knew their exact age). What about Istanbul?
What has Westernization got to do with anything, being Westernized doesn't make anybody "better" or "worse", infact many Arab regimes are more Western in organisation than Turkey is, many African states are highly Westernized but not very prosperous or advanced in comparison to non-Western modern nations like China, Indonesia and so on.
Lets say that the West has proved to have an efficient model. Other models are theoretically possible, but none has emerged yet. The UAE are too small ans specific to be really a model (as if we said, just do like Norway put the oil bonanza in a national pension fund).  It is my 1000th post yeah!------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 22:57
|
Maharbbal
produced in Iran. Take Venice as a comparison: it was a big port and a major industrialized city as early as the 13th century.
Well Silk was imported from Iran and China but the products were made and woven in Bursa. Huge wealth was made via this trade, also Carpet's were very popular in Europe throughout the middle ages like the "Hereke" and so on. The Tulip trade also made big bucks.
Alot of European and traders from other regions to the East came to Ottoman cities, attracted by opportunity, wealth and chance to expand enteprise.
Maharbbal
What's that?
Its quite complex to explain in brief, basically its to do with trade guilds, standardization, monitoring trade/regulations/quality, organising worker unions for the different trades, they're Igdisler were nominated to represent a certain guild or trade body to the government/divan.
Maharbbal
England was not a feudal state after the 13th-14th century and France got rid of the last big lords in the 16th-early seventeenth century. Ie before the imperial and industrial expansion.
Alot of colonies had feudal rule and were owned by powerfull land-lords.
One of England's richest men today is a land-lord.
Maharbbal
True for America but merely because it provided land. Concerning slavery please refer to my reading note http://clio.frbb.net/Periodes-historiques-c3/Periode-moderne-f7/FL-Angleterre-et-traite-negriere-England-and-the-slave-trade-t61.htm - here (Also for a different point of. There was no clear correlation slave trade/wealth. See Portugal for instance, it went on for ages and never managed to threaten the English world domination, same is true for France. view see this http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/vforum/03/kennethPomeranz_lecture/ - video around the 25th minute but for you to know the man is specialist of China not the Atlantic trade)
America had alot of land, however, who worked it? the slaves did and they did it for free.
I mean logically, if you and I had ten thousand acres of land each, I had my land worked for free by my "property" as slaves were under law and you had to pay your workers, I'd be much better off.
England and France used slavery to benefit their economy immensely, Dr Eric Williams and others argued it helped fund the Industrial revolution but the true economic impact is debated, however, it was obviously no small sum.
Maharrbal
A third or so of the Algerine population was slave
Who were these slaves? Algeria joined the Ottomans, it wasn't taken by force or in a war. The Ottomans didn't authorise state slavery, however, slavery existed in the empire.
Maharrbal
the fact that England's growth started in 1600 is not a problem for you and neither the fact that the true effects of the industrial revolution started in 1850 (bit late for slavery no?).
The accumulated wealth of the slave trade allowed businesses to invest and buy more land, secure more resources and control more land. The slave trade was officially abolished but the colonies remained and life didn't get much better for the freed slaves. The land carried on being exploited and carried on generating huge capital gains.
------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 04:04
|
Then again, Mortaza;
The Ottoman Empire was:
a feudal (not liberal)
agricultural (Not industrilized)
empire (Not republic),
which was based on war economy(not modern liberal economy)
Abi Allah askına, bu sylediklerin zaten ka yıllık tarihleri varda osmanlıyı bunlarla yargılıyorsun? Bu gnn penceresiyle gemişe bakmayı bırakırsan saglıklı olur. 700 yıl once kurulan bir imparatorluğu son 200 yuz yıllık gelişmelerle yargılaman cok ciddiyetsiz. Allahdan uzaya cıkamadık, sonra osmanlı uzaya cıkamadı diyede eklerdin dort maddeye.
Artı su savas ekonomisi kısmını liberal olmayan ekonomi olarak adlandır istersen, ama kısmı olarak dogru.
In 1800, the literacy rate in Britain (The motherland of Industrilization) was, without a doubt, higher by far than the literacy rate in the Ottoman Empire.
Higher by far? what do you think? Britain have 50% 60% literacy rate?
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 04:45
| please in English Mortaza, you know the rules. |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 06:10
|
Ok I am sorry(English is limiting me a little).
My point was, Ottomans were empire of old times, not modern times.So It is too normal, they have no republic, Industrilization, or advanced(Acording to our times.) economy.
It is funny to judge ottomans with ideas of modern times.
|
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 11:25
|
I gave it to you as an example, Mortaza. You said it needed to be proven, and I meant to say there s no need, Ottoman empire was what I exactly described, which is obvious, can be seen another sources, including western ones. in 1800's Ottomans, almost all Ottoman intellectuals asked themselves the same question: "Why are we inferior to the west - what is the real reason."
The answer was the same as the one Karl Marx found. Karl Marx also studied the Ottomans' sociological-economical situation carefully.
Namik Kemal and Ziya Gokalp wrote the same, as well.
But you are saying to me that there's no significant difference between Turkey and western europe in 1800's, which is not true, clearly.
Even, Osman II realized that the west was more advanced than the Ottoman empire in 1620's.
In 1877, finally, Turkey decided to be a constitutional monarchy, instead of theoretical absolutism.
Think about it.
|
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 11:39
A great intellectual Taha Akyol says:
http://www.milliyet.com/2007/02/23/yazar/akyol.html - http://www.milliyet.com/2007/02/23/yazar/akyol.html
Interesting analyze.
What do you all think?
|
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 11:51
|
There you go!!!
http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/haber.aspx?id=5276268 - http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/haber.aspx?id=5276268
First answer this article!
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 12:28
|
Hidden_Face
But you are saying to me that there's no significant difference between Turkey and western europe in 1800's, which is not true, clearly.
Prior to the 1820-40's there was no significant power inbalance.
Ottoman's could have improved their situation by
- Joining European powers in exploiting and colonising the unknown world, securing strategic points and natural resources.
- Joining Western European powers in the Atlantic Slave Trade
- Reforming their method of rule earlier, investing more in state education.
- Forcefully assimilating any large minorities calling it "civillising" creating an elite in all the lands which the empire ruled over who would Ottomanify the masses creating a nation state.
The Gold being bought from America's to Europe caused a shockwave in the economy, the weakening of the Silk and Spice route lessened the strategic trade importance of the Ottoman regions.
However, if the Ottomans hadn't made awfull strategic decisions in prior to WW1, they could have survived and if they had they would have had a revival period especially if AbdulHamit II had been able to carry out his policies to a further extent.
p.s Hurriyet and Milliyet newspaper's are populist tabloids, there as historically accurate as the "Sun" or "Daily Star".
------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 12:41
|
Man! Stop this bullsh*t! Hurriyet is the biggest newspaper in Turkey. And there's no such thing as "tabloid" in Turkey.
Learn it!
What's more, I provided Taha Akyol's article, who is a respected intellectual, and Murat Bardakci's article, who is a respected historian.
I am sick of your lack of knowledge!
|
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 12:47
|
Bulldog, from now on, dont try to answer my posts, please. Ignore me.
I dont want to correct your irrelevant statements anymore.
|
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 13:35
|
I gave it to you as an example, Mortaza. You said it needed to be proven, and I meant to say there s no need, Ottoman empire was what I exactly described, which is obvious, can be seen another sources, including western ones. in 1800's Ottomans, almost all Ottoman intellectuals asked themselves the same question: "Why are we inferior to the west - what is the real reason."
are we talking about ottoman empire, or last 200 year of ottoman empires. Of course, Ottoman empire was behind europe, that is why ottomans finished.
Just like turkey is behind of europea.
By the way, even hurriyet is biggest newspaper of Turkey. It has not any credibility.(Not about this issues.)
anyway, what was our topic?
 |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 14:11
|
Hidden_Face
Man! Stop this bullsh*t!
What colourfull language...
Hidden_Face
Hurriyet is the biggest newspaper in Turkey.
Biggest? you mean most read...and so what if it is...
Hidden_Face
And there's no such thing as "tabloid" in Turkey.
Do you even know what a tabloid is? A newspaper that tends to emphasise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism - sensational crime stories, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip_column - gossip columns repeating scandalous innuendos about the personal lives of celebrities and sports stars, and other so-called " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_food_news - junk food news ".
This is what Hurriyet is, a populist tabloid focusing on sensatinalising news or sticking a half naked woman on its back page in order to make more sales.
Its hardly a "respectable" broadsheet.
Hidden_Face
Originally posted by Ertugrul Ozkok Hurriyet Newspaper WoW, what a source, are you suprised that he's not referring to the paper who pays his wages as one that caters for "junk food news".Now if that isn't bad enough, comparing "Hurriyet" to the Financial Times is nothing more than an insult. Talk about blowing your own trumpet, he should know his paper's place.
Articles written in such paper's are not very intellectual.
------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 14:19
|
Ohhh, Bulldog, copy from wikipedia, then paste it to here. And then say "do you know what a tabloid is." Muhaha. You made my day, bulldog.
Enough is enough.!
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 14:25
|
And that is what Hurriyet is, why does it upset you? ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 14:30
|
Guys, even hurriyet is nothing more than a trash,
Taha Akyol's article, who is a respected intellectual, and Murat Bardakci's article, who is a respected historian.
is true.
I should just add, Murat Bardakci is not a historian, but he interest with history.( a little different.)
|
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 14:41
|
@ Hidden Face
Calm down for heaven's sake ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 15:25
|
Bulldog, If you were someone who knew Turkish media well, I would be able to prove you that Hurriyet is NOT what is known as a tabloid in the UK. But you know nothing about the issue.
Both Murat Bardakci and Taha Akyol are credible columnists, first of all.
What they wrote is true, secondly.
And thanks for correction, Mortaza, indeed, Murat Bardakci wasn't a professional Historian.
This is my last post in this thread. Sorry Maharbbal. Believe me, this Bulldog is just misinforming people.
|
Posted By: Mordoth
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 19:39
|
What about Saka - Chuwasestan and Yakut Turks?
They are located at Eastern Edge of Russia .
Are they also Christianized ? ------------- If Electricity Comes from Electrons ; does Morality come from Morons :| |
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 07:18
|
Chuvash Turks are Orthodox Christians. About half of Yakuts are also Orthodox Christians but there are still some Shamanist Yakuts too ------------- |