European Politics

Good for them keeping the video up .. too bad they really do not mean

The EU was more forthright in its criticism, saying that summoning the German envoy did not seem to be in line with the EU's cherished freedoms of the press and of expression.
 
More Erdoğan related stuff.

Erdoğan visits the U.S today. Upon arrival, a couple of protestors gathered around. Erdoğan's guards tried to push them away to no avail. Their solution to drown out the "Terrorist Erdoğan" chants by one of the supporters was quite amusing.


@Forostar

I'm really glad that international public are more reactionary towards Erdoğan nowadays. Good to have allies against him all around. You're only scratching the surface with him though, you know how dark he is, but he is actually WAY darker than you think. That video doesn't touch upon the subject of corruption and other illegal activities.
 
Last edited:
If Turkey wants to get into the EU, they need to seriously work on their massive human rights problems across the land. Even the Ottomans had a tolerance system within their own lands.
 
RTC said:
but they at least made more effort to improve social progress within their own lands.
Click to expand...

Only where it suited them. People often point out the good position the Greeks and Kurds had in the Ottoman Empire as an indicator for the ethnic and religious tolerance in those times. But one really has to break down why those people were so well off: They were the population majority in significant parts of the empire. Ask anyone from the Balkans how they felt about Ottoman rule. Or ask Christians from some more rural, Islamic dominated areas how they fared. Spoiler: Not very well.

The Ottoman Empire really is a very poor historical reference point because it was very large and had a very long history. There was too much diversity and heterogeneity in its historical and territorial distribution to make any sort of blanket statements about "what the Ottomans did". Sure, a Phanariot in Constantinople had a pretty good life throughout Ottoman history, but an Assyrian in Cezîre, not so much.
 
Again, I'm far from saying the Ottomans had a good system in place, but there were at least attempts during its complicated history to try and enact something close to social progress in some areas of the empire; their conquests brought a lot more bad than good, just like the Umayyad conquests.

Yes, perhaps it suited their best interests to allow for more tolerance within the population, and yes, some were given more rights than others. But it is important to note that they weren't stubborn, which is something the current Turkish government is in their denial of rights for Kurds.
 
Rather than a conscious attempt at social progress in the Ottoman system, is this relating to the old tradition of a theoretically protected, or second class citizen status, for other 'people of the book' (ie Jewish or Christian) living in an Islamic state? I've read a bit of this in relation to medieval Spain.
 
To an extent, perhaps. But there was undoubtedly active Ottoman support for non-Muslim populations that went beyond the call of Islamic laws. Many Christians rose to high ranks in Ottoman hierarchy even though there would have been enough Muslims up for the task. The best-known example are the Greeks of Constantinople, known as the Phanariots, who were often wealthy merchants plugged into international networks. The Ottomans benefited quite a lot from those. On the other hand, there were cases in which the lawful protection of book religions was simply ignored, as in the case of the Badr Xan massacres that I linked to above.
 
RTC said:
If Turkey wants to get into the EU, they need to seriously work on their massive human rights problems across the land. Even the Ottomans had a tolerance system within their own lands.
Click to expand...

No they didn't. Turkey is a saint's land compared to the Ottoman Empire which oppressed (you could even say enslaved in the case of Janissary) and massacred its people.

Entrance into the EU is a pipedream for Turkey. It will never happen.
 
Perun said:
To an extent, perhaps. But there was undoubtedly active Ottoman support for non-Muslim populations that went beyond the call of Islamic laws. Many Christians rose to high ranks in Ottoman hierarchy even though there would have been enough Muslims up for the task. The best-known example are the Greeks of Constantinople, known as the Phanariots, who were often wealthy merchants plugged into international networks. The Ottomans benefited quite a lot from those. On the other hand, there were cases in which the lawful protection of book religions was simply ignored, as in the case of the Badr Xan massacres that I linked to above.
Click to expand...

Going off present-day politics topic slightly, there were also specific examples of Christian individuals or sections of the population in al-Andalus who also rose to prominence under various authorities. Modern writers don't usually consider it to have been a charitable attitude to non-Muslims half as much as an arrangement for practical purposes - notably when there were factions among the elite of a particular area. Non-Muslims were effectively considered neutral and trustworthy, not likely to take sides in the politics.
 
Brigantium said:
Going off present-day politics topic slightly, there were also specific examples of Christian individuals or sections of the population in al-Andalus who also rose to prominence under various authorities. Modern writers don't usually consider it to have been a charitable attitude to non-Muslims half as much as an arrangement for practical purposes - notably when there were factions among the elite of a particular area. Non-Muslims were effectively considered neutral and trustworthy, not likely to take sides in the politics.
Click to expand...

To my shame, I don't know terribly much about al-Andalus. But it was always my impression that apart from the ruling elite, Muslims never played a particularly prominent role in the populace. Incidentally, many of the countries we nowadays consider "Muslim" such as Egypt or Syria were still predominantly Christian by the 15th century, which was both when al-Andalus fell and the Ottomans rose. So I always find it very difficult speaking of religious duty of the rulers to be charitable towards non-Muslims, when it was in fact just the necessity to keep the majority of the population loyal. Interestingly, it is historically attested that many early conversions to Islam had no background in faith, but merely in the wish to avoid the higher taxes non-Muslims had to pay.
 
Perun said:
Incidentally, many of the countries we nowadays consider "Muslim" such as Egypt or Syria were still predominantly Christian by the 15th century, which was both when al-Andalus fell and the Ottomans rose.
Click to expand...

Probably hit the nail on the head, there. One real problem we encountered with old sources (apart from the obvious translation ones, goodness knows who originally did that) was working out who they are referring to. People described as Muslims by the Christian kingdoms could well have been subjects of the non-Christian rulers, and not necessarily Muslims. Families seem to have converted between religions numerous times over the generations, too, it was difficult to work out their identity.
 
It has been my experience with the history of empires in general that conquering nations generally treat the conquered with respect to how advanced the individual defeated area was before enrolling them into their own grouping. The more prosperous the region, the more prosperous it is treated. I don't know if that applies as well to the Ottomans (as my early-to-mid Ottoman history is not superb), but it seems to be logical based on what I do know, and what is being said here.
 
The Flash said:
No they didn't. Turkey is a saint's land compared to the Ottoman Empire which oppressed (you could even say enslaved in the case of Janissary) and massacred its people.

Entrance into the EU is a pipedream for Turkey. It will never happen.
Click to expand...

I never insinuated that the Ottoman Empire was a better places to live than modern day Turkey, because that's obviously not the case. What I'm saying is that the Ottomans actually encouraged some tolerance in their lands in a very intolerant time. The current Turkish government isn't because they are denying the Kurds their rights, even though their civilization is more tolerant because of the development of society globally.

Ariana said:
"Under the Ottoman Empire, Christians and Jews were, in principle, tolerated, ...
Forced conversion of those raised by a non-Muslim father ....was not a standard practice."

Ha! Ha! Ha! Tell that to the thousands of Bulgarians who were killed because they did not want to convert to Islam.
Click to expand...

The tentative language indicates that this is a generalization, not an 100% fact.
 
RTC said:
What I'm saying is that the Ottomans actually encouraged some tolerance in their lands in a very intolerant time.
Click to expand...

I understand your point here, but the problem is that we're talking about an empire with a 500 year history here. So the statement about tolerance in a very intolerant time is just too general to make something out of it.
 
The Flash said:
I'm really glad that international public are more reactionary towards Erdoğan nowadays. Good to have allies against him all around. You're only scratching the surface with him though, you know how dark he is, but he is actually WAY darker than you think. That video doesn't touch upon the subject of corruption and other illegal activities.
Click to expand...
This is dark. Terrible:
http://www.dw.com/en/amnesty-turkey-illegally-sending-syrians-back-to-war-zone/a-19157179
"In their desperation to seal their borders, EU leaders have willfully ignored the simplest of facts: Turkey is not a safe country for Syrian refugees and is getting less safe by the day," said John Dalhuisen, Amnesty International's Director for Europe and Central Asia.

Amnesty also says Turkey has scaled back the registration of Syrian refugees in the southern provinces, making it impossible for them to access basic services.

"Having witnessed the creation of Fortress Europe, we are now seeing the copycat construction of Fortress Turkey,"
Click to expand...
 
So, one of the leading stories in Turkey in the past couple of weeks:

45 little boys were raped in an Islamic preschool/primary school institution. The institution has strong alliance to AKP. Main story is the AKP's attempt to cover up the story and let the institution go unpunished. The Minister of Family and Social Policies dared to utter the sentence "Just one time doesn't mean anything" in relation to the events.

A proposal to investigate the crime and the negligence involved was rejected by the parliament with AKP MP votes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top