Turks: The Bad Part

Much has been said about the Turks colonizing Arab lands. I guess in a way African Americans did manage to ``colonize`` the New World and then dominated its music, sports, and manual labor aspects. You see, Turks were first brought to the Middle East from Central Asia as military slaves in the 9th and 10th centuries by the Arabs. Turkish tribes used to sell their sons who were considered good warrior material by the Arabs. By the 11th century and 12th centuries, descendants of these slaves were running the military affairs of the Abbasids and were establishing Sultantes in Delhi, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt.

The Ottomans took most of the Arab world in the early 16th century under Selim I (Selim Yavuz or Salim the Grim). Colonization means taking a country, settling it with your own people and exploiting its resources for the mother country. Australia, America, New Zealand, South Africa, and Israel are real examples of colonization. The Turks conquered the Arab lands, garrisoned them with Turks, provided Turkish administration, but left the people and land pretty much to local control. Turkish never replaced Arabic in any of the conquered territories. In fact, if it were not for Turkish intervention, all of North Africa would have fallen into Christian hands following the Reconquista of Spain in the 15th century. Prior to that, it was the Turkish Mamelukes who stopped the Mongols from reaching Egypt by handing them their first major defeat in what is today Israel. Also, it was the Turkish Sultan Baibars who finished off the Crusaders` last strongholds in Syria and Lebanon.

What the Ottoman Turks provided for their Arab subjects were 400 hundred years of stable rule, with very little bloodshed, hardly any civil wars, and freedom from foreign invasion. Christian Arabs and Armenians, who were the at forefront of the anti-Turkish Arab nationalism, at the behest of Christian European powers, have termed these four centruries as the Age of Stagnation. Apparently, Arabs have a hard time with peace, harmony, and stability.

Fenasi Kerim {``Why is it surprising then that the Arabs grabbed the opportunity to be free? It is pointless to argue whether or not they would have been better off with the Turks. The important question is, why cannot the Turkish public understand the simple desire of people to be free? Turks think that the Arabs were treated with complete fairness and justice under the Ottomans.``}

Fenasi,
You are right. The Turks should not blame the Arabs for joining the British and wanting their freedom - having Hashimite rulers over Transjordan, Syria, Iraq, and Hijaz provided immense freedom to the Arab masses living there. Also, the British gave the Arabs total freedom through the Balfour Declaration. The French split off Lebanon, a gerrymandered slice of Syria to provide a Manorite Christian majority state, to add to more Arab freedom. Iraq is going through its third stage of western democracy and total freedom. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the cornerstones of Arab democracy. Please give us a break from your illogical assertions. Thanks,

#65 so, arab whine about imperialism is right or wrong about less than 50 years of west? you are one of the best white-washers of history, empires like ottomans provided military muscle to minority tribes to control larger masses, case in point the current iraq. right thing to say is colonialization is not a new or western concept...there were different kinds of colonozations in various power vaccums thats all.

let us be fare, just like turks get kudos for providing stability, they get the kudos for leaving these regions with lack of institutions and modernity and weak politics while the neighboring europe became modern. as a result the french and the english could do as they pleased with surprisingly small militaries.

Jang, #67, {``... you are one of the best white-washers of history, empires like ottomans provided military muscle to minority tribes to control larger masses...
let us be fare, just like turks get kudos for providing stability, they get the kudos for leaving these regions with lack of institutions and modernity and weak politics while the neighboring europe became modern. as a result the french and the english could do as they pleased with surprisingly small militaries. ``}

Jang,
Both the Turks and Arabs suffered from falling behind Europe in developing dynamic institutions and modernizing their affairs. As soon as the Turks were able to separate religion from government, they were able to develop modern institutions, learn to practice tolerance, and embark upon universal education for both males and females. To accuse Turks of colonialism against Arabs is not accurate. Perhaps Turks were imperialists, especially when it came to ruling over the Christian Greeks, Serbs, Bulgars, Ukrainians, Romanians, and Hungarians. But being part of the Ummah, the Arabs were not deprived of the same institutions that governed the lives of Muslim Turks. In fact, speaking of institutions, to this day Muslim Istanbul, and not Christian Athens, is the seat of the Greek Orthodox Church. The conquest of North Africa by the French, Italians, and the British happened in the 19th century - when the local Arab leaders in each were nominally under the influence of the Sultan in Constantinople. Turkey lost Libya to the Italians along with the Dodecanese Islands.

The fact of the matter is that, unlike Ottomans, Kamal Ataturk was not interested in empire building. He could have taken all of Macedonia, his birthplace and a province with a sizable Turkish population, from the Greeks, who had just been thoroughly routed in Anatolia in the 1920s. If Ataturk wanted he could have redeemed the Dodecanese Islands, some visible from the Turkish mainland, that Italy turned over to the Greeks. Just before WWII, Ataturk cautioned Ismir Inonu not to get involved in the great war that would consume Europe. He emphasized that Turkey should stay out of the upcoming war, which is what the Turks did. Had they wanted to fish in troubled waters, they could have joined the Nazis and took care of the Balkans and southern Russia with who knows what outcome. The fact remains, thanks to Ataturk, that Turkey is no longer a predator nation nor an easy prey. That is exactly the point of modern Turkey. No amount of Jihadi rhetoric, EU carrot, or American hegemony is going to change that.

salim i agree that atatruk was a smart guy.. he did spectacular things like re-importing of roman script the eastern roman empire, purge arabic from turki, get turkey to recognize the real enemy (the arab ;-) ) and ensure that turkish developed a pretty good state, get me some very nice turki frends who i will cherish for ever..i heard recently they even allow the murderous khurds to celebrate the pagan Navroz. that is something. most importantly as you pointed out, he made turks more insular to the benefit of everyone. i love the turkish tradition of washing guests hands with eau-de-cologne in these days of the bird flue.

here is an anecdote about ``blonde`` hair...the eyranians in the US love blonde hair even more. so much so that one indian lady did a more extreme highlight, and she was considered to have gone eyeranian by rest of the indian communiy LOL...in a huff she now calls her baingan bhurta Kashke Bademjan, and frequents the Caspian Cafe for tips on how to make the Dough.

#70, Jang,
With that attitude and hair color, your desan friend will make lots of dough. :)
The Kurds are nice people and there are many many Kurds in Istanbul. It`s the ones close to the Syrian and Iraqi borders that think they should have a country of their own - and the funny thing is that they are more Sunni than the Turks. :) Another amusing situation is that, because Urdu borrows from Farsi and Kurdish is quite close to Farsi, I, with no Kurdish roots, find it easier to understand Kurds better than Turks. LOL

Mr or Mrs Fenasi Kerim


``In Pakistan, Punjabis are extremely chauvinistic towards other ethnic groups ``





This is what ENCARTA, which is by all means very neutral has to say about Pakistani Punjabis.(Under the heading `cultural groups in Pakistan`

``Punjabis constitute 58 percent of the population. They have diverse origins, but over the centuries they coalesced into a coherent ethnic group in the historic Punjab region and developed a common language, Punjabi. Today most Punjabis prefer to read and write in Pakistan’s official language, Urdu, and their language-based ethnic identity is relatively weak``.

This is UNLIKE Pathans and Sindhis or for that matter any other ethnic group in Pakistan.
I therefore refute your idea that Punjabis are predominantly chauvinists.

x-entric: jazakallah!!

when someone stereotypes one community of people (as the writer is doing for panjabis), that is clear sign that the man has the brains of a goat. and obviously, from evidence presented on chowk, the subcontinent has herds and herds of goats.

Kemal Ataturk was a great man and a hero for all of Islamic World.... he ushered the Muslim world into an era of Republican democracy and modernised Turkey...

Pakistanis who are bashing Kemal Ataturk must know that Muslim League used to commemorate Ataturk on November 18 ... as ``Kemal Day``... and his wonderful successor... the great Ismet Inonu was a close confidant of our young republic...

Re: # 72

Rolling on the floor and holding my sides ...a brialliant diatribe!

Mantolives, #73, {``Kemal Ataturk was a great man and a hero for all of Islamic World.... he ushered the Muslim world into an era of Republican democracy and modernised Turkey... ``}

Manto,
Thank you for recognizing the contribution of Ataturk Mustafa Kemal Pasha. It is well known that when the great leader died he had something like $28 in his bank account. Lack of corruption, indomitable determination, clear vision, cool courage, and a genuine concern for the welfare of his people are what he is remembered for. Those who get emotional about his much-needed reforms in altering script, discouraging old-fashioned rituals and modes of dress, and instituting secularism, need to study this man objectively. Thanks again.

Good to know some of you enjoyed the article. Clarification: The views expressed are mine alone. This is what I experienced, not what I concluded after hardcore research.


# 2, I studied engineering in Ankara.

#4 and #5, Like I said, this is all based on personal experience, not research. I lived there for seven years.

#6-7, I cant please everyone.

#18, {Turks you met seem to be just like people in all other countries to the dot.} I agree, up to a point. Turks are extremely nationalistic, more so than your average country. Only the armenians I have met are as bad.

#66, Everyone wants freedom, whatever ``freedom`` is. I do not claim that the Arabs are better off now then they would have been under the Turks. Muslims of south asia wanted freedom from the British and a separate homeland from the Hindus, and they got it. (With hindsight) I would have opposed the division of India but I would submit to the popular will. Is that too hard to understand?

I do intend to write another piece discussing the good qualities amoung Turks.

#71, {I therefore refute your idea that Punjabis are predominantly chauvinists.}

Perhaps I have had the misfortune to have met only the chauvinists. But I agree with you that the same can be said for the other ethnic groups.

Fenasi #76 and #77
{``Perhaps I have had the misfortune to have met only the chauvinists``}.
You must have some really bad luck. :)

{``...This is what I experienced, not what I concluded after hardcore research. ``}
You could have fooled most of us. :)

{``... Like I said, this is all based on personal experience, not research. I lived there for seven years. ... ``}
Must you be so persistent about this?

{``I cant please everyone. ...``}
That`s the first complete truth from you so far.

{``Turks are extremely nationalistic, more so than your average country. Only the armenians I have met are as bad.``}
So, there is a group that is almost as bad as Turks - in your opinion?

{``..I do intend to write another piece discussing the good qualities amoung Turks. ``}
We can`t wait. Is this one going to be based on ``hardcore research?`` Will you now tell us how sweet is the taste of good baklava?

Re: # 78 {We can`t wait. Is this one going to be based on ``hardcore research?`` Will you now tell us how sweet is the taste of good baklava?}

No one is asking you to read it. If I wanted to write something based on real research, I would write on applied mathematics and vehicle dynamics (but you might not understand all that with your MBA). And just so you know, good baklava is not very sweet, unlike the stuff you get in Istanbul (which is probably what you had at your wedding).

#79, Fenasi,
I disagree with many of your subjective comments. I do however support your right to write as you please and to proclaim your envy of the nation that hosted you for seven years - after all you can take a Paki out of Pakistan but you can`t take the personality out of the Paki.
Anyway, thank you for your observations. I hope that your Turkish hosts felt a lot better about you than you did about them.