Duo
Southern Sun
well if u look at the borders of europe you will notice that at least half ot turkey fits in the european continent. The debate of turkey going or not going into the EU rests more upon cultural connections rather than religious.
Immigration Islamic Europe?
- Thread starter Wang
- Start date
Duo, what do you mean that at least half of Turkey fits in the European continent ? Isn't it usually agreed that only the tiny part between Istanbul and Bulgaria is geographically European ?
If we look at this map on Wikipedia. they put Turkey and the part of Russia beyond the Ural in the same category, i.e. "extension over Asia of the continous territory of European states". So Turkey is recognised as a European state but mostly on Asian land.
The problem is to determine whether this is good enough for EU admission. I am pretty sure that if Turkey was not Muslim, most Europeans would accept it more easily. But there is too much ignorance about Turkey among ordinary Europeans. Most Turkis people have Celtic, Germanic, Greek or Latin blood, in addition to Turkish one. I have seen many Turks with blue eyes (in some regions about 1/4 of the people, whic is more than in other Southern European countries), which at least proves the Celtic and Germanic connection. So for me, the Turks qualify ethnically, and historically. Their government is secular (maybe more than the German one), and the Turks are usually as Muslim as most Europeans are Christians; in other words, most don't care much, drink alcohol anyway, don't wear Mulsim clothes, and the mosques are empty even on Friday. For all these reason, I think Turkey qualifies. There is one thing that disturbs me though; the Kurdish issue. The Kurds are clearly not European in any respect. Turkey somehow occupies their land against their will and has a poor human rights record on the issue. So it would be much easier for me to accept Turkey in the EU if they gave ther independence to the Kurds, which means 1/4 of the country split to the South-East. This way, the EU would have no direct borders with Iran and Iraq, th Turkey would have a clear conscience, and be more ethnically European, and enjoy a higher GDP per capita (as the Kurds are by far the poorest).
If we look at this map on Wikipedia. they put Turkey and the part of Russia beyond the Ural in the same category, i.e. "extension over Asia of the continous territory of European states". So Turkey is recognised as a European state but mostly on Asian land.
The problem is to determine whether this is good enough for EU admission. I am pretty sure that if Turkey was not Muslim, most Europeans would accept it more easily. But there is too much ignorance about Turkey among ordinary Europeans. Most Turkis people have Celtic, Germanic, Greek or Latin blood, in addition to Turkish one. I have seen many Turks with blue eyes (in some regions about 1/4 of the people, whic is more than in other Southern European countries), which at least proves the Celtic and Germanic connection. So for me, the Turks qualify ethnically, and historically. Their government is secular (maybe more than the German one), and the Turks are usually as Muslim as most Europeans are Christians; in other words, most don't care much, drink alcohol anyway, don't wear Mulsim clothes, and the mosques are empty even on Friday. For all these reason, I think Turkey qualifies. There is one thing that disturbs me though; the Kurdish issue. The Kurds are clearly not European in any respect. Turkey somehow occupies their land against their will and has a poor human rights record on the issue. So it would be much easier for me to accept Turkey in the EU if they gave ther independence to the Kurds, which means 1/4 of the country split to the South-East. This way, the EU would have no direct borders with Iran and Iraq, th Turkey would have a clear conscience, and be more ethnically European, and enjoy a higher GDP per capita (as the Kurds are by far the poorest).
nurizeko
Banned
- Messages
- 148
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
- Location
- aberdeen, scotland
- Ethnic group
- Half scottish half Germanic, i got blood from austria, germany, scotland england, im a mongrol.
Mac put it beautifully, the gaulish migration into galitea, the constant comming and goings of greeks and romans and other europeans and asians through asia minor, it indeed does have a link to Europe BUT, purely based on geography, does it warrant turkish membership to the EU?....
If we admit Turkey, an arguably ASIAN country, into the EUROPEAN union, then when does membership stop?, if we admit Turkey then we can safely admit the entire middle east, north africa, and the rest of asia if it so took our fancy.
My point is, where does the boundries for european membership end?, where does an organization soley made for european nations decide that europe has finished?.
If Turkey is admitted then the EU should change its name, and remove the europe, its not that big a problem since the EU wont survive long enough to get much more members then Turkey, if they still want to join, but its just a principal, its like making a north-american union and then admitting the ivory coast or something.
Edit: An interesting thought occured to me, go to turkey, and poll a random selection of 1000 Turks, and see how many actually considor themselves european.
If we admit Turkey, an arguably ASIAN country, into the EUROPEAN union, then when does membership stop?, if we admit Turkey then we can safely admit the entire middle east, north africa, and the rest of asia if it so took our fancy.
My point is, where does the boundries for european membership end?, where does an organization soley made for european nations decide that europe has finished?.
If Turkey is admitted then the EU should change its name, and remove the europe, its not that big a problem since the EU wont survive long enough to get much more members then Turkey, if they still want to join, but its just a principal, its like making a north-american union and then admitting the ivory coast or something.
Edit: An interesting thought occured to me, go to turkey, and poll a random selection of 1000 Turks, and see how many actually considor themselves european.
What about Eurasian Union then ? We wouldn't even have to change the initials, Japan could become a member (if it adjusts its legal system) and there would be no visa or voting right issue between Europeans and Japanese. 
Frankly, I think that even if Turkey joins the EU, no other "Asian" country could be admitted, as they have no cultural, ethnical and even geographical (Istanbul is mostly in Europe) claims.
As you said, many Turks see themselves as Europeans (other Asians or North Africans don't). What's more, Turkey has been asking for EU membership for about 40 years, while no other country in Asia have or could consider it.
Frankly, I think that even if Turkey joins the EU, no other "Asian" country could be admitted, as they have no cultural, ethnical and even geographical (Istanbul is mostly in Europe) claims.
As you said, many Turks see themselves as Europeans (other Asians or North Africans don't). What's more, Turkey has been asking for EU membership for about 40 years, while no other country in Asia have or could consider it.
nurizeko
Banned
- Messages
- 148
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
- Location
- aberdeen, scotland
- Ethnic group
- Half scottish half Germanic, i got blood from austria, germany, scotland england, im a mongrol.
After Alexander the Greats conquest of the known world and the hellenization of cultures right up to india's border, its quite arguable that the middle eastern world to pakistan itself has a common cultural link to europe, since the macedonians and greek allies brought alot of greek culture to alexanders empire, and many wounded and retired soldiers and their families from alexanders army retired to places in the new (and short lived) empire.
The holy lands could join up, egypt aswell (hellenized: Plotemic egypt), north africa, especially french bits of it that were heavily colonized, infact anywhere europeans have touched and effected can argue in a way that they have common link to europe, united states of america being one.
Still, i dont think after Turkey any other non-european nation will be admitted, and even though i dont see the point myself, Turkey will probably gt membership if it still wants it.
The holy lands could join up, egypt aswell (hellenized: Plotemic egypt), north africa, especially french bits of it that were heavily colonized, infact anywhere europeans have touched and effected can argue in a way that they have common link to europe, united states of america being one.
Still, i dont think after Turkey any other non-european nation will be admitted, and even though i dont see the point myself, Turkey will probably gt membership if it still wants it.
Keoland
Regular Member
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Lisbon, Portugal
- Ethnic group
- Celtic (Central Galicia)
The Turkish issue always was a difficult one for Europe.
Let us not dawdle much around minor points: the issue regarding Turkey is RELIGION.
After all, Eastern Thrace lies clearly in Europe (denying it would imply Constantinople is not European, something that nobody would admit), and most Turks are related in one way or another to an european people.
(Maciamo, Kurds are also indo-europeans. One notices this when among them, especially because of the blonde hair and green eyes of many)
So, we should concentrate on weather Islam is compatible with the EU as it is being formed or not.
Of course, one can always say that Turkey has a more secular Islam than other muslim countries, but that belies one fundamental truth: that secularism is kept and guarded by the Army, not by the population. It is the military that has ensured that Islamic extremists remain in check and that the population does not swing to islamic parties en masse (even Erdogan himself was considered 'dangerous' by the Army, as he has a very islamicized view of society).
However, the EU values do not accept well a strong military presence in a nations' politics. To enter the Union, Turkeys' military must yield its tutelage over the government of Ankara. And when they do that, the population would be free to give full rein to their pro-islamic feelings.
Which leads us to another crossroads: how militant is Islam?
To an european, it is quite hard to imagine how much of a muslims' identity is related to Islam. We think it is like our christian roots that even atheists share but know what to dismiss as dangerous or intolerant.
But what many do not realize is that this is due to the development of rational thinking in Europe over the course of centuries (from the XVIIth to the XIXth centuries), which after a long strugge broke the stranglehold that religion had over society. Even after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, europeans were more prone to think more in terms of 'nationality' than in the 'great religious community' that was more common in medieval times.
Islam had none of this. For a muslim, the 'Ummah' (community) is still the prime source of identity. One may be an egyptian, syrian, kurd or whatever, but they are first and foremost muslims. And society defines itself above all through religion - which is why muslim governments always take the Q'uran as the basis for their legal systems, as the americans learned with dismay in Iraq. That means that religious thought necessarily forms a large part of their identity.
This is a poignant point about Turkey. While we may belive they are secularized, Turks are above all muslims, and they happen to *take religion seriously*. Most *belive* in it. This simply is not the case with the average european.
As a result, while dealing with a Turk, europeans will soon note that what we are used to consider as 'rational thought' will be simply rejected by these people, which will not be able to do so without denying their own identity.
Think about the average medieval christian european, which was deeply religious - how could we integrate those people in our current societies?
Case in point: attitudes about homosexuality. Western Europe is coming ever and ever closer to regarding homosexuals as normal people, giving them the right to wed and maybe adopt.
For a muslim, this simply *cannot* be accepted. It is an offense against God.
And telling them to disregard this is the equivalent of saying: "forget about everything that defines you as what you are". Which they cannot and will not do [this is also why every muslim generation feels more and more alienated from their host nation, not more integrated - they will not accept a lifestyle that is anathema for them]. As a result, muslims will reject homosexuals. Rational Europe will try to prevent them from doing so. Muslims will feel opressed and will see Europe as going against the will of God. Europeans will see this argument as foolish, because we *do not take religion seriously*.
In other words, muslims simply cannot be integrated into secular Europe. They'd have to stop taking Islam seriously for that (like most europeans don't take christianity seriously), and most will just not do it.
Bottom line: until Islam develops something like rational thought and separates religion and society, any link between secular Europe and religious Turkey is an explosive mix.
Let us not dawdle much around minor points: the issue regarding Turkey is RELIGION.
After all, Eastern Thrace lies clearly in Europe (denying it would imply Constantinople is not European, something that nobody would admit), and most Turks are related in one way or another to an european people.
(Maciamo, Kurds are also indo-europeans. One notices this when among them, especially because of the blonde hair and green eyes of many)
So, we should concentrate on weather Islam is compatible with the EU as it is being formed or not.
Of course, one can always say that Turkey has a more secular Islam than other muslim countries, but that belies one fundamental truth: that secularism is kept and guarded by the Army, not by the population. It is the military that has ensured that Islamic extremists remain in check and that the population does not swing to islamic parties en masse (even Erdogan himself was considered 'dangerous' by the Army, as he has a very islamicized view of society).
However, the EU values do not accept well a strong military presence in a nations' politics. To enter the Union, Turkeys' military must yield its tutelage over the government of Ankara. And when they do that, the population would be free to give full rein to their pro-islamic feelings.
Which leads us to another crossroads: how militant is Islam?
To an european, it is quite hard to imagine how much of a muslims' identity is related to Islam. We think it is like our christian roots that even atheists share but know what to dismiss as dangerous or intolerant.
But what many do not realize is that this is due to the development of rational thinking in Europe over the course of centuries (from the XVIIth to the XIXth centuries), which after a long strugge broke the stranglehold that religion had over society. Even after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, europeans were more prone to think more in terms of 'nationality' than in the 'great religious community' that was more common in medieval times.
Islam had none of this. For a muslim, the 'Ummah' (community) is still the prime source of identity. One may be an egyptian, syrian, kurd or whatever, but they are first and foremost muslims. And society defines itself above all through religion - which is why muslim governments always take the Q'uran as the basis for their legal systems, as the americans learned with dismay in Iraq. That means that religious thought necessarily forms a large part of their identity.
This is a poignant point about Turkey. While we may belive they are secularized, Turks are above all muslims, and they happen to *take religion seriously*. Most *belive* in it. This simply is not the case with the average european.
As a result, while dealing with a Turk, europeans will soon note that what we are used to consider as 'rational thought' will be simply rejected by these people, which will not be able to do so without denying their own identity.
Think about the average medieval christian european, which was deeply religious - how could we integrate those people in our current societies?
Case in point: attitudes about homosexuality. Western Europe is coming ever and ever closer to regarding homosexuals as normal people, giving them the right to wed and maybe adopt.
For a muslim, this simply *cannot* be accepted. It is an offense against God.
And telling them to disregard this is the equivalent of saying: "forget about everything that defines you as what you are". Which they cannot and will not do [this is also why every muslim generation feels more and more alienated from their host nation, not more integrated - they will not accept a lifestyle that is anathema for them]. As a result, muslims will reject homosexuals. Rational Europe will try to prevent them from doing so. Muslims will feel opressed and will see Europe as going against the will of God. Europeans will see this argument as foolish, because we *do not take religion seriously*.
In other words, muslims simply cannot be integrated into secular Europe. They'd have to stop taking Islam seriously for that (like most europeans don't take christianity seriously), and most will just not do it.
Bottom line: until Islam develops something like rational thought and separates religion and society, any link between secular Europe and religious Turkey is an explosive mix.
Thanks for this very interesting reply, Keoland.
2 comments here.
1) Many Americans are equally very religious and also cannot accept homosexuality (or abortion, stem cell research...) without forgetting about their Christian identity. That is the main cultural incompatibility between Europe and the US, because about half of the US population is like that (most of the Bush supporters, for instance).
2) I have been to Turkey, and saw by myself that Turkish people in the Western part of the country (i.e. the most densely populated and richest) are not that religious. Contrarily to other Muslim countries where I have been (Egypt, Palestine, India, Malaysia, Indonesia), the (Western) Turks do not usually wear Muslim clothes. Even women do not wear headscarves, and certainly not the veil and dress covering the whole body.
In some regions, the locals do not mind people walking in bikinis in the street or public display of affection, frown upon even in multicultural Malaysia. Most Turks drink alcohol, which is prohibited by Islam. They even male wine, beer and Raki. I went to Konya, in cental Turkey, which my Lonely Planet guidebook described as one of the most religious and conservative cities in Turkey where hotels have their own mosques rather than bar and alcohol is hard to find in most of the city. Yet, the first thing the hotel manager asked me when I arrived is if I had tried the local Raki and if I wanted to drink with him !
On Fridays, I haven't seen many people going to the mosque. I visited all the big mosques in Istanbul, and there were always much more tourists than locals even during the 5 daily prayer times. The Turks also do not greet themselves with the typical Muslim "Salaam alikum" or other Muslim terms that differentiate Urdu from Hindi. They also do not use Arabic characters (anymore), which also differentiate the Muslim Urdu speakers from the Hindi speakers.
All this to say that Turkey is in fact much more secular than you would believe. The exception may be the Kurds, which is why I am not very happy with them joining the EU along with Turkey, and would prefer if Turkey granted them their independence.
2 comments here.
1) Many Americans are equally very religious and also cannot accept homosexuality (or abortion, stem cell research...) without forgetting about their Christian identity. That is the main cultural incompatibility between Europe and the US, because about half of the US population is like that (most of the Bush supporters, for instance).
2) I have been to Turkey, and saw by myself that Turkish people in the Western part of the country (i.e. the most densely populated and richest) are not that religious. Contrarily to other Muslim countries where I have been (Egypt, Palestine, India, Malaysia, Indonesia), the (Western) Turks do not usually wear Muslim clothes. Even women do not wear headscarves, and certainly not the veil and dress covering the whole body.
In some regions, the locals do not mind people walking in bikinis in the street or public display of affection, frown upon even in multicultural Malaysia. Most Turks drink alcohol, which is prohibited by Islam. They even male wine, beer and Raki. I went to Konya, in cental Turkey, which my Lonely Planet guidebook described as one of the most religious and conservative cities in Turkey where hotels have their own mosques rather than bar and alcohol is hard to find in most of the city. Yet, the first thing the hotel manager asked me when I arrived is if I had tried the local Raki and if I wanted to drink with him !
On Fridays, I haven't seen many people going to the mosque. I visited all the big mosques in Istanbul, and there were always much more tourists than locals even during the 5 daily prayer times. The Turks also do not greet themselves with the typical Muslim "Salaam alikum" or other Muslim terms that differentiate Urdu from Hindi. They also do not use Arabic characters (anymore), which also differentiate the Muslim Urdu speakers from the Hindi speakers.
All this to say that Turkey is in fact much more secular than you would believe. The exception may be the Kurds, which is why I am not very happy with them joining the EU along with Turkey, and would prefer if Turkey granted them their independence.
Minty
Seasonal Member
- Messages
- 620
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Luxembourg
- Ethnic group
- Asian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I am human
- mtDNA haplogroup
- I am human
Turkey is neither in the Middle East nor in Europe but they are considered Caucasian. Turkey is in the Near East. Most of the people in France seem to reject the idea of Turkey joining the EU. I think the major problem is not so much of their racial/ethnic make up, it is more of the fact that they are Muslims, hence now Turkey is turning to nationalism to replace Muslim. I am not so sure that would do much help. Also Turkey is at least 10 years behind the European Union.
If you de-duct the countries which have constantly had a large Muslim communities(Turkey, Albania, etc), the remainder of Europe (UK, France, Germany, Italy etc - the non Muslim countries) show very small percentages -UK coming in at 2.8%. That represents a tiny minority and I think it would take more than a couple of generations to considerably modify those data.
The libertarian approach tends to be flowing against Muslims. A region in Germany has made known 'citizenship' tests for immigrants specifically designed to make life hard for Muslims. France has a very strong right wing and has recently banned (under the legislation banning religious clothes and symbols in state-owned buildings like schools) girls from earing head scarves.The French have also put in many very strong financial incentives for the middle classes (unlikely to be new immigrants) to begin having more infants. Italy has around 20% of members of parliament from very right-wind parties that are anti-immigration. The Dutch (and Belgians) are busy banning burkhas and asserting on citizenship and language classes for all immigrants, with adduced or maybe even operational by now deportations criticised for ignoring 'human rights'. This is not just the new arrivals but all immigrants. In the UK, the British National Party - well know for its repatriation administration - is announcing a boost in associates. Europe isn't sitting back while Islam promenades on unreservedly.:danger:
Loyalty test for German Muslims: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixportal.html
Middle-class Frenchwomen encouraged to have more children: http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2005oct08_e.html
France bans Islamic headscarves: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/wo...00/3620406.stm
Dutch citizenship tests: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...7AF21CBA7F.htm
Dutch plans to ban the burkha: http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/10571.shtml
BNP gains support (article from 2003 ) www.stopthebnp.org.uk/index.php?location=election&link=BNP27.htm
Silverbackman
Regular Member
- Messages
- 102
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 0
Whether Turkey is secular or not, I don't think of Turkey as European. They are closer to Near Eastern. Only Istanbul and lands around it are European. In reality they should give up their European lands that they conquered to Europe since that is the only thing that makes them European.
nurizeko
Banned
- Messages
- 148
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
- Location
- aberdeen, scotland
- Ethnic group
- Half scottish half Germanic, i got blood from austria, germany, scotland england, im a mongrol.
I dunno, i cant get why people use the land round instanbul as acceptable for membership, its like admitting a whitey european like me into an organization for black americans. (if such a thing exists)
I'm enjoying the discussion, although I don't really have much of anything to input into it; sorry. Please do keep it up, as it is very much a learning process for me.
I would be interested in a second check on the above. As I understand it, Urdu is largely spoken in some pockets of North Western India, in Pakistan, in most of Afganistan, and then into some areas, a little, of Iran and some other small countries around there. The urdu script is more Persian in vowel pointing than Arabic, I had thought, yet is very different from the Devnagari script of Hindi, which is from the Sanskrit.
Does Urdu go that far west in its usage in greetings and such? could I please get a check into this? Thanks guys and gals (just in case)
Maciamo said:
I would be interested in a second check on the above. As I understand it, Urdu is largely spoken in some pockets of North Western India, in Pakistan, in most of Afganistan, and then into some areas, a little, of Iran and some other small countries around there. The urdu script is more Persian in vowel pointing than Arabic, I had thought, yet is very different from the Devnagari script of Hindi, which is from the Sanskrit.
Does Urdu go that far west in its usage in greetings and such? could I please get a check into this? Thanks guys and gals (just in case)
Well, the first poster has quite a bit wrong with his post and it does portray the kinda European ignorance that I try t avoid.
In Turkey, it needs to be understood, there is a silent war between the Islamists and secularists. The current government are conservative low key Islamists (like Germany's conservative Christian democrats) and I am opposed to both. The ever present anti-Islam-in-politics in Turkey will ensure that Europe can never 'become Islamic' and probably that we are more secular than many European Christian countries.
Need i mention, we gave women the vote before France and many other European countries, banned the veil and fez and introduced modernism to tackle the conservatism eating away at the Turkish people. Today, Islam is being slowly successfuly coupled with modernism, a kind of neo-Islam, nothing to be scared of I assure you, but I myself am not a Muslim, I just see my self as a Turk.
The basis for entering the EU is that your country has European land, and your race has some connection to European culture. Considering we have Thrace (larger than Cyprus which is actually geographically in Asia) and that we have been interrtwined with Europe for 7 centuries AND that non-Indo-European groups such as Hungarians, Estonains and Finns are all in the EU gives us enough rights. Add on to this that we've been promised to for over 4 decades, I think we deserve it.
That said, I think the RUN UP to membership is far more important for Turkey that the actual membership, and who knows, in ten years, the ailing EU may need us more than we need them. Afterall, our economic performance is outstripping the old Guard of Europe and Brussels is increasingly seeing the Turkish market as a hot-bed of develoment that will soon be needed to re-vitalise the European economy.
If only some Eu citizens would overcome their age-old prejudices and built-in anti-Ottoman and now Turkishness, we can all cooperate for a better future...
In Turkey, it needs to be understood, there is a silent war between the Islamists and secularists. The current government are conservative low key Islamists (like Germany's conservative Christian democrats) and I am opposed to both. The ever present anti-Islam-in-politics in Turkey will ensure that Europe can never 'become Islamic' and probably that we are more secular than many European Christian countries.
Need i mention, we gave women the vote before France and many other European countries, banned the veil and fez and introduced modernism to tackle the conservatism eating away at the Turkish people. Today, Islam is being slowly successfuly coupled with modernism, a kind of neo-Islam, nothing to be scared of I assure you, but I myself am not a Muslim, I just see my self as a Turk.
The basis for entering the EU is that your country has European land, and your race has some connection to European culture. Considering we have Thrace (larger than Cyprus which is actually geographically in Asia) and that we have been interrtwined with Europe for 7 centuries AND that non-Indo-European groups such as Hungarians, Estonains and Finns are all in the EU gives us enough rights. Add on to this that we've been promised to for over 4 decades, I think we deserve it.
That said, I think the RUN UP to membership is far more important for Turkey that the actual membership, and who knows, in ten years, the ailing EU may need us more than we need them. Afterall, our economic performance is outstripping the old Guard of Europe and Brussels is increasingly seeing the Turkish market as a hot-bed of develoment that will soon be needed to re-vitalise the European economy.
If only some Eu citizens would overcome their age-old prejudices and built-in anti-Ottoman and now Turkishness, we can all cooperate for a better future...
Duo
Southern Sun
Well fortis is already buying up huge sectors in the turkish economy
About the gov in power now, i hear that many voted for Erdogan because he tends to be viewed not as corrupt as the others.
Despite the silent war as you call it between secularlism and islam in Turkey certain other tensions must be resolved i would suggest before turkey is really ready to enter. First off the turkish military, although by necessity, can't continue to maintain its status as democracy protector. The kurdish issue, although overly complicated at times needs some kind of resolve. Fact does remain that from diyarbakir and eastwards the conditions of life are not so great. The kurds are a rather large minority... although they also don't helpt to bring things to a better compromise. I think that the legacy that Ataturk has left not just only saved and modernised turkey but it has also given it a sense of pride that is somewhat too intrinsically strong and can hinder at times necessary acations to achieve compromise or a more serene solutions to a problem. The fact that turkey still denies the armenian genocide is proof. Also the backlash that recently a writer faced due to his criticism of ataturk i beleive? Plus Erdogan and his battle against his satirical depiction in commics are signs of a somewhat intolerant atmosphere.
Another issue with turkey remains economics. A country of 70 million is not easily absorbed into a union. Personally I am not worried if Turkey enters europe becaue i think turks are not just culturally but also genetically related to europe; let's not forget in Instanbul alone the large number of people with origins from the balkans, albania and bosnia primarily. And what about the insand gene exchange with greece during the ages and the many expulsions of each others communities. I a more worried about the rural kurdish population as they have much less in common with europe than their turkish counterparts. Personally I would have prefered that Turkey give up that really unsavory most eastern part to create a buffer between a possible EU oustrech and the middle east, although i think in most turkish minds, especially those still following kemalism, that would be unthinkable.
About the gov in power now, i hear that many voted for Erdogan because he tends to be viewed not as corrupt as the others.
Despite the silent war as you call it between secularlism and islam in Turkey certain other tensions must be resolved i would suggest before turkey is really ready to enter. First off the turkish military, although by necessity, can't continue to maintain its status as democracy protector. The kurdish issue, although overly complicated at times needs some kind of resolve. Fact does remain that from diyarbakir and eastwards the conditions of life are not so great. The kurds are a rather large minority... although they also don't helpt to bring things to a better compromise. I think that the legacy that Ataturk has left not just only saved and modernised turkey but it has also given it a sense of pride that is somewhat too intrinsically strong and can hinder at times necessary acations to achieve compromise or a more serene solutions to a problem. The fact that turkey still denies the armenian genocide is proof. Also the backlash that recently a writer faced due to his criticism of ataturk i beleive? Plus Erdogan and his battle against his satirical depiction in commics are signs of a somewhat intolerant atmosphere.
Another issue with turkey remains economics. A country of 70 million is not easily absorbed into a union. Personally I am not worried if Turkey enters europe becaue i think turks are not just culturally but also genetically related to europe; let's not forget in Instanbul alone the large number of people with origins from the balkans, albania and bosnia primarily. And what about the insand gene exchange with greece during the ages and the many expulsions of each others communities. I a more worried about the rural kurdish population as they have much less in common with europe than their turkish counterparts. Personally I would have prefered that Turkey give up that really unsavory most eastern part to create a buffer between a possible EU oustrech and the middle east, although i think in most turkish minds, especially those still following kemalism, that would be unthinkable.
The military is waning in it's presence. This is good, but must not be rushed. The Turkish military is probably the most un-corrupted entity in all of Turkey and in addition the people TRUST the army unlike in many other countries where armies tend to be a mere extention of certain political strains.
I'm not sure how Belgian TV reports on Turkey's Kurds, but you would only know what you read or hear. I wonder, are you aware that in 2004 new laws were passed allowing Kurds 100% freedom in their own music, newspapers, TV stations, radio stations, language and culture? This new law still needs to be properly enforced and has not been done as effectively as intended because of various factors the main one being the on-going insurgency in the south east which compromises many efforts by the Turkish government, Turkish AND Kurdish people. The Kurdish issue started to be resolves as of 2004, and two years on, Turkey is a better place for Kurds. We must remember that the supporter of the PKK are limited, they are a loud minority whereas the vast majority of citizens are the silent ones.
I too agree that the hype surrounding Ataturk is unwelcome. He has slowly been hoisted to status of demi-god and this I do not like. Those that constructively critiscize him in Turkey are better than those who blindly adhere and protect his legacy to the point of violence. I am a great supporter of Ataturk and i have my reasons. The number of uneducated people here who simply follow and exhonorate him because it's the 'done thing' is unwelcome, but that too is slowly changing.
The Armenian question is one i've not made up my mind on. In fact I don't think anyone can actually be sure of it's status as genocide seeing as the primary accounts from 1915 onwards of the happenings are extremely limited and Anatolia at the time was totally lacking in governemnt, political and military cohesion - unlike Nazi Germany which was a well functioning state. Those that decide it was a genocide, in my opinion, do so because the history book they read in school or uni push it, because the society they live in generally tends to accept it. I think we can only TRUELY make our minds up if we were to have been there during that undocumented era. It does come down to opinion.
Using the Armenian question as a political tool for entrance to the EU, however, is a complete insult and is totally political not humanist at all. Should Belgium be interrogated and threatened with exclusion from the club because of the occupation, enslavement, massacring, raping and pillaging of whole societies and countries like the Congo and other African states in the last century? Belgium turns a COMPLETE blind eye to that (as do other EU member states to their own histoic atrocities) and i severely doubt it would ever be brought up in the EU parliament like the Armenian issue is with Turkey.
That writer was called Orhan Pamuk and went on trial for personally agreeing with the Armenian genocide theory (his opinion) not for critiscizing Ataturk. I disagreed with his trial as it was simply his opinion and he shouldn't have been prosecuted for that.
What are you trying to say?
Of course not, Turkey is the biggest test and that's why it'll take time
Turks may have some weak genetic (racial) links towards Europeans but it isn't as prevelent as you may think. Just because millions of Turkish citizens originated from the Balkans, it doesn't mean that they are indo-Europeans. The vast majority are majorly Altaic in ethnicity. The fair haired and skinned Turks also shouldn't be assumed as being of European ethnic origin - Many Turkic tribes throughout the Turkish world have such features as stantard and the Scythians and Huns (Turkish anscestors) bore many of those fair traits due to their geographical location not race.
That was an agreed population exchange that was initially pushed by the Greek premier Eleftherios Venizelos. Are you trying to pin that on JUST Turkey too and use it as a means to raise questions of EU accession? That's just living on history.
It has been thought about since the creation of the republic about break-away Kurdish states from Turkish people simply to lessen the burden on Turkish society. The Kurds are the least educated and least cultured and least controllable people in Anatolia (possibly why they've never once had their own state in history and always relied on others for survival) and so I too believe they pose the main social threat to Europe when it comes to immigration. It IS largely unthinkable in Turkey to think of 'giving up' the south east when hundreds of thousands of men with millions of families died on that soil for over 4 years during the war of independence. It would be a triumph for Turks and all citizens of the republic if we could all manage to bring the south-east up to the reast of Turkey's standard - this is what is being worked upon today and the notion of dropping the south-east for peace of mind is largely untouched.
Nope. It's not undocumented. Maybe Turkish documents have not yet been publicised, German documents are open to the public.Duman said:
I agree, that it's pretty poor to use it for political goals. But then again, if the Turkish government would face up to the past, that wouldn't be a problem at all.
You're confusing race & language. Indo-European & Altaic are language families, & those can hardly be used to distinguish race. Racially, Turks are definitely caucasoid, although perhaps with greater mongoloid influence than in most of Europe.
Yup. It is largely undocumented if you compare it to the avaliability of PRIMARY accounts from World War 2. Plus, All Ottoman records from 1915 are open to any member of the public and in fact some historians visited last year from the states for that very reason.
Maybe if the Armenian government had accepted the countless offers of discussion and chances to sort this thing out over the past decade since their independence from the USSR it wouldn't be a problem at all.
It should be left out of EU preceedings all together.
Indo-European and Altaic are Ethno-linguistic groups. They are not one or the other, they are both. Turks are Altaic by race and by language.
Duo
Southern Sun
Duman said:
Like you said the law still needs to be enforced, for example a kurdish institution wasn't allowed to be opened because one of the classroom doors was 1 or so cm less in thickness than regulations demanded.
Duman said:
I agree with you,, i wasn't trying to bring it up as a such a reason... i was just trying to make the point that the turkish gov can at times bee a bit too intransigent
Duman said:
I would have to disagree. I think turks share a strong gene-link with Europe. The elite strata of the janissaries certainly brought in a definite contribution of gene inflow from the balkans. I've seen both european looking and circassian looking turks and the difference is striking to say the least.
[/QUOTE]
Duman said:
I was using this an example to prove the gene link between the balkans and Turkey.
Duo:
I'm not surprised that such a thing happened. But since you focused on the isolated negative incident, i'll point out an example of where the law was successfully enforced - in 2004/2005 3 schools offering ONLY Kurdish reading and writing classes for anyone were opened in Erzurum, Sivas and Tunceli.
So it is working, with drawbacks still (inevitably).
Fair enough. Every government is guilty of intransigence, but one ought not be hammered for it over another for mere political reasons...
The vast majority of Janissaries recruited as special crack troops into the Ottoman armies were Christian boys taken from their families and trained as Ottomans. That is true, but alone it is an utterly whimsical and flimsy base with which to state a sizeable gene-link towards Europe. Certainly cultures have mixed, even blood-lines to an extent but ethnicity has stayed and is staying largely singular amongst Turks - it's a fact not an opinion. I already described to you where the fair features quite a few Turks have come from.. (plus, Kazakh Turks and Uyghur Turks FAR from Europe have these features too.)
I'm not surprised that such a thing happened. But since you focused on the isolated negative incident, i'll point out an example of where the law was successfully enforced - in 2004/2005 3 schools offering ONLY Kurdish reading and writing classes for anyone were opened in Erzurum, Sivas and Tunceli.
So it is working, with drawbacks still (inevitably).
Fair enough. Every government is guilty of intransigence, but one ought not be hammered for it over another for mere political reasons...
The vast majority of Janissaries recruited as special crack troops into the Ottoman armies were Christian boys taken from their families and trained as Ottomans. That is true, but alone it is an utterly whimsical and flimsy base with which to state a sizeable gene-link towards Europe. Certainly cultures have mixed, even blood-lines to an extent but ethnicity has stayed and is staying largely singular amongst Turks - it's a fact not an opinion. I already described to you where the fair features quite a few Turks have come from.. (plus, Kazakh Turks and Uyghur Turks FAR from Europe have these features too.)
Maybe there are fewer documents than about some WWII issues, but that's hardly to be called undocumented. This page counts more than 900 related German files alone. They also claim that related Turkish documents are still largely missing. What is public can be found here.Duman said:
Can't see why the Armenian government should be involved at all.
Ethno-linguistic, as in the people who speak any such language. That's still unrelated to race. I don't know which names there are in Turkish for the various races, but in English (or German) I have never heard of an Altaic (altaisch) race.
Turks are for the most part caucasoid, just like the vast majority of Europeans.
Just one example for the unrelatedness of language family to race:
"Nei's unbiased genetic identity (GI) and genetic distance (GD) were estimated from genotypes using PopGene v1.31, and dendrograms were constructed using phylip. The results suggested a close relationship of the Khalkha to the Tsaatan. The Turks and Germans were equally distant to all three Mongolian populations. These results confirmed the lack of strong genetic relationship between the Mongols and the Turks despite the close relationship of their languages (Altaic group) and shared historical neighborhood."
Bossel:
If you are to quote me, quote me properly. I said largely undocumented, and then went on to compare it to WW2 records.
Because it's the Armenian government that has been globally supporting the lobbying on various governments AGAINST Turkey on even economical fronts simply because they have an age old grudge against us. It's the Armenians government that turns a blind eye to ASALA, so the Armenian government has ALOT to do with it. Turkey has offered several meetings to discuss the sensitive issue but each one has been rejected because they seem to be pre-occupied with their verbal assault on Turkey's government at home and abroad.
I don't think you are that learned in ethno-linguistics. The very term applies to ETHNICITY (ethno) and LANGUAGE (linguistics). SO how you can say 'ethno-linguists is still totally unrelated to race' is beyond me.
German and English are nationalities not races, they both belong to the Indo-European race (ethnic branch). Altaic (which you don't know anything about obviously) is the ethnic branch Turks, Kazakhs, Azeris etc all belong to.
You seem to have mixed the meaning of RACE, NATIONALITY and LANGUAGE too much. I can't describe it any clearer to you.
So back to what we were discussing, the Turks share a WEAK 'gene-link' towards Europe but a strong cultural one.
If you are to quote me, quote me properly. I said largely undocumented, and then went on to compare it to WW2 records.
Because it's the Armenian government that has been globally supporting the lobbying on various governments AGAINST Turkey on even economical fronts simply because they have an age old grudge against us. It's the Armenians government that turns a blind eye to ASALA, so the Armenian government has ALOT to do with it. Turkey has offered several meetings to discuss the sensitive issue but each one has been rejected because they seem to be pre-occupied with their verbal assault on Turkey's government at home and abroad.
I don't think you are that learned in ethno-linguistics. The very term applies to ETHNICITY (ethno) and LANGUAGE (linguistics). SO how you can say 'ethno-linguists is still totally unrelated to race' is beyond me.
German and English are nationalities not races, they both belong to the Indo-European race (ethnic branch). Altaic (which you don't know anything about obviously) is the ethnic branch Turks, Kazakhs, Azeris etc all belong to.
You seem to have mixed the meaning of RACE, NATIONALITY and LANGUAGE too much. I can't describe it any clearer to you.
So back to what we were discussing, the Turks share a WEAK 'gene-link' towards Europe but a strong cultural one.
This thread has been viewed 2622 times.