 |
| |
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ancyrean
So your time frame is roughly 1400s-1770s by the latest (with some stretch). During this period, Europe saw many bloodbaths like 30 years war (a high point of religious intolerance among Christians, let alone towards other religions), inquisitions, pogroms for Jews, witch trials and what not. The chances of having a Muslim community in Europe was virtually nil, having a Jewish one was a dance with death. |
To be fair to western europeans, there was real and steady toleration for Jews in the Dutch Republic from about 1600 on, and in England from roughly 1650 (thank THEE, Oliver Cromwell). Much of the rest of your post is well taken, and the Ottomans tolerance of the Jews in this period is notable, but at least wrt to the Jews the beginnings of Western enlightenment start well before the French Revolution, at least in Holland and England.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
To be fair to western europeans, there was real and steady toleration for Jews in the Dutch Republic from about 1600 on, and in England from roughly 1650 (thank THEE, Oliver Cromwell). Much of the rest of your post is well taken, and the Ottomans tolerance of the Jews in this period is notable, but at least wrt to the Jews the beginnings of Western enlightenment start well before the French Revolution, at least in Holland and England. |
Yay! At last we whities get Judged by Posterity Tolerance points! How many do we have to get before we can trade 'em in for the neato Political Correctness Justice Force membership ring? 
Seriously though, suggesting that ideological flaws are the chief cause of all human misery is at least as naive as anything spewed out by the far right. The Turks might have been a wonderful example of light and unity in Ottoman times, but a few centuries earlier they were a bunch of nomadic Scythian barbarians distinct from the distantly related mongols only by their lack of team spirit and even lower standards of cleanliness. And the Muslim Caliphate that gave us algebra and lateen sails eventually degenerated into the whackos who bombed the WTC. And Mother Teresa's church is descended from the "pornocracy" of the late first milennium. Evidence dictates, to my eyes at least, that it's the individual participants of any given society that affects its nature, and the high-minded words they babble don't matter half as much as the extent and fashion by which they follow them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
First than 8 year old boy isnot than baby. You inply that the Ott took newly born baby from they mother breast. First there was no bottle feeding of baby with baby formular you buy at the Christian Fundie fravor store Walmarket. In fact the Ott didnot never excute than woman nurseing than baby until the child was 2 or 3 year old and many time the Sultan pardon just womans as than act of kindness. Christian state execute woman nurseing baby all the time. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
The only objection I see is how old they were before they were taken by the Ottoman soldiers. The idea of which was BTW to have them forget their roots completely. Beyond an age that was not possible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Eight-year olds are not babies suckling at the mother's breast. |
There was a maximum age set for reasons already stated.
Does the forceful removal of a boy from his mother becomes less repugnant when the boy is older?
quote:
You haven't answered why families tried to get their kids taken |
The vast majority of mothers, quite understandably, tried to hide their children. Some succeeded, others failed. The few who decided to give them up because of the severe poverty doesn't cancel the insane anguish of hundrends of thousands.
quote:
nor why the Morea revolted against the Venetians and helped the Ottomans retake the area and why Christian serfs fled to the Empire. |
I don't know enough to answer about this particular case (divisions between them, aims, subsequentagreements with the Ottomans), however I fail to see how this invalidates anything else
quote:
Nor did they forget their roots, for they often helped their families. |
Yes not all forgot. But the vast majority did as the aim was exactly this, to forget and become attached to noone but the sultan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's an interesting approach, to excuse the actions of one nation based on those of other nations of the time. Do we not criticise the Christians for failing to adhere to the teachings of their own moral code they professed? If so, why should we play a different rule for the Turks? |
Unfortunately for your little theory, the fact remains I didn’t excuse them, I simply pointed out the basic flaw in paiktis’s statement.
And I thought we were dealing with law and punishment- not religiously based moral codes.
By what criteria is he judging the Ottoman Empire?
By modern day standards?
If so, then they were cruel, along with the Italians, English, Dutch, Spanish, French, Iranians, Chinese and so on.
In point of fact, the death penalty was extended as a punishment for more crimes in English law during the Enlightenment and after, especially crimes relating to property.
In Continental Europe, where the law was different, torture was a commonplace method of ‘extracting’ the ‘truth’ in criminal proceedings, and there was no trial by jury in many instances.
So were the Ottomans cruel by the standards of their times?
In the 15th century? No.
The 16th century? No.
And so on.
You’re going to have to be much more specific if you’re going to say why the Ottomans were cruel, and in comparison with whom, and when.
I’m so tired of the sloppy comparisons between supposedly 'civilized' Europeans and ‘cruel’ Asiatics, between the West of the Enlightenment and the backward Orient.
As for paiktis harping on about Christian babies being snatched from their mothers- oh, give me a break.
That might work on some awful tearjerker revisionist history of the Ottoman Empire, produced for a fervently chauvinist Hellene audience, but unless Greek women have unnaturally large wombs, or strangely lengthy pregnancies, an 8 year old does not qualify as a baby!
I notice King Fez of the Hellenes has yet to produce a date for this supposed ‘Greek’ reoccupation of Istanbul.
Well, I can wait. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Eight was the minimum age. You need to forget the propaganda you learned in school. All of us outside Greece who have studied the history of the area disagree with you, regardless of the country we are from. Thus, the problem seems to be you. |
The age (which was hard to define accurately at those times) was such so as the child would have shown to be "worth taking" but not so old to actually be able to retain any significant memories of his roots.
I don't see you disagree with me. Anycrean colaborated what I simply point out and you always have the luxury to visit any library of your choice and confirm it yourself.
Forgive me if I don't hold random people on an internet forum to be experts on Ottoman history. However the "paidomazoma" as the snatching of babies was called is widely recognized so I'm mildly surprised by your opposition to it.
If it makes you feel bad, or you think I'm a nationalist in order to avert that feeling, as said, there are always good books to turn to. Please do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
Serfs all over Europe have than very hard time of it getting by. They own they little plot of land so they wherenot landless people who should be evit from the land easy without major legal action in the Courts. The land was in pawn for rent paying and taxes and other fees. It the noble lord son was being Knight the serf can be hit with than extras tax to pay for it equall to a month or more of rent. They did backbreaking work on they land and them have to work the noble land with the pay going toward the rent and taxes they owned and fee they have to pay. They came with the land and where bound to the land untril the day they die. They where not slave persay but they where not free either. The Serf under the Ott Empire where more like the yeoman of England free not bound to the land. Most serf would rather be poor but free under the Ott Empire.
In Europe there where noble man of young age with nothing better to do but go round rapeing female serf by threaden to harm they parnet or forceing then off the land.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Palaiologos
Sorry paiktis but i have to agree with the others about the paidomazoma. Not only Bulgarian and Serb children were preffered but these children-the future janissaries-were consious of their ethinicity. They are reffered to history books written AT THE time with their ethnicity.
f.e Bulgarian janissary admiral etc.. Something a historian would have had hard time to discover if the kids were taken at infant age. |
I think that the paidomazoma happened all over the Christian population territories but I can't say if there was a preferance. It certaintly happened to the Greeks as well at any case. Recollection of their ethnicity maybe was retained I simply state that all attachments to their roots were (or tried to be) eradicated.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
molly bloom, sorry I didn't see your post.
Well you may be tired of the "stereotype" of the civilized West versus the barbaric Orient, but that doesn't make much difference. Your silly revisionist tricks are also of no importance.
Here's but a little expert from one of your compatriotes, Stokes' Europe I bothered to find on the net in an instant of exceptional boredom. It propably won't be reapated very often.
Ottoman forces would raid Christian villages, and kidnap boys, who were then brought to Constantinople as slave-soldiers, and forcibly converted to Islam. They were banned from intimate relations with women, except when they attacked an enemy town or village, at which point they could pillage and rape for three days.
This continued until 1700, after which membership became hereditary, and finally ended with the abolition of the Janissaries, after a rebellion.
Other Christian children were kidnapped into slavery as palace officials, eunuchs and concubines. It is practices like these that have left dark memories in Balkan peoples and Armenians about the long years of Muslim rule.
Not only was Christian liberty under the Khilafah limited, Christian dignity was also frequently disregarded. Until the time of the Great War and their ethnic cleansing in 1915, Armenian Christians dressed their young girls as boys to prevent their rape or kidnap (or both) by Ottoman Muslims. In fact, any child was in danger of being kidnapped. A typical example of Ottoman Muslim contempt for Christians is supplied by a consideration of the burial-permit issued by a qadi (Muslim official) in 1855 for a deceased Christian: 'We certify to the priest of the church of Mary, that the impure, putrefied, stinking carcass of Saideh, damned this day, may be concealed underground.' [11] Undoubtedly, Muslims would regard such sentiments made in regard to a Muslim corpse to be bigoted and insensitive; they should not be surprised that Christians would react similarly, and find it difficult to credit that the Khilafah was indeed a Utopian regime.
That is just to prove the obvious, the constant insane anguish under which Christian mothers were living under and their attemps to save their sons.
Please ignore all other as this is not meant to incite old flames or anything, it's ridiculous.
There are other recounts of many other tricks Christian mothers did to hide and protect their children from being abducted by the Ottomans like the building of intricate roads connected underground to the their houses, it's really breathtaking what mothers thought of to save their kids, maybe the most powerful feeling of all, but maybe later.
And keep reading Che 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Seriously though, suggesting that ideological flaws are the chief cause of all human misery is at least as naive as anything spewed out by the far right. The Turks might have been a wonderful example of light and unity in Ottoman times, but a few centuries earlier they were a bunch of nomadic Scythian barbarians distinct from the distantly related mongols only by their lack of team spirit and even lower standards of cleanliness. And the Muslim Caliphate that gave us algebra and lateen sails eventually degenerated into the whackos who bombed the WTC. And Mother Teresa's church is descended from the "pornocracy" of the late first milennium. Evidence dictates, to my eyes at least, that it's the individual participants of any given society that affects its nature, and the high-minded words they babble don't matter half as much as the extent and fashion by which they follow them. |
Elok, please forgive me if I failed to catch the sarcasm in this quote if that's what you intended (if so, ignore this) 
A few centuries earlier than the Ottomans, Turks had another Empire, called the Seljuks, which was able to scale down the Byzantians and could only be pushed back by the fervor of the combined forces of European Christianity, aka Crusades (...what was it? Lack of team spirit? Team spirit was the essence of nomadic Turkish tribes, man Just check out the history of Central Asian Turkish Empires).
As for lower standards of cleanliness, you certainly can't be meaning Europe was the place for cleanliness, can you? Taking a bath was almost declared a sin (we are talking about the times before Ottomans), and even the nobility took pride in NOT taking a bath (we are talking about during the Ottoman times), since after all they never got dirty as royal people are supposed not to
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paiktis22
Ancyrean,
at last someone recognized the brutal beyond belief Ottoman practice of snatching the babies from their mothers at regular intervals and encompassing a vast population of Christians.
I never said the Ottomans did it to "terrorize", they did it to bolster their units but the result was terror of the worst short.
However I see you fail to condemn it meaning that as it was not affecting the Ottomans themselves, it was alright.
I see a similar attitude concerning the denial of the Armenian genocide.
You know that the carricature that molly bloom in his frustration tried to pin me with is laughable, however I do find it disturbing this relunctance to facing up to old deeds. Some of them no so old at all.
I can't see how we are going to live peacefully if we simply choose to disregard the attrocities between eachother. Facing up to them, admitting them, admitting how outrageous they were (and some are still) I think is the only way forward.
That holds for the Armenian case as well not just the Greek one. Nevertheless, happy to see you collaborate what I said and it was not meant as an "attack" but more as a defence of the truth, which is after all what will set us both free |
Well, we are not discussing here if the idea of taking a kid from his family is an adorable act. We are discussing whether this act stands as a primary proof that the Ottomans were crueler compared to their contemporaries, if this act alone (as you mentioned none else) would make us to classify the Ottomans as 'savage and barbaric' compared to others of the time.
You miss the point totally. It is fundamentally wrong to try to label people or events of history out of their context. Make comparisons with contemporaries and then your labels have a meaning. That's what in a nutshell we are trying to say. That's why any approach of "Turks snatched babies from mothers! People built roads in the mountains to escape this! This is such a horrible act to endure! So admit that the Turks are the top barbarians of all time!" is not an arguement at all, both in substance and in letter.
I more have the impression that you might be defending your points from conviction standing on years of exposure to folk tales (babies snatched -paidomazoma-, Janissaries were rapists and wanton killers, Christians lived a life of "daily horror" etc) 
As for admitting each other's atrocities, you probably would agree with me that nobody has a monopoly on pain and suffering. Armenians died in the hundreds of thousands but they do not admit they killed as much Turks on their quest to create a country for themselves. They choose to make sense of their suffering by putting it in a context of a grand conspiracy to kill them off. My grandfather is from the city of Van. You really wouldnt want to know the collective memory of those years about Armenians there. Why would we admit we are as evil as Nazis, when the other guys don't even bother to admit they killed a single Turk (figuratively) back then.
What about the exploits of the Greek army in "Asia Minor"? Do you think they just threw around flowers as they conquered territory? I was in Greece for three years but I never heard anybody talk about it. It was an army of saints. Come on...
I usually wouldnt prefer to come this close to rubbing sensitivities. I have many Greek friends, and I have the good fortune to have talked about these things with them with no ill will. Instead, what I'm saying is, we should stop trying to mortgage our future peace on the forceful acceptance of our version of history by the other. Nobody, including you, will pay for peace in such a currency. Please think about this (I mean not only you, of course, I mean people who might be thinking along similar lines with you) next time a rush of indignation against any country in the Balkans comes over.
Peace 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-03-2004 22:29
Just ask the Armenians.
|