NYT: Turkey Knocks on Europe's Door With a Thousand Years of Culture
sufaud
February 1, 2005
Turkey Knocks on Europe's Door With a Thousand Years of Culture
By ALAN RIDING
Photo 1:
http://tinyurl.com/6f36n
Caption:
Topkapi Palace Museum
From the exhibition "Turks" in London: a mid-16th-century helmet.
Photo 2:
http://tinyurl.com/49w62
Caption:
Staatliche Museum, Berlin
A demonic head from Xinjiang, China.
Photo 3:
http://tinyurl.com/46ar6
Caption:
Topkapi Palace Museum
"Two Demons Dancing," 14th or 15th century.
LONDON - The Turks marched into central Europe in 1529 and again in 1683,
but their troops were stopped at the gates of Vienna. Now, more politely,
Turkey is looking to enter the European Union through diplomacy, but it
still faces resistance. By all accounts, it must demonstrate over the next
decade that a large Muslim nation deserves a place in Europe. To this end,
it is mobilizing culture.
One step is "Turks: A Journey of a Thousand Years, 600-1600," a large
exhibition running through April 12 at the Royal Academy of Arts in London.
Most of the 350 objects on display come from two major Istanbul museums,
while three Turkish business groups are the show's main sponsors. Turkey's
culture minister, Erkan Mumcu, said he hoped the exhibition would help
Turkey's campaign to become part of Europe.
And why not? Before Europeans hold referendums on whether to admit Turkey,
they must better know a people whose popular image is still largely shaped
by the clichés of warriors, harems and immigrants. Certainly, few Europeans
today recognize Turkey as a modern secular state with a rich and
sophisticated past. So, yes, if "Turks" travels around Europe, as proposed,
it should prove something of a revelation.
At first glance its scope seems a tad ambitious: imagine choosing art to
represent 1,000 years of European history. Here, however, the show's full
title provides the key. The Turks became Turks only as a result of a long
journey, one that transformed nomadic tribes living near Mongolia around 600
into the Ottoman Empire a millennium later. The art works in "Turks," then,
track this complex voyage through time and space.
What this art in turn reveals is that, moving west along the Silk Road,
these Turkic peoples absorbed the cultures and beliefs of the lands they
crossed, settled, conquered or traded with. Thus, there is art influenced by
China and the Venetian Renaissance as well as art that reflects their early
practice of Buddhism, Nestorian Christianity and Manichaeism and their later
conversion to Islam.
Today's Turks may come from a republic founded in 1923, then, but their
roots stretch back centuries, from Central Asia to the Balkans.
This exhibition focuses on four crucial stages in the Turkic story, starting
with the Uighurs, a nomadic people living in western China from the early
seventh century. Surviving fragments of manuscripts, frescoes and textiles
show Buddhist images and depict various deities. Perhaps most striking,
though, is the strongly Chinese appearance and garments of many of the
Uighur figures who appear in wall paintings discovered a century ago in the
Chinese region of Xinjiang.
The critical move west occurred in the 11th century with another nomadic
Turkic people called the Seljuks, who occupied Baghdad and controlled much
of today's Iraq and Syria and part of Iran. Now Sunni Muslims, their artists
illustrated the Koran and other manuscripts with delicate hand-painted
scenes, while their ceramics, bronze sculptures and brass incense-holders
showed clear Iranian influence.
When the so-called Great Seljuks were defeated by the Mongols, who destroyed
Baghdad in 1258, a breakaway group called the Rum Seljuks moved into
Anatolia and for the first time settled in what is today's Turkey. Among
highlights from this period are hand-painted ceramic tiles depicting birds
and animals, engraved copper coins, woolen carpets and a double door of
wood, bronze and brass dating to the 13th century.
The Rum Seljuks were themselves crushed by the Mongols, but the Turkic epic
resumes with the emergence of Timur, a ruler almost as feared as the mighty
Genghis Khan himself. Known in the west as Tamerlane (and also as the
"Tamburlaine the Great" of Christopher Marlowe's play), Timur left a trail
of blood as he expanded his empire south and east, but he was also a devout
Muslim and a patron of art, architecture and scholarship.
After his death in 1405, the Ottomans who had been brought together in
Anatolia by Osman moved to fill the vacuum of power. And with Sultan Mehmed
I, the five-century-long Ottoman saga began, leading to Mehmed II's conquest
of Constantinople (now Istanbul) in 1453 and followed by further imperial
expansion under Suleyman the Magnificent, north through the Balkans toward
Vienna and south and west into the Middle East and North Africa.
For all their image as a permanent military threat to Europe, the Ottomans
were also ardent lovers of art and literature. Indeed, perhaps the most
surprising works in this show come from the late 15th century. These are
paintings attributed to Muhammad Siyah Qalam, known as Muhammad of the Black
Pen, which offer extraordinary - and often humorous - insight into the
lives, beliefs and imagination of the nomads of Central Asia.
There are demons aplenty depicted in combat, carrying a horse, trying to
drive a "stubborn donkey," binding a "captured dragon," in conversation,
dancing, even sawing a tree. There are also remarkable paintings depicting
ordinary life: two men making rope, three men in conversation, a musician
with an instrument resembling a lute, two men dancing wildly and a nomad
grazing his horse.
While Siyah Qalam was looking east for inspiration, however, the Ottoman
rulers were looking for recognition in the west. Thus, as early as 1480, the
Venetian artist Gentile Bellini painted a portrait of Mehmed II wearing a
large turban and a fur collar, while another Italian-style portrait
attributed to Shiblizade Ahmed, also in this show, portrays Mehmed daintily
smelling a rose. A sketchbook belonging to the sultan confirms his interest
in art.
But it was under Suleyman the Magnificent, who ruled from 1520 to 1566, that
the Ottoman Empire reached its height, not only in military ambition but
also in art, architecture, literature and law. A fine Venetian portrait
attributed to the circle of Titian shows the Sultan in profile, but it was
the Ottoman style that dominated illuminated manuscripts, porcelain,
weapons, carpets and furniture. Several silk and satin kaftans give a sense
of the splendor of the court.
The idea of ending this show in 1600 flows from the belief that, after
Mehmed III's death in 1603, the empire's centralized power began to ebb. Yet
it still had three centuries to run, and in Europe its mystique lived on,
inspiring Rembrandt portraits, Mozart and Rossini operas and the
19th-century fashion for Orientalism. In fact, how things Turkish long
captured the European imagination would make for another fine exhibition.
Perhaps this should be Turkey's next cultural step to win acceptance in
Europe.
Jason K. Lambrou
I wonder if DaVinci,Tintoreto,MichaelAngelo,Raphael, Botticelli etc were
Ottoman Turks ;-) ?
And there are not Greek monuments in today's Turkey, but all the great
Ottoman ;-) monuments
are in the Balkans,the great universities ;-) , schools of painting and
on and on.
>(
--
I don't worry about Turks,but history has taught
me to be cautious with them...GJK
kuac...@yahoo.com
Jason K. Lambrou wrote:
> --
> I don't worry about Turks,but history has taught
> me to be cautious with them...GJK
Wouldn't you know that some Greek, still fighting the Crusades or the
First World War, would take issue with an innocent art exhibit at the
Royal Academy here in London, that shows art work of persons who happen
to have been Ottoman (whether Muslim or Christian, speakers of Turkish,
Arabic, Aramaic, or Greek or Coptic or whatever) and are dead lo these
many years.
Give us a break. Next you'll say that if we don't capitulate you'll go
home and take your marbles with you.
markt...@yahoo.com
Jason K. Lambrou wrote:
> I don't worry about Turks,but history has taught
> me to be cautious with them...GJK
Greek hate culture taught the thugs of Greek/Armenian/PKK/KADEK
Anti-Turkish Hatred Inc. to hate, torture, rape and massacre innocent
and defenceless Turks unconditionally.
The sub-human anti-Turkish hatred fabricators, murderers of innocent
and defenceless Turks and thugs of Armenian/Greek/PKK/KADEK
anti-Turkish Hatred Inc., with a veracious appetite for innocent
Turkish blood, never stop in their relentless dreams of massacring all
Turks everywhere in the World. The sub-human Greek/Armenian/PKK/KADEK
terrorists think repeating anti-Turkish hate propaganda over and over
legitimize their rape, torture and murder of innocent and defenceless
Turkish human beings.
++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++
http://faculty.menlo.edu:8080/~jhiggins/tcvoices/trnchist/trnccr60.html
The Independence Years: 1960 - 1963.
During the 1960 - 1963 period, the Greek Cypriot leadership, through
numerous statements exposed their ulterior motives by stating that they
viewed independence as a stepping stone to ENOSIS (Union of Cyprus with
Greece):
Makarios: "Independence was not the aim and purpose of the EOKA
struggle. Foreign factors have prevented the achievement of the
national goal, but this should not be a cause for sorrow. New bastions
have been conquered and from this the Greek Cypriots will march on to
complete the final victory (ENOSIS)."
16.08.1960
Greek Cypriot Press
Makarios: ". . . Until this small community that forms part of the
Turkish race which has been the terrible enemy of Hellenism is
expelled, the duty of the heroes of EOKA cannot be considered as
terminated."
04.09.1962
Panayia Village
Makarios: "It is true that the goal of our struggle is to annex Cyprus
to Greece."
05.09.1963
Interview Published
in Uusi Suomi, Stockholm
Makarios: "If I have any ambition, it is to link my name with the union
of Cyprus with Greece. The expansion of Greece's boundaries up to the
shores of North Africa, through ENOSIS."
Interview with "Apoyevmatini"
September 8th, 1964
"The assertion by Mr. Christides (May 10, 1999) that there was no
ethnic cleansing or attempted genocide of Turkish Cypriots by Greek
Cypriots is ridiculous. Until influential Greek Cypriots come to terms
with the appalling behavior of their community toward the smaller
Turkish Cypriot community and stop trying to persuade themselves and
the world that each side was as much to blame as the other, there will
be no reconciliation in Cyprus."
Michael Stephen, British
Parliamentarian (1992-97)
"Makarios's central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so
that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring Turkish
Cypriots. Obviously we would never permit that. "The fact is, however,
that neither the United Nations, nor anyone, other than Turkey ever
took effective action to prevent it."
George Ball
American
Undersecretary of State
"Greek Cypriot fanatics appear bent on a policy of genocide."
the Washington Post, Feb. 17,
196
"I was convinced that if Archbishop Makarios could not bring himself to
treat the Turkish Cypriots as human beings he was inviting the invasion
and partition of the island."
Sir Alec
Douglas-Home
Former British
Prime Minister
On July 28, 1960 Makarios, the Greek Cypriot president, said: "The
independence agreements do not form the goal they are the present and
not
the future. The Greek Cypriot people will continue their national cause
and
shape their future in accordance with THEIR will."
In a speech on Sept. 4, 1962 at Panayia Makarios said, "Until this
Turkish
community forming part of the Turkish race that has been the terrible
enemy
of Hellenism is expelled, the duty of the heroes of EOKA can never be
considered terminated."
"When the Turkish Cypriots objected to the amendment of the
Constitution,
Makarios put his plan into effect, and the Greek Cypriot attack began
in
December 1963," wrote Lt. Gen. George Karayiannis of The Greek Cypriot
militia ("Ethnikos Kiryx" 15.6.65). The general was referring to the
notorious "Akritas" plan, which was the blueprint for the annihilation
of
the Turkish Cypriots and the annexation of the island to Greece.
On Dec. 28, 1963, the Daily Express carried the following report from
Cyprus: "We went tonight into the sealed-off Turkish Cypriot quarter of
Nicosia in which 200 to 300 people had been slaughtered in the last
five
days. We were the first Western reporters there, and we have seen
sights too
frightful to be described in print. Horror was so extreme that the
people
seemed stunned beyond tears."
On Dec. 31, 1963, The Guardian reported: "It is nonsense to claim, as
the
Greek Cypriots do, that all casualties were caused by fighting between
armed
men of both sides. On Christmas Eve many Turkish Cypriot people were
brutally attacked and murdered in their suburban homes, including the
wife
and children of a doctor-allegedly by a group of 40 men, many in army
boots
and greatcoats." Although the Turkish Cypriots fought back as best they
could and killed some militia, there were no massacres of Greek Cypriot
civilians
On Jan. 1, 1964, the Daily Herald reported: "When I came across the
Turkish
Cypriot homes they were an appalling sight. Apart from the walls they
just
did not exist. I doubt if a napalm attack could have created more
devastation. Under roofs springs, children's cots, and gray ashes of
what
had once been tables, chairs and wardrobes. In the neighboring village
of
Ayios Vassilios I counted 16 wrecked and burned out homes. They were
all
Turkish Cypriot's. In neither village did I find a scrap of damage to
any
Greek Cypriot house."
On Jan. 12, 1964, the British High Commission in Nicosia wrote in a
telegram
to London: "The Greek [Cypriot] police are led by extremist who
provoked the
fighting and deliberately engaged in atrocities. They have recruited
into
their ranks as 'special constables' gun-happy young thugs. They
threaten to
try and punish any Turkish Cypriot police who wishes to return to the
Cyprus
Government... Makarios assured Sir Arthur Clark that there will be no
attack. His assurance is as worthless as previous assurances have
proved."
On Jan. 14, 1964, the Daily Telegraph reported that the Turkish Cypriot
inhabitants of Ayios Vassilios had been massacred on Dec. 26, 1963 and
reported their exhumation from a mass grave in the presence of the Red
Cross. A further massacre of Turkish Cypriots, at Limassol, was
reported by
The Observer on Feb. 16, 1964; and there were many more.
On Feb. 15, 1964, the Daily Telegraph reported: "It is a real military
operation which the Greek Cypriots launched against the 6,000
inhabitants of
the Turkish Cypriot quarter yesterday morning. A spokesman for the
Greek
Cypriot government has recognized this officially. It is hard to
conceive
how Greek and Turkish Cypriots may seriously contemplate working
together
after all that has happened."
On Sept. 10, 1964, the U.N. Secretary-General reported that "UNFICYP"
carried out a detailed survey of all damage to properties throughout
the
island during the disturbances... It shows that in 109 villages, most
of
them Turkish-Cypriot or mixed villages, 527 houses have been destroyed
while
2,000 others have suffered damage from looting. In Ktima 38 houses and
shops
have been destroyed totally and 122 partially. In the Orphomita suburb
of
Nicosia, 50 houses have been totally destroyed while a further 240 have
been
partially destroyed there and in adjacent suburbs."
The U.K. House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs reviewed
the
Cyprus question in 1987 and reported unanimously on July 2 of that year
that
"although the Cyprus Government now claims to have been merely seeking
to
'operate the 1960 Constitution modified to the extent dictated by the
necessities of the situation,' this claim ignores the fact that both
before
and after the events o#, December 1963 the Makarios Government
continued to
advocate the cause of ENOSIS and actively pursued the amendment of the
Constitution and the related treaties to facilitate this ultimate
objective."
The committee continued: "Moreover, in June 1967 the Greek Cypriot
legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favor of enosis, in
blatant
contravention of the 1960 Treaties and Constitution." (Art. I of the
Treaty
of Guarantee prohibited any action likely to directly or indirectly
promote
union with any other state or partition of the island, and Art. 185(2)
of
the Constitution is to similar effect.)
Professor Ernst Forsthoff, the neutral president of the Supreme
Constitutional Court of Cyprus, told Die Welt on Dec. 27, 1963:
"Makarios
bears on his shoulders the sole responsibility for the recent tragic
events.
His aim is to deprive the Turkish community of their rights". In an
interview with the UPI press agency on Dec. 30, 1963 he said, "All this
happened because Makarios wanted to take away all constitutional rights
from
the Turkish Cypriots."
More than 300 Turkish Cypriots are still missing without trace from
these
massacres of 1963/64. These dreadful events were not the responsibility
of
"the Greek Colonels" of 1974 or an unrepresentative handful of Greek
Cypriot
extremists. The persecution of the Turkish Cypriots was an act of
policy on
the part of the Greek Cypriot political and religious leadership, which
has
to this day made no serious attempt to bring the murderers to justice.
The UK Commons Select Committee found that "there is little doubt that
much
of the violence which the Turkish Cypriots claim led to the total or
partial
destruction of 103 Turkish villages and the displacement of about a
quarter
of the total Turkish Cypriot population was either directly inspired
by, or
connived at, by the Greek Cypriot leadership."
The UN secretary-general reported to the Security Council: "When the
disturbances broke out in December 1963 and continued during the first
part
of 1964, thousands of Turkish Cypriots fled their homes, taking with
them
only what they could drive or carry, and sought refuge in safer
villages and
areas."
On Jan. 14, 1964, "ll Giorno" of Italy reported: "Right now we are
witnessing the exodus of Turkish Cypriots from the villages. Thousands
of
people abandoning homes, land, herds. Greek Cypriot terrorism is
relentless.
This time the rhetoric of the Hellenes and the statues of Plato do not
cover
up their barbaric and ferocious behavior."
There were further attacks on the Turkish Cypriots in 1967. In 1971,
General
Grivas returned to Cyprus to form EOKA-B, which was again committed to
making Cyprus a wholly Greek island and annexing it to Greece. In a
speech
to the Greek Cypriot armed forces at the time (quoted in "New Cyprus,"
May
1987) Grivas said: "The Greek forces from Greece have come to Cyprus in
order to impose the will of the Greeks of Cyprus upon the Turks. We
want
ENOSIS but the Turks are against it. We shall impose our will. We are
strong, and we shall do so."
By July 15, 1974, a powerful force of mainland Greek troops had
assembled in
Cyprus and with their backing, the Greek Cypriot National Guard
overthrew
Makarios and installed one Nicos Sampson as "president." On July 22,
the
Washington Star News reported: "Bodies littered the streets and there
were
mass burials... People told by Makarios to lay down their guns were
shot by
the National Guard."
On April 17, 1991, Ambassador Nelson Ledsky testified before the U.S.
Senate
Foreign Relations Committee that "most of the 'missing persons'
disappeared
in the first days of July 1974, before the Turkish intervention on the
20th.
Many killed on the Greek side were killed by Greek Cypriots in fighting
between supporters of Makarios and Sampson."
On Nov. 6, 1974, Ta Nea reported that dates from the graves of Greek
Cypriots killed in the five days between July 15-20 were erased in
order to
blame these deaths on the subsequent Turkish military action.
On March 3, 1996, the Greek Cypriot Cyprus Mail wrote: "(Greek) Cypriot
governments have found it convenient to conceal the scale of atrocities
during the July 15 coup in an attempt to downplay its contribution to
the
tragedy of the summer of 1974 and instead blame the Turkish invasion
for all
casualties. There can be no justification for any government that
failed to
investigate this sensitive humanitarian issue. The shocking admission
by the
Clerides government that there are people buried in Nicosia cemetery
who are
still included in the list of the 'missing' is the last episode of a
human
drama which has been turned into a propaganda tool."
On Oct. 19 1996, Mr. Georgios Lanitis wrote: "I was serving with the
Foreign
Information Service of the Republic of Cyprus in London... I deeply
apologize to all those I told that there are 1,619 missing persons. I
misled
them. I was made a liar, deliberately, by the government of Cyprus .
....
today it seems that the credibility of Cyprus is nil."
The Times and The Guardian reported on Aug. 21, 1974 that in the
village of
Tokhni on Aug. 14, 1974 all the Turkish Cypriot men between the ages of
13
and 74, except for eighteen who managed to escape, were taken away and
shot.
There were also reports that in Zyyi on the same day all the
Turkish-Cypriot
men aged between 19 an 38 were taken away and were never seen again and
that
Greek-Cypriots opened fire on the Turkish-Cypriot neighborhood of
Paphos
killing men, women, and children indiscriminately.
On July 23, 1974, the Washington Post reported that "in a Greek raid on
a
small Turkish village near Limassol 36 people out of a population of
200
were killed. The Greeks said that they had been given orders to kill
the
inhabitants of the Turkish villages before the Turkish forces arrived."
The
Times and The Guardian also reported on the killings.
"The Greeks began to shell the Turkish quarter on Saturday, refugees
said.
Kazan Dervis, a Turkish Cypriot girl aged 15, said she had been staying
with
her uncle. The [Greek Cypriot] National Guard came into the Turkish
sector
and shooting began. She saw her uncle and other relatives taken away as
prisoners, and later heard her uncle had been shot." (Times 23.7.74)
On July 28, 1974 the New York Times reported that 14 Turkish-Cypriot
men had
been shot in Alaminos. On July 24, 1974 France Soir reported that "the
Greeks burned Turkish mosques and set fire to Turkish homes in the
villages
around Famagusta. Defenseless Turkish villagers who have weapons live
in an
atmosphere of terror and they evacuate their homes and go and live in
tents
in the forest. The Greeks' actions are a shame to humanity."
The German newspaper Die Zeit wrote on Aug. 30, "The massacre of
Turkish
Cypriots in Paphos and Famagusta is the proof of how justified the
Turks
were to undertake their intervention."
"Turkish Cypriots, who had suffered from physical attacks since 1963,
called
on the guarantor powers to prevent a Greek conquest of the island. When
Britain did nothing Turkey invaded Cyprus and occupied its northern
part.
Turkish Cypriots have constitutional right on their side and
understandably
fear a renewal of persecution if the Turkish army withdraws", the Daily
Telegraph wrote on Aug. 15, 1996.
"Turkey intervened to protect the lives and property of the
Turkish-Cypriots, and to its credit it has done just that. In the 12
years
since, there have been no killings and no massacres" Lord Willis
(Labor)
told the House of Lords on Dec. 17, 1986.
On March 12, 1977, Makarios declared, "It is in the name of ENOSIS that
Cyprus has been destroyed."
markt...@yahoo.com
It was not the Turks who "marched into central Europe in 1529 and again
in 1683"; it was the Ottomans who did so. The Turks then were just a
subjugated nation of Ottoman empire which was solely made up of a ruler
called "Sultan" who was a son of a slave concubine of Southeastern
European Christian origins, ministers, generals, other goverment
officials and the entire ruling class of people of Southeastern
European Christian origins (Greeks, Serbs, Bulgars, Armenians,
Albanians and others) with not a single Turk among them.
Turks under Ottoman rule were just another one of its subjugated
nations. Turks did not democratically elect or support Ottoman rule.
Ottoman empire was not a democratic represantative of Turkish nation.
Every single Ottoman official was a person of non-Turkish origins.
Every single Ottoman sultan was born and raised by a Christian slave
concubine woman of non-Turkish origins. Ottoman empire did not even
call itself "Turk". That was all delibarate.
Turks had to fight a very bloody and long independence war against
Ottoman empire and the victors of WWI to establish their democratic
Republic of Turkey on October 29, 1923. Until then Turkey did not
exist.
Anti-Turkish hate propaganda and discrimination started as early as
Ottoman's rising times by the very Ottoman rule which, ironically
enough, was born out of a small Turkish principlaity. From its early
years until its decline and collapse, during its entire history, its
Turkish subjects were only a small minority to its general subject
population. And, never in its 600 years of history, Ottoman Empire
employed people of Turkish race for its ranks and file, nor did it ever
pursue Turkish nationalism, culture, wellfare, aspirations, etc.
On the contrary, under Ottoman rule, Turks were oppressed the most and
discriminated against the most; they were kept as the poorest, least
educated, totally isolated, politically, economically and socailly
totally powerless. In Ottoman culture, the word "Turk" meant something
to be very ashamed of, therefore nobody called him/herself a Turk
except for Turks. Pursuing Turkish nationalism, culture, wellfare,
aspirations, etc. was against Ottoman law and punished by death.
It is a well documented fact that Ottoman goverment was made up of
Armenians, Greeks, Serbs, Albanians and other non-Turkish subjects.
Christian concubine-born Ottoman sultans had all their Pashas and
officers (miltary generals and administrators) at all levels of their
goverment from their non-Turkish subjects. Not a single Turk was
allowed to be an Ottoman official or participate in Ottoman goverment
decisions.
Europeans knew all about this very well. Baron Wenceslas Wradislaw, an
ambassador to Ottoman Constantinople, observed and documented "Never
did I hear it said of any pasha, or observe either in Constantinople or
in the whole land of Ottoman, that any pasha was a national born Turk;
on the contrary, kidnapped, or captured, or turned Ottoman."
Ottoman empire did not even call itself "Turk". Ottoman rulers
(sultans) kept Turks totally out of its ranks. Every Ottoman ruler was
a son of a woman concubine of non-Turkish descent to be just another
precaution to keep Turks out of their ranks. Including the sultan on
the top, every single Ottoman official, businessman, intellectual,
person of economical, social influence and power was of non-Turkish
races, mostly South Eastern European peoples. For instance the most
famous Ottoman admiral, Barborosa, was a Christian Greek corsair.
Why? Because, Ottoman empire established its rule in Anatolia by
destroying many big and small Turkish states, pricipalities and
cheifdoms. Ottoman dynasty did not want to give any chance whatsoever
to Turks to get powerfull enough to topple Ottoman rule and take
control of Anatolia again.
So, the worst enemy of Turks was the Ottoman Empire.
The other equally relentless enemies of Turks were the other
non-Turkish subjects of Ottoman Empire and the Christian Europeans.
Christian Europe ignored the fact that Turks were just another
oppressed and subjugated nation under Ottoman rule and attached the
word "Turkish" to Ottoman Empire hoping to dehumanize Moslem Turks and
create an hatred against them so it would be easier to massacre and
drive them out of their homes and country in Europe and Anatolia after
the eventual collapse of Ottomnan Empire. That was a part of Eauropean
anti-Ottoman war propaganda which lasted until today.
But, this was also a very usefull tool for the other non-Turkish
subjects of Ottoman Empire to be used to carve up Ottoman lands
including Anatolia for "homelands" for their own after the eventual
collapse of Ottomnan Empire.
Yes, Ottoman Empire collapsed, dismembered and disappeared; almost all
the former Ottoman subjugated peoples have got what they wanted: their
sort of freedoms and not so democratic states, raped, tortured,
massacred huge number of innocent Ottoman Turkish subjects, confiscated
and plundered their properties and drove them out of their homes from
almost all former Ottoman lands except for Anatolia where some of the
Turks, thanks to God, managed to survive with a brilliant leadership of
M.K.Ataturk and equally brilliant Turks who committed themsleves to be
"Unconditionally free from hatred, jealousy and greed against fellow
human beings for a lasting peace at home and the World."
But unfortunately, the enemies of former Ottoman empire failed to
educate themselves to be unconditionally free from hatered, greed and
jealousy againts their fellow human beings regardless of race,
language, culture, nationality, history (yes history which is still is
curropted to be a source of hatred), etc.
Yes, they were able to inflict enourmous sufferings on Turks but, they
just were not able to massacre the entire one hundred percent of
Turkish population in Anatolia, today's Demmocratic Republic of Turkey.
That is why so many people are bitching about Turks and Turkey now. If
they were successful in massacreing the entire one hundred percent of
the Turks of Turkey, today we would hear no bitching from the haters
and killers of Turks.
Jason K. Lambrou
"Psychopaths like Sean and Mark Rivers are not disoriented or out of touch with reality, nor
do they experience the delusions, hallucinations, or intense subjective
distress that characterize most other mental disorders," "Unlike psychotic
individuals, psychopaths are rational and aware of what they are doing
and why. Their behavior is the result of choice, freely exercised." Diagnosing
Sean or Mark Rivers as a psychopath represents neither a legal defense, nor a moral excuse.
But it illuminates a great deal about the thought process that drives them
to mass posting in S.C.G.
Diagnosing them as psychopaths is not a simple matter. Sean opens his posting
with the sentence, "I hate the f---ing giriks." And when Henry studied Sean, he
focused on his hatred—hatred that supposedly leads him to continuous posting.
BTW Henry is only critical of Greek posters.
Alphalink
<markt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107378191....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ali Asker
30/01/2005 KurdishMedia.com (Translated)
Former [Turkish] Minister of Culture Namik Kemal Zeybek has claimed
that the Prophet Muhammad was a Turk.
Speaking at a conference on "The New World Order and Turkey" held at
the Alanya Turkish Hearth, Namik Kemal Zeybek said that the most
important nation in the world's eight thousand years of history are
the Turks, and that it was the Turks that taught civilization to
humanity.
Claiming that the roots of the Turkish Nation extend back to the
Sumerians, Zeybek said that "Our Prophet Muhammad's origins also go
back to the Sumerians. Consequently, the Prophet Muhammad was also a
Turk."
Zeybek, who also claimed that the Sumerians had been the first to
engage in bribery, spoke as follows:
"The society that initiated civilization in the world was the Turks as
well. World history began with the Turks. The Ottomans ruled the world
for 600 years, and everyone in a great many countries today has
respect for the Ottomans. Essentially, the roots of the citizens
living in the Western countries today are also Turkish. Westerners are
abandoning their existing religion and trying to seek new religions.
Their own churches are empty."
Translated from Turkish by KurdishMedia.com; Turkish original
available at: Prophet Muhammad was a Turk
kuac...@yahoo.com
Jesus ... were all Muslims. If it makes them happy to claim others'
prophets for themselves, why should outsiders care? Everybody seems to
want to claim Alexander the Great... and as for that fight over the
name «Macedonia», well that's a giggle too.
Costica Gogule KOKU !
Give the GREB an Oscar !
*LMFAOAY*
Jason K. Lambrou
Ali Asker
I just find it really funny All thise turks that claiming Muhammed was
a Turk..
Former [Turkish] Minister of Culture Namik Kemal Zeybek has claimed
that the Prophet Muhammad was a Turk and Turks that tought the
civilization
to humanity!!
hahahahaha
In one instant Turkish scholars claiming that turkish roots are from
Mongolia and in the other instant when it suits them they are saying
turkish origins goes back to sumerians.. I am just confused and don't
know what to believe!!
I guess Turks are the Lost tribes of the Israelisss
stardimi***
So how come they spoke turkish?
Gregory Pekmezciyan
"stardimi***" <jbo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1edf1f1b.05020...@posting.google.com...
We don't know which language they have spoken but we know that they have
almost written poets by using Persian language.
I think you're clarified.
stardimi***
Interesting. So let's ask a different question then. What was the
language of the state (or upper class or whatever) through time and
how come all the converted subjects (to islam) speak Turkish today.
Are you saying that this happened only after the rise of Turkish
nationalism?
JX Bardant
"Ali Asker" <pasa_...@lycos.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1107517766.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Former Turkish Minister: `Prophet Muhammad was a Turk`
>
>
> 30/01/2005 KurdishMedia.com (Translated)
>
>
> Former [Turkish] Minister of Culture Namik Kemal Zeybek has claimed
> that the Prophet Muhammad was a Turk.
So was Elvis Presley.
Hum.
I mean, "is".
Jason K. Lambrou
Gregory the Armenian wannabe Turk is backmouhahahahahahahaha