From: han@anadolu.michigan.com (hasan.b.mutlu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.bulgaria
Subject: ...Today They Would Call You 'Dundar,' 'Dandulakis.'
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:51:00 GMT


<1992Apr13.225733.3135@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
gd8f@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory  Dandulakis)

>Finally he almost tries to justify this into the Medieval context,
>failing again to realize the "pioneer" work of the Ottomans in 
>Social Engineering, even under Medieval Age criteria. Not to mention
>that these "novel" cruelties hardly justify the selfclaiming "progressive"
>nature of the Ottomans. Exactly the opposite, they nicely explain the modern
>racial composition of the Turkified ex-christians of Turkey etc.

A fascinating piece of junk, 'Dandi*.' If Turks had behaved like 
Christians to use force to convert to Islam the nations which they 
brought under their power, to which no one could have opposed, today 
they would call you 'Dundar.' But Turks did not do so.

All historians are agreed that these freedoms granted to the Christian subjects
played a major role in the weakening of the Ottoman Empire. As long as the 
Empire was strong and struck fear in Europe, the Christian subjects were
content to exploit the victorious Turks by dominating finance, commerce and
industry. But after the conclusion of the treaties of Pasarofca and Kucuk
Kaynarca following the defeat at Mohac, the same Christian subjects felt
that the Empire was beginning to decline and they began to collaborate openly
or secretly with the states that were relentless enemies of Turkey. If Turks
had not been endowed with a patience and camless the exaggeration of which
verges upon being a flaw, they would certainly have punished very severely
these internal enemies who could no longer conceal their intrigues and 
treachery and who used military losses of the Turks as their victories.

"...human beings hate each other on account of religious differences. This flaw
is older than Islam and Christianity. But there has never been any examples
of this adjuration in Turkey because Turks never oppress anybody on account
of his religion. If enmity on the basis of religion had been such a case of
simple contempt among us too, or if it did not keep translating itself into
action, many nations in our Europe would probably have considered themselves
happy!" (A. de Mortraye).[1]

"Turkey never became a scene for religious terror or for the cruelty of the
inquisition. On the contrary, it served as an asylum for the unfortunate
victims of Christian fanaticism. If you look into history, you will see that
in the fifteenth century thousands of Jews who were expelled from Spain and
Portugal found such a good asylum in Turkey that their descendants have been
living there very calmly all through these approximately three hundred years,
and are only forced to defend themselves in some countries against the
cruelty of Christians, especially that of the Orthodoxes. No Jew is able to
appear in public during Easter celebrations in Athens, even today. In Turkey,
however, if the Israelites are insulted by the Greek and Armenian communities,
local courts immediately take them under their protection."

"In that vast and calm country of the sultan, all religions and nations are
living together peacefully. Although the mosque is superior to the church and
the synagogue, it does not replace them. Because of this, the Catholic sect is
more free in Istanbul and Smyrna (mine: Izmir) compared with Paris and Lyon.
In addition to the fact that no law in Turkey prohibits the open-air ceremonies
of this sect, neither does any law imprison its cross in the church. While the
dead are being taken to the graves, a long line of priests bear processional
candles and chant Catholic hymns. When all the priests in all the churches in
the Galata and Beyoglu districts go into the streets and form clerical
processions during the Eucharist celebrations, chanting hymns and bearing
their crosses and religious banners, a detachment of soldiers escorts them
which forces even the Turks to stand in respect around the group of 
priests." (A. Ubicini).[2]

>              1. 1 out of 4 children (in families with 8-10 of them in
>                 average) were forcefully brainwashed to Ottoman muslims.

Are you somehow related to 'Wieneramus?' Where is your verifiable evidence?
The Ottomans established a centralized system and regarded the state as an
indivisible holy entity. Mehmet the Conqueror's approval of the execution
of brothers (of a sultan after he ascends the throne, to prevent possible
insurrections because the crown is disputed) for the sake of the 'ever-existing
state' is an example of how much importance the sultans attach to this subject.
According to the Ottoman ideal of the 'World Order' which was a combination
of Islamic principles and traditions Turks had brought from Central Asia,
the principle duty of the state was to spread God's word in the world.
This principle gave the Ottomans the responsibility of establishing justice
in the lands they conquered.[3] Gungor approaches this subject from the
socio-psychological viewpoint, emphasizes that the lack of tolerance arises
mainly from a sense of insecurity and attributes the toleration Turks showed
throughout history, to their ability to establish powerful states. Thus, to
use the example given by M. K. Oke, a person becomes intolerant if he expects
harm: "Statements by mentally ill persons do not upset anybody. Also, the 
mistakes of children are always tolerated because they do not have the power
to upset the social order. The Turkish people regarded the minorities as people
who were enjoying peace and welfare thanks to it and did not envision any 
danger from them while it was strong."[4] It follows that on account of such
thoughts and feelings, the Ottomans treated with toleration the non-Moslem
peoples of the areas that became included in their 'Pax Islamicus': in the
social order which is generally called the 'millet system,' the minorities
were granted important freedoms. Although the administrative mechanism was a
strictly centralized one, the Ottoman Empire 'was a classical example of a
pluralist social order.' Western scholars who have done research in the 
Ottoman archives are agreed that, in spite of some shortcomings, the Ottoman
State provided a life of peace and welfare for the nations that lived under
its rule. Furthermore, compared with the states established in the lands of
the Ottoman Empire after its collapse, the Ottoman state has a remarkable
record concerning its treatment of minorities.[5]

[1]  Ah. Djevat, "Yabancilara Gore Eski Turkler," 3rd ed. (Istanbul, 1978),
     pp. 214-215.
[2]  Ibid., pp. 215-216.
[3]  A Taneri, "Turk Devlet Gelenegi," (Ankara, 1975). Furthermore, O. Turan
     writes that Turkish states before the Ottoman Empire also showed 
     toleration to minorities and that they provided freedom of belief (Turk
     Cihan Hakimiyeti Mefkuresi Tarihi, v. 2, Istanbul, 1969.)
[4]  E. Gungor, "Kultur Degismesi ve Milliyetcilik," 2nd ed. (Istanbul, 1984),
     pp. 142-143. This author's observation concerning minorities is also worth
     quoting: "In reality, minorities in a country are like harmful bacteria in
     a living organism. As long as the organism is strong, the bacteria are 
     inactive; but when it becomes weak, they try to eat it up." (p. 142).
[5]  B. Braude/B. Lewis, eds., "Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire:
     The Functioning of Pluralist Society," (New York/London, 1982), p. 1.


Hasan B-) Mutlu

                     'Kill Turks and Kurds wherever you find them 
                      and in whatever circumstances you find them. 
                      Turkish children also should be killed as 
                      they form a danger to the Armenian nation.' 
                                     (Hamparsum Boyadjian - 1914)