Ottoman Baroque and Istanbul are so elegant, shame that Turkey today has a “neo-ottoman” and less secular leader. In my opinion the country should move closer to Europe. Thoughts?
Posted by d2mensions@reddit | AskBalkans | View on Reddit | 145 comments
I believe the European architecture and influence Istanbul, and the western part of Turkey has is the best influence of Turkey and the best representation of Turkish culture. Not because i don’t like Islam, but because i see Turkey as an European country. The country today should have the same principles as Ataturk.
huggugu@reddit
Neo ottoman not turkey claim. west claim
No-Programmer4689@reddit
zaman zaman istanbul - fantastik bir kurgu roman okumak isteyenler için: https://www.kitapyurdu.com/kitap/dogrudanyayincilik/749744.html
RasyonelRumi@reddit
I believe Turkey should keep its distance from Europe, and I see rising Euroscepticism as a positive development. In my view, we don’t share the same values, historical background, or linguistic roots. Many Turks seem to support EU membership mainly for visa liberalization. Personally, I don’t think my country needs to be closely aligned with Europe and it’s clear that many Europeans don’t want us either. I disagree with Neo-Ottomanism and non-secularism as ideologies, but I appreciate seeing their influence in our art, architecture, and culture.
Budget_Insurance329@reddit
The problem is that in the current world is not really possible to take a distance from Europe and stay democratic and secular, especially for Turkey (a country in the same sphere with Europe, and not as big as countries like Brazil that are kind of managing it).
SpinachDifferent4763@reddit
I would like to see Turkey one day join the EU. However opposition to Turkeys membership is not just because of prejudice. It can very hard to get in the EU. Even a country in the heart of the Europe like Serbia has spent the past 20 years trying to get in the EU.
There is a very long list of requirements. Pertaining to everything from respect for property rights, democracy, freedom of speech, absence of corruption, the environment. Minority and gay rights, Innumerable things related to trading standards etc Apparently there are 34 booklets of lists of standards you need to fulfil and Turkey has only completely fulfilled 8 of these lists of high standards.
Whilst others standards have only been partially or not at all completed. Turkey would also probably have to reach at least 75 percent of the per capita income of the richest countries. As when a new poorer country joins the EU. All of the richer countries invest a very large amount of money.
So they can help them reach the same level of development. Even at 75 percent of the EU average EU income. Turkey would get a huge amount of money, because it is such a big country. The EU is like an exclusive club.
Which aim is to eventually turn the continent into a federation like America. However it is not just Turkey which need to change a lot to so does the EU. As it would need to continue to evolve a a great deal, because it would be a challenge to absorb such a big country. The Turks have to decide whether they want to be European and a leading member in a European federation or go the other way.
However you will never get into the EU if you have an authoritarian leader. Who demands EU membership, while making zero effort to fulfil more of the requirements. I think he has completed a few membership requirements but not many.
Budget_Insurance329@reddit
I also don’t see EU membership as realistic, at least in my lifetime (I am 25). I think the solution is something like EFTA reassessed based on Turkey’s reality.
SpinachDifferent4763@reddit
Poland has been transformed beyond recognition. If you go to Warsaw now you will see loads of skyscrapers, shopping malls and nice houses etc. When it joined the EU it was still a poor country. Whereas now it is officially classed as a developed country.
The EU has actually funded building a national highway network in Poland. When they first joined, there were only a few highways in the whole country. They also now have drinkable tap water, like other European countries. I don't think the rules would change for Turkey and you would certainly get a great deal of help in developing your economy.
You are only 25 and will most likely see Turkey join the EU in your lifetime. Basically all you need is a properly democratic government, which is actually committed to achieving the membership requirements. If that happened tomorrow it would most likely take 10 to 20 years. I would like to see Turkey one day join the EU.
Do you think Turkey change its politics anytime soon?
Budget_Insurance329@reddit
With Erdogan, no. After a change in the government everything is possible but I see that most of the world gave up on such a transition and want to treat Turkey in the same way they treat Azerbaijan, Kazakstan or Saudi Arabia as they don’t think Turkey is capable of democracy anymore. Obviously this makes this change harder.
Worried-Owl-9198@reddit
While I fully support the political sentiment european art isn't the sole standard for beauty our heritage has plenty of elegant masterpieces that predate western trends
anchaescastilla@reddit
But that's the thing, diving architecture into western and eastern is so stupid, and Istanbul is the clear example of that. I mean, tell me what is more western than a building engineered by romans using greek books and mathematics dedicated to Jesus? That's the Hagia Sophia, not fucking Notre Damme. If "western architecture" means architecture based on roman engineering, greek aesthetical principles made by Christians/people who follow roman law, Istanbul is the origin of Western Architecture and thus some of the best examples of western architecture are Ottoman mosques, specially in times where a lot of Europe was absorbing and incorporating non western architectural influences from north africa and/or central asia (Iberia, sicily, venice and egypt, france and egypt etc etc). This idea is so stupid. XIX imperialism convinced us that somehow REAL WESTERN ARCHITECTURE is a gothic cathedral built by the grandsonds of literal pagan vikings and not a roman building built in the greek language and all it's glorious, millenia spanding iterations throught the city.
Worried-Owl-9198@reddit
The works I’m talking about are not only related to Istanbul or even just the Ottomans Seljuk works are also part of it.
Old-Pudding6950@reddit
Turkey 100% has architectural styles that don’t come from western/european tradition
I think the commenter was contesting the fact that this makes Turkey not part of European art
Think about it:
Yet none of them are excluded from “Western architecture”
Top-Tomorrow-8336@reddit
In Hispanic countries we speak of Mozarabic (and its counterpart Mudéjar) as a valuable style in itself.
iongion@reddit
But this is all there is, architectures, languages, people, are not homogenous, they mix, they are alive, there are nuances, styles, but there has to be border! Why ?
Old-Pudding6950@reddit
I love your humanist take, and I wholeheartedly agree
However, we also need to understand why certain things happen to better navigate our world: I feel like borders are needed
First and foremost, they help us understand: once you decompose complex things into smaller simple units, you can then study how they interact and delve into nuances, creating the smooth continuous mental picture you were talking about
Secondly, there politically needs to be an administrative border to guarantee internal cohesion. Otherwise it gets very hard to see eye to eye.
It’s one thing to argue Turkey shall be part of EU, as Turkey its clearly part of the European civilization (that bridged Europe with the middle eastern civilization), and as we see its already hard to do in the short term as the EU really doesn’t want to mess this up and risks breaking its cultural cohesion.
It’s another thing to argue Turkey shall be part of China, where there are completely different ways of living and seeing life
I may be wrong here, but I’d even say a Turkish person may feel more at home in Italy than they would in Saudi Arabia, despite the former being the Christian country: - both Mediterranean countries - a 2000 years rich history of continuous exchanges during the Ottoman and same Roman Empire! - Turkey successfully absorbed secular enlightenment values, while other Islamic countries appear to struggle way more at that - Similar ways of living (family-oriented, value the importance of social gatherings, value cuisine as tradition, value peace of life and animals well being…)
anchaescastilla@reddit
What an interesting take, thanks for writing it up! I don't agree with your reasons to justify borders. I am understanding borders means Nation States in this context, more than the actual physical borders.
With your first point I agree, contrast helps study difference. But I don't think data mining is worth the pain nationalism has caused in the last couple centuries. There's better data mining tools than the somme, or the breaking of yugoslavia. To speak about my country, what we learn about the differences when they emerge from nationalism is not worth the fact that wherever you are in my country you are never more than 50 Kms away from a mass grave of antifascist / democrats who where shot to the head right there in the name of "save the motherland". Not worth it, it'd rather do maths and shit haha
on your second point, administrative divisions don't need to be antagonistic and about identity but administrative and about resource managing. Identities are a countinuum, setting a line and thinking it separates cultures is just a joke. Even in modern border areas with a couple centuries of hard inforcement, people both sides are super similar, even in language. Administering resources is nice, creating fake identity division based on those administrative divisions just helps the elite that manages that administration justify all kind of bullshit, like the stuff mentioned in point two. You don't see people from different districts of istanbul going to war with each other because of FEELINGS (national identity is a feeling), and they work fine not only in dividing administration, but in doing it in a way more fitting to that specific district without antagonizing the next district or stealing resources from it.
With the rest of your points I agree. The mistake is thinking that the EU has anything to do with identity or "Europeaness". I mean it HAS created some kind of that abstract attachment to the idea of Europe in younger generations, like mine, in a lot of members, but it is mainly a financial union that derived in a border union for free flow of goods (workers being considered goods) and ruling body that mainly deals with consumer protection regulation (fuck yeah btw) but nothing beyond in terms of political union. The EU was created and expanded under very very specific geopolitical circumstances, and it was a way to put together the part of europe the US conquered and stayed in vs the one the soviets conquered and stayed in after WWII. If political unions where based on capital letter things (Culture, Legacy, whatever empty significant like that) Spain would not be in a political union with people from fucking Latvia or Findland (super nice people of course, but not less culturaly alien to me than a russian), spain would be in a union with cuba and argentina and morocco and italy and greece and turkey etc etc. So yeah, the EU has been a tool for the post WW2 geopolitical subjugation of Europe in geopolitical terms, so I don't even think it was up to us europeans whom we allow in and how, kind of similar to how we can't really choose who plays the euroleague or the campions league. Turkey (or any other balkan country for that matter) would make way more cultural sense in the EU than Iceland, with all the difference it has.
With common mediterranean identity I totally agree. Turkey is not strange to me, you'll find me sitting with a friend on a bench eating sunflower seeds anytime. I would be more bold and tell you: the turkish people I've met (mostly from Istanbul, or moved to Istanbul) have way more in common not only with italians or spaniards, but with people like argentinians. Someone from Istanbul is way more at home in Buenos Aires than in Riad by several orders of magnitude just because of shared mediterranean way of doing things.
Old-Pudding6950@reddit
Thank you for your kind well-argued reply
First of all, you’re right, I didn’t mean to promote rampant nationalism, we’ve learned the horrors of such systems during WWII. My stance is that we should contribute each with our own uniqueness while cheering our common background!
I do agree with your historical analysis on the birth of EU, but I also believe it has to do with “europeaness” way more than we realize
Although not being a single state (if that’s what you meant by political Union) the reason why so many states came together to form a Union on: - finance - bank - energy - transport infrastructure - free trade of good, services and people - regulations - policies (think about migration, human rights, rule of law) It’s because they had a common civilization background, that helped them see eye to eye with each others quite easily: Roman Empire, Greek ideals, Christianity, Renaissance and Enlightenment
They had the same social structure, values, political system, legal system, architecture, economic model, shared art, literary influences, science ideas. The way of thinking of Europeans would be completely alien to a Chinese. They would never understand why you put such importance into human dignity, debating, socialism, freedom of press, individual thinking, stuff that comes natural to anybody belonging to European civilization culture
That’s why you’ll never see such deep alliances between Italy, China, Saudi Arabia and Cameroon
While it’s true some nations may appear more culturally peripheral, they at least recognize themselves into one of the after mentioned backgrounds: Denmark may feel very different from Italy, but their democracies are built on Greek ideals in exactly the same manner, they’re multiparty liberal democracies because they’ve exactly the same Enlightenment way of thinking, their laws and judiciary are based on the Roman’s as much as us and so on
You need to balance horizontality (local differences in culture, which is mostly continuous as you said) and verticality (homogenous shared culture inside borders)
Our history already shows why this is important: - Macedonian Empire was operating under your same assumption that culture is continuous and needs no border, and it collpsed quickly because of it, due though internal divergences - Carolingian Empire attempted to be horizontal in peace and vertical in wars, yet it failed when it added too much verticality - Renaissance Era was peak European innovation, we invented all modern sciences thanks to integrating our horizontality, yet Europe was constantly war thorn out of lack of a vertical political structure - Roman Empire/Republic was pretty successful in fostering local culture, while also creating a common background, and was another golden period of European history, although it run into the usual limits of centralized nation-state
In this sense, the EU it’s an unprecedented attempt to build up a civilization into a coalition of the willings instead of attempting classic nation-statecraft that it’s actually working better, as each place preserves its own uniqueness while working together on common background
anchaescastilla@reddit
Likewise, thanks for your elaborate and caring response, it's so cool to debate like this!
Having said that, we just have fundamentally different worldviews. A scientific approach to history, and the humanities in general, discards the essentialism and magical thinking your worldview requires. There's no scientific device humans have to transmit "culture", there's no "european gene" that gets transmitted through generations, there's nothhing that dictates how a newborn will behave except for culture, and culture is ever changuing, dirty, contradictory and in constant flow. When one studies history from a materialist framework, it is obvious these essentialist ideas are ideological constructs with no foot in reality. Let me explain.
"They had the same social structure, values, political system, legal system, architecture, economic model, shared art, literary influences, science ideas. The way of thinking of Europeans would be completely alien to a Chinese. They would never understand why you put such importance into human dignity, debating, socialism, freedom of speech, individual thinking, stuff that comes natural to anybody belonging to European civilization"
Just this paragraph is only possible from a total lack of knowdlege of late antique and medieval mediterranean history. Nothing about central and northern europe was "grecoroman" ever: class divissions, social hierarchies, ideology, gender oppression, even religion in central and northern europe were totally alien to grecoroman tradition untill the late middle ages. Someone from Rome in the year 900 had waaaaaay more shared "western culture items" in common with someone from Alexandria, Damascus or Córdoba than with someone from northern germany, northern france or England.
If "European Culture" is about the continuous preservation of grecoroman culture, then european culture survived the middle ages thanks to mulsim scolars preserving and advancing the study or Socrates, keeping the idea of being ruled by laws and not by men (the only medieval christian state complex enough to do that was Rome).
Let me ask you something: What was the only city west of constantinople with public waterworks, public monuments maintained by the state, libraries full of grecoroman literature again maintained by a state, or even maintained the old roman administrative subdivisions? It was not London, it was not Paris, it was not Rome even. It was muslim ruled, majority christian Cordoba, where a jewish guy could easily study Aristotle and write about him in order for "europeans" to rediscover greek philosophy. St Thoman Aquinas was extremely important to Europe precisely for that: if "europe" hadn't forgotten greek phylosophy, St Thomas would be irrelevant. We are speaking about centuries here: you can't argue that greek philosophy was somehow "dormant" in the European collective consciousness for like 500 years only for it to be "rediscovered". It is a surreal idea. As surreal as if somehow Danes decided to claim they are the true vikings only they have been queeping it quiet for centuries, and start reclaiming the Danelaw and Britanny. It would be a joke. Because it's obvious that history, culture and identity doesn't work like that. That's what people who think there's some kind of continous unbroken link between a person living in Rome in the year 3 and a person living in New mexico in 2026 believe. And it's bullshit.
And it's not only bullshit, it's dangerous. Your paragraph listing "intrinsic european values" reads like a cruel joke. One would need to be really dettached from reality to argue to the global south that European Culture is defined by human dignity. But ok, let's forget imperialism, let's tell the MILLIONS of europeans genocided by other europeans during WWII that their shared values with the genocide perpetrators is a god given strong respect for human dignity. Go to Dresden, go to a Nazi concentration camp, go to Nagasaki and argue in favor of that idea. It's total bullshit. The rest is equally bullshit: if Denmark had taken ANY ideas from Athenian Democracy, 75% of Danish would be slaves with no rights and only men from the ruling 25% would be randomly occupying posts of power regardless of popular voting or even professional capacity. A XIX Century state negotiating a Burgoise regime with the exploited classes has nothing to do with Greece, the majority of which was pure oligarchy. Following Roman judicial practises? In Rome there was no prosecution offered bt the state: if someone was deemed guilty, the state would not intervene and it would be up to individuals to administer justice, that's the opposite of the current bureocratic systems that have more influence from medieval states. Oh, and regardling "being ruled by laws and not by men": that's something that totally dissapeared in Europe for centuries and centuries, but was never lost by polities not considered european, like the Caliphate, Rome, or Al-Andalus.
I could go on and on but I don't want to make it look like I am confronting you. You are obviously knowdleadble and interested in history. I suggest you try new approaches when studying history, approaches based on facts and material realities, not on big ideas. Not a single one of your examples of "failed states based on cultural differences" are real, because non of those projects took "culture" into account, it was just not a variable. Alexander didn't want to "create a new civilization", he conquered as much land as he could in order to extract surplus from those lands, period. Actually if Alexandre's regime failed it wasn't from the different peoples he conquered being culturally different, it was about the innermost makedonian circle fighting for control. This idea of Polity = culture is a consequence of european nationalism, it hasn't existed until the last 200 years and it has never been a variable in history, ever. Projecting that nationalistic idea into the past only leads to the past being extremely confusing, because the past didn't work like that. The leader of the Franks, a dude called Karolo, was able to be called Emperor of the Romans not because of shared roman culture, but because it was the symbolic language of power he chose to use in order to subjugate very diverse groups of people, none of them having any significant grecoroman characteristic anyway. History is not made by ideals of principles, it is made by struggle for resources. Culture is not the origin of politics, culture is a framework created by politics in order to optimice the rule of the elites. Your compatriot Antonio Gramsci understood this better than anyone, it would be a nice place to start investigating this scientific approach to history that doesn't need concepts based on feelings such a "Motherland, Civilization" and so on.
Again, thanks for the debate, what a pleasure!
Old-Pudding6950@reddit
DISCLAIMER: the reply its very long, thus, I divided it into 2 parts. Please read both if you want to read and then reply directly to the last one to keep things clean. Wish you a good day!
I think we’re getting the point lost here
Let me restate what my stance was so that we are on the same page: we need borders
Decisions must be made, a leading group must be chosen that makes those decisions. The leading group must be felt as legitimate by the people. This legitimacy can come in different ways: Democratic elections, Confucian meritocratic exams, Sultanate consultations with the Asabiyyah…
If people disagree too strongly on what decisions must be done by the leading group, or how the leading group must be chosen, it creates internal conflicts threatening that legitimacy and the leading group collapses, leading to disorders and uncertainty
People disagree not just out of economic ignorance, but because they’ve different world views on how things works and how things should be. Those world views stem from the cultural influences they’ve received.
Thus, you’ve to maintain a certain degree of cultural cohesion that is commonly felt to avoid completely different worldviews from clashing too harshly with each others, leading to disorders
Where do you put the borders is loosely based on those cultural cohesion blocs. If economic interests were all there is to it, you would already see the EU processing Singapore to join
This is the thesis we’re debating
.
.
It’s true that european culture survived the middle ages thanks to muslim scholars preserving and advancing the study, but you’re proving my point: the reason why we don’t put the EU/Europe political border there today is specifically because they didn’t keep that attitude
You’re ignoring the fact that the late Abbasid Caliphate scholars started to shift to a more literal interpretation of the holy Quran, that rationalist hugely influential groups like the Mutazilites slowly died out, people that were promoting understanding Islam through integrating other sources from the Hadiths and Quran, people that were advocating for absolute free will. Meanwhile, people like ibn Hanbal started being more and more, gaining more traction, particularly due to a certain despise for the Mihna Inquisition
These changes are understandable, due Islam strong emphasis on cultural cohesion of the Ummah in following the Sunnah, which is needed to prevent the Fitna, the most deeply felt conceptual danger by muslim people. These are not tangential unimportant ideas, those are the fundaments that shape how most Muslims see the community and the exercise of power. You can see why Islam’s culture brought the broad majority of scholars to think the Sunnah and teachings of prophet Muhammad should not be further interpreted, which contrast with the teachings of reasoning and Logos above all proper to the Greek philosophy. I’m not sure whether you’re Muslim, but if you are, you probably know what I’m talking about
Those intrinsic differences don’t arise because Muslims are inferior, there were different historical paths and needs: early Islam needed to unify different tribes and populations under a same banner, creating strong cultural cohesion. Christianity originally raised differently, converting people from a pre-existing cultural and political framework that was the Roman Empire
Contrast that with same-age Europe, where not only did later scholars preserve the Greco-Roman texts, there were also great thinkers attempting to fuse Christian and Greco-Roman thoughts (St Thoman Aquinas, Petrarch, Pico della mirandola, Dante was probably the greatest, Augustine of Hippo even before the Middle Ages). This laid the terrain for later Renaissance thinkers to revive Greco Roman ideas without feeling it endangered their belief system (Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, Donatello, Machiavelli, Erasmus, Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal…) which in turn freed society from the cultural Christian views that were detrimental
The fact that the Caliphate hugely contributed to the preservation of Greco-Roman soul, doesn’t counter my point that European Culture has mostly been based on how the Greco-Roman culture and the Christian culture interacted, influenced and contrasted each others, which lead to a certain cultural coherence of modern European countries. It just means the Middle Eastern countries spontaneously were attempting the same thing beforehand with Greco-Roman and Islam
If the Caliphate had kept going, there is a chance those countries would have had their own Enlightenment and Secularization, and we would be talking about whether or not Saudi Arabia should join the EU, similarly to how we do it with Turkey, which is a Muslim majority country. It’s about how these frameworks of ideas evolve through time and interact (Greco-Roman, Christianity, Islam, Persian), not just whether a country is Muslim or not. Based on where strong common frameworks of ideas arise in a more geographically densely concentrated way, borders naturally arise
.
.
Similarly, it’s true that Vikings and Nordic countries were a completely different society up to at least the halfway point of the Middle Ages, but the coming of Christianity in their culture was not a small negligible one
That cultural influence was pervasive on every level. Also, you seem to underplay how big the Roman Empire truly was: we’ve historical records of them exploring from the depth of Africa (after the Punic wars), to the first ice of the North Pole area. In particular, their influence reached beyond the Mediterranean: the Rhine-Danube frontier (Cologne, Trier, Mainz) had Roman cities, law, and Christianity by late antiquity. You can see this to this day. England was a Roman province for 400 years (though the north less so). Your reply ignores Romanization of "peripheral" areas.
Likewise to Christianity, Nordic countries later received the Enlightenment ideas which spread all throughout Europe. You can also frame this as part of an explanation of why Nordic countries joined the EU later, making the original EU countries to join was relatively extremely easy. You rightfully said EU was a USA incentivized project for economical reasons, but it’d never worked if there wasn’t this strong cultural cohesion in the first place, which is why they attempted it. Can you imagine the USA creating a EU Union between Japan and Germany to contain the soviets? Yeah, me neither
That was my counterpoint to your “there are marginal cultural countries” argument: all of those countries recognize themselves strongly at least in one cultural historical thread, more weakly in others. I wasn’t trying to argue Denmark was an Athenian democracy as you seem to have thought based on your reply, of course it isn’t, there is no direct inheritance; I was trying to argue that the fact that Denmark has democracy and its legal system is based on the Roman’s, can be used as an examples of being in great cultural continuation to the threads that shaped European thought
And yes, modern bureaucratic legal systems are founded on Roman law: your prosecution point is a narrow exception, not a negation of this thesis. Roman law’s core legacy is in civil law, not criminal procedure: contracts, property, torts, inheritance, and obligations. The Corpus Juris Civilis (Justinian, 6th c.) was revived in medieval Bologna (11th c.) and became the foundation of continental European civil codes, from the French Code Napoléon (1804) to the German BGB (1900). These codes directly borrowed Roman categories and rules.
Another monumental Roman contribution was to legal reasoning: written codes, legal interpretation (jurisprudence), the distinction between public and private law, the concept of legal personality, and the structure of judicial proceedings (e.g. “actio” as a procedural framework). In this sense, you also set up set up a false dichotomy: “Roman vs medieval” influences. But medieval canon law and royal law were heavily Roman-influenced. The ius commune (common law of Europe) was a fusion of Roman and canon law taught in universities. Even common law England, which kept its own tradition, absorbed Roman ideas in equity, admiralty, and certain contract principles.
And that’s my point. It’s a matter of the deepness, pervasiveness of ideas. This legal system is taught to this days in universities, which is why I know about it. You won’t be seeing democracy in Singapore for example, they’ve different values and ways of thinking. Read what Lee Kuan Yew had to say about democracy. Instead, Denmark can easily turn into a modern liberal democracy because it has been hugely exposed to be part of the same broad culture that originated the concept
That paragraph of my discourse you quoted was about how current EU countries got shaped (due to a huge shared past) into a common culture that made them see eye to eye easily and build a Union, creating a border. If the northen countries had preserved their roots with no huge cultural Revolutions, they’d still be separated exactly how it was at the time of Cnut’s Nordic sea Empire and Roman Empire: different border for different cultural blocks based on their internal cohesion
Thus, In both cases, I believe you involuntarily supported my thesis
CONTINUES
Old-Pudding6950@reddit
CONTINUATION
.
.
Moreover, you’ve stated WWII as a counter example, but those phenomenons are also based on European culture: you can even find traces of how deep thinkers anticipated those horrors back in the 1700s and 1800s. Read for example Nietzsche’s “the Antichrist” where he makes notice of how, despite secularization, European countries were still adopting detrimental ways of thinking typical of Christian culture. His analysis of how this negatively influenced German idealism philosophers and how that was a problem rooted in German society, is strikingly similar to Hannah Arendt’s analysis of the mechanisms that fueled Nazism, and she experienced Nazism first hand as a journalist
Thus, what you said about WWII doesn’t take away the fact that modern European values (which were the ones I was talking about) where born from a long tradition of thoughts that was most concentrated on a specific area where current borders now lay
Similarly, we can make the same exact argument for colonial periods. People like Hugo were heavily against state military intervention abroad already at the time because of European values, not in spite of them, and there was a huge counter-culture and backlash specifically because of that. Modern view of colonialism also takes from those writers and people. Those values were already present and being discussed, as were versions of most of our other modern ones
I fear you fail to see that because you keep thinking in terms of culture being generated by those in power to subjugate the masses. In your model, why people like Hugo would simultaneously independently arise all throughout Europe would be inexplicable
.
.
I never claimed a European gene; culture is transmitted through language, institutions, and texts
You said “There's no scientific device humans have to transmit culture". However, I never argued for a European gene that gets transmitted through generations, who would ever do such a thing. I argued for transmission through language, writing, common institutions (like the church), ease of access to information; things that make certain areas tied on a deep cultural level more than others. You’re confusing cultural imprint, cultural exposition and anthropology with eugenics
Also, notice how borders are based on geographical elements that hinder those cultural connections. The Pyrenees between Spain and France, the Alps between Italy and France, mountains all around Switzerland, China is surrounded by ocean, deserts, Himalayas. Peru weird prolonged border shape literally follows the Andes. If it was just economics and power interests that generated borders, those things wouldn’t be a big problem, as there are countries managing hard terrains inside them without such difficulties, like Italy, Japan, Turkey, Pakistan. The reason why you constantly see borders arising this way, it’s because those geographical obstacles help diminish cross-cultural exchanges and thus make a great border point to maintain internal cultural stability. While when you see other kind of borders, it’s usually for materialistic reasons
.
.
Your perspective also looks, to me, particularly based on post-WWII European thought. It is true that nationalistic tendencies and a total lack of materialism in history studies can bring to exceptionalism and dangers. However, the converse is also true: if you operate under the assumption that no borders are needed just because cross cultural exchanges are always present, it brings to internal chaos and disasters. If you instead look in depth at Chinese history, you’ll learn exactly that lesson, which is why they historically value in such an high regard the Confucian principles of social harmony, in exactly the same way we value anti-nationalism and foreign-culture open mindedness because of the disasters brought by european’s Totalitarianisms. A good politician’s work is to balance the two, not to indulge in one extreme
Related to that, you also brought the point Alexander’s regime failing because of the innermost makedonian circle fighting for control. However, such a division with borders executed by the Diadochi would have never been possible if there was such a strong cultural chain-cohesion of exchanges that needs no borders as you were originally arguing. The reason why they easily managed to split the empire is specifically because Alexander united different cultural blocs under a same border, lacking internal social cultural cohesion. If anything, what you said about the fighting for control proves my thesis of borders spontaneously arising based on shared culture densely packed in specific geographical areas, due to historical, anthropological, geographical and economical reasons. The Hellenistic kingdoms were those borders
Alexander knew this, and while material extraction definitely played a role, Alexander deliberately promoted cultural fusion: he married Persian wives, encouraged Greco-Persian intermarriage, adopted Persian court rituals, and founded cities (Alexandria, Kandahar) as Hellenistic centers. Your complete disregard for those facts, shows why full materialistic analysis are problematic
.
.
.
Lastly, I’m sure you are well intentioned, but your latest paragraph to me reads like you believe anybody who isn’t full on materialism just hasn’t studied enough. Please, consider the idea that one can just disagree with that stance
I was well aware of your historical examples and I’ve known about materialism since I was a teeneger reading Marx, I’ve just realized how much more complex real life politics is, which is why I advocate for going past that view. While there are reality constraints that make different views converge to the same decisions (due to economic reasons), there is ambiguity of action to which real life people make decisions based on their ideas, which are influenced by their culture of origin
The idea that culture is the byproduct of powerful people trying to coerce the masses is also a simplistic one
Take the “Victor Hugo” and broad counter-culture examples I made before: his anti-colonialism was rooted in Christian morality and early socialist thought, traditions that existed for thousands of years before his birth, that he internalized through reading and reflection, and that he defended consistently against state power (to the point of being exiled under Napoleon III). To claim this was merely elite self-serving propaganda is not materialism; it's cynicism masquerading as analysis. The materialist framework can't explain why someone would risk exile and poverty for convictions that ran directly against the interests of the French state and bourgeoisie. Nor it can explain why one would dedicated its life works to these ideas.
In one of its books, he writes “As long as society, through its laws and customs, condemns people to artificial hells in the midst of civilization—adding human suffering to divine fate; as long as the three great evils of our time persist: the degradation of men through poverty, the despair of women through hunger, and the stunting of children through ignorance; as long as social suffocation remains possible in some places; in short, and from an even broader perspective, as long as ignorance and misery exist on this earth, books like this may still serve a purpose”. Does this part of European culture sounds like a framework created by politics in order to optimice the rule of the elites?
Gramsci was a brilliant mind, I’m glad you like him, I grew up reading him, but, like other Italian writers (eg. Pasolini) he falls short for the same unprovable axioms that the left Italian political tradition used, which, when inspected in depth, operate as vast simplifications of reality, as in this case
As a closing line: Of course there are other relevant factors into border creation. Of course culture can be sometimes used to convince people, but the idea that culture has nothing to do with influencing politics and history, and that everyone pointing to a cultural connection and cohesion of a part of the world is falling for politicians’ manipulation, are very naive ones
anchaescastilla@reddit
I actually read the whole of this rambling, I was expecting you to at some point engage with any of my specific points. It would have been nice to warm me prior so I wouldn’t have lost my time.
I wish you the best, hopefully one day you’ll understand history is about the scientific study of ever-changing structures and systems and not about teleological narratives they try to justify the present using feelings and feeling related Enpty Signifiers like Great Men, Great Ideas, Inherent Spirit, Cultural Superiority and all the rest. Someone so convinced that a concept like “Romanness” can be dormant for 1000 years, even in places where Roman power never reached is more dangerous to the coexistence of the peoples of this planet that a simple iliterate ignorant.
Best to you. Just watch your white supremacist worldview, it’s dangerous, and no two part post can hide the total lack of critical thinking or scientific inquiry. The XIX Century was long ago and there’s 2 centuries of innovations in the humanities, check them out.
Old-Pudding6950@reddit
Let me briefly breakdown your answer:
Ad Hominem attacks: “rambling", "weird monologue about nothing in particular", "total lack of critical thinking"
Straw man arguments: you accused me of believing "Romanness can be dormant for 1000 years even in places where Roman power never reached", but you can see I never argued this; I argued for cultural transmission through institutions, texts, and legal traditions, providing you concrete examples to look for. Not magical dormancy
Dismissal without engagement: You admited reading my entire reply but you explicitly say I didn't engage your points, which is false: I addressed the Abbasids, Denmark cultural continuity, your WWII counterexample, Colonialism, Gramsci argument, your overtly materialistic framework, the cultural borders thesis. I corrected your overstatements about Roman law, Romanization of central and northern Europe, Alexander's motives, fall of Macedonian Empire, total absence of rule of law, and your argument that culture is never a variable in history
I’ve replied to almost all your points, the very few I didn’t reply to was because I actually agreed with what you were saying
.
Of course, I’m smart enough to understand your reply is a rhetorical exit strategy designed to avoid engaging with evidence and fact-based arguments while painting yourself as the rational, scientific one and me as a dangerous bigot, and I’m willing to concede you this
But please, at least be honest with yourself, avoiding lies to oneself is the foundation of growth and this was a great chance to learn and discuss
.
You talked about science, but scientific inquiry requires engaging with contrary evidence
Instead, your answer reads like an attempt to frame this entire conversation as a culture war which I’m not willing to engage in: I’ve acknowledged Islamic contributions, rejected a "European gene”/Eugenics, and explicitly said Muslims are not inferior in my previous reply for this exact reason.
There is no white supremacy involved
.
Anyway, because you choosing to move the goalpost signals you’ve nothing left to add, contest me or reply to, I’ve no further reason to continue this conversation
I must admit though, you gave me a pretty good laugh with this response, although I’m not sure if this was intended, I genuinely thank you for it
anchaescastilla@reddit
I am going to add to my previous answer by inviting you to a mind game as a way of guiding your research. You can use r/askhistorians for that research, you'll get academic level answers. I might actually show up there hahaha.
Let's play this scenario: You give a roman citizen from the golden era (or an athenian contemporary to perikles, if you prefer) a time machine and send them to several places in the 1000 year spand of the "middle ages". Let's say our roman is from the top 10% but not the top 1%; part of the elites but the lower tiers, with no pan mediterranean power like the senatorial families, and they are meeting with the same kind of people, top 10% of educated, power holding people.
Let's agree on a set of questions to be asked:
- ¿Who are Aristotle and Plato?
- Explain your concept of citizenship
- Explain your law system and your justice system.
- Explain your practise of the radical, systemic grecoroman rejection of the concept of hereditary monarchy and blood aristocracy having different fundamental rights than the rest of citizens.
- What's a public sewer?
- What's a tax collector?
- How's propery managed?
Let's agree that the origin of the EU is the 1957 Treaty of Rome that created the EEC. The signataries of that treaty were Belgium (Brussels), The Netherlands (Amsterdam), France (Paris), Luxembourg, West Germany (Bonn, aspiringly Berlin) and Italy (Rome). So let's send our Roman citizen to check how that "uninterrupted continuation of grecoroman culture and values that intrinsically means Europe" worked in reality.
First trip. THEIR PRESENT. Research what the answers to those questions be during the time of the 5 good emperors to people in what now is Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris, Berlin (Bonn, to be generous), Luxembourg, and Italy (Rome).
Second trip: 500 CE.
Third trip: 1000 CE.
Fourth: 1200 CE.
Fifth: 1530 CE.
Then, use the same dates but send our imaginary roman citizen to these other places instead: Constantinple, Alexandria (and later Cairo), Damascus, Cordoba.
The answers will certainly make you think and research a lot to understand how places where grecoroman things where lost for millenia, if not never present in the first place (including overseas places like the USA) can claim heirness to Grecoroman Western Civilization TM vs places where grecoroman concepts and practices actually remained and evolved and changed (like everything changes) like the whole mediterranean basin, specially the southeastern part of it. The research will lead you to interesting places I am sure!
Old-Pudding6950@reddit
I love your humanist take, and I wholeheartedly agree
However, I also feel like borders are somewhat needed
First and foremost, they help us understand: once you decompose complex things into smaller simple units, you can then study how they interact and delve into nuances, creating the smooth continuous mental picture you were talking about
Secondly, there politically needs to be an administrative border to guarantee internal cohesion
For example, i’s one thing to argue Turkey shall be part of EU, as Turkey its clearly part of the European civilization, and as we see it’s already hard to do in the short term as the EU really doesn’t want to mess this up and risk breaking its cultural cohesion. It’s another thing to argue Turkey shall be part of China, where there are completely different ways of living and seeing life
.
.
Heck, I’d even say a Turkish person may feel more at home in Italy than they would in Saudi Arabia, despite the former being the Christian country: - both Mediterranean countries - a 2000 years rich history of continuous exchanges during the Ottoman and the same Roman Empire! - Turkey successfully absorbed secular enlightenment values, while other Islamic countries appear to struggle way more at that - Similar ways of living (family-oriented, value the importance of social gatherings, value cuisine as tradition, value peace of life and animals’ well being…)
Old-Pudding6950@reddit
Very cool! I didn’t know about it
Thanks for telling us!
thanasis87kav@reddit
Western architecture is tied to certain styles in popular imagination because those styles belong to the West’s golden age. At the same time Western Europe was fascinated by the grandeur and “oriental” character of the Ottomans and borrowed elements like kiosks, some of which appear in these images. But what did Western visitors actually see in the Ottoman Empire? They saw the domed basilica of Anthemius and Isidore, a late Roman blueprint that became the standard for mosques, alongside Persian and Turkish elements.
Architecture never existed in a sealed vacuum within empires. The English imported architects because they wanted palazzos like those in France and Italy. Byzantines reportedly tried to replicate the beehive roofs of Baghdad in the Great Palace. States constantly borrowed what they admired.
Ottoman architecture likely did the same. Officials adopted forms they saw as prestigious or revitalizing, especially ones that projected wealth and power comparable to their Western peers.
Old-Pudding6950@reddit
100% agree, well thought out and informed opinion
Western architecture is born with the Roman’s and Greek’s (which are already very different, although based on the same principle, the Romans added a lot)
All major macro-styles can be traced there: Greek architecture, Roman, Byzantine (born in Istanbul), Renaissance (born in Florence/Rome), Baroque (Rome). The only notable exception would be Gothic
Everything else, usually can be traced back as a variation of those macro-styles: Neoclassical, Eclectic, Rationalism, Mannierism, Palladian, Romanesque, Paleo-Christian, Art Nouveau… you name it
As an Italian, it baffles me how one can consider Venice western architecture but not Istanbul, when Venice clearly has huge Byzantine inspired elements. The same can be said about Ravenna and Rome, where you can find amazing Byzantine mosaics
It feels like an attempt to divide us when we clearly have a shared history and culture
d2mensions@reddit (OP)
I included here the Blue Mosque, the Topkapi Palace (Classical Ottoman architecture) and buildings in pic. 14 and 15 that are build in a Neo-Ottoman architecture.
MartinBP@reddit
The Blue Mosque, like other domed Ottoman mosques, is based on the Hagia Sophia which is Byzantine architecture.
d2mensions@reddit (OP)
then what is ottoman architecture? the blue mosque is based on on haghia sophia, ottoman baroque is based on european baroque, galata tower on a genoese tower…so nothing is ottoman architecture?
JRJenss@reddit
Well, minarets and a certain type of terraced residential structures are, although the center of Istanbul does look more European than some cities in Sicily or Spain - Cordoba for example, with its Arabian style abstract ornamental motifs.
Atvaaa@reddit
in Istanbul you'll find a fusion style using little style differences from all over the country
there is no pure Seljuk architecture in istanbul because the ottomans weren't a nation state??
e.g Beyazıt Mosque has a traditional arched grand gate but also a dome. two can exist at the same time
If you want medieval Turkish architecture you'll have to go to Konya, Sivas, Erzurum, Kayseri, Mardin... these were the capitals of Rum Beyliks and have many surviving sites. Their mosques, madrasas, carevansarais and houses don't fit into this "four quarters plan" (four chambers connecting to a single courtyard) that the og Seljuks invented.
Ibn Battuta went through a couple of those beyliks. You can read his memoirs if you'd like
Few_Concentrate_6708@reddit
no. Amalgamation and inspiration aren't copying. It is true that after the conquest of Constantinople (1453), the Ottomans were deeply impressed by the Hagia Sophia. They used the principle of the central dome as a starting point but developed it radically for example the structural logic. While the Hagia Sophia requires massive, heavy retaining walls, Ottoman architects in developed systems where the weight of the dome was distributed through a sophisticated network of half-domes and slender pillars : In Ottoman mosques (like the Süleymaniye), the interior is often significantly brighter and more open than in Byzantine models, which were more mystical and dark. : Ottoman mosques are often a unified space and the spaciousness of the interior while the byztantine churches are composition of spaces, sometimes with distinct zones, encouraging a, "blending space" atmosphere. Byzantine churches often draw forms with light on darkness (creating high contrast and shadow), whereas Ottoman mosques focus on diffusing light to "reveal the form of the interior. the he Selimiye Mosque in Edirne: its dome is mathematically more precise and dominates the space even more than that of the Hagia Sophia. Many core elements of Ottoman architecture do not exist in Byzantine art at all: The extremely slender, "pencil-shaped" minarets are a purely Ottoman signature. The use of Iznik tiles and complex calligraphy differs fundamentally from Byzantine mosaics.The Ottoman House (with its wooden cumba or bay windows) and waterfront yalı mansions are entirely distinct from European or Byzantine residential styles.While Ottoman Baroque adopted the ornamentation of Europe (like shell motifs and C-curves), it maintained the Ottoman structural core. It was less of a copy and more of a "Western stamp" over a native tradition, resulting in a hybrid style found nowhere else. Ottoman architecture like everything is a synthesis. If thats copying let me ask you: Architects like Brunelleschi or Michelangelo studied Roman ruins to build their domes. Does that mean the Florence Cathedral is just a "fake" Roman temple? Is The US Capitol just a "copy" of the Pantheon? Because it has a dome and columns, is American architecture non-existent? Smartphones are just "copies" of landlines: They both make calls, right? Early Greek statues (Kouros) used the exact mathematical grid and rigid posing of Egyptian statues. Before they visited Egypt, Greek temples were mostly made of wood and mud-brick. The concept of monumental stone columns (like the Doric style) evolved from Egyptian pillars designed to look like bundled reeds or papyrus. The very idea of building massive, permanent stone structures for the gods was inspired by the temples of the Nile. Many of the "fathers" of Greek thought explicitly admitted they learned from the East.Thales and Pythagoras are recorded by ancient historians as having traveled to Egypt and Babylon to study mathematics and astronomy. The "Pythagorean Theorem" was used in Babylonian clay tablets and Egyptian engineering over 1,000 years before Pythagoras was even born. The Greek alphabet the tool used to write their famous philosophy was a direct adaptation of the Phoenician script. Does this make Greek culture a "fake"? No. It makes it a synthesis. They took foreign seeds and grew something unique. Nationalism has done some irreverisble damage to humanity i and hope for the day where it goes extinct (including every type of nationalism).
konschrys@reddit
Got it
OptimusTron222@reddit
The Blue Mosque is one of the biggest religious crimes ever committed, that is a magnificent Byzantine church and the retard Erdogan turned Turkey back to the bad old days smh
d2mensions@reddit (OP)
the blue mosque ≠ hagia sophia
konschrys@reddit
No one said they’re the same
Turbulent-Debate7661@reddit
don't forget how European renaissance started
Icy-Bandicoot-8738@reddit
Jesus this!
StPauliPirate@reddit
Turkey is already very close with Europe. What else do you want?
Names-Are-Confusing@reddit
Turkey is 3% European and 97% Asian. To add, it got to Europe through harmful invasion and torture. You’re Asian, not European. You colonized the Balkans, though.
Top-Tomorrow-8336@reddit
Same for Hungary, isn't it? Magyars colonized Pannonia and you, croatians, colonized Dalmatia and Illyria even if you didn't come from Asia.
Names-Are-Confusing@reddit
Croats came from White Croatia which was in Poland/Ukraine. We came to the area and mixed with the native populations(some more some less). Ottomans came much later, they enforced blood tax on the Slavs that came there, they were horrid and Ottoman apologists will say people had freedoms. They didn’t. If they did, Albania and Bosnia would still be Christian, and there wouldn’t be so many Slavic descendants today identifying as Turks in Turkey. The two things are much different and I don’t get why Turkey being Asian is so hard to accept for you. You came from Asia, colonized the Balkans for some time, then you were kicked out, but you still have a small portion of your land there. It’s the same with the French and British all around the world - they came, colonized, and left, but still have dependencies everywhere. You don’t see France being referred to as a South American-European nation though, even if they have French Guyana.
Top-Tomorrow-8336@reddit
What I'm trying to say is that the Turks aren't the only people who conquered and subjugated a native population.
Or do you think the pagan Slavs didn't mistreat the native Christians? There's a reason Romania is the only Romance-speaking nation that has survived to the present day.
The only difference with the Turks is that they remained Muslim, but in all other respects, they ruled their empire from Europe, and many Turks were born in Europe from that time onward. That's what distinguishes them from France, which never ruled from French Guiana.
You can say that the Turks are invaders and that Turkish Thrace belongs to the Greece, but that would be asserting that every piece of land metaphysically belongs to a nation, and that's absurd.
The Turks are just as much invaders as the Hungarians, and if they had converted to Christianity, as Pius II proposed to Mehmet, Turkey wouldn't be any different from Hungary today.
And by the way, I'm not Turkish; I'm South American. And I wouldn't dare say that the white Catholic population of South America is European or that it should return to Europe.
stats_merchant33@reddit
that probably is depending on the pov of someone. I would call these people both. But if you are blond haired and blue eyed, you are European in my books and there is no other way aroung it. Doesn't mean you are not also South American at the same time.
Top-Tomorrow-8336@reddit
Claiming that a particular feature makes you European, African, or whatever doesn't make much sense. The nation (or the region in the case of Europe) doesn't precede the people; it is the people who build it.
There are many white, blond people among the ethnic minorities of Afghanistan. Are they European? Or are they perhaps more original than the Pashtun or Farsi majority?
Broadly speaking, we could say you are European if you were born in Europe, regardless of culture.
If we're more demanding, we could say you are European if you were born into a Christian culture (or one that was Christian, given Bosnian and Albanian Islam), but this is problematic because, where is the border of Europe drawn?
Technically, the Turks of Thrace are more European than the Russians of the Pacific, but culturally it's the other way around. And well, the Buddhists of Kalmykia are now considered European since the border of Europe is the Ural Mountains and not the Don River as it used to be.
And this is to say nothing of the fact that considering Georgians and Armenians as Europeans makes Azerbaijanis European (same for Chechens and other Russian minorities).
You can say I'm rambling, but I wanted to make it clear that the idea of Europeanness is absurd in many ways (unless you directly associate it with white Christianity, a problematic approach, although it works to a certain extent). I myself know many white, blond South Americans who would find it much harder to adapt to the European lifestyle than a Turk from Istanbul (or even Izmir), and that's because they aren't European.
White South Americans have lived here for 500 years; they belong to the same culture as non-white mestizos. And if you consider them European, you'd have to consider me European too.
stats_merchant33@reddit
It depends, if they have an European name and ancestry tracing them back to Europe, I would call them Europeans. We also talked specifically about white-blond South Americans, who clearly have a traceable backstory to Europe, but my comment was written more general, so that's on me.
I was born in Europe and I wouldn't necessarily call myself European, with no disrespect to my home continent.
In my books they are much more European than Russians (the white ones), either way you look at it. But Russian are blond, so I think I will agree with your point from above, just being blond doesn't make you European, as I have a different image than Russians when talking about prototype Europeans, even though I still would classifiy them European somewhat.
They call themselves European, I wouldn't necessarily call them Europeans, but I have no issue when they do.
That's a stretch though. It has to end soewhere bro.
It's a numbers game and I'll give it to you that 500 years is a lot.
It kinda is white Christianity though with a few exceptions like Bosnians, Albanians and Turks of Thrace etc. They say it is so who are to tell them what they are?
Top-Tomorrow-8336@reddit
Europe as a civilization is a concept that emerged in the Modern Age, when Europeans were able to think of themselves as something more than just Christians.
But if we go back to pre-Christian times, you realize that the Romans in Rome would have felt much more comfortable with a Roman of Berber descent born in Tunisia than with a redhead from Ireland or a blonde from Germany.
And I'm not exaggerating about Kalmykia; geographically, they are within the current boundaries of Europe. You might consider it nonsense, but it's the consequence of including Georgia and Armenia within Europe.
And well, it becomes a pointless and even dangerous discussion. Some might argue (and in fact, they do) that the Boers are not African and should be deported. And if you ask me, after almost 400 years in South Africa, it's clear they are African.
And I grant you that being born in Europe isn't enough to be European, but if you've lived your whole life in Europe, grown up in its cities, and speak its language, then you are European.
That's why I consider the Turks of Thrace to be European. They've simply been in Europe for too long and ruled the Ottoman Empire from Europe; the big difference is that they are Muslim.
If we're talking about ethnicity, they're mixed with Greeks. They're not very different from Hungarians, except that the Hungarians converted a thousand years ago.
If Mehmet II had accepted the Pope's proposal, he would be a saint today, like Saint Stephen, and would be remembered as a ruler on par with Charlemagne.
stats_merchant33@reddit
But in our time Christianity is king here.
No need for that though in today’s lense.
I can imagine that, also parts of Kazakhstan counts to Europe. But still there is a line who is considered genetically European and this doesn’t include genetical Asian people, idk if these statements are dangerous or could be understood the wrong way, but wouldn’t you agree here?
Like I said I personally don’t have to include them as European.
They are not Africans, they are colonizers who put themselves there by force and only brought misery. F them haha
I lived my most life there, like I said you can call me European, I will not discuss it as I am from there but I personally wouldn’t classify myself as ethnically European.
Bro Turks are native to Turkey, also the Thrace people probably have a lot of genetic continuity to Thrace and so on. We are Turkish AND Anatolian, a lot of people seem to forget that.
Top-Tomorrow-8336@reddit
What is genetically European? The Indo-European heritage that Hitler called Aryan? Because that's shared even in Bangladesh.
The heritage of European farmers? Because if that were the case, the Indo-Europeans are nothing more than colonizing invaders who don't belong in Europe.
And I'll continue with the example of Hungary: the Magyars were a steppe tribe that conquered Pannonia and today they are just another European people.
We can say the same about the Bolghars in Bulgaria.
And tell me, aren't the Finns more genetically and linguistically related to the ethnic minorities of Russia than to their neighbors Sweden and Norway? The same goes for the Sami, whom they call indigenous people of Europe.
And the Turks aren't originally from Turkey but from Central Asia, but talking about origin is absurd because all human peoples at some point invaded the lands of other humans.
All humans are murderous conquerors; it's not as if every ethnic group originated in the territory we now associate with them.
So, geographically speaking, there are European Turks and Asian Turks. The only differentiating factor for Europe is Christianity, but it spread throughout Siberia and all the way to the Pacific, so it's not a perfect criterion either.
Personally, I see Europe as a peninsula of Eurasia that begins at the Don River, but perhaps I only say this to annoy the nationalists.
stats_merchant33@reddit
Like I said before it's a numbers game, no need to go back 1000 years. Everyone should be whatever he wants to identify, bottom line, that's my personnel opinion. So we probably don't differ much in this.
Partially true, clearly the Turkish idendity has its origins in Central Asia/Altai mountains, but we talk here about roughly 2000-3000 years ago or so. Over this long period, many changes occurred, and Turkic groups were quite successful in establishing states and expanding their influence, leading to the wide spread of Turkic identity over time.
For example, the Ottomans didn’t simply decide to invade Anatolia out of nowhere; they emerged from populations that had already been living there for centuries, dating back to the Seljuk arrival around 1,000 years ago. Also the in the Ottoman army there were quite a lot of Anatolians also, which isn't known much, as they later on strongly highlightened the very strong Turkish warrior reputation.
I don't like it when people want to take away our native claims to the land of Anatolia (which I am not saying you are doing, to the slightest). We have as much claim to Anatolia as anyone else, probably the most, as we have the most genetic continuity to ancient Anatolians afaik, which is the time around where the first civilizations started. We are both, Turkish and Anatolian as I said.
Unfortunately true but it's a numbers game imo and germanic invaders around 3000 years ago don't have the same importance or rememberance for me (and most people) such as Boers/Dutch invaders who colonized South Africa in 1652. And most of the Dutch colonizers even came much much later on, so it's much fresher than 17th century.
Top-Tomorrow-8336@reddit
Don't you think Turkey is more than just Anatolia? Atatürk himself was born in Thessaloniki, and the European part of the empire was always the most densely populated.
We could say that Turkey is Eurasian, but I think it would be an understatement to claim that Turks are only Anatolians.
StPauliPirate@reddit
Turks are mixed people with various cultures and the nation itself is build upon those several cultures. Our ancestors could be greeks, Albanians or whatever european coded ethnicities. The anatolian heritage alone could be classified as european, if not, then many greeks are also not european. If we would be 100% asians, we‘d look like asians. As I said we are of both worlds and thats totally fine.
Names-Are-Confusing@reddit
But saying you’re as European as you’re Asian is a huge overstatement. “We’d look Asian” what is that even supposed to mean? Asians don’t look one single way. You’ve got Chinese, Siberian, Arab, Central Asian, Caucasian, Southern Indian people and they’re all completely different, and Turks do look more Middle Eastern than Balkan even though you might not truly be fully Middle Eastern. You’re much more Asian than European. Genetics don’t play that big of a role here.
Icy-Wasabi2223@reddit
We don't look middle eastern. More like Anatolian. Anatolians look different than Arabs, Persians, Kurd etc.
Awagala@reddit
Well Turks look like a mix of everything. Many definitely do look middle eastern, often Kurdish, Persian or Levantine. Others look more European. I know in Berlin most people immediately classify Turks living there as middle eastern and are surprised to learn they aren’t. Most people I know who traveled to Turkey also said about half the people look middle eastern. And these are people travelling in western Turkey which has much more European ancestry. If they traveled to eastern or southern Turkey they’d probably have said all Turks look middle eastern.
Icy-Wasabi2223@reddit
This who look Kurdish are indeed Kurdish who guessed it. There is a Anatolian look we have that is not "middle eastern" but more of his own thing. Some look European, some Central asian, some mixed, some Anatolian, some caucasian some even Persian/levantine who cares.
d2mensions@reddit (OP)
gay rights /s
BoringAd8788@reddit
it’s legal tho
efooo94@reddit
Not for long, unfortunately. Check the news.
BoringAd8788@reddit
I would rather not bro when I do I just get more depressed
efooo94@reddit
Fair point, and I agree.
PeriodontosisSam@reddit
Visa free travel would be the only missing thing.
scsjabs@reddit
Ottomans belong in the middle east.
Valuable_Drawing612@reddit
they ruled almost half of europe for decades
scsjabs@reddit
Violent occupation doesn’t legitimize your point in any way!
Valuable_Drawing612@reddit
do you think that other european empires didnt violently occupied other european regions?
scsjabs@reddit
That’s not my point!
Super_Sherbet_268@reddit
you would say the same for Orban right?
im12whatispolitics@reddit
I too love slaver monuments and colonialist remnants.
Super_Sherbet_268@reddit
nothing colonial about it, a rise of an empire is simply a fall of another
im12whatispolitics@reddit
Cool, I'm sure you'll be glad for us to pave over Pakistani buildings and architecture and plaster statues of Winston Churchill and western facades everywhere. Nothing colonial about it
Super_Sherbet_268@reddit
we don't have any winston churchill statues lol but yeah we do like our Victorian era churches kinda cool european architecture
Top-Tomorrow-8336@reddit
Tell me more about that churches, please.
Super_Sherbet_268@reddit
while there is no official record of how many churches exist in pakistan, but there are over 3000 churches in punjab province only and many more in the 3 other provinces and 2 territories. Most were build during the Colonial era but are reserved to this day renovated funded by the state protected as national heritage sites.
here are some of these churches:
https://secure.instagram.com/reel/DSfHIU6jPf8/?hl=en
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSNDvXnjBOx/
Top-Tomorrow-8336@reddit
Are you Christian?
Super_Sherbet_268@reddit
nope muslim
konschrys@reddit
Would you say the same about the British?
Super_Sherbet_268@reddit
check my reply to the other guy
Abject_Avocado_6410@reddit
Asian part of turkey is the most European!!! We need them in EU
BullFencer@reddit
Nobody’s secular anymore anyways.
Next_League6403@reddit
Bro some Arabs say we lost our way and should be more muslim and defend islamic world from invaders.
Europeans say we are not one of them therefore we are awful. Many harbor resentment.A select few you did read up about us think like you. They like having us in nato due to military power they are also afraid of something they cant entirely control like a small country.
There are Turkic nations in the central asia, such as uyghurs which are under chinese persection. Some say we should look that way.
Most people dont care much about europe anymore.
We waited for so long, it has lost its appeal, eu is going down economically and politically. Its like trying to get on a sinking ship.
We are who we are. Sui generis. Our song has many instruments and different sounds in it. Not just one.
No_Calligrapher1190@reddit
Actually that are Genovese and Byzantine architectures and buildings.
OptimusTron222@reddit
You realize those are not Ottoman but Byzantine buildings do you?
Atvaaa@reddit
almost all of these were built by the ottomans.
OptimusTron222@reddit
Sure Ottomans, they are only known for building nothing and claiming Roman/Byzantine buildings as theirs
Commercial_Leek6987@reddit
19th century palaces and buildings? Byzantine? Oookkk… 😂
Alepman@reddit
Checky_3rd@reddit
what u see are the remnants of the Roman Empire in european turkiye, so, you simply like Rome.
But even so, as much as I dislike the Turkish state and it's people (subjectively) I do believe we shouldn't meddle in such things, Turkiye was/is/and always will be an Asian state.
Atvaaa@reddit
a vast majority of these buildings were built by the ottomans what are you on?
as far as I know, from the byzantines they took the structure of the base of the dome, called the "wavy drum" which made them able to build larger domes. Also this specific brick making style that I don't exactly remember.
that doesn't mean everything they built was roman style. Just look up post-Rum seljuk architecture. İt was practiced into the early 19th century and saw a revival after the world war
Checky_3rd@reddit
like i said, "even so" so I was assuming I might be wrong. my take is in the 2nd line, not the 1st.
Atvaaa@reddit
i don't really give a shit about your personal feelings, just replying to the first line.
Checky_3rd@reddit
ok? U may be right?
vajrapani1@reddit
Eurocentric Cringe. I am a federalist and Türkiye should be part of Europe without forsaking any part of its identity.
Ill_Finger3909@reddit
“Eurocentric Cringe” AND you are a federalist AND “Türkiye should be part of Europe without forsaking any part of its identity” Do you know how much you’re contradicting yourself? Unitarian secular republic IS the identity Not to mention whole thing with federation is an EU dictate for joining the union. A project to divide the country. So you’re not only a Traitor but also ignorant/confused
PanicDry@reddit
Close enough already. Keep it where it is.
d2mensions@reddit (OP)
All photos are from Istanbul
Stormrage44@reddit
To add, Iznik tiles were the trademark of Ottoman architecture and they're the reason Sultanahmet mosque is called "Blue".
Stormrage44@reddit
It's not about our country's stance really it's about constant politics of europe against us. Any Germanic (germs, scandis, dutch and austies) state and France has always the opposing stance in matters that concern us making it impossible to rationally sit down and tend to matters with them. If they've radically set their minds before sitting on the table, it's not surprising you radically draw your lines in response, then they get to label you a radical islamist but never vice versa.
If EU had Spain or Italy as its locomotive and not Germany or France, things would be far different.
No-Essay-7667@reddit
Do you realize that some of the stuff you shared is influenced by the Islamic golden era right? Also, secularism has failed Europe because it emphasizes the individual and lacks providing a strong framework for community this led to lonely Europeans and plummeting birth rates rate, Istanbul is secular btw, and exhibits a lot of these points too
Typical_Army6488@reddit
Maybe it's cause im Iranian but im getting uncanny valley vibes
pelererr@reddit
Who are u and how can u talk about country politics if u are not Turkish keep ur ideas urself. It’s Turkish problems issue
anchaescastilla@reddit
What do you mean baroque? Are calling a medieval tower, a late antique roman temple, a XIV century ottoman palace, A big ass classical era Ottoman Imperial mosque and some random late XIX Century buildings "baroque"?
One would say that the most outrageous part of this shitpost was the inherent racism, but you actually called Hagia Sophia "Baroque" unironically. It's kind of impressive.
AgentDoty@reddit
The post is completely ignorant
konschrys@reddit
It is a thing actually. Many of the Ottoman Palaces and mosques were done in this style. Balyan (an Armenian) designed of many of these.
anchaescastilla@reddit
Not really, relatively very few mosques are usually termed this way, some palaces yes. Is it a thing, though? I am no expert in current Ottoman periodization theories but the concept of "Ottoman Baroque" is quite problematic and a kind of forced projection. Is the Tulip Era part of Otoman Baroque? Are all those Rococo XVIII and XIX Palaces "Baroque" centuries after baroque times or are they just your average Russian, Prussian, Austrian- like examples of arquitecture of power?
It's cool that we all have different tastes, but whenever I am in Istanbul and I want to see awesome historic architecture, a 150 year old versailles copy-paste palace is pretty low on my list in a city where you can spend the whole day just visiting buildings made by Sinan. But to each each own, some people do prefer golden drapes and gigantic crystal lamps over millenia old buildings made of monolitic pieces of marble from the whole mediterranean, that's not me. Specially when the excuse is a term as problematic as "Ottoman Baroque", as if every state in history had to have the same exact architectural timing and styling that a bunch of glorified villages in Italy.
d2mensions@reddit (OP)
wtf are you saying, ottoma baroque is not a copy of versailles, its more eclectic and has zero animal and human statues and paintings (theyre banned islam) so its different and distint.
and even if its a copy. the blue mosque is more similar to hagia sophia than dolmabahce palace to versailles palace…
anchaescastilla@reddit
Oh yes, the famous ban on portraits of humans in painting in the Ottoman Empire!
Here's a Catalogue from an exposition at the Pera Museum called Portraits from the Empire, confirming your ignorance, childish view of the world and bigotry.
The Ottomans not only painted people, they painted people who were painting other people! Boooooom! 4d chess move!
This all came in the fist google search of "ottoman portraits".
Now, can you rephrase that lesson in art history you keep trying to give me? you went went from ridiculous to self humillating impressively fast but please go on, explain to me how portraits were forbidden in the Ottoman Empire because all those greek merchants, slavic politicians and armenian bankers were definitely muslim, and after that you can elaborate on the subtleties and eclecticism and whatever bullshit you keep coming up with of Versailles vs whatever. Thanks.
d2mensions@reddit (OP)
i meant the style thats often called OTTOMAN BAROQUE, not the WHOLE Ottoman Empire. Im genuinely confused, do you actually know how to read?
And the Ottomans were muslims, in mosques is not allowed to paint people or animals, and to hang paintings of people and animals. Thats why often mosques are decorated with floral and geometric patterns.
This same philosophy is applied to the Dolmabahce Palace, which is very ornate but lacks paintings of people and animals.
anchaescastilla@reddit
Please stop humilliating yourself, it's not fun anymore. You are a racist so humilliating you is justified atifascist duty but at this point I am feeling a little capacitist and that's meh. Take care.
d2mensions@reddit (OP)
Ottoman Baroque AND Istanbul (in general). Do you know how to read?
callmesnake13@reddit
You do realize that the Ottomans didn’t build anything pre-1453, right?
sugarymedusa84@reddit
Romans from Italy?
Fiery_Flamingo@reddit
Yes, distinct from the Romens from Romenia 🇷🇴.
Worried-Owl-9198@reddit
American LMAO
callmesnake13@reddit
Damn you sure got me!
callmesnake13@reddit
Shush you’ll ruin it
OldYogurt7161@reddit
And almost everything was reseted with crusader campaing in 1204.
anchaescastilla@reddit
Not a single Italian person is documented to have contributed to the Hagia Sophia being built. Neither the emperor who commissioned it nor the two architects who designed it, not the afawk local workers who built it where for Italy. Italy didn’t exist until less than 200 years ago, people please stop projecting the idea of current countries into the past the past didn’t work like that period.
callmesnake13@reddit
I love this sub
anchaescastilla@reddit
Can you point me to any example of imperial ottoman baroque not in istanbul, please? And, can you tell me the common characteristic Ottoman Baroque and, let's say, a sewer in istanbul have that justify you putting in the same cathegory a 1700 year old city and a specific architectural style you didn't even use the correct pictures of? it's confusing, I think you should skip the cultural pretense and go straight to the racism.
theunknownkhan@reddit
I mean, some of the images are not part of the Ottoman Baroque like Hagia Sophia. Plus, Istanbul is a perfect example of why a person should not categorize an architectural masterpiece as a "European" or "Islamic". Turkey offers more than this dichotomy.
Zealousideal_Cry_460@reddit
İ agree with Atatürk and the rejection of neo ottomanism
But İ like that we're keeping our distance to europe. Too much things happened and theres still a lot points of conflict.
İmo Turkey should pursue its own path with a vision to move closer to some form of Turkic union, which could be a strong partner to the EU. İ see Turkey more as a partner to europe rather than literally a part of it.
İ would want more cooperation with europe, especially regarding general standards and whatnot.
Sehirlisukela@reddit
How come being elegant is tied to being western/secular?
I am in no way a so-called “neo-Ottomanist”, but I find it very funny that you criticise the current government for being “neo-Ottomanist” and while appreciating beautiful examples of architecture built by none other than Ottomans themselves.
mosa_kota@reddit
That country can stay where it is, thank you. It was actively "moving towards Europe" for 500 years and just stopped last century.
AskBalkans-ModTeam@reddit
Greetings,
Your post/comment was removed for violating Rule 5 of r/AskBalkans "No low quality content".
No reposts, no screenshots and no one-liner questions such as "thoughts?" and "opinions?" -- those are considered low quality content and not welcome in this sub. If a post of yours was removed and doesn't include any of the above, it was vague or repetitious: either specify what you want answered, or use the search bar to make sure your question hasn't been asked recently.
Cheers.
schismogenetic_donut@reddit
Your opinion is an orientalist one
HarryLewisPot@reddit
Europe won’t let them be a part of Europe lol, they tried to join the EU many times before Erdogan even took power.
Icy-Wasabi2223@reddit
Are you Turkish?
chrstianelson@reddit
Erdogan is not neo-Ottoman, he's an Arab ideologue.
The Ottoman Empire was always Euro-centric, comparatively liberal and progressive. (Muslim) women were allowed to own properties, run businesses, inherit and divorce their husbands, the Ottomans were the first country in the world to legalise homosexuality. It was a highly meritocratic society where anyone from any ethnicity could advance the ranks of military and government. None of these were a possibility in Europe until the 19th or even 20th century.
Ottoman leaders and Emperors were highly educated, were multilingual, admired European culture and wrote poems.
The Ottomans were everything Erdogan and his government isn't.
Except for corruption. That one they have in common.
PeriodontosisSam@reddit
Idk if thats true. When Sultan Mahmud II. tried to modernize and westernize the empire they called him "Gavur Sultan", which means "Heathen Sultan".
alpidzonka@reddit
Yeah, neo-Ottoman as in the AKP mainstream romanticizes the same Ottomans you currently are. As in, not the same principles as Ataturk, which admittedly can mean very little when the vast majority claims him.
As for the geostrategic meaning of "neo-Ottoman" and in general AKP regional policy, I honestly think they're positioning well in the MENA+Caucasus 6D chess game. Won in Karabakh, won in Syria, American fighter jets, etc. I don't think they should "move closer to Europe" if that means just signing off on anything the EU comes up with. I don't think Serbia should be doing that even, and we have close to zero wiggle room. I think RTE is in a sweet spot and the main EU powers aren't some kind of noble, reliable and helpful actor especially in the MENA.
And just frankly any "X needs to westernize, the most valuable episodes in its whole culture are the westernization projects" is just kind of orientalist/racist.
german_shepherd_woof@reddit
These people forget that nationalism was a western idea we imported, with known results.
SOHONEYSAME@reddit
yeah,
in reality, the opposite is happening, (& long may it continue, 💃💃).
Playful-Farmer5934@reddit
You are actually insufferable. we live rent-free in your head.
P.S: I get to enjoy seeing my nation at the world cup. 🤭🤭🤭
Look at her comment on this thread. disgusting. Thank God we won today. lololol
https://www.reddit.com/r/kosovo/comments/1s4kyyg/urime_fitoren/
Boss-Deluxe@reddit
Greeks are professional victims and insufferable losers so don’t mind her lmao.
Worried-Owl-9198@reddit
How much do you hate Turks on a scale of 1 to 10? You never miss a chance to comment under every anti Turk post
SOHONEYSAME@reddit
I don't, (nice projection).
Boss-Deluxe@reddit
Nah every Greek hates Turkey to some level, whoever says they don’t, they lie.
Worried-Owl-9198@reddit
You re not worth the effort.
CihangirAkkurt@reddit
None of the pictures you shared has anything to do with secularism or EU.
And though I do not support Erdogan's policies, how can going back to some policies which were merely adopted for a few decades is a "return", compared to Ottomans structuring nearly everything based on people's religion for centuries?
Ataturk himself changed quite a lot in his 15 years in power, and has been dead for almost nine decades now. I hope my country becomes more secular and relaxed, and the government would stop showing some stupid ideas down peoples throats but stop fetishizing some person from history. A lot of things had changed since then if we return back to how it was in 1930s, it is still gonna be very outdated and constrictive.
Low-Classroom-4839@reddit
Yeah buddy you just hate islam and want it to be ass-kisser for the west
archivist11@reddit
As a mix of turks, pelopennesian greeks, and albanians, I totally agree that Turkey should go back to its secular roots as a nation state. It really saddens me to see how much religion has been affecting the mindsets of its people. Not all turks are the same so please be gentle with your hatred towards us in this sub! As a western coast Turk you wouldn’t distinguish me from let’s say a Greek. Peace <3
Content-Natural9358@reddit
Turkeyeye is in a precarious geopolitical situation.
Playing both(or multiple) sides can be benefucual short term and it can work without severe issues in mid term, but long term its a spiral that leads to either choosing a side, or going the way of Yugoslavia..
Repulsive_Work_226@reddit
Agree. However the global geopolitics make Erdogan to lose. He has full support of Trump