Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 3      Prev   1   2   3
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 387
Reply with quote  #31 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murtagon
Azadi, may I sincerely ask you how do you think the House of Osman (the Osmanoglu family) and the Ottoman Empire contributed to the general culture and development of your region/land?

As far as I gather, your ancestors were Christians, men and women who were treated like second-rate people until quite late in the Empire's existence. Am I right, at least about the former?

Still, I would also be happy about a brand new monarchy appearing in that part of Asia - but what about your ruler's religion, because aren't most Kurds Muslim?

The Ottoman Sultans were tolerant towards the Kurdish language and Kurdish culture, and the Ottoman Empire granted full freedom of religion in 1856. My Kurdish ancestors were Muslims until 1912, when my most recent German noble ancestor, who was a Lutheran, married a Kurdish Muslim woman. They both converted to Nestorian Christianity, because my German ancestor refused to abandon Christianity, and his Kurdish wife refused to convert to Lutheranism, because it's a foreign religion. I don't compare the Ottoman Empire to Christian European polities. I compare it to the Kingdom of Iraq and to the Republic of Iraq before the overthrow of Saddam. The Hashemite kings of Iraq oppressed the Kurds, and Saddam tried to eradicate us. I like the Tanzimat era, in which the Ottoman Sultans granted freedom of religion and granted all subjects of the Ottoman Sultan equal rights regardless of religious affiliation. In addition, the Ottoman Empire was more tolerant of Nestorian Christianity even before the Tanzimat era than the Byzantine Empire was. 
Murtagon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 55
Reply with quote  #32 
I suppose your preference for the Ottoman Empire stems from its multicultural background. In its best years, it was spread on three continents - Europe, Asia and Africa. The Empire was welcome to anyone, especially if they were Muslim, with some tolerance for other religions, such as Judaism and Christianity. 

This is in opposition to Iraq, where nationalism reigned. Kurds and Christians didn't mesh well with Arabs and Muslims, I suppose.

As for the Ottoman Empire being more tolerant to the Nestorian Christians than the Byzantine Empire before it - I'm pretty sure that was because the latter was Christian and the former wasn't.


azadi

Registered:
Posts: 387
Reply with quote  #33 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murtagon
I suppose your preference for the Ottoman Empire stems from its multicultural background. In its best years, it was spread on three continents - Europe, Asia and Africa. The Empire was welcome to anyone, especially if they were Muslim, with some tolerance for other religions, such as Judaism and Christianity. 

This is in opposition to Iraq, where nationalism reigned. Kurds and Christians didn't mesh well with Arabs and Muslims, I suppose.

As for the Ottoman Empire being more tolerant to the Nestorian Christians than the Byzantine Empire before it - I'm pretty sure that was because the latter was Christian and the former wasn't.



It's true, that the reason for the Ottoman Empire being more tolerant to the Nestorian Christians than the Byzantine Empire is, that the Ottoman Sultans were Muslims, while the Byzantine Emperors were Orthodox Christians. The Byzantines considered the Nestorians heretics, while the Ottomans considered the Nestorians People of the Book. The Zoroastrian Persian Sassanid Empire was tolerant of Nestorian Christians too.
It's true, that Kurds and Arabs don't mesh well, because we Kurds are an Iranic people, who speak a language, which is closely related to Farsi (Persian). If you want to pick a fight with a Kurd, call him or her an Arab. I personally don't hate Arabs, but I'm opposed to Arab rule over Kurdistan. We're better off living in separate states than living in the same state. The Ottoman Sultans, despite being ethnic Turks, were immersed in Persian culture, while the Hashemites are culturally Arab as well as being ethnic Arabs.
Today, most Kurds are Muslims, but many Kurds belong to non-Muslim religions. Christians form a small minority of the Kurds. Christian Kurds have traditionally been Nestorians. When Kurdistan was part of the Sassanid Empire, most Kurds were Zoroastrians, but a significant minority of the Kurds were Nestorian Christians. Zoroastrian Kurds still exist today. Zoroastrians are currently more numerous among Kurds than Christians are, and a lot of Muslim Kurds have converted to Zoroastrianism recently.
Most Kurds support freedom of religion and religious tolerance, and the KRG (the autonomous regional government of South (Iraqi) Kurdistan) is a secular state, who grants freedom of religion, including the right to convert from Islam to another religion.
I don't hate the Byzantine Empire because of its persecution of Nestorian Christians, because Kurdistan was never part of the Byzantine Empire. I like the Byzantine Empire, because I'm a Russophile monarchist. Tsarist Russia considered itself the heir to the Byzantine Empire and preserved a lot of Byzantine traditions. But I'm sick and tired of Western monarchists dreaming of an Orthodox Christian reconquest of Istanbul. Very few Greeks live in Istanbul today, and the Turks have left an impressive cultural legacy in Istanbul, such as the Topkapi Palace and the Blue Mosque. Byzantophile Western monarchists ought to support restoration of the Russian monarchy rather than wanting to strip Turkey of Istanbul.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,032
Reply with quote  #34 
Istanbul is and will remain a Turkish city. It would be silly to dream otherwise, and actually more than silly as only a monstrous act of ethnic cleansing could accomplish such a dream. Christians began persecuting other Christians just as soon as they were in a position to do so, and have never ceased since.

13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

So said Christ in the first century, at least according to the authors of the Gospel of John. 'No wild beast is so dangerous to man as Christians are to one another.' So said the Emperor Julian in the fourth. A triumph of bitter experience over hope. Not that Muslims don't persecute each other, and also followers of other religions. And not that Buddhists don't persecute each other, and also followers of other religions. And so on, and so on: even people who are declared atheists persecute Jews, as we see in today's Labour Party. It's all extremely depressing to contemplate.

azadi

Registered:
Posts: 387
Reply with quote  #35 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Istanbul is and will remain a Turkish city. It would be silly to dream otherwise, and actually more than silly as only a monstrous act of ethnic cleansing could accomplish such a dream. Christians began persecuting other Christians just as soon as they were in a position to do so, and have never ceased since.

13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

So said Christ in the first century, at least according to the authors of the Gospel of John. 'No wild beast is so dangerous to man as Christians are to one another.' So said the Emperor Julian in the fourth. A triumph of bitter experience over hope. Not that Muslims don't persecute each other, and also followers of other religions. And not that Buddhists don't persecute each other, and also followers of other religions. And so on, and so on: even people who are declared atheists persecute Jews, as we see in today's Labour Party. It's all extremely depressing to contemplate.


I don't accuse you of dreaming of a Byzantine reconquest of Istanbul. But some members of the forum have spoken of establishing a Vatican-style state for the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul, because the Turkish state limits the rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul. I agree, that the Turkish state treats the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul wrongly, because it demands, that the Patriarch is a Turkish citizen, and it refuses to recognize the title Ecumenical Patriarch. But an Orthodox Vatican is at odds with Orthodox Christian tradition. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is NOT an Orthodox Pope. He has no jurisdiction over the other Orthodox Churches, and he is merely the primus inter pares of the Orthodox Patriarchs. The Orthodox Patriarchs have always been subject to the temporal ruler, even if the temporal ruler isn't a Christian.
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew tries to make himself an Orthodox Pope, but the Russian Orthodox Church won't accept it. The Russian Orthodox Church has severed full communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. I support Moscow in the Moscow-Constantinople schism, because the Russian Orthodox Church defends Orthodox Christian traditions, while Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew wants to be an Orthodox Pope.
Despite being a Nestorian Christian, I like the Orthodox Church, because the Orthodox Church and the Nestorian Church are both Eastern churches, and I agree with the Orthodox Church on filioque.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 387
Reply with quote  #36 
An Ottoman restoration in Kurdistan is next to impossible, because Ottoman nostalgia is insignificant in Kurdistan. The Ottoman Sultans are considered foreign rulers by most Kurds today. Once we were Ottoman subjects to the bootstraps, but today Kurdistan has evolved into an independent nation, which aspires to become a sovereign state. The only kind of monarchist nostalgia, which exists among Kurds today, is nostalgia for the pre-Islamic Iranic empires. The current growth of Zoroastrianism in Kurdistan is partly fueled by nostalgia for pre-Islamic Kurdistan. I'm not opposed to an independent Kurdistan being a republic. I consider the Osmanoglu dynasty the legitimate royal dynasty of Kurdistan, but it's of academic interest only to me. But I would like the elected head of state of Kurdistan to use the title Shah, because it will emphasize, that modern Kurdistan is an heir to the pre-Islamic Iranic civilization.
Monarchist nostalgia being widespread in a former monarchy is a necessary precondition for restoration of a monarchy. In Kurdistan, Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Portugal and Greece, monarchist nostalgia is insignificant, while Tsarist nostalgia is widespread in Russia, Pahlavi nostalgia is widespread in Iran and Erdogan promotes Ottoman nostalgia in Turkey.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 387
Reply with quote  #37 
Despite being a monarchist, I admire Atatürk, because he defended the independence of Turkey against the imperialist Western powers after World War I. I like his secularism and his support for women's rights, and replacing the Arabic script with a Latin script was a good idea, because the Arabic script was poorly suited to the Turkish language, and distancing Turkey from the Arab world was important, because Turkey isn't an Arab country. Atatürk ought to have kept the Ottoman sultanate, because the sultan was reduced to a figurehead because Atatürk took power, but it's understandable, that Atatürk decided to abolish the Ottoman sultanate, because the Sultan had stayed in power in Istanbul with the support of British occupation troops, while Great Britain dissolved the Ottoman Parliament in 1920, and the Sultan opposed Atatürk's independence movement. Most Turks considered the Sultan a traitor, when Atatürk abolished the monarchy in 1922.
But Atatürk's westernizing reforms went too far. Banning the fez was wrong, because the fez was an important part of Turkish culture. Atatürk once said "There are many different cultures but only one civilization - the Western one". The Pahlavi shahs, while wanting to modernize and secularize Iran, cherished the ancient Persian civilization.
Atatürk's secularism was too rigid. Banning headscarves in public institutions was a bad idea, because it alienated conservative Muslims in Turkey, and banning Sufi orders was wrong. But Atatürk never banned headscarves entirely unlike Reza Shah (the first Pahlavi Shah).
Atatürk suppressed the Kurdish language and Kurdish culture, while the Ottoman Empire was tolerant of the Kurdish language and Kurdish culture.
But despite Atatürk's oppression of the Kurds, his rigid secularism and his excessive Westernization, the abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate wasn't a disaster for Turkey. The Turkish monarchy was replaced with a decent republic, like in Germany and in Italy and unlike in Russia and in Iran. The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was far worse for the Kurds than for the Turks.
Despite Erdogan's promotion of Ottoman nostalgia, Atatürk remains a hero in Turkey. Atatürk remaining a hero in Turkey may explain, why monarchism is far weaker in Turkey than in Russia and in Iran. Monarchism is insignificant in Turkey, while a significant monarchist current exists in Russia, and Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi enjoys widespread support among Iranians. 

bator

Registered:
Posts: 222
Reply with quote  #38 
it is true that turkey is not an arab country and that the arab alfabet was very unfit to write the turkish language with. however turkey is also not a european or christian country, and it had inherited the arab alfabet because of its muslim religion and culture. instead of replacing it with latin letters he should have reformed it, so that there would be one sound for one letter, and for the vowels also. like in many other of the turkic languages which had individual letters for the vowels. this could have been done. or he could have restored their original writing, the turkic runes. but instead he wanted to lick ass on western countries by adopting a lot of things from the west. he was also a heavy drinker, and he could have done like the pahlavi to make himself sultan instead of abolishing the monarchy. i hate him for that and for the suppression of the kurds, but i do respect him for trying to get rid of the arab and persian loanwords and replacing them with turkisk words. he deserves gratitude for that.

as for erdogan, i dont like him and what he has done in syria, but promoting ottoman nostalgia is good, and if he could really somehow restore the monarchy i would of course be very grateful and forgive him what he has done so far.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.