- This topic has 3 voices and 6 replies.
-
Posts
-
I am currently taking a Modern European History class and this is one of my textbooks: Winks, Robin and Neuburger Joan. Europe and the Making of Modernity: 1815-1914. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005 The book should be subtitled: A Marxist History of the Nineteenth Century because of its obvious Marxist leaning and interpretation of events. I am not done with it yet but here are some choice quotes from the book. I am sure I will have more to add as I continue reading it for class.1. Page 68 about the beginning of the Industrial Age:
"Before enclosure, most farms were tended communally and even the poorest families had access to common land. Communal farming provided a social safety net for everyone in a village, especially during years of crop failure and for those on the margins of society; the unmarried, the aged, and the disabled."
My marginal comment to this is "HUH?", this statement is contrary to just about everything I know of medieval village life.2. Page 89 in a discussion of the eighteenth century conditions throughout Europe, this section deals with the Balkans:
"The Muslim Ottomans were relatively tolerant of ethnic and religious differences and offered incenvtives to local peoples to convert to Islam"
This one left me speechless. it is as though the author does not know what the Muslim treatment of what they call Dhimmi's is. this definitely reflects the current post-modern narrative on religion and Islam in particular.3. Page 143 in a discusiion of early nineteenth century socialist movements:
"Some of Fourier's reccomendations, including higher pay for dangerous jobs and the use of devices for relieving the tedium of work, have become common practice in modern business."
That is it, modern businesses have adopted these policies not out of pragmatism but because a 19th century utopian told them too.These are just the three that jumped out at me the most, I have not started reading the section on Marx yet, that is next. I am sure I will find more of these gems as I read the book and I will add the best to this thread.
Scout:The author is correct. Unlike Christians the Turks did not force their religion on anyone in the Ottoman Empire. You could remain exactly what you wished provided that you paid a certain tax. Each religious group in the Empire had an official head through which the government administrated for that particular group of believers. The incentives they offered Christians in the Balkans was to be relieved of the taxes and to enjoy the fruits of being a Moslem--perhaps the multiple wives were an inducement. There wasa practice put in place to get young recruits for the Turkish Jannisaries. From time to time bureaucratsfrom Istanbul would travel in the Balkans and get young men for the army. They would be taken to Istanbul, schooled and trained to be soldiers and forcibly converted to Islam. In an age where Europeannations would kill you for being of the opposite faith--the Moslems were known for their toleration. Theyhad a system where Armenians and Jews prospered. Later things got ugly. The best book I can pointto on this is Black Lamb, Gray Falcon by Rebecca West who covers this in exhausting detail. I have beenstudying this fascinating subject for many years and know of what I speak. Check it out--you will be astonished.
Unlike Christians the Turks did not force their religion on anyone in the Ottoman Empire. You could remain exactly what you wished provided that you paid a certain tax. …. In an age where Europeannations would kill you for being of the opposite faith--the Moslems were known for their toleration.
You have a funny definition of "toleration".
NO–just the standard one–toleration is the pale stepsister of love. It means I put up with your presenceand there may be conditions. The Ottomans must be compared to their European contemporaries--why kill people of another religion--tax them, fleece them, utilize their skills. It was not a Moslem, who cast thebronze guns for the Turks when they took Constantinople in 1453--it was a Hungarian Christian if I recall correctly.Europeans only became tolerant much later than 1453! Even today a Catholic cannot sit on the throne of Great Britain.
NO--just the standard one--toleration is the pale stepsister of love. It means I put up with your presenceand there may be conditions. The Ottomans must be compared to their European contemporaries--why kill people of another religion--tax them, fleece them, utilize their skills. It was not a Moslem, who cast thebronze guns for the Turks when they took Constantinople in 1453--it was a Hungarian Christian if I recall correctly.Europeans only became tolerant much later than 1453! Even today a Catholic cannot sit on the throne of Great Britain.
How many Catholic churches are there in Saudi Arabia? I feel your view of history is colored by your political ideology.
Scout:The author is correct. Unlike Christians the Turks did not force their religion on anyone in the Ottoman Empire. You could remain exactly what you wished provided that you paid a certain tax. Each religious group in the Empire had an official head through which the government administrated for that particular group of believers. The incentives they offered Christians in the Balkans was to be relieved of the taxes and to enjoy the fruits of being a Moslem--perhaps the multiple wives were an inducement. There wasa practice put in place to get young recruits for the Turkish Jannisaries. From time to time bureaucratsfrom Istanbul would travel in the Balkans and get young men for the army. They would be taken to Istanbul, schooled and trained to be soldiers and forcibly converted to Islam. In an age where Europeannations would kill you for being of the opposite faith--the Moslems were known for their toleration. Theyhad a system where Armenians and Jews prospered. Later things got ugly. The best book I can pointto on this is Black Lamb, Gray Falcon by Rebecca West who covers this in exhausting detail. I have beenstudying this fascinating subject for many years and know of what I speak. Check it out--you will be astonished.
Christianity does not have a monopoly on intolerance despite what you may get from Huffpo. If anything dhimmitude is even worse than being ghettoized if you ever take the time to research it. I don't understand the school of thought that say Islam is peaceful and tolerant, and no one has been able to adequately explain it. I am forced to put that particular lie down to exceptionally good propaganda. Goebbels' big lie, if you will.The Muslims came up with convert or die about the same time as Christians did and if I remember correctly that is actually in the Koran while it can easily be argued that that attitude by Christians is strictly in contravention to the teachings of Christ in the Ne Testament, perhaps you know of a gnostic gospel that preaches forcible conversion? The Muslim explosion of the 8-10th centuries was based on conquest, or have my biased history books led me down the wrong path here again and they were really just preachers who waved swords and burnt towns for effect? I don't think anyone believes that any culture has been pure since its inception so I don't get the blame game anyway. Fact is, I am a Cristian so is it not entirely understandable that I would defend my faith before I would defend another?
ScoutI do not know, but I imagine there are no Churches there. The Tirks were not Arabs--they were an ImperialPower of great wealth and influence. Toleration was their policy and it worked for them. The Arabshave a less benign attitude toward non-Moslems. They are not the same.Everyone's view of History is seen through a personal lens, a component of which is political, even yours.We would all like to think of Historians being objective observers and recorders, but we know that one cannot free oneself of bias.
Notice I said Muslims and not Turks. I would agree that the Turks practiced their Islam a little differently, and they were not above politicizing religion if it suited them. But if you think dhimmitude is tolerance I suggest you go talk to those benighted souls in the Balkans whose ancestors converted to escape Islamic taxes and property laws and now curse them for that decision. I have been there and seen Srebenica, it is not a happy place and not just because of the Christian Croats an Serbs. The Balkan Muslims converted under the Turks because the Turkish regime was so “tolerant”? I would submit that Tolerance, like beauty, is in the the eye of the beholder.
