SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: average joe who wrote (17021)6/17/2001 4:47:57 PM
From: Solon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
was surprised to learn that what really united the Arab world against the Turks was the Turks had a habit of raping and killing Arab women and killing the children and old people. The Arabs fought honorably amongst the tribes and left the women and others alone

My experience with simplistic generalizations is that they are.



To: average joe who wrote (17021)6/17/2001 9:39:45 PM
From: Solon  Respond to of 82486
 
sas.upenn.edu

Who Is an Arab?
WHO IS AN ARAB?
W. Montgomery Watt and Pierre Cachia

Over a hundred million people in the world call themselves Arabs. That is to say the least, a potential force in world politics, quite apart from the question of oil. Yet many observers are inclined to doubt whether there is any reality underlying the common use of the term Arab. And it is indeed not easy to define what is meant by an Arab.

The Arabs are not a distinct ethnic group, since there are both white Arabs and black arabs. Some of the black Sudanese Arabs claim descent ln the male line from Arabs of Mohammed's time, and may well be correct in their claim. Nor is language a sufficient criterion of Arabness since there are many Arabic-speaking jews who are not normally called Arabs. The figure of a hundred million come from the populations of the states in the Arab League. For membership ln the Arab League the primary criterion appears to be language: but, despite the presence of Lebanon, which is half Christian, this tends to be coupled with the acceptance of Arab-Islamic culture.

Modern Arab intellectuals are well aware of the difficulty in defining an Arab. As long ago as December, 1938, a conference of Arab students in Europe, held in Brussels, declared that "all who are Arab in their language, culture and loyalty (or "national feeling") are Arabs." Some of the same intellectuals, however, have spoken of the present disunity of the Arabs as the result of European imperialism during the last century or more. It does not take much knowledge of history to demonstrate that is a complete misconception.

The only time Arabs have been politically united was from about A. D. 634 to 750. Before Mohammed they were divided into feuding tribes, and not all the tribes entered into alliance with him. The so-called wars of the Apostasy that followed his death ended in unity under the second caliph, and this unity continued until about 750, with the Arabs as a ruling elite in an empire stretching from Spain to the Punjab and Central Asia. Soon after 750, however, the Arabs of Spain formed an independent government and in the following centuries other dynasties gained varying degrees of autonomy. lt often happened that two rulers, both nominally owing their appointment to the politically powerless caliph (or emperor), would fight bitterly to extend their territories at the other's expense. Where there was an opportunity, the local Muslim princelings were ready to ally themselves with a Christian princeling against Muslim rival: this happened both in Spain and in the Crusading period in Syria. So much for the myth of political unity.

At the same time, there was always an impressive cultural unity. Even before Mohammed there was some common cultural awareness among the Arabs. The very word Arab has the connotation of "people who speak clearly." and is contrasted with ajam, or "people who speak indistinctly." Though ajam came to be used specially of Persians, the contrast is similar to that between Greeks and "barbarians." Arabic literature was vigorously cultivated in Spain under Muslim rule. Most rulers and courtiers could write tolerable arabic verse, and a few achieved true elegance. One or two scholars knew by heart vast amounts of the poetry of the leading authors of Syria and Baghdad and the poetical standards of the heartlands still guided taste in Andalusia. At different times several local poets were dubbed "the Mutanabbi of the West." In much the same way, one called a man "the Milton of America."

Outstanding works from Baghdad quickly made their way to Spain and were studied and commented on. Indeed, in various ways the Arabs of Spain were more Arab than those of the heartlands, perhaps because of their relative isolation in a somewhat alien environment. While one may emphasize the distinctive Iberian character of the Arab literature of Spain, the Arabic language used in Spain remains very close to the classical models. Thus Arab culture has been a potent unifying force even in the face of great political disunity.

The beginning of the twentieth century saw many of the Arab countries nominally parts of the Ottoman Empire: that is, they were under non Arab Muslim rule. This was officially the case with Egypt, although de facto Egypt was being ruled by Britain, as was also the "Anglo-Egyptian Sudan." Algeria was ruled by the French, who also had some say in Morocco and Tunisia. World War I freed the Arabs from the Ottoman Empire, but brought many of them varying degrees of European tutelage. Only in the early 1950's did most of the Arabs become completely independent. Through this whole period, however, there has been no significant progress toward Political union. As long as the Arabs were under foreign occupation it was easy for them to claim that only imperialism divided them, that their separate "national struggles" were in fact common cause and that union would be easily achieved once the foreigners were ousted. Some twenty years of independence have given the lie to this hope.

The League of Arab States was founded in 1945 by Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria. Transjordan and Yemen. It has since grown to include Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, the Sudan, and various smaller states like Kuwait. Its aim, however, has never been unity but only cooperation, and even this limited goal has sometimes proved very difficult in the political field. The chief successes of the League have probably been in cultural matters, such as the formation of a library including microfilms of rare manuscripts.

There have been numerous more specific proposals for union, but these have now been forgotten or have turned sour. Egypt has been involved in a number of such projects: the unity of the Nile Valley (with the Sudan), the United Arab Republic (with Syria, which function for a short time and then was dissolved), federation with Yemen, and a union with Libya. Then there have been projects of a Greater Syria and a union of the Fertile Crescent (Syria an Iraq). None of these has worked in practice. While some Arabs have pushed idealistic proposals for unity, others seem determined to press their quarrels, both old and new. There was deep-rooted dynastic rivalry between the family ruling Saudi Arabia and the Hashemite family of Jordan and Iraq. Morocco and Algeria have yet to agree on the border between them (an important factor in Hassan's attempted nonviolent march into the Spanish Sahara in November, 1975). Iraq, in its greed for oil, threatened Kuwait. During the civil war in the Yemen, Egypt backed the republicans and Saudi Arabia the monarchists. And of course, Gamai Abdai Nasser of Egypt quarreled with Qasim of Iraq over who should be the leader of the Arabs.

Along with all this, however, strong cultural affinities have persisted throughout the Arab world. A literary movement in one country quickly spreads to the others. Around 1930, for example, similar "romantic" features were to be seen in the poetry of Syrian exiles in America, of the Egyptian "Apollo" group, and of the Tunisian ash-Shabbi, the last having been born in an oasis of the interior. Similarly, the "free verse" movement, which appeared in Iraq in 1949, has spread as far as Morocco. Nor is the sense of cultural affinity restricted to intellectuals. The Algerian man in the street clearly has a stronger feeling of Kinship with the Asian fellow-Arab of Iraq than with the non- Arab fellow-African of Mali.

This long story of Political disunity and cultural affinity is not the end of the matter. There are other forces at work beneath the surface, and we may today be witnessing a shift of emphasis that could, over time, prove crucial. The crucial Question is that of religion. For many centuries the basis of cultural affinity has been primarily religious. The religion of Islam provided the historical impetus creating the vast society to which the Arabs belonged. Intellectual disciplines associated with religion were the flywheel that maintained a steady, even movement. Within the community of Muslims, however, there was the still stronger bond of the Arabic Language. Arabic had a special status as the language of revelation. Arabic linguistic and literary standards remained remarkably homogeneous in the various regions of the Arab world and even in other Islamic provinces. This is the way it has been for centuries.

WHO IS AN ARAB?

The following statements about Arabs are untrue. Based upon your careful readings of the article, correct each statement so that it becomes factual.

1. The Arabs can be categorized as a distinct ethnic group in world today.

2. Historically, because of their continual unity, Arabs can be categorized as a political group.

3. Culturally, Arabs have had almost nothing in common.

4. The Arabs came under the rule of the Ottoman Empire as a result of World War I.

5. The only thing that kept the Arabs divided politically was their rule by many imperialistic nations up until the 1950's.

6. The goal of the League of Arab States is unifying the Arab nations.

7. For many centuries, the basis of cultural affinity (unity) among Arabs has been political.

The American-Arab AFFAIRS Council 1720 M. Street, NW Suite 512 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 296-2626 has been political.



To: average joe who wrote (17021)6/17/2001 9:46:18 PM
From: Solon  Respond to of 82486
 
ee.surrey.ac.uk

Who Are the Turks?
By Justin McCarthy, Ph.D.
Professor of History
College of Arts and Sciences
University of Louisville, Louisville, KY
The simplest questions can be the most difficult to answer. The Turks are obviously people separate from other people, but people can be defined in many ways-language, religion, culturaltraits, citizenship, loyalty to a ruling house, or many other feelings of kinship. The Turks of today are citizens of the Turkish Republic. The name Turk is also used to describe the people in Turkey who share the distinctive Turkish culture, especially the Turkish language , which all Turkish citizens do not share, no more than all Americans speak English. Or a Turk can also mean a member of the great linguistic and cultural family of the Turks,a family that stretches from China to Europe, bound together by language and history. The best way to define the Turks may be to consider which people make up the Turks of Turkey and how they defined themselves politically, first as subjects of the Ottoman Empire, then as citizens of the Turkish Republic.

The original speakers of the Turkish language lived in Central Asia. They roamed as nomads over a vast region that today lies in Siberia, Western China, and Kazakhstan and other ex-Republics of the U.S.S.R. They were known at an early time to both the Chinese and the Middle Eastern Persians and Arabs, but they first appeared in the Middle East in large numbers, as nomadic soldiers,in the tenth century. Finding the Middle East more pleasant than the cold steppes of Central Asia, they remained.

The Turks had converted to Islam while in Central Asia. Although some of the Turks in history had been Christians and Jews, Islam became the religion of the vast majority and remains so today.

The Turkish nomads expanded westward under the leadership of the Seljuk family of sultans. The Seljuks quickly took Iran and Iraq, capturing Baghdad, the capital of the old Abbasid Empire,in 1055. Their forces were unlike what is ordinarily thoughtof as an army. The first Seljuk troops were nomads who brought all their lives with them-families, dwellings (tents), animals,and belongings. They were at home wherever the pastures were good for their sheep. Relatively soon after their arrival so many Turks had come that the region to the southwest of the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan, was Turkish. Large groups of Turks were also spread over other regions of Iran and Iraq.

The nomads did not stop once Iran and Iraq were conquered. They were soon raiding into the Byzantine Empire, which lay to the west of Iran, in Anatolia. In 1071, the Byzantine defeat to the Seljuks in a great battle at Manzikert opened Anatolia to Turkish settlement. Over the next two hundred years the nomads kept moving into Anatolia in great numbers. Although the Turks themselves did not use the term, Anatolia had become Turkey. Many other peoples remained there. Greeks, Kurds, Armenians, and others shared the land, and many of them adopted the Turkish language, converted to Islam (forced conversion was almost unknown), and became Turks themselves. Because the Turks had no concept of"race" that would exclude anyone, they accepted those who wished to be Turks as Turks. The Turkish people were thus made up of the descendants of the Turks of Central Asia and those who had become Turks.

Nineteenth and early twentieth century refugees added to the numbers of Turks in Anatolia. In the time of the Ottoman Empire, Turkish population had spread throughout the Balkans. The descendants of these Turks lived for five hundred years in the areas that are today Bulgaria, Greece, and other countries of Southeastern Europe. Large numbers of these Turks were either killed or exiled when the countries rebelled against the Ottoman Empire and became independent. Russian invasions of the Ottoman Balkans and the creation of new Balkan states resulted in the expulsion of more than a million Turks. The exiles eventually settled in Anatolia and Eastern Thrace.

The Russians were also responsible for the immigration of more than two million Turks and other Muslims from the Crimea and the Caucasus Region. Both regions were overwhelmingly Muslim in population.

The Crimean Tatars were Turkish-speakers who had lived in the Crimea for centuries. The Caucasians, primarily the peoples known as Circassians, Abkhazians, and Laz, were not Turks but were Muslim peoples who had lived on their lands since the beginning of history. All the groups were forced to flee their homelands by Russian armies or laws. They too came to what today is the Turkish Republic.

From 1800 to the 1920s more than three million refugees came to what today is Turkey. Many of the immigrants were already Turks in culture and language. Others, such as the Circassians and Abkhazians, kept many of their ethnic traditions but became Turkish in language and loyalty. The ethnic Turks of modern Turkey thus came from Central Asia many centuries ago. A number are also descendants of peoples whose ancestors were Hittites, Phrygians,or other early peoples of Anatolia. Others descend from the peoples exiled from their homes by Russians and others taken in by the Turks of Turkey.

Peoples are often defined by the unique states to which they belong. This is especially true of the Turks, who were tied to one ofthe greatest empires of history, then to one of the first successful"developing" countries of the modern world.

Partly because the poetry, art, and other aspects of the Turkish character are little known to the West, Europeans and Americans have usually thought of Turks as soldiers and administrators. While there is much more than this to the Turks, it is true that Turks rank among history's great empire-builders and rulers. Under the Ottomans they conquered vast territories in the Balkans and the Middle East and ruled for six hundred years. The Ottoman Empire was founded at the end of the thirteenth century by a Turkish military leader, Osman, and his son Orhan. They and their successors conquered in Europe, Asia, and Africa. One sultan, Selim I, took all of what today is Egypt, Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon in one campaign. His son, Süleyman the Magnificent, expanded the empire by taking Iraq and Hungary. When Süleyman died in 1566 the Ottoman Empire stretched from the borders of Poland in the North to Yemen in the South and from near Venice in the West to Iran in the East. For centuries, the Ottoman Empire was the primary homeland of the Turks.

The Ottoman Turkish administrative genius lay in retaining and governing what they had conquered. The survival of any government for six centuries is in itself a testimony to greatness. The Turks proved to be adaptable to new circumstances . They managed to turn their system from a nomadic state whose members were more naturally wanderers than statesmen to a settled empire with laws, land registers, taxation systems, and economic might. Their system was not without troubles, but revolts and sometimes poor politicians could not bring it down. The state was based on tolerance of differences among its subjects. Christians and Jews were allowed to keep their religious practices and their means of gaining alivelihood. This was good for the Ottomans, because satisfied subjects did not rebel. It was also good for the subjects.

Tolerance and administrative ability were not enough for the Empireto last forever. In the 1600s and 1700s the Ottoman central government weakened just as European power immensely increased. The Europeans were translating the benefits of the Renaissance, the scientific revolution, and the discovery of the Americas into military and economic advantage. Europeans began to dismantle the Empire ,taking Ottoman lands for themselves, causing the great exile of Turks and other Muslims mentioned above. Ethnic and religious groups, such as the Bulgarians and Greeks, became affected by European ideas of nationalism. In the nineteenth century they revolted and created their own nation states, once again expelling many of the Turks who lived within their new borders.

As the Ottoman Empire compressed, the Turks also began to develop a national consciousness. Driven into Anatolia, the Turkish exiles and the Turks of Anatolia began a slow process of thinking of themselves not only as a religious group, Muslim, or the mainstay of an empire, Ottoman, but as the Turkish People. Turkish philosophers and politicians called upon the Turks to think of themselves as a nation.

The ultimate push toward Turkish nationhood came after World War I. Following Ottoman defeat in the war, the Arab and Muslim provinces had been stripped from the Empire. Anatolia, Istanbul, and a small portion of Europe were all that was left to the Turks. Then, in 1919, Anatolia was also invaded. Aided by Britain, France,and Italy, the Greek army landed and took control of Western Anatolia and Eastern Thrace. The European allies took Istanbul themselves. Many Turks already had been driven from both Europe and Asia into Anatolia, and Anatolia seemed about to be lost also. Drawing on their old military skills, the Turks organized to save what remained. They rellied under the leadership of General Mustafa Kemal, defeated the Greeks, and created a new state, the Turkish Republic, in Anatolia and Eastern Thrace.

The identity of the modern Turks was forged in the Turkish Republic under the tutelage of Mustafa Kemal, who became the first president of the Republic. Once again the Turks proved adaptable to change. Mustafa Kemal devised political, economic, and social reforms that would bring Turkey into the modern world. Radical change was legislated covering most facets of life. Soon after the founding of the Republic, Turkey became a secular state. Islam remained the religion of most of the people, but the state was not religious. Other changes followed quickly: The veil and the fez were banned and Western styles of clothing appeared. Women were given the vote and elected to Parliament. The Turkish language began to be written in Western characters, not the Arabic letters used previously. Laws were based on Western legal codes. Schools followed Western models. In short, Turkey became rapidly Westernized under Mustafa Kemal. As a symbol of change, Mustafa Kemal's government required all Turks to change the habit of centuries and adopt family names, as in the West. Mustafa Kemal himself took Atatürk ("Father Turk") as his surname. An entire culture began to be altered. Nevertheless, study of history and traditions of the Central Asian Turkish ancestors of the Turks of Turkey was stressed, as well.

Why follow the ways of Europe and America? Atatürk and the Turkish reformers felt that Western ways could not be adopted piecemeal. They believed that copying the industries and economies of the West was not possible unless one also accepted Western schools, business practices, and social customs. It was the whole of the Western culture that allowed Europe to develop economically, Atatürk felt, and he wanted his country to develop, so the country had to Westernize. Accepting the ways of the West meant accepting democracy. Atatürk kept authority in his own hands, but he deliberately schooled the people in the forms and ideas of a democratic society. In the 1950s the Turks created a real democracy which, despite some obstacles, continues to this day.

Westernization is another facet of the Turkish makeup. While some Turks would prefer to go back to old ways, the country as a whole has been committed since the time of Atatürk in the model of the West. Turkey has been a full member of NATO since1952 and an ally of Europe and America in the Gulf War with Iraq.

Who are the Turks? They are the descendants of the nomads from Central Asia and the refugees from the Balkans and the Caucasus, brought together in the Turkish republic. Most of the Turks are Muslims, following the prayers of Islam in the mosque, but livingin a secular state. They are also the inheritors of the governmental traditions of the Ottoman Empire and the democracy of Atatürkand the West.

The citizens of today's Turkey do not come from one ethnic group, no more than do the citizens of the United States. As in the United States, the ancestors of today's Turkish citizens come from many different places and many different cultures. The majority are ethnically Turkish. That is, they speak Turkish at home and feel themselves to be a part of the great ethnic tradition thatgoes back to central Asia. Some others are "Turks by adoption." They speak Turkish as their first language, but their ancestors came to Turkey, primarily in the nineteenth century, speaking other languages. Others are Turkish citizens but do not speak Turkish at home. This too is similar to the United States.

Of those who are Turks by adoption, the majority are the descendants of refugees from the Caucasus and the Balkans. The refugees were driven from their homes by Russian and Balkan armies and settled in what today is Turkey. Peoples such as the Circassians and the Laz have kept some of the folk traditions from their old homeland. However, they seldom speak the old languages. They have become part of the Turkish "melting pot."

The largest concentration group of non-Turkish speakers, the Kurds,is centered in Southeastern Anatolia. Other Kurdish-speakers live in Iraq, Iran, and other parts of what was the Soviet Union. Many Kurds now also live in cities all over Turkey, integrated into the general society. Groups of Arabic speakers live in province that border Syria. Of late, large groups of Persians have cometo Turkey, refugees from the regime in Iran. There are also numerous smaller groups who have come from all over Europe and Asia.

The Jews in Turkey are both distinct and integrated. Today, their primary language is Turkish, but they have a separate language, Judeo-Espanol, which is also used. Most of the Turkish Jews are descended from those who were expelled from Spain in 1492. Although they are economically and politically completely integrated into Turkish life, the Turkish Jews retain a strong sense of ethnicand religious identity.

By no means do all the ethnic Turks originally come from Anatolia and Eastern Thrace, the area of modern Turkey. The ancestors of many, more than two million, were exiles from the Balkans and what today is the Armenian Republic. Other Turks were forced out by the Soviets in the 1950s. Still others came in large numbers in the 1980s when the Bulgarian State first discriminated against them, then allowed them to migrate to Turkey.

All of these groups make up the citizenry of the Turkish Republic.