Turks

[Blue Moose]

Well, I find the quote to still be funny....but the source is disturbing.

[XOR]

Are you calling americans barbarians just because of death penalty? Please, death penalty is fine as long as it's only applied on serial killers and similar types. Unless you prefer to be "politically correct" (aka hypocrite) and say that even those who have repeatedly violated other peoples right to live still deserve their right to live, in that case you would lock them up for the rest of their lives and care them and feed them using tax-payers' money, and some of those tax payers happen to be their victims.

There are some people that cant be let free, and there is no point at all in keeping them alive at other peoples expense. I know there are important moralist personalities that say otherwise, that's what they are supposed to do, so they just do their part (preach for an utopic world) and the justice system, IMHO, does it's part too (at their limited ability to do so, acknowledging the real world).

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by XOR
Are you calling americans barbarians just because of death penalty? Please, death penalty is fine as long as it's only applied on serial killers and similar types. Unless you prefer to be "politically correct" (aka hypocrite) and say that even those who have repeatedly violated other peoples right to live still deserve their right to live, in that case you would lock them up for the rest of their lives and care them and feed them using tax-payers' money, and some of those tax payers happen to be their victims.

There are some people that cant be let free, and there is no point at all in keeping them alive at other peoples expense. I know there are important moralist personalities that say otherwise, that's what they are supposed to do, so they just do their part (preach for an utopic world) and the justice system, IMHO, does it's part too (at their limited ability to do so, acknowledging the real world).

Yes, I am saying the death penalty is barbaric. America is more backwards than Europe in a number of social ways. I'll grant that in more primitive times it was probably justified, since humanity lacked psychological knowledge and resources to advance that knowledge.

The American (and other) penal systems are primitive in other regards as well though. It's a simple fact that most criminals know how to do little other than crime. Most prisons do little to try to rectify this. True, it is partially a failure of society and the educational system, but that's just another area that needs to be improved. Hence, education at all levels (kindergarten and up) should be free to all citizens (so people are tempted to commit crime to be educated). More effort needs to go into making sure people are educated, and the psychology of why people commit crimes should be studied more (though it is already understood fairly well). Ethics should also be taught in schools, but in a non-religious way (which is quite possible). This would help people understand their role in society better. Of course, any extra insight from the aforementioned continued study of the criminal mind should be utilized as best as possible (various programs developed and tested against each other for effectiveness).

So, what sorts of criminals does that leave you with?....

Crimes of passion could be dealt with by making self control part of the educational system, and encouraging parents to teach it to their children (with free parenting classes for that and proper parenting available to all). Personally, I feel that would eliminate most crimes of passion (but one would have to wait and see).

So the last major source of crime (as far as I can see) left would be the mentally ill. Clearly these people shouldn't be killed, or at least I hope that is clear. Clearly you also need a free medical system (or at least free as far as mental illness is concerned), so that medication and/or therapy will definitely be available to these members of society (and by necessity, the mentally ill that wouldn't have commited crime to begin with). Those conditions that are untreatable or poorly but lead to violent or criminal behavior might well require that the persons be held for their safety and the safety of others. They would be studied so that treatments could eventually be found and made available. Some, perhaps, might be untreatable for their entire lives. When possible they should still be allowed to be productive members of society, but in a safe environment where they can't hurt others. More of a mental hospital than a prison though. Those that are too violent though, might have to be kept in more secure quarters. This would be a very small number of people though (at least judging from everything I know), and it would be unfortunate, but certainly better than killing them.

Of course, you're still likely to have crime after all the above has been implemented. It would be much, much rarer however. Clearly the penal system would have to instill and teach ethics and a sense of responsibility in addition to work skills. In my opinion, criminal should be kept until it is deemed that they have fully learned all of this, so there should be no set prison sentences.

Of course, the above is just a rough outline of how I think the penal system should work and interrelate with the rest of government. Likely it would need changes and tweaks here and there if it was implemented, but the general idea is quite sound.

To sum up: Yes, killing criminals is barbaric, we can be better than that.

[Heresson]

So the conclusion, the turks were bad, but not more bad then anyone else. They were actually quiet good compared to what their christian brothers did at the same time in Spain, america, russia, poland, india, germany, france, and Great Britain. In other words: Everywhere there were heretics (protestants, catholics, calvinists, moslems, hinduists, or anything else)

I disagree with your opinion of Poland;
unlike in other European countries, there were no stakes
and burning witches in our kingdom. There is only one example - they burned an old women that denied that
Jesus was God. In fact, in 1573, an confederation in Warsaw was signed in which every religious group of Christians agreed not to fight against each other, only polish Borthers (that denied that Jesus was God) were not allowed into that union, but they were not persecuted until the end of the Swedish war (1655-60), in which they were accused of being on Swedish side (which was rigth, though all the gentry of all denominations stood on their side at the start). but even then, when arians were supposed to be banned, some stayed,
and the rest settled in our fief, Prussia, notabene a first protestant state in Europe - which secularised from being a state of catholics monks only because of Poland.
Except for that, Poland forced so-called Polish Postulates in france in exchange for Polish crown for french prince, in which the French had to promess that they won't allow religious fights and will not persecute hugenots. Later this very good attitude (Poland was also homeland to most of world Jewish population and to a big number of Muslims, despite Papal objections)
was changed a bit, but nevertheless, in XVI and first half of XVII century Poland was example that no European country could match in those and later times, until XX century.

[molly bloom]

Having read all the exchanges and posts on the subject of the Turks, I can honestly say that it’s rare to see so much misinformation, bile and prejudice on the subject of a people and civilization. So the Turks are ‘evil’ and ‘barbarians’, incapable of trading (unless immigrant Jewish refugees do it for them) and incapable of governing, unless Byzantine Greeks do it for them. They can apparently build only mosques and medressas, and little else.

Well, what a load of horse manure.

One of the greatest and most prolific architects of all time, was Sinan, the court architect of Suleiman the Magnificent. The works attributed to him include bridges, caravanserais, fountains, aqueducts, hostels, inns, schools, mosques, and so on and so on. Anyone with doubts can do a search on his name, or read any representative volume on architecture of the Middle and Near East and the Balkans.

As for being merely destructive, and being the most hated race in the Balkans- I can’t argue for the second part, although it should be noted that little love was lost between the peasant classes and the nobility in the Balkans and Europe (various peasant revolts, including that of Hungary in 1514) . The leader (Gyorgy Dosza) was executed by having a white hot crown of iron placed upon his head, and then his comrades in revolt were forced to mutilate and eat his flesh whilst he still lived. Similar treatment was doled out by the civilized German princes, Italian princes, and then of course there were France’s Wars of Religion, the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, mass slaughter following the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Henry VIII’s suppression and destruction of the monasteries, nunneries and abbeys, the massacre of the Anabaptists in Germany, the sack of Magdeburg, the sack of Drogheda by Oliver Cromwell’s forces, the Highland Clearances, not to mention wholesale slaughter and enslavement of indigenous populations in the Philippines, the Americas and Africa. And did I forget the Holy Inquisition? The widespread use of torture, the growth of the Atlantic slave trade, ethnic cleansing in Scotland, Ireland, and America, the expulsion of the Spanish Jews, the Moriscos and conversos, Lutheran against Calvinist, Catholic against Protestant- and not a Turk to be seen in any of it.

Similarly, although the Jews of Hungary were relatively fortunate in their treatment by the authorities of Hungary, the anti-Semitism elsewhere in Eastern Europe (except under the Turks) speaks volumes about the continuing strain of intolerance in Western and Eastern Christianity towards those who share a similar faith and prophets.

People talk about the depopulation of Hungary following Turkish rule- well given that Hungary had effectively ceased to exist, it’s hardly surprising, shared out as it was between Austrian Hapsburgs, the Turks, and Transylvania. It should also be pointed out that it was Magyars who plundered Buda after the Sultan, Suleiman, left Hungary, and the forces of the palatine, Bathori, who pillaged the royal treasury, whilst the commander of Esztergom plundered the boats of the queen, and her ladies in waiting. All this and two rival monarchs, as well.

Venice had been busy detaching Adriatic cities and provinces from the old Hungarian kingdom too. Add to this that the Hapsburgs were more than happy to have a buffer state between their Austrian heartland and the Turks, wherein to carry on the fight against the heathen, and you have a similar situation to that which existed in the buffer states of the Thirty Years’ War in Western and northern Europe.

As for the supposed Turkish policy of ‘divide and conquer’- well, that was the policy of the Hapsburgs. They governed an equally (if not more so) multinational empire, with eventually, Muslim, Lutheran, Calvinist, Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Serbian, Bulgarian and Rumanian and Greek Orthodox faiths, as well as the Jews, and not to mention a patchwork quilt of ethnicities and nationalities.

It’s noteworthy for instance, that the supposedly intolerant Turks allowed the Greek Patriarch to remain in Istanbul, and even had Jewish governors- in 1535, David dei Rossi, an Italian Jew, noted that:

‘Here we are not in exile, as in our own country. Here...those appointed over the customs and tolls are Jews. There are no special Jewish taxes.’

He was talking about Jerusalem and Palestine. Compare Suleiman’s treatment of the Jews (and indeed Orthodox and Latin Christians and their holy places) with that of not only his Muslim predecessors, but of the Crusaders- who for instance, turned al-Aqsa into a stable and latrine.

So before we start name-calling, and slinging mud- it might do well for some of us to broaden our research, and get a better perspective. War is hell - all war. No one has a monopoly on cruelty or evil, and it is pointless and foolish to label a whole civilization or people as barbarian and evil.

As for the attributes of the Turks – I don’t know what Firaxis was thinking about, if it’s meant to be the Ottoman Turks. They were quite easily the most devout promulgators and warriors for Sunni (mainstream, orthodox) Islam, and their state was based on a semi-permanent military footing- even stratified according to militaristic principles. Ergo, a combination of religious and militaristic/expansionist makes the most sense.

If anyone wants to learn or read more, may I suggest:

Karen Armstrong: A History of Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths

Miklos Molnar: A Concise History of Hungary

Halil Inalcik: The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300-1600

John Julius Norwich: A Short History of Byzantium

Dean S Rugg : Eastern Europe, The World’s Landscapes

C. V. Wedgwood: The Thirty Years’ War

Martin Gilbert: First World War Atlas

Michael Dockrill: Atlas of 20th Century World History

Here is a link to Great Buildings Online, and a biography of Sinan:

http://www.greatbuildings.com/architects/Sinan.html

Turkish architecture:

http://www.turkey.org/culture/c_archit.htm

[brianshapiro]

blue moose,

i never came to any strong opinion on the death penalty itself, but i think refering to a country as barbaric for maintaining it is naive. there is this naivite in the world today which suggests that we should care about 'saving lives', self-indulgently pretending as if we're actually saving them from death while their death will eventually come anyway. everyone will die, to put 'preventing death' at the start of any moral agenda is naive. this is not to say that there isnt reason to stop killing that does occur but this is also the cause of those who want to stop abortion who are also accused of barbarism.

and you should know that i would think that forcing people to take psychiatric medication is far far more barbarous than the death penalty; in the latter case youre just ending their existence, after which they cant complain about it at all, in the second youre torturing them in the worst way possible by controlling their thoughts with no permission. in short, youre attacking their very self-being, a type of rape or violation but much more extreme.

the third thing i would have to say is that its stupid to call europe more advanced socially just because theyre more liberal so along the lines of psychological theory (which i would argue is flawed). people are jailed in germany for questioning anything about the holocaust, not to mention that neo-nazism is rampant, in france for advertising in english even if just on french website servers by american businesses stationed there, people in england are taxed just to be priveleged to watch television. the governments of europe are also more authoritarian most of the control in the hands of a prime minister and the public opinion is manufactured to a greater degree to support the policies a la chomsky.

brian

[brianshapiro]

i should also mention that the swedish government has been involved in tearing down churches because they 'serve no economic purpose' is forcing citizens to indulge very private information and even though the citizens protest and dislike it theyre afraid to vote in a more conservative party.

[brianshapiro]

not only putting 'preventing' death at the start of any moral agenda is naive , putting preventing pain is also naive for other reasons but psychological.

[Blue Moose]

woo...replying brainshapiro's comments on my off-topic post. which was a reply to a reply of a more on-topic post of mine ; ).....(my apologies)....

The "barbaric" comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek, as I hoped one would have gathered by the quote (and my comments on the quote). I only seriously meant that the *practice* was barbaric.

I find your comments on death rather disturbing. There is a big difference between someone's life ending *now* and in that life ending in another 50 years. The added time has meaning, and pretending it does not just because it will end is truly naive. It's like say there is no difference between a 1 second birthday party and a 2 hour one, or a one minute marriage--or shall I just say an emotionally intimate union*?--and a 60 year one. I admit I am assuming that those years can have some level of general happiness, but I do not think this is too large of an assumption.

On the topic of making some people take medication, I would only advocate it for very specific situations. For those that cannot function without causing harm to themselves or others, when therapy or other treatment would not work. By "harm" I mean physical or significant psychological harm. If someone can't stop banging their head against the wall without medication, or if they wouldn't be able to stop themselves from killing people without anti-psychotics, then society has a duty to make sure that they get that medication (for their own good and for the good of others). Sometimes it is necessary to help someone inspite of them. If someone is so depressed that they can't summon the will to seek treatment (and therapy would be a part of this), then members of society should reach out and help that person. If someone is so deranged that they cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy, they also should helped. You're being naive if you think that there aren't mental illness that make the afflicted unlikely to seek or want treatment. Ones that need to be medicated usually result in the person recognizing the need for it afterwards (because their brains simply weren't functioning well enough beforehand for them to see that). As I said though, it is possible that some tweaks would be needed. In this case, let us say a possible implementation is that if the patient afterwards decides they'd rather not be medicated, then they can go off it, but would have to remain in a controlled environment (since this person would necessarily be very likly to harm another human being). I think this is flawed though, because in cases such as this, the medication is what allows the person to think rationally (though I guess you could modify it further by adding in therapy and conselling to ensure they understand all the implications).

As for Europe, I just said America was more backwards in a number of social ways. I didn't say all. Free speech and press are probably the most important things that can be lacking in Europe. Also, I'd say that Neo-nazism is probably more rapant in the U.S. than in Germany, or at least as rapant. It's unfortunate, though understandable that Germany has made it illegal, as well as any expression that is pro-nazi. Unfortunate for reasons of free speech, of course. I think governments often forget they can speak freely as well, and hence support protests of such unsavory ideology. As for other political matters, Europe is actually more pluralistic than America, as its government systems easily support more than two parties, whereas America's is heavily biased towards a two-party system.

A word now on my ethical system. I'm a utilitarian. That means I believe in maximizing human happiness as much as possible, while minimizing human suffering. Naturally, there are many levels of happiness. Perhaps the highest is that produced by spending time with someone you love romantically that returns that emotion. Also, because of human psychology, some pain is necessary to ensure that a well adjusted person results. Some pain is also necessary because people can have conflicting desires, such as wanting to marry the same person (and to forestall any possible counterarguement there, we will say they also do not desire a polygamous relationship). And some pain is unavoidably because we can't control everything. However, there is much pain that is totally unecessary, and much pain that could be lessened, and still allow just as much or more happiness as before. Human life is so valuable, at least in part, because of the potential happiness as well as the happiness it can induce in others through social connections. Lastly, some human desires can *require under all circumstances* pain, suffering, or death for others. Wanting all the wealth in the world or wanting someone dead are two examples. I'd label these as unhealthy desires, since such things are not necessary for human happiness. (and please, no comparisons of this with the occasional necessity of causing harm to *prevent* pain or death to another).


Hmm, hope I didn't miss anything.

[Palaiologos]

Allright.

Since Blue moose and Kaiser Issak have obviously abdicated another champion of the Turks appears.

Once more into the fray.....



HOW CAN YOU SERIOUSLY ARGUE THOSE THINGS?

YOU MAKE A MOKERY OF YOURSELF JUST SAYING THEM AND MUCH MORE SUPORTING THEM.

HAVE YOU MET A TURK IN YOUR LIFE? WE BALKANIANS HAPPEN TO LIVE NEXT DOOR.WE ONLY DROVE THEM BACK TO ASIA IN 1912.

1.YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY NOT READ ALL THE POSTS HERE, BECAUSE IF YOU HAD DONE SO YOU WOULD NOT ARGUE THESE RIDICULUS THINGS.

2.YOU MUST HAVE NOT READ YOUR OWN LINKS EITHER SINCE ON PAGE 1, PARAGRAPH 1, LINE 1 OF THE FIRST LINK "Sinan was born of Greek Christian parents". WHICH PROVES THAT YOUR THEORY OF TURKISH ARCHITECTURE IS WRONG. TURKISH NATIONALS SIMPLY DID NOT CONCERN THEMSELVES WITH THINGS AS "TRIVIAL" AS SCIENCE, ARCHITECTURE, CULTURE,TRADE AND ADMINISTRATION, THEIR OTTOMAN SUBJECTS DID(Greeks,Slavs, Jews, Armenians etc) THAT.

3.FUTHERMORE WHEN YOU COMPARE TURKISH CRUELTIES WITH OTHER NATION'S YOU SUSPICIOUSLY "NEGLECT" TO MENTION ANY BYZANTINE GREEK ONE. WHY? MAYBE BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T ANY?
TO YOUR INFORMATION THE FRANKS, GERMANS AND ENGLISH OF THE TIME TO OUR EYES(Byzantine) WERE NO LESS BARBARIANS THAN THE TURKS.

4.TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THE CRUELTIES YOU MENTION. A REALLY GOOD LOOK. SLAVE TRADE, ELIMINATON OF HERETICS, TORTURES, CRUEL SACKS OF CITIES, ETHNIC CLEANSING. WHICH ONE OF THESE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE???? I DEMAND AN ANSWER TO THIS ONE.

5.AND FINALLY WHAT IS THAT ABOUT THE JEWS? SINCE WHEN A CIVILIZATION'S CULTURAL LEVEL DEPENDS ON IT'S ATTITUDE TOWARD THE JEWS? THE JEWS WERE ONLY STARTED TO BE VIEWD WITH SYMPATHY AFTER THE HOLOCAUST. DO YOU THINK THE TURKS ACCEPTED THE JEWS TO THEIR EMPIRE AFTER THEIR EXPULSION FROM SPAIN BECAUSE THEY FELT SORRY FOR THEM? OR BECAUSE THEY WANTED A COMMERCIAL PEOPLE TO TAKE CONTROL OF THEIR BACKWARD TRADE, BECAUSE THEY WERE INCAPABLE THEMSELVES?

6.GO BACK TO 1.


My post is a reply to molly bloom's one.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Allright.

Since Blue moose and Kaiser Issak have obviously abdicated another champion of the Turks appears.

Just seemed like I wasn't going to change your mind, and it seemingly was mostly a difference of opinion. Also, I have other trivial things to do instead of looking up turkish history (hopefully I'll have time to take a global history class sometime...maybe I'll learn more there).

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Blue Moose


Just seemed like I wasn't going to change your mind, and it seemingly was mostly a difference of opinion. Also, I have other trivial things to do instead of looking up turkish history (hopefully I'll have time to take a global history class sometime...maybe I'll learn more there).

Look Bluemoose, i was only joking. I never thought you abdicated or something.

Thats why i had the smile next to my sentence.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Palaiologos




Look Bluemoose, i was only joking. I never thought you abdicated or something.

Thats why i had the smile next to my sentence.

Heh, didn't quite register. That's what happens when I go heavily off topic when I should be asleep. I didn't have any hard feelings though, even in (especially in!) that state. Though, I don't think I would have even if there wasn't a smiley.

Smileys are always good to have though.

Heh, the history of the turks is far from a strength of mine, anyhow. I am merely concerned about the possibility that some might judge the current generation of turks by their ancesters instead of by their own merits. I do know there is a lot of deep memories in europe, which is one of its major weaknesses. People hating each other for things done thousands of years ago is not a very good idea. Tends to make people do things to incite another century to millenia of hate. My opinion is that is such a situation, one side must take the first few steps towards understanding. It's a tough thing for people to do though.

Hmm, hopefully there's nothing that is likely to provoke a counter-arguement there. I need to go back to calling my fellow countrymen barbarians.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by brianshapiro
i should also mention that the swedish government has been involved in tearing down churches because they 'serve no economic purpose' is forcing citizens to indulge very private information and even though the citizens protest and dislike it theyre afraid to vote in a more conservative party.

This just goes to show leftests can act just as unjustly as rightests. Both of the extreams are intolerant of dissent and have a strong totalitarian streak.

[Hagbart]

The swedish government should not be considered lefties.

I've heard nothing about this tearing down chuches stuff, and I live just close by in Denmark. Maybe they have teared a few down because no one used them, which seems fair.
And what do you mean by: "They are affraid of voting for a more conservative party"? They are not affraid, a majority just support the social-democrats.

People in Scandinavia are not very religious, which is good I think..