Comment by gotchange | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gotchange | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I hope that one day people in Turkey will break their chains and get rid of that human-made arabic culture.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Turkish people manage to get rid of the Arabian deity (Mohammad's god) they embraced a millennia ago, it would be an uphill battle for them against history because whether you like it or not, the most bright spots in history for Turkish people were during the reign of Seljuks and Ottomans, neither would have happened hadn't for the Islamic doctrine and faith.

You could argue of course that Turkey founded by Ataturk was still something impressive and to look up to but it still pales in comparison with what had been achieved during these two eras at least from an imperialistic and militaristic points of view.

That's why I think it wouldn't be easy for Turkey to break free from the negative Arabian influence and Sahara culture even if they renounce Islam altogether when compared to other countries in the region with more diverse and rich history spanning various civilizations and glorious times, and therefore they should focus more on how to reconcile with their past and history and not just get in state of denial about it.

What you said would also apply to, say, the British Empire, which was very Christian for its entire existence.

Most people don't really care about the details of history that much - just whatever narrative they can spin that satisfies today's needs.

Did the British force people to convert to Christianity for them to enjoy the benefits of being subjects of the monarchy?

The British Empire was vast and I can't come up with a definite answer for all the areas that were colonized by them but in my country "Egypt", they didn't do that. They however facilitated the work of western missionaries but it didn't achieve much with the Muslim locals and probably contributed to the outrage of Coptic clergy as these missionaries were snatching people from their congregation. Other than that, the British didn't really care about religion and their social order was constructed on race/class first basis and anything else second while for the Ottomans it was all about religion first and anything else second.

Did the British force people to convert to Christianity for them to enjoy the benefits of being subjects of the monarchy?

How far back in history do you want to go? Plenty of battles within Christianity in British history. E.g. King Henry VIII didn't accept the authority of the pope and led the Church of England away from the Roman Catholic Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England#Separation_f...

A few generations later, things got pretty dicey for the remaining Catholics:

   England’s Elizabethan Catholics were public
   enemy number one. Their Masses were banned
   and their priests were executed.

http://www.historyextra.com/article/elizabeth-i/elizabeth-i%...

Did the British persecute Catholics when they were in an imperialist/expansionist mode around the world?

To the best of my knowledge, that didn't happen. The British Empire in its quests wasn't concerned about anti-Catholicism and disdain for the authority of the Pope, it was primarily driven by political/financial gains. On the other hand, for the Ottoman Turks it was all about Jihad and the subjugation of non-Muslims in newly conquered territories. The persecution and discrimination against non-Muslims for the subjects of their realm was one of the founding principles of taheir rule and public policy.

As a Canadian, yes they did. Look at our history and how the British tried to assimilate the Canadiens.

That's not to mention that forcing Christianity on conquered subjects was one of the main goals of the British Empire.

When did the Ottoman Turks become Muslim?

From the Saljuk period. Is this a history quiz :)?

Oh, I just couldn't recall when it happened, but it seemed obviously important when comparing to Christianity and the British Empire.

I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis. Or that of others here.

My point is that it's irrelevant in terms of how history affects peoples' actions. You're engaging a detailed study of historical reality, but the masses don't do that. They have a narrative spun for them - generally no more than two or three sentences of complexity, max - and that's what matters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com