That's not a fair comparison, for you're comparing a single government, one devoted to empire, with more than a score of Christian national governments, whose particular aims may have been different. However, if you compare the Ottoman Empire to another Empire, say with the Roman Empire, I think you'll see that there's not that much difference in institutional tolerance to other people's faiths and culture. Why? Because Empire's must assimilate the people's they conquer, or must maintain a constant garrison over the conquered populace. Obviously, it's in their interest to be tolerant and even-handed.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Understanding the Enemy
- Thread starter bewitched
- Start date
That's not a fair comparison, for you're comparing a single government, one devoted to empire, with more than a score of Christian national governments, whose particular aims may have been different. However, if you compare the Ottoman Empire to another Empire, say with the Roman Empire, I think you'll see that there's not that much difference in institutional tolerance to other people's faiths and culture. Why? Because Empire's must assimilate the people's they conquer, or must maintain a constant garrison over the conquered populace. Obviously, it's in their interest to be tolerant and even-handed.
Werbung:
Indeed it was worse, as it was more widespread. Bare in mind, slavery was only allowed in the United States in a very select area, among a relatively small population of the country.
Roman slavery was not ethnic based. The Ottomans only enslaved non-Muslims, who, even if not enslaved, were treated as second class citizens politcally, if not socially.
Explain this, please. To my knowledge, in most Christian nations of Europe, slavery was not as institutionalized nor as widespread as it was in the Ottoman Empire.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
In terms of slavery - what was practiced in the US was really amongst the worst. Most other cultures enslaved those captured in war and they were never regarded as subhuman. The US enslaved specifically one race that was specifically bred like animals and regarded as subhuman. In the American south it was very institutionalized and very dehumanized. I think it was muc worse.
In terms of being treated as "second class" - that is relative. Those same conditions - escept worse - applied in the Christian countries. Try being a Jew or Muslim in Christian Spain or France for example. The Ottoman's main prohibition concerning slavery was that they could not enslave muslims and anyone who converted to Islam must be freed. It was not dissimilar from the Christians of the Medievil period. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe)
It was during the medievil period. The Ottoman Empire never really left the Middle Ages however until the 19th century when some attempts were made to curtail slavery. In this regard - there is NO DIFFERENCE from the US south.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure it's unfair. The multiple governments of Europe had one thing in common: Christendom. They may not have been a united government but they were united in religion.
But- I do see what you are saying. There is a book I recently heard reviewed that I plan on reading eventually - it talked about what made some empires endure and others fall. The main thing in common was a tolerance of other religions/cultures. In otherwords - they conquored, imposed law, taxes and left them to carry on. This applies to the Roman Empire certainly, and the Ottoman Empire. After all...600 years is a hell of a long time.
All slavery is repugnant, and I don't believe any group's justification for it makes it any more or less repugnant. America's slavery is no exception, but, unlike the Ottoman Empire, in America there was, since that nation's inception, a movement to abolish slavery. This, in my mind, redeems America a bit more than the Ottomans, who practiced slavery till 1909.
Slavery was never institutionalized in the Middle Ages in Europe, though. That's not to say that the Medieval European was more enlightened than anyone else. In a sense, slavery was preferable to the alternative which Europeans generally offered their defeated enemies: death.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
All slavery is inexusable, but - in my personal opinion, the worst is when the person enslaved is not viewed as a human being. Even with abolitionists - I just don't see it redeeming American slavery or making it somehow better then the Ottoman's.
Slavery wasn't iinstitutionalized in the same way because of the rise of serfdom which was another form of slavery and it was still considered acceptable enslave non-Christians by Christians as it was non-Muslims by Muslims. Unless they converted in both cases. The Ottomans hung on to it longer but they also became very decadent towards the end, like many failing empires. None the less - I still think during much of the 600 years it spanned - a non-muslim was probably better off under the Ottomans then under Christendom. Slavery was only one aspect of a complicated system.
I'm not sure of the historical accuracy of the killing of the father or raping of the child - but in effect yes they did take the children as slaves only to ensure them a far better quality of life than they would have if they had continued to live as uneducated, poor Christian peasents.
bewitched
Well-Known Member
look up Vlad. that's the norm.
Nothing good can come out of Iran having Nuclear weapons. It just may be one of the scariest things I've ever heard. I wonder how Obama will handle this problem. We know what Bush would have done. This young president is going to be tested early in his 1st term.
I'm running against him in 2012. visit me at www.trulotics.com and be heard.
I'm running against him in 2012. visit me at www.trulotics.com and be heard.
samsara15
Well-Known Member
The Vikings made a long term business out of selling captives as slaves, mainly to the Ottomans or to the Spanish Muslims. By the High Middle Ages, however, slavery was dying out in Europe, because almost everyone had been Christianized. The Vikings kept slaves, but any children born to the slaves were usually free.
laymen
Active Member
Proxy war...remember our support for Sadam Hussien against Iran....proxy war...remeber our support of Osama Bin Laden against the U.S.S.R. in Afganastan.......Remember when the Iron curtain fell and how Bush Senior was not reelected......Remember How forien policy changed when Clinton was elected.....Remember how that change in forien policy neglected those who fought our proxy wars.......Remember the economic boom of the 90's, it was all about us. Remember how Bush Jr. was against nation building.....remember 911...... Bush did what had to be done as a result of the two faced forien policy that once again is changing its face with the latest administration. We seem to be quite nieve to the fact that others have learned not to trust America. This two party system has become the Jekel and Hide that will be our own un doing. Forien policy must be long term and consistant. I'am ashamed at how buligerent weve become.
MichaelB
Well-Known Member
Your not only right on but the average person has their head in the sand and could care less about what is going on in the US and the World. That is why we are so ripe for the pick'in. We don't learn from our mistakes we keep making the same ones over and over!!!!!
laymen
Active Member
Funny you should mention "ripe for the pickins". I believe our own govrnment is in a cycle of continues harvesting of American productivity in order to propetuate an ideoligy that proclaims it can solve world hunger, provide healthcare,housing and education to the whole earths population. and is entent on doing it on the backs of Americans. I prefer a goverment that protects our national rights while advocating better relations with other nations. Working to protect the freedoms of Americans so that private entities, individuals or charities can purse life, and liberty....But to prescribe taxes that force all to participate in an unachievable ideoligy is just plane unconstitutional. " Don't pay your taxes, spend your taxes".
Exactly. Like spreading democracy through force of arms, for example. Like supporting the likes of the Taliban when they are fighting someone whose ideology we dislike. Like supporting Saddam Hussain when he served our short term interests of opposing Iran, or selling arms to Iran to raise money to fight a dictatorship in Nicaragua.
Our foreign policy needs to be based on pragmatism, not on ideology. Our domestic policy needs to be based on pragmatism as well.
Werbung:
laymen
Active Member
Rrrevrant!
