NationStates Jolt Archive

Why it is the European Union then?
Because that's where it was started.

But I think it's pretty clear that anyone who could feasibly be integrated into the common market infrastructure-wise (ie they should probably border at least one EU country) and who fulfills the economic and political requirements should be let in.

Why it is the European Union then?

For the same reason Hawaii is a state in the United States OF America.

Turkey is a moderate islamic state, with a strongly secular (and large) military. We can either invite them in, or watch as the more extreme elements of Islam undermine the country due to our rejection of it.

For the same reason Hawaii is a state in the United States OF America.

Turkey is a moderate islamic state, with a strongly secular (and large) military. We can either invite them in, or watch as the more extreme elements of Islam undermine the country due to our rejection of it.


Turkey is a secular state, not an islamic one.

Were it islamic, moderate or not, I'd nominate it for waging war upon.

Voted for '#$@^ no'.

First of all, I consider the fall of Constantinople one of the major tragedies that occured to Europe.


Yes, the loss of knowledge and the restriction of trade was a big hit. And the current society of Turkey, the child of the society founded on this conquest bear _what_ responsibility for it ?

It's like castigating Germans today for the deeds of the Nazis. Or saying that there's something fundamentally bad about them. By the process of becoming fascist for a time, the Germans became more democratic than just about anyone else!



Byzantium, albeit it had some distict Asian admixtures in almost all aspects, was a thoroughly European state.


At the time, Europeaness mostly meant either being dominated by Greco-Roman culture (or the memories of it, mostly), or by the traditions of barbarian tribes who eventually settled down to rule. On the first count, it's not like the Ottoman's were totally unaffected by this. With time, they absorbed much of Greco-Roman influence. While they didn't become carbon copies of the Europeans they were different than say, the Mogul Empire in India. (Things like the belief that an office should be respected independent of the holder; the role of a stable bureaucracy supported by law; the idea that duties are owed by all orders of society innately rather than only gathered at gunpoint...)

yes, Europeaness is now different. But Turkey still has more of this quality in it than comparable "Great power" rump states like Egypt or Persia or Nigeria.


Notice that even after the traitorous attack of crusaders on their fellow Christians, the country retained its culture and even managed to recover. The Turks, on the other hand, dealt a devastating blow on this nation, everything that was European there was raped and pillaged by them. Byzantium's symbol, - Hagia Sophia, - was desecrated and turned into a mosque.


First, the Fifth Crusade _broke the back of the Eastern Empire_. Yes, they recovered somewhat, but the endemic political and miliatry crises from that point on defined the 400 year twilight; it's worth noting the last many laps there were JUST the city of Constantinople.

So arguing the Europeans didn't damge it substantially is misleading. The main reason Constantinople _didn't_ fall immediately was the that Selucid Turks were in decline and lacked the vigor or earlier Moslem hordes to exploit the opening.

Yes, as conquerors they burned the library, desecrated the high temple, and otherwise made it clear that their boot was on the throat of the conquered. And European conquerors behaved particularly better towards non Christians ? Only the vague but prevalent fear of damnation kept Rome from getting sacked as hard by Phillip during the Reformation, remember. As it was, a lot of treasures were damaged or stolen.

When has a barbarian horde done any differently ? the Visigoths sacked rome in the 4th century, and that preceded its fall. Yet you aren't claiming that this violent root makes all the Germanic influenced peoples of Europe "tainted by association".

By still being a dominant crossroads (it's a bit more a backwater these days), the land itself and the proximity to Europe shaped the conquerors by diffusion, just like the Romans did to the Germanic barbarians, even as their culture expired under their domination.


Turkey's (tiny) European territories are the result of a holy war against Europe, and I am unpleasantly surprised to see so many positive answers to the question in topic. I think that either those people have no ties at all to Europe (even ethnically), or they don't care at all for their heritage and maybe even have some clandestine hatred for it.


Nope and nope, oh Pale Horde. My grandparents were Europeans (Polish, solid descent back into obscurity) and their values were dominant in shaping my mother's beliefs and behaviour. I know the virtues and the pitfalls of the Europeans and the ongoing but distinctive ferment that characerized them.

In point of fact, the way Europe is now I like considerably better than America, which dominates my home nation, Canada. (with a light leash, but an iron one nonetheless)

But I believe in truth. And as per my earlier post, Turkey _is_ European. Culturally, by assimilation, however imperfect (certainly no less so than those periphery states like the Caucausus(sp?) republics or Bulgaria or Albania. Geographically because the trade and cultural links with Europe are so strong that declaring a few miles of water and a continental plate is like day and night is silly. Just because the European territories were won by war doesn't make this less valid. The point is the aegis of the City was HUGE and it was the gateway between Europe and Asia for the longest time. It deserves respect for BOTH halves of its' heritage.

I mean, it's still the economic heart of their country, for goodness sake.

I already discussed this at length. Address those arugments please.



As for Christianity, obviously its origins are Middle-Eastern. I, for once, would probably prefer it if Europe was not christianised - some of its peoples were much closer to each other before Christianity than they were after various religious schisms. However, I find it difficult to deny that Christianity played a significant, if ambiguous role in the history of Europe Islam's only role was that of an eternal enemy and opressor, a lot of Southern European states still cannot recover from the damage caused by this virulently anti-European religion. Now, ethnically white people who convert into Islam, - it is, of course, their private concern, - but I view them as traitors of their culture. However, I haven't met in person a single Europid who willingly converted to Islam.


Christianity did d*ck f*cking all to improve Eastern Europe; structurally , Czarist Russia was pretty much identical to Mogul India (see Kennedy's "The Rise of Great Powers). And the backwaters of Wallachia and Rumelia and Bessarabia and all the lands occupied by the still-barbaric hordes (as last as the _nineteenth century!_ (though the barbarian presence had receded to the deep interior of the Black Sea-Caspian Sea area.)

European Christianity's virtues sprawn from its particular fusion with classical thought. Non European Christians like the Coptics in Egypt or the Nestorians in Iraq show _plainly_ that Christianity does NOT equal progress.

You cannot use a litmus of "non Christian" to declare Turkey "non European" because the special genius of Europe was not created by Christianity. It was, if anything, created in _defiance_ of Christianity. The Enlightenment matters far more than the Reformation for what Europe is now. And that was a big middle finger to orthodox (dominant sect) Christianity. And the Turks absorbed just as much of this genius as the other periphery nations who are counted as European.

It's more or less, not either or.

And wow, "traitors to their culture". They're living in a land that has been occupied for generations by Moslems; which shows NO SIGN of being "liberated" within a few generations, and their conversion is a sign of "weakness". For someone who expresses doubts of the overall positive impact of Christianity, you sure expect people to suffer a lot for the sake of it. The fact that some did does _not_ denigate those who did not.

And in modernity....saying that converts _today_ are "traitors"....wow. Freedom of conscience ? what's that ? Freedom of belief ? what's that ? Special _european ideas_ that you apparently don't respect much. It's like you're still seeing Islam on the threshold of pillaging and raping Southern Europe and threatening to lay fire and sword from the Sea of Mamara to Gibraltar and the English Channel. Wow. That's an impressive delusion.

Conflicting ideas can coexist, and mutually influence each other.

I will say forthright, I do NOT like Islam. But Turkey is a _secular_ republic, and while the people remain strongly Moslem, it is NOT like Iraq. The secular minority is influential and numerically vigorous.

And regarding "the faithful" this is one of the only cases of Islam being "defanged" on a large scale. (Because there is a quiescient threat in it, just not this imminent "enemy at the gates" garbage you're tossing around.) Islam will eventually become de-pietized and irrelevant, just like Christianity is in most of Europe. Maybe not all of Islam, everywhere, but it will be in Turkey. And that _will_ be a good thing for the world. One less society under that messed up system! yay!

And we should damned well be helping the process along. they've already accepted the foundation of this process, though they refuse to admit it!


Oh, and notice that most people of European heritage defending Islam and various nations hostile to Europe (usually in the name of democracy, political correctness and stuff like that, not because they're Moslem) come from relatively safe regions that were never, until now, directly threatened by a fate similiar to that of Byzantium, Spain, Balkan states, etc. Southern Europeans and, to a slightly lesser extent, Eastern Europeans value their traditions much more.


Ah yes, a few hundred people die in Spain and the Moslem Hordes is on the march again! Yes, it's amazing, white people in the Deep South of America _still hate_ black people with surprising regularity. How did that happen...ah, it was the three hundred+ years of chattel slavery. In Europe...hrm...fire and sword...bitter, long term racial memories...of course that hereditary animousity is a valid litmus of current political and cultural realities, of _course_.

I will note, I do advocate some sort of "loyalty oath" for _all immigrants_ to any nation to make sure that they understand and endorse the norms of their new home nation. But I hate to surprise you on this...Islam _can_ exist peacefully with non Moslem societies. It does so just fine in Canada. Some Moslems in conscience will refuse to sign (or at least to obey) and some will. We should welcome the ones who will with open arms, even if their particular beliefs are still somewhat disagreeable.

Yes, some Moslems will not agree, or will forswear themselves, and there will be riots and disorder and alarms. Like )that( will be a threat to the structure of Western Civilization. Sheesh. Get a clue. Every european state still has a large professional army and an interior ministry. _Israel_ has to live with _constant_ threats of venomous insurrection. And they get along. Europe can weather the same violence and protesting until the soreheads are dead or exiled and the Moslems who remain are reconciled to surrendering the incompatible aspects of their faith.

If European civilization was so crystalline brittle that some rioting would destroy it, it deserves to be sparkly dust!

Your obliviousness to the value of having the periphery of Europe truly (if slowly) Europeanized is stunning too, btw. European culture has the merits that it should be able to flower into an expansionist phase again, though this time by the cash register rather than the gun.

And if Europe is dead for vitality and has nothing special to offer the world anymore, then at least it will be safer to maintain itself in its decay by having a "tame" hinterland to draw cheap labor from rather than the current "wild" areas it must accept labor from.


Go ahead, write more. Be happy to expose the chasms in your "rational" and "scholarly" thinking.

Turkey is a secular state, not an islamic one.

Were it islamic, moderate or not, I'd nominate it for waging war upon.

Checking my notes, you are correct. Turkey is secular, and is trying very hard to stay that way.

So you also nominate waging war on Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Bahrain all of whom have strong pro western ties, just based on thier religion?. What about the Phillipines (I hate trying to spell that, and not a dictionary in sight).

How about Spain and Italy because they are Catholic?

How about the Chinese?

How about the Welsh? Well they ARE Welsh after all.

Turkey european because my girlfriend is from there and she is white.

(Awesome logic.)

Turkey european because my girlfriend is from there and she is white.

(Awesome logic.)

Cross cultural ties are never a bad thing :) , and your logic is as good if not better than a lot of the so called logic used by others to say Turkey isn´t European.

Turkey european because my girlfriend is from there and she is white.

(Awesome logic.)


WOW!
I once had a white GF from Texas A&M.
Does that mean that Aggies are European, wot?

Well, America along with some of the commonwealth are Eurocentric.

Why not be one big happy family?

Well, America along with some of the commonwealth are Eurocentric.

Why not be one big happy family?

Dunno. Just checking the awesome logic.
I am European, but I ain't white.

Cross cultural ties are never a bad thing :) , and your logic is as good if not better than a lot of the so called logic used by others to say Turkey isn´t European.

Yeah,

I think Europe should open it's boarders to countries willing accept the base set rules and allow the greater part of Europe to join. Like Turkey, Ukraine and Belarus (when it wants to seperate some of those Russian ties). Also Europe to have ties to Russia as it is our neighbouring super power.

Once we have a nice size, we should try and merge more standards together with similar laws, similar standards, same plug sockets (adopt the tri-plug, it is safer!) and other things.

Should make a more scandivian culture with basic's like free healthcare and free education.

One we make a more united Europe, we should allow sections to form states, like Scotland and Wales can seperate from Britain and Catalonia from Spain, etc.

Should also reform the European beaucracy as it is a bit too similar to that of the USSR. Make elections like Britain's constitution style which is a more stable version of democracy than the direct proportional style.

Dunno. Just checking the awesome logic.
I am European, but I ain't white.

Awesome logic was sarcasm. I have no problems, we are all human afterall.

Awesome logic was sarcasm. I have no problems, we are all human afterall.


Ok.

But saying we are all humans idn't saying very much, is it?

Or rather: 'he's human' sounds ( to me ) more like 'GUILTY so hang the sod' than 'give him a break and a second chance'.

Some facts from Turkey:
* Population of Turkey is about 70 millions and about 15 millions of them live in the Istanbul city which was founded thousands years ago by Anatolian peoples (not Greeks). Istanbul has the inheritence of Hellenism, Roman Empire, Byzantion Empire, Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic.
* Smyrna (Izmir, population: 3 millions) is an Agean city which resembles the ancient Hellenistic culture as much as Athens. So the other Turkish Agean cities such as Magnesia, Sparta etc.
* The first Christian church was founded in Anatolia. And most of the "saints" lived here.
* About 10 millions of Turkish citizens and ex-Turkish citizens live in the European countries. (4 millions of them are in Germany.)
* In ex-Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Hungary, Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania etc. there are still Turkish-speaking communities who are there for hundred years.
* In Turkey there are about 25 millions Kurds who live in the eastern and south-eastern regions.
* As a Turkish citizen and an ethnic Turk I DO NOT want joining the imperialist EU and there are many people who thinks so. Anatolia is Anatolia and Europe is Europe and Anatolia is a little bit richer in cultural concepts. We needn't join anywhere and nobody should join us, we'd better go on as friendly neighbours.

It's like castigating Germans today for the deeds of the Nazis. Or saying that there's something fundamentally bad about them. By the process of becoming fascist for a time, the Germans became more democratic than just about anyone else!

What, because they aren't already?

But I hate to surprise you on this...Islam _can_ exist peacefully with non Moslem societies. It does so just fine in Canada.

Yeah! They only tried to behead the Prime Minister! Give them some leeway!

Turkey is a moderate islamic state, with a strongly secular (and large) military. We can either invite them in, or watch as the more extreme elements of Islam undermine the country due to our rejection of it.

So Europe has a choice between watching turkey collapse, and watching turkey collapse while Europe goes with them? God, they must need a fucking consulting firm to figure this out.

Yes.:)

1.Different culture
2.A small part is in Europe geographically
3.It's capital is in Asia
4.Has always been a part of East European history with alliances and wars.

Culturally not European, geographically a small part of it stands in Europe as Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaidjan. But politically and historically they gave much more to Europe than Norway contributes to Europe;)

good points

What, because they aren't already?



Yeah! They only tried to behead the Prime Minister! Give them some leeway!

If I had spoken in Turkey about Christians or any other religious groups in this manner I would be arrested.
I am Turkish, ex-Muslim and atheist and I am fighting against the radical Islamists who are not so many in Turkey, but I think they are mentally much more well-equippied than the Western persons who speak words like that about Muslims.

If I had spoken in Turkey about Christians or any other religious groups in this manner I would be arrested.
I am Turkish, ex-Muslim and atheist and I am fighting against the radical Islamists who are not so many in Turkey, but I think they are mentally much more well-equippied than the Western persons who speak words like that about Muslims.

The man has got a point.

The man has got a point.

He does.
Hence my disagreement with the characterisation of Turkey as an islamic state, moderate or otherwise.
The jury is still OUT on Turkey, and nothing has been decided yet.

( As a PS, I must re-state that my position is lean-towards Turkey as a member, while affirming that the decision is ours, and ours alone. )

You can only live in disbelief that that is true...

Belief, surely...?

And, it isn't a matter of my belief... that's just what it looks like 'on the ground'.

Only because more immigrants are coming in who adhere to Islam. Were they not to come in, ceteris paribus, the only thing that would weaken would be religiosity; not necessarily faith or the number of Christians. As such, it's not the result of conversions, for the most part. Give the next few generations of Muslims some time in Europe and its secular environment, and see if their religiosity remains as strong.

This makes no sense... the numbers of Hindus is increasing because there are more Muslim immigrants?

I'm not sure I agree with much of this post. I worked in market research for a while - and I think it very likely that the European 'numbers' of Christians are deceptive - something along the lines of:

Q: What religion are you?

A: I'm not really religious.

Q: But - do you believe there could be a Creator?

A: I... guess so.

Q: Okay - I'll just mark that down as 'Christian'...

Turks aren't part of Europe, just like Greeks aren't part of Asia.

I Guess that takes care of Everything.

Buy:)

And should we consider Turkey as European country only for that 3%?

Yes we have to. Moreover, who can say Russia is not in Europe ? Turkey is in the same situation. The most important is not the culture nor the history (who can say also that there is a European culture ?) The most important is the choice of the peoples (of Europe and Turkey). If they want to live together we must accept it. The real question is : us, french, english italians, lituanians, spanish, greeks ..., do we want to live with the turks ? If the answer is no : why ? and if the answer is yes : why ? To me : there is no reason to not live with them. I don't mind the arguments of NATO, islam etc. They are human with their own culture and I respect them enough to live with them.

NO:

1) Different culture
2) Only 3% of its territory is in Europe
3) Its Capital is in Asia
4) Has always been regarded as a foreign invader in history

Diskuss...
#$@^ no.

What, because they aren't already?

Your pithiness has obscured meaning. Please elaborate.


Yeah! They only tried to behead the Prime Minister! Give them some leeway!

Collective guilt, with it's sister concept, collective punishment is against international law. Canada actually respects international law.

Did we presume that all French Canadians were no longer capable of living with the rest of Canada after the FLQ _tortured to death_ a political prisoner they took in the 70's ? Sure, Trudeau declared martial law, but he did _rescind_ it when it was clear there was not some Franco insurrection in progress.

In fact, the French Canadians are more true to Canadian values than English Canadians. (That is, a belief in mutual aid, egalitarianism, and paternal socialism.) Their political scene implements these values poorly because their politicians are even more corrupt than in English Canada, but the popular sentiment has it's heart more in the right place than elsewhere.
(yes, this is pure opinion, but think about it carefully before you make some smart ass comment)

To Mandatory Altruism,

Yes, the loss of knowledge and the restriction of trade was a big hit. And the current society of Turkey, the child of the society founded on this conquest bear _what_ responsibility for it ? It's like castigating Germans today for the deeds of the Nazis. Or saying that there's something fundamentally bad about them. By the process of becoming fascist for a time, the Germans became more democratic than just about anyone else!
The current society of Turkey is simply the modern phase of the society that conquered Constantinople, and it is a non-European society with European influences, as opposed to various Balkan countries that are European with foreign admixtures. I believe, the status of a country is defined primarily by its history, culture and traditions, the modern state of its economy is not that crucial. From what I understand, your main criterea of 'Europeanness' is that the country in question is nowadays considered civilised and democratic. I wholeheartedly disagree with that, there are numerous examples of absolutely non-European countries like Japan or South Korea that are perfectly fine with human rights (should they be called 'European'?), as well as European states with authoritarian government like Belarus (which is almost entirely clean of non-European influences) or, until recently, Yugoslavia.

As for your example with National-Socialism, it is an integral part of German history and, as you implied yourself by saying that they're are more democratic than anyone else as a result of their defeat, it is one of the key factors shaping their modern image. The history of the Ottoman Empire has an even more important impact on Turkey - practically, their very national identity was shaped by it. It is obvious for me that they don't try to deny this part of their history, otherwise they wouldn't have Istambul.
At the time, Europeaness mostly meant either being dominated by Greco-Roman culture (or the memories of it, mostly), or by the traditions of barbarian tribes who eventually settled down to rule. On the first count, it's not like the Ottoman's were totally unaffected by this. With time, they absorbed much of Greco-Roman influence. While they didn't become carbon copies of the Europeans they were different than say, the Mogul Empire in India.
It seems that throughout all my post I should repeat that the only thing those influences indicate is that the Ottoman Empire wasn't European from the beginning. If it was European, we would have to talk about non-European admixtures in their culture rather than those innovations that you list. Once again, the fact that it has more European features than some other non-European historical entities doesn't make it European.
First, the Fifth Crusade _broke the back of the Eastern Empire_. Yes, they recovered somewhat, but the endemic political and miliatry crises from that point on defined the 400 year twilight; it's worth noting the last many laps there were JUST the city of Constantinople.
So arguing the Europeans didn't damge it substantially is misleading. The main reason Constantinople _didn't_ fall immediately was the that Selucid Turks were in decline and lacked the vigor or earlier Moslem hordes to exploit the opening.

Yes, as conquerors they burned the library, desecrated the high temple, and otherwise made it clear that their boot was on the throat of the conquered. And European conquerors behaved particularly better towards non Christians ? Only the vague but prevalent fear of damnation kept Rome from getting sacked as hard by Phillip during the Reformation, remember. As it was, a lot of treasures were damaged or stolen.

When has a barbarian horde done any differently ? the Visigoths sacked rome in the 4th century, and that preceded its fall. Yet you aren't claiming that this violent root makes all the Germanic influenced peoples of Europe "tainted by association".

Byzantium faced numerous crises before the Fourth Crusade, and yet it always survived, keeping its culture intact. Since the period of twilight only lasted for half as much as you imply, namely around 250 years (or a bit less than 200, if you count from 1261 when Constantinople was reclaimed), I don't see why yet another renaissance was impossible if the Empire wasn't crushed by the Turks. I would also notice that even you admit that Constantinople's culture could only fall completelty before Moslem hordes, not before their fellow Christians.

As for assorted 'barbarians', their vast cultural heritage is by no means less important for Europe than that of antiquity. Therefore, the sacking of Rome by these tribes, although as sorrowful as the results of other infinite wars between European nations, is of a different nature than the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. Oh, I'm not implying that only non-European nations are prone to barbaric behaviour, quite the contrary. It's just that the destruction of Byzantium is one of the foremost acts of violence against Europe by non-Europeans, which is why I dislike it that much.
Nope and nope, oh Pale Horde. My grandparents were Europeans (Polish, solid descent back into obscurity) and their values were dominant in shaping my mother's beliefs and behaviour. I know the virtues and the pitfalls of the Europeans and the ongoing but distinctive ferment that characerized them.

In point of fact, the way Europe is now I like considerably better than America, which dominates my home nation, Canada. (with a light leash, but an iron one nonetheless)

But I believe in truth. And as per my earlier post, Turkey _is_ European. Culturally, by assimilation, however imperfect (certainly no less so than those periphery states like the Caucausus(sp?) republics or Bulgaria or Albania. Geographically because the trade and cultural links with Europe are so strong that declaring a few miles of water and a continental plate is like day and night is silly. Just because the European territories were won by war doesn't make this less valid. The point is the aegis of the City was HUGE and it was the gateway between Europe and Asia for the longest time. It deserves respect for BOTH halves of its' heritage.

The way you speak about it in this particular part of your post, you don't seem to identify yourself with your parents and ancestors, which is the second case. Were their values not dominant in shaping your own beliefs and behaviour? Oh, and I personally think that former colonies with predominantly white population like the US, Canada, Australia, South Africa and the rest are much more European than Turkey (which is, according to you, European).

As for the states you mention, why the generalisation? Caucasus republics were never considered a part of Europe. The only two nations from this region that are occasionally associated with Europe (in the misguided Wikipedia, for instance) are Georgia and Armenia, probably because they're traditionally Christian. However, I am yet to find a book published before the late 90's where they're listed as European states. Bulgaria and Albania are European historically and geographically, but they suffered a long and painful Moslem opression which led to their modern predicaments. And what do they get for their devotion... they're put on part with their very opressors. Oh, and changing your identity because a foreign country that despoiled one of your cultural foundations is lured by your economic success looks much sillier to me.
Christianity did d*ck f*cking all to improve Eastern Europe; structurally , Czarist Russia was pretty much identical to Mogul India (see Kennedy's "The Rise of Great Powers). And the backwaters of Wallachia and Rumelia and Bessarabia and all the lands occupied by the still-barbaric hordes (as last as the _nineteenth century!_ (though the barbarian presence had receded to the deep interior of the Black Sea-Caspian Sea area.)

European Christianity's virtues sprawn from its particular fusion with classical thought. Non European Christians like the Coptics in Egypt or the Nestorians in Iraq show _plainly_ that Christianity does NOT equal progress.

You cannot use a litmus of "non Christian" to declare Turkey "non European" because the special genius of Europe was not created by Christianity. It was, if anything, created in _defiance_ of Christianity. The Enlightenment matters far more than the Reformation for what Europe is now. And that was a big middle finger to orthodox (dominant sect) Christianity. And the Turks absorbed just as much of this genius as the other periphery nations who are counted as European.
Unfortunately, I haven't read the full version of 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers' and I can't say that I'm intimately familiar with Mogul India, so I can't really answer this point. However, I am fairly familiar with Russian history and I fail to see how could its governmental system be so entirely different from other contemporary European monarchies to the point of it being more similiar to that of a non-European empire. In fact, some excerpts from Kennedy's book that I managed to find on the internet state that Muscovian system is nothing more than an offshoot of European states system (link (http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/kennedy-risefall.html)). Political turmoils in Europe at that time are hardly something exclusive to Muscovy.

Although I don't see anything particularly decadent about Nestorians or Coptics (I find their ikons and especially chants fairly beautiful), where exactly was I implying that Christianity equals progress? It simply is an inseparable part of European culture: partly in an undeniably positive way, partly in the same way as the much-loathed National-Socialism in Germany. Not a single European people exists that doesn't have deep connections to Christianity, which Turkey hasn't. Should an exception be made for it? I think not. A lot of achievements of various nations throughout the history of the world were created in defiance of the dominant religion (even in case of Islam), but that doesn't make those religions harmful to the majority of those countries, especially to the hoi polloi. Personally, I think that Europe became a special entity long before the Age of Enlightenment and its special adventurous spirit is already well-defined in pagan myths of all European peoples.
And wow, "traitors to their culture". They're living in a land that has been occupied for generations by Moslems; which shows NO SIGN of being "liberated" within a few generations, and their conversion is a sign of "weakness". For someone who expresses doubts of the overall positive impact of Christianity, you sure expect people to suffer a lot for the sake of it. The fact that some did does _not_ denigate those who did not.

And in modernity....saying that converts _today_ are "traitors"....wow. Freedom of conscience ? what's that ? Freedom of belief ? what's that ? Special _european ideas_ that you apparently don't respect much. It's like you're still seeing Islam on the threshold of pillaging and raping Southern Europe and threatening to lay fire and sword from the Sea of Mamara to Gibraltar and the English Channel. Wow. That's an impressive delusion.
Once again, I don't think that the concept of Europe should be limited to various freedoms that only got a truly wide-spread support in the end of the 20th century. It has a long history, a large portion of which is dedicated to struggles against hostile nations, particularly those with close ties to Islam. By converting to Islam, they deny the ways of their culture, they show their complete lack of respect for its history and also acknowledge the desire to see it eradicated by the wrath of Allah (the very first pages of Qu'Ran colourfully describe the ways in which they shall be 'brought to justice').

Frankly, I'm seeing Islam on the verge of raping and pillaging not just Southern Europe, but Europe as a whole, as well as America. My views on that seem to coincide with those of S.P. Huntington and the likes, whose predictions have proved to be true so far. Most modern Europeans are characterised by their unwillingness to protect their national traditions, they try to distance themselves from their nations, their anti-Nationalist hysteria is almost farcical, and the strange love they suddenly developed for certain distinctly non-European peoples that used to be the target of universal hatred is a troubling symptom. Foreign elements reproduce at a much faster rate, they have a strong sense of national identity, even after becoming successful by European merits they continue to support their 'comrades'. That is true for most 'minorities', not just Moslems. Even when they're offered more rights than the indigenous population of a country (like that mountie in a turban, what nonsense), they still don't assimilate, being a constant source of tensions. To be honest, I don't even want to see them assimilate here, I just want them to leave our countries for good. Pft, that is turning into another immigrant discussion. Oh, and I wouldn't count much on ministries and armies, crippled nations generally don't get saved by those.

In the last part of your post, which, if quoted, would make this paragraph look unaesthetically small, you suddenly start to sound very pleasant, almost like an imperialist. Not surprisingly, I am all for providing safety for countries of European heritage, I'd like to witness the ressurection of colonialism and it is really rather nice when your civilisation crushes others, but does it have to do anything with our topic? You basically signify that you want to apply the status of a European country to a country with European influences so faint that they can easily disappear if Europe doesn't actively support them, and you do that so that the genuine Europe benifits economically. Sounds like a crime against the Truth you said you believe in. By the way, I am sure that poorer European countries could provide more than enough 'cheap labour'.

P.S. The hate you show for Islam is admirable.
P.P.S. How long did it take you to write all of that?

*snip*
Enormous post. Reminds me of my older ones. Excellent nonetheless though. I concur wholeheartedly. European self-hatred and self-denial annoys me as well. Welcome to NS. :)

By converting to Islam, they deny the ways of their culture, they show their complete lack of respect for its history and also acknowledge the desire to see it eradicated by the wrath of Allah

No. Just because you interpret the Koran to advocate the death of Western culture, doesn't mean anyone who is Muslims must also interpret the Koran to mean it to - let alone to 'acknowledge' that viewpoint.


Frankly, I'm seeing Islam on the verge of raping and pillaging not just Southern Europe, but Europe as a whole, as well as America. My views on that seem to coincide with those of S.P. Huntington and the likes

If by the likes, you also mean to include neo-nazis, klansmen, racists, bigots and idiots! Yes, your views are indeed shared by alarmist, bigoted assholes.

, whose predictions have proved to be true so far.

Yeah. So have Nostradamus's.

Most modern Europeans are characterised by their unwillingness to protect their national traditions, they try to distance themselves from their nations, their anti-Nationalist hysteria is almost farcical, and the strange love they suddenly developed for certain distinctly non-European peoples that used to be the target of universal hatred is a troubling symptom.

Oh, what "certain distinctly Non-European peoples" do you refer to in this statement? Jews? They used to be the target of hatred, are you now troubled that they're not? Or is it some other "peoples" for whom you can't imagine anything but hate?

To Mandatory Altruism,
As for your example with National-Socialism, it is an integral part of German history and, as you implied yourself by saying that they're are more democratic than anyone else as a result of their defeat, it is one of the key factors shaping their modern image.

It's pretty hard to not see it as an integral part of their history when the main focus in history classes are those 12 years. Like theres nothing else.

It's pretty hard to not see it as an integral part of their history when the main focus in history classes are those 12 years. Like theres nothing else.
Pretty much so. It's almost like that is all that ever happened in European history. Sort of like a horse with blinders; it's not allowed to see beyond them.

as well as European states with authoritarian government like Belarus (which is almost entirely clean of non-European influences) or, until recently, Yugoslavia.
Just for the record: Yugoslavia should become EU member in 1992/93.

I see there is a great generalization here. Let me ask you: Have you ever been in Serbia and Belarus?

I was. I wisited entire Europe, and i can say that Belarus is nice, beautiful country with great people, good economy and stability. Things that you hear on CNN/BBC/SKY are just pure propaganda. Belarus is better than Poland in some ways, like social protection and healtcare, Minsk is realy spectacular city, Believet or not.

Serbia never was an authoritarian state. Yeah, there was Milosevic, but he was there because more than 60% of Serbs loved him and wanted him to ramain president of Serbia. When Serbs want an change then they get out on the streets and take Milosevic down, just like they did in 1941 when they replaced pro-axis goverment with pro-allied one.

And about wars: Serbia NEVER attacked any of former Yugoslavian country (if we did there would be no former Yugoslavian countries at all). Serbs defended themselves where they lived, just like Serbian army defended it self on Kosovo.

And back to topic: No, Turkey isn't part of Europe.

It's pretty hard to not see it as an integral part of their history when the main focus in history classes are those 12 years. Like theres nothing else.Missed the other parts of history classes then?

Missed the other parts of history classes then?
They probably weren't quite as interesting. It's easy to fall asleep, you know. ;)

They probably weren't quite as interesting. It's easy to fall asleep, you know. ;)I thought 30 years war was quite interesting. Or the fusion of Berlin and Cölln to form the city of Berlin...
The holocaust is treated a lot, yes, but there's plenty good reason to deal with it in depth in order to avoid anything of the sort happening in Germany again.
But I suppose getting mad about having to listen to more on that topic will be more fun for some people than the regular history classes...

I personaly would like that Turkey enters EU. Then, Serbia wold have another reason not to enter EU!

That reasoning somehow looks a little disturbing to me.

What's the other reason? Not wanting to give up war criminals?

That reasoning somehow looks a little disturbing to me.

What's the other reason? Not wanting to give up war criminals?

*shrug*
They already have.

But, like in Gitmo, those WC's tend to end up dead.

That reasoning somehow looks a little disturbing to me.

What's the other reason? Not wanting to give up war criminals?
First: they are war Heroes

Second: that is the reason why negotiatons are halted, but unfourtunatly only for now, when our puppets in governament find & extradicts them, Serbia will enter EU, i think that Solana spends more time in Serbia than in his own house, i guess that he is here because he only wait that our Puppets give Mladic & Karadzic so he can continue "process of European integration". I hope that will never happen!

Third: I was refering to public opinion of Serbs towards EU. 70% of Serbs doesn't want to go in to the "Europe".

*shrug*
They already have.

But, like in Gitmo, those WC's tend to end up dead.
Yeah, Serbia give to the War Tribunal almost it's entire HQ, politicians, and poets. There is joke in here in wich we call Holland - North Serbia.

First: they are war Heroys

Second: that is the reason why negotiatons are halted, but unfourtunatly only for now, when our puppets in governament find & extradicts them, Serbia will enter EU, i think that Solana spends more time in Serbia than in his own house, i guess that he is here because he only wait that our Puppets give Mladic & Karadzic so he can continue "process of European integration". I hope that will never happen!

Third: I was refering to public opinion of Serbs towards EU. 70% of Serbs doesn't want to go in to the "Europe".

I disagree on the heroes. No that false hero worship is unique to Serb nationalism. Most countries would do well to give their supposed heroes a second look.

As for the EU... I don't think it's perfect. Far from it. I can understand why Serbs have serious issues with NATO. But the EU means travel without visa restrictions, means educational exchange programmes, perhaps a chance at economic improvement but certainly some structural funding. It also means being part of something generally more interesting without being constantly ostracised. I know Serbs who really look forward to that and, for instance, Croatians who are glad they will have it.

Does it sound so bad?

I disagree on the heroes. No that false hero worship is unique to Serb nationalism. Most countries would do well to give their supposed heroes a second look.

As for the EU... I don't think it's perfect. Far from it. I can understand why Serbs have serious issues with NATO. But the EU means travel without visa restrictions, means educational exchange programmes, perhaps a chance at economic improvement but certainly some structural funding. It also means being part of something generally more interesting without being constantly ostracised. I know Serbs who really look forward to that and, for instance, Croatians who are glad they will have it.

Does it sound so bad?
War "criminals/heroes" in Serbia are viewed as defenders, they went to war because they have to. Is that truth or not, i dunno, but i am sure that if there wasn't them, Serbs would be expeled from Bosnia.

We in Serbia have feeling that most EU countries consider us as burden, and somewhat as "lower race". Remember how Blair called Serbs: "Bunch of barrbarians". Serbs just don't want to be treated as some "dirty Balkanians"

Plus there is problem in home brandy making and slaughtering pigs.

Croatians are no more different than Serbs in their view toward EU. Maybe 60-50, or 50-50, but still it's a high number.

Well, Serbia needs a better press. My experience with ex-Yugoslavs generally is that they are wonderful people who turn very stubborn and divisive once politics lands on the table. Which isn't surprising, but still very tragic. And it's always the other side's fault. I was working for a German paper during the Kosovo war. Our editorial line was rare in that it was critical of German involvement. But the situation was so polarised. NATO was out to have its war and fuelled the propaganda machine with part truth, part lie, about what was and would going on in former Yugoslavia. Too many people bought it. In reponse, many Serbs fell into the trap of being totally gullible themselves. In the West the media presented image was that almost all Serbs were genocidal maniacs intent on ethnic cleansing. In Serbia too many people rallied to Slobo and the ethnic cleansers of Bosnia. That ethnic cleansing happened, and some people wanted it in Kosovo - on both the Serbian and Albanian sides. In the Serbian case thus apparently proving that they were as bad as the West claimed.

I've also lived in East Germany. Harking back to supposedly better times and harbouring resentments is not a good survival strategy, even if some points are valid. Idolising criminals just makes you seem stupid. Don't go there! Criticise your own rulers as freely as whoever the publically desginated enemy is. And, if you're young, think of the prospect of travelling Europe. See it as an opportunity. Once you do, you'll be able to make Serbia's case in person on the streets of other European cities.

To Trostia,

No. Just because you interpret the Koran to advocate the death of Western culture, doesn't mean anyone who is Muslims must also interpret the Koran to mean it to - let alone to 'acknowledge' that viewpoint.
It is more likely that modernised Moslems are trying to find a way to cope with reasonable prejudice against them by inventing various extremely odd meanings of more or less straightforward messages, that often contrast drastically with the meanings that were put in them beforehand. Not surprisingly, the majority of Moslems do not buy that pastiche Islam.
If by the likes, you also mean to include neo-nazis, klansmen, racists, bigots and idiots! Yes, your views are indeed shared by alarmist, bigoted assholes.
Ah, the standart paranoid anti-Nationalist argument that I mentioned in the previous post. Unlike those of Nastradamus (who I would also hesitate to dismiss as an idiot), the predictions of that political scientist are not vague at all.
Oh, what "certain distinctly Non-European peoples" do you refer to in this statement? Jews? They used to be the target of hatred, are you now troubled that they're not? Or is it some other "peoples" for whom you can't imagine anything but hate?
Yes, I'm troubled that Europeans care for this people much more than they care for their own. However, I don't think that NS (nice abbrevation, by the way) forum is a proper place for discussing all of this, so let's leave this topic be. Another distinct non-European people with a similiar history is the Roma people, but it still has an awful reputation.

To Danekia,

I see there is a great generalization here. Let me ask you: Have you ever been in Serbia and Belarus?
When using them as examples, I was appealing, above all, to the popular image of these countries in Western media: "The country in question is nowadays considered civilised and democratic". I've been to Belarus (briefly), I have several Belarusian friends that I contact on a daily basis, and I am presented with a generally positive image of this country by Russian media. Then again, the popular image of Belarus is not as infinitely far from the truth as you say. For instance, some of my distant internet acquaintances were temporarily imprisoned during the presidential elections in Belarus for what would be considered perfectly normal in France or the UK, like wearing peculiar colours representing their support for the 'opposition'. The majority of Belarusians does approve of Lukashenko, mainly because they see him as a strong and capable ruler, as opposed to flimsy democrats (they might have a point here). To me mind, it clearly is not 'civilised and democratic' in the sense that should define Europe, according to Mandatory Altruism. Besides, I don't think authoritarianism automatically means ugliness, instability, and crumbling economy, so please don't think that I want to offend these excellent, profoundly European countries.

And why that emphasis on the European Union when talking about European identity? I don't believe this organisation should define what is European and what is not; more than that, it is downright dangerous to think that EU membership equals European identity. A lot of bearers of traditional European values have no love at all for the principles of the EU, and the EU with its phlegmatic ideology apparently has little love for these bearers. I do not doubt for a moment that Norway, Iceland or Switzerland won't lose their European positions, although I was cought by surprise by the statement that Norway contributed less to Europe than Turkey did. But what of Russia, a European country that is highly unlikely to join the EU even in the long run? Seeing that there is such a large number of those who have enormous troubles grasping the concept of Europe as it was presented throughout the ages, - just look at those numbers in the poll, - we're facing the risk of this large and important chunk of Europe being expelled from it in the eyes of the masses that are not very concerned with culture and history. Ouch.

Special thanks to all the supporters.

To be edited.

culturally no: 26
historically yes but not anymore: 16
historically no and still is not: 37
**** no: 26

Total no = 105

105/178 = 59%

The results seem to be a big no. And the actual results would be even better, considering the biggest defenders of Turkey as a European country were non Europeans themselves. So there is a good possibility that a significant number of yes votes were from non-europeans...

culturally no: 26
historically yes but not anymore: 16
historically no and still is not: 37
**** no: 26

Total no = 105

105/178 = 59%

The results seem to be a big no. And the actual results would be even better, considering the biggest defenders of Turkey as a European country were non Europeans themselves. So there is a good possibility that a significant number of yes votes were from non-europeans...


Sure - pick which answers you want to claim represent one side, so you can sway the statistics. I'd say you have to allow that the 'cultural' answer actually supports the OPPOSITE side to that which you claim... 79/178 = 44% - a resounding 'yes'.

Other point... I'd say that I was one of the very biggest 'defenders of Turkey as a European country'... in what way am I non-European?

Add to that - of course - since I am party to the debate - I abstained from the poll. If anything - there SHOULD be another, European, vote in favour.

Sure - pick which answers you want to claim represent one side, so you can sway the statistics. I'd say you have to allow that the 'cultural' answer actually supports the OPPOSITE side to that which you claim... 79/178 = 44% - a resounding 'yes'.

Other point... I'd say that I was one of the very biggest 'defenders of Turkey as a European country'... in what way am I non-European?

Add to that - of course - since I am party to the debate - I abstained from the poll. If anything - there SHOULD be another, European, vote in favour.

Geographically yes, but culturally no. This supports other side of the argument? Dont be ridiculous. Were invading Mongols European because their empire stretched to Europe, geographically?

Geographically yes, but culturally no. This supports other side of the argument? Dont be ridiculous. Were invading Mongols European because their empire stretched to Europe, geographically?

You're comparing apples and oranges; the Mongols came, ravaged the land, and then left because we were lucky the Great Khan had the grace to die before the Golden Horde reached the economic heartland of Europe. (and the odd are even then they wouldn't have stayed because they didn't want new lands to live in, but rapine and plunder.)

Three barbarian invasions from outside (or within the extreme periphery of Europe) lodged and stayed n Europe with profoudn consequences. In Spain, from North Africa; in the Balkans, Hungary and Austria, from the Ottoman Empire; and in most of Europe outside the heartland of Italy from the Goths, Visigoths, Huns, Saxons, Angles, etc etc. (The great "Westward Movement" from about 300 AD to 700AD roughly.

The vast majority of Modern Europe's history was influenced at important junctures for most nations by conquerors who were changed by the lands they took over. Some were changed a great deal, some didn't change much. But they were all shaped by the same material circumstances (Europe's peculiar geopraphic and resource traits) and the same and are discernably different from the stocks which they left behind; most Europeans consider the Laplanders to be kind of strange; they definitely don't feel much kinship with Arabic Africa and the Middle East, nor with the Central Asian states.

Your statement about "only a European can judge what European is" has at best limited objective validity; while an outsider may lack some contextual knowledge (and thus have less comprehension of what is observed) they are far less mired in the animousities and myths of the region (and thus are more likely to compare what they do understand more even handedly)

Let's put it this way: As our Serbian friend above demonstrates, by the "contextual wisdom" of his society, rape, plunder and genocide during the Wars of Secession from Yugoslavia were (by some people at least) admirable activities. Why ? Because they were undertaken against ethnic enemies and the struggle against those absolves the warriors involved just as the Pope offered pleniary dispensations to the Crusaders. The fact that he is not the only person to feel this way is shown by the strong showing of the Nationalist party there. (Even assuming some of them are members out of understandable hatred for the rest of Europe/America for the devestation in the Kosovo phase of the conflict and the economic decline that followed.)

Yes, it is true that a plurality or perhaps even larger majority of the populations of the societies involved hated each other a great deal. And it is difficult to see how given the power to do what the Serbs did, any of them would have behaved differently. And many did replicate it where their power did allow, which is why there are Muslim Bosnian and Croatian war criminals as well (The Slovenians, by virtue of having almost no border with the main area of fighting were militarily aloof, but there's little reason to think they would have been reluctant to fight if they had anything to gain that they felt they could hold.)

Strong ethnic hatreds are an artifact in large part of in-group venerating morality which is a pillar of premodern ethics in almost any society. Because that part of Europe did not undergo the industrial revolution in the evolutary pace (albeit rapid) of France, German, Britain, Italy, Scandinavia, the Low Countries (or even Spain, Greece, or Poland), they were given a modern economy without the blunting of ethnic tensions that occured in the foregoing countries. So I'm not saying they're bad or deficient people to believe that Holy War justifies Unholy Acts. They are impelled by a historical course that has a lot of gravity upon them.

The point I'm making is that everyone outside the Balkans considers the attrocities on all sides to be just that...attorcities. (except Russia and China, who seem to only dispute this because of attempts to assert their foreign policy clout rather than principle) Yet everyone _inside_ the Balkans who was involved in the fighting considers _their_ military and paramilitary bodies to be fully justified in any and everything they did in that time.

That's a somewhat melodramatic example, but I'm going with a really luridly vivid one to try and make the point clearly. To decide fact, being intimately involved is _not always_ a good thing. Being an outsider doesn't always help, either. But just saying "you're not from here, your jdugement is invalid" is not substained.

Put another way, a plurality (or majority, depending on the region) of Europeans dislike America and have strongly critical thoughts about its foreign and even domestic policy. Are _their_ criticisms invalid because they're not Americans ?

The thing that's boggling me about this thread is the sheer vitriol against Turkey. In Canada, the Inuit in our far north are not particularly like the rest of Canada, nor are they regarded well by a large number of Canadians. But when they demanded regional autonomy in exchange for the finalization of the land and resource claims, no one said that this demand was unreasonable or made them "beyond the pale".

It's not exactly a parallel issue, but the point is a "foreign" entity demanded association on favorable terms with "the rest of us" despite a lack of cultural and historical affinity and people weren't getting out the torches and pitchforks. It seems like a lot of respondants here are offended the Turks even asked for EU membership! Even the Ottomans hadn't waged a military campaign affecting anyone but the Russiasn in the last hundred years or so of their existence! The Italians tried to invade them in the chaos after WW I!

(I don't count WW I because their participation was essentially defensive; Russia was eclipsing them and their only hope of continued vigor and relevance was to be part of the effort to crush that power. It's worth noting they didn't move inside of mainland Europe at ALL during the war.)

(and while yes, their offensives against Russia were certainly proof they still had _some_ martial and expansionist urges, the point I'm making is that _Modern Turkey's Father State_ hadn't done any raping in pillaging in Europe during the Industrial revolution, and yet lots of people are acting like they're a recently released convict, as a society, metaphorically! Where are the _deeds_ that justify this animousity from Western and Central Europe ?)

I should remind you that the EU before the European Constitution went off the rails was looking as far afield as _Armenia_ (and some of it's neighbours, unsure) for potential new members. They're far more of an alien entity than Turkey is to modern Europe.

I mean, what Turkish tendency makes them such anethema ?
--> Moslem: Bosnia's moslem and they're in process for EU membership. Not sure about Kosovo and Albania....(being offered into the EU)
--> Authoritarian leaning/spotty civil rights: Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia (maybe others , those are the ones I know offhand) (Don't talk to me about the electoral struggles in the Ukraine; having a parliamentry system that is made largely moot by a lack of an empowered judiciary to police corruption and covert patronage substantially depowers it and makes it a distraction from the real processes of power)
--> History of Military expansionism : Germany and France
--> "culturally nonconformist" : Britain, Spain

I'm trying to find grounds for such censure, and the "they're not European" seems to be a proxy argument and false attribution of other reason. I'm tempted to say racism, but I don't like throwing that charge around casually. I'm tempted to say it's resentment for the unassimiliated Moslem subsocieties in Europe, but assimilation was never _possible_ given the political and economic treatment of those minorities.

And I haven't forgotten about you Alabaster, but I'm tired and worn out right now and not feeling like waging the war of footnotes with you at the moment. But I have the training to and I will when I have the energy.

You're comparing apples and oranges; the Mongols came, ravaged the land, and then left because we were lucky the Great Khan had the grace to die before the Golden Horde reached the economic heartland of Europe. (and the odd are even then they wouldn't have stayed because they didn't want new lands to live in, but rapine and plunder.)

<snip, the post is above>




It's not apples and oranges. My point was that culture ranks supreme to geography when we are discussing who is what or not. We dont say French are latin American because of French Territories in Latin America. Similarly "geographically yes, culturally no" means they arent European.
You are asking us why some people are arguing against Turkey being European strongly. I'd like to ask the opposite thing. Why are you vehemently arguing for a European Turkey? Is it bad not being an European? Is it somehow offensive to call them non-European? Most Europeans dont regard them as Europeans and what's bad about that?


Put another way, a plurality (or majority, depending on the region) of Europeans dislike America and have strongly critical thoughts about its foreign and even domestic policy. Are _their_ criticisms invalid because they're not Americans ?


There are issues that affect all of us. Take Kyoto Protocol for example. USA is free to pollute their backyard but when they pollute the atmosphere, it's everyone's bussiness. Similar with human rights issues. When you criticise Guantanamo Base, you are arguing because it's a human rights issue. And human rights are universal so any critisizm of breach of human rights are valid. USA foreign policy affects other nations as well, so any critisizm of their FP are also valid.
However some issues are purely domestic. And Americans making statements like "Turkey is undoubtedly European" is rather silly and kinda like cultural imperialism dictating who we can accept among ourselves or not. It's not an opressive imperialism as the NS forum posters got no power but more like a funny imperialism. Dont get me wrong. I'm not shutting all non-europeans out of discussion (I havent got the power of doing that anyways) My problem is more about the commanding attitude (undoubtedly), which is ridiculous. However the tone in your post is much more acceptable as you are asking questions and are argumentative, rather than making definitive statements.

It's not apples and oranges. My point was that culture ranks supreme to geography when we are discussing who is what or not.


and I've covered that ground and you keep refusing to respond, to wit:
(1) Romania and Bulgaria are even _less_ in touch with whatever ephemeral quality you call "Europeananity" by any variable I can discern. What do you think makes them different ? The EU, by expediting their acceptance votes, has decreed implicitly that it deems them "much more European than Turkey" but the logic, going by "cultural affinity" puzzles me to say the least.
(2) Turkey is firmly enmeshed in European history and has influenced and been influenced by Europe to the a substantial degree. This influence has imprinted enough of the European quality upon them so that they are distinguished from other rump states of historically Imperial Powers (like Egypt and Persia) who have interacted with Europe.
(3) Turkey has no cultural trait that is not shared by other European countries, unlike say, China or India.


We dont say French are latin American because of French Territories in Latin America. Similarly "geographically yes, culturally no" means they arent European.


My argument wasn't that their conquests made them European; my argument was their constant interaction through their sphere of influence....which is right on your doorstep and the very heart of their society. (Constantinople) That is NOT comparable to Paris and Guyana.



You are asking us why some people are arguing against Turkey being European strongly. I'd like to ask the opposite thing. Why are you vehemently arguing for a European Turkey? Is it bad not being an European? Is it somehow offensive to call them non-European? Most Europeans dont regard them as Europeans and what's bad about that?


First, I hate it when people insist a false thing is true. Especially when they argue as _though_ they are evaluating the evidence, but ignore it.

Secondly, it is plain the reason the question matters to _you_ is because it affects if they get into the EU.

And it obvious there are huge numbers of citizens in Europe who don't care about the abstract arguments, they seem to hate Turks. The bloody constitutional referenda in Netherlands and France were basically hijacked in part into "do you want Turkey in the EU" (not solely, but don't tell me it wasn't the main reason La Pen's numerous followers were most emotionally motivated!)

And this is stupid. Not just because bigotry is stupid, but because culturally they are part of your family, albeit a black sheep. The benefits of EU membership would be helpful in getting them through a rocky point in the "life" of their relatively young republic.

Much good would be done by EU membership. It is justifiable intellectually to recognize they are European so there seems no defensible barrier to their assession....and yet...

Anyone who's tracked the negotiations with the East Bloc countries and now Romania and Bulgaria can see the blatant discrimination here. And as the guardians of the Enlightenment, such behaviour from Europeans is APPALLING.


There are issues that affect all of us. Take Kyoto Protocol for example. USA is free to pollute their backyard but when they pollute the atmosphere, it's everyone's bussiness. Similar with human rights issues. When you criticise Guantanamo Base, you are arguing because it's a human rights issue. And human rights are universal so any critisizm of breach of human rights are valid. USA foreign policy affects other nations as well, so any critisizm of their FP are also valid.


A human's right issue, not to put too fine a point on it, _is_ a domestic issue. You're not allowed to invade Zimbabwe because Mugabe is torturing and killing his opponents. But of course, if the USA commits a human right's offense, then of course it's an international issue. (Note, I'm a Canadian, and not much fond of the American Government that's been around since 1914 and particularly from 1946)


But aside from that detail, the point is this IS an international issue.

You have a country that is
(1) geographically continuous with the EU's territory
(2) within the European sphere for ALL of it's history, albeit a few miles short of being on the same continent
(3) culturally related to a greater than random degree
(4) would benefit greatly by EU membership
(5) will probably deteriorate politically and socially without it at this point because of the deals struck by the elites there to get this far
(6) important to the energy infrastructure of the MIddle East and which the ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL WORLD will suffer from the fallout of them going radically Islamic.
(7) A key ground in the "domestication" of Islam; if we don't prove here that Moslems and Christians can get along (and in the process force Islam to betray itself and become unto Presbyterianism now vs. the 16th century), we hand a HUGE propaganda victory (and material assistance eventually, in all likelihood) to the terrorists and the Theocracies. The Moslems aren't goign to assimilate into mainstream industrial society _unless_ you make that assimilation possible. This is the big test case...

So (a) you're doing the wrong thing and (b) it's my business because my livelihood will suffer if oil goes to $150.00 a barrel+


Americans making statements like "Turkey is undoubtedly European" is rather silly and kinda like cultural imperialism dictating who we can accept among ourselves or not.


Ny, one of the key tenets of the European outlook is the scientific method and the Classic theory of scholasticism. Which between them state that you must make important decisions based on facts and open to criticism. Europe is on the verge of doing something manifestly wrong and for the wrong reasons at that.

If you have a way of disputing the logic I'm doing, then do that. I haven't seen that yet. Though Alabaster is quite good at manipulative argument.

This is not cultural imperialism. This is a concerned cousin yelling at you that you're about to drive into a tree (metaphorically), and if you think you're not, then you should be discussing the facts.

and I've covered that ground and you keep refusing to respond, to wit:
(1) Romania and Bulgaria are even _less_ in touch with whatever ephemeral quality you call "Europeananity" by any variable I can discern. What do you think makes them different ? The EU, by expediting their acceptance votes, has decreed implicitly that it deems them "much more European than Turkey" but the logic, going by "cultural affinity" puzzles me to say the least.


Oh? What variables are they? Most europeans, maybe all would disagree..


(2) Turkey is firmly enmeshed in European history and has influenced and been influenced by Europe to the a substantial degree. This influence has imprinted enough of the European quality upon them so that they are distinguished from other rump states of historically Imperial Powers (like Egypt and Persia) who have interacted with Europe.


Turkey got some European influence, noone's denying that. However so does Brazil, or Congo, etc...Turks originated in Central Asia and then invaded Asia Minor, then Europe. They were invaders and some influence doesnt make them European. No people of a European country originated outside Europe. (After humans moved out of Africa of course)


(3) Turkey has no cultural trait that is not shared by other European countries, unlike say, China or India.


http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20photo%20negatives/2004%20phot%20originals/September/L_127a.JPEG

There. One of the many cultural differences. No wife of a European President would wear such hair clothes. Oh, I know it might sound as a religious descrimination. But clothes are also cultural things.



My argument wasn't that their conquests made them European; my argument was their constant interaction through their sphere of influence....which is right on your doorstep and the very heart of their society. (Constantinople) That is NOT comparable to Paris and Guyana.


Interaction affects people but that doesnt change their origins. Everyone all over the world interact with USA culture. Movies, fast food, Coca Cola, etc...Those doesnt make them American.




First, I hate it when people insist a false thing is true. Especially when they argue as _though_ they are evaluating the evidence, but ignore it.

Secondly, it is plain the reason the question matters to _you_ is because it affects if they get into the EU.

And it obvious there are huge numbers of citizens in Europe who don't care about the abstract arguments, they seem to hate Turks. The bloody constitutional referenda in Netherlands and France were basically hijacked in part into "do you want Turkey in the EU" (not solely, but don't tell me it wasn't the main reason La Pen's numerous followers were most emotionally motivated!)


Some people hate Turks, not because they "hate" Turks but because they feel threatened. Many people here would contest that, but I believe that Europe isnt a multicultural society(ies) (multi referring to non European). Many people doesnt want the make up of Europe to change. Some admit this, many dont (they fear of becomming labelled as racist). If you look at polls, you'll see in most european countries people think there are enough immigrants (or too many). But politicians ignore them. Not only they continue to let high level of immigrants but now this (Turkey). Many people are frustrated that the future of Europe will be decided with a major inflence from a non-European country (Turkey already got 70 mil population and fastly growing vs ageing and declining Europe)


And this is stupid. Not just because bigotry is stupid, but because culturally they are part of your family, albeit a black sheep. The benefits of EU membership would be helpful in getting them through a rocky point in the "life" of their relatively young republic.

Much good would be done by EU membership. It is justifiable intellectually to recognize they are European so there seems no defensible barrier to their assession....and yet...

Anyone who's tracked the negotiations with the East Bloc countries and now Romania and Bulgaria can see the blatant discrimination here. And as the guardians of the Enlightenment, such behaviour from Europeans is APPALLING.


Dont be melodramatic. Countries arent people. Turkey doesnt need a "family" to be happy. It can stand on its own and prosper. Prosperity is economic and everyone's for economic cooperation with Turkey.


A human's right issue, not to put too fine a point on it, _is_ a domestic issue. You're not allowed to invade Zimbabwe because Mugabe is torturing and killing his opponents. But of course, if the USA commits a human right's offense, then of course it's an international issue. (Note, I'm a Canadian, and not much fond of the American Government that's been around since 1914 and particularly from 1946)


Naah. Human Rights is a issue where everyone can criticise eachother.

ex: USA criticizing China, EU criticizing USA


But aside from that detail, the point is this IS an international issue.
You have a country that is
(1) geographically continuous with the EU's territory
(2) within the European sphere for ALL of it's history, albeit a few miles short of being on the same continent
(3) culturally related to a greater than random degree
(4) would benefit greatly by EU membership
(5) will probably deteriorate politically and socially without it at this point because of the deals struck by the elites there to get this far
(6) important to the energy infrastructure of the MIddle East and which the ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL WORLD will suffer from the fallout of them going radically Islamic.
(7) A key ground in the "domestication" of Islam; if we don't prove here that Moslems and Christians can get along (and in the process force Islam to betray itself and become unto Presbyterianism now vs. the 16th century), we hand a HUGE propaganda victory (and material assistance eventually, in all likelihood) to the terrorists and the Theocracies. The Moslems aren't goign to assimilate into mainstream industrial society _unless_ you make that assimilation possible. This is the big test case...

So (a) you're doing the wrong thing and (b) it's my business because my livelihood will suffer if oil goes to $150.00 a barrel+


1) 3% only! 2) Ottaman Empire was the "other" to Europe. And Europe was the "other" to them. Ottaman Empire got islamic culture which mostly associated with Mid East, you cant deny that. 3)No, Brazil is more culturally European. 4)They can benefit with Priviliged Partnership 5)That's the point of whole drama, I guess. When they complete negotiations they will be transformed. But Austria will reject them in referendum. 6) No European oversight = turks going islamic? They cant govern themselves? You'd be pro-colonialism if you lived a century ago. 7) Europe neednt be overrun by non europeans to prove xtians and muslims can get along.



Ny, one of the key tenets of the European outlook is the scientific method and the Classic theory of scholasticism. Which between them state that you must make important decisions based on facts and open to criticism. Europe is on the verge of doing something manifestly wrong and for the wrong reasons at that.

If you have a way of disputing the logic I'm doing, then do that. I haven't seen that yet. Though Alabaster is quite good at manipulative argument.

This is not cultural imperialism. This is a concerned cousin yelling at you that you're about to drive into a tree (metaphorically), and if you think you're not, then you should be discussing the facts.

It's cultural imperialism when you try to stretch the meaning and inclusiveness of other cultures. And it's not only NS posters. You know who is one of Turkey's biggest supporters for EU? USA...

It's not apples and oranges. My point was that culture ranks supreme to geography when we are discussing who is what or not.

Then you misrepresented it by an even BIGGER margin - because that makes the GEOGRAPHY irrelevent.

Either way - it is a deception you practise... you are fudging the numbers to prove a point contrary to the evidence.