[KJnbceja]

There are as many 'nationalisms' as many 'nations', however pragmatic approach is to consider what and how it is approached today in a common perception. Whenever you say 'norwegian nationalists' or 'russian nationalists' or 'german nationalists' you have in mind approximately the same image of peple believing in similar values. None of them will rather support this concept of multiethnical society, they will be against immigrants, more or less openly antisemitic, antiarabic etc.
People who believe in ideas like citizenship or multiculti dont start or dont join nationalist parties.

I think you are dead-on about that, Kwestos. When people say Nationalism, they mean Ethnic-relations first. I should think of it as: Eth-nation. People still attempt to divide Nationalism among ethnic & racial grievances, as-if they could commit nationalism any other way?

Either way, genealogical relations are implied by it, as well as cultural ideals.

Nationalism is a cultural extension…

[Roneyslelry]

yes i realize that i generalize, but its the only way to make my point about religion not being the reason for nationalism, although it is likely part of it, but had it been solely on religious terms we would not have seen so many states rise in the Balkans as then we would have seen one ore more Christian states build around religion, but that is not what happened, we saw states rise along ethnic lines as with most other european countries....

it would be historical incorrect to say that the Ottoman empire was radically different from the Austro-Hungarian or Russian empires in its treatment of non-dominant ethnic groups..thus you have two empires with their base in Christianity and one in Islam, but the outcome is the same in terms of ethnic tension... i would advice you to study Austro-Hungarian and Russian history of the Balkans, especially pre-WW1 and its involvement in making WW1 happen...

please read some more on the subject if you are to comment on my answer..

as i said you are generalising too much when you have no clue.

Alexander Ypsilantis was elected as the head of the Filiki Eteria in April 1820 and took upon him the task of planning the insurrection. Ypsilantis' intention was to raise all the Christians of the Balkans in rebellion and perhaps force Russia to intervene on their behalf. from Thourios

in east and west, in south and north
for the country lets all have one heart.
in his faith everybody to live free
in the glory of war lets run together.
Bulgarians and albanians, armenians and romans (greeks)
arabs and whites with a common thrust.
for freedom lets yield sword
that we are men to be heard everywhere the ottoman empire was an ISLAMIC empire, the austrohungarian wasn't, and the conditions and situations were different.
you do understand the differences between islam and christianity don't you?

the greek revolution didn't happen because of nationalism, it happed due to "real reasons" that had to do with oppresion, economical, social, political and so on.
simply enought, when you got a muslim who will chop your head off with the first opportunity, if you do make a revolution usualy there are far greater reasons than concepts like nationalism.
also nationalism itself developed after the greek revolution, along with the identity swift.

i do suggest you do read abit before you comment on my answer.

[Knongargoapex]

They are all intertwined. I don't think nation states are a healthy of organising the world. Too many people have already died for nation states.

[POMAH_K]

They are all intertwined. I don't think nation states are a healthy of organising the world. Too many people have already died for nation states.

True, although it's hard to imagine other possible succesful forms of organisation.

[elektikakass]

Perhaps a responsible world government or a global confederation?

True, although it's hard to imagine other possible succesful forms of organisation.

[johnlohanmclee]

Perhaps a responsible world government or a global confederation?

Dont count with me for that. It is somewhat impossible, what is good for some is bad for others:
People from some countries love the savage capitalism, other love the socialism. No way all we can live under the same government. Think about the countries where the religion is part of the Government (i am against that but others like it) other countries are strictly secular.

[Rememavotscam]

as i said you are generalising too much when you have no clue.

from Thourios



the ottoman empire was an ISLAMIC empire, the austrohungarian wasn't, and the conditions and situations were different.
you do understand the differences between islam and christianity don't you?

the greek revolution didn't happen because of nationalism, it happed due to "real reasons" that had to do with oppresion, economical, social, political and so on.
simply enought, when you got a muslim who will chop your head off with the first opportunity, if you do make a revolution usualy there are far greater reasons than concepts like nationalism.
also nationalism itself developed after the greek revolution, along with the identity swift.

i do suggest you do read abit before you comment on my answer.

first of, you should not take the precursors for empires to intervene too seriously, like the russian empire using Christianity to attack the Ottomans at every chance they get, it is clear that empires usually behave in a pragmatic way, otherwise they would not last very long.

secondly, the conditions for ethnic tension all over the Balkans are the same regardless of imperial ruler, the outcome and reasons for revolt differ yes, but not in a radical way, Greek nationalists may have used Christianity as a motivator, but it was not the main reason to separate themselves from Ottoman rule, if you believe that you do so with little understanding of history.

third, nationalism had everything to do with the breakup of the Ottoman empire, without it Greece would not have become independent as it did, though Greece relied more on western sympathies and the balance of power then anything else, it did not manage independence on its own.

nationalism in the Balkans spread to Christian merchants/translators first as these where the people who behaved as intermediates between the Ottoman empire and the rest of europe, until nationalism caused open rebellions, after that other ethnic groups took over due to Ottoman fears that they relied too much on Greeks (mainly) for their contact with an increasingly powerful europe.


from your other posts ect ive noticed that you keep seeing the world through religion allot, it would serve you best to not do so when dealing with history, the biggest agent in history is Economical and that is usually the agent for change in society...

[attractiveweb]

There are all different kinds of nationalism, ethnic, racial and civic. Scottish nationalism is an example of a left leaning socially democratic and inclusive movement with people from all backgrounds involved. Infact most Scottish nationalist look to Norway as inspiration to the type of nation we should be. Scottish nationalism is generally forward looking rather than backwards and about having the power to improve the lives of the 1 in 4 kids in poverty in this little resource rich country, whether white, black or asian.

[JessicaLin]

are you an idiot or you are trying to appear as one?

what part from the simple phrase "the ottoman empire was an ISLAMIC empire" you don't understand?

first of, you should not take the precursors for empires to intervene too seriously, like the russian empire using Christianity to attack the Ottomans at every chance they get, it is clear that empires usually behave in a pragmatic way, otherwise they would not last very long.

yes i do know that empires behave in a pragmatic way, and that "pragmatic way" is VIOLENCE for the ottoman empire.
here educate yourself, learn about the masacre in chios island which was only one of the many.

"When the Greek War of Independence broke out, the island's leaders were reluctant to join the revolutionaries, fearing the loss of their security and prosperity. However, in March 1822, several hundred armed Greeks from the neighbouring island of Samos landed in Chios. They proclaimed the Revolution and launched attacks against the Turks, at which point islanders decided to join the struggle.
Ottomans landed a large force on the island consequently and put down the rebellion. The Ottoman massacre of Chios expelled, killed, or enslaved five sixths of the 120,000 Greek inhabitants of the island.[30] It wiped out whole villages, and affected the valuable Mastichochoria, the mastic growing villages in the south of the island. It triggered negative public reaction in Western Europe, as can be seen in the art of Delacroix, and in the writing of Lord Byron and Victor Hugo."

secondly, the conditions for ethnic tension all over the Balkans are the same regardless of imperial ruler, the outcome and reasons for revolt differ yes, but not in a radical way, Greek nationalists may have used Christianity as a motivator, but it was not the main reason to separate themselves from Ottoman rule, if you believe that you do so with little understanding of history.

mate, as i said before it was religious tention not ethnic.

my very own village which was inhabited by:
a) greek speaking christians
b) greek speaking muslims
they were from the same ethnic group, they spoke the same language, they listened to the same songs they had the same traditions and all the rest.
that is NOT ethnic tention, that is RELIGIOUS tention.

there were christian albanophones (aka arvanites) with christian greeks
against
muslim albanophones (aka albanians) with "turks", meaning muslims in general that included also muslim greeks.

that is not a conflict of ethnic groups, its a conflict of religious groups, identities existant or not are irrelevant.
and we are talking about the begining of the downfall, ofc if you will mention the balkan wars then yes, it was ethnic conflicts.

here educate yourself some more

third, nationalism had everything to do with the breakup of the Ottoman empire, without it Greece would not have become independent as it did, though Greece relied more on western sympathies and the balance of power then anything else, it did not manage independence on its own.

nationalism in the Balkans spread to Christian merchants/translators first as these where the people who behaved as intermediates between the Ottoman empire and the rest of europe, until nationalism caused open rebellions, after that other ethnic groups took over due to Ottoman fears that they relied too much on Greeks (mainly) for their contact with an increasingly powerful europe.

After the fall of the byzantine empire and during the ottoman time, a harsh ideological conflict began among the three names of the greeks. this arguement stoped for a period of time after the greek revolution of 1821, but it was complitely solved just in the begining of the 20th century with the occupation of minor asia by the turks.

the preparation of hellinism for its national awaking, is clear that contains many parameters which will be analysed so the brewings of the pre-revolution period will be understood.
the contribution of the neohellenic enlightment in the preparation of the awaking of the Hellenic nation is great, because with the works of the hellenic intelectuals of that time, they contributed on the shaping of the neohellenic concience, the language and the education of the hellenes.
the intelectuals concidered education a basic foundation of our national awaking. and this movement was the moving force for this cause, by transfering the ideas of the european englightment by translating works of the grand englightmentists of the west.
as a general phenomenon it is observed the creation of ethnic groups, which even if they are living inside multiethnic empires, they began to request their independance.

in the hellenic space things are differentiated. Greece was an alloy of languages, civilisations, ethnic groups and religions. also it was a part of a multiethnic empire which couldn't compare with europe. The lack of education and laws was its basic characteristic. the sultans were not friends of "letters", of the arts and of the sciences, like the european monarchs which cultivated these in their courts. the ottoman state had a complitely different character, a different dominant religion, different customs, different political organisation. the ethnic groups that lived in the empire were seppareted into millets, like the millet of the faithfull, the millet of the jews and the millet of the romans (rum).
it is a fact that the enslaved greeks were in a better condition than the other millets, since they had their own administration and they took part in the administration of the empire.
the basic meanings which will be aproached are the meanings of the genos and ethnos, and also the three ethnic names will be analysed, the roman, greek and hellin.
it is a fact that during all the duration of the neohellenic englightment of which the goal was the englightment of the genos and its resurection, there have been oppinions about its name but also about its language.

the concepts of genos and ethnos sometimes they come close and sometimes they are really far. in the texts of englightment both of these terms exist, many times with different "colours".
in the begining the genos is based on ancestry, while in later representatives of the englightment and majorly in the radicals it looses its ecumenical form.
and because the expectations of the genos change and divert towards the creation of a national state so the term ethnos comes up.
With the term genos it is meant the whole group of greeks which inhabits the lands of the former byzantine empire, of which is inherited. their main expectation is the resurection of the empire which is now under the dominence of the conqueror, that with his tolerance the enslaved managed to climb the comanding classes and took part of the authority as well as of privilages.
in some way the genos is in analogy with the religious identity of the greeks, it wasn't against the empire and it was in the millet, the religious group that was a custom of the ottomans.

in contrast the ethnos, is about new ideas. this term is the outcome of nationalistic trends, based on the preachings of the englightment, of the french revolution and it is a turn towards ancient greeks with models athens and sparti. here the expectation is the creation of a national democratic state, which hasn't got as a center constantinople but mainland greece. we see the appearence of the term "hellenic homeland".
as we can assume the ethnos isnt about religion but about politics and it was created later on.
the existance of these terms come along with the names of the greeks in which we have three names.

~~~~

do you know the differences between the concepts of genos and ethnos?
do you know that the revolution was the "uprising of the genos" and not the revolution of the ethnos?
can you explain the differences between the identity roman and hellin?
how can you explain that arvanites and vlachs who weren't a part of the greek ethnos but where a part of the greek genos revolved with the greeks if it was a national revolution.
how could any tention be "ethnic tention" when most balkanic "nations" didn't have any identity?

from your other posts ect ive noticed that you keep seeing the world through religion allot, it would serve you best to not do so when dealing with history, the biggest agent in history is Economical and that is usually the agent for change in society...

what is your malfunction?
and ok, i do understand that you have no clue about the ottoman empire, the greek revolution, the identities in the balkans and all the rest.

but don't you have the basic inteligence that is required to understand that a christian empire =/= an islamic empire?

but wait, wasn't you the guy with the turkish girlfriend?

and note: i didn't even have to mention the thourios and the syntagma of rigas fereos, the revolution in moldovlachia, osman pasvantzoglou, the way the modern greek identity was "rediscovered" back in the 10th century ad, and all these interesting stuff that i know but unfortunately you don't.

[Storwaytozy]

are you an idiot or you are trying to appear as one?

what part from the simple phrase "the ottoman empire was an ISLAMIC empire" you don't understand?.

there is no need for such language, if you continue with it i will simply ignore you.

the Ottoman empire was Islamic yes, but it was more then anything pragmatic, this means that in cases where the sultan had to choose between Islam and the empire they usually choose the empire.

yes i do know that empires behave in a pragmatic way, and that "pragmatic way" is VIOLENCE for the ottoman empire.
here educate yourself, learn about the masacre in chios island which was only one of the many.

"When the Greek War of Independence broke out, the island's leaders were reluctant to join the revolutionaries, fearing the loss of their security and prosperity. However, in March 1822, several hundred armed Greeks from the neighbouring island of Samos landed in Chios. They proclaimed the Revolution and launched attacks against the Turks, at which point islanders decided to join the struggle.
Ottomans landed a large force on the island consequently and put down the rebellion. The Ottoman massacre of Chios expelled, killed, or enslaved five sixths of the 120,000 Greek inhabitants of the island.[30] It wiped out whole villages, and affected the valuable Mastichochoria, the mastic growing villages in the south of the island. It triggered negative public reaction in Western Europe, as can be seen in the art of Delacroix, and in the writing of Lord Byron and Victor Hugo.".

this is waaay of topic..so i will ignore it as its not relevant to thread..

mate, as i said before it was religious tention not ethnic.

my very own village which was inhabited by:
a) greek speaking christians
b) greek speaking muslims
they were from the same ethnic group, they spoke the same language, they listened to the same songs they had the same traditions and all the rest.
that is NOT ethnic tention, that is RELIGIOUS tention.

there were christian albanophones (aka arvanites) with christian greeks
against
muslim albanophones (aka albanians) with "turks", meaning muslims in general that included also muslim greeks.

that is not a conflict of ethnic groups, its a conflict of religious groups, identities existant or not are irrelevant.
and we are talking about the begining of the downfall, ofc if you will mention the balkan wars then yes, it was ethnic conflicts.

here educate yourself some more

ofcourse in a landscape where you where separated by religious millets conflicts would usually rise between the various groups within close proximity to each other, but these conflicts are long standing and are not part of the nationalist struggle as such, but i agree that they became part of it, but it was still a ethnic conflict, religion can in the case of Greek Muslim and Greek Christian be a defining element of ethnicity..but the major difference to be noted is between Greek and say Macedonian ect, who are also Christian orthodox as Greece, they are two ethnicities with two separate struggles in about the same timespan trying to achieve the same on the basis of nationalism.

After the fall of the byzantine empire and during the ottoman time, a harsh ideological conflict began among the three names of the greeks. this arguement stoped for a period of time after the greek revolution of 1821, but it was complitely solved just in the begining of the 20th century with the occupation of minor asia by the turks.

the preparation of hellinism for its national awaking, is clear that contains many parameters which will be analysed so the brewings of the pre-revolution period will be understood.
the contribution of the neohellenic enlightment in the preparation of the awaking of the Hellenic nation is great, because with the works of the hellenic intelectuals of that time, they contributed on the shaping of the neohellenic concience, the language and the education of the hellenes.
the intelectuals concidered education a basic foundation of our national awaking. and this movement was the moving force for this cause, by transfering the ideas of the european englightment by translating works of the grand englightmentists of the west.
as a general phenomenon it is observed the creation of ethnic groups, which even if they are living inside multiethnic empires, they began to request their independance.

in the hellenic space things are differentiated. Greece was an alloy of languages, civilisations, ethnic groups and religions. also it was a part of a multiethnic empire which couldn't compare with europe. The lack of education and laws was its basic characteristic. the sultans were not friends of "letters", of the arts and of the sciences, like the european monarchs which cultivated these in their courts. the ottoman state had a complitely different character, a different dominant religion, different customs, different political organisation. the ethnic groups that lived in the empire were seppareted into millets, like the millet of the faithfull, the millet of the jews and the millet of the romans (rum).
it is a fact that the enslaved greeks were in a better condition than the other millets, since they had their own administration and they took part in the administration of the empire.
the basic meanings which will be aproached are the meanings of the genos and ethnos, and also the three ethnic names will be analysed, the roman, greek and hellin.
it is a fact that during all the duration of the neohellenic englightment of which the goal was the englightment of the genos and its resurection, there have been oppinions about its name but also about its language.

the concepts of genos and ethnos sometimes they come close and sometimes they are really far. in the texts of englightment both of these terms exist, many times with different "colours".
in the begining the genos is based on ancestry, while in later representatives of the englightment and majorly in the radicals it looses its ecumenical form.
and because the expectations of the genos change and divert towards the creation of a national state so the term ethnos comes up.
With the term genos it is meant the whole group of greeks which inhabits the lands of the former byzantine empire, of which is inherited. their main expectation is the resurection of the empire which is now under the dominence of the conqueror, that with his tolerance the enslaved managed to climb the comanding classes and took part of the authority as well as of privilages.
in some way the genos is in analogy with the religious identity of the greeks, it wasn't against the empire and it was in the millet, the religious group that was a custom of the ottomans.

in contrast the ethnos, is about new ideas. this term is the outcome of nationalistic trends, based on the preachings of the englightment, of the french revolution and it is a turn towards ancient greeks with models athens and sparti. here the expectation is the creation of a national democratic state, which hasn't got as a center constantinople but mainland greece. we see the appearence of the term "hellenic homeland".
as we can assume the ethnos isnt about religion but about politics and it was created later on.
the existance of these terms come along with the names of the greeks in which we have three names.

~~~~

do you know the differences between the concepts of genos and ethnos?
do you know that the revolution was the "uprising of the genos" and not the revolution of the ethnos?
can you explain the differences between the identity roman and hellin?
how can you explain that arvanites and vlachs who weren't a part of the greek ethnos but where a part of the greek genos revolved with the greeks if it was a national revolution.
how could any tention be "ethnic tention" when most balkanic "nations" didn't have any identity?

first off i dont know why your going so off topic here? the Byzantine empire has little to do with nationalism in the Ottoman empire period.

second your millet system is overly simplified, maybe you are referring to a very early model of it?

third, there have been ethnic identities in most of the Balkan peoples dating back into Ottoman times, pre-nationalism times: Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian, Hungarian ect..some however are more modern constructs such as Kosovoan ect.

what is your malfunction?
and ok, i do understand that you have no clue about the ottoman empire, the greek revolution, the identities in the balkans and all the rest.

but don't you have the basic inteligence that is required to understand that a christian empire =/= an islamic empire?

but wait, wasn't you the guy with the turkish girlfriend?

and note: i didn't even have to mention the thourios and the syntagma of rigas fereos, the revolution in moldovlachia, osman pasvantzoglou, the way the modern greek identity was "rediscovered" back in the 10th century ad, and all these interesting stuff that i know but unfortunately you don't.

i am a historian who study history:P focusing on the classical period into mid evil period..so i do have some clue about this..

you seem locked in a mindset evolving around religion and it seems you are set in a defensive position, i have argued with you about religion before and i saw it then too..too bad you dont see it..try to think outside the religious box..

having a Turkish gf is irrelevant to my views on this, i doubt most turkish forum members would agree with you..

[BadbarmrapBef]

there is no need for such language, if you continue with it i will simply ignore you.

if you act in such a way its not my selection of words that should trouble you.

the Ottoman empire was Islamic yes, but it was more then anything pragmatic, this means that in cases where the sultan had to choose between Islam and the empire they usually choose the empire.

do you dissagree that the ottoman empire was an islamic empire in which the christian poppulations were oppresed, an empire that resorted to massive violence?

do you dissagree that the austrohungarian empire wasn't an islamic empire? (and all what is meant by the term islamic)

this is waaay of topic..so i will ignore it as its not relevant to thread..

what is out of topic?
that the ottomans enslaved and slaughtered 5/6 of an islands poppulation?
isn't this a great indication of how muslims treated christians?

put yourself in their possition, would you sit and watch?

ofcourse in a landscape where you where separated by religious millets conflicts would usually rise between the various groups within close proximity to each other, but these conflicts are long standing and are not part of the nationalist struggle as such, but i agree that they became part of it, but it was still a ethnic conflict, religion can in the case of Greek Muslim and Greek Christian be a defining element of ethnicity..but the major difference to be noted is between Greek and say Macedonian ect, who are also Christian orthodox as Greece, they are two ethnicities with two separate struggles in about the same timespan trying to achieve the same on the basis of nationalism.

albanophone A speaking albanian , having the very same south balkan culture, and being an orthodox christian

albanophone B speaking albanian, having the very same south balkan culture, and being a muslim.

they killed each other in war, is this an ethnic conflict?
how was it an ethnic conflict when people from the same ethnic group fought?

first off i dont know why your going so off topic here? the Byzantine empire has little to do with nationalism in the Ottoman empire period.

second your millet system is overly simplified, maybe you are referring to a very early model of it?

third, there have been ethnic identities in most of the Balkan peoples dating back into Ottoman times, pre-nationalism times: Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian, Hungarian ect..some however are more modern constructs such as Kosovoan ect.

MOST of the identities were non existant at the time, there were linguistic identities around but not ethnic ones.
"vlachs" meaning the ones who would later become romanians and moldavians had Greek phanariotes rulers of moldovlachia.
bulgarians had a Greek clergy since the conquest of bulgaria by the turks, because turks slaughtered all the bulgarian priests and we filled in the position.
albanians had no identity other than a linguistic one.
turks had no ethnic identity untill kemal ataturk.

and the revolution took place was due to many different factors, mainly because the poppulations were oppressed economicaly, religiously, and socialy.
balkan nationalism as it is displayed in the balkan wars was the product of the greek revolution, the greek revolution itself wasn't an ethnic conflict, it was a religious conflict with a few elements of an ethnic conflict.

i am a historian who study history:P focusing on the classical period into mid evil period..so i do have some clue about this..

you seem locked in a mindset evolving around religion and it seems you are set in a defensive position, i have argued with you about religion before and i saw it then too..too bad you dont see it..try to think outside the religious box..

having a Turkish gf is irrelevant to my views on this, i doubt most turkish forum members would agree with you..

oh yes, i am sure having a turkish gf isn't affecting your views at all...
and i ask you again

do you know the differences between the concepts of genos and ethnos?

do you know that the revolution was the "uprising of the genos" and not the revolution of the ethnos?

can you explain the differences between the identity roman and hellin?

how can you explain that arvanites and vlachs who weren't a part of the greek ethnos but where a part of the greek genos revolved with the greeks if it was a national revolution.

how could any tention be "ethnic tention" when most balkanic "nations" didn't have any identity?

and mate, even if i would be an atheist, that doesn't change what happened 200 years ago or the actual differences between the religions, as well as the way these can be seen in history.

[Imagimifouxum]

if you act in such a way its not my selection of words that should trouble you.

i see that my previous post could be interpreted as being condescending, which i apologise for, but still there is no need for name calling..

do you dissagree that the ottoman empire was an islamic empire in which the christian poppulations were oppresed, an empire that resorted to massive violence?

do you dissagree that the austrohungarian empire wasn't an islamic empire? (and all what is meant by the term islamic)

both empires oppressed populations with little regard to religion, besides its offtopic.

what is out of topic?
that the ottomans enslaved and slaughtered 5/6 of an islands poppulation?
isn't this a great indication of how muslims treated christians?

put yourself in their possition, would you sit and watch?

offtopic, this thread is about nationalism in nation states, not about Greek problems in Ottoman times.

albanophone A speaking albanian , having the very same south balkan culture, and being an orthodox christian

albanophone B speaking albanian, having the very same south balkan culture, and being a muslim.

they killed each other in war, is this an ethnic conflict?
how was it an ethnic conflict when people from the same ethnic group fought?

you ignored my question..

MOST of the identities were non existant at the time, there were linguistic identities around but not ethnic ones.
"vlachs" meaning the ones who would later become romanians and moldavians had Greek phanariotes rulers of moldovlachia.
bulgarians had a Greek clergy since the conquest of bulgaria by the turks, because turks slaughtered all the bulgarian priests and we filled in the position.
albanians had no identity other than a linguistic one.
turks had no ethnic identity untill kemal ataturk.

most ethnic ties are based mostly on language, Anatolian Turks as an example are primarily a linguist ethnic group, your totally wrong in regards to when the ethnic groups where formed, i dont know what books you have been reading, but they are clearly wrong.

to illustrate my point, here is a ethnic map from 1861 (before ataturk ect):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...%281861%29.jpg

and the revolution took place was due to many different factors, mainly because the poppulations were oppressed economicaly, religiously, and socialy.
balkan nationalism as it is displayed in the balkan wars was the product of the greek revolution, the greek revolution itself wasn't an ethnic conflict, it was a religious conflict with a few elements of an ethnic conflict.

in other words it was an ethnic conflict, how can you not see it when you spell it out yourself?

oh yes, i am sure having a turkish gf isn't affecting your views at all...
and i ask you again

do you know the differences between the concepts of genos and ethnos?

do you know that the revolution was the "uprising of the genos" and not the revolution of the ethnos?

can you explain the differences between the identity roman and hellin?

how can you explain that arvanites and vlachs who weren't a part of the greek ethnos but where a part of the greek genos revolved with the greeks if it was a national revolution.

how could any tention be "ethnic tention" when most balkanic "nations" didn't have any identity?

and mate, even if i would be an atheist, that doesn't change what happened 200 years ago or the actual differences between the religions, as well as the way these can be seen in history.

see previous answer...

[baskentt]

By contrast, nationalism of USA and Brazil is closer to Turkish nationalism.

Turkish nationalism is no closer to the USA or Brazil in any way than that of any Old World people, like Greek, German etc.

[dubGucKcolo]

Turkish nationalism is not even close to US nationalism. It is a much more radical ideology more close to e.g. Greek nationalism.

[Ervins Dervish]

both empires oppressed populations with little regard to religion, besides its offtopic.

Are you for real, evon? The Ottoman Empire oppressed merely with regard to religion. Some few examples:

#The enslavement of Christian children and women (not Muslim children or women)
#Forcing Christian citizens to pay extra taxes 'Jizya' (not Muslim citizens)
#Supporting Muslim 'militias' within the Empire to destroy and eliminate Christian lands

Why do you think there are 20 million Kurds in Turkey but not 20 million Armenians, Greeks or Assyrians in Turkey?

[blogforlovxr]

Turkish nationalism is no closer to the USA or Brazil in any way than that of any Old World people, like Greek, German etc.

Turkish nationalism is not even close to US nationalism. It is a much more radical ideology more close to e.g. Greek nationalism.

Ok, both of you have refuted my point, I suspect for two different reasons, but without clearly stating why.

I equated Turkish nationalism to US and Brazil, and differentiated it from European (as in northern, e.g. German) and Asian (e.g. Han Chinese), because the former have a heterogeneous standard for ancestry and phenotype, while the latter have a more homogeneous standard for ancestry and phenotype.

I never mentioned Greek nationalism. Maybe they also have a heterogeneous standard for ancestry and phenotype.

I also never mentioned religion or religious discrimination.

Turks accept themselves as a culture which was the result of multiple waves of migrations / invasions of Central Asian people into Anatolia, where they also assimilated some amount of local populations. Now they are united by a common language and culture. Looks similar to post-colonial USA and Brazil to me.

Contrast that with Han Chinese who consider themselves 100% indigenous, even to the point that their government website states that they descend from Peking Man, not an Out of Africa migration.

Is there a standard in Turkey for the ideal phenotype, like the blonde haired, blue eyed one that exists among some North Euro nationalists? Would a group of Turkish football fans beat someone on appearance alone, or would they have to determine what language they spoke, or what religion they followed? Does someone who looks Armenian or Kurdish catch a beating for their phenotype, or a difference in language, culture, or religion? Are they checking faces or passports?

[carline]

I'm no nationalist. I'm just pro Americans being proud of their own people. I want them to start thinking of each other as one. There is no need to claim groups of people from other nations. That overall want nothing to do with you.

[AlexanderPalamayr]

I'm no nationalist. I'm just pro Americans being proud of their own people. I want them to start thinking of each other as one. There is no need to claim groups of people from other nations. That overall want nothing to do with you.

I agree 100%. I accept my ancestry for what it is, but feel no loyalty towards any ancestral homeland outside of the USA, and consider that feeling to be mutual. I also don't think there's any particular phenotype or ancestry that makes someone more "American" than someone else.

[Fausqueuego]

Are you for real, evon? The Ottoman Empire oppressed merely with regard to religion. Some few examples:

#The enslavement of Christian children and women (not Muslim children or women)
#Forcing Christian citizens to pay extra taxes 'Jizya' (not Muslim citizens)
#Supporting Muslim 'militias' within the Empire to destroy and eliminate Christian lands

Why do you think there are 20 million Kurds in Turkey but not 20 million Armenians, Greeks or Assyrians in Turkey?

i was merely trying to avert the discussion back to topic from religion (but yes you are partly right), both empires oppressed people for various reasons through history, the Ottomans had more religious diversity in their empire then most, another empire with similar diversity is the Russian empire, but i did not want to topic to go so off topic... if you open another thread on this topic i would be glad to discuss it further...

[DrKirkNoliss]

Evon, you are playing with words, you are not really answering to my arguements and you started using the off topic card.

i ask you for the third time this simple question
muslim albanophone
vs
christian albanophone

is this an ethnic conflict?

i was merely trying to avert the discussion back to topic from religion (but yes you are partly right), both empires oppressed people for various reasons through history, the Ottomans had more religious diversity in their empire then most, another empire with similar diversity is the Russian empire, but i did not want to topic to go so off topic... if you open another thread on this topic i would be glad to discuss it further...

The 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey (Greek: Η Ανταλλαγή, Turkish: Mübadele) was based upon religious identity, and involved the Greek Orthodox citizens of Turkey and the Muslim citizens of Greece. It was a major compulsory population exchange, or agreed mutual expulsion.

they still used religion as the criteria even if it was 1923 and not 1821.

as i allready said

well, ottoman empire failed not due to the rise of nationalism, but because it was an islamic country based on the exploitation of the christians.
it was the way the empire was and the events that took place which caused the rise of nationalism and not the opposite.