Not sure whats the source of your sarcasm.....but I will let you revel in your sarcasm
Thanks for filling me in on all of this information Ibn Khaldun! Obviously I learned a lot about Turkey, who was Atta Turk and what he did and how he instilled nationalistic feelings among the Turks (wonder what motivated the Turks to establish one of the greatest empires when there was no Atta Turk ;-) Oh yes - thanks for the information about Korean too - your information helped me refresh my memory of what I learned from a Korean friend and someone who studied Korean for 4 years in college.
I am not sure if I have told you this before, in fact with your superior knowledge and based on how well read you are - you probably already know this, assumption is a bad habit. I am not sure where you are getting this:
Unfortunately, you and other people such as yourself are the same people that are preventing the Pakistani state from undertaking similar reforms in it's tribal regions by voicing your disagreement and disapproval.
As I said before, I am not sure where all this sarcasm and hate is coming from (I have some idea but I will give the benefit of doubt since I don't know for certain and don't know you from adam - even though I am usually pretty good with my hunches ;-)
I am not sure how and why you read too much into my innocuous comment about how Turkey has employed its youth or my comment agreeing with the thread originator about how nationalistic and proud the Turks are.
Cheer up young man!
I would like to know about your assumptions before I get into revealing my
own assumption about my
own hate (yes, I have so much hate that even I don't know it's origins, I just have to assume).
Also, for the sake of stalking purposes, thanks for revealing information about your education and command on the Korean language.
Ibn Khaldun was apparently an economist, at least according to Reagan.
"They" who you are referring to as "Turks" were the same Altaic people that existed all over this vast land and had empires of their own.
These "Turks" existed in the form of
Mughals in the Indian Subcontinent, as
Ghaznavids in Afghanistan, Mr. Timur in Uzbekistan, as the
Safavids in Iran (Safavis are Azeris who are also Altaic, too, but you would know, obviously don't need a biographical account on your grasp on knowledge regarding Altaic/Turkic peoples).
I only missed the
Seljuk and
Mamluk on purpose because they existed before these people did and the Mongolians don't need to be mentioned because I am sure East Asian history is something you know quite better than the next person who you are assuming doesn't have the same kind of knowledge as you (makes sense, I mailed you my CV last week and didn't mention any of this).
Also, I forgot to mention the large amounts of
Turkomani (Turkmen in English) populations in Iraq and Syria and other Arab countries that still exist today and use the letters of Ottoman Turkish and the same language that existed prior to Ataturk's reign (Thanks for breaking down the word to indicate your understanding of the meaning of the word. Tesekkurler :)).
Why do they still exist there?
Well, because the Ottoman Empire left their bureaucracy and "viceroys" (if you want to call it that, you can, they used to call it "Vali") there upon disintegration. These people were left stranded and had to assimilate in the newly formed nation-states.
There are also Turkomani people that live in Iran, same language, same people, same culture.
And, all the Central Asian States along with the
Uighurs and other Muslim populations of China and Russia are of the same language and ethnic group. Google: Erdogan calling China's treatment of Uighurs as a genocide (yes, their language is the same but Turkey's has been changed by Ataturk's reforms and others that took place further [SUP]1[/SUP])
The Turks of today are not the same as what you would want to suggest are the cause of the Ottoman Empire. The people and groups that are mentioned above are no different than any of the communities that existed in various parts of the Asia minor or Major (sorry, I don't have a good grasp on the history of map making during the Greek empires and would need to be enlightened by someone wiser).
In conclusion, the "Turks" that exist today in Turkey are the same ethnic group that existed in other parts of the world, and still does but none of them have the kind of Turkey, rather Turkiye, that Turkey is, today. The only variable is Ataturk and a similar person also existed in Pakistan in the form of Jinnah who is now being aligned with one sect or the other, which is definitely not what he stood for.
Pakistan would've been no different had there been extreme reforms. We were close to that position and our language was going to be Latinized by Ayub Khan but god bless Bhutto (notice the small "G").
Things took a turn for the worst because of Bhutto and as the military influence diminished, Pakistan was destroyed. Bangladesh was a factor of that diminishing influence because saying that Mujeeb was a leader of the Bengalis is an embarrassment to people like Bogra. That's a long debate, in itself, but it can be safely said that the military was not in control of that part of the country from the beginning, neither was the bureaucracy because most people opted to move here from India and not there, which is why they were successful in seceding.
Had there been a complete control of the military since Jinnah as Turkey had since the time of Ataturk, we could've had our first Erdogan to fix the inflation and our first Davutoglu to bring forth neo-Mughal policies (a rip off from the neo-Ottoman policies).
Repeat: Why have we been unsuccessful? My analysis might indicate to you that it was the lack of consistency in the military influence starting from Ayub Khan's time. Something, that you have voiced your opinion against in the past and the cause of friction between us (you are still welcome to showcase your own assumption as a reply to this post).
1. Even the Turks of the time of Ataturk himself aren't the same and neither is their language. The schools had to get his speeches translated a couple of times in order to get "kids" (something I have just been labelled as, by Grandpa Wisdom), weren't able to understand due to the ever changing language, which was also done to remove "foreign" influence of Persian and Arabic and create a more nationalistic nation.
Indians and their Indus Valley buddies have suggested for us to use the same logic and use Sanskrit. That makes senses, doesn't it? We should just become Hindu, because that's what we were before. Ironically, it was the Indo-Aryans from Mesopotamia that destroyed the Indus valley to begin with and those people that claim to be from there now had migrated from the other side of the border; closer to the Ganges, but hey, it's not like anyone can dare verify or denounce any claim they make to begin with.
