The Idea of Osmanlilik - Assignment Example

1. Osmanlilik The idea of Osmanlilik or Ottomanship was presented by Sultan Abdulhamid II and was developed to effectively counter the social challenges facing the Ottoman Empire. Other scholars claim that Osmanlilik was a reaction to the bureaucratic restructuring of the Ottoman Empire by elites (Shaw & Shaw, 1977; Gelvin, 2005). Borrowing notions from the French Enlightenment the notion of Osmanlilik was designed to create equality among the millets or religious enclaves (Shaw & Shaw, 1977). According to Osmanlilik all subjects were equal before the law. The essence of the millet system was not dismantled, but secular organizations and policies were applied. Primary education, conscription head tax, and military service were to be applied to non-Muslims and Muslims alike. However as Gelvin (2005) notes, "for all its good intentions a policy that attempted to establish equality among Ottoman citizens satisfied few Muslims or Christians" (p. 100). In summary, Osmanlilik ensured that all communities were considered equal in rights and responsibilities regardless of religious background. 2. Young Turks The Young Turks rebelled against the Sultan by drawing on sentiment among primarily the intellegentsia whom they were a part of as well as public mass sentiment of Turks and thereby leading to the successful overthrow of his power. Similar to the Osmanlilik the young Turks were interested in maintaining the Ottoman Empire's control which was rapidly diminishing. Unlike the Osmanlilik, the Young Turks combined a previously unlikely union of reform-minded pluralists, Turkish nationalists and Western-oriented secularists and indeed anyone who accorded the Sultan political blame for the weakening state of the Empire. The Young Turks had outlined four core reasons for their disgruntlement: a) a thirty year increasingly centralized government, b) increasing surveillance of all aspects of life leading to c) the assassination and exile of anyone who opposed the powers of the Sultan, and d) the consciousness that foreign dominance was increasingly a threat to the entire empire and that this would inevitable lead to the demise of the empire a responsibility that the Young Turks believed to be on the hands of the Sultan (Oktem, 2003). The Young Turks tried to employ Osmanlilik, which saw a revival during this time. This was done to strengthen the Empire however they were unsuccessful in doing so, making Turkish ethnicity dominant and overbearing and thereby straining relations with the ethnic minorities of the region (Oktem, 2003; Gelvin, 2005). 3. Future As discussed in response #1 the fact that the pioneers of Turkish nationalism the Osmanlilik and Young Turks had borrowed ideas from the French Revolutionaries and European Enlightenment illustrates that they were somewhat eager to transcend religious involvement in the State thereby laying the foundations for the modernization of Turkey in the 20th century. Enlightenment policies rejected the role of religion or tradition in society and especially the governing of that society. The rationale for this being that a traditional society in which religion predominated was not only locked within an archaic framework of thinking but that it would inevitably prejudice the rights of those who were either non-followers or non-religious. As such, and according to Oktem (2003) the modernizing of Turkey really was well seasoned upon the founding of the Turkish Republic in 1923 by Officer Mustafa Kemal. Kemal, wishing to reach the level of Enllightenment of contemporary civilization broke away from the Turkish/Islamist past. The modernization of Turkey during this time included reforms such as secular/republican forms of government, European legal codes, the emancipation of women and the abolition of Arabic script all of which were looked upon favorably and all of which were previously embraced by Osmamlilik and the Young Turks (Gelvin, 2005; Khater, 2004). 4. 1870s The world wide economic downturn of the 1870s otherwise known as the Long Depression ran from 1873-1896 and was, according to some historians caused by the crash of the Vienna Stock Exchange in 1873 which led to great financial turmoil in both the US and UK, (Meyer, 1951; McMurray, 2001). It is said that the Long Depression which coincided with the Second Industrial Revolution affected much of the world's economy at that time. McMurray (2001) points to the effects of the lack of finances being able to facilitate trade as one of the main causes for the Long Depression. Still other historians argue that the high costs and causalities of the Franco-Prussian war initiated much of the cause of this global downturn (Meyer, 1951). In terms of the Middle East, the consequences of the Franco-Prussian war were a) France had to make large war reparation payments to Germany and b) the consequent unification of Germany. With respect to the Middle East, the German Empire that reigned from 1871-1918 began having colonial aspirations much like those of Britain and France in the region (Henderson, 1948; Meyer, 1951; McMurray 2001). One most notable development was Germany's construction of the Baghdad Railway originally meant to help in establishing a German Port in the Middle East. The railway became a source of dissension among the Ottomans, British and French leading some historians to argue that it was a major factor in the start of World War I (Meyer, 1951; Henderson, 1948). 5. Relationship The Russo-Japanese war fought between 1904-1905 and began over the two countries i.e. Russia and Japan's rivalry over dominance in Korea and specifically Manchuria (Furedi, 1998). Japan conducted a series of swift operations against Russia leading to their ultimate victory over the Russians. While the war was between two imperial powers it was the actual political consequences of the war that made it unique. According to Furedi (1998) the Russo-Japanese war was one that would inevitably alter the state of race relations on an international level. The fact that a non-white country such as Japan, could militarily defeat a white country as Russia, encouraged many colonized countries to celebrate this victory as if the Japanese victory was their own. Colonized countries in Asia, Africa and the Middle East led many African, Asian as well as Muslim and Arab poets and writers to praise the victories of the Japanese and also spiked Islamic and Arab nationalisms albeit in different forms in the various countries (Furedi, 1998; Gelvin, 2005). 6. Modernists The term modernist is derived from the sociological theory of modernization. According to Rojas (1995) modernization theory is a historical consequence which was signaled by the de-colonization of large parts of the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America., and the rise of the US as a superpower in a region where the USSR simultaneously lost its influence. The US financed the industrialization of Western Europe, South Korea and Taiwan as well as the reconstruction of Japan under the Marshall Plan (Rojas, 1995). Modernizing the Middle East was assumed by modernization theorists to be implemented according to the Marshall Plan despite its history of colonization. Modernization in the region has been a slow process that began to become most apparent in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the increasing numbers of Western franchises, clothes, music, and satellite and internet technologies. Yet at this same time, the region notably countries like Egypt and Algeria experienced a high volume of resistance from groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, who in protest, to the perceived neo-colonialism of modernization began bombing campaigns throughout many of the Western educational and shopping franchises as well as government offices and killing hundred and sometimes as was in the case of Algeria hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. An important point to note, is that the modernization process is currently now been steam-rolled into what is often referred to as globalization. Globalization refers to the increasing technological, cultural, economic, and social changes brought on by the rapid transfer of these facets of life to and across borders that were at one time more isolated (Klein, N., 2002). For the masses of people within the Middle East and several critical cultural and historical scholars, globalization seems little more than old colonial times past with a new taste. The future remains to be seen but it is safe to say that the clash of civilizations is now occurring within Arab individuals who must balance between their traditional ethno-religious values and the rapid influx of values brought on by globalization. 7. Iraq The nation building process is a bloody one with dominant narratives often claiming hegemony within official constitutions thereby attempting sometimes successfully, and sometimes unsuccessfully, to minimize minority narratives within their boundaries regardless of whatever region of the world one examines. As Huntington has noted in his work prior to the Clash of civilizations, entitled 'Political order in changing societies,' "the most important among countries concerns not their form of government but their degree of government" (Huntington, p. 1968). This statement clearly resonates when noting the various Iraqi constitutional drafts throughout Iraq's history and present situations. While there are unique and quite complex challenges within the fabric of Iraqi society that are similar to 19th century Iraq there are still others which are very different to the challenges of Iraq in the 19th century mainly due to the progression of historical events. During the mid-19th century under the Ottoman Empire in Iraq, each religious group was guaranteed jurisdictional rule over their members. In other words, Iraqi Christians would seek the legal advice of Christians, Muslims would be judged according to Islamic laws, and Iraqi Jews had Rabbis who would make final decisions over legalities. Towards the end of the Ottoman Empire, and unlike today in Iraq, European commercial and consular presence remained relatively isolated from Iraqi culture. As other countries were swept with Arab nationalism., Iraqi Shi'a then as today, gave more credence to tribal Sheiks and Shi'ite notables who would often voice their opposition to Ottoman and foreign presence and their selected leaders. In 1918 under British occupation, there were two main forces vying for influence over Iraqi constitution. On the one hand, the British who wished to protect British interests in the country, while on the other, were Iraqi nationalists who demanded independence. There were also the important and specific concerns of Shi'a and Sunni Muslims that who were more united than they are today simply due to the overriding concern was that of Arab nationalism and independence over sectarian issues. In 1930, a new treaty was signed allowing Iraq complete independence but in constant alliance with Britain. Today's Iraq is very different in important ways since the US-led invasion. Having been exposed to Ottoman, British a brutal dictatorship albeit secular under Saddam Hussein and presently US invasion and occupation, Islamic opposition groups of times past joined with scores of new groups mostly Shi'a and dominating Iraq's postwar politics. Intellectuals have been reportedly threatened and women have had to take a few steps backwards in the rights they previously enjoyed. These reasons may be attributed to the outside influences of Wahabi Islam of Saudi Arabia as well as the Shi'a version of Islam endorsed by Iran each vying for influence and power within Iraq. Without balancing these two dominant external forces with the internal ethno-religious divides there is disorder and chaos if the US is to leave too early. As Huntington (1996) has argued having liberty without order is not possible and therefore order between the groups is a precondition for a stable and acceptable constitution for all liberated Iraqis. 8. 2 Ways The birth of nation states must be understood from the historical time frame and political, economic, and social conditions surrounding that time frame. During the aftermath of World War I, the emergence of European nation states became a consequence of the breakdown of monarchies and feudal societies as well as the borrowing of ideas from the rise of the European imperialism. The nation state is often viewed as a constructed notion of a group's common history, culture, and value systems and therefore not necessarily a blueprint for the ways in which nation states should or could be governed (Kymilka, 1999). Two examples of nation state construction during the aftermath of World War I were: Expansionist Nationalism and Socialist Nationalism. Expansionist Nationalism drew its values from the European Imperialism during the 19th century Europe between 1914 and 1945. Germany, under Hitler, espoused the constructed view of Expansionist Imperialism in Europe leading him to articulate that German as a nation state under Nazism was superior to other nations. Under this construction of nationalism, German individuals were to remain subordinate to the wisdom of the state. The consequence of Germany's Expansionist Nationalism culminated in World War II and the tragedy of the Holocaust and extermination of all other groups seen as a threat to German superiority. The separatist nationalist construction of the nation state developed in the conquered areas of the European Empire. Anti-colonial nationalism may be characterized as a form of separatist movement that its leaders espouse freedom from colonial oppression and independence for the people or nation in question. Examples of this are South Africa's Nelson Mandela and India's Mahtma Ghandi. After long struggles articulating the need for independence these leaders articulated a dream of the future for their countries free from colonial rule (Kymlicka, 1999) 9. Iraq The modern nation of Iraq as is known today was carved out by the British and French colonial forces under the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1917 at the end of the Ottoman Empire which coincided with the end of World War I (Gelvin, 2005; Laquer & Rubin, 1997). In 1920, Iraq became a British mandate with the legitimization of the League of Nations and was known as the State of Iraq. Almost immediately, massive protests against the British policies of Sir Arnold Wilson by both Sunni and Shi'a Muslim Iraqis as well as some remaining Ottoman officers and Iraqi Kurds ensued. This revolt lasted two years into 1922 forcing the British to find an alternative to their direct administering of Iraq. According to some historians divisions between Sunni and Shi'a became intense in the State of Iraq. They argue that the British appointed the Hashemites who were Sunni without much attention to the intricacies of appointing this minority Muslim group ruling Shia, the ethnic minorities of Kurds, as well as the religious Assyrian Christian minorities. Moreover, the British replaced the Sir Wilson in 1920 with a civil commissioner known as Sir Percy Cox who, according to some historians was responsible for intensifying this Sunni-Shi'a divide by creating a close alliance with the Sunni Muslims of Iraq at the expense of alienating the Shi'aa. In 1958, influenced by the Egyptian Free Officers and Gamal Abd El Nasser of Egypt, Abd el Karim Qasim and Abdul Salam Arif overthrew the British inspired monarchy and executed King Faisal and King Abdullah in public. After a series of revolts, coups the Ba'ath Party took over Iraq in 1966. Some historians argue that such divisions between Sunnia and Shi'a are constructed post-Saddam Hussein because throughout Iraq and over the centuries there were no tensions between Sunni and Shi'a. In fact intermarriage between Sunni and Shi'a was common and even Saddam Hussein himself had Shi'a relatives. Saddam, as brutal as he may have been, ruled a secular government in which Arab ethnicity was considered more important than religious sectarian identities (Ottaway & Yaphe, 2003). The reasons why Iraq may be considered more prone to ethnic violence is that Iraq unlike, Arab countries within the region is that Iraq has a unique ethnic minority Kurdish population vying for their own independence and not prone to accepting living under Arab control. The top-down approach has never worked since the establishment of modern day Iraq 100% and therefore there is a strong and urgent need to consult and consider the needs and desires of all groups while balancing the outside forces divided between Arab Sunni countries and Iran's Shi'ism. This should be a more peaceful solution than seemingly continuing the past historical wrongs. The way in which this is to be achieved remains to be seen. 10. European Hegemony European hegemony or control over the social, political and economic facets of the Middle East inevitably meant some form of consent to this by the colonized. The Ottomans, an Islamic power, had at least been able to manage between the British and French on the one hand and the masses of mostly Muslim Arabs on the other. After the Ottoman Empire fell this cushion was removed and the true intentions of Britain and France in the region became understood via the Sykes-Picot agreement, as well as the Balfour Declaration by Britain led the "the fermenting nationalism which had merely been submerged by martial law came to the surface" (Mansfield & Pelham 1991, p. 175). According to Mansfield & Pelham (1991) the British dominated Egypt for example, led Egyptian Saad El Zaghloul to head one of the first successful anti-Western uprising in Egypt pressuring Britain to finally agree to granting Egypt a hegemonic form of independence in 1922. This meant that Britain only granted Egypt a conditional independence and in fact still expected the Egyptians to agree to Briain's control over the Suez Canal while appointing its foreign advisors. This conditional independence deemed unacceptable by the Wafd party (an opposition group formed in 1919 and allowed by Britain during their colonial rule) and led to increasing opposition from them. Wafdists were active nationalists but not successful enough in articulating an anti-colonial discourse during and after Zaghloul's failed move to rid Egypt of British colonial influence (Mansfield & Pelhan, 1991) Although Egypt and other Arab countries gained independence in the mid 1950s to early 1960s under groups such as the Free Officers in consultation with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt for example, there has never been the sentiment that the leaders that followed were able to do away completely with Western influence and assistance. Whether it be through US aid packages or the forces of globalization's influx of Western culture, political and economic ideologies, the region's Islamic groups seem to be articulating the same arguments and ideals of colonial days and that is, that the Arab Islamic worlds remain subjugated to Western social, political, and economic interests (Chomsky & Achar, 2007). 11. USA The Treaty of Versailles was negotiated after World War I in 1919 with the purpose of ending the State of War between Germany and the Allied Powers. President Wilson outlined a Fourteen Points Program aimed at relinquishing territorial gains for the US while making open secret negotiations made by European parties in various territories such as German colonies in Africa and Ottoman colonies in the Middle East. Agreements such as the Balfour Declaration of 1916 and the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1917 were solidified by the creation of the League of Nations which Wilson had personally called for the establishment of but for which he failed to integrate US involvement into (Lacquer & Rubin, 2001). The territorial regions formerly under control of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East were assigned to members of the League as had been previously agreed to in the aforementioned Declaration and Agreement. According to Judis (1990) the reason for Wilson's push for the establishment of a 'League of Nations' was his hopes that it would curb "the great-power imperialism, which had caused World War I, and set the stage for the laying the groundwork that embraced a disarmed world order in which economic strength -- the U.S.'s strong suit -- would prevail over military strength" (p. 45). 12. Nationalism. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I led to the emergence of various nationalist movements and ideologies the region. The Ottoman Empire had helped manage between the colonial forces of Britain and France on the one hand while providing legitimacy to their colonial rule by occupying a mediating role in power more acceptable to the Islamic world. The fall of the Ottoman Empire therefore made the region more accessible to Britain and France thereby igniting various Arab and Islamic nationalist movements (Hourani, 1991). While some historians claim that the Ottoman Empire has after all, been more acceptable to Arab countries since it was an Islamic colonial power others claim that the Ottoman's became equivalent to the British and French in the eyes of the Arab prior to its collapse (Hourani, 1991). The fall of the Ottoman Empire meant the rise of different nationalism for example Egypt it witnessed both Islamic and Arab nationalisms simultaneously with the allegiance between Free Officers and Muslim Brotherhood members (Lewis, 1993; Gelvin, 2005). Ideology is a term coined and defined by Italian neo-Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1971) who argued that it was the ruling class or dominant groups in society who had the means necessary to articulate political ideas while capitalizing on and incorporating some of the values and ideas of the masses or working class groups within these dominant ideas or ideology and thereby presenting political ideologies or nationalist ideologies as commonsense. Hence a nationalist ideology may or may not be successful in leading to a successful nationalist movement aimed at bringing about change. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire a country such as Turkey found the secular nationalist ideology articulated by Mustafa Kemal as commonsensical. Conversely, in Egypt the feeling of powerlessness after the collapse of the Ottomans, their British style propped up Kings, and the consequent rise of Britain and France in dividing the region under their control led many to embrace Islamic ideologies articulated by Hasan al-Bana and Sayid Qutb as more suitable for their past historical experience (Gelvin, 2005; Lacquer & Rubin, 2001). The Islamic ideologies articulated by these Muslims thinkers found ground among the Free Officers who used elements of such arguments to articulate the Egyptian nationalist movement headed by socialist oriented Gamal Abd El Nasser who with his group were able to help gain Egyptian independence in 1952. Various nationalist ideologies and movements therefore are a product of the historical circumstances and social, political, and economic make up of the said country in question but as the case of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt their Islamic ideology was eventually rejected by the Free Officers on the latter's succession into power in Egypt illustrating that a nationalist ideology like Islamic nationalism may or may not succeed into a successful nationalist movement (Lacquer & Rubin, 2001) 13. Zionism The Zionist movement had been established to create a homeland for a pre-conceptualized notion of the Jewish people that would be secured by international law but that excluded Jews of the Middle East and Africa (Shohat, 1988). Father of Zionism, Theodore Herzl had attempted several times to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine with the agreement of the Ottoman Empire and the German Kaiser (Lacquer & Rubin, 2001; Khater, 2004). According to Khater (2004) one of the most important pieces of corrsespondence in Zionism's early days was that between Mc-Mahon-Husayn ibn Al-Sharif of Mecca over the specifics of the Balfour Declaration founded by British Lord Balfour in 1917. The resentment arose among indigenous Palestinians because although the Balfour Declaration in writing promised a homeland to the Jewish people, and also promised that this would be done without prejudicing the rights of people existing there, there remained strong disinformation as to what lands were Arab and what were Zionist mainly due to the lack of maps outlining the disputed areas and the divisions. Khater (2004) notes how this was earlier complicated by the Sykes Picot agreement where Britain and France further noting the coming demise of the Ottoman Empire divided the Arab region amongst themselves in secret agreement in 1916 with the assent of Russia. By 1948, the year in which Israel became a state nearly a million Palestinians were forced out, they endured the destruction of towns and villages. Moreover there is an active prevention of their return often deemed a "non-starter" for negotiations with Israel (Chomsky & Achcar, 2007). In hindsight, it is arguable whether a compromise may have been possible given the historical facts of outside colonial powers working a top-down, imperial-colonized approach, however, had the Zionists and British worked with the indigenous Jews, Christian and Muslim people of the region, and included their narratives within their plans perhaps a more peaceful compromise may have been reached (Shohat, 1988). 14. Palestinians The Palestinian right to self-determination is considered a basic human right as guaranteed by Article 1 of the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights however the historical complexities brought about by the Zionist need for a homeland as well as the resulting poor division of the land without consultation of the indigenous Jews, Christians and Muslims of the region has led to a stalemate in Palestinian self-determination (Shohat, 1988). Moreover, ongoing Israeli occupation/colonization of Palestine has inevitably led to resistance often called "terrorist movements" by North American and Israel mainstream media and governments alike. Within the US, the powerful influence of Evangelical Christian interpretations of the Holy Land further complicates matters (Gorenberg, 2000). These factors serve to continually inflame sensitivities within the entire Arab Middle East and non-Arab Islamic countries. Self-determination should not have been simply 'accommodated' but rather affirmed and legislatively reinforced as a basic human right from the onset of the establishment of Israel state in 1948 and in declarations such as the Balfour. This might have been done, previously if a indigenous Jewish, Christians, and Muslims of the region and all members of the international community in the United Nations (previously the League of Nations) had equal say in the future of the region instead of leaving the region's future to the desires of a handful of Jewish Zionist leaders not in anyway representative of all Jews and British colonial leaders also not representative of all British (Shohat, 1988). As long as the Occupation of Palestinian lands continue, with US vetoing any and all resolutions against Israel it is unlikely that Palestinian self-determination can be realized. 15. Israel Israel is often considered a "child" of the United Nations since the idea of Israel as a country, was founded by Theodore Herzl, later declared by the Balfour Declaration in 1916 and then finally re-confirmed by the UN's resolution 181 of 1947 (post-Holocaust) otherwise known as the Palestine Partition Plan (pre-Holocaust). This UN resolution recommended the creation from all of the lands of Mandatory Palestine west of the Jordan River, representing 22% of original Mandatory Palestine, a Jewish state arising originally from the Council of the League of Nations that legitimized the Lord Balfour's Declaration in 1917 and that was issued by the British government (Lacquer & Rubin, 2001). Many critical historians and scholars believe that the UN asserted and re-affirmed the original Mandate arising out of the Balfour Declaration due to their guilt over the atrocities committed against the Jewish people of Europe during World War II leading to their Diaspora and large scale emigration to Israel between 1922 - 1947 to Israel. The implications for the region today have been too numerous to list here, however in summary, the Palestinian and Arab-Islamic worlds have by and large, continue to have difficulty living peaceably with a country they believe to have been created by colonial forces of Britain and later supported by the US in numerous resolutions at the UN (Chomsky & Achcar, 2007; Gelvin, 2005). Moreover, Christian evangelicals within the US often believe Israel to be central to the 'End of Times' and hence Arabs and Muslims have been portrayed in oversimplified explanations within American mainstream media and religious Evangelical institutions as the enemy or demonic forces hell-bent on the destruction of Israel State (Gorenberg, 2000). Without a clear explanation of the historical facts the likelihood that tensions between the two Israel, Palestine, and the Arab Islamic and non-Islamic world will continue if not grow. References Chomsky, N., and Achchar, G. (2007). Perilous power: The middle east and U.S. foreign policy. Dialogues on terror, democracy, war and justice. Boulder: Birkenkamp & Company, LLC. Furedi, F. (1998). The silent war: Imperialism and the changing perception of race. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Gelvin, J. (2005). The modern middle east: a history. New York: Oxford University Press. Gorenberg, G. (2000). The end of days: Fundamentalism and the struggle for the temple mount. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International Publishers. Henderson, W. (1948). German economic penetration in the middle east, 1870-1914. The economic history review, 18, (1/2), pp. 54-64. Huntington, S. (1996). Political order in changing societies: The Henry L. Stimson lectures series. Fredricksburg: Yale University. Hourani, A. (1991). History of the Arab peoples. New York: Warner Books. Judis, J., (1990, November 20). George Bush meet Woodrow Wilson. New York Times. (New York, NY). Retrieved October 21, 2008 from New York Times online. Khater, A.F. (2004). Sources in the history of the modern middle east. New York: Houghton-Miffin. Klein, N. (2002). Fences and windows: Dispatches from the globalization debate. Toronto: Vintage Canada. Kymlica, W., (1999) Misunderstanding nationalism. In R. Beiner (Ed.), Theorizing nationalism (pp. 131-140). Albany: State University of New York Press Lacquer, W. and Rubin, B., eds. (2001). The Israel-Arab reader: A documentary history of the Middle East conflict. Toronto: Penguin. Lewis, B. (1993). The Arabs in history. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mansfield, P. and Pelham, N. (1991). A history of the Middle East. London: Penguin Group. McMurray, J. (2001). Distant ties: Germany, the Ottoman empire and the construction of the Baghdad railway. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Company. Meyer, H. (1951). German economic relations with southeastern Europe: 1870-1914. American Historical Review, 57, (1), pp. 77-90. Oktem, K. (2003). Creating the Turk's homeland: Modernization, nationalism, and geography in southeast Turkey in the late 19th and 20th Centuries. Socrates Kokkalis Graduate Workshop Procedings. Oxford: University of Oxford Rojas, R. (1996). Modernization theory and the laws of change. Retrieved on Ocrober 20, 2008, http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/capital8.htm. Shaw, S., and Shaw, E., (1977). History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey. : Reform, Revolution, and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey 1808-1975. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shohat, E. (Autumn, 1988). Sephardim in Israel: Zionism from the point of its Jewish victims. Social text, (19/20), pp. 1-35. Read More