As silly as it sounds the policing of fashion and religious battles over appearances are still active across all of Europe.
Peter the Great’s Beard Tax
131–137 of 137 posts
Re: Peter the Great’s Beard Tax
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was an extremely active ruler. Founded the Russian navy, founded St. Petersburg. He was indeed also very interested in all kinds of science and technology and tried to import these to Russia. https://www.amazon.com/Peter-Great-Robert-K-Massie-audiobook... On the other hand, it seems that all the monarchs of this time basically treated their land as their inherited, God-given wealth. So in that respect, Peter and p…
There were still some substantial differences between Russian take on monarchy, and what was common in Western Europe at the time. While European monarchs claimed divine right to rule, the concept of subjects' rights was already developed by then, and not just in England; rulers required some legitimate justification for the more drastic actions. In Russia, in contrast, literally every person in the country was deeme…
Yes, it's a contrast between Russian and Western monarchy that is commonly emphasized. It's a true difference.
But also no: learning more about this age made me realize that pre-Napoleonic Western Europe was even less liberal than I had expected. It is hard to learn about this age and not feel that policy was set entirely by and for the benefit of a small clique that held the levers of power.
Certainly some Western monarchies had more liberal pretensions than others. England of course is the prototypical example, and probably was the most liberal in practice. But it was a pretty big outlier amongst Western monarchies.
Learning more about Charles XII (Sweden), Augustus II (Saxony and Poland), Louis XIV (France): which one of these considered the suffering of the common people when they embarked on their wars of conquest and personal aggrandizement? Consider also how readily nobles traded realms when a larger or more prosperous fief came along. It's hard not conclude that these rulers treated their states as nothing more than inherited estates, to use and dispose of as they wished.
Comparing France, Spain, Austria to Peter's Russia: how much more liberal were these Western states?
Re: Peter the Great’s Beard Tax
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were still some substantial differences between Russian take on monarchy, and what was common in Western Europe at the time. While European monarchs claimed divine right to rule, the concept of subjects' rights was already developed by then, and not just in England; rulers required some legitimate justification for the more drastic actions. In Russia, in contrast, literally every person in the country was deeme…
Yes, it's a contrast between Russian and Western monarchy that is commonly emphasized. It's a true difference. But also no: learning more about this age made me realize that pre-Napoleonic Western Europe was even less liberal than I had expected. It is hard to learn about this age and not feel that policy was set entirely by and for the benefit of a small clique that held the levers of power. Certainly some Western m…
Oh, I'm not saying that it was liberal in the modern sense of the word. And yes, most of those subjects' rights that I'm talking about pertained mostly to the nobles and the educated classes - that was the big difference between Russia and, say, Austria, not so much the difference in the day to day lives of peasants (although wrt the latter, the difference is that things were actually getting worse in Russia at the time, as serfdom - already some of the harshest in Europe - became more and more like full-fledged chattel slavery; but that problem would peak later, not under Peter).
But the important thing that this did was to establish the concept of the rights of the subjects vis a vis their rulers, and the requirement for the latter to maintain the legitimacy of their rule. When liberal thought emerged much later, it built on those concepts, extending them to larger segments of the population. In Russia, this happened as well eventually, but much slower.
Re: Peter the Great’s Beard Tax
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. We just exterminated countless indigenuous peoples/nations and stole their land. Not to mention stealing resources/capital from china, india, middle east, africa, etc plunging much of the world into unimaginable poverty from which many still haven't recovered. Nothing as terrible as the gulags...
The West created the modern world and lifted billions out of poverty.
We didn't lift anyone out of poverty. Stop with the lies.
After hundreds of years of european colonization, half of africa still has no electricity.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/11/13/more-tha...
The poorest people in america, australia, etc are the indigenuous people.
Most of india, after 200+ years of colonization is mired in poverty.
https://www.soschildrensvillages.ca/news/poverty-in-india-60...
And "the West" didn't create the modern world. The "modern world" doesn't exist without india, china, africa, etc.
Re: Peter the Great’s Beard Tax
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A country choosing to adopt the ways of another is only evil if it is forced upon them by outsiders. You are ignoring the fact that the ottoman empire had been invaded by european powers for hundreds of years and ultimately destroyed by european powers. And that european powers were threatening to destroy Turkey completely unless the turks "bent the knee". You are painting a rather biased picture of what the "leade…
> And that european powers were threatening to destroy Turkey completely unless the turks "bent the knee". ... > Neither Ataturk nor Turkey was in a position to take their country wherever they wanted. They were essentially a vanquished nation and pretty much had no choice but to do as the europeans powers ( and later on america ) told them to. This is not an accurate reading of history. Turkey had, in fact, been des…
> This is not an accurate reading of history.
Is there such a thing as an "accurate reading of history"? I posit it's impossible.
> Turkey had, in fact, been destroyed at the end of the First World War.
No. The ottoman empire essentially was.
> So rather than being the Western puppet you portray him as, Atatürk was quite aggressive in defending the sovereignty of the new nation in a way that very early on led to military conflict with Western powers, conflicts which he won.
Ah yes, the turks "beat" the british empire, french "empire", the US, etc combined. Does that make any sense to you?
Ataturk did what "the West" wanted. He ended the ottoman caliphate and created the modern turkish republic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_the_Caliphate
The West offered the turks two choices. Create a turkish republic and thereby ending the ottoman empire. Or enduring the destruction of the Ottoman Empire AND the turkish nation. The turkish elites "chose" the former rather than facing complete annihilation. And turkey has been a vassal of the West ever since. Not that they had any choice in the matter, no more than japan or germany had a choice in the matter.
There is an "accurate reading of history" and deciphering what is really happening. Europe had been wanting the ottoman empire destroyed for hundreds of years. Ataturk gave them what they wanted.
To think that ataturk or the turks decided the matter rather than the US, Britain, France, etc combined is rather naive. Do you really think the turks wanted to go from being the leaders of one of the greatest and wealthiest empires to a middling nation begging for acceptance at europe's doorstep? I don't think so. But the power dynamics being what they were, it is what happened.
Re: Peter the Great’s Beard Tax
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And that european powers were threatening to destroy Turkey completely unless the turks "bent the knee". ... > Neither Ataturk nor Turkey was in a position to take their country wherever they wanted. They were essentially a vanquished nation and pretty much had no choice but to do as the europeans powers ( and later on america ) told them to. This is not an accurate reading of history. Turkey had, in fact, been des…
> This is not an accurate reading of history. Is there such a thing as an "accurate reading of history"? I posit it's impossible. > Turkey had, in fact, been destroyed at the end of the First World War. No. The ottoman empire essentially was. > So rather than being the Western puppet you portray him as, Atatürk was quite aggressive in defending the sovereignty of the new nation in a way that very early on led to mili…
> Is there such a thing as an "accurate reading of history"?
There are certainly worse ones.
> No. The ottoman empire essentially was.
The point of that turn of phrase was that the Turkey was born already with a significant amount of its territory ceded and under occupation. This territory was not given up back to the Turks willingly.
> Ah yes, the turks "beat" the british empire, french "empire", the US, etc combined. Does that make any sense to you?
Yes? That was what the Turkish war of independence was about. US involvement in this war was fairly limited at any rate. And as a matter of fact, the British, French, and Greeks fought on the side of the Ottomans in the war - almost as if the Ottomans were the Western 'vassals' here. You think the West really wanted to give up a compliant government which had already proven itself to bend to their demands for another which had proven itself strong enough to retake the land which had been ceded to the West?
> Europe had been wanting the ottoman empire destroyed for hundreds of years.
Europe had been wanting the empire's land for centuries, something the post-war Ottoman government was all too willing to cede.
> Do you really think the turks wanted to go from being the leaders of one of the greatest and wealthiest empires to a middling nation begging for acceptance at europe's doorstep?
This is extremely anachronistic. The Ottoman Empire had not been great or wealthy for the better part of a century, having been known as the Sick Man of Europe for the better part of a century prior to its collapse.
In light of the Ottomans' capitulation to Allied demands, of course the Turks had little desire to continue the monarchy. Why would they? It had not only lost the war, considerable amounts of territory, and the city of Constantinople, but the imperial government itself stood in the way of trying to retake any lost territory. Popular support was therefore on Atatürk's side, not the monarchy's; if it hadn't been, his revolution would have been impossible.
Re: Peter the Great’s Beard Tax
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is not an accurate reading of history. Is there such a thing as an "accurate reading of history"? I posit it's impossible. > Turkey had, in fact, been destroyed at the end of the First World War. No. The ottoman empire essentially was. > So rather than being the Western puppet you portray him as, Atatürk was quite aggressive in defending the sovereignty of the new nation in a way that very early on led to mili…
> Is there such a thing as an "accurate reading of history"? There are certainly worse ones. > No. The ottoman empire essentially was. The point of that turn of phrase was that the Turkey was born already with a significant amount of its territory ceded and under occupation. This territory was not given up back to the Turks willingly. > Ah yes, the turks "beat" the british empire, french "empire", the US, etc combine…
> There are certainly worse ones.
Agreed.
> Yes? That was what the Turkish war of independence was about.
The turkish war of independence was merely a face saving way of the west letting ataturk end the ottoman empire. It's fairly obvious if you look at it in the context of what the west wanted.
> And as a matter of fact, the British, French, and Greeks fought on the side of the Ottomans in the war - almost as if the Ottomans were the Western 'vassals' here.
Or we didn't want it to fall in the hands of the russians, etc.
> You think the West really wanted to give up a compliant government which had already proven itself to bend to their demands for another which had proven itself strong enough to retake the land which had been ceded to the West?
Yes because the goal was the end of the ottoman empire, which the ottoman government steadfastly refused to do so.
> The Ottoman Empire had not been great or wealthy for the better part of a century, having been known as the Sick Man of Europe for the better part of a century prior to its collapse.
It was great and wealthy enough to fend off any single european empire. It just wasn't able to fight everyone ( the british, french, US, russians, etc ) and deal with the european funded separatist movements in greece, balkans, arabia, palestine, etc. For a sick man of "europe", the ottomans did well to survive a collective assault by the greatest powers in the world at the time. But wasn't that the problem? This sick man refused to die so the west had to find someone who'd put this sick man out of his misery. But who would be able to do such a thing? A "war hero" perhaps?
> Popular support was therefore on Atatürk's side, not the monarchy's; if it hadn't been, his revolution would have been impossible.
No revolution has ever been won with popular support. All revolutions are revolutions of the elites. Ataturk and his elite backers ( which most likely included the west ) won over the pro-ottoman elites. Simple as that. And history is written to spin it as a "popular" victory. This applies to the american, french, russian, chinese, etc revolutions. None of them had popular support. Most of the people were either ambivalent or opposed to these revolutions.
As I stated, the goal of the west was the end of the ottoman empire. The ottoman government refused while ataturk acquiesced. Ataturk's reforms feel like they were written by the west rather than a turk. At the end of the day, europe wanted the sick man dead and Ataturk killed the sick man. The only question is whether ataturk collaborated with the west to kill the sick man or not. If you aren't blinded by nationalism or "history", it's fairly obvious ataturk was a "hired gun".