Hacker News Reader

True that in Turkey very little amount of women wears clothing that veils the face, but you are over reacting. Previous commenter just count two potential ways of avoiding ATM surveillance.

They're probably Saudi or Gulf Arab tourists and not Turkish. At least, that was my experience when I have been to Turkey the last time and I'm from the region, I have an easy job identifying people's background from their accent, form and attire than outsiders.

There are some small religious groups that uses a face veiling clothing called "çarşaf". This was also historically used in Ottoman era. this setimes covers below nose, sometimes shows the face. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87ar%C5%9Faf Usage seems like .01 to 2 percent of women.

I checked the pics on Google Images, they're virtually taken recently with nothing dating back to the Ottoman period to validate this claim. All look like black Arabian abayas and burkas and it's difficult to imagine that çarşafs and abayas are identical like that.

Fun fact, "çarşaf" or more accurately "şarşaf" in Egyptian Arabic means table clothes or bed clothes. It's amazing words and consequently languages evolve and take on meanings over time.

Çarşaf has the meaning of table cloth in current Turkish as well.

I was gonna post the same pedantry as m00dy---there's a difference between a Burka and a head scarf. I guess it's just a bit of a trigger topic.

There's no need to immediately jump to conclusions about "black propaganda". The head scarf/burka definition was probably an honest mistake. And the relation to robbery is a fairly logical followup to ghshephard's comment about Japan's masks helping robbery. The point is that Japan isn't the only country where people regularly wear things on their face.

If you are unhappy with Turkey getting a bad rep internationally then maybe take it up with Erodgan. He is not doing your country any favors with all the sectarian/dictatorial/communal BS

*Hey this is a Muslim guy and you just wrote something wrong there

You realize you just did the exact same thing between wearing Burkas in Turkey and Islam / Religion?

You are not in that position to conclude that opinion. Head scarves & Burka's go beyond 'identity' as you just trivialized them to.

You used your comment to get across your 'subliminal message' just as much as the commenter you accused of doing did.

"human-made arabic culture"

Just a nitpick, but every culture is man-made.

A headscarf obscures the face, not unlike a surgical mask. What exactly are you correcting the record on?

I don't think you know what a headscarf is.

Pop quiz: can you identify this person? http://i.imgur.com/WBqCCv1.jpg

Google image search indicates it's someone named "Audrey Hepburn".

Wow, the coloration doesn't help. I would have given myself about 40% odds of successfully identifying Audrey Hepburn; I can't do it at all when she's washed purple.

Really?

http://www.modernhejab.com/hijab/turkish-hijab

> I hope that one day people in Turkey will break their chains and get rid of that human-made arabic culture.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Turkish people manage to get rid of the Arabian deity (Mohammad's god) they embraced a millennia ago, it would be an uphill battle for them against history because whether you like it or not, the most bright spots in history for Turkish people were during the reign of Seljuks and Ottomans, neither would have happened hadn't for the Islamic doctrine and faith.

You could argue of course that Turkey founded by Ataturk was still something impressive and to look up to but it still pales in comparison with what had been achieved during these two eras at least from an imperialistic and militaristic points of view.

That's why I think it wouldn't be easy for Turkey to break free from the negative Arabian influence and Sahara culture even if they renounce Islam altogether when compared to other countries in the region with more diverse and rich history spanning various civilizations and glorious times, and therefore they should focus more on how to reconcile with their past and history and not just get in state of denial about it.

What you said would also apply to, say, the British Empire, which was very Christian for its entire existence.

Most people don't really care about the details of history that much - just whatever narrative they can spin that satisfies today's needs.

Did the British force people to convert to Christianity for them to enjoy the benefits of being subjects of the monarchy?

The British Empire was vast and I can't come up with a definite answer for all the areas that were colonized by them but in my country "Egypt", they didn't do that. They however facilitated the work of western missionaries but it didn't achieve much with the Muslim locals and probably contributed to the outrage of Coptic clergy as these missionaries were snatching people from their congregation. Other than that, the British didn't really care about religion and their social order was constructed on race/class first basis and anything else second while for the Ottomans it was all about religion first and anything else second.

Did the British force people to convert to Christianity for them to enjoy the benefits of being subjects of the monarchy?

How far back in history do you want to go? Plenty of battles within Christianity in British history. E.g. King Henry VIII didn't accept the authority of the pope and led the Church of England away from the Roman Catholic Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England#Separation_f...

A few generations later, things got pretty dicey for the remaining Catholics:

   England’s Elizabethan Catholics were public
   enemy number one. Their Masses were banned
   and their priests were executed.

http://www.historyextra.com/article/elizabeth-i/elizabeth-i%...

Did the British persecute Catholics when they were in an imperialist/expansionist mode around the world?

To the best of my knowledge, that didn't happen. The British Empire in its quests wasn't concerned about anti-Catholicism and disdain for the authority of the Pope, it was primarily driven by political/financial gains. On the other hand, for the Ottoman Turks it was all about Jihad and the subjugation of non-Muslims in newly conquered territories. The persecution and discrimination against non-Muslims for the subjects of their realm was one of the founding principles of taheir rule and public policy.

When did the Ottoman Turks become Muslim?

From the Saljuk period. Is this a history quiz :)?

Oh, I just couldn't recall when it happened, but it seemed obviously important when comparing to Christianity and the British Empire.

As a Canadian, yes they did. Look at our history and how the British tried to assimilate the Canadiens.

That's not to mention that forcing Christianity on conquered subjects was one of the main goals of the British Empire.

I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis. Or that of others here.

My point is that it's irrelevant in terms of how history affects peoples' actions. You're engaging a detailed study of historical reality, but the masses don't do that. They have a narrative spun for them - generally no more than two or three sentences of complexity, max - and that's what matters.

Thanks for correcting the poster. The US traditionally was very isolationist. After world war one we became more involved in international affairs, and dominant after ww2. We're in an odd time. in the mid 20th century lots and lots of americans had been around the world, because of the wars. But those generations have almost died off. Very few americans have first hand experience with other cultures. I think the general population avoids thinking about other cultures.

Please don't take it personally. It's ignorance. Perceptions are built around these weird media effects from the news. Treat us like puppies or children. it's not malice, we just don't know any better.

Speak for yourself.

The Turkish man you replied to wanted to correct an inaccurate stereotype about Turkish culture. Your comment perpetuates the stereotype that Americans are uneducated on global affairs. This may be true for some, but saying that all Americans should be treated like "puppies" because they "don't know any better" is a huge insult.

As an American myself, I would consider it fair to say that Americans are relatively uneducated on global affairs. Do you have some data suggesting otherwise?

Also, I think you've confused a general with a universal. I don't think he was saying that "all Americans" don't know better, just that when confronted with dumb statements it's better to presume ignorance than malice.

As an example, National Geographic did a survey in 2002, and young Americans came in second to last:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_...

"About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean's location was a mystery to 29 percent; Japan, to 58 percent; France, to 65 percent; and the United Kingdom, to 69 percent."

On the one hand, I find this a bit appalling. On the other, I can't totally blame people; America is big enough and far enough from everything else that relatively few Americans ever leave the country, and those who do mostly stay on the continent. So I don't see a "assume ignorance, not malice" posture as an insult; it's mostly what I do myself.

Although he may have simple meant "presume ignorance, not malice," the wording used was very derogatory.

I do not doubt that Americans on average are less educated on international affairs than other Western countries. But arguing that a factually incorrect comment about Turkish headwear on HN (by a user of unknown nationality) is a result of broader "American ignorance" is meaningless.

Furthermore, I believe m00dy's response was accurate and fair. If he viewed every incorrect comment about Turkish culture as written by an American "puppy," I doubt he would have commented, and no one would have learned anything.

> Although he may have simple meant "presume ignorance, not malice," the wording used was very derogatory.

Indeed it was. after a few hours i realize i came off as a jerk. My apologies to you and anyone else i may have offended.

No problem; I think the issue was just wording.

>About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map.

This seems particularly bizarre, because even if someone hasn't learned world geography, surely they've seen a map of the US in various contexts, and can recognise its shape?

That would be fun to research, but my guess: if you showed them the shape of various countries, more people could pick out the right shape. But that shape cuts off Canada and Mexico in ways that are essentially arbitrary, so if they're keying on those edges, or on the grid-of-states shapes, they could still struggle with a satellite photo.

My guess is that this number would be significantly better today because people interact a lot more with world maps when they accidentally zoom out on, e.g., Google Maps pages.

>The US traditionally was very isolationist. After world war one we became more involved in international affairs, and dominant after ww2.

Except not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United...

The US traditionally has a big chunk of the electorate that's very isolationist minded. And with that come quite a few politicians pandering to that----at least rhethorically.

For the record: I'm not American :-)