Hacker News Reader

Comment by handwarmers | Hacker News Reader

"At the beginning" there was a war that the Ottomans won. Then, at that very beginning, all of their non-muslim subjects were given the status of rum millet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum_Millet) - second class citizens with very limited rights, who were also, from the beginning, subject to Devshirme, or blood tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme). I am sure there is a lot more of the beginning I am missing.

The point is, those were cruel times in most of the world - today we are relatively better off. However, I think we need to acknowledge the cruelty of the past to avoid it in the future. Rewriting history to make ourselves feel better is likely not the solution.

View on HN

Yes, and that at the time still was centuries ahead from what had been happening in the rest of the world like forcing polytheists to become Christians, regarding religions like Judaism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_antisemitism) or Christian sects like Bogomils (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bogomils), Cathars (https://www.thecollector.com/cathars-persecution-of-christia...) as "heretics", calling polytheists "pagans", "witches" and executing anyone who isn't "proper Christian" or forcing them to convert.

In contrast, non-Muslim religions in Ottoman Empire had a right to have their own judicial system. They were exempt from laws of sharia. They were free to practice their religion. They were exempt from military conscription. That was way beyond the norms of the era. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_Ottoman_Em...)

I'm not trying to whitewash Ottoman Empire, I'm just stating the facts. The fact is that Ottoman Empire was relatively progressive at the beginning compared to oppression-ridden Byzantine/Roman rule in their decline at the time. Ottoman Empire itself had also succumbed to the same decline and increased oppression over the centuries of course. "Ottoman bad" is just a unconstructive simplistic perspective and fails too short to understand its centuries old reign.

Yes, what'd been done to Armenians was a crime of humanity, but you can't have these as black & white. We're talking about a centuries of different rulers, philosophies, understanding of ethics and morals, and sociopolitical conditions.

Do we need to bring up native Americans and slavery whenever we need to praise how progressive US constitution was? As a matter of fact, even during its decline, Ottoman Empire managed to become the one of the first countries in the history to decriminalize homosexuality.

I think it's more helpful to recognize and understand the nuances of history.

My point was not to single out the Ottomans as the only bad actors in the historic context - that's what I meant by those times were cruel. The west was still shaking off the last few years of the dark ages when the Ottomans established their presence in Europe, and those times were nothing to be proud of. Even so, all empires' histories are written in blood. Even the more progressive ones - from the wiki article you posted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_Ottoman_Em...) :

"For strategic reasons, the Ottomans forcibly converted Christians living in the frontier regions of Macedonia and northern Bulgaria, particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries. Those who refused were either executed or burned alive."

I agree with you about the nuances of history. I also have a gut reaction every time I see a discussion about the "glory of XYZ" empire. I like the art, architecture etc, but those came at a cost, and I think most are quick to hush hush it as a strategic necessity - the history of the USA included.

> still was centuries ahead from what had been happening

I don’t think that’s the right attitude to take, history is not necessarily “linear” all the time.

e.g. there was a period during the Reconquista when Jews and moderate Muslims were fleeing to the Christian kingdoms in the North after a radical Muslim sect from North Africa invaded Iberia to help “protect” the local Muslim population.

After the reconquista was over the Spanish suddenly (well not exactly but almost) decided that they are not into religious tolerance anymore…

The Byzantine empire was really into heavily oppressing religious minorities initially (both other Christian sects and especially Jews and Samaritans, the latter were almost eradicated..).

However by the 1000s the Empire was probably one of the nicer places to be a Jew in (and Christian minority sects were mostly left to their own).

Then the crusades happened…

Then the restored empire under Palaiologoi dynasty again became relatively very tolerant towards religious minorities by the standards of the time.

> oppression-ridden Byzantine/Roman rule in their decline at the time

Citation needed. The late Roman Empire (after ~900s AD) was generally one of the most progressive and tolerant states in Europe (outside of some relatively brief periods)

> Armenians was a crime of humanity, but you can't have these as black & white.

In this specific case you undoubtedly can. There shouldn’t be any question whatsoever

> managed to become the one of the first countries in the history to decriminalize homosexuality.

Which is commendable but they were still preceded by about 10-15 European or Latin American states.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com