"karapanomanolokopoulos" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >OK, so if you saw the claim that 80 percent of Turkish is no more and
> that
> >it has been wiped off the Turkish language since 1920, and you believe
> this,
> >then who am I to try and convince you that this is a grossly
> exaggerated
> >claim?
> >The earth is flat, after all, isn't it and the sun rotates around the
> earth?

> Are you saying that ataturk.com is lying? As far as I can tell they are
> Turks.

I don't think their figures really tally with reality. As I said before, do
not take anything either printed or keyed in as gospel truth. Otherwise, we
must believe that the earth is hundreds of million years old while at the
same time it is only 6,000 years old. And we know that both assumptions
cannot be true yet both figures are in print as well as appearing on web
pages.

>
> >OK you say that I rely too much on the origin of words used in naming
> these
> >dishes. But of course I am. How else would all these Turkish words
> come to
> >be used in naming the variants of these dishes?

> Yes, but there are two problems with this:
> First, Greeks spoke some Turkish during the occupation to get around.
> It is entirely possible these "Turkish" names are corrupted Greek
> words, like Ismir, Ispanak, Instanbul etc.
> If these dishes were Turkish in their present form, you'd find them
> everywhere Turanics live, and that's not the case.

But while I agree with you re Smyrna/Izmir, Eis-thn-Poli/Istanbul and
possibly re Ispanak, you will find that the dishes we were talking about do
exist in other Turkic regions. But your reasoning that basic Turkish root
words could be corrupted are completely groundless.

>
> >True, we are all humans and we are all brothers. Also true that ethnic
>
> >divisions can eventually lead to conflicts. That's why we have to
> >concentrate on what unites us rather than what divides us. It is not
> only
> >ethnic divisions that can lead to conflicts.


> That sounds fine in a hippie kinda way until Muslim girls decide they
> want to wear a headscarf in a French school..... then you'll have
> conflict and it's only the beginning.
> Look, the world is full of cultural conflicts. It's fortunate that it's
> not always armed conflict, but certain cultures prevail and others
> disappear. You can find hardly anything of the Japanese culture
> remaining in Japan today. The Chinese are even more ferocious in
> adopting western ways. The west is really pushing hard its way of life
> to the Middle East today, and the response is mixed.

Western customs and traditions are certainly becoming the accepted norm all
over the world. I see nothing wrong with that so long as what is best in
Western customs are adopted. What you are forgetting though is that there is
also growing appreciation of far eastern ideologies in the west. What
eventually happens is that you tend to get a fusion of the two traditions. I
am all for this type of give and take. However, I believe you are a bit
mistaken in how "ferociously" the Japs and Chinese are adopting western
cultural traditions. In fact the rate of success of Indian, Chinese,
Japanese, Korean and other far eastern children in the western world is due
solely to their adherence to their own traditional family values and respect
for their elders. The average working class families in the UK could learn
something from some Asian and far eastern immigrants.

>
> >What about religious divisions?
> >The sectarian wars in Europe come to mind here. What about tribal and
> racial
> >divisions?

> Most of the time economics are the root cause. You don't see the US
> bombing the Saudis..... do you? Neither do you see documentaries about
> how prisoners are mistreated in Saudi Arabia nor there no big outcry
> about human rights in that kingdom.

Yes, you are perfectly right that most of the time economics are the root
cause of wars. Propaganda is naturally geared to economic interests. The
reasons given for going to war are always excuses rather than true reasons.

>
> >Europe is to this day very much a racist society despite or maybe
> >because of long, long wars between European antagonists that
> culminated in
> >WW1 and WW2 and which didn't really come to an end as WW2 was soon
> followed
> >by the Cold War which itself is not quite over yet.

> Well, the term racist has been thrown around so much, I really don't
> even know what it means anymore. Racist this racist that...blah blah
> blah. You have many different dynamics in European politics and saying
> they are racist would be trivializing it.

Racism is a manifestation of other fears again based mostly on economic
interests.

>
> Wars in Europe too were primarily caused due to economics. England and
> France fought bitterly over and over, but now they don't care for that,
> mostly because they have a pretty good living. You're much less likely
> to be a militant if you've got a lot to lose. If you got nothing to
> lose on the other hand..... you get my gist.

> Anyway, it's a complex issue.....but if you and some other Turks here
> think Europe is racist, why does your govt try so hard to get admitted
> to the EU? It seems masochistic to me.

The reason for the establishment of the common market were again economic in
nature plus the realisation of the sheer folly of going to wars for economic
reasons. The so called idealism of a united Europe is just plain common
sense which comes from the realisation that working together is far more
conducive to rising standards of living for all concerned as opposed to
going to war over markets. Turkey's reasons for accessing the EU are
naturally the same plus the desire to link Turkey's future to the future of
a united Europe. Racism is fundamentally the mind-set of a certain sections
of society fearful of their economic interests plus fear of the unknown,
fear of those seen as not being "one of us."