/edu/ - Education

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/armenian_genocide

Read this

Reminder this is what Erdogan and his ilk believes.

Context - Abdul Hamid II ruled till 1908 and died in 1918. The clip implies that he apparently knew the freemason plot to do ww2, raising fascist and nazis to power to have them defeated by Commies and then have commies defeated to start a ww3 so atheists can take over. He knew all of this even before ww1 happened.

>>8457
Conspiracy theories against Jews and Freemasons are huge in Turkey.

>>8455
>>8456
Thanks for the links. I was wondering if there was any marxist historiography on Ottomans like Rome and USA has.
>>8458
Can you shed light on how history is taught and perceived both in Kemalist rule and current regime, beside the denial of armenian genocide?

>>8459
I can't answer your question specifically, but in the Muslim World there's a very strong cultural aspect of honor vs. shame. Having your weaknesses exposed is a huge source of shame, so when a Muslim (usually a man) is dealt a blow he can't control he will always resort to putting the blame for his weakness on some external factor.

So for instance if a Muslim empire like the Ottomans fail, moose will claim it was entirely due to some evil men-behind-the-curtain rather than the internal contradictions within the empire's political and economic system.

>>8457
Hey isn't it from that show whose clip about Prophet coming to dream went viral?

On a related note in recent years it seems the Turkish State has managed to flex soft power across the Muslim world. I have observed that south Asian Muslims not only watch these shows such as Ertugrul (Turkish version of Viking series tbf) but also think that Erdogan is a great leader worthy of becoming a Khalifa.

>>8461
Erdogan is competing with the Saudis and the Qataris to be the de facto leader of the Sunni world. After the Iranian Revolution it was pretty much inevitable that Sunnis would desire a theocratic state of their own to balance the power/influence.

>>8461
South Asian Muslims have this weird inferiority complex whereby they desperately want to be Arabs or Turks. Pakistanis care more about Palestine than other Arabs, for instance.

>>8460
Absolute horseshit. This is the same level of banal analysis that Americans have where they explain Imperial Japan by relating everything to the "Samurai Code"

>>8463
>caring about Palestine is an inferiority complex
>>8462
>Turkey is a theocracy

My God, this website fucking sucks whenever it comes to topics outside of your cracker anglosphere.

>>8465
It's more that Pakistanis and other South Asian Muslims feel the need to "prove" they're "more Arab than the Arabs" in order to get validation as Muslims.

>>8466
Arab =/= Muslim; get it through your thick skull

>>8467
It's not unusual to see non-Arab Muslims thinking they get more "Muslim cred" by imitating Arab culture and taking up Arab issues as their own. A lot of this is due to Saudi and Qatari influence.

>>8468
You are right that some LARP but I wouldn't exaggerate

I agree with >>8464, this >>8460 is something that is not exclusive to one group or culture. It applies to any reactionary. Just look at any conspiracy spewing American.

>>8471
It's not Milicija Monday yet.

>>8455
>reducing a 500 year old empire to its worst moment
Just /leftypol/ tings

>>8466
>>8463
>>8462
this is just plain orientalism
Notice how none of these statements mention class

>>8476
There is a class reason for that and we must need to take a look at the history of development of nationalism, colonial reaction and suppresion during the Raj. Disclaimer - much of what I am going to say is based on lectures I have seen of Dr Salimullah Khan of Bangladesh and Dr Taimur Rahman of Pakistan thus I might be wrong on many aspects and leave out lots of stuff so bear with me.

First we need to know how modern bourgeoise and petit-bourgeoise developed in South Asia. First were the landed gentry - the landlords who collected taxes on behalf of the british. Then we have the "Salariyat" - the salaried class that emerged from the Indian Civil Service and bureaucracy that the Raj utilized to run the country, Royal Indian army and navy, the mercantile families that operated under the British . These would be taught under western education and the priveleged one send their ward to Britain itself. From these liberal and nationalist tendencies would emerge, resulting in formation of political parties and organization, which would play the crucial role into establilshing the modern states we now see in South Asia. Two of most important would be the Indian National Congress and Muslim League. This is a very oversimplified overview of all. (Bengal had experienced a renaissance much earlier for being the major province British took over initially. Calcutta used to be the capital of Raj till 1911.)

Indian National Congress was formed in 1885 under the aegis of a brit called A.O. Hume. It was initally thought to be a party to act a pressure valve to Indian discontent through parliamentary means. Leaders and members came from upper class and educated folks. Over the time debate occured between extremist and moderate camp - whether India should attain a Dominion status within the common wealth or total independence. Then came 1905 when viceroy Lord Curzon decided to divide the province of Bengal on the line of religious line - a hindu majority one and a muslim majority one. This would spark an immence nationalist movement and revolutionary activities. British products would be boycotted and british cloths would be gathered and burned. However, the ugly head of communalism would rear at times which made India's first Nobel lauterate poet Rabindranath Tagore to disavow nationalism (one can read his essay on that). The movement achieves its goal when in 1911 the decision for partition would be taken back. However, the capitol would be shifted to Delhi.
Meanwhile in 1906 in Dhaka the Muslim League would be established, which had people like Sir Aga Khan - an elite businessman. Their goal would be to work for Muslim's representation in the Salariyat and safegurding of Muslim interests within the Raj.

[1/?]

>>8477
INC never advocated for an armed struggle and with Gandhi coming back to India in 1915 with his experience in non-violent means to pursue a struggle for freedom would cement that. INC, or simply Congress, had its fair share of right wing-left wing factions. It had prominent muslim leaders such as Maulana Azad, Saifudding Kichlu and Mohammad Ali Jinnah - the man who would play a crucial role in division of India and formation of Pakistan. It should be noted that for a long time he was an advocate for Hindu-Muslim unity and sought a more federal solution than outright partition. However, his experience in Congress did left a bitter taste as he felt that under Gandhi the Congress was tilting more toward Hindu side. It is true that Congress had members who had sympathy for Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) - the ultra right wing hindu organization (which never took part in struggle against the british). And then there was the Left wing in Congress, which emerged in 1920s as the communist organizations were banned by the British. Point being - Congress despite factional play remained a very liberal organization. In 1921 it would ally with the Khilafat movement - a movement by the islamists that wanted preservation of Sultan of Ottoman empire as Khalif of muslim world for its anti-imperialist agenda but the alliance failed in 1922. This would lay seeds of doubt among a portion of Muslim intellegencia and elites regarding their well-being in an independent India. Given INC's popularity, they were miniscule support for a long time. Even when elections were organized in 1930s, Congress dominated in Muslim-majority states. Muslim League had to alliance with Hindu Mahasabha, the hindu majoritarian party, in order to form a government in erstwhile undivided Bengal.

The 2-nation theory - the idea that Hindus and Muslims of South Asia are two distinct nations that cannot live together was gaining support among the extremists - whether it was the Mussolini inspired RSS or the Muslim League. This theory would form the basis of nationhood and national myth that the elite of Pakistan would apply as their raison d'tere of their nation, to justify the bloody partition that would see many dead and many more displaced. Congress would reject this theory and sought to build a nation on a secualar and liberal basis, they had to give in order to stop bloodshed that was happening after Jinnah's call for Direct Action. Partition has also be blamed on haste on Mountbattan's part - the last viceroy, who wanted to be done with the independence by 15th August 1947, giving little time frame for negotiations. And Brits got a guy who never visited India in his life to draw the lines dividing the nation. Classic British shitfuckerry.

[2/?]

>>8477
> Royal Indian army and navy
I meant the officer core and bureaucracy that ran those not the organization itself.

>>8478
I will cover the juicy part later.

>>8463

I've seen it. Pakis basically larp as arabs if they are light skinned enough. They want to be arab so badly and pretend they aren't indians with light skin. They chimp the fuck out when you call them indians.

>>8477
>>8478
>>8480
So from these two posts we can see who inherited the state apparatus in the states suceeding the Raj. Initially, Pakistan would comprise of two parts - West Pakistan above Arabian Sea and East Pakistan above Bay of Bengal. Imagine if California and Florida formed a separate nation. Now, much of the elites in the aforementioned posts had settled in the West Pakistan. Pakistani portion of previously undivided Punjab, which used to the "sword arm of the empire" (many recruits in the British army came from that region) would comprise the army of the newly minted nation. This put military, political and economic epicentre in the West, making the East its subordinate. It was quite ironic in the hindsight, given how Muslim League, the party behind formation of Pakistan, was formed in East. East Pakistan also boasted greater number in terms of population. Yet, it would be exploited by the West as bourgeoise would profit from its Jute export while gradually cut spending on its public welfare, as evident by closure of government run schools (this is taken from Taimur Rahman).

Since Pakistan embraced the 2 nation theory and the goal of becoming an islamic republic, it would try to find its place in greater Muslim "ummah", the community. The administration headquatered in West would impose the idea of an Urdu speaking Muslim as its idea in its superstructure as ideal pakistani as many of its bureaucrats came from the Urdu speaking educated class. This would lead to resentment in East, as this led to attempts at supression of their mother tongue. However, the islamists in East would see this hegemony implemented instead. As a result, during the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, islamists would form the volunteer units called "Razakars" that would collaborate with the Pakistani army in supression of the independence movement and atrocities. After creation of Bangladesh, the ruling elite would further cling to the idea of an ideal Islamic nation, in order to maintain the superstructure and the hegemony over various ethnic groups, as evident by the fact that the 2nd OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) conference would be organized in Islamabaded in 1972 in which leaders from Muslim world would attend. We see that even today it faces insurgency from Pastuns and Balochis.
[3/?]

>>8482

Class nature of Pakistan's ruling class can be seen from its lack of laws protecting labour laws and lack of land reforms. Nawaz Sharif, the 3 times prime minister comes from a steel tycoon family. Since Pakistan from the beginning explicitly allied with USA, it ran on a free market economy. It would be Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who ran on a populist socialist platform who nationalized many of its industries. He would later be desposed off by USA through a coup organized by General Zia Ul Haq in 1979. Zia would turn out to be crucial as he would provide instrumental support to United State's arming of rebels in Afghanistan. He would also implement aspects of Sharia in the nation, ending the liberal environment the Urbanites enjoyed. Zia era would also witness funding of its Madrasas from Saudi petrodollars, which would later serve as cultivation ground of what we know of modern Islamic terrorism. It would come to bite Pakistan's ass, as it would had to intervene in one of most famous madrasa, the Laal Masjid and attack on Army Public School by TTP.

Thus, in a maoist sense, Pakistan can be considered a semi feudal semi colonial state, though its national bourgeoise still exists. Interestinly, the Army too runs certain industries, whose managing boards have been post-retirement assignments for the officer core. Another aspect is immigrant labour. Many Pakistanis work in Gulf and Saudi Arabia, sending a big chunk back home. As it has been more than 7 decades since Independence, an average Pakistani identifies more with a shared islamic identiy and history than an indegenious one, thanks to the hegemony and suprestructure maintainted by the ruling class.
It would be interesting to see how said class has started to adopting to increasing Chinese investment.
Pakistan, being an islamic country, does not believe in the narrative of Uyghur genocide. And recently, there has been an uptick of Chinese language courses in Pakistan, signs of it being moving further away from its old ally USA. Time will tell how the ruling class will set the course in coming years.
[4/?]

>>8483
Another key aspect here is India, its ideological and existencial enemy. India, unlike Pakistan, choose to become a secular country (irrespective of what you think of current dispensation that rules it). Many Muslims who were not not well equiped to move to Pakistan remained there. The ghost of 2 nation theory haunts to such extent, Pakistan seems to believe in the racial categorization once set by its old master the British - the Martial races, funnily enough some live in India. Thus, affairs and condition of Indian muslims becomes a reason of concern for it. During independence, it made attempts to incorporate even those Muslim majority or ruled regions which were either or not geographically closer to its demarcated territory. State of Hydrabad in South India, for example, was ruled by a muslim ruler which it tried include in Pakistan. Ruler of Junagrah, a small princely state in Gujarat, a muslim, wanted to join Pakistan but later fled. However, situation became a quagmire in Kashmir. It was ruled by a hindu king and is a muslim majority state, situated between India, Pakistan and China. The king attempted to play both sides and remain independent, but Pakistan due to its strategic and ideological significance sent tribal fighters to acquire it. King's army, unable to stop its advance had to ask India for assitance and India gave it on the condition that it has to agree to join India. After a bloody war a ceasefire was announced that much like Korean War has left this messy situation where the region is now contested by two parties with no permanent international border. In 1965 Pakistan would try to bee line the entire region and in 1971 it would lose East Pakistan. After both became nuclear armed, a protracted conflict would be faught in 1999. Meanwhile the excesses of Indian ruling class would inspire an insurgency in 1987, trained and supported by Pakistan that continues to this day. Thus, it also supports Taliban, which is anti-India as it considers Afghanistan crucial to its strategic depth, in case of an all out invasion from India. As one can see, it needs to nurture a religious identity much like how Evangelicals do in USA and its support for Israel.

tl;dr - the reason for an average Pakistani identifying with Turks and Arabs is due to the pan-islamist ideology its bourgeoise use to maintain the state and its affairs with others.

[5/5]

>>8477
>>8478
>>8482
>>8483
>>8484
P.S. - Forgot to mention Pakistani army has participated in suppression of Palestinians in Jorden during Black September massacre (with the army led none other than Zia Ul Haq) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September#Role_of_Pakistani_Zia-ul-Haq_and_Iranian_leftist_guerillas

and how pakistani clerics such as Dr Israr Ahmed believe in divine destiny of Pakistan in bringing hey days of the Ummah and indeed - Ghazwa-e-Hind, the conquest of India by Pakistan.

>>8477
>>8478
>>8482
>>8483
>>8484
Fucking based effortposter.
>>8485

>>8486
Hit enter too early lel, didn't mean to put >>8485 after

>>8484
great posts

Marx wrote about the Ottoman Empire in the context of Russo-Turkish wars in "Writings about Romanians"
The book has only ever been published in romanian tho, but in short the Ottomans represented a reactionary force similar to that of Tsarist Russia, and impeded the development of industrial capitalism in the balkans by sustaining serfdom in the region

>>8477
>>8478
>>8482
>>8483
>>8484
>>8485
Thank you fren, this was genuinely enlightening.

>>8490
>Marx wrote a book that was only published in Romanian

I know that the vast majority of Marx's writings weren't discovered or translated until the 1970's, but jesus ive never heard of this book. makes me wonder how much of his stuff is still out there

>>8454
Ottomans did to Euroaches what Euroaches did to everybody else in the World

>>8490
Thanks. But just like you mentioned the language barrier, it seems any analysis from Turkish leftists would be in Turkish hidden in some academic thesis.
Though I still wish some Turkish comrades may throw a light on that, specially from their POV how does it fit in current political situation in the region.

>>8490
>>8492
>but jesus ive never heard of this book.
Because it is not a real book. How could Marx publish only in Romanian? He didn't speak Romanian. There should be an equivalent in German, but there isn't. It was published in 1964 in Romania.

I actually look at the stuff anons attach and this "book" stretches the definition of a book. Pages 29-31 are in English, some pages after that in German, and then some pages after that are in French. The formatting of the text is weird, there's dates and abbreviations all over the place, paragraphs don't follow one another, and I can't really discern meaningful chapters.

This book is definitely not written by Karl Marx. It is most likely a translation of a few of his notes that mention Romanians and/or Turks, interspersed with various interpretations and somewhat related quotes from other contemporary authors and historical texts.

stop falling for bullshit and use your own head, idiots

>>8495

The parts in english/german/french are the manuscripts marx wrote transcribed. A copy of the manuscripts is found at the end of the book too.
There's no german translation because Marx himself never planned on publishing these writings, which are mostly notes on his thoughts reading Elias Regnault's book on the topic. The manuscripts were all taken from the Marx-Engels archive in the international institute of social history in Amsterdam.

The "interpretation" part only comes from the introduction, written by the editor, the rest was all written by Marx.

>>8496
Then I stand corrected, I saw it on marxists.org just now, but under the section of manuscript fragments. I guess it is written by Marx. However, if you accept this as "Marxist canon" then you definitely have to accept Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 as Marx's work, too.

>>8497
You don't?
Why not?

>>8498
I do, but people who wear your flag don't. It's a rift between the Stalin, Althusser, History with capital H, Marxists and the Orthodox/Humanist Marxists. The former call the manuscripts a product of a young, liberal Marx and say that it is irrelevant to Marxist theory because Marx himself didn't publish it (but used a lot of the notes in later works). In fact, the argument from history against Marxist Humanists is that the works were not published by Marx, discovered and published after his death, and were not edited by Marx or Engels, but someone else.
For the record, I genuinely thought that the Romanian book was a book written by someone else, but attributed to Marx. I tried to look for a non-Romanian source about it, but found only the communist party of Romania website and then a bunch of websites that hosted the pdf. That is why I was skeptical initially. After the anon corrected me, I tried looking for it on Marxists.org and found it.

Can we archive this thread before it dies cause it's pretty based.

>>8484
>>8483
>>8482
>>8478
>>8477
Pretty accurate but as a Pakistani I'd like to add in my own perspective, saying were just brown Indian Muslims is always going to both reductive and offensive
Most of our founding fathers weren't even from the regions of now Pakistan and those that were from an urbanized Urdu speaking Elite, they lived in a bubble and thought that bubble applied towards everyone else, The idea of Pakistan that it's founding fathers had what that it would a nation where all would give up their ethnic and linguistic identity overtime and all be just Muslim brothers and sisters

Almost immediately pakistan found its self in an odd place in terms of its self identity, cause the people all had their own identity and history and often times had very little to do with each other, an effort was made to rangle all the people in pakistan and give them one history in the schooling systems and media

In east Pakistan (modern day Bangladesh) this narrative and policy was rejected by the masses, the Bengalis had both a strong sense of ethnic identity at the time and were the majority as well, the Bengalis made up the majority of the population even with every non Bengali ethnic group combined, but despite that they were thought of as less due to a number of cultural factors mainly south Asian discrimination and colorism, the Bengalis were singled out because they were the most foreign, to make a long story short this led to unrest, a election cancellation, political instability and the army being called in, a state sponsored genocide and Indian intervention and Pakistan surrender

After that, the Pakistan domestic policy went ever further in the Islamic identity narrative for fear of further seprtasism, radical islamism came not out of fear of communism but rather fear of ethnic nationalism and seprarism
Now the solution to bring hamonry among the various ethnic groups of Pakistan that the state has followed for the last 50 years is to surpress everyone's ethnic identity, history and even language are suppressed for e.g Punjabis(who comprise 42% of the population of Pakistan) are not allowed to speak their language in schools with in Punjab, now its not illegal to speak Punjabi but the state does nothing to preserve and promote it, specifically In education

And so the state also looks outward for history and even nationalism, to the Turks and the Arabs, so the average Pakistani is left with a flawed idea of Arabs and Turks and Arab and Turkish culture

Now I'm sure most of you already know that the Arab world to me is extremely diverse representing a mixture of identities, cultures, languages, and religious sects but to many Pakistanis, the Arab world is pretty much some fantasized representation of a single Muslim identity. Most Pakistanis see Arabic as a single language with little variation, someone once actually told me that Arabic is an incorruptible language that has stayed the same since the time of Muhmmad and this man was a Punjabi who probably knew about the massive different sounding dialects of Punjabi and yet he couldn't comprehend the same principle with Arabic

Honestly I feel the day Pakistan starts acknowledging, celebrating and promoting its diverse cultures and histories you will see a lot less cringy Pakistanis online

>>8839
samefag the most fascinating ethnic group that came out of Pakistan's complex history and is basically considered the model citizen despise an extreme minority is the Muhajir

Muhajir is an odd complex ethnic identity, I'm not sure if any other like it exists in the world, muhajir is a Arabic origin term roughly translating to one who flees or immigrant

In the chaos and mass casualties in the violence of the partition between India and Pakistan, Millions of people moved to what they hoped would be safer territory, with Muslims heading towards Pakistan, and Hindus and Sikhs in the direction of India. As many as 14-16m people may have been displaced

but here's the thing today in Pakistan the decedent's of the vast majority those who left India are not considered muhajirs, you see those who identity as muhajirs are not the decedent's of Punjabi and Sindhi Muslims who immigranted to Pakistan, they are the decedent's of basically everyone else(see my family fled from Kashmir to Pakistan like so many others but we are not considered Muhajirs)

From utter padesh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Gujrat and so on, all the non Punjabi, Rajputs and sindhis who didn't speak the local languages or understand the local cultures were first classified first as Urdu speaking muhajirs but during the 70's started being referred to as just muhajirs, an identity based not on what the muhajirs are but rather what they aren't and for many they are not 'sons of the soil" a term with various translations through out Pakistan depending on the ethnic group

They are in odd position in that they are minority but unlike the Bengalis are over represented in Pakistans most educted and have a higher literacy rate then the majority of the country and by the state standards they are the Ideal citizen i.e they speak Urdu, are mostly Urban and Identify with their Muslim identity but most people generally dislike them

Giving the full history for the muhajirs would be far too long but they have played a huge role in Pakistans identity and they might be coming to end in Pakistan

Now this is where birth rate discussion starts, in recent years there has been much discussion about average birth rate of nations and wider impacts it will have, Pakistan is in an odd place in that it's going through a birth increase and birth decline at the same time

The nation average of Pakistan fertility rate is around 3.2, however it doesn't give the full picture, from 1981 and 1998 showed that the proportion of Urdu-speaking Muhajir population in Sindh declined from 25% to 21%. and as of now in just Sindh the Muhajir population is at 16% and expected to fall farther down, this isn't due to state sponsored genocide or expulsion but very low birth rates, now in the opposite end the Pathan's (If looked on their own) have a birth rate higher then most African countries, an average of 4.3 children per household

Now this is anecdotal but a good example of this, my neighbor is a muhajir, he completed his education first, works in some export related Business, then got married at the age of 27 and has 1 child as of now, my distant cousin is a pathan, works as an electronic salesman, he's 25 and already has 3 children

Pathans make up 18-22% of Pakistan’s population, possibly even higher as some families hide the number of births and proper census is never done

in terms of demographics both Pakistan and Afghanistan are countries with ethnic groups that are only a slight majority(40%-45%) however in the case of Pakistan, Punjabi has never ever been forced upon on other ethnic groups and Punjabi culture and social values weren't ever forced either

In nearly all of Afghanistan's different state ideological rules, The Emirate, The Kingdom, The Republic, The Socialist republic and Even the Taliban rule, Pashto was the state language and aspects of Pashtun culture and social values were promoted. If Pakistani Punjabi's were even half as ethno-nationalistic as the Pashtuns Pakistan would not have survived

As demographic change ethnic tension will only further increase in Pakistan, and our pashtun population has often impacted our relationship with Afghanistan

>>8475
>its worst moment
yeah uh, it doesn’t get much better the further back you go lol