The Ottoman Bill of Rights (1856)
The Ottoman Bill of rights is a prime example of the growth of civilization. Though the Ottomans were always much more pro-active in giving various political and religious freedoms to a great majority of its people, the 1856 Ottoman Bill of Rights only expands on these principles. I definitely believe the the Ottomans took initiative and followed the way the United States set their Bill of rights.
The very first thing that the Ottoman Bill of Rights re-affirms is their tolerant stance on religion stating: "All the Privileges and Spiritual Immunities granted by my ancestors..., and at subsequent dates, to all Christian communities or other non-Muslim persuasion established in my Empire under my protection, shall be confirmed and maintained." This is not something new to the Ottoman Empire as we have seen very early on that the Ottomans were very committed to a freedom of religion. Even the Jizya tax was placed to help non-Muslim communities establish and maintain their own places of worship. The Bill also states that entire non-Muslim communities would not be barred from establishing places of worship, schools and cemeteries.
The most Important part of this Bill to me has to do with Education. "As all forms of Religion are and shall be freely professed in my dominions, no subject of my Empire shall be hindered in the exercise of the Religion that he professes...No one shall be compelled to change their Religion...and...all the subjects of my Empire, without distinction of nationality, shall be admissible to public employments...All the subjects of my Empire, without distinction, shall be received into the Civil and Military Schools of the Government...Moreover, every community is authorized to establish Public Schools of Science, Art, and Industry. " Having this strong of an attitude for education is also not a new thing for the Ottoman empire, but the re-affirming of this in their new Bill of Rights was still very important.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Blog #6
The British Occupation of Egypt:
After reading this section of the Cleveland book, I found it very interesting that it was so hard to define Britain's Relationship with Egypt. The most important factor in British occupation of Egypt was, "In order to safeguard the Suez Canal, to restore Egypt's political and Financial Stability, and, in context of the imperial competition of the era, to prevent France from occupying it first." This quote was very startling to me. My reasoning for this reaction is because it paints the English as protectorates of Egypt, when in fact, it seems that the sole reason for their presence in the country is to make some profit off of the Suez Canal in order to prevent the French from doing the same. The British also claimed that they could not define their relationship with Egypt as a colony or a protectorate. However, they do state in the section that Evelyn Baring, and later Lord Cromer presided over the occupation with "absolute authority for its first quarter." These political figures were colonial administrators with many years of service in India. So if the absolute authority of a country is given to political figures who had been the "colonial administrators" of another country, how can you call Egypt something other than a colony of Britain itself at that point in time?
After reading this section of the Cleveland book, I found it very interesting that it was so hard to define Britain's Relationship with Egypt. The most important factor in British occupation of Egypt was, "In order to safeguard the Suez Canal, to restore Egypt's political and Financial Stability, and, in context of the imperial competition of the era, to prevent France from occupying it first." This quote was very startling to me. My reasoning for this reaction is because it paints the English as protectorates of Egypt, when in fact, it seems that the sole reason for their presence in the country is to make some profit off of the Suez Canal in order to prevent the French from doing the same. The British also claimed that they could not define their relationship with Egypt as a colony or a protectorate. However, they do state in the section that Evelyn Baring, and later Lord Cromer presided over the occupation with "absolute authority for its first quarter." These political figures were colonial administrators with many years of service in India. So if the absolute authority of a country is given to political figures who had been the "colonial administrators" of another country, how can you call Egypt something other than a colony of Britain itself at that point in time?
Blog #5 Zayni Barakat
I found the book, "Zayni Barakat" to be a very interesting read. A fictional account of the Mamluk Empire, I chose to focus on the fact that had Zayni Barakat been appointed a part of the Ottoman government once the Mamluk Empire had fallen, he would have excelled at this opportunity. Reading Zayni Barakat was a very interesting change for a History class because I had never studied a time period using a fictional book as a source. I found it to be a welcome change of pace and in the end after writing our class paper, I found that it helped to enhance my understanding of how people in this time period lived. It also helped me to understand what sorts of problems governments had to face in these particular regions. My favorite part of the book included the five excerpts from the Venetian Traveller Visconti Gianti. This person, according to the book, visted the Mamluk empire while Barakat was in different positions on five separate occasions. I am very eager to get further into the class because during our colloquium one person mentioned that the book was a parity of the way the Egyptian government was being ran on a separate occasion.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Blog #4 2/9/09
Conflict: Uncertain Boundaries of Power
I thought that the most interesting section of this weeks readings were in Leslie Pierce's book "The Imperial Harem." The section was entitled, "Conflict: Uncertain Boundaries of Power," and connected the powers of the valide sultan to the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. The valide sultan was literally, the Sultans mother and her power was directly connected to the power of the sultan. Though obviously the valide sultans power did not touch the equivalence of the sultans, the valide sultan, "acquired public status and a claim to legitimate authority in government." I also found it extremely interesting that Pierce noted the tensions that were formally fused between father and son were transferred to mother and son. I thought that this was amazing because it showed that the Ottomans not only had great tolerance of religion but also were capable of allowing female prescence in important government positions. Even though Pierce noted that there was tension between the valide sultan and sultans relationship, I was slightly confused when Pierce commented, "The most difficult task of a sultan was surely to recognize which of his intimate advisers offered counsel that was most beneficial to the stability and the well-being of the Empire and thus to the security of his throne." This is because even though the valide sultan claimed some power and thus may have created tension between the sultan and herself; I beleive that there still should be a huge amount of trust and confidence between the two powers.
I thought that the most interesting section of this weeks readings were in Leslie Pierce's book "The Imperial Harem." The section was entitled, "Conflict: Uncertain Boundaries of Power," and connected the powers of the valide sultan to the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. The valide sultan was literally, the Sultans mother and her power was directly connected to the power of the sultan. Though obviously the valide sultans power did not touch the equivalence of the sultans, the valide sultan, "acquired public status and a claim to legitimate authority in government." I also found it extremely interesting that Pierce noted the tensions that were formally fused between father and son were transferred to mother and son. I thought that this was amazing because it showed that the Ottomans not only had great tolerance of religion but also were capable of allowing female prescence in important government positions. Even though Pierce noted that there was tension between the valide sultan and sultans relationship, I was slightly confused when Pierce commented, "The most difficult task of a sultan was surely to recognize which of his intimate advisers offered counsel that was most beneficial to the stability and the well-being of the Empire and thus to the security of his throne." This is because even though the valide sultan claimed some power and thus may have created tension between the sultan and herself; I beleive that there still should be a huge amount of trust and confidence between the two powers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)