# What is the importance of Turkey in Europe?



## Ekokrem

I wish What you would write about this?


----------



## BasedowLives

I don't really understand.

What is Turkey's role in European relations?  All I know about Turkey is that they've been strengthening ties with the EU.


----------



## maxiogee

Turkey is in Asia, and as such should not be admitted to the European Union, imho. 
And while we're at it, Israel should not be in the Eurovision Song Contest either!


----------



## elroy

I believe that Israel competes in that contest because of rocky relations with its neighbors.  Who else would it compete with?

That's off-topic, though.  As an outsider, I agree that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for Turkey to join the EU.


----------



## maxiogee

I mentioned Israel because I think it is on-topic. If Turkey can join the EU then you can be sure that there will be other non-European applicants.
If Israel wants to compete in a song contest let them join one for which they qualify and, by extension, if Turkey wants to join an economic alliance let them join one for which they qualify.


----------



## whatonearth

For me, the ongoing EU discussions surrounding Turkey's _possible _accession are founded in the idea that it would be beneficial, symbolically, for a prodominantly Islamic nation to be part of the European Union. I think some national leaders are under the impression that this would help erode the "us" and "them" chasm that seems to have developed between the "West" and much of the Middle East (specifically Islamic nations).

Personally, I feel it would not be a good idea for Turkey to join the EU for a number of reasons;
(1) It is not part of Europe
(2) The country has a very poor human rights record
(3) There are *huge* welfare/wealth disparities in Turkey - even more so than the recently accessioned states - meaning for many years to come Turkey would be a major financial drain on the already-stretched budget (this may become less of an issue if the CAP is *sustantially* reformed - which is highly unlikely with the current French administration). 

While it would be an admiral democratic gesture, I do not feel it would economically benefit the existing EU members, who are already feeling the strain of the recent accession of ten new member states. I can see why some people may want Turkey to be a part of the EU, but I think that people want that for the wrong reasons, which aren't really in line with the original objectives of the EU.


----------



## Jhorer Brishti

Turkey is halfway between Europe and Asia just like Russia(the Bear which signifies Russia is most often depicted with two feet in Europe and two feet in Asia.) Honestly my question is how is it that Europe can be considered a continent in its own right when it is geographically connected to Asia? Where's the dividing(arbitrary) line?


----------



## elroy

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I mentioned Israel because I think it is on-topic. If Turkey can join the EU then you can be sure that there will be other non-European applicants.
> If Israel wants to compete in a song contest let them join one for which they qualify and, by extension, if Turkey wants to join an economic alliance let them join one for which they qualify.


 
Israel is not on-topic. The situation there is unlike any other anywhere else in the world. I think it's terribly inconsiderate to "disqualify" Israelis from competing in something as innocent as a song contest because of the unfortunate political situation there. It's not hurting anyone, and as I said above it's the only (convenient) transnational contest Israelis can compete in.

The European Union, on the other hand, is more than an "economic alliance." It represents, among other things, European identity - so Turkey is excepted by default. Furthermore, not allowing Turkey to join the European Union is not the same as preventing a people from pursuing a form of art based on a geographical technicality.

I think the two situations are hardly comparable. But please, if you'd like to discuss the legitimacy of Israel's competing in the European song contest, feel free to start a new thread dedicated to that issue.


----------



## Brioche

Jhorer Brishti said:
			
		

> Turkey is halfway between Europe and Asia just like Russia(the Bear which signifies Russia is most often depicted with two feet in Europe and two feet in Asia.) Honestly my question is how is it that Europe can be considered a continent in its own right when it is geographically connected to Asia?


 
Africa-Asia-Europe form one landmass, so how can Africa be considered a continent in its own right? Where does Africa end and Asia start?

There are many anomalies in nomenclature.

Egyptians are Arabs, but live in Africa. So are they Africans?
Lebanese are Arabs too, but live in Asia. So are they Asians?

In UK, if you say "Asian", people think of South Asians: Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans and Bangladeshis.

In Australia, if you say "Asian", people think of East and South East Asians: Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Malaysians and Indonesians.


----------



## Jhorer Brishti

So I guess the question is what is the definition of a continent? Quite elementary but it seems like the differentiation is arbitrary or at least not completely accurate.

  And in case you didn't know Asian invokes the same image in the USA as it does in Australia..



			
				Brioche said:
			
		

> Africa-Asia-Europe form one landmass, so how can Africa be considered a continent in its own right? Where does Africa end and Asia start?
> 
> There are many anomalies in nomenclature.
> 
> Egyptians are Arabs, but live in Africa. So are they Africans?
> Lebanese are Arabs too, but live in Asia. So are they Asians?
> 
> In UK, if you say "Asian", people think of South Asians: Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans and Bangladeshis.
> 
> In Australia, if you say "Asian", people think of East and South East Asians: Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Malaysians and Indonesians.


----------



## maxiogee

elroy said:
			
		

> Israel is not on-topic. The situation there is unlike any other anywhere else in the world. I think it's terribly inconsiderate to "disqualify" Israelis from competing in something as innocent as a song contest because of the unfortunate political situation there.



My attitude has got nothing to do with the "unfortunate political situation" there. I spelt it out plainly. Why did politics come into it?

If Israel is to be included then the EBU should change the name to something less geographically specific.
The EBU should change its own name anyway. They now include other Asian broadcasters and a number of African ones too.

My attitude to Turkey joining the EU is similar - if the EU has ambitions for areas outside the traditionally recognised borders of Europe then it should say so and change its name to reflect this. It sould also give states which are members of the existing Union and opt-out from the expansionist plans - without penalty.
Make no mistake about it, the EU is about to make itself a monolithic political entity and the interests of small members on the geographical, and on the economic margins are going to be left unrecognized. The Etats-Unie of Europe will be holding US-style presidential elections in the not-too-distant future and I think that is not just a bad thing, but a disastrous thing for the smaller nations.


----------



## clipper

Jhorer Brishti said:
			
		

> Turkey is halfway between Europe and Asia just like Russia(the Bear which signifies Russia is most often depicted with two feet in Europe and two feet in Asia.) Honestly my question is how is it that Europe can be considered a continent in its own right when it is geographically connected to Asia? Where's the dividing(arbitrary) line?


 
If the dividing line between continents is indeed arbitrary, then surely Turkey has every right to become part of the "European Union" and would then by default form part of Europe. I would certainly defend that right, but then we would be effectively opeing the European Union to any country meeting certain criteria but not the geographical one.

What is most important ? A country's economy or human rights record or its physical location on the planet ?


----------



## elroy

maxiogee said:
			
		

> If Israel is to be included then the EBU should change the name to something less geographically specific.
> The EBU should change its own name anyway. They now include other Asian broadcasters and a number of African ones too.


 
That wasn't the message I got from your earlier posts; please forgive me if I misunderstood.

I got the impression that you found Israel's participation in the EBU unacceptable, and that by extension so was Turkey's membership in the EU.  The reason I mentioned the political situation is that that helps explain Israel's participation.  What, however, would help explain granting Turkey membership in the EU?

Obviously it would be a good idea to change the name of an organization or association if a diversification in membership necessitates a more all-encompassing name.  But that's not the question: the question is whether that diversification should occur in the first place.


----------



## maxiogee

elroy said:
			
		

> Obviously it would be a good idea to change the name of an organization or association if a diversification in membership necessitates a more all-encompassing name.  But that's not the question: the question is whether that diversification should occur in the first place.



My attitude is that the diversification is fine - within the confines of Europe. That's what we expect of a body called the European Union - as broad a diversification as possible of the states of Europe.
Once you diversify past the borders it ceases to be a European thing and a new descriptive adjective is needed.
Turkey is not *in* Europe and can therefore have no importance in it - it can, however, have an importance *to* it.

Brioche asked a few posts back if Egyptians are Africans, well they're not Asians, and they're not Europeans. Being "Arab" doesn't carry any geographical connotations which could interfere with their being Africans.
I had a similar argument with someone recently on another board on the subject of a well-known person from Northern Ireland. Their "nationality" is British, but their birthplace qualifies them geographically to be called Irish - they were born on the island of Ireland. They might not like it, but there is nothing preventing them from having both words applied to them.


----------



## mugglewump

Surely Turkey was formerly a large part of the eastern roman empire (Byzantium) at the height of its power, making it pretty much the centre of europe for a thousand years or so.  So i think it is untrue to say that it cannot join the EU because it was not within the traditional boundaries of europe.... (do please correct me if i am in error) This is not to say that i am particularly in favour of Turkey joining, as I am pretty apathetic to the whole thing in general


----------



## Brioche

The Turks began to arrive in Anatolia in the 11th century, and like most conquerers, killed or enslaved or absorbed or displaced the previous population.

Currently over 80% of the population of Turkey is ethnic Turks. About 96% of the population is Muslim.

Turkey is not ethnically, culturally, religiously or economically European.

Turkey has a population of 69 million, which would make it the second largest (after Germany) in the EU, and equal to the combined population of the 15 smaller countries in the EU.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

Brioche said:
			
		

> Turkey is not ethnically, culturally, religiously or economically European.
> 
> Turkey has a population of 69 million, which would make it the second largest (after Germany) in the EU, and equal to the combined population of the 15 smaller countries in the EU.



That's the point. It's too big and too different, so it'd have too much weight and would radically unbalance the EU at all levels.


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Turkey is in Asia, and as such should not be admitted to the European Union, imho.


Part of Turkey _is_ in Europe, including the historical city of Istanbul, once a Christian metropolis.

The Turks have made a tremendous effort to Westernize ever since the foundation of modern Turkey by Kemal Ataturk, including a spelling reform to switch from the Arabic script to the Latin script.

Turkey has been an ally of Western countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. for many years.

There is a considerable number of Turkish immigrants in some W. European countries.


----------



## Outsider

Brioche said:
			
		

> Turkey is not ethnically, culturally, religiously or economically European.


How do you figure that? What makes an ethnicity, a culture, or a religion 'European'?


----------



## Dr. Quizá

Outsider said:
			
		

> Part of Turkey _is_ in Europe, including the historical city of Istanbul, once a Christian metropolis.
> 
> The Turks have made a tremendous effort to Westernize ever since the foundation of modern Turkey by Kemal Ataturk, including a spelling reform to switch from the Arabic script to the Latin script.
> 
> Turkey has been an ally of Western countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. for many years.
> 
> There is a considerable number of Turkish immigrants in some W. European countries.



That's not very different to the relation of Spain with Africa and nobody (but the French  ) consider Spain as an African country.


----------



## Vespasian

Brioche said:
			
		

> Turkey has a population of 69 million, which would make it the second largest (after Germany) in the EU, and equal to the combined population of the 15 smaller countries in the EU.



And it will also most likely surpass Germany in population during the next two decades.


----------



## BasedowLives

Outsider said:
			
		

> How do you figure that? What makes an ethnicity, a culture, or a religion 'European'?


I'm not taking any sides here but...you can't see the ethnic, cultural and religious differences between Europe and Turkey?

I suppose as there are many nationalities within Europe, it's that combination that has comprised "European" ethnicity.  And as far as religion, I would think the majority are some form of christian.


----------



## HDragomiroff

It one consider Europe just as a market it doesn’t matter how European Turkey is, but if you have an idea about Europe then there is a problem. The Christian roots are necessary to comprehend the European history and art. Europe is also deeply influenced by its Greek and Roman roots. Greece and Rome represent the cultivation of speculative thinking and get achievements as Roman law, democracy and secular society.


----------



## badgrammar

Brioche said:
			
		

> Turkey is not ethnically, culturally, religiously or economically European.



Ya, I gotta' call you on this one too, Brioche.

You might be correct about the figures of "ethnic Turks", although I know several terribly Turkish families where everyone is light complected with blue/green eyes  - surely descendants of one of multiple waves of immigration from other countries over the centuries, as Turkey is veritable melting pot.  I don't know how you'd qualify an "ethnic Turk", because sooooo many ethnicities have come together throughout the ages in good old Anatolia.  I shall hereby throw down my glove, and challenge you, dear Brioche, to find me a definition of an "ethnic Turk".  Olé.

Culturally speaking, it's a country that enjoys its eastern-influenced traditions and way of doing things.  But it is also very westernized, extremely westernized in the case of most of Western Turkey, From Istanbul down and around to Alanya (and probably beyond), for example.  

Most people speak several languages, have atleast a basic education, if not more), they behave like Europeans, but with their own cultural peculiarities.  Watch tv there, you'll quickly understand the cultural norms there are very close to those in the Rest of Europe.  

Religiously speaking, there is a division of church and state (again Ataturk) which is theoretically respected, even if sometimes the lines get muddled.  And I would add that while most Turks are strong believers in their faith, they are moderate in their views.

Economically, Turkey is a force to reckon with.  It is a breadbasket for both Europe and all its other neighbors, it's a very fertile region.  There are many (MODERN!) industries that are thriving there and while there is certainly some heavy poverty in some regions, people live pretty well there, with modern conveniences, cars, cell phones, cable tv, huge supermarkets.  There is an enormous amount of trade between Turkey and the rest of Europe.

I guess I also want to say, it's not a third-world country (we need to forget Midnight Express), and it is truly the link between east meets west, particularly in terms of culture, economics and geography.

Also - Turkey is to gradually become part of the EU, with exceptions and special accords, over the next couple of decades.  It's not for tomorrow.  Since it is a country that is becoming more and more occidental, there is reason to believe that over that time period, human rights violations and other touchy political issues will have improved and evolved by the time the coutry becomes a full EU member.

I also think Europe would be making a major mistake to not allow Turkey's entrance into the EU.  But hey!  I'd like to hear the results of a poll of Turks - What percentage of Turkish people WANT that to happen?  Not so many, I bet...

Sorry I went on so long.  At ease and sevgiyle kal!


----------



## davidl243

I have to say that reading this debate so far has left my quite frustrated. The arguments against Turkish accession seem to be based on the well-work argument that Turkey isn't Europe, and the Turkish aren't European. Even if this is true (which i don't believe it is), what difference does that make? Why does that make it a bad idea? Sure, the adjective 'European' would need to be revised, but why would the EU only work with ethnic, cultural and religious Europeans in it?

In my opinion, the argument comes down to what you think the EU is all about. If you believe that its only function is and should be as a mechanism for the generation of wealth among member states, then of course in the short-term we would have a problem. Turkey is significantly poorer than any of the 10 CEECs which joined recently, and is much bigger. Economically the EU would suffer in the short-term, no question about it.

But if like me you believe that the EU is about much more than money, then you arrive at a whole different conclusion. For thousands of years Europeans were ripping each other to pieces, and then after WWII somebody had an idea that this could be stopped by creating such interdependence between European states that the use of force ceased being an option. And it's worked. Can you imagine Germany attacking France now? Slovakia attacking Poland? We forget nowadays how real the threats were only 60 years ago. And we forget because we have come so far in such a short time that such threats have become unimaginable. That is proof of success, if ever it was needed.

If this is your belief, then any short-term economic problems become trivial. The more states inside the EU, the more states which can share in the security that the EU has created, and which only 60 years after WWII, we now take for granted.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

davidl243 said:
			
		

> Turkey is significantly poorer than any of the 10 CEECs which joined recently, and is much bigger. Economically the EU would suffer in the short-term, no question about it.



That's true BUT there also are other related to law, social infraestructures and others related requeriments. Actually, some of the lately incorpored members do not fulfill them, but they're closer than Turkey. And I do not see why would that country want to be a member but for the economic advantages.


----------



## davidl243

I agree with you in so far as Turkey want in because of the financial benefits. But it is not financially beneficial for current EU member states, therefore it allowing them entry can't be justified on that basis. It is my opinion that there is a much more important issue that money, as i have said, and that is the reason why Turkish accession is a good thing.


----------



## lampiao

As Outsider said, there is a part of Turkey in Europe. It is not, as it's been said, half way. It's just a tip, and it probably means less than 10% of the Turkish territory. The same goes for Russia, however I think the percentage here could be greater, but that may be just an impression, since european Russia is large, but asian Russia is huge!

As for where Europe starts and Asia ends, and vice-versa, you're looking at the Urals. This mountain chain is what divides Europe from Asia. Why? I don't know. Possibly because many borders between countries lay on natural obstacles, such as mountains, rivers, oceans, etc.

Should Turkey be part of the EU? I think that Outsider is right to point out that it has been a western ally on several ocasions, and that can't be overlooked. On the other hand, as some have said, there are still some issues that need to be addressed. 
All in all, I would not rule out that possibility, but I think now is not the time.


----------



## Outsider

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> I'm not taking any sides here but...you can't see the ethnic, cultural and religious differences between Europe and Turkey?
> 
> I suppose as there are many nationalities within Europe, it's that combination that has comprised "European" ethnicity.  And as far as religion, I would think the majority are some form of christian.


There is no 'combination', any more than there is a combination between Greek and Turkish culture, ethnicity and religion, or between American and Mexican culture, ethnicity and religion. The two peoples just happen to live side by side. In that, they're no different from other pairs of countries within Europe, IMO. 

BTW: I don't have a set position on the admission of Turkey into the EU, myself. It just think many of the objections to it which I've heard are inconsistent.


----------



## bernik

_"So I guess the question is what is the definition of a continent? Quite elementary but it seems like the differentiation is arbitrary or at least not completely accurate."
_
I think there used to be a traditional European representation of the world in several different areas, and at first, what we called a "continent" had nothing to do with being a separate landmass.
Now, if we decide that a "continent" has to be a separate landmass, then it is obvious that Europe does not qualify for the appellation.

About Turkey, I will probably be told that my opinion is off topic, but here it is. Most Europeans do not want Turkey in the EU, and do not want any Turkish immigration in their country. The EU constitution was rejected by the French and the Dutch a few months ago. A good way to get the French to approve the EU constitution would have been to make a referendum on Turkey before the referendum on the constitution. There would have been a massive refusal of Turkey's entry, and then, the EU constitution would have been accepted. Turkey is the main reason I voted against the EU constitution. What this means is that the EU administration is at odds with the European population and with democracy. There is something farcical in seeing the EU make high minded declarations of principle while trying to force Turkey down our throats.


----------



## Brioche

badgrammar said:
			
		

> Ya, I gotta' call you on this one too, Brioche.
> 
> You might be correct about the figures of "ethnic Turks", although I know several terribly Turkish families where everyone is light complected with blue/green eyes - surely descendants of one of multiple waves of immigration from other countries over the centuries, as Turkey is veritable melting pot. I don't know how you'd qualify an "ethnic Turk", because sooooo many ethnicities have come together throughout the ages in good old Anatolia. I shall hereby throw down my glove, and challenge you, dear Brioche, to find me a definition of an "ethnic Turk". Olé.


 
It's a matter of what the Turks call themselves, and how they see themselves.
They define themselves as Turks.


----------



## badgrammar

[/QUOTE=Brioche]Currently over 80% of the population of Turkey is ethnic Turks. About 96% of the population is Muslim.

Turkey is not ethnically, culturally, religiously or economically European.[/QUOTE]




			
				Brioche said:
			
		

> It's a matter of what the Turks call themselves, and how they see themselves.
> They define themselves as Turks.



Yes. And French people call themselves "French", and see themselves as French. Glad we got to the bottom of that ! 

That does not, with all due respect, have anything to do with the price of tea in China.  Being French, Dutch, German or Spanish (I guess you could also call these "ethnicities") has never precluded these countries from seeing themselves as part of Europe. Why should it be different with Turkey? 

Indeed, Turks call themselves "Turks", and see themselves as "Turks".  
I suspect that the claim that 80% of Turks are "ethnic Turks" has something to do with the idea of "race", as ethicity is often used as a euphimism for race.  And I strongly believe oodles of carefully disguised racism and fear of Islam are at the base of a lot of peoples' opinions on Turkey and the EU.

I guess I would have liked to see some opinions from people who know the country and its culture, because I think it would make the discussion far more edifying.  Unfortunately, stereotypes and misconceptions about Turkey seem to be the norm.

Truly, I do not mean to be désagréable, Brioche, but I would ask that you back up your statements about the country and its ethnical, religious, economic and cultural incompatabilty with Europe.


----------



## Outsider

badgrammar said:
			
		

> Indeed, Turks call themselves "Turks", and see themselves as "Turks".
> I suspect that the claim that 80% of Turks are "ethnic Turks" has something to do with the idea of "race", as ethicity is often used as a euphimism for race.


It may well have to do with language...


----------



## maxiogee

Brioche said:
			
		

> It's a matter of what the Turks call themselves, and how they see themselves.
> They define themselves as Turks.



Some do.
Some would call themselves Kurds but they get abused when they do!


----------



## badgrammar

Outsider said:
			
		

> It may well have to do with language...



Do you mean "ethnicity" having something to do with "linguistic group"?  I'm sure language is part of ethnicity, but all Turks who speak Turkish are not necessarily of the same "ethnic" group.  

It's not a "purebred" monocultural country.


----------



## Outsider

I agree, but then why did you challenge Brioche's statement that "only 80% of Turks are ethnic Turks"?


----------



## mansio

It is true that a percentage of Turks are actually Kurds. Near the Syrian border there are some Arabs. A good percentage of Turks are also Alevis, which in my opinion are not orthodox Muslims.
So Turkey is a country with two populations, two languages and two religions.


----------



## Outsider

> *Turkey*
> 
> _Ethnic groups:_
> Turkish 80%, Kurdish 20% (estimated)
> 
> _Religions:_
> Muslim 99.8% (mostly Sunni), other 0.2% (mostly Christians and Jews)
> 
> _Languages:_
> Turkish (official), Kurdish, Arabic, Armenian, Greek


CIA World Fact Book.


----------



## badgrammar

Outsider said:
			
		

> I agree, but then why did you challenge Brioche's statement that "only 80% of Turks are ethnic Turks"?



I simply asked Brioche to clarify what how "ethnic Turk" is defined, and where the figure comes from.  Who is an "ethnic Turk", and who is not?  And does it have something to do with race, ancestry, or simply being born in Turkey?

I might not have brought it up, but afterwards, Brioche said that Turkey is "not ethnically, culturally, religiously or economically European," which I thought to be a rather categorical statement, as someone who is familiar with the very occidental culture that reigns in much of Turkey today (and it is becoming more and more westernized by the day).


----------



## badgrammar

Outsider said:
			
		

> CIA World Fact Book.



Thank you, Outsider...


----------



## mansio

I did not mention Armenian and Greek because their number of speakers is too low. 
The CIA Fact Book has forgotten the Laz language spoken by between 50 000 and half a million Turks near the Georgian border.


----------



## badgrammar

Mansio, before you mentioned Alevis, what does that mean?


----------



## mansio

It is strange this very interesting religion is not known in the West. They number between 15 or 25 millions in Turkey. 
It is a branch of Shiism with elements of Turkish shamanism and pre-islamic religions as Gnosticism.
There is a similar religion in Syria called Alawites or Nusayris (to which the president Assad belongs).
See Alevi wikipedia


----------



## Outsider

Very interesting! I wasn't aware of any surviving branches of ancient Gnosticism. I will check it out at Wiki.


----------



## mansio

I think there are only traces of Gnosticism.
You may find more of it in the Nusayri religion.


----------



## Outsider

> According to Alawite belief, all persons at first were stars in the world of light but fell from the firmament through the passion of jealousy. The material world is a place of danger, enemies and impurity. The essential evil of this present existence can be escaped by the help of the divine creator. Every Alawite has within his soul a bit of the light of the divine creator, which can be accessed and lead him on the right path and salvation.


Definitely a Gnostic trace.


----------



## GenJen54

Okay guys, with all due respect to your curiosity and research into Alawite beliefs and Gnosticism, can I please ask we get back on track with the original question: 



> What is the importance of Turkey in Europe?


 Thank you.


----------



## mansio

GenJen

"The importance of Turkey in Europe" topic rests also on the many preconceived ideas that Europeans have of Turkey. One of the most important of them is about the religious situation in Turkey.
If you consider that discussing religions in Turkey has nothing to do with the thread then come in Alsace where I live.


----------



## badgrammar

I have to agree and disagree, Mansio.  I agree that Europeans' preconceived notions about Turkey are the greatest hindernace to the acceptance of Turkey in the EU, and also that the religious situation is part of that.

But what GenJen means, I think, is that to discuss that, we should open a new thread, because each thread should addresses just one primary issue.  Perhaps you could open a new thread that asks a different question, such as "How do you perceive religion in Turkey" (just a quick example).  I thought about creating a poll to see how many here have ever visited the country...

Back to the question, though, Turkey is very important TO Europe, economically, politically, strategically (one BIG reason the US supports Turkey's alliance with Europe and The West), but also culturally, and in particular, religiously.  Because Turkey's particular position as a modern Muslim country with a precocious history of division of church and state, puts it in a position of mediator between (and mentor for) more conservative Arab countries and Europe.  Currently, Turkey is doing exactly this to calm tempers over Cartoon-gate.

What I think is short-sighted and dangerous is the European attitude towards Turkey, which has begun to create misgivings amongst Turks about Europe, Europeans, and the whole EU thing.  Nobody likes all that rejection,  and Turkey has other options than an EU alliance.  I actually think that if the EU rejects Turkey, it's a long-term political disaster.  For Europe, but not necessarily for Turkey.


----------



## SofiaB

As we all know by now, part of Turkey is in Europe, most of it is in Asia. 
Ethnicity is mostly linguistic and as time goes on less and less genetic.
Throughout its history Turkey has been tied to Europe. From the earliest recorded history, Byzantium, Eastern Roman Empire, the Ottoman rule of Europe as far as the edge of Vienna, immigrants in Europe, etc.
The origins of many European groups and languages are in or at the frontier of Asia.
Look at the migration of Hungarians, Germans, possibly Finns, Slavs and others.
With western migration the Celts were pushed north and west.
Many Eastern European countries have had Muslim populations a majority in Albania, for centuries. With modern immigration there are large Muslim populations in much of Europe. What about Jews and other religions? Human rights? Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy the former Yugoslavia most of Eastern Europe and all of Europe at some point in history. Can Turkey’s admission to the EU create the conditions that would make them comply with the constitution? They have improved their record since 1915.
Turkey is a diverse multi- religious country although they are predominantly Turkish speaking Sunni Muslims.
What are the goals of the EU?  Economical  socio-political others?
Should they de admitted? I think the people in the know should present the pros and cons based on facts and purpose. Then informed decisions can be made. Atthis point I think we all need more information rather than rushing to jugement.


----------



## Brioche

badgrammar said:
			
		

> I simply asked Brioche to clarify what how "ethnic Turk" is defined, and where the figure comes from. Who is an "ethnic Turk", and who is not? And does it have something to do with race, ancestry, or simply being born in Turkey?
> 
> I might not have brought it up, but afterwards, Brioche said that Turkey is "not ethnically, culturally, religiously or economically European," which I thought to be a rather categorical statement, as someone who is familiar with the very occidental culture that reigns in much of Turkey today (and it is becoming more and more westernized by the day).


 
I wonder whether anything could satisfy you.
 
Since the figure of _80% Ethnic Turk_ comes from the CIA Website, refer to them for a definition of Turkish ethnicity. Those who live in France have a clear idea of who's _français __de souche_ and who's not. I dare say the Turks think they know who's who, too.
 
Religious differences: Turkey 99.8% Muslim.
 
Economic differences: just for starters - traditional agriculture accounts for 34% of employment.  
In Turkey 20% live below the poverty line. In France 6.5%.
Per Capita GDP: Turkey $7,900, France $29,900.
 
Cultural difference: female illiteracy:  Turkey 22%. France 1%


----------



## maxiogee

Brioche said:
			
		

> Cultural difference: female illiteracy:  Turkey 22%. France 1%



Who is making that assessment, Brioche, and what standards are they using to made the judgement.

General illiteracy in Ireland is usually cited as being around 20%. This is usually a self-assessed statement regarding being unable to comprehend a written news report, or being unable to follow a set of written instructions. What research there is tends to confirm this figure although that research tends to be small-scale and local.

I'm surprised to find that France has a level as low as 1%.


----------



## davidl243

There are two arguments here regarding the EU: the first is that Turkey should not be admitted *yet*, the second that Turkey should not be admitted *at all.*

To argue for the first is understandable, and possibly quite wise. If Turkey joined tomorrow, her sheer size and relative poverty would put an enormous strain on the organization, a strain which would be lessened by waiting until Turkey has further developed economically, which she is currently doing. Also, for years the prospect of membership to international institutions has been used as a carrot to encourage candidates to modernize, democratize, improve human rights etc., and this appears to be working in the case of Turkey. But as it is still a long way from perfect, to increase the pressure on her to carry out reform, and to wait until she has made much more progress than she currently has, would help Turkey and the EU greatly when accession finally arrives.

On the second argument however, to say that Turkey should never join is in my view, as I said in an earlier post, to miss the point of the EU entirely. Culture, religion, geography etc become irrelevant when we are talking security - the initial premise of the EU. The security of Europe is in my view much better served with Turkey in rather than out, and that should be the deciding factor in any debate about Turkish accession.


----------



## mansio

David 

Do you think Turkey could be a threat to Europe? Ottomans' time is over.

No one seems to realize that when Turkey is ready to enter Europe, many European countries will let their people vote for entrance or not.
I think most people will vote against the entrance of Turkey. Everybody is pretending Turkey has a chance to enter. I think there is no chance at all.


----------



## davidl243

If you visualise security purely as the threat of war, then you are right in saying that Turkey is not going to cause Europe any problems. But when i say security, i mean all aspects, things like bird flu, terrorism, stable markets for goods etc etc, and while Turkey herself is not a threat, having Turkey inside the EU will help address these supranational threats, particularly as it is in such a strategically important area.

As for the referendum, if there was a vote now then I´m sure Turkish entry would be refused. But it is my view that if people based their views/decision on facts rather than misinformed stereotypes, Turkey would be welcomed with open arms.

I am not saying there are no drawbacks, and the EU would have to change significantly to accomodate Turkey. But if you believe in the EU as I do, then the advantages far outweigh any disadvantages Turkish accession would bring, and I believe if people knew more about the EU and the consequences of Turkish entry, then the majority would agree with me.


----------



## mansio

David

We still have a hard task ahead: to incorporate Romania and Bulgaria, not to mention two or three countries from ex-Yugoslavia.
It could even happen that Ukraine knocks at the door and enters the Union before Turkey. Many already think we are too many countries, so imagine letting Turkey in after the above mentioned countries !


----------



## davidl243

I agree with you entirely, but you can't stop doing something important and beneficial just because it gets a little hard...If that were the case then I would have given up University a long time ago! 

The EU will need to change a lot of things, not least voting procedures to prevent institutional deadlock (which was provided for by the Constitution, unfortunately rejected), but we managed to incorporate 10 countries in one go, if the EU can do that, then Turkey should not be quite as scary.


----------



## mansio

David

One thing is sure: we have plenty of time to ponder.


----------



## V52

I don't think that UE was born against anyone, so, maybe the join of Turkey to UE needs time, and will create inevitable problems, I hope these problems never should be about a geografical position. We can, and we must discuss problems of human rights, and pretend a deep self analysis of Turkey about their previous behaviours with Curds, for instance... but I don't feel here in Europe have so much to teach in moral issues! (never forget nazism and fascism as an europesn phoenomenon!)How many of european countries  have nuclear weapons or protect the US nuclear weapons? Are they really respecting human rights? They do it of course, but about which issues? Do they respect issues of immigrants so good?  Do they respect younger classes? (look at italian and recent french laws...) So, there's nothing else to say than... "let's talk about it" And i'd add "let's learn together!"  Are we so sure that catholics social classes can be so better than their muslim equivalents?  I'm not so sure... And anyway the problem will never be about religion. 
Israel is a different question  and I don't think we can  mess up  two so different issues.. it maybe needs another thread...
sorry for my mistakes.. (can you coprrect me, please?)
Vittorio


----------



## badgrammar

Well, I've noticed a few Turks hanging around the forum lately (hos geldiniz!), and I am hoping they might provide some more insight into the issue...

Ne dusuyor musunuz?


----------



## se16teddy

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Turkey is in Asia, and as such should not be admitted to the European Union, imho.
> And while we're at it, Israel should not be in the Eurovision Song Contest either!


 
Europe is a continent; Britain and Ireland are islands and not part of Europe.  Surely by your argument Britain and Ireland shouldn't be part of the European Union either?


----------



## vince

Britain and Ireland are more culturally and economically European than Turkey is. I think these should be the determining factors on whether Turkey or any other country should join:
1.) Is the country similar enough economically to be integrated into the EU without severely disrupting other EU member countries? This would require the country to be at a high enough GDP/capita level that would not require massive subsidies to equalize income levels. Also, does the economy of the entrant country follow the same cycle as European countries? Otherwise EU fiscal and monetary policy will be useless and just cause chaos in all of Europe. There should also already be significant trade between the two countries, through pre-existing bilateral freetrade agreements for example. Based on this criteria, Turkey should not join, but neither should many of the former Eastern Bloc countries that joined two years ago. At this time, the only countries I would consider would be Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland.

2.) Is the country culturally European? As Europe is a diverse continent, this is hard to define. Countries that join should have some shared history and cultural ties. Turkey has those, being once the seat of the Ottoman Empire that once ruled southeastern Europe. But are these links enough, and are they stronger than Middle Eastern cultural links? Also it is important that countries share certain fundamental values, like complete legal equality of women.

Ethnicity shouldn't have anything to do with anything. It is an artificial concept created by politics during the 18th and 19th centuries. If we go back far enough, all of us were the same people, we only differ by CULTURES. We may also differ by superficial physical features like eye color and skin tone, but these have no bearing on someone's culture and values. A person whose grandparents were from France but who is raised in the U.S. and identifies with American culture is not French in anyway (though some of his ancestors were). Yet a person whose grandparents were from China but who is raised in France and identifies with French culture is fully French in every sense of the word. So the argument that Turkey is not "ethnically European" makes no sense, if one day we zapped everyone's DNA in Germany so that they would all have green eyebrows, would they stop being European?


----------



## maxiogee

se16teddy said:
			
		

> Europe is a continent; Britain and Ireland are islands and not part of Europe.  Surely by your argument Britain and Ireland shouldn't be part of the European Union either?



Ireland has been part of Europe for millennia. I don't know about Britons but Ireland and her population are active and happy members of the European Union.
Our "islandness" is not as great as you might think - drop the sea-level a few metres and see how isolated you are. We are glued to the Continental Shelf, I was taught in my geography lessons many eons back. Italy is more an addition to the landmass than we are!


----------



## anthodocheio

I don't realy think the Turkish people do feel Europeans.

There is a Turkish soap opera that has started last year with some kind of coproduction with Greece that shows a young couple, the girl turkish and the boy greek (both actors turkish), that two years now are trying to eliminate their differencies, with the best intentions, they have done a huge progress, BUT always problems occure and always the reason are the differencies.

I think I have to add that the Greek family of the above mentioned soap opera has come from Instabul 20-30 years ago and they do keep showing how many things we have in common (Turkish and Greeks), which is absolutely true.


Anyway. Don't you think that the relationship of Turkey with Greece and Cyprus and every other nation on the borders of Turkey is crucial in this subject?


----------



## medeterian

davidl243 said:
			
		

> But if like me you believe that the EU is about much more than money, then you arrive at a whole different conclusion. For thousands of years Europeans were ripping each other to pieces, and then after WWII somebody had an idea that this could be stopped by creating such interdependence between European states that the use of force ceased being an option. And it's worked. Can you imagine Germany attacking France now? Slovakia attacking Poland? We forget nowadays how real the threats were only 60 years ago. And we forget because we have come so far in such a short time that such threats have become unimaginable. That is proof of success, if ever it was needed.
> 
> If this is your belief, then any short-term economic problems become trivial. The more states inside the EU, the more states which can share in the security that the EU has created, and which only 60 years after WWII, we now take for granted.



This is a wise participation davidl243. I think younger people dont carry the prejiduces that some old ones do.

In my opinion, Türkiye (not Turkey. Turkey is a mocking saying used by the occupation forces, coming from the war days. For who dont know.) insists on too much to be a part of EU. Of course it would be financially beneficial for Türkiye and harmful for EU members for the time being if Türkiye had a chance to be a member. However that seems impossible to me because of the cultural and religious differences which are not the true reasons. It is the attitude thought to Europan soceity. This attitude is thought and feed in order to rule the economical balances. Someone said that Türkiye has a huge population that would change the balances if it becomes a member. It may be true but if it does not become a member now (and it will not) in the future Türkiye will develop with its young population and compate with EU. At that point EU will not have the chance to involve Türkiye. Turkish soceity is also thought to be a member of EU as a last chance. Actually it worked for many years but now people begin thinkink different. The only missing part of Türkiye is not having a strong industry. 

We lived in this territory for a thousand years not in 2 ethnic groups or 2 religions but with countless of them. The most important thing is that we lived in peace. The history is there. In my opinion, Turkish cultural estate is much stronger than the European for being a community. You see, it is not everything being a finance power. Things may change. So so sorry for that kind of long participation.

sevgiler...


----------



## Brioche

medeterian said:
			
		

> This is a wise participation davidl243. I think younger people dont carry the prejiduces that some old ones do.
> 
> In my opinion, Türkiye (not Turkey. Turkey is a mocking saying used by the occupation forces, coming from the war days. For who dont know.)
> sevgiler...


 
Turkey is the name in English for Türkiye. 
Nothing mocking about it. 
Your embassy here calls itself "Embassy of the Republic of Turkey".

Is it mocking when the Turks call _Deutschland_ "Almanya", or EllaV "Yunanistan", or _Zhong Guo_ "Çin"?


----------



## gorbatzjov

In my humble opinion, I wouldn't allow Turkey (or, if I can't say Turkey because it would be offensive, "Turkije" as in my native language). I have several reasons for that opinion:
- economicaly, Turkey is not yet strong enough. We, the EU, should first help strenghten the Turkey economy by lowering import levels and the like. Based on this reason, non of the other candidate EU member states, like Bulgary, Romania or Ukraine should be admitted.
- socially, Turkey's surface is for about 95% off the European continent. Of course that doesn't mean the people aren't EU-minded. It just worries me that human rights aren't observed yet (but than again, the USA doesn't agree on the Human Rights Pact neither).


----------



## se16teddy

gorbatzjov said:
			
		

> We, the EU, should first help strengthen the Turkish economy by lowering import levels and the like.


 
By 'import levels' I guess you mean import duties. On a point of information, Turkey has been in the European Union's customs union for donkeys' years (the only major country outside EU / EFTA that has been). No import duties are payable on goods coming into the EU from Turkey, or vice versa. (VAT is payable, but it is payable whether goods are from the EU or Turkey. )


----------



## medeterian

Brioche said:
			
		

> Turkey is the name in English for Türkiye.
> Nothing mocking about it.
> Your embassy here calls itself "Embassy of the Republic of Turkey".
> 
> Is it mocking when the Turks call _Deutschland_ "Almanya", or EllaV "Yunanistan", or _Zhong Guo_ "Çin"?



I am not saying that Turkish Embassy is doing the right thing. It should be "Embassy of the Republic of Türkiye". Furthermore, the label on the tabel of the Turkish committee in European Council assembly should be written as Türkiye, not Turkey as the Greece is written as Ellas with greek letters. And all the mails coming to Türkiye should be sent to the address "Türkiye". It is the duty of Turkish government.

People from different nations may use their own phrases except Turkey, it is not a problem. Even English people may use the phrase Turkey if they dont think its mocking, however, it seems to me so unrealistic. Just remember the English newsletters posted after every England-Türkiye football match. (and I appriciate England team for not loosing the game for 40 years )


----------



## mansio

"Embassy of the Republic of Türkiye" could be accepted if the country had not a centuries long common history with European nations. Thailand has changed its name from Siam, Myanma from Burma, Malaysia from Malaya, Benin from Dahomey, etc, but those countries are far off. 
European place names have such a long history that the French will always say Allemagne for Deutschland, the English Norway for Norge, and the Italians  Turchia for Türkiye.


----------



## maxiogee

medeterian said:
			
		

> And all the mails coming to Türkiye should be sent to the address "Türkiye". It is the duty of Turkish government.



There is no government under the sun which can control the name used on incoming mail.
To bestow such a duty on them would be to require them to do the impossible.

You write Türkiye as the name of the country, but then you call the government Turkish —> should you not be saying "Türkish" at least?

You also say that Turkey is a mocking name - can you please explain how it is mocking? Who instituted this and to what are they referring in their mockery?


----------



## medeterian

mansio said:
			
		

> "Embassy of the Republic of Türkiye" could be accepted if the country had not a centuries long common history with European nations. Thailand has changed its name from Siam, Myanma from Burma, Malaysia from Malaya, Benin from Dahomey, etc, but those countries are far off.
> European place names have such a long history that the French will always say Allemagne for Deutschland, the English Norway for Norge, and the Italians  Turchia for Türkiye.



Hi mansio

I am not talking about what people call Türkiye in daily life, as I said in my previous post. I am talking about the official name of the country which is used by the companies and other organizations which also results in some non English people call it Turkey. If some country is willing to establish a reputative relationship with another at an embassy level, then it tries its best gladly I think. 

For instance you may take a look at the microsofts website address  www dot microsoft dot com/*turkiye* (you must convert it to a valid address). This is what I am talking about.

sevgiler...


----------



## medeterian

maxiogee said:
			
		

> There is no government under the sun which can control the name used on incoming mail.
> To bestow such a duty on them would be to require them to do the impossible.
> 
> You write Türkiye as the name of the country, but then you call the government Turkish —> should you not be saying "Türkish" at least?
> 
> You also say that Turkey is a mocking name - can you please explain how it is mocking? Who instituted this and to what are they referring in their mockery?


Hi maxiogee

Once Ethiopia changed its name by declaring world that they will resend the posts coming as Habeşistan (the older name of the country, I dont know the English version) and now the name is Ethiopia. So it is possible. In addition, there is no impossible for me as a principle (for human made things)   Edit: In addition Türkiye never had the name Turkey. It does not belong to us.

As I replied mansio and as in my previous post, I can not say anything which word you are using in your daily life. It is up to you. However, when it comes to countries name issue, this is technical and important one. For ones who dont want to use 'ü', Turkiye is an option. There is nothing wiered saying "Turkish". I dont want to comment about Turkey-turkey words meanings and their usages right now. It is west of time to me. Maybe somebody else may give several examples about it.

sevgiler...


----------



## vince

Ethiopia used to be called Abyssinia in English


You can't really impose the local name of a place to another language.
Beijing is still Pékin in French, based on the Cantonese (or maybe Hakka/Min?) pronunciation of the Chinese characters of Beijing.

There are places with even more offensive English names that would bewilder locals since they make no sense to them:
Thailand's capital will always be known as "Bangkok" (complete with the sexual pun jokes in English) (Thai: Krung Thep...)
Capital of Poland (Warszawa) will always be Warsaw (war - saw)
Moscow (Moskva) - Ma's cows
Hungary - hungry (Magyar...)


----------



## maxiogee

medeterian said:
			
		

> I dont want to comment about Turkey-turkey words meanings and their usages right now. It is west of time to me. Maybe somebody else may give several examples about it.



Surely you don't think that the country-name of "Turkey" and the bird-name of "turkey' are related?
Was not the English language using the country-name long before the birds were discovered by English speakers? The country-name predates the bird-name by several centuries.
Any derisive references to something being "a turkey" are a comparison to the big, ungainly and flightless bird, and not a slight on your country.


----------



## emrah

Hi Friends 
i have just joined to "wordreference" and this topic attracted my attention.
I think Turkey's requirement for its name to be used as "Türkiye" is a legal right,also it is not a problem for us which word you are using in your country and daily life. Furthermore we are not imposing anybody to use any certain word. Our aim is to be called as "Türkiye" in international area. To look at this from different view, symbols like flag, national anthem etc. are very important for Turkish people, we are so sensitive on this subject. even, we are not using clothes made from flag. please, take into consideration all these while deciding on this topic. Also it is useless for us to talk here, because our government is not making any effort for this.


----------



## Joelline

I probably have no right to add my ideas here because I am not a citizen of Europe and have no superior knowledge of Türkiye.  However, I do have some questions:

1. How is Türkiye pronounced?  (I know this is very hard to do in writing, but could you give me some idea).  I am offended when people mispronounce my last name even after I've corrected them 2 or 3 times.  I also make every effort to call people by whatever name they choose to be called.  I feel I should do no less for a country.

2. What does the long Western European memory of the name Turkey have to do with anything?  Istanbul was Constantinople, but who calls it Constantiople today?

3. I am so unfamiliar with the political structure of the EU that I have to ask this question: is there no provision in the EU constitution for something other than full membership?  Is there no compromise affiliation possible (even if only temporary)?  Could there not be a European Commonwealth of Nations where geography would not be a primary consideration (of course, I'm thinking of the British Commonwealth--where geography never played a part)?  

To all participating in this forum: thank you for increasing my knowledge about the EU and Türkiye.  Thank you in advance for continuing to do so.


----------



## Tatzingo

Joelline said:
			
		

> 3. I am so unfamiliar with the political structure of the EU that I have to ask this question: is there no provision in the EU constitution for something other than full membership?  Is there no compromise affiliation possible (even if only temporary)?  Could there not be a European Commonwealth of Nations where geography would not be a primary consideration (of course, I'm thinking of the British Commonwealth--where geography never played a part)?


Hi,

To my knowledge, you're either a Member state or a non-member state. The latter also includes those states listed for accession. There's not really an official intermediary stage with special status at all. Having said that, there is a second categorisation of states - the EEA (or is it the EEC now?) and some of those members aren't EU members.

Tatz.

Edit. removal of sheer nonsense.


----------



## emrah

Hi,

It is not possible for us to accept any special status other than membership. There are just two options, Türkiye will be either a member or not. this is not my personal point of view, this is Türkiye's national policy. Many european citizen see Türkiye as a menace to EU; but they should know this, unless we make necessary regulations in our laws we will never be a EU member. also there is plenty of time for us to regulate our laws and develope our economy. Membership negotiations have just started and i am feeling reforms in my daily life. i believe in that Türkiye will be a member state in 15 years time(if there is EU 15 years later.) 

Emrah


----------



## emma42

Hi.  I am still confused as to why our Turkish friends find it offensive for their country to be called "Turkey".  In international meetings don't all countries have their name label in their own language and then also in the official languages of the meetings?  For example, Germany would have a label with "Deutschland/Allemagne/Germany".  So why not "Turkiye/Turquie/Turkey?  

If it is a question of offence because meetings are usually held in English/French or German, that is another discussion and an interesting one.

I do realise obviously that most international meetings have contemporaneous interpretation via headphones.

So, my friend, medetarian and new member emrah (welcome!).  Can you answer my question?


----------



## emrah

Hi Emma

Deutschland/Allemagne/Germany, none of these names remind me an bird. also all of these are written with the consent of Germany. i find "turkey" offensive because it is not pleasant for us to be called with name of an ugly bird. 

And as far as i know even, our government hasn t made any effort to work out this problem.

 i am just curious why do you insist on calling us turkey?


----------



## Outsider

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, it was not Turkey that was named after a bird, but the birds who were named after Turkey: 



> 1541, "guinea fowl" (_Numida meleagris_), imported from Madagascar via Turkey, by Near East traders known as turkey merchants. The larger North American bird (_Meleagris gallopavo_) was domesticated by the Aztecs, introduced to Spain by conquistadors (1523) and thence to wider Europe, by way of North Africa (then under Ottoman rule) and Turkey (Indian corn was originally turkey corn or turkey wheat in Eng. for the same reason). The word _turkey_ was first applied to it in Eng. 1555 because it was identified with or treated as a species of the guinea fowl. The Turkish name for it is _hindi_, lit. "Indian," probably via Fr. _dinde_ (contracted from _poulet d'inde_, lit. "chicken from India"), based on the common misconception that the New World was eastern Asia.


I wonder if Indians complain about the Turkish name of _their_ country...


----------



## emma42

Hi Emrah.  We call you "Turkey"(no offence meant) for the same reason you call us England.  Because that is the name of your country in my language and the name of my country in  your language.  No one I know even thinks about the bird when we talk about your country.

In the same way that a lot of other words have two meanings - "prick", for example, is a rude word for "penis", but if I say "Don't prick your finger with that needle", no one would even think of a "penis".


----------



## emrah

Outsider said:
			
		

> According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, it was not Turkey that was named after a bird, but the birds who were named after Turkey:
> 
> I wonder if Indians complain about the Turkish name of _their_ country...


 
Hi Outsider

India is called "Hindistan" and Indian is called "Hintli" in Turkish and have no relation with turkey(bird) and it is just a local usage. but if they require us to use a different word instead of "Hindistan", we surely do that.


----------



## emma42

Hi Emrah.  What do you think of my explanation?


----------



## emrah

Hi Emma 

your example is so nice. if i were an English people i would share the same opinion with you. but i am Turkish. i think there is a cultural difference between us and i will not be able to explain you why we prefer to use Türkiye. never mind. you can use both.


----------



## maxiogee

emrah, 
Please believe us when we tell you that your country's English name is not derived from that of the "ugly bird"


----------



## Tatzingo

emrah said:
			
		

> Hi Outsider
> 
> India is called "Hindistan" and Indian is called "Hintli" in Turkish and have no relation with turkey(bird) and it is just a local usage. but if they require us to use a different word instead of "Hindistan", we surely do that.



Hi,

I've just found the passage that OUTSIDER must have been referring to. It does seem to suggest that the big bird called "numida meleagris" was named after the country Türkiye and not the other way around. This supposedly is due to the fact that the bird was transported through Türkiye on it's way to England. For the same reason, Indian corn was also called Turkish corn. Please have a look at the following link. It also includes some interesting commentary on what the countrymen of Türkiye call the big bird.
_______________________________________________________________
turkey 

1541, "guinea fowl" (Numida meleagris), imported from Madagascar via Turkey, by Near East traders known as turkey merchants.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=turkey

_______________________________________________________________

I think the fact that the country we refer to as Turkey shares its name with a big bird is not mean't to be offensive to the country in any way. The country merely has something named after itself. Given that the spelling of 'Türkiye' resembles "Turkey" i would assume that  the English name for the country was based on the Turkish word Türkiye and only later in C15 was the bird named after the country.

Turkey is not alone in having products/things named after it. China used to export quantities of China (now it's Happy Meal toys so i hear... ) and they don't take offence. Incidentally, 'China' i believe is not a literal translation from the chinese words for China which would translate as "Middle Kingdom". 

So, back to the question raised by Emma's explanation regards Türkiye on the international scene, surely Türkiye/Turkey/Turquie would be acceptable?

Tatz.

Ps. Did i mention Turkish Delights - also from Türkiye i believe??!


----------



## emma42

Emrah, I am not going to convince you, am I?!  I am more than happy to refer to Turkiye (sorry, no accent) when I am talking to you - I just hope I remember.  It's strange to me, but it's a small thing to do to avoid offence to someone.

Is this a common objection amongst Turkish people?


----------



## emrah

To be honest before writing to this thread, even though, i support the word "Türkiye",  i was not a fierce defender of it. after a few post i found myself in a big discussion. Actually it is not a common objection but there is a rising reaction,particularly, with an e-mail chain on internet.

p.s. you can use both Turkey and Türkiye while writing to me, it is up to you, n.p.


----------



## lizzeymac

emrah said:
			
		

> Hi Outsider
> 
> India is called "Hindistan" and Indian is called "Hintli" in Turkish and have no relation with turkey(bird) and it is just a local usage. but if they require us to use a different word instead of "Hindistan", we surely do that.



Hi Emrah - 
Why do you think the Government of Turkiye does not request that other countries use the name Turkiye?   
It is only a minor difference in spelling, except the accent mark, I don't think Americans would find it too difficult to manage.  
I listened to an online pronunciation of Turkiye & while no one would take me for a native I could say it. (Cumhuriyeti was harder)   Turkiye is a beautiful word.
My high school history textbook is from the United Nations School in New York.  In the texbook there is a chapter on the official translation of names  to English as defined by each country - your country lists "Turkey" not Turkiye or Turkiye Cumhuriyeti.  As you said, "Turkey" is used on all the official websites.  Textbooks & newspapers make changes as the world changes - Burma>Myanmar, Peking > Beijing, Bombay > Mumbai.
I only just read about the comments being written on letters to Turkiye, it wasn't in the US newspapers - I'm sorry, it was a spiteful thing to do.  
Do you think your government will ask for the proper name to be used?


The official name of India (in the English language), according to the Indian Constitution (Official English language version), is "The Republic of India".  It also recognizes  "Bharat" as an official name of equal status.  According to the UN, Hinudstan is an older name, used for about 900 years, but is not an the official name of India and promoting the use of this name is not currently encouraged as it implies primacy or superiority of the Hindu religion. I have only heard that Hindustan in old movies & very old books.

It's very confusing - I am offending people I don't even know.


----------



## medeterian

emma42 said:
			
		

> Hi Emrah.  We call you "Turkey"(no offence meant) for the same reason you call us England.  Because that is the name of your country in my language and the name of my country in  your language.  No one I know even thinks about the bird when we talk about your country.
> 
> In the same way that a lot of other words have two meanings - "prick", for example, is a rude word for "penis", but if I say "Don't prick your finger with that needle", no one would even think of a "penis".



Hi emma. I can imagine the usage of Turkey in England as a synonim and not reminding people the animal directly. This is not the same for non English people I guess. This is why you are supreme using English. Maybe my suspicions are originating from the European press agents which insists on using headers in newspapers like "We stuff Turkey" after football matches. "what happens when Hungry meets Turkey?" is another one. As people uses Turkiye, Turkey will be forgotten in time I think. 

Note: If Indian friends request me not to say Hindistan, I will change my habits for sure


----------



## robbie_SWE

I don't get why people keep alienating Turkey?! Turkish history, culture and language is more close to Europe than Asia. Turkey has a past in Europe, nonetheless in the Balkans (even if it is a sensitive subject for most countries in the Balkans). 

Turkey, should according to me, become a member of the EU in due time. The real issue here, is the fact that there are people who are afraid to have a country with an Islamic population in the EU. In that case, it's a pathetic explanation/reason  . 

The "boders" of Europe are always moving. For me the continent Europe starts from the most northern part of the Urals down to the Caspian sea and around Turkey.


----------



## mansio

Turkey in English can refer to the bird, but in no other European language does such a connexion exist. 
The turkey is called for example dinde in French which means that it originates from India (d'Inde means "from India").


----------



## emma42

OK, medeterian.  I can understand a bit better now.  The "gutter" press in this country is always being insulting to foreigners (and a lot of other groups).  Many people in this country are offended by some of the language it chooses to use.  For instance, there is a very famous headline that was used in "The Sun" newspaper - "Gotcha!" (Got you!) when British troops sank the Argentinian ship, General Belgrano during the conflict over the Falkland Islands/Las Malvinas in the early 1980s.  Many people thought this was tasteless and offensive - to talk about a military "success" , in which people died, as if it were a football match.

I am afraid that even if newspapers like that used "Turkiye" instead of "Turkey", the word is still too similar to the word for the bird, and they would still make stupid jokes about it.


----------



## emrah

lizzeymac said:
			
		

> The official name of India (in the English language), according to the Indian Constitution (Official English language version), is "The Republic of India". It also recognizes "Bharat" as an official name of equal status. According to the UN, Hinudstan is an older name, used for about 900 years, but is not an the official name of India and promoting the use of this name is not currently encouraged as it implies primacy or superiority of the Hindu religion. I have only heard that Hindustan in old movies & very old books.
> 
> It's very confusing - I am offending people I don't even know.


 

Hi Lizzeymac,

thank you for your kind comment and precious information. i did not know that Hindustan is an older name, used for 900 years. I think if it implies primacy and superiority of the Hindu religion, it should not be used.
i don t know whether our government will ask for proper name to be used or not. But there are a lot of jobs to do these days other than that. also i dont know government's opinion on this subject.


----------



## emma42

Indeed, Robbie.  If Turkiye joins the EU it will be in Europe, no matter where its geographical position.  Algeria is (or was) a true Département of France, despite it's being physically in Africa.


----------



## mansio

Robbie

The historical borders of Europe have never changed in the last centuries. The Eastern borders correspond exactly to what you indicate. They stop, as you say, around Turkey. Turkey is not included in your definition.


----------



## pjay

I wouldn't mind Turkey becomming a member of the EU, if cultural differences and religion is all that's at stake. It strikes me as incredibly short-sighted however that we never talk about the economic impact. Turkey's accession to EU membership will have profound economic consequences both in terms of problems and advantages for other member states. I just don't think that advantages and disadvantages will cancel each other out. Turkey will be the EU's largest member state and we should ask what it's economic contribution would be to the well-being of current member states. Is it in OUR best interest? What benefits does it hold for us and not just for Turkey? Granted it's a huge market for European exporters.  But is that sufficient to tip the ballance?


----------



## emma42

I think there have been quite a few posts in the thread about the economic impact, pjay.  It seems to me that what you say is hard fact - financially speaking.


----------



## robbie_SWE

I agree that Turkey does have economic problems, but in the long-run I think that we will se positive results. Think instead about the possibilites!!!


----------



## mansio

Emma

The former French Départements in Algeria are a thing of the past and at that time (before 1962) there was no united Europe as today.

Two Spanish towns Ceuta and Melilla, and a few small islands, are situated on the African continent, on the coast of Morocco and they belong to the European Union.


----------



## emma42

Thanks for that infomation, Mansio.

Robbie, I wasn't really expressing an opinion on whether or not Turkiye should be allowed to join EU.  So there.


----------



## robbie_SWE

I wasn't refering to your post emma42.


----------



## emma42

Oh no!  Sorry about that robbie.


----------



## anthodocheio

> Joelline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I probably have no right to add my ideas here because I am not a citizen of Europe and have no superior knowledge of Türkiye. However, I do have some questions:
> 
> 
> 2. What does the long Western European memory of the name Turkey have to do with anything? Istanbul was Constantinople, but who calls it Constantiople today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Joelline,
> 
> I don't know if you still expect an answer to this.
> 
> Constantinoupolis is the Greek name of Instanbul which as (I hope) you all know was the capital of Greece, well the Byzantin Empire for centuries and after that the co-capital of the Roman Empire. All these at our big glories.
> 
> Of course we still call it that way. The word Instanbul again, is also a Greek name for the same city. It comes from the frase "εις την Πόλη" (is tin poli) which means "to the Town/City" cause for everybody at those times Constantinoupolis was THE City (= Polis ).
> 
> What about the Turkish name for Greece(another offensive name)- Hellas. The turkish name for our country is Yunanistan. To our ears sounds bad but... it means the country of the Ions(I don't know if I write it properly) who were the greeks living at the coasts of Turkey at the ancient times.
> 
> Well, that's all for now.
> 
> I wish I have offered something in the conversation.
Click to expand...


----------



## Brioche

anthodocheio said:
			
		

> What about the Turkish name for Greece (another offensive name)- Hellas. The turkish name for our country is Yunanistan. To our ears sounds bad but... it means the country of the Ions (I don't know if I write it properly) who were the greeks living at the coasts of Turkey at the ancient times.
> 
> Well, that's all for now.
> 
> I wish I have offered something in the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word you want is _Ionians._
> 
> Ionia in ancient times was a narrow strip of land with adjacent islands on the west coast of Asia Minor. It was colonized by Ionian Greeks in pre-historic times.
> 
> The names Greek and Greece come from Latin. The Romans extended to the whole country the name of the first tribe they met on the Greek mainland.
> 
> You can see similar things in names for Germany. The Italian, French, Spanish and Turkish names for Germany come from the name of one tribe in the south east of Germany, the Allemani. The Finnish name for the whole country [Saksa] comes from the name of a different tribe, the Saxons.
> 
> The old Greeks could be insulting too. Those who could not speak properly (Greek, of course) were _barbarians_, which means stammerers.
> 
> Many of the names of towns, rivers and countries used in English come from Latin, as Latin was the international language of scholarship and diplomacy in Europe up to the 19th century.
Click to expand...


----------



## Tatzingo

Brioche said:
			
		

> anthodocheio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see similar things in names for Germany. The Italian, French, Spanish and Turkish names for Germany come from the name of one tribe in the south east of Germany, the Allemani.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Correct me if I'm mistaken but the Italians refer to Germany as la Germania. It's people are i Tedeschi.
> 
> Tatz.
Click to expand...


----------



## maxiogee

So now Greece is an offensive name also? Of what does the offence consist?
Who else? Have we any more candidate countries who are offended by what name is applied to them by other nations?
Where is all this offence coming from?


----------



## Tatzingo

maxiogee said:
			
		

> So now Greece is an offensive name also? Of what does the offence consist?
> Who else? Have we any more candidate countries who are offended by what name is applied to them by other nations?
> Where is all this offence coming from?



Hi,

You know, I'm beginning to wonder, sometimes i hear that it's not what is said  but the way that it is said... So perhaps, the offence is caused by terrible pronunciation or pronuciation with that extra hint of mailce?!? 

Tatz.


----------



## emma42

Mederanian said clearly that he was upset at the use of "Turkey" because of the puns made on the name in the English tabloid press.  I understand what he is saying, but I still don't understand why it upsets him so much.  Perhaps it is because I am used to the grotesqueries of papers such as The Sun, and he isn't.


----------



## se16teddy

emrah said:
			
		

> i think there is a cultural difference between us and i will not be able to explain you why we prefer to use Türkiye. never mind. you can use both.


 
Hello Emrah! When you say that you don't want your country to be named after an 'ugly bird', I can sort of see where you are coming from. 

However, where you say 'we prefer to use Türkiye' I think you are using 'we' in a very selective way. I know a number of Turks who refer to their country as 'Turkey', and so does the Turkish government. http://www.tourismturkey.org/factsforvisitors.htm 

It is also worth mentioning that there are lots of people who love their turkeys and think that they are beautiful birds. Maybe if you got to know turkeys better you would love them too. http://www.turkeyclub.org.uk/photo_gallery/ http://www.kabri.net/turkey.htm No bird looks prouder than a turkey. 

When I visited Turkey, in many places in the countryside where we stopped for a cup of tea and a pancake (gozleme) one of the many delightful experiences was that beautifully kept, and obviously much loved, specimens of ducks, geese, chickens, and sometimes turkeys, would come around and scrounge scraps.

The French have chosen a closely related bird, the cock, as one of their national symbols.  This page suggests that this bird was adopted because of a pun on the country's name.  http://www.terrace.qld.edu.au/academic/lote/french/icocoq.htm


----------



## emma42

Maybe our Turkish friends feel particularly sensitive about their country, including its name in English, because they feel that other countries misunderstand them, don't know much about them (apart from the stereotypes), and feel a bit sensitive on the topic of joining the EU?  Or is my thinking on this completely wrong, Emrah and Medetariaan?


----------



## anthodocheio

Tatzingo said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> You know, I'm beginning to wonder, sometimes i hear that it's not what is said but the way that it is said... So perhaps, the offence is caused by terrible pronunciation or pronuciation with that extra hint of mailce?!?
> 
> Tatz.


 
In my case I mean nothing like these Tatz. 

Although we are out of topic; Brioche has explained how the word Greece came up. 
The offence consists of that the words Greece and Greek are very similar to the word Grecos Γραικός that in greek is used with a negetive meaning. Well, I've just looked it up and I now know that it shouldn'd.

Cheers


----------



## medeterian

anthodocheio said:
			
		

> Hi Joelline,
> 
> I don't know if you still expect an answer to this.
> 
> Constantinoupolis is the Greek name of Instanbul which as (I hope) you all know was the capital of Greece, well the Byzantin Empire for centuries and after that the co-capital of the Roman Empire. All these at our big glories.
> 
> Of course we still call it that way. The word Instanbul again, is also a Greek name for the same city. It comes from the frase "εις την Πόλη" (is tin poli) which means "to the Town/City" cause for everybody at those times Constantinoupolis was THE City (= Polis ).
> 
> What about the Turkish name for Greece(another offensive name)- Hellas. The turkish name for our country is Yunanistan. To our ears sounds bad but... it means the country of the Ions(I don't know if I write it properly) who were the greeks living at the coasts of Turkey at the ancient times.
> 
> Well, that's all for now.
> 
> I wish I have offered something in the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi anthodocheio
> 
> I must correct you. The name İstanbul was coming from the Romans and changed as islambol (which is turkish) and then it became istanbul. Turkish cultural estate consists of many symbols, languages and historical buildings belong to the non Turkish societies who contributed in the Seljuk and Ottoman comunity. These values are not harmed from 1071 which is a very old date.
Click to expand...


----------



## medeterian

emma42 said:
			
		

> Maybe our Turkish friends feel particularly sensitive about their country, including its name in English, because they feel that other countries misunderstand them, don't know much about them (apart from the stereotypes), and feel a bit sensitive on the topic of joining the EU?  Or is my thinking on this completely wrong, Emrah and Medetariaan?



Hi Emma. I mean that the international name must be Türkiye ( the turkish version not english one). In English, people may use which they want, its alright. (It's not about turkey being an ugly bird, besides I dont think it is ugly. )


----------



## medeterian

Hi emma again, yes it is about the stereotypes. But much like cultural stereotypes. Turkish speaking is like inspiration in its nature. Because the mother language affects the human thinking basics.


----------



## emma42

medetarian, I don't know what you mean by "international name" - all countries have their own names for other countries.  If you mean the name that should be used by the Turkish government and people, then that's not what Emrah was saying - he was saying that he didn't like the English name because it's the same as the big bird and because the English press make stupid jokes about it.


----------



## medeterian

emma42 said:
			
		

> medetarian, I don't know what you mean by "international name" - all countries have their own names for other countries.  If you mean the name that should be used by the Turkish government and people, then that's not what Emrah was saying - he was saying that he didn't like the English name because it's the same as the big bird and because the English press make stupid jokes about it.



I am also complaining about the jokes because it is unnecessary. It makes me think that the word remind people directly the bird. Then you said it is not so. And I say when the gov uses Türkiye, it could replace Turkey in time.


----------



## emma42

Well, the "jokes" remind people that the word means "bird", but I don't think most people think of the bird when they are just talking about Turkiye.  The "jokes" are made by, in my opinion, low-class newspapers, who take every opportunity to poke fun at other countries and call it "humour".  One is suspicious of this type of newspaper, though, because a lot of intelligent people consider them to be racist and reactionary.


----------



## maxiogee

May I bring us back to the question which is the heart of this thread?

What is the question seeking to discover? Ekokrem posed the question and then never posted to the thread again.
Did the questioner mean "What is the importance of Turkey to Europe?"
If that is what it means then I don't think Turkey has any particular imoortance to Europe.
There are some who, I think, hope to make it something of a buffer between Europe and the Middle East, but I think that Turkey is more anxious to join Europe than Europe is about it joining.


----------



## medeterian

maxiogee said:
			
		

> May I bring us back to the question which is the heart of this thread?
> 
> What is the question seeking to discover? Ekokrem posed the question and then never posted to the thread again.
> Did the questioner mean "What is the importance of Turkey to Europe?"
> If that is what it means then I don't think Turkey has any particular imoortance to Europe.
> There are some who, I think, hope to make it something of a buffer between Europe and the Middle East, but I think that Turkey is more anxious to join Europe than Europe is about it joining.



It seems to me so. He means just like that. And I want to make an extension. What is important in Türkiye that Europe does not reject the appliance of Türkiye for 47 years?


----------

