|
|
Analyze the ways in which various people viewed the character and condition of Greeks in the Ottoman Empire during the Greek movement for independence in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
General consensus among European nations during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries held the once mighty, influential Greek state, then under Ottoman rule, in peril of forever losing its national identity. The Ottomans, though relatively tolerant and not oppressive toward their subjects, suffered eventual loss of Greek territory as a result of views of the the period regarding the Turks as culturally inferior to the Greeks. Hence, western nations, especially France and England, encouraged insurgence among Greek populations and rendered troops and monetary aid in order to restore the birthplace of Enlightenment ideals to its former grandness.
Little evidence exists suggesting the Ottoman Empire treated non-Turkish peoples repressively. The Turkish Sultan, Mustapha III, in 1765 instructed his governor to ensure �that affronts or arbitrary acts [did] not take place against those who [were] innocent� (Document 2) of local insurgent acts. This demonstrates he clearly understood the mood of the Greek people and implies his desire to maintain order without provoking further acts of rebellion. However, Europeans regarded the Turks as an ignorant, backward race (Document 1) that could never contribute to world development as the Greeks had. Foreigners, such as James Dallaway, observed Greek character had fallen as a result of subordination to the Turks (Document 5), though both Dallaway and the French scholar Claude Etienne Savary held a more moderate view (Savary refused to illustrate the Turks �in darker colors than they [deserved]�) (Document 3) than the blunt opinion Sneyd Davis expressed in 1744 (Document 1).
Propaganda such as The Greek Monarchy or A Word About Freedom, which called the Turks �savage� and �worthless of spirit� (Document 6), reinforced the incredulous reality that the nation which produced Plato could be subject to a barbarous empire. The engraving Greece Sacrificed (Document 11) further iterates this point in its graphic depiction of the confrontation between weaponless Greek civilians and attacking Ottoman forces. Edward Blaquiere�s account of a Greek Orthodox Church leader�s death explicitly describes the relationship between the Greeks and the Turks as one of Greek submissiveness to Turkish suppression, a portrayal which helped incite further rebellion among Greek nationalists (Document 8). Thus, the Turks, though they generally maintained a non-aggressive policy of rule, fell victim to European ethnocentrism in regard to their effects on Greek character.
Chaplain James Dallaway noted that the Greek people seemed to possess no longer their former vitality and to experience a degradation in morality (Document 5). Vahid Pasha also felt dubious about Greek spirituality, supposing that the Greeks used their religion to further �diabolical designs� (Document 9). The Turkish governor, interestingly, neglects to enumerate for his audience any list of alterior motives by the Greeks.
It almost goes without saying that the Greeks felt more than justified in their own cause (Document 10) against the Turks; their feelings qualified more than an undertone of religious righteousness and fervor. In addition to taking advantage of perceived military weaknesses in the Ottoman Empire (Document 6), the Greeks counted on both their Christian stature and enlightened thinking to provide the necessary bulwark against continual Ottoman dominance. A. Regneir engraved Ottoman horses braying at the combined sight of a woman hugging the cross, a man�s uplifted arm, and ancient pillars (standing in the background), all of which symbolize Greek determination to resist barbarian control (Document 11).
The Greek spirit, after paying tribute both monetarily and culturally (Document 1) to the Ottoman Empire, naturally suffered a decline. Claude Etienne Savary went so far as to state that the Greeks were �crushed� under Turkish leadership (Document 3). Thus, the condition of the Greek people, substantially weakened from its antique strength, raised the alarum both within Greece and abroad, leading to the struggle for Greek independence from Ottoman rule.
As enlightened thought advanced across Europe, foreign nations looked on in horror as Greek prestige and prominence diminished (Document 3). The Greek conservative Alexandros Kalphoglu was likewise mortified to witness his fellow Greeks abandon their own identity to naively embrace French Enlightenment trends and styles (Document 4). In order to gain and sustain foreign support, Greeks felt they needed to conform to current philosophies regarding mode of government and ideology (Document 10). They relinquished some nationalistic aspects in order to convince other nations that Greece, too, could survive as a �modern�, independent state.
Writers such as Sneyd Davis bewailed the stoppage in the once steady flow of Greek contributions to the betterment of society (Document 1). The desire for a return to the prolific productivity of the ancient era induced many foreigners to enthusiastically support Greek nationalism. Shelley used the phrase �We are all Greeks� (Document 7) as a rhetorical tactic similar to that employed a century and-a-half later by President John F. Kennedy in his �Ich bin ein Berliner� speech: Shelley appealed to the sense of connection through common humanity and deference to the modern systems of thought and practice rooted in ancient Greece (Shelley was probably more effective than Kennedy, because Shelley did not essentially declare himself a jelly donut).
Though inordinate theocratic influence of state opposed most Enlightenment views, the murder of a religious leader (Document 8) represented yet another fatal blow to a powerful Greek establishment, thus serving to further incite anti-Ottoman sentiment. As the Enlightenment did not, either, necessarily embrace the suppression of religious practice, support continued to rally around the �ancient home� of freedom (Document 6) in hopes of its eventual restoration. Although it has already been established that the Turks tolerated most of their subjects� customary practices, any threat to liberty, such as that depicted by the Greek figures defending the symbols of Greek nationalism behind them (Document 11), aroused anger and resentment by Europeans toward the forces of the Ottoman Empire.
Other western European countries supported the Greek movement for independence during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries because they perceived the abandonment of Greek identity as a parallel to a similar loss of the same glorious characteristics in themselves. Years under Ottoman rule forced the Greek nation to gradually relinquish its former distinctive, advanced character. Detrimental conditions forced the Greeks to choose independence over annihilation. People across Europe felt that the Greek contributions to humanity benefited too many people to allow the Greeks to simply fade from existence. This necessitated prompt, fierce action leading to Turkish recognition in 1830 of an independent Greece.
|
|
