Do you personally think that Ottoman rule or European rule was more beneficial for the Arab world?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,296
SoCal
Do you personally think that Ottoman rule or European rule was more beneficial for the Arab world?
 

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,716
How about neither,

I am assuming you mean in the context only of 19th and 20th centuries given European rule did not happen in large areas until then?

Ottoman points in favor-

1. united rule for diverse populations with some structures in place to address inadequacies
2. slightly more legitimacy than Europeans in most regions of ruled areas
3. stronger sense of history and identity which might have blossomed into cultural renewal with new technologies and social changes inspired rather than imposed by the west

European points in favor-
1. modernized certain parts of the infrastructure more quickly
2. aside from things which touched core European financial interests large areas were left to mostly autonomous rule
3. western education focusing on technocratic solutions and systematic analysis brought millions of people into a new global order

Ottoman negatives-

1. often reactionary, concentrated power in a way that was open to abuse
2. had little interest in improving infrastructure outside of core territories
3. brutal policies vs minorities and anyone who questioned Ottoman legitimacy

European negatives-
1. killed millions establishing their rule
2. quashed local identities and left power vacuums left and right because short term interests were prioritized
3. transferred wealth on a large scale via regulatory tariffs and restrictive economic impositions
 
Jun 2017
520
maine
Do you personally think that Ottoman rule or European rule was more beneficial for the Arab world?
IMO, clearly Ottoman rule. The Europeans divided the land up into little fiefdoms that squabbled and bickered--when, all the time, western impositions were for western interests. The Ottoman Empire may have been weak and corrupt as a government--but, culturally, it was compatible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

johnincornwall

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,777
Cornwall
IMO, clearly Ottoman rule. The Europeans divided the land up into little fiefdoms that squabbled and bickered--when, all the time, western impositions were for western interests. The Ottoman Empire may have been weak and corrupt as a government--but, culturally, it was compatible.
Gandhi springs to mind - I suspect the arabs - though that phrase is a little bit like the dreaded 'the europeans' - would rather be governed badly by themselves than well by others. Or maybe not governed at all!

Besides if you could quantify 'the arabs' I'm sure they saw the Ottoman Turks as another European invader
 

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,483
Londinium
Gandhi springs to mind - I suspect the arabs - though that phrase is a little bit like the dreaded 'the europeans' - would rather be governed badly by themselves than well by others. Or maybe not governed at all!

Besides if you could quantify 'the arabs' I'm sure they saw the Ottoman Turks as another European invader
To this day, there is hostility between Turkish and Arab people, which seems to have been omitted from this thread!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Mar 2019
52
Belgium
The ottoman rule is the reason why the Arab world is technologically, economically and socially far behind europe. I don't know if the European rule was better but what I know is that is because of westerners if countries like Saudi Arabia, Arab emirate, Qatar are rich now.
 
Jun 2017
520
maine
The ottoman rule is the reason why the Arab world is technologically, economically and socially far behind europe. I don't know if the European rule was better but what I know is that is because of westerners if countries like Saudi Arabia, Arab emirate, Qatar are rich now.
That may be a bit harsh. Because of distances, the Arabs were pretty much on their own until 1908. Also, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are rich because they had natural resources; if western influence were the determiner of richness, wouldn't other Arab states also be wealthy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: turing and Futurist

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,483
Londinium
What kind of hostility and over what?
Speaking with Turkish mates (some of whom are now back in Turkey) they take the view that increasing Arab populations bring less development and more "stagnant" social conditions, less progressive (although not in western terms) I guess you could say. There is also a lot of tension with Arab's buying up property and businesses then only catering to other Arabs, typically very rich ones. Previously in this thread there was a town of fake French country houses built somewhere in Turkey which was targeted at Arab investors, things like that.

When I recently I visited Istanbul, my Turkish mates there said I should avoid (or be warned at least) of Taksim Sq as loads of Arabs have moved in and ruined the area. It used to be a cheap/student/ kind of hipster place with backpackers and locals alike. Now it was all shisha shops (and other "shops" which shall remain nameless). They told me to try Kadikoy as its more like how Taksim used to be.

Generally speaking, it appears that the Arabs have a high sense of importance, an arrogance that really annoys the Turks.

(I'm sure this is both ways, I don't really know any Arabs these days so can't present both sides, even anecdotally)
 
  • Like
Reactions: turing
Mar 2019
1,743
KL
people should understand there were always empires before the colonists, what colonists did was something really different and much worse. before the ottomans, there were arabs before them there were persians, before them there were babylonians/ assyrians. But these were not colonists, only empires.

i dont really understand when some indians ask the same questions, was mughal empire worse than british empire, my answer is always the same, mughal empire cannot be compared to the british colonists, one was ruling from dehli/india one from london thousand miles away, one infact improved indian economy, one decimated it, one adopted indian culture, while the other tried to impose its own. even though both were foreigners, the mughals came and settled in india and intermarried with the indians and after few generations they virtually looked like rajputs. One lived with the indians the other established black and white towns so that it doesnt mix with them. though the colonial interpretation of indian history since mughal period adopts colour of colonial mindset that mughal colonists came and imposed everything central asian in india, i have always argued this colonial argument, mughals made indian culture golden and indian culture flourished, indian architecture is declared central asian just because of colonial thought process, they think that since they tried to impose their english architecture in india, all the previous foreign rulers of india tried to do the same.

persian empire adopted mesopotamian culture, egyptian culture not the other way around, same goes to arabs who improved the persian gondeshpur academy and created house of wisdom. They were not like colonists who imposed their own institutions and identity over others.

regards
 
Last edited: