Who and what are the Turks?

This question might easily be answered by taking words which were once used for a very different purpose, and saying that, as regards the nations of Europe, the Turks are "aliens in blood, aliens in language, and aliens in religion." Such a saying would be quite true, but it would not be enough. Nations which are alien from one another in blood, in language, and in religion, may easily live together in good international friendship; they may sometimes even live peaceably together under the same government. But there are points about the Turks which make them alien in all these ways from the nations of Europe in a manner in which the nations of Europe are not alien from one another. There are page 4 many things which all the European nations have in common, and which bind them together as members of one body, in none of which the Turks have any share. The differences between the Turks and the European nations are of another kind from the differences between one European nation and another. And the differences between the Turks and the European nations are of a kind which makes it quite impossible that the Turks should ever become members of one civilized body in the way that the European nations are members of one body. To understand this the better, let us see what the points are in which the European nations agree with one another and differ from the Turks.

First then, nearly all the European nations belong to one family of mankind, and speak languages which once were one language. It is indeed only lately that this truth has been made generally known by the researches of learned men; but it has none the less always been a truth, and we may be sure that the real original kindred which exists among all the European nations has at all times had a real influence in binding them together, even when they themselves had no notion that there was any such kindred among them.

Secondly, the European nations have much of their history and many of their memories in common. All of them either once actually formed part of the Empire of Rome, or at least were greatly influenced in many ways by the language and civilization of Rome. The western part of Europe has been in page 5 this way influenced by the Western Roman Empire, while the eastern part of Europe has been in the like sort influenced by the Eastern Roman Empire, which had its seat at Constantinople or New Rome. Thus all the nations of Europe have many ideas and feelings in common which are not shared by those nations which never had anything to do with either of the seats of Roman power. Thus, for instance, the Greek and Latin languages, and the works written in them, are a common possession of all those nations which came under the influence of Rome, but a possession in which those nations which never came under that influence have no share.

Thirdly, the greatest result that has come of this common Roman influence has been that all the nations of Europe have a common religion. Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, and of those nations which got their culture from either of the two seats of Roman power. Christianity has made no great progress beyond those bounds; and, though different European nations have accepted Christianity in different national shapes, though there have been many disputes, and even fightings and persecutions, among the professors of different forms of Christianity, still the common religion has always been a real tie. The points of likeness between any two Christian nations will be found, when they are compared with nations which are not Christian, to be much greater than their points of unlikeness.

Fourthly, from the common history and common religion of the European nations, it follows that they page 6 all have a certain common civilization. They have much that is common to them all in their political, social, and intellectual life. Let us take two special instances, which show the way in which the Christian religion and the earlier laws and customs of the European nations have worked together. Christianity lays down no civil precepts; but it lays down moral precepts, by which Christian nations have been more or less influenced. There is nothing in the Christian religion which prescribes any particular form of government; Christian nations have therefore lived under all kinds of governments. But the moral precepts of Christianity are all in favour of law, order, and justice. And though the governments of some Christian nations have been very bad, yet law, order, and justice have never been quite forgotten; and, as time has gone on, even the worst Christian governments have shown that they have been able to make more or less improvement. The morals of many Christian nations have been very bad; but in no Christian nation has polygamy been allowed by law. In this matter the law of Rome and the moral teaching of the Gospel went together. But the law of Rome allowed slavery; while, though the Gospel contained no direct precept against slavery, still its moral precepts have been felt to be inconsistent with slavery. Slavery has therefore been gradually, though very slowly, abolished in all the Christian countries of Europe, and in most Christian countries out of Europe. We may say that two of the things which most distinguish Christian or European page 7 society are, that it has always forbidden polygamy, and that it has gradually come to forbid slavery.

Fifthly, all these causes working together have brought about a state of things in which the greater part of Europe lives under national governments, and for the most part under fairly good governments. Some are doubtless better than others; all doubtless might be made better than they are; but all of them fairly discharge, or at the worst try or profess to discharge, the first duty of a government in doing fair justice between man, and man. And in by far the greater part of Europe men are under governments of their own nation. It is only in a few small parts here and there that men complain of being under foreign dominion; and, though subjection to a foreign government is doubtless always a grievance, yet, as compared with other countries and other ages, we may say that in modern Europe even a foreign government does not carry with it any utterly intolerable oppression. In by far the greater part of Europe men are under governments which are strictly national, governments which they may wish to improve in this or that way, but which they in no way wish to get rid of. And yet a very large part of the governments of Europe did in their origin spring from foreign conquests. But it came about nearly everywhere, either that the conquerors took to the language and manners of the conquered, or else that the conquered took to the language and manners of the conquerors. Thus, in one way or another, conquerors and conquered sooner or later became one page 8 people. Thus Gaul was, ages back, conquered by the Franks; England, some ages later, was conquered by the Normans. But in process of time Franks and Gauls, Normans and English, became one people. It makes no difference to the modern Frenchman or the modern Englishman of which blood his forefathers came. For ages past the governments of France and England have been better or worse at this and that time, but they have at all times been national governments. Neither country for ages past has seen the dominion of strangers ruling over the people of the land in their own land.

Now we in Western Europe, and above all we in England, are so used to all these things that we are apt to take them for granted, and not easily to understand a state of things which is utterly different. We are used to a government of our own people; we find it hard to understand a state of things in which what is called government is the mere dominion of strangers lording it over the people of the land in their own land. We are used to a state of things in which the king or other sovereign is the head of the people of the land. His people owe him allegiance, because he gives them protection. We find it hard to understand a state of things in which the so-called sovereign is not the head of the people of the land, but the head of another people who have thrust themselves in by force, and who hold the people of the land in bondage. We find it hard to understand a state of things in which the so-called subject owes no allegiance, because the so-called sovereign gives no pro- page 9 tection. We are so used to a good administration of justice that we find it hard to understand a state of things in which there is really no justice at all, where nothing can be done without a bribe, where the great mass of the people of the land can get no redress for the worst wrongs, and where the great mass of the people of the land are not received as witnesses. In short, we are so used to a reign of law that we can hardly conceive the absence of law. We can hardly conceive a state of things in which the promises and proclamations of the so-called sovereign are broken as a matter of course, because they are never meant to be kept. We are so used to look on the land, the people, and the government as all bound together, that we find it hard to understand that it can anywhere be otherwise. We are often led into mistakes by using forms of words which are quite true in our own land and in other western lands, but which are quite untrue elsewhere. As the interest of England and the interest of the English mean the same thing, we find it hard to understand that the interest of Turkey and the interest of the Turks mean two opposite things. Now this last is the great point of all which needs to be understood in thinking and speaking about these matters. We call our land England, because it is really the land of the English, a land where the people and its government are alike English, where the people and the government have a common interest. But when we call a certain part of Europe Turkey, it does not mean that the people of the land are Turks, but only that the people of the land are page 10 held in bondage by the Turks. The Turks are not the countrymen of the people of Turkey; they are foreign enemies encamped among them. The ruler of the Turks is not the national sovereign of the people of Turkey; he is simply the chief of their foreign enemies. He gives them no protection; therefore they owe him no allegiance. The interest of Turkey and the interest of the Turks are two opposite things. Whatever the Turks seek as good for themselves is bad for the land of Turkey and its people.

In a word, the Turks in Europe are simply a band of strangers, a foreign army in short, encamped in that part of Europe which from their encampment is called Turkey. Yet their encampment in Europe began as long as five hundred years ago. Now, in most other places, when a conquest happened five hundred years ago, the conquerors and the conquered have by this time pretty well made up their differences, and have sat down as one people under one government. Why has not this happened in Turkey? Why have not the Turks become one people with the nations whom they found in the land? Why does the Turk still remain as much a stranger and an enemy as he was when he first came five hundred years back? Why has he never really become a member of the European commonwealth? The reason is, because the Turk has no share in any of the things which bind the nations of Europe together; above all, because he professes a religion which hinders him from ever having any share in them.

page 11

Let us now go in order through all these points in which we have seen that the European nations agree, and we shall find that in none of these has the Turk any share. We shall see that to all the nations of Europe he is an alien in blood, an alien in language, and an alien in religion, in a way in which none among those nations are aliens to one another.

First of all then, the Turk has no share in the first possession which is common to the nations of Europe, in their original kindred of blood and language. The original Turks belong to quite another family of man from that to which the great mass of the European nations belong. Now this of itself would doubtless have made it harder for the Turks to share in the common fellowship of the European nations; but the evidence of history shows that it would not of itself have made it impossible. For before the Ottoman Turks came into Europe, two other nations had come, who were more or less nearly akin to the Turks, and unlike the European nations in general, but whose history has been quite different from that of the Turks. The original Bulgarians came into Europe in the seventh century, as barbarian invaders, just as the Ottoman Turks did seven hundred years later. But they gradually adopted the language, the manners, and the religion of the nations among whom they settled. They were lost in the mass of their Christian and Slavonic neighbours and subjects, so that the modern Bulgarians are a Slavonic people bearing the Bulgarian name. This shows that it is quite possible for a people, wholly alien to the other nations of Europe page 12 and in some degree akin to the Turk, to change themselves, so to speak, into Europeans. Two hundred years later than the Bulgarians came the Magyars or Hungarians, another people equally alien to the nations of Europe. The Magyars have not been lost among their subjects and neighbours in the same way as the Bulgarians; they still remain a distinct people, speaking their own tongue; but in other things they adopted the religion and manners of Europe, and they have been for ages counted as an European nation. But the Ottoman Turk, so far from being like the Bulgarian, has not even been like the Magyar. He has not become European in any sense; and this, although not a few Europeans have, either by force, or of their own free will, at various times joined the Turks. Many of the actual Turks now must really be of European blood; but this has not made the Turks as a body Europeans; those who have joined them have ceased to be Europeans, but they have not changed the Turks into Europeans.

Secondly, as the Turks are alien to Europe in blood and language, they have no share in the history and memories which are common to Europe. Though their seat of power is actually placed in the New Rome, they have never come under those Roman influences which affected the older European nations, and which have also affected the Bulgarians and Magyars. They still, as a people, know nothing of the languages, the literature, and general culture of Europe. Their literature and culture, so far as they have any, still remains the literature and culture of page 13 the East. With the nations of Europe, the civilizing influences have been Greek and Roman. Whatever degree of civilizing influence the Turks have ever undergone has been Arabian and Persian.

Thirdly, we come to the main difference of all, that which is the key to all the other differences, namely, that the Turks have never' embraced the religion of Europe. This their forerunners and kinsmen the Bulgarians and Magyars did; but the Turks have not done so. Hence the Bulgarians and Magyars have become more or less thoroughly European, while the Turks have never become European. For the Bulgarians and Magyars came into Europe as mere heathen savages; they therefore adopted the religion of Europe along with the general culture of Europe. This the Ottoman Turks could not do, because they were not mere heathen savages, but Mahometans with a kind of half-civilization, an imperfect form of the civilization of the East. The Mahometan religion is, both in theory and practice, specially antagonistic to all other religions. And it is, in practice, specially antagonistic to Christianity. For Christianity and Mahometanism alike, in that differing from most heathen religions, each proclaims itself as the one true religion which all men are bound to believe. Christianity and Mahometanism have more in common than any other two religions; therefore they are more distinctly hostile to one another than any other two religions. Add to this that the Mahometan religion makes it the duty of the true believer to fight against page 14 the Infidel—that is, the man of any religion but the Mahometan—and to bring him into bondage. For all these reasons, it is very hard for men who have once adopted the Mahometan faith to turn to any other. The Turks therefore, by remaining Mahometans, have been unable to enter into the common European fellowship in the same way as the original European nations, or even in the same way as those other alien settlers who have become Christians.

Fourthly, from this difference in religion between the Turks and European nations follows a complete difference in their political, social, and moral system. Speaking generally, no Eastern nation—at any rate, no great settled Eastern kingdom—has known freedom and good government in the sense in which those words are understood in Western Europe. The great governments of the East have always been despotic; where there has been any kind of lawful check on the power of the king, it has always been a religious check. So the government of the Turk has always been purely despotic, except so far as the will of the Sultan has been checked by the rules of the Mahometan law. And the rules of the Mahometan law have often checked this and that Sultan in wicked and cruel designs. But the Mahometan law allows polygamy and slavery, and requires that men of all other religions shall be subjects of the true believer. It is therefore impossible for the Turks or for any other Mahometan people, so long as they remain Mahometan, to establish what we in Western Europe should call free and just government. It is impos- page 15 sible for them really to enter into European fellowship, because their religion allows a social and moral state wholly different from that which all European nations hold to be right.

Fifthly, from all this it follows that the rule of the Turk in Europe never can be a national government. A Mahometan government may be a national government in any country where the whole people is Mahometan. In such a country it may be a good government, so far as any despotic government can be good. That is to say, there is always the chance of a well-disposed ruler, who may, if he choose, use his despotic power for good ends. But when a Mahometan government bears rule over subjects who are not Mahometans, it cannot be a national government. It cannot be a good government. The most that the best disposed Mahometan ruler can do, will be to keep his subjects of other religions than the Mahometan from actual personal oppression. Mahometan rulers have done this; but no Mahometan ruler has really put his subjects of other religions on the same footing as his Mahometan subjects. He must treat them as the inferiors of his Mahometan subjects, as men whose religion is tolerated and no more. And when a Mahometan government is established by conquest over nations who are not Mahometan, those nations necessarily become bondmen in their own land. All power and honour is kept for the conquerors, and for such natives as embrace the religion of the conquerors. Those of the natives who cleave faithfully to their religion remain an inferior page 16 race, in bondage to conquerors and renegades. And where the law, so far as the word law can be used, condemns the mass of the people of the land to subjection and degradation, it is certain that subjection and degradation will grow into actual personal oppression. So it is now in that part of Europe which we call European Turkey. The great mass of the Christian people there have remained faithful to their religion; they have therefore been made bondsmen in their own land. They are ruled over by strangers, who, though they have been five hundred years in the land, still remain strangers. They have no national government. They have, in a strict sense, no government at all. The ruler of the strangers, who calls himself their sovereign, is not their sovereign in the sense in which any Western ruler is the sovereign of his people. He is not the head of their own nation; he is simply the head of a band of foreign oppressors. For, as must necessarily follow, subjection and degradation have grown into direct oppression, oppression which has been growing worse and worse for ages. An English statesman, not long ago, said that the people of European Turkey, if they had grievances, ought to lay them before their own government, and not to listen to foreign intriguers. In so saying, he used words which have a meaning in Western Europe, but which have no meaning in South-eastern Europe. The oppressed Christian there cannot appeal to his own government, for he has no government to appeal to. The thing which the English statesman called his own page 17 government he looks on as the brute force of foreign enemies. Those whom the English statesman called foreign intriguers he looks on as his countrymen who are ready to help him to win the freedom which they have won and kept for themselves. The man who calls himself the sovereign of these nations is not, in their eyes, their sovereign, nor are they in their own eyes his subjects. He gives them no protection; therefore they owe him no allegiance. He has no rights over them, unless there be right in brute force. They have no duties towards him, except the duty of getting rid of him as soon as they can. In a word, the interest of Turkey and the interest of the Turk are two opposite things.

We have thus seen who and what the Turks in Europe are. They are an alien people, who have settled in Europe by force, but who have never entered into the common fellowship of European nations. They have no share in the religion, the culture, the historic memories, which are common to all Europe. They have been encamped in Europe for five hundred years. During all that time, they have been simply encamped; they are as much strangers at the end of five hundred years as they were at the beginning. They have nowhere become the people of the land; they have simply held the people of the land in bondage. They have never become one with the nations which they have conquered. They have never given them just or good government. They have been simply foreign oppressors, whose oppression has been always getting worse and worse. page 18 And this state of things not only is so, but it always must be so as long as the Turk keeps his power. It must be so as long as he remains Mahometan; and he is not likely to cease to be Mahometan. As long as the Turk remains Mahometan, he cannot reform, in the sense in which Western nations understand reform. A Mahometan government might indeed, without ceasing to be Mahometan, stop a great deal of the actual oppression and corruption which now goes on in the land which we call Turkey; for much of that oppression is as much opposed to the Mahometan religion as it is to the Christian religion. But a Mahometan government cannot, without ceasing to be Mahometan, put a stop to that which leads the way to such oppression and corruption, to that which makes oppression and corruption commoner and harder to be got rid of than they have ever been in the worst-governed Western countries. For such a government cannot, without sinning against the first principles of its religion, put its non-Mahometan subjects on a level with its Mahometan subjects. It cannot get rid of the great evils of Eastern society which Western society has got rid of. It cannot get rid of polygamy and slavery, because the Mahometan religion allows and sanctifies both. The rule then of the Turk is something which is not only evil in itself, but which, as long as it is the rule of the Turk, can never be made much better. The Turk cannot reform, because the principles of his religion forbid him to reform. As long as he remains Mahometan, he cannot be anything but a foreign ruler page 19 over subject nations in their own land; and such a foreign ruler can hardly fail to be a foreign oppressor.

We have thus answered one question, Who and what are the Turks? We will now go on to answer our second question,