Shipwrecks Under Istanbul(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
Shipwrecks Under Istanbul
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-big-dig
5 comments
I'm a Turkish citizen, Istanbulite, now 23 years old. I have happened to witness all of this in person in this city. I wear two identities, if I can say so, one is that I'm from the bosphorus, Bogazici, and the other is that I belong to the near east. This sort of findings delight me a lot. It proves that at the end of the day the human is to measure, that he be the one to be measured, and that after tens of thousands of years all we have been able to do is better tools, nothing more. Regarding the Erdogan and the rest, he's just the tip of the iceberg. The Turkish have been miserable all the time, and recently more, because, as a turkish proverb proceeds to say, the feet became the head. If it wasn't him to be made so powerful by the crowd of angry ignorant fundamentalists, it would be someone else. In this country of genocides, now one is active against the population of reasonables.
What shines through very clearly is, on the one hand, the dignity and professionalism of your fellow citizens involved in the preservation work (and the strict laws protecting archeological finds are also something to be very proud of), and, on the other, the boorishness of Erdogan. That's politicians for you though :(
Eloquently put.
What makes you the "reasonable" and others "ignorant fundamentalists" again? The hubris of elitism has never ceased to amaze me.
That what makes me reasonable is that I think when I have to decide, and I do so in a dialectical manner looking for the objective truth, instead of referring myself to dogmas for justifying my subjective view of the world.
Now if you'll defend those who chop off heads, make genocides, defend past genocides, steal money while looking religious, oppress the minorities, disable education facilities, polarize the people, lie shamelessly for their own benefit, blow-up monuments of our past, force their views on others, commit massacres in the name of their beliefs, disrupt anybody else, homogenate the minorities, kill languages and cultures for national-fascist wills, kill innocent people for political benefits, accept bribes, become corrupt... then I don't know what can I do for you.
The aggressiveness of ignorance never ceased to amaze me.
Now if you'll defend those who chop off heads, make genocides, defend past genocides, steal money while looking religious, oppress the minorities, disable education facilities, polarize the people, lie shamelessly for their own benefit, blow-up monuments of our past, force their views on others, commit massacres in the name of their beliefs, disrupt anybody else, homogenate the minorities, kill languages and cultures for national-fascist wills, kill innocent people for political benefits, accept bribes, become corrupt... then I don't know what can I do for you.
The aggressiveness of ignorance never ceased to amaze me.
You just mixed and piled up all bad qualities and past-current atrocities to create an imaginary monster. Then you assign that monster to someone or some particular people you personally hate -whatever the reason- in Turkey. This is not being reasonable.
No. I piled up all bad qualities and atrocities that were committed in the past and are being committed still by the people here. It has nothing to do with reason. It is a list of facts. Being reasonable is in the way you interpret this list of facts, are you comfortable as long as you are a conservative muslim turk of good income, or do you empathise, do you respect others, or do you want to bash anyone that is not like you.
This is my last reply to you. I will not bother to list and prove all my points here, there's internet, there are books, if it is that important for you, you'll find it out for yourself. Maybe one day you'll visit turkey, and see it for yourself. I'm having enough of it already.
This is my last reply to you. I will not bother to list and prove all my points here, there's internet, there are books, if it is that important for you, you'll find it out for yourself. Maybe one day you'll visit turkey, and see it for yourself. I'm having enough of it already.
"ignorant fundamentalists" exists.
Stop and observe an you might see them as well: Religious, Atheists, Europeans, Africans etc.
Some of them have managed to make more harm than others and Turkey -just like my home country, has a recent history (last 120 years) of killing parts of its own population just being different.
Stop and observe an you might see them as well: Religious, Atheists, Europeans, Africans etc.
Some of them have managed to make more harm than others and Turkey -just like my home country, has a recent history (last 120 years) of killing parts of its own population just being different.
Which one is your country, if you would like to name it? I would like to be able to find out about it and maybe contrast it with Turkey, I intend to study ethical and religious clashes as a material for philosophical views on states, democracy etc.
And because I can't edit my comment for who-knows-the-reason, I'll dump it here: I'm sorry that I even referred to Erdogan and that I said the things that I said after, as I caused the thread to lose its focus, which had to be the people that left those footprints here. But then again, I would not have thought that anybody would argue that people who can destroy and disregard high-importance archaeological findings for the increased speed of the construction work were not ignorant, and those who are openly fundamentalist were not so, and that I was elitist and that I had hubris for calling the miserable miserable.
And because I can't edit my comment for who-knows-the-reason, I'll dump it here: I'm sorry that I even referred to Erdogan and that I said the things that I said after, as I caused the thread to lose its focus, which had to be the people that left those footprints here. But then again, I would not have thought that anybody would argue that people who can destroy and disregard high-importance archaeological findings for the increased speed of the construction work were not ignorant, and those who are openly fundamentalist were not so, and that I was elitist and that I had hubris for calling the miserable miserable.
I would say I come from one of the Nordic countries.
To the downvoters of the above-post: Stop downvoting this guy. His critique fair and correct, he has a solid point. And he's helped me elaborate my point better. And somewhere in this thread you lot will see that we eventually agree on a lot of points. What's wrong with you? I want to think that the HN crowd is an educated one.
"Fundamentalist" as in "religious fundamentalist."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism
Compare their goals to then successful work of Ataturk in 20th century in Turkey:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk's_Reforms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism
Compare their goals to then successful work of Ataturk in 20th century in Turkey:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk's_Reforms
Also on the subject, sadly, no matter his visions and good intentions, he was a victim of perfectionism and elitism. No matter what the outcome is, Ataturk was totalitarian at the end and some of his reforms were either unnecessary or executed terribly.
Besides, what is the point? Why are we comparing those two again?
Besides, what is the point? Why are we comparing those two again?
You're right in your point that M. Kemal was a victim, but he was not a victim of perfectionism and elitism. He was a victim of some blind nationalism, his admiring of the Occident and his dismissal of the parity of different cultures. He and other people thought that the Europe was better than the other, whereas in fact it was merely different. The revolutions were top down, fascistic, and forced. As you will see, if you read in an objective manner, some history, nearly none the revolutions have changed the things for the better for all. There are still many turks that sustain that Kurdish the language was invented in the 70's, that all the languages descended from turkish, that American indigenous people, Italians, Sumerians and other ancient people of the asia minore were of Turkish descent, that Armenians are the ones that made a genocide at the beginning of the 20th century, etc. People identify themselves basing on lies here. What gives a totalitarian person room to do what he wants? A bunch of hero-gazers that have nothing to base any thought on. See that I do not call people stupid or smart, many ignorant are smart. It's good when one knows that he knows or that he does not know, but the evil is the ignorance of the ignorance, which is our ill as a community of the Near east.
Oh we do agree in the blind nationalism issue, no objections here. I do agree ignorance of ignorance is a terrible thing as well.
However, unlike you I try to refrain blanket statements on people of near east, or any other place.
Doesn't the fact that I'm a person of the near east justify me trying to reflect upon my people? I mean, given that I live here, I get to, and have to interact with this people, that I walk among real islamic fundamentalists, real PKK terrorists, real corrupt politicians and their actual supporters? I agree that it's not reasonable to make blanket statements, but I do indeed show the people I make statements about. All I do is to reflect upon the society that I belong to, that I live within and that affects me in the most direct manner.
Not if you seek objectivity. You have your own biases, which do not go away because you live/interact there.
It is common for people closest to a subject to have the biggest blind spots.
the wonderful nature of our own biases, perceptive and cognitive, is that it very difficult for us to see them.
It is common for people closest to a subject to have the biggest blind spots.
the wonderful nature of our own biases, perceptive and cognitive, is that it very difficult for us to see them.
There is another direction too: farher people should also be vary of not ending with thinking "let them eat cake," from the position of somebody not directly affected by the real problems of those who live them.
I live in Turkey.
You asked "What makes you the "reasonable" and others "ignorant fundamentalists" again?" I'm answering that the division exists and is important and I agree with you that there are better names for the same groups.
But I surely don't want to disqualify the report of a somebody who writes from there only because his report doesn't use what in other environments would be assumed politically correct language.
But I surely don't want to disqualify the report of a somebody who writes from there only because his report doesn't use what in other environments would be assumed politically correct language.
What I am against is that OP, perhaps indirectly, calls Turkish people who votes for/agrees current government as "ignorant fundamentalists" and himself as "reasonable". I think this is degrading and elitist. Maybe I misunderstood him.
It's not name calling if he really believes that those who he names are ignorant. You can discuss with him about what he believes they don't know. Just using the word isn't wrong in itself.
> No matter what the outcome is, Ataturk was totalitarian at the end
Pointing out you're replacing all his achievements with the fact that he was a totalitarian. This ignores a whole host of subtly.
Nixon started the EPA. Ghengis Khan raped and murdered uncountable ancients, but kicked off a trade network (hell, global economy) and international dialogue that arguably continues today. There's no black and white at all in history.
Pointing out you're replacing all his achievements with the fact that he was a totalitarian. This ignores a whole host of subtly.
Nixon started the EPA. Ghengis Khan raped and murdered uncountable ancients, but kicked off a trade network (hell, global economy) and international dialogue that arguably continues today. There's no black and white at all in history.
My problem is not on the definitions, but the "name calling".
I agree that calling the leaders of fundamentalists "ignorant" is surely wrong and hugely underestimates their capabilities, as it's known that a lot of planning is involved in their work:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-file...
And we also see how effective in working towards their goals they can be.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-file...
And we also see how effective in working towards their goals they can be.
You missed the key point of the article you linked to:
That IS is not really a group of religious fundamentalists (at least in the higher levels) - rather they are a bunch of Baathists including intelligence people, who are masquerading as religous fundamentalists and exploiting fundamentalists to get back into power.
That IS is not really a group of religious fundamentalists (at least in the higher levels) - rather they are a bunch of Baathists including intelligence people, who are masquerading as religous fundamentalists and exploiting fundamentalists to get back into power.
That has applied to most of the main Islamic terror groups of the last 60 years or so. Do as I say, not as I do. I'm not saying that there were not any leaders who were very devout, just that way too many seem to enjoy a significantly more relaxed lifestyle than their followers.
But that applies to most of the politicians in my country, too, so I'm not throwing stones, just making an observation.
But that applies to most of the politicians in my country, too, so I'm not throwing stones, just making an observation.
Can you please explain where you see I'm missing exactly the point you mention? I understand that you find the point important to you, but I haven't discussed these details specifically.
Leaders are seldom constrained by the ideology they proclaim.
Leaders are seldom constrained by the ideology they proclaim.
Well, there is a lot of crosstalk here, so there might be bit of confusion.
Earlier you were contrasting between religious fundamentalists and 'reasonable' actors :
>"Fundamentalist" as in "religious fundamentalist." >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism Compare their goals to then successful work of Ataturk in 20th century in Turkey:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk's_Reforms
Then you cited IS as an example of religious fundamentalists and linked to an article. My point was that the article you linked to makes the point (at least that was what i inferred) that IS is more 'reasonable'/rational than religious in their calculations and actions (including their cruelty and brutality).
>"Fundamentalist" as in "religious fundamentalist." >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism Compare their goals to then successful work of Ataturk in 20th century in Turkey:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk's_Reforms
Then you cited IS as an example of religious fundamentalists and linked to an article. My point was that the article you linked to makes the point (at least that was what i inferred) that IS is more 'reasonable'/rational than religious in their calculations and actions (including their cruelty and brutality).
Note your statement in the message before
> That IS is not really a group of religious fundamentalists (at least in the higher levels)
I agree if it's about the higher levels, in sense that their goals aren't restricted to the religion but to the power. However even if they aren't secretly just religious they do use the motives of religious fundamentalism to support their actions and to motivate their supporters and followers, and their supporters are rarely aware of the nuances. The leaders do excuse what they do with their religious talks.
> My point was that the article you linked to makes the point (at least that was what i inferred) that IS is more 'reasonable'/rational than religious
I don't agree. We can't equate the higher levels (leaders) and the voters, the supporters and the simple fighters. Only the leaders are those who (by necessity) understand the game (if I remember correctly Bin Laden had the full reports of the US think tanks in his library). The lower levels just religiously believe. Exactly like most of the common people in the US still didn't get that there were actually no WMD and no Al Quaida in Iraq at the time Dubbya Bush (the leader) initiated his war.
On one (higher) level in the same political/religious side, there is rationality, on another (lower) ignorance. User gkya just wasn't able to be precise enough, as you see, it takes time until people who take part in the conversation start to understand one another. And I don't believe I'm elitist when I'm aware of these different levels, just as you've felt that it's important to note the obvious rationality of the leaders (even if you missed to make that difference in the second post).
> That IS is not really a group of religious fundamentalists (at least in the higher levels)
I agree if it's about the higher levels, in sense that their goals aren't restricted to the religion but to the power. However even if they aren't secretly just religious they do use the motives of religious fundamentalism to support their actions and to motivate their supporters and followers, and their supporters are rarely aware of the nuances. The leaders do excuse what they do with their religious talks.
> My point was that the article you linked to makes the point (at least that was what i inferred) that IS is more 'reasonable'/rational than religious
I don't agree. We can't equate the higher levels (leaders) and the voters, the supporters and the simple fighters. Only the leaders are those who (by necessity) understand the game (if I remember correctly Bin Laden had the full reports of the US think tanks in his library). The lower levels just religiously believe. Exactly like most of the common people in the US still didn't get that there were actually no WMD and no Al Quaida in Iraq at the time Dubbya Bush (the leader) initiated his war.
On one (higher) level in the same political/religious side, there is rationality, on another (lower) ignorance. User gkya just wasn't able to be precise enough, as you see, it takes time until people who take part in the conversation start to understand one another. And I don't believe I'm elitist when I'm aware of these different levels, just as you've felt that it's important to note the obvious rationality of the leaders (even if you missed to make that difference in the second post).
Ok, perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. Why are you referring ISIS here? You were talking about Turkey and Turkish people I thought.
Using the example of extreme fundamentalism we can see that the successful leaders and their close supporters shouldn't be considered "ignorant" even if we are aware how dangerous they are. I also don't claim that they are the only kind of fundamentalists possible.
And if you look at the map, ISIS isn't that far from Turkey.
And if you look at the map, ISIS isn't that far from Turkey.
> And if you look at the map, ISIS isn't that far from Turkey.
It's here already.
About your argument on not considering fundamentalists ignorant, they are. First, ignorant does not mean idiot, or stupid. Ignorance is absence of objective knowledge. It's hard to believe that either a fundamentalist would wish to look at things objectively or one that does so would become anyhow a fundamentalist. There may be knowledgeable and smart people exploiting fundamentalists, to them I'm indifferent. All I care is the things that go, monuments, people, peace, the stuff the people are made of. Those are the things that bring tears to my eyes.
It's here already.
About your argument on not considering fundamentalists ignorant, they are. First, ignorant does not mean idiot, or stupid. Ignorance is absence of objective knowledge. It's hard to believe that either a fundamentalist would wish to look at things objectively or one that does so would become anyhow a fundamentalist. There may be knowledgeable and smart people exploiting fundamentalists, to them I'm indifferent. All I care is the things that go, monuments, people, peace, the stuff the people are made of. Those are the things that bring tears to my eyes.
> Ignorance is absence of objective knowledge.
I agree.
> There may be knowledgeable and smart people exploiting fundamentalists, to them I'm indifferent.
Don't be. They are the real elitists, the ones accepting the suffering of the millions of people as necessary in achieving their goals.
Moreover, their beliefs are also often based on the ignorant premises (religious myths!). A good example of high levels that believe in religious myths are some US politicians:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/01/04/821847/-Republicans...
I'm sure you can identify the equivalent examples by politicians/activists closer to you.
I agree.
> There may be knowledgeable and smart people exploiting fundamentalists, to them I'm indifferent.
Don't be. They are the real elitists, the ones accepting the suffering of the millions of people as necessary in achieving their goals.
Moreover, their beliefs are also often based on the ignorant premises (religious myths!). A good example of high levels that believe in religious myths are some US politicians:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/01/04/821847/-Republicans...
I'm sure you can identify the equivalent examples by politicians/activists closer to you.
I agree to your comment. What I do not like is talking about the secret puppeteers and the mysterious hands between the events. Here in turkey we like this sort of talk a lot. The Jewish rule the world. It's Americans' games anyway. Kurds want independence because there's petrol there. Illuminati. These may be true or not, but I'd rather deal with what I see. Speculations and conspiracies don't get you anywhere. Now I do not know if it's proved that the leaders of the ISIS are the people you say them to be, if such, all my comment is useless, but if not, I'd say that we first cut the tentacles, if we were to attack to the bad monstrous bug, then the head will have no room to escape.
> Speculations and conspiracies don't get you anywhere.
True, but also read once, if you haven't, 1984, the book, per Wikipedia:
"Winston works at the Ministry of Truth, or "Minitrue", as an editor responsible for historical revisionism. He rewrites records and alters photographs to conform to the state's ever-changing version of the truth"
Then try to find how many people know what the countries did before, like:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
Always do your own research, sometimes the things that the leaders like to be ignored as the "conspiracy theories" in the current political moment actually happened and give a very different view to the whole context.
True, but also read once, if you haven't, 1984, the book, per Wikipedia:
"Winston works at the Ministry of Truth, or "Minitrue", as an editor responsible for historical revisionism. He rewrites records and alters photographs to conform to the state's ever-changing version of the truth"
Then try to find how many people know what the countries did before, like:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
Always do your own research, sometimes the things that the leaders like to be ignored as the "conspiracy theories" in the current political moment actually happened and give a very different view to the whole context.
All right I am lost already. Where did I praise, defend or reject the existence fundamentalism? And what is the relation ISIS being close to Turkey and OP's emotional name calling on Turkish people?
> That’s when they found the remains of a Neolithic dwelling, dating from around 6000 B.C. It was previously unknown that anyone had lived on the site of the old city before around 1300 B.C. (...) In the Stone Age, the water level of the Bosporus was far lower than it is now; there’s a chance that the people who left those prints might have been able to walk from Anatolia to Europe.
That part is really interesting. For those HN-ers not interested in those times, there is the "Black Sea deluge hypothesis" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis) which says something like this:
> The Black Sea deluge is a hypothesized catastrophic rise in the level of the Black Sea circa 5600 BC due to waters from the Mediterranean Sea breaching a sill in the Bosporus strait
That part is really interesting. For those HN-ers not interested in those times, there is the "Black Sea deluge hypothesis" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis) which says something like this:
> The Black Sea deluge is a hypothesized catastrophic rise in the level of the Black Sea circa 5600 BC due to waters from the Mediterranean Sea breaching a sill in the Bosporus strait
Doggerland[1] and Sundaland[2] were also above the sea at that point. I wonder if there were neolithic cities, the precursors to Uruk, that are lost beneath the sea.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundaland
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundaland
"Byzantine shipwrecks found during the construction of the first-ever tunnel under the Bosporus held up work for years."
Why does it have to take that long to dig up these ships and start the works?
Why does it have to take that long to dig up these ships and start the works?
Man, it's tedious work to unearth those stuff. One cannot use big shovels and machines, sometimes you have to work with fingertips and painting-brushes. And the so-called old-city (what I hate to call Fatih) is, I mean whenever you dig a hole you find something. By my school there is the constructions site for another entrance to the already-existent metro station, and it is still not completed after maybe two years. And all they wanted was to dig down a single storey entrance that then linked to the one that already was there. Then they found some 2500 yrs-old Byzantine sarcophagi, and, you may guess the rest...
The ridiculous lack of pictures in this article makes Jules Verne books feel like albums.
Only part way through, but what an incredible story, both from the perspective of the historical findings and the modern progress in transport for locals.