Fun fact, "çarşaf" or more accurately "şarşaf" in Egyptian Arabic means table clothes or bed clothes. It's amazing words and consequently languages evolve and take on meanings over time.
You realize you just did the exact same thing between wearing Burkas in Turkey and Islam / Religion?
You are not in that position to conclude that opinion. Head scarves & Burka's go beyond 'identity' as you just trivialized them to.
You used your comment to get across your 'subliminal message' just as much as the commenter you accused of doing did.
Just a nitpick, but every culture is man-made.
Pop quiz: can you identify this person? http://i.imgur.com/WBqCCv1.jpg
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Turkish people manage to get rid of the Arabian deity (Mohammad's god) they embraced a millennia ago, it would be an uphill battle for them against history because whether you like it or not, the most bright spots in history for Turkish people were during the reign of Seljuks and Ottomans, neither would have happened hadn't for the Islamic doctrine and faith.
You could argue of course that Turkey founded by Ataturk was still something impressive and to look up to but it still pales in comparison with what had been achieved during these two eras at least from an imperialistic and militaristic points of view.
That's why I think it wouldn't be easy for Turkey to break free from the negative Arabian influence and Sahara culture even if they renounce Islam altogether when compared to other countries in the region with more diverse and rich history spanning various civilizations and glorious times, and therefore they should focus more on how to reconcile with their past and history and not just get in state of denial about it.
Most people don't really care about the details of history that much - just whatever narrative they can spin that satisfies today's needs.
The British Empire was vast and I can't come up with a definite answer for all the areas that were colonized by them but in my country "Egypt", they didn't do that. They however facilitated the work of western missionaries but it didn't achieve much with the Muslim locals and probably contributed to the outrage of Coptic clergy as these missionaries were snatching people from their congregation. Other than that, the British didn't really care about religion and their social order was constructed on race/class first basis and anything else second while for the Ottomans it was all about religion first and anything else second.
How far back in history do you want to go? Plenty of battles within Christianity in British history. E.g. King Henry VIII didn't accept the authority of the pope and led the Church of England away from the Roman Catholic Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England#Separation_f...
A few generations later, things got pretty dicey for the remaining Catholics:
England’s Elizabethan Catholics were public
enemy number one. Their Masses were banned
and their priests were executed.
To the best of my knowledge, that didn't happen. The British Empire in its quests wasn't concerned about anti-Catholicism and disdain for the authority of the Pope, it was primarily driven by political/financial gains. On the other hand, for the Ottoman Turks it was all about Jihad and the subjugation of non-Muslims in newly conquered territories. The persecution and discrimination against non-Muslims for the subjects of their realm was one of the founding principles of taheir rule and public policy.
That's not to mention that forcing Christianity on conquered subjects was one of the main goals of the British Empire.
My point is that it's irrelevant in terms of how history affects peoples' actions. You're engaging a detailed study of historical reality, but the masses don't do that. They have a narrative spun for them - generally no more than two or three sentences of complexity, max - and that's what matters.
Please don't take it personally. It's ignorance. Perceptions are built around these weird media effects from the news. Treat us like puppies or children. it's not malice, we just don't know any better.
The Turkish man you replied to wanted to correct an inaccurate stereotype about Turkish culture. Your comment perpetuates the stereotype that Americans are uneducated on global affairs. This may be true for some, but saying that all Americans should be treated like "puppies" because they "don't know any better" is a huge insult.
Also, I think you've confused a general with a universal. I don't think he was saying that "all Americans" don't know better, just that when confronted with dumb statements it's better to presume ignorance than malice.
As an example, National Geographic did a survey in 2002, and young Americans came in second to last:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_...
"About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean's location was a mystery to 29 percent; Japan, to 58 percent; France, to 65 percent; and the United Kingdom, to 69 percent."
On the one hand, I find this a bit appalling. On the other, I can't totally blame people; America is big enough and far enough from everything else that relatively few Americans ever leave the country, and those who do mostly stay on the continent. So I don't see a "assume ignorance, not malice" posture as an insult; it's mostly what I do myself.
I do not doubt that Americans on average are less educated on international affairs than other Western countries. But arguing that a factually incorrect comment about Turkish headwear on HN (by a user of unknown nationality) is a result of broader "American ignorance" is meaningless.
Furthermore, I believe m00dy's response was accurate and fair. If he viewed every incorrect comment about Turkish culture as written by an American "puppy," I doubt he would have commented, and no one would have learned anything.
Indeed it was. after a few hours i realize i came off as a jerk. My apologies to you and anyone else i may have offended.
This seems particularly bizarre, because even if someone hasn't learned world geography, surely they've seen a map of the US in various contexts, and can recognise its shape?
My guess is that this number would be significantly better today because people interact a lot more with world maps when they accidentally zoom out on, e.g., Google Maps pages.
Except not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United...
In Turkey not a lot of women wear burkas. Burkas and the variation that you would like to point are different things. If you wear burkas, it will be really hard for video surveillance. Because only your eyes and wrinkles around them are visible. The other variation "Head Scarf" which lets your face totally visible is ok for identifying people.
From cultural perspective, a lot of women in Turkey wear "head scarf". It is a symbol that you are a part of a religion and you share almost the same vision with the religion that you are a member of. But burkas is different. It means you feel more radicalized in terms of religion. A social example would be shaking hanks with women. If you are a man in Turkey and have a intend to shake a woman's hands, you can do it with a woman wearing "headscarf" but not burkas. So, basically No. They don't wear burkas at all may be 4% percent at most.
Below is my personal opinion.
I don't really understand why people are bullshitting my country. You never lived there. What you just wrote is a black propaganda. What is the relation between wearing burkas in Turkey and ATM heist? You are not in that position to conclude that opinion. It is just a subliminal message.
A recent survey in Turkey showed that Atheism and other close variants are on the rise at its highest rate ever. I hope that one day people in Turkey will break their chains and get rid of that human-made arabic culture.