Politicians stoke ethnic animosities, but soap operas defuse them

Dear Mr. Tahir, as I see the only history youn know is the one thought in Turkey. Bulgarians also do remember many things, that is why their relationship with Turkey is not that simple. But we remember not only the history thought in history books, which by the way is based not on western and bulgarian researchers as well, completely different than your propaganda books, but also things that our grandfathers and grand-grandfather talled us. So please, do have some respect for all the Bulgarians, fallen for the liberty of our land and do not spread a perverse version of Bulgarian history before educating yourself well enough. And by the way,first, there is no clear explanation of whether Proto-Bukgarians (the ones you call Bulgars) were of Sarmato- Alanian, Turkic or of Iranian origin. There exist 8 ot 9 hypotheses, none of which could be proven up to date. And second, for their greater part, the population of the Danube Bulgaria (founded in the year 681) were of slavic origin. The rest were Proto- Bulgarians (very few, but with experience in state organization) and Thracians, mostly hellenized. Third, Volga Bulgaria (at the Volga- Kama confluence) was founded at about the same time as Danube Bulgaria. The country formation that you refer to is called Old Great Bulgaria (north of the Caucasus mountains in the steppe between the Dniester and Lower Volga). So, dear Mr. Tahir, please expand your knowledge before commenting on such a sensible matter.

First I'd like to make a few comments on the article itself and then on Fahrettin Tahir's post.

I like the article, it's really interesting and sheds some light on the problem with the Turkish minority in Bulgaria. I must point out that it is not quite historically correct though. First there's no such thing as Ottoman colonial oppression in Bulgaria. The Ottoman Empire was not one of a colonial type in the sense we usually think about western colonialism. There truly was an almost 500-year Turkish oppression against the Bulgarian people and it has some pretty gruesome moments that Turkish history books won't tell about.

Next - comparing the 1913 deportations during the Second Balkan War with the Revival Process in the 80's (or the deportation of ethnic Turks from Bulgaria) is deeply incorrect as the latter was not accompanied with mass killings like that in 1913 was.

Now, some historical notes to Mr. Tahir:

The original Bulgars did not come from the Bulgarian state on the upper Volga. Latest historical research shows that the Bulgarian tribes originated from the region of Pamir and Hindu Kush Mountains, near nowadays Northern Iran. And no, they were not of Turk origin. During the Great Migration of Peoples they were pushed to the West by other peoples and after participating in the Hunnic tribal alliance they settled in the Meothia region, between the Black and the Kaspian Seas. They created the state of Great Bulgaria, which was destroyed in the 7th century by the Khazars. Bulgarian tribes split and some of them, under the leadership of Kotrag, settled on the Upper Volga and created the Volgan Bulgaria (or whatever its transliteration in |English is) that you're talking about. So you see it is by far not the place where nowadays Bulgarians originate from.
Let's get back to it. Some Bulgarians formed the Volgan Bulgaria and later converted to Islam. Their state was large and powerful until it was finally subordinated by Tatars (Mongols) and Russians.

Anyway. After the Great Bulgaria was destroyed by the Khazars, the largest group of Bulgarians, led by Khan Asparuh, settled on both sides of the Danube River - on a territory controlled by the Eastern Roman Empire a.k.a. Byzantium. There after a brief and successful war with the Romans they created their state on the Balkans, which in different forms and with two interruptions of about two and five centuries respectively, survived until nowadays.

There were two more large groups of Bulgarians which, after the Khazar invasion tried to settle down in Central Europe and nowadays Italy. One of the groups, led by Altzek, settled in Italy and was assimilated by the local peoples. The others, led by Kuber, settled in Pannonia, but was driven away by the Avars and moved to Macedonia, where it merged with the Balkan Bulgarian state.

And one more thing. Don't you find the idea of a subordinated people committing genocide against the majority in an empire a little ridiculous? Because I do.

The 1977-1978 Russo-Tirkish War led to the real Liberation of Bulgarian lands though Bulgaria's total independence was achieved 30 years later - on Sept. 22 1908. And no, the population of the lands that were liberated according to the Treaty of Berlin did not have a 2/3 Turkish majority. It is true that many Turks preferred to flee but there were no atrocities committed by the Bulgarians in the aftermath of the Liberation. Many other turks stayed and obviously they were not killed. Otherwise there would not be such a large Turkish minority in Bulgaria nowadays. So please stop talking about genocide. It doesn't suit a Turkish citizen to do so. And thank God I'm not Armenian.

Many Turks have a very interesting recollection of history. Unfortunately, it is usually highly incorrect mainly because the foundation of the modern republic was based on revisionist history (i.e. there are no Kurds - just Mountain Turks; there was no Armenian Genocide - it was just a a few people killing each other in WWI and 1.5 million Armenians disappeared; etc.). Fortunately some of these taboo topics are starting to be discussed by a few courageous Turks. Hopefully when Turkey can look at their history in an open and honest fashion, they will be ready for the EU as well.

Mind you, the Bulgarians have always been more tollerant to Turks and muslims than any other Balkan country and before the Russians came, we were proud to have the church, the mosque and the sinagogue all at the centre of the village (even a Hitler ally in WW2 we refused to deport our jews).
And many of the names on the monument of soldiers who died in Bulgarian wars, including the conquering of Odrin are actually Turkish names
But of course the communists had to f*** it all up with that stupidity of the 80's
But I have always considered this period a Russian rule because that's exactly what it was - Moscow-imposed puppets with unlimited power in the prison-state of Bulgaria following orders from the Kremlin (they even tried to bring the country in as a 16 soviet republic in the 60's voluntarily) - there was nothing Bulgarian about it.
This ethinc division was artificially exaserbated and this stupidity has got to stop

The argument that the Turks invaded the Balkans and 500 years later there are still Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks and Romanians, therefore it couldn't have been that bad is fundamentally flawed
When a rising power invades territories to expand, it does that in search of resources and favourable geography. And people are resources - they work, they trade, they consume and pay taxes. So it doesn't go ahead to kill the entire population but tries to assimilate it and convert it. And the turks have tried big time!
Historically this has proven impossible.

The Balkan peoples stand today because they were strong enough to survive the Ottoman Empire, which unlike the European colonial powers (note Turkey will never be considered European) did not leave anything but destruction after it in a region that was once arguably the most prosperous in Europe because of its strategic geographic position.
Where there was advanced culture and prosperity, the Turks left only waste by trying to destroy it in order to assimilate the Balkan peoples

It is somewhat astonishing to read some of the comments here, to say that the time the Ottoman occupation on South Eastern Europe was anything other than a dark and sad chapter of history for the Bulgarians, Serbs and Romanians is a travesty. They were invaders and as such never wanted. Worse still claiming Bulgarians are Turks anyway, I take it the Ottoman armies were welcomed in with open arms!

It is good however the lot of the Turkish Bulgarians is improving, perhaps Turkey may extend the same courtesy to its remaining, albeit tiny Christian population.

I know unsolicited advice can be annoying, but I feel it may be useful if I throw in my two pence worth for our Bulgarian neighbours. I urge you not to be prisoners of the past like the Greek Cypriots, who treated the Turkish Cypriots so badly that they are unable today to use Turkish ports and airports. It is better for everyone if the past stays in the past and future opportunities are not endangered because of it. If we start the game of who did what to whom, Bulgaria has more to lose. As Fahrettin has pointed out Turks & other European moslems can list past grievances. The Bulgarians and other Christian communities were perpetrators as well as victims of violence.

It is an interesting article with major flaws regarding ethnic Turks in Bulgaria, Bulgarian and Turkish relationships.

First of all the extreme politically correctness of the article; it calls a racist party as xenophobic party, what a favor for our Bulgarian friends.

Another politically correctness is not to mentioned what ethnic Turks have gone through in near future in Bulgaria especially in 1980.

While The Economist’s Bulgarian correspondents does not forget to mention the events happened centuries ago and manages to bring it up as if they are “the only” issues between Bulgaria and Turkey also forgets to mention the Communist era of Bulgaria.

I still remember what can I buy for a pair of nylon pantyhose in Sofia in 1970s.

Why such a bias exists with the Economist’s south eastern correspondents towards Turkey?

Also it should be noticed that the Bulgarian’s start raising their voices after Mr.Davutoglu the current Turkish foreign affairs minister assumed the positioning the AKP government as cabinet minister.

Is this a coincidence or our Bulgarian friends somehow read Mr.Davutoglu’s book titled “Strategical depth” and somehow concerned with the content of it?

In his book Mr.Davutoglu treats Turkey’s neighbors as her potential satellite states and implicitly points out that all these states were subject of Ottomans and one way or another they will be Subject of new Ottoman empire in the future and craves for Ottoman style administration in Turkey and Ottoman style relationship with its’ “satellite states”, pardon neighbors.

This was not a new “dream” but has ever been so clearly and openly shown before Mr.Davutoglu and AKP.

Before Mr.Davutoglu Turkey followed a foreign policy in which all neighbors treated as equal states and no such “dreams” pronounced and successfully kept as unrealistic dreams.

Would it not be the Bulgaria’s current position for Ethnic Turks and Turkey as a result of Mr.Davutoglu’s written dreams as foreign minister and AKP’s foreign policy implementations?

If we (Mr.Davutoglu and AKP) do not see our neighbors as independent states and show respect, but satellite provinces in an imaginary regressive Mohammedan semi empire and do not heed Mustafa Kemal’s words “Peace in the motherland, peace in the world” what would we do when our neighbors also play the same game?

Gianni, by your logic should the Jews apologise to all the Nazi camp guards they "murdered" during uprisings?

And here we go:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/04/girl-buried-alive-turkey
A 16 year old girl buried alive in Turkey for talking to boys
That's 21st century, Turkey wants to join EU. Seriously at that
Imagine what they could do to invaded nations in the Middle Ages

Fahrettin, please save us from so many of the people who shout their "Christianity* across the EU, not least Bulgarian ones.
A poster on display in streets in Holland nowadays shows Geert Wilders - another of these supposedly "Christian" envalued extremists, with the slogan all about being in one country and one "home".
In my bible and chapel education, I never ever heard of Jesus of Nazareth preaching either exclusion or nationalism.
So I wonder where Wilders and certain Bulgarians amongst others, got their alleged "Christianity" from.
To me, their key ideas are the very antithesis of Christianity which welcomes the excluded and, like Islam, sets high store on not being nationalistic, but in trying to help all before self, especially the less privileged than you.
Indeed, the Christain hero pointed out very clearly that heaven is closed to the privileged. To gain entry, those seeking a way in must divest themselves of possessions. (Death however will do that for them, whereever they are destined to go, is my view).

Dear fellows,
I urge you not to get involved in a pseudohistorical standoff based on hatred. I don't know about you but I personally do not hate neither of you, nor any people on the Balkans or in the World for that matter. Let us make an effort to keep logical and not let our emotions or national stereotypes take over!

So:

Dear B. Sakal - no, I'm not Russian. I'm Bulgarian and by far not a Russian chauvinist. So tou want me to support my claims with examples of historical research. No problem.

ell, during most of the 20th century Bulgarian historians believed that the old Bulgars were of Turkic origina and came from the region of the Altay Mountains. The pioneer of this theory was Prof. Petar Mutafchiev. Later on Bulgarian researchers found evidence that Bulgars actually come from a region a little more to the South - Pamir, Bactria, Hindu Kush, the region between the Amu Darya and Sar Daryq rivers. There were archeological evidence like a number of common words, a common style of fortress construction which can be found also in Meothia as well as nowadays Bulgaria. So Prof. Georgi Zlatarski pioneered another theory according to which we originated from that region. And I'm talking about the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, when there wass still no trace of the Ottoman Turks anywhere. The Ottoman dynasty appeared some centuries later. Anyway, that's not that important.

The title "Khan" was common for a number of peoples of various origin. The fact that Sultan Abdul Hamid used the title at the end of the 19th century doesn't mean at all that Bulgarians have Turkish origin. Get yourself a timeline! Bulgarian rulers stopped using that pagan title after the Bulgarian Khandom converted to Christianity in the 9th century and became a Knyaz-dom (I'm mixing Bulgarian and English terminology here) and later a Tzar-dom or Kingdom.

So, let's get on with it! Bulgarians say Turks committed atrocities. Turks say Bulgarians committed atrocities. Serbs say Turks committed atrocities. Turks say Serbs committed atrocities. Bulgarians say Serbs committed atrocities. Serbs say Bulgarians committed atrocities. Not to involve Greeks, Albanians and Romanians. You get the idea. All of this is true. Welcome to the Balkans. No one can get clean out that bloody pit of history. Most Balkan historians are biased in one way or another. The thing is - there are a number of unbiased foreign historians which illustrate the scale of the atrocities committed by either side. Don't take my word for it, 'cause as I said I'm Bulgarian, so I'm supposed to be biased. Read some books on Balkan history by non-Balkan authors and compare them. There are things that can be compared and there are things that cannot. Just as you cannot compare a police crackdown on a protest in Paris to the Night of Saint Bartolomy, you cannot compare the migration of Turks from the Knyazdom of Bulgaria in 1978 to the Turkish atrocities at the eve of the 1877-1878 Russo-Turkish War, not to mention the Holocaust. I'm not saying that we Bulgarians are angels from Heaven. I urge everyone not to twist history in a ridiculous manner though.

To His Magesty Tzar Simeon the Great: stop the hate talk, dear fellow! It doesn't help anyone. And it definitely doesn't make us Bulgarians look less chauvinistic than we are accused of being ;)

And what's that talk about Russia becoming a member of NATO and the EU? Come on, man! Get real! :)

The past is just that - something that passed us. It is pointless to bring up historic events as brutality is plentiful on both sides /The latest being the worst political decision in history made by a moron by the name of Torod Jivkov/. The prime minister obviously offered the referendum only as a part of a political maneuver and would never carry it out. The relations between people on the street have always been predominantly friendly if somewhat discriminatory on both sides. Ataka are just a "vocal minority" of less fortunate people looking for someone to blame their misfortune on. From my experience the general mood among young Bulgarians is of tolerance and co-operation rather than anything else. The soap operas are definetly an unlikely and welcomed transformative force in the relations between the minority and the majority/The two major TV networks in Bulgaria that between them share more than 65% of the rating are both showing these shows in the prime time/.

And it was recently proven that (unlike the Magyars) the Bulgars were a Persian and not a Turkic tribe
But this is something that concerns ancient history of more than a millenium ago, so who really cares?

Ohh and another thing: Vuk
Since you love quoting:
"Yeah, come to Serbia and say that...I guarantee you would have the time of your life."

The greatest failure of the Ottomans appears that they were unable to teach the Serbs how to act as civilized human beings.
Your comments goes beyond proof.
More proof? Ask the Bosnians about how the Serbs tried to Barbarically ethnically cleanse in the early 1990s. This was not 500 years ago..it was less than 20 years ago.
Bravo! What a contribution to humanity.

I say again, since there is some difficulty grasping this point, what the Ottomans did not due in 500 years of rule over the Balkans, the Serbs tried to do as soon as Yugoslavia broke up.

Yeah, come to Earth and act civilized.

Victor, if you agree that "Bulgarians also committed atrocities (how unchristian of them!) - why do you also write this?
"There truly was an almost 500-year Turkish oppression against the Bulgarian people and it has some pretty gruesome moments that Turkish history books won't tell about."
Perhaps Bulgarian history books won*t tell either? (Please do correct me, if in ignorance I am wrong).
As for Armenians as a later poster questions - same goes really.
Why can*t Armenonationalists ever talk, let alone "recognise" the atrocities that they committed against Muslims and that some of their history books represent as "heroic"?
Something to do with "taboos"?
In this year when the French want to transfer Albert Camus to the Pantheon in Paris, why can*t ALL victims of violence and crime be recognised equally for the sacrifice made of them to ideological fanaticism, whatever its colour, Christian, Muslim or anything else?
Well, Victor and others?
Why not?
Please DO explain!

I agree that Bulgarians were not only victims but perpetrators of violence. In this discipline though we are hardly on a front position. And I assure you Bulgarians are not the ones that have the most to lose in a discussion of who did what to whom. I'm curious what your arguments are, but as you said and I totally agree, it is better for everyone if the past stays in the past and future opportunities are not endangered because of it.

The usual suspects.
Its the same posters who spew the hate and its the same posters that defend...(I'm guilty of it too...the defending part that is.).
In reality, this part of the world will never move on:
There are Greeks out there who still want Constantinople back - 557 years after the fact.
There are Serbs who tried to ethnically cleans, and would try again if given the chance, Bosnians because they are still bitter about something that happened in 1382 (when ever...the point is: it was a long time ago).

There are Armenian who, right now, are teaching their 6 year old children about an event that allegedly happened to them and leaving out their complacency in the event. This act of psychological burdening of the youth should be classified as child abuse, but that is my opinion.

So while some posters out there try to make solid, intelligent arguments, the rest of you: the usual posters who continue to comment on anything Economist writes about Turkey, continue your hate. Perpetuate the trash that will burden future generations.

Fahrettin Tahir:
Thanks for recollecting and remembering one of Turks brilliant past.
But we understand EU'll not recognize your ability and capacity, the time, energy and effort so far waste to become EU member by the Turks
'll be in vein. When we see the low-income east European countries become the EU member we again guess why Turkey's membership is still hanging. West planly divided the Turk's even inside the country with their famous colonial slogan " DIVIDE and RULE" by any means.
The next century is for the Asians. Turkey is much more related with Asia. Time is running very fast. So, forget which you have yet to achieve, try to become which you might get in more dignified way in Asia in time.

The Turkish soap opera mentioned here is watched by almost every middle aged woman in Bulgaria, with no concern for ethnic origins. That is because it is extremely well-produced, as these things go, and Turkish culture has more in common with Bulgarian than most people here would like to admit.

The Turkish language news slot on Bulgarian national tv, however, could probably have been scrapped years ago with few people noticing had not the openly fascist Ataka raised this rumpus. There are almost no Bulgarians of ethnic Turkish background who do not speak the Bulgarian language (possibly a few very old people in isolated villages) and a majority if not all consider themselves Bulgarians first and Turks simply by heritage, the way I am Irish-American. There is no 'separatist' movement of any kind in Bulgaria, only a self-interested 'minority party' which is largely concerned with tobacco farming and land ownership. Thinking people in Turkey also see that this vocal but unhelpful 'minority' party do more harm than good to many ethnic Turkish folk here who.. secretly voted for Borissov. If the gentleman knew that he would be more careful of his political bed partners, in particular the seriously alarming Ataka party.