3 ms·
It's not honest. It glosses over bad aspects. Take the blood tribute[1]. It mentions that some parents would allow their children to be taken, but it doesn't me
by paulnechifor 8y ago
It's not honest. It glosses over bad aspects. Take the blood tribute[1]. It mentions that some parents would allow their children to be taken, but it doesn't mention that some others considered it so bad that they would mutilate their children to avoid them being kidnapped.
It doesn't mention that they were forcefully circumcised and converted to Islam. Muslim laws say that you're not allowed to have Muslim slaves, but the Ottomans were all to happy to ignore this.
It says that the "recruitment" (to be kind) age varied anywhere between 8 and 20. That's completely misleading since the ideal age was 8 to 10.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme
- nurettin 8y agoIt helps to distinguish between being critical of the article and being critical/morally judging the happenings within an empire between 15-17th centuries. Your criticism of the article is lie by omission, your moral judgement is irrelevant. Lie by omission requires an agenda. AFAICS this article doesn't defend the idea of taking young boys from their families and treating them as muslim kids and conscripting them when age comes. It just informs about the notion and historical effects.