Learn English with English, baby!

Join for FREE!

Social_nav_masthead_logged_in

English Forums

Use our English forums to learn English. The message boards are great for English questions and English answers. The more you contribute, the more all members can practice English!

:  

Life Talk!

IS TURKEY TO JOIN EUROPEAN UNION???

Holmes nash phil

Malawi

If turkey join the Eu it will seems good and good picture to the country and the people ..one this happien the people there going to benefit alot ..i support the uk for coming up with this idea..

04:37 PM Jul 27 2010 |

The iTEP® test

  • Schedule an iTEP® test and take the official English Practice Test.

    Take Now >

Holmes nash phil

Malawi

It seems good to me.

10:46 PM Jul 27 2010 |

Whitney S

Whitney S

Colombia

I wont say my opinion about this, but I have seen in many places and webpages, that they consider Turkey as part of Europe. For example. In ZARA official site, I was searching for some stores in Turkey and I had to click 1st on Europe instead of Asia to find it :P

Check it here: http://www.zara.com/#/en_GB/shops/Store Finder/

12:09 AM Jul 28 2010 |

Radunagi

Radunagi

United States

Turkey will need to overcome several problems to get into the EU

 

Bad Feelings – Turks don't always engender the warmest reaction from many Europeans.  Sometimes this is simple racism, other times it is based on grudges from the Ottoman days, there are several reasons, but irrational dislike is a real problem in promoting unity.  But if the French and Germans can do it, anyone can.  

 

Economic -  Turkey is a large country and its economy reflects that.  However, it has some pretty bad economic statistics that make it unattractive to an EU currently struggling with countries like Greece.

 

Diplomatic – The various genocides in that period of turmoil around the end of the Ottoman Empire is an issue that is not going away anytime soon.  The issue with Cyprus must be resolved.

 

Civil Rights – Turkey is advancing in this field, I think, but there are still some significant issues concerning free speech, free religion, and so on.

 

Stability of government – the army has more power in Turkey to take over the government than most European nations are comfortable with.

 

Religion – I think this is a problem more of perception than reality, but the perception exists nonetheless.  It must be combated with education.

 

Did I miss anything?

02:10 AM Jul 28 2010 |

Radunagi

Radunagi

United States

By the way, I have no particular objection to Turkey eventually joining the EU, except that I would like to see some civil rights issues addressed, and a better economy. 

02:11 AM Jul 28 2010 |

~MemoTheHun~

Germany

Diplomatic – The various genocides in that period of turmoil around the end of the Ottoman Empire is an issue that is not going away anytime soon.  The issue with Cyprus must be resolved.

 

oh cool, it is genocides now. people are arguing about the "false armenian genocide" which was not a genocide but you say now various genocides. interesting. but nobody claims anything about it in EU because it is a job of historians, not of politicians.

 

Economic -  Turkey is a large country and its economy reflects that.  However, it has some pretty bad economic statistics that make it unattractive to an EU currently struggling with countries like Greece.

 

Turkey 's economy is better than at least 5 EU countries.

 

 

As a Turk I dont want Turkey to join EU because we can get along with the country and we dont need any  orders from others.

04:34 AM Jul 31 2010 |

Radunagi

Radunagi

United States

oh cool, it is genocides now. people are arguing about the "false armenian genocide" which was not a genocide but you say now various genocides. interesting. but nobody claims anything about it in EU because it is a job of historians, not of politicians.

 

Huh, I thought I made this comment as non-controversial as I could get.  Anyway, Armenians and interested parties around the world exert significant political pressure on this issue, so clearly some politicians care about it.  

 

As for the "other genocides," I was referring to the claims of Lebanese, Assyrians, Anatolian Greeks, and Dersim Kurds.  While I do not know enough to give lectures on these claims, it is a fact that these claims at least exist and lobbyists for these groups, even if they do not have much truck with day to day considerations in the EU, do have influence in the halls of power.  The EU cared a lot about the recently changed Article 301.  

 

The reason most people mostly talk about the Armenian genocide is because the Armenians have the ability to get their message out, unlike other groups.   Not many people talk about the American genocide of Native American tribes.  Why? Because there are barely any left, and it largely happened before cameras.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Most genocides are forgotten.  

 

Turkey 's economy is better than at least 5 EU countries. 

 

By some measures.  Little Greece almost killed the EU.  What if Turkey has problems like that?  Turkey is due to grow strongly in the next couple of generations, though.  

 

As a Turk I dont want Turkey to join EU because we can get along with the country and we dont need any  orders from others.

 

Sadly (or perhaps, awesomely), no country is really independent these days.  Would it be much worse than being in NATO?

05:36 AM Jul 31 2010 |

~MemoTheHun~

Germany

not really but Turkey joined Nato for important reasons in 1952 to protect itself against Russia and as you know it didnt have much power to defend itself. The situation now is very bad, Turkey even has to send soldiers to Afghanistan to fullfil the US job, open its airports for US to bomb Iraq,... EU wouldnt be so bad but we dont need it. I already have the right to visit any European country.

08:32 PM Jul 31 2010 |

SantiagoC

SantiagoC

Uruguay

Memo, if you are so against the EU, then why do you live there?

03:21 AM Aug 01 2010 |

Radunagi

Radunagi

United States

Then start a topic and state at least one incident that would be considered an act of genocide. This is stated at times by various members but show me the proof. Read about Ward Churchill, I think he was the first to label what happened a genocide.

p.s. I'm part Cherokee and Seminole; just a little, not enough to get a casino or anything.

 

I actually just said that as a side comment to ward off "what bout the native americans?!?!" type replies.  You know, to show that we in America own our bad history as well as our good.  (Our good being greater than our bad)

 

Anyway, the definition of genocide endorsed by the USA through treaty is as follows:

 

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

 (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

 

I would say that the Indian Removal Act, signed by President Jackson, which led to the removal of Indian tribes in the Southeastern USA in the Trail of Tears, qualified in practice under a, b,c, and d.

 

In California, the ironically named "Act for the Government and Protection of Indians" in 1850 was often used to basically enslave the native Californians and contributed to steep declines in the population.  

 

I admit that "Intent to destroy" is kind of a sticky phrase.  But clearly, ethnic cleansing was practiced under forced removals and campaigns.  The wars between native tribes and the federal government were particularly savage, and saw many massacres of unarmed adults and children, such as in Wounded Knee (not to say that atrocities were not committed by both sides, but one side clearly won).  And many well-meaning progressives sought to "civilize" the Indians by stamping out the use of their languages and traditions in reservation schools.   While it is true that most Indian deaths in the period following European contact were through disease, and it is also true that the USA never committed a real campaign to actively wipe out all Native Americans as a distinct group of people everywhere (although for most of our history this was hardly an unpopular opinion), I think the evidence is clear that individual tribes were at different times subject to an intent to be destroyed, either in whole or in part.  

 

How would you characterize what happened?  Do you think I'm applying the definition of genocide too broadly? 

 

PS. I don't like Ward Churchill much, he showboats. 

05:38 AM Aug 01 2010 |

Radunagi

Radunagi

United States

Yeah, that old thread was interesting.  I guess it was just too much info for non-native speakers.

 

That link you gave me seems to support the basic gist of intent: 

 

"While theoretically attempting to resolve White-Indian conflicts, these payments only encouraged Whites to form volunteer companies and try to eliminate all the Indians in California."

 

"In 1860, the law of 1850 was amended to state that Indian children and any vagrant Indian could be put under the custody of Whites for the purpose of employment and training."

 

This seems to fall pretty clearly under the agreed on definition.  Whether the technical intent was to destroy specific tribes in whole or in part, or to guarantee land and resources to whites, is not really a fair distinction, in my view.  

07:15 AM Aug 01 2010 |