Ottoman Odyssey: Travels through a Lost Empire

by Alev Scott

Alev Scott's odyssey began when she looked beyond Turkey's borders for contemporary traces of the Ottoman Empire. Their 800-year rule ended a century ago - and yet, travelling through twelve countries from Kosovo to Greece to Palestine, she uncovers a legacy that's vital and relevant; where medieval ethnic diversity meets 21st century nationalism, and displaced people seek new identities.

It's a story of surprises. An acolyte of Erdogan in Christian-majority Serbia confirms the wide-reaching appeal of his authoritarian leadership. A Druze warlord explains the secretive religious faction in the heart of the Middle East. The palimpsest-like streets of Jerusalem's Old Town hint at the Ottoman co-existence of Muslims and Jews. And in Turkish Cyprus Alev Scott rediscovers a childhood home. In every community, history is present as a dynamic force.

Faced by questions of exile, diaspora and collective memory, Alev Scott searches for answers from the cafes of Beirut to the refugee camps of Lesbos. She uncovers in Erdogan's nouveau-Ottoman Turkey a version of the nostalgic utopias sold to disillusioned voters in Europe and the U.S. And yet - as she relates with compassion, insight and humour - diversity is the enduring, endangered heart of this fascinating region.

Genres: Travel, History, Nonfiction, Middle East, Memoir, Turkish, Travelogue

336 pages, Paperback

First published October 4, 2018

About the author

Alev Scott (born 1987) is a British-Turkish author, journalist, and cultural commentator. She is best known for her explorations of Turkish identity, Ottoman history, and modern sociopolitical issues in the Mediterranean and Middle East.

Reviews

[Emiliya Bozhilova · Rating 4 out of 5]

”no one is a native if you look back far enough.”

Не мога да съм по-съгласна, изхождайки от собственото си семейство. Баба ми изглеждаше като гъркиня, защото беше наполовина такава. Майка ми и днес бива упорито бъркана от руснаци и украинци за тяхна, както и от някои българи (тук вече не знаем защо, няма сведения). А единствената държава, в която аз пък съм била припозната за местна, е Ливан (отново поради някаква генетична лотария).

——
Три събития ме накараха да преосмисля подхода си към (родната) история, която в училищния си вариант се люшкаше между безумна скука с безмислени камари от цифри, житията на родните “светци” и синдрома за вечната невинност и наивна жертвеност.

Къщите в Копривщица са толкова хубави, защото са издигнати…преди Освобождението. Пазарите на Османската империя, проснати на три континента, са давали икономическо предимство (втора класа, след мюсюлманите, но все пак…), каквото свободна България не е успяла да компенсира. И така Копривщица западнала. Но не преди икономическият просперитет да се окаже идеалната люлка за нови национални идеи.

Вера Мутафчиева в докторската си дисертация за кърджалийството през 18-ти и началото на 19-ти век съсипва един обичан от много българи мит. Този за всеобщата ни, покриваща всички епохи и всички видове българи, невинност. Да си жертва е прекрасно. Само дето в повечето случаи изобщо не е вярно, както доказва и своенравната ми любима професорка по османистика. Това не прави пролятата кръв по-малко, нито робските пазари невидими, но раздвижва мозъчните клетки към мисловни процеси, а не към телешки възторг пред собствената ни уникалност и непогрешимост.

В една бивша испанска колония (Перу) в Южна Америка през 16-ти век местното население имало бляскавия избор да приеме католицизма и едновременно с това да работи в сребърните мини до смърт от изнемога (и без пари), или да изгори на кладите пред новопостроените католически катедрали на испанците, украсени пищно със сребро от същите тези мини. Днес там всички са 99% католици, но единствено белите се броят за хора. С изумление се усетих, че за първи път се радвам, че щом сме имали ужасния късмет да се прецакаме така за 500 години, добре, че поне не са били испанците!.. Защото ми идеше да се изплюя пред онези сребърни олтари!

——
Алев Скот е наполовина туркиня, наполовина англичанка, със забрана да влиза в Турция поне при издаването на пътеписа си. Независимо от гордостта си да принадлежи към нация с велико минало (на нашия полуостров гъмжи от кандидати за такава гордост, включително поне една наша партия), тя е 1/ жена, 2/ потомка на малцинство и 3/ лют противник на политическия ислямизъм на Ердоган. Точно за това връзката читател-автор-книга работи, без да изпрати читателя в нервен срив или в истеричен припадък от бяс.

Алев нарича арменския геноцид точно арменски геноцид, макар да си личи как програмираната пропаганда у нея води до жестока психическа съпротива даже при ясни факти. Само че колцина имат нейната смелост поне да посочат по име собствените си внушени от пропагандата дълбоки псевдоисторически фантазии?

Тя разказва и за различните малцинства в Турция (за част от които не подозирах, като афротурците) и как днес хич не е безопасно да си малцинство (и жена) там. Придържането ниско под радара е абсолютният минимум за оцеляване.

Ужасни са последиците от Договора в Лозана, с който през 1923 г. Турция и Гърция обменят християнско и мюсюлманско население, често без да се съобразят какъв е майчиният език на тези хора, защото не винаги е очакваният. И двете държави вземат драконовска репресивни мерки за осигуряване на етническа чистота и преди, и след този договор. Де избитите да можеха да говорят… А тези хора, в чисто генетично отношение, често са едни и същи стари егейци…

——
Кюрдите като малцинство, според мен, не получават дължимото внимание. Скот по-скоро избягва темата. Арменците са представени леко нееднозначно, но със стремеж за историческа справедливост. Също така на фокус са мюсюлманските малцинства в самата Турция, в Гърция, Босна и Косово, България (тук авторката изобщо не е навлязла сред общностите, цитира официална информация), Ливан, Израел. Частта за друзите беше много интересна.

——
Днешна Турция хвърля здрав финансов ресурс за джамии, училища и прочие мека сила на Балканите - най-вече в Босна и Косово, където мюсюлманското население храни сантименти към империята. Този ресурс не е никак малък и в България, затова е добре, че от един момент България забрани издръжката на родното мюфтийство от турския религиозен орган. Това е въпрос на национална сигурност, който след падането на комунизма, беше неглижиран десетилетия. Не е сигурно и сега колко адекватно е отразен…

Интересни е наблюдението, то съвпада и с моя опит, че старите мюсюлмански общности, опиращи се на времената на империята, са много по-спокойни, достъпни и приятелски, с много по-дълбока интеграция в заобикалящото ги държавно-национално море, спрямо ново надъхани хора с идеите на Ердоган, или - не дай боже - фундаментализма на Саудитска Арабия. Това, естествено, зависи и от съответната държава! Тя е длъжна да третира всички свои граждани по равно и без идиотски ограничения!

——
Общото между Алев Скот и Стефан Цвайг е любовта им към империята като форма на държавност. Империята си има и добрите страни. Една от тях са космополитните перспективи за живот и кариера на поданици от различни етнически групи и религии, ако са и предани. Истанбул столетия наред е наричан Цариград не без основание. Не един и двама българи, сърби, гърци, албанци правят блестяща имперска кариера, като понякога дори не сменят и религията си. Работят в световен мащаб, така да се каже.

Също така ислямът признава юдаизма и християнството като религии на книгата, и на теория им предоставя признание (за разлика от техни католически величества от Испания, които работят само посредством инквизицията).

Това, което и Скот, и Цвайг пропускат обаче е, че теорията не е практика. И втората класа поданици е често обект на издевателства, терор и тормоз, особено в периоди, когато централната власт е слаба и разкъсвана от междуособици, или сама се е наклонила в религиозна посока. Каквито случаи в Османската империя от началото на 18-ти век - с лопата да ги ринеш. А преди това пък несъгласните просто ги бесят по-бързо. Империите не са идеалното решение, никога не са били. Биха били, ако са доброволни. Но те винаги са налагани с кръв и сеч на хора, които имат друга идентичност и отказват да си я дадат. А и нека не се правим на наивни - целта на империите никога не е била обща идентичност, а само общо подчинение и постоянни приходи в хазната.

Затова не съм съгласна с имперската носталгия на Скот и с демонизирането и на национализма и патриотизма. Отровата е в дозата, както се казва. Със сигурност национализмът, служещ за оправдание на шовинизъм, ксенофобия, расизъм, женомразство, фашизъм, фундаментализъм трябва да бъде - извинявам се за силната дума - унищожен. С каквито средства трябва. Но да се приравняват патриотизмът и идентичността със сляп национализъм е много груба грешка и манипулация. Това е равнозначни да пеем химни за непогрешимостта и върховната просветеност на империите. Както патриотизмът и идентичността не са национализъм, така и империята не е равнозначна на толерантност. Светът е сложно устроено място, в което е добре да строим мостове, а не да ги взривяваме, но поводите за оптимизъм винаги висят на косъм…

——
Историята винаги бива употребявана за куп политически цели. Фактите са крайно неудобно бреме за идеолозите и тяхната пропаганда. А непредубедеността е страшно рядка, и който си мисли, че е непредубеден, нека постави на изпитание някое свое дълбоко вкоренено историческо убеждение. И ще се провали с трясък.

Затова ми харесват такива опити за географски и човешки поглед без пяна на уста и върховна истина, а с опит за диалог. Алев Скот ми харесва - не винаги съм съгласна с нейната програма, която е в колизия с моята - но диалогът е реален и доста интересен.

3,5⭐️

[Raghu Nathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alev Scott, the Anglo-Turk author of this book, is a young woman of partial Afro-Turk origin. Afro-Turks are descendants of African slaves in the old Ottoman Empire. This book, published in 2019, describes the author’s exploration across eleven countries of the former Ottoman empire, showing its diversity, history, identity and collective memory. She speaks Turkish with mechanics in Kosovo and discusses religion with Lebanese warlords and University professors in Sarajevo. She interviews communities that are descendants of ancient minorities of the empire. With extensive research and a journey through Israel, Armenia, Lebanon, the Balkans, Greece, Turkey and Cyprus, Alev Scott showcases the ethnic tapestry of the old Ottoman empire. She suggests that people’s attachment to their roots can outweigh the claims of a nation-state, though they live in independent nation-states now.

Scott believes language to be the key to shared culture and understanding of people. More than religion or race. Focusing on the human side of history and culture, she recounts stories of artists, poets, soldiers, and ordinary citizens to let us understand the old empire’s complexity. She documents engaging sketches of how the Ahmadiyya, the Druze and the Bahais came to live in Haifa, Israel. On the Hebrew spoken in Jerusalem, which one would assume to be the purest form of Hebrew, she reveals it is Turkish-inflected. Scott explains striking practices that happened between Jewish and Arab families in the early twentieth century. A new mother would ask a friend to help if she could not breastfeed her child. It resulted in Jewish and Arab ‘milk siblings’–a practice that was also common in Jewish-majority Ottoman Thessaloniki. In this review, I shall relate some aspects of the author’s exploration that grabbed my interest.

Every empire has its associated myths. The British empire has its fairytales and myths about how enlightened the British were in India. Hindu Nationalists in India today have their myths about India’s past empires of Chandragupta, Ashoka and the Cholas. The Ottoman empire is no different. Educated Muslims around the world believe that the diversity of its subjects proves the peaceful co-existence within the Ottoman empire. Scott says this is a myth. Non- Muslims were second- class citizens. At the turn of the twentieth century, there were horrific systematic abuses of these minorities as the empire ate itself. Like all empires, the Ottoman Empire, too, was built by slaves of varying legality. Many of them were taken as children from their families in Africa, Eastern Europe or the Caucasus. Until the late nineteenth century, around 16,000 - 18,000 African slaves were taken every year by Ottoman traders from Eritrea, Sudan and Egypt. They were put on boats and ‘sorted’ in the holding port of Alexandria in Egypt, before being shipped to Istanbul, Izmir, the Aegean islands and Cyprus. Their descendants grew up with no knowledge of their family’s history apart from a vague notion of geography. The empire never banned slavery. Existing slaves were freed only in 1924 when the Republic’s new constitution granted equal rights to all citizens.

One lingering question on the Ottoman empire is the ‘Armenian genocide’ of 1915. Almost all Turks, regardless of religion, background or political alliance, agree that the genocide is a myth. Turks today refer to it with an understatement as ‘the Armenian relocation’ or ‘the events of 1915’. Author Scott reveals that in 1915, it was the Kurds who committed many of the massacres of Armenians. They took over the homes Armenians left behind when Ottoman soldiers forced them out of Anatolia on the infamous death marches. She observes with a touch of sarcasm that Kurds are now being forced out of their homes in former Armenian towns by the current Turkish government. It is because its conflict with the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) has reignited. The author goes to Yerevan in modern Armenia and visits the Genocide Museum there. She finds there is too much proof that a genocide had occurred. She sees a telegram from Talat Pasha, one of the three Pashas who led Turkey into the war on Germany’s side, addressed to the governor of Aleppo. It describes how the Turks intend to eliminate ‘all Armenians’. However, Scott notes that the Armenians, too, portray it in black and white as villains and victims, with the Armenians being superior to the ‘backward’ Ottoman Muslims.

Jerusalem is a holy site for all the three Abrahamic religions. Scott, however, is not enamoured by the city. She says travelling through the Holy Land can be an unholy experience for an atheist and that Jerusalem feels like a religious Disneyland. The reverence shown by millions of religious tourists feels perverse to her because the place is brutalized by war and apartheid. Scott is interested in reconciliation rather than revenge. She says both Israel and Armenia are consumed with the injustice of their respective genocides, and offers a way to reconciliation. In her view, Germany has acknowledged the Holocaust with museums, television programmes and documentation centers. It has honoured the gentile Germans who took huge risks to help their Jewish friends. Spain and Portugal offered citizenship to Sephardic Jews to atone for the Inquisition. She proposes Armenia should acknowledge many Turks helped Armenians during the genocide. As for Turkey, it should offer citizenship to Armenians to atone for the genocide. However, Scott concedes this to be a far less attractive offer. Why would Armenians want to live in an Islamist and authoritarian Turkey?

Moving on to the neighboring nation state, Scott says Lebanon is a poster-child of semi-organized chaos. If anything defines Lebanon, it is the competition among its religions. Only religious marriages are recognized in Lebanon and the laws governing marriage between different sects are complicated. A Sunni or Shia Muslim man can marry a Christian or Jewish woman, but a Muslim woman cannot marry a Christian or Jewish man unless he converts to Islam. To accommodate various religious groups by ensuring each has some worthy role in public life, Lebanon has created a bizarre system of segregation that often teeters into entrenched discrimination. This results in no single group ever thinking they have the best deal. Everyone envies the lot of others, like a playground game in which children fight over whose turn it is to play the hero. Scott slams it as an infantile system dressed in adult garb and policed by old men.

The Balkan was another part of the Ottoman empire. Scott travels to Serbia, Macedonia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Bulgaria. Bosnia-Herzegovina has a forty-seven percent Christian population while there are few Muslims in Serbia. Turkey and Saudi Arabia are in competition in the Balkans, funding the mosques and the imams. Scott feels Bulgaria is the most Soviet and Christian of all the Balkan states she passes through. Almost all the country’s mosques were destroyed during the Russian-Ottoman war in 1878. Bulgaria has the highest number of indigenous Muslims in the EU—around 1 million, or fifteen percent of the population. Seventy-five percent of them are ethnic Turks, the rest Roma and Pomak. The Pomak are a Slavic ethnic people who converted to Islam during Ottoman rule and remain a very distinct, traditionally dressed and self-sufficient community. Bulgaria sees these Muslims as heirs to the Ottomans and hence there is a sense of resentment towards them. They learn in school how the Ottomans oppressed Bulgarians for five hundred years!

Alev Scott, being a woman and a young one at that, experiences discrimination throughout her travels in the old Ottoman lands. Living in Turkey for years, she was used to conservative men. They would refuse to shake her hand even when she offered it. She learned to ignore it when men would not meet her eye, or talk straight to her, addressing instead any man she was with. She understood their behaviour as a complicated cocktail of respect and misogyny, exacerbated by Islamic doctrine. However, she was deeply annoyed by the attitude of a Druze leader she meets in Lebanon. To quote her own colorful words, “... this sperm-obsessed Druze sheikh, who lectured me about the equality of the sexes while his silent wife sat swaddled in a modesty-sheet in the corner, and who refused to appear in a photograph with that equal but dangerously immodest of creatures: ‘woman’”!

Towards the end of the book, the author concludes that harmonious coexistence between minorities is all about a practicable power balance. Under the Ottoman system, it was a form of benign tyranny. It worked because all non-Muslim minorities were on the same footing. None of the governed minorities had a stick with which to beat the others. It was in no single group’s interests to cause trouble. The Ottoman system kept a variety of ethnic and religious groups living in relative peace, only because dissent was met with the severest punishment.

One sharp question arises from the author’s narrative. What does one’s homeland mean? Would you consider Israel your homeland even after migrating and living in the US for decades? Armenians are born and raised in various countries around the world. Can a small piece of land called Armenia in the Asia Minor be their homeland? Scott recognizes a link between geography and culture that can last a millennium. The Jewish people and their relationship to Israel proves it. The author herself, once the Turkish government prevented her from returning to Turkey, went to Cyprus, where her earliest memories were formed, rather than going to the UK. She decides that ‘Homeland’ is where the collective heart is, with all its turmoil. Sometimes, that is a place, not a concept.

Alev Scott’s sympathetic book is an enjoyable journey across the edges of the old Ottoman empire. However, she appears a more modern-day Londoner than an ethnic Afro-Turk. She may be more comfortable in coffeehouses of a hip Istanbul than among Turks who follow the Islamist vision of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

A fascinating and original contribution to travel, culture, and history.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is 900 years since the Ottoman Empire began and just over a century since it ended. You’d think that after 100 years there wouldn’t be much left to see of their legacy, but you’d be surprised. Travelling through the twelve modern countries that make up what used to be their territory, Alev Scott uncovers far more than she expects.

Scott, who is a half-British, half-Turkish journalist had begun her looking for clues for her story in Turkey, talking to the meld of populations that live there at the moment and whose ancestors had been drawn from the far reached of the empire to the capital. Then one day she was banned from returning to Turkey, just as she was beginning to consider it another home and an essential part of her identity. She ended up living on the Greek island of Lesbos, which is so close to Turkey.

But this journey is about the modern day as well as the past, as she travels from the streets of Jerusalem to the villages of Cyprus through Bosnia and Serbia and onto Lebanon and the other peoples who have been scattered amongst the region, some by choice and others forced to move from place to place for all manner of reasons. By, teasing out their stories, she realises that what she thought would be only fragments of the empire are still very much visible in the people.

It is also a personal journey of her own, discovering roots to her identity. Some of these take her back to her childhood memories and others remind her that she is not at the moment allowed freedom of travel in the region because of her view and desire to ask questions that the authorities don’t want to hear. Scott feels at home in these places and she gives a perspective of a part of the world that I haven’t yet been too. Scott has a really nice style of writing and I really enjoyed reading this book, however, it would have been good to find out more about the people their hopes for the future and where they hoped to be at some point in the future.

[Yaman Hukan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don’t usually write reviews on goodreads but I couldn’t stop myself from reviewing this amazing gem of a book. It is an absolutely beautiful book which i’m so glad I found in my university’s library. Tells some powerful stories on identity and exile with its effect on the long run. A must read for anyone interested in Turkey and its history. As someone who descends from a multicultural background, I was able to connect with many of the stories I read in the book, and was able to gain a better insight into my emotions as someone who grew up away from my ancestral homeland. What is a homeland, a land or an idea? This is a paraphrased question from the book which forced me to stop reading and stare into the emptiness while thinking about its profound meanings and implications. A phenomenal book and a highly recommended read.

[Amela · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is just fine is you view it as a travelogue and an author's personal diary, not as a serious political or historical analysis. I mostly enjoyed it before I got to chapter "Minarets in the West", though I found some of the statements biased and out-of-context. For example, the decision of Beyazid II to let the Jews expelled from the Iberian peninsula settle in the Empire is belittled as "a symbiotic exchange, not an act of pure altruism" (merits are not discussed). In times when the Spanish rulers expelled the entire population under a bogus pretext, the cossacks of Bogdan Khmelnytsky massacred Jews en masse with impunity, and pogroms were a fact of life across much of Europe, this decision seems enlightened and ahead of its time, no matter how self-serving.
The chapter "Minarets in the West" is uninformative, selective and at moments, outright malicious. The author tries to paint a balanced portrait of the Balkans by interviewing a multitude of characters. Unfortunately, by choosing to interview eccentrics, freaks and broadly, people way beyond the mainstream, what emerges is not a portrait but a cartoon. Sarajevo and Mostar are characterised as towns with mainly Ottoman heritage, overran by Turkish tourists revelling in the glory of their former empire, and Turkish-born educators pursuing their missionary / imperial / Islamist agenda (seriously???). The author fails to take notice of both towns' other (arguably major) heritages, historical co-existence and diversity. Alija Sahovic, "the most historically confused middle-aged fanboy" is a deluded fanatic supposedly suffering from the Stockholm syndrome. If the author bothered to do a little research about the region of Sandzak/Raska, she would have learned about the mass murder, looting, expulsions (with the final destination Turkey), and everyday discrimination suffered at the hands of local and state governments, and not Turkey, for at least 120 years. As someone deeply rooted in the Balkans, who has spent over 20 years living there, I could recognise very little of the region I know from this account. The book is also teeming with historical and political inaccuracies (Bosnia-Herzegovina gained its independence in 1908 (???); labelling the Sandzak-Muslims Serbs, most of whom in fact declare themselves Bosniaks and have a recognised minority status in Serbia, and Christian Social Union in Bavaria "anti-immigrant", a characterisation which grossly exaggerates the party's policies and dismisses Bavaria's great ethnic diversity).
If you have plans to visit some of the former Ottoman provinces, this book can serve you as a nice travel guide :)

[Ronan Doyle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Largely enjoyed this far-ranging travelogue thanks to the accessible approach Scott adopts, dropping in useful context while keeping the pace brisk as she trots across a substantial geographic range. Two things held me back though. First, the breadth of the ambition—taking in the entire historical scope of the empire—isn't quite answered in the end results; Scott's intro sets out a broad treatise on the shaping of identity, but her individual chapters are often waylaid in localised concerns that aren't clearly relatable to historical factors. Secondly, more alarmingly, Scott displays but never really deconstructs her own nationalist biases: some of her perspective on the Armenian Genocide is—by her own frank admission—shaped by the influence of Turkish politics. Given the book's self-stated purpose, the author's strange half-lean into rather than interrogation of this seems to me morally as well as artistically dubious.

[Liam Ostermann · Rating 1 out of 5]

The problem with this book is its selectivity. Although it is supposed to be looking at the traces of the Ottoman empire it is odd that the author ignores almost all the Ottoman empire that existed at the outbreak of WWI except for Lebanon and Jerusalem. She concentrates exclusively on the Ottoman empire in the Balkans which had been long lost - she might as well have gone to the Circassia, the Caucasus and other Central Asian places. Be under no illusion there is much in the complex, multi-ethnic, multi-religious world that was the Ottoman empire, at times. That the national states that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were reductive pale shadows is undeniable (please see 'Solonika: City of Ghosts' by Mark Mazower and my review of same). Perhaps just a little bit of her time should have been devoted to how the Ottoman empire failed, for example the Bulgarian massacres of 1876, but then an author who doesn't believe in the Armenian massacres is not exactly someone I give unqualified trust to. For goodness sakes you don't expect an honest assessment of the Nazis from David Irving? (please see Richard Evans 'Telling Lies for Hitler').

The problem is that this book is like many that are creeping into English language circles that are influenced by Erdogan's political propaganda which has rewritten the way Ottoman history is presented in Turkey. But the fact that the author ignores the Ottoman empire that existed in 1914 which encompassed Syria and Iraq the Saudi Arabian lands and, nominally, Egypt, and places like Libya which had only ceased to be 'Ottoman' since 1911 or the rest of North Africa literol (which had passed out of Ottoman control in the 19th century, like the Balkans in fact) is significant. When Erdogan was waving the flag of the Ottomans for the various WWI centennials a few years ago the complete indifference of Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, etc. to any interest in either WWI or the Ottoman empire was absolute. It is not simply forgotten in the Ottoman successor states, it is a historic black hole. These areas were the real Ottoman empire, the Balkans, Cyprus, were peripheral. But rather than face up to this Alev Scott plays along with Erdogan in creating a history and memory of an Ottoman empire that didn't exist after the 17th century.

This book is a worse then a lie, it is propaganda and misrepresentation and people are either to ignorant or maybe polite to call it on the shite it is.

[Dilara Ekici · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is a nice blend of intellectual curiosity and adventure. The complexity of cultural identity in Turkey is presented through a set of various interviews with minority communities of the countries visited, which makes it an interesting travelogue and reading even for an "insider" like myself, born and raised in Turkey. The author's language is so much Guardianesque, which is not surprising given her background in journalism. At the same time, it did not provide erudite insights I thought I would find, hence, 4 stars.

[Saeed · Rating 2 out of 5]

Picked up this book expecting it to be a neutral overview of Turkish history, and from the opening salvo it reads as a partisan book that focuses more on minority Turks and their origins, with throw away remarks that in my view seem to belittle mainstream Turks. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, and I guess I'm ultimately a victim of my own expectations, but just be warned on what you are getting here.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Geography does not confer identity. It makes us homesick, but it does not define us." Fascinating history of the peoples of the original Ottoman empire, and their diaspora. Turkey, too, is a great melting pot with many ethnic minorities and religions.

[dantelk · Rating 2 out of 5]

Since I knew the author is barred from entering Turkey, I immediatly decided to give this book a chance. Afterall, it's a good idea to read anything that's not in good terms with the state - I think that's what good citizens do.

This book could have been a good read, if the author did not reflect her political polarization so much, and spoiled the context.

The good part: This is an fairly enjoyable an easy read. Also there were parts which did enlighten me: I was totally unaware of the historical Afro-Turkish communitiy that existed in the Aegean area. Naime Köyü was totally out of my radar! (there's also a great short documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqlDw...) There is also a good bibliography. I found the chapters about Cyprus (and the dictionary she found) to be quite intresting.

The bad part: Boy, this author is a Kemalist in the worst sense! It was like reading Sözcü for three hundred pages! (In fact, Scott defines Sözcü a "liberal" gazette!!!!!)

First things first: the author calls Alija Sahovic, whom she conducted an intreview with (and accepted by him as a guest and being served çay) "the most historically confused middle-aged fanboy I would ever encounter". I think the author is an ÖKÜZ.

A few additional notes: The books lacks any sophisticated analysis of any of the conflicts it covers. It also lacks any details to explain the background of those conflicts. The writing is too sentimental. Of course this is half a travelouge and something personal, but I was expecting something deeper, and definetely more research: At the Genocide Memorial museum, a telegram from Talat Paşa is later explained to her as a hoax by a friend. One of the keystones of the entire genocide vs massacre discussion is the authenticity of the telegrams; I think the author should have made much more reading before or at least AFTER this trip.


Throughout the entire book, there is a propaganda about the autors own political views in the cheapest fashion, and I believe that us, the readers, would have done much better without the author's cheesy deliriums:

This was also in the lead-up to the referendum in Turkey, in April 2017, in which Turks narrowly voted for President Erdoğan to gain executive powers, amid accusations of vote-rigging.

He will steal the votes,’ said the eldest of them, a man with a cynical, scowling face. ‘Of course he will. This is his chance to become president forever – why wouldn’t he?’ ‘He won’t get away with it,’ said another, younger man, with faux assurance. The first man cast him a pitying glance.

Accusing any winner of an election for rigging is national sports in Turkey. It's a conspiracy theory with no valid explanation, not to mention any evidence. Still the author, implies (twice) that there is fraud in the elections. Personally, I am fed up with those stupid suggestions. The implication is also terribly amateurish - she does not refer any resources whatsoever, just a rotten gossip. And this does not have any relation to the topic of the book whatsoever, why bother adding it?

The author continues to blame the current government for other matters too, but you (I) realize that those accusations do not address anything deep, and are there only for propaganda:

Because of their education, which is dictated by the ongoing attitude of the government, Turks do not have the same tools as the rest of the world to discuss what happened [during the genocide].

Sigh. Yeah, of course, surely, the Turk's ignorance about the genocide is about the ONGOING ATTITUDE OF THE GOVERNMENT!... What an analysis.

In fact, as I mentioned earlier, Alev Scott describes the Kemalist newspaper Sözcü as liberal. Let's see what the liberal Turk's newspapers editors think about the genocide:

https://translate.google.com/translat...

Ironically, as can bee seen above, the editor-in-chief of this liberal newspaper accuses the current govenment for NOT denying the genocide.

https://translate.google.com/translat...

There is no genocide. Clashes broke out with the Armenian army, the Armenian army and the Armenian gangs and all of them were destroyed.

There are Armenians who are the victims of the incident, but the bigger victims are tens of thousands of innocent people killed in Turkish and Kurdish settlements raided by the Armenians, and thousands of Mehmetçik who were martyred by the Armenians.

...Again, from Sözcü.


On the other hand, intrestingly, despite the human losses and the resulting catastrophe, the author finds the population exchange between Greece and Turkey reasonable:

While brutal, the 1923 Turkey-Greece exchange had both rhyme and reason, at least according to the logic of the time.

This new state was to be for self-identifying Turks only; such a dramatic reordering of what remained of a once-vast empire was necessary for its survival

However misguided or wrong we may consider such a ruthless uprooting today, the infamous population exchange of 1923 was at least partly conducted in a constructive spirit, unlike the deportations of 2016.

Of course it is, it must be, if it was not, whose fault would it be?

I believe it is important to understand the background information from objective resources, and this author is too much politically motivated. That said, apart from the irritating side I mentioned, I enjoyed reading the book.

[Mirna · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am still unsure what made me like this book so much. The main ideas the author is following while traveling around former empire are concepts of identity, exile, diaspora, collective trauma and memory among others.

So why is it this book spoke to me so much? Is it because the place where I was born was once part of the Ottoman empire too? Or becaause many of my closest friends are scattered around it? Or the fact I am not living there at the moment and am part of diaspora?

I don't know, it could one or all of those reasons, but I know I will cherish and remember this one for a long time.

[Liilaa · Rating 3 out of 5]

ottoman odyssey is the story of a journey across the former ottoman empire, where alev scott interviews various people with some sort of connection to the empire or turkey. the concept is wonerful; the execution, however, is not.

scott essentially listed a bunch of facts and dates in order. some of them were blatantly untrue, others were overtly biased. this book may have been good had she not been the narrator, which is why it gets 3 stars-but her voice absolutely ruined it for me.

[Pırıl Us MacLennan · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a fun and informative book and it does have valid insights but one must be aware that the writer was a traveler and not an insider. Her knowledge is at times shallow and limited to the extreme examples from the societies she visit. Sometimes the idealization of the Ottoman times is over the top. Also, I was quite surprised that she kept calling the modern Turkish state homogenous when there is a sizable and oppressed Kurdish minority which she barely mentions. Perhaps, they are absent as she couldn't travel to Eastern Turkey, northern Syria and Iraq. Nevertheless, I would have expected her to mention them now that that are large Kurdish immigrant communities in most western cities in Turkey. Overall, an interesting and easy to read introduction to readers who are looking to learn more about Turkey, Greece, the Balkans and the Middle East albeit with shortcomings.

[Harry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Barred from re-entering Turkey because of her criticism of the Turkish government, Scott spends this book traveling around the country she took as her home, exploring the former Ottoman territories in the Balkans and the Levant. The framing that required this book be written as it was (Scott would, we get the sense, much prefer to have been able to just go back to Turkey and write something else) is an object lesson in the old adage about creativity coming from restriction.

Scott's Odyssey is evocative, occasionally insightful, and sometimes compelling. Her rendering of the Ottoman world as a lost age of tolerance and intercultural dependence is useful and important, complemented and buttressed by extensive reference to historians such as Eugene Rogan, but occasionally falls short.

There are few historical regimes more clouded with misunderstanding in the popular perception than the Ottoman Empire; almost no one looks back on it favourably, and those who do get dismissed as retrograde conservatives and neo-imperialists bent on dismantling what tenuous order has been constructed in the Middle East. Or are retrograde conservatives and neo-imperialists bent on dismantling that tenuous order. Scott's effort to reconstruct an understanding of the Ottomans as a system making the best of a difficult situation and achieving great things given their fractious human resources—an understanding of why perfectly ordinary and sensible people in a vast arc of contemporary Europe and the Middle East might now look back on the Ottomans as a golden age—is commendable. Her tendency to get carried away with, for example, descriptions of Sandzak Muslims as Serbs when they self-identify and are indeed recognised by the Serbian state as Bosniaks, or talking about the Young Turks as a group of people who set out to do specific things, or painting Mostar and Sarajevo as fundamentally Ottoman cities with a thin veneer of Balkan sensibility painted over them, is more questionable.

This is a travelogue and personal reflection, though, not an effort at historical and political analysis. Read for what it is rather than what it seems to want to be, Ottoman Odyssey is thoroughly worthwhile.

[Elizabete · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book perhaps would be better with an indication that it is rather a collection of essays, as it strongly lacked cohesion between the chapters. The last chapter, which I suppose, was intended to tie the book together to me appeared rushed and lacking direction.
In a sense the book was confusing as the intended audience is not clear, perhaps the author herself doesn't know? Most of the book is clearly written in a way that would be interesting for those with very little to no knowledge of Turkey and/or the Ottoman empire. Some parts, for example, were lacking in detail, even where information itself was interesting. Deeper dive for those with some knowledge of Turkey’s history would have been beneficial. Meanwhile, there are other parts that were almost too in-depth. It was not clear based on what information was selected. So as a historical account the book was disappointing. As a travel book, it simply doesn't inspire. Additionally, in a few occasions (for example, the Alija Sahovic encounter) the author adopts a mocking style which felt mean spirited. I wonder, would the author refer and describe this man in the same way if she somehow knew he would also read the book later?
All in all, I wasn't particularly impressed and expected more. It would read better as short publications or blogs, and as such the expectations would have been different too.

[Anna Brunskill · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is my favourite kind of book: part travelogue, part history, part memoir, all woven together into a beautiful whole. I wonder if it’s because I’m an expat (though not an exile) that this book resonated so strongly with me, as the author examines what is meant by the notion of a homeland. She meets people of diaspora communities and people with ties to long-ago homes and distant communities, and people who may or may not be Turkish or Ottoman or Cypriot or Greek. I’ve been reflecting on what we mean, those of us not living in the place of our birth, when we talk about going home. This book has helped me sift those thoughts and order them, if not bring them to a resolution. Beautifully written, evocative of a deeper yearning for belonging, well-researched and thought-out. Fabulous.

[Megan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Probably a 3.5. I enjoyed it overall, but I would've preferred a more cohesive narrative style of writing, as opposed to the way the author breaks down each chapter into segments. Also, her attitude towards some of her subjects often rubbed me the wrong way.

[Rick · Rating 4 out of 5]

When Alev Scott finds out, to her surprise, that she no longer has access to Turkey (too much critical journalism), she starts looking at the fringes of the Old Ottoman Empire. She visits people and states that liberated themselves from the Ottoman's, but she also visits the many historical refugees that had to leave their homes since the fall of the Empire. It is a very original way of travelling, and since Alev fluently speaks Turkish she is able to converse not only to the politicians and journalists but very often also to ordinary people who remember their past. It is a very Original way to look at things and Alev is a good writer and story teller. The book made me long for another trip abroad, and that's what good travel writing is all about. In a part of the book she travels on Cyprus where her family has its roots. It made me remember our own trip to the Island, and the strange visit to the Turkish part, where people were very friendly (in a very proud way) but everybody seemed to wait for something. It was the same but in a strange way also very different from the rest of the Island. I long to go back to Cyprus, I'll take this book with me I think.

[MINAKSHI RAMJI · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting book - but I was left a bit dizzy at the end of it all ... but as other reviews point out - this book is not big enough to include everything and the Ottoman empire was large. E.g. she never exaplains what exactly the Young Turk movement was although she mentions Young Turks on every other page (which she has to since they essentially set up the foundations of modern Turkey - I looked it up at some point to make sure I knew what she was taking about). The book is making some ambitious claims about nationhood and identity - but sometimes it is just anecdotal and very focused on micro-level issues which don't help the big overarching story she is trying to tell about nationhood. Also she clearly demonstrates lots of nationalistic biases - most notably related to the Armenian genocide but also related to Greeks and it's interesting that she never examines this beyond a superficial way. So we are aware that she is aware but also that she is not aware enough. I just don't know how someone (i.e. her editor) didn't point this out..

[James King · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you like travel literature, this book is excellent. It has a few minor issues. If you want your travel literature to be a linear journey, this book will disappoint since it jumps around. But the jumping around works well with the connecting thread of an analysis of the people and places today that once belonged to the Ottoman Empire. The connection to the former Ottoman Empire seems tenuous at times, almost forced, but it is wrapped up nicely at the end that makes it all work.

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

It builds slowly and beautifully as a meditation on history, and ends as a moving memoir - much more so than I expected, and I’m so glad to have read it.

[Damon · Rating 5 out of 5]

A pleasant, easy read.

[Klara Sjo · Rating 5 out of 5]

5/6

[Jiwa Rasa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Travelog penulis ke negara bekas naungan kerajaan Usmaniyah. Sangat menarik apabila kaum minoriti disorot oleh penulis.

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a great book about the authors’ travels around the former Ottoman Empire.

I appreciated how she identified that the Ottoman Empire’s wealth largely came off the backs of their subjugated subjects the Christians and the Jews.

I learned a lot about the population exchanges that occurred with the dissolution about the Empire.

I really appreciated her analysis of the current state of Cyprus and Lebanon.

[Nadirah · Rating 4 out of 5]

As the book title suggests, Alev Scott travels through the countries that used to be part of the Ottoman empire. This “travelogue” reads more like a memoir mixed with some investigative journalism into the background of the Ottoman Empire and what remained of its former residents.

This is a fascinating and eye-opening read, but it was also depressing to read about the effects of the cycle of wars that humanity keeps on perpetuating. The consequences are far-reaching and are still felt to this date, and Scott examines the displacement and diaspora that many of the persecuted people felt when they were expelled out of their once-home following the many wars that ultimately broke the empire into the current configuration of countries. The wars broke the old borders and reshaped them with no cares to the consequence to the people living the reality, and time and time again we see how the "exchange of population" between one country to another in the name of homogeneity and stability is an unjust move in hindsight.

Scott's book focuses on the minorities from a myriad of backgrounds—the Afro Turks, the Alawites, the Armenians, the Cypriots, and many others—giving them a voice that is sorely needed to be heard and understood. The book is a complex examination of how these people were made to feel like strangers in their own country and what that sense of displacement would mean to the future of each nation.

Scott is a journalist who has been barred from entering Turkey—her homeland—due to her political leanings, so she is in the unique position to understand the dispelled minorities’ homesickness. I think this is part of what made this such a compelling read for me; she doesn’t pass any judgment, she just laid out the facts and let us come to the conclusion ourselves.

[Mary J Starry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting book. Author traveled throughout parts of the old Ottoman Empire and talked to people about their thoughts on current Turkey policy and promotion as the new Ottoman Empire. Frightening to realize just how much people still consider themselves in terms of ethnic and national groups and look at others as the enemy.

[Kobra · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’m very conflicted about liking this book… Although it was very interesting, controversial and challenging to read history from another perspective, I found the Ottoman imperialistic nostalgia quite propagandish. Yes, nationalism bad, minorities good throughout the whole book. Definitely a good read for challenging our own Bulgarian nationalistic history we were taught in school and learning to embrace Ottoman heritage. But I feel that it’s painting a bit too idealistic a view of the Ottoman empire where minorities coexisted and lived happily and without any issue. I found this part very problematic and brushing to the side the atrocities committed towards Christians. By going the minority-good route I think a whole lot of history is skewed, like the last chapter on Cyprus - oh, we’re brothers, we live well together - who fought the war then? Was it only the far-right nationalists? Apparently, there are locals who don’t share this sentiment. The same goes for skirting over the Kosovo war. In the end, a true western point of view is pushed by tightly hanging onto identities and reimagining ourselves. In the end, everybody came from somewhere and homogeneous societies simply do not exist.

[Elena Sala · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alev Scott’s OTTOMAN ODYSSEY (2018) is a travel memoir which began when she decided to write about the history and social legacy of the Ottoman Empire. She travelled through eleven countries which had been part of the former Ottoman Empire, including Kosovo, Cyprus, Armenia, Greece, Lebanon and Palestine and discovered a legacy that is still relevant and alive. While exploring the significance of the past in the present she explores fraught subjects like religious coexistence, genocide, exile, diaspora and identity.

Alev Scott, whose mother is Turkish and father is British, is a journalist who lived in Turkey for several years. Her reporting seems to have come into conflict with the current Turkish regime and she found herself unexpectedly barred from reentering Turkey while she was writing this book.

Scott examines how historical sites from the Ottoman past are often appropriated to support Erdoğan's regime nationalist agenda and Ottoman fantasies: "in recent years, a bizarre reinvention has been taking place in Turkey: its politicians are reclaiming the legacy of its Ottoman past, while the country remains as nationalistic as ever. In 2017, the country voted to grant unlimited powers to President Erdoğan, nearly a century after the abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate", Alev Scott writes. And then she quotes Ahmet Davotoglu, Foreign Minister in 2013: "the last century [the period of the Republic] was only a parenthesis for us. We will close that parenthesis. We will do so without going to war, or calling anyone an enemy ... we will again tie Sarajevo to Damascus, Benghazi to Erzurum to Batumi". So, another unsettling subject explored in this book is the many ways in which Turkey today leverages its Ottoman roots to try to influence countries in the region.

OTTOMAN ODYSSEY is a very thoughtful and insightful memoir, a beautifully written book filled with nostalgia and love for the region. It offers an illuminating view of the people and heritage in the countries that comprised the sprawling Ottoman empire, an empire spread across three continents, which lasted for eight centuries.