Why do we call the region as Middle East? Eurocentrism: locating Europe, or more broadly West, at the center of world history and assuming that historical developments in the West have been the motor force of most, if not all human progress “middle” and “eastern” only in relation to western Europe

History of the Term Orient: Asian lands to the southeast of Europe, stretching all the way to China In the nineteenth century, many Europeans and Americans had come to regard the “Orient” as too broad a category and began to break it down into a “Near East” and a “Far East.” The term Middle East was coined in 1902 by the noted American military historian Alfred Thayer Mahan. Over time, however, Near East and Middle East came to be used more or less interchangeably to refer to the same geographical space

Territory and Population By the twentieth century, the Ottoman Empire in Europe had receded to a small coastal plain between Edirne and Istanbul. Two reasons: Foreign wars and separatist movements The total population may have equaled some 25-32 millions in 1800. In 1914, more certainly, Ottoman subjects totaled some 26 millions. Thus, while population totals in 1800 and 1914 were about the same, the densities had approximately doubled.

Ottoman State in the 19th Century Making of a modern state. Definition: the capacity of the state to penetrate civil society, to implement political decisions throughout the realm, and to have more authority in everyday affairs of its subjects How was this possible?

Knowing the Population Throughout the late 1830s and 1840s, the Ottoman state set out to conduct population, property and income surveys. These surveys would constitute the basis for the governmental efforts to establish a new conscript army and tax system on the basis of individual responsibility to the state. Individual responsibilty?

Expanding Bureaucracy The Ottoman central state vastly expanded its size and functions in the 19th century. As the bureaucracy expanded in size, it embraced spheres of activity previously considered outside purview of the state. The state functionaries once performed a limited range of tasks, mainly war making and tax collecting, leaving much of the rest for the state’s subjects and their religious leaders to address. In the nineteenth century, the official class took on many of these functions.

Negotiating the Reforms Ottoman reforms were not merely products of a top-down decision from the central Ottoman state. Instead, it should be emphasized that, Ottoman state managed to extend itself more deeply into lives of its subjects only through compromises with local groups and elites. Example: Provincial Administrative Councils established in the 1830s and 1840s. The seats allocated to the representatives of the population were mostly occupied by local notables.

Ideological Background: Ottomanism In earlier centuries, the Ottoman social and political order had been based on differences among ethnicities, religions and occupations. This order had been based on the presumption of Muslim superiority and a contractual relationship in which the subordinate non-Muslims paid special taxes and in exchange obtained state guarantees of religious protection.

Ottomanism In the nineteenth century, Ottoman elites aimed to strip away the differences among Ottoman subjects and make all male subjects the same, in every respect, in its eyes and in one another’s as well. 1829 clothing law: sought to eliminate visual differences among males by requiring the adoption of an identical headgear Imperial decrees promising the equality of its Muslim and non-Muslim subjects. In return for equal responsibilities (such as universal male conscription), the state promised equal rights (equal access to state schools and state employment) for the male subjects of the empire.