Amid Rebellion, Invasion and Revolution: Ottoman Centralisation in Lebanon, 1861–1915

Charles Ough
{"title":"Amid Rebellion, Invasion and Revolution: Ottoman Centralisation in Lebanon, 1861–1915","authors":"Charles Ough","doi":"10.31273/reinvention.v15i1.790","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Times of strife dominate discussion on Lebanon, with the 2019 ‘revolution’ the latest to headline after the civil wars of 1860 and 1975–90. The reorganisation period after 1860, known as the mutasarrifiyya, was, however, remarkably peaceful under the Ottomans – although now mainly a forgotten time with scholars neglecting the sources and perspective of the Sultan’s reformers. Instead, nationalist historians used local chronicles and European records to present the mutasarrifiyya as nurturing a Lebanese nation. Likewise, later Western accounts, utilising similar material, argued that European contact prepared the Lebanese for independence. Therefore, the existing historiography follows a teleological bent in unearthing supposed signs for the eventual end of Ottoman hegemony.\nTo counter this approach, I conducted research in the National Archives, supplemented with Ottoman sources referenced in secondary works and guided by theories on colonial centralisation to combat Orientalist narratives. I also looked for evidence of the antagonistic factors of foreign interference, nationalism and internal divides. As a result, I opine that Istanbul’s centralisation was effective to a great extent in precluding European influence and rendering Lebanon’s secession by no means certain. This paper should help reshape our understanding of Lebanese history by accentuating longer peaceful periods over sectarianism and foreign collusion.","PeriodicalId":183531,"journal":{"name":"Reinvention: an International Journal of Undergraduate Research","volume":"79 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reinvention: an International Journal of Undergraduate Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31273/reinvention.v15i1.790","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Times of strife dominate discussion on Lebanon, with the 2019 ‘revolution’ the latest to headline after the civil wars of 1860 and 1975–90. The reorganisation period after 1860, known as the mutasarrifiyya, was, however, remarkably peaceful under the Ottomans – although now mainly a forgotten time with scholars neglecting the sources and perspective of the Sultan’s reformers. Instead, nationalist historians used local chronicles and European records to present the mutasarrifiyya as nurturing a Lebanese nation. Likewise, later Western accounts, utilising similar material, argued that European contact prepared the Lebanese for independence. Therefore, the existing historiography follows a teleological bent in unearthing supposed signs for the eventual end of Ottoman hegemony. To counter this approach, I conducted research in the National Archives, supplemented with Ottoman sources referenced in secondary works and guided by theories on colonial centralisation to combat Orientalist narratives. I also looked for evidence of the antagonistic factors of foreign interference, nationalism and internal divides. As a result, I opine that Istanbul’s centralisation was effective to a great extent in precluding European influence and rendering Lebanon’s secession by no means certain. This paper should help reshape our understanding of Lebanese history by accentuating longer peaceful periods over sectarianism and foreign collusion.
在叛乱、入侵和革命中:1861-1915年奥斯曼帝国在黎巴嫩的中央集权
在1860年和1975-90年的内战之后,2019年的“革命”是最新的头条新闻。1860年之后的重组时期,被称为“穆塔萨里菲亚”,在奥斯曼帝国统治下是非常和平的——尽管现在主要是一个被遗忘的时期,学者们忽视了苏丹改革者的来源和观点。相反,民族主义历史学家利用当地编年史和欧洲记录,将穆塔萨里菲亚描述为黎巴嫩民族的培育。同样地,后来的西方报道,利用类似的材料,认为与欧洲的接触为黎巴嫩的独立做了准备。因此,现有的史学在发掘奥斯曼帝国霸权最终终结的假想迹象时,遵循着一种目的论的倾向。为了对抗这种方法,我在国家档案馆进行了研究,补充了二手作品中引用的奥斯曼文献,并以殖民集权理论为指导,与东方主义叙事作斗争。我还寻找了外国干涉、民族主义和内部分裂等敌对因素的证据。因此,我认为伊斯坦布尔的中央集权在很大程度上有效地排除了欧洲的影响,并使黎巴嫩的分裂变得不确定。这篇文章应该有助于重塑我们对黎巴嫩历史的理解,因为它强调了相对于宗派主义和外国勾结而言更长的和平时期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信