The Spoilt Brats of History: The Greek Kingdom starting in 1832 as a case study of Western cultural assimilation of the 'lagging behind' nations

[Kritias]

Modernization is a process by which a country adapts to the political, economic and social structure followed by the lead countries of the world, often instigated by those countries and for their benefit. The effects of this political attempt of swaying foreign societies to adapt to this modernization process are long lasting and arduous for the subject country, and its people are rarely treated equally during this adaptation. In the present day, we can see these attempts carried out in multiple Muslim countries of the so-called third world. In the endings of the 19^th Century, however, the modernization process was carried out in a rather peculiar way on a rather peculiar people: the Orthodox Christians of the Balkans.

The turning of a small Ottoman province into a modern Christian, European state and the many problems of this process can be seen in the creation of the Modern Greek kingdom, its identity, its relationship to the West, its past with the East, and its subsequent historical trajectory. However, Greece has an additional interesting point. Greece and the Greeks are inextricably tied to everything the West considers the foundations of their civilization and an indispensable part of their identity.

The beginnings of the modern Greek kingdom is often connected to a sense of special dispensation given by the Great Powers to the fledgling Greeks. After all, the revolt against the Ottoman empire was not fronted only through a shared religion with the West but under the conviction of a past and a name integral to it. People supporting this thesis will point towards the specialized setting up of the Greek Kingdom, suggesting the special care the Western powers bestowed upon their cultural forbearers.

Is this special relationship really true, though? To begin with, Greek Orthodoxy never stopped representing the Schism to the West and was and still is treated as a peculiarity, not always an amiable one and less so understood. The fact, par example, that Russia has the same religion always cast the Greeks into a dubious position as to their relationship to the much suspected Russian. In addition, in the setting up of the new Greek state, great care was taken into setting aside parts of the Roman aristocracy coming from Constantinople, and the local gentry already in place in Rum in favor of the imported Bavarian nobility following the King. This lead to a civil war fought across the land during the struggle for independence, and a period of subsequent lawlessness where the landed feudal lords refused to relent to the external authorities.

The OP was not supposed to overflow with information, so I will stop the example setting by giving a last example from modern days and setting the question for discussion. During the crisis, a large attempt has been made into an impromptu ‘protestantization’ of the internal economy in Greece, noting a significant shift in the assorted ethics involved with work, savings, relations to the banking system, the entrepreneurs, the job creators. For a communal, socialist inclined country this is a monumental shift of its axis spearheaded by the EU and IMF officials and fronted by the current opposition party [and expected widely to be the new government] and the results of these efforts will surely be widely discussed in the future.

And the OP question is: Do you think that the seeds of this ‘westernization’ process were laid to bloom during the Greek War of Independence or prior to that as a factual cause for the revolt? And if so, what parallels can we draw from the westernization of the Balkans during the 19^th and 20^th century to the current modernization attempts in Muslim countries?

Disclaimer: My decision to focus on the Greek case has a couple of merits. First, the process of modernization can be discussed in the best case scenario, taking into account that the European powers very much wanted to see the young Kingdom succeed, after their first reluctant position to its revolt. Second, the forming of a modernized identity can be better explained and understood through the importance of the Greek identity to a majority western audience. Third, the recent re-introduction of the ‘Greek problem’ during the crisis and the Western approach of its people, its history and its circumstances highlights the true position of the modernized nations.

[Diocle]

Since "Modernization process" is actually nothing else than a process of assimilation, colonization, exploitation and planned, organized robbery against minor nations, objects of the interests of the main capitalistic metropolises, the Greek (or Italian, it's more or less the same!) War of Indipendence, interested the Western Powers (Britain and France) only to the extent that it could help their imperialist interests in that area, consisting in containing and ultimately ****ing the Ottoman Empire, i.e. the Turks.

In short I mean that: when, to better exploit & despoil a people, they need "Nationalism", then they support and incresase the national identity of their targets, instead, when there's no more need of this crap, as it happens today, they are ready to explain you that such concepts as "Nationalism", "Historical Heritage" and "National Identity" are bad words, used just by a bunch of Nazi-Fascist losers!

Sorry for the pessimism but .. I don't see any other sensible way to analize the problem.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

And the OP question is: Do you think that the seeds of this ‘westernization’ process were laid to bloom during the Greek War of Independence or prior to that as a factual cause for the revolt?

If by seeds you imply people willing to fashion Greek society into an an idea of an modernized Ancient Greece, while at the same time reducing backwards-perceived cultural elements
that came into being during Late Antiquity and subsequent Ottoman conquest, then yes. However, this was not the only cause of the war, in fact I don't think it mattered much for most of the participants, only those were wealthy enough to spend time reading the classics and correspond and interact with western Europeans.

And if so, what parallels can we draw from the westernization of the Balkans during the 19th and 20th century to the current modernization attempts in Muslim countries?

There's but a few parallels. In Muslim-majority countries the ideas of "westernization" date to at least late 19th Century, before the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and are fueled in one part by an Autocrat's enthusiasm and the desire to be treated as equal by the Westerners, and in other part by people's nationalism and anti-colonialism. From it's creation in 1822 to the Interwar period Greek state neither had an Autocrat who desperately relied on foreign support to maintain power while implementing deeply unpopular cultural measures while also giving extra cheap natural resources to his western backers, nor did they have vast swaths of very politically engaged populace who had very different ideas, from theocracy, to liberalism or communism.

Unpopular western-backed Autocrats from the late 19th Century and politically engaged and opinionated populace from the Interwar period were present in Muslim majority countries from the early 20th Century. Unlike in Greece where societal changes happened gradually with the society going left and right over time in these countries we mainly have Autocrats who violently suppress religion and communism, then those who happened to destroy all political opposition except Islamism, because that would require eliminating religion, get overthrown by Islamist, or become embroiled in a civil war with them. In between they also get overthrown or replaced by other Autocrats.

There are unresolved questions of an nation-state formation in these countries, and if met, the criteria of what makes a modern nation-state is different today than it was during the formation of European nation states.

Greece, like majority of European countries is formed out of an single ethnicity or a group of related ones, the main components of ethnicity at the time of Greek state formation, and any other nation-state in 19th Century, is related to religion and language. In relation to these two components laws are made within "western" political framework.

In Syria, for example, things are far more complex. First of all, if Syrians had one language and one form of Islam, democratic legislation based on those components would be unacceptable to modern secular principles. 19th Century Greece was a Greek speaking Orthodox-Christian country with equality for all (male) citizens, however if it wished to base some of it's laws on religious principles it could do so provided that it doesn't disadvantage or target any specific group, you can't make such laws today and be called modern or westernized. In 19th Century secular and democratic France it was fine to suppress linguistic minorities, modern-day Syria, if it were democratic, would not be considered modern if it banned Kurdish and Assyrian from public use.

This is why the Muslim Brotherhood which advocates legislation based on certain Islamic principles is not considered a viable political party in western eyes, despite their willingness to participate in elections and at least theoretically accept the option of being voted out, in reality the only time elected they were overthrown before the next election. The secular Baath Party is not viable in western eyes because they'd like to act like 19th Century France, plus equal rights for women, minus democratic elections.

Modernization, and by this I mean the establishment of modern-Western values such as secularization and attempts at democratic legislation as opposed to authoritarian or theocratic in the Muslim countries were attempted long ago and have largely failed completely or in the case of predominantly Turkic countries partially.

There are two different components of modernization, democracy and secularization, the problem is that these two are at odds with each other today, while that was not so much the case when European nation states were forming.

There are also two conflicting sources of modernization, those of an Autocratic ruler and those of public intellectuals, following various ideologies, seeking democratic legislation. There's conflict between these two not just based on democracy versus autocracy but also on which aspects of modernity they tend to focus. The autocrats tend to promote secularization and grant some civil liberties while the latter seek to engage the public with decision making. The autocrats really on foreign support and the public intellectuals tend to call this neocolonialism.

Disclaimer: My decision to focus on the Greek case has a couple of merits. First, the process of modernization can be discussed in the best case scenario, taking into account that the European powers very much wanted to see the young Kingdom succeed, after their first reluctant position to its revolt. Second, the forming of a modernized identity can be better explained and understood through the importance of the Greek identity to a majority western audience. Third, the recent re-introduction of the ‘Greek problem’ during the crisis and the Western approach of its people, its history and its circumstances highlights the true position of the modernized nations.

Well, sure attitudes and decisions taken by Western countries towards this process are very influential in modernization of countries. The ancient enemies of the Greeks, the Persians, are one of the best examples of this. Persia, or Iran, in the late 19th Century took the usual path, first it had an absolute monarch, usually an inept one, who set up to westernize the country. He gave out concessions to Europeans for natural resources for cheap and started building up infrastructure and, Autocrats favorite, the Army.

The people weren't too sure about modernity, but they did embrace the idea of voting and having a parliament, so they created one by force in 1906. The British and the Russians often interfered with the government, and made some replacements, and in 1953 the US and the UK finally put an end to people's shenanigans always aimed at interfering in economic interests of western countries in Iran. Most of this was done with the Iranian Autocrat's approval and cooperation, which is why the Autocrats who attempt to modernize countries, as opposed to those who don't, are largely viewed as puppets of the West.

[Kyriakos]

It was a matter of convenience. When the main powers wanted another regional power (eg in 1920) they had no issue supporting Turkey instead. Nations don't have friends, as has been often said (or when they do, that friendship ends with the first few coffins).
That said, while states do not have friends, the public in foreign states can and at times does play a role. Eg in the pro-Greek movement you mentioned in in the 1820s, with various major western artists presenting works about the greek war of independence. This is a different parameter, and does play a role.

[hellheaven1987]

And the OP question is: Do you think that the seeds of this ‘westernization’ process were laid to bloom during the Greek War of Independence or prior to that as a factual cause for the revolt? And if so, what parallels can we draw from the westernization of the Balkans during the 19^th and 20^th century to the current modernization attempts in Muslim countries?

Is modern Greece part of West??

[Diocle]

Is modern Greece part of West??

Being in the NATO and being part of the European Union (as we Italians, poor morons!) it seems to me (and to European Council and to European Commission and to European Parliament alike) they are fully part of the the West, even in case you choose to look at ancient Western History (at least before Attila the Hun turned the tables), Greece was at the exact geometric center of what we still consider the heart of Western Civilization, in a glorious age in which in Britain, cannibalism was still a pleasant pastime (Briton source)!

[hellheaven1987]

even in case you choose to look at ancient Western History (at least before Attila the Hun turned the tables), Greece was at the exact geometric center of what we still consider the heart of Western Civilization, in a glorious age in which in Britain, cannibalism was still a pleasant pastime (Briton source)!

You mean the left over of an empire that had been excommunicated by West (or it excommunicated West, whatever).

[Diocle]

You mean the left over of an empire that had been excommunicated by West (or it excommunicated West, whatever).

No, actually I meant the ancient land for which Lord Byron fought and met his death.

OK, it was another age and today nobody cares, you will say, and yes, Britons have always had a short memory when it is the case; OK, Lord Byron is a Brit poet overrated due to the cultural catastrophic consequences of the accident in which incurred an infamous Corsican artillery officer, in a meaningless Belgian village, on the ominous eighteenth day of this same month, two centuries back now! OK, it's possible that nowadays the large part of the (new?) citizens of London don't even know who actually was the 6th Baron Byron and where and what Greece is, but .. c'mon, some respect for that holy land is necessary, better: it's mandatory, even for Brexiteers!!

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Being in the NATO and being part of the European Union (as we Italians, poor morons!) it seems to me (and to European Council and to European Commission and to European Parliament alike) they are fully part of the the West, even in case you choose to look at ancient Western History (at least before Attila the Hun turned the tables), Greece was at the exact geometric center of what we still consider the heart of Western Civilization, in a glorious age in which in Britain, cannibalism was still a pleasant pastime (Briton source)!

Of course, we can never know for certain exactly what took place in Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, 14,700 years ago.

15000 years ago Greece was on the same cultural and technical level as Great Brittain, called Mesolithicum.

Should i sent you some better glasses?