Who are Tartars? William Dalrymple Quotes

  • Context: Art 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Hall
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the historical and cultural references to "Tartars" as mentioned in William Dalrymple's quotes from "The Nabob." Participants explore the implications of this term in the context of colonialism, historical invasions, and the perception of different ethnic groups, particularly in relation to the Bengal famine and the actions of British colonizers. The scope includes historical interpretation, cultural stereotypes, and the evolution of ethnic identities.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Historical
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight the dialogue from "The Nabob" to illustrate the colonial mindset and the derogatory use of "Tartars" and "Turks" to describe native populations.
  • Others provide historical context about the Tatars as a confederation of nomadic peoples from Central Asia who became associated with the Mongols and later adopted Islam.
  • One participant suggests that the term "Tartars" historically referred to raiders and invaders, contributing to negative stereotypes in European narratives.
  • Another participant discusses the artistic interpretations of Turkic or Tartar figures in literature, referencing Gogol's "Taras Bulba."
  • Some humorous contributions misinterpret "Tartars" as related to dental plaque or culinary sauces, indicating a playful misunderstanding of the term.
  • Further contributions explore the physical characteristics attributed to different ethnic groups, linking them to historical migrations and cultural developments.
  • Participants mention the historical context of Muslim rulers in India and their connection to the Tartar legacy, discussing perceptions of ruthlessness and intolerance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of interpretations regarding the term "Tartars," with some agreeing on its historical implications while others present competing views on its connotation and relevance. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple perspectives on the cultural and historical significance of the term.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the historical context of the term "Tartars," as well as the varying definitions and interpretations of ethnic identities. The discussion also reflects a mix of serious historical analysis and light-hearted misunderstandings.

Hall
Messages
351
Reaction score
87
William Dalrymple quotes this dialogue from The Nabob

Touchit: We cunningly encroach and fortify little by little, till at length, we are growing too strong for the natives, and then we turn them out of their lands, and take possession of their money and jewels.

Mayor: And don't you think, Mr. Touchit, that is a little uncivil of us?

Touchit: Oh, nothing at all! These people are little better than Tartars and Turks.

Mayor: No, no, Mr. Touchit; just the reverse: it is they who have caught Tartars in us.

Actually, the context is Bengal famine. The good looking white Englishmen caused a near-genocide, and they couldn't eat fishes because the river Ganges was full of dead bodies.

But what is this Tartar thing? I don't even got that Turks reference?
 
Science news on Phys.org
Hall said:
William Dalrymple quotes this dialogue from The Nabob

Touchit: We cunningly encroach and fortify little by little, till at length, we are growing too strong for the natives, and then we turn them out of their lands, and take possession of their money and jewels.

Mayor: And don't you think, Mr. Touchit, that is a little uncivil of us?

Touchit: Oh, nothing at all! These people are little better than Tartars and Turks.

Mayor: No, no, Mr. Touchit; just the reverse: it is they who have caught Tartars in us.

Actually, the context is Bengal famine. The good looking white Englishmen caused a near-genocide, and they couldn't eat fishes because the river Ganges was full of dead bodies.

But what is this Tartar thing? I don't even got that Turks reference?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50 and PeroK
pinball1970 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars
As the Wikipedia link above explains, historically the Tatars referred to a confederation of nomadic or semi-nomadic tribal peoples from what is now Central Asia and Northern Asia who spoke a series of related Turkic languages and subsequently joined forces with the Mongols under Genghis Khan and eventually conquered large parts of what is now Russia and Ukraine and parts of the Caucasus.

Subsequently these various peoples adopted Islam and settled into the above regions and developed into distinct Turkic-speaking ethnic groups, which are nowadays called Tatars. The largest such group is the Volga Tatars.
 
Back in the day the Tartars would often live off raiding their neighbours, even if nominally at peace or subject to one king or another. The Ottoman empire was often and successfully at war with the Christians kingodms, encroaching into Europe. Both were predominantly Muslim peoples, which is as damning a thing as it gets to Christians of the time.
So Tartars, Turks => 'savages, raiders, invaders, despoilers' in the minds of many Europeans of late medieval, renaissance periods. Or so the stereotype goes.
Same as Mongols a few centuries earlier, the Huns even earlier, Vandals, and so on.
 
William Dalrymple quotes Samuel Foote's 18th C. play "The Nabob", if I understand the OP's references correctly. Though considered a wealthy aristocrat while living in impoverished India during the "Raj", the protagonist might be considered a common brigand and social climber back in England. The interlocutor opines that greedy grasping Englishmen are the true invaders and exploiters.

For artistic interpretation of Turkic or Tartar 'Cossacks' during the Polish, Ukrainian and Russian Empire period in Russian literature read a translation of Gogol's novel "Taras Bulba" and/or view the 1962 American film loosely based on the novel. The great actor Yul Brynner brings warlord Taras Bulba to life.

1660233910895.png
 
Last edited:
I thought "Tartars" were the critters that inhabit the gunk on your unbrushed teeth.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: symbolipoint and BillTre
jtbell said:
I thought "Tartars" were the critters that inhabit the gunk on your unbrushed teeth.
No, no...they make the sauce you put on fish.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
No, no...they make the sauce you put on fish.
Time for another trip to a fish camp... :-p
 
(It gives me some peace that most of the fiercest invaders were not Khans, but Hans)

The Asiatic People:

Central Asia, North-Eastern Asia and Americas have been inhabited by a group of people who were called as Asiatic. They were characterised by their physical features (the features which are purely due to external environment and tell us more about the climate than the men), thus,
  • Short Stature
  • Yellow-Brown skin
  • Black eyes and hair
  • Brachycephalic
  • Oblique eyes
The Xanthochroic People:

Central Europe has been resided by people who were termed as Xanthochroic. Physical features include:
  • Tall stature
  • Colourless skin
  • Grey or blue eyes
  • extreme dolichocephaly to extreme brachycephaly

Islam was thriving after death of the politician, and spread to both sides of its origin like a rubber band being stretched. Though, all three Abrahamic religion were altogether same, yet they fought many wars only for indifferent public to utter Supreme Being as Jehovah, God, or ...

In 13th century, the Asiatic people embarked on a journey, and many texts can be found about their journey. Violence rose to its limit, and Arabs were accepting the mutilation as a doom from ... It is these Mongols who were called by Giovanni as Tartars.

(Work in Progress, to be continued...)
 
  • #10
After much bloodshed and intolerance , Mongols took up Islam. Admixture of Asiatic and Xanthochroic began.

Timur and Babur, who were reported to be the descendants of Ghenghis Khan, invaded India and began their rule. Little by little admixture continued, and by the time of Jahangir there was more of Xanthochroicity in rulers.

Why were Indians called as “little better than Tartars”?

The reference was to Muslim rulers at that time and to their ruthlessness, well after all they were descendants of Tartars, only became a little too intolerant of other religion and wore Islam.
 
  • #11
StatGuy2000 said:
As the Wikipedia link above explains, historically the Tatars referred to a confederation of nomadic or semi-nomadic tribal peoples from what is now Central Asia and Northern Asia who spoke a series of related Turkic languages and subsequently joined forces with the Mongols under Genghis Khan and eventually conquered large parts of what is now Russia and Ukraine and parts of the Caucasus.

Subsequently these various peoples adopted Islam and settled into the above regions and developed into distinct Turkic-speaking ethnic groups, which are nowadays called Tatars. The largest such group is the Volga Tatars.
Some pictures of Tatars:

Volga Tatars (Tatars living in along the Volga river in what is now Russia):


https://static.themoscowtimes.com/image/article_1360/6f/c77b3bdbe61a4d94997902dbcb6e2232.jpg
 
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970
  • #12
Crimean Tatars (Tatar group based in the Crimea region, now dispersed throughout Russia, Ukraine, and Central Asian republics):

1660583550025.png
 
  • #13
Siberian Tatars (Tatar groups living in Siberia):

1660583748073.png
 
  • #14
For studying human culture in the Americas I prefer an anthropological approach in tandem with the increasingly detailed physical record placing emigration at least 50k years ago, closer to estimates of human arrivals in Australia and nearby islands.

Within various thaws and changes to the land and seascape, ancient people emigrated from the Pacific North and Northwest in groups over considerable time. Cultures supplanted earlier people, pushed them south, or co-existed depending on external events driving migration and usually abundant food sources. The area I studied in depth in Northern California and Nevada included markedly distinct language groups within relatively compact areas that also provided extensive variety of edible plants and wildlife.

Ethnographers studying language groups and cultural progression closely follow physical anthropologists' discoveries of ancient cultures and civilizations. language group studies compare to DNA and mitochondrial descent evidence. In a related thread @fresh_42 recently posted linguistic maps of Northern Europe indicating tribal movements and concentrations late Roman to medieval periods IMS.
 
  • #15
It just occurred to me if those people, in 19th century, who wanted to completely break off the society and wanted to go back to primitive society (so called Anarchists), would have agreed to live with Tartars in that primitive society?