Sorry Randy, I guess I should have made clear why I picked your link because, you're right, it's not indicative of what I specifically was talking about. Point well taken. That's the sloppiness that comes from last minute work. In my defense though, I am certain that Krugman was implying the connection.

I'd agree a bit on there not being enough of a stick, but I don't think the carrot is all people make it out to be. I hear criticism about the money that goes to police forces, but honestly, they do need assistance in gaining investigative tools and experiences. As in the Soviet past, the Uzbek police rely on signed confessions that usually can and are gained through torture and threats.

There was recent and public criticism of Karimov's policies by State Department officials that I linked on my site. And it wasn't here, it was in Uzbekistan. IWPR and HRW admitted, and CEIP recently noted too, that US involvement has caused improvements in Uzbekistan. That's not to say that more can't be done, because it certainly can and should. Central Asians are a crafty lot, and we run great risk of being taken for a ride if we don't train more regional experts to craft better policies.

http://www.newscentralasia.com/

Central Asia Speaks: Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia

Governing with the wiggle of a Mustache
Dr. H.B. Paksoy

[This is the second of five lectures prepared by Dr. H B Paksoy for the Central European University, Budapest. The course is entitled: “Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia”]

I. Mustache

Truth is like the universe. Most individuals only know parts.

An ancestor is said to have ruled his royal domain with his eyebrows. If he raised one, he was displeased. The movement of the other indicated annoyance. Both, horror.

Not too long ago, the USSR was ruled by a mustache. However hefty or stylish, it still was a mustache. Those in his retinue learned, or thought they did, how to read that piece of facial hair. As a result, the members of this ‘inner circle’ carried out despicable acts and atrocities in the name of the face holding the mustache. And the mustache, in full knowledge of the misdeeds, did nothing to discourage the retinue.

The whisker mobility style of governance is always open to interpretation. That is, to the interpretation of the immediate inner circle of the mover of the whiskers; provided, of course, there is benefit to glean for the interpreters of the facial hair. That leads to excesses and communally undesirable consequences. For example, when the mustache asked for a simple and solitary doppi¹, the interpreters did not hesitate to deliver one sitting atop a freshly decapitated head. Some of the immediate circle members will benefit from such a system; only for a spell, before, they, too, fall. After all, the single mustache is the combined prosecutor, judge and jury. Often, he is also the executioner.

When there is no recourse to an independent judiciary, whose interests are also shared by the population, then no one person’s life is safe. By way of demonstration, one may point to various prominent individuals, including that of Beria, the Secret Police chief of the era.

Under the rule of ‘whisker governance’ many organizations are fostered by sycophants. All will be devoted to pleasing the mustache. In the process, they will hog all the resources of the polity. This will leave less, a lot less for the general populace, and, by necessity, create a bifurcation among the citizenry. This societal chasm will be amplified by the competing secret organizations established by different organizations fighting for the attention of the Whiskers. Indeed, these factions are competing for greater resources for themselves and using the Whiskers for the purpose. This increases the distance between the population and the tools of the Governance Strata. In fact, this development creates the ‘new’ Governance Strata.

The all out efforts by the control tools will leave no part of the societal fabric untouched. The primary objective will be to foster a pliant mindset. This can be accomplished with least cost only through the construction of a new Identity for the polity and individual members.

The purpose of the Identity is to hold a polity together; indeed to form a polity in the first place. Since Identity itself is a composite with many parts, the new one under construction will have to encompass all aspects of the societal life. Along the way, new symbols and rituals will have to be created in order to reinforce the new Identity---much like the Christian church grafted itself onto the pre-Christian ceremonies, special days, doctrines and beliefs, for the purpose of supplanting all. However, during this process, Christianity also soaked its ecumene and theology with what came before itself. The new Identity formation efforts will not be immune to this process. The Designer Community working on the project will be subject to the influences of what they encounter. This is inescapable. The Designer Community’s research into the past Identity will also renew a broader interest in the past Identity. The contest of wills thus gain another front, since the past owners of the extant Identity had already left their testament in what they enjoyed. Thus, the Governance Strata will now have to contend with a renewal of the past Identity and related actions, their consequences. Another front in the struggle for the hearts and minds of the population is opened.

II. Leavening

Leavening of Identity is a natural process, akin to fermentation. Nature utilizes fermentation to refine and transform substances, mostly for preservation purposes. Yeast is the best known fermentation agent. It is used by bakers, beverage makers, geneticists, dairy operators. The basic yeast occurs freely in nature. It is the humans that isolate specific yeasts, nurture it to perform targeted tasks, after refining them. It must not be forgotten that, while a strain of yeast might affect almost all living organisms and beings, it is the refined and targeted varieties that will yield the desired best results. Consequently, winemaking yeast added to milk is unlikely to produce a tasty yoghurt or pleasant wine. It must not be forgotten that not all cultures are naturally compatible when refined. However, all cultures need their basic elements to remain alive. Once a culture is dead, it may not be possible to revive it. At least, not in its original flavor.

What is referenced as human culture is essentially the result of refinement of what humans are born with. Arts are the leavening agent in this process.

The word and concept of Culture is derived from the Roman use. Hence, agriculture is cultivating the fields for the purpose of growing crops useful to humans. At that point, the question is raised: for the benefit of which humans? The immediate polity growing the crops, or some far-off entity that requires it?

Likewise, the concept of Civil is Roman invention, referring to laws and regulations applying to its non-military inhabitants; thus, the general Roman population. Civilization is derived from that root, certainly encompassing Culture.

Among humans, akin to natural yeasts, natural leavening agents exist. It is the duty of the polities, not only their Governing Strata, to refine those leavening agents to advance the society at the local level, as well as entire humanity. This is nothing less than a race, competition.

Doctrines of Belief Systems are outlined in user’s manuals specific to that system. The method is not unique to ‘religions.’ All Belief Systems have been abused and given over to serve the needs of the Designer Community and the Governance Strata . In the process, the verbiage contained in those doctrines are sprinkled with contemporary vocabulary borrowed from the Governance milieu. Even when the user manuals are translated into new languages, this attribute is prevalent. For example, the word ‘Lord’ is utilized to denote a deity of deities in English. Of course, the reference is to the title or designation of the immediate ruler of the realm and polity. This, is due to the Identity of the clergy in question: For example, the forced merging of identities during the Holy Roman Empire (which was neither) when the Emperor and the Pope entered into an uneasy pact to support each other, at least publicly, for their mutual benefit.

III. True Believer

A True Believer may be identified by how she handles a doctrine, unquestioningly. She has no qualms about whether it is rational or beneficial to all concerned.

Whereas a person with a curious thought process always must question herself whether a particular human path is superior to all others in terms of universal outcome, a True Believer rarely engages in a similar exercise. The thoughtful person may choose the saying “never in doubt, always in error” as a thinking method, while the zealot might counter with “I believe” in whatever second hand doctrine handed her.

Imagine an artery, a major road crossing a large city. In the middle, we unexpectedly discover a checkpoint, manned by a sniper. He is in civilian clothes. He has decided he has the authority to shoot and kill anyone he deems unfit, unhealthy or unphotogenic. And, he carries his self appropriated task with zest. Is this just? Is it acceptable to the populace, The Governing Strata?

What happens if this sniper is actually ‘given’ that task by a committee, deciding who should be shot and killed, instead of leaving that decision to the lone sniper? Does that change the questions we just asked, or the nature of our inquiry?

What gives the ‘right’ or authority to the sniper to carry out his deeds, killing people he does not agree with or does not like? How did this sniper decide on his course of action? Did he inherit his views and call to action from his family? A particular philosophy? Club? What was the motivation of the philosopher in designing the thought which influenced the sniper? How was that philosophical thought transmitted to the sniper, and became his own to act upon? Was it a direct line of transmission, meaning the sniper read the philosopher’s book and absorbed it? Or, were there intermediaries who might have modified the original thought of the philosopher for some reason or other? How do we know that we understand all that has been going on?

The point is: every action begins as a thought first. All our thoughts have their beginnings in interactions with humans, institutions. But, humans are capable of transcending as well as descending into the depths of baseness. Humans perform extraordinary feats at either extreme. What makes the difference? Religion/Belief System? Literae humaniores ?

If we opt to believe that religion makes the difference, we must also remember that all theology is manmade. This also includes political ecumene.

Burning books of knowledge, especially those opposing the current regime de jour, never extinguished the curiosity of the human mind. Moreover, draconian measures always failed to reach their purported objectives.

Are we, in this discussion, examining morality and ethics? That may comfort adherents of religions, people of the book. After all, ‘holy books’ exhort the readers, “thou shall not kill’ in various forms. The point here, however, is not the precepts of belief systems. Instead, we are concerned with profane and mundane matters such as reasoning arts and sciences. For example: what is the Identity of the sniper? Is he a monster? What about the Identity of the Committee that ‘tasked’ him? And, what is the Identity of the Governance system that fosters all this abomination?

Does the sniper lay claim to Natural Law? If she claims the right to kill accordingly, does she realize that the same right exists for others to kill him as well?

Single person Governance Systems, regardless of their designations such as kingdom, empire, democracy, etc, have inherent weaknesses. One person could not possibly be on duty 24/7. Of course, the autocrat realized that, and sought two solutions: spent resources on increasing amounts of security forces to keep himself alive, recruited a slate of obsequious lieutenants

Under such a system, as soon as duties are delegated to others, degradation of collective tasks begins. This is simply because the individuals delegated may or may not share the ambitions of the ‘ruler,’ hence, pursue different agendas. But, there is even a deeper structural flaw in this system: Educational differences. Education is not a simple matter of earning a diploma; the greater the difference between the governed and the governing strata, more difficult for both sides to communicate with each other, and hence failure of the system. It is only a matter of time before the Governed snap under the strain. This happens under many categories.

IV. Individuals or Groups over Polity

What is the common denominator for Spain, England, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Norway? They are all monarchies. They have also embraced the constitutional version (as opposed to the autocracy) and possess representative governments. A number of political parties regularly contest the elections.

The foregoing is in contrast to the examples of Democratic Republic of Germany, Poland, Democratic Republic of Vietnam at al of pre 1991. Even though these polities sported the term ‘democratic’ in their official appellations, they did not have representative governments.

That is not to say that all polities that purport to be democratic are pluralistic; neither were the origins of democracy. By way of comparison: about 10% of the former ‘socialist’ polity were members of the ruling communist party---as in the examples above---the proportion is perhaps similar in the case of the original democracy where 10% of the population were citizens with the right to vote, and the remaining 90% comprised of slaves without such privilege.

Why is it important for all members of a polity to participate in the governance of that polity? An autocrat (under any designation) may drag the polity into war and ruination by personal machinations. The all member participation in governance will inject sanity to the deliberations in case of a crisis.

In an authoritarian polity, the Governing Strata will use its resources to compel the population. This compulsion will take the form of all-out pressure that will ignore the bases of human dignity. For example, getting shot dead without a trial, for transgressions not even known is definitely against human rights. Any form of torture is absolutely within this domain.

All this is intimately tied to deciding how the wealth of the polity is going to be shared, allocated and spent. Will the resources be expended on guns or butter?

That, in turn, requires a definition of Identity. The question to elicit the answer is not “Who are you;” instead “What are you?”

There are quite a few answers to that query: offspring, parent, sibling, citizen, member of a profession, political party adherent, club member. There are obligations, benefits, costs and gains in each case. But those designations still do not answer the question “What are you?” Human psyche is quite dynamic and attributes will fluctuate from one moment to the next. Are these oscillations caused by emotion or reason or economic factors---the most powerful impellents?

Do these choices also apply to the polity as a whole, in addition to the solitary members? After all, the polity is comprised of individuals, each possessing their own Identities.

Moreover, the Governance Strata will also have their own Identity. This is already demonstrated in two well known manuals of statecraft: Balasagunlu Yusuf’s Kutadgu Bilig, and Nicolo Machiavelli’s Prince.

In Kutadgu Bilig stresses the necessity of having a happy and content population if the ruling dynasty is to survive and prosper.

In The Prince, Machiavelli’s concerns are focused on the happiness of the Prince (ruler) without regard to the prosperity of the population.

This contrast begins to point to the roots of Identity in each case. Keeping only 10% of the population happy and content and the rest unsatisfied is a good recipe of regime change under any political system.

Note: [1] Regular Ozbek skullcap.

About the author: H. B. PAKSOY has taught at the Ohio State University, Franklin University, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, the Central Connecticut State University.

Over the past two decades, some fifty of his research papers have appeared in over forty-five periodic journals and scholarly collections, in ten countries, on the European, Asian, and North American continents. In addition to the present volume, Dr. Paksoy also published (as author or editor) seven other books: THE BALD BOY AND THE MOST BEAUTIFUL GIRL IN THE WORLD (Lubbock: ATON, 2003) ESSAYS ON CENTRAL ASIA (Lawrence, KS: Carrie, 1999); INTERCULTURAL STUDIES (Co-Editor)(Simon and Schuster Education Group, 1998); TURK TARIHI, TOPLUMLARIN MAYASI, UYGARLIK (Izmir: Mazhar Zorlu Holding, 1997); CENTRAL ASIA READER: The Rediscovery of History; (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1994); CENTRAL ASIAN MONUMENTS (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1992); ALPAMYSH: Central Asian Identity Under Russian Rule (Hartford, Connecticut: AACAR, 1989).

H. B. PAKSOY earned his D. Phil. from Oxford University, England (with a Grant from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom), M.A. at the University of Texas at Dallas (with a National Science Foundation Project Grant Assistantship), and B.S. at Trinity University (with Bostwick Scholarship)

http://www.NewsCentralAsia.com

Central Asia Speaks: Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia

‘Employee Owned’ Identity?
Dr. H.B. Paksoy

[This is the fourth of five lectures prepared by Dr. H B Paksoy for the Central European University, Budapest. The course is entitled: “Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia”]

The men I should be tempted to commemorate would be the originators of transforming thought. They often are half obscure, because what the world pays for is judgment, not the original mind.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
(1841-1935)

It is the privilege of anyone to engage in any intellectual pursuit; provided, laws appertaining are not violated.

If the above statement is read to mean, for example, “While engaged in the study of physics, if you violate the laws of nature in your deliberations, such a shortcoming will lead you to erroneous results,” it would be logical. But, it becomes ominous if the same statement is made as a “political warning to an individual not to transgress the dogmas of the institution or state” which employ that person. Yet, the statement fits both occasions effortlessly. In the latter case, if not an outright offense, it may even be seen as a violation an unspoken law. And, in some cases, unwritten (secret) laws have precedence over the published ones.

Creating a governance code, on the other hand, requires more; it is not a simple intellectual pursuit. The entire process has been through a longish period of evolution, the ‘governance strata’ and ‘individual will’ doing battle against each other throughout history. What is more, the ‘governance strata’ has tried a variety of ideologies in order to win over individualism and pluralism. These ranged from strength of arms to claims of divinity of a human; single dictatorship to institutional autocracy, and everything else in between.

Background

While there are probably a significant number of unknown natural laws in physics, perhaps nothing is left more to learn about human governance principles. In being creative, it is necessary to be the sun; not just son of sun. Nor will it suffice to be an astrophysicist writing on the solar disk. Discovery and originality does not fall into the same bin.

States, polities and principalities arise of necessity, desire and determination. This endeavor requires not only blood, but brains. And the emphasis is on creation. This does not mean that any and every creation will be beneficial to all. Most, as events have demonstrated, are not. Communism, for example, as a governance system, was, at least for a while, seen as the savior of humanity. Let us overlook, for the time being, the fact that the root idea of communism goes back to Plato’s Republic c.360 B.C.E. and then to Thomas More’s Utopia c.1515 C.E. Some of these failures have come about due to inconsistencies between the Designer of the system and the Applicators. Those who wished to apply the system either did not understand the principal tenets, or were corrupted. Another possibility is that the system was not a major shift from those already existing, too confusing or not necessarily sufficiently mature to be introduced to the world.

Even the above mentioned example of Thomas More (1478-1535) and his Utopia is full of irony. More and Erasmus (1466-1536) were very good friends, adoringly close. During a visit by Erasmus to More’s house in England during1509, Erasmus caught a cold, and while recuperating, Erasmus wrote Moriae Encomium (The Praise of Folly), with a word play and pun on More’s name. They were also contemporary with Henry VIII (1491-1547), and well acquainted with the monarch well before his ascent to the throne. In the same breath, let us also remember three more individuals before exploring Identity relationships and how they evolve. In chronological order: The English religious reformer John Wycliff (1324–1384); The Czechs religious reformer Jan Hus (1369-1415); The German religious reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546). We also need to recall that Wycliff was the first translator of the bible into English; and Luther has the honor of rendering the same holy book into German for the first time. It was the reformist writings of Wycliff that influenced Hus, whose life and writings caused Luther to turn religious reformer. These three never met.

On their part, More and Erasmus were religious reformers, too, even if, in the end, in different directions. Both remained Catholic all their lives, much like Wycliff and Hus. While Luther was protesting, and laying the foundations of a new path to a new approach, Erasmus was very sympathetic. They briefly met and discussed the issues. Erasmus was in favor of working gradually and from within Catholicism to reform it, while Luther was in a great hurry. Luther gradually became aware of his position that his noble ideas were hijacked by his protectors in Germany. And Luther needed German nobility’s protection from the Italian based Pope’s allies. The German nobility had finally discovered a reason not to pay a portion of their annual income to the Papacy. When Luther perceived Erasmus not to be in support of Protestantism in the open and full force, he turned against Erasmus.

On the other hand, More joined the administrative strata of England, even serving under Henry VIII, who founded the Church of England. This was another irony, because, earlier, Henry VIII personally wrote a pamphlet attacking the ‘heresy’ of Luther. More objected to the expropriation of the Catholic Church and its holdings by Henry VIII in favor of this English Protestantism. More was in opposition to Protestantism, and being one of the two undersheriffs of London, may have persecuted the ‘new men.’ By this time, Luther’s ideas were primarily transmitted into England through Geneva, by those around John Calvin (1509-1564). Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) was following a similar line of Lutheranism in Zurich. And the term ‘new men’ became a code word for Protestants.

Thus, the efforts to reform the financial and moral excesses of the Papacy led to a new religion, Protestantism---with many branches. As a side effect, the process of translating the Bible into ‘national’ languages only strengthened the formation of nations and states. But, the works by Erasmus and More took their place in this new world, within Protestantism, alongside the works and commentaries of all other protesters. The efforts to reform the religion also fueled the impetus to have a new governance system; one that is more ‘individualistic’ than the communitarian one prevailing under an authoritarian, religious Identity.

Development of Cooperation

No amount of regulation, by whatever means, will suffice to maintain civility. Only the willingness of the population to get along with each other can. So far, the population on this earth has not uniformly demonstrated that can be done. Ideologies have been used to wrest more of the resources into the hands of an ever smaller group. As the population grows, the pressures of resource access are transferred to other areas; or so they are presented.

The collaborative experiences of a society, in part, are responsible for the formation of its Identity. If those experiences are recorded in the form of belle letters and popular literature, than that corpus become the vertebrae of that polity. Most, if not all, Identity systems insist on a single or oligarchic leadership for a polity, from imperialism to mercantilism; regardless of its other functions. Even pluralism does not seem to result in broad based rule but tends to elect ‘representatives’ to undertake the task.

Every Identity system defines itself through sets of formal rules and adumbrated doctrines. These related words place more stress on goals then methods. Such inflexible rule-setting hampers coordination among diverse groups who need to collaborate for the success of all. This set of objectives must seek to accommodate more than the basic necessities for all concerned. The extent of the prize pie is generally known. If the distribution of the pie falls too short of expectations, there is likely to be an attempt at revising the rules, and the Identity.

The cooperative production unit, legally favored in the 19th and the early 20th centuries, heavily depended on a self governance model. This self governance model did not arise independently, but out of the ‘pie distribution’ necessity. The wealth created by the onset of industrialization had to be distributed a bit better across the labor force to prevent outbreaks of violent wage protests. Even though the parents of the cooperative movement were social activists, the midwife was a rather high ranking politician, intending to rein in galloping capitalism in its harshest form. The politician’s objective was to keep his polity together, to moderate deeply divisive issues and to create a counterbalance to unchecked moneymaking by the nascent industrialist. He wanted his polity to succeed in the world.

The employee owned corporations followed on as legal entities, as a result of a century long evolution of the cooperative production unit. By that time, the coop did not have to ‘produce,’ but could be a service organization. This began to form the Employee Owned Identity, over and above the hopes of the midwife European politician of the 19th century.

Observation

The employee-owned corporation is rarely formed and reared into successful operation by a collection of owner-employees. Rather, an entrepreneurial individual (or, small number of individuals, usually working in pairs) establishes a business. The founder(s) either sell it, or otherwise transfer the ownership of the enterprise to the employees. In a plurality of the cases, the business involved has either a local a regional base. Provided the owner-employees take a continuous interest in the heath and welfare of the enterprise, it will live and even flourish. This constant participation of all owner-employees, in a rational manner, is imperative. This rational manner here is defined as pulling on the assigned oar at least one hundred percent and not engaging in capricious tangents.

Is the Employee Owned Corporation representation, then, the ‘ideal’ model for a new Pluralistic Identity? Is it the most rational economic unit? Should there be a limit on the corporate charters much like patents, trademarks and copyrights? For example, should an entrepreneur be given a corporate charter to start a business, with the provision that after 30 or 50 years later the enterprise must be turned over to the employee ownership? Of course, the founder(s) or their legitimate heirs would be compensated at the prevailing market value. This, of course, can be foreseen in addition to the revenue derived from the operation of the enterprise throughout the specified charter period.

As a further inducement, for the purpose of encouraging the use of limited time charters (rather than making them compulsory), the corporate tax rate may be kept some percentage points lower than the regular corporate charters. Would this provide for smoother labor-management relations? Would this structure reduce the dreaded turnover, secure job continuity?

If the limited charter holders chose to revert to a regular charter, meaning, change their minds, might they be permitted to do so by paying additional taxes, and granting minority ownership in the corporation to the employees? Or would all that lead to abuses? Would all the foregoing remind us of the guild system of yore, where the entered apprentice toiled until he became a journeyman, and finally a master and owner of a craft shop (akin to the present day corporation, but, perhaps smaller in scale)? In other words, there are precedents to this type of thinking. However, at this point all we have are questions.

Identity Implications

The guild system was widely in use in Central Asia, and in Europe. Though not founded on the exact same principles, both varieties of guilds operated on the foundations of strict discipline. This was done in order to:

limit the number of craftsmen in a given specialty
regulating wage and price stability
assuring quality control favoring the consumers
leading to the formation of Identities in a given polity

All this is a necessity, if the polity is to be kept intact. In both Europe and in Asia, there was a secondary and generally unverbalized reason for supporting the guild system: Keeping the population stable and preventing the flight of taxable talent from a polity. This aspect especially required the formation and maintenance of an Identity. Nowadays, that is known, in the business-speak (and, beyond) as ‘brand recognition.’ When the polity is well regulated, including the legal system, individuals living in that society will take pride and will want to further better the conditions for selfish reasons. Those noticing those desirable qualities will want to move in, thereby swelling the population numbers, taxable businesses and disposable income. A highly respected ‘brand recognition’ of a city will ensure not only survival, but also future prosperity. Same goes for continents.

Therefore, it is a legitimate question to ask: Which came first, Identity or economics? So, what we started considering, a particular activity (interaction of Identity and economics) of a given polity, managed to force itself on the rest of life in that polity. Not only in the specified area, but in the largest sense; order in life and governance system of a polity. That we must observe, is not the only binary question that may be posed. As noted above, the idea of religion also played a prominent part in the formation of Identity; both for and against. Moreover, that struggle, to find and preserve the Identity of the self and the larger polity also influenced the nature and formation of the governance systems now in use. The process is inseparable.

About the author: H. B. PAKSOY has taught at the Ohio State University, Franklin University, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, the Central Connecticut State University.

Over the past two decades, some fifty of his research papers have appeared in over forty-five periodic journals and scholarly collections, in ten countries, on the European, Asian, and North American continents. In addition to the present volume, Dr. Paksoy also published (as author or editor) seven other books: THE BALD BOY AND THE MOST BEAUTIFUL GIRL IN THE WORLD (Lubbock: ATON, 2003) ESSAYS ON CENTRAL ASIA (Lawrence, KS: Carrie, 1999); INTERCULTURAL STUDIES (Co-Editor)(Simon and Schuster Education Group, 1998); TURK TARIHI, TOPLUMLARIN MAYASI, UYGARLIK (Izmir: Mazhar Zorlu Holding, 1997); CENTRAL ASIA READER: The Rediscovery of History; (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1994); CENTRAL ASIAN MONUMENTS (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1992); ALPAMYSH: Central Asian Identity Under Russian Rule (Hartford, Connecticut: AACAR, 1989).

H. B. PAKSOY earned his D. Phil. from Oxford University, England (with a Grant from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom), M.A. at the University of Texas at Dallas (with a National Science Foundation Project Grant Assistantship), and B.S. at Trinity University (with Bostwick Scholarship)