By the beginning of the 20th Century the drive for modernity and the politicisation of a Turkish ethnic identity became the priority of an emerging Turkish nation, which until then identified itself in terms of religion.
But with the loss of Arab Muslim territories after 1918, an identity based on Islam proved to be inadequate.
The increasing emphasis on Turkishness was aided by new literary genres, which did not exist in the classical Ottoman literature. These were borrowed from Europe and helped develop today's colloquial Turkish.
It reinforced a new Turkish identity nurtured by the civilisations of Asia and the vision of the future anchored in the West.
The Turks probably are the only nation to have turned modernity into their national religion and Islam into the source of their individual spiritual faith.
The overwhelming majority of Turks share this unique feature of being good Muslims, and Turks and Europeans at the same time.
Despite its origins, contemporary Turkey is a new society - the result of a "melting pot" similar to the one that produced the United States.
Between 1856 and 1980 some nine to ten million former Ottoman Muslim subjects belonging to different ethnic and linguistic groups immigrated from the Balkans and the Caucasus to settle in Anatolia.
Despite a number of setbacks - military coups, human rights issues - modern Turkey has emerged from the embers of the Ottoman empire as a dynamic society with a "Euro-Islamic" faith and a pro-European outlook.
The formation of a new Turkish identity and nation-state have parallels, not in the Muslim world but in the West.
These processes were set in motion through philosophical debates among Islamists, nationalists, Turkists and pro-Europeanists. These developed into new ideological foundations which guided the new Republic's policies after 1923.
The modernist agenda was greatly accelerated during the rule of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who is credited with having created a new state and society.
The "newness" of the Republic and its creator have become sacred myths in Turkey.
Yet practically all of Ataturk's reforms, including the acceptance of a new alphabet, were discussed in a variety of ways after 1870.
Ataturk synthesised the main ideas of preceding decades and applied those measures that could produce a modern, secular and democratic nation sure of its own identity.
He ignored much of the Ottoman legacy, not necessarily because he rejected the value of historical knowledge, but to forestall irredentist and pan-Turkist, pan-Islamic movements.
Above all, he was a modernist and secularist who unequivocally accepted contemporary civilization for national survival.
Ataturk was a Turkish nationalist and believed in the existence of a nation with its own unique culture and identity, like other nations.
He was a dedicated modernist and accepted Europe as the source of civilisation and modernity - the main goals of the new republic.
To borrow a political slogan, Turkey identifies itself as national and Islamic secular in form and European in content and it will preserve this character, regardless of the outcome of its candidacy for membership of the EU.
Membership will greatly strengthen Turkish democracy and become an example for other nations to emulate. The Turks have managed to modernise and Europeanise themselves, but the job is not yet finished.
The EU holds concerns about the stability of democracy in Turkey and its history of human rights abuses.
But it also knows that Turkey holds influence across the Middle East and Central Asia - with which it shares language, culture and historical ties.
In 1915, the Young Turks leader Enver Pasha envisaged a Turkish empire expanding east across Central Asia. But after World War I, Ataturk focused on consolidating the land the new Turkish nation was left with.
But Central Asia is back on the agenda. The independence of Caucasian and Central Asian states has reopened the region.
Economically, the region offers new markets for Turkish products. And Turkey can offer help to the region on how to integrate with the West, both economically and politically.
So, if Turkey is able to maintain its image as a developing, progressive democracy dedicated to freedom and progress, not only will it succeed in joining the EU, but it will have a greater say in world affairs.
Turks have faced a long journey to Europe. But that journey is still not over.
We've joined because it is profitable for us and you've took us in because it is profitable for you. We also believed that EU is an organization, that will respect us as equals. Maybe we were wrong at all 
I freely admit I know next to nothing about Europe, because no-one ever discusses it in the UK. People are either for it (but don't tell anyone why), against it (but don't know why), or don't care (because no-one's explained to me why I should care). Everyone's made up their minds already, so debates are pretty moot. Since I don't have any particular leaning in favour of EU enlargement, I have to question why it would be a good thing for me here in the UK.
