Tweet
ARE WE CONFRONTING THE PAST?
by Herkul Millas
Zaman, Turkey
Sept 28 2005
[COMMENTARY]
Recently we have been experiencing two examples of events, expressed
rhetorically as, "confronting the past" or "reconciling with our
history." Exhibitions, panels, and several articles were prepared
for the 50 th anniversary of the September 6-7 riots.
This week we will be witnessing a conference titled "Ottoman Armenians
during the Decline of the Empire: Issues of Scientific Responsibility
and Democracy" at Bogazici University. In my opinion, such events
are indexed more towards today than the past and reactions derive
because they are based on current events.
Confrontation or reconciliation (or any other word to describe
"confronting the past") is not in the past; it is in our present day.
The goal is to confront people alive today and to create a kind of
common ground between them. Past events were either kept alive in
a national compartmentalization within the framework of a "national
history" or left to be forgotten for several decades. However, such
interpretations were not validated outside the national framework.
The plan at the domestic level did not match the plan of the outside
world. As a result, Turkey has undergone an alienation process despite
her extended environment and has remained far from her friends. These
historical interpretations that do not match with Turkey's environment
have turned into a daily problem for some citizens.
But this problem did not become everyone's problem. Those, who did
not feel the paradox deep inside, did not move their pens, organize
any panels or exhibitions, nor watch any such events. In fact, some
did not remain objective and expressed their reactions gradually in
line with their problem free minds. Finally, some conveyed these
"confrontation" events were untimely, while others made harsher
provocations. When the spectrum of all these reactions is analyzed,
a better understanding is portrayed about whether the situation is
more related to anxiety or tranquility of adjusting to a larger milieu.
If we make an inventory analysis of the conflicting sides throughout
history, today we can see that they have formed two groups; those
perceiving the European Union (EU) with confidence and those
with no confidence. This is weird. Those, who are enthusiastic
about "reconciling with history" and those who appeared recently
as enthusiastic and confident in the EU, are the same people. The
people, who remain objective regarding confrontation with the past
and who specifically react against the conferences, panels or other
activities on this issue, are either pessimistic about the EU process
or close to the groups that absolutely reject the EU, or they are in
fact members of that group.
I do not argue that discussions on history are political. Rather, I
argue there is an identity problem and an identity problem directly
affects political preferences. I try to show that our willing or
unwillingness, as well as, our confidence or lack of confidence to be
"in accordance" on history is related to the definition of "us." Some
search for their identity in a huge area and try to find the one
"close to us," and others do the same in a rather limited national
framework. Thus, while some try to reconcile different perspectives,
"adjust" to the world and provide general recognition, they do not
highlight what the "other" says, they give credit only to his/her
own interpretation of history, and do not allow any criticisms for
a "perfect and superior" past. They never want their history (or we
might say a perfect story), upon which they have built their identity,
to be questioned, shaken, and above all to be denied.
I think I agree with those who say the first group, who seeks a
common ground with the world, has in fact more doubts and complexes
and is ashamed of its identity; therefore, it is makes concessions
to "foreigners". Perhaps, such people also exist in this camp. But,
one can look at these two groups from a different perspective as well.
Those, who do not seek accordance with the broader environment and
do not believe it is required, do not feel this way because of their
self-confidence. On the contrary, this behavior might stem from
their lack of confidence in their neighbor or the "other". Perhaps,
there are such people as well in the second group. I do not give the
final word on this but, I myself favor accordance with the larger
environment. A narrow and local consensus reminds me of a xenophobic
confidence of an introvert society: Something like a belief, which
is easily provided inside but not much valid outside our borders.
Relationship between reconciliation and nationalization
I will also touch upon the importance of a consensus. Disputes
during nationalization processes were encountered in every
society. But "reconciliation" is not a preference; it is the equal
of nationalization. It is one of the basic outlooks and process
mechanisms of being a nation. Nations were provided by societies,
who actually express willingness to co-exist. Those, who did not or
could not apply this to practice, are the societies that are still
in search. That is to say, the ironical side of the event is that
the attacks and intolerances deriving from the anxiety of those,
who insist on nationalization, are in fact opposite to the concept
of a nation and its function. Those, who see enemies and traitors
everywhere, are the ones making nationalization more difficult. From
this point of view, I believe that those favoring "accordance" and
analysis of the covered past within the framework of dialogue, are
in fact more close to a nation model and a more contemporary society.
The search for this accordance within a boarder framework, on the
other side, is another expression of this contemporaneousness.
It is generally forgotten that identity searches are not limited
to Turkey and similar situations occur in all countries across the
world. Searches for a broader consensus outside a narrow environment
extend to ancient times. But people tend to blame those, who do not
think in the same way, with disloyalty and ignorance. However, I
suppose the majority of those, who bring these issues to the agenda,
in other words, those wiling or unwilling to confront history and
those anticipating a conspiracy in this mechanism, are sincere in
their intentions. They are not malevolent in their demands. Both sides
pursue an attitude favoring the side called "us". While one side tries
to pursue such an attitude by not allowing any criticisms against its
past within its narrow environment, the other side carefully acts to
carry out this manner in accordance "with the world" thanks to their
"self-critical" discourse and through achieving a satisfactory share
from the overall society.
May be in the future we will understand that this conflict over
"history" is unnecessary jut like other old fraternal fights and if
patience is kept and dialogue is not prevented, both parties will
benefit in terms of their national projects.
by Herkul Millas
Zaman, Turkey
Sept 28 2005
[COMMENTARY]
Recently we have been experiencing two examples of events, expressed
rhetorically as, "confronting the past" or "reconciling with our
history." Exhibitions, panels, and several articles were prepared
for the 50 th anniversary of the September 6-7 riots.
This week we will be witnessing a conference titled "Ottoman Armenians
during the Decline of the Empire: Issues of Scientific Responsibility
and Democracy" at Bogazici University. In my opinion, such events
are indexed more towards today than the past and reactions derive
because they are based on current events.
Confrontation or reconciliation (or any other word to describe
"confronting the past") is not in the past; it is in our present day.
The goal is to confront people alive today and to create a kind of
common ground between them. Past events were either kept alive in
a national compartmentalization within the framework of a "national
history" or left to be forgotten for several decades. However, such
interpretations were not validated outside the national framework.
The plan at the domestic level did not match the plan of the outside
world. As a result, Turkey has undergone an alienation process despite
her extended environment and has remained far from her friends. These
historical interpretations that do not match with Turkey's environment
have turned into a daily problem for some citizens.
But this problem did not become everyone's problem. Those, who did
not feel the paradox deep inside, did not move their pens, organize
any panels or exhibitions, nor watch any such events. In fact, some
did not remain objective and expressed their reactions gradually in
line with their problem free minds. Finally, some conveyed these
"confrontation" events were untimely, while others made harsher
provocations. When the spectrum of all these reactions is analyzed,
a better understanding is portrayed about whether the situation is
more related to anxiety or tranquility of adjusting to a larger milieu.
If we make an inventory analysis of the conflicting sides throughout
history, today we can see that they have formed two groups; those
perceiving the European Union (EU) with confidence and those
with no confidence. This is weird. Those, who are enthusiastic
about "reconciling with history" and those who appeared recently
as enthusiastic and confident in the EU, are the same people. The
people, who remain objective regarding confrontation with the past
and who specifically react against the conferences, panels or other
activities on this issue, are either pessimistic about the EU process
or close to the groups that absolutely reject the EU, or they are in
fact members of that group.
I do not argue that discussions on history are political. Rather, I
argue there is an identity problem and an identity problem directly
affects political preferences. I try to show that our willing or
unwillingness, as well as, our confidence or lack of confidence to be
"in accordance" on history is related to the definition of "us." Some
search for their identity in a huge area and try to find the one
"close to us," and others do the same in a rather limited national
framework. Thus, while some try to reconcile different perspectives,
"adjust" to the world and provide general recognition, they do not
highlight what the "other" says, they give credit only to his/her
own interpretation of history, and do not allow any criticisms for
a "perfect and superior" past. They never want their history (or we
might say a perfect story), upon which they have built their identity,
to be questioned, shaken, and above all to be denied.
I think I agree with those who say the first group, who seeks a
common ground with the world, has in fact more doubts and complexes
and is ashamed of its identity; therefore, it is makes concessions
to "foreigners". Perhaps, such people also exist in this camp. But,
one can look at these two groups from a different perspective as well.
Those, who do not seek accordance with the broader environment and
do not believe it is required, do not feel this way because of their
self-confidence. On the contrary, this behavior might stem from
their lack of confidence in their neighbor or the "other". Perhaps,
there are such people as well in the second group. I do not give the
final word on this but, I myself favor accordance with the larger
environment. A narrow and local consensus reminds me of a xenophobic
confidence of an introvert society: Something like a belief, which
is easily provided inside but not much valid outside our borders.
Relationship between reconciliation and nationalization
I will also touch upon the importance of a consensus. Disputes
during nationalization processes were encountered in every
society. But "reconciliation" is not a preference; it is the equal
of nationalization. It is one of the basic outlooks and process
mechanisms of being a nation. Nations were provided by societies,
who actually express willingness to co-exist. Those, who did not or
could not apply this to practice, are the societies that are still
in search. That is to say, the ironical side of the event is that
the attacks and intolerances deriving from the anxiety of those,
who insist on nationalization, are in fact opposite to the concept
of a nation and its function. Those, who see enemies and traitors
everywhere, are the ones making nationalization more difficult. From
this point of view, I believe that those favoring "accordance" and
analysis of the covered past within the framework of dialogue, are
in fact more close to a nation model and a more contemporary society.
The search for this accordance within a boarder framework, on the
other side, is another expression of this contemporaneousness.
It is generally forgotten that identity searches are not limited
to Turkey and similar situations occur in all countries across the
world. Searches for a broader consensus outside a narrow environment
extend to ancient times. But people tend to blame those, who do not
think in the same way, with disloyalty and ignorance. However, I
suppose the majority of those, who bring these issues to the agenda,
in other words, those wiling or unwilling to confront history and
those anticipating a conspiracy in this mechanism, are sincere in
their intentions. They are not malevolent in their demands. Both sides
pursue an attitude favoring the side called "us". While one side tries
to pursue such an attitude by not allowing any criticisms against its
past within its narrow environment, the other side carefully acts to
carry out this manner in accordance "with the world" thanks to their
"self-critical" discourse and through achieving a satisfactory share
from the overall society.
May be in the future we will understand that this conflict over
"history" is unnecessary jut like other old fraternal fights and if
patience is kept and dialogue is not prevented, both parties will
benefit in terms of their national projects.