Tweet
Zaman Online, Turkey
March 25 2006
Intolerance
by MEHMET KAMIS
The modern man is upset and rattled by whatever is different. He
tends to view anyone who does not resemble him, dress like him, live
like him and behave like him as a threat.
Generalizations are not always good; however, modern European
countries such as Germany and France do not enjoy the company of
anyone who appears different, or to be more precise, they refuse to
recognize the right to existence of people who are different. France,
for instance, in the early 20th, century took over all the cultural
and ethnic elements which were active at that time on French soil and
gave them French characteristics. All Jews and Muslims in the Iberian
Peninsula were either put to the sword or forced into exile when
Spain took over the peninsula. There is no Muslim community left in a
peninsula that was under Muslim rule for hundreds of years. Exchange
or takeover of power might have been commonplace during that period;
however, what was not normal was totally rejecting everything that
existed before, that is, eradicating them all.
Remember the workers who were sacked because they talked to each
other in their own languages. Something similar happened in Germany
as well. The media gave extensive coverage to the story of a Turk who
was denied entry into a club because he spoke in Turkish, even though
he was a permanent member of that club.
Foreigners in Europe are being forced to integrate. This is, it is
being said implicitly or explicitly: `I can only recognize your right
to live here if you resemble me. Or else, there is no place for you
here.' The conscience test is convincing evidence that the idea of
living together with someone different is not welcome. The West is
scared of anything different. There is a general tendency in the West
to consider anyone who is different or thinks differently an
adversary and a potential threat.
The Ottomans recognized the rights of different belief systems and
cultures and enabled them continue their existence under the empire.
There is no example in history of the empire unleashing a
scorched-earth policy in any of the areas the Ottomans conquered. In
Istanbul, besides the Muslims, non-Muslims like the Armenians,
Greeks, Jews and Bulgarians not only had the right to live without
any problems, they were also allowed to operate their own
foundations, hospitals and schools.
Anatolia's difference is rooted in the of norms that promoted
tolerance among different lifestyles, making it possible for
different people with different backgrounds to live together
peacefully. Partisans of Caliphate Ali, Sunnis, Armenians, Kurds,
Turks, Circassians, people of Syrian origin and even Yezidis
maintained their identities and customs for hundreds of years. If
Anatolia had the prevailing worldview of our age, then none of the
different ethnic or religious identities would have survived.
The modern age is virtually one dimensional. One language, one
thought, one belief, one ethnic origin, one food, one style of
dressing, and so on. This is exactly what fearing anything that is
different means. The `other' is seen as a bogeyman who threatens and
liquidates. The West wants to dispose of the `other' or make it look
like itself. This desire for resemblance is like a matter of life and
death.
The ideological backbone of the state does not consider the `other'
qualified enough to become a citizen of the country he/she wants to
live. The state gauges how much the `other' resembles it. The state
does not look at the expertise, skills and expertise of the `other'
but rather questions his/her worldview. This is the basic idea:
`Whatever is different is definitely dangerous.'
Democracy is not only a form of government. Nor is it just the
freedom to vote for someone from among a group of identical people to
become a ruler. It is a way of life that compels us to acknowledge
the existence of someone different from us and recognize his/her
identity.
Different people used to live together on Turkish soil. Maybe from an
intellectual viewpoint they couldn't, however, life was built upon
the principle of sympathizing with the `other' and of recognizing the
other's existence. Intolerance surfaced when we alienated ourselves
from ourselves. Fear found its way into our subconscious. We resorted
to denying anyone who does not think or live like us the right exist.
That's not us.
March 25 2006
Intolerance
by MEHMET KAMIS
The modern man is upset and rattled by whatever is different. He
tends to view anyone who does not resemble him, dress like him, live
like him and behave like him as a threat.
Generalizations are not always good; however, modern European
countries such as Germany and France do not enjoy the company of
anyone who appears different, or to be more precise, they refuse to
recognize the right to existence of people who are different. France,
for instance, in the early 20th, century took over all the cultural
and ethnic elements which were active at that time on French soil and
gave them French characteristics. All Jews and Muslims in the Iberian
Peninsula were either put to the sword or forced into exile when
Spain took over the peninsula. There is no Muslim community left in a
peninsula that was under Muslim rule for hundreds of years. Exchange
or takeover of power might have been commonplace during that period;
however, what was not normal was totally rejecting everything that
existed before, that is, eradicating them all.
Remember the workers who were sacked because they talked to each
other in their own languages. Something similar happened in Germany
as well. The media gave extensive coverage to the story of a Turk who
was denied entry into a club because he spoke in Turkish, even though
he was a permanent member of that club.
Foreigners in Europe are being forced to integrate. This is, it is
being said implicitly or explicitly: `I can only recognize your right
to live here if you resemble me. Or else, there is no place for you
here.' The conscience test is convincing evidence that the idea of
living together with someone different is not welcome. The West is
scared of anything different. There is a general tendency in the West
to consider anyone who is different or thinks differently an
adversary and a potential threat.
The Ottomans recognized the rights of different belief systems and
cultures and enabled them continue their existence under the empire.
There is no example in history of the empire unleashing a
scorched-earth policy in any of the areas the Ottomans conquered. In
Istanbul, besides the Muslims, non-Muslims like the Armenians,
Greeks, Jews and Bulgarians not only had the right to live without
any problems, they were also allowed to operate their own
foundations, hospitals and schools.
Anatolia's difference is rooted in the of norms that promoted
tolerance among different lifestyles, making it possible for
different people with different backgrounds to live together
peacefully. Partisans of Caliphate Ali, Sunnis, Armenians, Kurds,
Turks, Circassians, people of Syrian origin and even Yezidis
maintained their identities and customs for hundreds of years. If
Anatolia had the prevailing worldview of our age, then none of the
different ethnic or religious identities would have survived.
The modern age is virtually one dimensional. One language, one
thought, one belief, one ethnic origin, one food, one style of
dressing, and so on. This is exactly what fearing anything that is
different means. The `other' is seen as a bogeyman who threatens and
liquidates. The West wants to dispose of the `other' or make it look
like itself. This desire for resemblance is like a matter of life and
death.
The ideological backbone of the state does not consider the `other'
qualified enough to become a citizen of the country he/she wants to
live. The state gauges how much the `other' resembles it. The state
does not look at the expertise, skills and expertise of the `other'
but rather questions his/her worldview. This is the basic idea:
`Whatever is different is definitely dangerous.'
Democracy is not only a form of government. Nor is it just the
freedom to vote for someone from among a group of identical people to
become a ruler. It is a way of life that compels us to acknowledge
the existence of someone different from us and recognize his/her
identity.
Different people used to live together on Turkish soil. Maybe from an
intellectual viewpoint they couldn't, however, life was built upon
the principle of sympathizing with the `other' and of recognizing the
other's existence. Intolerance surfaced when we alienated ourselves
from ourselves. Fear found its way into our subconscious. We resorted
to denying anyone who does not think or live like us the right exist.
That's not us.