Tweet
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Jan 27 2012
Racist Motives behind French Armenian Bill: Is Erdogan Right?
Friday, 27 January 2012
By Fatma Yilmaz-Elmas, USAK
Racism, in modern age, is no longer a phenomenon related to the
concepts of `race' and `race relations' through which `the others' are
on target as biologically inferior. Anyway, already in 1950s and
1960s, following a series of researches and sessions, UNESCO refuted
the scientific basis of racism, namely biological racism, indicating
that there is no such difference between human races. However, this
fact does not, of course, mean that there is no racism and racist
behaviors or feelings all over the world. Rather, its current and
`modern' version is a sort of covert/subtle racism, occurring in
different familiar forms of discrimination.
New racism refers to a social phenomenon and includes so many
different components mostly related to cultural differences and
welfare distribution. In concurrence with fast-truck changes in the
world system and social order, the tangible factors that racism is
based on have differentiated in times from the biological to the
economic one as well as sociological and cultural ones. In our day,
this is why racism is a complex issue and suffers from an exact
visibility and lack of data on racist crimes in order to create
awareness, especially throughout Europe. Moreover, this is why for
example, for some, Islamophobia is a new kind of racism as well as
expulsion of the Romas living in France as result of President
Sarkozy's populist policies.
For me, literarily spoken `infra-racism' is the most dangerous one
since it is mostly disguised under different behaviors and easy to
defend. Opinions and prejudice are more xenophobic and populist than
strictly speaking racist or no reference on racial doctrines.
Therefore it is not that much easy to figure out the problem. This is
why, for some, `widespread but often covert racism particularly
throughout Europe represents a glass wall that only a few could both
see and climb over'.
Sarkozy `the Brave'
French President Nicholas Sarkozy of Europe at the 21th century is the
one who fits the aforementioned profile via his populist policies in
practice which have led to a systemic differentiation of either
individuals or groups. Policies such as Roma expulsions and banning
the burqa are the results of Sarkozy's populist mentality other than
ethno-cultural sense.
French bill criminalizing denial of the `so-called Armenian genocide'
is his last step including populist facts for the upcoming
presidential elections and, more importantly, ethno-centric or
cultural approach that Sarkozy is never at peace with the Ottoman
history. This approach has made Sarkozy search the historical
questions in the Parliament and also made him in violation of freedom
of expression by the French state itself in opposition to a European
Act, i.e. European Convention of Human Rights.
The common sense, e.g. ethicists, historians, and legislators in
Europe, have all expressed unease at seeing a parliament create
legally binding analyses and definitions of historical events. There
challenges to the bill with the view that it is not the business of
criminal law to clear the historical facts. This is also what said in
Turkey as a reaction to Sarkozy's bill.
Can Sarkozy really be unaware of the fact that this is an historical
issue requiring historical researches on? Also is he so brave to bring
such an issue to European trial as a violation of freedom of
expression just for the sake of populism to get the votes of Armenian
electorates?
Not that simple. It is the xenophobic motives or Euro/Franco-cultural
centric approach behind Sarkozy's bill. Moreover, that is also not
simple just to get the votes of Armenians. It is about to attract the
attention of overall far-right groups in France where xenophobia is in
rise once again due to several socio-economic reasons. This is an
emphasis also made by Etyen Mahcupyan, a Turkish-Armenian political
columnist.
Then, does Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's response to
Monday's vote in France for the bill have reasonable enough? To a
great extent yes.
Just to remind, after the bill was passed in Senate, Erdogan addressed
French politicians, intellectuals and the French people saying that
`The vote in the Senate and the bill itself is openly discriminatory
and racist and a massacre of freedom of thought in an effort to win
votes by playing on anti-Turkish sentiment'.
One Note to Sarkozy
Such a populist approach and far-right tendency mostly serve the
French far-right, the real owner of the xenophobic votes. This
happened when Sarkozy opened a debate for national identity at the end
of 2009 with an effort of getting the vote of far-right supporters. In
contrast, in cantonal elections in March 2010, it was not Sarkozy, but
Le Pen who got the votes. In other words, the populist debates
emphasizing French nationalism brought in votes for Le Pen's FN, the
real owner of this kind of rhetoric.
To sum up, Sarkozy's populist approach has once backfired in 2010 by
letting Le Pen to increase the votes. Most probably the same thing
will happen in the upcoming presidential elections. So the thing for
Sarkozy is that which one seems more profitable: to short-minded
populist idea to get the far-right support, though not exact, or to
deadlock French-Turkish relations at the expense of one of the basic
European human right values.
Friday, 27 January 2012
Fatma Yilmaz-Elmas, Pittsburgh
From: A. Papazian
Jan 27 2012
Racist Motives behind French Armenian Bill: Is Erdogan Right?
Friday, 27 January 2012
By Fatma Yilmaz-Elmas, USAK
Racism, in modern age, is no longer a phenomenon related to the
concepts of `race' and `race relations' through which `the others' are
on target as biologically inferior. Anyway, already in 1950s and
1960s, following a series of researches and sessions, UNESCO refuted
the scientific basis of racism, namely biological racism, indicating
that there is no such difference between human races. However, this
fact does not, of course, mean that there is no racism and racist
behaviors or feelings all over the world. Rather, its current and
`modern' version is a sort of covert/subtle racism, occurring in
different familiar forms of discrimination.
New racism refers to a social phenomenon and includes so many
different components mostly related to cultural differences and
welfare distribution. In concurrence with fast-truck changes in the
world system and social order, the tangible factors that racism is
based on have differentiated in times from the biological to the
economic one as well as sociological and cultural ones. In our day,
this is why racism is a complex issue and suffers from an exact
visibility and lack of data on racist crimes in order to create
awareness, especially throughout Europe. Moreover, this is why for
example, for some, Islamophobia is a new kind of racism as well as
expulsion of the Romas living in France as result of President
Sarkozy's populist policies.
For me, literarily spoken `infra-racism' is the most dangerous one
since it is mostly disguised under different behaviors and easy to
defend. Opinions and prejudice are more xenophobic and populist than
strictly speaking racist or no reference on racial doctrines.
Therefore it is not that much easy to figure out the problem. This is
why, for some, `widespread but often covert racism particularly
throughout Europe represents a glass wall that only a few could both
see and climb over'.
Sarkozy `the Brave'
French President Nicholas Sarkozy of Europe at the 21th century is the
one who fits the aforementioned profile via his populist policies in
practice which have led to a systemic differentiation of either
individuals or groups. Policies such as Roma expulsions and banning
the burqa are the results of Sarkozy's populist mentality other than
ethno-cultural sense.
French bill criminalizing denial of the `so-called Armenian genocide'
is his last step including populist facts for the upcoming
presidential elections and, more importantly, ethno-centric or
cultural approach that Sarkozy is never at peace with the Ottoman
history. This approach has made Sarkozy search the historical
questions in the Parliament and also made him in violation of freedom
of expression by the French state itself in opposition to a European
Act, i.e. European Convention of Human Rights.
The common sense, e.g. ethicists, historians, and legislators in
Europe, have all expressed unease at seeing a parliament create
legally binding analyses and definitions of historical events. There
challenges to the bill with the view that it is not the business of
criminal law to clear the historical facts. This is also what said in
Turkey as a reaction to Sarkozy's bill.
Can Sarkozy really be unaware of the fact that this is an historical
issue requiring historical researches on? Also is he so brave to bring
such an issue to European trial as a violation of freedom of
expression just for the sake of populism to get the votes of Armenian
electorates?
Not that simple. It is the xenophobic motives or Euro/Franco-cultural
centric approach behind Sarkozy's bill. Moreover, that is also not
simple just to get the votes of Armenians. It is about to attract the
attention of overall far-right groups in France where xenophobia is in
rise once again due to several socio-economic reasons. This is an
emphasis also made by Etyen Mahcupyan, a Turkish-Armenian political
columnist.
Then, does Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's response to
Monday's vote in France for the bill have reasonable enough? To a
great extent yes.
Just to remind, after the bill was passed in Senate, Erdogan addressed
French politicians, intellectuals and the French people saying that
`The vote in the Senate and the bill itself is openly discriminatory
and racist and a massacre of freedom of thought in an effort to win
votes by playing on anti-Turkish sentiment'.
One Note to Sarkozy
Such a populist approach and far-right tendency mostly serve the
French far-right, the real owner of the xenophobic votes. This
happened when Sarkozy opened a debate for national identity at the end
of 2009 with an effort of getting the vote of far-right supporters. In
contrast, in cantonal elections in March 2010, it was not Sarkozy, but
Le Pen who got the votes. In other words, the populist debates
emphasizing French nationalism brought in votes for Le Pen's FN, the
real owner of this kind of rhetoric.
To sum up, Sarkozy's populist approach has once backfired in 2010 by
letting Le Pen to increase the votes. Most probably the same thing
will happen in the upcoming presidential elections. So the thing for
Sarkozy is that which one seems more profitable: to short-minded
populist idea to get the far-right support, though not exact, or to
deadlock French-Turkish relations at the expense of one of the basic
European human right values.
Friday, 27 January 2012
Fatma Yilmaz-Elmas, Pittsburgh
From: A. Papazian