Recent clashes in Charlottesville, VA, brought to surface just how much appeal racist ideologies have to-date. They also showed how little we have learned from history. However, there is another side to racism that is less obvious and even more dangerous: racist ideologies are deeply ingrained in our everyday lives and most—if not all—of us participate in keeping racism alive. Subsequently, denial is a major aspect of racism. That is why real changes in this arena hardly ever occur.
Understanding this widely misunderstood subject, however, is not only key to understanding the current clashes in the USA, but also to many other conflicts around the world. One such conflict is the “Israeli-Palestinian” conflict. This particular conflict is a crucial example as it, among others, illustrates how easily targets of racism can become perpetrators themselves.
Racism—Economics and Power
Before discussing the racist aspects of the ideology that created the state of Israel, let us examine what racism is and what makes it such a difficult topic.
First of all, the term is difficult to define. Racism has little to do with race, ethnicity, or anything along those lines. Racism is an illogical construct, the details of which can change depending on what narrative is needed at a given time to justify (ill) actions. What is steady, however, is the way racism works: Racist narratives help overcome the natural empathy that humans have for each other. Once empathy is overcome, mistreatment of “others” can occur. Any ill actions taken against the “others” can additionally be justified as an action to protect the “in-group,” as reflected in the Israel’s right to defend itself narrative.
One of the biggest challenges of racism is that we can hardly even discuss the topic without utilizing racist concepts. Even to identify the “offenders” versus “targets” of racism, we have to create groups and “other” peoples. It is critical to remain conscious of these facts during conversations about racism. It is also critical to refrain from labeling individuals as racist, as labeling only leads to denial. The question that we have to ask ourselves is not whether someone is a racist (because most people who grow up in the systems in which humans operate possess racist notions), but rather, to what degree is one aware of this, and to what degree does one let his or her notions affect his or her actions?
Racism is a construct that primarily serves economic purposes. Therefore, it is critical to keep track of the exchange of money and power that is associated with it.
Exchange of Money and Power—Largest Military Aid to Israel Under President Obama
Israel, a country with barely 8.5 million in population, is the recipient of the highest US military aid in the world. The Memorandum of Understanding for the largest military package ever to go to Israel was signed during the administration of the Democrat and Nobel Peace Prize winner President Obama.
Israel, itself, is among the top ten of exporters of military equipment in the world. At the same time, main suppliers of weapons to Israel are USA, Germany, and Italy.
Politicians and other movers and shakers claim they want the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to end, even though they and their businesses, and other interest groups they collaborate with, are the major winners of this conflict. It doesn’t make sense—why would someone want something that is the basis of their existence to end? On the other hand, given the amount of money that is to be made, and power to be gained, who can blame the benefactors for exploiting the situation?
Zionism and Theodore Herzl’s Utopia
Israel is a state that was created on racist premises, ironically, in response to the horrors of racism that Jews had to endure over centuries. The founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, suggested creating a Judenstaat (Jewish state), a safe haven for Jews. However, creating such a state for a particular group was not only short-sighted, but also based on the racist notion that there is such a coherent, distinguishable group—the Jewish peoples. Zionists, themselves, seem not to agree what the mutual traits are that makes the group so coherent. However, this is very common in racist constructs; reasons for coherency of any alleged group are inter-exchangeable, because they are arbitrary. Therefore, traits that make Jewish people who seem to share a common religion, a coherent group, can also easily be identified as culture, nationality, race, ethnicity, and what have you.
Zionists have not been subtle about their claim that there is not only a particular group—peoples called the Jews who share a common culture and history—but also that they are superior. According to the Israel Democracy Institute, approximately two thirds of Israeli Jewish persons to-date believe that Jews are the “chosen people.” There are many attempts to rationalize this inappropriate suggestion that an almighty could have the audacity to prefer one peoples over another; however, the truth remains that such notions are similar to the perverted notions that made the persecution of the persons of Jewish belief for centuries possible. The Zionist notions of superiority are also emphasized, among others, by the group’s overall exclusivity—the opposition to “intermarrying” with other groups, and the existing hurdles for “others” to join the religion. Opposition to “intermarrying” is a common indication for one group feeling superior over another, as, among others, demonstrated in the Nuremberg Laws. However, denouncement of “intermarriage” is also common among other groups, including persons of Islamic beliefs, when they are in a more dominant position.
Besides having been created out of racist notions, the state of Israel’s existence is additionally legitimized through religious belief systems/myths in which, coincidentally, males similar to other major religions, play the main roles: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the list goes on. This legitimization additionally forces everyone to buy into a particular religious belief. Anyone has the right to believe in anything they wish; however, dominating a region because of what one believes to be true based on some religious narratives is generally not how we expect democratic countries to operate.
Given the circumstances, Zionists subsequently have to rely on fear and paranoia to keep up the status-quo in Israel. However, living in paranoia and fear is not a sustainable way of life, and it is doing disservice to one’s self.
Politicians understandably encourage fear and paranoia, because that is how they can keep the population in check and have them look up to them for solutions and protection. However, the general public should know better than to buy into such disabling narratives.
Even though religion appears to play a major role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the conflict itself is not a clash between religions, but rather stems from racist ideologies that justify mistreating the others, denying them their human rights and their human dignity.
There is a solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict; however, the solution is not “political,” because politics is what created the problem in the first place. The real solution is a human solution. The good news is, politicians don’t change the world. It is the general public, their opinion, that changes the world.
The only people we have to look up to in order to resolve this conflict is the everyday individual—persons of Jewish faith, as well as Muslims, Christians, and the list goes on. Once a majority of people involved in the so-called Israeli-Palestinian conflict manage to see behind the perverse narratives, once a breaking point is reached, and they start dealing with their own dehumanizing attitudes, leaders will have no choice but to follow suit with appropriate actions. Unfortunately, it probably won’t take long for this conflict to be replaced by another one, but in the meantime, at least the people who suffered for too long as a result of this conflict can get a break from their pain and suffering.
However, if the general population remains conscious of what racism is about, how it is utilized to “divide and rule” common people, maybe the next conflict won’t take as many casualties, and as much pain and suffering, before it is resolved.
Alev Dudek is a German-American researcher, analyst, and writer. As an established scholar in diversity, she served on the executive board of the International Society for Diversity Management in Berlin as well as the City of Kalamazoo Community Relations Board. Alev received The National Security Education Program (NSEP) award in 2014.
Dienstag, 24. Oktober 2017
Freitag, 22. September 2017
Humans interact with each other in strange ways, especially when they first meet: instead of exploring each other’s individuality, they face each other through the lenses of their society’s conditioned biases.
Subsequently, when two strangers meet, questions such as, “What do you do?” pop up. A question dreaded by many who, at a first encounter, don’t want to discuss a part of themselves that may have little to do with their passion, desires, or interests; or because of the value we place as a society on various lines of work; or because work is generally what we do to pay our bills, not who we are. Another first encounter question that pops up repeatedly is the focus of this post: “Where are you from?”
“Where are you from?” is a question that is asked across countries and cultures. Proponents of this question argue that it is only a means to start-up a conversation between strangers—a way to connect with each other in a light-hearted way. Most of us are so accustomed to it that we neither question the lack of literal logic, nor the everyday racism embedded in the question.
What Defines Where Someone Is From? —The Literal Challenges
Let us first explore the lack of literal logic. Has anyone ever identified what determines where someone is from? Is it supposed to be the location where someone was born, lived the longest, most recently, or identifies herself with?
Even though there is no definition of what determines where someone is from, there is a preconceived idea that everyone somehow knows what the answer is.
The question is based on the assumption that humans somehow are from fixed, easily identifiable locations, which can make anyone outside of this standard feel as if they are some sort of an outsider—somewhat “odd.” Many military children struggle with this question, as they tend to move around often and, subsequently, don’t know how to answer it. However, they are not the only ones.
Covert Racism: Where Are You Really From?
For racial and ethnic minorities, “Where are you from?” offers an additional layer of challenge. It is one of the most powerful reminders of everyday racism. Here is how the interaction often plays itself out:
When minorities tell the inquirer where they are from, the inquirer is not always satisfied with the answer, as in the case of an “Asian looking” woman who “claims” to be from San Diego. In those cases, the inquirer finds it appropriate to probe further by asking follow-up questions such as: “I mean, where are you really from?” or, “Where are you originally from?” or worse, “Where are your parents from?”—keep in mind, we are talking about strangers who just met.
Do these questions sound like a light-hearted, striking up of an innocent conversation with a stranger? Regardless of what the answer may be, there is more.
When minorities return the question to the inquirer—to the one who apparently sees him- or herself as native to the United States—they have no problem with answering, “Pittsburgh,” or “Austin.” Why the double standard? Why would someone who is allegedly from Pittsburgh be unable to accept that someone else is from a similar location? No one is from Pittsburgh unless they are Native Americans from Pittsburgh.
If we are going to play a game of where someone is from, we could even question that Native Americans too came from somewhere, some time. However, we are not going to play this game because it is ridiculous.
Minorities Also Participate in the Othering Game
It must be noted here that the inquirers are not always persons of the dominant culture. Minorities, themselves, engage in this type of interaction, as well. This makes sense because the power of racism lies in the fact that minorities buy into the narrative as much as the dominant culture does.
People who never witnessed the awkward situation that many minorities are way too familiar with may not understand just how disturbing these interactions can be. Because the awkward conversations generally do not end at this point, either, especially if the person asked—God forbid—volunteers the national origin or ethnic background information.
Then, the inquirer usually gives a sermon about how wonderful people from x, y, z country (not racist at all) are, how they have a friend from that country, or tell all about his or her recent vacation to that country. Such follow-ups clearly reflect something very crucial: the denial of the other person’s individuality. They show how the inquirer is grouping and boxing the person in front of them. What does one person “from” Spain has to do with another person from Spain? Just as much or as little as over 300 million Americans have in common with each other—or not.
Romanticizing Diversity—Narrative, Little to Do With Reality
Minorities, however, often also stress that the “Where are you from?” question is appropriate to ask, because they are proud, and want to discuss their national origin, their heritage, or what have you. They claim that those factors make up their identity.
Identifiers such as ethnicity, culture, or national origin, however, are all arbitrarily determined constructs, just like race. Contrary to wide-spread beliefs, where someone “is from” has little to do with who the person is. We are not the spices we eat. Who we are is also not determined by arbitrarily drawn political borders or by whether we drink our tea in the morning or the afternoon.
Here in the U.S., we especially tend to romanticize ethnicity and culture—traits that we conveniently mistake for diversity. “Conveniently,” because true diversity is based on a high level of individuality and requires much more effort than having an annual diversity festival at a street corner. Diversity in complex societies, such as ours, is a serious challenge—a challenge, the level of which we hardly appreciate.
Everyone has to decide for themselves how they feel about “Where are you from?” The purpose of this post is to make us question how we interact with each other on a daily basis, the questions we ask, and the answers we give.
The purpose of this post is also to make us think, if, and to what degree, we want to help others deny our individuality and humanity.
This article was originally published in The Globe Post: http://www.theglobepost.com/2017/08/10/everyday-racism/
Donnerstag, 23. März 2017
"As April 24, the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide is nearing, many countries are going to take the opportunity, again, and prove their moral superiority by judging Turkey. The morally superior even include countries such as Germany that was involved in more than one genocide in the beginning of the last century. As perpetrators of the first genocide of the 20th century against the Herero in Namibia, Germany may have also had a role, the extent of which is still unclear, in the deportation of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Often praised for her dealings with the Holocaust, it took Germany over 100 years to finally acknowledge the genocide against the Herero in 2015. Countries such as France, Switzerland, Slovakia, Cyprus, and Greece have so far shown their moral superiority by suppressing speech and making it a crime not to acknowledge the [Armenian] genocide while very comfortably judging Turkey for her shortcomings on freedom and democracy..."
For full article, please visit: Tikkun Daily Blog
For full article, please visit: Tikkun Daily Blog
Montag, 6. März 2017
The foundation of Turkey’s difficult relationship with its Kurdish minority was laid after World War I, when the Ottoman Empire was partitioned into various nation-states. The area where the Kurds, a nomadic tribe, used toroam freely was divided into what is today known as Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. There has been friction with the Kurdish minority in all four countries since.
In Turkey, the frictions are mainly based on two factors. First is that Kurds feel betrayed. They claim that the Treaty of Sèvres promised them an independent Kurdish state. However, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey, allegedly “tricked” them into fighting against the allies, either by promising Kurds their own territory or a common state. Since neither materialized, proponents to date feel that they have a right to create an independent or autonomous Kurdish state within Turkey’s borders.
The allegations against the Turkish state, however, are not entirely true. Even though the treaty included a provision for a Kurdish state, according to Article 64, the provision had many conditions, one of which would have required Turkey’s consent for a Kurdish state to materialize. Moreover, such a Kurdish state would have been put under British control. A majority of Kurds rejected this due to religious concerns. When the Turkish Nationalist Movement decided to fight the allies and the conditions of the Treaty of Sèvres, the majority of Kurds chose to fight alongside Atatürk. Three years later, the Treaty of Lausanne was signed and Turkey’s current borders were legally established.
Since the Republic of Turkey was legally established, any form of Kurdish state in Turkey — independent or otherwise — is obviously less than feasible. Yet, proponents of a Kurdish state incorrectly refer to the Treaty of Sèvres to make their case. This brings us to the second challenge: the lack of human rights in Turkey.
No one can change history. What can be changed is how minorities are treated — regardless of who they are, when people are treated with respect and dignity, and are granted full-fledged human rights, concerns about ethnicity or race become secondary, or may even vanish. After all, the purpose of constructs such as race or ethnicity is unequal treatment.
In this regard, Turkey has failed miserably — however, not only her minorities but her entire population. A constant crack-down on free speech has been on the political agenda since the establishment of the country and only continues to intensify with the increasingly autocratic direction of the current President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s regime.
After President Turgut Özal, who suddenly became ill and died in 1993, Erdoğan became in 2005 the first Turkish president to show interest in dealing with the Kurdish problem more openly. However, any signs of progress were short-lived. Although the ban on broadcasting in Kurdish was lifted in 2009 and Kurdish was finally allowed to be taught in public schools in 2012, even the attempts to grant Kurds the most basic rights have been inconsistent, as the recent crack-down on Kurdish schools and news outlets illustrates...
For full text, please visit Original article published in The Hill: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/322535-theres-only-1-solution-to-turkeys-kurdish-problem
Samstag, 11. Februar 2017
For full article, please visit: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/02/10/religious-diversity-and-the-alevi-struggle-for-equality-in-turkey/#30f366b15a38
[...] Alevi is a religious group in Turkey, not to be confused with Alewites in Syria. They are followers of Ali, the brother-in-law of Prophet Muhammed. Alevi is a mystical belief that is rooted in Islam and Sufism with some traditions of Christianity and Shamanism. It is a religion that is based on humanistic ideals of love and tolerance expressed in mystical poems instead of strict rules, passed on through oral tradition. Alevis have been discriminated against and persecuted in Turkey, based on dehumanizing allegations that Alevi rituals include incestual sexual orgies (“mum söndürmek”). [...]
Samstag, 4. Februar 2017
The government’s refusal to-date to recognize cem evis as the legitimate place of worship of Alevis is only one of many aspects of Turkey’s continuous struggle with diversity. Valuable energies are wasted on efforts to suppress diversity, the differences in people that make any nation great, the reason why many people flock to countries such as the United States of America and claim their unwavering allegiance. Turkey’s ruling party continues its anti-diversity efforts, as if through oppression and denial, diversity will vanish one day and Turkey will finally become some sort of a homogeneous state, and national unity will be guaranteed; as if diversity, and not the constant attempt to suppress, has been the real threat to Turkey’s unity all along.
One Religion, One Place of Worship?
After centuries of denying that the Alevis even existed, Turkey now seems stuck with the inability to admit the obvious, that cem evis are the place of worship of the Alevis, displaying just how difficult it apparently is for some to accept and respect differences. The status-quo further demonstrates that the ruling party’s Alevi opening effort was only intended to gain Alevi support, to be followed by efforts to assimilate the community.
However, nothing demonstrates the ruling party’s disregard for diversity better than Mr. Erdogan’s one religion, one place of worship claim. In spite of the religious and practical differences between Sunnis and Alevis, President Erdogan insists that Alevis and Sunnis worship together in a mosque; an utmost inappropriate suggestion, the very least, for anyone who can appreciate the difference between Alevi and Sunni worship for what they are: differences—not good, not bad, just differences.
Fighting the inevitable: equal rights for Alevis
The handling of the Alevi question reflects Turkey’s inability to acknowledge and appreciate her diversity and her last attempts to fight the inevitable, creating only more animosity in the meantime. However, change is coming and no one, not even the ruling party, will be able to stop it, because in the 21st century, the majority of Turks are too well-informed and enlightened to buy into dehumanizing and disrespectful narratives about homogeneity. They already decided that such ideals are neither realistic nor welcome any longer.
It is only a matter of time that cem evis will be recognized as a place of worship and Alevis will have access to the rights that they are entitled to. What a shame that they have to wait so long for something so basic such as equal treatment under the law.
Montag, 9. Januar 2017
For full article, please visit: https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/313305-turkey-paving-the-path-for-erdogans-autocratic-rule
Ensuring National Unity Through Crack-Down On Minorities?
Besides her struggles with free speech and secularization versus freedom of religion conflict, Turkey also has historically had issues with dealing with its minorities. The default course of action has traditionally been to limit the rights of minorities or deny their existence altogether. As if diversity would vanish through oppression and denial, so that Turkey can finally become some sort of a homogenous state and national unity would be guaranteed; as if diversity, and not the constant attempt to oppress, was the real threat to Turkey’s unity.
Mr. Erdogan initially signaled the much needed positive changes in regard to dealing with minorities, particularly affecting the two major groups, the Alevis and the Kurds. He led an Alevi opening and extended rights of Kurds to speak and broadcast in their language. However, his reforms were short-lived as his administration continues to deny equal rights to Alevis and cracks-down on Kurdish media.