[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Prof. Ionna Kuçuradi

Dear Ulvi -
Capital , when facing the terrible backwardness of the countries of the Mideast (Tribalism , Clan Type Institutional Governance , long-lasting Feudal inheritance and their contradictory desire to emerge as Full Nations like what they saw in the Original West) , was too cunning and too treacherous not to try to succeed in presenting them with distorted capitalist infrastructure (base) and thereof with distorted social relations (remnants of pre-capitalist relations and backward ideologies or backward understanding of ideologies plus so-called progressive ! (as mere masks and imitations) ideologies of whom you have called as the Bourgois and ruling or elite oligarchy) .

In this , the West was even ready to prevent Nationalist (local capitalists) groups from participation in the organizational agendas and social co-operation . She , for a long time , preferred to have Big Land-Owners in her bosom rather the Nationalists . I apologize I cannot come up with the historical evidence here . But when forced , she even ordered the agrarian reforms to be carried out and tried to draw the former Land-Owners to invest their money and remaining properties (still huge) in the advanced technological projects . She was too careful with the mentalities of the people not to get advanced , to render them stagnant as it were . Contradictions were to be solved . Technology and reformism demanded civil rights and popular democratic institutions proportionate to them . Capital's benefit demanded people still kept alienated from their genuine identities and national interests . This proved to end in revolutions . This time , Capital tried to
 curb the revolutions and to gradually liquidate them and to keep the mob to their former stance but to keep the intellectuals aloof and to make them creep to their corners and now it does . So many radios and TVs and the Mass Media and satellites are thus missioned .

Here , too many Turkish TV Serials have penetrated their way to the corners of our society . I wonder if any original progressive ones are on display in your own country . Without any exception , these serials display the power and authority of the KHANS (Masters) over people's affairs . It's terrible if the phenomenon relates the Truth or the facts . 

You do know people , when disturbed and ready to mobilize , move through their labyrinths of their mentalities and subjectivities . Mentalities are hard-fabricated and endure for hundreds and thousands of years . Our societies demand movement to their roots but , alas , this move is destined to pass through the dark tunnels of the minds . For you is the necessity to show the true path , to enlighten , to get Lady with the Lamp , to unite , to abandon pretentions of being the European full Citizens . This is unreachable . This is a historical long-lasting fact not to be realized through orders and circulations . Have a look at the Eastern Europe . Revival of the Nation is more crucial than false alignment . Tomorrow might be too late . Whether this bad or that good tradition (cultural norms) should be kept or discarded will get realized automatically through genuine Development out of itself not through external means and , I think , rituals and
 traditions are alterable but universal humanitarian norms at each epoch or era might be in accord or discord with these deep-rooted traditions . The fluidity yet relative constancy of the universal humanitarian principles is more envisioning .

Just Mideasterner

 From: Ulvi İçil <ulvi.icil@gmail.com>
To: ablunden@mira.net; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> 
Sent: Saturday, 19 October 2013, 3:03:49
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Prof. Ionna Kuçuradi

Thanks Andy. And I can say the same for Turkey: Because secular and elitist
republic did not feed the masses economically and socially also, these
masses could be easily directed against the bourgeois , elitist republic.
And now, we live the collapse of this republic.


2013/10/19 Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>

> Ulvi,
> the literature on this problem is sooo extensive and sooo complex I am
> almost lost in trying to respond to your message, the more so because the
> domain is so contested and aggravated.
> "Human Rights" has a long history, which I think can be traced back to
> 1776 and the "Rights of Man and the Citizen" of the American and French
> Revolution and were ensconced in the founding of the United Nations in
> 1948. Here "human rights" were raised by advocates of liberalism against
> repressive or aristocratic regimes governing them. But the first time I
> recall "human (universal) rights" being counterposed to culturally specific
> conceptions of right was when Ronald Reagan introduced "human rights" into
> the discourse of "free trrade" in about 1982. This move reflected the
> shared interest of US capitalists and their employees to prevent the
> importation of products of cheap labour. Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew responded
> with the idea of "Asian Rights" which he claimed represented cultural
> differences in the conception of right. (also "human values" and "asian
> values"). So we had perfectly legitimate conceptions promoted for
> self-serving reactionary motives on both sides of this discussion. At the
> same time, Reagan was arming the religious Mujaheddin to fight the secular
> government in Afghanistan.
> Your observation, that 40 years ago women in Turkey went about their
> business without wearing veils, is important. Of course, Turkey has had a
> militantly secularist government since 1922. But even in Cairo or Tehran,
> it was the same. I have seen a photograph of a market place in Cairo in the
> 1950s, filled with women doing their shopping, and not a veil in sight,
> indistinguishable from a market place in London. Why has this happened? I
> would say that the secular, modernist, socially progressive, nationalist
> leaderships which led the people of the Arab world in the decades after the
> Second World War, to free their countries of domination by Western
> colonialism and imperialism, unfortunately failed to deliver the prosperity
> and happiness that they had promised. Oddly, even though these leaders were
> explicitly "anti-western" they were seen as vehicles for modernism. After
> the defeat of Egypt in its struggle with Israel, Egypt reconciled itself
> with the West, and Sadat was seen as a representative of the West. The Shah
> of Iran would be the classic representative of this type. Secularism by
> means of the torture chamber. Even without the actual overthrow of the
> "founding fathers" who had fought the colonial powers, these regimes became
> representatives of "the West"; secularism became identified with foreign
> domination, and the cause of people's misery.
> This spread from the Middle East to the European and American metropolis,
> where it intersected with the discourse of the various emancipatory
> movements which had grown up in the wake of the Civil Rights and Womens
> Liberation movements. And this is where the really perverse results came
> about. Women, blacks, homosexuals, immigrants, etc., etc., all demanded
> respect for *difference*. Initially these movements had begun with the
> demand for equality, which was usually taken on the basis of "justice is
> blind", but developed by separating the notions of equality and sameness,
> and demanding not that people be treated the same, but be accepted as
> different.
> I have friends who fervently support the French line on laiete, which
> seems to unite native French people from extreme left to extreme right and
> everything in between. I can see the logic of it. But I think to some
> extent we have to see the re-assertion of the right to be oppressed by
> one's own religion, as a *social problem* rather a matter of crime and
> punishment, or government regulation.
> It is a tragedy that the great ideals of the Enlightenment have been so
> discredited in the eyes of those who really need those values and forms of
> life. But it cannot be resolved by forcefully imposing emancipation.
> Apologies for all the oversimplification, inaccuracies and omissions in
> this sketch.
> Andy
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> ------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> Ulvi İçil wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> For your information.
>> http://www.unesco.org/new/en/**media-services/single-view/**
>> news/interview_with_ioanna_**kucuradi_turkish_philosopher/<http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/interview_with_ioanna_kucuradi_turkish_philosopher/>

>> *You have even said that the promotion of respect for all cultures is a
>> “trap” for human rights.*
>> **The differences of cultures is a fact. But these differences should not
>> cause discrimination. I have nothing against people living as they like,
>> *so
>> long as their world views, ways of living and norms do not prevent
>> themselves and their children from developing their human potentialities.
>> The unconditional promotion of respect for all cultures as an attempt to
>> fight discrimination is well-minded but very problematic. Many cultures
>> have norms that are incompatible with human rights – take as an example
>> polygamy or blood feud. This escapes attention, probably due to the
>> importance of culture in the singular. That is a trap for human rights.
>> What we need to respect are human beings – not cultural norms. Cultural
>> norms must be evaluated. *
>> *What is, for instance, your stand on the claim of schoolchildren or
>> employees to carry symbols of religious conscience?*
>> **When I was a student more than 40 years ago, there were no girls wearing
>> a scarf in Turkey, neither in school nor in the university. *Today there
>> is
>> a revival, all over the world, of world views and norms that prevent
>> people, and children in particular, from developing as human beings. This
>> revival is closely connected with the promotion of “respect for all
>> cultures”. The best way to solve this problem is through education. The
>> concept of laïcité is often misunderstood. It does not simply consist in
>> the separation of religion and the State. Laïcité is a negative principle
>> which demands that religious and cultural norms in general do not
>> determine
>> the establishment of social relations and the administration of public
>> affairs. This is why laïcité is a precondition for human rights and the
>> reason why it is very important. Those who agree with the claim of
>> schoolchildren to carry religious symbols are probably not aware that they
>> push children to give priority to one of their various collective
>> identities, that they push them to give priority to their cultural
>> identity
>> and not their human identity, and that by doing this they promote
>> discrimination.* There is a philosophical problem behind all this. The
>> premises from which universal human rights and cultural norms are deduced
>> are different, and so are the ways in which they are deduced. So to better
>> protect human rights we need a philosophical understanding of their
>> concepts and foundations. Unfortunately, I still see it missing
>> internationally.
Status: O