Gulbeyaz Karahasan
Published by deviousdiva May 22nd, 2006 in Politics.The storm continues over the nomination of the Muslim woman, Gulbeyaz Karahasan as a candidate for the prefect of Xanthi-Kavala-Drama in Northern Greece. She has now been accused of making statements to the Turkish newspaper Vatan saying
that the Muslims of Thrace are Turks, while she declared that her idol is former Turkish PM Tansu Ciler
She denies the allegations and Pasok, who nominated her as candidate, claim that this is a campaign to undermine her candidacy. Mariliza Xenogiannakopoulou, the Pasok National Council secretary said
that a methodical attack against Ms Karahasan and PASOK has been taking place over the last few weeks, which is being organised by bigoted groups that wish to bring the country to the past
Thodoros Pangalos, MP and member of PASOK’s Political Council responded to the allegations made against her, by saying
I consider outrageous the fact that a Greek citizen who wanted to be nominated is being treated this way. She has the right to claim the votes of her compatriots without being subjected to particular tests about matters that constitute her rudimentary rights. I believe that those who raise such matters are operating outside the context of the Constitution and are violating our political culture, and I did not want to participate in this discussion in any way. Our country has signed 11 successive contracts concerning the protection of minorities within the context of the Council of Europe. In all those contracts, the countries undertook the obligation to respect the self-definition of the people who make up the minority, meaning that they have the right to believe they are what they want
The Pasok parliamentary spokesperson Charis Kastanidis added
If a certain part of the Media dedicated as much time to the workers of the Phosphoric Fertilisers Industry or the unemployed of Naoussa Spinning Mills as they have to Ms Karahasan, the unemployment problem may have been resolved
Technorati Tags: greece, muslim, minority rights
As yet there is no evidence that Karahasan did not make these statements. So at this stage we must reserve judgement until evidence comes to pass that exonerates her.
However, Xenogiannakopoulou’s comments are quite sad coming from a public figure. Rather than use polemical terms such as ‘bigot’ and concepts such as ‘returning to the past’, as a respected public figure she has a responsbility to the electorate to provide evidence of ‘bigoted’ behaviour. Simply calling someone a bigot is not good enough.
As for Pangalos, all of a sudden he seems to very concerned about the sanctity of the Constitution. A very interesting change of position considering his involvement in the Ocalan Affair.
Guilty until proven innocent? How do you exonerate yourself from a quote, of all things?
But that’s the whole game, isn’t it? The idea in proposing Ms. Karahasan was purely symbolic - it was guaranteed to make Nea Dimokratia’s bigots foam at the mouth and make all of Greece look like a provincial Balkan backwater again. It worked.
Personally, I wish there was more substance and less symbolism to Papandreou’s moves. It’d be nice if he had proposed someone who might actually win an election, for example. But it did serve a useful purpose - a lot of politicians had to stand up and be counted on this issue. Most of them came up short. Pangalos - who I think is wicked smart but has extremely inconsistent judgement - defined the issue clearly: Greece is a signatory to numerous European treaties that define Greek and European citizenship precisely because of minority issues. If you’re a Greek citizen, you’re a Greek citizen full stop, and you have the right to stand for office. End of discussion.
We musn’t forget that the prime minister of Turkey came to Thrace last year and said outright to the ethnic Turks, (paraphrasing here) ‘You are citizens of Greece. What benefits Greece benefits you.’ Since then there has been some contradictory buruburu from the Turkish side, but the fact is that Erdogan stood up and said that. This should be revealing of currents in Turkey that should not be ignored. Do Greek politicians go to Thrace and say that? I wonder if they even understand the difference between ‘ethnicity’ and ‘citizenship.’ Most so-called journalists certainly don’t.
If Ms. Karahasan wants to identify herself with a not-very-smart and corrupt politician like Tansu Ciller, that’s her business. Considering how few role models Turkish professional women have, it’s understandable. Totally wrongheaded and foolish, but understandable. That is - IF those quotes are accurate, we don’t really know yet. Hope that one isn’t.
Another thing I want to point out but can’t back up unfortunately - there was a Greek politician of ‘Muslim’ origin who said, ‘You know, actually I’m an atheist.’ Which should spell out the emptiness of the bigoted arguments against Karahasan. Since when do we choose our elected representatives based on whether they believe in god or not? Whatever flavour. We in Greece choose our elected representatives based on what everybody else in Europe and America bases it on: Patronage, ‘character’ and…well, patronage. If we chose our politicians based on how pious they are…well…fuck. Sounds a bit Soviet.
Hermes wrote
and I would like to add that, as yet, there is no evidence that Karahasan DID make these statements.
Let’s not jump the gun. People get misquoted all the time in the press. I am still waiting to see how she will be judged on a political level rather than the rest of it but I agree with scarf +
TOUCHE SCARF+
The nomination of Karahasan makes Georgaki look like he is only playing political games, and using young Karahasan, as his plaything in those games. What about her dignity? Actually one of the sections of the constitution mentions respect for “human dignity”. Georgaki, and his PASOK comrades may actually be acting unconstitutionally.
Actually, scarf + it is not so simple (and definitely not an end to the discussion) as simply being a Greek citizen. There are some additional obligations every Greek citizen must satisfy under the Constitution. If Karahasan made those comments then she may not be satisfying her obligations and abrogating her right to stand for office.
Also, we must be careful not to interpret the law to the letter too much. That sort of reductionist approach has led to the litigation crazy California. There is also the spirit of the law.
I am amused that you brought up what the Turkish PM said when he came to Thrace. Can you please remind us of the OTHER things he has said (or not done) in regards to the Greeks or Greece? I find it very strange that he is brought up as some sort of exemplar.
Hermes -
Please spell out these additional obligations of Greekness. I’d like to know what they are.
As for the human dignity stuff…please. Has anybody ever taken anybody to the European Court of Human Rights for ‘abused playthingness’?
I think you’re just a bigot.
Yes and I would like to know too.
Scarf + your last statement is extraordinary but I’ll ignore it.
Now let me point out that I am not a constitutional lawyer and therefore I am not appropriately qualified to interpret the Greek Constitution. Let me point out again, that Papandreou and Pangalos are not constitutional lawyers either.
A constitution is a complex document spelling out amongst other things ‘rights’ and ‘obligations’ of its country’s citizens. Also, constitutions are written at a point in time and their directives and their interpretation should be read in this context. However, constitutions are subject to change. There are also agreements that a country makes outside of the constitution that bind it to either national or international law. Hellas is no exception to all these points and please keep this in mind as you read below.
Now I’ll highlight some of the additional obligations expected of a Greek citizen under the constitution. Note, Diva you have incorrectly paraphrased me, I did not state Greekness (that has a whole lot of other connotations) and I stated obligations under the Greek constitution. There are a whole lot of other societal and customary obligations which I will not go into as it is beyond the scope of this argument.
Article 4
3. Withdrawal of Greek citizenship shall be permitted only in case of voluntary acquisition of another citizenship or of undertaking service contrary to national interests in a foreign country, under the conditions and procedures more specifically provided by law.
6. Every Greek capable of bearing arms is obliged to contribute to the defence of the Fatherland as provided by law.
Article 13
4. No person shall be exempt from discharging his obligations to the State or may refuse to comply with the laws by reason of his religious convictions.
Article 5
1. All persons shall have the right to develop freely their personality and to participate in the social, economic and political life of the country, insofar as they do not infringe the rights of others or violate the Constitution and the good usages.
Article 14
3. The seizure of newspapers and other publications before or after circulation is prohibited.
Seizure by order of the public prosecutor shall be allowed exceptionally after circulation and in case of:
a) an offence against the Christian or any other known religion.
b) an insult against the person of the President of the Republic.
c) a publication which discloses information on the composition, equipment and set-up of the armed forces or the fortifica-tions of the country, or which aims at the violent overthrow of the regime or is directed against the territorial integrity of the State.
d) an obscene publication which is obviously offensive to public decency, in the cases stipulated by law.
I could go on all day. These are just some of the obligations. There are many others. So it is not as simple as selecting the rights and not counterbalancing that with the obligations.
I hope this goes someway convincing you that there is no “end of discussion”. Actually when we stop discussing issues then we slide into tyranny.
Well, that’s all very nice. Kindly explain how Karahasan has violated any of these.
I cannot say she has or has not violated any obligations as there is no firm evidence she made or did not make those comments.
The important point is that it is not simply good enough to just be a citizen which gives you certain rights before the law. A citzen is also bound by certain obligations some of which were stipulated above. If citizens were not bound by constitutional obligations then the body politic would be simply comprised of an aggregate of rights which would largely make the nation-state obselete.
zardoz says :
make the nation state obsolete,,,
thats about the most sensible thing
youve written so far. =z=
Zardoz, interesting comment. Can you please write other things I have written are not sensible?
Why should the nation-state be obselete? What should we erect in its place? Does anything have to be erected in its place? Does this apply to all nations?
I look forward to some reasoned answers.
Hermes, I was not paraphrasing you, I was quoting Scarf+ (directly above my comment). See how easy it is ?
Apologies, Scarf + incorrectly paraphrased me.
Hermes -
We agree that every citizen has certain obligations under the constitution. We don’t agree as to how this point is relevant in the case of Ms. Karahasan. Hinting darkly about her supposed loyalties is not an argument.
But that is pretty much the substance of the polite arguments against Karahasan’s candidacy. The more crude commentators just fling about prejudices, suspicions and nationalistic nonsense. The more ’serious’ commentators are content merely to imply the exact same things.
The important thing in this ‘issue’ is whether a person who was born and raised in Greece by Greek citizens, who is not a convicted felon, has the right to run for office. Everything else is just obfuscation.
Your argument in a nutshell, Hermes, is that there is more than one category of Greek citizen. There are citizens who were born ethnically ‘Greek’ and citizens who were not; the latter have fewer rights.
In this realm of magical legality, all ethnic ‘Greek’ citizens are automatically and by definition loyal to the state, and all others are suspect. Ethnic ‘Greek’ politicians will ‘naturally’ work for the best interests of the state and the people (tearfully sacrificing their poverty for the greater good), while non-ethnic ‘Greek’ citizens are ‘naturally’ inclined to help foreign powers. What utter crap. No one is born with embedded loyalties to one flag or another. The very notion of citizenship in a nation-state was developed to resolve the question of divided loyalties, and whether we like the model or not it is at least pretty clear.
Even if Ms. Karahasan gave a speech advocating the violent secession of Thrace from Greece (which she didn’t), it would not change the fact that she is a Greek citizen. She would be prosecuted under Greek laws, but she’d still be a citizen. And probably the second important thing in this story is this - very little attention has been paid to Ms. Karahasan’s stated positions on political issues and to what she’d like to accomplish as Super-Prefect. All the hoopla is directed squarely at her bloodline. How ridiculous is that? For all I know, Ms. Karahasan might be a perfectly dreadful person, but to judge by the media coverage she is just a cardboard cutout.
Lastly, Hermes, I apologize for paraphrasing you incorrectly. You probably have an opinion on the subject of ‘Greekness’ and it means something else to you. I used the word (which of course is interchangeable with ‘Greekosity’ and ‘Hellenacious-ness’) to underline the difference between ‘Greek’ (a blurry catch-all term) and ‘Greek citizen’ (a legal term).
By the by Hermes, on a slight tangent, people talk about nations-states as though they are a natural occurrence, like bees and birds. In fact until a very short time ago, historically speaking, they did not exist. I believe the Great War was fought precisely in order to consolidate the shape of the map of the world, by letting the highest bidders draw their own territorial outlines.
To the victor the spoils.
I think a couple of centuries back if you had asked a Greek where he was from his first answer would have been the name of his village or at best his Nomarchia, and some way down the list his Hellenic-ness would have come to him. Even to this day you ask people who were born and raised in Athens where they are from, and the first answer is usually the village or area their grandparents came from. What I’m trying to point out is that the notion of belonging to a nation-state, were it not constantly reinforced by the politicians, the Church, nationalists, the press and all other interested parties, would soon fade from most of our minds. Witness the political situation in Italy. The Northerners hate the Southerners, who hate them back in return, and they all hate the Sicilians. I have travelled to many parts of the world, and spent quality time, and all over the place people are like that. Their first, gut loyalty is to the things around them that mean something, not to abstract concepts such as the flag, or the national hymn. These things always seem tacked on later.
Anyway that is just what I see.
Er and just a little word, to Z,
You know I agree with you totally, nation-states do suck.
zardoz says:
dear hermes
sorry i havent participated
no disrespect intended
but this has been a difficult week.
Scarf +, the point is very relevant to the case of Karahasan because if she did make those statements to Vatan she may in breach of the Constitution and Greek law. Greek law states you cannot refer to the Greek Muslim minority in Thrace as Turkish.
I think you are being a little coarse and somewhat crude in your judgements on the respective positions and the individuals/groups regarding the Karahasan case. Some of the comments, that I think you are referring too, have been uncalled for, but some have been legitimate and raise serious questions. It is simply not good enough to call statements ‘nationalistic nonsense’. And being suspicious and prejudicial are basic human traits. Traits which you seem to have going by some of your comments at the ‘racists’ and me.
You should know full well that relations between Hellas and Turkey have always been sensitive. Also, it is common knowledge that the Turkish consulate in Thrace has been a source of propaganda for years; however, under international law there is not much Hellas can do about it. Now there is no evidence that Karahasan has any connection to the consulate but Turkey would consider her an easier option as a conduit compared to an Orthodox Greek in the future. Therefore, there are additional risks of appointing Karahasan that should be taken into consideration. Obviously, this does not mean she should be disallowed, just that questions do have to be raised about future contingencies.
I have clearly never made the argument in your paragraph 4.
Not all ethnic Greeks are loyal to the nation state and not all non-ethnically Greeks are suspect. I do not think anyone thinks like that. Very often those closest to you are your worst enemies. However, we cannot deny that ethnic, familial, community kinships are some of the fundamental parts of human nature and this should be taken into consideration. These bonds cannot be ignored simply because they do not suit us. And yes, no one is born embedded with loyalties to any flag but most people develop these loyalties over time.
Your statement in paragraph 6 is ridicoulous. If Karahasan made those statements in her current position then by law she would not be able to stand for office. If she made those comments in public office then she could be up for treason and a very long jail sentence.
Flux, I am well aware of the historical development of the entity we call the nation-state. Let’s clear something up. If you asked a Greek a few centuries back he would have said he was a Romaios or Xristianos not a Hellene. However, Romaios had come to mean something very similar to Hellene today in that it signified someone who was a Greek speaking Christian. Going back before that there was an acute sense of being a part of the Hellenic ethnos (nation). At least since Isocrates’s Panygerikos and right through to the Second Sophistic writers such as Galen and Plutarch and then to Constantine Porphyrygenitus or Gemistus Plethon. Therefore, the idea of belonging to an ethnos (nation) is a very old one and probably one of the fundemental manifestations of being a human being. I believe that the human being finds true expression via many levels including at an individual, family, community, regional, national and then global level. To remove one of these levels or even reduce one level is taking away some of the multi-dimensional aspects that go towards being fully human. Bascially, you are doing a diservice to humans. I do not believe thinking nationally would fade from everyone’s mind. Time has proven it does not.
I think you are confusing the nation (ethnos) and the nation-state and there is a difference. The ’state’ part to ‘nation-state’ is relatively recent and is a set of laws governing an ethnos. I agree that the community is more important. But that does not mean that the nation-state is obselete. The construction of the Greek state was formed to give Hellenic people a place on earth where they could live as an ethnos without hindrance following many centuries of oppression, brutality and near extinction. So far it has proven a relatively effective way of allowing this idea to continue. And it also gives the Greek people a vehicle to make their own decisions as an ethnos (although this is disappearing). What is wrong with that?
Italy, is a very poor comparison to Hellas due it very different historical development, ethnic composition, geography and so on.
‘Greek law states you cannot refer to the Greek Muslim minority in Thrace as Turkish.’
That’s true, as far as I know it is still illegal to refer to the Greek Muslim Turkish-speaking minority as ‘Turkish’. It’s probably even more illegal to identify one’s self as an ethnic Turk. I think I read somewhere that this is a tad contrary to European law. In the rest of the EU, as far as I know, people are allowed to identify themselves - beyond their citizenship - however they like. Those particular Greek identity laws are a relic of another time and should be changed. If Ms. Karahasan has been working to change those laws, good on her.
‘I think you are being a little coarse and somewhat crude in your judgements’
This entire ‘issue’ is based on coarse and crude arguments. If you think it is refined and graceful to condemn a political candidate because of her ethnicity, your idea of classiness is a bit skewed.
We could argue about whether suspicion and prejudice are basic human traits or if they’re just acquired. Whatever. (There was a really nasty ’60s British documentary about Greece on Vouli TV the other day - ‘Greece Without Columns’ - which ascribed those very characteristics to the entire Greek race.) The issue here is racism.
‘…it is common knowledge that the Turkish consulate in Thrace has been a source of propaganda for years…’
While it is probably true that the Turkish consulate in Thrace is a source of propaganda, it’s prejudicial, demagogic and inflammatory to muse on Karahasan’s suitability as a ‘conduit’. It’s like suspecting Greek Jews of spying for Israel.
Perhaps in your worldview, Hermes, ethnicity should trump everything including reason and individual choice. Well, that’s quaint, but the rest of the European Union doesn’t live in the 19th century and European law is not based on behavioral genetics (if there is such a thing). Just because a certain number of Balkan residents believe something similar doesn’t make it true or right.
People should be judged on their own individual merits. Ms. Karahasan should be critically appraised for what she says, what she does and the way she says and does it. It would be extremely cynical to claim the attention she’s getting is anything other than racist. And I’m a little surprised that that needs to be spelled out for you.
Personally, I don’t enjoy being considered lazy, uneducated and dishonest according to prevailing stereotypes of Greeks, and I’m sure you don’t either. (Και άσε το τι λένε για τους Άγγλους και τους Αμερικάνους). If we continue excusing racial stereotypes and parsing to pieces any movement to change prevailing prejudice, then all of us suffer the consequences. That’s not how I want to live. Speaking out for the rights of minorities is one way of trying to change things for the better.
But it’s also extremely refreshing to see that the vast majority of Greeks are not bothered in the slightest by her candidacy, and are actually a little annoyed at the media for blowing this way out of proportion.
‘Obviously, this does not mean she should be disallowed…’
Oh. So it’s okay that Ms. Karahasan is a candidate, then. Sorry, I thought you were saying something else all this time.
‘the idea of belonging to an ethnos (nation) is a very old one and probably one of the fundemental manifestations of being a human being’
This is a very romantic reading of history. There are innumerable examples of groups of people who did not and still do not have a national consciousness. The way I see it, nationalism is just another stage in human history whose time is past. It served an extremely vital purpose in destroying the European monarchies and ending colonialism, but since then it has caused nothing but trouble. Time has not ‘proven’ anything yet about nationalism one way or the other (except that lots of people seem to die in the service of it), it’s only been less than 200 years.
I’m not immune to romance either, by the way. I’d like to see the nation-state replaced with something else but I don’t know what. There was a guy who said we’re in the midst of a transformation into the ‘market-state’ but that sounds pretty grim too.
Scarf +, the Greek laws forbidding the use of the term Turkish Muslims for Greek Muslims has been enacted because of sensitive geopolitical issues with our large and sometimes aggressive neighbor who continues to occupy Northern Cyprus, has expropriated Greek property without any form of compensation, infringes the rights of Greeks in Turkey, continues to fly daily into Greek airspace and basically does not honor its obligations under the Treaty of Laussane. The situation is particular to Hellas. For example, Denmark does not have similar issues with Germany. Therefore, although there may be certain laws enacted by the EU this does not mean there cannot be exemptions for specific cases which may be deemed to national security. And as we know Turkey has very tried often to use the Greek Muslims as a bargaining chip. Remember, Karahasan has rights as an individual but she also has obligations to the Hellas. To call Greek Muslims, Turks is not only anthropologically inaccurate as many are not of Turkic origin but also a potential threat to the borders of Greece. Need I remind you that threatening the borders of a country is also a violation of EU laws.
As for Karasan being a conduit, I stated that there is a greater possibility of her being used as a conduit by Turkey. They have tried this tactic very often in the past. Let me repeat, this should not stop her nomination, but it raises another risk point for Hellas. There is even a possibility she may act as a force for good between Hellas and Turkey. And I did not make any comments that were stereotyping races. I am not sure where you got that from.
Finally, and again, please read carefully, I said the nation not nationalism. Those two words, although related, have two different meanings. As I stated, and you can look up the primary texts if you do not believe me, the idea of the nation has a history going back at least 2400 years. I really doubt that the nation going to go away anytime soon, especially for a very old nation like the Hellenic one. The idea of the nation-state is more recent. The word nationalism is relatively recent but the concept is very old.
Your last paragraph was the most interesting and you kind of answered my question. What is there to replace the nation-state? You do not seem to have any idea and therefore why do away with something if you have no idea of what to replace it with.
Before I finish, do you have the same concern for Greek minorities struggling in Albania and Turkey the Cypriots who were driven out of their homes?
Hermes,
No I’m not confusing anything with anything. Nationhood, and all the baggage that goes with it, has caused by far more ills than it has benefitted mankind.
Here’s a cheery little list for you of the dangers of Rampant Nationalism:
patriotism, fascism, colonialism, ethnic cleansing, civil wars, foreign wars, religious wars, interminable wars, commercial wars, resource wars, genocide, racism.
Oh and before you make an argument that Nationhood and Nationalism are not the same thing, don’t. it doesn’t wash. It’s just playing with terminology, in reality the direct upshot of Nationhood has uniformly been Nationalism, which may be distinguishable in the halls of academe, but at ground level is identical.
I agree the Nation-state would be beneficial, if we did not unfailingly confuse the integrity of the nation, of nationhood, with aggressive one-upmanship towards others.
‘Italy, is a very poor comparison to Hellas due it very different historical development, ethnic composition, geography and so on’… clarify please. Last I heard in fact the opposite is true. Greece’s ethnic composition is at least as varied as Italy’s. Hence the very discussion you are having with Scarf right here.
Furthermore
” …the idea of the nation has a history going back at least 2400 years.”!
Yeah and civil war, which kind of negates the ‘happy family bastion’ qualities that you so lyrically wax about. Even a cursory look at the history of the nation of Hellenes will show you the tug-o-war that it has been, right here on this tiny patch of soil.
What Scarf is talking about, if I may make so bold, is not about how long we have held on to the notion of nationhood, but whether it serves us well or not in today’s global context. And the answer surely is ‘NO’. Isn’t it? If it was such a great idea, why are we still at each others throats. And surely 2400 years of testing an idea is way over the limit.
Flux,
Not everything on that list is due to the nation:
-There is no simple and direct causal relationship between nationhood and rampant nationalism. And empirical evidence also suggests that one can be part of a nation and not partake in rampant nationalism e.g. Switzerland, Costa Rica, Finland, Botswana, Sweden and Norway.
-I am not sure if patriotism is an evil. I cannot recall it causing anyone harm
- There is no simple and direct causal relationship between nationhood and colonialism. And empirical evidence also suggests that one can be part of a nation and not partake in colonialism e.g. Iceland, Hellas, Namibia and Mozambique
-civil wars are within a nation not between nations typically fought between rival political factions
-religious wars are fought on religion not on nationhood. Likwise for commercial and resource wars. For example, the battles between Protestants and Catholics were fought within and without nations
The ethnic composition is significantly different in Hellas than Italy. And for example there are no secessionist movements in Hellas. Your argument does not hold here.
I could go on but I think you are confusing a few issues here. Also, you fail to mention some of the positive aspects that may be due to expressions of nationhood e.g. language, literature, poetry, art, music and architecture. Are these things irrelevant because some of their manifestations were due to identification with a nation?
I think your argument is that because the nation has caused so many problems (some which are obviously incorrect – see my points above) then we should do away with it.
If we use that argument then maybe we should do away with other things that have caused problems. E.g. sexuality, family, religion, politics, education, speech or thinking. All these things have caused problems from time to time. Have they passed their used by date? Let’s take it even further, the individual self or ego has cause innumerable problems throughout history. Should we do away with that as well? Even though we would not be having this discussion if we did.
Sorry but pretty much all the above negations depend on your definition of terms used. To me patriotism is evil. To me civil wars are a direct result of nationhood. If we were not bound by national boundries, civil wars would be null and void. And again you argue nationhood from the belief that it is as natural to us as sexuality or hunger, I disagree. The idea of nationhood is a political decision which then transmutes into an emotional attachment. In fact religion, family, education and politics are all also learned and not instinctive. I for one am pretty impervious to religion for example. So by your definition that would make me unnatural (?) As for religion, by the way, I would very much advocate getting rid of it. Certainly the dogmatic, political form it has taken is a wholly negative force in world history and affairs. 600 years of Crusading by itself is surely enough of an argument against “organised” religion.
As to the relationship between religious wars and nationhood, are you kidding? This is as I said just playing with definitions. Organised religion and the notion of nationhood are terminally tied to one another. This, inspite of their internal differences, they nontheless come together pretty sharply in a united front when either institution is threatened. Especially in Greece where nationality and religion are so prominently tied into each other that they have become almost indistinguishable.
As for art and so on, the only art that I can think of immediately that is tied up with nationhood, directly, is patriotic art such as Stalin and Hitler advocated. Art, real art, good art, has always sprung from humanism and individualism, which negate the nation state by their very nature. Also as far as the language point you make goes, it is a falsehood to say that language is result of nationhood, if anything you have that back to front. Geography and proximity play a much more prominent role in the development and dissemination of language than nationhood. English is proof of the international nature of language. It is no accident that the most powerful and dominating language today is also the most aggressively gregarious of them all. While Latin, Greek, French and all the rest have stagnated or disappeared from our lexicon, English which carries their seeds has grown and is expanding almost daily.
What over all is contentious here though is that we’re obviously coming at this from diametrically opposed definitions of nationhood, and that means that there will be, from the off, no common ground for resolution.
This is in response to Hermes’ post from this morning. Things have been busy around here since then.
First, the way I see it, it’s not possible to seriously defend or excuse the actions of the Turkish government. No one is saying the Turkish government and military are good guys. Historical issues aside, their treatment of minorities is horrible, the army intervenes wherever and whenever it likes in all levels of society, and the corruption over there makes Greece look like Finland. It’d be nice if, in future, Greece could choose a better quality adversary. But we should _not_ be comparing our country and its laws with Turkey, we should be comparing ourselves with Western Europe.
Second, the Greek laws forbidding the use of certain words to describe Turkish-speaking Muslims living in Greece were enacted quite a long time ago under very, very different circumstances. The fact that sensitivities remain is less an indication of actual current problems and more an indication of relentless nationalist rhetoric (both Greek and Turkish). Have you ever wondered, ‘Hm…maybe the situation might improve if both sides stopped picking over old wounds, stopped denying our minorities certain rights, stopped filling our schoolbooks with fear, conquest and victimization, stopped leaping on every minority issue as if the barbarians were salivating at the gates. Hm.’
There are indeed real strategic conflicts between Greece and Turkey, mostly having to do with pipelines and the supposed mineral and oil wealth under the Aegean. It doesn’t take a doctorate in conflict resolution to know that these issues will not be resolved by dogfights, slander and indolence (not accusing you).
Third, there is a good case to be made for the particular circumstances of Greece in comparison with, say, Denmark. Point taken. However, I’m sure you can agree that there are limits to Greek exceptionalism (especially where civil liberties are involved), and that the reinforcment of stereotypes, the marginalization of certain groups of Greek citizens, and the sheer unwillingness to search for a way out of this mess will only prolong the status quo.
Personally, I do not like the status quo and will add my voice to those who want an improvement in relations between Greece and Turkey. The two peoples have far more in common than they’d like to admit. And yes, I do sympathize with the Greek minorities in other places. I think all minorities everywhere should be treated fairly and justly. But we are talking about the minority that dares not speak its name here in Greece.
I’m glad you agree Ms. Karahasan has a right to run for office. Also glad to see you raise the possibility of her being a force for good.
As for replacing the nation-state, well, I don’t see why we should remain fixated with a model for human society that is addicted to violence, threat and fear. It would be far batter to look for alternatives than to look for ways to prop it up. A change like that will not happen suddenly and probably not even by design. I’ll be sure and let you know if I come up with something.
It is individuals that are addicted to violence, threat and fear. Nations are just groups of individuals, linked together by a sense of belonging, not necessarily geography. The nation will reflect the character of its leaders whom - in a democracy at least - we, the people, have chosen. You’ll have to change human nature before you can improve on the nation state. Bobbitt (whom you are referring to, n’est ce pas?) suggests alternatives but, unlike the nation state, they don’t exist except in his imagination. I’ve really enjoyed your exchanges with Hermes and Flux and do hope I’ll be around if/when you come up with an improvement on love for the country to which you feel you belong. Or is Patriotism a dirty word like nationalism? My eight year old nephew with his football shirt(s) ready would beg to differ though his mind is large enough to take in two nations equally. I’d suggest that we pay more attention to the character of those we vote into office and less attention to the parties/policies they purport to represent.
Yes, Bobbitt, that’s the one. Couldn’t get through the whole book.
‘It is individuals that are addicted to violence, threat and fear. Nations are just groups of individuals, linked together by a sense of belonging, not necessarily geography.
Not quite true. A brutal system will produce brutalized people. (Just a phrase, I’m not referring to Greece.) A system that spends vast amounts of its wealth on things that kill people will find ways to use them occasionally, which involves manipulating the population with fear and threat.
And not all nations are composed of people and groups who joined together voluntarily. Usually conquest defines borders, minorities or no minorities. Although as I think Flux pointed out, the Great War ended with scribbles on cocktail napkins that turned into the map of the world as we know it.
‘You’ll have to change human nature before you can improve on the nation state…. hope I’ll be around if/when you come up with an improvement on love for the country to which you feel you belong. Or is Patriotism a dirty word like nationalism?’
Nah, I don’t have anything against patriotism, as long as Harrison Ford or Aliki Vouyouklaki aren’t involved. But human nature - whatever that is - is changing all the time anyway. I don’t buy the idea that we have all that much in common with people 2000 years ago, human nature is just getting started. And the environment might change things for us anyway.
It’s unfortunate, but there’s really not much difference between Nea Dimokratia and PASOK anymore. Well, ND has a lot more bigots and PASOK is much more experienced at keeping the wheels of corruption running smoothly. That’s about it. Personally I’d be more inclined to vote for someone young from whatever party.
Bobbitt - you didn’t need to read the whole book. I couldn’t either, but the Introduction was good …
Flux, I have continually provided empirical evidence and you simply bring forward your beliefs about nationhood and its being the driver of various wars you have categorised. Also, you draw direct causal relationships that in reality do not measure up. For example, nationhood and religion sometimes come together but sometimes they do not. Sometimes they actually clash in the case of the English asserting their nationhood by ridding themselves of the Catholic Church.
A lot of art has been produced inspired by the nation. The Parthenon was built by Pericles and company to celebrate Athenian politismos and its victory over the Persians. Athenians were not a nation as we would define them today but they had a sense of nationhood. Should we bulldoze the Parthenon? Many of the ruins you see in Rome today are a celebration of the Roman Republic and later Empire. Should we bulldoze these wonders? Many Byzantine achievements were a celebration of Romanism? Should we burn this? Many of the post-Holoaucast literature and art is an expression of pain felt by the Jewish ethnos following that tragic episode? Should be get rid of that? Much of 1960’s jazz by Archie Shepp or Charles Mingus was an expression of American black pride? Should we erase these recordings?
I am sure you will not answer these questions. Also, I am sure most experts would agree with your arbitrary judgement of what is good and bad art.
Flux, there may be hope for resolution if you provided a good argument. I have provided evidence and you provide your personal beliefs.
Scarf +, I also would like there to be a perpetual friendship between Hellas and Turkey. However, there are still some outstanding issues that need to be resolved (the vast majority from the Turkish side) and therefore we cannot forget history. Once those issued are resolved maybe then we can move towards the stage you are proposing. Hellas is the victim in this relationship and unfortunately some of its citizens may have suffered somewhat. Although I believe you grossly exaggerate their problems. Also, I do not believe we should be changing history books simply to suit today’s political agenda. Periods of conquest, occupation, reconquest are real historical events. If the outcome is fear then that is a real reaction to historical reality. Should we support untruth?
On your personal comments. There is an idea today in certain circles that Greeks and Turks are bascially the same but they just need to sort out some minor differences. Strange argument. Let me point out some major differences: language, religion, ethnicity, history and political organisation. And most of the commonalities between the two peoples are the result of occupation.
I think some of Daffodils comments are very sensible. There is an undue hatred of the nation state (more narrow definition Flux) at the behest of other potentially negative aspects of civilisation.
Also glad to hear you favour perpetual friendship between Greece and Turkey. Of course, the conditions you place on that make it totally impossible, so therefore you believe the current situation is preferable.
If the important thing in the Greek-Turkish relationship is a complete accordance of the two nations’ history books, then there will be no peace, not now, not ever. Neither side is going to get down on their knees and beg the other’s forgiveness.
If peace is the objective, though, it’s worthwhile to look at the Turkish relationship as a problem to be solved, and not as eternally adversarial.
You probably know that Turkish history, the way it is taught over there, consistently portrays Turkey as the victim. The catastrophe in Smyrna? A brutal and bloody Greek invasion of sacred Anatolian soil, bravely repelled by bla bla bla. The fall of the Ottoman Empire? A grand conspiracy by the Great Powers to extinguish the Turkish flame. That last one is a big deal, actually, the Turks are big on Great Power conspiracies, much more so than the Greeks.
The point is that their history is like a mirror image of Greece’s. Everything is reversed and it’s been pounded quite heavily into Turkish schoolchildren. Although there seems to be a peculiar attitude towards the Ottomans, I think they gloss over that a bit, don’t really understand why.
We don’t need to get into the philosophy of historical truth, what’s fact and what isn’t. It’s enough to say that history is _constantly_ being reinterpreted according to today’s political agenda, like it or not. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, you know.
If you want to set up this country for another couple of generations of dogfights and obscene armaments purchases, then do nothing. Let things stay as they are. Hang on to every period and comma in the history book, the Turks will certainly hang on to theirs, and everybody’s content to be a victim.
But if you recognize that Greece and Turkey are _probably_ going to be living together side by side for the foreseeable future, it might be worthwhile to consider peace as an approach.
By the way, if ‘certain circles’, as you say, are pushing the idea that Greeks and Turks are only separated by minor differences, they are certainly not my circles. I think if both sides started educating our schoolchildren now with an attitude of peace instead of war, it would still take 25 years before Greeks and Turks would be splitting time-share condos on Lesbos. And then there’s Turkey’s awful system of government. We do use the same words for Aegean fish though. Well, it’s a start.
Greece and Turkey really are two countries divided by a common history. Greeks have far more in common with Turks on any number of levels than we do with, say, the Danes. It’s easy to dismiss whatever commonality exists. Why though?
Scarf +, yes I believe the current situation should be perpetuated because the Hellas has made many overtures to Turkey (which it seems you are acutely aware of so there is no need to remind you) but they have not responded in kind. Actually, rather than become friendlier they have become even more belligerant. Therefore, in order to maintain some dignity for the Hellenic people they should not make anymore concessions. Peace is a preferable end; however, it cannot come at any cost.
And I do not look on Turkey as the eternal adversary. I have actually been there many times and have found the people okay. However, their personalities are generally different than the Greek one.
Their history is not a mirror image of Hellas. That is another myth perpetuated by people like Rhea Galanaki. Although she writes reasonably well she is not a historian. Also Hellenic and Turkish history are hardly common. Except between the period of 1000AD when the Seljuks first made their appearance in Asia Minor and today then there can logically be no commonality at all as there was very little contact. And even during that period the Ottomans had important relations with Persia and Arabic peoples (which we did not) whilst we had more important relations with the Franks and Balkan peoples. And I would hardly call political/religious/social subjugation and oppression, the haratsi and the Jannisary tax as areas of commonality. Ottoman Muslims were not subjected to these things. So even during our apparently ‘common period’ the Hellene/Romaios and Ottoman Turk had very different experiences.
I understand what you are trying to achieve but it is misguided. There may be some commonalities but there are also differences. Why ignore your heritage for some hope of peace that even recent history shows is unlikely to come?
Peace that comes at any cost is not peace, it’s surrender. Or something. But that is not the only alternative to the status quo. You must have more imagination than that.
You’re a military man, right? Isn’t it in Greece’s long-term strategic interest to have a large, friendly state on its borders? If that were the objective instead of this totally unambitious maintenance of the un-peace we have today, incidents like the latest dogfight gone wrong would not happen. As it is, we risk going to war every day _not_ for the protection of our people, but for the protection of this insane status quo. I fail to see how this benefits anyone except the arms manufacturers.
I’m not sure if it’s accurate to claim that Greece’s overtures to Turkey are constantly rejected. What overtures are you talking about? The larger problem remains Turkey’s weird governance, I think. There are too many opposing interests at work - progressive vs. traditional Kemalist, military this or that stripe vs. everybody, and there’s the ‘Islamists’ to worry about. Combine that with Molyviatis’ high-octane turbocharged inaction and there’s the standstill we have today. Or had up until yesterday.
Anyway, why do you reject the notion that Turkey’s history is a mirror image of Greece’s? It’s not such a radical observation (I’m afraid I haven’t read amything by Galanaki.) They each describe the same events from opposite sides - okay, from 1000AD onwards - and in fact they define each other to a certain degree. You underestimate the amount and quality of contact Greece has had with the East, I think. And it’s simplistic to sum up the Greek and Turkish experiences as being exclusively inferior-superior. The Ottomans conquered this part of the world, but the story certainly didn’t end with that. Remember there were plenty of Greeks in positions of great power in the Ottoman regimes and plenty of Turkish peasants next to the Greek ones. The histories of Greeks and Turks are deeply entangled on all sorts of levels.
I am not trying to exaggerrate the commonalities of Greeks and Turks. I am trying to move the emphasis away from reflexive rejectionism. If your position is to stand on the wall, I don’t dismiss its current necessity. But I think - however unlikely the eventuality in my lifetime - there shouldn’t need to be a wall. Probably the case could be made that future generations are more important than past ones. (violin music)
Scarf +, good to see you have a sense of humour and can actually conduct an intelligent conversation rather than call people bigots.
I am not a military man because I currently live in a country that does not have conscription. Also, if Hellas were to have a conflict then I would gladly like to help. Also, I am obligated by my Hellenic citizenship. However, I have practised boxing and I believe in violence as one form of self defense.
Hellas has continually supported Turkey’s accession to the EU despite some continuing gross violations by Turkey, it has made room for negotiation on Cyprus where it did not have to, it has largely abided by the Treaty of Laussane (especially since the 1970s) and we have even spent millions restoring Attaturk’s childhood home in Thessaloniki despite being somewhat responsible for the destruction of Hellenism in Asia Minor. And I have never heard of Greek jets flying over Iznik (Nikaia) on a weekly basis. I am afraid there is no equivalence here.
I did not sum up Greek-Turkish expereicnes as inferior-superior. I said they were different. Another difference is that Greek Christians were not allowed to serve in the army whilst most Muslims were not allowed in many commercial professions where the Greeks prospered. Simply, under the millet system of the Ottoman Empire their experiences were largely different. Read someone intelligent like Neoclese Sarris he explains it much better than me.
Your argument is weak in the face of the political context at that time. The history of Jews and Germans were also deeply entangled between 1933-1945 because of persecution. Their entanglement was forced. Does that mean the Jews should rewrite their history books so as to avoid offense to Germany? That is absurd. Likewise Greek and Turkish entanglement between 1400-1900 was due to occupation. The Hellenes were forced to be entangled.
I’m not sure if you are obligated to come to Greece and serve in case of war. Anyway a far more patriotic act - as you yourself proposed elsewhere - would be to come live in Greece - Thraki for instance - and raise a large family.
If you choose to see the Greek-Turkish conflict in such two dimensional terms, it’s no wonder you cannot see a way out. You seem to believe Greece’s support for Turkey’s accession to the EU was done out of the pure goodness of the Hellenic heart. Nonsense. This was just the beginning of a very clever knot tied by George Papandreou. In one stroke, he succeeded in removing European pressure on Greece by turning the Greek-Turkish conflict into an EU problem. (Predictably, France and Germany suddenly shuffled their feet, whistled, checked their watches, loosened their collars etc.) It also reduced military tensions and placed the entire burden of EU accession - free of excuses, free of nationalistic quarrels - squarely in Turkey’s court. There were other benefits, but that’s not bad. The fact that Karamanlis has continued the policy - in his own totally uncreative and inert way - ought to tell you something.
Politics is not only about give and take, winning and losing. It is also a fluid process that requires initiative. Good politicians are those that can see opportunities in the darkest circumstances with the most intractable challenges. It may feel like a safe standpoint to be skeptical, pessimistic and stubborn (there are people like yourself on the Turkish side as well, you know), but such an attitude just cost the life of one of our pilots.
I also think you haven’t answered the points I made before, you simply call them ‘weak’ and provide a very weird and tenuous comparison of the Ottoman occupation with the Holocaust of the Jews. I hope you have better reasons for insisting on the benefits of the Greek-Turkish status quo.
Scarf +, I clearly understand Georgaki’s clever little ploy. However, you are wrong that it reduced military tensions. The flyovers have actually increased in the last few years, the cassus belli still stands, the threats continue and there are still 40,000 troops in Northern Cyprus. And when Turkey finally gets the idea that it will not gain full EU membership, who do you think is going to pay? Hellas and Cyprus. Not France or Denmark. This whole clever little ploy is going to backfire on Tricky George. But he will not care. He’ll get a post on some European Council of Some Ridiculous Cause and it will be the Greek people that will have to worry about the mess he left behind.
Forced entanglement. Get it?
Hermes
Firstly I don’t read much empirical evidence in what you say.
As to the motive forces behind the creativity in jazz, for example, I’m not so sure about your analysis as being in any sense final. Certainly Mingus was driven by pride, and deservedly, since he was a genius, whether it was black pride I would have my doubts. The ‘manifesto’ of Be-Bop, to use the term very loosely indeed, may have begun in the 50’s as a reaction to the take over of the Jazz scene by the watered down version the white players were being encouraged to pump out by the record companies. Also I would have great doubts about the nationalistic motives of Pericles. It is one thing to celebrate a victory or indeed pay tribute to one’s civilisation, and another to write a song of stone to Nationhood. As for the Romans, I believe you yourself argued against them as a shining example of nationhood. Anyway to glorify the power of Empire is not the same thing as celebrating nationhood, anything but. In fact now I think of it, Empire is diametrically the opposite of nationhood. I was, to re-reiterate speaking of Nationalist art, not one that celebrates civilisation per se.
And at any rate if you wish to define nationhood, or a feeling there of, by those parameters then you are speaking Martian and I am speaking Sanskrit. By which I mean what I said in the last post, our basic definitions are totally different when we say NATIONHOOD. But as I understood it we were discussing, since you wish to get ‘empirical’ on may ass, the nation state.
Your example of the English monarchy’s schism with the Papacy, seems to me to be proof of what I said before. That in fact the arguments between Church and State were much more a matter of those in power trying to establish which proportion of the cake each got in controlling the mass, and not actually over doctrinal or philosophical points of conduct. The Church as well as the Throne were simply locked in a struggle over where the lines of power were to be drawn next, and certainly not because they disagreed over anything so fine as civilisation, or principal, or morality. Had Elizabeth I not managed to handle the situation by once and for all establishing the Throne as also the head of the Church, the troubles there would have continued. The monarch is, to this day also the head of the Church of England.
Next, to your rather smug, and insulting insinuation that you are discussing known facts while I ‘merely’ express my feelings. Don’t be such an arrogant pedant. I don’t share your point of view, nor am I in any way interested in changing it. I don’t even disagree with everything you have to say. Nonetheless we are in full, and terminal disagreement over the definition of certain concepts, as expressed by words. I also very much resent the sarcasm of ’should we bulldoze, erase bla bla’. Where in God’s name did I come remotely close to advocating wiping anything? My argument, if I could even call it that, since I am very clearly stating an opinion and not writing a well researched thesis, does not advocate touching history’s legacy at all. It is about where our past failures and our painfully obvious shortcomings need serious attention.
Hey, catchy lyric - ‘…a song of stone to Nationhood’
Still thinking about Eurovision, eh Flux?
Hey scarf,
Yeah man, fuck Eurovision though, I'm shooting for worldvision 2009. Also while we're at it let's institute a WorldVision Inc. and hit the world markets with new revisionist histories, as created and endorsed by us. Like we could make any more of a pig's ear of it than the powers that be already have…Right?
Oh and Hermes you call what happened in England a clash between church and state. Not so. Were it that England managed to establish its nationhood over the power of Rome, maybe. But swapping Rome for the C of E was a very poor excuse as a victory for the secular arm. In point of fact the difference between the Catholic Church and the High Church of England is so minor that it hardly exists. The major difference is that it fills the coffers of the state rather than the Vatican. Not very convincing evidence for the separation of Church and State.
I can see no difference in the way you present your arguments Hermes, to that of both Flux or Scarf+. You are all presenting your evidence that is informed by your personal beliefs. One cannot discuss issues without bringing to the table suitcases of beliefs, influences and yes, feelings. I have always found that the "my evidence is correct and yours is not" approach leads nowhere.
To all. Let's keep on keeping this civil. Thanks.
My gravest apologies for losing my temper earlier Diva. But I think what I was reacting to, was exactly on the point you make in your latest comment. I’m so tired of hearing people come to these forums and do the "my argument is better than yours" number. I’ve stated in on my blog and I would say it here. This is not school debating society. Blogs exist precisely to support an open forum for the statement of beliefs and opinions. Argue by all means, try to convince yes; but show off your dubious ability to read some redundant statistics, and draw your own conclusions, based on your already fixed notions only gets other people’s goat. Worse still start on the old "you’re being emotional while I’m making clearly authorised and rational points" then you’re always going to have a fight on your hands. No one enjoys being patronised.Anyway sorry again. It won’t happen again (?!)scarf, now I read back what I said before to you, let’s just advocate full megalomaniacal re-education of the world according to us. You know the way fascists are always saying Hitler didn’t have a grand plan, or that Jews are all in control of everything? Well we could do something like that. Find some small group somewhere, and snactify them, then find evidence to support our lies, and if we can’t find any, hell, we’ll just make it up. Everyone else does. What do you think?
Heheh..Well, now, Flux, you’re being a little disingenuous here. You know perfectly well that the Little Beige Book of Fluxianity (Conspiracy Edition) clearly identifies the ringleaders of the nefarious global web as The Little Old Ladies At The Trolley Stop Who Stand Right In Front Of The Doors And Won’t Let Anyone Get Off. However, in the footnotes section, there is a reference to Them Geeky Mormon Boys With The Nametags which some have taken to mean they’re the actual ones with the Bigass Funky Rhythm Stick. Since this is an open forum it probably wouldn’t be wise to name the *actual* lever pullers unless the readership has been vetted by the Grand Council of oh to hell with it…
Flux, I will systematically deal with all your points. Some jazz played by the likes of Shepp, Mingus, Ayler in the late 1960’s was an expression of the pride of the black nation. Obviously, it had individualistic elements to it, like all improvised music, but by that period it had taken on some very ethno-national undertones. I am not talking about Be-Bop or the 1950’s. I am talking about a particular strain of 1960’s free jazz. Pericles was celebrating the cultural, military , social and political achievements (which enscapulated individuality as one of its core attributes) of his nation. Again, there was probably an element of individual expression by the likes of Phidias but it was mainly a monument to the Athenian people. As for the Romans, I included the Republic. That was not an imperial entity (although this did change) but a national entity which amongst other things they honoured the founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus and so on. These were national self expressions. As for England, the rejection of religion was initially used to assert national soveriegnty over Rome. Yes, later religion was again used in the service of the state but the first point proves that religion is not always in the service of the nation state. Another example are the Latin American Catholic-Socialists of the 1990’s. They were feared by the state because they preached a version of Catholicism which could have destroyed the fabric of their states.
Flux, I did bring up real world examples. Now I will not claim that empirical knowledge is the only path to truth. I will ignore some of your excessive comments.
Th is is an interesting article on the nation, nation-state and some other things. It kind of argues my point but obviously a lot more effectively. However, I am not so certain that the nation-state is a myth as the author claims.
http://www.jackross.net/theidy.....rticle=107
It is very fashionable to become cynical about politics today and especially national -state politics. I have already expressed some ambivalence about the concept. However, is there something better? I still agree with our Aristotle and later Castoriadis that man (and woman) is a political animal, meaning he needs to participate fully in the polis to live meaningfully . It is a very expansive concept which facilitates our multi-dimensional nature. Personally, I do not like reductionist arguments that lead to man being an economic animal or sexual animal. That does man a disservice as we are capable of much more than that. As for the nation-state, it is not perfect, but evidence suggests and I believe it is better than hereditary monarchy and some of the other systems that predominated before.
There is an idea out there today that if humanity could somehow break free from the nation-state, and even more radical the nation, we would move to a Utopian pure blissful state. As someone said "we could enter a world of pure democracy, where human society would be ruled solely according to law and morality. Borders would dissolve in unconditional internationalism and nations would collapse into supranational organizations such as the European Union. Free of the limits and sins of politics, we could finally attain the true life. "
These are extremely optimistic sentiments but also built on false assumptions. Manent (a very good contemporary French thinker) argues like Aristotle and Castoriadis "Human life, in order to have force and meaning, must be concentrated in a particular political community, in which decisions are made through collective, creative debate. The best such community for democratic life, he argues, is still the nation-state. " I am not so sure of the primacy of the nation-state as I believe that the best community is the local one but that does not preclude many levels of governance which also includes the nation state. A rich human life requires intimacy, participation, co-operation and competition and this can be best achieved through these types of informal and formal associations.
By the way do those beliefs sound like Fascism?
By the way scarf, how did we get here form the rights of citizenship? Me I guess I’m just not feeling very serious these days, what with the daily joy of living in the highly cultured West and enjoying all the great benefits of "Our Way of Life". Seriously though I think I should stop filling up the Diva’s wonderful blog with my nonsense, and get on with doing some real work. Catch you around, man.
[An aside, hence the brackets, but relevant. Besides I’m getting impatient waiting for the first creative suggestion for a solution to the Greece/Turkey problem or an improvement on the nation state and democracy. Try saying “It’s not my job to come up with a solution. I’m just here to tell you the problem in its historical context” in a family, in a workplace, in a local authority, anywhere. At least politicians have tried to come up with something, and so does Hermes to some extent (though I don’t like his solution)…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wome.....31,00.html
DD, I thought you might like to read this interview in the Guardian with Ruth Kelly, our new Minister for Women in the UK. A demotion for Mrs Kelly (that's how men see it if my husband is any