[BRIEF NOTE] Justice for the Turks
Sep. 25th, 2004 07:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldFrom Salon, the article "Old prejudices reemerge" by Ian Traynor and John Henley, examining how Turkey's current bid for European Union membership is hampered by the historical resentment of the Ottoman Empire's imperialist history in central and southeastern Europe, the following two revealing paragraphs:
What's the flaw in this argument? It lies in the assumption that violent misogyny is something inherent to the Islamic faith and to people of Muslim cultures, that it's something lacking any parallels in Christian history, and that it's unchangeable. This, of course, is wrong, as Jason Kuznicki at Positive Liberty wrote:
It seems to me that, in the ongoing cultural wars, too many people are making specious arguments based on false assumptions about the permanence of cultures. This is true whether we're talking about people of non-Muslim background arguing that Muslims are inherently different and that this difference must be expressed in negative ways, really, what are you, some politically-correct fool laying the foundations for Eurabia? or about people of Muslim background arguing, well, that Muslims are inherently different and that this difference must be expressed in ways which are positive, really, you believe otherwise only because you're a corrupt post-Christian!
As I argued back in June regarding the morally flawed effort to implement Muslim religious law in Ontario, it's profoundly limiting and insulting to argue that one should accept atavistic traits like misogyny, or homophobia, or racism, as legitimate defining characteristics of a particular group. In many cases, this argument might be well-intended, as an effort at cultural sensitivity. Too frequently, though, this argument is contaminated by the implicitly racist assumption that of course Group X is different, and that all of Group X's members should be abandoned to their traditions since, after all, they are their traditions and they deserve to be left to them. At least as often--as demonstrated above--are explicit arguments that of course Group X is atavistic, and that's why they should never be allowed into our national (or supranational) community.
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone insisted that all people are capable of living up to universal standards of human and civil rights, regardless of their cultural or political backgrounds, and stopped making convenient exceptions?
Sipping red wine on a hillside terrace high above Vienna, Austria, Helmut pointed to the Polish church next door, convinced that the epic drama played out here in 1683 still spoke to central Europeans down the centuries.
"I know one Turkish bloke," said the Viennese social worker. "He's got two wives. Neither of them can speak a word of German. He beats them up. He's got two sons as well. They're terrified of him. They're just different from us. We're Christians. They're Muslims. And these Muslims are getting more and more extreme. It's time to make a choice. I'm against it."
What's the flaw in this argument? It lies in the assumption that violent misogyny is something inherent to the Islamic faith and to people of Muslim cultures, that it's something lacking any parallels in Christian history, and that it's unchangeable. This, of course, is wrong, as Jason Kuznicki at Positive Liberty wrote:
The next time you think that civilization is collapsing, you need only reflect that in 1800, a man of the supposedly virtuous United States could drink a gallon of whisky, beat his wife and children senseless, speak ugly things about his slaves--and shoot to death any man who dared impugn his honor. Some virtue that was.
In the 1950s, this man could still probably beat his family with little fear of retribution, or speak ill of the Negroes with no worry that his associates would chastise him. Today we would count this man a brute, and now the chances are better than ever that he would find himself divorced, childless, and in jail.
It seems to me that, in the ongoing cultural wars, too many people are making specious arguments based on false assumptions about the permanence of cultures. This is true whether we're talking about people of non-Muslim background arguing that Muslims are inherently different and that this difference must be expressed in negative ways, really, what are you, some politically-correct fool laying the foundations for Eurabia? or about people of Muslim background arguing, well, that Muslims are inherently different and that this difference must be expressed in ways which are positive, really, you believe otherwise only because you're a corrupt post-Christian!
As I argued back in June regarding the morally flawed effort to implement Muslim religious law in Ontario, it's profoundly limiting and insulting to argue that one should accept atavistic traits like misogyny, or homophobia, or racism, as legitimate defining characteristics of a particular group. In many cases, this argument might be well-intended, as an effort at cultural sensitivity. Too frequently, though, this argument is contaminated by the implicitly racist assumption that of course Group X is different, and that all of Group X's members should be abandoned to their traditions since, after all, they are their traditions and they deserve to be left to them. At least as often--as demonstrated above--are explicit arguments that of course Group X is atavistic, and that's why they should never be allowed into our national (or supranational) community.
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone insisted that all people are capable of living up to universal standards of human and civil rights, regardless of their cultural or political backgrounds, and stopped making convenient exceptions?
