Skip to main content

Patriotic Fallacies and Slitting Wrists


An article published in Medium on 14 May entitled '6 Things not to say to Circassians on  21 May' provokes a comeback answer to each of the 6 taboos. The author might as well have invited readers to dissect and critique each nationalism-drenched word included in the 6 bullet points. On the occasion of commemorating the Circassian genocide and exodus  - Circassian Day of Mourning  - on 21 May, a polite yet naïve request came in by a Circassian-history-revival activist in the form of do nots.  The author argued that the following statements not only infuriate fellow Circassians, but are also void of precision, morality, and empathy.

I beg to differ.

First, the 6 commandment-nots…the 6 not-to-say-phrases.   
  1. I think it’s time to get over it.
  2. 1763–1864? Isn’t that ages ago?
  3. There are other issues in the world.
  4. You should just be proud of your current citizenship/country of residence.
  5. Isn’t this too much nationalism?
  6.  How is what you are doing going to make any difference?
According to the writer, it would be a mistake to forget the genocide, whereby the perils of such an act are equated with the consequences of forgetting the Palestinian Nakba. The deportation is not that far past in history, and no, nationalism is not being accentuated by the continuous glorification of heritage.

It is hard for any observer to sympathise with the romantically-saturated rhetoric that serves little purpose, especially amidst current events in the very region where most Circassians live. To equate the injustice, infliction of suffering, and substantial ordeal of Palestinians with that of present Circassian diaspora is simply insulting. Circassian communities are well respected and integrated in each hosting nation – nations that must have become the homes of the Caucasian immigrants by now.  Not letting go of the past is exactly what has caused such injustice in Palestine, where the atrocities borne by Jews on the hands of European regimes in the 20th century continues to justify barbarities in the 21st.  Insisting on belonging to a genetic family tree instead of integrating into a community forest will not right the wrongs and will not change history. Rights will not be restored by a continuous reminder of a tragedy that must be forgotten in order to move on.

Yes, it is time to get over it. Yes, it is past history and no sentimental value could be rationally attached to a non-existing cause. And yes, there are more important issues in the world, notably one in the immediate vicinity. Belonging and allegiance to fellow citizens indeed carries more value than centuries-old ancestral ties, and yes too much nationalism is dangerous and has proven to be so. And no added-value is attached to lamenting the past and passing on memories, instead of purpose.

Keeping tradition alive is commendable and contributes to cultural richness. However, when historic preservation carries subtle racist tendencies that aim at guaranteeing membership to a club privée of the ousted and wronged, self-inflicted alienation is almost ensured.  Loving one´s nation – may it be confined to national boundaries or extended to a common past – should not be unconditional. When loving thy people comes at a high cost of prioritising race over humanity, romance over reason, tradition over virtue, and pride over empathy, it stops being love, and turns into obsession.

Too much love can kill you indeed. In fact, and in an analogy that was used perfectly by one of the most fatally attractive minds, love can become an obsession that slits wrists.


Comments

  1. Circassian readers, no offence meant at all.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Just as Orwell Said

         George Orwell said in his famous book 1984 that “first they steal the words, then they steal the meaning”, accurately foreseeing the political actions of world leaders and their manipulation of public opinion. His words are ever so precise once one examines the vocabulary applied by a number of world leaders when describing the policies and regimes of troubling countries: axis of evil, war on terror, terrorist killers, harbourers of fundamentalism etc. Ironic it is to see how those who were once described to have been allies with Satan himself seem to show good will in a matter of very few years. Iran is one very good example of this. The Persian nation has come out as a winner in the Geneva talks that were held in October, where not only did it get applauded for the concessions it offered, but it also ensured the west’s acceptance of its regional weight. Everyone seems to be more relaxed after the negotiations and a new round of talks has been set for November.  

Pan-Arabism vs. Middle Easternism?

             A rab Nationalism, a romantic concept that moved poets to write ballads, intellectuals to preach volumes, activists to passionately organize and the masses to cheer freedom. A concept introduced by students at the American University of Beirut in the last phases of the ageing Ottoman Empire and studied in secret societies. This concept developed and led, under western planning, to the Great Arab Revolt in 1916. The slogans of Arab revival and freedom from Ottoman tyranny swept the Arab nations, where hopes of independence and self-rule were promised by the restoration of Arab control over the area. Then problems arose. Who are Arabs? What is an Aran nation? How does it extend geographically? Is it an area that encompasses people who speak the same language and share the same history? If so, why did the Lebanese Maronites reject the concept of Arab nationalism and insist on a Lebanese identity? Why did the Egyptians hesitate before including themselves under th

Wishing You a New MENA

Journalist and author of A nd Then All Hell Broke Loose: Two Decades in the Middle East   said that “Everything changed with the First World War. The Middle East was reorganized, redefined, and the seeds were planted for a century of bloodshed.” He was not entirely right. Bloodshed lasted more than a century actually. Here we are in 2019, and the Middle East and North Africa region – the infamous MENA – is still a boisterous, rowdy zone of political recrimination, military coups, conspiracy theories, historic reminiscence, oil squabbles, and religiously-infused rhetoric. Blood shed of course as well. Well, here we are.  Algeria is set to head to the polls in April. President Abdelaziz Bouteflika will likely secure a fifth mandate. If not, Algeria’s powerbrokers, mainly the military and powerful business elites will enter into an expensive bargain of security versus social and economic stability. Having vested the long-enjoyed tranquillity on a political figure, rather than a