Once upon a time there was a very smart, intelligent and handsome woolf. He was hungry for a long time and he wanted to eat. While he was wandering in the forest he saw a piece of food approaching him. Thiswas a little girl dressed in a red cape wearing a red hat . She was holding a basket. He immediately madehis plan.: to approach the little girl and start talking to her. The girl told him that she was going to see her sick grandmother living at the other end of the forest. He said good bye to her and rushed to the grandmother’s house before her....
How intelligent he was! He tied the grandmother, hid her in the wardrobe, put on her dresses and got into her bed.... And then the little girl came....
I think you have all recognized by now the story so I don’t want to tell the rest but invite you to think only about what happened in the end...
The poor woolf was killed by a hunter. All the woolves in the forest mourned for his death and every time they pass by this cottage they feel sad and comomorate this brave and intelligent martyr.
I have made use of this this story because I want to bring out some ideas as to why we have different and sometimes competing narrations in a confict situation. I think the narration changes according to who the protagonist is in the story.
By the way, this version of the story was narrated by a woolf’s mother to a baby woolf.
In the narratives of the conflicting parties the actors are the generalized “us” and the generalized “other”, they are the nation, the community, the identity group etc.
In countries of conflict all the other collective identities we have are undermined by our ethnic identity. The ethnic other becomes the most important consciousness we are socialized into. Ethnicity becomes very visible. This category is usually stressed. The national narrative, therefore, needs to serve our attachment to this category and it employs every tool available to present us as the “good guys” and the others as the “bad and evil ones”. We are the victims and they are the perpetrators.
Living in a country of ethnic conflict means that you have to obey certain rules. One of these rules is that you have to take side in the conflict. Conflict dictates to us how to think in terms of categories Conflict is socially supported with duality thinking, us versus them the enemy, the other. You, yourself are in a certain category and what is expected from you is to act within the limits of this specific category. This is the “us and them” approach where you are forced to make the choice. Actually, you don’t even have a choice. Your category is determined from your birth. You are given an ethnic name and you have to act and take sides within this relevant category that you were put into. When you were socialized to your national identity you were expected to be proud of the aspects of your national identity and you also learned about the other who is less valued and who is the historical enemy.
What if you approach the enemy and try to understand the reality through their lens and perspective? What if you talk about both as a unit and express empathy with the other and try to understand their sufferings as well. If you act this way very you will be branded as a traitor, a spy, a spokesman for the enemy and will be marginalized within your own group.
The narration of the past where we were victimized by them and the grand narrative of today which will add to the story and will become recent history. In the meantime, it is a means to justify our rightiousness versus their wrong doings.
This narration is also supported by some visual elements, photographs, and the national museums. I would like to mention about the “Museum of Barbarism” in north Cyprus created by Turkish Cypriots leadership in order to serve and support the Turkish version of the historical narrative.
The most important aspect about this Museum is that it is a place where history of violence persists to live in the present.
For many children the first visit to the Museum is when they attend the Elementary school and the museum is the exact spot where violence took place. In this house, as the photograph shows, a mother with her three children were killed while they were hiding in a bath tube. A Turkish Cypriot official Internet site describes the museum like this:
The date is the 24th December, 1963... The onslaught of the Greeks against the Turks, which started three days ago, has been going on with all its ferocity; and defenseless women, old men and children are being brutally killed by Greeks. And Kumsal Area of Lefkosa witnesses the worst example of the Greeks savage bloodshed...
The wife and the three infant children of Dr. Nihat Ilhan, a Major on duty at the camp of the Cyprus Turkish Army Contingent, are mercilessly and dastardly shot dead while hiding in the bathrooms of their house, by maddened Greeks who broke into their home. This incident is a glaring example of Greek barbarism.
The photograph of the dead children and their mother is like a stamp of Greek Cypriot violence to the Turkish Cypriots psyche and being one of the atrocity photographs in the world has become the main tool for propaganda and lobbying. It is a symbol for victimization. The victims are mother and children being the most innocent subjects in life. They are killed in their own home while they just wanted to hide in the bath tube.
This horror story is ”experienced” lived by the visitors of the museum on the spot. Everything is left untouched. The bloodstains; hair and parts of the dresses and shoes of the children are there.
Other rooms of the Museum are also filled with photographs of dead bodies. One of the other striking things about this museum is that it is actually a habitat for one of the survivors of the incident. Yusuf Gudum is still living in one of the rooms of the museum. The building is his own property and he lost his wife during the incident. When visitors come he comes out of his room and narrates the event.
How can we deal with such a narration. The story is a true story. A mother and with her three children were murdered mercilessly.
The problem is about how the story is narrated. It is not presented as a murder done by a group of people but as a crime done by the other society as a whole towards our society. The generalized “other” who is the main character in the story is the forever evil enemy.
In Cyprus the historical narrative of both sides is mainly based on the atrocites done by one side to the other. That is why the Turkish Cypriot historical narrative starts mainly in 1963 when there were attacks and atrocites done to the Turkish Cypriot population wheras the Greek Cypriot narrative mainly starts from 1974 when the Turkish troops invaded the Northern part of the island bringing a divison of the island and the Greek Cypriot population was heavily victimized whereas the1974 military operation is named as the Happy Peace Operation by the Turkýsh Cyprýot side..
The Turkish Cypriot side justifies the 1974 military operation as a kind of revenge whereas Turkey is defined as the rescuer.
If we make a chronocical list of events in recent Cyprus history we can notice that the days of mourning for one side are the days of celebration and festivity for the other.
One other problem in long term conflicts is that both parties develop a vocabulary reflective of their conflicting positions. Even the most innocent words start to be associated with other meanings. Words start to take sides and may become triggering to the other . A country of conflict is a place where most of the beautiful words are abused by the conflict. Where peace may become the name of war, where victory means the denial of the other’s rights and where many innocent words become associated with some categories of thought and where the words staying at the tip of the iceberg are actually associated with some feelings, interests, values and a certain history underneath. Words lose their original meanings and become identified with some divisions in life. Many words become associated with certain group thinking.
This language is transmitted in the school, by the media, from the mouth of politicians and there is no ground to refuse it. It becomes natural. It is everywhere. With two different historical narratives, with different names given to specific historical events and with the use of words that trigger the other how can you attach the parties in a diologue to resolve the conflict? I think this is the basic question that needs to be dealt with.
I would like to give first an example of our work as bi communal groups in Cyprus to show how we dealt about the historical narrative of atrocities and later I will talk about my own experience of talking about recent Cyprus history in a Greek Cypriot school to Greek Cypriot students as a Turkish Cypriot, actually as the first Turkish Cypriot they have seen in their lives.
In September 1999 we organized a series of events at a village in the buffer zone called Pyla where both sides have access. The “September Project” was on the theme of “Acknowleding each other’s pain and celebrating our togetherness.” One of the activities under this project was a panel discussion about the atrocities done by both sides. We asked the speakers to talk mainly about the atrocities that were done by their sides towards the other. We had about one hundred audience and in the end of the panel we invited all the participants to stand for respect in a one minute of silence in memory of all those who died in the wars in Cyprus, for the memory of both the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot victims of war. This was done first time in the history of Cyprus and was the headline of one of the Turkish Cypriot newspapers supportive of our work. We realized what we had really done later. This was like a suicidal attack to the strongest symbol of nationalism.
The next day threats and attacks started been directed at some members of our group. Being the moderator of the panel I was named as the spy of Greeks, the biggest traitor ever and was warned that I should fear the safety of my life.
I want to tell you the other story:
As a Turkish Cypriot I am living in the Greek Cypriot side of the island for more than nine years now. I crossed over to the other side because I did not want to obey the rule that if you are a Turkish Cypriot the proper side of the island for you to live is the Northern part and if you are a Greek Cypriot it is the Southern part and you have to forget about the rest of your country. I traveled from one side to the other changing three aeroplanes to cross the longest 50 meters of the world. I went back and forth several times to ridicule the establishment for creating such conditions for us the citizens but then I decided to stay in the Southern part of the island and the event I will relate below is one of the reasons I made this decision.
When I was visiting the Southern part of the island I was invited by the Peace Club of a college to make a speech to the students. When I arrived to the school some teachers and students met me outside the door to discuss the idea of cancelling the event. They said that there was a lot of tension in the school. The school was divided into two, including the teachers, and half of the school did not want me to come. Even they quoted one of the students saying: ” What! A Turk is coming to our school! I will take my gun and come tomorrow”!
They said that the trouble makers were in the hall and they were occupying the front seats. I told them to go ahead. It was not a good idea to cancel. When I went in, the hall was packed and I could feel the tension.
I started my speech with a poem and later said: “ I know that you read history lessons and you learn about the recent history of Cyprus. I was also a student like you and I also learned history. I now that what I learned is much different than what you have learned. I don’t know which is the truth.
I want to talk to you about my own story. The only thing I beleive is real is my own story. Then I told them about my childhood in a mixed village. About how the Greek Cypriot terrorist organisation EOKA atttacked our village, my life in the enclaves, how I was afraid that a Greek soldier would kill me. Then I talked about 1974 and how I witnessed the victimization of Greek Cypriots, my feelings about when we were given a Greek Cypriot house to live in.
They listened very carefully and the questions went almost two hours. They were asking and asking. Some of them were trying to trick me. One of the students asked. “ If tomorrow there is a war between Cyprus and Greece which side would you take?” I said:” I would take the side of the Peacebuilders in Cyprus and Greece”.
It was a sucess! They invited me again to go to their school after a couple of months. This time the invitation came from those teachers who protested and did not come.
I gave speeches in many Greek Cypriot schools later, including elementary schools. Those kids were seeing a Turkish Cypriot for the first time in their lives and listening to things they have never heard before.
I think to deal with the official historical narrative we have to make use of the personal narratives. Those are the ones which are more genuine and which can operate at a level to help to transform one’s conception of the one side’s reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ýzinsiz Gösteri'de yayýmlanan yazýlar ve görselller izin alýnmadan ya da kaynak gösterilmeden kullanýlamaz
