Papers by Nesrin Uçarlar
svet.lu.se, 2009
This study owes much to all the people who have provided generous support and assistance to me ov... more This study owes much to all the people who have provided generous support and assistance to me over the last five years. My greatest gratitude goes to Professor Bo Petersson for his meticulous supervision of this PhD dissertation and for the trans-national intellectual solidarity he showed for me in numerous ways. I am extremely grateful to the invaluable guidance of Professor Günay Göksu Özdo»an, who co-supervised this study and helped to keep my courage and enthusiasm alive. I would like to express my thanks to Professor Füsun Üstel, who contributed significantly to this study with her remarks and criticisms. I am thankful to my colleagues in the Department of Political Science at Lund University. My sincerest thanks go to Sara Kalm and Mia Olsson for their vital criticisms from which I benefited enormously. I am grateful to Dalia Mukhtar-Landgren, who provided great help by reading and discussing drafts of the manuscript. My gratitude goes to Kerstin Frygner and Håkan Magnusson, my colleague, for their gracious hospitality, who turned their lovely home into my home-office during the last months of my stay in Lund. I am indebted to Kristine Goulding for her great effort in polishing up my English. Acknowledgement is also due to the Swedish Institute that granted me the scholarship funding for studies and research work between October 2005 and December 2006, and between February and November 2008, without which this dissertation would not have been possible. I am especially grateful for the kind support of Ingmar Karlsson, ex-Consul General of Sweden in êstanbul, and ex-Vice Consul, Annika Svahnström. The interviews that I conducted with the prominent Kurdish intellectuals constituted one of the most important components of this study and the interviewees are worthy of special thanks for accepting my invitation to participate in such a work. I would also like to thank my colleagues in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Yeditepe University. Ebru êlter Akarçay's constant support and warm interest was priceless. My special 1 The definition of minority is one of the most controversial topics of the international and European organisations that issue documents on the protection of minority rights (see Chapter 2). Moreover, the Republic of Turkey has its own description of minority, which is found indirectly in the Lausanne Treaty, which does not treat the Kurdish community as the minority to be entitled with the minority rights (see Chapter 3). Furthermore, the Kurdish community hesitates to name itself as the minority due to the negative connotations of the term within Turkey. Nevertheless, this study regard the Kurdish community as a sociological minority in Turkey in terms of the nondominant position of the Kurdish people in political, economic, and social spheres in Turkey. Yet, the phrase 'Kurdish minority' is less preferred throughout the study than the phrases 'Kurdish community', 'Kurdish people', 'Kurdish population' or the 'Kurdish linguistic community'. 'Even take our mothers … the Turkish Republic tried for 80 years to teach them Turkish and failed but [Kurdish] "peace mothers" have learnt Turkish at the woman
Egitim Bilim Toplum, Aug 14, 2012
Bu calismada, anadili Kurtce olan ogrencilerin egitim sureclerinde Kurtcenin kullanilmamasinin ve... more Bu calismada, anadili Kurtce olan ogrencilerin egitim sureclerinde Kurtcenin kullanilmamasinin ve yasaklanmasinin, bu ogrenciler icin dilden kaynakli ne gibi dilsel, psikolojik, egitsel ve toplumsal sorunlara yol actigi arastirilmistir. Bu amacla, soz konusu durumun bilesenleriyle derinlemesine gorusmeler yapilmistir. Elde edilen bulgular, mevcut tekdilli egitim politika ve pratiklerinin siyasi, dilsel, egitsel ve kulturel acilardan ayrimci ve dislayici oldugunu gostermistir. Bu politika ve pratikler, ogretmenler ve ogrenciler arasinda baskici iliskilerin gelismesine, ogrencilerin egitime geriden baslamalarina ve dolayisiyla sinifta kalmalarina, okulu terk etmelerine ve okulda basarisiz olmalarina, Kurtce konustuklari icin damgalanmalarina, farkli siddet turlerine maruz kalmalarina, bunlarin etkilerinin hayatlarinin ileriki asamalarinda da devam etmesine ve kendilerini ifade etmekte sorunlar yasamalarina, anne-babalariyla iliskilerinin zedelenmesine ve nihayetinde anadillerini kaybetmelerine yol acmistir. Ayrica, mevcut egitim politikalari, ogretmenlerin calisma kosullarini da olumsuz yonde etkileyerek, verimli ve etkin bir egitim-ogretim surecini engellemektedir. Bu sonuclar, daha once yapilmis yerel ve uluslararasi calismalarla ve kuramsal tartismalarla birlikte ele alinip detayli bir sekilde tartisildiktan sonra cozume yonelik gerek kisa vadede gerekse de uzun vadede gerceklestirilebilecek oneriler sunulmustur. Bu onerilerin paralel bir okumasini yapmak uzere ise, uc ulke ornegi incelenmistir: Korsikaca-Fransa, Baskca-Ispanya ve Uygurca-Cin ornekleri, sosyo-politik sartlar ve egitimde anadilinin kullanilmasina yonelik uygulamalar incelenerek mevcut durum ve yakin gelecege yonelik yorumlarla ele alinmistir. Calisma, bu yorumlarin Kurtce – Turkiye ornegi icin ne tur anlamlar tasidigi uzerine bir degerlendirme ile son bulmaktadir
Gecmisten Gunumuze Turkiye'de Paramiliter Bir Yapilanma: Koy Koruculugu Sistemi [From Past to... more Gecmisten Gunumuze Turkiye'de Paramiliter Bir Yapilanma: Koy Koruculugu Sistemi [From Past to Present a Paramilitary Organization in Turkey: Village Guard System]
Majority Cultures and the Everyday Politics of Ethnic Difference, 2008
Executive Summary
This study aims to contribute to the work of mapping infrastructures for peace... more Executive Summary
This study aims to contribute to the work of mapping infrastructures for peace in
Turkey by describing and analysing the performances of six national and local actors that tried to influence the resolution/peace process, which was conducted between 2008 and 2015, with a violent interval, and which finally broke down. The principal texts those actors produced, the main activities they carried out, and their relations with society and other actors were examined via their websites and publications, besides the news about and comments on their performances. Interviews with some of the prominent actors are conducted in Diyarbakır in order to enrich and deepen this examination at the local level. The barriers preventing their development, the risks they should take to build peace, and the opportunities they might utilise and/or create were discussed to further the analysis.
The focal point of the study was not the words and deeds of the conflicting parties
during the resolution/peace process although they were also noticed briefly. Rather the design and characteristics of the actors as infrastructures for peace; their orientation and position within the society and towards conflicting parts; and their strengths and successes and limits as well as reasons for those were at the centre of its analysis. In this respect, one of the central conclusions of the study is that those actors were not strong and independent enough to meet demands, to take risks and to deal with challenges raised during the resolution/peace process though they made noteworthy contributions for the long term. On the other hand, the second conclusion of the study is that those actors should be strengthened and credited by the conflicting parties in order to consolidate and socialise the peace process. In order to perform their roles as infrastructures for peace, those actors need more space and source to be provided by the conflicting parties and they should be given more chance to be directly involved in the process as the main supporters. The roles they could perform as mediators between the parts, as bridges among the actors supporting peace, as platforms for increasing public participation in the process, and as opinion makers working for peace should be acknowledged and encouraged. In this respect, infrastructures for peace should not necessarily be mandated by one of the conflicting parties but they should be publicly recognised. The conflicting parts in Turkey could be more confident, stronger and safer to restart peace process if those infrastructures for peace are given the opportunity to perform their relevant roles. In sum, the solution of the Kurdish question needs to be supported and saved by the society via the infrastructures for peace.
Introductory Words
It is no coincidence that ‘the return of the political’ (Mouffe 1993) accompa... more Introductory Words
It is no coincidence that ‘the return of the political’ (Mouffe 1993) accompanies the return of the ignored, degraded, oppressed and subjugated. The ‘political’ that has been returning corresponds to the struggles for re-accommodating the voices of various minorities. Members of cultures,
languages, religions and sexes different from those of the majorities that dominated the public sphere have started to speak not individually but collectively, transcending the private sphere to which they had been confined. The political does not only return via the encounter of minorities with the dominant discourses in the public sphere but also through what
the former says and how it speaks. In this respect, they are invited to be a part of contemporary critical theories, which suggest that ‘it is from those who have suffered the sentence of history – subjugation, domination, diaspora, displacement – that we learn our most enduring lessons for living
and thinking’ (Bhabha 2001: 172). Therefore, the call for the political invites those hitherto excluded to the stage, which is no more to be inhabited only by the ‘professional’ actors. In remembering Arendt (1998), action is the human condition of plurality, which is the conditio per quam (sufficient condition) of all political life. However, this sufficient condition has been
deactivated through the weakening of plurality, which has undermined the basis of the political.
The political does not simply mean unique ‘national’ interests, a qualified majority of votes, or limited parliamentary seats. Determining state territories is not only about drawing lines on a piece of land, but also about fencing the living areas and minds of people. The minority question, in fact, simply makes the fences less invisible. This visibility helps question the dominant ontological and epistemological settings that not only restrict minority rights but also constrain the contemplation of majorities. As Horkheimer emphasises, ‘how this dehumanization of thinking affects the very foundations of our civilization can be illustrated by analysis of the principle of majority, which is inseparable from the principle of democracy’
(1974: 26). The principle of majority is embedded in the principle of democracy through the idea of the nation-state. In this respect, the return of the political can be analysed by examining the principle of the nationstate, which constructs the majority in opposition to the minority. The principle of majority becomes the operating tool of the nation-state, which uses majority power to dominate minorities.
As the most figurative asset of membership in a majority or minority and the most symbolic aspect of national authority, language is a major site of struggle for majority power and minority resistance. Therefore, the question of minority rights in general and the linguistic rights of minorities in particular constitutes one of the most appropriate frameworks within
which this site of struggle can be analysed through the theoretical perspectives questioning the principles of majority and minority. For the purposes of this study, which focuses on the question of Kurdish linguistic rights in Turkey, the sites of struggle for majority power and minority resistance are as follows: the documents of international and European organisations on the linguistic rights of minorities, the impact of the modernisation and nation-state building process in Turkey on the Kurdish-speaking community and the resistance engendered by the Kurdish intelligentsia in the European diaspora and in Turkey against the majority power delimiting
the Kurdish linguistic rights.
...
Introduction
Mukaddes Hanım said that “words have already buried themselves.” She still has no k... more Introduction
Mukaddes Hanım said that “words have already buried themselves.” She still has no knowledge of the whereabouts of her father, who was arrested twenty years ago. The “state,” which took her father away, did not return him and was
not held accountable, is not the only one that caused the burial of Mukaddes Hanım’s words. Journalists, politicians, academics and other citizens who did not see their suffering, who did not hear them and who did not ask after “Kurdish citizens” whose husbands, children, brothers and fathers were “wiped out,” also preferred the burial of some words. While trying anyway to
keep talking or while we were both waiting in silence, some words came back. But some words lack some meanings. After twenty years we are trying to find buried words and bring them back and to understand what they mean. However, most of the time we feel obliged to admit that words will never be enough to describe the past.
Nevertheless, we try to conduct one of the studies of “coming to terms with the past,” which tries to give ear to the feelings, thoughts, demands of thevictims, who were addressed by crimes against humanity, who were exposed to the violence of states; and to convey these feelings, thoughts and demands
to the states at stake and to those who remained silent when those crimes were committed. We have been trying to achieve that as an institution, namely, Diyarbakır Institute for Political and Social Research. What do I want to achieve personally, as a writer of this study? I can be seen as one of those who remained silent. I was “fortunate” to be a child, adolescent in the West of Turkey; studied “international relations” free of politics and it was only during my PhD studies, when I was “fortunate” to become really aware of the East of Turkey, “the Kurdish issue”. Now, I try to bear testimony to what I became
aware of years ago. Mukaddes Hanım, like others whom we visited for this study, says “Welcome” and shows us courtesy of talking and listening to us. Suffering caused by the loss of her father was turned into pride by her persistence that makes her try to understand and keep asking “why?”
“Why?” is the word we heard most frequently during the fifty six interviews we conducted on our route from Muş, Bitlis, Van, Hakkari, Mardin, Batman, Diyarbakır to Istanbul. There is no meaningful answer to this question. No word has the meaning this question begs for. Nevertheless, there are many words to say, we are never at that point where no words are left; words will never end, because they will never be enough. This study will also be added to all those words that have been said. It will bring together the narratives of Mukaddes Hanım and others who opened their doors to us with the narratives of those who suffer similar pains in other parts of the world as well as
with the political and philosophical narratives produced for similar situations concerning justice, mourning, forgiveness, resentment and political frienship. It will bear testimony to that those who were colonized, impoverished, silenced,
displaced and whose relatives were “wiped out” give a gift – composed of values, words and politics they produced in struggle and persistently keep alive – to those peoples, lives and sciences that did not experience and hear of oppression. A gift to enable the latter to “come to terms with the past.” It is impossible to convey the testimony of oppression, perhaps we can convey “the narrative of oppression” we bore witness to. We can turn these narratives into a lesson, a politics, since, as Homi K. Bhabha says, “from those who suffered the sentence of history – subjugation, domination, diaspora, displacement
– that we learn our most enduring lessons for living and thinking.”
Before moving to testimonies, in the Chapter I, I try to look closer at the studies on coming to terms with the past, which is the subject matter of these testimonies, and at the goals, tools and addresses of these studies. I touch upon problems and promises of “transitional justice,” which for reasons discussed
in the next chapter, I call “post-conflict justice.” By examining retributive and restorative justice, I discuss notions of “victims, witnesses and survivors” as well as “perpetrators, responsible ones and bystanders.” I also address the meaning of truth for these agents; the characteristics of official truth commissions
and unofficial truth projects. The comparison I have made between retributive justice and restorative justice, which essentially emerged from criticisms of the former, sometimes leads to the relation between these two approaches to appear as an oppositional one. However, as it will be observed in the next chapters of this study and especially in the interviews, the relation between these two approaches can be said to be a complimentary one with regards to justice served in social and legal terms.
In Chapter II, I discuss concepts of “memory,” “mourning,” “forgiveness,” “resentment and vexation” as well as “political friendship” which constitute the subtext of the already mentioned studies and motivate our interviews with witnesses who were exposed to the state violence in Kurdistan in the 90s. In this study I also found valuable to examine the possibility for victims to forgive perpetrators and the responsible ones, the lack of such possibility manifested by feelings of resentment and vexation, and the political equivalent of these feelings. In this respect, I wanted to rethink the relation of “fraternity”
with Kurds which Turks usually define without leaving the throne of the elder brother within the framework of a probable political friendship with Turks, whom Kurds want to be partners in their concerns and struggles. By describing the 1990s, a “state of exception” in Turkey and Kurdistan, in Chapter III, I
aim to provide political framework for the interviews.
The following three chapters are devoted to interviews with witnesses. In the first of those chapters, Chapter IV, I introduce interviewees along with the route and background of our visits. In Chapter V I convey interviewees’ quest for justice reflected in their expectations from the state; their demands for the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators and the responsible ones; their objections to impunity, material reparation and plea-bargain; their views on disclosure and acknowledgment of truths, public apology, and finally
their state of “demandlessness.” Interviewees’ opinions with regard to the possibility of their confrontation with perpetrators and the responsible ones, the possibility for them to forgive and give their blessings, their expectations from Turks in terms of the likelihood of a new contract of fraternity/political friendship and the struggle for dignity they give are presented in Chapter VI. The last chapter is devoted to evaluation and ecommendations.
We tried to conduct interviews within a framework of twenty nine questions organized into three categories: “definition and narrative of victimhood,” “demand for justice” and “confrontation, forgiveness and resentment.” We attempted
to come to know opinions of the interviewees, but knowing that we would certainly not ask these questions one by one, we asked questions in a manner appropriate to the aim, giving priority to flow of the conversation.
That day in the evening, when we had completed our interviews and were talking about what we had heard and seen in those fifteen days, Berivan said “nothing is in its right place” in reference to pain of those who leave baby cribs at the cemetery in Şırnak, as seen in the photo on the cover of this study. Babies are not in their cribs, neither are fathers, spouses, siblings with their loved ones; for twenty years nothing is in its right place. If only this study can explain that, recall the irreplaceable, then it will tell a humble story.
With this study we hope to contribute to the process of “coming to terms with the past” in Turkey. Respect and gratitude we have for those who opened their homes and hearts to us cannot be expressed with words. Xwedê ji we razî be.
Books and Papers by Nesrin Uçarlar
A Peaceful Search for Truth Confronting Racism in Turkey, 2021
This study examines how the concept
of the “post-truth era” and the struggle
against racism relat... more This study examines how the concept
of the “post-truth era” and the struggle
against racism relate to truth-seeking
and dealing with the past. It builds upon
Arendt’s analysis of the relationship
between politics and truth, Foucalt’s
concept of the “regime of truth” and
the link between regimes of truth and
racism in order to invite us to think
about an anti-racist and “peaceful
method of truth-seeking” that criticizes
official and oppositional regimes of
truth and the regime of war which both
types of truth regimes essentially foster.
Arguing that it is relevant to consider
racism as a main source for the
establishment, functioning, resilience
and flexibility of Turkey’s regime of
truth, this study analyzes the TV shows
of the 1990s and the 2010s, especially
the manifestations of the “war on terror”
that appeared on state channels, and
the different traces of memory and truth
related to these manifestations. The
report also addresses the criticisms
against the South African Truth and
Reconciliation Commission, drawing
attention to a number of aspects that
could prove to be critical for anchoring
Turkey’s dealing with the past and
peace processes in an anti-racist
framework.
Türkiye'de Barışçıl Hakikat Arayışı ve Irkçılıkla Yüzlesme, 2021
“Hakikat-sonrası çağ” kavramının
ve ırkçılık-karşıtı mücadelenin
hakikat arayışı ve geçmişle yüzl... more “Hakikat-sonrası çağ” kavramının
ve ırkçılık-karşıtı mücadelenin
hakikat arayışı ve geçmişle yüzleşme
çalışmalarına nasıl sirayet edebileceği
hakkındaki bu çalışma, Arendt’in
siyaset ve hakikat arasındaki ilişkiye
dair analizinden, Foucault’nun “hakikat
rejimi” kavramından ve hakikat rejimleri
ile ırkçılık arasındaki bağlantıdan
yola çıkarak, resmî ve muhalif hakikat
rejimlerine ve esasen bu rejimlerin
beslediği savaş rejimine itiraz eden,
ırkçılık-karşıtı ve “barışçıl bir hakikat
arayışı yöntemi” üzerine düşünme
daveti içeriyor. Türkiye’nin hakikat
rejiminin kuruluşuna, işleyişine,
mukavemetine ve esnekliğine
kaynaklık eden olguyu ırkçılık olarak
nitelendirmenin mümkün, gerekli ve
yararlı olduğu düşüncesine dayanan
bu çalışma, bir yandan 1990’lar ve
2010’ların televizyon programlarına
yansıyan “terörle mücadele”
tezahürlerine ve bu tezahürlere
ilişkin farklı hafıza ve hakikat izlerine
bakarken, bir yandan da ırkçılık ve
ırkçılık-karşıtı mücadeleyi geçmişle
yüzleşme bağlamına yerleştirmek
amacıyla, Güney Afrika Hakikat
ve Uzlaşma Komisyonu’na yönelik
eleştiriler üzerinden Türkiye’deki
ırkçılık-karşıtı bir geçmişle yüzleşme ve
barış sürecinin olası kritik noktalarına
dikkat çekmeye çalışıyor.
Books by Nesrin Uçarlar
Hiçbir Şey Yerinde Değil-Çatışma Sonrası Süreçte Adalet ve Geçmişle Yüzleşme Talepleri, 2015
2014 yılında Diyarbakır Siyasal ve Kültürel Araştırmalar Enstitüsü bünyesinde yapılmış ve İletişi... more 2014 yılında Diyarbakır Siyasal ve Kültürel Araştırmalar Enstitüsü bünyesinde yapılmış ve İletişim Yayınları tarafından yayımlanmış bir çalışma. "Muş, Bitlis, Van, Hakkâri, Mardin, Batman, Diyarbakır ve
İstanbul hattında yaptığımız elli altı görüşme boyunca en sık
duyduğumuz kelime, “Neden?” oluyor. Bu soruya verilecek
anlamlı bir cevap yok. Hiçbir kelime, bu sorunun aradığı anlama
gelmiyor. Yine de söylenecek çok söz var, hiçbir zaman sözün
bittiği yerde değiliz; söz hiç bitmeyecek, çünkü asla yetmeyecek.
Bu çalışma da, söylenen onca söze eklenecek. Mukaddes
Hanım’ın ve bize kapısını açan diğer kişilerin söylediklerini,
dünyanın diğer yerlerinde, benzer acıları yaşayanların söyledikleriyle,
benzer durumlar için söylenmiş, adalete, bağışlamaya,
hınca dair felsefi, siyasi sözlerle birleştirecek. Sömürgeleştirilmiş,
fakirleştirilmiş, susturulmuş, yerinden edilmiş, yakınları
“yok edilmiş” insanların inatla yaşattıkları, mücadeleyle
ürettikleri değerleri, kelimeleri, siyasetleri, bu zulümleri görmemiş,
duymamış insanlara, hayatlara, bilimlere, “geçmişleriyle
yüzleşmeleri” için armağan etmelerine tanıklık edecek. Zulmün
tanıklığını aktarmak mümkün değil, belki tanık olduğumuz
“zulmün anlatısını” aktarabiliriz."
Uploads
Papers by Nesrin Uçarlar
This study aims to contribute to the work of mapping infrastructures for peace in
Turkey by describing and analysing the performances of six national and local actors that tried to influence the resolution/peace process, which was conducted between 2008 and 2015, with a violent interval, and which finally broke down. The principal texts those actors produced, the main activities they carried out, and their relations with society and other actors were examined via their websites and publications, besides the news about and comments on their performances. Interviews with some of the prominent actors are conducted in Diyarbakır in order to enrich and deepen this examination at the local level. The barriers preventing their development, the risks they should take to build peace, and the opportunities they might utilise and/or create were discussed to further the analysis.
The focal point of the study was not the words and deeds of the conflicting parties
during the resolution/peace process although they were also noticed briefly. Rather the design and characteristics of the actors as infrastructures for peace; their orientation and position within the society and towards conflicting parts; and their strengths and successes and limits as well as reasons for those were at the centre of its analysis. In this respect, one of the central conclusions of the study is that those actors were not strong and independent enough to meet demands, to take risks and to deal with challenges raised during the resolution/peace process though they made noteworthy contributions for the long term. On the other hand, the second conclusion of the study is that those actors should be strengthened and credited by the conflicting parties in order to consolidate and socialise the peace process. In order to perform their roles as infrastructures for peace, those actors need more space and source to be provided by the conflicting parties and they should be given more chance to be directly involved in the process as the main supporters. The roles they could perform as mediators between the parts, as bridges among the actors supporting peace, as platforms for increasing public participation in the process, and as opinion makers working for peace should be acknowledged and encouraged. In this respect, infrastructures for peace should not necessarily be mandated by one of the conflicting parties but they should be publicly recognised. The conflicting parts in Turkey could be more confident, stronger and safer to restart peace process if those infrastructures for peace are given the opportunity to perform their relevant roles. In sum, the solution of the Kurdish question needs to be supported and saved by the society via the infrastructures for peace.
It is no coincidence that ‘the return of the political’ (Mouffe 1993) accompanies the return of the ignored, degraded, oppressed and subjugated. The ‘political’ that has been returning corresponds to the struggles for re-accommodating the voices of various minorities. Members of cultures,
languages, religions and sexes different from those of the majorities that dominated the public sphere have started to speak not individually but collectively, transcending the private sphere to which they had been confined. The political does not only return via the encounter of minorities with the dominant discourses in the public sphere but also through what
the former says and how it speaks. In this respect, they are invited to be a part of contemporary critical theories, which suggest that ‘it is from those who have suffered the sentence of history – subjugation, domination, diaspora, displacement – that we learn our most enduring lessons for living
and thinking’ (Bhabha 2001: 172). Therefore, the call for the political invites those hitherto excluded to the stage, which is no more to be inhabited only by the ‘professional’ actors. In remembering Arendt (1998), action is the human condition of plurality, which is the conditio per quam (sufficient condition) of all political life. However, this sufficient condition has been
deactivated through the weakening of plurality, which has undermined the basis of the political.
The political does not simply mean unique ‘national’ interests, a qualified majority of votes, or limited parliamentary seats. Determining state territories is not only about drawing lines on a piece of land, but also about fencing the living areas and minds of people. The minority question, in fact, simply makes the fences less invisible. This visibility helps question the dominant ontological and epistemological settings that not only restrict minority rights but also constrain the contemplation of majorities. As Horkheimer emphasises, ‘how this dehumanization of thinking affects the very foundations of our civilization can be illustrated by analysis of the principle of majority, which is inseparable from the principle of democracy’
(1974: 26). The principle of majority is embedded in the principle of democracy through the idea of the nation-state. In this respect, the return of the political can be analysed by examining the principle of the nationstate, which constructs the majority in opposition to the minority. The principle of majority becomes the operating tool of the nation-state, which uses majority power to dominate minorities.
As the most figurative asset of membership in a majority or minority and the most symbolic aspect of national authority, language is a major site of struggle for majority power and minority resistance. Therefore, the question of minority rights in general and the linguistic rights of minorities in particular constitutes one of the most appropriate frameworks within
which this site of struggle can be analysed through the theoretical perspectives questioning the principles of majority and minority. For the purposes of this study, which focuses on the question of Kurdish linguistic rights in Turkey, the sites of struggle for majority power and minority resistance are as follows: the documents of international and European organisations on the linguistic rights of minorities, the impact of the modernisation and nation-state building process in Turkey on the Kurdish-speaking community and the resistance engendered by the Kurdish intelligentsia in the European diaspora and in Turkey against the majority power delimiting
the Kurdish linguistic rights.
...
Mukaddes Hanım said that “words have already buried themselves.” She still has no knowledge of the whereabouts of her father, who was arrested twenty years ago. The “state,” which took her father away, did not return him and was
not held accountable, is not the only one that caused the burial of Mukaddes Hanım’s words. Journalists, politicians, academics and other citizens who did not see their suffering, who did not hear them and who did not ask after “Kurdish citizens” whose husbands, children, brothers and fathers were “wiped out,” also preferred the burial of some words. While trying anyway to
keep talking or while we were both waiting in silence, some words came back. But some words lack some meanings. After twenty years we are trying to find buried words and bring them back and to understand what they mean. However, most of the time we feel obliged to admit that words will never be enough to describe the past.
Nevertheless, we try to conduct one of the studies of “coming to terms with the past,” which tries to give ear to the feelings, thoughts, demands of thevictims, who were addressed by crimes against humanity, who were exposed to the violence of states; and to convey these feelings, thoughts and demands
to the states at stake and to those who remained silent when those crimes were committed. We have been trying to achieve that as an institution, namely, Diyarbakır Institute for Political and Social Research. What do I want to achieve personally, as a writer of this study? I can be seen as one of those who remained silent. I was “fortunate” to be a child, adolescent in the West of Turkey; studied “international relations” free of politics and it was only during my PhD studies, when I was “fortunate” to become really aware of the East of Turkey, “the Kurdish issue”. Now, I try to bear testimony to what I became
aware of years ago. Mukaddes Hanım, like others whom we visited for this study, says “Welcome” and shows us courtesy of talking and listening to us. Suffering caused by the loss of her father was turned into pride by her persistence that makes her try to understand and keep asking “why?”
“Why?” is the word we heard most frequently during the fifty six interviews we conducted on our route from Muş, Bitlis, Van, Hakkari, Mardin, Batman, Diyarbakır to Istanbul. There is no meaningful answer to this question. No word has the meaning this question begs for. Nevertheless, there are many words to say, we are never at that point where no words are left; words will never end, because they will never be enough. This study will also be added to all those words that have been said. It will bring together the narratives of Mukaddes Hanım and others who opened their doors to us with the narratives of those who suffer similar pains in other parts of the world as well as
with the political and philosophical narratives produced for similar situations concerning justice, mourning, forgiveness, resentment and political frienship. It will bear testimony to that those who were colonized, impoverished, silenced,
displaced and whose relatives were “wiped out” give a gift – composed of values, words and politics they produced in struggle and persistently keep alive – to those peoples, lives and sciences that did not experience and hear of oppression. A gift to enable the latter to “come to terms with the past.” It is impossible to convey the testimony of oppression, perhaps we can convey “the narrative of oppression” we bore witness to. We can turn these narratives into a lesson, a politics, since, as Homi K. Bhabha says, “from those who suffered the sentence of history – subjugation, domination, diaspora, displacement
– that we learn our most enduring lessons for living and thinking.”
Before moving to testimonies, in the Chapter I, I try to look closer at the studies on coming to terms with the past, which is the subject matter of these testimonies, and at the goals, tools and addresses of these studies. I touch upon problems and promises of “transitional justice,” which for reasons discussed
in the next chapter, I call “post-conflict justice.” By examining retributive and restorative justice, I discuss notions of “victims, witnesses and survivors” as well as “perpetrators, responsible ones and bystanders.” I also address the meaning of truth for these agents; the characteristics of official truth commissions
and unofficial truth projects. The comparison I have made between retributive justice and restorative justice, which essentially emerged from criticisms of the former, sometimes leads to the relation between these two approaches to appear as an oppositional one. However, as it will be observed in the next chapters of this study and especially in the interviews, the relation between these two approaches can be said to be a complimentary one with regards to justice served in social and legal terms.
In Chapter II, I discuss concepts of “memory,” “mourning,” “forgiveness,” “resentment and vexation” as well as “political friendship” which constitute the subtext of the already mentioned studies and motivate our interviews with witnesses who were exposed to the state violence in Kurdistan in the 90s. In this study I also found valuable to examine the possibility for victims to forgive perpetrators and the responsible ones, the lack of such possibility manifested by feelings of resentment and vexation, and the political equivalent of these feelings. In this respect, I wanted to rethink the relation of “fraternity”
with Kurds which Turks usually define without leaving the throne of the elder brother within the framework of a probable political friendship with Turks, whom Kurds want to be partners in their concerns and struggles. By describing the 1990s, a “state of exception” in Turkey and Kurdistan, in Chapter III, I
aim to provide political framework for the interviews.
The following three chapters are devoted to interviews with witnesses. In the first of those chapters, Chapter IV, I introduce interviewees along with the route and background of our visits. In Chapter V I convey interviewees’ quest for justice reflected in their expectations from the state; their demands for the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators and the responsible ones; their objections to impunity, material reparation and plea-bargain; their views on disclosure and acknowledgment of truths, public apology, and finally
their state of “demandlessness.” Interviewees’ opinions with regard to the possibility of their confrontation with perpetrators and the responsible ones, the possibility for them to forgive and give their blessings, their expectations from Turks in terms of the likelihood of a new contract of fraternity/political friendship and the struggle for dignity they give are presented in Chapter VI. The last chapter is devoted to evaluation and ecommendations.
We tried to conduct interviews within a framework of twenty nine questions organized into three categories: “definition and narrative of victimhood,” “demand for justice” and “confrontation, forgiveness and resentment.” We attempted
to come to know opinions of the interviewees, but knowing that we would certainly not ask these questions one by one, we asked questions in a manner appropriate to the aim, giving priority to flow of the conversation.
That day in the evening, when we had completed our interviews and were talking about what we had heard and seen in those fifteen days, Berivan said “nothing is in its right place” in reference to pain of those who leave baby cribs at the cemetery in Şırnak, as seen in the photo on the cover of this study. Babies are not in their cribs, neither are fathers, spouses, siblings with their loved ones; for twenty years nothing is in its right place. If only this study can explain that, recall the irreplaceable, then it will tell a humble story.
With this study we hope to contribute to the process of “coming to terms with the past” in Turkey. Respect and gratitude we have for those who opened their homes and hearts to us cannot be expressed with words. Xwedê ji we razî be.
Books and Papers by Nesrin Uçarlar
of the “post-truth era” and the struggle
against racism relate to truth-seeking
and dealing with the past. It builds upon
Arendt’s analysis of the relationship
between politics and truth, Foucalt’s
concept of the “regime of truth” and
the link between regimes of truth and
racism in order to invite us to think
about an anti-racist and “peaceful
method of truth-seeking” that criticizes
official and oppositional regimes of
truth and the regime of war which both
types of truth regimes essentially foster.
Arguing that it is relevant to consider
racism as a main source for the
establishment, functioning, resilience
and flexibility of Turkey’s regime of
truth, this study analyzes the TV shows
of the 1990s and the 2010s, especially
the manifestations of the “war on terror”
that appeared on state channels, and
the different traces of memory and truth
related to these manifestations. The
report also addresses the criticisms
against the South African Truth and
Reconciliation Commission, drawing
attention to a number of aspects that
could prove to be critical for anchoring
Turkey’s dealing with the past and
peace processes in an anti-racist
framework.
ve ırkçılık-karşıtı mücadelenin
hakikat arayışı ve geçmişle yüzleşme
çalışmalarına nasıl sirayet edebileceği
hakkındaki bu çalışma, Arendt’in
siyaset ve hakikat arasındaki ilişkiye
dair analizinden, Foucault’nun “hakikat
rejimi” kavramından ve hakikat rejimleri
ile ırkçılık arasındaki bağlantıdan
yola çıkarak, resmî ve muhalif hakikat
rejimlerine ve esasen bu rejimlerin
beslediği savaş rejimine itiraz eden,
ırkçılık-karşıtı ve “barışçıl bir hakikat
arayışı yöntemi” üzerine düşünme
daveti içeriyor. Türkiye’nin hakikat
rejiminin kuruluşuna, işleyişine,
mukavemetine ve esnekliğine
kaynaklık eden olguyu ırkçılık olarak
nitelendirmenin mümkün, gerekli ve
yararlı olduğu düşüncesine dayanan
bu çalışma, bir yandan 1990’lar ve
2010’ların televizyon programlarına
yansıyan “terörle mücadele”
tezahürlerine ve bu tezahürlere
ilişkin farklı hafıza ve hakikat izlerine
bakarken, bir yandan da ırkçılık ve
ırkçılık-karşıtı mücadeleyi geçmişle
yüzleşme bağlamına yerleştirmek
amacıyla, Güney Afrika Hakikat
ve Uzlaşma Komisyonu’na yönelik
eleştiriler üzerinden Türkiye’deki
ırkçılık-karşıtı bir geçmişle yüzleşme ve
barış sürecinin olası kritik noktalarına
dikkat çekmeye çalışıyor.
Books by Nesrin Uçarlar
İstanbul hattında yaptığımız elli altı görüşme boyunca en sık
duyduğumuz kelime, “Neden?” oluyor. Bu soruya verilecek
anlamlı bir cevap yok. Hiçbir kelime, bu sorunun aradığı anlama
gelmiyor. Yine de söylenecek çok söz var, hiçbir zaman sözün
bittiği yerde değiliz; söz hiç bitmeyecek, çünkü asla yetmeyecek.
Bu çalışma da, söylenen onca söze eklenecek. Mukaddes
Hanım’ın ve bize kapısını açan diğer kişilerin söylediklerini,
dünyanın diğer yerlerinde, benzer acıları yaşayanların söyledikleriyle,
benzer durumlar için söylenmiş, adalete, bağışlamaya,
hınca dair felsefi, siyasi sözlerle birleştirecek. Sömürgeleştirilmiş,
fakirleştirilmiş, susturulmuş, yerinden edilmiş, yakınları
“yok edilmiş” insanların inatla yaşattıkları, mücadeleyle
ürettikleri değerleri, kelimeleri, siyasetleri, bu zulümleri görmemiş,
duymamış insanlara, hayatlara, bilimlere, “geçmişleriyle
yüzleşmeleri” için armağan etmelerine tanıklık edecek. Zulmün
tanıklığını aktarmak mümkün değil, belki tanık olduğumuz
“zulmün anlatısını” aktarabiliriz."
This study aims to contribute to the work of mapping infrastructures for peace in
Turkey by describing and analysing the performances of six national and local actors that tried to influence the resolution/peace process, which was conducted between 2008 and 2015, with a violent interval, and which finally broke down. The principal texts those actors produced, the main activities they carried out, and their relations with society and other actors were examined via their websites and publications, besides the news about and comments on their performances. Interviews with some of the prominent actors are conducted in Diyarbakır in order to enrich and deepen this examination at the local level. The barriers preventing their development, the risks they should take to build peace, and the opportunities they might utilise and/or create were discussed to further the analysis.
The focal point of the study was not the words and deeds of the conflicting parties
during the resolution/peace process although they were also noticed briefly. Rather the design and characteristics of the actors as infrastructures for peace; their orientation and position within the society and towards conflicting parts; and their strengths and successes and limits as well as reasons for those were at the centre of its analysis. In this respect, one of the central conclusions of the study is that those actors were not strong and independent enough to meet demands, to take risks and to deal with challenges raised during the resolution/peace process though they made noteworthy contributions for the long term. On the other hand, the second conclusion of the study is that those actors should be strengthened and credited by the conflicting parties in order to consolidate and socialise the peace process. In order to perform their roles as infrastructures for peace, those actors need more space and source to be provided by the conflicting parties and they should be given more chance to be directly involved in the process as the main supporters. The roles they could perform as mediators between the parts, as bridges among the actors supporting peace, as platforms for increasing public participation in the process, and as opinion makers working for peace should be acknowledged and encouraged. In this respect, infrastructures for peace should not necessarily be mandated by one of the conflicting parties but they should be publicly recognised. The conflicting parts in Turkey could be more confident, stronger and safer to restart peace process if those infrastructures for peace are given the opportunity to perform their relevant roles. In sum, the solution of the Kurdish question needs to be supported and saved by the society via the infrastructures for peace.
It is no coincidence that ‘the return of the political’ (Mouffe 1993) accompanies the return of the ignored, degraded, oppressed and subjugated. The ‘political’ that has been returning corresponds to the struggles for re-accommodating the voices of various minorities. Members of cultures,
languages, religions and sexes different from those of the majorities that dominated the public sphere have started to speak not individually but collectively, transcending the private sphere to which they had been confined. The political does not only return via the encounter of minorities with the dominant discourses in the public sphere but also through what
the former says and how it speaks. In this respect, they are invited to be a part of contemporary critical theories, which suggest that ‘it is from those who have suffered the sentence of history – subjugation, domination, diaspora, displacement – that we learn our most enduring lessons for living
and thinking’ (Bhabha 2001: 172). Therefore, the call for the political invites those hitherto excluded to the stage, which is no more to be inhabited only by the ‘professional’ actors. In remembering Arendt (1998), action is the human condition of plurality, which is the conditio per quam (sufficient condition) of all political life. However, this sufficient condition has been
deactivated through the weakening of plurality, which has undermined the basis of the political.
The political does not simply mean unique ‘national’ interests, a qualified majority of votes, or limited parliamentary seats. Determining state territories is not only about drawing lines on a piece of land, but also about fencing the living areas and minds of people. The minority question, in fact, simply makes the fences less invisible. This visibility helps question the dominant ontological and epistemological settings that not only restrict minority rights but also constrain the contemplation of majorities. As Horkheimer emphasises, ‘how this dehumanization of thinking affects the very foundations of our civilization can be illustrated by analysis of the principle of majority, which is inseparable from the principle of democracy’
(1974: 26). The principle of majority is embedded in the principle of democracy through the idea of the nation-state. In this respect, the return of the political can be analysed by examining the principle of the nationstate, which constructs the majority in opposition to the minority. The principle of majority becomes the operating tool of the nation-state, which uses majority power to dominate minorities.
As the most figurative asset of membership in a majority or minority and the most symbolic aspect of national authority, language is a major site of struggle for majority power and minority resistance. Therefore, the question of minority rights in general and the linguistic rights of minorities in particular constitutes one of the most appropriate frameworks within
which this site of struggle can be analysed through the theoretical perspectives questioning the principles of majority and minority. For the purposes of this study, which focuses on the question of Kurdish linguistic rights in Turkey, the sites of struggle for majority power and minority resistance are as follows: the documents of international and European organisations on the linguistic rights of minorities, the impact of the modernisation and nation-state building process in Turkey on the Kurdish-speaking community and the resistance engendered by the Kurdish intelligentsia in the European diaspora and in Turkey against the majority power delimiting
the Kurdish linguistic rights.
...
Mukaddes Hanım said that “words have already buried themselves.” She still has no knowledge of the whereabouts of her father, who was arrested twenty years ago. The “state,” which took her father away, did not return him and was
not held accountable, is not the only one that caused the burial of Mukaddes Hanım’s words. Journalists, politicians, academics and other citizens who did not see their suffering, who did not hear them and who did not ask after “Kurdish citizens” whose husbands, children, brothers and fathers were “wiped out,” also preferred the burial of some words. While trying anyway to
keep talking or while we were both waiting in silence, some words came back. But some words lack some meanings. After twenty years we are trying to find buried words and bring them back and to understand what they mean. However, most of the time we feel obliged to admit that words will never be enough to describe the past.
Nevertheless, we try to conduct one of the studies of “coming to terms with the past,” which tries to give ear to the feelings, thoughts, demands of thevictims, who were addressed by crimes against humanity, who were exposed to the violence of states; and to convey these feelings, thoughts and demands
to the states at stake and to those who remained silent when those crimes were committed. We have been trying to achieve that as an institution, namely, Diyarbakır Institute for Political and Social Research. What do I want to achieve personally, as a writer of this study? I can be seen as one of those who remained silent. I was “fortunate” to be a child, adolescent in the West of Turkey; studied “international relations” free of politics and it was only during my PhD studies, when I was “fortunate” to become really aware of the East of Turkey, “the Kurdish issue”. Now, I try to bear testimony to what I became
aware of years ago. Mukaddes Hanım, like others whom we visited for this study, says “Welcome” and shows us courtesy of talking and listening to us. Suffering caused by the loss of her father was turned into pride by her persistence that makes her try to understand and keep asking “why?”
“Why?” is the word we heard most frequently during the fifty six interviews we conducted on our route from Muş, Bitlis, Van, Hakkari, Mardin, Batman, Diyarbakır to Istanbul. There is no meaningful answer to this question. No word has the meaning this question begs for. Nevertheless, there are many words to say, we are never at that point where no words are left; words will never end, because they will never be enough. This study will also be added to all those words that have been said. It will bring together the narratives of Mukaddes Hanım and others who opened their doors to us with the narratives of those who suffer similar pains in other parts of the world as well as
with the political and philosophical narratives produced for similar situations concerning justice, mourning, forgiveness, resentment and political frienship. It will bear testimony to that those who were colonized, impoverished, silenced,
displaced and whose relatives were “wiped out” give a gift – composed of values, words and politics they produced in struggle and persistently keep alive – to those peoples, lives and sciences that did not experience and hear of oppression. A gift to enable the latter to “come to terms with the past.” It is impossible to convey the testimony of oppression, perhaps we can convey “the narrative of oppression” we bore witness to. We can turn these narratives into a lesson, a politics, since, as Homi K. Bhabha says, “from those who suffered the sentence of history – subjugation, domination, diaspora, displacement
– that we learn our most enduring lessons for living and thinking.”
Before moving to testimonies, in the Chapter I, I try to look closer at the studies on coming to terms with the past, which is the subject matter of these testimonies, and at the goals, tools and addresses of these studies. I touch upon problems and promises of “transitional justice,” which for reasons discussed
in the next chapter, I call “post-conflict justice.” By examining retributive and restorative justice, I discuss notions of “victims, witnesses and survivors” as well as “perpetrators, responsible ones and bystanders.” I also address the meaning of truth for these agents; the characteristics of official truth commissions
and unofficial truth projects. The comparison I have made between retributive justice and restorative justice, which essentially emerged from criticisms of the former, sometimes leads to the relation between these two approaches to appear as an oppositional one. However, as it will be observed in the next chapters of this study and especially in the interviews, the relation between these two approaches can be said to be a complimentary one with regards to justice served in social and legal terms.
In Chapter II, I discuss concepts of “memory,” “mourning,” “forgiveness,” “resentment and vexation” as well as “political friendship” which constitute the subtext of the already mentioned studies and motivate our interviews with witnesses who were exposed to the state violence in Kurdistan in the 90s. In this study I also found valuable to examine the possibility for victims to forgive perpetrators and the responsible ones, the lack of such possibility manifested by feelings of resentment and vexation, and the political equivalent of these feelings. In this respect, I wanted to rethink the relation of “fraternity”
with Kurds which Turks usually define without leaving the throne of the elder brother within the framework of a probable political friendship with Turks, whom Kurds want to be partners in their concerns and struggles. By describing the 1990s, a “state of exception” in Turkey and Kurdistan, in Chapter III, I
aim to provide political framework for the interviews.
The following three chapters are devoted to interviews with witnesses. In the first of those chapters, Chapter IV, I introduce interviewees along with the route and background of our visits. In Chapter V I convey interviewees’ quest for justice reflected in their expectations from the state; their demands for the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators and the responsible ones; their objections to impunity, material reparation and plea-bargain; their views on disclosure and acknowledgment of truths, public apology, and finally
their state of “demandlessness.” Interviewees’ opinions with regard to the possibility of their confrontation with perpetrators and the responsible ones, the possibility for them to forgive and give their blessings, their expectations from Turks in terms of the likelihood of a new contract of fraternity/political friendship and the struggle for dignity they give are presented in Chapter VI. The last chapter is devoted to evaluation and ecommendations.
We tried to conduct interviews within a framework of twenty nine questions organized into three categories: “definition and narrative of victimhood,” “demand for justice” and “confrontation, forgiveness and resentment.” We attempted
to come to know opinions of the interviewees, but knowing that we would certainly not ask these questions one by one, we asked questions in a manner appropriate to the aim, giving priority to flow of the conversation.
That day in the evening, when we had completed our interviews and were talking about what we had heard and seen in those fifteen days, Berivan said “nothing is in its right place” in reference to pain of those who leave baby cribs at the cemetery in Şırnak, as seen in the photo on the cover of this study. Babies are not in their cribs, neither are fathers, spouses, siblings with their loved ones; for twenty years nothing is in its right place. If only this study can explain that, recall the irreplaceable, then it will tell a humble story.
With this study we hope to contribute to the process of “coming to terms with the past” in Turkey. Respect and gratitude we have for those who opened their homes and hearts to us cannot be expressed with words. Xwedê ji we razî be.
of the “post-truth era” and the struggle
against racism relate to truth-seeking
and dealing with the past. It builds upon
Arendt’s analysis of the relationship
between politics and truth, Foucalt’s
concept of the “regime of truth” and
the link between regimes of truth and
racism in order to invite us to think
about an anti-racist and “peaceful
method of truth-seeking” that criticizes
official and oppositional regimes of
truth and the regime of war which both
types of truth regimes essentially foster.
Arguing that it is relevant to consider
racism as a main source for the
establishment, functioning, resilience
and flexibility of Turkey’s regime of
truth, this study analyzes the TV shows
of the 1990s and the 2010s, especially
the manifestations of the “war on terror”
that appeared on state channels, and
the different traces of memory and truth
related to these manifestations. The
report also addresses the criticisms
against the South African Truth and
Reconciliation Commission, drawing
attention to a number of aspects that
could prove to be critical for anchoring
Turkey’s dealing with the past and
peace processes in an anti-racist
framework.
ve ırkçılık-karşıtı mücadelenin
hakikat arayışı ve geçmişle yüzleşme
çalışmalarına nasıl sirayet edebileceği
hakkındaki bu çalışma, Arendt’in
siyaset ve hakikat arasındaki ilişkiye
dair analizinden, Foucault’nun “hakikat
rejimi” kavramından ve hakikat rejimleri
ile ırkçılık arasındaki bağlantıdan
yola çıkarak, resmî ve muhalif hakikat
rejimlerine ve esasen bu rejimlerin
beslediği savaş rejimine itiraz eden,
ırkçılık-karşıtı ve “barışçıl bir hakikat
arayışı yöntemi” üzerine düşünme
daveti içeriyor. Türkiye’nin hakikat
rejiminin kuruluşuna, işleyişine,
mukavemetine ve esnekliğine
kaynaklık eden olguyu ırkçılık olarak
nitelendirmenin mümkün, gerekli ve
yararlı olduğu düşüncesine dayanan
bu çalışma, bir yandan 1990’lar ve
2010’ların televizyon programlarına
yansıyan “terörle mücadele”
tezahürlerine ve bu tezahürlere
ilişkin farklı hafıza ve hakikat izlerine
bakarken, bir yandan da ırkçılık ve
ırkçılık-karşıtı mücadeleyi geçmişle
yüzleşme bağlamına yerleştirmek
amacıyla, Güney Afrika Hakikat
ve Uzlaşma Komisyonu’na yönelik
eleştiriler üzerinden Türkiye’deki
ırkçılık-karşıtı bir geçmişle yüzleşme ve
barış sürecinin olası kritik noktalarına
dikkat çekmeye çalışıyor.
İstanbul hattında yaptığımız elli altı görüşme boyunca en sık
duyduğumuz kelime, “Neden?” oluyor. Bu soruya verilecek
anlamlı bir cevap yok. Hiçbir kelime, bu sorunun aradığı anlama
gelmiyor. Yine de söylenecek çok söz var, hiçbir zaman sözün
bittiği yerde değiliz; söz hiç bitmeyecek, çünkü asla yetmeyecek.
Bu çalışma da, söylenen onca söze eklenecek. Mukaddes
Hanım’ın ve bize kapısını açan diğer kişilerin söylediklerini,
dünyanın diğer yerlerinde, benzer acıları yaşayanların söyledikleriyle,
benzer durumlar için söylenmiş, adalete, bağışlamaya,
hınca dair felsefi, siyasi sözlerle birleştirecek. Sömürgeleştirilmiş,
fakirleştirilmiş, susturulmuş, yerinden edilmiş, yakınları
“yok edilmiş” insanların inatla yaşattıkları, mücadeleyle
ürettikleri değerleri, kelimeleri, siyasetleri, bu zulümleri görmemiş,
duymamış insanlara, hayatlara, bilimlere, “geçmişleriyle
yüzleşmeleri” için armağan etmelerine tanıklık edecek. Zulmün
tanıklığını aktarmak mümkün değil, belki tanık olduğumuz
“zulmün anlatısını” aktarabiliriz."