I will start with the assumption that everyone knows the famous saying, “same lemonade, different jars”. Everyone also knows that this is not the original saying. That is, similar approaches bring similar results most of the time, regardless the color of the package. It is pretty much the same about conservative politics, especially in the public sphere.
Object of discourse can be the Republicans in the United States, the devoted Catholics in Europe, or former Right-Winger, now “so-called” liberals in Turkey. The result is always the same: that thing cannot happen, that thing is against my values and beliefs, that thing is different, so it should not happen, ever!
A few examples:
Banning abortion has not been a serious issue in Turkey up to now. Actually, Turkey was one of the most open-minded countries in the region when it came to abortion. Why it is a big issue now is about the public sphere’s openness to sex. Up to now, sex was considered “out of the picture” by most conservative citizens. When the Prime Minister, R. T. Erdoğan came forward, and said “abortion is murder”, everyone went “holy crap! People are actually having sex!”. Then some campaigns and columns started to focus on the idea that people would not need abortion unless they are married and have a really extraordinarry issue in their marriage which is, of course easişy solved within the marriage. Who is the bad guy here? The guy who has sex with his girlfriend, or some other women without an official connection and the approval of the state. I can understand that, however, “we”, as a society cannot understand that, as it occurs definitely (!) out of our environment. People having sex out of wedlock are totally different people, our mothers cannot have done such an immoral thing, it is definitely wrong (because we believe so) and we will not allow that to happen. The next step was the maternity-check program by the Health Office which included SMS messages to the families of pregnant women without the women’s consent. “Hurray! Your little girl is pregnant!” Fortunately, it was objected to as soon as possible, and the problem was solved temporarily.
The same thing goes with the terrorist organization PKK (Kurdistan’s Workers Party). Someone is trying to blow buildings up, attacking military bases, kidnapping, establishing political networks, etc. But we have no solid idea who they are, as they are “totally” different people, who has no connections to us whatsoever. Did you know, that there are actually some people believing that Kurds do not exist? They think they are actually Turks, but when they took walks around the snowy mountains, they made noises like “Kart, Kurt”, and they called themselves Kurds. True story. Now, these people, and people who think like them are trying to solve (!) issues about the state of Kurds living in Anatolia, and eradicate terrorism. Well, not really. Even if we are discussing an issue that has been going on for the last thirty years, and has roots from the beginning of the new Republic, we cannot help ourselves but to alienate the issue, or, well, ourselves. Of course, I personally think killing people is never a solution, however, “we” do not think so. We are trying to create a whole new identity for the Kurds in Turkey, and we are doing that without asking them. We now can decide in their name, call them whatever we like, and automatically know what they are thinking, and what they want. Because they are “totally” different, and as much as we cannot define them within the boundaries of humanism, we can always call names and ideologies, of course, the ones that have nothing to do with us.
It is always alright to be a part of the majority. Majority is by default conservative, in fact, it is usually why it is the majority. To make things clear, in Erzurum, a university professor goes to the prosecutor’s office, and says “The volume of the call for prayer is too high. It is well over the legally allowed limit, as well as the scientific limit where people start to have hearing problems, and psychological trauma.” She continues: “I have tried to warn the people politely, but they have threatened me and my family with death.” The prosecutor said: “The call for prayer cannot be disturbing in ANY way!” This is what the legal system thinks. But, what do the people, who threaten a fellow citizen think like? Just because she said “I have nothing against the call, but for the goodness’ sake, turn the volume a little bit down”. The thing is, they cannot understand how the call for prayer cannot be disturbing in ANY way. For example, if I rapped it, would it be disturbing? No? If I sang it in an opera voice? If I broke your door down, beat your wife with a stick, and shouted it in your ear as loud as I can? I am sure it would not disturb some people. It is the call for prayer after all, it cannot be disturbing in ANY way, right? Well, not really. By the same logic, people cannot understand why anyone would need abortion. Of course, it is not a way of protection, and it cannot be taken lightly, but we should at least be able to understand why people might need it. For the second example, people cannot understand why other people can support an organization that “basically” kills people. Again, of course, we are not down with killing people for any reason, but we should at least be trying to understand why they support people doing that. What do they want? What is “their” explanation about the issue?
Other than understanding, we like to assume our daughters have not seen an actual penis in their lives, ever, Kurds do not exist, they are actually Turks, or they do not even have identity issues, they are just violent by their nature, and like to see people die, they are terrible! Homosexuals are psychologically disoriented, otherwise they would not be homosexuals, there is nothing like it in nature (the stupidest assumption which is also very, very wrong). The Internet should be limited, because people browse for porn, which is a terrible thing and anyone who opposes this idea is a pervert. We can increase the number of examples, but there is no use doing that. Everyone, I mean, everyone should stop and think, “who/what do I hate/love, and why do I hate/love them/it?” I am sure we will all reach the same undeniable fact that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you cannot have your own facts. Love and hate are personal issues, and like many others, they cannot be used to impose life styles and laws. Accepting that we are all human, and we all can have opinions and emotions, which are different for each citizen, we cannot deny the fact that we have the common features like living on the same planet, duh! Everything we do, affects others, so, we are always -but never totally- different. We should be able to deal with it.
Leave a Reply