White-man came with Peace: on Kincaid's "A Small Place"

Kincaid says Antigua wasn’t successful on creating a nation, because of having no or few national memories. For her, the memories can be gained through libraries and books, they are not accessible because the library damaged and not re-constructed, even if it is so, the books in Antigua tells about the memories of the colonizers. Besides this, “the memories” do simply not exist in Antigua due to their destruction by English destroying everything which are “not English”. Apart from these, to create a nation there must be some “forgetting” process which means the Antigua in colonial times should be completely erased, for her the independence of the Island is not erasing the colonial Antigua: firstly, the economy of the country is based on tourism (give the tourists the best of what they ‘expect’, make them happy and serve them) secondly, the corrupt rulers are favoring themselves rather than ‘constructing’ images to show independence, and lastly, the ones who have money do only give their money to renovate the old institutions, than building new ones. Then for her, the nations are build up by the people on social institutions, which ‘creates’, remembers or erases the memories.

Last time, we have seen how the history can be silenced through the narration: the narratives and narrators were doing it together to silence some events which are actually happened in “the past” (as a location) to favor the present (another location which is causally related to “the past”). The ideas of one location there, have been imposed to the other location with the help of “the location of past”, the subjectivity on picking up the events to be recorded in history leaves us no space to express our opinions in present location. Kincaid expresses that what if the events which happened in the super-past were destroyed by the past and the present remains same as the past because there is no change in the past? As we see in the Antigua case. There is no history, no story, no national narrative, because of having no access to printed sources of knowledge, lack of institutions to create such knowledge and industry to print these sources. For her the history is destroyed and it is wanted to be remained as destroyed, therefore the things are repeating themselves.

We have read four authors’ works showing us the nations are produced in one process: Anderson, Hall, Trouillot and Kincaid. There are so many common points that they show us to understand, in my opinion the most important one is about the time. The time is a location in which the nations create themselves or created by some. This location is a consequence of a change in social apprehension of time and location-based views. These two actions shapes the societies in one pattern, for instance with the industrial revolution people came to understand the time as a location then, they created nations which can move in this locations and they are shaped by what they have created: Nation-states. Now we declare that, we are living in post-modern/industrial epoch and the epoch of information and intelligence. The borders between “the things” are now blurred distinctly, therefore they are so complex. However, nothing is actually different than before! The pattern as a whole repeats itself, the whole system works for one at last. The ones who own the means of something can control everything. It was land 200 years ago, after sometime the production tools and now it is the information. The societies evolve, but the system does not. Antigua is the best example of that, even though they de-colonized from England, the pattern repeats itself the White-man is still the one who takes advantages from the black. The oppressor do oppresses in a different way and legitimizes it with different tools.

“They” Are Watching “Us”: on Verdery's Dead Bodies

Apparently, our worlds are the combination and harmony of the meanings which are taught us by the institutions or systems of “orders”, such as; the state, church, school etc. The two aspects of this “meaning education” are their creation and their way of teaching. Now, this text is telling us about one way of meaning education by the visual symbols, material, with focusing on the dead bodies, which are seen in the public places, in three different categories: statutes, corpses, and nameless dead. It goes without question that, these three are standing where they are, not only for “good view” but for a “good reason”. Firstly, they all are symbolizing one set of value and this symbolization upon one historical person’s body, in many ways, holds legitimizing function of the regime or the system. Secondly, this legitimization, to a great extent, is caused by their significance of being “single” in the vision; means that the oneness of a body attaches it some kind of uniqueness, therefore, sanctity. Besides being single in the vision, they stand there for day and night, for years, maybe for centuries: this also constitutes the infinity of their existence notion –just like a God– Thirdly, dead bodies are one of the great components of nation creation, because of two reasons: providing kinship ties between the dead body and the people and, being a concrete memory for the people.

I just remembered the invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Husain’s statue in Bagdad. Many people did understand that the Iraq was taken down by the U.S forces after this event. It was not only the collapse of a statute but the meaning was clear: the time of Saddam is finished by now. The meaning of the collapse also legitimized the invasion a little, because Saddam meant “the owner” of Iraq, dictatorship, Arabism, and pain. Collapse of the statue therefore, was the first step of re-organization of the new order in Iraq. I support no war, but that’s what really happened in 2003. In addition, after this incident all the support and legitimacy of Saddam Husain was finished, even from the Arab countries that are indirectly supported Iraq. Today if you go where this statue was placed, you will see an abstract modern art instead of Saddam, much more “modernized” and much more “egalitarian” future is promised by that, but in fact, the future of Iraq, as it is seen from the sculpture, is abstract.

Turkey is a great example for the dead bodies, especially the body of Ataturk. The author focused generally on the political aspect of the dead bodies in the public place, and the bodies are generally the statues, reburials and so called memorials. However, in my view, the pictures and photographs, even signatures, today are animating the political action in a different place: in the market. Today we have “Ataturk products” in Turkey, various commodities that have the picture, photography or at least signature of him. This is firstly, stands for the same reason that the author was talking about. Secondly, the ideologies are now seen in the market place, and now we can talk about the commodification of dead bodies. The set of meanings and values that are attached to the mausoleums, statues etc. are now attached to the goods that we are using. For instance on cars, ashtrays, t-shirts and so on. They are now, are not only visual in the public sphere but in the private sphere too. Important thing is that, the commodities on which there is a sign from Ataturk are becoming sacred and anything disturbing them is seen as illegitimate by the society. You can easily burn a t-shirt on the street and someone could hardly respond to it, but if you burn a t-shirt has a picture of Ataturk on the street, police can arrest you because of disturbing the “sacred”

They can Die for Their Countries (By Blowing Themselves Up): Stuart Hall and Identities

Today we are living in a “global world”, which comments us to be similar with different communities. There, many societies are having the crisis of identification of their members. They try to construct and de-construct the ‘nation’ through ‘national culture’ which is producing its members to share same memories and stories about the past and connecting it with present, also, they fix many different groups and cultures into one by merging them into a hegemony. However, there are some uncontrollable facts such as, the migration of many different ethnic groups after the decolonization process, they generally have “dialectic identities” Hall argues that, because those communities have been oppressed by the majority and they have driven in to a dilemma of global, local and their heritage, they practice the two possible consequences of globalization; resistance of their local identity –by strengthening their local ids i.e. bounding– and creating new identities instead of their national identities –having the feeling of oppressed with other ethnical communities i.e. bridging–.

The Muslim minorities in the occident, has always came up with the idea of political radicalization towards the Western majority, which generally occurred in negative way i.e. terrorism. The bad conditions of housing, education, employment meets with the discrimination by the majority. This discrimination for them is generally occurs in “triple disadvantage form”, that is their skin color or nationality, their religion and their status (immigrant). Therefore, the people who share the same nationality and religion in the minorities bound together strictly in a community and bridge their community with other Muslim communities in one sense that leads them to share negative experiences and makes them ethnocentric. The possible outcome of this, non-surprisingly, a group of angry people who wants to live free, but acts in violent way.

In my opinion, the identity crisis in Western countries is caused by conservative and republican fundamentalist politicians, they always speak about preserving their national identity but on the other hand they are always trying to occupy a role on the global scope. Let’s think about Merkel’s Germany, she always supports the idea of united in diversity in EU, but inside of the borders, her cabinet tries to discriminate and assimilate “eastern minorities”. Of course the policies of Merkel’s Germany are constituted in subjective way. She just ignores “the non-fixable national cultures” in Germany, moreover tries to take many of immigrants out of the country by indirect supporting of “Neo-Nazi” groups (the punishment and investigations against them are not serious). Merkel’s Germany is not the only case in Europe, BNP and Nick Griffin, France, George Bush’s America and many more examples can be given. My argument is that, the hegemony that the many of western countries are trying to create is subjective and xenophobic, and that’s considered as an “attempt to go on another crusade” by Muslim communities and they mostly practice it in a different form, which is called as “Jihad”

How to Create “Modern Society” in 5 American Stages: Rostow's Take-off Model

Rostow explains ‘How the modernization of a society is related to its economic growth.’ For him, the economic growth is directly related to understanding, access and use of science and technology. He shows five stages of this growth; traditional society, preconditions of take-off, the take-off, drive to maturity and age of high mass consumption. In each stage, we see an innovation or development in the economical actions –basically in the production and enterprises– affected the social values and political system of a society. For instance, in traditional societies the economical action was based on agriculture therefore the political rule was feudalism, as the society goes through the stages we see the political rule changes, in stage two it turns into centralized nation-state, in stage three the political parties appeared etc. He says, the process of modernization is has to happen and every society has to transform in to high mass-consumption society. Yet, there are some societies which are at the beginning of those stages and there are some which have already completed those stages. Passing through those stages gives a kind of power to the society.

The Rostovian model of modernization, in detail, favors and serves capitalism and free market. He gives us a model which is similar to Marxian infra-structure& super-structure relation: a market regulating itself forms the state. However, Karl Polanyi argues that a free-market is a utopia, since the values of land, labor and money is fictionally determined by the state. Moreover, the practice of Laissez-faire will result to a protectionism and further fascism, rather than democratic state as Rostow mentions.

There are many problems with Rostow’s model; in fact the disadvantages of such model are more than the advantages. The model that he is offering is actually “the western history of development”, it may be not applicable for the eastern countries, particularly the countries in which the religion and the state plays fundamental role on shaping country’s economy. Secondly, a society might become modern without following some of these stages, in my opinion Turkey is modernized country but we are not in age of high mass consumption yet. Also, Weber considered the ultimate consequence of modernization as “iron-cage”, which is apparently catastrophic, Rostow’s model is pushing the society rapidly into an iron-cage. (I believe he wants to state fear in people’s mind easily by driving them into consumerism, as George Bush did it –War on Terror–)

Structures of Power and Way of Empires: Max Weber's Theory of Power Structures

Weber claims that, all the political structures use one specific method for succession, which is “power”. But the way how they follow and to whom they apply this power differs, and these differences functions as a determinant on the formation and the future of them. According to Weber to use this power one must be a Great Power with full prestige, to influence on other political entities, to have this prestige a great power has to focus on their expansion of power. It’s not just the mere subjection of other territories or isolationism, but there are some other factors too, such as; economic exploitation, belonging to the superior nation and cultural exploitation, and finally using the scholar-bureaucrats as officers in the constitution. Economic exploitation is the imperialist capitalism, which is the full control of a great power on territories’ means of economy by monopolizing trade, taxation, exploiting labor, taking the raw materials and resources or buying for really cheap and so on. Secondly, to possess this prestige one great power has to belong to the “superior nation” and make cultural manifestation, which is basically making other nations to feel inferior. Finally, to acquire the prestige the constitution within the government must function correctly. Therefore, the officials in the constitution should be trained in the pattern of governing; any kind of despotism might wipe the prestige out.

The common strategy of many empires was to manifest the greatness of their nation, in fact their race. From the point of view of “white empires” most of the territories that they subjected was for the sake of those territories, because they were ‘educating’ them in ‘civilized way’. But still for some thinkers, this effort was hopeless. A quotation from Immanuel Kant: “In the hot countries the human being matures in all aspects earlier, but does not, however, reach the perfection of those in the temperate zones. Humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of the whites. The yellow Indians do have a meagre talent. The Negroes are far below them and at the lowest point are a part of the American peoples” Physical Geography. The expansion of power in terms of cultural exploitation manifested as naturally suitable by the thinkers of Enlightenment.

I think prestige is the key which is going to get you to the power and you can achieve that by expanding it, as Weber argued, however to me the structures of power is not enough for the “formal empires”. Because for the formal empire “expanding power” is one of the easiest tasks, if you look at to where they extended their power (like Africa) , the hard one is to maintaining that expanded power in plenitude. The strategies they used there are even more complex than the strategies they were using to expand their power. For instance, conversion of peripheral elites, coopting with local elites (indirect negotiations), taxation, vision establishment (basically maps) and large sophisticated urban centers to distribute within the empire. Those things are directly connected to administration, Weber as usual, blessed the bureaucrats and their work, however, didn’t mention the strategies that an emperor and officials should follow and this must need some other kind of structure of power.