"Who Dutch speaking part of it, who do not speak Dutch belongs to an" other "group "
Amin Maalouf:
"Chacun d'entre we should be encouraged to assume its own diversity, to develop its identity as the sum of its diverse membership, instead of confusing it with a single, built in membership supreme instrument of exclusion and sometimes an instrument of war "
The promotion of nationalism identity by N-VA, the CD & V, and by proponents of the "nation francophone" leads me to repeat here some excerpts from a text written in ... 1999.
"... Last year I was struck particularly by the growth of the extreme right in several countries in Europe: in addition to Flanders, it increased in Austria, Denmark, Spain, Norway and Switzerland in particular, but also in Turkey, Bosnia. And ultra-nationalist parties find themselves actually in power in many countries outside Europe. This despite the fact that regularly spread in the sight of all the dramas or units to such abuses. In Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Timor, Sri Lanka, Chechnya ...
Warning: There is nationalism and nationalism.
(re) development of roots, feelings of belonging, contribute fundamentally to the human wealth of individuals and societies. The consciousness of being a responsible member of a national community, to exercise civic responsibility, are the basis of various political expressions. As the defense or promotion of a culture, language, religion, ethnic group, country, not based on the exclusion of others, one can only applaud . Otherwise, the worst is feared. It flies in self defense " legitimate offense" .
So when is the rocker? As soon as a pressure group trying to build a membership in an absolute, pure, therefore exclusive of any other, and form the basis for reflection and action or public policy . This membership is then moved into the collective imagination in an "identity" pure and exclusive, based on an original and fundamental differentiation. That's what I propose to call "ideologies single identity" . I use that term rather than nationalism because it has various meanings, which themselves have evolved over time. Some, positive, constructive approach the patriotism, others suggest the contrary this feeling qu'exploitèrent fascists and Nazis. In addition, the term "single-identity" says the essence of the danger that lies in the fact of not upgrading the roots of affiliations, but rather to summarize the individuals one of their possible identities. Finally, this definition encompasses the concept of "racism", while extending all the criteria of identity (language, religion, nation, culture ...) that could be exploited for mobilize against the "other". And it is indeed ideologies, creations of the mind designed to underpin a political action.
What I want to emphasize here, the cry of alarm that I would like, is this: anything, anywhere in the world, expressing a behavior of single-identity, gradually increasing tolerance global discourse ultra-nationalist or racist. And the probability of occurrence increases in proportion to the dramas. In 1940, there was obviously a Hitler. But Hitler was only possible due to the gradual rise of nationalism and widespread and discourse identity or identity discourse addiction. And that it was the responsibility of every individual, every day, over the years. Allow me this picture: When arrive the storm, lightning is always materialized at a particular point, high tree, tower, jutting rock. But this is not the rock that creates a storm. But the accumulation of micro-electrical charges within each countless droplets that form clouds. In the skies over Europe, the clouds seem to me more responsible.
And the limit is very close between the promotion of a community, a language, culture, and the establishment of a proposed single-identity increasingly sectarian and exclusive. Many historical examples are there to remind us.
Warning: this is the symptom of mild mockery, the refusal to consider the views of the other, whether on the contrary, the purest of racism if true, do not we all, to varying degrees Various trends in the exclusion of the other, trends to decrease mono-identity? Progress towards a democratic, united, just, through an examination of conscience.
And what applies to individuals, applies to political parties. It is naive to believe that all bad extremists are the Vlaams Blok or National Front, and all good Democrats in other parties. If the dominant discourse is defined as mono-identity against the other, if the tolerance is hardly the minority, whatever "good" reasons, it opens the way to the worst excesses. To avoid abuses, it is not enough that the democratic parties "avoid hate speech": it must resolutely abandon ideology and discourse single identity. This is only a backdrop clearly democratic and humanist nature but appear clearly outrageous speech xenophobic and racist parties.
Some noble and generous as can be the commitment to a particular affiliation, the danger of drift mono-identity must impose the greatest caution. Many democratic parties tend to say: "T out this is only for extremist parties. We, we are Democrats (because "not racist" or "not xenophobic)." My perspective is different : All those active in the public sphere, journalists, politicians, teachers, everyone must keep their distance markedly compared to the ideology and discourse mono-identity. A fortiori they profess allegiance to a democratic ideology.
Excerpts from "Monoflamands and Monowallons, wanderings and dangers of ideologies mono-identity", published in 2000. Playable: http://www.dnao.be/french/accueil.htm . Nederlandstalige versie: http://www.dnao.be/dutch/index_boek.htm
0 comments:
Post a Comment