Our topic is Multi-culturalism and Integration, Where are we heading towards. Allow me to make some introductory remarks and then I will ask the panelists to take 10 to 15 minutes to address to us about their views on the issue of multi-culturalism and integration. I decided to do the whole thing in English to make it easy on the panelists but certainly questions can be asked afterwards both in English and in Turkish. This is the year 2006, we entered the 21st century only 5 years ago and just as we entered the 21st century we were faced with very great problems such problems that concern mankind on all fronts including political, social, religious, economic and so forth. These problems threaten our well-being and threaten our happiness, our piece of mind, our peaceful existence and require immediate handling with a view to solving these problems. Unless these problems are faced with and brought some kind of a solution we surely may not loose our existence altogether but we are in danger really of loosing our humanity, if not our humanity at least our dignity as human beings. Now, what is so striking about these problems that has confronted us at the dome of 21st century are if they exhibit a very peculiar similarity with the question faced in 19th century in Western Europe. It is almost as though 20th century has sort of been bracketed out tying together the 19th century to the 21st century so that in our present century we are confronted with an extension of problems of 19th, 20th century altogether forgotten. There is however a serious difference between 19th and 20th centuries in that whereas in the 19th century the problems mentioned were the concern of the Western world. In the 21st century they became the problems of the whole world and this I think is meaning basically of globalization. This term globalization often preferred to, as a positive description I think fundamentally is a problematic description concerning problems of mankind. What brought about this proliferation has been the two world wars and cold war which actually took up almost all of 20th century so 20th century has really functioned almost as a catalyst carrying over problems of Western culture to the whole world. 19th century was concerned with problems of freedom. Freedom of the individual in its relationship with the state, with religion and with wealth and in the spite for freedom19th century introduced instrument of criticism, which was exercised both on a theoretical basis but also in an activist way. They tried to emphasize and bring back some kind of humanism on the basis of individual freedoms. Unfortunately this exercise was cut short by the world wars and then the cold war. This development had one other precursor in the distant path during the time of Hellenistic period. In the pre-Christian era there had developed cosmopolitanism in especially the Mediterranean area, which at that time emphasized individual freedom on the basis of natural rights. A movement promoted this in philosophy stoicism, which emphasized naturalism and individualism on the basis of human relationships at all, fronts. This movement flourished all over the Roman Empire until it was cut short by the East Roman Empire when the Roman Empire embraced this charity as a state religion. In this way individual freedoms were taken into custody of the state and of religion. At the end of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century once again human freedom and individualism were in the custody this time of national state basically. But after the fall of the iron curtain we have seen once again resurgence of cosmopolitanism on the basis of individual rights. This is not so much of an ideology but defacto situation people embrace their own individual identity. Now once again this resurgence of cosmopolitanism and individual freedom is being threatened by again interested groups which are threatened by the rise of individualism, by the rise of cosmopolitanism this is the case both where nationalism with religion, with wealth, with economic powers, with ethnicity, you name it they don’t like this sort of cosmopolitanism because they are interested in their own survival. My question basically here, what can be done for man to have these freedoms, individual freedom, and individual identities without the suppression of interest groups whatever form they may take? They may be state institutions, they may be religious institutions, they may be ethnic groups, they may be hubs of wealth whatever so the question is how can we preserve freedom again groups that tried to give us our freedom in their own interest, how can they acquire our own freedom which is not derived from an interest group that wants to over right the individuals happiness and well-being. So I would like our speakers now to voice their views. I will start with Prof. Charles Butterworth.

 

 

Yorum: Sorularda kozmopolitanizm, multiculturalizm gibi konseptler geçiyor ama bence meseleye birazcık daha global bakalım. Yani sizin de hocam anladığım kadarıyla kürsüde Sokrat, grek felsefesi gibi mesela Sokrat’ta belki bir yahudi olabilir. Yani tevhit konsepti vardır. Ben “I am the citizen of the world” konsepti de çok doğrudur. Ama şimdi şöyle bir yaklaşım vardı. Schaumann, Türk kültüründe veyahut Osmanlı kültüründe bir tolere etme misyonu var diyor. Ben de Amerika’da bulundum. 1980’li yıllarda NATO toplantısıydı zannediyorum, Danimarkalı bir tip çıkmış ve Kopenhag’ta bir parkta Türk’ün kıyafetinden rahatsızlığını belirtiyordu. Brezinsky’nin verdiği cevap şu oldu: “Ya siz yanlış yerdesiniz, ya ben yanlış yerdeyim. Biz burada dünyayı yönetmekten bahsediyoruz, siz Kopenhag’taki bir Türk’ün kıyafetinden rahatsız olduğunuzu söylüyorsunuz.” demiştir. Amerika’nın yapısı kaçınılmaz bir şekilde mesela Cincinnati şehri vardır Almanya yapısıdır. İtalyanların olduğu yerler bellidir. Dolayısıyla, multicultural yapısal bir varlıktır. Osmanlı’da da böyledir. Bence burada kozmopolitan yapısı yönetimin rejimin bakışı ile ilgisidir. Anadolu toprağının bakışında Ermenisi, Türk’ü, Kürd’ü, Çerkez’i hepsi bir olmayı becermiştir. Bundan sonra yönetim eğer “just” ise yani adalet mülkün temelindeki mülk sistem demektir, if the system is no based on justice, it is bound to fall and the people living in it will hate each other so it is question of how just is the system whether you call it a well established democracy or well written constitution and the definition of the qualities, what you say, what you do and what you write if all those three fall into the same line you are a quality person otherwise çiftestandart. Teşekkür ederim.


Soru – Cevap

Soru: Sayın Schaumann namus cinayetlerinden bahsetti. Sonuçta tüm demokrasilerde olduğu gibi, bizim ülkemizde de cinayet adli bir suçtur. Namus cinayetlerinin özellikle Almanya’da Türk toplumu üzerinde derin ve bir kısmı haksız kritiklere sebep olduğunu düşünüyorum. Sonuçta, bu bir cinayettir ve hukuk sisteminde suçtur. Bunun Türk toplumu üzerinde ve geneli üzerinde bu kadar acımasızca kritik edilmesini doğru buluyor musunuz?

Soru: Öncelikle böyle bir organizasyon düzenlendiği için teşekkür ederim. Benim sorum biraz genel olacak. 2010 yılı için İstanbul kültür başkenti seçildi. Bundan sonrası için eğer dünya genelinde kültürel platform oluşturulduğunda ve dünyayı kapsayan ortak bir fikir platformu oluşursa Türkiye buna öncülük edebilir mi veya öncülük edilecek bir kuruluş veya bir ülke varsa bu hangi ülke olabilir? İkinci sorum, dünya günden güne küçüldüğü için bir başkente ihtiyaç varsa ve ileriki yıllarda veya ileriki yüzyıllarda kültürel anlamda İstanbul buna başkentlik edebilir mi?


Charles Butterworth