Sorry I haven't posted anything lately. Here is a reflection I wrote for CPT. If you have any
thoughts or critiques, feel free to share.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recently attended a funeral for a family that was killed by the Turkish military. The family was traveling in a car when a Turkish warplane conducting air strikes in Northern Iraq launched a rocket that hit the family's truck. Seven people in total were killed, including a six month old baby girl. The funeral was in Kurdish, a language that is new to me, so I did not understand what was being said so I couldn't help but contemplate. I couldn't help but think about the question most people I imagine ask when attending a funeral. Why? Why has this family died? Why will this six month old baby not be able to grow old, be loved, and love others, like I have? I asked my self these questions not in some type of existential crisis but in practicality. Why did the Turkish military send warplanes into Iraq that eventually killed this family? The easy answer would be because recently the PKK (an armed Kurdish group fighting for an autonomous Kurdish region in Turkey) claimed responsibility for an ambush that left 14 Turkish soldiers dead in South East Turkey.
So it seems simple, if only the PKK would stop the violence against the Turkish state, then Turkey would not retaliate and innocent people wouldn't die. Right? Possibly. But before condemning an oppressed group for using violent tactics, it is necessary to understand the conditions that lead up to this behavior. In short, is there a reason the PKK has taken up arms against Turkey? The answer is yes. Starting in the 1930's a policy of assimilation and "turkification" was set in place. Thousands of Kurdish people died as a result, usually during forced resettlement. Well into the 1980's Human Rights Watch has documented numerous examples of the Turkish military forcibly evacuating villages and destroying homes to prevent the return of Kurdish inhabitants. Earlier this year Turkey's electoral board bared prominent Kurdish candidates from running elections which infuriated the Kurdish population. To this day the Turkish government refuses to recognize the Kurdish people as a distinct minority. With that said, I do not support the violence done by PKK and I mourn the deaths of Turkish military personnel. But what can be expected when a nation-state oppresses an ethnic group for eighty years?
I think Archbishop Hélder Câmara sums it up in his tract, The Spiral of Violence "Violence attracts Violence. Let us repeat fearlessly and ceaselessly: injustices bring revolt, either from the oppressed or from the young, determined to fight for a more human world." Archbishop Câmara explains that there are three levels of violence. Number one is some injustice, an example would be slavery. Number two is revolt. Number three is repression. When justice is withheld it is almost inevitable that an oppressed group will lash out with violence. In U.S. history one can look at Nat Turner as a similar example. Nat Turner was born into slavery in Virginia, a preacher who eventually led a slave rebellion. Much violence was done by Nat Turner and his followers but it was not senseless. It was the result of intense violence and oppression done to him and his people by white slave masters, who I believe share the ultimate blame. I'm still a pacifist. I am still a follower of Jesus and I hope his example of non-violence can lead us all out of oppression and domination. With that said, I hope we who are proponents of love and non-violence will remember that this is a complicated world. Let us fight the temptation to condemn the oppressed but to look past the layers of violence and remember where the original violence started. Some might disagree with me and think I am treading into non-violent heresy. So be it. I would like to end this reflection with a quote from the beloved champion of non-violence, Gandhi. "Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defense or for the defense of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right."
thoughts or critiques, feel free to share.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recently attended a funeral for a family that was killed by the Turkish military. The family was traveling in a car when a Turkish warplane conducting air strikes in Northern Iraq launched a rocket that hit the family's truck. Seven people in total were killed, including a six month old baby girl. The funeral was in Kurdish, a language that is new to me, so I did not understand what was being said so I couldn't help but contemplate. I couldn't help but think about the question most people I imagine ask when attending a funeral. Why? Why has this family died? Why will this six month old baby not be able to grow old, be loved, and love others, like I have? I asked my self these questions not in some type of existential crisis but in practicality. Why did the Turkish military send warplanes into Iraq that eventually killed this family? The easy answer would be because recently the PKK (an armed Kurdish group fighting for an autonomous Kurdish region in Turkey) claimed responsibility for an ambush that left 14 Turkish soldiers dead in South East Turkey.
So it seems simple, if only the PKK would stop the violence against the Turkish state, then Turkey would not retaliate and innocent people wouldn't die. Right? Possibly. But before condemning an oppressed group for using violent tactics, it is necessary to understand the conditions that lead up to this behavior. In short, is there a reason the PKK has taken up arms against Turkey? The answer is yes. Starting in the 1930's a policy of assimilation and "turkification" was set in place. Thousands of Kurdish people died as a result, usually during forced resettlement. Well into the 1980's Human Rights Watch has documented numerous examples of the Turkish military forcibly evacuating villages and destroying homes to prevent the return of Kurdish inhabitants. Earlier this year Turkey's electoral board bared prominent Kurdish candidates from running elections which infuriated the Kurdish population. To this day the Turkish government refuses to recognize the Kurdish people as a distinct minority. With that said, I do not support the violence done by PKK and I mourn the deaths of Turkish military personnel. But what can be expected when a nation-state oppresses an ethnic group for eighty years?
I think Archbishop Hélder Câmara sums it up in his tract, The Spiral of Violence "Violence attracts Violence. Let us repeat fearlessly and ceaselessly: injustices bring revolt, either from the oppressed or from the young, determined to fight for a more human world." Archbishop Câmara explains that there are three levels of violence. Number one is some injustice, an example would be slavery. Number two is revolt. Number three is repression. When justice is withheld it is almost inevitable that an oppressed group will lash out with violence. In U.S. history one can look at Nat Turner as a similar example. Nat Turner was born into slavery in Virginia, a preacher who eventually led a slave rebellion. Much violence was done by Nat Turner and his followers but it was not senseless. It was the result of intense violence and oppression done to him and his people by white slave masters, who I believe share the ultimate blame. I'm still a pacifist. I am still a follower of Jesus and I hope his example of non-violence can lead us all out of oppression and domination. With that said, I hope we who are proponents of love and non-violence will remember that this is a complicated world. Let us fight the temptation to condemn the oppressed but to look past the layers of violence and remember where the original violence started. Some might disagree with me and think I am treading into non-violent heresy. So be it. I would like to end this reflection with a quote from the beloved champion of non-violence, Gandhi. "Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defense or for the defense of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right."
No comments:
Post a Comment