There are some eyes; they look at a person, but they see skin, they see color. They see beliefs, accents, clothes, hometowns.
Separates, counts, weighs.
And it separates man from man.
Some eyes see only life when they look at a human being. For these eyes, man is neither biology, nor color, nor body. Man is an essence.
It's fine.
***
Racism arises precisely from the difference between these two views.
Classical racism classifies human beings according to their biological characteristics and presents this in an explicit or implicit hierarchy. It is more visible, more crude.
The new racism - cultural racism - is quieter. It appears more polite, but inflicts deeper wounds. It considers those who are different as a danger, excludes them; it crushes people with their language, faith, culture, way of life, memory.
“I am not a racist” It starts with,
“but...” he continues.
It generates discontent, fear, distance and hatred against anyone who is not from its own culture and habits.
One looks at a person's face, but one does not see their humanity. At that moment the human being is reduced to a mere biology or an object of fear.
Frantz Fanon is one of the most eloquent exponents of this state of affairs.
“He who looked at me saw my color,” der Fanon.
There is no human being, no breath, no life in that look. There is only a label placed in the mind.
And the human being is slowly erased in that look.
What Fanon is describing is not just being black. It is the pain of being seen without being seen, of being judged without being known.
The pain of being reduced to an identity instead of a human being, of being imprisoned in a category instead of a life...
In another place, in another time, Hannah Arendt shows us where this pain can lead.
Ordinary people, neighbors, civil servants, “doing his job” how people can turn into criminals.
He says that evil does not always come with a demonic face. Sometimes it seems perfectly normal, perfectly ordinary. Here it is. “the banality of evil” that's exactly what it is.
The cultural racism we experience today stands where Fanon's gaze and the mediocrity described by Arendt meet.
***
One of the most well-known forms of this in the world is Islamophobia. It is fueled by far-right politics, especially in Western countries, the language of the media and hate speech produced by radical groups.
People are judged by their beliefs, their clothes, their names.
This is a new form of racism.
People are suddenly “incompatible”, “dangerous”, “backward” is announced.
The skin may not be talked about, but the gaze is still the same. It feeds from the same place: racism. And this issue is not only “other countries” is not a matter of.
It is also familiar in this land.
Sometimes it happens closest to us.
Someone with whom you have tea or coffee will look at you differently the next day.
It's like there's an excess. As if you suddenly “different” like you've been.
And this view often comes from the most educated. From scientists, from professors, from “rational”, “progressive”, “modern” who define it as...
The fact that a medical professor, whose mission is to keep people alive, can talk about finding a virus that can kill other people... The fact that someone else can talk about killing other people... “hyster”, “subspecies” to describe it as
Moreover, this language is often hidden behind fancy words.
Himself “researcher”, “journalist”, “intellectual” can belittle a woman for covering her head.
And sometimes “intellectual” It is transformed into an assertion; it manifests itself in patronizing judgments that a religious person cannot do positive science, cannot produce a new idea.
None of this is a simple accident of language.
These are refined, polite but highly destructive forms of cultural racism.
***
What has happened before the eyes of this country in recent years has left examples of cultural racism that will live long in the memory.
One of the most striking of these is the classical and cultural racism produced through the subject of Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu; moreover, it is still alive and still effective.
How?
His politics was not discussed; his identity was discussed. Not what he said, but the culture he belonged to was weighed. Not his projects, “what it is” implied. “The candidate who can't win” under the cover of the unspoken “because”were put into circulation:
Because he is Alevi,
because Kurdish,
because Turkmen,
because he's old,
because he is from Tuncelli (Dersim),
because he is from the East.
Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu has been transformed into a figure who embodies almost all the colors of classical racism and cultural racism at the same time.
And perhaps the saddest thing is that a significant part of this came from an environment that defines itself as social democratic, egalitarian and libertarian.
Some of the people with whom they traveled together kept silent, some kept their distance, some gave advice, and some openly joined this language.
This is precisely why racism sometimes thrives not by shouting but by remaining silent.
Even more painful was the similar targeting of those who spoke out against these wrongdoings.
Moreover, most of the time these discourses and actions did not come from the opposing front, but from within the CHP.
How?
There is a strike in the municipalities, the striking workers are accused of being Kurdish.
Criticism happens, Alevis “most dangerous” is announced.
He will be a religious candidate, “why should we vote for you” It's called.
Then come the questions:
“Can the CHP be criticized?”
“Is there opposition to the opposition?”
Yes, it's okay.
Because fear has begun.
Fear of becoming like their competitors.
This fear is the possibility that whatever has been criticized, objected to, stood against in the name of humanity for years will be absorbed into language, gaze, action, silence...
This fear is the possibility that a beloved and trusted structure may exhibit shameful examples for humanity.
People according to their race, beliefs, culture, clothing, food, drink, country of origin “incompatible”, “not from us”, “too much”, “not enough”, “backward”, “cannot win”, “should not win” the possibility of being able to declare...
The real uneasiness is that the people you walk the road with, the people you call your life, the people you call brothers and sisters, will one day approach that ordinary evil.
That threshold that Arendt describes...
I mean, human beings “I don't do it” is how close the line is.
Human history is full of examples of how ordinary people can turn into monsters when this line is crossed.
Every look, every word that hurts, upsets and excludes people is racism, no matter what it is called.
And the most dangerous is the one who thinks he is innocent.
Okay,
When we see how easily anyone can cross this line, are we right to be afraid?