Ecumenopolis: City Without Limits

Ecumenopolis is a word invented in 1967 by the Greek city planner Constantinos Doxiadis to represent the idea that in the future urban areas and megalopolises would eventually fuse and there would be a single continuous worldwide city as a progression from the current urbanization and population growth trends.

The neoliberal transformation that swept through the world economy during the 1980’s, and along with it the globalization process that picked up speed, brought with it a deep transformation in cities all over the world. For this new finance-centered economic structure, urban land became a tool for capital accumulation, which had deep effects on major cities of developing countries. In Istanbul, which already lacked a tradition of principled planning, the administrators of the city blindly adopted the neoliberal approach that put financial gain ahead of people’s needs; everyone fought to get a piece of the loot; and the result is a megashantytown of 15 million struggling with mesh of life-threatening problems.

Armed with new powers never before imagined, TOKI (State Housing Administration), together with the municipalities and private investors, are trying to reshape the urban landscape in this new vision. With international capital behind them, land plans in their hands, square meters and building coefficients in their minds, they are demolishing neighborhoods, and instead building skyscrapers, highways and shopping malls. But who do these new spaces serve?
The huge gap between the rich and the poor in Istanbul is reflected more and more in the urban landscape, and at the same time feeds on the spatial segregation. While the rich isolate themselves in gated communities, residences and plazas; new poverty cycles born in social housing communities on the prifery of the city designed as human depots continue to push millions to desperation and hopelessness. So who is responsible for this social legacy that we are leaving for future generations?

In 1980 the first plan for Istanbul on a metropolitan scale was produced. In that plan report, it is noted that the topography and the geographic nature of the city would only support a maximum population of 5 million. At the time, Istanbul had 3.5 million people living in it. Now we are 15 million, and in 15 years we will be 23 million. Almost 5 times the sustainable size. Today we bring water to Istanbul from as far away as Bolu, and suck-up the entire water in Thrace, destroying the natural environment there. The northern forest areas disappear at a rapid pace, and the project for a 3rd bridge over the Bosphorous is threatening the remaining forests and water reservoirs giving life to Istanbul. The bridges that connect the two continents are segregating our society through the urban land speculation that they trigger. So what are we, the people of Istanbul, doing against this pillage? If cities are a reflection of the society, what can we say about ourselves by looking at Istanbul? What kind of city are we leaving behind for future generations?
Ecological limits have been surpassed. Economic limits have been surpassed. Population limits have been surpassed. Social cohesion has been lost. Here is the picture of neoliberal urbanism: Ecumenopolis.
Ecumenopolis aims for a holistic approach to Istanbul, questioning not only the transformation, but the dynamics behind it as well. From demolished shantytowns to the tops of skyscrapers, from the depths of Marmaray to the alternative routes of the 3rd bridge, from real estate investors to urban opposition, the film will take us on a long journey in this city without limits. We will speak with experts, academics, writers, investors, city-dwellers, and community leaders; and we will take a look at the city on a macro level through animated maps and graphics. Perhaps you will rediscover the city that you live in and we hope that you will not sit back and watch this transformation but question it. In the end this is what democracy requires of us.

Source: http://www.ekumenopolis.net

Young, bright…unemployed?

Young, strong, smart, but without job. It is the radiography of thousands of young Europeans. The worst case is Spain where in some counties the unemployment rate is about or more than 50% of the active population. Solutions? The European Parliament’s Education and Culture Committee approved last week a packet of proposals in order to decrease the Youth unemployment.

European Studies? What is (will be) it?

I got inspired from a seminar we had, and two questions came to my mind. The first of them is what is European Studies, or the concept “European Studies” as we understand nowadays in our master students perspective and how has it changed in my own perspective during the last years. The second question I would like to answer is what can European Studies teach and what is the future of these studies.

European Identity in Flux: A Passive Response to Capitalism or an Active Response to Big Government

According to some scholars in academia, ‘Europe’ is not defined by its geographical setting but rather a set of ideological conditions which have been historical contingent upon its development.  Zygmunt Bauman is one such scholar, and he intends to resurrect this definition of Europe with the aid of Europe’s finest humanists in his work Europe: An Unfinished Adventure. According to Bauman, Europe has lost its manipulative drive to re-order the world in light of its values and identity (a feature that throughout history has made Europe the ‘inventor of culture’), and in doing so Europe has marked a transition from a ‘social’ to ‘security state.’

Europe’s essence, according to Bauman, consisted of four key values: rationality, justice, democracy, and freedom.  Europe’s ‘planetary mission,’ its seemingly divine calling, was to further and structure these values upon the rest of the world.  Europe thus became the virtuoso of humanity, culture, and civilization – albeit through a Hegelian learning and correcting process driven by bouts of intense conflict and atrocities against humanity.

The aforementioned four values of Europe are epitomized by what Bauman refers to as the ‘social state.’ The social state, according to Bauman, champions above all “[one’s] place in society, personal dignity…honor of workmanship, self-respect, human understanding and humane treatment” (pg. 82).  These concepts are actualized in the political sphere by having the state guarantee to all of its citizens “a collectively endorsed and financed insurance policy against individual and categorical injuries unavoidable in a capitalist economy,” and a state that “measure[s] the quality of the whole society by the quality of life or its weakest and most sorely injured citizens” (pg. 74).

The arrival of the deregulated free market, beginning in the 1970’s, has slowly and methodically replaced the ‘social state’ with the ‘security state.’  The ‘security state,’ instead of being driven by humane principles of tolerance and fairness, is driven solely by fear.  Instead of the citizen working out of self-respect and honor (as in the social state), in the security state one works out of fear of being marginalized by society, i.e. perpetually exiled from the working class as the ‘human waste’ of capitalism.  In short, the dog-eat-dog nature of capitalism has bred a society reminisce of Hobbes’ state of nature; a nasty, brutish, and short existence where fear of survival governs man’s actions.  Instead of having the state guarantee one’s security, one must constantly work out of fear that he may lose this security on his own account.

The antithesis of the social state is individual freedom (in the sense that in pure individual freedom citizens are not obliged to pay for anything – much less anyone else).  Congressman Ron Paul from Texas presented an interesting alternative at the recent Conservative Political Action (CPAC): What if Americans ‘opted out’ of an income tax, and instead paid a flat tax of 10% just to get the government ‘off their backs’?  Paul’s ‘compromise’ lies in stark contradiction to Bauman’s conception of European social ideals.  At the same time, Paul presents an interesting argument at 3:17, claiming that the notion of government to protect its citizens “depends on force.”  In other words, Paul argues that government-run social programs are essentially ‘forced’ upon citizens since they have been a seemingly unchangeable status-quo.

Joe Klein, columnist for Time Magazine, refutes Paul’s idea in a recent blog post.  Klein argues that the founding fathers of America sought to preserve individual rights by the ‘consent of the governed,’ who have chosen to democratically create government-run programs for the common good.  Klein writes, “What I am saying is that the American people, over time, have rejected Ron Paul’s 10% offer because it places too much emphasis on individual rights and too little on the common good.” (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/12/the-other-red-meat/)

But have they? Do people born into society – keeping in mind one’s birthplace is out of one’s control – necessarily have to accept the ideologies and policies of generations before them?  Do contemporary Europeans necessarily have to accept the four virtues Bauman claims are fundamental to European identity?  Apparently not.  Europe as a whole seems to be shifting more towards the political center, if not bypassing moderacy entirely and plunging into the right (as evidenced by the rise of nationalist parties in countries such as Denmark, The Netherlands, and most recently Sweden).  Election results across Europe are favoring more stringent economic policy, deregulation, and the scaling back of welfare programs.

The Scandinavian countries have always provided free education for citizens outside the EU – a prime example of Europe’s ‘planetary mission’ to demonstrate its four virtues on the rest of the world by example.  Denmark, and as of next year Sweden, will charge tuition (~10,000 Euros/year) for students from non-EU/EEA countries – shutting out students from the rest of the world.

We are currently witnessing a paradigm shift in what it means to be ‘European.’ Recent policy changes in European countries seem to suggest younger generations of Europeans are refuting the ‘social values’ of the past for fear of being marginalized by society (both in terms of economy and national identity).  Is this evidence that Europeans have been subconsciously materialized as passive by-products of Bauman’s ‘security state’?  Or, perhaps Europeans are seeing the ‘social state’ as a force to which they have not consented to, and election results represent an active renaissance towards individual freedom.  Either way, the trend away from previous conceptions of the social state is clear – the question is whether it is a passive or active response to today’s world.

- Michael Bossetta

Single Market at the Service of Citizens!

In the EU citizenship Report, European Commission proposes measures to strengthen the Single Market, These measures are:

• A Single Market for growth: The Single Market Act calls for action to make the lives of all market participants – companies, consumers and workers – easier.
• Making citizens’ lives easier: When they exercise their EU rights to get married, buy a house or register a car in another EU country.

As it is mentioned in the report key priorities measures for business, consumers and workers for growth of a Single Market is composed of:

The Commission will help SMEs to access to finance easier;  simplifying rules and improving their access to contracts and introducing a common tax base for businesses, leading to further cost saving. [1] Therefore key priorities for entrepreneurs (SMEs) includes: Easier access to finances, simpler rules, and common taxes “leading to further cost savings”. Does cost saving, mean, paying low taxes and lower salaries to workers?

Besides, for social business Commission will propose European statues to create volunteer (charity) organizations to fed poor people and ill people to be healed. [2] Commission claims for equality and talks about volunteers association? It is easy to make equality for people without paying.  It is easier to improve help for poor people than trying to make equality and fight against poorness. Further, why is it needed to make such charity associations at the European level, while they are typically national associations? Instead of creating charity organisation at the European level, wouldn’t it be more efficient to really enhance social Business by banking, low cost housing, job social agencies and social health insurance at the European level?

Key priority for consumers is creating an “Online Commerce.” [3] Is it facilitation for consumers or for sellers? Is it for firms to accede to larger market or for consumers to find more products?

Key priority for workers is creating a “Professional I.D. card.” [4] Is it to offer workers better salaries and work conditions? Or is it for firms to find anywhere a larger “human resources” for market?

In other words, it is to facilitate firms and companies to move across national states borders; to look for local rules and places to produce by low costs; facilitate workers to move to find better salary; and to insure poor people in need to be helped easier by facilitating volunteers associations to distribute food and health!

Free natural movement of liquid and gas always go from high pressure to low pressure places. For firms and workers, it is the same. But what is the engine of the movements for them? For firms, going from high pressure to low pressure, means from high salaries, high social rights, and high taxes countries to lower salaries, weak social rights and low taxes places. For workers, going from high pressure to low pressure, means going to places where social rights and salaries are higher.

We easily imagine that those two natural flows are contradictory!! Shall we go to a Europe where firms have low costs but no workers in one side, and in other side workers and no firms?

The only way to create equality all around Europe, wouldn’t be by adopting supranational rules and balancing the flows to install free conditions of movements for workers and firms? Does movement led by the social and economic common interests  more than led by low costs? The only chance for Europe to be a “new world” is to make economic conditions at the service of citizens, not to force workers at the service of economy. And this will be possible only by harmonizing Taxes, Social rights, salaries and social insurance.

Therefore, free movement of workers and firms will be led by other pressure laws, like Brownian Motion  in a liquid or a gas, making homogeneous and harmonious the firms and people redistribution all around Europe.

Fatemeh

The EU’s Cohesion Strategy within Regional Policy: An Investment with Bullish Returns?

Pop quiz: How do you close the economic and cultural disparities of 27 countries?  For the EU, the answer lies in focusing largely on regional policy to achieve economic and social solidarity among its member states.  If the EU’s cohesion strategy turns out to be successful, Europa may be riding a new ‘bull’ – all the way to the bank.

Look out Zeus - There may be a new bull in town...

The EU’s cohesion policy, the keystone of EU regional policy, consists of three separate – yet related – objectives: convergence, competiveness, and cooperation.   Put succinctly, the main goal of EU cohesion policy is to limit the wide inequality among the EU’s 271 regions.  The labor productivity of inner London, for example, rests at 296% of the EU average, whereas the Northeast region of Poland has only 44.5% the EU productivity average. [1]

The EU’s regional policy website cites possible causes of such lagging regions as “longstanding handicaps imposed by geographic remoteness or by more recent social and economic change, or a combination of both.”[2] The consequences of these factors can seriously inhibit the quality of life in poorer regions, as evidenced by “social deprivation, poor quality schools, higher joblessness and inadequate infrastructures.”[3] The goal of the EU’s regional policy, then, is to bolster growth and innovation in suffering regions by revamping infrastructure, creating jobs, and providing economic incentives for entrepreneurs.

The strategy employed by the EU’s regional policy is two-fold.  Economically, regional policy aims to bolster growth in laggard regions through revamping infrastructure, creating jobs, and providing incentive for innovation and entrepreneurship.  Socially, regional policy provides funding for programs such as bettering schools or re-introducing criminals into society.

The price tag for this goal is hefty at €350 billion (from 2007-2013), but the fact that regional policy consists of 36% of the EU’s total budget highlights the important role regional policy plays in achieving European solidarity.[4] Thus far, the results have been positive. Since 2007, regional policy has contributed to a 10% gain in employment and has created 1.4 million jobs.  Johannes Hahn, the European Commissioner for Regional Policy, has stated in a press conference in January that “regional policy has been an absolute success story for European integration…I’m saying [this] with clear words and I have no doubt about it.”[5]

Skeptics, however, point out that the structural funds that grant regional policy funds lack transparency and are overly complex.  Marian Harkin, an MEP from Ireland, has noted that there is “a strong argument for greater visibility of these funds, and an urgent need for simplification.”[6] She goes on to say that bureaucracy and red tape limit the availability and swift deliverance of regional policy monies.

Still, regional policy overall has seemed to be quite effective in facilitating European solidarity despite numerous obstacles to integration.  One such obstacle is labor mobility within the EU.  In 2008, only 1.2% of total working age population changed their residence within the EU, compared to 2.8% in the US.[7] This could pose a real threat to future economic stability of the EU as the baby-boom generation retires.

There is a beacon of hope,  contingent upon the outcome of regional policy itself.  The European Commission cites “significant differences between countries in the extent of regional movements, with a clear distinction between the countries in the Eastern and Western part”[8] as one explanation of the lack of inter-EU mobility.  If regional policy continues to be successful in facilitating European integration, perhaps the cultural differences among EU member states may be diluted enough to encourage more inter-EU mobility.  If this becomes the scenario (certainly the hope of EU regional policy advocates), Europe will open the floodgates for unimaginable economic prosperity – and the billions of Euros pumped into cohesion policy will be returned tenfold.

However, even if regional policy fails in accomplishing its goal of social solidarity across Europe, it will remain hard for Europeans to argue that granting funding to socially and economically disadvantaged regions was a mistake – especially when viewed against the backdrop of normative EU social values.

- Michael Bossetta 

---

[1]“Investing in Europe’s Future” (Video) http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesion5/index_en.cfm

[2] http://europa.eu/pol/reg/index_en.htm

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQUY1ch-20k

[6] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhcrzV6B8F4

[7] European Commission. Investing in Europe’s Future: Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Pg 9

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesion5/index_en.cfm

[8] Ibid, Pg. 10

The successful bridge between creative disciplines

“Previously, men could be divided simply into the learned and the ignorant, those more or less the one, and those more or less the other. But your specialist cannot be brought in under either of these two categories. He is not learned, for he is formally ignorant of all that does not enter into his specialty; but neither is he ignorant, because he is “a scientist,” and “knows” very well his own tiny portion of the universe. We shall have to say that he is a learned ignoramus, which is a very serious matter, as it implies that he is a person who is ignorant, not in the fashion of the ignorant man, but with all the petulance of one who is learned in his own special line.” (Ortega y Gassett, 1932) Ortega y Gassett, J. (1932). The revolt of the masses. New York: New American Library.

As Nissani points out here http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/PAGEPUB/10CHEERS.HTM through one of the many citations in his text “Ten Cheers for Interdisciplinary” – there is a need of an interdisciplinary focus in our academic as well as our political contexts. With the ten cheers in mind, I would especially like to emphasize the interdisciplinary approach within the field of cultural interaction: as an important path in the molding of a model for stimulating educational and intellectual exchange.

A good example of this kind of successful interdisciplinary project was, in my opinion, the Seas – North and Black sea project: http://www.seas.se/, to which, as a Masterstudent from European Culture Studies at Lunds University, I was offered a glimpse and participation in the last conference of the Seas 8 year long development. The project had engaged artists as well as different managers of culture from various fields and contexts of Europe, and through its program harbor cities were brought into a creative dialogue. New cultural spaces and arenas for reflection were invented, but also reshaped: through combining local facilities and sharing new perspectives through artistic creations but also through analytical preperations.

Series of conferences brought experts and artists together:  http://www.seas.se/cityscape/index.php as a citation from the homepage will tell us: “When the SEAS project arrives in a sea town it unlocks many questions about public space, the role of culture and arts in the re-thinking of post-industrial urban landscapes, about the engagement of politicians and public in the debates about the future of Europe’s coastal communities, about migration issues, and many more besides.”

On the other hand, an unforgettable experience of interdisciplinary cooperation on a local and more static level, was for me the Week of Integration in Lund 2009: Integrationsveckan i Lund 2009 http://www.lifs.org/tidskrifter/2_1-2009.pdf, but at the same time its consistency as a “united or a whole” (the “whole” or the overall goal of any interdisciplinary direction, that Nissani is pinpointing) was very poor. One could find all different kinds of actors here, all very concerned about their own thing, but at the same time not at all in tune with any bigger shared context at this place and in this time. Different aid-organizations participated, artists, university lecturers and politics, and even live music was played and dances shown engaging the public – but what had they in common, why were all those atomized actors there? They did not appear to be very aware of the direction (had it been formulated at all?), in fact, the separate disciplinary interests were not really working together, but instead they were just placed next to one another.  This project was not a big success if we would trust the number of visitors, and it was obviously because it was lacking a track and consequently advertisement. Nevertheless, it had a great potential to overcome such challenges if one would just have the work of the separate units to consider. What it needed was a clarity – in all the ten (and more I would add)  dimensions of an interdisciplinary project, that is: a complex tree, with many branches (some of which Nissani mentions in his discussion on the theme) reaching towards a holistic concept of exchange between disciplines. Something was obviously lacking, but what was it?

Here I would put forward the negative sides of generalizing criterias of interaction. As a matter of fact there is a certain danger with a too liberal interpretation of the idea if interdisciplinary bridges and their role. It is context that is important, the content of the interdisciplinary discussion and action – and performance – should be considered in first place. The content should not be in favour for the mere idea of any kind of Interdisciplinary cooperation, but the reverse. As Nissani comments:

“Even under the best circumstances, an interdisciplinarian is unlikely to gain as complete a mastery of her broad area as the specialists upon whose work her own endeavor is based. She must risk dilettantism to gain her bird’s eye view. She may become jack of all trades, master of none.”

This remark could also, somewhat modified, be regarded in connection with interdisciplinary projects as such – as in the case of the Integrationsveckan 2009 i Lund. Engaging in interdisciplinary work means working on many levels, and, not the least, making choices that also signify limitation and the need of finding a stable direction. If the idea becomes too wide – containing too many different messages, it will as a whole become too split and as a result it will not be appealing enough for potential visitors.  Interdisciplinary projects, outlooks, science and education should be an important part of the future Europe, but at the same time: even creative bodies need a delimited context and direction in order to grow strong.

/ Gabriella

An image from the Seas project

The Tragedy of Central Europe

   Our group has chosen the text by Milan Kundera “The Tragedy of Central Europe”. The text was published in 1984, which makes it even more interesting to read from the time prospective that we have now. Almost 30 years passed since Kundera has published his text, but we think it still remains actual. If talking generally, authors argues that Central Europe was always the part of Western Europe – in a cultural way, but it disappeared from being identified as western, due to the cultural desolation. Kundera identify Central Europe not like a state, but as a culture. The “tragedy”, “kidnapping” in the article heading refers to the cultural approach that disappears nowadays in Europe. Author links European culture to the Central Europe using examples of famous artists, and since Central Europe was kidnapped – and no one noticed it, the whole unity of European culture gone as well. This is the problematic question that Kundera puts. 

Populism with morality, please

Generally, the Third Way is defined as a political position, which goes beyond right-wing and left-wing polices; a mixture of both. Apart from transcending differences between the left and the right, Third Way politics put an emphasis on equal opportunities for everyone, strengthening communities and most importantly on the welfare state.

The Third Way gained terrain mostly due to the fading distinctions between left and right ideologies. Political leaders soon came to realise that the centre was the place to be. Targeting a more inclusive electorate, they engaged in centre positions and added left-wing social policy and right-wing economical policy to their political programs in order to appeal to their bases. Nevertheless, by doing so they lost sight of their voters, addressing to the society needs rather than the individual needs. Thus, the Third Way somehow assumed a certain placebo effect, “that offers the appearance of a choice where essentially there is none” as Žižek puts it. However, the Far Right was there to seize every opportunity presented. In Zizek words: “The populist Right moves to occupy the terrain evacuated by the Left, as the only ‘serious’ political force that still employs an anti-capitalist rhetoric—if thickly coated with a nationalist/racist/religious veneer”. Politicians of the far right such as Haider in Austria, Le Pen in France, Wilders in the Netherlands or even Åkesson in Sweden managed to win considerable votes because they identified the concerns of the voters as individuals, addressing to them as ‘you’.

References: Exorcing Europe’s Demons, Extreme right-wing voting in Western Europe, The Radical Right in Romania, Political party evaluation and the distancing of Romania from Europe

By identifying different groups in a society, populist leaders have the power to polarise society. This is appealing to unsatisfied voters who feel they are not being heard as individuals. By offering the voters an alternative to break out of the placebo effect, populism manages to give voters a sense of power through a message of change. Although Zizek wrote his article in 2000, he still makes a good case in explaining why the Third Way is shortcoming compared to populism. By 2010, fourteen countries in the European Union have populist parties in parliament and thereof three countries have these parties in government. There is no denying that populism is an effective political tool.

Reference: The Rise of Europe’s Right-Wing Populists

Zizek claims that binary oppositions are everywhere, so what is wrong with acknowledging that fact? Moreover, why not use it? To Third Way parties this tool works exactly in the opposite direction of their politics, because it separates people instead of bringing them together. Anno 2010, the damage of separating people has been done in half of the European member states, so it is about time to reconsider failing Third Way politics. It is in the very nature of people to be identified as an individual and not to be overlooked in a great grey society. Populism gives the individual what it wants: self-identification by stigmatizing those who are different.

Populism is a very dangerous and effective tool when it is being used by extremist, xenophobic parties. Populism, however, does not necessarily have to be used for politics that we perceive to be morally wrong. To illustrate this with an example, in 2006 a political party for animal rights got voted into Dutch parliament. Times are changing, and so does politics. It is time to answer to new political tools by altering the old ways. Politics is a game of action and reaction and its the Third Way politicians turn to move.

Maija Komonen, Marsida Gjoncaj and Paul Bongers

Battlefield of Europeaness

The question of a shared European memory is very much both a relevant as well a difficult issue today. The European historic diversity and mosaic of perspectives calls for actions to be undertaken both in theory and practice. This in order to reach the point where as many historically inflicted wounds as possible could be, if not healed, at least acknowledged. In the article ’Battlefield of Europe’, Claus Leggewie talks about the need for Europeans to have a better political consciousness when it comes to atrocities committed in the past and that the collective memories existing today are exclusive to the Holocaust- and somewhat also to the Gulag experiences.

His main thesis is that we need to expand the collective memory and historical consciousness to also include the legacy and crimes committed with the expulsions of people post World War II, the Turkish and Armenian case, the era of colonialism, the transnational migration in Europe during the 1950s and the ‘success story ‘ after 1945. If Europeans, according to Leggewie, include these experiences in their historical consciousness they would then find themselves better able to deal with the political problems found within Europe today.

In his article, Leggewie says that the exclusion of other important experiences, aside from the Holocaust and Gulag, creates a hierarchy of existing memories within Europe. Instead, he suggest that we should instead search for a position where we can have them all without competing or offsetting each other. In our reading of Leggewie, we lack a level of analysis when it comes to the origins of putting these experiences of the past in hierarchies.

We would have liked a clearer connection with the creation of the hierarchy of the memories and experiences of Europeans and the social hierarchy that is amongst Europeans.  In our understanding of contemporary Europe, there is a clear social hierarchy where Western Europe is the dominating hegemony and point of departure when talking about what is considered to ‘be European’ or not. In this Europeanism, the East and the outside are not fully considered to be a full part of this.

If everyone but the Western Europeans are being seen maybe not completely as ‘the other’ but maybe not as ‘European’, how can one demand that the dominant one should include and allow that they as the leading force collectively remember and equally consider the ‘other’ history as a part of theirs.If one would wish for such a thing as commonness and collective remembering of history without creating such a hierarchy, maybe one should first and foremost tackle the social hierarchy that exists for determining which and whose history is the important history to remember.

Nova-Jenaette, Larissa  & Stina