Archives

by Afreeha Jawad

If one ever thought that you've got to be a Sinhalese to be a Buddhist, Sinhala Buddhist to be precise and a Moor to be a Muslim - that shrink needs straightening. That race, nationality, religion and culture are distinct entities and should not be mixed is the conclusion this writer came to after listening to Normandy born Pierre Silliere at last week's presentation on `European dream.

Specificity of the Europe today: Inheritance and Solidarity' at the French Embassy. He recalled how a UK born Pakistani boy claimed British nationality and Pakistani culture. To him they were totally different. ''This child was right for not mixing up culture and religion," he said.

Certainly profound thinking but whether this enlightenment will hit the mark is altogether a different bowl of porridge, cauldron of meat, kettle of fish or whatever. With social constructs binding humanity into streamlined production to meet the demands of an artificial global order, Silliere's thought seed germination could be pretty tough but not without hope. The process of socialisation itself with its structured divisive thinking based on differentiation has to be dismantled - a sort of start from scratch as it were. But will the strong and mighty like it?

Silliere provided sufficient proof for such thought consolidation when he reminisced how the French, Germans, Italians, Spaniards and a whole host of other nationalities made up Europe. Also Italians, Germans and Portuguese continued to make up what later became French.

Quite rightly he pointed out how ethnicity's start came close upon the heels of World War II. A study of history shows us how through a process of global de-colonisation and democracy, division on ethnic grounds came to the fore. A glaring example from the local scene came into this writers mind when in 1848 the Colebrooke reforms brought in communal representation through the setting up of the Legislative Council.

The great divides in ethnicity were apple tart for colonial powers towards goal attainment, for they knew of the dangers that stared in their faces. Leaving behind a united colony would certainly not be to their advantage. So they surfaced what lay dormant by way of divides and further weakened what was already weak in what we see now termed as gender - social construct of sex difference. Spanish conquests of South America and parts of Asia, money and religion in the colonial system, the industrial revolution where France, England, Portugal, Netherlands, traversed the ocean in search of money and religion, the present entry into Europe of people from the colonies, the fact that countries were built through a series of battles stand as evidence in nations striving to hit the gold pot of power, might, economic strength and massive empire building.

Silliere's references to history enable one not only learn from the past but also to locate ourselves in the present and see the future as well. Russia stands marginalised in the world's political configuration while the US has a free ride - a one man show that decides not on what is right but who is right. As Parson the Sociologist said, "when I stand on the shoulders of my forebears, I see the history of mankind as a constant battle for power."

What Parsons says is not only compatible with history but the present as well.

While the world was at war the pens did not fall short of ink. The strife ridden world also produced its share of intellectuals, writers, musicians, poets and the rest. The beast in man and the best in him were in the great symphony of war, tears, struggle and the intellectual enrichment. Silliere's claim of justice and freedom shared by all except that of solidarity, reveals the various specific interests at work - all accommodative of the common global interest.

Picking up on audience non-verbal reception, he hurriedly added, "money for us - yes, we need, but not that important. We are always fighting for something. France and Germany fought bitterly for coal during the industrial revolution."

Quoting famous Economist Jean Monnet, Silliere said it was better to share because nothing could be built through war. Monnet, a great adherent of peace believed in discussion and the learning of languages as a way out of war.

Listening to his lecture, one learnt of how damaging it was to have dismantled Europe - the end result was a divided people. Colonies were found. The great powers'military egotism and aquisitive drive pushed them into fighting one another over these colonies. Looking at it from a sociological perspective, the ravages of social constructs that transformed the world out of its natural characteristics have done irreperable damage.

One could well ask the question 'Development' at what social cost.?"

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager