The Chronicle
On the plane back to Luxembourg I was browsing through the Times of Malta and got to read my favourite section (a section that is sadly not reproduced on the internet version). The “A Century Ago” corner reproduces randomly selected articles from the “Daily Malta Chronicle” edition a hundred years back. Yesterday’s selection was entitled “Maltese emigration to the State of Sao Paolo” and was basically an editorial comment on the emigration of a 100 Maltese who were moving to Brazil “in the hope of faring better there than they can now expect to do in their own land“.
Although the editorialist acknowledges the necessity for Maltese to look for brighter pastures he expresses more than a simple reservation about the cultural differences into which the Maltese are throwing themselves – particularly when they opt to move away from beneath the protecting eyes of the British flag: “because we know that there is no better flag for them to be under“. In fact the article advocates for easier channels of emigration to the likes of Australia and New Zealand and not to Brazil where “the second generation of even European born parents have not in Brazil either the physical, or the moral characters of their race“. If that is not enough to astound you just read the conclusion:
“The great drawback with regard to emigration to Brazil is that our people must, upon going there, be thrown in with blacks and half breeds”.
I kid you not. That was an article in a Maltese newspaper appearing on Tuesday, April 16th, 1912. It would be shocking today but I would hazard a guess that that kind of lingo was common parlance in the early part of the twentieth century – to put it in perspective Rosa Parks wouldn’t be born for another 10 months.
Kemal
Somebody who was already born by that time was Mustafa “Kemal” – a thirty year old Ottoman who was to become father of the Turkish nation. Over the next few decades the man who would come to be known as Atatürk would shepherd a nation and its people and transform it into a most modern of democracies (not without his share of controversies).
Atatürk (then) embarked upon a program of political, economic, and cultural reforms, seeking to transform the former Ottoman Empire into a modern, westernized and secular nation-state. The principles of Atatürk’s reforms, upon which modern Turkey was established, are referred to as Kemalism. – Wikipedia
Undoubtedly controversial, Atatürk supervised much of the modernisation of his nation and this included the strengthening of the language, an important emphasis on educational reform and an expansive arts and cultural program. Importantly Atatürk made Turkey one of the first nations to recognise the importance of women’s rights and their emancipation. Furthermore he was adamant about the importance of a secular state . Here is Ataturk speaking in 1926:
“We must liberate our concepts of justice, our laws and our legal institutions from the bonds which, even though they are incompatible with the needs of our century, still hold a tight grip on us.”
For the first time in history Islamic law was separated from secular law.
Jeffrey
Mustafa was given the nickname “Kemal” by his mathematics teacher. It means “perfection” or “maturity”. His “reign” over the newly born state was not without controversy but there is no denying that post-Ottoman Turkish history can claim great parallels with those of other European states with its own lessons and mistakes. The unravelling of that history is of a fledgling democracy in the early ’10s that interacted with the other democratic (and non-democratic) realities around it. This account is also a poor one since it fails to acknowldge the huge role the Ottoman empire had in European politics for a very long time and it also neglects the geographic origins of modern Europe – both historically and spiritually.
What would the Greek states have been without Troy? Where would Saint Paul have wandered without Antioch and Ephesus? What of the Byzantine heart of the Eastern Roman Empire? Can Constantinople be erased with the stroke of a political pen?
Well Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando seems to think so. His emancipated, “liberal” statement that “Turks are not Europeans” gives me the shivers. If, as it seems, the Islamic creed of the majority of Turks seems to be one of the major hurdles that JPO has to consider than he really has no idea about who or what he is criticising. This is an MP in a parliament that made divorce available to its citizens in 2011 and still has evident problems distinguishing between political obligations and religious proselytising. He is an MP in a country whose President is off to Peru on a missionary trip and where the Attorney General has no qualms invoking deities upon appeal from a court sentence.
And what is JPO’s major excuse? The Turks are culturally different. It must be a strange coincidence that the Times’ Century Ago piece reminded us that this kind of mentality – fear and snobbism in face of difference – existed in Malta in 1912. Thanks to people like Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando the front pages of our papers (and the red faces we should have when speaking to Turks) remain a stark reminder of just how little progress we have made in our interaction with the outside world.
With politicians like this you can only wish to hop onto the next plane to Sao Paolo, Istanbul or Luxembourg – there to submit to the “cultural shock” that the JPO’s of this world seem so intent to shield us from.
