Another Queen Day
vineri, 30 iulie 2010
luni, 26 iulie 2010
vineri, 23 iulie 2010
joi, 22 iulie 2010
Armânji the hidden minorities
The Armânji are not officially recognized by the state as minority neither in Greece nor in Romania. Moreover they tend to identify themselves with the majority population in the states they live which made possible a sort of assimilation in such majority populations regarding religious believes.
As it is mentioned above the two countries dont recognize Armânji as a minority, but an emphaisis should be made here on the Greek case as they dont generally recognize the presence of national minorities within their boundaries. Armânji in Grece are considered Vlach-speacking Greeks (though this definition is problematic as minority languages are not recognized either).
Greek vs Romanian identity
It is common knowledge that Armânji in Greece identify with the Greek nation and the explanation lies in the Ottoman millet system which divided the empire`s population according to religious affiliation. This, in time, lead to a inclusion of the Armânji population into the Greek Orthodox Church. This assimilation was a voluntary one, as a way of adapting to the created context and later on was materialised in the fact that many Armânji supported both ideologically and financially the aspirations of the Greek nation.
Next to different historical and social events, it is my belief that the emigration north (mainly Romania) was made possible by the type of assimilation process employed by the Greek state and in the identification process of the Armânji. It is exactely this identification process that didnt went that smooth as the Greek authorities hoped. And it came as a result of the Greek state assimilation policies which ment refusal of recognition of both minority status and minority language.
This gave Romania the opportunity to interfere and support native schools. Such actions could not be tolerated by the Greek state, who used a „divide et impera” strategy preffering the Hellenized Armânji against the others. This actions generated a split in the Armânji comunity between Hellenized Armânji and the pro-Romanian Armânji which later on resulted in a migration of the pro-Romanian Armânji to Romania (or at least out of Greece).
Identification as a negation of identity?
Both Greece and Romania emphasised on this identification of the Armânji with the majority of the population and offered this as a argument for the denial of recognising Armânji as a national minority.
What I want to outline here is that such a voluntary association does not imply in any sence that the identity is negated. The Greeks already made that mistake and as I said above that prepared the ground for a pro-romanian attitude. Apparently they didnt learn yet. In the same situation it seems Romania acts exactelly as Greece did and still does.
What both Greece and Romania fail in such a situation is the understanding of the nation and the incapacity to combine the ethnic and civic features. As one can be a Greek/Romanian citizen (fulfill his duties towards the state), but in the same time keep his identity as Armânji.
Should one wonder in such a context if Armânji will abandon the artificially created identification (with Greece State or Romanian State)?
Should one wonder in such a context when Armânji demand what is rightfully theirs, to be officialy recognized as a national minority?
International context
The survival strategy adopted by the Armânji community up to now managed to preserve their separate identity in the sence that they needed to hide it (thus converting in hidden minorities). Nevertheless the current situation – mainly the assimilation process and the urbanization – puts the perpetuation of the identification under threat.
What may save the downgrade trend is the international context that seems to favour the endorsment of minority rights and respect for minority cultures. My guess is that this is probably the last chance for minorities such as Armânji to save their identity. This is why it is crucial for them to continue the cultural revival trend. Also it is important that they dont make mistakes in order to compromise it.
As it is mentioned above the two countries dont recognize Armânji as a minority, but an emphaisis should be made here on the Greek case as they dont generally recognize the presence of national minorities within their boundaries. Armânji in Grece are considered Vlach-speacking Greeks (though this definition is problematic as minority languages are not recognized either).
Greek vs Romanian identity
It is common knowledge that Armânji in Greece identify with the Greek nation and the explanation lies in the Ottoman millet system which divided the empire`s population according to religious affiliation. This, in time, lead to a inclusion of the Armânji population into the Greek Orthodox Church. This assimilation was a voluntary one, as a way of adapting to the created context and later on was materialised in the fact that many Armânji supported both ideologically and financially the aspirations of the Greek nation.
Next to different historical and social events, it is my belief that the emigration north (mainly Romania) was made possible by the type of assimilation process employed by the Greek state and in the identification process of the Armânji. It is exactely this identification process that didnt went that smooth as the Greek authorities hoped. And it came as a result of the Greek state assimilation policies which ment refusal of recognition of both minority status and minority language.
This gave Romania the opportunity to interfere and support native schools. Such actions could not be tolerated by the Greek state, who used a „divide et impera” strategy preffering the Hellenized Armânji against the others. This actions generated a split in the Armânji comunity between Hellenized Armânji and the pro-Romanian Armânji which later on resulted in a migration of the pro-Romanian Armânji to Romania (or at least out of Greece).
Identification as a negation of identity?
Both Greece and Romania emphasised on this identification of the Armânji with the majority of the population and offered this as a argument for the denial of recognising Armânji as a national minority.
What I want to outline here is that such a voluntary association does not imply in any sence that the identity is negated. The Greeks already made that mistake and as I said above that prepared the ground for a pro-romanian attitude. Apparently they didnt learn yet. In the same situation it seems Romania acts exactelly as Greece did and still does.
What both Greece and Romania fail in such a situation is the understanding of the nation and the incapacity to combine the ethnic and civic features. As one can be a Greek/Romanian citizen (fulfill his duties towards the state), but in the same time keep his identity as Armânji.
Should one wonder in such a context if Armânji will abandon the artificially created identification (with Greece State or Romanian State)?
Should one wonder in such a context when Armânji demand what is rightfully theirs, to be officialy recognized as a national minority?
International context
The survival strategy adopted by the Armânji community up to now managed to preserve their separate identity in the sence that they needed to hide it (thus converting in hidden minorities). Nevertheless the current situation – mainly the assimilation process and the urbanization – puts the perpetuation of the identification under threat.
What may save the downgrade trend is the international context that seems to favour the endorsment of minority rights and respect for minority cultures. My guess is that this is probably the last chance for minorities such as Armânji to save their identity. This is why it is crucial for them to continue the cultural revival trend. Also it is important that they dont make mistakes in order to compromise it.
miercuri, 21 iulie 2010
True Facts with TheAnti
You delivered the best fighting force this world has ever known right into my hands. Exactly as I intended. You shall be rewarded for your unwitting sacrifice.
vineri, 16 iulie 2010
miercuri, 14 iulie 2010
Obişnuita poveste a lui Rufus Oinkberg (ep. 1)
Obişnuita poveste a lui Rufus Oinkberg
Rufus Oinkberg intră în casă aruncându-şi cheile pe măsuţa din hol. Eliberă o râgâitură ce-i apăsa maţele încă de când plecă de la shaormerie. Bunică-sa simţi mirosul de usturoi şi bere, putea sta liniştită, nepotul ei se întorsese acasă. "34 de ani. 34 de ani şi tot îl doare în cur. Niciodată n-a fost plecat de-acasă aşa o perioadă îndelungată , fără să anunţe pe nimeni. De data asta a făcut-o lată” se gândi Doamna Oinkberg culegând de pe jos hainele aruncate de Rufus în drumul lui către fotoliul din mijlocul camerei de zi. Iniţial crezu că petele maronii de pe tricou erau pete de bere. Parţial avea dreptate. Însă urmele de vomă îşi făcură datoria şi îi revelară Doamnei Oinkberg adevărata natură şi îi îndepărtară acesteia nasul, făcând-o să-şi schimonosească faţa.
- Rufus, să-ţi iei chiloţii de pe jos, nu pun eu mâna pe aşa ceva.
- Da mă, bine, lasă-i acolo că-i iau eu când termin aici. Făcea un CD cu melodiile lui preferate pentru cineva pe care îl cunoscuse în mica lui escapadă. Dorian.
Trecură mai bine de 5 ore de când Rufus se aşezase în fotoliul lui din faţa măsuţei calculatorului. În acel fotoliu se simţea cel mai bine. Îi asigura siguranţă. Îşi întoarse privirea din monitor şi privi prin cameră. Îl deranja ceva. Se gândi că bunică-sa iar a uitat să-i cureţe cuşca lui Der Kannibale, hamsterul la care Rufus ţinea atât de mult încât abia abia se deranja să se uite la el. Nu era asta. Mirosul era mult mai acru decât cel al unui cadavru aflat în descompunere. Se uită la chiloţii săi aruncaţi pe jos şi observă maroniul ce se întindea pe toată partea din spate a chilotului. Se uită şi în partea din faţă. Galbeni. Nu-şi mai aducea aminte dacă s-a pişat pe el sau petele galbene sunt doar urme de picături. Duse chilotul la faţă şi mirosi. Acru, dulceag. Îi plăcu mirosul. Nările îi fremătară la gândul că este un animal. Se ridică gol de pe fotoliu aruncând chiloţii pe care îi ţinuse la nas pe canapeaua care îi servea din când în când drept pat. Se îndreptă spre baie mergând ca un tanc rusesc în plin avânt pe câmpul de luptă. Dădu cu ochii de Doamna Oinkberg care era deja obişnuită cu micile delicii ale vieţii lui Rufus.
- Ai făcut mă şi tu ceva de mâncare azi? Intră la baie şi lăsă uşa deschisă pentru a auzi răspunsul bunicii lui.
- Am fost azi la piaţă şi am cumpărat nişte carne de vită. Mă gândeam să-ţi fac o tocană. Dar nu am mai făcut că a venit Adelline şi iar am stat la taclale. Îţi fac acum nişte şniţele.
- Îîîîîîîhh, îîîîh, aa, aaaaaaaaaahhh, bine mă. Mi-e şi poftă aşa puţin.
Se şterse puţin la cur, cât să nu se frece căcatul între buci. Dădu drumul unei băşini când trecu prin dreptul bucătăriei să vadă dacă s-a apucat bunică-sa de treabă. Nu ştiu dacă voi aţi observat micul strop de căcat ejectat de băşină şi care a ajuns pe oglinda din hol, oglindă abia curăţată în ziua aceea de către Doamna Oinkberg.
- Unde ai fost atâtea zile? De ce nu ai răspuns la telefon?
- Ce vrei mă! Am fost şi eu undeva. Ce nu poţi să-nţelegi? Trebuie să-ţi dau socoteală tot timpul? Am 34 de ani, nu crezi că ar fi cazul să pot face şi eu ceva fără să trebuiască tot timpul să te sun, vezi ca fac aia, vezi că fac ailaltă?
- Hai să mănânci. Spală-te pe mâini! Numai ce ai ieşit din budă.
- Da’ ce are mă? Nu e al meu? Mare scofală!
Se aşeză la masă şi începu să plescăie şniţelele fierbinţi fără să mestece de prea multe ori frigându-se în gură. Nu îl deranja faptul că se frigea în gură, aşa mânca orice, oriunde. La nunta verişoarei lui, de exemplu, după ce că era deja beat la felul unu, a mâncat cu gura deschisă tot pieptul de pui la grătar. Nu mai spun că legumele servite drept garnitură pe care încerca să le bage în gură cu repeziciune, îi cădeau din gura deja plină, spre dezgustul celorlalţi de la masă. Şi privirea aia de om beat, cu pleoapele căzute, amorţite şi ochii roşii, faţa roşie de parcă s-ar fi înecat. În ce hal s-a îmbătat la acea nuntă. A atras atenţia întregului salon în momentul când s-a ridicat de la masă dărâmând scaunul. Cravata, care îi era prea scurtă din cauza gâtului înconjurat de un inel de grăsime care lucea din cauză că transpira mult prea mult şi în orice situaţie, chiar dacă afară era frig, era acoperită cu pete de ulei şi vin, din care băuse considerabil pe terasa restaurantului uitându-se cum se distrau cei ce veniseră la nuntă. Realiză penibilul situaţiei pe care o crease. Se auzea doar muzica şi pufnetele de râs a câtorva fete. Ridică scaunul şi ieşi afară. „Să mă piş pe distracţia voastră”.
- Dacă te vedea bunică-tu cum mănânci, ar fi aruncat cu furculiţa în tine!
- Dacă macă, uite că nu e bunicu aici. Mănânc cum îmi vine. Am şi eu ceva curat de îmbrăcat? Trebuie să ies. Am nişte treabă.
- Ce treabă ai?
- Mă duc să mă întâlnesc cu cineva.
- N-ai nimic de îmbrăcat. Pune mâna şi calcă singur dacă vrei haine.
- Auzi la ea. Calcă singur. De unde îţi vin ideile astea? Hai lasă-mă cu tâmpeniile. Îmi pun un tricou ceva. Da’ nişte bani nu-mi dai şi tu?
- N-am! Mi-ai luat din sertar aproape toţi banii pentru luna asta. De unde vrei să-ţi mai dau?
- Hai că ai tu. Sigur ai pus nişte bani pe undeva! Hai! Dă-mi nişte bani.
Doamna Oinkberg ieşi din bucătărie dezgustată. A avut grijă mai întâi de copiii ei, pe urmă de Rufus. Nu a făcut nimic altceva. A fost o mamă devotată. „Am fost o slugă devotată. Nu putea maică-sa să aibă grijă de el. O mănâncă undeva. Umblă prin baruri ca o dezmăţată, când cu unu, când cu altu. A trebuit eu să fac pe mama răniţilor, când puteam să-mi văd liniştită de viaţa mea.” Intră în camera ei şi scoase nişte bani din dulap de sub cămaşa de noapte împăturită frumos.
- Uite, ia banii ăştia. Când mă vei ajuta şi pe mine la ceva? La orice. Să cumperi şi tu ceva pentru casă, să cumperi ceva pentru tine. M-am săturat să umblu prin magazine să-ţi caut ţie cămăşi. Vânzătoarele o sa creadă că am vreun amant. Ce bărbat de vârsta mea poartă cămăşi de felul acesta, colorate în toate culorile şi cu tot felul de scrisuri.
- Lasă mă, ce dacă cred. Te dai şi tu mare că ai amant. Ce are? La vârsta ta, aşa o treabă...ceva minunat!
marți, 13 iulie 2010
Culture, Conflicts, Conflict Resolutions (part 2)
Typologies
Lessem and Neubauer
- Anglo-Saxons (including USA and Canada) – pragmatism;
- Franco-Nordic – rationalism;
- Germanic/Nippon – wholism;
- Italian/Latin – humanism.
Walker
- First World (western, anglo-saxon) – focus on procedure, concrete detail, factual statements, statistical information;
- Second World (former communist block except China) – deductive-rational approach, arguing from abstract to general principles, prior to entering into specific details;
- Third World – emotion, exaggeration, imagery, ambiguity and refference to history. Stressed the need for compensation justice, arguing from general principles, often considered universal.
Individual vs colectivism
- Most important dimension to underline cultural differences.
- The choice of the actor to prioritize between private/personal interests or colective goals
Individualist societies – the individual is the baseline of the identity, ties are loose and individuals are expected to look after themselves.
Collective societies – the social network (to which the actor belongs) is the baseline of the identity, people are integrated in groups which provide protection in return for loyalty.
Hofstede
- Colectivist societies make distinction between ”our group„ – ”other group”, treat friends better then othersand consider this as being ethical and natural. Morality in colectivist societies is percived differently than in individualistic cultures and is strongly related to the actor social position. The actor identity and existence is bound to commitments to at least one of the following: fammily, kin, ethnic ties, clientelist association, religion.
Negotiationg literature
- Competing, compromise, cooperationg.
Approach to interpersonal conflict
- Integrating (win-win) – high concern for self and others;
- Dominating (competitive, win-lose) – high concern for self, low concern for others;
- Compromising (mixed, no win, no lose) – intermediate concern for self and others;
- Avoiding (lose-lose) – low concern for self and others;
- Obliging/accomodating/smooting (losing more than one gains) – low concern for self and high concern for others.
Japan and France
- Might employ avoiding as a delaying strategy
Middle East, Asia, Mexico, France, Russia
- Compromise has a negative connotation, often associated with a second-best solution, with surrender
Western cultures
- Compromise is positive, dont see compromise as losing, but rather as the best solution. Interprets avoiding style as negative.
Conflict Resolution
- Seeks a third party to help disputants fiind a agreable solution
- Outsider-Neutral (Wehr and Lederach) – variation of models according to cotext.
Collectivist cultures take different position in negotiation when dealing with ingroups and with aut groups. More likely to pursue conflict/aggresive strategies with outgroups.
As these soceities include preserving hierarchy, trust, personal relations within the group, dependency the negociator needs different positions of power and gain their trust.
Lessem and Neubauer
- Anglo-Saxons (including USA and Canada) – pragmatism;
- Franco-Nordic – rationalism;
- Germanic/Nippon – wholism;
- Italian/Latin – humanism.
Walker
- First World (western, anglo-saxon) – focus on procedure, concrete detail, factual statements, statistical information;
- Second World (former communist block except China) – deductive-rational approach, arguing from abstract to general principles, prior to entering into specific details;
- Third World – emotion, exaggeration, imagery, ambiguity and refference to history. Stressed the need for compensation justice, arguing from general principles, often considered universal.
Individual vs colectivism
- Most important dimension to underline cultural differences.
- The choice of the actor to prioritize between private/personal interests or colective goals
Individualist societies – the individual is the baseline of the identity, ties are loose and individuals are expected to look after themselves.
Collective societies – the social network (to which the actor belongs) is the baseline of the identity, people are integrated in groups which provide protection in return for loyalty.
Hofstede
- Colectivist societies make distinction between ”our group„ – ”other group”, treat friends better then othersand consider this as being ethical and natural. Morality in colectivist societies is percived differently than in individualistic cultures and is strongly related to the actor social position. The actor identity and existence is bound to commitments to at least one of the following: fammily, kin, ethnic ties, clientelist association, religion.
Negotiationg literature
- Competing, compromise, cooperationg.
Approach to interpersonal conflict
- Integrating (win-win) – high concern for self and others;
- Dominating (competitive, win-lose) – high concern for self, low concern for others;
- Compromising (mixed, no win, no lose) – intermediate concern for self and others;
- Avoiding (lose-lose) – low concern for self and others;
- Obliging/accomodating/smooting (losing more than one gains) – low concern for self and high concern for others.
Japan and France
- Might employ avoiding as a delaying strategy
Middle East, Asia, Mexico, France, Russia
- Compromise has a negative connotation, often associated with a second-best solution, with surrender
Western cultures
- Compromise is positive, dont see compromise as losing, but rather as the best solution. Interprets avoiding style as negative.
Conflict Resolution
- Seeks a third party to help disputants fiind a agreable solution
- Outsider-Neutral (Wehr and Lederach) – variation of models according to cotext.
Collectivist cultures take different position in negotiation when dealing with ingroups and with aut groups. More likely to pursue conflict/aggresive strategies with outgroups.
As these soceities include preserving hierarchy, trust, personal relations within the group, dependency the negociator needs different positions of power and gain their trust.
luni, 12 iulie 2010
vineri, 9 iulie 2010
joi, 8 iulie 2010
miercuri, 7 iulie 2010
Culture, Conflicts, Conflict Resolutions (part 1)
Culture, Conflicts, Conflict Resolutions (part 1)
(this is just a sketch of a article that is way to long to fit here)
Culture
- Associated with the notion of identity;
- Usually regadred as a group phenomenon (despite the importance of the individual identity);
- Is a element among others in determining the outcome of the conflict management process, depending on the degree of cultural diversity among the actors involved;
- Values, beliefs, norms, which influence perceptions, assumptions, attitudes, behaviour and traditional practices;
- ”Collective progamming of the mind” (Hofstede);
- Expresion of all experiences of people or group of people over time which help shape personality and the way issues are perceived;
Cultural levels of analysis and examples:
- Universalism – Westernization; Globalization; Religious Fundamentalism;
- Bipolar divide – East vs East; Universalism vs. Particularism; Liberalism vs. Syncretist Ideologies; Individualism vs. Collectivism;
- Civilizations or Major Country Clusters – Strict doctines; Pan movements; Historic groupings (European, Anglo-American, Asian)
- Supranational or Regional – Celtic; Germanic; Latin; Nordic;
- Multinational States – various countries;
- Ethnonationalism and Nation States – various states;
- Sub-national identities – Catalan; Alsacien; Welsh; Basque;
- Community – towns; villages;
- Family – kin groups;
- Personal/Individual.
Huntington
- Culture will be the main cause of future conflict, and cultural differences are less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic matters, especially when religious is involved.
Rubenstein and Crocker vs. Huntington
- Unless basic needs are unfulfilled as a result of unjust structures, different cultures have no reason to conflict. Conflicts based primarily on cultural differences alone are easier to settle than structural conflicts, because the parties involved seek goods such as identity and mutual recognition which are not in short supply.
My note
- Identity and mutual recognition may not be in short supply but are damn hard to get. Rubenstein and Crocker thesis though logical is contradicted by different examples in world history. Eg. Lack of statal recognition of various sub-national identities.
(to be continued with patterns/approaches to negotiation, individualism vs colectivism and the ”outsider-neutral”, or reffering to the title the rest about conflict and conflict resolution)
(this is just a sketch of a article that is way to long to fit here)
Culture
- Associated with the notion of identity;
- Usually regadred as a group phenomenon (despite the importance of the individual identity);
- Is a element among others in determining the outcome of the conflict management process, depending on the degree of cultural diversity among the actors involved;
- Values, beliefs, norms, which influence perceptions, assumptions, attitudes, behaviour and traditional practices;
- ”Collective progamming of the mind” (Hofstede);
- Expresion of all experiences of people or group of people over time which help shape personality and the way issues are perceived;
Cultural levels of analysis and examples:
- Universalism – Westernization; Globalization; Religious Fundamentalism;
- Bipolar divide – East vs East; Universalism vs. Particularism; Liberalism vs. Syncretist Ideologies; Individualism vs. Collectivism;
- Civilizations or Major Country Clusters – Strict doctines; Pan movements; Historic groupings (European, Anglo-American, Asian)
- Supranational or Regional – Celtic; Germanic; Latin; Nordic;
- Multinational States – various countries;
- Ethnonationalism and Nation States – various states;
- Sub-national identities – Catalan; Alsacien; Welsh; Basque;
- Community – towns; villages;
- Family – kin groups;
- Personal/Individual.
Huntington
- Culture will be the main cause of future conflict, and cultural differences are less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic matters, especially when religious is involved.
Rubenstein and Crocker vs. Huntington
- Unless basic needs are unfulfilled as a result of unjust structures, different cultures have no reason to conflict. Conflicts based primarily on cultural differences alone are easier to settle than structural conflicts, because the parties involved seek goods such as identity and mutual recognition which are not in short supply.
My note
- Identity and mutual recognition may not be in short supply but are damn hard to get. Rubenstein and Crocker thesis though logical is contradicted by different examples in world history. Eg. Lack of statal recognition of various sub-national identities.
(to be continued with patterns/approaches to negotiation, individualism vs colectivism and the ”outsider-neutral”, or reffering to the title the rest about conflict and conflict resolution)
luni, 5 iulie 2010
vineri, 2 iulie 2010
joi, 1 iulie 2010
Abonați-vă la:
Postări (Atom)