I don't want to sound alarmist, but things aren't looking good in the KRI. Not only is there an economic crisis the government has chosen to reply to with violence, but there is a real threat of civil war with the KDP continuously ratcheting up tensions with the PKK #TwitterKurds
We have compounding tragedies of internal rivalries, an elite that has transferred its wealth abroad, neighbours who can strangle the landlocked region, and a reliance on an inflated public sector that simply cannot sustain the population.
Even if we weather this newest storm, we are heading in every direction towards constantly worsening scenarios and we simply don't have any realistic answers for what to do next coming from anyone in a position to do something about it.
The KRI is, of course, just one region in a Middle East that is seemingly constantly on fire. But it is a central region with important knock-on effects on its neighbours. The international community should pay close attention to what is happening.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Although some people might well get upset at this, I thought I would clarify my own personal opinion of the PKK although I usually brush it off.
My opinion is simple, they are at the point in their history where they are doing more harm than good by staying as they are.
I am not an ideologue. I subscribe to no real direction politically except promoting equal rights for citizens as well as good, representative governance.
In light of this, I think every political movement needs to ask what it is they want to achieve as well as how to do that.
In the PKK's case, their goals have obviously changed since 1978, but the clear overall mission is some sort of democratic autonomy for Kurds in Turkey. This, alas, isn't going to happen. There simply isn't an ally in the world - not to mention Turkey itself - that will accept it
He also condemns attacks on ENKS offices in Syria and says no one has the right to attack them.
I don't know what I expected to be honest, but assigning blame to the KDP in no uncertain terms is very strong. Not mincing words in who he thinks is in the wrong here or should take steps back towards dialogue. The real question being: can they?
I've been spending a lot of time in hospital here in Bashur and am struck by two things that I had noticed among my own friends and family that are apparently turning into the norm here:
Women choosing to not breastfeed and women choosing to schedule C-sections before their ED's
Normally, I would shut up and remind myself to shut up about women's health issues since, of course, I am not a woman.
However, I believe in this case, the pressure to do both of these things comes from the expectations of men.
Myths and ideas about what happens to women's bodies as a natural part of child birth and feeding children have turned from something that is miraculous in itself into a perceived negative with women being urged to avoid "destroying" their bodies.
I found the account @ErasingWomen recently and I was stunned both that it existed and the extent of the issue it is covering.
The account is dedicated to highlighting the corporate erasure of the term "women", instead replaced by anatomical or fad terms.
As a man, I don't really find my male identity being targeted a lot. No one has ever referred to me as a "testicle haver" or "penis owner" or other mildly amusing terms and expecting me to accept these new terms out of a sense of solidarity with someone who is offended by "man".
On the other hand, women do seem to be battling with their identity bot being apparent but open to debate. They can, in all seriousness, be called "vulva people" or "ovary havers" or even "birthers" in even governmental service announcements.
What is fascinating is both sides actually say this often. "After peace, we have to live together" or some variation thereof, yet both also deny the right of the other to exist calling Azeri mosques "Persian" or Armenian churches "Caucasian Albanian" etc.
The dynamic created in modern ethnic conflicts, and very evident in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, is that of revisionist history turned into unwavering national narrative to which modern identities are formed.
Each side grotesquely mischaracterise the other and both sides are unwavering in narrative.
Unlike Germany or Italy during WW2, where military dictatorships had seized power, consecutive Armenian/Azeri governments have promoted these stories.
Ett någorlunda akademiskt perspektiv på den här tråden:
Enligt flera forskare som studerar socialpsykologi så finns det både rimliga och rationella anledningar till varför etniska svenskar kan känna sig obekväma eller rent sagt hotade av saker som hijab eller böneutrop.
Enligt Social Identity Theory (tillämpat till etniska grupper av Mummendey et al) så kan olika grupper anse varandra som 'normativa' så länge de anser att den andra gruppen beter sig på ett sätt som överensstämmer med en tänkt överordnad identitet.
Dvs en norrländing och en skåning till exempel kan förstå att de tillhör två olika grupper, fast båda är normativa inom grupperingen 'svensk' som är den överordnade gruppen i det här sammanhanget.