I'm Chetan Bhatt and when I give my name, I'm often asked, "Where are you from?" And I normally say London.
Ja sam Chetan Bhatt i kada kažem svoje ime, ljudi me često pitaju odakle sam. Inače kažem - iz Londona.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
But of course, I know what they're really asking, so I say something like, "Well, my grandparents and my mum were born in India, my dad and I were born in Kenya, and I was brought up in London. And then they've got me mapped. "Ah, you're a Kenyan Asian. I've worked with one of those."
Ali, naravno, znam što zaista žele znati, pa kažem nešto kao, "Moji djed i baka i majka rođeni su u Indiji, ja i moj otac u Keniji, a odrastao sam u Londonu. Tada sam im jasniji. "Ah, pa ti si kenijski azijat. Radio sam s jednim takvim."
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
And from my name they probably assume that I'm a Hindu. And this sort of fixes me for them.
I iz mog imena vjerojatno pretpostavljaju da sam hinduist. To me u njihovim očima nekako učini boljim.
But what about the Christians and the Muslims and the atheists that I grew up with? Or the socialists and the liberals, even the occasional Tory?
Ali što je s kršćanima i muslimanima i ateistima s kojima sam odrastao? Ili socijalistima i liberalistima, pa čak i ponekim torijevcima?
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Indeed, all kinds of women and men -- vegetable sellers, factory workers, cooks, car mechanics -- living in my working class area, in some profoundly important way, they are also a part of me and are here with me. Maybe that's why I find it hard to respond to questions about identity and about origin. And it's not just a sort of teenage refusal to be labeled. It's about our own most identities, the ones that we put our hands up to, the ones that we cheer for, the ones that we fight for, the ones that we love or hate. And it's about how we apprehend ourselves as well as others. And it's about identities we just assume that we have without thinking too much about them.
Svakakve vrste muškaraca i žena - prodavači povrća, tvorničari, kuhari, automehaničari - koji žive u području moje radničke klase, na neki iznimno važan način, također su dio mene i tu su sa mnom. Možda mi je zato teško odgovarati na pitanja o identitetu i podrijetlu. Nije to samo tinejdžerski bunt protiv etiketa. Tu se radi o našim identitetima, o onima kojima se predamo, o onima za koje navijamo, o onima za koje se borimo, o onima koje volimo ili mrzimo. I tako razumijemo i sebe i ostale. Tu se radi o identitetima koje pretpostavljamo da imamo, a da i ne razmišljamo o njima
But our responses to questions of identity and origin have substantial social and political importance. We see the wars, the rages of identity going on all around us. We see violent religious, national and ethnic disputes. And often the conflict is based on old stories of identity and belonging and origins. And these identities are based on myths, typically about ancient, primordial origins. And these could be about Adam and Eve or about the supremacy of a caste or gender or about the vitality of a supposed race or about the past glories of an empire or civilization or about a piece of land that some imagined deity has gifted.
Ali naši odgovori na pitanja o identitetu i podrijetlu imaju značajnu društvenu i političku važnost. Gledamo ratove, divljanja identiteta oko nas. Gledamo nasilne religijske, nacionalne i etničke sporove. Konflikt se često temelji na starim pričama o identitetu i pripadnosti i podrijetlu. I ti su identiteti utemeljeni na mitovima, najčešće o drevnom, iskonskom podrijetlu. Možda o Adamu i Evi ili nadmoći jedne društvene klase ili spola ili o vitalnosti superiorne rase ili o prijašnjoj slavi carstva ili civilizacije ili o komadu zemlje koji je darovalo neko zamišljeno božanstvo.
Now, people say that origin stories and identity myths make us feel secure. What's wrong with that? They give us a sense of belonging. Identity is your cultural clothing, and it can make you feel warm and fuzzy inside. But does it really? Do we really need identity myths to feel safe? Because I see religious, national, ethnic disputes as adding to human misery.
Ljudi kažu da se zbog priča o podrijetlu i mitova o identitetu osjećamo sigurno. Što je u tome loše? Daju nam osjećaj pripadnosti. Identitet je naša kulturalna odjeća, zahvaljujući kojemu se osjećamo sigurno. Ali je li to stvarno tako? Jesu li nam ti mitovi zaista potrebni da se osjećamo sigurno? Po meni religijski nacionalni i etički sporovi samo doprinose ljudskoj bijedi.
Can I dare you to refuse every origin myth that claims you? What if we reject every single primordial origin myth and develop a deeper sense of personhood, one responsible to humanity as a whole rather than to a particular tribe, a radically different idea of humanity that exposes how origin myths mystify, disguise global power, rapacious exploitation, poverty, the worldwide oppression of women and girls, and of course massive, accelerating inequalities?
Izazivam vas da ne prihvatite svaki mit o podrijetlu koji vas određuje. Što ako odbijemo baš svaki mit o iskonskom podrijetlu i razvijemo dublji smisao o osobnosti koji je odgovoran za čovječanstvo u cjelini, umjesto o određenom plemenu, radikalno drugačija ideja u čovječanstvu koja otkriva kako mitovi o podrijetlu mistificiraju, skrivaju globalnu moć, gramzivo iskorištavanje, siromaštvo, globalno ugnjetavanje žena i djevojaka te, naravno, masivne nejednakosti koje su sve veće?
Now, origin myths are closely linked to tradition, and the word tradition points to something old and permanent, almost natural, and people assume tradition is just history, simply the past condensed into a nice story. But let's not confuse tradition with history. The two are often in severe conflict. Origin stories are usually recently created fictions of ancient belonging, and they're absurd given the complexity of humanity and our vastly interconnected, even if very unequal world. And today we see claims to tradition that claim to be ancient changing rapidly in front of our eyes.
Mitovi o podrijetlu usko su vezani uz tradiciju, a svjetska tradicija ukazuje na nešto staro i trajno, gotovo prirodno, a ljudi pretpostavljaju da je tradicija samo povijest, jednostavno prošlost sažeta u lijepu priču. No, nemojmo miješati tradiciju i povijest. Ta su dva pojma u teškom konfliktu. Priče o podrijetlu inače su svježe izmišljene priče o pradavnoj pripadnosti i apsurdne su, s obzirom na složenost čovječanstva i našu iznimnu međusobnu povezanost, čak i u iznimno nejednakom svijetu. Danas svjedočimo kako se tradicija koja tvrdi da je pradavna ubrzano mijenja pred našim očima.
I was brought up in the 1970s near Wembley with Asian, English, Caribbean, Irish families living in our street, and the neo-Nazi National Front was massive then with regular marches and attacks on us and a permanent threat and often a frequent reality of violence against us on the streets, in our homes, typically by neo-Nazis and other racists. And I remember during a general election a leaflet came through our letter box with a picture of the National Front candidate for our area. And the picture was of our next-door neighbor. He threatened to shoot me once when I played in the garden as a kid, and many weekends, shaven-headed National Front activists arrived at his house and emerged with scores of placards screaming that they wanted us to go back home. But today he's one of my mum's best mates. He's a very lovely, gentle and kind man, and at some point in his political journey out of fascism he embraced a broader idea of humanity.
Odgojen sam '70-ih u blizini Wembleya s azijskim, engleskim, karipskim, irskim obiteljima u susjedstvu, a neonacistička nacionalna fronta tada je bila u punom jeku s redovnim marševima i napadima na nas i trajnom prijetnjom i čestom stvarnosti nasilja nad nama na ulicama, u našim domovima, najčešće od strane neonacista i drugih rasista. Sjećam se kako je za vrijeme općih izbora u poštanski sandučić stigao letak sa slikom kandidata nacionalne fronte za naše područje. Na slici je bio naš prvi susjed. Jednom mi je prijetio da će me upucati kad sam se kao mali igrao u njegovu vrtu i vikendima su aktivisti nacionalne fronte obrijanih glava dolazili su u njegovu kuću i izlazili s natpisima koji su nam govorili da se vratimo kući. Ali danas je on jedan od maminih najboljih prijatelja. On je jako ugodan, nježan i drag čovjek i u određenom trenutku u njegovom političkom izlasku iz fašizma, prigrlio je širu ideju čovječnosti.
There was a Hindu family that we got to know well -- and you have to understand that life in our street was a little bit like the setting for an Asian soap opera. Everyone knew everyone else's business, even if they didn't want it to be known by anyone at all. You really had no choice in this matter. But in this family, there was a quiet little boy who went to the same school as I did, and after I left school, I didn't hear much more about him, except that he'd gone off to India. Now around 2000, I remember seeing this short book. The book was unusual because it was written by a British supporter of Al Qaeda, and in it the author calls for attacks in Britain. This is in 1999, so 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq was still in the future, and he helped scout New York bombing targets. He taught others how to make a dirty bomb to use on the London Underground, and he plotted a massive bombing campaign in London's shopping areas. He's a very high-risk security prisoner in the UK and one of the most important Al Qaeda figures to be arrested in Britain.
Hinduistička obitelj koju smo dobro upoznali -- i morate razumjeti da je život u napoj ulici bio poput scene za azijsku sapunicu. Svi su znali tuđa posla, čak i ako nisu htjeli da ih itko zna. Tu zaista niste imali izbora. Ali u ovoj obitelji bio je tihi mali dječak koji je išao u moju školu. Bakon što sam završio školu, nisam čuo skoro ništa o njemu, osim toga da je otišao u Indiju. Oko 2000. godine sječam se da sam vidio ovu kratku knjigu. Knjiga je bila neobična jer ju je napisao britanski pristaša Al-Kaide, a u njoj autor poziva na napade u Britaniji. Bilo je to 1999., pa je 11. rujna i iračka invazija tek slijedila i on je pomogao izviditi bombaške mete New Yorka. Druge je naučio kako napraviti bombu koju će koristiti u londonskom podzemlju i razradio je ogromnu bombašku kampanju u londonskim trgovačkim zonama. On je zatvorenik visokog rizika u Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu i jedan od najvažnijih Al-Kaidinih traženih ličnosti u Britaniji.
The author of that book was the very same quiet little boy who went to my school. So a Hindu boy from Britain became an Al Qaeda fighter and a most-wanted international terrorist, and he rejected what people would call his Hindu or Indian or British identity, and he became someone else. He refused to be who he was. He recreated himself, and this kind of journey is very common for young men and women who become involved in Al Qaeda or Islamic State or other transnational armed groups. Al Qaeda's media spokesman is a white American from a Jewish and Catholic mixed background, and neither he nor the boy from my school were from Muslim backgrounds. There's no point in asking them where are they from. A more important question is where they're going.
Autor te knjige bio je isti tihi mali dječak iz moje škole. Hinduistički dječak iz Britanije postao je Al-Kaidin borac, jedan od najtraženijih svjetskih terorista i odbacio je svoj tzv. hinduistički, indijski ili britanski identitet i postao je netko drugi. Odbio je biti ono što jest. Redefinirao se, a takva vrsta putovanja uobičajena je za mlade muškarce i žene koji se umiješaju u Al-Kaidu ili Islamsku državu ili druge međunarodne oružane skupine. Medijski glasnogovornik za Al-Kaidu je bijeli Amerikanac židovskog i katoličkoga miješanog podrijetla, a ni on ni dječak iz moje škole nisu muslimanskog podrijetla. Nema ih smisla pitati odakle su. Važnije je pitanje gdje idu.
And I would also put it to you that exactly the same journey occurs for those young men and women who were brought up in Muslim family backgrounds. Most of those who join Al Qaeda and other Salafi jihadi groups from Europe, Asia, North America, even in many cases the Middle East are those who have comprehensively rejected their backgrounds to become, in essence, new people. They spend an enormous amount of time attacking their parents' backgrounds as profane, impure, blasphemous, the wrong type of Islam, and their vision instead is a fantastical view of cosmic apocalypse. It's a born again vision. Discard your past, your society, your family and friends since they're all impure. Instead, become someone else, your true self, your authentic self. Now, this isn't about a return to the past. It's about using a forgery of the past to envision an appalling future which begins today at year zero. This is why over 80 percent of the victims of Al Qaeda and Islamic State are people from Muslim backgrounds. The first act by Salafi jihadi groups when they take over an area is to destroy existing Muslim institutions including mosques, shrines, preachers, practices. Their main purpose is to control and punish people internally, to dictate the spaces that women may go, their clothing, family relations, beliefs, even the minute detail of how one prays. And you get the impression in the news that they are after us in the West, but they are actually mainly after people from other Muslim backgrounds. In their view, no other Muslim can ever be pure enough, so ordinary beliefs and practices that have existed for centuries are attacked as impure by teenagers from Birmingham or London who know nothing about the histories that they so joyously obliterate.
Također bih vam naglasio da potpuno isto putovanje prolaze oni mladi muškarci i žene odgojeni u obiteljima muslimanskog podrijetla. Većina osoba koje se pridruže Al-Kaidi i drugim selefijskim džihadskim skupinama iz Europe, Azije, Sjeverne Amerike, čak i srednjeg istoka, jesu oni koji su potpuno odbacili svoja podrijetla kako bi postali, u biti, novi ljudi. Provode jako puno vremena napadajući podrijetla svojih roditelja govoreći da su grešna, nečista, bezbožna, pogrešna vrsta islama, a njihovo je viđenje novokonvencionalni pogled kozmičke apokalipse. To je stajalište ponovno rođene osobe. Odbacite svoju prošlost, svoje društvo, svoju obitelj i prijatelje jer su svi oni nečisti. Postanite netko drugi, pravi vi, vaša autentična ličnost. Ovdje se ne radi o povratku u prošlost. Tu se radi o krivotvorenju prošlosti kako bi se zamislila strašna budućnost koja započinje danas, na nultu godinu. To je razlog zašto je 80% žrtava Al-Kaide i Islamske države muslimanskog podrijetla. Prvi čin selefijskih džihadskih skupina kad preuzmu područje je uništenje muslimanskih institucija uključujući džamije, svetišta, propovjednike, prakse. Osnovna svrha je kontrolirati i kažnjavati ljude iznutra, diktirati područja u koja idu žene, njihovu odjeću, obiteljske odnose, uvjerenja i način molitve do u najsitnije detalje. U vijestima dobijete dojam da su krenuli na nas na Zapadu, ali zapravo su krenuli na ljude drugih muslimanskih podrijetla. Oni smatraju da nijedan drugi Musliman ne može biti dovoljno čist, pa se obična vjerovanja i prakse koje postoje stoljećima napadaju kao nečista od strane tinejdžera iz Birmingmaha ili Londona koji ne znaju ništa o povijestima koje tako radosno uništavaju.
Now here, their claim to tradition is at war with history, but they're nevertheless very certain about their purity and about the impurity of others. Purity, certainty, the return to authentic tradition, the quest for these can lead to lethal visions of perfect societies and perfected people.
Njihovo pozivanje na tradiciju u sukobu je s povijesti, ali svejedno su uvjereni u njezinu čistoću i u grešnost ostalih. Čistoća sigurnost, povratak autentičnoj tradiciji, potraga za time može dovesti do smrtonosnih vizija savršenih društava i usavršenih pojedinaca.
This is what the main Hindu fundamentalist organization in India looks like today at its mass rally. Maybe it reminds you of the 1930s in Italy or Germany, and the movement's roots are indeed in fascism. It was a member of the same Hindu fundamentalist movement who shot dead Mahatma Gandhi. Hindu fundamentalists today view this murderer as a national hero, and they want to put up statues of him throughout India. They've been involved for decades in large-scale mass violence against minorities. They ban books, art, films. They attack romantic couples on Valentine's Day, Christians on Christmas Day. They don't like others talking critically about what they see as their ancient culture or using its images or caricaturing it or drawing cartoons about it. But the people making the strongest possible claims about ancient, timeless Hindu religion are dressed in brown shorts and white shirts while claiming, oddly, to be the original Aryan race, just like the violent Salafi jihadis who make their claims about their primordial religion while dressed in black military uniforms and wearing balaclavas.
Tako glavna hinduistička fundamentalistička organizacija u Indiji danas izgleda na svom masovnom skupu. Možda vas to podsjeća na Italiju i Njemačku 30-ih godina, a korijeni pokreta su uistinu fašistički. Član istog hinduističkog fundamentalističkog pokreta ubio je Mahatmu Gandhija. Hinduistički fundamentalisti danas na njega gledaju kao na nacionalnog junaka i žele postaviti njegove kipove diljem Indije. Desetljećima su uključeni u masovna nasilja širokih razmjera prema manjinama. Zabranjuju knjige, umjetnost, filmove. Napadaju zaljubljene parove na Valentinovo, a kršćane na Božić. Ne vole kad drugi kritiziraju ono što oni smatraju pradavnom kulturom ili kad koriste slike ili rade karikature ili crtiće o tome. Ali oni koji imaju najjače moguće tvrdnje o pradavnoj, bezvremenskoj hinduističkoj religiji nose kratke smeđe hlače i bijele košulje dok, začudo, tvrde da su originalna arijska rasa, kao što nasilni selefijski džihadisti koji govore o svojoj iskonskoj religiji obučeni u crne vojne uniforme i s fantomkama.
These people are manufacturing pure, pristine identities of conviction and of certainty. Fundamentalists see religion and culture as their sole property, a property. But religions and cultures are processes. They're not things. They're impermanent. They're messy. They're impure. Look at any religion and you'll see disputes and arguments going all the way down.
Ti ljudi stvaraju čiste, izvorne identitete osuda i uvjerenja. Fundamentalisti religiju i kulturu vide kao samo njihovo vlasništvo, vlasništvo. Ali religije i kulture su procesi. Nisu stvari. Nepostojani su. Zamršeni. Nečisti. Uzmite bilo koju religiju i naići ćete na sporove i svađe koji sežu do samog dna.
Any criticism of religion in any form has to therefore be part of the expansive sense of humanity we should aspire to. I respect your right to have and to express your religion or your culture or your opinion, but I don't necessarily have to respect the content. I might like some of it. I might like how an old church looks, for example, but this isn't the same thing. Similarly, I have a human right to say something that you may find offensive, but you do not have a human right not to be offended. In a genuine democracy, we're constantly offended since people express different views all the time. They also change their views, so their views are impermanent. You cannot fix someone's political views based on their religious or national or cultural background.
Bilo kakva kritika religije u bilo kojem obliku time mora biti dijelom šireg smisla čovječnosti kojem trebamo težiti. Poštujem vaše pravo da imate i manifestirate svoju religiju ili kulturu ili mišljenje, ali ja ne moram nužno poštovati njihov sadržaj. Može mi se sviđati dio nje. Može mi se npr. svišati kako stara crkva izgleda, ali to nije ista stvar. Slično tome, imam ljudsko pravo reći nešto što ćete možda smatrati uvredljivim, ali vi nemate ljudsko pravo ne biti uvrijeđeni. U istinskoj demokraciji, neprestano smo uvrijeđeni jer ljudi konstantno izražavaju različita stajališta. Takošer mijenjaju svoja stajališta, pa su ona time nepostojana. Ne možete popraviti nečija politička stjaališta ovisno o njihovom religijskom, nacionalnom, kulturnom podrijetlu.
Now, these points about religious purity also apply to nationalism and to racism. I'm always puzzled to have pride in your national or ethnic identity, pride in the accident of birth from a warm and cozy womb, belief in your superiority because of the accident of birth.
Te tvrdnje o religijskoj čistoći također se mogu primijeniti na nacionalizam i rasizam. Uvijek me čudi ponos u nacionalni ili etnički identitet, ponos zbog slučajnosti rođenja iz tople i ugodne utrobe, vjerovanje u vlastitu superioronost zbog slučajnosti rođenja.
These people have very firm ideas about what belongs and what doesn't belong inside the cozy national cultures that they imagine. And I'm going to caricature a bit here, but only a little bit. I want you to imagine the supporter of some Little Englander or British nationalist political party, and he's sitting at home and he's screaming about foreigners invading his country while watching Fox News, an American cable channel owned by an Australian on his South Korean television set which was bought by his Spanish credit card which is paid off monthly by his high-street British bank which has its headquarters in Hong Kong. He supports a British football team owned by a Russian. His favorite brand of fish and chips is owned by a Swedish venture capitalist firm. The church he sometimes goes to has its creed decided in meetings in Ghana. His Union Jack underpants were made in India.
Ovi ljudi imaju jako čvrste ideje o tome što pripada i što ne pripada unutar tih udobnih nacionalnih kultura koje zamišljaju. Malo ću karikirati ovdje, ali samo malo. želim da zamislite pristašu nekog Little Englandera ili nacionalističke političke stranke kako sjedi kod kuće i dere se na neke strance koji napadaju njegovu zemlju dok gleda vijesti na Foxu, američku kabelsku televiziju čiji je vlasnik Australac, na televizoru iz Sjeverne Koreje koji je kupio španjolskom kreditnom karticom koju otplaćuje na mjesečne rate u svojoj narodnoj britanskoj banci čije je sjedište u Hong Kongu. Podržava britanski nogometni tim koji je u vlasništvu Rusa. Njegov najdraži brend ribe i pomfrita u vlasništvu je tvrtke švedskog poduzetničkog kapitala. O vjerovanju crkve u koju ponekad ide odlučuje se na sastancima u Gani. Njegove gaće sa zastavom izrađene su u Indiji.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
And --
I --
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
And they're laundered regularly by a very nice Polish lady.
I redovno ih pere pored drage Poljakinje.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
There is no pure ethnicity, national culture, and the ethical choices we have today are far wider than being forced to choose between racist right and religious right visions, dismal visions of culture.
Nema čiste etničnosti, nacionalne kulture i etički izbori koje danas imamo puno su širi od toga da nas se sili da biramo između rasnog prava i vizija religijskog prava, tužnih vizija kulture.
Now, culture isn't just about language, food, clothing and music, but gender relations, ancient monuments, a heritage of sacred texts. But culture can also be what has been decided to be culture by those who have a political stake in pounding culture into the shape of a prison. Big political identity claims are elite bids for power. They're not answers to social or economic or political injustices. They often obscure them. And what about the large number of people across the globe who can't point to a monument from their past, who don't possess a sacred written text, who can't hark back to the past glories of a civilization or empire? Are these people less a part of humanity?
Kultura se ne odnosi samo na jezik, hranu, odjeću i glazbu, već i na odnose između spolova, spomenike iz davnine, baštinu svetih tekstova. Ali kultura može biti i ono za što se odlučilo da je kultura od strane onih koji imaju politički interes u oblikovanju kulturu u oblik zatvora. Velike tvrdnje o političkom identitetu elitna su nastojanja za vlast. Nisu to samo odgovori na socijalne ili ekonomske ili političke nepravde. Često iz zamagle. A što je s velikim brojem ljudi diljem svijeta što ne mogu ukazati na spomenik svoje prošlosti, ne posjeduju sveti pisani tekst, ne mogu se prisjetiti prijašnje slave civilizacije ili carstva? čini li ih to manje dijelom čovječanstva?
What about you, now, listening to this? What about you and your identity, because you stitch your experiences and your thoughts into a continuous person moving forward in time. And this is what you are when you say, "I," "am," or "me." But this also includes all of your hopes and dreams, all of the you's that could have been, and it includes all the other people and the things that are in the biography of who you are. They, the others, are also a part of you, moving forward with you. Your authentic self, if such a thing exists, is a complex, messy and uncertain self, and that is a very good thing. Why not value those impurities and uncertainties? Maybe clinging to pure identities is a sign of immaturity, and ethnic, nationalist and religious traditions are bad for you. Why not be skeptical about every primordial origin claim made on your behalf? Why not reject the identity myths that call on you to belong, that politicians and community leaders, so-called community leaders, place on you? If we don't need origin stories and fixed identities, we can challenge ourselves to think creatively about each other and our future.
A što je s vama koji upravo ovo slušate? što je s vama i vašim identitetom jer ste spojili svoja iskustva i svoje misli u neprekinutu ličnost koja se kreće prema naprijed. To ste kad kažete "Ja", "sam" ili "mene". Ali to uključuje i sva naša nadanja i snove, svako "vi" koje ste mogli biti i uključuje sve druge ljude i stvari koje su u biografiji vašeg identiteta. Oni, drugi, također su dio vas, kreću se prema naprijed s vama. Vaša autentična ličnost, ako takvo što uopće postoji, kompleksna je, zamršena i nesigurna suština, a to je jako dobro. Zašto ne cijeniti te nečistoće i nesigurnosti? Možda je to što se držimo čistih identiteta znak nesigurnosti i etničke, nacionalističke, religijske tradicije su loše za vas. Zašto ne biti skeptičan prema izjavama o iskonskom podrijetlu izrečenim u vaše ime? Zašto ne odbiti mitove o identitetu koje vas pozivaju na pripadanje, koje vam političari i vođe zajednice, takozvane vođe zajednice, nameću? Ako ne trebamo priče o podrijetlu i utvrđenim identitetima, možemo se izazivati da kreativno razmišljamo jedni o drugima i o našoj budućnosti.
And here culture always takes care of itself. I'm not worried about culture. Cultures are creative, dynamic processes, not imposed laws and boundaries.
Tu se kultura uvijek pobrine sama o sebi. Ne brinem se ja za kulturu. Kulture su kreativni, dinamički procesi, koje ne nameću zakoni i granice.
This is Abu al-Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Rushd, a very senior Muslim judge and thinker in Cordoba in the 12th century, and his writings were considered deeply blasphemous, heretical and evil. Long after he died, followers of his work were ruthlessly hunted down, banished and killed over several centuries by the most powerful religious institution of the medieval period. That institution was the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Because ibn Rushd said that something true in religion may conflict with something that your reason finds to be true on earth, but the latter is still true. There are two distinct worlds of truth, one based on our reason and evidence, and one that is divine, and the state, political power, social law are in the realm of reason. Religious life is a different realm. They should be kept separated. Social and political life should be governed by our reason, not by religion. And you can see why the church was upset by his writings, as indeed were some Muslims during his lifetime, because he gives us a strong statement of secularism of a kind which is normal in Europe today.
Ovo je Abu al-Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Rushd, stari muslimanski sudac i mislilac u Cordobi u 12. stoljeću, a njegovi su uradci smatrani bogohulnim, heretičkim i zlim. Dugo nakon njegove smrti, sljedbenici njegovog rada okrutno su proganjani, prognani i ubijani stoljećima od strane najmoćnije srednjovjekovne religijske institucije. Ta je institucija bila rimokatolička crkva. Zašto? Zato što je ibn Rushd rekao da nešto istinito u religiji može biti u sukobu s nečim što vaš razum smatra istinitim na zemlji, ali potonje je i dalje istinito. Postoje dva različita svijeta istine, jedan utemeljen na našem razumu i dokazima, a drugi je božanski, a država, politička moć, društveni zakon nalaze se u sferi razuma. Religijski život je drugačija sfera. Trebali bi biti odvojeni. Društvenim i političkim životom treba upravljati razum, a ne religija. Shvaćate zašto je crkvu njegovo pisanje uznemirilo , kao i neke Muslimane tijekom njegova života - jer nam daje snažnu sekularističku izjavu kakva je danas u Europi normalna.
Now, history plays many tricks on us. It undermines our fixed truths and what we believe to be our culture and their culture. Ibn Rushd, someone who happens to be a Muslim, is considered one of the key influences in the introduction and spread of secularism in Europe.
Povijest se poigrava s nama. Potkopava utvrđene istine i ono što vjerujemo da je naša i njihova kultura. Ibn Rushd, netko tko je Musliman smatra se jednim od ključnih utjecaja u uvođenju i širenju sekularizma u Europi.
So against religious, nationalist and racial purists of all kinds, can you make his story a part of your own, not because he happened to be a Muslim, not because he happened to be an Arab, but because he was a human being with some very good ideas that shook his world and ours.
Na osnovi religijskih, nacionalističkih i rasnih purista svake vrste možete njegovu priču učiniti dijelom vaše, ne zbog toga što je Musliman, ne zbog toga što je Arap, nego zato što je ljudsko biće s iznimno dobrim idejama koje su potresle njegov i naš svijet.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)