In his latest book Spatial Racism, imprisoned author Ramazan Çeper, who produced a unique work focusing on the use of space and symbols in Kurdistan, stated that colonialism in the Kurdish region pursues a distinct policy of assimilation and exploitation through spatial control.
Çeper noted that the use of space in Kurdistan is approached from a colonial perspective, emphasizing that colonialism focuses most heavily on controlling spaces and symbols.
Colonialism first attacked the symbols
Ramazan Çeper, speaking in the second part of his assessment to ANF, described how colonialism targets spaces and symbols: “While we interact with ideological symbols embedded in every part of our daily lives, would nation-states’ secular ideologies and colonialism ever leave this space untouched? If they could, they would even cover the sky with flags. When the peace process collapsed in 2015, the first things they attacked were the statues and memorials in a few locations. In Licê , they toppled a statue, stood on it to take photos for the media, and then tied it to the back of an armored vehicle.
In Mêrdîn (Mardin), they could not even tolerate the statue of Uğur Kaymaz, who was killed at the age of 13. In Agirî (Ağrı), they demolished and smashed with cranes a statue of historical significance. The fact that the first attacks targeted symbols, emblems, and monuments demonstrates how seriously colonialism treats this issue, and its determination to leave no space for any existence, belonging, identity, or value other than its own.
It is not only symbols and emblems; even macro-scale spatial designs in the Kurdish region have not been sufficiently addressed, nor have resistance dynamics containing decolonial perspectives been effectively mobilized.
For example, dams have been highlighted in terms of their political, economic, and historical dimensions, yet it has not been explained how these macro spatial arrangements have caused a topographical transformation. Secondly, the link with faith and the sacred has hardly been established. Yet an ethnicity gains meaning, value, and identity through its beliefs and the geography in which those beliefs take root.”
Kurds used nature as a place rather than building spaces
Ramazan Çeper stated that Kurds actually gave more importance to symbols than to spaces and perceived the use of space differently. From a religious perspective, he said that in Kurdistan, rather than temples, nature itself has been used as a temple. Çeper continued: “Let us make a comparison on this matter: Why is it that in the geographies right next to us there are countless temples belonging to the oldest faiths, yet in the Kurdish region, which is the birthplace of those faiths, there are so few? Even though there were thousands of temples made of earth and clay, why is the number of temples and places of worship in the Kurdish region so limited? Because in the Kurdish region, the scarcity of man-made temples is due to the use of natural spaces as temples. Springs, rivers, certain trees have been regarded as temples.
The construction of temples reflects the process of separating human beings from nature in the context of faith, and of commodifying nature by placing it within the grip of ownership. Building a place of worship outside nature is also the process of turning religions into ideology. When you build a temple somewhere, sanctity remains within the walls of that space. It is not the outside of that place, but only the inside, that is made sacred. However, Kurds have generally used natural spaces as temples.
For example, the water and trees of ‘Darika Ziyaretê,’ known as the ‘wish tree,’ come from the tradition of seeing them as a temple. The definition of a ‘ziyaret tree’ comes from perceiving it as a visitation space, that is, a place of worship.
In his work on faith, Ethem Xemgin recounts that when Alexander of Macedonia reached the bank of the Zap River and wanted to have a sacrifice performed, one of his advisors intervened, saying that the people living in this geography were Zoroastrians, and in their belief it was a sin to pollute the water. Out of respect for their faith, it was suggested to dig a pit 20–30 meters away from the river and slaughter the sacrificial animals there.
Rivers are sacred, and some of their spots have been used as places of worship. For example, Seyid Rıza, together with the tribal leaders with whom he had decided to resist, went to the Halvori Springs, passed around the stone on which they swore an oath, and threw that stone into the water of the Munzur River. In this way, they sealed their oath in the witness and sanctity of Munzur.
Spatial policies should not be looked at superficially, and especially in the Kurdish region this should not be the case. If you remove the spiritual dimension from these macro-scale spatial designs, which they themselves declare to have colonial purposes, what will remain is opposition to trade and capitalism.
The notion of intervening in the sacred is a call to collectivity rather than individuality. The notion of ‘ecological destruction’ is a call to the sensitivity of people with a high awareness of nature. When you build a resistance epistemology through intervention into traditions, values, and beliefs, not only those living in that region but anyone whose connection to moral values has not been severed will take part in it.”
Body politics is of fundamental importance in racism and colonialism
Ramazan Çeper stated that power establishes domination not only through space but also over the body, and that this domination should not be considered separately from the ‘conquest’ carried out over space. He continued: “Body politics is of fundamental importance in racism and colonialism. It begins by creating an ‘anatomy of power,’ through which the subjugation and subordination of the body are established. The encirclement of the body and the micro-physics of power begin by reducing distance, hierarchical relationships, command, obedience, and the meanings of slave, master to bodily behaviors.
Constantly coding the movements of the body, removing them from the world of social culture and keeping them within a new visibility, and creating around them an entire field of semiotic indicators, these have been among the primary activities of power. State-centric power, which also shapes normative shackles, categorizes and fixes the subject around semiotic behaviors, while producing a self-perpetuating crudity of power.”
Bodily behaviors reflect a person’s ideology
Çeper stated that bodily behaviors also reveal a person’s ideological reflection, emphasizing that individuals act in accordance with their beliefs: “All behaviors are tied to the symbolism of the body and are part of a universe of meaning. Verbal expressions, gestures, and actions are shaped in ways that members of social groups can recognize and interpret together.
From this perspective, it is necessary to question and to know which behavior belongs to the behavioral pattern of which cultural ground, group, or ideology. For example, in Turkey, the head-butting gesture used by skullcap nationalists (ultranationalists) as a form of greeting is one of the distinctive behaviors of such groups.
In all Middle Eastern societies, and even in the geography of Turanian cultures to which these nationalists refer, people greet one another by kissing on the cheek. The fact that these nationalists, instead of kissing on the cheek, greet by head-butting was, at first, the subject of much irony. Like clinking glasses, they knock the tops of their heads together from the side, and the sound of skulls colliding has provided plenty of material for humor.
However, with the spread of the skullcap nationalist ideology, today in Turkey we not only see head-butting as a widely normalized behavior but also notice that even those on the opposing side of this ideology unconsciously repeat the same gesture.”
Clothing is not only for covering, which is why it was the first to be banned
Ramazan Çeper stated that racism and fascism operate not only through space and bodily behaviors but extend even to clothing, and that the system attempts to assimilate the places it seeks to colonize through control over dress. He emphasized that this is why Kurdish clothing has been banned in Northern Kurdistan (Bakur). Çeper continued: “It is possible to add clothing to such examples. While covering the human body, clothing also develops as a form that reflects oneself, one’s value judgments, and one’s relationship with the surrounding environment. Clothing not only covers and protects the body, it also reflects the individual’s values.
For example, the ban on local clothing in the Eastern Reform Plan was for this very reason. In this regard, it must be said that Northern Kurdistan has suffered greater loss of cultural value compared to other parts, and that we are still far from appearing in public spaces in our national clothing.
On the other hand, which types of clothing come to the forefront in society is related to the penetration of social culture. For instance, the period when the keffiyeh became widespread in society coincided with the rise of the Palestinian and Kurdish resistance, reflecting the decolonial dimension of the resistance of regional micro-identities.
Such resistances did not only represent identity symbols or exchanges; they also reflected the symbolism created by oppressed peoples in the face of colonial domination.
Conversely, the period when military trousers became highly popular and civilians wore them as a fashion icon was related to the penetration of militarism into social life. The widespread use of military clothing was connected to the glorification of the military, the consolidation of society through the fuel of chauvinism, the ‘conquest literature,’ the agitation and enthusiasm that cast the military as a founding role model, and the rate at which fascism was embraced by society.”
Spatial policies are not only colonial but also a product of the male mindset
Ramazan Çeper emphasized that spatial policies also emerge as a product of a male-dominated mindset, noting that such a mentality is entirely dominant in everyday life. Çeper continued:
“Spatial policies cannot be placed solely on the axis of colony and colonialism. For example, the masculine design of the public sphere develops in parallel with the removal of women from being subjects of the political body and the economy, and their exclusion from active citizenship. Observing the daily production of masculinity in public through space, position, symbols, and emblems leads us to the ideological contours that consolidate it.
Once again, we see how right Abdullah Öcalan was in addressing nationalism, religiosity, and sexism in relation to one another.
For instance, automobile designs are always presented with masculine symbols. They are designed as masculine prestige devices that grant their owner status through symbolic values such as speed, sexual desire, career success, and masculinity.
Accordingly, garages, auto shows, race tracks, and the advertising and marketing of cars remain phallocratic, and from advertising to sales, women’s bodies are objectified, female models are used to market not so much the car itself as the promise of a woman’s body. Likewise, all accessories attached to automobiles are masculine. Sacred designs and plans are masculine. Highways are ideal designs of masculine speed. Rest complexes, hotels, roadside stops, and motels are masculine. Advertising boards and billboards are masculine. The design of the beauty industry, with its ideal female models, visualizes the physical norms expected by men from women, thereby excluding what falls outside those norms.”
Every space is designed for the use of the male mindset
Ramazan Çeper stated that mosques, shopping malls, foundations, schools, and all spaces, both in their structure and in their functioning are the products of a male mindset and a colonial mentality: “In the city, spaces enclosed and restricted by fences, walls, railings, and barriers are masculine. Revealing the intersection where the ‘forbidden city’ and the ‘male city’ meet requires an analysis that ranges from shopping malls with restricted access to high-service residential areas.
I will address all these issues in another study. For now, let me simply note that the study of boundaries should be approached as an archaeology of power and patriarchy. All public buildings, all militaristic designs, schools, hospitals, prisons, foundations, and lodgings are designed around these boundaries. The edges of cities, life on the city’s peripheries, and the conditions of the border also encompass conditions of ‘otherness.’
Mosques are masculine. The religious rituals that erect sharp gender walls, the designs of ritual spaces, are masculine in style. Simone de Beauvoir’s statement, ‘Women have no religion of their own,’ stems from the fact that all theological designs are shaped according to male-dominated culture.
Similarly, places such as coffeehouses and reading rooms are absolute masculine zones, distinct from intermediate spaces. In many Middle Eastern countries, in societies where such homosociality (socializing with the same gender) is common, these spaces are determined by the gender of the individual’s opportunity to socialize, providing a setting for the reproduction and reinforcement of hegemonic masculinity.
Leisure and entertainment centers are designed as domains for the satisfaction of male pleasures, they are phallocratic spaces. These places, specialized for leisure, are visualized with promises of gender and sexuality, pleasure and enjoyment, feminine allure, and male gratification. Holiday resorts, tourist hotels, and sunny beaches are always highlighted and promoted with erotic imagery.
Eros, allure, or the pleasures being promised are presented as feminine pleasures, with the call for fulfillment or satisfaction directed toward the male sex. Tourist resorts are only a simulation of ‘natural life.’ What is primarily emphasized there is the promise of bodily rights, the call for the restoration of the rights of desire and pleasure.
In this respect, the majority of ‘leisure’ and ‘rest’ spaces, from entertainment centers to tourist hotels are centers of male desires for fulfillment and satisfaction, while feminine bodies serve as the means of gratification, the advertising objects, and the showcase faces of the promise being sold.”
We must create our own spaces and symbols against colonialism
Ramazan Çeper stated that, in response to the colonial use of space, it is necessary to free ourselves from the system’s symbols and emblems and to create our own. He stressed that new methods of resistance must be developed against the works of the colonial mindset, and concluded his remarks as follows: “Let me briefly answer your question about what can be done against these: In the face of racist, colonial, or sexist spatial designs, putting forward our own spatial designs is the most permanent method of resolution.
Lefebvre, in his critiques of actually existing socialist countries, said that one of the reasons for their collapse was their failure to realize socialist construction within spatial design, in places where the entire transportation system, housing symbols, emblems, and indicators were structured according to the capitalist system, thereby trapping themselves within the network of capitalist relations.
Likewise, we must organize our own alternative in every field, in line with the democratic, ecological, women’s liberationist paradigm. Against colonial symbols, emblems, and monuments, new networks of resistance, codes, and factual situations can be created within decolonial contexts and post-political frameworks.
For example, parodying them or reversing their meaning is only one method: dressing a lion statue in a cat costume or turning a military chief into a clown undermines their meaning through simple means.
A second method is what we saw in the George Floyd protests, when crowds in Europe tore down the statues of slave traders: every kind of racist monument, symbol, and emblem can be removed in mass demonstrations as an act of public reaction.
However, without the need for any of this, all decisions concerning cities should rest with local administrations; from large-scale constructions that cause environmental destruction, such as dams, thermal power plants, and hydro or geothermal plants to monuments, symbols, and emblems built in central urban areas. Legal guarantees must be provided to ensure that these fall within the decision-making and initiative areas of municipalities. Once legal guarantees are in place, municipalities can easily clear away all this garbage.”
Source: ANF News
