"Each journey, whether in a library of the universe, according to Jorge Luis Borges, or in space and time, as it happens to most, offers self-knowledge to the traveler from the knowledge of others" writes Thanos Veremis in his new book , emeritus professor of Political History at the University of Athens and vice-president of ELIAMEP. Its title is "Journey to Latin America and thoughts on nationalisms" (published by Kastaniotis) and clearly states its content. On the occasion of a recent, long trip to Cuba, Mexico and Argentina, the academic, historian and writer lists thoughts, observations and findings regarding nationalism, not only for the specific three countries, but also for some of Europe and of Eurasia. Among them, as one would reasonably expect, and Greece.
So is there good and bad patriotism? Does attachment to the "glorious past" intensify intolerance in the present? And what does it say about the level of parliamentary democracy in our country that some of the elected 300 refuse to call North Macedonia by its name? These are just a few of the issues the Magazine was asked to weigh in on. The level of political life in Greece "is not the highest, but not the lowest either" , he emphasizes. "It's a comfort that there are far worse" .
Did the idea for this particular book come before, during, or after completing that long trip to Cuba, Mexico, and Argentina?
During the trip I took with my children in 2019. My one son had to go to a conference in Mexico and he suggested that I go with him. My wife had just died, so the trip was also a way to forget a little. First we went to Cuba, then Mexico and ended up in Argentina. It was very pleasant, but I had a lot of free hours. I did not know what to do. Being a workaholic, I thought it was an opportunity to put forward something about nationalisms. It was very interesting what I saw in front of me, especially in Mexico with the mixture of two cultures, the natives and the Spanish who occupied them. Which mix is absolutely alive, that is, you see it everywhere. While in Argentina the only admixture that is visible is between Europeans, the natives have disappeared off the face of the earth, you will rarely see a face that resembles a native. In other words, there is a European culture that "migrated" to Latin America.
How different was the reality you encountered in relation to the knowledge and expectations you had for each country?
I had been to Argentina once before many years ago. As I said, it is a European country, not a Latin American one. The other two were completely unknown to me. Cuba, on the other hand, is the prime example of a country where the native population was wiped out by the germs, flus and diseases that Europeans brought with them when they arrived. Not a trace of an Indian left,. In other words, you have on the one hand the Spaniards and on the other hand the blacks who were transferred from outside as a labor force on the plantations. It is a very interesting country with a mixed population - Europeans and Africans -, perhaps the only one in Latin America that made this experiment with socialism. Which has partially succeeded in terms of the medical services offered by the state, but the poverty is too great.
Did you detect in any of these countries common characteristics with Greece at a social, political, and economic level?
Greece is not close to Latin America, mainly because it is a "monocultural" country. I'm not referring to...blood tests of purity, but to the fact that a culture prevails that concerns us all and in the end it doesn't cross anyone's mind that it is something very different from the neighbor. We all consider ourselves Greeks. What does Greek mean, you will tell me. It starts from linguistic homogeneity, the ancient language passed to Christianity (holy language of the Gospels, etc.), the people learned it to follow the things of religion, and finally it lasts until today. It's something you don't easily find elsewhere. The European influence is also strong in Greece. In Latin America elsewhere it is, elsewhere it is not. Mexico, let's say, is a two-speed country. It is European speed and endopia. They are also alive in the appearance of people. You see 100% Indians and 100% Europeans. There is also a hybrid part of the population, you may see a tall Indian or a short European. This is all very interesting. In Greece we do not see it, or at least it is not noticeable, even if obviously various peoples have passed through our territory.
“Mexicans work for the present and are fixated on their past. Wealth is meant as a means of happiness in the present, not at the altar of future success,” you write. Could these sentences stand with the Greeks in the subject position?
You are not wrong. In all cultures there are elements that are not exclusive. In this case, the old Mexican lives for today, believes that tomorrow he will die and not be born again. The Christian European also lives for tomorrow, because Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox have the impression that there is continuity. So we must behave accordingly, be at least a little "good Christian", take care of our neighbor, put points in the bag to go to heaven. The ancient Greeks did not have this, they lived differently. They did not believe in the afterlife. Or they believed in a miserable afterlife. If you remember in the Odyssey, Odysseus says to Achilles:"You will be the king of the dead". And he answers him:"Better a slave of the living than a king of the dead."
I will stick to the past. Isn't it something that strongly characterizes the Greeks?
Of course. There are commonalities, it's obvious. But I emphasize that there are also fundamental differences. Mainly with what I mentioned above, the monocultural character of Greece, no one feels that the person next to them is so different. In Mexico they feel it a lot. Octavio Paz, their Nobel Prize-winning writer, says that there are Mexicans who want to throw off the past and be free, and others who are stuck in it, cannot be freed.
Could Greece learn something from the sufferings but also the achievements of these three countries?
I'm not sure, our story is quite different. But we have one thing in common. Both we and they come from broken empires. In the case of Latin America, it is Spanish, for years around their necks, until at some point they shook it off. We come from the Ottoman Empire. The difference is that in the Ottoman period there was no similar acceptance of each other. They were two different religious camps, even if there was to some extent forced mixing, with conversions to Islam or cases like Ibrahim emptying the Peloponnese of women, whom he sold in the slave markets. By the way, one of the great deeds of Kapodistrias was that he went with Philhellenic money and bought many slaves, brought back women and children.
Do peoples, Mr. Veremi, have inherent characteristics? And if so, what are they in the case of the Greeks?
The Greeks have a huge fixation on the ancient past. Justified to some extent, since the language existed and continues to exist. Whether we are descendants of the ancient Greeks in other respects is a bit hard to say, but it doesn't really matter. When Jakob Philip Falmerauer (s.a. Austrian traveler, journalist, politician and historian), argued that there is not even a drop of ancient blood in the modern Greeks, the great historian Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos, unlike other colleagues who tore their robes for what "the old German" used to say, he said:And what? What happened; Who is purebred? The English; Of course not. It is a mixture of Celts, Germans, Scandinavians, French. Germans; Funny things. It is a mixture of Slavs, Germans, etc. The French; Nothing to do with. They are a mixture of Celts, Gauls and Germans. He also said that what makes you who you are, is what you want to be, your choice based on the language you speak. Because language is also a carrier of mentality. When, for example, you speak English, your mind works more... "English", you become more economical in your expressions, you condense the concepts. As a Greek, you spread out, you are more expressive, more poetic. Every language makes characters. In this sense, we are part of the culture to which we belong. Just like Antetokounmpo is Greek, a black kid of Nigerian descent who was born in Greece and speaks Greek. That is, what you know, you are.
The problem is how Greek Antetokounmpo would be considered by a not so small portion of our fellow citizens, if he were not one of the best and most famous athletes in the world.
What you say is correct. Because they don't accept as Greeks so many other black people who are around. We are intolerant, like all people. But at least we consider them foreigners, not inferior beings like many Americans, English, French. At least we don't have that, because we haven't been an empire.
Does clinging to the "glorious past" intensify our intolerance?
It's not out of the question. We also have a shop that everyone hates us. Have you ever gotten into a taxi and been told by the driver that everyone hates us because when foreigners were eating acorns, we were building Parthenons? And if you tell him okay, but many years have passed since then, he will tell you that they are still undermining us because we are a select breed.
We also have a shop that everyone hates us. Have you ever gotten into a taxi and the driver told you that everyone hates us because when foreigners were eating acorns, we were building Parthenons?
On the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the revolution of 1821, I would like you to tell me what in your opinion is the limit beyond which national pride mutates into something morbid and dangerous.
We continue to think that we have our shit because we were under the Ottoman yoke for 400 years. Speaking of which, of course, the Ottoman Empire was not like the Roman Empire, which had the intelligence to integrate the population, to make them Roman citizens, therefore to be able to exploit them better. In the Ottoman Empire the infidels existed only to serve the faithful and pay higher taxes. This is what kept the non-Muslims alive, that they offered more than the normal, Muslim citizen, and were subject to more prohibitions. If you were not a believer in Islam, you were a second-class citizen. That is why a hatred was born and is maintained to this day in the psyche of the Greeks. It is one of the bad elements left behind by the Ottoman Empire. Today there is a reverse racism:We are the good guys, they are the bad guys, they oppressed us for so many years, and what did they realize? We are at a better level, we have a higher per capita income, we are in the European Union, we have no shantytowns, nor oppressed minorities. That is, even if we accept that 100 thousand Muslims live a little harder in Thrace, this does not compare to what the large minorities in Turkey are going through.
In your book you note that for the Greeks patriotism is the love for the country, related to the place of birth and development, so that it applies from antiquity to the present day.
The Greek of the Revolution of 1821 quickly mutated into the Greek of Otho, while he was a native who had never left his village, he was completely identified with the land where he was born and was totally dependent on his family, to whom he owed all his the existence. At that time there was still no homeland beyond the village. All who rose up, whether they were Moraites or Rumeliotes, did so with a different agenda in mind. The candidates of Moria to become the bosses in the future system and replace the Ottomans. The, professionals of arms, Rumelian chieftains also to replace the armed Ottomans. And a large percentage of the people, the serfs, the cultivators of the land, in order to acquire fields, this was their great woe. And they finally succeeded. This broadened their consciousness. Civil wars also forced the world to move. In other words, when the Rumeliotes went to the Morea to hunt the Moraites, they thought:why are you guys, they are like us, they speak Greek, have we missed something? In a strange way this warlike mobility brought the Greeks closer together. Little by little from the village we reached the nation, the invisible community, which is Greek-speaking and Christian Orthodox. Then another kind of strife began, between natives and non-natives, but in general there was a reconciliation and hence the creation of a nation-state. That is, a state that is legitimized by the will of the nation.
Is there good and bad patriotism?
Patriotism can take different dimensions in the mind of each person. A good citizen considers himself a patriot if he pays his taxes, if he does not commit crimes, if he is in order with his neighbors and does not steal their fields, that is, if he generally has a moral legitimacy towards his neighbor. He who thinks and is indeed a good patriot obeys some rules that make up a society. A bad patriot is one who feels he must dampen his neighbor's or enemy's enthusiasm for the country. And what do we mean by homeland? This is another great story. Is it the nation? Is it the overseas nation? Anyway it is something and it makes some feel that they are in danger of losing it and must be tough in their insistence on serving it. These are the so-called "Greeks" who always sell berries. They think that you are much more patriotic than anyone who says that we should get along with Turkey, that it is in Greece's interest to have friendly relations with its neighbors. Or they don't accept that a country next to us can be called North Macedonia, because Macedonia is a sacred word. This is the exaggeration of the "Greek" who wants to increase himself by diminishing those around him.
Recently, a government MP who stubbornly refused to call North Macedonia by its name in a news report went viral on social media, saying only "neighboring country".
The familiar nonsense. While in reality all this was the release of an anxiety which produced absolutely nothing. It didn't even prevent a danger. If we assume that Turkey is a threat due to size and occasional leaders, neighboring North Macedonia has no such ambition or ability to threaten us. On the contrary, it is a guarantee of neighborliness with a nation that has nothing to ask of us.
He who thinks and is indeed a good patriot obeys some rules that make up a society. A bad patriot is one who feels he must dampen his neighbor's or enemy's enthusiasm for the country.
We have seen to date, and one assumes will continue to see, front-line politicians not just coddling but fueling dangerous nationalistic instincts in relation to the concept of homeland. What does this say about the level of political life in our country?
The level is not the highest, but not the lowest either. It's a comfort that there are far worse. We could slowly smooth this all out as a nation. This is where the role of the school lies, which must essentially say what Paparrigopoulos was saying. That, children, we are not superior to others because of our blood. We have our culture, all right, bye and bye, but that's no reason to brag about being a supposedly superior race. For God's sake! As we know, nature distributes its gifts without considering nations, social classes, or anything.
Which of the post-colonial prime ministers played with this fire the most?
Although he was undoubtedly a brilliant man, I think that Andreas Papandreou generally played a lot with people's emotions. He was a populist leader. He played with the populist demons that each person hides inside. He flattered the people too much to please them, he said that there is no one like him, you are a famous modern Greek man, all this without thinking about the consequences. Or rather he thought of them but for his benefit. Γι’ αυτό κατάφερε να τον αγαπήσουν τόσοι Έλληνες και να παραμείνει στην εξουσία όσο λίγοι στην Ελλάδα. Αλλά δεν ξέρω αν άφησε την καλύτερη προσφορά στο χαρακτήρα των Ελλήνων γενικά.
Η ιδεολογική αποφόρτιση, όπως διατείνονται ορισμένοι, της πολιτικής ζωής θα οδηγήσει σε βελτίωσή της;
Δεν νομίζω ότι η ιδεολογία μπορεί να πάψει να υπάρχει. Καλύπτει κοινωνικές ανάγκες, ανησυχίες, προβλήματα. Δεν μπορούμε να λειτουργήσουμε κοινωνικά ως “καλοί χριστιανοί”, χωρίς να έχει σημασία η περιουσία, η εκπαίδευση, η εργασία. Όλα αυτά έχουν να κάνουν και με την ιδεολογία. Θεωρώ μάταιο να προσπαθεί κανείς να απαλλαγεί από αυτά. Προφανώς όμως μερικά στοιχεία των ιδεολογιών είναι ξύλινα, δεν είναι εύκαμπτα, δεν βοηθούν να καταλάβεις περισσότερο τη ζωή, σκληρύνουν τον φλοιό του εγκεφάλου αντί να τον μαλακώνουν.
Φέτος συμπληρώνονται 40 χρόνια της Ελλάδας στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Η επέτειος αποκτά ακόμα μεγαλύτερη βαρύτητα λίγα χρόνια μετά το φημολογούμενο Grexit;
Σίγουρα υπήρχαν κάποιοι στην Ευρώπη που μας ήθελαν εκτός, όπως ο Σόιμπλε, ο οποίος περίπου έκανε ανήθικες προτάσεις:να σας δώσουμε λεφτά να φύγετε. Ο άνθρωπος δεν μας ήθελε, σου λέει είναι παλιονότιοι, γλεντζέδες, μπουζουξήδες, ας τους δώσουμε κάνα φράγκο να φύγουν απ’ τη μέση. Χοντροκέφαλος Γερμανός γαρ. Ομολογώ ότι τότε ανησύχησα. Ευτυχώς δεν έγινε, για καλό μας νομίζω. Μένει να δούμε πώς θα τα πάμε στο μέλλον, τόσο εμείς όσο και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.
Η οποία, όπως σημειώνετε στο βιβλίο σας, είναι ένας από τους ομόκεντρους κύκλους αφοσίωσης μέσα στους οποίους ζούμε σήμερα.
Το να είσαι μέρος μιας πολιτισμικής ομάδας υψηλής στάθμης, είναι κάτι καλό. Χωρίς αυτό να σημαίνει ότι η Ένωση δεν έχει ελλείψεις.
Με τη Χρυσή Αυγή έχουμε ξεμπερδέψει οριστικά;
Οι ακρότητες πάντα υπάρχουν, αποτελούν κίνδυνο, δηλώνουν την αποτυχία της εκπαίδευσης, της κοινωνίας, της κατανομής αγαθών, και αποτελούν προφανώς στρεβλές διορθωτικές κινήσεις. Ειδικά τη συγκεκριμένη ακρότητα δεν τη βλέπω να εμφανίζεται ξανά, όχι σύντομα τουλάχιστον, το βρίσκω δύσκολο. Δεν λέω όμως ότι αποκλείεται να συμβεί, κάθε άλλο.
Μάθαμε κάτι ως χώρα από τη συγκεκριμένη μαύρη στιγμή της ιστορίας μας;
I think yes. Μαθήματα γενικά παίρνουμε αν θέλουμε να τα πάρουμε. Αν εθελοτυφλούμε και λέμε ότι κάτι είναι μια κακή σύμπτωση, ένα δυστύχημα, δεν θα μάθουμε ποτέ τίποτα.
Είναι τουλάχιστον η δημοκρατία μας σήμερα πιο ισχυρή;
Ασφαλώς, δεν το συζητώ. Ό,τι σε κάνει σοφότερο, όσο δυσάρεστο κι αν είναι, σε κάνει καλύτερο. Η σοφία είναι το παν, δεν υπάρχει αμφιβολία. Το έλεγαν και οι αρχαίοι ημών πρόγονοι που τόσο συχνά επικαλούμαστε.