On sacrifice and agency

Usually Crimea’s indigenous peoples appear  in political conversatios in two roles: as victims to be pitied and as symbols to be displayed. Deportation, occupation and repression became  memorial but no one suggests the solutuon. With no one I mean visible public indigenous voices outside of aknowledgment of suffering. Sacrifice becomes a tool ruled by someone else hands. The victim is not a participant — it’s a very delicate barely visible dehumanisation or infatilisation — “Look, acknowledge and help!”

A lot is written about systems and obstacles why it is like that. But can we expect others to help us if the community adopted the role in such a perfect way by themselves? In the mode of seeking  for sympathy from different (sometimes wrong sides)  we decide nothing. Real participation starts not with the claim to be indigenous — but with the raising a real political voice — analusing, seeking solutions, suggesting the unfiltered opinion and participating on the table were decision are made. Not as “ indigenous speaker with a pathetic speech “ — rather as specialists, analysts, researchers. We can say it loud about Black sea ecocid and problems with water supply on the pennicula. It’s known since years and getting worse. And will get even more worse. Because  It’s nice to discuss about medivial knowledge of çeşme water systems on Crimea. The truth is that it won’t help alone in the current military situation. And another truth is that we need competent indigenous decision makers of all kinds — for participation in projects capable to influence the Black Sea damage — starting from EU politics to greenpeace and biological projects. 

Sacrifice deserves remembrance and respect. But political strength comes from something else: from expertise, from one’s own narrative, from the readiness to formulate clear strategies rather than only to mourn.