And, importantly, people from diverse ethnicities, cultures and languages have participated in this linguistic occupation — it is distinct from the history of forcible occupation in that it is built to accommodate all, not just the most powerful or violent.
Read more ». Enter your keywords for search. Apply News Directory Events Give. Toggle navigation. News and Media. You are here Home. Alim: What if We Occupied Language?
This is a far cry from some of its earlier meanings. But then it became used as a rallying cry, without an object, just to mean to take part in what are now called the Occupy protests. What if we transformed the meaning of occupy yet again? Specifically, what if we thought of Occupy Language as more than the language of the Occupy movement, and began to think about it as a movement in and of itself?
What kinds of issues would Occupy Language address? We might start by looking at these questions from the perspective of race and discrimination, and answer with how to foster fairness and equality in that realm. For starters, Occupy Language might first look inward. In a recent interview, Julian Padilla of the People of Color Working Group pushed the Occupy movement to examine its linguistic choices:.
When indigenous people occupied Alcatraz Island it was an act of protest. This linguistic change can remind Americans that a majority of the 99 percent has benefited from the occupation of native territories. Pejorative, discriminatory language can have real life consequences.
This will greatly help strengthen these relations and give a boost to the settlement of the issue of the war in Donbas and the deoccupation of our territories. I think the US can add a lot to that. Now that the election is over, do you think Ukraine will be free of American politics? Are you happy about that? In your opinion, given the elections in America and the competition between Trump and Biden is over, can Ukraine be free from this conflict? I have repeatedly said that I do not want Ukraine to be subjected in this direction, because it is not our country.
We are wonderful partners. But where? Let's be excellent partners in geopolitics, in the economy between our countries, but certainly not between individuals, especially between the two contenders for the next President of the United States.
Therefore, I do not believe that we were in this conflict. Okay, we were pulled into it. But I believe that we have behaved with dignity, as befits an independent country, even though it is territorially and numerically smaller than the United States. I meant that it is important to remain a geopolitical partner and strengthen the economic direction, which is lacking between our countries.
Although there was a turnover of about 6 billion in , although we are a large country, we are interested in LNG, agriculture, engineering, attracting American technology, sharing experience in the IT sector, because we have good specialists, and in the United States they are also great. Doing some great things, inventions in the future - that's the interest of cooperation with the United States, that's what I think Ukraine and the United States have lacked for a long time.
We are a spacefaring nation just as the United States of America. We can remember the 90s, when we had a spacecraft flight with our first Ukrainian astronaut Kadeniuk, and that case was prepared together with the United States, with partners. More than 20 years have passed, but there have not been such achievements in science, art, technology, medicine, such global modern things anymore.
This is where the talents of the two states should be directed. Should the United States participate in the Normandy format? You know, we really don't want to run in place. Indeed, in the Normandy format that gave rise to the Minsk agreements, we have taken important steps.
There are much less dead and wounded now. However, Donbas is dying without Ukraine. The presence of occupying forces there kills technology, education, medicine, there are environmental disasters due to flooded mines, looted plants. The situation is terrible, so I say rightly - Donbas is dying without Ukraine. Therefore, I believe that the United States of America can have a very strong influence. I believe that President Biden could step up our negotiations in the Normandy format, because he understands the issues of Ukraine and Russia well.
Secondly, he spoke about security in Europe, and thirdly, we believe that it is not enough to talk simply about the end of the war. And what to do next? We need the reintegration of Donbas. And to reintegrate Donbas, you need strong companies, strong technology, security and money. And here, I think, we will not cope alone. We are planning a free economic zone in Donbas, so that there are certain preferences for business to enter. And here the United States of America could play a key role.
Well, we understand that the United States today is a guarantor of security in the world, a serious strategic player, so such steps could accelerate the end of the war in Donbas and the beginning of large-scale construction, large-scale reintegration of Donbas. There is another case. I believe that it is clear that we cannot do without the United States of America in the issue of Crimea, because the issue of Crimea and its deoccupation is not on the agenda of the Normandy format and the Minsk agreements.
For six years, this issue has been suspended. Indeed, Europe and the United States have optionally done their best, but steps towards deoccupation must be taken by an appropriate union of states, a union of leaders that will map all steps to deoccupy the Crimean peninsula.
We are now creating a "Crimean platform" and, of course, we would like to see in it those countries that will be key players, key guarantors of the return and deoccupation of Crimea.
Return of Crimea and our territorial integrity. And the United States could be a leader in this direction. How useful could this experience be for Ukraine? Do you have an additional comment? I believe that the position has been lost, but there must be such a special representative or such a body.
It is very important to choose a person who will take the necessary steps, who understands the Ukrainian mentality. It is important not to make a mistake in this personnel issue. Here, President Biden has all the best chances, because he has worked a lot with Ukraine, he is a practitioner and understands the mentality, understands the important points related to reforms.
Knowing the reforms in Ukraine, he will understand and be able to distinguish real information from fakes. It is very important for the relations between Ukraine and the United States not to be severed.
It is important to understand what is really happening. And it seems to me that this understanding of reality in Russia, in Ukraine, in Europe by the new President of the United States will give a great opportunity to resolve all conflict issues. And no one rejoiced when people died, ordinary citizens on both sides of this conflict. But it is impossible to compare the military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and that between Ukraine and Russia, because we understand, for example, what a different mentality, different religions is.
That's what's there. A complex conflict based on this. As for us, people who defend Ukraine in Donbas speak both Russian and Ukrainian.
We do not have the question of language, our people are fighting for the independence of their country. Our people are at war with people of the same religion. It also happens. Therefore, it is impossible to compare. This is the most tragic and ridiculous - when Donbas was being occupied, they said that the Russian language was being taken away from Donbas. It was just a strong information attack by the Russian Federation.
The example I gave you is when Russian-speaking people defend Ukraine's independence. So how can they take away the Russian language from Donbas? Ukraine, I think, has not violated anything in relations with Russians. The world should have become liberal a long time ago and should settle issues in the legislative field, not with a machine gun in hands. As for the weakening of Russia's influence, I don't know. I can say as a party to such a conflict, because I am the President of Ukraine and I see them representatives of the Russian Federation - ed.
And they are also parties - together with Ukraine - to the Minsk agreements. And they are the party to this war. As long as they are parties to the war, I do not see what you are talking about. As for Maia Sandu's victory in the elections, I will tell you frankly, the people of Moldova choose who they want.
But before the elections, Ukraine could not express overt support to any of the candidates. Before Maia Sandu became President, she flew to Ukraine as Prime Minister, I met her and I know her position on Crimea, and I understood her position on Ukraine in general, on the war in Donbas much better than the position of former president Dodon.
I was pleased to meet with Maia. I did not have contacts with other leaders of the government or the former government in Moldova for the clear reasons I have just explained to you. I support Maia, she knows that. I told her this before the elections - whatever the result is, we support you, I like Moldova in general with such a leader, and I wish it democratic development. Moldova deserves it.
Do you see any changes that would show whether the window of opportunity will or will not open in Donbas? All these conflicts are an indication that wherever the territory was "frozen" - Transnistria, Abkhazia, Donbas, Karabakh - all these territories lose in terms of development over the years, they lose economically.
But the worst thing is that people lose. When I say that people lose, I also mean people who live in these occupied territories. They lose because they sever ties with the central part of their country. They are "in the air", they do not develop, they suffer, and the worst thing is that they just live life without getting pleasure from it, and they doom all subsequent generations to such a life. Life in isolation at a time when the modern world is wider and much more beautiful. Therefore, I believe that this whole direction has no results in the future.
But all these conflicts cannot be compared to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, because we are very big. Ukraine is very big. And the way we defend our country - at the very beginning we showed that it is impossible to occupy Ukraine. Everyone will die here, but no one will give up the independence of our country. Regarding the amendments to the Constitution in the sphere of decentralization, we say: this is in accordance with the Minsk agreements, we are ready for that.
To change the Constitution in the way that we sometimes hear about in the media from the Russian Federation - here they know my position, I told Putin directly that I do not agree with that. I understand that we want separate powers, the right to choose, so that no one then speculates on language issues, so that the people of Donbas speak as they want - welcome, I think we should be as liberal as possible in all these things. We are doing all the changes in the framework of decentralization in the Constitution in accordance with Minsk.
I said this to the President of the Russian Federation at a meeting in the Normandy format. We will do it, no matter what. We want people to have more power on the ground, more choice, to use money as they want, not to receive tasks from the central government.
We do it anyway. If we want more preferences for Donbas in this direction, such compromises are possible - these are normal compromises, without compromises the war will not end, I understand that. But there must be logic everywhere. There must be logic in all actions, in all compromises. Logic and result. Is it possible to achieve peace in Ukraine and how closely is it connected that it cannot be achieved without global peace between the West and Russia?
I want to explain my position. When we say that the United States of America will sit at the table with the Russian Federation and they will agree on everything, on the whole world, I do not buy it. Because there are many different interests, and we must not forget that every small country has its own independence and wishes. And the big players will never be able to agree on everything in general, because each country has its own "I".
0コメント