even in the rural primitive landscape of iowa? be thankful she's not holding up a cup and some string!

I don't understand Mr. Malik's point when he claims that what happened with Jewel of Medina indicates that Islamic fundamentalists who protested the Rushdie book 'won the war.' Yes, Random House decided not to involve itself in a headache over a controversial book, but the book is still available -- for anyone interested it's just one click away right here on the side of this diavlog. No doubt it will reach a much larger audience than one would expect for a 'breezy historical romance' (Mr. Malik's description). It is undoubtedly correct that the western left in general has a double standard in the way their multiculturalism interacts with their Enlightenment values. Mr. Malik apparently would like to see the left striving hard to defend the right to be provocative and the right to offend, even when done against minorities which see themselves as beleaguered. This notion makes some on the left a little nervous and they're willing to say, look, do we really have to insult people just for the sake of it? If something really, really bothers people and offends something they hold dear and no substantive

Interesting ideas. I liked Kenan's attitude in general; e.g., pooh-poohing the notion of "preserving" culture, but I wish Kerry had asked him some follow-up questions when it came to immigration. Specifically, how would Kenan view an immigrant culture that carries with it much stricter and/or different religious laws, that demands to be able to run their neighborhoods under these laws, even to the extent of privileging them above the national law? Given that he's British, I would have liked to hear his thoughts on Sharia law being applied in the UK. Second point: when the conversation turned to The Satanic Verses and the Danish cartoon controversy, I thought of a great segment on the most recent On The Media titled "Hot Off the Press." This was an interview of Barney Rosset, who took over Grove Press in 1951 and had the courage to publish a number of books that were originally banned for being "obscene." Seems to me that Random House and any number of major newspapers could learn a few lessons from Rosset. I strongly recommend everyone listen to this segment (or at least read the transcript). [Added] I see from Abu Noor's post that perhaps

Good points, Abu Noor, especially the part about the fundamentalists perhaps making a strategic error by raising a fuss, which ultimately makes the books that they protested that much more attractive to others.

*cough*
*cough* It's always fun to revisit Kenan's points, but all that dust! Sickle cell anemia not a black disease, eh? Well...right! *cough*
*cough*

Brendan, That's why it might have been interesting to see Mr. Malik flesh out a little more why he thinks that the "Fundamentalists" "won the war"? I think this notion for him goes to the fact that the "liberals" he wished would think like him, many of them don't, but I'm not sure if that was the goal of the fundamentalists. For those who are still reacting with fury against such provocations, it is not really about achieving any kind of pragmatic result. To them, whether their actions end up being counterproductive or not, they see themselves as validating a fundamental principle of defending the honor of the Prophet (saw). For those secularist liberal products of the enlightenment who might be totally bewildered by such a notion, it is like someone on the playground claiming the right to insult your mother. For some people, their mother is truly beloved to them and the hurt of hearing someone denigrate her is too much to simply stand by and do nothing. For others, there is a code that no matter what I might think of my mother, allowing you to insult my mother

As a strong multiculturalist I disagree with much of what Kenan had to say about culture. Regarding the pseudo-science and politicization of race categories I think he is correct. It's worthwhile to point out that Nixon invented "Hispanics" and that "Asian", as the term is used in the US and GB, is an absurd category. This also surely applies to "people of color" in the USA. However, stretching these valid observations into a theory that favors cultural assimilation vs. preservation is unjustified and insensitive to the values of minorities who choose not to conform and be absorbed. The trivialization of loss of languages was especially chilling. There are conflicting pressures on immigrants' freedom. One is the pressure to assimilate, conform and switch loyalties to the dominant culture. The other is the internal pressure also to conform and maintain loyalty to the minority culture. These are serious, lifelong, transgenerational challenges. Kenan reduces them to components of an ideology and treats them as if their resolution were easy and obvious. I also thought both Kerry and Kenan missed the point of adoptive parents exposing their children to their biological heritage. They viewed this as absurd. What could a child

Abu Noor: I take your point about people defending honor, or more generally, acting on principle. However, I don't accept the fundamentalists' reaction to the books being published -- no one is compelled to read a book, and their existence doesn't thrust the possibly offensive parts into one's face the way, say, buying space on a billboard would. I don't accept that allowing "pffensive" books to be published harms people in any way, and I think those who made a stink about it are trying to compel others to live according to their own laws, which I am firmly against. I feel the same way about, say, The Turner Diaries -- the content (as I understand it) is grievously offensive to me, and I don't like to think that someone would want to publish such stuff, but I am against banning this book, and if anything, I think I would be more inclined, not less, to support a store that sold it. I am a little more sympathetic to the complaints about the cartoons. Here, there is a more of a sense of something distasteful being thrust in one's face, in a cheap medium that is easily spread, and I'm not sure that there was anything of redeeming value to them -- they

Quoting bjkeefe: Interesting ideas. I liked Kenan's attitude in general; e.g., pooh-poohing the notion of "preserving" culture, but I wish Kerry had asked him some follow-up questions when it came to immigration. Specifically, how would Kenan view an immigrant culture that carries with it much stricter and/or different religious laws, that demands to be able to run their neighborhoods under these laws, even to the extent of privileging them above the national law? Given that he's British, I would have liked to hear his thoughts on Sharia law being applied in the UK.

Hmmm, as a self described "radical" "secularist", "assimilationist", and admirer of the "French republican tradition" it's pretty safe to say that he's as much against the presence of Shari'ah in UK as any right wing yahoo. And I'm sure in the context of UK he would argue against the notion that the Muslim immigrant culture is monolithic or consists primarily of people who necessarily have shared notion of how "they" want "their" neighborhoods to be run. I know he has written about his opposition to the fact that under multiculturalism, Muslims become a "community" and the British government then deals with the "leaders" of that "community" rather than individually engaging

Wonderment: Just to be clear -- by my saying "I liked Kenan's attitude in general; e.g., pooh-poohing the notion of 'preserving' culture," I didn't mean that I think it should be immediately swept away, or that differences shouldn't be cherished. I do think, however, that multiculturalism for multiculturalism's sake can get to be a fetish, and I also think there are cases where one culture's outlook on a specific aspect of life can legitimately be considered inferior or otherwise not compatible with the majority view. As to language preservation -- I think it's great that people are interested enough to work to keep a dying language alive, but I think this should be done as a hobby, so to speak, and is not the kind of thing I have much sympathy for spending lots of public funds on. I haven't thought about the adoption issue that deeply. I used to be completely impatient with the idea of an infant of group A being raised by parents of group B feeling as though she had to get in touch with other A-people, but I have lately become aware that, like it or not, these pressures exist. I'm now agnostic by virtue of dawning awareness of ignorance

I was a little put off by what seemed to be a Marxist and a radical libertarian simply bemoaning the fact that people care about things (identity, race, religion, nationalism) that they shouldn't or that they wish people didn't care about.

I actually thought that Kenan's views on language were analogous to the Taliban's views (let's blow them up!) on the Buddhas of Bamyan.

Quoting Wonderment: The trivialization of loss of languages was especially chilling.

I always think it's helpful to remember that American English, as spoken in 2008, is ultimately pretty fleeting. The spoken US English of 1978 is fading day by day, and the English of 1948 is all but gone. Written is obviously a different issue. But even then, it is like reading a translation: the average reader will understand the syntax of a 1948 text, but there are thousands of little ways that the true meaning of a sentence is always going to be lost. Which is all my long way of saying: losing a diversity of languages *is* pretty trivial compared to the upside of an Earth that can speak to itself effectively. Languages are hardy enough to not really need 'protection' in my opinion, and there's nothing too chilling about their natural ebb and flow considering that we all ebb towards functionality in the long run.

Brendan, One would have to specify what the "reaction" to the books was in order to defend it or not. Most Muslim fundamentalists, including myself, have done nothing about the books being published, although if you asked us we might say we find them offensive and would rather they weren't published. Is that okay? Or should we say, I find it offensive and I'm really happy it's published? I know some people will react that way but surely we don't have to. Some people in response to the cartoons demonstrated or proposed boycotts. Some wrote letters to the editor...Certainly you can't object to a simple return exercise of speech...first, to the extent violence occurred at protests at embassies relating to, for example, the cartoon affair, these were protests ginned up and/or cracked down upon by governments which were much more about other geo-political realities than about the incidents of offensive speech themselves. So, what I think we can all be against are specific threats of violence or acts of violence carried out on people involved with publishing a book or translating a book or writing a book or something like that. I have

As to language preservation -- I think it's great that people are interested enough to work to keep a dying language alive, but I think this should be done as a hobby, so to speak, and is not the kind of thing I have much sympathy for spending lots of public funds on.

Where are public funds being used to keep dying languages alive? Do you mean Latin as taught in US high schools? That language is not dying; it's already dead. Are you opposed to American Indians using federal education dollars for Cheyenne or Apache children to learn their ancestral languages? Or do you think it should be English Only on the rez?

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Hmmm, as a self described "radical" "secularist", "assimilationist", and admirer of the "French republican tradition" it's pretty safe to say that he's as much against the presence of Shari'ah in UK as any right wing yahoo. And I'm sure in the context of UK he would argue against the notion that the Muslim immigrant culture is monolithic or consists primarily of people who necessarily have shared notion of how "they" want "their" neighborhoods to be run.

That's probably the bet I'd place, too, but there was something about the way he was talking about no culture having the right to insist on its own preservation that made me think there was some chance he was laughing at the resident Brits who worry about the influx of Muslims. In other words, as a matter of consistency, he might say that if a highly secular society experiences the influx of a large group of much more religious people, they don't have any more right to insist that their secular society stay unchanged.

I know he has written about his opposition to the fact that under multiculturalism, Muslims become a "community" and the British

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Brendan,

One would have to specify what the "reaction" to the books was in order to defend it or not. Most Muslim fundamentalists, including myself, have done nothing about the books being published, although if you asked us we might say we find them offensive and would rather they weren't published. Is that okay?

Sure.

Or should we say, I find it offensive and I'm really happy it's published?

Ideally, you would say, "We find this book offensive, we wish it hadn't been written, and we are not at all happy that it's being published, but we're glad we live in a society where people can choose for themselves what they want to read. That's a further guarantee that our own boundary-pushing books will not be banned." (Substitute "I" for "we" above, if you like.)

Some people in response to the cartoons demonstrated or proposed boycotts. Some wrote letters to the editor...Certainly you can't object to a simple return exercise of speech...

Not at all. Perfectly appropriate, and I encourage it. Nothing to admire about suffering in silence.

first, to the extent violence occurred at protests at embassies relating to, for example, the cartoon affair, these were protests ginned up and/or cracked down upon

Thanks for your comments Brendan. I'm sorry if my post came out as I was criticizing you or calling for you to make disclaimers -- that's not what I was getting at (I actually had a longer reply to you but I decided against really getting into the nitty gritty of this issue, my chopping of my post may have left my own point unclear). My point was not asking you to issue a disclaimer but just hoping that we keep in mind what the issue is. If we agree that we're talking about a small minority even of the fundamentalists who react with violence that frames the "problem" in a much different light than if the "problem" is people like me who aren't going to do anything at all but still can't laugh at ridicule of what I hold sacred. I think Mr. Malik is deliberately moving us into that gray area because he's complaining even about self-censorship of private business entities that does not prevent the book from getting published. So we're not talking about violence anymore, I just wanted to figure out what exactly we

ooh, this one seems juicily controversial. I've only gotten to the small part about romanticizing the preservation of language but i'd definitely have to agree with kenan. obviously, since there's thousands of them, language is pretty much an arbitrary manifestation. I saw "The Linguists" at a film festival (which showed two nerds traveling to remote parts of the world to record languages before the last people that spoke them died) and all I could think was "Why the hell are you nerds doing this?" eventually humans will be extinct which means there's more important things to be doing. obviously, some discoveries like the Pariah tribe, or whatever they were called, who only whistled rather than speaking and didn't have numbers, are significant but people like "The Linguists" seem to be fetishizing language rather than using it to find out cool stuff like S. Pinker tries to do. also, it's fun to try to prove Noam Chompsky wrong, too.... anyway, great, great talk. thanks to kenan for coming on and thanks to bob and kerry for making it happen. i love "taboo" speakers like this. where's the firestorm of comments?

Quoting bjkeefe:

That's probably the bet I'd place, too, but there was something about the way he was talking about no culture having the right to insist on its own preservation that made me think there was some chance he was laughing at the resident Brits who worry about the influx of Muslims. In other words, as a matter of consistency, he might say that if a highly secular society experiences the influx of a large group of much more religious people, they don't have any more right to insist that their secular society stay unchanged.

Yeah, that'd be interesting but I think he's a secularist on principle.

That seems like a worthy complaint, although as a practical matter, there are often leaders of minority groups, particularly oppressed ones, who command a lot of respect, and this can be seen as one way of trying to relate, especially on a smaller scale. You might, for example, be able to accomplish something useful if the mayor or police chief or county health commissioner talks to the head imam(s) in that area, concerning some specific issue(s), don't you think? But yes, it can quickly get ridiculous and even

Great Diavlog. Thank you. I agree with Kenan that cultures are not sacrosanct, and should not be preserved as in a museum. I also am sympathetic to immigrants enriching American life. Having said that, there is a political and economic tradition in the USA that very much needs to be preserved. Hence I think assimilation, narrowly understood as the inculcation of political and economic values (life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness) is an urgent necessity. I also agree that, re Rushdie, liberals have lost the war. The insistence on polite non-offensiveness is ultimately corrosive of a healthy society. So while it was never really my intention, in retrospect I am happy that I have written a thoroughly offensive, politically incorrect book - it insults everybody: Haitians, politicians, women, Christians, and even white males. I suppose Jews are exempt - but only because they're not mentioned at all. http://www.dankingbooks.com

Wonderment, I share your reaction to Kenan's ideas.

Quoting Wonderment: However, stretching these valid observations into a theory that favors cultural assimilation vs. preservation is unjustified and insensitive to the values of minorities who choose not to conform and be absorbed.

The trivialization of loss of languages was especially chilling.

There are conflicting pressures on immigrants' freedom. One is the pressure to assimilate, conform and switch loyalties to the dominant culture. The other is the internal pressure also to conform and maintain loyalty to the minority culture. These are serious, lifelong, transgenerational challenges. Kenan reduces them to components of an ideology and treats them as if their resolution were easy and obvious.

I want to add that Kenan applies again the either/or concept. There are so many aspects to politics of affiliation that this seems to be an oversimplification. "Identity" includes culture, past, history. It also involves the active process of integration of all these. But identity has relatively fixed components and dynamic, changeable components. This change can be intentional, by an active process of assimilation to a new culture, or unintentional (the 'passive' aspects of assimilation). I was surprised that there was no mention of the term 'acculturation' which is the most common

I thought concentrating on culture made the entire discussion straw-ish. It's easy to criticize an argument from one department, sociology, with an argument from another department. But, here Malik and Howley never criticized from another department. It was the libertarian mantra. Without more context and hard data, it's hard to know where to come down. 1. Both DPRK and ROK endorse ethnicity to support their respective political claims. 2. There are speakers of an Elizabethan-era dialect of English living on an isolated island. The Federal government wants to build a naval base, but the retired folk object. The few younger guys support the decision, because they are unemployed and tired of seeing GFs with tourists. This entire discussion lacked any economic, political, or historical context. In the 80s, the Asian tigers' economic surge prompted hand-wringing about the role of Asian culture and growth. And now, with the financial crisis and China's rise, that debate is being dusted off. I wouldn't argue what Malik did drunk in a room full of South Koreans, no matter how contrarian I might feel. It would just lead to angry posturing, hurt feelings, and a quick end to the evening. I'm glad Malik endorses change, but claiming change leads to progress is

I think we've about wrapped this thread up. Just one thing at the end of your last:

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Maybe you can correct me on the word I should use...Of course as a leftist believer who has my own issues with leftist disbelievers I very much enjoy accusing them of being "materialist" because I know that in everyday usage to most people on the left this is a derogatory term that implies selfish or involved with consumerist materialism. [...]

That's the sense I was objecting to. One doesn't have to believe in God to value and work for, say, honesty, kindness, justice, friendship, or any number of other non-material things, including preferring these things over acquisition of consumer products. As to "materialist" as a philosophical term ... I'll punt. I just can't get interested in discussing these kinds of definitions. Sorry -- just not to my taste.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Thanks for your comments Brendan. I'm sorry if my post came out as I was criticizing you or calling for you to make disclaimers -- that's not what I was getting at (I actually had a longer reply to you but I decided against really getting into the nitty gritty of this issue, my chopping of my post may have left my own point unclear).

My point was not asking you to issue a disclaimer but just hoping that we keep in mind what the issue is. If we agree that we're talking about a small minority even of the fundamentalists who react with violence that frames the "problem" in a much different light than if the "problem" is people like me who aren't going to do anything at all but still can't laugh at ridicule of what I hold sacred.

Well, we're really talking about both, aren't we? To be sure, the small group of people who use violence in reaction to these sorts of things is entirely different from those who use other means of protesting. I think it's also true that you and I pretty much agree

Quoting Wonderment: Where are public funds being used to keep dying languages alive? Do you mean Latin as taught in US high schools? That language is not dying; it's already dead.

Are you opposed to American Indians using federal education dollars for Cheyenne or Apache children to learn their ancestral languages? Or do you think it should be English Only on the rez?

Good rebuttal. I don't really have a coherent point of view on this, nor can I recall specific cases that would be good examples of what I had in mind. I'll concede up front that money spent to keep a language from dying is not a budget-buster, the thought of which keeps me up nights like John McCain and overhead projectors. I don't think either of your examples exactly apply to the sort of issue I had in mind, though. Latin may be a dead language in the sense that people don't use it colloquially or for more formal exchanges of ideas, but it still is useful to study because of the way it underpins so many languages that we do use. I also don't have a problem with school children

Couple of interesting things here:

I think it's also true that you and I pretty much agree on both -- violence unacceptable, most other ways of protesting, like boycotts, marching in the streets, firing off letters to editors, politicians, the businesses involved: fine.

I'm not so sure you and Abu Noor agree on when violence is acceptable. I don't think either of you agree with me (never), but I'd like to hear both your views.

Since Random House's punting on this specific book didn't prevent it from being published, it all worked out, perhaps. But bully for the smaller publisher who showed more courage, I say.

I'm not so sure. I'd like to hear Random House's side of the story. There may be more to the academic objections than the caricature of a political correction freak at a college in Texas. The story just didn't ring entirely true for me, although I may have been unduly biased by Kenan's (show-off?) display of the $100,000 price tag.

Quoting Wonderment: I'm not so sure you and Abu Noor agree on when violence is acceptable. I don't think either of you agree with me (never), but I'd like to hear both your views.

I believe Abu Noor and I agree that violence is not acceptable in this context; e.g., setting fire to the offices or attacking employees of the newspaper or book publisher for printing something "offensive." I can't give a comprehensive statement on when I do think violence is acceptable, though you're right to say that I do think it is under some circumstances.

I'm not so sure. I'd like to hear Random House's side of the story. There may be more to the academic objections than the caricature of a political correction freak at a college in Texas. The story just didn't ring entirely true for me, although I may have been unduly biased by Kenan's (show-off?) display of the $100,000 price tag.

I'm not that familiar with this case. I remember reading about it when it happened, and Kenan's account sounded more or less the same -- Random House asked various people if the book could be considered offensive, some who were asked said yes, those

Latin may be a dead language in the sense that people don't use it colloquially or for more formal exchanges of ideas, but it still is useful to study because of the way it underpins so many languages that we do use.

It's dead in the sense that it has no native speakers. As for usefulness because it underpins other languages.... it doesn't really "underpin." It shares some grammatical and lexical features with related languages like Italian, French, Catalán, Spanish, Rumanian and a few others. You might as well study Italian. That way you have all the advantages of underpinning and you speak a living language. Anyway, my point was not to dissuade students from learning Latin. Best reasons for doing so: there's tons of great literature; you get to hang out with other Latin geeks; you can crack esoteric and risque jokes with Jesuits; you can read inscriptions on churches.

Quoting Wonderment: It's dead in the sense that it has no native speakers. As for usefulness because it underpins other languages.... it doesn't really "underpin." It shares some grammatical and lexical features with related languages like Italian, French, Catalán, Spanish, Rumanian and a few others. You might as well study Italian. That way you have all the advantages of underpinning and you speak a living language.

Anyway, my point was not to dissuade students from learning Latin. Best reasons for doing so: there's tons of great literature; you get to hang out with other Latin geeks; you can crack esoteric and risque jokes with Jesuits; you can read inscriptions on churches.

Sounds undead to me. And there's at least one more reason for learning Latin: so much literature that still exists that is written in Latin. I didn't take it when I had the chance, thinking as you did when you suggested Italian instead. (I took French because my mother wouldn't let me take Spanish, but that's another story.) But I do wish I had, at least for a year or two.

Speaking of culture clash/multiculturalism, Michael, a personal friend of mine recently made diplomatic history in Iran (with NO preconditions):

In September, during the opening of the current session of the United Nations, The Fellowship of Reconciliation had the unique opportunity on behalf of the peace and justice movement to convene a special meeting with the President of Iran. More than 150 individuals from nearly 50 organizations participated....By providing this forum, we exposed Iranian President Ahmadinejad to comments and questions he might otherwise not hear. ....we are inspired by the courageous witness of Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb. As co-leader of FOR's seventh delegation to Iran, she made history as the first female American Rabbi to set foot publicly in Iran. Her courage was evident once again in her participation at a dinner with the Iranian President.

Sounds undead to me.

Perhaps only in articulo mortis; id est, in extremis.

kenanmalik.com
Worst. Website. Ever.
Did I hear her correctly? I believe that she said that the reproduction of culture was primarily the responsibility of women. If that is not an antiquated view of both gender and culture, then I don't know what is.

Brendan, you are right that we agree that the type of violent actions you describe are not acceptable...however would you say that violence in response to words is never justified? I'm not sure I could make it as a general statement, it goes back to my example of someone insulting one's mother -- do I think slugging a guy who does that is wrong? It depends on the context. There are contexts in which words constitute at the least a threat and in some cases basically constitute a type of violence. Think of the n-word or other racial epithets in the context of persecution of a certain group? Wonderment, I certainly admire the type of pacifism (the type that resists injustice and government violence, not the type that passively lends indirect support to status quo) you advocate on these forums and in practice basically try to lead my life in a similar way although I am not a pacifist in principle.

Quoting bjkeefe: I believe Abu Noor and I agree that violence is not acceptable in this context; e.g., setting fire to the offices or attacking employees of the newspaper or book

I'd love to see a transcript of the exchanges with Ahmadinejad.

Here it is.

And the link to an article on Rabbi Lynn's remarks to Ahmadinejad

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Brendan, you are right that we agree that the type of violent actions you describe are not acceptable...however would you say that violence in response to words is never justified? I'm not sure I could make it as a general statement, it goes back to my example of someone insulting one's mother -- do I think slugging a guy who does that is wrong? It depends on the context. There are contexts in which words constitute at the least a threat and in some cases basically constitute a type of violence. Think of the n-word or other racial epithets in the context of persecution of a certain group?

I don't know if I'd say that violence in reaction to words is never ever justified, but in your two examples, I'd say the reaction would be more understandable than justified. I suppose if the scenarios you sketch were part of an ongoing pattern, and a quick smack in the mouth put an end to it, I'd call that justified.

בסדר אכר כד תגיד לי מה אתה חושב
בינתיים I will keep your Jewish Peace Fellowship application open

Quoting Wonderment: Perhaps only in articulo mortis; id est, in extremis.

Maybe it's better to think of it as a zombie -- not only is it not dead, but it appears to be resisting all efforts to kill it.

Re: latin learning Latin is incredibly useful if you have any interest in science or law, far more so than any other Romance language. Plus, you don't have to learn that much of it for it to be useful. a semester or two for eevery middleschool kid would be quite fruitful, I suspect.

Wonderment, what!!! similar to the taliban because he is not a fetishist about language preservation? how are these at all comparable? If a language has so few speakers it is not useful to those that use it, it will die. end of story. If it is useful, it won't. Language is a tool. people use useful tools, and abandon them when technology or conditions change such that other tools are more useful. We can all agree that killing-off a language as an aid to destroying culture, as happened in the americas, is awful. But actively destroying something is quite different from simply letting people choose what they find to be the most useful. It seems There is a double-standard at work. There is a strong tendency in Liberal Western culture to "preserve" other cultures. yet no care that our culture is changing rapidly (that concern is left to the right-wing nativists to worry about). So, on the one hand, you see these "nativist" in our own culture as ridiculous (if not worse), yet the progressive tendency of those with other cultures is resisted. why the double-standard? Why are we supposed to "progress" towards openess and equality, while other