Why Papandreou did it
Simon Verwer studied Philosophy, European Studies and FrenchLanguage & Culture in Amsterdam and Paris. As a participant ofTeach First (Eerst de Klas) and his engagement for education he waselected
Verwer’s analysis
Although Greece may be at the outskirts of Europe’s geographicalborder, it’s at the very heart of its cultural identity. In thisshort article I want to focus attention on the fascinatinghistorical and problematic background of modern Greece, one whichresonates strongly in the debate concerning the Greek debt crisis.This article is not about good or bad, right or wrong. My mainpoint is that the Greek towards institutions like the EU, IMF andthe World Bank, could be better understood by paying attention tothe complex, historical relationship between Europe and Greece.
Lazy, corrupt and uncivil
Modern Greece is a young country with a very old soul. It’sformation was part of a wide range of new nation-states thatestablished themselves during the first decades of the 19thcentury. Before becoming a proper state, the Greek speakingpopulation was part of the Ottoman empire for centuries, due theGreat Schism in the 11th century. As part of theso-called millet system which was based on religion, mostGreeks were part of the Orthodox community. Under the rule of theOttoman Empire Greeks were seen as inferior, lazy and unreliable intrade by their British, German and French counterparts. As aScottish traveller wrote about the Greek-speaking habitants he metduring his voyage in his notebook around 1609:
“They are wholly degenerate from their ancestors in valour,virtue and learning. Universities they have none and civilbehaviour is quite lost: formerly in derision they termed all otherNations Barbarians: a name now most fit for themselves, being thegreatest dissembling liars, inconstant, uncivil people of all otherChristians in the world. “
This negative national image was widely spread for severalcenturies but started to shift during the 17th century,also known as the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment: the possibility of Greekregeneration
Although more and more attention was directed to Ancient Greeceduring the Renaissance, it was mostly during the Enlightenment thatthe described negative national image of modern Greecebegan to shift, leading up to a true philhellenistic movement.Philhellenism, which literally means The Love of Greek Culture, wasan intellectual and political ideology held by Europeans at theturn of the 19th century. The Philhellenes weresympathetic to the Greek people and many of them felt stronglyconnected to the destiny of their spiritual counterparts. Thischange was mainly due to two related developments in the history ofideas during the 18th century. First of all the natural,God-given status quo was no longer seen as a fact but open forchange and improvement. The French philosopher Helvétius wrote:
“La position physique de la Grèce est toujours la même:pourquoi les Grecs d’aujourd ‘hui sont-ils si différents desGrecs d’autrefois? C’est que la forme de leur gouvernement achangé. “
[the geographical position of Greece has always been thesame: why are the Greeks of our age so different then the Greeksfrom other times? It’s because the form of their government haschanged.]
Secondly, the idea of the nation as the defining politicalcommunity became popular. Nation-formation was a broader historicaldevelopment but Greece had something special. A one historianwrote: “during the Enlightenment era, the philosophers saw historyas the unravelling of human progress. Within this framework, theancient Greeks were looked upon as “fathers” of civilisation.Reason, philosophy, and freedom to shape one’s personal destinywere the central future of ancient Greek culture. “
New ideas in Greek minds: could Hellas beReborn?
Hence, with an idealised, nostalgic image of Hellas in theirminds, the classically schooled French and Germans up North came tobelieve that the poor state of the Greeks could be reversed. Theyopenly dreamed about a renewed Greek polis with all the virtues ofclassical civilisation. Within this respect, an anonymous travellerwrote in his journal around the start of the 19th century:
“The Greek character, at the present moment, is unjustly said tobe innately bad; it is rather like a tract of rich uncultivatedland, where numbers of noxious weeds shed their baneful influenceon all around, owing their destructive luxuriance even to theexcellence of the soil which they injure. Greece has never beenwell governed. “
This idea of change – or improvement – was firmly stated byphilosophers and poets and was adapted by Greek expatriates, partof an intellectual elite who lived in cities like Amsterdam andVienna. New ideas on politics and authority were thus transferredvia a Neo-Hellenic Enlightenment from mostly France into the Greekpeninsula via the minds of young, well-educated Greeks. Moisiodax(c.1725 – 1800), Feraios (1757 – 1798) and Korais (1748 – 1833) allcontributed in one way or another. In many historiographies, thisdevelopment eventually lead to the Greek war of independence (1821- 1830).
The War on Greek independence
When the War of Greek Independence started, sympathy andideology became stronger than ever before. The war became a symbolfor Europe’s main essence which was Civilisation. Well-educated menfrom all parts of Europe could not wait to enter the battle andliberate Greece. The issue was breaking news, not in the leastbecause of the interference of the major European powers (Russia,UK and France). In 1822 independence was declared as a symbolicact. There was no such thing as a central state organisation orleadership. A great number of rivalries and rebellions followed,while throughout the decade the Ottomans remained generally incontrol.
In 1824 international attention was attracted to the issue byEugene Delacroix, who’s painting Le Massacre de Chios wasshowed at a Gallery in Paris. Atrocities were committed by bothsides but this powerful visualisation of Ottoman soldiersslaughtering Greek civilians made Europeans declare theirsolidarity and demand similar declarations from theirgovernments.
Eugène Delacroix – Le Massacrede Scio (1824), Musée du Louvre, Paris
Other big confrontations followed – e.g. in Missolonghi – asopposition forces were supported by so called ‘sympathy committees’which sent money and materials from North-West European cities.
As this went on, pressure on governments grew stronger and,mostly due to internal affairs, the European powers decided to getinvolved actively. The Treaty of London was signed by Russia, UKand France on July 6, 1827 and naval forces were sent to thePeloponnese, at first only to impress the Ottomans. However, due toa misinterpretation of an exercise around Navarino, war eruptedearlier than planned and the Ottomans were swept away. The Greekkingdom was born in 1830.
The power of ideology
Despite the heroic description of a one-sided victory ofenlightenment over darkness, there is much more to this story. TheGreek War of Independence was most of all an issue ofRealpolitik during the Restoration period where power hadto be divided between the Holy Alliance members. The other side ofthe story, which been forgotten most of the time for obviousreasons, is most relevant to the current day situation inGreece. In this last part of the article, I’ll explain whyand make the connection to the current situation.
At the beginning of the 19th century, life in what wetoday call Greece was basic, rural and the large majority of peoplewere illiterate. The main oppositional force during the war werethe Klephts, bandits who lived in the mountains whom were much morebusy gaining personal wealth than any well-defined political cause.The discourse that was surrounding the rise of an autonomous Greekcommunity, however, was that of European Philhellenism.
Evidence describing the gap between the romantic image of Greeceand the harsh reality of Mediterranean life in that periodoriginates from European sources. For example, in 1822, the secondyear of the war, many young idealists wandered around port citiesof France like Marseille, waiting for an opportunity to travel byboat and fight. Many would die, not used to such harshconditions, among them the famous poet Lord Byron. Those who didsurvive would often end up disillusioned. As one of thoseideologically motivated young men, Prussian officer L. de Bolleman,stated in a notice in 1822:
“Jeunesse Européenne, les grecs d’autrefois n’existent plus;l’aveugle ignorance a succédé à Solon, à Socrate, à Démosthène, etla barbarie a remplacé les sages loix d’Athènes.”
[“Youth of Europe, the Greek of ancient times do not existany longer: blind ignorance has succeeded, to Solon, to Socrates,to Demosthenes, and the barbarian has replaced the sacred laws ofAthens”]
Understanding Greek resistance
What we can learn from history is that the national image ofGreece has always been defined by the North on its own terms,mostly on the basis of Greece’s unique position in Europeanhistory. I believe that this is one (emotional) source ofresistance which we can be observed in the streets of Athens today.In this respect, cultural analyst Stathis Gourgouris in his bookDream nation: enlightenment, colonization, and the institutionof modern Greece has powerfully written about the colonisationof the modern national image of Greece by Europe. He writes:
“Since Philhellenism never quite surrendered its idealistcolonisation of ancient traces, the nativists attempts toarticulate an independent national-cultural discourse, themselvesinexorably given over to ancestral belief, never succeeded indisengaging the internalized circuit of Philhellenic Desire.”
What we see today is felt by some Greeks as a second war ofindependence. I believe that the mass resistance of the Greekpeople today towards institutions like the EU, IMF and the WorldBank, could be better understood by paying attention to thecomplex, historical relationship between Europe and Greece.
In many media, Greek civilians have referred to the Troika ascolonisers, removing their autonomy and independence for thebenefit of these financial situations. Although at first thiscomment may sound absurd, it makes more sense when understoodwithin this historical and ideological context. Because it may wellbe that their “disgraceful reaction” to the aid from the Troikaoriginates from old memories, in which its cultural identity isonce again defined by ‘the other’.
Poem by Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792 – 1822)
Another Athens shall arise,
And to remoter time
Bequeath, like sunset to the skies,
The splendour of its prime;
And leave, if naught so bright may live,
All earth can take or Heaven can give.
