Giancarlo Casale, ed., Osman of Timişoara, Prisoner of the Infidels: The Memoir of an Ottoman Muslim in Seventeenth-Century Europe (New Texts Out Now)

Giancarlo Casale, ed., Osman of Timişoara, Prisoner of the Infidels: The Memoir of an Ottoman Muslim in Seventeenth-Century Europe (New Texts Out Now)

Giancarlo Casale, ed., Osman of Timişoara, Prisoner of the Infidels: The Memoir of an Ottoman Muslim in Seventeenth-Century Europe (New Texts Out Now)

By : Giancarlo Casale

Giancarlo Casale (ed.), Osman of Timişoara, Prisoner of the Infidels: The Memoir of an Ottoman Muslim in Seventeenth-Century Europe (University of California Press, 2021).

Jadaliyya (J): What made you edit, translate, and introduce this book?

Giancarlo Casale (GC): Prisoner of the Infidels is the first-person account of a young Ottoman soldier who, taken prisoner a few years after the failed siege of Vienna in 1683, spent more than a decade as an enslaved captive in Christian Europe. Written when the author was an old man, many years after his escape and safe return to Ottoman territory, it ranks as the first book-length autobiography ever composed in Ottoman Turkish. It is also one of the only Ottoman slave narratives to survive from the early modern period, providing an intimate account of daily life in early modern Europe from the unique perspective of a Muslim captive. 

None of this would matter much, however, if it was not also an exceptionally compelling text to read. Although Osman of Timişoara led an extraordinary life, it is even more extraordinary that, with only a rudimentary formal education and virtually no cultural models to guide him, he was able to write the story of his own life in such an engaging way. He was truly a gifted writer, as well as a literary pioneer who created a new genre essentially from scratch. So my goal in editing and translating the book was simply to make this remarkable text available to a wider audience in English, and providing some context about the time and place in which it was produced.

At its heart, this is an adventure story, with fight scenes, intrigues, unexpected plot twists, cliffhanger endings, and a cast of colorful characters.

J: What particular topics, issues, and literatures does the book address?

GC: At its heart, this is an adventure story, with fight scenes, intrigues, unexpected plot twists, cliffhanger endings, and a cast of colorful characters. But it is also at times unexpectedly intimate and introspective. In telling his tale, Osman also addresses quite profound themes related to identity, self-discovery through alienation, and whether it is even possible to fully “return home” after an experience of enslavement. 

Another highly unique aspect of Osman’s writing is that his story is populated by a number of deeply complex female characters. These women enter the narrative in all kinds of ways: as villains, victims, accomplices, love interests, slave owners… there is even a woman who cross-dresses as a man to enroll as a dragoon in the Habsburg military. All of them are portrayed as complicated, three-dimensional characters, to an extent that I would say has no real parallels in other contemporary examples of Ottoman literature.

And in case you were wondering, the book also has some unusually frank erotic scenes too—involving Osman’s encounters with both men and women. 

J: How does this book connect to and/or depart from your previous work?

GC: This is the first time I have ever done a literary translation (at least one that is book-length), and its content is quite different from my previous work, which has largely been about the history of maritime exploration, cartography, warfare at sea, and so forth. Still, there is an underlying connection with my earlier work too, in the sense that as an Ottoman historian I am fundamentally interested in connections between the Ottoman empire and the larger history of the early modern world.

Too much of what we know about early modern history is still based on the accounts of Europeans who, as merchants, diplomats, explorers—but also as captives—travelled to various places in the world and later returned home to write about their experiences. Osman’s account is a rare example of “reversing the gaze,” giving us a glimpse of what history would look like if the available sources were not so overwhelmingly Eurocentric. That is the fundamental reason that I decided it was important to try my hand at translating the text. But in the end I enjoyed the experience tremendously, to the extent that I became really attached to Osman at an emotional level. Now that the translation is finished and I do not spend time with him anymore, I really miss him!

J: Do you have a favorite part of Osman’s book? 

GC: It is difficult to choose, but for me the most meaningful sections are the ones in which Osman recounts his final escape back to Ottoman territory. These are episodes dripping with contradictions; they begin with Osman realizing that, although the war has ended, his owners have no intention of freeing him because they have become too attached to let him go. So, he forges his own emancipation papers and, after a decade spent proudly refusing to forsake Islam, decides to pretend to be a Christian convert in order to safely make his way close enough to the border to make his escape. But he is racked by self-doubt over his “betrayal” of his master—to the point that his owner’s wife eventually appears in a dream and reassures him about his choice. 

The tension steadily builds as Osman approaches the border, facing an ever greater risk of betrayal or recapture. Finally, without giving too much of the ending away, he makes the final dash to the Ottoman side in a crescendo of excitement, only to discover, once safely across, that the border is an illusion, as is any solidarity he expected to find among his fellow Muslims on the other side. In short, it is a richly ambivalent and profoundly subversive way to end what might otherwise have been a simple, one-dimensional tale of resilience in the face of adversity. It is one of the reasons the book stays with you long after you have finished reading it—or at least that was my experience, as a translator. 

J: Who do you hope will read this book, and what sort of impact would you like it to have?

GC: Osman’s memoir is one of the few—maybe the only—literary sources in Ottoman Turkish that almost anybody could honestly pick up and enjoy, regardless of their background or level of interest in the specific topic. If you are into historical memoir, travel literature, slave narratives, the history of gender and sexuality, or even if you just enjoy a good adventure story like the Count of Monte Cristo or Papillon, there is something in this book for you.

So I hope his book gets as many readers as possible, and also that people can appreciate it for its literary merits. As far as we can tell, Osman’s text was read by almost no one during his own lifetime, and his text was completely forgotten for more than a century after his death, only to be rediscovered by Western Orientalists in the late nineteenth century. Even today, to the extent that Osman’s text is known among scholars, there is a strong tendency to read it as a historical “source” that can be mined for information in a very straightforward way. But there is no question in my mind that Osman was a literary innovator and a master of narration, and I did this translation so that English-speaking readers would have the chance to appreciate him as such. 

J: What other projects are you working on now?

GC: I am working on several different things at the moment, but the one most relevant to Osman’s book is a study of Ottoman diplomats and their travel accounts during the period referred to (sometimes controversially) as the “Tulip Age,” which also happens to be the time that Osman wrote his memoir. Of course, there were already plenty of Ottoman diplomats visiting various places in the world during earlier periods of history, but—strange though it may seem—they did not routinely sit down and write about their experiences when they came home. Or at least, if they did, their writings have not survived. But all of a sudden, right around the year 1720, Ottoman ambassadors started to write quite detailed accounts of their travels to a whole range of different places: France, Russia, Iran, Austria, Sweden, India, and so on. Individually, they are fascinating accounts, but collectively they form a truly unique body of sources: as far as I know, outside of Western Europe they are the only serial collection of diplomatic travel reports from anywhere in the world before the nineteenth century. And they have not really been systematically studied as a group, so there is plenty of room for new work to be done.

 

Excerpt from the book (from Chapter 5: "Respite," pp. 68-70)

A few days later, my master decided to resign from his position as regimental tribune and prepared to leave. He planned first to travel to a place called Jasenovac on the Sava River, where he could settle his accounts with the regiment and collect his pay, and from there to continue on to Vienna. I was ordered to ready the horses for this journey. For him, I fitted out his thoroughbred riding horse. For me, there was a miserable black pack mount whose front legs were half crippled, upon which I also loaded a large chest filled with his things. 

We set out with two Croatian footmen as guides. On the first day, we left Ivanić and headed toward the Sava River, making good progress. But on the second day, the weather quickly turned wintry, with both rain and snow beginning to fall, such that the roads became flooded and nearly impassable. After a few hours, my horse was exhausted, both from the heavy load and because its front legs were half lame. And since I had neither spurs on my feet nor a riding crop in my hand, I simply could not make him go. My master made the most of my difficulties, shouting, “Carry on, Turk!” and riding up behind me on his powerful horse, striking me two or three times for every blow he dealt my mount. 

I was at my wit’s end by the time evening fell and we reached our stopping place. But praise be to Allah! Through His wisdom, the Sava had overrun its banks, making the river crossing to Sisak impossible on horseback. My master decided to cross by boat, and to leave me with the horses in a Croatian village near our second stopping place, where I was lodged with a Croatian family. My master left me under the watch of a regimental supply officer spending the winter there, while he set out for Jasenovac by boat.

In this village, I continued to tend to the horses. But when my work was finished, I had a chance to spend time with my new neighbors and the other villagers, with whom I soon became very intimate. Men and women alike were most eager to talk with me, saying, “A Muslim Turk has come to our village!” Some of them invited me to gatherings, or to their homes to share food and drink. In addition, every day someone from the village would be charged with bringing a meal to my lodgings, and whoever’s turn it was, he would first come and ask, “What would you like to eat?” I would always answer, “Don’t cook anything with pork or pork fat. Anything else you make, I’ll eat!” I also got an okka of wine every day to wash down my meal. 

I stayed in that village about fifteen or twenty days and enjoyed myself immensely, even to the point where grown Croatian girls would take me by the hand, one on one side and one on the other, and bring me to their private chambers. They would show me every attention, sitting alone with me for an hour or two in the greatest intimacy, and suggesting songs for me to sing in the Muslim or Bosnian style.

At that time, I myself was still at a tender age, having barely turned eighteen. And while I hardly counted as handsome, neither was I ugly, since every creature in his youth can claim some measure of beauty. At such a stage of life, and under such circumstances, it is no easy task to keep control of oneself when presented with such an opportunity. But the Almighty—exalted be His name!—in His grace and goodness created me bashful, such that I let thousands of perfect opportunities slip by. Then, while reasoning with myself, my libido would scold me, saying, “But the opportunity was there for the taking! Those fresh young girls were right next to you, and you knew how eager and willing they were! If you’d gone to work on them, what of it? You’re a guest here for ten or fifteen days, what else were you waiting for?” And with such thoughts I would be overcome with regret. 

Then my judgment would answer these thoughts with more sensible ones, saying, “Here you are nothing but a forsaken captive! If you act improperly and the word gets out, who knows what the laws and customs of this place are, and who can say what will happen if they decide to apply them? For one little moment of pleasure, you could get yourself in a heap of trouble! And what if you spread your seed and leave someone with child, then what?” With such thoughts, together with my aforementioned bashfulness, I held myself back, and a thousand opportunities passed me by.

During this time, because of all the invitations I was receiving, I neglected the horses to the point that they became mangy and malnourished. One day, the supply officer who was lodging me came to see the horses and realized that I had been neglecting my duties. Now my master, when he had left me in this man’s custody, had said: “If my captive fails to take proper care of my horses, teach him a lesson with a good beating!” So the supply officer called me up to his house, saying, “I’ve got something to tell you.” Not suspecting anything, I went over to the house and climbed the stairs, when what should I see but the supply officer carrying a rope and a heavy cudgel into a storage room. 

Inside, the supplier had a captive, a ten-year-old boy named Mahmud who was the son of an imam from Lipova. He sent the boy outside, and when he came out I saw that he was in tears. “Why are you crying?” I asked. “My brother,” he said, “my master is about to give you a beating, that’s why I’m crying.” As soon I heard this, I leapt down the stairs and turned left, running back toward the house where I slept, which was four or five houses away. Then, without being seen, I crossed the yard and went into a barn or feeding house in the rear, where I hid beneath some bales of hay. 

The supply officer came out, asking everyone, “Where’s the Turk?” They all answered, “He ran away.” Then he came to the house where I was hiding and asked the owners about me. Since they would have protected me even if they had seen me, they said, “We haven’t seen him, we don’t know where he is.” Then the supplier searched every corner of the premises, but couldn’t find me. By this point, he was beside himself, thinking: “Oh, now I’ve really gone and done it! I let the Turk get away, and if he runs off, I’m the one who has to answer to his master!” 

In all I stayed hidden in that straw for two days and two nights. Each day, the daughters of the house brought me food and drink. Finally, with their reassurance that the supplier had agreed not to beat me, I came out, and from that point on I took good care of the horses…

New Texts Out Now: Mandy Turner and Cherine Hussein, guest eds. "Israel-Palestine after Oslo: Mapping Transformations in a Time of Deepening Crisis." Special Issue of Conflict, Security & Development

Conflict, Security and Development, Volume 15, No. 5 (December 2015) Special issue: "Israel-Palestine after Oslo: Mapping Transformations in a Time of Deepening Crisis," Guest Editors: Mandy Turner and Cherine Hussein.

Jadaliyya (J): What made you compile this volume?

Mandy Turner (MT): Both the peace process and the two-state solution are dead. Despite more than twenty years of negotiations, Israel’s occupation, colonization and repression continue–and the political and geographical fragmentation of the Palestinian people is proceeding apace.

This is not news, nor is it surprising to any keen observer of the situation. But what is surprising–and thus requires explanation – is the resilience of the Oslo framework and paradigm: both objectively and subjectively. It operates objectively as a straitjacket by trapping Palestinians in economic and security arrangements that are designed to ensure stabilization and will not to lead to sovereignty or a just and sustainable solution. And it operates subjectively as a straitjacket by shutting out discussion of alternative ways of understanding the situation and ways out of the impasse. The persistence of this framework that is focused on conflict management and stabilization, is good for Israel but bad for Palestinians.

The Oslo peace paradigm–of a track-one, elite-level, negotiated two-state solution–is therefore in crisis. And yet it is entirely possible that the current situation could continue for a while longer–particularly given the endorsement and support it enjoys from the major Western donors and the “international community,” as well as the fact that there has been no attempt to develop an alternative. The immediate short-term future is therefore bleak.

Guided by these observations, this special issue sought to undertake two tasks. The first task was to analyze the perceptions underpinning the Oslo framework and paradigm as well as some of the transformations instituted by its implementation: why is it so resilient, what has it created? The second task, which follows on from the first, was then to ask: how can we reframe our understanding of what is happening, what are some potential alternatives, and who is arguing and mobilizing for them?

These questions and themes grew out of a number of conversations with early-career scholars – some based at the Kenyon Institute in East Jerusalem, and some based in the occupied Palestinian territory and elsewhere. These conversations led to two interlinked panels at the International Studies Association annual convention in Toronto, Canada, in March 2014. To have two panels accepted on “conflict transformation and resistance in Palestine” at such a conventional international relations conference with (at the time unknown) early-career scholars is no mean feat. The large and engaged audience we received at these panels – with some very established names coming along (one of whom contributed to this special issue) – convinced us that this new stream of scholars and scholarship should have an outlet.  

J: What particular topics, issues, and literatures do the articles address?

MT: The first half of the special issue analyzes how certain problematic assumptions shaped the Oslo framework, and how the Oslo framework in turn shaped the political, economic and territorial landscape.

Virginia Tilley’s article focuses on the paradigm of conflict resolution upon which the Oslo Accords were based, and calls for a re-evaluation of what she argues are the two interlinked central principles underpinning its worldview: internationally accepted notions of Israeli sovereignty; and the internationally accepted idea that the “conflict” is essentially one between two peoples–the “Palestinian people” and the “Jewish people”. Through her critical interrogation of these two “common sense” principles, Tilley proposes that the “conflict” be reinterpreted as an example of settler colonialism, and, as a result of this, recommends an alternative conflict resolution model based on a paradigm shift away from an ethno-nationalist division of the polity towards a civic model of the nation.

Tariq Dana unpacks another central plank of the Oslo paradigm–that of promoting economic relations between Israel and the OPT. He analyses this through the prism of “economic peace” (particularly the recent revival of theories of “capitalist peace”), whose underlying assumptions are predicated on the perceived superiority of economic approaches over political approaches to resolving conflict. Dana argues that there is a symbiosis between Israeli strategies of “economic peace” and recent Palestinian “statebuilding strategies” (referred to as Fayyadism), and that both operate as a form of pacification and control because economic cooperation leaves the colonial relationship unchallenged.

The political landscape in the OPT has been transformed by the Oslo paradigm, particularly by the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Alaa Tartir therefore analyses the basis, agenda and trajectory of the PA, particularly its post-2007 state building strategy. By focusing on the issue of local legitimacy and accountability, and based on fieldwork in two sites in the occupied West Bank (Balata and Jenin refugee camps), Tartir concludes that the main impact of the creation of the PA on ordinary people’s lives has been the strengthening of authoritarian control and the hijacking of any meaningful visions of Palestinian liberation.

The origin of the administrative division between the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the focus of Tareq Baconi’s article. He charts how Hamas’s initial opposition to the Oslo Accords and the PA was transformed over time, leading to its participation (and success) in the 2006 legislative elections. Baconi argues that it was the perceived demise of the peace process following the collapse of the Camp David discussions that facilitated this change. But this set Hamas on a collision course with Israel and the international community, which ultimately led to the conflict between Hamas and Fateh, and the administrative division, which continues to exist.

The special issue thereafter focuses, in the second section, on alternatives and resistance to Oslo’s transformations.

Cherine Hussein’s article charts the re-emergence of the single-state idea in opposition to the processes of separation unleashed ideologically and practically that were codified in the Oslo Accords. Analysing it as both a movement of resistance and as a political alternative to Oslo, while recognizing that it is currently largely a movement of intellectuals (particularly of diaspora Palestinians and Israelis), Hussein takes seriously its claim to be a more just and liberating alternative to the two-state solution.

My article highlights the work of a small but dedicated group of anti-Zionist Jewish-Israeli activists involved in two groups: Zochrot and Boycott from Within. Both groups emerged in the post-Second Intifada period, which was marked by deep disillusionment with the Oslo paradigm. This article unpacks the alternative – albeit marginalized – analysis, solution and route to peace proposed by these groups through the application of three concepts: hegemony, counter-hegemony and praxis. The solution, argue the activists, lies in Israel-Palestine going through a process of de-Zionization and decolonization, and the process of achieving this lies in actions in solidarity with Palestinians.

This type of solidarity action is the focus of the final article by Suzanne Morrison, who analyses the “We Divest” campaign, which is the largest divestment campaign in the US and forms part of the wider Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Through attention to their activities and language, Morrison shows how “We Divest”, with its networked, decentralized, grassroots and horizontal structure, represents a new way of challenging Israel’s occupation and the suppression of Palestinian rights.

The two parts of the special issue are symbiotic: the critique and alternative perspectives analyzed in part two are responses to the issues and problems identified in part one.

J: How does this volume connect to and/or depart from your previous work?

MT: My work focuses on the political economy of donor intervention (which falls under the rubric of “peacebuilding”) in the OPT, particularly a critique of the Oslo peace paradigm and framework. This is a product of my broader conceptual and historical interest in the sociology of intervention as a method of capitalist expansion and imperial control (as explored in “The Politics of International Intervention: the Tyranny of Peace”, co-edited with Florian Kuhn, Routledge, 2016), and how post-conflict peacebuilding and development agendas are part of this (as explored in “Whose Peace: Critical Perspectives on the Political Economy of Peacebuilding”, co-edited with Michael Pugh and Neil Cooper (PalgraveMacmillan, 2008).  

My first book on Palestine (co-edited with Omar Shweiki), Decolonizing Palestinian Political Economy: De-development and Beyond (PalgraveMacmillan, 2014), was a collection of essays by experts in their field, of the political-economic experience of different sections of the Palestinian community. The book, however, aimed to reunite these individual experiences into one historical political-economy narrative of a people experiencing a common theme of dispossession, disenfranchisement and disarticulation. It was guided by the desire to critically assess the utility of the concept of de-development to different sectors and issues–and had a foreword by Sara Roy, the scholar who coined the term, and who was involved in the workshop from which the book emerged.

This co-edited special issue (with Cherine Hussein, who, at the time of the issue construction, was the deputy director of the Kenyon Institute) was therefore the next logical step in my research on Palestine, although my article on Jewish-Israeli anti-Zionists did constitute a slight departure from my usual focus.

J: Who do you hope will read this volume, and what sort of impact would you like it to have?

MT: I would imagine the main audience will be those whose research and political interests lie in Palestine Studies. It is difficult, given the structure of academic publishing – which has become ever more corporate and money grabbing – for research outputs such as this to be accessed by the general public. Only those with access to academic libraries are sure to be able to read it – and this is a travesty, in my opinion. To counteract this commodification of knowledge, we should all provide free access to our outputs through online open source websites such as academia.edu, etc. If academic research is going to have an impact beyond merely providing more material for teaching and background reading for yet more research (which is inaccessible to the general public) then this is essential. Websites such as Jadaliyya are therefore incredibly important.

Having said all that, I am under no illusions about the potential for ANY research on Israel-Palestine to contribute to changing the dynamics of the situation. However, as a collection of excellent analyses conducted by mostly early-career scholars in the field of Palestine studies, I am hopeful that their interesting and new perspectives will be read and digested. 

J: What other projects are you working on now?

MT: I am currently working on an edited volume provisionally entitled From the River to the Sea: Disintegration, Reintegration and Domination in Israel and Palestine. This book is the culmination of a two-year research project funded by the British Academy, which analyzed the impacts of the past twenty years of the Oslo peace framework and paradigm as processes of disintegration, reintegration and domination – and how they have created a new socio-economic and political landscape, which requires new agendas and frameworks. I am also working on a new research project with Tariq Dana at Birzeit University on capital and class in the occupied West Bank.

Excerpt from the Editor’s Note 

[Note: This issue was published in Dec. 2015]

Initially perceived to have inaugurated a new era of hope in the search for peace and justice in Palestine-Israel, the Oslo peace paradigm of a track one, elite-level, negotiated two-state solution is in crisis today, if not completely at an end.

While the major Western donors and the ‘international community’ continue to publicly endorse the Oslo peace paradigm, Israeli and Palestinian political elites have both stepped away from it. The Israeli government has adopted what appears to be an outright rejection of the internationally-accepted end-goal of negotiations, i.e. the emergence of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. In March 2015, in the final days of his re-election campaign, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, visited the Jewish settlement of Har Homa in Palestinian East Jerusalem, which is regarded as illegal under international law. Reminding its inhabitants that it was him and his Likud government that had established the settlement in 1997 as part of the Israeli state’s vision of a unified indivisible Jerusalem, he promised to expand the construction of settlements in East Jerusalem if re-elected. And in an interview with Israeli news site, NRG, Netanyahu vowed that the prospects of a Palestinian state were non-existent as long as he remained in office. Holding on to the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), he argued, was necessary to ensure Israel’s security in the context of regional instability and Islamic extremism. It is widely acknowledged that Netanyahu’s emphasis on Israel’s security—against both external and internal enemies—gave him a surprise win in an election he was widely expected to lose.

Despite attempts to backtrack under recognition that the US and European states are critical of this turn in official Israeli state policy, Netanyahu’s promise to bury the two-state solution in favour of a policy of further annexation has become the Israeli government’s official intent, and has been enthusiastically endorsed by leading ministers and key advisers.

[…]

The Palestinian Authority (PA) based in the West Bank also appears to have rejected a key principle of the Oslo peace paradigm—that of bilateral negotiations under the supervision of the US. Despite a herculean effort by US Secretary of State, John Kerry, to bring the two parties to the negotiating table, in response to the lack of movement towards final status issues and continued settlement expansion (amongst other issues), the Palestinian political elite have withdrawn from negotiations and resumed attempts to ‘internationalise the struggle’ by seeking membership of international organisations such as the United Nations (UN), and signing international treaties such as the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court. This change of direction is part of a rethink in the PA and PLO’s strategy rooted in wider discussions and debates. The publication of a document by the Palestine Strategy Study Group (PSSG) in August 2008, the production of which involved many members of the Palestinian political elite (and whose recommendations were studiously discussed at the highest levels of the PA and PLO), showed widespread discontent with the bilateral negotiations framework and suggested ways in which Palestinians could ‘regain the initiative’.

[…]

And yet despite these changes in official Palestinian and Israeli political strategies that signal a deepening of the crisis, donors and the ‘international community’ are reluctant to accept the failure of the Oslo peace paradigm. This political myopia has meant the persistence of a framework that is increasingly divorced from the possibility of a just and sustainable peace. It is also acting as an ideological straitjacket by shutting out alternative interpretations. This special issue seeks a way out of this political and intellectual dead end. In pursuit of this, our various contributions undertake what we regard to be two key tasks: first, to critically analyse the perceptions underpinning the Oslo paradigm and the transformations instituted by its implementation; and second, to assess some alternative ways of understanding the situation rooted in new strategies of resistance that have emerged in the context of these transformations in the post-Oslo landscape.

[…]

Taken as a whole, the articles in this special issue aim to ignite conversations on the conflict that are not based within abstracted debates that centre upon the peace process itself—but that begin from within the realities and geographies of both the continually transforming land of Palestine-Israel and the voices, struggles, worldviews and imaginings of the future of the people who presently inhabit it. For it is by highlighting these transformations, and from within these points of beginning, that we believe more hopeful pathways for alternative ways forward can be collectively imagined, articulated, debated and built.